I am a bit puzzled by this. I have tried to get people to change how 40K plays a bit, but nobody wants to do it. I am not sure if it's "not in the book you can't do it" mentality since GW says change anything you want, so it is in the book or just a personal dislike of the I go, you go mechanic.

So I want to hear Dakka's views.

For me, I don't like the I do everything then you do everything, because really when you get first turn and do a lot of damage. Also not doing anything for 10-45 minutes except for removing minis, is not my ideal of fun really. Same when it's my turn. My opponent not doing anything really but just removing minis, I can't really take any pride on how well I did because he/she basically did nothing that turn. When me and my son use to play we added in Lord of the Ring rules and it was so much more fun, the added interaction between us made the game a lot more fun.

So why are you so apposed to this system? Why would you like this system? Please I would love to hear your thoughts on it. Maybe this way I can try and understand why some people are dead set against it. They don't give no explanation, so I am really puzzled over this.

I would prefer alternating activation, yes. It gets tiresome to just sit for 30-45 min while your opponent gets to have all the fun. Plus I really hate the "Alpha strike" where on the first salvo your opponent can remove entire chunks of your lovingly modeled and painted army.

If not alternating activation, another system I would like to see is "simultaneous combat" where all actions are considered to been having occurred at the same time. Models that are removed as casualties still get to act but are removed at the end of the game turn. That way you can still deliver a devastating return fire even if your opponent removed half your army.

I tried this a while back in a game of 40k with some homebrew tweaks to the rules, what was very notable is that having lots and lots of MSU became king, , and the game flipflops into Omega Strike with the person with the most units able to control the flow of the game fairly easy, and I don't think that would have changed much with simultaneous combat

Igo-ugo is mainly just traditional board game turn order structure. It works well enough for chess or similar games where you don't do a lot of things at once but for something with as many moving parts as 40k something a little more nuanced would be better.

Basic alternating activations would be a step up but I think I'd like to see something based on initiative with care taken for what happens when eldar face off against orks or similar large differences. But I'd be all for 40k receiving a fundamental overhaul so being stuck to current profile systems isn't necessary. Some way of expressing how space marines are independent, the guard moves in chunks platoon by platoon and tyranids act like one would be great.

There's a lot of game design that GW simply hasn't tapped into.

I generally like the Igo-Ugo round structure because it's simply clearer to the players, and "fair" in terms of which models move, and which don't.

I think the simplest solution is to alternate on aphase by phase basis, soa Game Trun would resolve as

Turn Start Book Keeping
Movement phase
Player 1 Goes, Player 2 Goes
Psychic Phase
Resolve Psychic Points
Player 1 Goes, Player 2 Goes
Shooting Phase
Player 1 Goes, Player 2 Goes
Assault Phase
Player 1 Goes, Player 2 Goes
Resolve Combats
End Turn

I like an initiative system.

1. At the beginning of the movement phase, each unit rolls a d6 and adds their Initiative score (vehicles add 0, with Heavy vehicles taking a -1 and Fast vehicles getting a +1). This is their initiative score.

2. From highest to lowest, each unit takes the phase appropriate action. If both players have units with the same score, at that initiative step the player who has fewer units with that score will act first.

3. Once you're finished, proceed to the next phase. (Psychic, shooting.)

4. Assault phase: as above, with the actions being limited to declaring and performing charges, (with Overwatch being performed out of sequence, regardless of the firing unit's Initiative). Afterwards, you would have a combat phase, where actual CC would be fought just as it is now, followed by combat resolution just as it is now.

Ideally, of course, this would require some fiddling with special rules and points values to reflect armies that tend to be slower than others.

The phase turns are awesome. Done it a few times and it's been fun.

Jimsolo's idea above is cool but would require major tweaks as certain armies benefit too much.

If you wanted to do interleaved phases, the "fairest" way is like this:

P1 move, P2 move;
P2 psyk, P1 psyk;
P2 shoot, P1 shoot
P1 assault, P2 assault

That's the Thue-Morse ABBABAAB for the 8 actions.

I would certainly prefer if 40K went "I go, you go" or at least "interleaved turns" rather than this all or nothing thing we got going on.

I think it would open up tactics, and eliminate 1st or 2nd turn tabling that is now quite common.

However, I certainly would not want it to go the route of a die roll like in AOS. That gak is stupid.

Well, it's still better than outright knowing, as it prevents people being too greedy, while allowing hail merry attempts.

The main problem with the current system, as mentioned, is just how massive that turn 1 advantage can be, to the point that building your entire army to assure you are technically first even while second is a very dominant strategy (drop pod armies, etc) and even in eternal war missions where stealing objectives works, being first is still superior.

Beyond that, it's just far too predictable what any player would do at any turn, as he can do anything he wants without any concerns of enemy response until he is finished. Having multiple units come out from behind reach and hit a unit before it can defend itself is very simple.


So solutions.
The activation system is the "go to" answer, but it's not enough. It simply turns the game into "who can MSU better to game the system" contest.
Initiative system is also suggested, but a poor idea as initiative tends to be the same across an army, and the same issues will return, but with a tier system.

Random idea I had, is random activations. All units of all players (in case there are more then one) are added to a "unit pool" of sorts, then activated one by one by random draw until all activations are done, then a new pool is made for next turn.
This however cause an issue with support units like psykers of markerlights being nonfunctional, so a more complicated solution is required.

I like it in varied other games - its on my list of things to try out with 40k .

Having played BA and Malifaux etc I find "I go you go" a lot better for the flow of the game and feels more "natural" but in 40k it would turn into an MSU fest and it would get abit dull, with more rigid army building rules it would work, I feel that atm they just need to tone the power down slightly and then the activation system would be passable... Also fill the board with terrain, makes it a lot more tactical, you would be surprised!

Look up battletech turn structure. I think it'd work the best with some tweaks. Basically it's done by initiative, but all your units get to shoot as long as they were on the board at the start of the shooting phase.

I actually don't see it increasing MSU anymore than we've already seen it increased through overly heavy power weapons, as you'd be shooting anyway.

I don't actually play any games that I can think of which are still IGOUGO. As such, my friends and I are working on a system for gaming 2nd edition retro.

We're trying out tactic/strategy cards, varying activations, command dice etc.

I've always enjoyed it far more.

If the phases were alternated, GW could safely get rid of overwatch.

After playing some Bolt Action and X-wing (and years of doing inidividual initiative in D&D), I really like alternating turns rather than one whole army going then the other (IGOUGO).

Not to be a troll, but when I see "alpha strike is too good" and "initiative based system would be best" from the same posters it looks a lot like Eldar players complaining about one of the only decent counters to their army.

I'd prefer the Initiative route, then at least that stat matters outside of Combat. My genestealers are suppose to be super fast buggers but somehow moves at the same pace as everyone else until it's hugging distance.

I'm indifferent on the igougo vs. interleaved debate. I've played games with both, and either ways you can still kill units before they get to do something. As others pointed out it makes MSU more flexible.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I think it would open up tactics, and eliminate 1st or 2nd turn tabling that is now quite common.

You know, I here this on Dakka and every time I shake my head wondering why their play experience is so different than mine. I've NEVER encountered this.

Are they not using enough terrain ? Are they not taking advantage of cover ? Are they playing too few models ?

I don't want to derail the thread, but let me assure that round 2 tabling is not "now quite common" everywhere.

I actually quite like how Dust works activation in that players alternate activating units, where a unit does their moving, shooting, and assaulting before letting an opponents unit do the same

I like the comments please keep them coming.

What me and my son did was sort of keeping the "spirit" of what GW did. Me and my son still did the two phases of I move/shoot/assault and you move/shoot/assault to I either mover or shoot, then you move or shoot, than I shoot or move what I didn't do before, and then you move or shoot what you didn't do before. Then we all assault at the end.

This took care of one side having more units than the other, You still moved or shoot all your units it was just broken up. We even added LotR Hero Interaction rules as well. I was going to add in reach rules, so if someone crossed infant of you say 4" but you had a whip like some Nids, they could get a pot shot at you, or you could snap fire at them. Sadly he lost interest since other people played differently and he wanted to do Magic now.

I tried to see if others would do, but like I said in my first post, people are dead set against it. I even had a comment of someone loved playing an army before, but can't now, I said, let's change the rules so you can, and still didn't want to do it. Something about mixing up the rules on how to play. That I guess can be understandable.

But still, why play GW horrible way when they say the same, but don't want to change it for more fun. That still mind boggles me.

Is it a generation gap thing? I mean being almost 50, we would alway change things when discussed and someone wasn't having fun and it seems the young ones need structure and can't change. Almost like Sheldon Cooper because it has to be by the book. Doesn't matter if the book is bad, still have to abide by it, even when it says to change if you like.

 adamsouza wrote:
I'm indifferent on the igougo vs. interleaved debate. I've played games with both, and either ways you can still kill units before they get to do something. As others pointed out it makes MSU more flexible.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I think it would open up tactics, and eliminate 1st or 2nd turn tabling that is now quite common.

You know, I here this on Dakka and every time I shake my head wondering why their play experience is so different than mine. I've NEVER encountered this.

Are they not using enough terrain ? Are they not taking advantage of cover ? Are they playing too few models ?

I don't want to derail the thread, but let me assure that round 2 tabling is not "now quite common" everywhere.

Games being functionally over by turn two are quite common at all the stores/clubs I play at.

I don't necessarily think alpha strike mechanics are what's to blame, but the situation seems to come up quite a bit.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I generally like the Igo-Ugo round structure because it's simply clearer to the players, and "fair" in terms of which models move, and which don't.

I would agree with this, but seeing how we put dice beside our minis, and other games use tokens, it should be fairly easy to see what minis have moved or fired. Not saying you are wrong, just saying how we can show who moved or fired.

Davor wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I generally like the Igo-Ugo round structure because it's simply clearer to the players, and "fair" in terms of which models move, and which don't.

I would agree with this, but seeing how we put dice beside our minis, and other games use tokens, it should be fairly easy to see what minis have moved or fired. Not saying you are wrong, just saying how we can show who moved or fired.

I'm aware of these bookkeeping methods, and somewhat prefer not to need them.

As far as a basic mod, alternating phases is the simplest to implement because it doesn't require rebalancing of points and statlines. LOTR did alternating phases and it was fairly simple, 40K wouldn't be much different. I'd be in favor of it for adding interaction in the phases without a radical overhaul of the game. Would you want to roll off for first/second every game turn?

I like the idea of alternating phases. But I've never tried it in the context of 40k. Such a system can still have its problems (a person can move in to a position to shoot but then have the opponent hide before the shooting phase rolls around).

I don't like the idea of alternating unit activations, as then it becomes a game of trying to beat the system.

I don't really like random or semi-random activation (like Bolt Action) because it's too important of a mechanic to leave to chance.

I don't like initiative because then it makes initiative an extremely important all-or-nothing stat (There's no point paying the points for ini4 over ini3 if your opponents army is all ini5, and there's no point in paying for ini5 over ini4 if your opponent's army is all ini3), And as some people have mentioned a lot of armies have very similar ini (a lot of games are just going to be an ini4 army vs an ini4 army).

Maybe doing interleaving phases, but combine movement and shooting (one person moves and shoots, the other person moves and shoots) but removing casualties at the end of the phase to avoid one army getting wiped out before having a chance to shoot back.

The current 40k's structure allows easilier (as far as one is willing) a "strategical approach". That's more the global plan you have that will give you Victory. Unless of course you're playing in cheesy mode unabled but then... well. No point even playing.

Otherwise, the easiest, which brings dynamism without totally upsetting the game is to keep the same actions sequences, but just alternating turns, as lots already said.

You might try to adapt Bolt Action's activation system, but then it well ask for a heavy rebdesigning and that isn't always what's being looked for.

Anycase, selecting such a system instead of the normal one tends to make "tactical" skills (and rolls ) count more than the global plan for the game. It's however very funny because it results in Something much more lively.

I've played that a few times with a friend of mine and I find that it makes for a much smoother and more realistic game.

It means you have to focus more on positioning, LOS, angles of attack and flanking.

E.g.
Normally you can just move a Sentinel up, get shots on side armour and fire in your turn.
With this style, your opponent could then angle to negate your flanking move - meaning you need to have multiple units threatening from multiple angles or have your attacks mitigated.

I love it. It makes for such a dynamic game. You need to actually prioritise.

Count me in as a big fan of alternating phases, it ahs the potential to add a lot more tactical maneouvering to the game without moaking MSU the dominant set up that would happen with alternate activation.

To make it work best though would require some changes to the rules, specifically making sure that all movement happens in the movement phase (moving, running and shooting) to prevent the problem of assault armies chasing their opponents across the board and never getting into charge range.

I like igougo because in other games, just determining which models have and haven't moved, determining who will move next, and what happens to models who have moved takes up a vast amount of game time. I prefer igougo for simplicity, and nearly everything that gets added to the game to interrupt it (Deny the Witch, Overwatch, etc) annoys me. I kind of like assault occurring separately, because it makes it feel like it progresses quickly, leading to nasty casualties on both sides, but the assaults are still largely dictated by the person whose turn it is.

And also, not to offend, but when people find they are taking huge casualties turn 1 or inflicting huge casualties turn 1, it tends to be because they don't know how deploy their units properly. Keeping fragile units in reserve or out of LOS and presenting only hard targets can keep you relatively safe unless a turn 1 deep strike alpha is what the opponent's list is constructed specifically to do.

So as I see it you have two different issues in 40k: lack of player interaction and the impact of alpha strikes (and then beta strikes, null deployments, and every other iteration of shenanigans that come from the all or nothing IGOUGO system, 40k's unfortunate focus on powerful shooting, and casualty removal).

Alternating phases helps somewhat with player interaction by cutting the time till your turn to do something to 1/3 of what it might be in IGOUGO. However, it doesn't help with alpha strikes unless the second player moves to avoid being shot, which also means the second player may not be doing much shooting.

I find that to be an unsatisfactory solution on its own. If the second player's army needs to close with the enemy to be effective, they still end up weathering the entire enemy army's shooting before they get to do damage. Alternating phases seems best suited for fantasy/ancient/medieval games where ranged attacks are a secondary means of dealing damage and in reality many armies would fire in volleys anyway.

To make alternating phases work for 40k, you really have to mark damage and remove casuallties after both players have finished shooting. The firepower of many armies is too ridiculous to continue giving one player the advantage of shooting first and crippling their opponent unanswered.

I like 40k as it is. I'd be interested in an alternate activation system, but I'd want the rules to be redesigned around that. I wouldn't want to play 40k modified with alternate activation rules

the_scotsman wrote:
I like igougo because in other games, just determining which models have and haven't moved, determining who will move next, and what happens to models who have moved takes up a vast amount of game time.

No offense to you either, but I don't see how this is possible. I dropped 40k like the rotten potato it is years ago and play Epic: Armageddon and X Wing exclusively. My friends also play a lot of Bolt Action (still painting units for that). We seriously never spend more than half a minute per game turn figuring out what units have or haven't moved etc, if there's even confusion at all. It isn't hard to keep track of. We don't even bother with markers for activated units in Epic.

I much prefer Infinity's way of doing things as opposed to IGOUGO.

Player A is the Active player, they get to move all their units (with orders, which we'll ignore for the purpose of the example).

Player B is the Reactive player, who will be able to react to the Active Player in certain circumstances.

Did Player A foolishly leave his model in front of Player B's machine gun? Player B now has a chance to shoot at and possibly kill Player A's model, despite it 'not being his turn'.

Having something to do during the opponent's turn is what makes games fun.

To those of you who are positive towards alternating phases:
Would you be interested in trying out redesigned 40k rules with alternating phases (among other changes)? If yes, I'd like to put you on a PM-list to write to, when I've finished the rules.

 adamsouza wrote:
I'm indifferent on the igougo vs. interleaved debate. I've played games with both, and either ways you can still kill units before they get to do something. As others pointed out it makes MSU more flexible.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I think it would open up tactics, and eliminate 1st or 2nd turn tabling that is now quite common.

You know, I here this on Dakka and every time I shake my head wondering why their play experience is so different than mine. I've NEVER encountered this.

Are they not using enough terrain ? Are they not taking advantage of cover ? Are they playing too few models ?

I don't want to derail the thread, but let me assure that round 2 tabling is not "now quite common" everywhere.

it's the firepower bloat. I've had my CSM army blown off the table in two turns by Eldar armies a couple of times. D Weapons and scatterlasers make short work of 7-9 AV11/12 vehicles and 30-40 T4 3+sv infantry. I've seen similar results fairly frequently.


Lots of games are also functionally over after turn 1 or 2, even if complete tabling has not occurred, though thats not a new state of affairs its much more common with the firepower output and synergistic combos of 7E.

Eh, it only seems to be a problem for me during the first two turns, once you get into assault, it seems to go really fast.

If this is going to work well this needs to be simple. I go you go is simple. (Agreed on boring)

Maybe take each phase into account on who is "better"
Example:
Movement Phase- Ld + Initiative order, D6 roll off for ties.
Shooting Phase- BS + Initiative order.
Assault Phase- WS + Initiative order.

Psychic phase- Mastery Level + Leadership, this would be REALLY fun lol.

The stat would be for the "highest" model in the unit to give advantages to units led by leaders. Vehicles would just have a flat state like Leadership 8 and Initiative 1 (if they do not have init).

EDIT: Another thing is this would buff the psychic powers that effect unit stats that are infrequently used.

 sfshilo wrote:
If this is going to work well this needs to be simple. I go you go is simple. (Agreed on boring)

Maybe take each phase into account on who is "better"
Example:
Movement Phase- Ld + Initiative order, D6 roll off for ties.
Shooting Phase- BS + Initiative order.
Assault Phase- WS + Initiative order.

Psychic phase- Mastery Level + Leadership, this would be REALLY fun lol.

The stat would be for the "highest" model in the unit to give advantages to units led by leaders. Vehicles would just have a flat state like Leadership 8 and Initiative 1 (if they do not have init).

EDIT: Another thing is this would buff the psychic powers that effect unit stats that are infrequently used.

That seems like even more rules bloat/overcomplication.

It's largely an issue of playing too many models in 40k. Go back to 1,000-1,500 and the issue isn't as bad, assuming it's not D blasts...

I have found alternating phases to be the best fit with the '40k battle game', game play.
You can also model simultaneous actions by simply removing casualties after both players have completed the phase.

However, it works best when ALL movement is carried out in the movement phase.(As this re introduces the unit tactical options from 2nd ed, embedded in the game turn.)

Alternating unit activation only really works with rules written specifically for this type of game turn mechanic.
And units in this type of game turn need to have a level of balance much closer than the current range of 40k units have.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Davor wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I generally like the Igo-Ugo round structure because it's simply clearer to the players, and "fair" in terms of which models move, and which don't.

I would agree with this, but seeing how we put dice beside our minis, and other games use tokens, it should be fairly easy to see what minis have moved or fired. Not saying you are wrong, just saying how we can show who moved or fired.

I'm aware of these bookkeeping methods, and somewhat prefer not to need them.

I am curious, how do you do your "book keeping with wounds taken" in 40K? Again not disagreeing with you, just trying to understand and and hopefully learn something new. Also love seeing your Avatar more.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:I like the idea of alternating phases. But I've never tried it in the context of 40k. Such a system can still have its problems (a person can move in to a position to shoot but then have the opponent hide before the shooting phase rolls around).

That is the idea. The Player has a CHANCE to do something.

I don't like the idea of alternating unit activations, as then it becomes a game of trying to beat the system.

Like it is right now in 40K?

I don't really like random or semi-random activation (like Bolt Action) because it's too important of a mechanic to leave to chance.

Sorry I don't understand here. What do you mean leave to chance?

Maybe doing interleaving phases, but combine movement and shooting (one person moves and shoots, the other person moves and shoots) but removing casualties at the end of the phase to avoid one army getting wiped out before having a chance to shoot back.

This is not bad. Something like Battletech where everyone get's to shoot even if the died. It is at least fairer than what 40K is now I believe.

the_scotsman wrote:I like igougo because in other games, just determining which models have and haven't moved, determining who will move next, and what happens to models who have moved takes up a vast amount of game time.

I have to strongly disagree here. When me and my son did this, it took no more than 2 seconds to see who has moved or fired. Then again we use small tokens or dice to indicate who has moved or fired. Also you have the same problem in 40K. With so many units, it's easy to forget who moved or fired. I just played a 1000 point game yesterday and my opponent told me, you forgot to move this or fire that. So the way I see it, it's a problem for both ways or no problems at all. After all if you can do it in 40K, you shouldn't have any issues at all in another system.

And also, not to offend, but when people find they are taking huge casualties turn 1 or inflicting huge casualties turn 1, it tends to be because they don't know how deploy their units properly. Keeping fragile units in reserve or out of LOS and presenting only hard targets can keep you relatively safe unless a turn 1 deep strike alpha is what the opponent's list is constructed specifically to do.

Ltptfg? LOL You are forgetting this is only part of the problem. Again not doing anything for 5-45 minutes except for rolling a save and removing minis is not fun for me, my son, and from what I read a lot of people. It's all about interaction. So once someone moves, a lot of people like to counter that. This is why you would as in Lord of the Rings game pass on priority and make your opponent move first. If you want to move first that turn then you keep priority. Again, it's more of having choices and tactics instead of just "hiding your units so they don't get hit". Again that is just not fun.

jreilly89 wrote:I like 40k as it is. I'd be interested in an alternate activation system, but I'd want the rules to be redesigned around that. I wouldn't want to play 40k modified with alternate activation rules

I would like to know what parts of the rules need to be redesigned. How would you do that?

Chaospling wrote:To those of you who are positive towards alternating phases:
Would you be interested in trying out redesigned 40k rules with alternating phases (among other changes)? If yes, I'd like to put you on a PM-list to write to, when I've finished the rules.

I am. I also made my own rough draft rules for just doing that. Would love to see what you got and see if I can use it with my son or take the great parts out of your rules and add them to mine.

JohnHwangDD wrote:It's largely an issue of playing too many models in 40k. Go back to 1,000-1,500 and the issue isn't as bad, assuming it's not D blasts...

Again, need to see your Avatar. I have to strongly disagree here now. Telling people to go back to something when they want to do something else is not the answer. It shouldn't be "Play my way" or "this is the way the game should be played". If people have to go back to something, that means the system is broken and needs fixing.

I would love it if 40K went to alternating activations, but certainly not the you/I move, then you shoot/I shoot, then you assault/I assault that people have suggested here. THAT is fething crazy. Alternating activations should be one unit does every action it can in a turn, then the opponent does the same, then back to you etc. etc. THAT is a system I would like to see in 40K.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
I would love it if 40K went to alternating activations, but certainly not the you/I move, then you shoot/I shoot, then you assault/I assault that people have suggested here. THAT is fething crazy. Alternating activations should be one unit does every action it can in a turn, then the opponent does the same, then back to you etc. etc. THAT is a system I would like to see in 40K.

That will only work if Everyone has the exact number of units. When I use to play Battletech 20 years ago, that was a big problem when people would move 2,3 or 4 mechs before someone could move theirs. I am not sure why someone said that Multiple Small Units would make the I move you move system broken. If anything MSU would break the I move a unit, you move a unit, I shoot a unit, you shoot a unit. Then again, the small unit wouldn't shoot out as much damage as a large unit and a small unit wouldn't be able to take the damage to a large unit, so not sure if that would balance it out. Again the only problem with this, is if you have the large unit, you feel like you are doing nothing while your opponent is. So basically it can just end up like how 40K is now. Just broken up a bit. Could it be enough? Maybe. That is what play testing is for.

That is why I find the You move everything, I move everything, you shoot, I shoot (or as someone else said like in battle tech everyone shoots no matter if you died or not) is more fair and fun.

Nothing worse in spending all that time painting a miniature and putting it together and finally get to play a game just to "remove the mini" before it can do anything. At least it got to do something with all that hard work you put into it.

This is why I gave up on my Tyranids and Orks where the game is set up against them. Why bother buying and painting and putting together just to remove them off the board. Not my idea of fun.

It absolutely does not mean everyone has to have the same number of units. Firestorm Armada has alternating activations where every unit goes through all its actions and that game functions perfectly well even when one side tries to play the MSU game. Sure you're going to have situations where one player gets a series of consecutive actions at the end of their turn if they go MSU and the opponent doesn't, but that isn't game breaking. It seriously alleviates the problem of alpha striking in 40K and you don't have long bouts of inactivity by one player where all they're doing is rolling saves.

My favorite turn structure was B5 wars. Every unit had an inititve number and you rolled a d 20 for every unit at the start of the turn. Added the initiative number to the D 20 and the highest numbers went first on a per unit basis. Obviously the units initiative number was a factor in it's point cost but opponents could still out roll you - it created actual tactics and allowed for different styles of play. Something I dread about 40k...I mean I literally hate this part is rolling to go first an seize the initiative - it determines over half of my games from the start.

I dont want games to take forever, so i like alternating turns and times rounds aren't a bad thing either.

I did a 1000 point tournament very recently and they allowed 12 minutes each for round one, 11 for round 2 and so on. It worked great. only had one opponent run up against the hard time counter. Other than that, everyones games were getting over much more quickly than usual and we got done earlier than scheduled even. So twas pretty cool that way.

Davor wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm aware of these bookkeeping methods, and somewhat prefer not to need them.

I am curious, how do you do your "book keeping with wounds taken" in 40K? Again not disagreeing with you, just trying to understand and and hopefully learn something new. Also love seeing your Avatar more.

JohnHwangDD wrote:It's largely an issue of playing too many models in 40k. Go back to 1,000-1,500 and the issue isn't as bad, assuming it's not D blasts...

Again, need to see your Avatar. I have to strongly disagree here now. Telling people to go back to something when they want to do something else is not the answer. It shouldn't be "Play my way" or "this is the way the game should be played". If people have to go back to something, that means the system is broken and needs fixing.

Some of us use small d6s, others have skull counters. But that's an exception for the the multi-wound models. When most models are W1, it's usually not an issue.

I fail to see how choosing to play 1,000 - 1,500 is somehow bad - it's the same size of game that we played in 3E, and it's a game size (i.e. number of models on board) that I enjoy playing at. Also, yes, the game itself is broken and needs fixing. I don't enjoy playing 1,850 - 2000+ pts as much, because it takes too long for the amount of playing time I want to have.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

I fail to see how choosing to play 1,000 - 1,500 is somehow bad - it's the same size of game that we played in 3E, and it's a game size (i.e. number of models on board) that I enjoy playing at. Also, yes, the game itself is broken and needs fixing. I don't enjoy playing 1,850 - 2000+ pts as much, because it takes too long for the amount of playing time I want to have.

The only reason I say it's bad is because if someone wants to play 2000+ you said go back to 1500 point game and then that person shouldn't have issues. The way I took that statement , the person wants to play bigger point games, he has the right to play bigger point game but in his opinion it's broken and your answer was to go back to 1500 points. I took it, as you are saying 40K plays good at 1500 points but not bigger or smaller. So that would mean someone has to play 40K different than they want if your solution is to play 1500 is the perfect fix.

That is why I say the game is broken then if you say 1500 points the game plays good but 2000 doesn't. The game should play well where the person wants to play the game, be its 500, 1500 or 2000+ points.

For me, my solution is not playing smaller point games, but changing how the game plays. This way a person can play a bigger game if they want. I don't think play at 1500 point is the solution to fix the I do everything, you do everything mechanic.

Lanrak wrote:
Alternating unit activation only really works with rules written specifically for this type of game turn mechanic.
And units in this type of game turn need to have a level of balance much closer than the current range of 40k units have.

Not going to debate the merits of alternating activations vs alternating phases with you again. I admit alternating phases can improve 40k, but really only if you remove casualties after all shooting is done, otherwise you haven't solved much of anything.

However it's good to see you're dense as a rock and haven't absorbed a thing from our previous discussions. The success of alternating activation in wargames has LITERALLY NOTHING to do with balance between units (I assume you're talking here about parity in power between units). Nothing at all about the range of power of different units in 40k would keep alternating activation from working, and it seems more and more clear you've never really looked at or tried playing a game with alternating activation.

Bolt Action has units ranging from sniper teams to Tiger tanks. Epic has units ranging from Sentinel squadrons to Emperor titans. You can't keep bringing bring this point up every time this topic comes around.

I'm pretty sure that 2,000 pts of Gladius is about 3,000 pts of 40k3 SM.

@CalgarsPimpHand.
I would assume that modeling simultaneous activation simply using alternating phases, as I proposed, would be beneficial and worth discussing?

Currently the range of units in 40k mean there are awful match ups where one side has no chance of winning.
Games that use alternating unit activation have to carefully limit the in game effect each unit can have on the opposing army.Other wise the game play is awful.

Alternating unit activation game turn , still keeps the 'time warp', of one units doing lots of things while the opponent just watches.
And so usually ends up with additions reaction mechanics and/or some additional scheduling mechanics to mitigate this issue.

So to get alternating unit activation working with 40k, would take masses more effort than to get alternating phases up and running.
(I should know as I have tried both systems in various forms over the last decade or so... )

IGO UGO sucks balls. That's why I wrote my game the way I did. With an initiative based alternating activation system, you get much more of a rush in a gunfight

I like IGOUGO, but we have added a "reaction phase" that incorporates the possibility of limited shooting or movement from the defender. GW has made the turn sequence so involved it's more a matter of the rules than the concept being the problem.

What if during a player's turn each unit could only either shoot, move OR assault? Maybe if it had assault weapons it could still move and shoot but would have a minus to hit or would count as moving in difficult terrain. I'd prefer that over jumping back and forth between armies' units - that seems WAY too fiddly and disjointed.

 amanita wrote:
I like IGOUGO, but we have added a "reaction phase" that incorporates the possibility of limited shooting or movement from the defender. GW has made the turn sequence so involved it's more a matter of the rules than the concept being the problem.

What if during a player's turn each unit could only either shoot, move OR assault? Maybe if it had assault weapons it could still move and shoot but would have a minus to hit or would count as moving in difficult terrain. I'd prefer that over jumping back and forth between armies' units - that seems WAY too fiddly and disjointed.

See I like this. Especially the way GW loves random dice rolls now, if someone does something in a persons "radius" then the person should be able to react to it. You move within say 3" of Tyranid Warriors with whips, the Warriors get a whip attack or maybe can assault right away. Maybe move across bunch of of troops with guns, they get a free "snap shot" attack against the person moving. Maybe roll off on initiative and add a d6 to the roll to see if the person can react. Heroes or Leaders can maybe have an Heroic Intervention rule like in Lord of the Rings.

This is what a lot of people have been saying, not doing anything for 1/2 hour except for removing minis. If we are going to have an I do everything you do everything, fine, but don't make it so easy to just zoom everything around with no worries of anything negative happening. Now you will have to think "can these guys snap fire at me?" or maybe even "if I move here, I can snap fire at them if they try to move there" and should add in more tactical options.

Great idea there amanita. Keep it the same but add in more interaction. That is what a lot of us are asking for right?

All different kinds of system have their advantage, it is just that the rules need to be written with a specific design in the back.

Just adding random stuff is what made 40k such a bad game.
The designer has an idea and add it no matter if it fits the basic design of the game or not.


IGYG works well and you can have fun with it (Kings of War, WM/H) and just adding alternate activations to 40k will not work without a complete re-write of all the rules.

As an example, Starship Troopers used an IGYG System with enemy model reactions.
It is one of the most dynamic mass-skirmish games out there.

For those who think 40k is not dynamic enough because the player has nothing to do for 45 minutes. This will not change with alternate activations.

40k has 2 problems here.
First, it is missing the player interactions outside of close combat and with making melee less worth in the last editions, the game lost its only component here.

Second, the game itself is too slow. It is missing the mechanics to handle the mass of miniatures and micro-management on the table which makes a player turn last too long. If you have to wait 1 hour until a player finish his turn and you can be the active one, than IGYG is not the reason, but that the rules do not work with more than 750 points per side.
(alternating activations will not be fun either have you have to wait 30 minutes until the other player placed his models in the right position and can start moving your first unit).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 amanita wrote:
I like IGOUGO, but we have added a "reaction phase" that incorporates the possibility of limited shooting or movement from the defender. GW has made the turn sequence so involved it's more a matter of the rules than the concept being the problem.

A streamlined reaction system would be one thing to make 40k a better game.

Personally the only time I've found people get upset at my turns taking too long (the main reason against 'i go you go') is when they don't pay attention to what I'm even doing.

I like seeing how the enemy player reacts, and how they adapt to my turn during their turn. I guess the 10 minute wait till your next turn is just too much for some. Again, personal experience, I've never found it that tiresome.

I think it works for smaller games because they have less to work with when it comes to rules and models. It would literally break 40k to implement it now. You would have to add even more rules (the thing we should avoid) to try and resolve all the scenarios that could happen.


edit: I don't necessarily see it as a thing that's better or worse, I think its honestly a matter of personal preference. When I'm playing a game of 40k I'm never in a rush to play it faster (as its usually a game with friends on our day off for enjoyment purposes) so I don't mind being patient.

I'm fine with I go you Go 40K.
The only game I've played with alternating activation was Warzone. That was a fantastic game. but it also used an action point system and at the start of a game turn each player rolled off to see who went first. But it was a skirmish sized game. 40K is too large to copy those rules very well.
A game like Necromunda would be better suited.

Lanrak wrote:
@CalgarsPimpHand.
I would assume that modeling simultaneous activation simply using alternating phases, as I proposed, would be beneficial and worth discussing?
...
So to get alternating unit activation working with 40k, would take masses more effort than to get alternating phases up and running.
(I should know as I have tried both systems in various forms over the last decade or so... )

I already agreed with you in this thread. If done properly (simultaneous casualty removal, some kind of careful alternating of phase order so the second player does not always have perfect information during a turn) alternating phases solves many problems with 40k with minimal rule changes.

The reason I don't like discussing this with you is because every single time the topic comes up, it devolves into you saying grossly uninformed things like this:

Lanrak wrote:
Currently the range of units in 40k mean there are awful match ups where one side has no chance of winning. Games that use alternating unit activation have to carefully limit the in game effect each unit can have on the opposing army.Other wise the game play is awful.

That's just false. I point this out in every conversation we have: every alternating activation action game I've ever played successfully handles units with extreme variation in power level equal to what you see in 40k.

But you don't listen or learn. You keep repeating it. It makes me convinced you've never actually seen, read about, or played an alternating activation game, and if you did you didn't understand what you were doing. If you really did attempt a 40k alternating activation mod, it probably didn't work because based on the misconceptions you're displaying, you failed to understand the concept. Even if that's not true, you definitely don't read or think about what I say to you when we're talking. It's like talking to a brick wall and it makes intelligent discussion of the topic impossible.

How to recognize an eldar player ; )

 Jimsolo wrote:
I like an initiative system..

"Activation" seems the way to go in game terms for 40k.
Since having an entire army unload on you as you stand there seems a bit far from the wargame we are trying to simulate.
The interval for your opponent or yourself to do something is greatly reduced, activation order and unit targeting by activation (has not gone yet) is a strategy all it's own.
I am a big fan of Bolt Action and it is very similar to 40k so it is a mechanic worth considering.

Anyone looking for "initiative based" would need a re-balance of the game since points would not represent as well (only a factor in melee at this point).
Look at X-wing for instance where the initiative is very much part of the game (Han shot first!).

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I would certainly prefer if 40K went "I go, you go" or at least "interleaved turns" rather than this all or nothing thing we got going on.

I think it would open up tactics, and eliminate 1st or 2nd turn tabling that is now quite common.

However, I certainly would not want it to go the route of a die roll like in AOS. That gak is stupid.

If you're getting tabled on the 1st or 2nd turn, you either have no clue how to deploy and you deserve it or you need to be playing with more terrain. Not playing parking lot hammer fixes a lot of the major imbalances in the game.

 Toofast wrote:
If you're getting tabled on the 1st or 2nd turn, you either have no clue how to deploy and you deserve it or you need to be playing with more terrain. Not playing parking lot hammer fixes a lot of the major imbalances in the game.

I think that largely depends on your army type.
Keeping things in reserve, elite units so they are small enough to fit behind terrain, means of being "shrouded" in some way, going all defensive or all offensive is a risk either way.
Nothing says "losing" like when someone "steals the initiative" unexpectedly.
I just LOVE all the random for random sake in 40k.

 Toofast wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I would certainly prefer if 40K went "I go, you go" or at least "interleaved turns" rather than this all or nothing thing we got going on.

I think it would open up tactics, and eliminate 1st or 2nd turn tabling that is now quite common.

However, I certainly would not want it to go the route of a die roll like in AOS. That gak is stupid.

If you're getting tabled on the 1st or 2nd turn, you either have no clue how to deploy and you deserve it or you need to be playing with more terrain. Not playing parking lot hammer fixes a lot of the major imbalances in the game.

Parking lot hammer or not, the whole idea of IGOUGO is horribly outdated. Even with alternating phases to reduce downtime it's better suited for ancient/medieval/fantasy or maybe Napoleonic games.

That said, I'm in favor of alternating phases with casualty removal at the end of shooting as a minimalist fix to 40k. It still has a lot of subtle problems with it but it fixes player downtime and alpha strikes without requiring too much work.

No, IGYG is not outdated and works quite well also in modern/sciFi themed games.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
If you're getting tabled on the 1st or 2nd turn, you either have no clue how to deploy and you deserve it or you need to be playing with more terrain. Not playing parking lot hammer fixes a lot of the major imbalances in the game.

I think that largely depends on your army type.
Keeping things in reserve, elite units so they are small enough to fit behind terrain, means of being "shrouded" in some way, going all defensive or all offensive is a risk either way.
Nothing says "losing" like when someone "steals the initiative" unexpectedly.
I just LOVE all the random for random sake in 40k.

the problem is, with the current state of codex balance, neither unit activation nur alternate turns will help some armys/lists to survive the first turn.

Jefffar wrote:
I think the simplest solution is to alternate on aphase by phase basis, soa Game Trun would resolve as

Turn Start Book Keeping
Movement phase
Player 1 Goes, Player 2 Goes
Psychic Phase
Resolve Psychic Points
Player 1 Goes, Player 2 Goes
Shooting Phase
Player 1 Goes, Player 2 Goes
Assault Phase
Player 1 Goes, Player 2 Goes
Resolve Combats
End Turn

I like this. At the same time, my mind wanders into card games. There's so much more room for abilites and quirks. Traps, quick plays, effects, dissolutions, mergers and many of the mechanics are right at the door. Which makes for better skirmish games. Keeping it simple and expanding scale is interesting.

I prefer alternating activation. Makes the game more strategic. Not a fan of one entire side goes. After playing games with better activation rules it makes 40k seem clunky and slow.

Nominally I prefer random activation like Bolt Action and Gates have where you blindly pull a colored dice from a bag to see who gets to activate a unit. Don't know if it would work for 40k but its the most superior turn system I have seen in a game to date.

Don Savik wrote: I guess the 10 minute wait till your next turn is just too much for some. Again, personal experience, I've never found it that tiresome.

Please quote multiple people who have said waiting 10 minutes is the problem. I am sure a lot of us have said 1/2 or even 45 minutes we had to wait for. So I am not sure where your 10 minutes is coming from.

@CalgarsPimpHand.
Games I have played using alternating unit activation.
Epic Space Marine, Bolt Action , Bodycount, DZC , and a few other older games .

All of these games had strict limits on unit types, (unit group types) and frequency .(EG no Heavy tank Companies in B.A with 5+Tigers for example.)
There are not such a wide range of unit costs and effects in rules sets the use alternating unit activation, as there are currently in 40k.

Its not just the range of units as such, but the complete lack of any sort of balance in force composition in 40k, that exasperates the issues with alternating unit activation..

The issues with alternating unit activation, are mainly down to 'time warp effect'.
EG one unit performing multiple actions while everyone else just stands and watches.This means most people ask for 'reaction or initiative mechanics' to be added which just adds complication .

If Alternating phases model simultaneous actions, what 'issues' remain?

@ Kodos.
Alternating game turn mechanic, (IGO UGO) works fine for games where tactical maneuver into effective weapons range is a large part of the game play.
EG ancient warfare where ranged attacks are used in a supporting role.(WHFB, K.O.W. A.O.S etc.)

Or where the scale of the smaller scale minatures gives smaller in scale weapons effective ranges , eg 6 mm to 15mm modern/scifi battle games like F,o,W, etc.

And skirmish games where the distsnce between units is much larger due to the lower density of model coverage on the table top.
Infinity,2nd ed 40k,etc.

For the current scale and scope of the 40k game , Alternating game turns is not suitable.

Alternating phases, (with simultaneous resolution.)
Or
Alternating actions , (with tactical options set in the start of turn/ command phase.)

Seem to be the best fit .(With minimal amount or re working of the current rules.)

Lanrak wrote:

Alternating phases, (with simultaneous resolution.)
Seem to be the best fit .(With minimal amount or re working of the current rules.)

No, without a complete re-write, alternating phases will make things much wores
with all the stuff around that is not bound to a specific phase and can shot or move whenever they want is not going to work well


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:

For the current scale and scope of the 40k game , Alternating game turns is not suitable.

For the current mess of 40k, nothing is really suitable

but, for the unit based mass-skirmish game 40k wants to be it will work fine (just look at StarShipTroopers, it is the same scale as 40k is now and works with IGYG quite well)

Lanrak wrote:
@CalgarsPimpHand.
Games I have played using alternating unit activation.
Epic Space Marine, Bolt Action , Bodycount, DZC , and a few other older games .

All of these games had strict limits on unit types, (unit group types) and frequency .(EG no Heavy tank Companies in B.A with 5+Tigers for example.)
There are not such a wide range of unit costs and effects in rules sets the use alternating unit activation, as there are currently in 40k.

Its not just the range of units as such, but the complete lack of any sort of balance in force composition in 40k, that exasperates the issues with alternating unit activation..

The issues with alternating unit activation, are mainly down to 'time warp effect'.
EG one unit performing multiple actions while everyone else just stands and watches.This means most people ask for 'reaction or initiative mechanics' to be added which just adds complication .

If Alternating phases model simultaneous actions, what 'issues' remain?

@ Kodos.
Alternating game turn mechanic, (IGO UGO) works fine for games where tactical maneuver into effective weapons range is a large part of the game play.
EG ancient warfare where ranged attacks are used in a supporting role.(WHFB, K.O.W. A.O.S etc.)

Or where the scale of the smaller scale minatures gives smaller in scale weapons effective ranges , eg 6 mm to 15mm modern/scifi battle games like F,o,W, etc.

And skirmish games where the distsnce between units is much larger due to the lower density of model coverage on the table top.
Infinity,2nd ed 40k,etc.

For the current scale and scope of the 40k game , Alternating game turns is not suitable.

Alternating phases, (with simultaneous resolution.)
Or
Alternating actions , (with tactical options set in the start of turn/ command phase.)

Seem to be the best fit .(With minimal amount or re working of the current rules.)

You're simply doing it again. Epic has formations that are literally as far apart as four Sentinels compared to an Emperor titan. You can do armies of all titans, you can do armies of predominantly infantry. That is very much in the same scope as 40k. Bolt Action also does have options for playing armored companies, and you can't pretend that a sniper compared to a Tiger is far off from the extreme differences in unit power you see in 40k. Both those games work fine.

This is why I am saying you don't understand the concept. You are correct that these games have mechanics to encourage a balanced mix of powerful and weak units. Alternating activations favors MSU spam, but Epic (as an example) has a suppression/morale system that encourages bigger units. You end up with armies that have similar numbers of activations but still include units with very widely varying power levels. Every time you talk about unit imbalance in 40k as a reason why alternating activation doesn't work, you turn on a neon sign that says you don't get it.

Same thing with talking about "units standing around" due to a "time warp effect". Alternating Phases on its own still has your entire army stand around to get shot or charged. There is always going to be at least one unit doing something while the other player isn't touching their models - this is how tabletop games work. It's a bizarre objection to have, this lack of comprehension that one unit being activated doesn't mean the others are literally frozen in place.

The only reaction you might add is overwatch, and it isn't a complicated idea.

The legitimate issues with bringing alternating activations to 40k are as follows:

smaller rules throughout codexes rely on IGOUGO - more work to clean these up

some concepts need rework to fit into alternating activations, like the psychic phase, independent characters, and transports

the game needs another mechanic to help balance MSU spam against big tough units - activation count trumps concentrated power without something like a suppression or activation mechanic that punishes small units

And to answer your question, the main issues with alternating phases, even after you add simultaneous casualty removal:

The second player in each turn can always act with perfect information to negate the first player's moves, making it much harder for the first player to shoot or charge successfully

Assault armies are nerfed by the inability to move and charge back to back without the opponent moving away. The opposing army always has a chance to move away from assault units before the charge phase, whether you're going first or second.

Basically, alternating activations require more of a rewrite to implement in 40k, but can provide a very tactical back and forth with heavy emphasis on units maneuvering to contact. This is why you see it so much in WWII/modern/sci fi games.

Alternating phases is definitely an improvement over IGOUGO and would be easier to implement, but still has some shortcomings when you apply it to a game heavy on ranged combat.

Davor wrote:

Don Savik wrote: I guess the 10 minute wait till your next turn is just too much for some. Again, personal experience, I've never found it that tiresome.

Please quote multiple people who have said waiting 10 minutes is the problem. I am sure a lot of us have said 1/2 or even 45 minutes we had to wait for. So I am not sure where your 10 minutes is coming from.

Woah relax I wasn't claiming that anyone said a specific time, I was just saying that I think turns are never that long. I personally haven't ran into people that slow that it takes them 45 minutes to move their guys outside of an apocalypse game, but if you have I can see why that would be frustrating. I think knowing your list well has partially to do with how fast you play too. I don't think changing the turn sequences would entirely get rid of this.

I would say I am against this system
"I go you go" only works when you have armies that are basically the same doesn't it?
I feel like close combat armies are at a major disadvantage in this system when they play shooting armies.

My Tau vs KDK

I go first. I shoot at one of his units
He goes and moves one of his units up the table.
I go and shoot at the next unit
He goes and moves another unit up the table.
by the time he gets up the table to close combat most of his units will be dead or mostly dead. Then he assaults and I over watch.

The assault player looses the ability to push multiple small units up the table at once which forces the shooting army prioritize targets. He's depending on multiple simultaneous threats or even waves of units to force the shooting player to make a bad decision.

This works for games that would have armies that are basically the same and games that don't have getting into close combat as a game mechanic.

Don Savik wrote:

Davor wrote:

Don Savik wrote: I guess the 10 minute wait till your next turn is just too much for some. Again, personal experience, I've never found it that tiresome.

Please quote multiple people who have said waiting 10 minutes is the problem. I am sure a lot of us have said 1/2 or even 45 minutes we had to wait for. So I am not sure where your 10 minutes is coming from.

Woah relax I wasn't claiming that anyone said a specific time, I was just saying that I think turns are never that long. I personally haven't ran into people that slow that it takes them 45 minutes to move their guys outside of an apocalypse game, but if you have I can see why that would be frustrating. I think knowing your list well has partially to do with how fast you play too. I don't think changing the turn sequences would entirely get rid of this.

I am relaxed. I wasn't aggressive at all my friend. Turns do take that long otherwise we wouldn't be saying they are. We are not exaggerating at all but talking from experience. Your 10 minute comment came out as our explanations don't count and are not valid or even worse trivial and we should be embraced. While you may not have that problem other people do. So we are wrong when it happens to us?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

No, without a complete re-write, alternating phases will make things much wores
with all the stuff around that is not bound to a specific phase and can shot or move whenever they want is not going to work well

Can you please explain why a complete re-write is necessary? I don't see it. I am curious as to why you think a re-write is needed.

 Talizvar wrote:
"Activation" seems the way to go in game terms for 40k.
Since having an entire army unload on you as you stand there seems a bit far from the wargame we are trying to simulate.
The interval for your opponent or yourself to do something is greatly reduced, activation order and unit targeting by activation (has not gone yet) is a strategy all it's own.
I am a big fan of Bolt Action and it is very similar to 40k so it is a mechanic worth considering.

Anyone looking for "initiative based" would need a re-balance of the game since points would not represent as well (only a factor in melee at this point).
Look at X-wing for instance where the initiative is very much part of the game (Han shot first!).

My friends and I only play with modded bolt action activation rules and it makes 40k 100x better.

You can charge from deep strike!!!@

... if your last move was to bring a unit in from deep strike, and you get the first avtivation, and opt to charge instead of shooting!

Adds way more depth.

If you're getting tabled on the 1st or 2nd turn, you either have no clue how to deploy and you deserve it or you need to be playing with more terrain. Not playing parking lot hammer fixes a lot of the major imbalances in the game

First of all, you don't need to lose your whole army on turn 2 to not be able to win. Only crippled entirely.

Secondly, I know how to deploy, but unfortunately I play Chaos Marines and I have no reserves manipulation at all, and my army is slow as feth and outdated. Guess which army completely ignores cover on everything? Tau?

Third, I'm not a good player. You know why? Because I enjoy close combat and I play gakky armies like Chaos Marines and Dark Eldar. So forgive me for wanted my game to not be a one sided shooting fest that it's turned into.

You know what else fixes a lot of imbalances in the game? A good rules set.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

If you're getting tabled on the 1st or 2nd turn, you either have no clue how to deploy and you deserve it or you need to be playing with more terrain. Not playing parking lot hammer fixes a lot of the major imbalances in the game

First of all, you don't need to lose your whole army on turn 2 to not be able to win. Only crippled entirely.

Secondly, I know how to deploy, but unfortunately I play Chaos Marines and I have no reserves manipulation at all, and my army is slow as feth and outdated. Guess which army completely ignores cover on everything? Tau?

Third, I'm not a good player. You know why? Because I enjoy close combat and I play gakky armies like Chaos Marines and Dark Eldar. So forgive me for wanted my game to not be a one sided shooting fest that it's turned into.

You know what else fixes a lot of imbalances in the game? A good rules set.

The bolt action style activation really tones down first turn advantage.

You can play free for all very easily as well, I've had a 5 player FFA capture the relic game and it was loads of fun.

I'm actually making a fantasy game because of this. I loved the excitement of collecting minis, painting together with my friends, and then we'd get around a game board and...meh. Then I played Infinity, which uses a much similar system, and found it much more engaging.

I think there's definitely a place for it in fantasy, strategically moving bowmen onto hills and towers, or seizing the initiative when your opponent is half-way through shuffling around their formation. Makes things much more tactically interesting.

Our game is going to be based around individual actions taken by units, rather than turns as a whole. We've got a system where the player can take around five actions and then it switches to the other player, on average - though obviously through player maneuvring it can be longer or shorter. It also opens the game up for 'special actions', like forming a shieldwall, etc, that units can take instead of moving or charging. The turn switches are necessary to allow for movement of units that are routing, or for resolving combat, etc.

Whatever way you look at it, fantasy battle has definitely fallen behind on this front, and skirmish and sci-fi games really seem to have shot ahead. Not sure why this is, but its a shame.

Have you ever tried SAGA?
It has a nice fantasy version

Davor wrote:

Can you please explain why a complete re-write is necessary? I don't see it. I am curious as to why you think a re-write is needed.

in short:

First would be that to get alternating phases working would be keep everything inside it's specific phase
If one faction able to shoot in the movement phase and move in the assault phase, it has a major advantage and the whole thing is messed up before you start.

So, all moving in the moving phase (except assault), all shooting in the shooting phase etc.
This also leads to a problem that some factions need their play style re-worked, and a lot of special rules needs to be re-done

Next is the "reaction system" of 40k

alternating anything means that a player reacts directly. All other reactions need to be removed.

No Overwatch, Intercept etc, and no strike back in combat (this is replaced with the enemy CC phase which follows directly after). Therefore the whole melee section need to be re-done.
Keep them would give the passive player an advantage, because he will act 2 times in a row (the passive reaction and his own phase directly after)


If you just add stuff to the current rules, it will work somehow, but will not be an improvement over the current system

Actually, fantasy battles have moved pretty far as an historical / ancients-style communications / command-focused block game rather than an individual model combat-focused skirmish battle.

Thanks Kodos for your explanation. I can understand where you are coming from now.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Actually, fantasy battles have moved pretty far as an historical / ancients-style communications / command-focused block game rather than an individual model combat-focused skirmish battle.

Frostgrave and A fantastic SAGA would disagree

PS:

Davor wrote:
I can understand where you are coming from now.

is this positive or negative?

Don't expect me to be cool with this idea, if you randomly ask me for a pick up game. But If we know each other and you ask "hey want to try this idea out?" then I would love to. Just let me think about the changes and how I might have to adjust my all-comers list for the change.

I'm pretty open to trying out new things, games, ect.

I am against the whole IGOUGO as 40K does for the simple reason that it gives the player that goes first far to big of an advantage. He who goes first - baring those few and very rare cases where the player has no long ranged weapons - can easily cripple his opponents army by taking out key units and as the armies usually start within rifle range of each other it is far too easy to remove a large chunk of your opponents army i the first turn.
If I end up deploying second then I have to make sure that everything starts neck deep in cover because I know that it will have to endure the other sides shooting before it can do anything. This means that I cannot deploy in an optimal position to advance because I know that these units will never have the chance to do so if they do as my opponent will wipe them from the face of the board before they have even left the deployment zone.

An alternate system like Bolt Actions would be better but the problem here lies with the scale of the game. Bolt Actions system works well because you rarely have more than 12 units in your average game and even MSU armies struggle to breach 16 but 40K allows the player to have many, many units and as such the dice system might risk becoming bogged down.
Nonetheless something needs to be done as no one enjoys losing a third of their army before they even have a chance to do something.

kodos wrote:

Davor wrote:
I can understand where you are coming from now.

is this positive or negative?

I say it's a positive. It opened up my eyes on what I didn't see before. While I still disagree with you, I can finally understand where you are coming from and actually see your point of view now. Just like with anything, everything needs to be tweaked and tried. I guess that is why ALOT of play testing would be needed to see how the proper way it should be done, and not just math hammer everything and say that is the way to do it.

I am in general against of adding stuff to a system that is not part of the basic concept, which is something GW is doing all the time.

There are just small things in the rules that make big problems.
Like the a small sentence that is there in the rules since 3rd edition and because the whole part was always just copy&paste no one ever corrected it and now in 7th is messes things up.


And I agree, it is not really possible to do such things without a large Beta Test.
(or things become very slow and see no progress for a long time)

 master of ordinance wrote:
I am against the whole IGOUGO as 40K does for the simple reason that it gives the player that goes first far to big of an advantage.

Maybe you need to play with fewer models and more terrain...

@Kodos.
If we move to alternating phases, we loose all the additional rules that have to be used because the current alternating game turn does not generate enough natural levels of player/unit interaction.


So we get less complication in the rules and more tactical choices in the game play, with very minor modifications.

I would see this as a good thing.I am not sure why you think this is bad thing?

@CalgarsPimpHand.
I have not done a very good job of explaining why alternating unit activation takes a lot more effort to get work well with the current 40k units.

Alternating unit activation focuses player attention on the differences between individual units more sharply than any other game turn mechanic.
As a single unit performs several actions in isolation.(Even with a reaction mechanic like over watch in place.)

And with the massive disparity between units currently in 40k, that is even evident with the game turn mechanic that mitigates unit imbalance the most.
I believe that the amount of extra re balancing , on top of reworking the entire rules to suit the game turn would take lots more time and work than an alternating phases based re write.

It could be done , but it would take a lot more work, and my not be recognizable as '40k' at the end.

Quite a lot of people have said they like the clearly defined phases, and activating armies at once.(As this is quite close to the game turn /game play they are used to and associate with 40k.)

I admit that alternating phases allows players to react to the opponents actions in each phase.But if you have any sort objective driven game play, just 'running away' is not going to win you any games.

Also alternating unit activation allows players to ignore units that have activated , and just focus on the units that are yet to do anything.

So both systems can be 'gamed'.However, a set of tactical objectives can get rid of them in an alternating phase game turn.

Lanrak wrote:

I would see this as a good thing.I am not sure why you think this is bad thing?

I don't see it as a bad thing, I just don't see that it is necessary. Also the main problems people here have with the current system are not solved by altering phases
eg Alpha Strike and weak melee would still be a problem not matter if you have phases, altering phases or altering unit activation
To solve this problems you need to balance factions/units, streamline reactions and re-design melee (or movement) in general. But if you do this, also the current phases would work again

Work/time need and the outcome would be the same so I prefer to stay with the current system which also makes 40k unique
if people want to play Bolt Action with SciFi models they can to this anyway and need no re-written 40k rules. but those who want to have a balanced and fun 40k game are left behind if some of the main characteristics of the game are removed

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I am against the whole IGOUGO as 40K does for the simple reason that it gives the player that goes first far to big of an advantage.

Maybe you need to play with fewer models and more terrain...

Terrain doesn't help much vs mobile shooting. In fact, it makes them more survivable against lists without access to high ROF or ignores cover weaponry.

Martel732 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I am against the whole IGOUGO as 40K does for the simple reason that it gives the player that goes first far to big of an advantage.

Maybe you need to play with fewer models and more terrain...

Terrain doesn't help much vs mobile shooting. In fact, it makes them more survivable against lists without access to high ROF or ignores cover weaponry.

Then you are not using cover properly. Hug the walls, son.

Maybe he's not using the right sort of terrain? Maybe he needs stuff that actually blocks LOS?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Maybe he's not using the right sort of terrain? Maybe he needs stuff that actually blocks LOS?

That works great against static firepower. Mobile shooters can maneuver around the LOS blockers unless you use gigantic walls.

Martel732 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I am against the whole IGOUGO as 40K does for the simple reason that it gives the player that goes first far to big of an advantage.

Maybe you need to play with fewer models and more terrain...

Terrain doesn't help much vs mobile shooting. In fact, it makes them more survivable against lists without access to high ROF or ignores cover weaponry.

But this problem will not be solved by changing the phase system

Yeah, I'm not 100% certain the phasing is the problem.

@Martel - as an experiment, try a 1,000 pt battle on a 5x4' urban or jungle board and let us know how it goes.

For Example even if we would have alternating unit activation
A Tau player can still Alpha strike you by just activating one unit.

without adjusting the codex rules the problem will still exist (maybe not that big and not for all but still)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Martel - as an experiment, try a 1,000 pt battle on a 5x4' urban or jungle board and let us know how it goes.

I've played on heavy tables before. I know where you are coming from. But 7th ed is a shooting edition hands down.

Urban boards have well defined kill lanes and helps very little. Jungle is better.

We can't run experiments with BA anyway since they fail in every phase of the game.

I really like the first warzone activation system as well the bolt action, also i played tank systems were commander leadership was a thing to even activate the unit.

@Kodos.
I do not think any one is saying there is one simple fix to address the many issues in the 40k rules.

But the '..add on extra rules to try to get the game working how you think it should without changing the core rules ..' mentality has just delivered masses of complication and not fixed any issues, just moved them around a bit.

Several people have pointed out areas for concern, and the alternating game turn is one area that generates more issues than it solves.

The pointless use of multiple resolution methods, and lack of synergy between the stat line and the in game interaction are other areas of concern.

The game would improve immeasurably by alternating phases.

Right now a lot of games are decided by the end of the first turn.

Lanrak wrote:
@Kodos.
I do not think any one is saying there is one simple fix to address the many issues in the 40k rules.

Some post sounds exactly like that....

But the '..add on extra rules to try to get the game working how you think it should without changing the core rules ..' mentality has just delivered masses of complication and not fixed any issues, just moved them around a bit.

That's why we will never see a "good" 40k rule system from gw

Several people have pointed out areas for concern, and the alternating game turn is one area that generates more issues than it solves.

Alternating player turns are not there to solve problems, they are part of the basic design that defines the game.
Other rules which were added on top of this making the problem and again other rules that should solve those added new problems.

You can change now the basic design to solve problems made by other game mechanics, but this will just make a different game with different problems.

There is a long list of stuff that is broken and an area of concern, but the game turn design by itself is not a broken mechanic and is at the end of the list of things that need a change

@Kodos.
The 40k game scale and scope has changed dramatically from its 1st edition detailed skirmish/RPG hybrid.

The alternating game turn mechanic works fine in games where maneuver into effective weapons range is a large part of the tactical consideration in the game play.

Since the current 40k game has the playing area so crammed full of minatures, with unrestricted shooting.(If you exclude Lo.S blocking terrain which reduces the playing area even further.)

Then the alternating game turn makes all the other issues with the rules worse in the current game play.
(Alpha strike, poor balance, lack of synergy to background, lack of proportionality etc.)

To be objective about rules development you have to define the scale and scope of the game play first.Then define the game play you want to arrive at.

Then use the most suitable game mechanics and resolution methods to arrive at the intended game play.

There is nothing wrong with any of the main 4 game turn mechanic types.
Alternating game turn, alternating phase, alternating unit activation, variable bound game turn.

But each one fits a particular type of game play better than the others.

There is nothing wrong with a hammer a, screwdriver, an allen key or a spanner.

However trying to put countersunk head screws screws in with a spanner is not the best choice, neither is using a screwdriver to knock a nail in....

So defending the rules written for 'massed ranks fantasy battle games' as being fine as they work for a specific type of game play.

Is not proving they re the best choice for a sci-fi battle game using modern type units.

IF you want to scale 40k back to 2nd ed skirmish size.(EG appx half the size the game was in 5th ed.)
Then you may get away with alternating game turns.

But if you want a well defined intuitive and tactically deeper sci-fi battle game .You have to define the scale and scope of the game before you start trying to find the core game mechanics and resolution methods that are the best fit.

As 7th ed armies are bigger than some of the Epic armies I used in Epic SM, 40k is NOT a skirmish game any longer!!!

The game turn mechanic is not the only change that is needed to make 40k battle game rules elegant and intuitive by a long way.
However, it is one that is most obvious to many players.

Making the stat line relevant to the in game interaction, and resolution methods that deliver proportional results are other things than need addressing to reduce the pointless special rules , and unecessary over complication.

The alternating game turn mechanic works fine in games where maneuver into effective weapons range is a large part of the tactical consideration in the game play.

Since the current 40k game has the playing area so crammed full of minatures, with unrestricted shooting.(If you exclude Lo.S blocking terrain which reduces the playing area even further.)

Then the alternating game turn makes all the other issues with the rules worse in the current game play.
(Alpha strike, poor balance, lack of synergy to background, lack of proportionality etc.)

So the broken mechanics are the TLOS, Weapon and movement Range, model count per table size.

Changing now to alternate phasesm, the broken mechanic that remain are:
weapon and movement range is to large (alpha strike), TLOS (to less LOS blocking terrain), model count for the standard table size is still to large.


On the other hand, if you change the rules for those broken mechanics (change the TLOS to prevent from shooting through all kind of terrain, lower the weapon and movement range, lower the model count in general and reduce the amount of very large models) the original IGYG system works again.

alternating phases is than still an option to increase player interaction during the game.
The same for reactions or alternating unit activations

But, Alternating phases will solve the problems from other broken rules.
A lot of people try to sell this as the ultimate solution for large scale Skirmish games and to address the Alpha strike problem.
And this is just not true. As long as there is a model in the game which can kill anything to opponent place on the table and is able to kill more than one unit with one activation no change to the game turn mechanic will ever solve the alpha strike problem.

If this would not be the case, no one would ever lose against an Eldar or Tau SAD list if he goes first.
But because you still be dead before you arrive no matter if you have the chance to move first or not just shows that this is not the source of the problem that need a change.


A lot of other rules and units need to be changed first to get the game balanced.
Alternating anything will not bring the balance back, solve Alpha Strikes or keep you from being wiped of the table without a chance

The game needs to be built around whatever alternation level is desired, whether it is individual model (cheerleader), individual unit, phases or armies (Igo-Ugo). Grafting alternation onto a game changes it, and is just as likely to break it as it is to "fix" it. Unless the game is already fundamentally broken at many levels (40k).

Whatever level of reaction also needs to be designed in. Igo-Ugo without reactions is NOT a bad game per se - that's how most boardgames work, and the simplicity & clarity are helpful. But those games don't scale or shoot like 40k does.

I would submit that playing 40k with the Infinity game engine would be wrong, simply because it wouldn't be "40k" any more.

As an aside, I'm a bit surprised that nobody is pushing for simultaneous turns, where everybody moves, everybody shoots, etc.

 kodos wrote:

The alternating game turn mechanic works fine in games where maneuver into effective weapons range is a large part of the tactical consideration in the game play.

Since the current 40k game has the playing area so crammed full of minatures, with unrestricted shooting.(If you exclude Lo.S blocking terrain which reduces the playing area even further.)

Then the alternating game turn makes all the other issues with the rules worse in the current game play.
(Alpha strike, poor balance, lack of synergy to background, lack of proportionality etc.)

So the broken mechanics are the TLOS, Weapon and movement Range, model count per table size.

Changing now to alternate phasesm, the broken mechanic that remain are:
weapon and movement range is to large (alpha strike), TLOS (to less LOS blocking terrain), model count for the standard table size is still to large.


On the other hand, if you change the rules for those broken mechanics (change the TLOS to prevent from shooting through all kind of terrain, lower the weapon and movement range, lower the model count in general and reduce the amount of very large models) the original IGYG system works again.

alternating phases is than still an option to increase player interaction during the game.
The same for reactions or alternating unit activations

But, Alternating phases will solve the problems from other broken rules.
A lot of people try to sell this as the ultimate solution for large scale Skirmish games and to address the Alpha strike problem.
And this is just not true. As long as there is a model in the game which can kill anything to opponent place on the table and is able to kill more than one unit with one activation no change to the game turn mechanic will ever solve the alpha strike problem.

If this would not be the case, no one would ever lose against an Eldar or Tau SAD list if he goes first.
But because you still be dead before you arrive no matter if you have the chance to move first or not just shows that this is not the source of the problem that need a change.


A lot of other rules and units need to be changed first to get the game balanced.
Alternating anything will not bring the balance back, solve Alpha Strikes or keep you from being wiped of the table without a chance

As I quoted before in this thread, I have had many games using bolt action style turn sequence, and it makes a huge difference to alpha strike capabilities. Sure one unit could destroy another one, but that unit now has to wait the rest of the turn to do anything, and it is still only a fraction of an entire army shooting.

I play CSM and find even playing competitive eldar, tau, sm, and necron lists, the disparity is not nearly as large.

@Kodos.
If you alter the game mechanics and resolution methods to suit the new game play , determined by the scale and scope of game you want.
You will end up with a better rule set than the steaming pile of mess it currently is.

The only way to get the alternating game turn to fit, is to shrink the game size back to skirmish size.(Infinity,)Or to drop the minature scale to 15mm or smaller ,(F.o.W),so the ranges can be reduce appropriately.
As both options improve the amount of tactical maneuver into weapons ranges, that allows the alternating game turn to work how it is intended.

If you want to keep the minature scale , which is the main appeal of 40k to many.And the game size at the battle game level.
Then the alternating game turn is not the best game turn mechanic to use.

Even with all the other changes you may make, if the level of tactical maneuver into effective weapons range is not high enough .The game turn mechanic will not drive the game play how it should,

FWIW, 15mm FoW ranges are crazy short for the engagement distance. If you assume a typical 1 km engagement range for tanks, then 1/100 scale means you need a table 10-meters across. You're playing corner-to-corner in your garage...

Pro: It's simple and easy to learn.
Con: It sets up the potential for "first turn win" crap that people are talking about at the moment where a coin flip determines who wins.

@JohnHwangDD.
I agree that if you use direct scaling the ranges are too short in F.O.W.But they are no where near as ridiculous as the ranges in 40k.

However, the comparative ranges of weapons to model height is not the real issue, as many games use different vertical and horizontal scales.

Its down to how much of the game play is based on tactical maneuver into weapons range .

Even using 6mm minatures in Epic, the GW game developers thought alternating game turns would not work as well as more interactive game turns.(Alternating phases/actions.)


So why do people who play 7th edition that has bigger armies than some 6mm Epic armies.Think 40k will work fine with an alternating game turn?

It is not the only issue that need addressing , but it is one many gamers have talked about how a more interactive game turn would be a better fit with the 40k battle game.

Yes, it's ridiculous how short the ranges are in 40k. But 40k is fake stuff that one can handwave why it's wrong. FoW and other RL stuff are much harder for me to accept.

I agree that 7E gameplay has removed maneuver, mostly due to having too many models on the board - there will always be a target. Were 7E dialed back to 2E or 3E model counts, it'd be a much better game.

40k has far more bases on the board than Epic did. That makes a big difference in gameplay. For the sheer number of objects in modern 40k, the heavy push for anti-skill randomness, and the low importance of strategy that GW desires, Igo-Ugo is probably the best solution for 40k.

Change 40k to make it smaller, more tactical, more strategic, less random, and then I could see a reason to overhaul how it uses Igo-Ugo. As it is, 40k is pushing Candyland depths of gameplay - shallow as a drop of water spilled on the floor.

As I was under the assumption a change in game turn mechanic would be part of a re write for a war game rule set written specifically for the 40k background.

Then defining the relevant scale and scope of game, and the intended game play, would be the primary objective.

And in any rule set for 40k written for intuitive rules that deliver tactical depth over 'randum complication.'Would use alternating phases or actions game turn mechanic.
(Unless we reverted back to RT size games?But as there are dozens of excellent skirmish rules why would we do this?)

Lanrak wrote:

And in any rule set for 40k written for intuitive rules that deliver tactical depth over 'randum complication.'Would use alternating phases or actions game turn mechanic.

This is only one option.

2 Options for the player turn:
- Phases
- unit activation

3 Option for the game turn
- Alternating player action (unit activation or phases)
- IGYG
- Simultanious player actions

Option for player interaction
- Reactions
- passive player rolls dice for defensive stats/saves


All of those can be compined and have their disadvantages and work on every scale.
None is the best for a specific game type or scale. eg, there are R&F systems on large scale wich any of those and all work fine and are fun to play (because the rest of thecrules is written to fit the system)
Main thing to take care of is that Movement and Weapon Range is chosen in a way that there are no first turn kills possible or only as a high risk option for the one who goes secound.

alternating player actions don't need a reaction system, but give the secound player an advantage (thats why most games have a random determination of who goes first)

IGYG with short range reactions has the advantage that it works smoother on large scale games (because micro managment and time consuming reactions triggers later in game when the armys are closer together and are already reduced by damage).


basic 40k is a IGYG phase system with a compined close combat phase at the end of each turn
but the faction and special rules don't fit this system any more which is why it does not work any more

a nice solution to the 40k alpha strike problem I have seen long ago was that the armies move on the table in their first turn or count as moved if they are placed. But new special rules that allow death strikes even if you moved made this not working any more.
solution would be now to just remove the special rule and not to change something else.

Personally I think 40 HAS to change to this system.
Let me ask this; How many of you have lost a mission or seen your army decimated before you've even had a turn? I don't know about you but I've lost games like this a few times and to be honest it is one of the things that stopped me playing anymore.Where is the fun in a game if you've no chance from the word go?

Slipstream wrote:
Personally I think 40 HAS to change to this system.
Let me ask this; How many of you have lost a mission or seen your army decimated before you've even had a turn? I don't know about you but I've lost games like this a few times and to be honest it is one of the things that stopped me playing anymore.Where is the fun in a game if you've no chance from the word go?

Literally never for me.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Were 7E dialed back to 2E or 3E model counts, it'd be a much better game.

Couldn't model counts be adjusted down by simply playing smaller point battles ?

Slipstream wrote:
How many of you have lost a mission or seen your army decimated before you've even had a turn?

Not before the game changed with 6th/7th

 adamsouza wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Were 7E dialed back to 2E or 3E model counts, it'd be a much better game.

Couldn't model counts be adjusted down by simply playing smaller point battles ?

40k with 750 points and without maelstrom mission cards works fine

EnTyme wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I am against the whole IGOUGO as 40K does for the simple reason that it gives the player that goes first far to big of an advantage.

Maybe you need to play with fewer models and more terrain...

Terrain doesn't help much vs mobile shooting. In fact, it makes them more survivable against lists without access to high ROF or ignores cover weaponry.

Then you are not using cover properly. Hug the walls, son.

Ah yes terrain. Wonderful when your club has it on ration.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Maybe he's not using the right sort of terrain? Maybe he needs stuff that actually blocks LOS?

Even with terrain it is still to easy to build a T1 alpha strike list.

@Kodos.
Well I did say to define the scale and scope of the game play and the intended game play first.

But for a 40k battle game, (that uses modern type units), one would expect modern type game play focus.An equal focus on mobility fire power and assault.

As this worked wonderfully well for every version of Epic.(And no version of epic used alternating game turns.)

I agree that a small scale skirmish game like Infinity, allows maneuver into effective weapons range .And the ARO reaction mechanic works well at this game size.

However , alternating game phases with simultaneous resolution, has given the simplest rules , yet most tactically deep player and unit interaction in all our play tests for alternative rules for the 40k battle game.(3rd to 5th ed size.).

But then we were working on keeping the core rules familiar to the existing 40k players.By simply using what was already there, in more efficient and effective ways..

 kodos wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Were 7E dialed back to 2E or 3E model counts, it'd be a much better game.

Couldn't model counts be adjusted down by simply playing smaller point battles ?

40k with 750 points and without maelstrom mission cards works fine

My sense is that 40k 7E plays OK in the 750-1250 range, 1500 if you're both taking a Superheavy or Gargantuan. And yeah, ignore Maelstrom RAW.

I am sure if you reduce the model count it would make the 40k game less awful to play.But I would not consider it 'ok' or 'fine'.

If you compared the resulting game play to other games that have rule written specifically for the intended game play.
40k is still a poor rule set, with lots of issues that need to be addressed to arrive at 'ok' or 'fine' game play when compared to good rule sets.

40k 7E is an awful rule set. Smaller games makes it more tolerable.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 7E is an awful rule set. Smaller games makes it more tolerable.

How? As someone pointed out:

Spiritseer
3x Winderider
3x Scatterbikes
Wraithknight

is only 495 points. That still includes all the bad rules of 7E. Lower points =/= better games.

That's no problem. 500 pts per side, only 8 Eldar models, so the game will play quickly. Also note that scale game is probably on a 3x4 table with a lot of cover...

And as I'm playing with friends, it's probably got a fair amount of beer to go with the salty snacks.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 7E is an awful rule set. Smaller games makes it more tolerable.

I find the exact opposite to be true. Larger games allow you to weather alpha strike much better and having multiple key units as opposed to one allows you to respond with deadly force even if you take a big hit. Most likely in order to deliver a strong alpha - units had to overextend our of cover or deep strike in the wide open to deal their damage - IMO the game plays best at 2500 points plus.

Lanrak wrote:

However , alternating game phases with simultaneous resolution, has given the simplest rules

I agree

IGYG with reactions is more complex but also give the possibility of more diversity between faction and units
But it also need the focus set on movement and manoeuvre which would need a reduction in movement and weapon range and make attacks from flanks or behind a unit more important (different rules for cover and area terrain)

alternating unit activations is best for games were long range shooting is the way to go and movement/position is not important

alternating phases are somewhere inbetween

But then we were working on keeping the core rules familiar to the existing 40k players.By simply using what was already there, in more efficient and effective ways..

This would be a simple IGYG with streamlined reactions with the core mechanics based on those rules that did not changed from 2nd to 7th


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 7E is an awful rule set. Smaller games makes it more tolerable.

I find the exact opposite to be true. Larger games allow you to weather alpha strike much better and having multiple key units as opposed to one allows you to respond with deadly force even if you take a big hit. Most likely in order to deliver a strong alpha - units had to overextend our of cover or deep strike in the wide open to deal their damage - IMO the game plays best at 2500 points plus.

Problem with larger games is the codex imbalance

If you play 2500 points, one faction can put exactly this on the table while another get so much free stuff and additional special rules that the force is worth 4000 points.
In small scale this is limited.

And an Eldar force from above would struggle against some other lists (specially those that have good starter formations)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's no problem. 500 pts per side, only 8 Eldar models, so the game will play quickly. Also note that scale game is probably on a 3x4 table with a lot of cover...

And as I'm playing with friends, it's probably got a fair amount of beer to go with the salty snacks.

Oh my what happened. Did someone hack your account? This is not the JohnHwangDD that I know of. The JohnHwangDD always made great counter points when he viewed someone was wrong or if he disagreed with him if it was an opinion. So far people are saying something wrong, but instead of you giving a good counter all I see is "if you play my way 40K is sort of workable." Just like I told you before, a lot of people don't want to play your way, but play their way.

So how come your answer is always "play my way" instead of addressing exactly what they are saying. Your counters or "rebuttal" if you would call that doesn't address what they are really saying.

I think you guys misunderstand me. I don't particularly enjoy playing 40k 7E, because I think it's not a particularly good game. Playing small means I spend less time playing and more time drinking and socializing. Same with 40k being Igo-Ugo -- it speeds play compared to these alternating reactive games. Cutting the playing time down is a win in my book.

For me, 40k 7E isn't something I want to spend 5x the time on. But, if you guys like to play big games of 7E, that's great.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think you guys misunderstand me. I don't particularly enjoy playing 40k 7E, because I think it's not a particularly good game. Playing small means I spend less time playing and more time drinking and socializing. Same with 40k being Igo-Ugo -- it speeds play compared to these alternating reactive games. Cutting the playing time down is a win in my book.

For me, 40k 7E isn't something I want to spend 5x the time on. But, if you guys like to play big games of 7E, that's great.

That's the biggest cop out I've ever seen. If that's the case, put down 40k, go to a bar, and just drink. Boom, 8th edition.

Or find a game you do enjoy playing with your friends and add beer?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think you guys misunderstand me. I don't particularly enjoy playing 40k 7E, because I think it's not a particularly good game. Playing small means I spend less time playing and more time drinking and socializing. Same with 40k being Igo-Ugo -- it speeds play compared to these alternating reactive games. Cutting the playing time down is a win in my book.

For me, 40k 7E isn't something I want to spend 5x the time on. But, if you guys like to play big games of 7E, that's great.

Thanks for the explanation. Now it all makes sense. Now that is the JohHwandDD I know.

As for other people telling you to play another game. WTF? I can see where he is coming from. He wants to play, and he makes the best with what he is delt with.

@Kodos .
I think you misunderstood.I wanted to keep the familiar aspects of the rules, but re work them so they actually generate the game play players expect.(Intuitive and proportional results.)

So we keep the phases players are familiar with, but use them in an alternating phase game turn with simultaneous resolution.
(Putting all movement back into the movement phase to add the tactical decisions back. )

Also using just ONE resolution method ,(opposed values on a table,)along with direct representation , to cover all in game interactions.
This means re-setting the stat line to represent the units in game abilities in more detail .(So we do not need special rules for everything apart from standard infantry. )

Why does every one appear to want to keep all the errors made from 3rd to 7th ed in terms of game development?

The skirmish rule set hacked up to speed up play, and then patched up with loads of special rules and additional systems that slow the game down.
Eg they removed all the tactical depth and character , and just added pointless complication instead.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Or find a game you do enjoy playing with your friends and add beer?

Oh, I do boardgaming and such. With beer.

But if someone really want to play 40k, as a good friend, I am willing to humor their interest. Just as they do for me.

That said, no, I'm not starting over to buy and build all new armies for some new wargame. Playing 40k with my existing armies is better than starting over.

Fair enough.

Oh, yeah, those of you saying "it's a cop out" - as if I care whether you think it's a cop out or not. It's even less of an argument than me saying that I'm willing to tolerate the occasional game of 7E as part of being a friend.

I think you misunderstood.I wanted to keep the familiar aspects of the rules, but re work them so they actually generate the game play players expect.(Intuitive and proportional results.)

So we keep the phases players are familiar with, but use them in an alternating phase game turn with simultaneous resolution.

I understand quite well, it is just not the only option. I prefer the IGYG+Reactions to gain the same result.
Main reason for this is that it allows to make factions more different in play style by just changing the reactions available, it scales with the progress in game (first rounds were everything is to far away to trigger a reaction play faster while as soon as troops get closer reactions trigger and make it more interesting) and it scales good with the model count (alternating things is running into problems if the are extreme differences in the amount of units on the table, like in 40k with one army having 3 and another one 20 units on the table) if the reactions are not limited (so the army with less units will make more reactions while itself triggers less which add a balance between action/reaction)

And not everything from 3rd to 7th was bad. It was just GW that kept all bad ideas so that the new and good ones didn't really help to improve the game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oh, yeah, those of you saying "it's a cop out" - as if I care whether you think it's a cop out or not. It's even less of an argument than me saying that I'm willing to tolerate the occasional game of 7E as part of being a friend.

How? It's the same as saying "Oh I prefer driving 1 mile races over 5 mile races because I like the fresh air but I don't like racing". That doesn't seem moronic to you?

I kinda would like to see something along the lines of what wizkids did with MechWarrior. Its kinda of "you go, I go" but with several differences. First you got 1 order for every 300 points in your army. For warhammer it would have to be something like for every 500 points due to the sheer size of points in armies. You use that order on one unit putting a token next to it. The your opponent does the same. On the next turn the order stays and if you choose to use that unit 2 consecutive turn it takes an unsavable wound as you are pushing the unit to its limits. You cannot push a unit 2 turns in a row. At the end of the turn all units that moved the turn prior and did not push to move this turn remove their tokens.

I really liked that method of play. The games usually only lasted about 45 minutes and usually went for about 10-15 turns (unless it was a very infantry heavy game in which case it went to about an hour and sometimes more than 20 turns).

 jreilly89 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oh, yeah, those of you saying "it's a cop out" - as if I care whether you think it's a cop out or not. It's even less of an argument than me saying that I'm willing to tolerate the occasional game of 7E as part of being a friend.

How?

If you don't like a game, but your friend does, you just play it from time to time just because you want to play a game with your friend.
That's also the only reason why I still play 40k

 kodos wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oh, yeah, those of you saying "it's a cop out" - as if I care whether you think it's a cop out or not. It's even less of an argument than me saying that I'm willing to tolerate the occasional game of 7E as part of being a friend.

How?

If you don't like a game, but your friend does, you just play it from time to time just because you want to play a game with your friend.
That's also the only reason why I still play 40k

That just seems like a waste. Why not be honest with your friend and say "hey, I like hanging out, but I'm not a big fan of Warhammer. Can we go get a beer and a burger?" That's the adult thing to do.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oh, yeah, those of you saying "it's a cop out" - as if I care whether you think it's a cop out or not. It's even less of an argument than me saying that I'm willing to tolerate the occasional game of 7E as part of being a friend.

How? It's the same as saying "Oh I prefer driving 1 mile races over 5 mile races because I like the fresh air but I don't like racing". That doesn't seem moronic to you?

What is wrong with playing what you paid for, even though you don't like the rules? What is wrong trying to get some value out of the time you put into collection, painting and modelling? If that is not the case then what is wrong with playing with your friends. Heaven forbid JohnHwangDD is a good friend and let's his friends have fun playing a game they like even though he may not like it as much?

Does this mean he is better than your now? After all it seems you will not do things for your friends that they may enjoy and you dislike.

Maybe it's time to lock up the thread now, because we have just gone way off topic now.

The thread can stay open - posters just need to keep Rule Number Two in mind please! Further off-topic posts will be deleted/poster account will be temporarily suspended. Thanks!

See above. Thanks ~ Manchu

@Kodos.
I am aware you could go the route of alternating game turns with reactions.
However, this always leads to far more complicated rules as you have to additionally write clearly how and when the interactions occur.
And there is the tendency to try to script how you think units interact, especially if the developer wants units to act in specific ways.This is one of the main errors in 40k game development from 3rd to 7th ed IMO.

''..We made a cool model, lets make it work in a cool way with special rules ...''

The GW dev team often forced the unit to work how they thought it t should, and became blind to how other people could use the unit.This has lead to over complication and abysmal levels of game balance.

Rather than let the players find out how a unit can work for their play style , just from the stat line the models have.

I have no problem with adding a few special rules for 'flavor'.But relying to special rules to make the game work how you want is bad game development IMO.

Simple alternating phases, with simultaneous resolution allows units to behave how the player wants, this is important IMO.

The stat line should define ALL in game unit interaction.(with a few minor exceptions for a dozen or so special rules perhaps.)

Can you please highlight the good ideas the dev team implemented in 3rd to 7th ed 40k. I an honestly struggling to find any...

Lanrak wrote:
@Kodos.
I am aware you could go the route of alternating game turns with reactions.
However, this always leads to far more complicated rules as you have to additionally write clearly how and when the interactions occur.

It doesn't need to be complicated at all. It is a design decision if you want to keep reactions simple or not.
Of course they will not be as simple as alternating phases (if there is no interaction between active and passive player, eg if psionic powers can be active banned and not just denied by a save from the affected unit, you lost the advantage of being more simple and need the same "complicated" rules for reactions) but don't need to be as complicated as the 40k reactions.

Lanrak wrote:

Can you please highlight the good ideas the dev team implemented in 3rd to 7th ed 40k. I an honestly struggling to find any...

This now depends from the point of view, compared to 2nd edi, changes in later edition which were good ideas (but bad implemented):
the vehicle damage system, universal special rules, streamlined faction rules/force organisations, mission design (5th), IGYG+Reactions,

I have no problem with adding a few special rules for 'flavor'.But relying to special rules to make the game work how you want is bad game development IMO.

from a design point, I would remove special rules at all and just keep a few basic traits that are needed (like antigrav let you ignore terrain while moving etc) to keep a SciFi game futuristic.

Simple alternating phases, with simultaneous resolution allows units to behave how the player wants, this is important IMO.

This is important, but not the only way

An example would be the battle of Macragge, while nearly all systems let you play the big battle on the surface, it is nearly impossible to get the last battle of the first company working without a reaction system
(2000 points would be something like 50 Terminators get attacked by hundreds of small bugs, and they will overrun the Terminators without a real chance because of their limited activations and killing potential. 10 units can only attack and kill 10 other units maximum in one turn, while the tyranids have 40 units on the table and can reach the unit for close combat in 2 turns. without lucky dice rolls in the only shooting phase, the bugs will win. with a reaction system, the bugs need to be more carefull and thinbk about what they do to win the game instead of running straight into combat)

@Kodos.
Even if the reactions rules end up as a couple of paragraphs, that is still extra rules you have to learn and understand.So using any form of additional reaction rules on top of the alternating game turn is adding complication the alternating phase game turn does not need.

And the simplest reaction rules, (assuming that core targeting rules are used as a basis,) tend to bloat when players start asking the usual questions...

'...Why do I get the same chance to react to a unit at long range darting from cover to cover 4" apart, as I do at a unit that is only a few inches away and spends all of its movement in my LOS..''
'..When does the attack take place at the start of the enemy movement, or when they move into my units LOS and range?If the unit falls back from my attack where does it fall back from and to..'
And these are followed with at least a dozen similar questions on reactions triggers and consequences to timings and actions.(Believe me I know this from experience.. )

As the game turn simply schedules the player interaction, the way units interact should be covered by the stat line.
Trying to change how units react with additional rules bolted on the the game turn is not the most elegant solution.And always lead to pointless complication and some times 'developers forcing concepts onto units' which never ends well IMO.

I was always intending to use opposed values on a table to generate a proportional chance of success for combat interaction.This way attacker and target units skill are taken into account.(And this allows much more diversity to be generated from the stat line.)

You replied to the what were the good ideas implemented in 3rd to 7 th ed 40k...
''This now depends from the point of view, compared to 2nd ed, changes in later edition which were good ideas (but bad implemented[i]): ''

What ever the intentions of the game developers were to improve game play ,the poor implementation simply meant they game play got worse not better. And this was my point .

..1)the vehicle damage system, 2)universal special rules, 3)streamlined faction rules/force organisations,4) mission design (5th), 5)IGYG+Reactions,

1a)What GW actually did... Adding a completely different way to resolve damage for vehicles has created lots of game play issues.

1b)What I would do differently ..Using a resolution system that covers all units in the game in a similar way would be much better.

2)If something is applied universally it is not special.Is something is special it is not universally applied.
This is proof the core rules and stat line are not doing the job they are supposed to do.If you need to use so many special rules you need 3 different names for the sub sets!!!''USRs 'codex special rules' and 'special snowflake' special rules.

I believe if the game developers had addressed the core issues with the game play by altering the core rules to cover the intended game play.(What ever they decided it should be.)There would just be the core rules and about a dozen special rules.(The last time I looked 40k had over eighty special rules .)

3) The function based F.O.C is simply too restrictive on thematic options.And so needs additional rules to work properly.IF the F.o.C was based on unit rarity like every other war game out there, it would allow much higher levels of diversity and yet allow much closer levels of balance.

4) Proper campaign books with interleaved scenarios for narrative play would have been better.And random mission cards for attacker and defender to generate random scenarios for pick up an pay games would have been better too IMO.
I am a fan of missions and would like them to be better implemented in the game play of 40k.

5)IGoYGo game turn with too little tactical maneuver is a bad idea, all the way from 3rd to 7th ed.
Bolting on a reaction mechanic is not a good enough fix .Only if you dropped the model count to skirmish size would it be a viable option. (EG like Infinity.)

I am a bit puzzled by your example ...

''An example would be the battle of Macragge, while nearly all systems let you play the big battle on the surface, it is nearly impossible to get the last battle of the first company working without a reaction system
(2000 points would be something like 50 Terminators get attacked by hundreds of small bugs, and they will overrun the Terminators without a real chance because of their limited activations and killing potential. 10 units can only attack and kill 10 other units maximum in one turn, while the tyranids have 40 units on the table and can reach the unit for close combat in 2 turns. without lucky dice rolls in the only shooting phase, the bugs will win. with a reaction system, the bugs need to be more carefull and think about what they do to win the game instead of running straight into combat)''

The level of interaction and effect each unit has on other units in the game is decided by the stat lines and the combat resolution methods not the game turn mechanic used.

What is with all this "alternating turns, and moving out of turn" adds complication? Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit does it, and there is no problems at all. Hell it can even be your turn, but your opponent gets to mover or shoot before you can even move or shoot. And it causes no issues at all.

Are we just theory hammering now? At least when someone says something a lot of people are having experience using those systems, so how can someone say they are wrong without actually trying it?

Lanrak wrote:

'...Why do I get the same chance to react to a unit at long range darting from cover to cover 4" apart, as I do at a unit that is only a few inches away and spends all of its movement in my LOS..''
'..When does the attack take place at the start of the enemy movement, or when they move into my units LOS and range?If the unit falls back from my attack where does it fall back from and to..'

And these are followed with at least a dozen similar questions on reactions triggers and consequences to timings and actions.(Believe me I know this from experience.. )

Stop thinking how GW would write rules.
These 2 questions and similar ones only come up if rules are written in the unclear and messy GW style

A clear short paragraph of reaction rules would not allow room for such misinterpretation
just because GW need 10 pages of rules and examples, it does not mean that everyone would write rules in the same sloppy way

An example, a simple reaction rule, answering the above 2 questions in a simple way:

Units act, Models react

Every time a unit is chosen to do something, the unit is activated and perform an Action.
Every unit can only be selected once per Phase, performing a single Action and has to completely finish it before the next unit is activated. No unit can perform 2 Actions during a Phase nor can the player interrupt an Action of a unit to change it or activate another unit (eg stop moving a unit because the player realise that it would block another unit and moving the other unit first).
Fleeing Models or those that are out of formation can only perform reactions and no action.

If a unit finish an Action all enemy models within 8 inch of a model of that unit can perform a Reaction.
Only affected models can perform a reaction but don’t have to if the player don’t want to react. The target of the reaction can only be the unit which triggered it.

Possible Reactions are:

Return Fire
Reacting models can shoot with -1 to hit at the enemy unit.

Retreat
The reacting models make a single move directly away from the enemy unit.

Counter-Attack
The reacting models can make melee attacks against enemy models in point blank range.

Counter-Charge
The models can make a single move and attack the enemy unit in close combat. This is handled like it would be a normal charge action.

All models use Retreat and Return Fire as standard Reaction. The army list states which other Reactions can be used or if special Reactions are available.

The level of interaction and effect each unit has on other units in the game is decided by the stat lines and the combat resolution methods not the game turn mechanic used.

Ok, I am not sure if I get you, but striking back in clsoe combat for you would be an additional statline instead of a action/reaction mechanic?
So there are 2 values, one for active attacks and another one for striking back, or the striking back is just a defensive value that reduce the opponents attack value!?

Are we just theory hammering now? At least when someone says something a lot of people are having experience using those systems, so how can someone say they are wrong without actually trying it?

I would never say that something is not working, but as I said changing those things would not solve the basic problems.

Lord of the Rings Skirmish had its own problem with too strong special characters, but I would not blame the alternating phase of being the source of the problem.

And the past 5 years now I tried different kind of systems (also OOP, fan written ones, free download, 40k Mods for other games etc) and made my decision of what worked best for the 40k I want to play.
Of course people who want to play a different kind of game like me want a different style of rules (some want a more basic version like AoS or Epic in 28mm, while other want a much more detailed one).

Also with so much different systems out there I want a game that is not just a copy&paste thing but has it's own style (If I want to play Bolt Action, I go and play Bolt Action, I don't need a 40k Mod for this game, even if it is funny, 2 games with the complete same mechanic get boring after a while).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

1a)What GW actually did... Adding a completely different way to resolve damage for vehicles has created lots of game play issues.

1b)What I would do differently ..Using a resolution system that covers all units in the game in a similar way would be much better.

I pick this one as an example to explain it.
Having another resolution system to introduce a stronger or strict separated rock/paper/scissor system is not a bad idea.

It is there to keep anti-infantry and anti vehicle weapons separate from each other.
The implementation was not perfect at first because you always needed the lucky 6 to kill something.

Of course GW messed this up even more and in 7th we have the problem that anti infantry weapons kill vehicles more effective than special anti-tank weapons

A good implementation of the system would have been if vehicles get vehicle armour instead of toughness and armour save, which is more or less a combined value, but get wounded normally and have health points.

And now, anti-tank weapons just add 7 (instead of the random D6) to their strength and subtract the AP value to calculate the strength against vehicles (so that an anti infantry weapon with S7 and AP4 is not better against vehicles because of its high ROF than an Anti Tank weapon with S7 AP2)

the same resolution system, no problems about wording (a penetration is not a wound) and you get a clear rock/paper system which was the main idea at first

@Kodos.
What exactly does alternating game turns with reactions rules actually add to the game play that alternating phases can not, other than making the rules more complicated?

Ok as you were kind enough to write out the reaction criteria.

''If a unit finish an Action all enemy models within 8 inch of a model of that unit can perform a Reaction.
Only affected models can perform a reaction but don’t have to if the player don’t want to react. The target of the reaction can only be the unit which triggered it. ''

As units can not perform more than one action per phase,does that mean models in units that have performed an action can not react , as that would mean parts of the unit have taken 2 actions per turn, or do reactions not count as unit actions.
Where do you measure the 8" from and to?
How much of the model has to be within 8" to react?
etc.

Basically any additional reaction rules just add pointless complication .This is why I am not a fan of this .
Standard alternating game turns work fine in games with enough tactical maneuver into effective weapons range.Skirmish games can work with reactions as it all models vs models focused rules.

With alternating phases using simultaneous resolution, models have WS to show how good the models is hitting the enemy in assault, and a 'Dodge skill' to show how hard the unit is to hit in close combat.(Initiative has no relevance with simultaneous resolution so it is replaced with the' Dodge' skill.)

So player A rolls to hit in assault,(Compares their WS vs the enemy Dodge skill to find the score needed to hit.)
Defender rolls armour saves then attacker rolls to damage.
Record the damage done.(We use D10 for wound dice.)

Player B rolls to hit in assault,(Compares their WS vs the enemy Dodge skill to find the score needed to hit.)
Defender rolls armour saves then attacker rolls to damage.
Record the damage done.

After all units have performed all attacks remove casualties.

I agree that 40k is quite unique and very challenging to write rules for.
However, I prefer to use the most straight forward rules that deliver the detail the game play needs .
As this removes pointless complication in the foundation of the rules .

I also agree that 40k has several issues that have never been allowed to be addressed by the GW dev team .

''Having another resolution system to introduce a stronger or strict separated rock/paper/scissor system is not a bad idea. ''
Adding pointless complication that adds imbalance to the system is a really bad idea.

If we give models armour values from 1 to 10.
And weapons armour penetration values from 1 to 10.
We could use this in a table like the 'to wound table' to generate proportional saves.

And if we want to separate heavy armoured vehicles , and specialist anti tank weapons from the anti infantry weapons.
We can use the classification 'Tank' on heavily armoured vehicles .
And make it so only weapons with the 'Anti Tank' classification can cause physical damage to 'Tanks'.

This lets all units have the same stat profile, and resolve damage in a similar way.And uses very simple classification to separate tanks and anti tank weapons from other units and weapons.

Lanrak wrote:

As units can not perform more than one action per phase,does that mean models in units that have performed an action can not react , as that would mean parts of the unit have taken 2 actions per turn, or do reactions not count as unit actions.
Where do you measure the 8" from and to?
How much of the model has to be within 8" to react?
etc.

Of course a reaction is not an action, otherwise it would not be called different and if the rules say, a unit cannot perform more than one action, it does not prevent models from doing several reactions
And how the measure is not something reactions rules have to describe. If those things are important questions, the system would miss important rule regarding bases, models and measurement,

So player A rolls to hit in assault,(Compares their WS vs the enemy Dodge skill to find the score needed to hit.)
Defender rolls armour saves then attacker rolls to damage.
Record the damage done.(We use D10 for wound dice.)

Player B rolls to hit in assault,(Compares their WS vs the enemy Dodge skill to find the score needed to hit.)
Defender rolls armour saves then attacker rolls to damage.
Record the damage done.

After all units have performed all attacks remove casualties.

So here the reaction is fixed because I just have the option to strike back in my turn instead of doing something else.
Of course it is a simpler rule, but except of being easier there is no advantage of having no choice how I react to the opponents actions in my turn.

What exactly does alternating game turns with reactions rules actually add to the game play that alternating phases can not, other than making the rules more complicated?

as above, it give the player a choice of how he reacts to individual actions of the opponents units if they are close enough.
striking back in melee or running away, shooting and enemy moving closer or get out of his charge range etc

alternating phases only allow fixed reactions as if I go first, my only possible reactions to the opponent movement is to shoot and this is nothing which will prevent him from shooting back (because casualties are removed at the end).

It allows to break up the fixed phase structure for a dynamic player interaction and let the players chose how their models react.
while actions are bound to their specific phase, model reactions are more free, which is not that problem because everyone can react and only models to it (breaking up formation for a counter charge let me attack/move outside of my specific phase, but it will break unit formation and I have therefore a disadvantage the next turn)

And as I already said, I understand you point and that you are looking for a different complexity and depth of rules than I do.
I just disagree that there is the "best" overall solution how 40k rules can be made.
Everything has an advantage but there is no all-round solution which will fill the needs for all.

PS:

And if we want to separate heavy armoured vehicles , and specialist anti tank weapons from the anti infantry weapons.
We can use the classification 'Tank' on heavily armoured vehicles .
And make it so only weapons with the 'Anti Tank' classification can cause physical damage to 'Tanks'.

This is one solution I would say is the worst mistake done to 40k in the latest editions
Just add another unit type (flyers for 40k) which can only be hit by AA weapons. An easy solution which caused a lot of problems (also because AA weapons are very good against flyers and therefore expensive in points, but useless against most other units so too expensive to just always take them)

@Kodos.
I posted an example of how close combat is resolved when modeling simultaneous actions with alternating phases.
IF all the actions are happening at once , writing out lots of additional rules for scheduling what happens and when, is a bit pointless.

When you are in the close combat phase you have already had the movement and shooting phases to perform the other actions in.
Eg all the movement happens on the movement phase, and all shooting happens in the shooting phase.

Units still get to react to the enemy actions in each phase , but it is more 'organic' and a natural part of the game play.

Back to reactions...
If any models within 8 inches of an enemy model may react, how do you keep track of this , so models do not take multiple reactions in a game turn?
Is their any penalties for taking these reactions?

I believe the alternating game tuns with reactions really only works well with skirmish games focused on model interaction .(Like Infinity.)
If you have up to 200+ models on the table , this sort of model focused reaction system could get very fiddly and time consuming very quickly.

'Hey those models already reacted to that unit!'
'No it was those 4 models to the left of them in the same unit that took the reaction...'

Tracking which specific models out of which specific units reacted to every enemy unit action, looks like it would be a complete nightmare in practice in battle sized games.


Defending using the same resolution methods and stat lines for all units.

Using the same resolution method, comparing new AV to new AP to give proportional save rolls , is a better solution than using completely separate systems.
Just because you need an Anti tank weapon to cause physical damage to 'tanks'.Does not mean you can not suppress 'tank ' units with other weapons.

The other alternative would be to extend the table to use values from 1 to 15, so the heavier armour and heavier AP weapons are just higher up the scale.(No special classifications at all.)

In fact from a game mechanic point of view there is only 2 types of unit in 40k. GW add artificial classifications to try to boost sales.
But GW just wanted top sell more expensive kits so just threw flyers and AA units into the game with little thought to the impact on the game .

Can you please tell me the good ideas GW implemented well from 3rd to 7th ed.Because I can not see anything but poorly applied quick fixes that created more issues in the long run.

I find it amusing and worrying that there seems to be many different interpretations in this thread of exactly what 'I go, you go' means. Anyway...

I like the existing I go, you go, entire turn at a time system because:
1) it's established, having been in the game from the beginning. Like it or not, it's part of the 40k feel
2) it doesn't require any explaining for new players
3) it allows for 'player b' to take a quick break if needed
4) I've never found it to be 'boring' while my opponent has their turn
5) while alpha strike is a problem, I believe that has more to do with other rules such as vehicle damage, deep strike and so on
6) it doesn't require any form of markers to keep track of which units have acted.
7) it requires less decision making and tactical analysis when selecting which unit to act next, thus requiring less time to play (at least slightly)

With all of that said, yes I would be willing to try an alternative ruleset, particularly alternating phases. Sadly my playgroup is somewhat 'house-rules averse' so getting someone else to try the alternative version with me may be difficult.

Of the commonly named alternatives, here are the cons that I personally think of when discussing them.

Alternating Unit Activation
Requires tracking of which units have acted, usually with markers
Requires both players to be fully focused at all times
Pushes players into using either deathstars or MSU with no benefit for middle ground.

Bolt Action Style Random Unit Activation
Requires tracking of which units have acted, usually with markers
Requires both players to be fully focused at all times
Interferes with coordinated unit planning because you can never tell when you'll get your next move

Initiative-without randomness
Does not work at all with 40k initiative stat

Initiative with randomness, eg d20 + initiative
requires way too much tracking and still ends up with units getting the same result.

Alternating Phases (using existing 40k phases...) Fixed I Go You Go throughout the turn
Ability to negate opponents movement by stepping behind LOS cover, or stepping out of charge range
Two assault phases in a row seems like it would be weird

Alternating Phases with randomised player order each phase
Probably the best of the options (in terms of my preferences)


Regardless of which option you go for, all will require some degree of re-writing the game.

Lanrak wrote:

When you are in the close combat phase you have already had the movement and shooting phases to perform the other actions in.
Eg all the movement happens on the movement phase, and all shooting happens in the shooting phase.

That is exactly my problem with that and also with the current 40k setup. I have no choice what my models will do or how to react. I must strike back in combat, have no chance to get out of melee if none of the 2 units are able to kill the other one etcand than 40k overwatch kills CC because the reaction is done before the action takes place.

For a SciFi game I prefer much more dynamic reactions and that I have all the time full control of what my models will do

Back to reactions...
If any models within 8 inches of an enemy model may react, how do you keep track of this , so models do not take multiple reactions in a game turn?
Is their any penalties for taking these reactions?

Reactions are not limited and there are no additional penalties (if you moved you cannot shoot with heavy weapons as a reaction of course)

I believe the alternating game tuns with reactions really only works well with skirmish games focused on model interaction .(Like Infinity.)
If you have up to 200+ models on the table , this sort of model focused reaction system could get very fiddly and time consuming very quickly.
[...]
Tracking which specific models out of which specific units reacted to every enemy unit action, looks like it would be a complete nightmare in practice in battle sized games.

It is getting more complicated than just alternating phases, but it works well in the scale.
Because the range is limited reactions take place more or less at the same stage as for current 40k everything is in CC and it is still much faster and easier than the current wound allocation of 40k (I am used to it, but it is faster to resolve the reactions for flyby Riptide jump than to find out which model in the terrain is standing closer to him while he shoots)

WE played 200 Bugs VS Mobile Infantry (LAMI) in SST which use is similar reaction system and the game never felt like a nightmare but was more exciting and dynamic as closer the armies get.
(an extreme battle was marauder VS bugs were 5 models fighjt against 200, than the reactions rules of SST really shined)

Can you please tell me the good ideas GW implemented well from 3rd to 7th ed.Because I can not see anything but poorly applied quick fixes that created more issues in the long run.

Mission Design and rules for Transporter of 5th Edition

Here's how we do it:

After a player moves and shoots, the other player has a chance to react before the assault phase. If a reacting unit is within 12" and LOS of an enemy unit, it can react if it passes a leadership test (vehicles all count as Ld 9). If passed it may shoot assault and rapid fire weapons normally at a single unit within 12", but at a -1 to hit. Heavy weapons must be within a 45 degree arc of the actual model and ordnance must be inline to shoot (if a player has a model where the gun is glued in place he may state which direction it is pointing ahead of time).

Alternatively, a unit passing its reaction test may move up to D3" but may not initiate an assault.

If an attacker should have sufficient movement to reach the enemy during its normal movement, it may forgo its shooting and lock the enemy in combat, thus denying the defender's reaction.


That's essentially it, but then again we allow shooting into melee and a host of other things so take it all with a grain of salt. We felt we had to create our own rules due to the group's frustration with so many of GW's rules.

@Zustiur.
All the play testing I have done over the last decade or so, agrees with your opinion.

Alternating phases gives the biggest improvement in interaction, with the minimum complication in the rules.And you keep the phases players are accustomed to.

However,I agree any change to the core game mechanics requires re-writing the rules to be effective and efficient.

(As the two areas you point out with alternating phases need addressing, I have chosen to use objective driven missions, tactical mobility options and simultaneous combat resolution as my preferred way to address these issues.)

@Kodos.
If models have unlimited reactions to any enemy action in reaction range, does that not make ranged combat massively more effective?As units with ranged weapons can have 'unlimited' shots at approaching enemy units?

I have always viewed SST as a large skirmish game with more focus on individual models than units in the way the rules are written.
It is a while since I played SST, but bugs are mainly just close combat models , if I remember right,So Mobile Infantry are usually out numbered, but out gun the bugs.

I am not sure this would work that well with hoard IG vs Hoard Orks for example.

As Amanita pointed out allowing UNITS react to UNITS makes more sense in a battle game.
(I would prefer one reaction per unit per game turn to stop players abusing reactions in game, if we were going down this route.)

However, if you prefer to have more freedom in unit actions than alternating phases gives.Have you tried alternating unit actions?

This means units get 2 interleaved actions per turn.The player chooses what separate action each unit takes in each action phase.

Command Phase

Primary action phase
Player A takes one action with all units
Player B takes one action with all units

Secondary action Phase
Player A takes one action with all units.
Player B takes one action with all units.

Resolution phase.

This gives much more freedom of unit interaction but is much simpler to implement than additional reaction rules added on to a game turn mechanic..
(I can go into more detail if you are interested.)

I will agree that mission design was good,but this is hardly addressing any of the serious issues in the core rules is it.

( And rules for transporter in 5th ed fixed an issue that should not have been allowed to occur in the first place.)

But even these are hardly a recommendation for keeping any of the flawed game design/development GW has pushed over the last 18 years is it..

Lanrak wrote:

If models have unlimited reactions to any enemy action in reaction range, does that not make ranged combat massively more effective?As units with ranged weapons can have 'unlimited' shots at approaching enemy units?

They do, but reactions are resolved after the action take place not before.
So Tau Suits that jump 2" in Front of a unit, shoot, and jump back 10" away will be the target of 2 reactions (the first jump and the shooting action, the second jump ends out of reaction range)
A melee unit that charges 9" will take one reaction, after their CC attacks are resolved (if there is anything left 8" around)

a unit that moves 4" in front of another unit, shoots and charges another unit while still in 4" of the first one will trigger reactions from this units 3 times.

I have always viewed SST as a large skirmish game with more focus on individual models than units in the way the rules are written.
It is a while since I played SST, but bugs are mainly just close combat models , if I remember right,So Mobile Infantry are usually out numbered, but out gun the bugs.

I am not sure this would work that well with hoard IG vs Hoard Orks for example.

SST is a large skirmish, but it focus less on individual models as 40k does but not a strong on units as Epic

And Light Armoured Infantry is somehow like an IG horde army but yes, because of the action point system which allows units to shoot twice, pure melee units are very cheap but devastating in close combat (it is enough if 5 bugs from a big unit reach the enemy, they will still just wipe them out in melee)

As Amanita pointed out allowing UNITS react to UNITS makes more sense in a battle game.
(I would prefer one reaction per unit per game turn to stop players abusing reactions in game, if we were going down this route.)

The problem with units reactions is one of the biggest problem Overwatch has in 40k.
It allows models far away from the attacker to shoot them while they are never in danger of being killed an CC because they are to far away. Spreading a unit out so that only one model can be reached and killed by the attacker, but the whole unit can still shoot at them with Overwatch.

If you go the way of unit reactions, they need to be instead of a further unit action and cannot be an additional one.

This gives much more freedom of unit interaction but is much simpler to implement than additional reaction rules added on to a game turn mechanic..
(I can go into more detail if you are interested.)

If you go the way of unit actions, than per unit activations (with 2 actions for a unit) and alternating them with the opponent would be the best way to do it.

2 action phases with all units doing one action and all of them doing another one will make the game slower and complicated if you want have all the possibilities of 40k
eg, Tau suits with 2 jump moves and shooting in between are not possible with 2 action phases

@Kodos.
'' If you go the way of unit actions, than per unit activations (with 2 actions for a unit) and alternating them with the opponent would be the best way to do it. ''

I thought that was what I was proposing as a more straight forward alternative to alternating game turn with additional reaction rules.

'2 action phases with all units doing one action and all of them doing another one will make the game slower and complicated if you want have all the possibilities of 40k
eg, Tau suits with 2 jump moves and shooting in between are not possible with 2 action phases'

Alternating actions works very well in lots of battle games that we have play tested.(We test out ideas across a wide range of games to prove them out.As 40k has no clearly defined game play its hard to judge ideas in the mess that is 40k . )

The restrictive nature of the alternating game turn and lack of tactical maneuver into weapons range has lead to GW game devs piling on complicated additional rules to try to hide the lack of tactical depth.

40k worked just fine with '2 action sets' for 2 editions before they made the errors in judgement the 11th hour rush job 3rd edition brought to the rules.

As I have said higher up any change to the core game turn mechanic would need a rewrite of the rules anyway.

So perhaps alternating phases for the starter rules, to keep familiarity and up take by current 40k players.Then alternating actions for the more advanced rules with deeper tactical focus , if needed ?

If you go the way of unit actions, than per unit activations (with 2 actions for a unit) and alternating them with the opponent would be the best way to do it. ''

I thought that was what I was proposing as a more straight forward alternative to alternating game turn with additional reaction rules.

Now you are mixing things up.
Unit Activation/Action points has nothing do to with phases

You are always talking about phases and want to keep them.
In my opinion, if you want to keep Phases and be as close as possible to the original, just keep everything and only streamline the actions possible during a phase and the already existing reaction rules.

If you want a more straight forward and simple system, you need to scrap everything from 40k and get per unit activation rules (so every unit is completely finished before the next one is activated) and alternate those with the opponent.

So perhaps alternating phases for the starter rules, to keep familiarity and up take by current 40k players.Then alternating actions for the more advanced rules with deeper tactical focus , if needed ?

Having 2 completely different systems will not work as starter/advanced system.

But of course, as I said before, because everyone wants something different, having different system is not the bad thing.