Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 17:02:45


Post by: Saevus


I’m going preface this with, I don’t play “competitive” 40k. It’s a fun game, I enjoy the hell out of it and 8th edition revived it in my local area in a big way. I live close to a couple major tournaments and I swing by sometimes to watch and chat and hobby but I’m not really salty about 40k or anything. However, even my group mostly uses match play rules and the competitive scene, As it were, drives discussions around the game. I see a lot of proposed “fixes” for 40ks shortcomings on different boards and the discussions on the recent FAQ got me to thinking. Every other game I currently play besides 40k, uses alternating activations in some form or another. Bolt action, chain of command, Star Wars legion. To be fair, as much fun as 8th has put back into my 40k hobby, and I’m up to 4 armies now, I’ve always felt they missed the boat and didn’t go for a hard redesign of the game.

I was just curious what other folks around here thought, with all the gnashing of teeth (or lack thereof) with FAQS and tournament results, did they miss the boat by keeping you go/I go?

Personally I think they did, and granted it would require looking at how some units work, and powers and etc, but as much fun as I am having, their latest beta rules to help address turn one are terrible and the more I look at it the more I think alternating activations would make 40k far more tactical that it is. It’s a fun game right now with some of the best models in the business but it’s not the most tactical game ever. In fact, I think it’s more about remembering every interaction you built into your list than anything else. Side note: my group hates 7th so bad we played 40k largely with bolt action rules and it wasn’t terrible. 8th is way better and more fun, but turn 1 is basically aids against any semi-hardcore list.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 17:12:39


Post by: AnFéasógMór


Yes


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 17:13:42


Post by: krodarklorr


Yes.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 17:14:51


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I think alternating phases is better than alternating units, as alternating units felt very gamey, but I think it's very fair to say "I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot" etc etc because that would allow for the person who went second to counter the moves of the person who went first, while the person who went first still gets the advantage of dishing out damage first.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 17:15:57


Post by: Blacksails


Alternating activations solves a lot of problems with core 40k. It provides depth by making players pick the order their units will activate in, effectively eliminates 1st alpha and deep strike nonsense, and reduces time spent waiting between turns. It structures the game better so that there isn't a constant back and forth between otherwise independent turns, and offers a new layer of list building and elements that can be added to the game, like actual overwatch and better 'out of sequence' actions.

The only 'drawback' is that it would technically make the game a little more complex, so the ultra casual crowd would likely oppose the added complexity (again, the added complexity is pretty minimal if you can work through the game's already convoluted assault phase) and they would have to work out how to deal with armies with significantly more units than others. Given the sheer size of a 'standard' 40k game, it can be a pretty dramatic difference, unlike, say, Firestorm Armada which at most had 3-4 unit difference at the largest end. On the other hand, 40k could likely see up to two dozen more units on one side, which makes the game effectively an IGOUGO scenario for half of the game's turn.

Then again, 40k should really be scaled down in my opinion, which would naturally bridge the unit count gap.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 17:18:14


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Blacksails wrote:
Alternating activations solves a lot of problems with core 40k. It provides depth by making players pick the order their units will activate in, effectively eliminates 1st alpha and deep strike nonsense, and reduces time spent waiting between turns. It structures the game better so that there isn't a constant back and forth between otherwise independent turns, and offers a new layer of list building and elements that can be added to the game, like actual overwatch and better 'out of sequence' actions.

The only 'drawback' is that it would technically make the game a little more complex, so the ultra casual crowd would likely oppose the added complexity (again, the added complexity is pretty minimal if you can work through the game's already convoluted assault phase) and they would have to work out how to deal with armies with significantly more units than others. Given the sheer size of a 'standard' 40k game, it can be a pretty dramatic difference, unlike, say, Firestorm Armada which at most had 3-4 unit difference at the largest end. On the other hand, 40k could likely see up to two dozen more units on one side, which makes the game effectively an IGOUGO scenario for half of the game's turn.

Then again, 40k should really be scaled down in my opinion, which would naturally bridge the unit count gap.


My issue with alternating activations is that it feels super gamey and unrealistic, and the ways in which players use it is also gamey and unrealistic even if that's not inherent in the system (though it has been with every system I've ever seen).


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 17:19:47


Post by: krodarklorr


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Blacksails wrote:
Alternating activations solves a lot of problems with core 40k. It provides depth by making players pick the order their units will activate in, effectively eliminates 1st alpha and deep strike nonsense, and reduces time spent waiting between turns. It structures the game better so that there isn't a constant back and forth between otherwise independent turns, and offers a new layer of list building and elements that can be added to the game, like actual overwatch and better 'out of sequence' actions.

The only 'drawback' is that it would technically make the game a little more complex, so the ultra casual crowd would likely oppose the added complexity (again, the added complexity is pretty minimal if you can work through the game's already convoluted assault phase) and they would have to work out how to deal with armies with significantly more units than others. Given the sheer size of a 'standard' 40k game, it can be a pretty dramatic difference, unlike, say, Firestorm Armada which at most had 3-4 unit difference at the largest end. On the other hand, 40k could likely see up to two dozen more units on one side, which makes the game effectively an IGOUGO scenario for half of the game's turn.

Then again, 40k should really be scaled down in my opinion, which would naturally bridge the unit count gap.


My issue with alternating activations is that it feels super gamey and unrealistic, and the ways in which players use it is also gamey and unrealistic even if that's not inherent in the system (though it has been with every system I've ever seen).


Gamey and unrealistic? People spamming min/maxed units and bringing TFG soup lists feels kinda gamey to me already.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 17:23:43


Post by: techsoldaten


There would be challenges with alternating activations in 40k.

For one, elite armies with few units would be at a huge disadvantage. Opponents with a larger number of units could game the activations to make it challenging for the elite player to do much of consequence.

For another, 40k is a big game. There's often 200+ models on the board. Part of why yougoigo works for 40k is its just plain more efficient to group player actions into phases to get them over with.

There's a downside to the strategic part, which is the fact most players are not good strategists. I have a feeling this would lead to a game that's worse than what we have now.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 17:23:51


Post by: meleti


Alternating unit activations would basically require a total redesign of 40k because there are vast differences between units in the current game. Two gun drones and ten hellblasters are both units. A Custodes army might have eight units while my Tau have 32 units.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 17:24:10


Post by: Saevus


What in the current game isn’t “unrealistic” and “gamey”? I am not trying bang on you, trying to understand....I’ve never played a game of 40k and thought it was realistic and with stregems and character interactions it’s as gamey as any other game. I can respect some folks may not like alternating activations. I just don’t see realism or game mechanics as the downside.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 17:25:33


Post by: Backspacehacker


Alternative activation fixes a lot of issues but man, it makes games take a lot longer


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 17:30:58


Post by: Unit1126PLL


krodarklorr wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Blacksails wrote:
Alternating activations solves a lot of problems with core 40k. It provides depth by making players pick the order their units will activate in, effectively eliminates 1st alpha and deep strike nonsense, and reduces time spent waiting between turns. It structures the game better so that there isn't a constant back and forth between otherwise independent turns, and offers a new layer of list building and elements that can be added to the game, like actual overwatch and better 'out of sequence' actions.

The only 'drawback' is that it would technically make the game a little more complex, so the ultra casual crowd would likely oppose the added complexity (again, the added complexity is pretty minimal if you can work through the game's already convoluted assault phase) and they would have to work out how to deal with armies with significantly more units than others. Given the sheer size of a 'standard' 40k game, it can be a pretty dramatic difference, unlike, say, Firestorm Armada which at most had 3-4 unit difference at the largest end. On the other hand, 40k could likely see up to two dozen more units on one side, which makes the game effectively an IGOUGO scenario for half of the game's turn.

Then again, 40k should really be scaled down in my opinion, which would naturally bridge the unit count gap.


My issue with alternating activations is that it feels super gamey and unrealistic, and the ways in which players use it is also gamey and unrealistic even if that's not inherent in the system (though it has been with every system I've ever seen).


Gamey and unrealistic? People spamming min/maxed units and bringing TFG soup lists feels kinda gamey to me already.


I have always been a critic of those type of lists, and honestly, modern 40k has actually done away with a lot of the "gameyness" that these used to be. With the 0-3 limitation on units, the last vestige of unreasonable spam is dead.

I don't consider soup lists TFG. In fact, I think a battalion of Guardsmen with almost any army in 40k is both fluffy and realistic - the little buggers are everywhere, and constantly support / are supported by every imperial force. If there's going to be two or more Imperial forces fighting in one place, Imperial Guard are likely to be one of them.

Saevus wrote:What in the current game isn’t “unrealistic” and “gamey”? I am not trying bang on you, trying to understand....I’ve never played a game of 40k and thought it was realistic and with stregems and character interactions it’s as gamey as any other game. I can respect some folks may not like alternating activations. I just don’t see realism or game mechanics as the downside.


There's a lot in the current game that's unrealistic and gamey. I'd fix those, too, starting with the bizarre iteration of indirect fire (at least make some rule about requiring a spotter, or if not, give it a penalty - something!). That doesn't mean I have to be okay with alternating activation also being unrealistic and gamey, lol.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 17:35:05


Post by: krodarklorr


 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I have always been a critic of those type of lists, and honestly, modern 40k has actually done away with a lot of the "gameyness" that these used to be. With the 0-3 limitation on units, the last vestige of unreasonable spam is dead.

I don't consider soup lists TFG. In fact, I think a battalion of Guardsmen with almost any army in 40k is both fluffy and realistic - the little buggers are everywhere, and constantly support / are supported by every imperial force. If there's going to be two or more Imperial forces fighting in one place, Imperial Guard are likely to be one of them.


1. I disagree. Even with 0-3 for 2k points or lower, you still have instances where LRBTs can be squadroned, as well as Carnifexes. And things like my Triarch Stalkers, which gained the ability to be squadroned in 7th edition, for some reason lost it. And a lot of armies were well within that boundary anyway. Not saying that rule doesn't need to exist, which I whole-heartedly believe, I'm just saying spam is far from dead.

2. I agree in your case that sometimes it's just fluffy and fun to do just that. But what I'm talking about are the obvious "I'm gonna pick the best unit from 10 different codexes hardy har" kind of player. Which I would assume the generic term "soup list" refers to.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 17:38:30


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 krodarklorr wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I have always been a critic of those type of lists, and honestly, modern 40k has actually done away with a lot of the "gameyness" that these used to be. With the 0-3 limitation on units, the last vestige of unreasonable spam is dead.

I don't consider soup lists TFG. In fact, I think a battalion of Guardsmen with almost any army in 40k is both fluffy and realistic - the little buggers are everywhere, and constantly support / are supported by every imperial force. If there's going to be two or more Imperial forces fighting in one place, Imperial Guard are likely to be one of them.


1. I disagree. Even with 0-3 for 2k points or lower, you still have instances where LRBTs can be squadroned, as well as Carnifexes. And things like my Triarch Stalkers, which gained the ability to be squadroned in 7th edition, for some reason lost it. And a lot of armies were well within that boundary anyway. Not saying that rule doesn't need to exist, which I whole-heartedly believe, I'm just saying spam is far from dead.

2. I agree in your case that sometimes it's just fluffy and fun to do just that. But what I'm talking about are the obvious "I'm gonna pick the best unit from 10 different codexes hardy har" kind of player. Which I would assume the generic term "soup list" refers to.


1) LRBT spam is very realistic. Imperial Guard have decades-old fluff that 10 tanks makes a company. Carnifex spam is also fluffy - they're much more like Leman Russes than, say, Hive Tyrants are, in terms of army role. Spam may not be dead, but 'gamey' spam is dead. Regular spam is very much alive, and that's a good thing, because spam is realistic. (Note: Fluffy = realistic, in the sense that "40k is unrealistic". I mean the reality in which the units exist and fight.)

2) The generic term "soup list" just means a list that brings soup. And I'm not sure what's unrealistic about it - it's not like those imperial factions wouldn't fight together. It may be TFG to be picky-and-choosy about the best units, but it's not really unrealistic. The only soup list I can think of that's unrealistic is "3 Custodes bike captains" which is unrealistic because those are unlikely to all be in the same place (since they're so rare), not because of soup.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 17:55:34


Post by: Soulless


Yes please. One form or another.

Alternating phases actually sound really interesting, i think i would like that!
Im sure there are plenty of things that would have to be adjusted and adresser for this travesty of s ruleset to work with alternation but if it was done i would be back playing in a heartbeat!


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 17:57:36


Post by: Saevus


Realism has absolutely nothing to do with 40k game design. Just my take. The imperial guard isn’t real, the writers are varied and their “fluff” is just that. This isn’t historical wargaming.

I’ll leave it at that, it’s a derailing point and I know from your other post you like your imperial armor and I respect your devotion to that fluff. I’ve got a space marine company I built with lore considerations only. It’s a powerful part of 40k but it has no real place in the rules and maybe that is why 8th wasn’t as big a retool on the rules as it should have been, that culture that tradition is powerful.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 18:04:29


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Saevus wrote:
Realism has absolutely nothing to do with 40k game design. Just my take. The imperial guard isn’t real, the writers are varied and their “fluff” is just that. This isn’t historical wargaming.

I’ll leave it at that, it’s a derailing point and I know from your other post you like your imperial armor and I respect your devotion to that fluff. I’ve got a space marine company I built with lore considerations only. It’s a powerful part of 40k but it has no real place in the rules and maybe that is why 8th wasn’t as big a retool on the rules as it should have been, that culture that tradition is powerful.


I'm not sure it's a derail. When talking game mechanics, "how much should they reflect the lore?" is an important question.
In my opinion, there's lots of room for adjustment, precisely because the lore is so inconsistent and varied - certainly more so than a historical wargame. On the other hand, there are constants about the lore that are essentially unarguable - Imperial Guard aren't superhuman, Space Marines are organized into chapters, etc. So I think "alternating activation" doesn't feel very realistic - games that I've played that use alternating activation feel less like a "Battle" and more like ... well, a game. Right now, 40k has some of that, such as stratagems (which are a bit silly). I feel like Stratagems are "fluff" things (e.g. Firstborn Pride giving a unit +1 to hit is because the Vostroyan Firstborn are good soldiers) that have to have some limit (since saying "every Firstborn unit gets +1 to hit!" would be insane). Alternating activations would just be more gameyness stacked on top of an already rickety system.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 18:08:08


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


I agree. Alternating turns would help a lot. My other two games are Star Trek Attack Wing and Lord of the rings, both of them have more tactical depth, the one with activations, the other one with alternating phases. There's just too much time where you sit and watch in 40K (especially when playing against Tau for example, where one phase takes significantly longer than any other, which is pretty tiresome for me as an opponent).


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 18:09:03


Post by: LunarSol


Alternating activation systems need a lot of support to not turn into weird games of red rover. It's very easy for activation control to become the dominant strategy and turn the game into what is essentially an IGYG system where one player gets to circumvent the counterplay that alternating activations are supposed to be about. That's not to say it can't be done. Just that its not something you can blind port into a rule system without some serious consequences.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 18:09:46


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I agree. Alternating turns would help a lot. My other two games are Star Trek Attack Wing and Lord of the rings, both of them have more tactical depth, the one with activations, the other one with alternating phases. There's just too much time where you sit and watch in 40K (especially when playing against Tau for example, where one phase takes significantly longer than any other, which is pretty tiresome for me as an opponent).


Agreed. Part of the reason for alternating phases is an effort to encourage maneuver as well, since the movement phase comes first in the phase order. Have you found that to be the case with your alternating-phases game (LOTR, presumably)?


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 18:14:30


Post by: LunarSol


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think alternating phases is better than alternating units, as alternating units felt very gamey, but I think it's very fair to say "I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot" etc etc because that would allow for the person who went second to counter the moves of the person who went first, while the person who went first still gets the advantage of dishing out damage first.


I think phases makes more sense for 40k, though you still need a way to stop the second player from backing out of assault range and kiting endlessly.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 18:20:01


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 LunarSol wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think alternating phases is better than alternating units, as alternating units felt very gamey, but I think it's very fair to say "I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot" etc etc because that would allow for the person who went second to counter the moves of the person who went first, while the person who went first still gets the advantage of dishing out damage first.


I think phases makes more sense for 40k, though you still need a way to stop the second player from backing out of assault range and kiting endlessly.


Hm, that's a good point - and I don't want to make that impossible, either, as I feel like a leapfrogging retreat should be a tactically viable option.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 18:24:26


Post by: auticus


Pretty much a requirement for me to be interested. II'm not interested in standing there for 30-60 minutes watching my opponent do stuff.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 18:43:05


Post by: Soulless


 auticus wrote:
Pretty much a requirement for me to be interested. II'm not interested in standing there for 30-60 minutes watching my opponent do stuff.


Sorry for the tangent but when I read your post I imagined you looking exactly as that avatar picture while you are watching your opponent take their turns


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 18:44:08


Post by: pismakron


Yes alternating activations is much better than the old turn structure. Just think about how much better the fight phase works in 8th than in 7th. Unfortunately GW didn't go far enough.

I don't think that there is anything unrealistic about alternating activations compared to alternating turns.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 18:48:35


Post by: lolman1c


What we really need is some professionals to do some battle reports to play test all the different types of game modes. This would give us examples and not just opinions based on what we think might happen.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 18:49:11


Post by: SickSix


Yes they missed the boat. The game should be alternating phases. You move/I move. There is still so much advantage to that first player turn.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 18:54:33


Post by: Daedalus81


 lolman1c wrote:
What we really need is some professionals to do some battle reports to play test all the different types of game modes. This would give us examples and not just opinions based on what we think might happen.


Someone made a ruleset not long ago. It had its flaws.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 19:19:04


Post by: Fafnir


It would help to make 40k a much better game, most notably providing a foundation-based system for mitigating the ever-present problem that GW's had, and encouraging greater and smarter tactical depth.

Now, you'd have to redesign a fair bit, but it would be well worth it to create a far better game. Give characters the ability to activate multiple units simultaneously (Robby can activate three units within 6" simultaneously, a chapter master 2, a lieutenant 1, for example), stratagems that give similar bonuses ("networked intelligence: AdMech units within 6" of a chosen dominus all activate at once), and other abilities to give more variation between leaders than just rerolls.



Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 19:26:58


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I agree. Alternating turns would help a lot. My other two games are Star Trek Attack Wing and Lord of the rings, both of them have more tactical depth, the one with activations, the other one with alternating phases. There's just too much time where you sit and watch in 40K (especially when playing against Tau for example, where one phase takes significantly longer than any other, which is pretty tiresome for me as an opponent).


Agreed. Part of the reason for alternating phases is an effort to encourage maneuver as well, since the movement phase comes first in the phase order. Have you found that to be the case with your alternating-phases game (LOTR, presumably)?


Yeah of course. In lotr a die for initative decides who can move first every turn. And at least when the armies are closing in to fight in CC that throw becomes really important as you can influence who attacks what or is screened and so on. That being said I don't consider maneuvering in 40K unimportant, it's just very different due to the one game being model-based and the other one unit-based.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 19:38:53


Post by: Tyel


It would be interesting to experiment - but I suspect unless armies were much smaller games would take ages to play.

Or at least if its move-move, shoot-shoot, assault assault etc - if its more like Necromunda where a whole unit gets "a turn" then an opponent's unit gets to go then it might be less of a problem.

I wouldn't have even thought things like MSU were a major problem. Wouldn't you want as elite a force as possible (assuming it was equally efficient/effective for its coast)? If you activate say 1000 points with 3 activations you are going to kill a lot more than your opponent whose activated say 300 points worth with the same.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 20:31:20


Post by: LunarSol


I've been curious about requiring 3 detachments and alternating activations between them.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 21:20:02


Post by: godardc


Alternative activations is cancer


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 21:23:56


Post by: Bonachinonin


I feel the issue with alternating activation, is there is too much in 40k. There are too many units, too many models, too much dice being rolled. The game would have to be rewritten to accommodate and the massive battles we love would become a burden to play.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 21:28:34


Post by: Blacksails


 Unit1126PLL wrote:


My issue with alternating activations is that it feels super gamey and unrealistic, and the ways in which players use it is also gamey and unrealistic even if that's not inherent in the system (though it has been with every system I've ever seen).


And the current system is totally not gamey and unrealistic?

Whatever supposed gaminess and unrealism (less than the current system by a long shot) exists, it offers far more from a gameplay perspective.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 21:32:26


Post by: rhinoceraids


People are upset over the deep strike rules now.

I can't imagine how they would deal with alternating turns.

Having your entire deep striking army shot off the board would need some mitigation rules.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 21:34:25


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


I personally find pure alternating activation (I activate a unit, you activate a unit) to be my least favorite way to handle activation. There are a lot of gamey things it creates when players know they get to go next or stacked their list so they get a several concurrent activation (which is further compound if the game doesn't allow the player with fewer units to pass). That said, I really enjoy games that have a bit of randomness to unit activation like Bolt Action or even Chain of Command. I suspect many 40K players wouldn't enjoy random activation as much some especially the ones of which that don't let you activate everything during a single turn (but the game often has far more turns than 5-7). I think a good middle ground is number of activation based on the Warlord (say 1 to 4 unit activation during a single turn) which allows for multiple unit coordinated attacks with skilled (read: high activation Warlords) commanders. Additionally, the player with fewest unactivated models can always pass not activating anything while the other player must activate at least one unit during their turn. This is to prevent army lists with several units from hammering the bottom of the round (which always seems to be an issue with alternating activation games).

The next issue is 40K would have to drop the game phase idea in favor of unit doing everything while activated as it becomes very easy to forget what did what when their are some 20+ units in an army list without a boat load tokens. While I don't mind a few tokens on the table, it doesn't take long before I think it makes things look tacky and ruins the aesthetic a nice looking table. The game size may or may not need to reduced as my experience is alternating activation games take a little longer due to the more frequent change of who is the active player.

At the same time, I think IGOUGO games can work if the designers know what they are doing. Dust Warfare by Andy Chambers is still one of my favorite miniatures wargames and it uses an IGOUGO system with a limited initial action phase as well as reactions for the inactive player. It also featured almost no long range weapons (which made it a little gamey) with almost everything having 36" or less range meaning maneuver was absolutely required to bring weapons to bear on the enemy. If you write battle reports, IGOUGO is also a much easier format to work with since it is easier to simply describe everything you did and then everything your opponent did instead of remembering why you activated this one unit to counter this other one or make sure they got to cover.

I don't mind the current (or previous way) 40K handles unit activation. While Alpha Strikes can be an issue, the rules can also be made to minimize that. I think if GW stepped into the world of alternating activations it will take them a while to not make winning and losing based on juggling your activations to keep ahead of your opponent or desynchronize them so none of their activation really mean anything anyways. Which if you look at it at the end of a game round still looks like a successful Alpha Strike.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 21:38:56


Post by: Vaktathi


No turn based system is without issue. Alternating activation has some weirdness and gaminess to it all its own that I'm not always a fan of. IGOUGO isn't perfect, neither is alternating activation.

That said, I think my favorite concept is from Battletech, where activation alternates, but actions all resolve together at the end of the turn (i.e. both sides alternate moving and declaring actions, but damage isnt resolved until after everything has acted). That represents the closest thing to real time Ive seen. I really liked that, and you never get the sense of "oh, my cool thing died before I could do anything with it due to gimmicky turn sequencing".


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/17 22:09:16


Post by: Voidswatchman


I think that Dropzone/Epic style battle-group alternating activations could work, with some modification of the detachment system (reducing the number of slots in each detachment and making the 3 detachment limit the hard limit for non-apocalypse games).

Alternating phases could also be interesting, it already kind of works that way in assault.

Problem with this kind of pie in the sky, however, is that it drastically changes the entire nature of the game. That need not be bad in itself, but the resulting game would almost certainly alienate a vast swathe of players.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 05:05:39


Post by: Pink Horror


 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

At the same time, I think IGOUGO games can work if the designers know what they are doing. Dust Warfare by Andy Chambers is still one of my favorite miniatures wargames and it uses an IGOUGO system with a limited initial action phase as well as reactions for the inactive player. It also featured almost no long range weapons (which made it a little gamey) with almost everything having 36" or less range meaning maneuver was absolutely required to bring weapons to bear on the enemy. If you write battle reports, IGOUGO is also a much easier format to work with since it is easier to simply describe everything you did and then everything your opponent did instead of remembering why you activated this one unit to counter this other one or make sure they got to cover.


In my opinion, one of the most gamey things about 40K is how two armies often begin a battle lined up in sight of each other and well within range of many of their most powerful weapons.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 05:15:59


Post by: admironheart


Well if you get rid of brigades and tone down the size of detachments....I would be for alternating 'detachments' as opposed to units.

You could go further and make the smallest detachment go first if you want and then the largest goes last. At that point your just playing with list building strats mostly.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 06:12:16


Post by: kadeton


I'd love to see more alternation between players, in whatever form. The "my army does everything, then whatever's left of your army does everything" model just encourages alpha-striking as the dominant tactic.

We've already got a single-phase alternating-activations model in assault - extending that to the other phases would be a relatively simple step.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 11:55:36


Post by: Vector Strike


All of my yes


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 12:07:33


Post by: auticus


II've been usiiing alternatiiing activation for over five years now. I have never seen a game take ages longer than standard IGOUGO with alternate activation I'm not sure where that idea is coming from.

It comes out to be the exact same moves and rolls, only instead of grouped together in IGOUGO its spreadout over a turn for both players.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 12:24:55


Post by: Elbows


Any form of activation which is not IGOUGO is inherently much more enjoyable. It's more engaging, requires more thought, and better captures the conditions of a battle (as much as can be done in a silly game like 40K). We play 2nd edition with an activation system and it's 10x better than when played without. We'll be doing 8th like that soon as well.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 12:28:58


Post by: Sherrypie


 Elbows wrote:
Any form of activation which is not IGOUGO is inherently much more enjoyable. It's more engaging, requires more thought, and better captures the conditions of a battle (as much as can be done in a silly game like 40K). We play 2nd edition with an activation system and it's 10x better than when played without. We'll be doing 8th like that soon as well.


Please share your thoughts on how you'd implement it in 8th, as well as game play experiences when you do. Straight, phases, action points?


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 12:30:57


Post by: admironheart



@ Elbows

Have you tried activations based on FOC or Detachments.

patrols activate first, then HQ Commands, OutRiders, Spearheads, Vanguards, followed by Battallions, Brigades, Air Wing and fortifications.

The idea that certain structure of forces can go prior to others would add an element of game play that could be interesting.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 12:31:25


Post by: Rune Stonegrinder


Absolutely I've been a fan of games that do this for a long time. no more Alpha Strike BS you can have commanders active multiple units but not you entire army. Makes tactics huge in the game. No more sledgehammers vs glass shields.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 12:38:17


Post by: auticus


Exactly. The game becomes 1000 times more engaging and makes it more than a liistbuiilding fapping.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 12:41:53


Post by: Breng77


I think unit by unit activation would require a total rewrite of the rules. As is activation control would be too powerful, as would how charging and the fight phase work. Some version of the shade spire system might work with some changes. As is I think the closest you can get and still be viable would be to look at the DZC system of battle group activations.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 13:03:07


Post by: Rune Stonegrinder


Breng77 wrote:
I think unit by unit activation would require a total rewrite of the rules. As is activation control would be too powerful, as would how charging and the fight phase work. Some version of the shade spire system might work with some changes. As is I think the closest you can get and still be viable would be to look at the DZC system of battle group activations.


of course it would have to be a new edition.

Take 2 games based on different activation styles


Batman

you have a strategy rating and bonus for certain people with mastermind

you add all these tokens in to a cup and a person draws a token to see who get first activation that turn is determined, I don't think this one is in the spirit og 40K so its out.


Wrath of Kings

Each player has a separate turn to activate first. A minor commander model can activate one unit near him, that unit moves and then acts (wither they shoot or do Melee). Some commanders can cause the activation of 2 while other special characters can activate 3 (depends on wither their command style is more brute force or strategy) and any unit without a commander near them are relegated to being dead last.

something like this could be adapted for 40k even with multiple phases.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 13:04:17


Post by: BlackLobster


Having watched a fair few Bolt Action games at our local club I really dislike alternate activations. They favour armies that have more units for the most part.

The only way I could see it work in 40K if it was a slightly staggered version of the current system.

Player 1 moves.
Player 2 moves.
Player 1 psychic phase but casualties are not removed until the end of the psychic phase.
Player 2 psychic phase (including those units "killed") but casualties are not removed until the end of the psychic phase.
Player 1 shoots but casualties are not removed until the end of the shooting phase.
Player 2 shoots (including those units "killed") but casualties are not removed until the end of the shooting phase.
Player 1 assaults but casualties are not removed until the end of the assault phase.
Player 2 assaults (including those units "killed") but casualties are not removed until the end of the assault phase.
Player 1 battleshock.
Player 2 battleshock.

This way everyone gets to fire and fight in assault rather than one side always being on top.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 13:04:37


Post by: Elbows


 Sherrypie wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
Any form of activation which is not IGOUGO is inherently much more enjoyable. It's more engaging, requires more thought, and better captures the conditions of a battle (as much as can be done in a silly game like 40K). We play 2nd edition with an activation system and it's 10x better than when played without. We'll be doing 8th like that soon as well.


Please share your thoughts on how you'd implement it in 8th, as well as game play experiences when you do. Straight, phases, action points?


Well, right now we've only made a few plans on simply shifting our 2nd edition version over to 8th. We actually prefer to just play the games and bash our way through it - tackling issue as they come up. The method we use for 2nd is essentially:

1) Start of a turn, each player places tokens (same size/shape, but different colour, obviously) aside; one for each unit in his army. For 2nd edition we also add some depending on Stratagy Ratings but that's no longer a thing. These tokens are placed in a cup.

2) The tokens are drawn one at a time, but you keep drawing until another colour is drawn. This allows small runs to occur, but it's exceptionally rare for more than 3-4 units of the same army to go in a row (and obviously that means the likelihood of their opponent going increases following the draw etc.)

When a token is drawn, the player owning the token chooses a single unit and activates it in its entirety. Keep in mind this is for 2nd ed. We also use a modified psychic phase, so each psyker activates independently instead of the large/time consuming old psychic phase. This is something we'd probably change using it in 8th. I'd probably activate the X number of units together as a "mini turn". In other words if you drew three tokens, you'd move your three units, shoot your three units, etc. I dunno, we'll see how it works.

To fit the current rules into this system you'd have to make some changes, such as buffs/spells/stratagems would all arbitrarily be ended when the tokens run out (i.e. a full single battle round has been played). This would limit a player from casting a spell early and then trying to activate last the next battle round so the spell stayed in progress for more than one "turn", etc. This would impact the planning of who you wanted to activate first, as you'd get more bang for your buck out of casting early, etc.

After the end of a full battle round (in this instance a turn in which both players have used all their tokens so it's really "two turns"), tokens for destroyed units are removed and the process continues. Because of this, the destruction of full units is actually more important, as it diminishes the token count of your opponent. If you have one or two infantry models left, you want to hide them somewhere so they keep generating tokens - giving your opponent another objective.

The main issue is always hand to hand combat, but that's doable. I dunno, we'll see when we try it out (may do so this weekend actually). The nice thing about this kind of activation system is that you can have genuine 3-way battles which flow the same as a normal game - without one army sitting there waiting on his ass for and hour and a half while two other armies beat the gak out of him. Heck you could really do 4-5-6 sides if you were sadistic, but then the wait times would still be there.

This kind of token system inherently benefits larger armies with more units, but it does so intentionally. An army with 24 units vs. an Imperial Knight force with six...will always have an advantage, but each time the Knight player activates he'll be using a greater percentage of his army per token, etc. Players could easily abuse this system, but it's not a suggested solution for tournaments. I don't play with gamey people, so it's been really fun so far in 2nd. I don't see any major issues with 8th - aside from getting people over their fear of "ohhh no, it's now what GW said to do!" kind of paralysis I see so often.



Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 13:06:02


Post by: Cheeslord


I would love to see alternating unit activation. Most of the current rules would work just fine with it, just close combat would need a bit of a rethink to avoid some corner cases...

Mark.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 13:31:25


Post by: stonehorse


Have you played Horus Heresy Betrayal at Calth?

It does alternative activation with activation points, it is a very elegant system, and is a shame that 8th edition didn't copy any of these ideas.

There are a few fan rules for porting the system over into a full table top game, I haven't had chance to try these out yet. However I think that Betrayal at Calth has one of the best miniature combat games, so think it would transfer very well.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 13:37:45


Post by: Eldarsif


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think alternating phases is better than alternating units, as alternating units felt very gamey, but I think it's very fair to say "I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot" etc etc because that would allow for the person who went second to counter the moves of the person who went first, while the person who went first still gets the advantage of dishing out damage first.


I actually like this. However, to make it less of an action/reaction I think this method would be the only one that could possibly support the roll of an initiative dice every turn. It feels weird in AOS as it means a player gets a huge Turn all for themselves and sometimes back to back, but with alternating phases it makes more sense.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 15:11:01


Post by: Soulless


 BlackLobster wrote:
Having watched a fair few Bolt Action games at our local club I really dislike alternate activations. They favour armies that have more units for the most part.

The only way I could see it work in 40K if it was a slightly staggered version of the current system.

Player 1 moves.
Player 2 moves.
Player 1 psychic phase but casualties are not removed until the end of the psychic phase.
Player 2 psychic phase (including those units "killed") but casualties are not removed until the end of the psychic phase.
Player 1 shoots but casualties are not removed until the end of the shooting phase.
Player 2 shoots (including those units "killed") but casualties are not removed until the end of the shooting phase.
Player 1 assaults but casualties are not removed until the end of the assault phase.
Player 2 assaults (including those units "killed") but casualties are not removed until the end of the assault phase.
Player 1 battleshock.
Player 2 battleshock.

This way everyone gets to fire and fight in assault rather than one side always being on top.


Thats pretty much one of the alternatives people have suggested; Alternating phases.
Though you do mention an interesting idea of not removing casualties until both players have finished a phase. I think I like this idea because it removes the stupid advantage of going first, and ill always be in favour of anything removing any advantage tied to a dice roll made before a game even begins.

Possibly an alternating phase system could be implemented while retaining the overall ruleset much as it is, with minor adjustments. And of course an overhaul of datasheets and special rules/traits and whatnot. Its something we could actually see in this edition, maybe as an additional way to play the game alongside open, narrative and matched.

An alternating activations, similar to bolt action, would probably require an extensive rewrite best left to a new edition. Sadly because this is the form of gameplay I would like to see.


Whatever form of alternation, Ill be in favour of it. And phases seem to be the easiest to implement.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 16:59:21


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


I'm not a big fan of alternating activations. I've played Malifaux which uses that mechanic and I can tell you once an imbalance of forces begins it starts to snowball. 40K is too big a game for the mechanic and the way armies are set up makes it too akward.

For all of you who say that they don't want to just sit during their opponent's turn if you face a horde army with an elite army that will still happen but at the end of every turn.

As to the idea of using alternating detachments it's not really going to make much of a difference since you'd still have large clusters of units moving in tandem. So all that would do is break up some of the monotony but you still have to keep track of which unit is in which detachment (and vs grey armies that can be a real challenge).

To the person who suggested that, in effect, all psyker and shooting phases be simultaneous that would be disasterous. If I know that one of my models is "dead" I could then take some crazy chances knowing that if it fails it won't matter. Plus you'd need to have markers showing who acted and another set to show who was destroyed.

Sorry for all of it's faults 40K is, IMO, doing its best in an IGO/UGO format.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 17:05:46


Post by: Fafnir


Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'm not a big fan of alternating activations. I've played Malifaux which uses that mechanic and I can tell you once an imbalance of forces begins it starts to snowball. 40K is too big a game for the mechanic and the way armies are set up makes it too akward.

For all of you who say that they don't want to just sit during their opponent's turn if you face a horde army with an elite army that will still happen but at the end of every turn.


But 40k starts to snowball the moment someone wins the roll-off for first turn.

Yes, horde and MSU armies get more activations than elite armies, but it's still better for elite armies than losing the roll-off and getting eliminated before they get to do anything at all.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 17:12:47


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


Then maybe initiative should be rolled for each turn (with modifiers based on the previous turn). All I'm saying is that if you play an army with say 11 units (which is my typical army) and are facing army with 20 units you would alternate for 11 times and then sit for your opponent to move 9 more units after seeing what is where. It's a big tactical advantage to move last and with a lot of units it gets worse. If I know I'm getting the last 9 moves I can structure my units so that they can not be shot/assaulted and/or can concentrate my units to grab objectives or surround key enemy units.

I'm not saying that alternate turns are bad. I'm saying that they're bad for 40K as it now exists with army building.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 17:16:54


Post by: Fafnir


That's still better than one player getting to move 20 units at a time while the other is there purely for the obligation of making saves.

Besides, armies with less units could be given the option to delay an activation if it would be prudent.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 17:18:03


Post by: pismakron


Leo_the_Rat wrote:

For all of you who say that they don't want to just sit during their opponent's turn if you face a horde army with an elite army that will still happen but at the end of every turn.


I usually play with 180 Ork boyz. That's is six units.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 17:33:40


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


So you only play with those 6 units or do they come with other support? It's not really a question of how many models but rather how many units?


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 17:38:19


Post by: mew28


 techsoldaten wrote:
There would be challenges with alternating activations in 40k.

For one, elite armies with few units would be at a huge disadvantage. Opponents with a larger number of units could game the activations to make it challenging for the elite player to do much of consequence.

For another, 40k is a big game. There's often 200+ models on the board. Part of why yougoigo works for 40k is its just plain more efficient to group player actions into phases to get them over with.

There's a downside to the strategic part, which is the fact most players are not good strategists. I have a feeling this would lead to a game that's worse than what we have now.

Could do what Heroscape did and you just get a set amount of unit activations each turn and can put multiple on the same unit.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 18:33:13


Post by: pismakron


Leo_the_Rat wrote:
So you only play with those 6 units or do they come with other support? It's not really a question of how many models but rather how many units?


Yeah they come with other support. But 11-14 units for that +1 to the first turn roll (usually) is pretty doable.

Say, 180-210 boyz, a warboss, Ghaz, a painboy, 2 weirdboys, and you are there. You can easily make it into a 30-unit 3 battalion army, but while you get more CPs, you will be weaker in CC and get second turn more often. Not all horde armies has a massive amount of units. And as an index army Orks has nothing interesting to spend CPs on anyway.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 18:49:30


Post by: auticus


There are many ways that alt actiivation can be made to happen.



Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 20:15:04


Post by: MagicJuggler


AA is a nobrainer. Implementing it is the challenge.

There's the Stargrunt II model: The player with less unactivated units can choose to keep skipping activations until both players have an equal number of units. You can call it the "Ok, you move an Inquisitorial Acolyte. Quit screwing around and take a real turn" factor.

Optionally, you can declare certain superheavy units activate in parts. So a Baneblade would need one activation to move, one to shoot. This would also improve the parity in the number of activations available to both players.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 21:22:58


Post by: admironheart


Without breaking the current rules and phases....the detachment activation is the easiest fix. We all have the same number detachments in a 2k army (well almost everyone fills out the 3 allotted.)

Now do you pick and choose any detachment or do you have to go in a certain order. ....say...Patrols, Outriders can react faster so they must go first. Then Command, Vanguard, AirWing would go 2nd grouping. Battalions could execute their orders faster than a Brigade. LoW, Fortifications and Spearheads are the slower sledgehammer and go last.

Would this make more people consider Patrols and Outriders for faster activation over heavy handed spearheads or bulky brigades.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/18 22:35:33


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


I can say that since I play mono-GK I only have 1 detachment 9a battalion). How would you deal with the situation of less detachments vs more?


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/19 00:47:54


Post by: Latro_


Could you not just do it by the power rating of a unit?

e.g. i move my marines 9 power
you can now move say 3 units of guard 3 power each

you can always move at least one unit even if your opponent moved a lower power unit.

e.g. i move a unit of guard 3 power
i move my marines 9 power
i now can move 3 more guard units

movement phase ends when one player moves everything after at least one round each of activating.

same for all the other phases.

roll off at the end of the turn for first move activation


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/19 00:56:48


Post by: admironheart


Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I can say that since I play mono-GK I only have 1 detachment 9a battalion). How would you deal with the situation of less detachments vs more?


Well you could always go first with only 1 detachment...but that would lead to a single detachment with Brigades.

The other thought would be all Patrols would go first....If you have 2 Patrols and the enemy none....then he could get 2 detachments activated before you for example.

Then you could group other detachments like Command, Outriders, Vanguard, AirWing next since those are faster deploying and reacting focused detachments

3rd would be your SpearHeads and Battalions since those heavier and larger detachments are a bit more unwieldy.

4th would be the slow LoWs, Fortifications and extra large Brigades.

Or any combo that you think would work. So it makes you choose between the best CP advantages vs activation advantages.

So for your army you would go in the 3rd group.....if the enemy has only Patrols you will always go last....if he has 1 brigade you will always go first.

The other idea to this is that Marines always go as if they were a Patrol detachment since they are the elite quick response army. Or perhaps they just jump +1 order of battle activation groupl

Any types of ideas could be used if one wants to ditch the old for the new....It does not have to be a complicated one unit at a time.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/19 02:05:16


Post by: Fafnir


 Latro_ wrote:
Could you not just do it by the power rating of a unit?

e.g. i move my marines 9 power
you can now move say 3 units of guard 3 power each

you can always move at least one unit even if your opponent moved a lower power unit.

e.g. i move a unit of guard 3 power
i move my marines 9 power
i now can move 3 more guard units

movement phase ends when one player moves everything after at least one round each of activating.

same for all the other phases.

roll off at the end of the turn for first move activation


A more interesting way to utilize power levels could have players blind pick the units they want to activate. Upon revealing those units, the player who chose the lowest combined power level gets to activate their selection first, enacting their turn for those units as normal (with the only caveat being that a unit's close combat is also tied to it's whole activation). This process continues until all units have been activated, at which point the next game turn begins.

This would allow players to gamble big coordinated plays against predictions of their opponents' own, which would create a pretty interesting guessing game. A high activation cost for bigger, more powerful units is also then reflected in this. Such a system would also disturb the current game's systems the least, and would give some decent value to power levels.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/19 02:12:00


Post by: CapRichard


I honestly like more an Infinity-like system, IGOUGO + reactions, dunno if it has a proper name.

I have no clue how to balance that out for a whole army instead of a skyrimsh game though.


I would love to see alternating activation right now for a t'au army with their marketlights though.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/19 12:50:02


Post by: argonak


Dropzone commander did alternating activations by detachment, a typical army and four - six detachments.

Star Wars legions seems to be successful with aa. So do the other ffg games.

New necromunda does it well. Old epic epic 40k too.

I think alternate activations, done well, would really help solve a lot of 40ks issues.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/19 15:07:31


Post by: ordoteutonicus


I am for alternating activation as it makes the game more tactical .


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/19 15:36:56


Post by: Kcalehc


Alternating activations by phase (I move a unit, you move a unit) but the player with the fewest units can 'skip' an activation until there is an equal number of units on each side remaining. Casualties are removed only a the end of each phase (so they get to shoot before they die); is something like how I would have done it.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/21 00:39:10


Post by: Pink Horror


 Fafnir wrote:


A more interesting way to utilize power levels could have players blind pick the units they want to activate. Upon revealing those units, the player who chose the lowest combined power level gets to activate their selection first, enacting their turn for those units as normal (with the only caveat being that a unit's close combat is also tied to it's whole activation). This process continues until all units have been activated, at which point the next game turn begins.

This would allow players to gamble big coordinated plays against predictions of their opponents' own, which would create a pretty interesting guessing game. A high activation cost for bigger, more powerful units is also then reflected in this. Such a system would also disturb the current game's systems the least, and would give some decent value to power levels.


I understand why this could be an interesting game, but I like not having to make those types of decisions. I also enjoy downtime - it's the time for beer & pretzels in a "beer & pretzels" game. 40K is complex enough with all of the datasheets, models, terrain, measuring, line of sight, etc. I like to focus on just where on the table my models should be, and who they should shoot at. Now, several editions of 40K have slowly taken some of the fun out of the positioning part, I admit. I'd still rather try to add some of that back instead of coming up with other artificial decisions to make.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/21 06:13:46


Post by: Racerguy180


I have no problem with IGOUGO and like the action/reaction element. I agree that alternating activations might be better but it can get unwieldy with the vast difference in unit sizes.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/21 10:19:03


Post by: HMint


How would close combat work, if you do alternative action for phases?

Wouldn't any unit that moves into charge range get annihilated by the full fire power of the opponents army (as the charge phase comes after every single unit has fired...)?




Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/21 14:23:13


Post by: argonak


HMint wrote:
How would close combat work, if you do alternative action for phases?

Wouldn't any unit that moves into charge range get annihilated by the full fire power of the opponents army (as the charge phase comes after every single unit has fired...)?




Most other games don’t do it by phases. Instead your unit would move, and en either shoot or charge. Your opponent would have an opportunity to interrupt (potentially) , and then you’d handle the close combat.

On he other hand some games do the phase thing,but have simultaneous execution. So your troops would fight after they charged even if they’d also been killed.

There’s a lot of creative options out there these days.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/21 17:43:03


Post by: Amishprn86


I dont think 40k is ready for that, the game needs to be completely redesign.



Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/21 19:29:05


Post by: Sweetcurse


I cooncur that a mix of heroscape activation limit plus phase alternating is best. Something along the lines of:

Move phase I move a unit then you move a unit and on until we move three units.

Shoot same, I pick one, you pick one until you activate three units.

If at any point you have less than three units a unit activaes more times. So if you have 3 units and I have 2, then one of mine activates twice in any phase.

Alternatively, pun intended, keep things as they are and “alternate” in the shooting and psychic phases in a model similar to fight phase. In fight phase units that charged fight first, then alternate. Maybe units that didn’t move get to shoot first if it’s your turn then armies alternate. Though that would require a full on initiative roll like AOS.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/21 20:52:38


Post by: shortymcnostrill


MagicJuggler wrote:AA is a nobrainer. Implementing it is the challenge.

There's the Stargrunt II model: The player with less unactivated units can choose to keep skipping activations until both players have an equal number of units. You can call it the "Ok, you move an Inquisitorial Acolyte. Quit screwing around and take a real turn" factor.

Optionally, you can declare certain superheavy units activate in parts. So a Baneblade would need one activation to move, one to shoot. This would also improve the parity in the number of activations available to both players.


I really like these. This would also make elite armies feel a bit more elite, while making larger armies feel a little unwieldy.


mew28 wrote:
Could do what Heroscape did and you just get a set amount of unit activations each turn and can put multiple on the same unit.


I fear using a limited number of activations could drive players to use no more than <limit> of the hardest units they can get, which also punishes horde armies. Happy to be proven wrong though! How do you think this would play out?



Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/21 21:35:49


Post by: Elbows


Just played our first 8th edition 40K game with token activation, and it went really well. To add to the complexity we were playing a three-way game. It was much more interesting/fun/challenging and ignited my interest in 40K again. The other guys also said it was very reinvigorating.

In short we used the token system mentioned on the other page (one token = each unit). Mixed in a mug and drawn until an alternate colour was pulled. For the armies we started with 8/12/13 tokens, and the largest "run" we had was four leftover units at the end of one turn.

We tackled close-combat pretty well, and resolved all effects, buffs, bonuses, and stratagems by ending them at the end of the battle round (i.e. a full turn for everybody). We picked up pretty quick that eliminating lingering models or finishing off the wounds on a Rhino was a good tactic (removing a token for their next turn). Tokens were assembled fresh at the start of each battle round, so if you lost a unit on Turn 1, you reduced your tokens for Turn 2, etc.

It did slow the pace of the game down slightly, and created far more moments where players were planning, deciding what to do - more analysis paralysis than a normal 40K game.

It added waaay more involvement, and you had to think far more about what you were doing and when - and the timing of maybe trying to get a unit to activate late in one turn, and early in the next (planning to try to get two activations close to each other).

Overall, really good and really fun. Far more enjoyable than normal IGOUGO.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/21 23:00:48


Post by: Fafnir


 Elbows wrote:

It did slow the pace of the game down slightly, and created far more moments where players were planning, deciding what to do - more analysis paralysis than a normal 40K game.


I'm okay with this. 40k has typically been slow because you have to drag your way through piles of minutiae and wordy decipherings of poorly written and spotty rules. Being slow because more situations demand thought, planning, and most importantly having to think about what's going on in your opponents' headspace is the good kind of slow.

And that's the biggest thing to take from any system of alternating activation over IGOUGO: it encourages more playing against your opponent and predicting their decisions than it does playing against their list. I wouldn't be surprised at all if many of the games' balance issues became mitigated or removed entirely (not to say that others wouldn't supplant them, but I'd expect them to be less egregious) simply by such implementation.

Fleeing from combat, a big problem with melee armies at the moment becomes a much smaller issue, to begin with. Does you waste an activation to pull a valuable unit out of combat so that you can potentially shoot at the assailants on your next activation, all while running the risk of leaving your other units open to further assaults? Those are good decisions to have to be making, and something that alternating activation does much better. Since the core mechanics of 8th edition are simple enough now anyway, it's not like it'd be a huge leap at this point either.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/21 23:13:17


Post by: Elbows


Yep, it was an entirely different way to think about it. Examples.

1) My buddy had units in a drop pod and had to wait to have a small run in order to drop the pod and activate the units inside.

2) I used a command re-roll I wouldn't normally use to ensure I killed a Rhino because it would cost my opponent a token.

3) When you have your whole army, but draw one token you start to have to prioritize differently - which is your strongest unit? Which unit is wounded and will likely not get an activation if it doesn't go now? Which unit is in line-of-sight of most enemies? Which unit is easy for your opponent to wipe out and thus reduce your tokens? How late is it in the turn? Will I get to double activate if this unit goes last and I activate it first? Can it last that long?, etc.

4) The one player with the fewest tokens did have the strongest units, but he was activating less often and rarely had a large run.

5) There was heavy consideration with who to activate early - do you activate your shootiest stuff? Or do you activate your spellcasters who will buff a unit....but what if you cast on a unit and it's destroyed before it activates?

6) The few instances where we had early turn runs, the last guy would always luck out near the end of the turn with 3-4 activations at the same time, which became a really big deal.

7) We occasionally made some banzai moves at the end of a turn, realizing the tokens were about to be put back in the mug and shaken up for a new Battle Round. So you could kind of risk hoping you'd draw first. Normally this banzai unit was slain before it ever got to go - but it was a nice option.

We all agreed that one large part of why 40K uses such large armies, is so that the second player has something left on the table when their turn comes up. The larger size doesn't add any enjoyment to the game, but we do think that you could have a really good game at 1,000 to 1,500 points with this system.

One major highlight was that we had great game with three players, because this kind of activation doesn't punish anyone - no one is "going last" The terrain bottlenecked some units into getting tag-teamed by the others (and we often tried to snipe the last wounds off of something wounded by another player), but the game ran flawlessly as a three-way game, something you simply can't do in a normal IGOUGO system.

My only fear? I won't want to play normal 40K again, lol.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/22 00:56:04


Post by: Blacksails


 Elbows wrote:
Spoiler:
Yep, it was an entirely different way to think about it. Examples.

1) My buddy had units in a drop pod and had to wait to have a small run in order to drop the pod and activate the units inside.

2) I used a command re-roll I wouldn't normally use to ensure I killed a Rhino because it would cost my opponent a token.

3) When you have your whole army, but draw one token you start to have to prioritize differently - which is your strongest unit? Which unit is wounded and will likely not get an activation if it doesn't go now? Which unit is in line-of-sight of most enemies? Which unit is easy for your opponent to wipe out and thus reduce your tokens? How late is it in the turn? Will I get to double activate if this unit goes last and I activate it first? Can it last that long?, etc.

4) The one player with the fewest tokens did have the strongest units, but he was activating less often and rarely had a large run.

5) There was heavy consideration with who to activate early - do you activate your shootiest stuff? Or do you activate your spellcasters who will buff a unit....but what if you cast on a unit and it's destroyed before it activates?

6) The few instances where we had early turn runs, the last guy would always luck out near the end of the turn with 3-4 activations at the same time, which became a really big deal.

7) We occasionally made some banzai moves at the end of a turn, realizing the tokens were about to be put back in the mug and shaken up for a new Battle Round. So you could kind of risk hoping you'd draw first. Normally this banzai unit was slain before it ever got to go - but it was a nice option.

We all agreed that one large part of why 40K uses such large armies, is so that the second player has something left on the table when their turn comes up. The larger size doesn't add any enjoyment to the game, but we do think that you could have a really good game at 1,000 to 1,500 points with this system.

One major highlight was that we had great game with three players, because this kind of activation doesn't punish anyone - no one is "going last" The terrain bottlenecked some units into getting tag-teamed by the others (and we often tried to snipe the last wounds off of something wounded by another player), but the game ran flawlessly as a three-way game, something you simply can't do in a normal IGOUGO system.

My only fear? I won't want to play normal 40K again, lol.


Thank you for your experience. This is basically exactly what I'd want out of 40k, and your posts only reinforce it. I've played with a token system in other games before and I found it was a good compromise between player control and simulating the random and shifting nature of the battlefield.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/23 14:10:28


Post by: EnTyme


Having tried a few 40k games with alternating activations, I can say that it's still not my favorite option as the game now stands. I still prefer alternating phases. AA just feels too gamey, and it seems to favor MSU. I prefer having large units, and AA just feel punishing to that playstyle. If the game did move to AA, I would definitely like to see a cap on the number of activations in a turn. It works really well in Shadespire.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/23 14:26:12


Post by: Elbows


The solution there is to game with people who aren't petty enough to 'cheese' a method which exists to make the game more fun.

Also, if you have the MSU style gaming, those units are easy to eliminate (and thus remove your opponents tokens). 40K is still as breakable as ever, but playing with similarly minded people goes a long way.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/23 14:38:31


Post by: Cheeslord


 EnTyme wrote:
Having tried a few 40k games with alternating activations, I can say that it's still not my favorite option as the game now stands. I still prefer alternating phases. AA just feels too gamey, and it seems to favor MSU. I prefer having large units, and AA just feel punishing to that playstyle. If the game did move to AA, I would definitely like to see a cap on the number of activations in a turn. It works really well in Shadespire.


Since you can freely split fire from a unit nowadays, don't players with a few powerful units have the advantage that they get to discharge a lot more points worth of firepower/offensive output in a shorter number of activation? Of course this is offset by the MSU player being able to hang back with his army out of range until you have run out of turns, but both types of force have advantages that can be played to with the right tactics.

(Also you can simply allow the player with the fewest units left to skip activations if you like, although I feel that gives too much advantage to the few mighty units (FMU) player.)

Mark.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/25 10:03:14


Post by: ordoteutonicus


 Blacksails wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
Spoiler:
Yep, it was an entirely different way to think about it. Examples.

1) My buddy had units in a drop pod and had to wait to have a small run in order to drop the pod and activate the units inside.

2) I used a command re-roll I wouldn't normally use to ensure I killed a Rhino because it would cost my opponent a token.

3) When you have your whole army, but draw one token you start to have to prioritize differently - which is your strongest unit? Which unit is wounded and will likely not get an activation if it doesn't go now? Which unit is in line-of-sight of most enemies? Which unit is easy for your opponent to wipe out and thus reduce your tokens? How late is it in the turn? Will I get to double activate if this unit goes last and I activate it first? Can it last that long?, etc.

4) The one player with the fewest tokens did have the strongest units, but he was activating less often and rarely had a large run.

5) There was heavy consideration with who to activate early - do you activate your shootiest stuff? Or do you activate your spellcasters who will buff a unit....but what if you cast on a unit and it's destroyed before it activates?

6) The few instances where we had early turn runs, the last guy would always luck out near the end of the turn with 3-4 activations at the same time, which became a really big deal.

7) We occasionally made some banzai moves at the end of a turn, realizing the tokens were about to be put back in the mug and shaken up for a new Battle Round. So you could kind of risk hoping you'd draw first. Normally this banzai unit was slain before it ever got to go - but it was a nice option.

We all agreed that one large part of why 40K uses such large armies, is so that the second player has something left on the table when their turn comes up. The larger size doesn't add any enjoyment to the game, but we do think that you could have a really good game at 1,000 to 1,500 points with this system.

One major highlight was that we had great game with three players, because this kind of activation doesn't punish anyone - no one is "going last" The terrain bottlenecked some units into getting tag-teamed by the others (and we often tried to snipe the last wounds off of something wounded by another player), but the game ran flawlessly as a three-way game, something you simply can't do in a normal IGOUGO system.

My only fear? I won't want to play normal 40K again, lol.


Thank you for your experience. This is basically exactly what I'd want out of 40k, and your posts only reinforce it. I've played with a token system in other games before and I found it was a good compromise between player control and simulating the random and shifting nature of the battlefield.


Thanks Elbows for that report. I have thought about playing 40k that way since I came back into 40K with 8th edition. I used to play a lot of Bolt Action and what you wrote sounds a lot like the activation system from that game. So I will definitely play 40K from now on in that way. As I am no tournament gamer that should be fine for me. Thanks for the report!


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/25 16:58:39


Post by: Elbows


Cool, let me know what issues you guys run into and how you resolve them. It does fundamentally change the game, so I know each game will present new issues to address.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/25 18:03:31


Post by: Sherrypie


 Elbows wrote:
Cool, let me know what issues you guys run into and how you resolve them. It does fundamentally change the game, so I know each game will present new issues to address.


One thing that piques my interest is close combat, how did you handle it? At the end of the turn, the activated unit strikes during the activation, something else?


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/25 18:21:09


Post by: LunarSol


 Eldarsif wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think alternating phases is better than alternating units, as alternating units felt very gamey, but I think it's very fair to say "I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot" etc etc because that would allow for the person who went second to counter the moves of the person who went first, while the person who went first still gets the advantage of dishing out damage first.


I actually like this. However, to make it less of an action/reaction I think this method would be the only one that could possibly support the roll of an initiative dice every turn. It feels weird in AOS as it means a player gets a huge Turn all for themselves and sometimes back to back, but with alternating phases it makes more sense.


It's worth noting that in games with an initiative roll like AoS, you only get back to back turns if you were going second the turn before. It kind of works to balance out first turn advantage, but depending on the flow of the game it can sometimes backfire if the second player is in a position to strike first. It's also probably the mechanic that's easiest to game in alternating activation systems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I can say that since I play mono-GK I only have 1 detachment 9a battalion). How would you deal with the situation of less detachments vs more?


I'd actually be curious to see what happens if you just let this slide and adjust accordingly. You have to remove the Brigade as an option regardless, but the player with fewer detachments is definitely running with a LOT less CP regardless. Alternatively, each detachment could be given an initiative bid that determines their activation order. It wouldn't quite be alternating activations at that that point, but it has interesting potential. Regardless, I don't think there's a way to do it blindly without making some adjustments to the existing detachment system; at the same time, I think it would work well enough to be worth trying as is just to flush out the problems.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/25 18:47:28


Post by: Elbows


 Sherrypie wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
Cool, let me know what issues you guys run into and how you resolve them. It does fundamentally change the game, so I know each game will present new issues to address.


One thing that piques my interest is close combat, how did you handle it? At the end of the turn, the activated unit strikes during the activation, something else?


The way we opted to run it this game (and it worked fine), was that you resolved the initial charge as normal. Later units which activated and charged into an existing combat would fight the unit they targeted and the targeted unit's models would fight back - but only against the charging unit (meaning it did not allow the entire combat to fight again).

We'll try this a couple more times and see if it changes anything. It played out perfectly well, so wasn't a huge deal.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/04/26 05:54:51


Post by: Danny slag


 Saevus wrote:
I’m going preface this with, I don’t play “competitive” 40k. It’s a fun game, I enjoy the hell out of it and 8th edition revived it in my local area in a big way. I live close to a couple major tournaments and I swing by sometimes to watch and chat and hobby but I’m not really salty about 40k or anything. However, even my group mostly uses match play rules and the competitive scene, As it were, drives discussions around the game. I see a lot of proposed “fixes” for 40ks shortcomings on different boards and the discussions on the recent FAQ got me to thinking. Every other game I currently play besides 40k, uses alternating activations in some form or another. Bolt action, chain of command, Star Wars legion. To be fair, as much fun as 8th has put back into my 40k hobby, and I’m up to 4 armies now, I’ve always felt they missed the boat and didn’t go for a hard redesign of the game.

I was just curious what other folks around here thought, with all the gnashing of teeth (or lack thereof) with FAQS and tournament results, did they miss the boat by keeping you go/I go?

Personally I think they did, and granted it would require looking at how some units work, and powers and etc, but as much fun as I am having, their latest beta rules to help address turn one are terrible and the more I look at it the more I think alternating activations would make 40k far more tactical that it is. It’s a fun game right now with some of the best models in the business but it’s not the most tactical game ever. In fact, I think it’s more about remembering every interaction you built into your list than anything else. Side note: my group hates 7th so bad we played 40k largely with bolt action rules and it wasn’t terrible. 8th is way better and more fun, but turn 1 is basically aids against any semi-hardcore list.


Been saying this for a long I've too. 40k will always have balance swing wildly and be a game of alpha strike as long as the outdated turn structure remain. Alternate activation adds so much more depth and makes for more balanced games.
GW even knows how to do it, necromunda, they even included an interesting mechanic where leader units can activate a varying number of other units with them, a great extra element.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/05/31 15:39:47


Post by: Elbows


Played two more games recently with token activation, and both were excellent.

One genuine take away (which I think I mentioned earlier) is that the game length is definitely a bit longer, as the decision process can extend the length of the game. Both games were played at 1500 points, and took 3-4 hours (played at a casual chatty rate as well). It's also a bit slower because we're still tackling occasional things which pop up and we haven't encountered before.

Things we addressed and more or less solidified over these two games:

1) When drawing X number of tokens, the player using the tokens runs a "mini turn" in which case he moves his X number of units, uses psychic powers, then shoots his X number of units, etc. Originally we had tried fully activating each unit at once, but in the case of multiple tokens we're simply running "mini turns" and it works better/cleaner.

2) We've traded the +1 to go first advantage of deployment to a temporary bonus activation token on the first turn (using a different colour token so we remember to remove it later). We're trying very much to keep the "spirit" of current 8th ed. 40K with minimal changes. So, finishing deployment first gives you a bonus token - this doesn't mean you can activate a unit more than once, but increases the chances of your token being drawn first.

3) With regard to charging into currently existing combat, we treat it like consolidation. If a unit charges into an active combat, it will swing first against the units it charged. The units which were charged and subsequently attacked will then fight. These units may choose to solely fight the new charging unit, or they may elect to target other units within 1" of them ---- HOWEVER, if they do this, those units then subsequently will get to fight as well, so it frequently benefits the charged unit to just fight the newly arrived unit. It works pretty seemlessly without many issues.

So far it's been really fun and it's increasingly likely I won't bother with normal 40K unless invited to a large event etc. The token activation system has been far more fun, fair, and enjoyable....also takes a lot more scheming to get things to work.


Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  @ 2018/06/06 02:36:04


Post by: Danny slag


Unless 40k moves to alternative activation any attempts at balance will just swing wildly between two extremes by the nature of having each army take their turns entirely at once.

Alternative activations would also add so much more depth to the game with choices on what and how to counter your opponent. It's superior in every way to the current turn structure and would solve or make solvable so many of the glaring balance problems that have been around through countless editions.