Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.