Guitarquero wrote:

knas ser wrote:
Loads of fun without extra complexity.

Yet you want to change the points for every single army and unit, to Balance it.

Sounds Complicated.

Mike94656 wrote:
Vehicles have their own initiative values that would be assigned.
Tanks like Vindicators and land raiders would be slower
So more likely at I1, other faster vehicles like wave serpents would be I4. In the event of an initiative you're, elect a unit, and dice off.

 knas ser wrote:

 da001 wrote:

knas ser wrote:

It would be better in many ways, but I would not use Initiative, but Leadership. Also I would not do everything in order as for certain army match-ups it would still turn into Your Turn My Turn and removes an interesting tactical choice.

There's a similar approach (so you get the realism and interesting variance between unit types) but which avoids the problems that come with it. Instead of strict initiative or leadership order, it's just regular I Go You Go but allow an interrupt based on the relevant score (Initiative in your case, Leadership in mine). This adds a whole new tactical aspect to the game with knowing that if you move init X (low score) first, you're giving your opponent a chance to squeeze in an extra move before you actually move it. (To be clear only one interrupt is allowed). And it reflects the real benefit of high leadership on a battlefield, This would increase the value of the relevant attribute and so some re-costing would be useful. It would also lead to more interesting differences and play-styles between otherwise similar armies. It also avoids the problem if high Initiative / Leadership trips being trapped into going sooner than is tactically desired which would be the opposite of how a better leader / troop should behave - as others have pointed out, going first can be a disadvantage.

It plays pretty quickly, also:
"I'm moving these Boyz, leadership 6"
"Marnius Calgar is interrupting"

Lets you bait your opponent into making mistakes also by moving their best troops when they shouldn't so you can get them to commit wrongly. It's a whole new aspect of tactical play for almost zero additional complication.

In my humble opinion, this is... absolutely brilliant. I would limit it to the Warlord (and the unit he is attached to, or perhaps a unit within 6"), but the concept is amazingly good.
It would show the leaders as truly leading.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike94656 wrote:
I like it simply for the back and forth. You get to be reactive to the other player. They move and shoot, you can counter, but instead of waiting for an entire army to move, you go unit by unit. Giving priority to faster units before slower.

It also leads to more tactical decisions in a game. Do you want to move unit Y first and charge those Eldar before they get away, or move unit X and seize those ruins before your opponent does.

^This is important too, and another reason for the change.

Thanks. I think even if the idea that changing one side goes then the other to a game of alternating units isn't universally regarded as necessary, it's certainly near the too of the list of things most people believe would improve things. So when I was thinking over ideas based on that and wanting different armies to actually play differently and capture realistically the different organizational abilities of different armies (quite frankly Space Marines who are a small hyper-elite force ought to have better command effects than, e.g. IG or orks), it seemed clear that Leadership should be that differentiator. Unfortunately it presented the case where it turned games back into one side goes, then the other. I mulled it over for a couple of days at the back of my mind as to how I could achieve this without that happening, and then realized allowing an interrupt did exactly that. I see it as DESIRABLE that in, e.g. SM vs. Orks, the SM get the chance to use their greater battlefield coordination, communications, etc., in a way that matters.

If you're interested in tactical play then attaching a high Leadership IC to a unit in regular WH40K makes them better, but has almost no tactical significance. But in this system, it's a serious decision.

Lanrak wrote:
@lord_blackfang.
I totally agree that without some form of modification alternating unit activation can be 'abused' in the way you stated.
Most alternating unit activation systems have to use a reaction mechanic, or control of activation sequence using phasing/ orders, or randomized selection, or some variation on these themes.

How do you feel about alternating phases?

EG one play takes one action with all units, then the opposing player takes one action with all units.

In the simplest form.
A moves,
B moves.
A shoots,
B shoots.
A assaults,
B assaults.

And players roll off to go first at the start of the turn.

This system can be extended to cover more flexible and tactical options .(Using order counters to allow a wider freedom of action sequences,or alternative phases to represent a more intergrated and reactive game turn.

But the basic system should slot into current 40k rules without too much fuss.IMO.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Problem is, when you give strong armies like Eldar, Space Marines, or Tau extra free bonuses at the expense of weak armies like Orks, you make my games even more unbalanced which can offset any added depth to the game.