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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That seems like even more rules bloat/overcomplication.

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

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

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

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

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Davor wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like it is right now in 40K?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Davor wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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