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.

GodDamUser wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
If they port this rule over, I'm suspecting 40k games are going to be like AoS games, screws objectives, doglike in the middle, and won't last past turn 4 on average.

Or you actually paly the objectives and actually have a fun game that requires thinking

Yeah, the thinking move would be to bum rush middle and go for table like AoS majority of games end by turn 4 via scoop or table.

Besides your assuming I don't have fun tabling or bum rushing the middle. We don't need the snarky comments, we are discussing weather or not we think this is a good idea.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Personally I hate the Back and forth, simply because it give you no chance to fight back.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
If they port this rule over, I'm suspecting 40k games are going to be like AoS games, screws objectives, doglike in the middle, and won't last past turn 4 on average.

Or you actually paly the objectives and actually have a fun game that requires thinking

Yeah, the thinking move would be to bum rush middle and go for table like AoS majority of games end by turn 4 via scoop or table.

Besides your assuming I don't have fun tabling or bum rushing the middle. We don't need the snarky comments, we are discussing weather or not we think this is a good idea.

What games of AoS are you going for that end in tabling?

I wouldn't mind more game mechanics being ported over from Bolt Action. Random activation is my favorite way to do turn order. I actually like alternating activation least especially if there are no provisions for the player with the fewest unactivated to have the option to pass. Alternating activations just seems too orderly for war and without the option to pass, the player with the most units can spend the first part of the turn activating chaff only to lay use their big guns without counter at the end of the turn.

I have serious doubts that Games Workshop is going to change their activation system. However, even with IGOUGO, if you break the turn up in phases and allow reactions by the non-active player it can work.

As for close quarters combat/assault, I also wouldn't mind it being more like Bolt Action but with less of a winner takes all ending. In Bolt Action the attackers go first unless they have to cross terrain (walls and hedges usually) or enter a building in which both side goes at the same time (my experience is this happens more often than not).

I could see that working pretty well for 40K. They just need to expand the effects for the losing unit to include more than instant removal from table. Perhaps most of the time the losing unit holds their ground, sometimes they fall back and are counted as activated the next player turn and with a extreme roll are routed and removed from the table.

I like the idea of Warhammer 40K becoming more like Bolt Action (especially with things like the removal of templates) far more than Bolt Action becoming more like Warhammer 40K (it is strange the Bolt Action will have templates but 40K won't).

The thing i just realized im really scared might happen....rolling to see who goes first EVERY TURN, ugh please no.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
The thing i just realized im really scared might happen....rolling to see who goes first EVERY TURN, ugh please no.

They have confirmed that doesn't port to 40k.