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.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Again, I think a lot of people in this thread are missing a very important fact. The alternative trun system is being used for games much smaller then Warhammer.

If you do an alternative turn system your going to be adding around 30 min a battle round.

Disagree. It doesnt make the game any longer. Or if it does, its so small its insignificant next to the gains of less down time and more tactical game play.

 Infantryman wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Again, I think a lot of people in this thread are missing a very important fact. The alternative trun system is being used for games much smaller then Warhammer.

If you do an alternative turn system your going to be adding around 30 min a battle round.

(You're.)

And that doesn't make any sense - it's the same amount of activity, you've just got players trading back and forth. Would you rather sit there for 20 minutes while I do everything at once, or for five minutes while I do one unit?

That's not true at all.

Exmples of where is going to take longer.

Say I have 4 units within range to shoot you. Before I could roll all fours at once, now I can only do one at a time, change, do combat rolls all one at a time, va just saying ok these two squads are gonna shoot you now.

Now scale that up to full size games. It's gonna go longer. And I'm telling you this because I have done it before, it takes longer.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Again, I think a lot of people in this thread are missing a very important fact. The alternative trun system is being used for games much smaller then Warhammer.

If you do an alternative turn system your going to be adding around 30 min a battle round.

(You're.)

And that doesn't make any sense - it's the same amount of activity, you've just got players trading back and forth. Would you rather sit there for 20 minutes while I do everything at once, or for five minutes while I do one unit?

That's not true at all.

Exmples of where is going to take longer.

Say I have 4 units within range to shoot you. Before I could roll all fours at once, now I can only do one at a time, change, do combat rolls all one at a time, va just saying ok these two squads are gonna shoot you now.

Now scale that up to full size games. It's gonna go longer. And I'm telling you this because I have done it before, it takes longer.

The rules as they are now do not allow you to shoot with 4 units simultaneously. So if that is something you are doing to "speed up your game" then you are opening the door for all kinds of bs.

Your supposed to be checking range for eaxh unit separately after the previous unit has completed its shooting with enemy losses potentially taking your other units out of range. Its also dumb for you tactically because the first unit might have made it an undesirable target for the other 3.

But back to the first point, your not allowed to do that. So what relevence does it have?

Alternative unit activation is fine for 40k. It takes the same amount of time as IGYO, but it's evenly spread out between the two players leading to better player participation. And most importantly of all, it kills the alpha strike.

It just breaks the narrative feel for some as it's a fairly bad way of doing a battle. "The artillery just fired so we have to stand here being shot."
At least IGYG is less bad.

pm713 wrote:
It just breaks the narrative feel for some as it's a fairly bad way of doing a battle. "The artillery just fired so we have to stand here being shot."
At least IGYG is less bad.

What kind of nonsense is that? You think narratively it makes more sense for my entire army to stand there and watch your entire army position themselves, shoot, charge, and fight, all the while suffering losses without responding at all? What narrative builds from that worse then napoleonic way of doing a battle?

 Lance845 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
It just breaks the narrative feel for some as it's a fairly bad way of doing a battle. "The artillery just fired so we have to stand here being shot."
At least IGYG is less bad.

What kind of nonsense is that? You think narratively it makes more sense for my entire army to stand there and watch your entire army position themselves, shoot, charge, and fight, all the while suffering losses without responding at all? What narrative builds from that worse then napoleonic way of doing a battle?

View the whole turn as a few seconds. One side does advancing toward the enemy, firing etc and then it's reactions followed more reactions.

It isn't perfect but makes more sense than taking turns. You can't tell me that a unit going "The enemy is right next to us but the artillery will do more damage to another unit nowhere near us means we'll stand here and die" is sensible.

pm713 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
It just breaks the narrative feel for some as it's a fairly bad way of doing a battle. "The artillery just fired so we have to stand here being shot."
At least IGYG is less bad.

What kind of nonsense is that? You think narratively it makes more sense for my entire army to stand there and watch your entire army position themselves, shoot, charge, and fight, all the while suffering losses without responding at all? What narrative builds from that worse then napoleonic way of doing a battle?

View the whole turn as a few seconds. One side does advancing toward the enemy, firing etc and then it's reactions followed more reactions.

It isn't perfect but makes more sense than taking turns. You can't tell me that a unit going "The enemy is right next to us but the artillery will do more damage to another unit nowhere near us means we'll stand here and die" is sensible.

Absolutely it is. 40k is a universe of insanity where leaders sacrifice their men constantly and in droves to accomplish sometimes poor strategic goals. If your ethereal, hivemind, commissar tells you kill that artillery at any cost then you ignore the things around you to take out that artillery.

On top of that, boltaction/btgoa uses pins to represent the pressure the unit is under from being shot at. They can cause a unit to not follow orders and go down taking cover instead. On top of THAT, when an enemy does things to you the unit can potentially do reactions reacting to their enemies in "real time" for ambushes and such.

View the whole turn as a few seconds, in which everyone is reacting to all the things going on around them and the things going on around them have consequences. You really think IGOUGO is more narratively cinematic then what BA and BTGOA has set up?

pm713 wrote:


It isn't perfect but makes more sense than taking turns. You can't tell me that a unit going "The enemy is right next to us but the artillery will do more damage to another unit nowhere near us means we'll stand here and die" is sensible.

You usually don't want your artillery splashing down danger close if you can avoid it - that's what the hull-mounted heavy bolters and infantry teams are there for.