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.

 some bloke wrote:


Whilst putting in AA and capping CP to eliminate soup (which GW views as "making people buy less models, books etc.) is all good wishlisting, it's not going to happen in reality. GW just won't do it. Making reinforcements compulsory, perhaps even for a set of 6 missions you can choose to use for more balanced play, leaving the existing ones be, is actually a possibility. it would also make different units more viable, so would make people buy more models, which is the only incentive GW will listen to.

Well, GW has been getting on the alternating actions train for quite some time in the recent years so it's not that far fetched. Titanicus, Necromunda, Kill Team... I would not actually be terribly surprised if they at some point encouraged folks to try the KT style of turn structure with 40k proper as an alternate way of playing, a White Dwarf article or something for fun. Of course I'm not expecting this, but it's not outside the realms of possibility. Robin Cruddace is very much aware of the possibility, even if his comment was "it currently doesn't feel right for 40k".

Escalation missions, sure, such could very much come in within the current paradigm, but if we're looking at gameplay changes that aren't tied to capitalism and significantly improve the situation, we have to alter the turn structure that is the very core of this problem.

Also robin cruddace is single handedly resposible for some of the worst design choices in codex and gameplay over the last 3 editions. His word is gak for whats good for the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: thats not quite fair. Hes ALMOST single handedly responsible.

How about.... -1 penalty to shooting for going first on the first turn (subject to a 6+ always hits)? That's easily handled through an FAQ or Chapter Approved. With that in place, being devastated isn't too likely if you don't get to go first.

Often suggested. You just moved the goal posts. Now when tau go second and orks go first the same problem happens.

You cant put a band aid on the symptom to fix the disease.

limiting the power of shooting for turn 1 is not a good way to go - in some scenarios, armies rely on their first turn of shooting to set their game. I imagine Tau pay enough for their longer ranged weapons. They can set up further away than most armies and remain as effective.

AA is all well and good but one activation does not equal another. A knight player vs an ork player will never be a fair match. You'll end up with 1 or 2 ork vehicles rushing forwards in exchange for a lot of their other stuff dying, and then the orks get to finish their turn.

AA by points (or power level) could be a way to go - if the player activates X points worth of knight, the opponent gets to activate X points worth of everything else to compensate for it. not sure how this would escalate though... or where to draw the line, how to decide if an expensive unit can be picked after a cheap one... could be difficult.

giving people access to limited amounts of their whole army at a time is a viable way to work around this whole issue. an easy way to limit the firepower turn 1 and the potential losses turn 1 is to not have all of your army there on turn 1. forcing people to hold half their army in reinforcements, and giving the second player access to it first, offsets the turn 1 advantage almost completely.

You wanted a solution, and I have presented one mathematically, which can easily be introduced to any game of 40k without needing to explain AA to someone or tell them that their army is nerfed because turn 1 is too powerful. This house rule can easily be injected into pick-up games at the local GW. It could easily be written into tournament rules and anyone who plays the game can work out how to play like this. AA is great but it doesn't work outside your gaming group.

summary:

AA is probably the best way to fix this issue
Staggered Deployment & forced reserves works with the current system, and is probably the simplest way to fix this issue.

I would like to see shooting characteristics hampered for player who gets first turn. (or maybe both players first round.) This could be shooting range , BS characteristic, AP. Thematically this could simulate the fog of war, when forces first engage that they do not have a complete grasp of enemy positions, etc.

This would promote more tactical maneuvering on the battlefield. The most boring games for me are facing parking lots of shooting units like Tau. If their range was Halved, outside of 24" on the first turn, then that would force them to sacrifice points if they want to stay put, or move out of their damn fortress.

To those that say this would hurt how such armies play, I can't imagine many opponents of these armies agree it's a fun playstyle to play against so maybe it SHOULD be changed. It might force Tau for example to play closer to the enemy, but spend more points on chaff to ensure extra rounds of shooting before facing melee.

Alpha Strike wasn't a huge problem in 5th except for a few very specialized lists in certain matchups (leaf blower.) And that also had all the IGOUGO problems.

What used to happen in 5th if you ran a pure gunline? You did a bunch of damage turn 1 and maybe 2, and then the rest of the game consisted of being murdered in close combat because a few good CC units could take on an entire army worth of gunline due to locking things in combat and sweeping advances.

So gunlines had to bring melee deterrent or counter charge units, which reduced their alpha strike potential. Which generally meant they had to drop the alpha strike entirely and bring a more well rounded list.

In other words, generalist lists with a good mix of shooting and melee potential could generally deal with alpha strike because units were more durable (old cover system, old ap system) and shooting was less powerful (no auras, no strats) and melee was a hard enough counter (fully locking things in CC, sweeping advance.)

The reason alpha strike and gunlines are such a problem is because offensive buffs are out of control, and melee has lost its proper role.

Switching away from IGOUGO would fix things, but that's essentially a total redesign of the game at this point. Instead we should be looking to earlier editions that didn't have this problem.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

The reason alpha strike and gunlines are such a problem is because offensive buffs are out of control, and melee has lost its proper role.

Switching away from IGOUGO would fix things, but that's essentially a total redesign of the game at this point. Instead we should be looking to earlier editions that didn't have this problem.

This strikes me as the crux of the issue, yeah.

Pointed Stick wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

The reason alpha strike and gunlines are such a problem is because offensive buffs are out of control, and melee has lost its proper role.

Switching away from IGOUGO would fix things, but that's essentially a total redesign of the game at this point. Instead we should be looking to earlier editions that didn't have this problem.

This strikes me as the crux of the issue, yeah.

Its also sort of untrue. The old lead designer of 40k left over creative differences and made bolt action and beyond the gates of antares. Both games have super obvious 40m roots in their core mechanics. Both are aa. And players have been making bolt hammer homebrew rule sets for a long long time. You can mostly JUST play 40k 8th directly ported to bolthammer. Or beyond the gates of 40k (search that on these forums and you will find a d10 a d6 and a simplified d10 version that all work with the codexes as is.)

 Lance845 wrote:

Pointed Stick wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

The reason alpha strike and gunlines are such a problem is because offensive buffs are out of control, and melee has lost its proper role.

Switching away from IGOUGO would fix things, but that's essentially a total redesign of the game at this point. Instead we should be looking to earlier editions that didn't have this problem.

This strikes me as the crux of the issue, yeah.

Its also sort of untrue. The old lead designer of 40k left over creative differences and made bolt action and beyond the gates of antares. Both games have super obvious 40m roots in their core mechanics. Both are aa. And players have been making bolt hammer homebrew rule sets for a long long time. You can mostly JUST play 40k 8th directly ported to bolthammer. Or beyond the gates of 40k (search that on these forums and you will find a d10 a d6 and a simplified d10 version that all work with the codexes as is.)

In fairness though ,whether the old lead designer left and made AA games isn't relevant. The fact is that the older editions didn't suffer from this, meaning that 40k can exist without the alpha strike issue. The old rules, as stated above, rewarded you for making it to melee. a good melee could actually tip the game. Now it's a one-off chance to inflict melee damage before the opponent walks away. it has no more committal than shooting now, and that's wrong.

Even the idea of moving fall back to your charge phase would drastically shift the power of CC in the game. once you've gone to the effort of slogging across the board and making it to combat, the reward should be comparable to those of someone who stood shooting for the first 2 turns. IE CC should be twice as powerful as shooting, to make it balanced.

The reason turn 1 is so important is that damage output only decreases through the game. It used to be turn 1 was alright, turn 2 and 3 were the big explosion of damage, and then it was getting into positions to try and win the game. Now, turn 1 is the highest damage output of the game, and it goes downhill from there. it used to pick up again when you got to combat, it wasn't just like having 1" range guns.

I agree with some bloke in that. Making Falling Back a smidge slower or more punishing, either by moving it to the Charge phase or giving the other side free attacks as you do so would somewhat improve the viability of mixed forces. There should be a role that fast bully units, like assault marines, could fill without having to utterly destroy their target in one go.

The AA bit is still somewhat relevant, as it allows for better counterplay in rougly every instance and makes the game more about situational control than pressure-free combo flaunting.

 some bloke wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Pointed Stick wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

The reason alpha strike and gunlines are such a problem is because offensive buffs are out of control, and melee has lost its proper role.

Switching away from IGOUGO would fix things, but that's essentially a total redesign of the game at this point. Instead we should be looking to earlier editions that didn't have this problem.

This strikes me as the crux of the issue, yeah.

Its also sort of untrue. The old lead designer of 40k left over creative differences and made bolt action and beyond the gates of antares. Both games have super obvious 40m roots in their core mechanics. Both are aa. And players have been making bolt hammer homebrew rule sets for a long long time. You can mostly JUST play 40k 8th directly ported to bolthammer. Or beyond the gates of 40k (search that on these forums and you will find a d10 a d6 and a simplified d10 version that all work with the codexes as is.)

In fairness though ,whether the old lead designer left and made AA games isn't relevant. The fact is that the older editions didn't suffer from this, meaning that 40k can exist without the alpha strike issue. The old rules, as stated above, rewarded you for making it to melee. a good melee could actually tip the game. Now it's a one-off chance to inflict melee damage before the opponent walks away. it has no more committal than shooting now, and that's wrong.

Those older editions had 2 things happening.

1) sweeping advances were a binary, wipes the unit entirely mechanic. And I will ague that mechanic is terrible. 2) 5 and earlier editions didn't see the advent of the super heavy and all the massive guns that came with them both on those things and to deal with those things. The game just got way more killy since then. We are not going to go back. Together you have a situation where you see "Alpha strike wasn't a big deal back then" to which I would say it still happened, it just wasn't as pronounced because of those other factors not existing yet.

Even the idea of moving fall back to your charge phase would drastically shift the power of CC in the game. once you've gone to the effort of slogging across the board and making it to combat, the reward should be comparable to those of someone who stood shooting for the first 2 turns. IE CC should be twice as powerful as shooting, to make it balanced.

I agree that melee has problems. I think falling back should have some kind of a risk involved.

The reason turn 1 is so important is that damage output only decreases through the game. It used to be turn 1 was alright, turn 2 and 3 were the big explosion of damage, and then it was getting into positions to try and win the game. Now, turn 1 is the highest damage output of the game, and it goes downhill from there. it used to pick up again when you got to combat, it wasn't just like having 1" range guns.

See above. The cats out of the bag. It's not going to get put back in.

 Lance845 wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Pointed Stick wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

The reason alpha strike and gunlines are such a problem is because offensive buffs are out of control, and melee has lost its proper role.

Switching away from IGOUGO would fix things, but that's essentially a total redesign of the game at this point. Instead we should be looking to earlier editions that didn't have this problem.

This strikes me as the crux of the issue, yeah.

Its also sort of untrue. The old lead designer of 40k left over creative differences and made bolt action and beyond the gates of antares. Both games have super obvious 40m roots in their core mechanics. Both are aa. And players have been making bolt hammer homebrew rule sets for a long long time. You can mostly JUST play 40k 8th directly ported to bolthammer. Or beyond the gates of 40k (search that on these forums and you will find a d10 a d6 and a simplified d10 version that all work with the codexes as is.)

In fairness though ,whether the old lead designer left and made AA games isn't relevant. The fact is that the older editions didn't suffer from this, meaning that 40k can exist without the alpha strike issue. The old rules, as stated above, rewarded you for making it to melee. a good melee could actually tip the game. Now it's a one-off chance to inflict melee damage before the opponent walks away. it has no more committal than shooting now, and that's wrong.

Those older editions had 2 things happening.

1) sweeping advances were a binary, wipes the unit entirely mechanic. And I will ague that mechanic is terrible. 2) 5 and earlier editions didn't see the advent of the super heavy and all the massive guns that came with them both on those things and to deal with those things. The game just got way more killy since then. We are not going to go back. Together you have a situation where you see "Alpha strike wasn't a big deal back then" to which I would say it still happened, it just wasn't as pronounced because of those other factors not existing yet.

Even the idea of moving fall back to your charge phase would drastically shift the power of CC in the game. once you've gone to the effort of slogging across the board and making it to combat, the reward should be comparable to those of someone who stood shooting for the first 2 turns. IE CC should be twice as powerful as shooting, to make it balanced.

I agree that melee has problems. I think falling back should have some kind of a risk involved.

The reason turn 1 is so important is that damage output only decreases through the game. It used to be turn 1 was alright, turn 2 and 3 were the big explosion of damage, and then it was getting into positions to try and win the game. Now, turn 1 is the highest damage output of the game, and it goes downhill from there. it used to pick up again when you got to combat, it wasn't just like having 1" range guns.

See above. The cats out of the bag. It's not going to get put back in.

I agree that the old sweeping advance rule was too much. I think that a viable option is to try and escape instead of attack - fall back as an alternative to fighting. Then, sweeping advance should be done to allow the other player to try to catch them. If they catch them, they don't get destroyed, but they don't get away either, and the advancing unit can still attack. I would give units that charged a bonus to sweeping advance (making it difficult to get away in the opponents turn, having just been charged, but not impossible). so if it's a straight roll off, then chargers roll 2D6 and pick the highest. Or get +3 to their roll. D6 + move would be too good for bikes, though it would be realistic. you're unlikely to succeed running after a motorbike!

Superheavies and big guns have increased the damage output of the shooting phase. If GW can push the "monsters" side of things, they can get some gargantuan creatures to tip the scale the other way. Everything should have a counter, and I think high wound models with good CC capabilities are a gap in the design at the moment. giving them shields which absorb a few hits before dying, or reduce damage at longer ranges, would help them survive turn 1 (and as they want to close the gap, reducing damage outside of 18" wouldn't be too OP, as that gap will close on turn 1!)

Yes, shooting very powerful, but the issue is that shooting became more powerful whilst CC became less powerful. if a superheavy can wipe out a unit in one phase, an elite (or huge) CC unit should be able to do the same.

I'm not suggesting that shooting goes away (though I do feel that they need to bring back LOS for vehicles, the arse of a baneblade firing everything round a corner is too abstract for my tastes). I just think they need to make CC keep up. Alpha-striking with shooting isn't such an issue if you can kill a 2k list with 1k of CC units. Or at the least, cripple it by hiding your army in combat. The game doesn't have to revolve around killing absolutely everything - killing isn't a tactic, it's just part of the game. when, where and how you kill is the tactics. "just make units more powerful" is the mentality of a 12 year old. At least GW knows their demographic.

Disagree with your end point.

We have 2 distinct problems. Igougo and its impact on gameplay including first turn advantage.

Cc hasnt kept up with shooting and its general mechnics dont help.


Fixing cc might mitigate igougos impact on the game over the course of the game but it doesnt actually adress the problems. It just makes them leas pronounced (in theory).

Fix both problems.

I think falling back during the charge phase is the simplest change that seems to make a dent in the problem.

Allow fly units to be able to shoot while in combat but at a penalty (i'd rather them not be able to shoot at all but I think a lot of point costs and army design would need to be re-examined.)

Would necessitate having some sort of anti-assault get the hell off of me units which could reduce the amount of T1 shooting.

That and allowing the person who goes second to DS on the bottom half of T1. Enduring 2 rounds of shooting before you can bring DS units in is really tough (I tried DS nearly half of my army one tournament and had 2 games where bottom of T2 I was down to a handful of models and almost swept off the table). While given how lethal 8th is anything that starts on the board has a good chance of coming off of it T1.

Give player 2 a strat (1cp per unit?) where they can DS any infantry using regular DS rules or any vehicle/monster w/in their movement range from their board edge (up to half their army).

The mobility of models, long shooting range, wide deployment zones and true LOS makes it really hard to hide anything out of LOS. The corners deployment map has proven to give me the best chance to hide out of LOS while either of the one's with the 60" deployment zones makes keeping out of LOS a problem (combined with knights and others moving 12ish" to get that LOS, unless all my army starts in an enclosed building keeping out of LOS is next to impossible).

 Lance845 wrote:
Disagree with your end point.

We have 2 distinct problems. Igougo and its impact on gameplay including first turn advantage.

Cc hasnt kept up with shooting and its general mechnics dont help.


Fixing cc might mitigate igougos impact on the game over the course of the game but it doesnt actually adress the problems. It just makes them leas pronounced (in theory).

Fix both problems.

I am inclined to agree with you. The issues are, as you state, that IGOUGO doesn't work with the way that 40k works, from a balancing point of view.

CC also is exceedingly "meh" compared with shooting, and a dedicated CC army almost always falls to a dedicated shooting army.


The second problem can be corrected by holding units in CC through the shooting phase - mitigating the "fall back and open fire" mechanic they gifted to the armies who have already opened fire every turn leading up to this, and then opened fire in overwatch. yeah, they needed more damage output... [/sarcasm]

The first problem could be solved with AA, with a good deal of rewriting and rebalancing, or it could be corrected by forcing players to have reserves. Reserves is almost like AA for the opening turns, as it prevents you using your whole army for turn 1. It's also a lot more familiar for most players than AA, and eliminates the (albeit limited) bookkeeping of AA (tracking who's done what, particularly with people charging & fighting during the turn). An escalation-style game is still my preferred option for this, and I think is a lot easier to explain to and get an agreement to use with a drop-in player.

I definitely don't think that nerfing turn 1's shooting is a good way to go, as it just moves it to turn 2. Increasing the amount of cover and LOS blocking terrain on the board will also help mitigate the power of the first turn. having the firing lines go across between the armies instead of from one to the other (IE if you line up on the long edges, don't allow anyone on one side to see anyone on the other side, but make it so you can see one short edge from the other) will almost eliminate the first turn shooting output, without allowing the charging forward armies to get a clean run up. turn 1 becomes about positioning, and turn 2 becomes about damage. The difference is that your positioning can have an effect on the damage output. you actually have a say in the matter!

The main problem with Alpha Strike is that just one person is playing the game while the other one watches and remove stuff without actively doing anything

Alternate Activation solves this problem as both players will take part of the game and play.

But it does not solve the Alpha Strike problem as a list that will wipe out the opponent turn 1 will still do so and the end of the turn.
For the very simple reason as most Alpha Strike lists also have a lot of units and the list with more activations has the advantage within an AA system.

So Elite armies or pure melee armies will need something to compensate, eg melee need to be stronger and elite armies need something to kill lot of cheap models without being able to kill the expensive stuff equal fast.

Without rebalancing the game AA won't help much but it will be a better experience for both players.

If you rebalance the game, IGoUGo will work too

 kodos wrote:
The main problem with Alpha Strike is that just one person is playing the game while the other one watches and remove stuff without actively doing anything

Alternate Activation solves this problem as both players will take part of the game and play.

But it does not solve the Alpha Strike problem as a list that will wipe out the opponent turn 1 will still do so and the end of the turn.
For the very simple reason as most Alpha Strike lists also have a lot of units and the list with more activations has the advantage within an AA system.

So Elite armies or pure melee armies will need something to compensate, eg melee need to be stronger and elite armies need something to kill lot of cheap models without being able to kill the expensive stuff equal fast.

Without rebalancing the game AA won't help much but it will be a better experience for both players.

If you rebalance the game, IGoUGo will work too

Unless things happen simultaenously, it's another IGOUGO at a more segmented level. Any form of turn based game is an IGOUGO.

40K is not an action shooter. It's a board game.

 kodos wrote:
The main problem with Alpha Strike is that just one person is playing the game while the other one watches and remove stuff without actively doing anything

Alternate Activation solves this problem as both players will take part of the game and play.

But it does not solve the Alpha Strike problem as a list that will wipe out the opponent turn 1 will still do so and the end of the turn.
For the very simple reason as most Alpha Strike lists also have a lot of units and the list with more activations has the advantage within an AA system.

So Elite armies or pure melee armies will need something to compensate, eg melee need to be stronger and elite armies need something to kill lot of cheap models without being able to kill the expensive stuff equal fast.

Without rebalancing the game AA won't help much but it will be a better experience for both players.

If you rebalance the game, IGoUGo will work too

AA doesn't have to work with a one to one ratio in activations either. Currently I prefer our Bolt Action~ish way, where at the start of the round all players count the number of their units and put as many counters (like coloured dice) in a bag and then draw them blindly until you get a different one. In the long run this gives pretty even series of draws, with some nice unpredictability baked in, as the player whose chits are drawn then does a whole turn sequence with as many units as they drew their tokens. Say, if usually my Death Guard has maybe 7-9 units and my Imperial Guard opponent has maybe 15, usually he draws 2-3 for each one I get while I too occasionally get a larger group to spend on some more coordinated assault or whatever I've been planning on. That cuts down most of the "time wasting" skip-activations you sometimes see in AA games that are straight single activations at a time. We also represent the starting roll bonus via an extra token for the side that "should have" began the game. It has been a blast thus far when appliedto 8th edition.

There's also always the fact that you can interact better with your opponent's battleplan when your target choices actually affect their ability to activate and time their moves

The bolt Action system fits Bolt Action in Army size and who deadly the system is.
And it works up to a point with 40k, but not with the current state of the game

But the system struggles if the game gets bigger will have troubles with 8th style games unless you scale it back to 1000 points.

I also can see the old Warpath system working, were players alternate 1-3 units (the first activation is free, next is 3+, third is 5+, than the opponent can make his activations)

For larger games, the current version of Warpath works quiet well and would also work with the Apocalypse style game 40k has become but it is not the Skrimish style game people want 40k to be.

From my point of view it would be the best to keep the turn based interaction and balance shooting vs melee

Thats just not true. Search beyond the gates of 40k. Its bolthammer in 8th and just works. All the up to 2500 that i have played.

Don't personally see that as a problem, as 40k is at its core a platoon level game that has bloated towards something else over many years. If anything, the "normal" game size should anyway be reduced more towards the 1200-1700 points range as changing the turn structure already does away with the "oh but you HAVE to have 2000 points of stuff on the field to survive first turn!" nonsense that only keeps the spiral of misery going

The initiative system from Epic Armageddon could also be interesting, which is very close to that of Warpath except armies have different values for getting that second activation. Trying to take more and failing in it also creates problems, so it's a nice minigame of its own to ponder when you actually want to do so.

 Lance845 wrote:
Thats just not true. Search beyond the gates of 40k. Its bolthammer in 8th and just works. All the up to 2500 that i have played.

Yeah, but this changes a lot more than just replacing alternating player turns with alternating activation

And I would like to see how Orks perform against 2.5k points of Knights

It really doesnt change very much from any codex.

It changes the turn structure and clarifies rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and fixes terrain and los.

I'm not convinced that IGOUGO is the source of the whole problem because, as said before, we had previous editions where alpha strikes weren't breaking the game (they did exist and were a viable style of army, which is fine. They just need to not break things.) However, for the sake of moving the conversation along, I'll just take everyone's word for it that it is the problem.

Okay. Now, also for the sake of moving on, yall need to admit that GW isn't ever going to change the whole turn structure of the game without at least a new edition, and probably never at all. So let's get back to the point worth talking about: what could change to get things to be more like they used to, where alpha strike shooting didn't have the critical mass to break the enemy's back on turn 1 like it can now.

Offense has increased. I see people claiming that it's because of super heavies, but this is simply false. Super heavies tend to have less firepower per point than non-super heavy options. Compare a Knight to an equivalent amount of points of Russes, for example. The exception to this is probably a Cawl's wrath castellan, but that's an outlier, not the rule. And its strength wasn't so much its raw firepower per point, but it's ability to sustain it by being tough to take down, and having an anti-degredation mechanic. But the Castellan has been hit pretty hard now, so its likely not even going to be an outlier anymore.

It is simply ridiculous to say that "We can't go back" to how things used to be while at the same time claiming that the fix is a massive scale change to the whole game that they will never do. We can "go back", and by go back I mean adjust the ratio of offense to defense and restore melee to its proper role. In fact, we've already starting doing it with the introduction of the turn 1 everyone gets cover stratagem. That wasn't enough on its own, but if we got a couple more mechanics like that, a lot of this problem goes away.

The useful discussions to have on this topic are
1) What other mechanics could be added to mitigate turn 1 alpha strike
2) What can be done to give melee a proper role again

Discussing converting the game to an alternating activation system isn't even wishlisting, it's just outside the realm of possibility. If you like this other system so much, go play it. If we can get enough of a community around it and it is better, I'd be happy to come along. But for now, let's see what could actually be implemented to help the current system.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
I'm not convinced that IGOUGO is the source of the whole problem because, as said before, we had previous editions where alpha strikes weren't breaking the game...
...Discussing converting the game to an alternating activation system isn't even wishlisting, it's just outside the realm of possibility. If you like this other system so much, go play it. If we can get enough of a community around it and it is better, I'd be happy to come along. But for now, let's see what could actually be implemented to help the current system.

I couldn't agree more. Switching the game from IGOUGO to AA, whilst it may work, is a massive change to the game, and isn't likely to happen. It also still has its alpha-strike problems (3 massively powerful units vs 30 small units, you're back to IGOUGO, more or less) and, with the 40k mentality, you would end up with deathstars coming back so people get the most damage output from each of their units. It also prevents MSU (EG trukkboys, my favourite list in 7th) from using their weight of numbers, especially against deathstars. example: 5 units of trukkboys, vs a deathstar, assuming there are other units for both sides to activate:
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 1 charge deathstar, get overwatched, then die in combat. deathstar player activates a different unit.
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 2 charge deathstar, get overwatched, then die in combat. deathstar player activates a different unit.
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 3 charge deathstar, get overwatched, then die in combat. deathstar player activates a different unit.
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 4 charge deathstar, get overwatched, then die in combat. deathstar player activates a different unit.
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 5 charge deathstar, get overwatched, then die in combat. deathstar player now activates the deathstar and kills some more units.

Deathstar just killed 5+ units in one turn. multi-charges are needed for MSU.

Without also having to change the CC rules, you will end up with one massively powerful unit with MSU backing being quite high in the meta. I remember deathstars, and I don't want to go back to that.

I think a lot can be affected by the table. if you can't see the enemy deployment zone, turn 1 becomes about positioning, setting up crossfires, etc. add more LOS blocking terrain, I suspect this will improve the game.

Just making vehicles stay on the table if they don't explode, as LOS blocking terrain, would be an easily implemented rule and make the table look cooler as the game goes on as well. I enjoyed having trashed vehicles scattered across the board. everything just vaporises now, it's not as immersive.

*gets out the charge more for special weapons drum*

If you actually had to pay for the ability to reliably destroy enemy units we wouldn't have this issue. The requirement of massive amounts of death to keep the game playable is actually a symptom of scale creep more than bad design. Bump up points across the board, double unit costs and triple weapon costs(actual cost not the differential cost listed on the points sheets) and you will see a wildly different game. One that actually plays reasonably.

Or just play a 1000 point game with goals centered around holding or taking points and you're mostly there already. If someone takes their death star they can't really win unless they table you, and that's why those acceptable casualty rules where introduced in CA 2018. Those missions are wonderful for breaking the maximum killy meta at lower point values.

But I suppose that asks the question, just how long should it take the average blob of points to kill a similarly sized blob of points?

Pointed Stick wrote:

- All deployment zone distances from the center are lengthened by 6", so both armies start out on average an additional 12" farther apart from one another. This balances out how fast virtually all units are today (with higher movement values, advancing, and 2D6" charge distances), and brings back an element of maneuver warfare, rather than just trying for a first-turn charge. Also encourages the use of transports more.

Good. We just need foot wider tables. Who has 5' wide tables?

As is 6" deployment zones just aren't feasible for some armies. And makes 1st turn charges(which many still exists...) even more powerful.

 some bloke wrote:

I couldn't agree more. Switching the game from IGOUGO to AA, whilst it may work, is a massive change to the game, and isn't likely to happen. It also still has its alpha-strike problems (3 massively powerful units vs 30 small units, you're back to IGOUGO, more or less) and, with the 40k mentality, you would end up with deathstars coming back so people get the most damage output from each of their units. It also prevents MSU (EG trukkboys, my favourite list in 7th) from using their weight of numbers, especially against deathstars. example: 5 units of trukkboys, vs a deathstar, assuming there are other units for both sides to activate:
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 1 charge deathstar, get overwatched, then die in combat. deathstar player activates a different unit.
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 2 charge deathstar, get overwatched, then die in combat. deathstar player activates a different unit.
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 3 charge deathstar, get overwatched, then die in combat. deathstar player activates a different unit.
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 4 charge deathstar, get overwatched, then die in combat. deathstar player activates a different unit.
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 5 charge deathstar, get overwatched, then die in combat. deathstar player now activates the deathstar and kills some more units.

Deathstar just killed 5+ units in one turn. multi-charges are needed for MSU.

ok, this is likely how AA will work if GW does it, but doing it like most other games:

turn 1, ork trukkers unit 1 charge deathstar, get overwatched, then die in combat. deathstar player activates a different unit.
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 2 charge deathstar deathstar player cannot overwatch or strike back in combat as the DS unit already used its activation, activates a different unit.
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 3 charge deathstar deathstar player cannot overwatch or strike back in combat as the DS unit already used its activation, activates a different unit.

With some variation like either there is no overwatch at all but striking back in combat with have of the attacks for an activated unit or similar

 some bloke wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
I'm not convinced that IGOUGO is the source of the whole problem because, as said before, we had previous editions where alpha strikes weren't breaking the game...
...Discussing converting the game to an alternating activation system isn't even wishlisting, it's just outside the realm of possibility. If you like this other system so much, go play it. If we can get enough of a community around it and it is better, I'd be happy to come along. But for now, let's see what could actually be implemented to help the current system.

I couldn't agree more. Switching the game from IGOUGO to AA, whilst it may work, is a massive change to the game, and isn't likely to happen. It also still has its alpha-strike problems (3 massively powerful units vs 30 small units, you're back to IGOUGO, more or less) and, with the 40k mentality, you would end up with deathstars coming back so people get the most damage output from each of their units. It also prevents MSU (EG trukkboys, my favourite list in 7th) from using their weight of numbers, especially against deathstars. example: 5 units of trukkboys, vs a deathstar, assuming there are other units for both sides to activate:
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 1 charge deathstar, get overwatched, then die in combat. deathstar player activates a different unit.
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 2 charge deathstar, get overwatched, then die in combat. deathstar player activates a different unit.
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 3 charge deathstar, get overwatched, then die in combat. deathstar player activates a different unit.
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 4 charge deathstar, get overwatched, then die in combat. deathstar player activates a different unit.
turn 1, ork trukkers unit 5 charge deathstar, get overwatched, then die in combat. deathstar player now activates the deathstar and kills some more units.

Deathstar just killed 5+ units in one turn. multi-charges are needed for MSU.

Without also having to change the CC rules, you will end up with one massively powerful unit with MSU backing being quite high in the meta. I remember deathstars, and I don't want to go back to that.

I think a lot can be affected by the table. if you can't see the enemy deployment zone, turn 1 becomes about positioning, setting up crossfires, etc. add more LOS blocking terrain, I suspect this will improve the game.

Just making vehicles stay on the table if they don't explode, as LOS blocking terrain, would be an easily implemented rule and make the table look cooler as the game goes on as well. I enjoyed having trashed vehicles scattered across the board. everything just vaporises now, it's not as immersive.

First of all, unlikely to happen is the name of the game of the proposed rules forum. Nothing we talk about here is going to happen. Ever. Get used to the idea of that.

2) you make some wild ass assumptions about AA. Play some games first instead of just speculating.

3) There tends to be 2 arguments from people who don't understand how AA works that unsurprisingly are contradictions. The first is that "We will just get 3 deathstars and then all the deathstars will win!" and the other is "It will all be MSU with dinky little activations because more activations is so much more powerful then less activations!"

Both are wrong in practice with the second being CLOSER to being right but not really.

3 "large (like imperial knight)" activation start their turn early and get out maneuvered. They loose every tactical edge when they blow it all away early. Or they miss out on opportunities in a random grab bag style AA when they don't get picked to go next. And the smaller activations while getting to run circles around the enemy don't have much of any impact and can't actually influence the field meaningfully when they do activate. So they are mostly a waste. A good list in AA either has a solid mix of both or a lot of middle ground or you are going to get trounced. The 3 knights will get crippled but their inability to keep up. The MSU will bleed activations early on and loose any advantage it might have had by the mid game.

4) I have never seen anyone suggest the overwatch mechanic stays in tact in a AA game. Overwatch generally becomes a tactical choice where a unit forgoes shooting on it's activation to interrupt the enemies turn to shoot on theirs. Generally with some kind of restriction like half range or some such. Point being they get to shoot once. Not 5 times. It lets you be tactical with units providing cover fire (or you know... OVERWATCH) for other units and potentially a form of area denial.

5) the CC rules would change. Because the CC rules are part of the turn structure which we are talking about changing. You fight on your units activation, not at the end of every activation.


As above, you described how an idiot would implement AA. Not any functional system that has been used.