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 believe that the old Battle Tech game worked this way, and I always missed this particular mechanic. I was thinking of adapting it to 40k to completely off-set the "He Who Goes First, Wins" problem. Granted, in the latest edition, it's less of a problem than it has been for many a year...but it's still often true.

Here's how I see it working:

Leave board set-up and deployment rules alone
Roll for first turn as per usual (somebody has to start)
Player 1 moves a unit
Player 2 moves a unit - alternate until all units moved
Player 1 fires all units - models killed/destroyed are marked dead, but left in place
Player 2 fires all units, including those killed (it is assumed that they fired at the same time as their foes, but are resolved separately for the sake of the game)
Both players remove all casualties
Assault proceeds as normal

Has anyone tried this? If so, how did it go? Was it more fun? More fair? Took longer? Too hard to keep track of?

Thoughts?

I haven't tried 40K that way. I have played many wargames with different kinds of turn sequence.

Example:

Squad Leader

Side A’s Turn
1. Rally and Repair phase (both sides)
2. Prep Fire units who aren’t going to move.
3. Move.
4. Defensive fire by Side B. Units which moved are more vulnerable.
5. Advancing fire by Side A’s units who moved (reduced effect)
6. Advance (1 hex move by any or all of Side A’s units)
7. Close combat for units in the same hex with enemy units.
Then Side B has a turn.

Other interesting ideas are initiative point activation, command point activation, card draw activation, random activation.

Card draw activation
Each unit is assigned a playing card.
All the cards are shuffled and put into a draw pile.
As each card is drawn, the unit to which it belongs can be moved and fired.

A variation on that is to give the cards to the players and let them play them out one at a time in their preferred order.

Simultaneous Movement
Both players write movement orders for each unit, usually using a shorthand code. The units are then moved and melee combat is resolved as it occurs during movement.

the LoTR game works like this, but it does come with some problems.


the amount of cover would have to be reduced because the player going 2nd has the advantage of being able to move into cover to avoid getting shot at.

it would also screw with some psychic powers.


the game is balanced for the first player doing everything and then the other doing everything.

I started a thread about this ages ago on here, i play tested it a few times and found it to only work in huge pts battles, even easier with 4 players, but its complicated, takes a very long time it is fun at times but its confusing as hell and you have to write down what units died wounds lost ect to keep track of whats going on. If it could be perfected i would def play it again but the problems i encountered in how i played it need sorting.

Another problem. Game is balanced around their being 2 rounds of assault for every 1 round of shooting. Assault troops become devalued.

Grey Templar wrote:the LoTR game works like this, but it does come with some problems.


the amount of cover would have to be reduced because the player going 2nd has the advantage of being able to move into cover to avoid getting shot at.

it would also screw with some psychic powers.


the game is balanced for the first player doing everything and then the other doing everything.

Or unbalanced for that.

To be fair, if you change a basic aspect of the game like the turn sequence, clearly it will upset the current system. That does not in itself mean that the UGOIGO system is the best system. It just means if you want to change it and have the game be equally 'balanced' then other changes will have to be done.

Hi all.
I agree with Killkrazy.
If you change the game turn mechanic , you end up changing other game mechanics to suit.
When I tried this out years ago , I ended up changing ALL the game mechanics, and ended up with a completly differnt set of rules !

A more interactive game turn is better at keeping players engaged.

TTFN

Yeah. It's usually not until you actually change a rule that you actually see how far-flung the effects actually are! The same rule applies in D&D - my GM at first was kinda like "we'll kinda leave the alignment system as a grey area for the time being". Too bad for me I was a paladin - with the ability to detect evil and smite evil - and that everything was "subjective" in the eyes of this single person. The alignment system served a vital game purpose; in my particular case, it let me know, without a shadow of a doubt, when there were bad guys in need of a good smiting. When you take it out, suddenly my abilities pale in comparison to other party members because I can't be sure of things anymore.

As for Warhammer, I think it is dangerous to tinker with big rules like that.

Leave board set-up and deployment rules alone
Roll for first turn as per usual (somebody has to start)
Player 1 moves a unit
Player 2 moves a unit - alternate until all units moved
Player 1 fires all units - models killed/destroyed are marked dead, but left in place
Player 2 fires all units, including those killed (it is assumed that they fired at the same time as their foes, but are resolved separately for the sake of the game)
Both players remove all casualties
Assault proceeds as normal

This is kinda dangerous. I have 5 units on the table and go first (Eldar with the whole army in Wave Serpents). You have 27 and go second (Guard). So you move 22 units after you know exactly where my army is going (effectively your whole army, since you can move less-important units first)?

Yeah. I like what you want to do, and even agree on some levels, but this idea is bad for the game.

I rather prefer systems where ranged combat is ordered, Epic: Armageddon in particular. Instead of pretending it all happens at the same time, it follows a definite sequence defined by initiative, which can be held onto.

Another game system I like is Arty Confliffe's Crossfire. There you move one unit, or group, at a time until the enemy's reactions can interrupt you.

I think the notions at conflict here are the intuitions on the part of people that war happens all at once, rather than taking a long time and being really tedious punctuated by brief periods of violence.

Mr. Conliffe's system, and to a more user-friendly degree Mr. Johnson's system, lets a battle develop more naturally than the player's omniscience might otherwise suggest.

Epic Armageddon also allows guns to be used in engagements, as well as in classical table-top shooting. In Warhammer terms each model has a Firefight threshold, meaning it will cause a hit on an enemy model in the engagement on that roll: a Firefight of 5+ means a hit on a 1D6 roll of 5+. They can only use this Firefight value if they are not in close combat, in which case they have to use their Close Combat value.

The beauty of this system is not so much that it's like a simplified version of Warhammer 40k mechanics, but the benefits of ordering your actions to produce enhanced results. For example, a Space Marine player might Double with a detachment of Devastators (Move twice, shoot once at -1) to make sure that the detachment has units within 15cm of units in an Ork mob. When a unit of Assault Marines engages the Orks, they'll not only get their own 1D6 on 4+ in close combat, but 1D6 on 3+ from every stand of Devastators within 15cm. Of course the wound system is very much like Warhammer 40,000 except that the Orks can take stands/units of Gretchin in their detachments and still don't care if they die.

It's actually quite easy to convert ranges so that 15cm = 24", and you base five models a unit on 60mm square bases.

The flyer rules and orbital support is just gravy.

All interesting thoughts. Yes, I figured there'd be other elements that needed adjusting.

The Eldar vs. IG example was very good. My answer would be - "better move those 5 skimmers at Cruising Speed!" ;-)

Hi all.
I have to agree with Nurglitch.
Basing the rules of 40k on Epic Armageddon , makes far more sense than basing them on WHFB.

However ,I think It would be up to the gamers to write them, as GW plc dont seem too interested in gameplay...

TTFN

I have been toying with a concept I call Move, Shoot, Fight.

On my turn I can order each unit to Move, Shoot, Fight, Hold, maybe Dig In. I don't have this on paper yet.

So if a unit has a leader it executes the order. If not, it has to pass a leadership check to accept a new order. If it fails, it continues doing what it was doing before.

Basically the game becomes more fluid because each unit can respond to things happening on the table.

I have simulated this system a little and it creates a more true depiction of Fire and Manuever tactics that I learned in the army.

I will try to get it on paper sometime soon.

Hey ArmyC - that sounds worth a look, when you get around to it.

VoidAngel wrote:Hey ArmyC - that sounds worth a look, when you get around to it.

Seconded. That does sound really cool. And I would love it if you started a new thread, maybe even an article on it, and let people critique and make changes if it becomes as awesome as it sounds.

ArmyC wrote:...that I learned in the army.

On a serious note, ArmyC, I would like to thank you for your service to our beautiful nation. It will not be forgotten by me.

TheRedArmy wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:Hey ArmyC - that sounds worth a look, when you get around to it.

Seconded. That does sound really cool. And I would love it if you started a new thread, maybe even an article on it, and let people critique and make changes if it becomes as awesome as it sounds.

ArmyC wrote:...that I learned in the army.

On a serious note, ArmyC, I would like to thank you for your service to our beautiful nation. It will not be forgotten by me.

Seconded, and Amen.