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 think the key is that an army does things in unison, but never in isolation. What your army does depends on what the opposing forces do.

AA lets you move your army as one unit, but through that moment you have to work with the fact that your opponent is also moving. Do you stick to your guns and your initial plan; or do you react to their recent choices. Indeed if you play AA purely reactionary to your opponent you like as not have handed them the game. You have to balance pushing your own objectives and agenda with reacting to how they are trying to counter you whilst also adapting your plan to countering theirs.


My view is its a more reactive system that simulates the push and pull of two forces engaging each other.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm not a fan of AA in wargames, because it no longer feels like I am playing an army. Armies do things simultaneously; moving in formation, firing lines, etc. I see it as the height of stupidity when I can move a front unit forward then have them be charged in the flank simply because the unit next to them has not yet activated to move up. Of course that unit can now charge the flanker, which results in these flank-chains of death that aren't much fun and don't feel like a wargame.

I suppose that makes some sense in a WHFB-style game of infantry blocks, where formations are rigid and facings are extremely important. It doesn't make sense in a game like 40k, which represents much more fluid modern-style combat where units move in loose groups and facing is irrelevant (at least for infantry). An alternating activation system is necessary for a game like 40k because it best represents the fact that, while you might want your army to act as a unified whole, your enemy is constantly acting at the same time and your units have to rely on their own decisions in combat.

NinthMusketeer wrote:I'm not a fan of AA in wargames, because it no longer feels like I am playing an army. Armies do things simultaneously; moving in formation, firing lines, etc. I see it as the height of stupidity when I can move a front unit forward then have them be charged in the flank simply because the unit next to them has not yet activated to move up. Of course that unit can now charge the flanker, which results in these flank-chains of death that aren't much fun and don't feel like a wargame.

That's why genre/setting is important, because the purpose of activation systems is fundamentally to model command and control, and the impact friction has. Other genres where pure IGOUGO is often appropriate include naval wargames and grand strategy.

You're describing pure AA, but that's far from the only way to do it. In something like a Napoleonic or Renaissance wargame, you can have activation by sub-commander, allowing formations in your army to activate as one but representing the command and control siloing that pre-modern armies faced. You won't have one unit get caught out on its own for no good reason, but maybe your right flank advancing will get hit by heavy cavalry before the centerline can advance to support- and that was exactly the sort of thing that happened in real life.

Or, particularly if you're modeling ancient or medieval warfare where a single commander had only limited control over his entire army (and things were not guaranteed to be simultaneous), maybe you'll get to activate a certain number of units at a time but not the entire army. You can focus your attention to where you want things to get done, but you cannot guarantee your entire army will be in position before the enemy reacts.

Or, if the designer really wants to emphasize the significance of friction in pre-modern warfare, maybe you'll start with perfect move-your-whole-army-at-once coordination, but as units start taking damage and getting engaged in combat, the coordination dwindles to the point where your units are acting individually and reactively/opportunistically while you struggle to exert increasingly limited control over the chaos.

It all depends on what effect the designer is going for- but an activation/C&C mechanic designed around infantry squads in WW2 isn't going to directly translate to Agincourt any more than the combat mechanics will.

Overread wrote:Indeed if you play AA purely reactionary to your opponent you like as not have handed them the game.

And this is a concept that is vital to modern warfare. It's called 'getting inside the OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) Loop', and if you can reduce an adversary to just reacting to what you're doing, you have an enormous upper hand. Games that successfully model this concept, be it through AA, reactions, or even a robust command structure layered onto an otherwise IGOUGO system, play very differently from ones where you have 100% control over every unit and they all act in perfect synchronization all at once.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm not a fan of AA in wargames, because it no longer feels like I am playing an army. Armies do things simultaneously;

Yes, Eldar armies sit there in place, all units simultaneously, while Orks shoot, run, and charge at them.

That still happens in AA, just on a micro-level.

Neither is any more or any less realistic because we're playing a turn-based game, which isn't how real life works.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That still happens in AA, just on a micro-level.

Neither is any more or any less realistic because we're playing a turn-based game, which isn't how real life works.

You're really not going to take a stance on saying at least ONE is more realistic?

no, they are abstract on different levels

as one unit sitting still and watch how the other one is slaughtered 2 meters away is not more realistic as an army all moving at the same time while the opponent waits

 catbarf wrote:

In practice the decision points are things like, do I activate:
1. The infantry unit on my right flank to move up to the objective that I suspect my opponent's infantry are going to grab if I don't,
2. The anti-tank unit on my right flank to shoot the infantry, which even though it's suboptimal might suppress them enough to keep them from getting the objective,
3. The melee unit on my left flank to charge the enemy's star shooting unit before it has a chance to shoot, so it can't hurt my infantry by the objective, or
4. My aura-buffing commander to move up so that all of the above will be more effective, even though it'll give my opponent the opportunity to grab the objective or shoot me before I get to use it?

This adds a whole tactical layer that just doesn't exist in IGOUGO. It keeps both players engaged, looking for the next opening, sometimes making decisions that are mathematically suboptimal because suboptimal now is better than optimal later, and the same board setup can play out totally differently depending on what order units are activated in.

I guess at the danger of being a devils advocate - I'm sort of left going "does it though?"
I don't want to sound like those people who say 40k is a shallow game, it's all a function of lists because the best move is obvious etc.
But I feel a lot of how AA is described - as per the above - is a function of choices made up of just not having played enough games.

Because eventually, by trial and error if nothing else, you'd know which of those choices was better. Is it worth moving up that aura-buffing character - or is it not? And in turn your opponent would know which of their choices was better. And so the "tactics" will sort of get bleached out to the maths - and how the dice fall in any given game.

I guess it's harder to see the best outcomes - because optimising an order of operations with say 30 "turns" is harder than 5. But I'm not sure there would be dramatically more depth or interaction than in regular 40k as it stands. But maybe the illusion would be enough. After all, if you only play a few games a year, the optimal decision wouldn't be obvious, and you wouldn't learn it. But then I'd argue that already applies - because I don't think 40k is an especially shallow game where the correct move is obvious.

I think Infinity's system of reactions is better. As it tries (however limited) to simulate both player units doing something simultaneously. Rather than the system of a unit (or whole army) acting, then being frozen in place while the opponent does whatever, then acting again etc.

Tyel wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

In practice the decision points are things like, do I activate:
1. The infantry unit on my right flank to move up to the objective that I suspect my opponent's infantry are going to grab if I don't,
2. The anti-tank unit on my right flank to shoot the infantry, which even though it's suboptimal might suppress them enough to keep them from getting the objective,
3. The melee unit on my left flank to charge the enemy's star shooting unit before it has a chance to shoot, so it can't hurt my infantry by the objective, or
4. My aura-buffing commander to move up so that all of the above will be more effective, even though it'll give my opponent the opportunity to grab the objective or shoot me before I get to use it?

This adds a whole tactical layer that just doesn't exist in IGOUGO. It keeps both players engaged, looking for the next opening, sometimes making decisions that are mathematically suboptimal because suboptimal now is better than optimal later, and the same board setup can play out totally differently depending on what order units are activated in.

I guess at the danger of being a devils advocate - I'm sort of left going "does it though?"
I don't want to sound like those people who say 40k is a shallow game, it's all a function of lists because the best move is obvious etc.
But I feel a lot of how AA is described - as per the above - is a function of choices made up of just not having played enough games.

Experience obviously helps by providing mental shortcuts in the decision making process, so it is a factor.

However, I think the key thing that makes AA different is that you lack full information about your opponent's intentions, and you have to take those into account. In 40k now, you basically get handed a game state with pretty much perfect information and you can just work through your entire turn with all your units from that point, with minimal interference from your opponent. With most AA systems your move may well change your opponent's next move, and vice versa. Each activation has a knock-on effect on what your opponent may do next, which makes planning out the whole turn for all of your units much more difficult.

The key difference for me is that the optimal choice is often contextual and the context changes much more rapidly in an AA system than an IGOUGO system.

 kodos wrote:
as one unit sitting still and watch how the other one is slaughtered 2 meters away is not more realistic as an army all moving at the same time while the opponent waits

If the tangible outcome of a different activation sequence or reaction system or command and control mechanic or whatever is that an army responds in at least some fashion to the enemy as they act rather than sitting completely static until the enemy says 'your turn', then it is de facto more realistic, because that is closer to how armies behave in the real world even if it isn't a perfect representation of simultaneity.

This idea that all options are equally bad if none of them are perfect is just contrarianism, and for some reason it comes out a lot more with activation systems than other mechanics.

Tyel wrote:
I guess at the danger of being a devils advocate - I'm sort of left going "does it though?"
I don't want to sound like those people who say 40k is a shallow game, it's all a function of lists because the best move is obvious etc.
But I feel a lot of how AA is described - as per the above - is a function of choices made up of just not having played enough games.

Because eventually, by trial and error if nothing else, you'd know which of those choices was better. Is it worth moving up that aura-buffing character - or is it not? And in turn your opponent would know which of their choices was better. And so the "tactics" will sort of get bleached out to the maths - and how the dice fall in any given game.

I guess it's harder to see the best outcomes - because optimising an order of operations with say 30 "turns" is harder than 5. But I'm not sure there would be dramatically more depth or interaction than in regular 40k as it stands. But maybe the illusion would be enough. After all, if you only play a few games a year, the optimal decision wouldn't be obvious, and you wouldn't learn it. But then I'd argue that already applies - because I don't think 40k is an especially shallow game where the correct move is obvious.

Is Go any deeper than tic-tac-toe, or is it just harder to see the best outcomes? Six of one, half dozen of the other.

'You can just learn in AA whether it's worth moving up that aura-buffing character or not' is along the same lines as 'you can just learn in chess whether it's worth using your rook to take a pawn or not'. Maybe for a very specific scenario, but as some sort of general rule it's a nonsensical statement- you have to weigh the total board state and make a decision about what the optimal answer is right now under the given circumstances, and if the game has enough emergent complexity, then a spreadsheet or flowchart is of minimal utility.

Obviously 40K already has that to a degree, and I also disagree with people who say that 40K is totally brainless and netlists win every time, because it's clearly not true. However, adding a layer of timing/sequencing, more interaction points with your opponent, and an element of psychology to the mix further makes it harder to solve, and adds more emergent complexity to those interaction points. Maybe moving up the aura-buffing character is objectively ideal so it can support your troops, and in IGOUGO you'd just keep them close and that's that. But under AA, you also need to consider when it's best to bring the commander up; whether now's the right activation or if there's a more pressing concern elsewhere, or if the unit you want to buff will still be alive if you delay too long. You have to weigh the board state, consider what your opponent is likely to do, and make a decision that has no analogue in pure IGOUGO.

So I mean, if a game having more decision points, more opportunity for player skill to matter, and being harder to solve doesn't make it deeper because you could still theoretically optimize it, then I don't agree with whatever definition of 'depth' is being used. It's tantamount to saying chess isn't deep because if you play as many games as Garry Kasparov you can work out what the ideal choices are.

 catbarf wrote:

This idea that all options are equally bad if none of them are perfect is just contrarianism, and for some reason it comes out a lot more with activation systems than other mechanics

no one talked about good or bad but it was about realism, and no Alternate Activation is not more realistic than a turn based sequence

if you would like a more realistic approach, removing casualties at the end of a turn combined with a reaction system would be the way to go

my unit stops moving in front if your unit, it can react either by moving away, charge or shoot, you finish your reaction another not yet activated unit from me close by can react to your reaction etc.

then it is de facto more realistic, because that is closer to how armies behave in the real world

no, not at all
it might be closer to how squads or single soldiers fight, but for "armies" or even brigades, not at all. For an Army or Division level game, a turn based system is much closer to how those fight

so it very much depends what you want, if you think of 40k as an "army" game, alternating activations instead of alternating turns is the worst you can do

 kodos wrote:

it might be closer to how squads or single soldiers fight, but for "armies" or even brigades, not at all. For an Army or Division level game, a turn based system is much closer to how those fight

So you agree it's more realistic for a game where a 'horde army' is barely a company and we are explicitly modeling how squads fight- but if 40K were a totally different game at 10-100x the scale, then it wouldn't be more realistic.

Sure dude, whatever. We're not talking about Epic.

Id be up for them giving it a go in 40k but you know theyd put their own pointless spin on it which may or may not work

 catbarf wrote:
Sure dude, whatever. We're not talking about Epic.

you started talking about that it is more realistic for "armies" which is just bs, and if you think 40k is about armies I guess you are playing 28mm Epic
(given that 40k now is what Epic or Apocalypse was back than there is a point to that but) whatever

AA on a model basis works well for model based skirmish games, AA for units works in squad/platoon level games and for higher ups it is alternating turns

40k tries to be everything, PRG character mechanics mixed with single models rules and brigade level numbers of models, of course it cannot work, and never will no matter which system is used unless someone decides which game it wants to be

a quit after 7th but i while i dont like the 8th/9th rules i hope 10th is still compatible with previous codexes. that way people who have fun with modern 40k can play with their old stuff/investments.

*looks sadly at traitor legions and khorne daemonkin on my shelf*

 catbarf wrote:
Is Go any deeper than tic-tac-toe, or is it just harder to see the best outcomes? Six of one, half dozen of the other.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that this is true - but also not.

So for example - when I think about top level 40k play, it tends to be about trading. Now this occurs in turns - but it happens all the same.
I.E. turn 1 I move a unit to take the objective. In your turn you move some units out of LOS-blocking terrain to kill it - and take the objective for your own. But that means I bring some units out of LOS-blocking terrain to kill them and take the objective back etc. Hopefully I'm doing this more efficiently than you are so will come out ahead.

As I see it, this system would just sort of mean it just happens in turns. But all things being equal - that just ups the lethality. So I throw a unit on to the objective. You throw a unit out to try and deal with it. I throw a unit out to take advantage of that unit now being available to attack - or to put another unit on the objective. You respond with the next unit etc. Its different - because its harder to guarantee a kill with just one unit rather than multiple ones (although this is where you'll run into issues of Knights vs MSU) - but the trading process is going to be sort of similar.

Now you could respond and say this is very limited - AA could open up completely different scenarios, or very different rules to 40k in general. But that's just how I sort of imagine it going.

Tyel wrote:


As I see it, this system would just sort of mean it just happens in turns. But all things being equal - that just ups the lethality

hard no. You clearly have never played a game with an AA system. Even if its still has the GW lethality, at least you're doing something that allows you play around your opponent's heavy hitters

So is it decided? 10th needs to be a full reset?

Tyel wrote:
So for example - when I think about top level 40k play, it tends to be about trading. Now this occurs in turns - but it happens all the same.
I.E. turn 1 I move a unit to take the objective. In your turn you move some units out of LOS-blocking terrain to kill it - and take the objective for your own. But that means I bring some units out of LOS-blocking terrain to kill them and take the objective back etc. Hopefully I'm doing this more efficiently than you are so will come out ahead.

As I see it, this system would just sort of mean it just happens in turns. But all things being equal - that just ups the lethality. So I throw a unit on to the objective. You throw a unit out to try and deal with it. I throw a unit out to take advantage of that unit now being available to attack - or to put another unit on the objective. You respond with the next unit etc. Its different - because its harder to guarantee a kill with just one unit rather than multiple ones (although this is where you'll run into issues of Knights vs MSU) - but the trading process is going to be sort of similar.

Trading like you describe is a product of the turn structure and armies activating as a whole. In an AA system, you can't win by solely reacting to the unit that just activated, you have to be proactive.

Your unit is already on the objective- I don't have to respond to it immediately, I just have to respond to it before the end of the turn. So maybe I'll hit it with my star shooting unit now, and then on my next activation move a unit of my own onto the objective. But maybe I'll instead shoot your star shooting unit that has yet to activate. Maybe I'll move a melee unit near the objective to try to bait you into over-committing more assets to it, or maybe I'll just charge directly so I can take the objective before you bring up reinforcement, without expending any activations on softening it up first. Maybe there's another objective elsewhere that I'll take the opportunity to seize, and hope that you start reacting to that and give me some room to breathe.

In IGOUGO, if that objective is my priority, I start declaring shooting attacks until either your objective-grabber is dead, I run out of shooting, or I decide to shoot something else. In AA, I know at some point I'm going to try to get your unit off the objective, but I have to weigh which assets are not yet committed, and whether I want to start shooting now to ensure I can do it or wait until later and hope that what remains is enough to do the job. And I know that you know this too, so if I delay too much, you might start prioritizing my remaining shooting units to ensure I have nothing left to take out the objective-grabber, or my nearby units that might move onto the objective if your unit is killed.

Again, this flexible sequencing adds a significant tactical element that has no equivalent in pure IGOUGO. Doubly so when compared to 40K's phased IGOUGO, where the rigid move -> shoot -> charge sequence both limits your options, and creates weirdness like trying not to kill the objective-grabber with shooting because then I can't charge it to get a free move onto the objective.

Like I've said before, I am not a massive fan of pure AA, but pretty much all modern wargames operating at the scale 40K does (platoon to reinforced company sized) implement some kind of alternating activation, limited activations, command system, and/or reaction system. Even GW's other games do it, with Kill Team and Apocalypse using different flavors of AA, as do the games written by former 40K designers (eg Starship Troopers, Dust, Bolt Action, Beyond the Gates of Antares). It's industry standard at this point, and for good reason.

I highly recommend that anyone who is having trouble wrapping their head around the implications of AA for a game like 40K give Grimdark Future a shot. The 40K-lite combat resolution mechanics are deep as a puddle, but the activation system (basic as it is) makes up for it and shows how much impact a different activation system has on the core gameplay.

I wonder if a lot of issues people have with AA would be fixed if you could use group activations, like being able to activate any models within x inches of your warlord, or spending resources like command points, so the army can move together, but limited in comparison to IGOUGO. Elite armies could use less group activations, but have more individual activations. Like Custodes can only move one unit at a time, while Guardsmen could move 3 or so.

I know Necromunda and Kill Team have mechanics like this, but I've not played Necromunda, and don't really like Kill Team, so others can say if they work well.

 catbarf wrote:
Like I've said before, I am not a massive fan of pure AA, but pretty much all modern wargames operating at the scale 40K does (platoon to reinforced company sized) implement some kind of alternating activation, limited activations, command system, and/or reaction system. Even GW's other games do it, with Kill Team and Apocalypse using different flavors of AA, as do the games written by former 40K designers (eg Starship Troopers, Dust, Bolt Action, Beyond the Gates of Antares). It's industry standard at this point, and for good reason.

no it is not industry standard, and SST uses alternate turns (aka what some people call IGoUGo), and all of those you named are smaller than 40k (more like 1000 points 40k) and specially Bolt Action is a good example as people consider 1000-1250 points the maximum the game is playable and the rules not suited to go any higher (so a 40k scaled 2k game of Bolt Action is not a thing)

the only games in the same scale of 40k that I know that uses alternate activations is Warpath and Grimdark Future, and both are not that common as the smaller scale version (both called FireFight) is what a lot of people like more

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I wonder if a lot of issues people have with AA would be fixed if you could use group activations, like being able to activate any models within x inches of your warlord, or spending resources like command points, so the army can move together, but limited in comparison to IGOUGO. Elite armies could use less group activations, but have more individual activations. Like Custodes can only move one unit at a time, while Guardsmen could move 3 or so.

I know Necromunda and Kill Team have mechanics like this, but I've not played Necromunda, and don't really like Kill Team, so others can say if they work well.

Yeah, those are all viable options. Bolt Action has leaders that, when activated, in turn allow you to activate other nearby troops. So you spend a single activation on an officer, and he activates several models near him.

It's a straightforward way to represent leaders actually leading and not just being melee beatsticks or making everyone around them more accurate, and you really feel a difference between elite and well-led armies (who can do a lot of damage in a brief impulse) versus green and poorly-led ones (who activate in ones and twos and are harder to coordinate).

There are a lot of ways you can layer in those command-and-control concepts, which fit more naturally with alternating or limited activation than pure IGOUGO.

Apocalypse has a more basic system, in that you activate a whole detachment at a time, and with 3-8 detachments per side you get some fun AA-esque play/counterplay while still activating actual formations and not individual units.

I also find it interesting because it means the structure of your army affects how it fights, not just the pre-battle CP calculation. So you have to think about how you organize your army, because slotting the artillery in with the melee troops is not likely to work well when they all have to activate together and receive the same order (move and shoot, move double and fight, or don't move and shoot at +1).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Like I've said before, I am not a massive fan of pure AA, but pretty much all modern wargames operating at the scale 40K does (platoon to reinforced company sized) implement some kind of alternating activation, limited activations, command system, and/or reaction system. Even GW's other games do it, with Kill Team and Apocalypse using different flavors of AA, as do the games written by former 40K designers (eg Starship Troopers, Dust, Bolt Action, Beyond the Gates of Antares). It's industry standard at this point, and for good reason.

no it is not industry standard, and SST uses alternate turns (aka what some people call IGoUGo)

My brother in christ, if you're not going to actually read the posts before rushing to reply, I'm going to start ignoring you. See bolded text (hint: 'reaction system'). Then re-read and notice that 'wargames operating at the scale 40K does' and 'wargames by former 40K designers' were two different sentences.

well, 40k has also some sort of reaction system, limited activations and alternate activations
or better said a mix of all those, so it should be perfectly fine without going into full alternate activations as it already uses what everyone else uses

why it does not is simply because 40k designers use all those without understanding why other games use it, what other games want to achieve and why mixing everything without a clear design goal just make things worse

so yes, SST here as this is what people called IGoUGo prior and actually it is an example for how the alternate turn sequence works fine in a SciFi skirmish setting and not an example how some sort of "insert bold text" will improve 40k (as 40k already has all that stuff)

while Bolt Action is a good example why games with that kine of activation system are limited in size and not scalable as they work for the intended size but not much smaller or larger

It can absolutely scale up larger and do so fine LMAO

I'd actually argue that the dice pull mecahnic does limit what you can play, in terms of logistics. I've done that when my local club was running multi-platoon campaign games for the Invasion of Poland.

We had to limit each side to 12 order dice, plus bonus order dice when leaders used their initiative to activate units.

Which gave players some very hard decisions. Do you use your lieutenant to coordinate your main offensive? Or to sit back and organize a second wave if the first one failed.

Alternatively you can increase the amount of units activated when a die is pulled. 1 die = 2 or 3 units that aren't armored cars or tanks (we had a problem where I was out for a game, and somehow a player managed to convince everyone else that he could activate a tank platoon on one order die. No wonder the Germans did so well in that game).

We play a IGOUGO version of 40K with a reaction phase. The current player can move OR shoot first, and the reacting player can react after the current player has done either his first OR second action. Units reacting must be within 12" and LOS or were shot at by the current player. Only half the reacting hits count, but otherwise fire is at full capability.

We played a game where we had simultaneous movement with a 4 minute timer, which was interesting. If opposing units made contact both sides got any bonuses for charging. Shooting was simultaneous and casualties removed after the shooting phase was over. Units on either side could still charge 6" if they hadn't shot heavy/rapid fire weapons.

The scenario with simultaneous play created some interesting tactics and worked surprisingly smoothly, but we normally play with the reaction system. I'd say there are multiple ways of making the game better than GW's current paradigm but expecting GW to actually fix that is bit like taking a leak in the wind.

 catbarf wrote:

I highly recommend that anyone who is having trouble wrapping their head around the implications of AA for a game like 40K give Grimdark Future a shot. The 40K-lite combat resolution mechanics are deep as a puddle, but the activation system (basic as it is) makes up for it and shows how much impact a different activation system has on the core gameplay.

I can heartily 2nd this recommendation.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

I highly recommend that anyone who is having trouble wrapping their head around the implications of AA for a game like 40K give Grimdark Future a shot. The 40K-lite combat resolution mechanics are deep as a puddle, but the activation system (basic as it is) makes up for it and shows how much impact a different activation system has on the core gameplay.

I can heartily 2nd this recommendation.

pretty much anyone that has tried it can agree lol

Given what usually happens when GW burns a thing down and tries to reboot it (Kill-Team, Warcry, Sigmar, 8e, Aeronautica) I can guarantee you that if they do burn down 9th and do a reboot for 10th they'll pick the wrong things to keep and the wrong things to throw out, and I don't think more of the same is practical given the horrorshow of bloat they've managed to bring back to the game just two editions after the last time they burned the game down to clear out the bloat.

Personally I think if they did xenos books for Heresy and just called that 10e that'd go a long, long way towards making a game that actually worked; it doesn't have alternating activations, no, but the reaction system still manages to make you sit up and pay attention during your opponent's turn, they've had the discipline thus far not to go wildly overboard with statlines while also breaking with some of the more illogical assumptions of older systems, Rites of War are still a better army-comp system than anything in any other version of Warhammer, and they managed in one of the greatest miracles of the modern age to figure out how to make Knights feel big and stompy without also making them feel unfair to play against.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

I highly recommend that anyone who is having trouble wrapping their head around the implications of AA for a game like 40K give Grimdark Future a shot. The 40K-lite combat resolution mechanics are deep as a puddle, but the activation system (basic as it is) makes up for it and shows how much impact a different activation system has on the core gameplay.

I can heartily 2nd this recommendation.

pretty much anyone that has tried it can agree lol

we all agree, difference is just that some don't think GW can make something good of it
(simply because GW has shown what happens if they copy good ideas without knowing why those are used in the first place and tries to add their own twist to the story)