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 OP is on to something. It is obviously not completely fleshed out but crzypsyko666 has obviously seen something worth fixing in the dynamic of the game.

OP, play test a few modified turn styles and see if they alleviate any problems you see in the current game. Be critical and find new problems that arise. Lastly try to keep the game sequence logical and fast. Much of the last 2 40K editions have put a lot of effort in streamlining games in order for them to move quickly and fluidly.

GL and props for thinking out of the box to solve a problem. don't listen to the haters.

Thanks, but I don't play 40k as often as I'd like. If anyone is interested in this idea, please try it out and tell me how it works. Outside feedback and lots of playtesting/playtesters is what makes a game good.

A friend and I tried to combine the turns into 1 turn: Moving characters in order of their initiative, when all movement done shooting and so on etc. Hard to keep track of stuff after a few turns. Also having slower initiative seemed to help a little since you could position your forces after they have taken up points etc. I suppose this could also be an advantage to high initiative models, you could "herd" the enemy into an area.

Anywho...GW has a turn based game I think due to simplicity. We were running into issues where orks with power claws moving at a speed of 1, or furious charge changing +1 and us having to adjust who goes same time etc. I just play regular now, no sense muddling up the rules for when I play other people.

J-Roc77 wrote:A friend and I tried to combine the turns into 1 turn: Moving characters in order of their initiative, when all movement done shooting and so on etc. Hard to keep track of stuff after a few turns. Also having slower initiative seemed to help a little since you could position your forces after they have taken up points etc. I suppose this could also be an advantage to high initiative models, you could "herd" the enemy into an area.

moving units in order of I: creative.

Well, J-roc, did you allow them to do all of the actions (if able)? Could you explain how you played it in more detail? If it was unstructured, of course it would have problems. An unstructured turn system tends to be clunky and broken.

Also: the whole 'who did what is getting confusing' is what markers are for. They are exceptionally helpful. I'd reccomend them to anyone.

Hi all.
I would like to say that using current 'I' values for who goes first doesnt work too well.(We tried this concept back when 1st ed SH came out.)The speed of close combat attacks is not representative of battle field awareness!

To increases tactics and KEEP IT SIMPLE.Issueing order counters to units is the most efficient method.

EG
Start of turn issue order counters to units on good moral.And request off table support.

Activate units in sequence.(Determined by prefered method.)

End turn resolve assaults, attempt to rally , plot arivals.

After order counters are placed , you can activate units taking( both actions)one at a time altinating between players.
Alternating unit activation can be controled by 'left to right-closest to farthest'.Or player choice etc.

OR let one player take the first action of the order ,

Then the opposing player takes the first action of thier orders,

Then the first player takes the second action of the orders,

Then the opposing player takes the second action of the orders.

Eg Alan turns over his order counters one at a time,after turning a counter face up he takes the first action with that unit.

Bob turns over his order counters one at a time,after turning a counter face up he takes the first action with that unit.

Alan turns over his order counters one at a time,after turning a counter face down he takes the second action with that unit.

Bob turns over his order counters one at a time,after turning a counter face down he takes the second action with that unit.

Even a simple set of orders like;-
Fire support(F) prepare+shoot.
Advance (A) move +shoot.
Evade(E) shoot + move
Double (D) move +move.
Charge(C ) move +assault.

Results in a far more interactive game turn and tactival game!

TTFN
lanrak.

What happens to the assaulting units? Do they get two phases to assault?

(I'm not being negative, I'm just trying to find holes to plug up.)

Hi crazypsyko666.
As this idea is so far removed for the current 40k game turn I expected questions.

At the start of the turn, the HQ issues the order to assault!
(The player places the assault counter face down next to the unit.)
On the first action the counter is turned face up, and the unit moves towards the intended target!
The opposing player then has the option to react to the enemy units !
On the second action the counter is placed face down, and the unit moves into assault the intended target.(if able to)The assault can be resolved now.(Or left to the end of turn if you prefer ?)
Units locked in assault continue to fight ,and will not respond to orders untill the assault is resolved. (Its difficult to aim or move coherantly when a homicidal xenos is trying to re-organise you internal organs!)

ALL units with orders perform 2 actions.
BUT only ONE action is carried out before the opponent can respond!

As the phases are ;-
Start of turn.

A primary action phase.

B primary action phase.

A secondary action phase.

B secondary action phase.

End of turn phase.

All orders happens over 2 action phases.

'FAQs'
Q, Whats to stop assaulted unit running away, or retreating and firing at the assaulting unit?
A,The skill of the assaulting player !
I intend to apply a simple supression mechanic to facilitate real world tactics of ,
Find them, (Locate and proiritize targets.)
Fix 'them, (Supressive fire to limit enemy movement)
Flank them, (out manouver enemy units to get assault units in position,)
Finish them!(wipe out enemy in close combat)

If shooting has supression AND direct damage effects ,it make weapon function AND game play more diverse!
Also units retreating off the table edge count as destroyed,(for VP,).

Current 40k is built around a simple but restrictive game turn mechanic.If we free up the level of interaction we can get naturaly occuring tactics.(Not having to write reams of conditional rules, leaves more room for intuitive simulation detail.IMO. )

Has this helped?
I can try to explain it in a bit more detail if you like?
Asking questions is all part of the development process, and a good thing!

TTFN
lanrak.

Hey Lanrak,

My main concern is what about the orders? It could be vastly simplified if you could just tell them to make two of the five actions I've mentioned. It just seems somewhat complicated (now, I'm not saying it sounds like a bad idea, so far it's a little under-developed and complicated) but my original point was to simplify and diversify what could be done in the turn. The idea was (and is still at its core) one action and (about) three times the number of turns.

So, flesh it out completely. Make every question anyone could have be answered. Worst case scenario, it doesn't work. If it's more complicated or doesn't make sense, make note, and if you need help, talk to me. It sounds like an interesting idea, but it has a long way to go. Remember, think idealistically, but work realistically. Think about ways to make something work, but if it doesn't, toss it out.

For assault, I was thinking that perhaps the first action phase the squad with the Initiative would strike, then for the second the squad attacks. Simple enough?

Why are there two phases per action?

What are the orders?

Are there weapon specific orders? (Like for heavy weapons setting up, then shooting?)

What happens with phase-specific special rules? (a la fleet?)

That's all I can think of for now, but I did just get back from school, so my brain has fallen out of my ears and must collect again.

HI crazypsko666.

If we go with the' A performs ONE action with all thier units, B performs One action with all thier units.'(x3)
We have the restrictive practice of following set actions, move then shoot then assault.And some units doing nothing in a phase.(Heavy weapons teams rarley want to assault!)

Or we let players take any actions out of sequence, but this lets them react with unrealistic omnipitance.(Godlike knowlwedge of the battle field .)So player react to the actions of thier oponents 'unrealisticaly'.

If we let each player take 2 action with a unit a game turn, this allows reasonable levels of free interaction , also requires a bit of forward planning.

All the 'orders' are, is the 2 actions the unit will take in the action phases, and the 'order' in which they are performed.

Actions

'Move' , move up to the units movement value.

'Ready', set up heavier weapons , find best firing positions, make best use of available cover.

'Shoot', fire ranged weapons.

'Assault' move up to the units movement value and engage enemy unit in close combat.

The 5 'Orders' are made up of the 2 'actions' as follows.

Advance (A) move +shoot.

Double (D) move +move.

Charge(C ) move +assault.

Evade(E) shoot + move.

Fire support(F) Ready+shoot.

If a units weapon is classified as (F)Fire Support, it can ONLY fire when a (F)Fire support order is given to that unit.(Covers current Heavy/Ordmnance weapon type.)
If units are given a Movement stat like WH,and terrain modifies this by -1 or-2 inches.We dont need to use the 40k special rules for movement.

ALL units perform 2 actions per game turn, interleaved with oponents .

If we let assault actions be resolved at the 'end of turn' phase, this lets assaulting units pin enemy units, and stop them shooting.
Then assaults deminsh enemy manouvering and shooting akin to modern warfare annalogues.

The action phases are interleaved,

a-b-a-b.

Ill stop there so you can comment ...

TTFN
Lanrak.

That looks pretty damn good! Thanks, Lanrak. I may be playing a game this saturday, I'll try out both rulesets and tell you how it works. My primary concern is (tell me if this isn't relevant) first, I have two more actions.

Run (R) Move+Move

Sustained Fire (S) Shoot+Shoot

And if these turns are interleaved, when you declare which units are doing what, wouldn't the person going second have a distinct advantage? Do these players need to declare which command they are doing before they can do it, or do they simply need to act a certain order?

E.G.: Action A, Move, do I need to decide whether or not I am going to (A) (D) (C) now, or can I decide which second action I'm going to do next?

Otherwise, it looks very interesting. I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread.

Cheers,
Psyko

Hi again,
I used the turn 'double'(D) to cover move+move. But if you want to call it 'run' feel free to do so!

Sustained fire (Shoots +Shoots,) may be a bit over powered, unless subject to restrictions of BS or range?

If you place an order counter face down next to the unit , this fixes the 2 actions they will be taking in the action phases for the game turn.

Eg if a unit gets an advance order (A) they move first, then the opponent takes thier action, then the unit shoots,, then the oponent takes thier action.

The orders stop players reacting to the opponents actions in an unreaistic way, the unit decides an action set,(order) , and performs the action set(order.).

You place the orders A,C,D,E,F, as you want, next to the units at the start of the game turn.
So you have to guess what your opponents are going to do,(like in real life!)

Has this explained it better?
I am not too good at explaining myself, sorry.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Scott, how would it give the same effect?

Basic game: Marines move, they get shot, they move, get shot, someone dies in the end.

Your way: Marines move, then move, then kill the tau.
Or if tau go 1st: they shoot, shoot more, and then kill them through shooting.

It would tip off the balance too much.
Fireline armies would simply gun down the other army too quickly for them to fight back.


In essence, its taken years to develope the game to how it is now, changing it would be impossible if you were to tinker about with how turns worked since there is alot more involved than just changing them around.

Lanrak wrote:Hi again,
I used the turn 'double'(D) to cover move+move. But if you want to call it 'run' feel free to do so!

Sustained fire (Shoots +Shoots,) may be a bit over powered, unless subject to restrictions of BS or range?

If you place an order counter face down next to the unit , this fixes the 2 actions they will be taking in the action phases for the game turn.

Eg if a unit gets an advance order (A) they move first, then the opponent takes thier action, then the unit shoots,, then the oponent takes thier action.

The orders stop players reacting to the opponents actions in an unreaistic way, the unit decides an action set,(order) , and performs the action set(order.).

You place the orders A,C,D,E,F, as you want, next to the units at the start of the game turn.
So you have to guess what your opponents are going to do,(like in real life!)

Has this explained it better?
I am not too good at explaining myself, sorry.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Having a 'face down' counter might fix the problem. There should also be single action commands, such as 'just fire' 'just move' or something like that.

JD21290 wrote:Scott, how would it give the same effect?

Basic game: Marines move, they get shot, they move, get shot, someone dies in the end.

Your way: Marines move, then move, then kill the tau.
Or if tau go 1st: they shoot, shoot more, and then kill them through shooting.

It would tip off the balance too much.
Fireline armies would simply gun down the other army too quickly for them to fight back.


In essence, its taken years to develope the game to how it is now, changing it would be impossible if you were to tinker about with how turns worked since there is alot more involved than just changing them around.

My foremost concern when developing this concept was backwards compatibility. All of the actions have been made reverse compatible with old rules. RTFP

Old thread is really, really old, but it's mine so deal with it. I've been thinking about this whole thing again, and Lanrak's two-phase turn concept makes more sense every time I think about it. Turns are more engaging, there's more room for tactical deviancy, and it overall works better. About a year ago, not long after this whole thread died, I played a game using my rules, which fizzled and got boring quickly. I had the original question (why all of the needless phases?) again recently, and I was brought back to this thread. I have a few modifications to the proposition brought up by Lanrak, which I quote here:

Lanrak wrote:HI crazypsko666.

If we go with the' A performs ONE action with all thier units, B performs One action with all thier units.'(x3)
We have the restrictive practice of following set actions, move then shoot then assault.And some units doing nothing in a phase.(Heavy weapons teams rarley want to assault!)

Or we let players take any actions out of sequence, but this lets them react with unrealistic omnipitance.(Godlike knowlwedge of the battle field .)So player react to the actions of thier oponents 'unrealisticaly'.

If we let each player take 2 action with a unit a game turn, this allows reasonable levels of free interaction , also requires a bit of forward planning.

All the 'orders' are, is the 2 actions the unit will take in the action phases, and the 'order' in which they are performed.

Actions

'Move' , move up to the units movement value.

'Ready', set up heavier weapons , find best firing positions, make best use of available cover.

'Shoot', fire ranged weapons.

'Assault' move up to the units movement value and engage enemy unit in close combat.

The 5 'Orders' are made up of the 2 'actions' as follows.

Advance (A) move +shoot.

Double (D) move +move.

Charge(C ) move +assault.

Evade(E) shoot + move.

Fire support(F) Ready+shoot.

If a units weapon is classified as (F)Fire Support, it can ONLY fire when a (F)Fire support order is given to that unit.(Covers current Heavy/Ordmnance weapon type.)
If units are given a Movement stat like WH,and terrain modifies this by -1 or-2 inches.We dont need to use the 40k special rules for movement.

ALL units perform 2 actions per game turn, interleaved with oponents .

If we let assault actions be resolved at the 'end of turn' phase, this lets assaulting units pin enemy units, and stop them shooting.
Then assaults deminsh enemy manouvering and shooting akin to modern warfare annalogues.

The action phases are interleaved,

a-b-a-b.

Ill stop there so you can comment ...

TTFN
Lanrak.

And I'm wondering primarily why the restrictions on action-types (Advance, Double, Charge, etc.) are there at all. The whole point is to be more tactically flexible, to have the game feel more like it's playing out in real time, so why are there these restrictions at all? There was previous talk of a marker, or chip-like tool used to remind the player which action is being done for each unit. I've considered this, and based on the teachings of Sun Tzu, the art of war is based on deception. Why not give this marker two detachable sides, with a symbol representing the action being taken attached to each. The first action is immediately shown, whilst the second remains hidden, face down. This lets both players keep a tactical advantage over their opponent, making each move interesting and requiring extra consideration, due to Player A's first move being played out, then Player two's, then P1's second, and so on.


Moderators, please forgive the worst case of threadcromancy I've ever seen.

EDIT: I forgot to credit Nurglitch here, who had contributed immensely to the last, ancient iteration of the design.

Hi again.
The reason I wanted to use order counters, is to add to the level of tactical thought involved.
And they map onto the general tactical order a unit leader might give. If you imaging the game turn is a short period of time , may be a minuite or less.
Then the unit leader decides what the unit should do next.(The 2 action contained on the order counter .)

The revised game turn I have been working on runs like this...

Actions .
Move, attack, ready.

Advance(A), Move + attack.

Creep (C)ready +move.

Double (D), Move + move.

Evade (E), attack + move

Full support(F) ready then attack.


Command Phase.
Players issue orders to units on good moral,(face down,) and request 'off table support'*.(*Reserves, air or artillery strkes.)

Action Phase.
Player A turns over order counters one at a time and takes the first action of the order with each of thier apropriate units.

Player B turns over order counters one at a time and takes the first action of the order with each of thier apropriate units.

Player A removes order counters one at a time and takes the second action of the order with the apropriate units.

Player B removes order counters one at a time and takes the second action of the order with the apropriate units.

Resolution phase.[b]
Attempt to rally units on poor moral, (supressed neutralised or routed, ) and plot arrivals of off table support.

The only problem I found letting players oick actions as the go along is it can get very confusing on what units did what and when...(The use of counters as outlined above make keeping track lots easier, for old duffers like me! )

I can post my latest rules re write (wip ) if you want , its only 14 pages and covers quite a bit of game play.

TTFN

Sure, go for it. (This was always one of my favorite projects, by the way).

You should develope your own game. It's too radical a change for an existing game.

If you have any questions on how I'd redefine terms relating to turns, feel free to ask. Criticism is extremely important as long as it's constructive.

This reminds me of Warzone. I thought Warzone was a better core set of rules than 40K back in the day. In Warzone every model/unit/vehicle had a set of action points. Each action point could be used to perform a specific action. For example most models have a movement rate of 3 inches in Warzone. Most of the common units in the game had three action points. At the start of each turn you roll for initiative, and whoever wins goes first. The winner then can activate a single character or unit/vehicle. Once activated, you can perform all it's actions. Once that unit's actions are complete your opponent then activates his squad of choice and it goes back and forth until all units have been activated, then you start the next turn.

Some actions you could perform were as follows (I haven't played this game since the 90s mind you)

-move
-aim (gave you a +2 to hit if you aimed)
-brace (heavy weapons require bracing)
-dive to cover
-wait (waiting units could activate at any time, like a sniper waiting for a unit to cross his cross-hairs)
-perform attacks in close combat

So, lets say you have a heavy weapons squad. The squad has three action points. You decide to move them once, then brace, then fire. Since heavy weapons require bracing. Now, if they did not move they could brace and fire twice, or brace and aim and fire once, but get a bonus modifier on their roll to hit.

I loved the action point system. It was a D20 based game. Also loved how you took turns activating models. So, if you got to go first that wasn't such a bad thing. I mean the game had some flaws and some loop holes where you could give characters like 12 action points and you could have your hero with a giant claymore move 36 inches in one activation and be with in killing range of everything next turn. I played the Imperial corporation and I had this hero with a power sword type claymore that was all decked out and could move a ton and hide super awesome. He had no missile weapons but it didn't matter. I also loved gaining ground like moving twice and reserving my third action to put a unit on wait. So, if you decided to run between those two buildings you got pew pew pew'd by my guns!

In my opinion the core rule system was superior to Games Workshop games. I guess later on the game developers sort of jacked up the game but I never really played past 1st edition. You could also play a fun game of almost any size. I remember going to other local gaming stores to play challenge games on Warzone and Necromunda. Those were my two favorite games. I still have my Warzone books too, in fact I just skimmed through one while typing this.

I often glance at my opponents army when I win an intiative role and then decide whether I will go first or second. When I don't I decide where I will place and whether or not I will be playing offensively or defensively. Nothing is wrong with the set-up of the game. (Aside from Space Wolves!!) But personal vendettas aside, losing and winning do not come from turn orders, they come from how you play the turn order given to you.

The game is not slow-paced unless your playing a huge army, in which case, you knew what you were getting into when you set-up.

The changes suggested are interesting but would most likely best be applied to special game types with selected force organisation to fit that type of gameplay. For instance
A move- B shoot A assault -- B move A shoot B assault
Each player must field one HQ, Two troops, and 3 additional units selected from Fast, Troop, or Elite charts, but No Psykers. Now that game is workable in 40k.

I move you move. I shoot you shoot.
A player may field 1-2 HQ choices, any number of Troops, and up to 3 Heavy choices. No Psykers.
That should make that scheme workable.

@Crom: That's a lot like what Nurglitch was discussing in (I believe it's) the second page. There are a lot of different possible ways that the turns could be re-arranged that would still cater to our rulesets, since 'phase-specific' abilities (psychic powers in the shooting phase, for instance) could simply be erratta'd to mean 'in a phase when a unit is shooting' or similar. Hell, you could even incorporate fleet and run by making every consecutive 'move' action a D6 roll, then a D3 roll, all the way down to a D2 roll if three phases were implemented.

@Runna: As I've said before, just because something works doesn't mean it can't be better. I'm fine with 40k's core rules, but why not try to improve them? There is so much that could be improved without 'ruining' what the game is about. Hell, if the stories I've heard are correct, squads used to have to be in base contact, rather than 2" of coherency. That's a dramatic change, right there, and when you combine that with squads giving other squads 4+ cover saves someone could easily defend the majority of their army with just a few spread out squads. You probably couldn't have done that in some of the previous editions. Grenades also used to be weapons that did damage, and their throw distance was determined by a static number and a fraction of the unit's strength value. Change isn't new, and I embrace it if it's worth having.

Keep in mind, I'm not interested in 'making the game faster', it just seemed to be a byproduct. My original goal, whether stated or not was that the current turn system seemed cluttered and needlessly strict. The 5th edition rules of charging, running etc. seemed like something of a half-assed way to get around this obvious bump in the system. I just thought 'if we're going to move in the shooting phase, why call it the shooting phase?' and the idea was born. Take of it what you will, even people saying 'no' gives me some answers.

@Crom: That's a lot like what Nurglitch was discussing in (I believe it's) the second page. There are a lot of different possible ways that the turns could be re-arranged that would still cater to our rulesets, since 'phase-specific' abilities (psychic powers in the shooting phase, for instance) could simply be erratta'd to mean 'in a phase when a unit is shooting' or similar. Hell, you could even incorporate fleet and run by making every consecutive 'move' action a D6 roll, then a D3 roll, all the way down to a D2 roll if three phases were implemented.

That is what the action points were for. You have a power stat, and it was for models that had psychic or supernatural abilities. Each psychic power cost a certain amount of action points to perform, depending on what it did, and then you had to roll a power check and pass to cast it.

Another cool thing about Warzone was armor saves. Every gun had a damage rating. The high the damage the better. Then every model had an armor rating. You took the damage rating, subtracted the armor rating and that was your save you had to get. So your saving throws were never constant since high damage weapons did more damage.

The idea behind Warzone is that everything in battle is happening all at once. That is why they did not go with the phase system. Some troops would sprint across the field looking for close combat, while others would cast psychic powers and so forth. If you were going to cast some buffs on a unit, you might as well have your psyker do it first, then for the rest of the actions that buffed unit performs that turn will be with the buffs. Alternating back and forth until every unit has been activated was also quite genius. It means going first wasn't that big of a deal.

Warzone was a really awesome game, and I still have my minis and the books. Maybe I will try to get a game going sometime.

The issue with Action Points is that there aren't any units with Action points in their profile. This could be remedied in a new core rules edition index, but for now (since I don't trust myself to redo the stats for every single unit) I think some simplification is best. I think the rules you gave as an example are FANTASTIC really, but the drastic change could cause enormous balance issues.

Out of curiosity, how many action points does the average grunt have?

EDIT: Though I guess you could do a simple fix for action points based on initiative. AP=Half I rounded down to a minimum of one (or should it be rounded up?). So an IG has one action point, a space marine or an Eldar Guardian has two, a Dark Eldar has three, and so on. Alternatively, you could round it up. Plaguebearers still get one action point, Imperial troops get two, (I believe Aspect Warriors get three?) Dark Eldar get three, and Keepers of Secrets get infinity.

I like the LOTR system, if it recall it correctly:

One player moves, then the other player moves. One shoots, the other shoots. One assaults, then the other assaults.

Is that what we are talking about here? I am a little confused by the OP's idea...

Sounds like some of you ought to invest in some 2nd edition rulebooks.

Hi all.
Here is a list of the game turn mechanics and terms generaly used to describe them.

Ill use the term 'elements' as this referes to models OR units depending on the game size.

1) Alternating Game turns.
Player A takes a series of actions in sequence, with all elements under thier control .(Eg Move then shoot then assault)
Player B takes the series of same actions in sequence,with all elements under thier control .(Move then shoot than assault.)

2) Alternating phases.
Player A takes ONE action with all thier elements.
Player B takes ONE action with all thier elements.
(Repeat untilll all action have been carried out.)

3) Alternating activation.
Player A takes all actions with ONE element.
Player B takes ALL actions with one element.
(Repeat untill all elements have been activated.)

In the above game turns , the actions can be in set sequence ,(move shoot assault.)Or determined by 'actions points ' or 'order counters' as apropriate.

4) Variable bound game turn.
Player A takes actions untill they fail an action or all possible actions are taken.
Player B takes actions untill they fail an action or all possible actions are taken.

If you just want a more interactive game turn to 'plug into' the current 40k rules , the 'alternating phases 'is the best to use.
(Big Sqig is working on a light re-working de kludging of the 40k rule set using this game turn mechanic and its looking good!)

Here is my new rules set basic outline .Its still under development.(Please excuse any typoes and spelling mistakes.)
I have simply use the simplest way to simulate actual interaction that I can think of.
The processes have been abtracted to improve game play, but the results are still reasonably intuitive and scalable.

Note;- I have used the term 'AP' to describe 'weapon damage rating'. As this can stand for 'Armour Piercing' vs large target like vehicles and monsters, or 'Anti Personell' vs other targets.
And 'AP' is easier to say/write than 'weapon damage rating.'

It does NOT work anything like the current AP system found in WH40k!

The target units deducts its AR (armour value) from the attackers AP value , to determine the saving throw value.

EG Alan fires AP 7 weapon at Bobs Trooper with an AR of 2.
7-2=5. Bob needs to roll 5+ on a D6 to save from the damage of the weapon hit!

This is scales well so is used for all units.

TTFN

crazypsyko666 wrote:The issue with Action Points is that there aren't any units with Action points in their profile. This could be remedied in a new core rules edition index, but for now (since I don't trust myself to redo the stats for every single unit) I think some simplification is best. I think the rules you gave as an example are FANTASTIC really, but the drastic change could cause enormous balance issues.

Out of curiosity, how many action points does the average grunt have?

EDIT: Though I guess you could do a simple fix for action points based on initiative. AP=Half I rounded down to a minimum of one (or should it be rounded up?). So an IG has one action point, a space marine or an Eldar Guardian has two, a Dark Eldar has three, and so on. Alternatively, you could round it up. Plaguebearers still get one action point, Imperial troops get two, (I believe Aspect Warriors get three?) Dark Eldar get three, and Keepers of Secrets get infinity.

In Warzone the average grunt had 3 action points. All actions cost 1 point to perform. In a game turn each player alternates between activating units of troops, characters, or vehicles. Once both sides activate everything the turn is over, and you start the next turn. You roll for initiative every turn and complete the game until it is over. Actually the games move rather quickly and it was fun at small and large scale points.

I honestly thought that Warzone was going to be real competition to GW because their core rules system was so solid. GW still made better looking models back then, but I think the game play in Warzone was superior.

At my war-games club at school we do something similar. We each do our movement then shooting then assault

Improvements can be made no doubt, but they've been making them for four editions, and the sequence your speaking of, the turn sequence, again I state it wouldn't work so well with the way the point balance system is, but it would be interesting and fun with rules behind it, most likely to make the point system fit the way phases were now unfolding.
My point is not that improvements can't be made, but based on personally trying out the phases and reverting back to the original way, I think it would be a great game 'type' option much like 'Planet strike' or something where friends would follow those rules or specific tournaments would carry it out. With it's on set of rules to counteract the disadvantages it applies to the current point system.
Yes, the whole system could be revamped, but no, if I worked in a buisness that was working and making money and being as succesful as it is right now, I wouldn't consider a revamp that large at this stage either. In or out of the box. Run it as an optional game 'type', see if it catches on and if enough people like it and start to enjoy it more than the original, a revamp at that point would be acceptable. *That is the logic behind my suggestion.*