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.

So, while I don't want to propose anything here, I thought I'd bring this up. Threads about changing up turn order come up every so often and they always feel really biased to one method, so I want to have a discussion thread on what Turn Oder methods exist and the relative merits of each. I know what I like and have my own ideas, but would like to hear from people with more experience and alternate perspectives.

First, there's the IGOUGO method and that's why we are all here. Could potentially be improved with reaction mechanics to involve the non- turn player more, but lacking in depth as it gives a lot of advantage to the person that goes first.

Then, other games have an "activation" mechanic where one player picks a unit, does everything they want to with just that unit and hands it off to his opponent.

Then, a broken up "turn" could be implemented where players alternate completing only one phase at a time, as opposed to an entire turn.

If I missed anything, please say so. I want other peoples' thoughts on this!

Broken-up turn:
Movement Phase:
Player 1 moves, player 2 moves.

Psychic Phase:
Player 1's Psychic Phase, Player 2's Psychic Phase
*Casualties are marked but not removed until the end of the Psychic Phase.

Shooting Phase:
Player 1 Shoots with all units, Player 2 shoots with all units.
*Casualties are marked but not removed until the end of the Shooting Phase.

Charge Sub-phase:
Player 1 declares a charge with one unit, Player 2 declares a charge with one unit, then continue alternating until all charges have been declared.
*If one unit charges another unit that doesn't charge back, then only the charging unit gets the charge bonuses. If the charged unit charges back, then you add both charge ranges for the purpose of seeing if they make it into close combat, and both sides recieve the charge bonuses.
*A unit with a charge declared against it may not declare a charge against another unit other than the one charging them. If they do not declare a counter-charge, they may fire overwatch.

Close Combat phase:
All combats resolved one at a time as per current rules.

Following Game Turns:
Same as first, but alternate the two players as player 1 & 2 for each Game Turn.


Pro:
This method minimizes the significance of which player wins the initial roll off. No game should be determined by whether a player won or lost the roll off to go first.

This does not noticeably lengthen the game. The added steps are minimal, and non-time-consuming, and the rest is just re-arranging.

Con:
Rules that relate to player turns would have to be tweaked to reflect there no longer being a player turn.



For the IGOUGO method
Pro:
On each player turn, the controlling player makes all of their decisions for the turn, while the other player could take a break to get a snack or relieve him/her self while someone else makes the defensive rolls as needed (at least in casual games).

Con:
Giant advantage depending on which player goes first. Typically for the first player getting to move into position, and being able to shoot the entirety of his weapons at the second player before they get a chance to attack back with anything.



For the Activation method
*I'm not particularly familiar with this one, so someone else can give the pros and cons.



Note:
I'm not sure you'll get any unbiased opinions on this topic. Individuals aren't likely to see the cons of their method (if they did they'd likely correct them), and they aren't likely to acknowledge the pros for other peoples' suggestions, if they have one of their own they think is better. This above was my best attempt to be unbiased regarding my suggestion.

One of the things is that, especially talking about alternating activations, there are enough variations of each that the categories are too broad.


Alternating activations (AA) have a couple of related problems. Some AA systems require making activation tests, which are a second-order part of a game that isn't always what the players want. For example of a second-order rule in 40k, Dark Eldar warriors probably don't think about "power from pain" tokens, and yet players have been able to do that kind of bookkeeping to distribute buffs. Warmachine has more of an emphasis on that stuff than warhammer. In some games there is a dice test against a unit's profile, in other games the player has to assign tokens. AA often involves a layer of rules that govern when and how things can be activated that IGOUGO usually does not.

The alternative in AA is to have very few rules about activations. The problem that causes is that it can favor armies with either low or high numbers of units, depending on the game. The variations in question are usually whether all the players' units must be activated over a given period, or whether the game allows one unit to be activated over and over without ever using the others.

AA also often requires physical tokens or markers, which you might call a con.

The positives of AA are pretty well advertised. It limits alpha strike or one-sides opportunities for damage. AA keeps the players active more consistently (not always good). AA allows an extra dimension of play, for example in Epic the Eldar have long been able to activate and reactivate units more often than other armies. They showed a part of their character that way that 40k did not allow, except recently in a small way with battle focus.


IGOUGO has variations. In 40k there are phases, but in other games a unit does all its moving and other actions at once. The cons are that the games can be lopsided based on turn order. It can also seem less realistic than AA because it's obvious that the two sides aren't moving simultaneously. This is also a problem with the broken up turn that Bill described above. It can also produce boring waiting periods for the inactive player.

The benefits of IGOUGO are not at all explicit, they actually have to be inferred. One is that it eliminates the activation rules of alternate activation games. This is one of the the interesting conflicts that both of the game types have with immersiveness. In AA, the sides seem more like they are going simultaneously, but you have to stop and do initiative rolls or place order dice. In IGOUGO, you don't have to stop for those kinds of game aids, but the turns don't seem simultaneous and it seems like one side is standing stock still while the other one moves.

The other important benefit of IGOUGO is that there is a strategy phase. You have a distinct period (while the other player is taking his turn) to figure out what to do in your next turn. It evades the problem that AA games can have, which is that instead of Having too pay mc, they are too claustrophobic and it's difficult to pace yourself. Unfortunately, 40k has enough measuring, dice rolling, and LoS problems that you don't get the full benefit of watching your opponent's turn because it's so hard to get anything done.

I should tell you about the "broken up turns" that give players different phases. Some games give player one a movement phase, and then gives a shooting phase to player 2. Then there is either a shooting phase for player 1 before switching turns, or there isn't, depending on the game. This prevents player one, or player two, from alpha striking, but it also allows seamless turns with no activation rolls or order dice. There are more reasons to do that than to just alternate taking the same phase, which often gives player2 an enormous advantage.

There is an extra aspect of turn structure which are the out of turn actions that you mentioned in the OP. They are not just for IGOUGO and they are not just reactions. AA games often have interrupt or stealing the initiative actions that the passive player can use. There are IGOUGO reactions that you mentioned, like the charge reactions in WHFB. A problem with those is they bring activation tests from AA into IGOUGO, which defeats the point of IGOUGO. IGOUGO can also have passive actions out of turn, for instance if a unit shoots at your unit, you might have put a different unit close to the shooting unit, which gives you a limited number of saves or rerolls against that shooting. It is less disruptive than a "reaction" but may just boil down to dice rolling.