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 go, you go" has come up for a lot of criticism of late. The biggest criticism is that it really facilities Alpha Strike; a player who goes first can often delete a large portion of their opponent's army.

Some other wargames use a system of alternating unit activation. The player going first will activate one of their units, moving, shooting and assaulting with it, then their opponent does the same with one of their units. Some games use random activation too, but my proposal aims to keep things as simple as possible.

It occurred to me that a system of alternating unit activation already exists in the 40K rules: deployment. In deployment, one player places a unit, then their opponent does likewise, alternating until all units are on the table. It would be extremely easy to adopt this for game turns.

Scenario: Player 1 won the roll-off at the start of the game for going first, so he selects one of his units to activate. He selects a Trukk with a Boyz squad in it. By deployment rules, transports and the unit inside them count as a single drop, so he moves the Trukk forward. It's now in range of an enemy Tactical Squad and a Predator. The Boyz now shoot their pistols at the Tactical squad, whilst the Trukk fires off a Rokkit at the Predator. Everything misses, as to be expected, but the Trukk is also close enough to charge. It rolls well enough to make contact with the Tactical Squad, who manage to shave a wound off in overwatch. The Trukk now gets its Assault phase, and rolls against the Tactical Squad, killing one. The Tacticals won't get a chance to swing back until they activate however.

Player 2 can now activate a unit. She selects her Librarian and moves it forwards. The Librarian then tries to cast Smite on the Trukk, and succeeds on an 11! The Trukk takes 4 mortal wounds. The Librarian is not close enough to charge the Trukk, and so his activation is over.

As we can see, nothing really needs to change in the core rules for this change to be implemented. I'll grant that there might be some stratagems or unit rules I haven't thought of that could throw a spanner in the works, but overall it looks very straightforward to adopt the deployment rules to unit activation.

There are several systems proposed since 8th that do this. There are oddities that need consideration.

Heroic intervention needs to be expanded to activations. The auras are so small that when you activate a unit you can activate a character within 3-6" of that unit at the same time. It cuts down on the number of activations while allowing units and characters to maintain their auras and protections.

The large issue for this straight port from deployment is the same issue you have with deployment, if one player has a lot of cheap activations they can force the opponent to be "done" and then move completely in response. There are a few ways this can be addressed (and probably should be for deployment as well). It also severly nerfs things like drop pods, Trygons tunnels, buffing psychic powers (Guide a unit so it can shoot, then you go and blow that unit away wasting my buff).

1.) Force units to be put into "battle groups", where the army is split into groups of as close to 25% of total army value as possible or maybe just 500 points (or some other number, but 25% works decently well). Then alternate activating the groups (you could alternate deploy groups as well). This gets around MSU abuse (for the most part people with have 3-4 groups), as well as allowing for buff characters to be moved with units they are buffing. This is my preferred solution.

2.) Allow characters to "activate" a certain number of units when they activate, or units can activate one at a time and once one player is activated out, the other player only gets 1 "extra" activation. Again gets around MSU abuse, and helps keep buff characters doing their job.

Another issue is the amount of paperwork involved here - while I don't necessarily agree with the direction 8th has taken in "simplifying" the game, the aim was to simplify 40k and cut down on paperwork.

If you go with alternative activations in this manner, each player needs to be constantly keeping track of when every unit was last activated (ie was it this turn or last turn), and, as mentioned above, you have issues with MSU.

I don't like this idea of activations based on characters just as is - this can pretty easily be abused with taking cheap HQ characters just for extra activations.

Having a system where it's +1 to the other player once someone is "activated out" also leads to weird interactions when you're playing factions which contain small, elite, high point units (eg Grey Knights) versus factions where there are multiple low point units (eg MA) - you end up punishing the player who has multiple low point units, because they'll never be able to use everything in their force until attrition takes over, And, ultimately, the balance between two such different armies is supposed to be that one has a few high powered units, while the other relies on weight of numbers to end things.

It's a tricky problem.

Battle groups is an interesting way to do things - you could also make certain units always be considered a whole (or half, etc) battle group in order to decrease the power on certain unit interactions.

I feel that in standard games (~2000) points, each player taking turns to activate units would slow the game down tremendously.

I'm not certain about that, as I've never tried it, but it seems like it would to me.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I feel that in standard games (~2000) points, each player taking turns to activate units would slow the game down tremendously.

I'm not certain about that, as I've never tried it, but it seems like it would to me.

It doesn't. It might seem like it does because it takes "twice as long" to finish a turn, but the amount of turns is halved.

The problem with any Alt Activation is MSU spam giving people an advantage or if you allow skips keeping track of the number of units.

skolirvarden wrote:
Another issue is the amount of paperwork involved here - while I don't necessarily agree with the direction 8th has taken in "simplifying" the game, the aim was to simplify 40k and cut down on paperwork.

If you go with alternative activations in this manner, each player needs to be constantly keeping track of when every unit was last activated (ie was it this turn or last turn), and, as mentioned above, you have issues with MSU.

I don't like this idea of activations based on characters just as is - this can pretty easily be abused with taking cheap HQ characters just for extra activations.

Having a system where it's +1 to the other player once someone is "activated out" also leads to weird interactions when you're playing factions which contain small, elite, high point units (eg Grey Knights) versus factions where there are multiple low point units (eg MA) - you end up punishing the player who has multiple low point units, because they'll never be able to use everything in their force until attrition takes over, And, ultimately, the balance between two such different armies is supposed to be that one has a few high powered units, while the other relies on weight of numbers to end things.

It's a tricky problem.

Battle groups is an interesting way to do things - you could also make certain units always be considered a whole (or half, etc) battle group in order to decrease the power on certain unit interactions.

That is why you would need to stack the characters activating units and the +1 after the other player activates out. If more expensive characters can activate more units (and balance this to different armies) it allows for a variety of army builds but does not really give a bonus to any single build. So if you take multiple low point units you will want a better commander to be able to activate those units so you don't lose out on them. It isn't perfect but it is better than straight alternate activation. The biggest downside would be killing off activations would mean both players activate fewer units.

As I said I prefer the battle group idea myself. Each player will get (in most cases) 3-4 activations per turn, but with those activations being ~500 points it will be hard to fully alpha strike a player. The big downside is that it is a subtle nerf to all kinds of buffs because they will dictate your activation order.

skolirvarden wrote:Another issue is the amount of paperwork involved here - while I don't necessarily agree with the direction 8th has taken in "simplifying" the game, the aim was to simplify 40k and cut down on paperwork.

If you go with alternative activations in this manner, each player needs to be constantly keeping track of when every unit was last activated (ie was it this turn or last turn), and, as mentioned above, you have issues with MSU.

Put a token next to them when you activate them.

MSUs there are multiple solutions for, ranging from decreasing odds of activating excess units to ratio-based-activation.

Kap'n Krump wrote:I feel that in standard games (~2000) points, each player taking turns to activate units would slow the game down tremendously.

I'm not certain about that, as I've never tried it, but it seems like it would to me.

Probably would slightly because Player 2 doesn't have like 1/3 of their army deleted before they can pick up the dice

Regardless, it means the time between Player 1 and Player 2 getting to do something is decreased. IGOUGO has the unfortunate side effect of one player sitting there doing nothing for the entire duration of the other guy's army.

M.

Has any one got any issues with alternating actions?
(If you leave casualty removal until the end of the phase it can simulate simultaneous resolution.)
And it would probably be a better fit with 40k ?

Ive tried an alternative activation system in 7th, except it was phases (Move,Move,Shoot,Shoot, One single Close Combat,Morale)

I feel that this activation system could make for some interesting play styles and since it was designed around not using over watch as the defending player actually can react to the opponents movements. It's actually quite intense when you get the hang of it

Also. Priority for the turn was a D6 from both players, highest one gets priority for activating

@mchammadad.
Alternating phases like you tried out is one of the more straight forward forms of alternating actions.
Most game turns that are more interactive than alternating game turn 40k still uses, means that ''over watch fix'' is not required.

 Infantryman wrote:

skolirvarden wrote:Another issue is the amount of paperwork involved here - while I don't necessarily agree with the direction 8th has taken in "simplifying" the game, the aim was to simplify 40k and cut down on paperwork.

If you go with alternative activations in this manner, each player needs to be constantly keeping track of when every unit was last activated (ie was it this turn or last turn), and, as mentioned above, you have issues with MSU.

Put a token next to them when you activate them.

MSUs there are multiple solutions for, ranging from decreasing odds of activating excess units to ratio-based-activation.

Kap'n Krump wrote:I feel that in standard games (~2000) points, each player taking turns to activate units would slow the game down tremendously.

I'm not certain about that, as I've never tried it, but it seems like it would to me.

Probably would slightly because Player 2 doesn't have like 1/3 of their army deleted before they can pick up the dice

Regardless, it means the time between Player 1 and Player 2 getting to do something is decreased. IGOUGO has the unfortunate side effect of one player sitting there doing nothing for the entire duration of the other guy's army.

M.

It is even worse in AoS when one player rolls a double turn.

I have actually been a proponent of alternating activations for both games for a while. One way some games get around activation advantage, is forcing excessively cheap units to chain activate, possibly as a players first activation. Battlegroups is another method and is what Dropfleet Commander uses.

Breng77 wrote:
The large issue for this straight port from deployment is the same issue you have with deployment, if one player has a lot of cheap activations they can force the opponent to be "done" and then move completely in response. There are a few ways this can be addressed (and probably should be for deployment as well). It also severly nerfs things like drop pods, Trygons tunnels, buffing psychic powers (Guide a unit so it can shoot, then you go and blow that unit away wasting my buff).

1.) Force units to be put into "battle groups", where the army is split into groups of as close to 25% of total army value as possible or maybe just 500 points (or some other number, but 25% works decently well). Then alternate activating the groups (you could alternate deploy groups as well). This gets around MSU abuse (for the most part people with have 3-4 groups), as well as allowing for buff characters to be moved with units they are buffing. This is my preferred solution.

2.) Allow characters to "activate" a certain number of units when they activate, or units can activate one at a time and once one player is activated out, the other player only gets 1 "extra" activation. Again gets around MSU abuse, and helps keep buff characters doing their job.

Alternatively, use Battletech's method:
Before each of the 1st player's activations, count up the number of unactivated units on both sides. If one side has x times as many units left as the other, that player activates x units in their next activation. That ensures that whoever activated the first unit always finishes before the other player.

For example, 10 units vs 7:
1) 10/7 is 1 and a bit; both players activate 1 unit.
2) 9/6 is still 1 and a bit; both players activate 1 unit.
3) 8/5 is still 1 and a bit; both players activate 1 unit.
4) 7/4 is still 1 and a bit; both players activate 1 unit.
5) 6/3 is 2; player 1 activates 2 units, player 2 activates 1.
6) 4/2 is still 2; player 1 activates 2 units, player 2 activates 1.
7) 2/1 is still 2; player 1 activates 2 units, player 2 activates 1. Player 2 activates the last unit.

Or give the army with the fewer units (calculated at the start of each game turn) a number of passes equal to the difference.

I think the passes would work better as you could game the first system a bit (take a ton of useless cheap units, then when you get to double activate, activate all your big scary units. Now this might even out as both players do this, but that makes the game a bit boring.

For instance it works well in your example, I'm not sure it works well when 1 player has 28 activations and the other has 7. Then if the 28 activation player goes first he gets 4 activations to every 1 for the other player. So if that player leaves all his cheap activations until late he can still alpha strike, or if alpha strike isn't open early he can still wait out and activate a whole bunch of units late.

The passes would work better because the player with more activations would never know when the other player would pass or activate. I'm just not sure this mechanic is super fun.

There are problems at the other end of the unit size too.

If a high value ''death star'' unit gets to move and attack , and wipe out a significant amount of opposing units.
Or even just takes out the unit that are the most likely to harm it.It can leave the game nearly as out of balance as it currently is.

Letting one unit take multiple actions while the rest of the units ''sit and watch'', needs quite a few scheduling factors to compensate for a range of units never meant to be used in an alternating unit activation game turn.

Alternating action/phases are much easier to get to work well with 40k units.As players take one action with thier entire force, which means the same amounts of point values activate each phase.(Within the tactical limitation of the game structure.)

Lanrak wrote:
There are problems at the other end of the unit size too.

If a high value ''death star'' unit gets to move and attack , and wipe out a significant amount of opposing units.
Or even just takes out the unit that are the most likely to harm it.It can leave the game nearly as out of balance as it currently is.

Letting one unit take multiple actions while the rest of the units ''sit and watch'', needs quite a few scheduling factors to compensate for a range of units never meant to be used in an alternating unit activation game turn.

Alternating action/phases are much easier to get to work well with 40k units.As players take one action with thier entire force, which means the same amounts of point values activate each phase.(Within the tactical limitation of the game structure.)

Lords of war seem to be the largest issue here, there are not really any deathstars in this edition that would cause a huge problem, most would involve multiple units activating.

Every solution has its issues.

The issue with alternating phases is things like kiting, where the first player moves everything forward into range, and their opponent then moves everything out of range. This especially hurts assault armies.

@Breng77.
I have never actually seen any one win a war game by running away from the enemy.

If there are objectives to achieve, letting the enemy move to them unopposed, is not very effective.
And losing units by routing off your table edge, is not too great either.

In practice alternating actions works fine with 40k.(If you leave casualty removal until the end of the phase,it is a simple way to simulate simultaneous actions.)

In fact shifting to alternating actions/phases, allows you to make the rules much more straight forward, and allows more tactical depth.

If we re introduce the simple tactical choices from 2nd ed, with alternating phases, it fixes lots of the core issues.
Moving to dice roll determined by opposed values from one resolution chart fixes most of the others.

Alternating activations definitely has its own problems. Activation control becomes silly powerful, particularly in the first turn and leads to some pretty ridiculous games of red rover.

I think there's potential in the detachment system to break things up a bit. If lists required multiple detatchments (with the existing ones shuffled a bit to be easier to reach) with a lower point cap. Even requiring 2 detatchments minimum 700 points or something?

Lanrak wrote:
@Breng77.
I have never actually seen any one win a war game by running away from the enemy.

If there are objectives to achieve, letting the enemy move to them unopposed, is not very effective.
And losing units by routing off your table edge, is not too great either.

In practice alternating actions works fine with 40k.(If you leave casualty removal until the end of the phase,it is a simple way to simulate simultaneous actions.)

In fact shifting to alternating actions/phases, allows you to make the rules much more straight forward, and allows more tactical depth.

If we re introduce the simple tactical choices from 2nd ed, with alternating phases, it fixes lots of the core issues.
Moving to dice roll determined by opposed values from one resolution chart fixes most of the others.

The problem with "you won't win by running away" is plenty of armies actually do, both in history and wargaming, when they outrange their opponents (at a tactical level). The Mongolian Light Cavalry, for example, in general simply retreated from their foes and shot them with arrows until they were defeated.

Similarly, in your proposed alternating phases, a unit such as a tank company could run away as fast as the enemy advanced, while also pouring firepower upon them until they can no longer pose a threat to the tanks, and then advance into the space that you've just covered in corpses.

A friend of mine was trying out some rules for activation that we used a long time ago for Battletech.
Have a unique "card" for each unit in your army.
Both players shuffle their decks and randomly draw a card and alternately play each unit for each game phase.
It is interesting but adds even more variation to what can happen (who moves first, who shoots first...) and promotes larger units / smaller armies in order to play everything first.
I find this tends to lean toward emphasis on tactical play and less-so strategy.

Bolt Action activation is neat and seems to reward the use of more units to increase your dice pool and you get to select which unit you want to activate.
I prefer this system of play.
It gives some more thought on prioritizing.
There is some ability to react to changing circumstances as units activate.

The I-go / You-go at least gives you a clearer picture of how to position yourself for all the various phases and to better focus attacks on given units.
This is the typical "alpha-strike" dilemma. It works, but not great.

Using deployment rules is another alternative that I had seen playing Robotech RPG Tactics: pick a unit to activate and alternate between you and your opponent.
Funny enough, command points were also used so you could "steal the initiative" similar to when we want a unit to go first in melee but in this case to activate a unit before your opponent.

I like any means of alternating in a uniform way so that no player has a significant amount of their army wounded before they get to react in any way.

@Unit1126PLL.
Well most of the actual war games I play do not let players win by just running away.As most games include more tactical options like simple suppression to pin units in place before the assault.
And allow units to use smoke rounds, mobile cover,suppression etc, to out maneuver and out flank enemy units.

Just bringing back the tactical options in the movement phase.
Move up to twice no ranged attacks.(If assaulting declare the charge.)

Move once then fire, ''move and shoot'' weapons only.(Or go to ground instead of shooting.)

No movement then may fire ''move or fire'' weapons.(Or dig in /hull down.)

And moving casualty removal to the end of the phase with alternating phases , makes the game play so much better IMO.
(But I prefer straight forward tactically deep rules.Other like lots of complicated rules with little tactical thought.)

GW are in the business of selling toy soldiers .So tacticaly shallow game play , and cool sounding special rules is what they think ''collectors'' want.And they are probably right.


All the games using alternating unit activation were developed with this game turn in mind so the units are much, much, much , better balanced than those found in 40k.

40k was developed for players to take actions with their entire force at a time.
In practice alternating phases work much better with 40k.If you want straight forward rules with deeper tactical game play.

If you just want lots of complicated rules , then alternating unit activation is the way to go.

@Lanrak

You play some pretty awful wargames then, that can't replicate many significant successes from history including Cannae, the Mongol invasions of Europe, the Russian retreat to trade space for time in every war they ever fought...

heck, there's tons of examples of retreats being used to either draw the enemy into a trap, overextend their lines of supply, preserve an army for a decisive engagement later rather than expending it in a lost fight, or simply to keep them at arms length while peppering them with arrows/bullets/shells/whatever.

I'd argue a wargame that does not allow falling back before the enemy's advance is a pretty awful wargame.

@Unit1126PLL.
I agree that those CAMPAIGNS , are not re created in TACTICAL WAR GAMES in the ''squad'' to ''regiment'' level game sizes.

And where did I say that falling back was not an option.
I just said if a war game lets you win JUST by RUNNING AWAY, it a poor war game.

Perhaps we have been talking at cross purposes?

Maybe If you can define what you think the scale and scope of 40k game play should be?I may understand your point of view better?

IMO the wheel completely fell of the game play when GW shoe horned in the large stuff from Apoc in 6th and 7th ed.

I think those units should be added with care in a balanced way.SO I would go back to 4th/5th ed game size, to start with(Company level.) And add flyers, L.O.W. and super heavies etc, after that core game is sorted out properly.

If everyone could think back to 4th 5th ed 40k.Aht game size do you think best fits ?
Would you say the game size was supposed to be,

A)Individual model , or squad level detailed model interaction skirmish.(Inquisitor- Necromundia.)

B)Large skirmish, less detailed model interaction.(2nd ed 40k.)

C)Battle game , with detailed unit interaction.

D)Large battle game , with less detailed unit interaction .(WHFB or Epic/SM/Armageddon etc.)

If you think about the basic interaction of unts what warfare type fits best.

1)Ancient land warfare.Where moving and assaulting are prominent and shooting is ONLY used in a supporting role.

2)Naval warfare , where moving and shooting are prominent , and assault is ONLY used in a supporting role.

3)Modern land warfare, where mobility , fire power and assault are all equally important.

I think 40k should be a battle game with detailed unit interaction , with the game play closest to modern land warfare.So all units abilities can be equally viable.

What do you think?

Oh jesus here we go again...

@Lanrak

The scale and scope of the game we are discussing is 40k as it is now.

Nobody is talking about changing the units, or the core mechanics, or anything other than the turn structure.

The turn structure is the problem with 40k. We all know you like alternating phases. Just like I am sure all the usual participants in these discussions know I like alternating unit activation.

There are major issues with alternating phases, namely using superior range to step out of shorter ranged armies capability to shoot you while keeping them in your range to shoot them. Tau will dominate against all mid/short ranged armies.

It's bad. It's a bad idea. It doesn't work.

I've read several rulesets for games where the number of units issue is solved simply by letting a player pass if they have less activations remaining than their opponent.

@Lance845.
My argument has always been it is much easier to fix the over powered shooting, with tactical options in the movement phase/and or simple suppression mechanic.And make the alternating phases work for 40k.

Than it is to address multiple issues that alternating unit activation generates ,-
1)The imbalance of units taking multiple actions unopposed,(Requiring some form of additional reactions mechanics.)

2)The imbalance in the number of units a side, where grouping into set sizes or passing /carrying over actions is required.)

3)The removal of co-ordinated attacks from several units moving or attacking at the same time, that player are used to.(Requiring additional rules to add them back?)

I prefer alternating unit activation as a game turn mechanic!
IF we had units and rules written specifically for this type of game turn in mind for 40k I would be 100% behind it.

But we have not and they were not.

Moving from alternating game turn to alternating phases, is the least disruptive/complicated option that gives the level of improvement most would like.(And its easy to model simultaneous resolution if players want it.)

I am not simply asking for my faviorite game turn mechanic, but trying to find the one that is the best fit for 40k.

Lanrak wrote:
@Lance845.I am not simply asking for my faviorite game turn mechanic, but trying to find the one that is the best fit for 40k.

No, Lanrak, I'm sorry to say you are doing exactly that. If I come back in a decade to Warhammer 40k 12th Edition, you will still be making the exact same arguments in favor of the exact same form of Alternating Phases. This is your pet idea. It never dies, and you never listen.

I say this in frustration because I've spent a lot of time and effort explaining to you in the past the main fault of your idea, which is the perfect information player 2 has about player 1's movements. Player 2 can kite player 1 and situate perfect shooting ranges, positions, and cover, leaving player 1 zero control over their own shooting and charge distances. It's an Alpha Strike by a different method and it heavily favors long range shooting and penalizes close range and melee. The fact that it alternates every turn simply means players take turns having an almost total lack of control over the damage dealing part of the game (I.e. being in effective weapons range and being able to reach close combat).

Trying to pretend that "nobody ever won a battle by running away from the enemy" flies in the face of history, of most wargames, and of basic knowledge about the in-game strengths and weaknesses of different 40k factions.

You also repeatedly bring up faults with other systems that make no sense (like alternating activations being too hard to keep track of, or the size difference between units in 40k being too great, or MSU spam being an insurmountable problem, or other methods requiring "too many new special rules").

I'm saying this for the sake of newer posters. This hasn't been constructive since 6th edition at least. It's just frustrating.

It's especially frustrating, Lanrak, because some of the things you say are novel or useful. Simultaneous resolution of damage is a *good* idea, even if it requires serious bookkeeping.

To fix your idea, you could implement alternating activations for the movement and assault phases, drawing dice to pick units like in Bolt Action, and resolve shooting damage and melee simultaneously. You could even implement battle groups like in Dropfleet or Dropzone to balance out the activation count.

None of that would require a ton of new rules or have any problem dealing with the variety of units in 40k. It even builds on your core idea of alternating phases.

Lanrak wrote:
@Breng77.
I have never actually seen any one win a war game by running away from the enemy.

If there are objectives to achieve, letting the enemy move to them unopposed, is not very effective.
And losing units by routing off your table edge, is not too great either.

In practice alternating actions works fine with 40k.(If you leave casualty removal until the end of the phase,it is a simple way to simulate simultaneous actions.)

In fact shifting to alternating actions/phases, allows you to make the rules much more straight forward, and allows more tactical depth.

If we re introduce the simple tactical choices from 2nd ed, with alternating phases, it fixes lots of the core issues.
Moving to dice roll determined by opposed values from one resolution chart fixes most of the others.

Really 4th/5th ed Eldar, Flying Circus Daemons etc, basically did just run away all game, contest objectives at the end and win. You also are not just running away, you are running and shooting, until you have damaged the opponent enough to move in and finish them off. IT doesn't matter when you remove casualties if I kill you and you don't kill me because of range/mobility differences. Alternating phases gives a significant advantage to the player going second because of the importance of the movement phase.

@CalgarsPimpHand.
You assume that the only thing that would change is the game turn mechanic.Which will not fix all the core issues with 40k.

If you JUST look at the two game turn mechanic in isolation , then they are equally valid.

When players have gods view of the playing area, and a fixed chance to hit any units in weapons range.This removes the tactical depth of the game play and simply becomes 'rock paper scissors' with special rules .

Tactical options in the movement phase and opposed rolling to hit cures this and adds far more proportional results and tactical depth back to the game.

In real war no General worth their stars attacks unless they have as 2 to 1 advantage.
And out numbered forces will make tactical/strategic retreats.

However, when we artificially have 'equal point forces' in a war game.For an encounter battle.No one should be able to win by just running away.

Moving and shooting is not just running away....

As to the faults I bring up.
Rather than dismiss them can you explain how...

Keeping track of what 20+ individual units have done and when.
Is not harder than keeping track of .
''Have you moved/shot/assaulted all your force you want to, in the relevant phase.''

Balancing the number of units activations per side, is not more complicated than ''my phase. your phase.''.

And using reactions mechanics/rules , to sort out who did what to who in what order when resolving alternating unit activations.
Is not more complicated than simultaneous resolution.

40k has always tried to be been balance at the force level NOT the unit level.

Alternating phases with 'a force' activation is going to need less fine balancing than unit activation.

To fix your idea you could have alternating actions from a 2 action set 'order counter'.

Command phase place orders face down.Call in off table support.

Primary action phase.Flip order counter over as first action taken.
Player A take first action of order.
Player B takes forst action of order.

Secondary action phase.remove order counter as second action taken.
Player A takes second action of order,
Player B takes second action of order.
.
Resolution/tidy up phase.

Players alternate taking a single pre determined action.No time warp, or scheduling needed, and the order counters keep track of what each unit has done /will do.

@Breng77
Where did I state I considered 40k to be a war game .
Unrestricted shooting is overpowered in 40k.
Rather than put something straightforward into the rules to fine tune it . GW just buff assault, then buff shooting, from edition to edition.

So some simple straight forward restrictions on shooting to balance it better with assault would be good for the game as a whole.

Lanrak. Its turn 1. You move first. You deepstrike your assault marines 9" away from my unit. My move phase, i take a 2" step back so you have the worst possible chance to assault me and i still get to fire overwatch.

My turn to move in turn 2. I take a max move away from whatever is left of your no doubt shot up melee unit. You chase me. I shoot you up again before you try to charge and i overwatch again.

Do you want to explain how your alternating phase setup is not going to be incredibly crippling to short range/melee based armies?

Because all the rest of the crap your talking about is meaningless if this single core feature is not addressed. The system you propose is broken. More complex to place a chit next to a unit that has been activated or not (its not) at least the unit that deepstrikes gets to actually do its thing before the enemy just steps away and ruins your ability to function at all.