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've been thinking about an alternating action system, and had a brainwave which may have been done already, so some of you might have knowledge of whether it works.

So people toss around this idea for AA-ing 40k of making it move-move-shoot-shoot-assault-assault, and I was toying with this system (for a different game) when I had this idea:

So the turn system would be alternating actions as normal, with a movement phase in which models are repositioned and an everything-else phase, with shooting and combat and all that jazz.

The kicker is that either player can move onto phase 2 at any point, but can't move back.

so take it in turns activating one unit at a time, and only moving them, until you're ready to attack, and now you activate any unit (including ones you moved) but cannot move them, only attack.

so if all your models are where you want them, then you can start shooting whilst the opponent is still moving. but if you suddenly realised you should have moved something, tough.

This would be kept track of with a basic 2 sided counter system - give the unit/model a counter when it moves, then flip it over when it attacks. if it doesn't move, then give it a flipped counter when it attacks. once all models have flipped counters, your turn is over.

Charges would be done in the combat phase to balance the assault units, so once you're in combat you can be charging & attacking as they flee to try and set up a better position.

possible scenarios:

all-assault army is moving whilst a gunline blazes at them, but can move models out of LOS and gunline can't reposition. fast models, boosted/buffed units etc could surprise units positioned too far forward.

All-assault army is already in combat, gunline can escape provided the assault army has anything to move - make charge ranges quite short.

one army sees the other army is trying to out-manoeuvre them, sacrifices movement to start shooting them before it's too late.

One army sacrifices moving some models/units in favour of striking first.

one army who only attacks finds himself with nothing left to activate when the opponent starts attacking, so cannot counter anything.

Has anyone seen anything like this before?

It sounds a little messy. In general the Alternating Activation system runs by giving 1 unit an entire turn to activate. So you pick a unit, that unit can move, shoot/charge and assault all in one block and then its done and you pass over control to your opponent for them to pick their unit.

This way you keep the book keeping simple, you know which units you've used (or can mark them with a token) and steadily go through your entire army.


Splitting it into doing it for each phase is a bit more messy because you're now complicating things. It also makes things like charging near impossible because any unit you'd move into range to charge, your opponent would then be instantly able to move the target unit back out of range. You'd end up with a lot of "chasing the tail" around the table until units got cornered.
Basically everyone would run away from attacks whilst trying to make their own

Furthermore letting a shooty player advance to the shooting phase against a close combat player would play heavily in favour of a long range shooting army. The shooting army would have far less reason to need to move; they could even bypass the whole need to move and just sit there and jump to shooting. The close combat player is thus stuck having to move everything before they can pass on shooting to get to close combat; during which time the ranged player has shot their army to bits.

Sounds like a pretty cool and novel idea to me, it would be worth putting it to the test with some games to check it doesn't have unintended consequences.

Would it promote the use of lots of small units to force your opponent into the shooting phase before you expose your key units? I don't know.

 Overread wrote:
It sounds a little messy. In general the Alternating Activation system runs by giving 1 unit an entire turn to activate. So you pick a unit, that unit can move, shoot/charge and assault all in one block and then its done and you pass over control to your opponent for them to pick their unit.

This way you keep the book keeping simple, you know which units you've used (or can mark them with a token) and steadily go through your entire army.

Splitting it into doing it for each phase is a bit more messy because you're now complicating things. It also makes things like charging near impossible because any unit you'd move into range to charge, your opponent would then be instantly able to move the target unit back out of range. You'd end up with a lot of "chasing the tail" around the table until units got cornered.
Basically everyone would run away from attacks whilst trying to make their own

Furthermore letting a shooty player advance to the shooting phase against a close combat player would play heavily in favour of a long range shooting army. The shooting army would have far less reason to need to move; they could even bypass the whole need to move and just sit there and jump to shooting. The close combat player is thus stuck having to move everything before they can pass on shooting to get to close combat; during which time the ranged player has shot their army to bits.

I realise it would take a little getting used to, but it is only 2 phases (attacking in CC and shooting all in one phase).

The flipside of the shooting army shooting lots is that once the assault army gets close, the shooting army will want to move away - and the combat army will want to jump to attack. especially if a charge move is incorporated in the attack phase.

It would take some balancing but I think it could work... I can see the downsides though, it might be a bit of a one-sided battle if the shooting is too powerful, and might turn into a game of "can you kill them before they get to you?" for pure gunlines vs pure assault armies. That said, if the game was built so that there were no pure gunlines, and armies were either move-shoot or move-assault, it could bring some balance.

I'll have to muck around with it a bit...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroem wrote:
Sounds like a pretty cool and novel idea to me, it would be worth putting it to the test with some games to check it doesn't have unintended consequences.

Would it promote the use of lots of small units to force your opponent into the shooting phase before you expose your key units? I don't know.

wow, the first game design post I've had which was met with more than indifference

I think MSU would have a place, and would be effective at hindering an opponent until you had to actually do something with them, and then they would be their own worst enemy - you'd be losing models before you were done moving. if the opponent made tactical decisions to target models which had already moved, then it'll drag out your movement. Once the attack is declared, their priority will be models which haven't attacked yet.

I'm liking this dynamic more and more now that I'm thinking about it!

Any system that allows both players to move before one player starts shooting is a system that give advantage to longer ranged shooting armies over melee and shorter ranged shooting.

Example: I move my orks closer so they can charge, you move the guys they got closest to farther away from them but still in range of your guns. You do this until I have exhausted all my orks positioning to melee. You start shooting. All my orks get decimated before they ever reach the charge phase.

 Lance845 wrote:
Any system that allows both players to move before one player starts shooting is a system that give advantage to longer ranged shooting armies over melee and shorter ranged shooting.

Example: I move my orks closer so they can charge, you move the guys they got closest to farther away from them but still in range of your guns. You do this until I have exhausted all my orks positioning to melee. You start shooting. All my orks get decimated before they ever reach the charge phase.

In the system I'm designing, shooting and assaulting would be in the same phase, so your orks would move up, they might move back, but once they start shooting they can't run any more, and you don't have to wait for them to finish shooting to start charging. Provided assault armies have a better movement statistic than the shooting armies, they won't be able to run forever.

so an example turn would be:

move-move-move-move-move-shoot-move-shoot-fight-fight-fight-fight

Above example is 4 Ork units vs 2 space marine units. Once the second marine unit has moved, the orks have 2 more units to move to close in on them, and the space marine player can't run any more.

You could also sacrifice moving some of your units one turn to jump a unit before it has a chance to move - heavy hitters move into range of 2 units, opponent moves 1 of those units, and you jump to attack and hit them. Once you're into range of combat, they can't get away so easily - they move away, you move after them. or just jump straight to combat again and charge them as they flee.

This might not be the most balanced system in pure assault vs pure shooting, but with balanced units I think it will be viable.

Thing is even if shooting and assaulting at in the same phase there is still bias for the shooting army. If they can't run away continually, they can still setup a gun-line and declare their movement over faster so that they can get an earlier phase of shooting with impunity, since the assault player will still want to run through most of their army to get to the point where they are positioned ready to assault.

I get the idea is to make people think about when to stop moving, but besides gun-line armies; most units are going to want to move around most turns. This becomes even more important when the objective is securing points on the map rather than ,say, just killing things.

It punishes any player trying to mobilize their army and supports any army that wants to bunker down and just shoot.

 Overread wrote:
Thing is even if shooting and assaulting at in the same phase there is still bias for the shooting army. If they can't run away continually, they can still setup a gun-line and declare their movement over faster so that they can get an earlier phase of shooting with impunity, since the assault player will still want to run through most of their army to get to the point where they are positioned ready to assault.

I get the idea is to make people think about when to stop moving, but besides gun-line armies; most units are going to want to move around most turns. This becomes even more important when the objective is securing points on the map rather than ,say, just killing things.

It punishes any player trying to mobilize their army and supports any army that wants to bunker down and just shoot.

All valid points, and I think that the mission will be important - if it's just an aim to kill each other then it will favour the gunline. but in reality, if you run at a gunline waving a sword, you're probably not going to make it (reference: World War 1).

If we take the scenario and we instead face a mobile shooting army against the gunline (eg tau battlesuits vs imperial guard) the story changes. The guard will get to lay some shooting down, but from the second they start shooting the mobile army knows where they will be, and can move to target weak links and get around cover. they can move fragile units into cover - in fact, being able to move halfway through the opponents shooting will allow you to hide in plain sight - provided the unit that can see you now has already shot, and the one you're hiding from hasn't.

It's worth bearing in mind that most gunlines rely on a lot of units combining their firepower to become overwhelming - if you're a couple of turns behind them for finishing movement, then they have only shot 2 units before you start. an elite gunline might kick out some firepower before you are done moving, but that's their benefit for being elite - their downside is that 5 units can kill 1 in a turn, but 1 unit can't kill 5 in a turn. Non-elite gunlines will struggle to lay down all their firepower before the opponent is done moving. horde vs horde, gunline vs combat, will be where balance will be crucial to make sure neither has an unfair advantage. It also comes down to the amount of scenery - gunlines work in a field, with a lot of LOS blocking terrain, movement becomes more crucial.

Something I read somewhere was the notion of using 'address' as a catch-all to describe how elements interact in a game, so in Chess for example, a Pawn might be able to address a Queen by being able to capture it if the Queen moved into either of the appropriate squares. Or how a unit in Warhammer 40k 5th edition would only attack one enemy unit at a time in shooting, but multiple units in close combat. But the notion of address means you can think about stuff that's more interesting than just attacking. You could add in things like suppressing fire, or psychic/hacking shenanigans.

@OP - there are lots of possible choices for activation mechanics, and almost any of them will do just fine. The game will feel differently, and may even balance differently, but one can build around that. If you want to have this flavor of alternation, go for it.

Personally, I am not a fan of AA because of the state tracking that is required at the tactical level.

I love Alternating Action games normally. I, however, think there is a bit of over complication in your initial design, that doesn't necessarily need to be there.

The first question I'd ask is what are you trying to accomplish? I don't simply mean 'create an alternate turn rules system' but ultimately what goal or hole in a current system are you trying to solve or what is the overall feel of the game you want to create (other than alternating action).

 Dark Severance wrote:
I love Alternating Action games normally. I, however, think there is a bit of over complication in your initial design, that doesn't necessarily need to be there.

The first question I'd ask is what are you trying to accomplish? I don't simply mean 'create an alternate turn rules system' but ultimately what goal or hole in a current system are you trying to solve or what is the overall feel of the game you want to create (other than alternating action).

I suppose I was trying to separate movement and attacking, so that there's a little pause before anyone starts getting hurt and so there's a greater turn-based plan to think about - I've always felt that AA games tend to be lacking in commitment - you can react to everything because you've not committed to a plan. If you move, then start shooting/attacking, your turn becomes more of a tactical execution of a plan, and less of a "oh, you did that? then I'll do this!" back & forwards. you could cripple someone's plan by attacking them sooner than they expected, sacrificing moving some units to launch the attack. Or you could let the opponent start shooting, and watch the horror on their face as you move some units in ways they hadn't expected, to target models they could have moved.

You'll still get the reactions, but your manoeuvring will have to be planned, because once you stop moving and start shooting, that's where you are (excepting charges).

Have you play tested this yet?

I doubt very much that any of the things you want to happen would in fact happen.

First, don't say that IRL a guy charging a gunline with a sword would get shot to pieces. This isn't real life and it's not a simulation. It's a game. And first and foremost that game need to be fun. If you intend to punish melee vs guns as would happen irl then just don't give anyone the option to melee. An option that is clearly inferior isn't a real option. It's the illusion of choice.

Second, you talk a lot about attacking a weak link in the gun line with superior mobility, and following through on a tactical plan, but what mechanics you have given so far don't actually allow for any of that.

Think practically about what a player would do. I can either let you shoot me or I can get out of your range and just shoot you. How exactly would superior mobility make any difference at all in a fire fight with your turn structure? Either you're in range or you're not and even if you are you have to wait till your next turn to decide to start shooting. More a favorable factor for superior range not movement.

3rd lets talk about mission objectives. Lets say those objectives are not killing opponents and are scattered around the board. You know what makes it easier to win? Numerical advantage. If you spend the first turn or 2 devastating their number of models you can clean sweep all the objectives in the next 3 turns. It's why the game is decided turn 1 now in 40k. It would be exactly the same for anyone with superior range in yours.



What difference does mobility matter if you have to wait to strike? What difference do objectives matter if you can wipe the opponents units off the table and simply march over the remnants? How exactly are you making the movements something the gunline has to commit to instead of reacting to the shorter range opponent and just weakening them to ineffective nuisance levels?

Don't just say what you WANT to happen. Think about what WILL happen. Players will exploit the rules for the most abusive and powerful maneuvers to cripple the enemy asap because that is the intelligent way to play. What tools are you giving them and to whom does it offer the biggest advantage?

It's pretty obvious that the longer your gun range the better off you are moving second in any "Everyone moves then everyone shoots" style of turn structure. Even if you can jump the gun and start shooting early. The superior range gets to safely make that call first and the shorter the range of the opponent the worse off they will be. This isn't an issue of "they can't run forever!" They don't need to. Point for point they can remove your models faster and when you do finally catch up it won't be an even fight any more. They don't need to back up forever. They just need to back up long enough.

 some bloke wrote:
I suppose I was trying to separate movement and attacking, so that there's a little pause before anyone starts getting hurt and so there's a greater turn-based plan to think about - I've always felt that AA games tend to be lacking in commitment - you can react to everything because you've not committed to a plan. If you move, then start shooting/attacking, your turn becomes more of a tactical execution of a plan, and less of a "oh, you did that? then I'll do this!" back & forwards. you could cripple someone's plan by attacking them sooner than they expected, sacrificing moving some units to launch the attack. Or you could let the opponent start shooting, and watch the horror on their face as you move some units in ways they hadn't expected, to target models they could have moved.

The second question then I would ask is, "What alternate action games have you played and do you consider 'Alternate Action' different than 'Alternating Activations/Turns'?". I am trying to understand your goal, experiences, expectations so I can better give an opinion on if you are accomplishing what really want.

From the base description, it sounds like you have seen or tried to apply AA games to WH40K which has different results than a standard AA.

Usually, within Alternate Activations, Alternating Turns, etc a does both shooting and moving, there isn't a separate shoot or a separate movement phase. At least the ones I've played. Player-A chooses to activate Unit-A1, they get 1-3 actions which consists of movement, shooting, special actions. Then turn passes to Player-B who chooses to activate Unit-B1, he can move in response to A1 movement or move to a different objective separately. So if he moves but is still out of range of Player-A's Unit-A2 (who hasn't activated yet), he moved, did his stuff and already committed. Player-A then decides to activate Unit-A2, move and now they are in range shoot. There are different degrees of alternating, the more effective ones tend to have some sort of reaction system. Infinity uses when a unit enters LoF, they can react, they don't get access to full burst but at least can fire a shot off (which can be effective). There is another game (can't remember the name) that allows each unit to react once, so Player-B could choose to take the attack knowing there might be another unit moving in and save the reaction for then or use the reaction to do something.

@OP- What you describe is alternate activation by phase.

Essentially, all of army A does 1 action, then all of army B completes the same action. Typically, an action is something like move, shoot, assault, rally, get orders, etc.

The Good:
- Armies actually act together instead of piecemeal.
- Allows for a higher- level of planning and "control" by the commander
- Requires a commitment to a plan of attack

The Bad:
- Depending on size of forces can lead to down time
- First action has the advantage across the force
- Not intuitive for all players depending on the breakdown of what a "phase" or "turns" components are.


The Other Stuff:
- Does not always be by army, it could also be by unit type. I.e. all skirmishers perform the same action on with army A and then army B's unit performing the action
-