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.

having played both Adeptus Titanicus and Warhammer 40k

I got together with a friend of mine and we tried out useing the Core rule from Adeptus Titanicus, that of Alternating Activations. were one player activates a single unit and performs actions and then the other player does the same

We did 1500 point mono-codex marines vs marines, just to keep things simple
I was quite surprised the game went quite well, was a LOT more tactical, required a lot more thought in what to activate and when
Yes we had to fiddle with the rules some, but overall I found it to be a much better game of 40k then the current version

Basically,
create the map per standard rules
we used mission from the core rules
alternating set up
--game begins--
movement phase
normal and charge moves all done this phase, just like standard core rules, only exception is the alternating activations, overwatch still works just fine useing this method
player 1 activates and moves/charges ONE unit (infantry squad or tank or character, what ever, but only ONE unit)
player 2 activates and moves/charges ONE unit
keep alternating back and forth till movement phase is done.. if one player has more units to activate, well lucky him, gives him more flexible choices
psyker phase - alternates back and forth
combat phase
player 1 activates and shoots ONE unit
player 2 activates and shoots ONE unit
melee phase (this is were things got complicated, cause of the nature of 40k close combat, both players get to fight in each others rounds)
player 1 activates and fights with ONE unit
player 2 activates and fights with ONE unit

YES - this is very viable option for 40k
YES - it will take some thought process to further smooth out the rules

was a hell of a fun game

The single biggest conclusion we came up with .. useing this method will totally and completely eliminate any and all sorts of Alpha Strike strategy that anyone can come up with

I`m gonna try this as well. Sounds fun.

I've been trying alternate activation with 40k for some time. Big games just feel very tedious when you have to sit and watch your opponent obliterate you as you go second, and it's frustrating if your opponent can use their entire army to take our your fav model before you get to use it!

I've tried various takes on it but ended up homing in on the Kill Team rules which sound pretty similar to adeptus from what you say.

I completely agree that 40k can be played with such a ruleset with minimal issues and that it's MUCH more satisfying.

Obviously tactically there are issues. Alternating which side moves means you can't be sure you get to move/assault units together.

The biggest rules issues we came up against were twofold.

1) We ruled a unit cannot fallback or be pulled out of a combat in any way on the turn it was charged. Otherwise you get the situation P1 charges a unit takes overwatch P2 pulls back and P1's unit is exposed and never got to fight.

2) We ruled a unit can attach any unit in range for close combat. Otherwise P1 charges P2, P2 then countercharges this unit with another unit and the P1 player cannot attach these countercharges which seems daft.

3) We accepted that if a unit charged under these rules it couldn't fire weapons as the shooting phase came later. We did allow units which failed charges to fire as usual though. We considered allowing models with pistol weapons to fire in the shooting turn on the turn they charged, but didn't run with that.

I really hope 40k goes alternate activation officially soon. It seems all the newer systems have gone that way and it's a much more satisfying gaming experience.

Hell Epic managed it decades ago, and that was the best GW system ever ;-)

Oh, and to spice it up I've also tried this with the Gates of Antares/Bolt Action system of putting counters in a bag and drawing them to see who gets to move a unit (each player has a counter in the bag for each unit they have left). It was quite fun and random, but we thought it was a bit too much whilst we tried to hone in on a decent alternating activation system.

Gunrunner1775 wrote:
having played both Adeptus Titanicus and Warhammer 40k

I got together with a friend of mine and we tried out useing the Core rule from Adeptus Titanicus, that of Alternating Activations. were one player activates a single unit and performs actions and then the other player does the same

We did 1500 point mono-codex marines vs marines, just to keep things simple
I was quite surprised the game went quite well, was a LOT more tactical, required a lot more thought in what to activate and when
Yes we had to fiddle with the rules some, but overall I found it to be a much better game of 40k then the current version

Basically,
create the map per standard rules
we used mission from the core rules
alternating set up
--game begins--
movement phase
normal and charge moves all done this phase, just like standard core rules, only exception is the alternating activations, overwatch still works just fine useing this method
player 1 activates and moves/charges ONE unit (infantry squad or tank or character, what ever, but only ONE unit)
player 2 activates and moves/charges ONE unit
keep alternating back and forth till movement phase is done.. if one player has more units to activate, well lucky him, gives him more flexible choices
psyker phase - alternates back and forth
combat phase
player 1 activates and shoots ONE unit
player 2 activates and shoots ONE unit
melee phase (this is were things got complicated, cause of the nature of 40k close combat, both players get to fight in each others rounds)
player 1 activates and fights with ONE unit
player 2 activates and fights with ONE unit

YES - this is very viable option for 40k
YES - it will take some thought process to further smooth out the rules

was a hell of a fun game

The single biggest conclusion we came up with .. using this method will totally and completely eliminate any and all sorts of Alpha Strike strategy that anyone can come up with

Alternating phases does not work. It has inherent problems that are best expressed when pitting a melee only unit agaisnt a longer ranged unit. Like say... assault marines/hormagaunts/Ork Boyz/ etc... vs Tau Firewarriors.

The Tau WANT to go second. The other units try to get into range to charge, the tau player can see what they are trying to do and react intelligently. They step back to minimize the ability of the enemy to act agaisnt them and then shoot any of the closest threats.

Alternating phases in any way gives a MASSIVE power advantage to a longer range shooting army that goes second.

Alternating activation DOES work really well, but the units need to do ALL their things in their activation in order to maintain threat and impact on the field.

Unit activates, moves, psychic, shoot, charge, fight. All in one go. THEN the other player gets to respond. If you don't do this then some bodies 12-18" range gun will barely get into range and that tau's 30" range gun will step 13-19" away and shoot you in the face. Because why wouldn't they? The entire first players weapons have a effective range that is a # of inches shorter based on the movement characteristic of the unit they are trying to shoot.

It works in Titanicus because it's a symmetrical game: the armies in 40k are much less symmetrical.