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.

Yet another thought in implementing an alternating activation system for 40K, modified by unit size.

The basic idea is that you perform alternating activations, according to size.

All units (on both sides) are activated, via alternating player activations based on size below:

1) Foot infantry (grot to terminator size)
2) Cavalry/Bikes
3) Dreadnought sized (Dreadnoughts, Killa Kans, Deffdreads, Biovores, etc.)
4) Small vehicles and Large Monsters (Sentinels, Pirhana, Carnifexes, etc.)
5) Vehicles and Huge Monsters (Rhinos, Chimeras, Land Raiders, Leman Russes, Tyrannofexes, Tervigons, Riptides, Devilfish etc.)
6) Knight-class vehicles and Colossal creatures (Morka/Gorkanaut, Lord of Skulls, Knights, Wraithknight, Stormsurge, etc.)
7) Small Titans (Warhound, etc.)
8) Medium Titans (Reaver, etc.)
9) Large Titans (Warlord, etc.)

(A better breakout may be by base size, but I'm not too familiar with base sizes beyond 32mm, and a lot of larger units simply don't have a base at all)

The idea is that smaller-scaled units can react faster to battlefield conditions and offsets the greater firepower of larger units. So, for example, if for some strange reason you had one side with four Devastator units vs. a Knight with two guard squads, the turn might look like:

Player A: #1 Devastator unit (move, shoot, etc.)
Player B: #1 Guard unit (move, shoot, etc.)
Player A: #2 Devastator unit (move, shoot, etc.)
Player B: #2 Guard unit (move, shoot, etc.)
Player A: #3 Devastator unit (move, shoot, etc.)
Player A: #4 Devastator unit (move, shoot, etc.)
Player B: Knight (move, shoot, etc.)

The issue with this is that one of the main reasons to go to alternating activation is to increase a players tactical choices. Who they activate, when, to what effect, in response to what. Thats important.

Your suggestion not only removes that element but makes it all very predictable. Look at that knight. I KNOW it cant act until all these other things do. So i can spend that time making sure i knock it down a damage category to diminish its effectiveness before it moves or fires off a shot. That kind of predictability can hamstring certain units while again, making the whole thing less tactical and interesting.

 Lance845 wrote:
The issue with this is that one of the main reasons to go to alternating activation is to increase a players tactical choices. Who they activate, when, to what effect, in response to what. Thats important.

Your suggestion not only removes that element but makes it all very predictable. Look at that knight. I KNOW it cant act until all these other things do. So i can spend that time making sure i knock it down a damage category to diminish its effectiveness before it moves or fires off a shot. That kind of predictability can hamstring certain units while again, making the whole thing less tactical and interesting.

I have to agree with this - I also don't like the idea that size is important - a lictor will react quicker than a guardsmen. That's why there are so many dead guardsmen.

I do like the idea of some sort of order to AA, but I don't think size should be the defining factor. I would suggest re-instating the Initiative statistic, and have that directly relate to the turn order. This would make devastators slower than tacticals, as you would expect of a unit encumbered with heavy weapons.

So state that "the unit activated must be of equal or lower initiative to the last friendly unit activated". This would allow you to skip half your army if you really wanted to - a very unlikely event, unless you have a highly explosive superheavy which really needs to move away from your army before it explodes, for example.

Then, you can add some flavour by putting psychic powers and stratagems in place which allow a unit to be activated out of sequence, or at a higher initiative.

Example being for a psychic power to state that your next activation can be any unit, not just one of equal or lower initiative to the previous one, and then it goes back to the initiative of the psyker.

Or a stratagem to be used at the start of the turn - pick a unit, this unit activates at Initiative 8 (random number).

The values would be higher than they used to be, infantry being between 1 and 5 is a little tight, so I would expect slaaneshi & special elder stuff to be 9 or 10, genestealers 8, marines 7, guard 6, orks 5, walkers 4, transports 3, tanks 2 and superheavies 1, for example.

The issue of superheavies being very powerful in a single activation can then be addressed by giving each superheavy a single profile for moving and being damaged, and separate profiles for attacking; For example, a superheavy could be I2 for moving, I1 on it's main gun, but have some anti-infantry guns which activate at I4, and a lascannon at I3. It would break each vehicle into X activations (EG a baneblade is 3 activations - I4 to fire light weapons, I2 to move and fire anti tank weapons, I1 to fire the main gun).

I think that this is a more flexible way of implementing this, and allows for more out-of-sequence surprises. It also stops an obliterator activating before an elder jetbike - I know which one is quicker! it also means that if you're in the deciding chapter of the game, and you need to skip some units to activate your almost-dead superunit before it explodes, you have that option.

That’s some great ideas. I figured relative size would have been the quickest, and adding in a few exceptions (such as the aforementioned Lictors) wouldn’t be too difficult. And, as you indicated, having a stratagem for activating out-of-order would be a must.

Adding an initiative stat would be more accurate, but a lot more work.

Also, I like the idea of breaking superheavies into multiple actions, but that would require some extra work and thought.

 Stormonu wrote:
That’s some great ideas. I figured relative size would have been the quickest, and adding in a few exceptions (such as the aforementioned Lictors) wouldn’t be too difficult. And, as you indicated, having a stratagem for activating out-of-order would be a must.

Adding an initiative stat would be more accurate, but a lot more work.

Also, I like the idea of breaking superheavies into multiple actions, but that would require some extra work and thought.

I think that the trick is to put the work in in the first instance, rather than in the turn itself - spending more time working on the framework for rules before implementing them is preferable to putting in a simple system and then having the player remember a whole load of exceptions. and with the great variety of units in 40k, just tying them down to their type would be seriously oversimplifying it. you would have meganobs = lictors = eldar = centurions = genestealers, but all of them faster than a farseer on a jetbike, who is himself faster than a plane...

You also need to think on how things will work together - people tend to move vehicles first, because they are faster and get out of the way. if you have to move infantry first, then you will have them in the way of your transports.

It would give a good opportunity to buff armies in ways it's not been seen before - elite armies like marines would be all at the same or similar initiative, to add tactical flexibility, whereas guard would be more spread out, giving a more strict order to their turns. as you need never compare your initiative to the opponents, it wouldn't matter if all the marines were I7 and guard I7, what is important is that their tanks would be I7 and the guard tanks would be I4. that subtle difference would really buff marines.

Of course, all the values will have to be balanced to one another for the purposes of allies, and psykers will inevitably be a really high initiative so their powers affect units before their turn - or you make psychic phase go before the turn.

Again, I think the ONLY thing that should be deciding activation order is the player.

We want tactical choices. Not the game deciding for you.

 Lance845 wrote:
Again, I think the ONLY thing that should be deciding activation order is the player.

We want tactical choices. Not the game deciding for you.

I completely disagree. There are still plenty of changes for tactical choices (especially if some units have their activations broken out), and that this rewards player who take a more balanced approach to army construction instead of reaching for the biggest thing they can slap on the table.

Player A: I move my choppy unit towards your shooty unit, but am just out of charge range.

Player B: I move my shooty unit out of threat range, then shoot you with my 30" rapid fire guns.

Seems perfectly fine!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Player A: I move my choppy unit towards your shooty unit, but am just out of charge range.

Player B: I move my shooty unit out of threat range, then shoot you with my 30" rapid fire guns.

Seems perfectly fine!

This is exactly the same as non-AA. If you don't get into combat, then the enemy moves away to avoid it.

What (I think) your argument is meant for is the AA by phase proposal, where you move up, they move away, now you can't charge, and they shoot you.

You could figure out a system based on the tactical role of the units.

First go Fast Attack (they are Fast after all), Elite, HQ and Troops in the middle (player’s choice), last Heavy Support and LoW.

When you built your list is your choice relying on fast units rather on heavy, but slow, units.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Player A: I move my choppy unit towards your shooty unit, but am just out of charge range.

Player B: I move my shooty unit out of threat range, then shoot you with my 30" rapid fire guns.

Seems perfectly fine!

Shouldn’t have brought a knife to a gun fight, eh?

Sorry I brought rock to your scissors? Maybe use flanking chargers next time?

Though the game could benefit from a suppression or pin mechanic for those situations. But that’s for another thread.

 Stormonu wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Player A: I move my choppy unit towards your shooty unit, but am just out of charge range.

Player B: I move my shooty unit out of threat range, then shoot you with my 30" rapid fire guns.

Seems perfectly fine!

Shouldn’t have brought a knife to a gun fight, eh?

Sorry I brought rock to your scissors? Maybe use flanking chargers next time?

Though the game could benefit from a suppression or pin mechanic for those situations. But that’s for another thread.

If 40k were trying to be more realistic, I might agree.

But 40k is Space Fantasy. Charging and melee combat should be very much viable.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
You could figure out a system based on the tactical role of the units.

First go Fast Attack (they are Fast after all), Elite, HQ and Troops in the middle (player’s choice), last Heavy Support and LoW.

When you built your list is your choice relying on fast units rather on heavy, but slow, units.

That would be flavorful but not beneficial to balance or gameplay. A unit of scatter laser jetbikes or harlequin haywire bikes are "fast attack," but they hit just as hard as many heavy support units.

I've been kicking around modified Kill Team AA for smaller (400-800ish points) games. In a nutshell, it's...

START OF ROUND
--Players roll off to see who has initiative

MOVEMENT PHASE
--Take turns moving or charging units starting with the player who has initiative.
--I'm leaning towards charge rolls being 2d6 + Movment inches. If you fail the charge, you can move up to the charged distance anyway but cannot shoot.
--Alternating activations means that even if one enemy unit tries moving away, you'll get a chance to charge before the second one does.

PSYCHIC PHASE
--Take turns casting one power at a time, starting with the player who has initiative.

SHOOTING PHASE
--Players take turns shooting units that didn't move, starting with the player who has initiative.
--Players take turns shooting units that did move, starting with the player who has initiative.

FIGHT PHASE
--Players take turns fighting their units that charged, starting with the player who has initiative.
--Players take turns fighting their units that didn't charge, starting with the player who has initiative.

MORALE PHASE
--Players take turns making morale tests for units that lost one or more models (including units that have no chance of failing said test; matters for niche rules interactions), starting with the player who does not have initiative.

You get staggered back and forth without either player waiting too long to do anything. Taking steps to act first (by not moving or by charging, among other things) is rewarded. Biggest problem I see is that having a dramatically different number of units between players creates certain (dis)advantages, which is why I feel this works better for something Combat Patrol-sized. Unit caps, model caps, and banned or modified units would probably be appropriate.

Personally i'cm for anything that ends the "first turn means crippling advantage" paradigm.

Wyldhunt wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
You could figure out a system based on the tactical role of the units.

First go Fast Attack (they are Fast after all), Elite, HQ and Troops in the middle (player’s choice), last Heavy Support and LoW.

When you built your list is your choice relying on fast units rather on heavy, but slow, units.

That would be flavorful but not beneficial to balance or gameplay. A unit of scatter laser jetbikes or harlequin haywire bikes are "fast attack," but they hit just as hard as many heavy support units.

I know all the armies don’t have similar units in the same roles, but at least the first turn fire advantage would be reduced.
Scatter laser jetbikes are not very different from land speeder. Moreover, in this way you would give more importance to
Those units that can fire before other and you must do choices instead of going for the same units and copy&paste lists.

The Deer Hunter wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
You could figure out a system based on the tactical role of the units.

First go Fast Attack (they are Fast after all), Elite, HQ and Troops in the middle (player’s choice), last Heavy Support and LoW.

When you built your list is your choice relying on fast units rather on heavy, but slow, units.

That would be flavorful but not beneficial to balance or gameplay. A unit of scatter laser jetbikes or harlequin haywire bikes are "fast attack," but they hit just as hard as many heavy support units.

I know all the armies don’t have similar units in the same roles, but at least the first turn fire advantage would be reduced.
Scatter laser jetbikes are not very different from land speeder. Moreover, in this way you would give more importance to
Those units that can fire before other and you must do choices instead of going for the same units and copy&paste lists.

Would that really be improving the game or just moving the problem though? Those haywire harlequin bikes are currently good and would become even better. Falcons are currently meh-to-bad and would become even worse. So would it actually help with the alpha strike problem? Sincere question. I might be missing something.

It fixes one problem while creating another nd shifting the entire meta of the game to be about alpha striking with units that will act first.

Again, it's a bad idea to have the game dictate what activates instead of just flat AA with the players taking turns choosing units.