Switch Theme:

It Pains Me to Say This: 9th Edition Alternating Activation - This Is The Way  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Been Around the Block






Hello all,

Excuse the inflammatory title, but I wish it were not so. I enjoy strategy games a great deal, and part of that is friendly competition that exercises the mind. As such I am a stickler for rules - not to try the "gotchas" (although that is an inevitable part of strategic thought), but just because "rules are rules" mediates many disputes - the system dictates the outcome.

With some 9th games under the belt now, the crew and I have concluded that alternating activation simply makes the game better. Its more engaging, it produces more opportunities for strategic play and decision making and keeps both players more involved in the game. I really wish I did not feel this way - as I am learning game mechanics for a game system that will not work outside my small crew. But alas, it simply plays better.

So for those other homebrew heretics (i know you're out there), how do you prefer to do AA? We have done KT style where each player moves, then AA for all other phases. We are looking to experiment with AA for all phases next, but currently on hiatus for indefinite time on account of pandemic.

Cheers!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/12 00:39:53


 
   
Made in ca
Dakka Veteran





I personally hate AA in a game of 40k size. Might be okay for Combat Patrol size.

When I get a turn I want it to be a TURN. I want it to feel like an event. I don't want to shoot with one unit and then it's over.

AA in 2k point game would feel as stupid to me as a one down football game. Turnover, turnover, turnover and nobody gets to feel like they made a drive.

That's my opinion; you are entitled to yours, and I don't begrudge you for it. I'm happy you're taking matters into your own hands and solving your own issues with the game within your gaming group. You will find LOTS of like-minded folks here- it's a big ole pet issue that comes up every month or so.

If 40k went AA, I'd give it a chance and try to be open minded to see if I could continue to play it that way. But I'd probably end up doing what so many 8th/9th haters have done; they froze time and continue to play 5th, and they love it! More power to them.

I'd freeze the game in 9th ed Crusade.

On a side note, if future editions DON'T include Crusade, AA or IGOUGO, I won't even bother giving them a chance. I've waited 31 years for Crusade; I feel like it's the best thing that ever happened to this game. I am never going back.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/12 02:15:41


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

PenitentJake, I'm sure you've been asked this before, but have you played many games that use AA, and if so, which ones? Just curious.

Personally, I always prefer more interactivity than pure IGOUGO, but AA is not the only way to accomplish that. Having an IGOUGO system with dynamic reactions is one way to accomplish both letting the 'active' player feel like they're executing a strategy and give the 'reactive' player more to do than sit there and take it.

OP: I've done some tinkering with my group and we've had the most success doing it one of two ways:

1. Roll off to determine who is the 'active' and 'reactive' player that turn. In each phase, the active player goes first, followed by the reactive player. So A moves, then R moves, then A shoots, then R shoots, and so on.

2. As above, but alternate within each phase. So A moves a unit, R moves a unit, A moves a unit, and so on. Units that don't move get to shoot before units that did.

Both approaches preserve the phased turn structure that the game is built around, and avoids some of the issues you can run into with trying to homebrew pure AA (as in, when activated a unit moves, shoots, fights, etc).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/12 02:23:34


 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




For all the armies writen by GW in a such a way they that only function, if they go through a whole turn of buffing, debuffing, casting etc An AA system would require a house rewrite of those armies codex rules.

It makes stuff like deep strike unusable for anything other then grabing objectives and staying out of LoS, again hurting factions where use deep strike as their deployment/movment method.

Maybe it is possible to make w40k a good AA system, but it would took years to rewrite the rules for all or even most w40k factions.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

I very much like the way Bolt Action handles AA.

one die in the bag (of the player's color) for each unit on the field. Draw a die, the player's color that is picked gets to activate unit. Unit does the whole shebang - move, shoot, assault, counter-assault.

Officers add in the nice feature they can co-ordinate units, allowing you to activate multiple (usually 2) at once.

About the only thing I don't like is close combat is 1 round. Loser is eliminated - no argument, no retreat; unless you somehow have a tie the losing unit is gone.

It never ends well 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




As I have never played or seen Bolt Action, how do they solve the problem of some units needing ton of buffs and rule stacking to be efficient in shoting or assault?

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

No buffs.

If your unit needs buffs and rules stacking, you need to redesign your unit.

It never ends well 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Ah okey. Thank you for explaining.

Are there big differences between AA system that let one unit do everything, and those that let unit of after unit do all movment, then all shoting, then all melee etc?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/12 03:03:07


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

There can be.

Phases at a time can allow units to avoid assaults somewhat easier unless you can corner them or they WANT to engage. Phases at a time can allow you to ensure your unit gets some sort of activation if the damage step is moved to the end of the phase or turn (such as with Armageddon). This can result in suicidal decisions - if you know your unit is already going to die from the results of a phase, there's a likelyhood you'll be as aggressive as possible until the damage is applied. The good news - you got to do something before the unit was wiped out.

Single unit activation can allow you to remove/negate/neuter a unit before it can retaliate. Also, a unit that has already activated isn't as big a threat as one that hasn't gone yet. There's a bigger feeling of tension because you want to suppress/eliminate an enemy unit before it does the same to you. There's a strategy in forcing the enemy to activate the wrong unit at the wrong time and then capitalize on that mistake.

In an AA scenario, a Knight taking a turn is much different that a squad of cadian regulars. However, if the Knight goes down, that's a lot of firepower lost all at once.

But also, two MSU squads of space marines vs. one full-size space marine squad is swapping quick bee stings for massed attacks. It becomes a strategic tradeoff - first blood or mass slaughter.

But honestly, if you're playing with anything bigger than a Leman Russ, you shouldn't be fighting a game using infantry scale rules and should be using something more akin to the Armageddon rules (which uses AA to a point).

(Also, Bolt Action does have a separate ruleset for Tank War where each side is using mechanized/armored units and changes the scale of activation to accommodate such.)

It never ends well 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





The best way we've done AA was inspired by the system from Apocalypse, where rather than pure unit-by-unit you activate a chunk of your army.

We did it like this:

When activating, you may select any unit. If you select a CHARACTER keyword unit, you can choose to select all units within 6" of that unit that have not been activated yet in the turn.

It was pretty easy to manage. We just progressed through Command, movement, Psychic, Shooting, Charge, and Combat like that.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




That sounds very interesting. And it should work well for both high and low number models armies.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest




The best way we've done AA was inspired by the system from Apocalypse, where rather than pure unit-by-unit you activate a chunk of your army.

We did it like this:

When activating, you may select any unit. If you select a CHARACTER keyword unit, you can choose to select all units within 6" of that unit that have not been activated yet in the turn.

It was pretty easy to manage. We just progressed through Command, movement, Psychic, Shooting, Charge, and Combat like that.


Our group tried a similar method for a few games and also really liked it.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




What is AA trying to solve?

If interactivity: you don’t need AA. Just faster players and snappy games. This is a on the player base to learn the rules. In fact AA would slow games down and cause the same issue you’re trying to fix since you can never plan. You move to accomplish a goal then they move to counter it. Now you’ll have a bunch of extra wasted time.

If speed: see above. It will not speed the game up in any way.

Alpha Strike: not likely to be helped. Probably worsen the issue. Not to mention that alpha strikes are blown out of proportion. This also cringe to mind what you mean by AA even? Move move shoot shoot? That’s the worst solution: now player two alphas player one harder than currently.

Are we doing one unit full activation? Now the armies that already have intrinsic issues can never win. Marines will always be forced to move valuable units first against most armies due to activation economy. See necromunda for the delay game on first important move.

Furthermore; people stated rolling off for active vs reactive...this would create double turns ala AoS right? That’s the single mechanic making that game unworthy of a real competitive scene.

AAs work...very well in fact. But only in games designed for it. You can’t design a game like 40k to work with it I’m afraid...not with the streamline path GW wants and needs. You’d need momentum’s and other big-brain things to help add some predictability ala Star Wars: Armada, X:Wing or auronotica.
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor




Tacoma, WA, USA

Kill Team-style AA combined with the new Objective-based Scenerios just might be a very viable alteration to the rules. With the full side moves followed by alternating units in all other phases, you don't have to worry about losing the synergistic parts of the rules, avoid the alpha strike since attacks are alternating between the sides, and the ability to run away from advancing enemies is offset by the need to move forward to claim objectives and win the game.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Alternate activation done by phase I can get behind (I often do it in AoS). What would cause me to quit 40k immediately is if one unit activated, did its whole turn, then the next unit activated to its whole turn, and so on. There is a lot of unrealism I can handle but having two whole armies stand idle while one unit takes all its actions is too much.

Don't know why it pains you to suggest it though. People have been pushing AA for 40k for years, there is nothing new about the sentiment.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/12 06:04:21


Still trying to be more polite. If you catch me being toxic please call me on it.

Enjoying narrative before matched play, crusading on a path to glory! 
   
Made in ca
Dakka Veteran





 catbarf wrote:
PenitentJake, I'm sure you've been asked this before, but have you played many games that use AA, and if so, which ones? Just curious.

Personally, I always prefer more interactivity than pure IGOUGO, but AA is not the only way to accomplish that. Having an IGOUGO system with dynamic reactions is one way to accomplish both letting the 'active' player feel like they're executing a strategy and give the 'reactive' player more to do than sit there and take it.

OP: I've done some tinkering with my group and we've had the most success doing it one of two ways:

1. Roll off to determine who is the 'active' and 'reactive' player that turn. In each phase, the active player goes first, followed by the reactive player. So A moves, then R moves, then A shoots, then R shoots, and so on.

2. As above, but alternate within each phase. So A moves a unit, R moves a unit, A moves a unit, and so on. Units that don't move get to shoot before units that did.

Both approaches preserve the phased turn structure that the game is built around, and avoids some of the issues you can run into with trying to homebrew pure AA (as in, when activated a unit moves, shoots, fights, etc).


The last time I played a non-gw miniatures game would have been 1998, so the memory is hazy on them. I regularly play Kill Team, and like their version of AA for the scale of their game. I haven't played Newcromunda, but I played the heck out of the classic. Don't think it was AA.

Here are the non gw mini games I've played:

Mutant Chronicles
Battletech
Full Throtle
Legions of Steel
Inferno
Zombies!
Fairy Meat
Heroscape

Most of those games, you use forces with WAY fewer models than 40k, which is where I can get behind AA. The other thing about me though is that I have an unnaturally long attention span, and I like the amount of planning time my opponent's turn gives me. The American Football vs Soccer analogy, as has been pointed out to me in NUMEROUS threads on this forum, is not a perfect analogy for IGOUGO vs AA... but it's the closest thing I can come up with; and see, I get what it is that people like about soccer- the action NEVER stops, and turnover, turnover, turnover. I just happen to prefer football. Doesn't mean I'm right; nobody can be right here and nobody can be wrong. Your taste is yours and mine is mine.

My preferences are also a product of the environment in which I play: never with strangers and never ultra competitive; ALWAYS at somebody's house, usually with loud music and beer or better. Sometimes we stop mid game for pizza, or eat while we play.

AA people tend to be the type of guys who love the game and love to play the game and want nothing but game when they play. Maybe that's because they are playing in a public space like a store against someone they don't know well or at all; maybe it's because they have a limited window of time.

But me? I want it all. Game days are events for me.

I totally get why people like AA. I wish they could understand why I like IGOUGO. But instead of trying to empathize, and see the game through someone else's eyes, and just going, "Yeah, I guess that makes sense. Not my cup of tea, but I can see what you like about it," they typically double down and try to convince me that my own personal preferences are wrong, and that there's only supposed to be one way to play the game, and that way, of course is their way. And they'll talk about how if you don't like AA, you must not know anything about game design and it goes on for twenty or so pages.

So AA lovers: I get you. You're not wrong; there are things that are great about AA.

I still prefer my 40k to be IGOUGO. It wouldn't feel like 40k to me if it wasn't, because I've played since '89 and it's ALWAYS been IGOUGO. Don't let that stop any of you from liking your game your way. This is why I was happy for OP; they've got a group who likes the same thing they do, and they took matters into their own hands and made it work for them. And if GW did change 40k to an AA game in 10th, like I said, as long as they keep Crusade, I'd be willing to give it an honest, open minded try. If they ditch Crusade in 10th, then I'll just keep playing 9th, because Crusade is pretty much everything I've ever wanted from 40k.
   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress





I quite like AA. We adapted the style from Apocalypse while back and had a complete blast.
Actually our favourite bit about it was we also had damage not come into play until the end of turn like in apocalypse. That alone was amazing because there is no worse bad feel than spending weeks customizing and painting a knight or other fancy model and see it blasted off first turn without even getting to move it.

Oo think you'll generally find more of the casual crowd to be all for AA as they get engaged the whole time. And generally less if the competitive crowd for it as generally their mentality is just git gud an git fasta .
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut





Are you familiar with the ARO system Infinity employs? It's pretty much a middle ground where it's still IGOUGO but with the opportunity to react to the opponent's actions whenever certain conditions are fulfilled.
   
Made in gb
Fighter Ace





This should really be a discussion for the Proposed Rules section, and it's already been discussed to death.

Personally, I think Alternating Activation is by far the superior method.
However, it would need a great redesign of rules than simply "dropping it in".
For one thing, it doesn't work with 40k's current buff-stacking playstyle (although I hate this playstyle anyway).

I personally absolutely detest Kill Team and Aeronautica's activation style.
The fact that I move into position to line up a shot, and my opponent simply moves to avoid whatever I did, immediately ruins my enjoyment of the game.
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut






One problem I've always seen with Alternating Activation in a game like 40k is that there is such a vast range of units in the game. This would make deathstars (which have already been a frequent issue in the game) even more of one because, well, if you get to shoot first with a very expensive high-firepower unit, you can take out quite some parts of the enemy army first, especially against an army that lacks such individual heavy hitters.

Of course, I have my other issues with 40k, if only because it's a game without any idea of the scale it is/wants to be.

   
Made in gb
Fighter Ace





Often activating first is a *disadvantage*. Because in order to line up your shot you'll need to expose yourself to the entire enemy army, who still has yet to activate.
Whereas if you activate last, you can remain in hiding whilst the enemy army activates, then expose yourself to shoot without giving your opponent a chance to retaliate.

Someone mentioned Necromunda briefly in passing. I play that a lot and it's very true, a large part of the game is delaying key fighters by activating random mooks first.
That makes it sound really lame, but imo it works really well in game.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 kirotheavenger wrote:
Often activating first is a *disadvantage*. Because in order to line up your shot you'll need to expose yourself to the entire enemy army, who still has yet to activate.
Whereas if you activate last, you can remain in hiding whilst the enemy army activates, then expose yourself to shoot without giving your opponent a chance to retaliate.

Someone mentioned Necromunda briefly in passing. I play that a lot and it's very true, a large part of the game is delaying key fighters by activating random mooks first.
That makes it sound really lame, but imo it works really well in game.

You mean you actually need to be concerned about where your units go?

Thats not lame and if anything that's an improvement over the system since the beginning where you can throw all concern out the window.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

I think just dropping AA into 40K as is probably doesn't work too well for some of the reasons described above.

But I vastly prefer it to IGOUGO as a mechanic and I am playing Grimdark Future now because it has alternating activations and is designed for that. So deathstars are basically impossible to build (max unit sizes are pretty well constrained) and the kind of stacking buff interaction that 8e has is just not part of the game really.

I am always a bit surprised when I see that there are people who really don't like AA. Different strokes for different folks I suppose! I feel it is no more unrealistic than an entire army standing there and getting the crap beaten out of them while doing nothing, and in games like 40K where powerful long ranged shooting is so common, having alternating activation means you at least get to do something with your units before they get blasted off the table.

I used to like it in LOTR when you had heroes who could react out of turn with heroic actions and stuff and bring units with them, that was really cool I thought. You could probably integrate something like that into 40K as is without TOO much disruption.

   
Made in gb
Fighter Ace





 Da Boss wrote:
I think just dropping AA into 40K as is probably doesn't work too well for some of the reasons described above.

But I vastly prefer it to IGOUGO as a mechanic and I am playing Grimdark Future now because it has alternating activations and is designed for that. So deathstars are basically impossible to build (max unit sizes are pretty well constrained) and the kind of stacking buff interaction that 8e has is just not part of the game really.

I am always a bit surprised when I see that there are people who really don't like AA. Different strokes for different folks I suppose! I feel it is no more unrealistic than an entire army standing there and getting the crap beaten out of them while doing nothing, and in games like 40K where powerful long ranged shooting is so common, having alternating activation means you at least get to do something with your units before they get blasted off the table.

I used to like it in LOTR when you had heroes who could react out of turn with heroic actions and stuff and bring units with them, that was really cool I thought. You could probably integrate something like that into 40K as is without TOO much disruption.

I've seen Grimdark Future, it's method of activating looks really promising.
I really want to try it, I hope my local groups will be receptive once Covid lifts.

One definite problem with Alternating Activation however is that it's slower than IgoUgo. As each time a player activates they need a moment to consider the new state-of-play caused by their opponent's activation.
This means that if 40k wants to go to AA it needs to drop some bloat (although imo it needs that anyway). But the benefits will be more than worth it imo.
   
Made in gb
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Nnnggghhhh...

Aaarrrghh

It’s not good. I’m going to have to praise Epic Space Marine 2nd Ed again (never played 1st Ed, so can’t praise it equally).

You want AA? Go with an orders system. First Fire, Advance, Charge, Fall Back. Orders assigned by both players in the same phase, then revealed. If you forget a unit, it gets Advance as default.

From there, AA based on the orders given. The placing of orders becomes highly strategic, as given I’m tying into set and limited actions, I need to think about what I want to do, but also what my opponent might be up to.

Sadly, memory fails as to the exact order. But...First Fire meant you shot first, but couldn’t move. Advance meant standard move and shoot. Charge meant initiating combat, but no shooting.

The victory conditions were VP based on a first past the post basis (again, if memory serves). And the target was set by the points value of the game.

Objectives were worth 5VPs, and again the number was set by the points value of the game. You couldn’t win the game solely by holding objectives, but they sure as hell gave you a leg up.

Units gave away VPs in two stages. First for taking it to its break point. The second for wiping it out entirely.

This opened up lots of options. I could design a speedy list, intended to grab Objectives, and simply panel certain enemy units for the rest I needed to win. Or I could go for outright obliteration of the enemy force, and many stages in between.

Different armies mixed it up, and list design was deliberately fairly restrictive.

First, you picked a Company Card, such as a Space Marine Tactical Company. Each the opened up your choice of up zero to six Detachment Cards, and one Special Card.

Company Cards were largely inflexible, so your Detachment Cards let you tailor your force. Special Cards were characters or Titan equivalents.

Orks and Nids changed it up a bit. For Orks, their Break Point was the Company Card and its Detachments added together, meaning you really had to smack them around to get those VPs. Nids linked the number of Detachment Card equivalents to the Company Card equivalent to represent the Hive Mind.

That’s my preference. Because I effing love 2nd Ed Epic Space Marine.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/12 10:43:07


Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Tiny Red Chair Painting Sessions. A Discord dedicated to video painting sessions. PM me for an invite. 
   
Made in at
'Jack Scrapper





Austria

For Sci Fi Games, I have 2 favourite game-system/designs

Alternate Activations with Actions/Orders like Warpath or Gates of Antares, which specially for Warpath works well with 40k sized games

Action/Reaction like Starship Troopers (would also work up to 40k sized games but is better of with the current 1500 points)

PenitentJake wrote:I personally hate AA in a game of 40k size. Might be okay for Combat Patrol size.

When I get a turn I want it to be a TURN. I want it to feel like an event. I don't want to shoot with one unit and then it's over.

AA in 2k point game would feel as stupid to me as a one down football game. Turnover, turnover, turnover and nobody gets to feel like they made a drive.

That's my opinion; you are entitled to yours, and I don't begrudge you for it.


well I could go with alternating player turn if 40k would not be a "Combat Patrol sized" game by design that is blown up to sell more models
as long as the basic rules are "single model" based and not unit based AA is the better option for the game

NinthMusketeer wrote:Alternate activation done by phase I can get behind (I often do it in AoS). What would cause me to quit 40k immediately is if one unit activated, did its whole turn, then the next unit activated to its whole turn, and so on. There is a lot of unrealism I can handle but having two whole armies stand idle while one unit takes all its actions is too much.


the same you have now with 1 army standing still and waiting 1" away from the enemy to get killed until the other army is done
"realistic" would be a reaction based system, as if a unit fullfilled any action, every models within a reaction range would be allowed to react

but without, alternate activations have the same amount of unrealims als alternate phases and alternate turns

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/12 11:13:52


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in gb
Fighter Ace





A reaction based system could work very well.
Already I don't have any direct experience with such a system to imagine how that would work as applied to 40k.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





Bitharne wrote:
What is AA trying to solve?.


Basically, the fact that one player can apply all their firepower from their entire army at an opposing player's entire army with no chance to respond until their turn creates a massively lopsided experience that basically requires the game board to have a giant 2-foot wall in the middle of it to prevent 50% casualties turn 1 being the norm.

If you play AA, the game being over near the end of turn 3 you hardly even notice, because both players got to do stuff and act.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
That sounds very interesting. And it should work well for both high and low number models armies.


It did work pretty well.

One thing I forgot to mention: Units in Reserves are all considered to be within 6" of each other, but any units activated together from reserves must be deployed within 6" of each other.

So you can have your Jump Pack Captain bring in 3 assault squads together as one activation in the movement phase if you want (More useful in the Charge and Shooting phase tbh)

This didn't come up, but thinking about it now there could be a problem of a charging character in the Fight phase being able to snag other units that had not charged and get them to fight before they should be able to. Maybe that would be a problem, maybe it would not be, certainly you can make the argument hat characters would be able to 'rally the men' to fight? Certainly the Fight phase felt a LOT more interactive when both players were actually alternating because both players actually had units that had charged.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
A reaction based system could work very well.
Already I don't have any direct experience with such a system to imagine how that would work as applied to 40k.


Honestly I've found a lot of the 'rules improvements' in infinity to be a bit overhyped.

I've come to really hate the structure of "have a bunch of units that literally do nothing and stand around providing Orders so you can activate your big super special guy/unit 12 times in a turn" and I found both the fact that it's a D20 system and the concept of ARO's to be overhyped in the amount of impact they tend to have.

An ARO matters in Infinity about as much (In my experience, anyway) as often as a clutch heroic intervention, stratagem, or close combat action on your opponent's turn in 40k.

And the fact that it's a D20 system is HEAVILY diluted by the fact that the die shifts by 3 seemingly 85% of the time. So its like "Pfff, D6s what is this fething CANDYLAND dude, shifting probability by 17%? We use D20s here, we do shift by 3 a whole lot meaning that probability changes by 15% most of the time..."

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/12 12:40:03


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

PenitentJake wrote:
I totally get why people like AA. I wish they could understand why I like IGOUGO. But instead of trying to empathize, and see the game through someone else's eyes, and just going, "Yeah, I guess that makes sense. Not my cup of tea, but I can see what you like about it," they typically double down and try to convince me that my own personal preferences are wrong, and that there's only supposed to be one way to play the game, and that way, of course is their way. And they'll talk about how if you don't like AA, you must not know anything about game design and it goes on for twenty or so pages.

So AA lovers: I get you. You're not wrong; there are things that are great about AA.

I still prefer my 40k to be IGOUGO. It wouldn't feel like 40k to me if it wasn't, because I've played since '89 and it's ALWAYS been IGOUGO. Don't let that stop any of you from liking your game your way. This is why I was happy for OP; they've got a group who likes the same thing they do, and they took matters into their own hands and made it work for them. And if GW did change 40k to an AA game in 10th, like I said, as long as they keep Crusade, I'd be willing to give it an honest, open minded try. If they ditch Crusade in 10th, then I'll just keep playing 9th, because Crusade is pretty much everything I've ever wanted from 40k.


Fair enough, I get where you're coming from. While I feel AA makes for a better game, I don't have any problem with people who just prefer IGOUGO.

I do take issue with people arguing for why AA is mechanically worse, such as:

Bitharne wrote:
What is AA trying to solve?

If interactivity: you don’t need AA. Just faster players and snappy games. This is a on the player base to learn the rules. In fact AA would slow games down and cause the same issue you’re trying to fix since you can never plan. You move to accomplish a goal then they move to counter it. Now you’ll have a bunch of extra wasted time.

If speed: see above. It will not speed the game up in any way.

Alpha Strike: not likely to be helped. Probably worsen the issue. Not to mention that alpha strikes are blown out of proportion. This also cringe to mind what you mean by AA even? Move move shoot shoot? That’s the worst solution: now player two alphas player one harder than currently.


Respectfully, this really sounds like a 40K player who doesn't have much experience with non-GW wargames.

Playing faster doesn't increase the interaction tempo of the game, you just play it to conclusion quicker. It's still the same limited five turns of interaction points, with uninterrupted activity during a turn. 'Interactivity' isn't just about how long you spend sitting and doing nothing, it's also about how much the armies get to interact and respond to one another over the course of the game. And if you're going to say it's on the player base to learn the rules, my experience has been that with players who know the game, AA doesn't slow it down to any noticeable degree.

Also, alpha strike absolutely is reduced by any sort of alternating activation or reaction system. The idea that it might be worse doesn't make any sense. Your opponent has the ability to respond after you engage with a single unit; they don't have to sit there and get shot by your whole army before they can respond, and can prioritize your units that have yet to fire. Outside of pure AA, reaction systems often provide the ability for a unit to move in response to fire (typically at the cost of activity later), mitigating early-game lethality on a board with sufficient cover.

I mean, there are good reasons virtually all successful wargames in the last twenty years have used AA elements- either AA by unit or phase, or reactions within an IGOUGO framework.

Bitharne wrote:
Are we doing one unit full activation? Now the armies that already have intrinsic issues can never win. Marines will always be forced to move valuable units first against most armies due to activation economy. See necromunda for the delay game on first important move.


There are a million and one ways to address this. Proportional activation a la Bolt Action, mechanics to allow armies to interfere with the activation order, reserved actions (which makes having smaller forces a significant advantage) are the big three. In Dust, having the smaller force makes you more likely to win the initiative, which is a significant advantage as it gives you the ability to go first and still react later, while your opponent's reactions come at the cost of their later activation. This gives smaller, more elite forces more opportunity to seize the initiative, act, and react- it fits Space Marines perfectly.

I really don't understand this common thread of '[broad mechanic] wouldn't work, see: [extremely specific implementation of mechanic]'.

Bitharne wrote:
Furthermore; people stated rolling off for active vs reactive...this would create double turns ala AoS right? That’s the single mechanic making that game unworthy of a real competitive scene.


No, double turns in AoS are a product of IGOUGO within a randomized round system meaning that one force can act, in its entirety, twice in a row without response. Rolling to see who performs a single activation first (in a pure AA system) or who goes first within each phase is much, much less impactful. It gives one player the initiative, but that can be detrimental rather than beneficial.

Bitharne wrote:
You can’t design a game like 40k to work with it I’m afraid


Andy Chambers wanted to do exactly that for 4th Ed. GW corporate said no. He left and designed Starship Troopers, then went on to design Dust. They're 40K-like games with effective reaction systems. Apocalypse has AA. Grimdark Future has AA. It's really not that hard to make a large-scale wargame use AA.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/01/12 15:47:16


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





Yeah, I'll be honest to folks, it's actually really easy to try.

Here's the system we used in more of a formalized setup:

Heroic Alternating Activation System

Proceed as normal through list-building, mission setup, secondary objective selection, and deployment. At the point where the players typically roll off and the winner takes the first turn, instead the winner is the first Active Player.

The Battle Round then progresses as normal through the Movement, Psychic, Shooting, Charge, and Fight phases, but rather than one player performing all their actions, players alternate activating units until neither player has any units that can activate during that phase.

A player may choose to activate any unit they control so long as they may act during that phase. Units that cannot act during a given phase (immobile units during the Movement phase, units that are not yet on the battlefield during the Shooting phase, non-psyker units during the Psychic phase, etc) may not be activated, and players may not pass if they have any units that can still activate.

If in any phase a CHARACTER keyword unit is selected, the controlling player may either choose to activate them alone as normal, or to activate that CHARACTER and all friendly units within 6" that can also act that phase (this can include other CHARACTER keyword units, but those units may not then activate other nearby units). All activated units' actions can then be resolved by their player in any order they desire.

Units not yet on the battlefield who would be activated in the Reinforcements step may only be selected after all units currently on the battlefield have moved in the movement phase.

In the Fight phase, all units that performed a Charge move or who have a rule stating that they always fight first must be activated before any other units may be activated.

Any rules that reference "your turn" or "the controlling players turn" may be used during any of that player's activations, and conversely any rules that reference "your opponent's turn" may be used during any of your opponent's activations. Any rules that reference the beginning of a player's phase take effect the first time that player activates a unit or must pass in that phase (e.g. a psychic power that expires at the beginning of the controlling player's next psychic phase). Any rules that reference the end of a player's phase take effect when they must pass during that phase.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: