Switch Theme:

Unit based activation  [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 us
Regular Dakkanaut




I'm sure this has been discussed in may different forms up to this point but I was wondering...

Has anyone tested out complete unit activations in a turn yet?

Namely, each turn the player determine who activates first. Then, the first player fully activates a unit. Meaning, it completes its movement, psychic, charge, and fight phase individually. Once it is done, you place a marker next to it clarifying that it has completed its activation for the turn. And then the next player completes an activation. I understand that this method changes how some stratagems might interact with the game, and how some universal stratagems would have to be introduced, for example, replace overwatch (the current version of overwatch would have to be renamed as this usage of the word makes more sense) with rules that state that you can select your active unit and skip its shooting phase to allow it to fire its weapons as though it were its shooting phase at an opposing unit that just completed its movement phase. (Reword it how you like, but the intention is clear) And you could add others that also change how the units interact out of activation. The crux being that as you are using a stratagem, only one unit per turn would be able to take advantage of the ability.

The reason for this change is several reasons.

The first, and in my opinion the most important, is that you have both players engaged in the game for it's entirety and not just sitting around doing nothing while the other is pushing models around.

Second, it help balance out alpha and beta strikes in the game being that it is Rare that any single unit can wipe out a comparably pointed unit in one activation.

Third, single unit activations reintroduce tactical decisions during gameplay and are much more dynamic instead of linear, like how Characters and buffs interact and how choice of activation can make important determinations with

Of course certain interactions would need to be clarified, like how infantry and transports work, or maybe not...

Anyhow, I was just wondering if anyone has actually played this type of game before.

Thanks,

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/13 21:25:36


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






It isn't a silver bullet. AA doesn't actually result in a net loss of problems, it simply changes what the problems are.

Activate psyker to buff a unit so it will shoot better, enemy activates and shoots that unit to pieces.

I want to move my two screens forward alongside each other to shield the rest of my force behind, but the enemy can rush in the gap after I move the first unit.

I want my fighters in range of a character buff after they charge, so the character needs to move forward first. Then gets shot to death.

My short range shooters target the enemy across from them, my opponent's long-range shooters can specifically pick off what hasn't activated yet.

My melee unit gets charged by enemy A, do I fight back then? If I do and get charged by enemy B can I fight then too? Do I have to give up fighting back against A to do so against B, only to get screwed if B charges something else as a result?

It goes on and on. Igougo has a whole swathe of issues but it is at least the devil we know, trading that out for a pile of different issues we have no experience dealing with isn't an attractive proposition.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It isn't a silver bullet. AA doesn't actually result in a net loss of problems, it simply changes what the problems are.


This is just factually untrue. You could argue that a poorly designed AA system creates new issues. But nobody is proposing that we switch to a poorly made system.

Activate psyker to buff a unit so it will shoot better, enemy activates and shoots that unit to pieces.


Easily solved in several ways the most prominent one is allowing units to activate in small groups based on very strict criteria. Expand Heroic Intervention to allow a unit to activate itself, 1 character within x number of inches and 1 protector unit within x number of inches that can protect one of the units you activated. All those psykers? They are predominately characters. They can activate with the unit. Or 2, the spells that buff activate the unit they buff to do their thing as part of the spell. Pick your poison. You devour your activations quickly in this process which leaves you less flexible for better single action output. Its a choice you make though and one that has consequences either way.

I want to move my two screens forward alongside each other to shield the rest of my force behind, but the enemy can rush in the gap after I move the first unit.


You could potentially move 1 screen forward (see above). Boo hoo. The broken ass manipulation of the bad mechanics created by IGOUGO gets taken apart when they no longer apply. Good. This is good for the game.

I want my fighters in range of a character buff after they charge, so the character needs to move forward first. Then gets shot to death.


See above. The character comes with them.

My short range shooters target the enemy across from them, my opponent's long-range shooters can specifically pick off what hasn't activated yet.


Yup. Thats the strategic and tactical choice you need to make. You have to consider what they can do in retaliation when you are deciding what you are going to do. This isn't a bug. It's a feature. Your every action matters, including what order you make those actions in. Good. That makes the miniature war game actually tactical instead of just strategic.

My melee unit gets charged by enemy A, do I fight back then? If I do and get charged by enemy B can I fight then too? Do I have to give up fighting back against A to do so against B, only to get screwed if B charges something else as a result?


Your unit fights when it gets activated.

It goes on and on. Igougo has a whole swathe of issues but it is at least the devil we know, trading that out for a pile of different issues we have no experience dealing with isn't an attractive proposition.


The devil you know is worse than literally almost anything else. Like... literally almost ANYTHING else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SaganGree wrote:
I'm sure this has been discussed in may different forms up to this point but I was wondering...

Has anyone tested out complete unit activations in a turn yet?

Namely, each turn the player determine who activates first. Then, the first player fully activates a unit. Meaning, it completes its movement, psychic, charge, and fight phase individually. Once it is done, you place a marker next to it clarifying that it has completed its activation for the turn. And then the next player completes an activation. I understand that this method changes how some stratagems might interact with the game, and how some universal stratagems would have to be introduced, for example, replace overwatch (the current version of overwatch would have to be renamed as this usage of the word makes more sense) with rules that state that you can select your active unit and skip its shooting phase to allow it to fire its weapons as though it were its shooting phase at an opposing unit that just completed its movement phase. (Reword it how you like, but the intention is clear) And you could add others that also change how the units interact out of activation. The crux being that as you are using a stratagem, only one unit per turn would be able to take advantage of the ability.

The reason for this change is several reasons.

The first, and in my opinion the most important, is that you have both players engaged in the game for it's entirety and not just sitting around doing nothing while the other is pushing models around.

Second, it help balance out alpha and beta strikes in the game being that it is Rare that any single unit can wipe out a comparably pointed unit in one activation.

Third, single unit activations reintroduce tactical decisions during gameplay and are much more dynamic instead of linear, like how Characters and buffs interact and how choice of activation can make important determinations with

Of course certain interactions would need to be clarified, like how infantry and transports work, or maybe not...

Anyhow, I was just wondering if anyone has actually played this type of game before.

Thanks,


Yes, I spent about 3 years designing, helping design, and playing dozens of alternating unit activation systems. They work great. The game is way better with it. You could see how good it could be just by looking at Apocalypse. Though that is alternating detachment, it encourages you to make as many small, unified in purpose, detachments as possible. Which starts getting pretty close to unit based activation.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/14 00:53:09



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Thank you, you explained it perfectly.

And I don't entirely disagree with NinthMusketeer, I do think that units in the game would have to be rebalanced, however I think as just a straight bolt on, this method of play would be more heavily beneficial to the players than what we currently have.

TBH, I've always hated IgoUgo since 4th or 5th when there was an argument that static buffs, things like Conceal on Guardians etc, wouldn't be active until it was your turn. In an alternate action setting I could see the argument (though that does not apply in the case) especially as powers drop at the beginning of the turn.

That said, I do like the concept of characters being able to move with a nearby unit. Just have that rule built into the definition of a character.

But in the current setting of 9th, it would be interesting to see how primary and secondary objectives would change as you would score both players at the same time both at the beginning and end of turns.

That said, it would also bring more list variety as well, as you could go the route of Big Expensive units and get fewer activations but be more powerful up front, but risk not having enough units at the end to counter your opponents move to an objective.

The more I think about it, the more I like it. I'll have to see if I can get my local group to test it out over a few beers.
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

it come down to a very simple argument

Alternating Player Turns has advantages and disadvantages
same as Alternating Unit Activations or Alternating Phases has

but if the designers are not able to get one of those 3 done right, there is a high chance that they mess up the other 2 as well

fixing the current "alternating turns + reaction" system is the same task as changing to "alternating activations + reactions" or go full IGoUGo (with unit activation or phases/turns)

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 ca
Sureshot Kroot Hunter





From what we've seen in Apoc, Aeronautica Imperialis, and Kill Team, all their newer games are using alternating activations, so I really wouldn't be surprised if we eventually do get alternating activations as the new norm in 40k. Will it come soon, that's hard to say, but I feel like one day, they will try it as a new edition. The main hurdle that they would have to tackle is that every army would likely need a full redo of their rules as the basic gameplay system would be changing so dramatically. That's not something we've ever seen out of GW before. (At least as far as I'm aware of.)

Personally, I'm all for it. Outside of anything actually rules related, I much prefer the feel that both the armies are acting at the same time and I've really enjoyed the tactical decision making in the aforementioned games.

To answer your original question, I don't think you can just bolt it onto the existing mold of 40k, without a mountain of house rules and for that, everyone' mileage will vary depending on how well those rules are designed.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/22 18:09:14


13317 4264 3375 2344 2671 1106 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







In my experience by the time you go to all the trouble of implementing it on top of the current 40k structure it'd probably just be easier to do a 40k mod to Gates of Antares or Star Wars Legion.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





While I am wholly in the camp that 40k needs to be re-written based upon AA unit activation it is important to note that there are many functioning and well done classic IGOUGO systems (epic 40k, for example) that play just fine. Neither system is intrinsically perfect or optimized (obviously). But what is for sure is that 40k is an absolute disaster of a war game that desperately needs a new life.
   
Made in it
Regular Dakkanaut




Imo AA is overestimated. Basically, it has always the same strategic choice; move first your strongest unit, try to knock down opponent’s strongest unit still not Activated.

Find it quiet boring after a couple of games.

True that this system can mitigate or solve the alpha strike problem, but a AA game with a lot of unit might be a pain
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






The forum has a search tool https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/search/filters.page just search for AA and alternating, you'll get at least half a dozen threads about people proposing rules or reporting their experience after trying it. Some have made it work according to their self-reports.
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

PS: just some notes on the terms used

Current 40k is not IGoUGo, but Action/Reaction

IGoUGo means I do something, than the opponent is doing something, 40k breaks with that by letting the opponent pause the action, resolving a reaction and than let the action continue

This has nothing to do with the turn sequence, Alternate Unit Activation can be IGoUGo as well as Action/Reaction


As an example, Overwatch. If this pauses the action of charge or not has nothing to do with Alternating Unit Activation

Hence a lot of questions with AA and why it does not work or leads to the wrong conclusion is because people try to solve an Action/Reaction problem with changing the turn sequence

When trying to change 40k, you need to be clear what you want to change and what problem you want to solve.
(AA can solve Alphastrike but not Overwatch, IGoUGo can solve Overwatch but not Alphastrike)

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 it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

AA works great for games like Necromunda (my favorite GW game), where each model/unit is kinda weak, has no re-rolls, little to no access to shenanigans and very limited actions to do: move + move, move + shoot, move + reload, reload + shoot, aim + shoot, shoot with a heavy weapon, charge or stand up and move/shoot/reload. Keeping track of stuff also annoys some people.

And there's a lot terrain compared to how many miniatures are on the board, that prevents units from being too effective in early turns; in 40k I can see an issue if a melee unit gets activated and move, the opponent then shoots it off the board or cripples it, and so on the entire turn. It will become a trench warfare, like WW1. With I go you go at least an army can keep pressure with several units while soften up the opponent with its firepower.

In 2000 points battles of 40k things need to be completely re-written in order to let AA go smooth.

And alpha strike as a problem to fix is a thing of the past, now going first or second doesn't actually have a significant impact on the game.

 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

 kodos wrote:
PS: just some notes on the terms used

Current 40k is not IGoUGo, but Action/Reaction

IGoUGo means I do something, than the opponent is doing something, 40k breaks with that by letting the opponent pause the action, resolving a reaction and than let the action continue

This has nothing to do with the turn sequence, Alternate Unit Activation can be IGoUGo as well as Action/Reaction


As an example, Overwatch. If this pauses the action of charge or not has nothing to do with Alternating Unit Activation

Hence a lot of questions with AA and why it does not work or leads to the wrong conclusion is because people try to solve an Action/Reaction problem with changing the turn sequence

When trying to change 40k, you need to be clear what you want to change and what problem you want to solve.
(AA can solve Alphastrike but not Overwatch, IGoUGo can solve Overwatch but not Alphastrike)
I don't think the existence of Reactions during your opponent's turn changes the IGoUGo definition. It's still one player taking their turn while the other player mostly sits around waiting for that turn to end. Even back in 3rd Edition, both players participated in the Close Combat part of each player's turn.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







The Deer Hunter wrote:
Imo AA is overestimated. Basically, it has always the same strategic choice; move first your strongest unit, try to knock down opponent’s strongest unit still not Activated.

Find it quiet boring after a couple of games.

True that this system can mitigate or solve the alpha strike problem, but a AA game with a lot of unit might be a pain


AA tends to work best in games where you either don't have perfect control over what unit gets to activate when (e.g. Star Wars Legion), where ranges/movement are constructed to avoid giving units the ability to attack any possible target at full effectiveness (e.g. Crisis Protocol), or both (e.g. Bolt Action).

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 alextroy wrote:
I don't think the existence of Reactions during your opponent's turn changes the IGoUGo definition. It's still one player taking their turn while the other player mostly sits around waiting for that turn to end. Even back in 3rd Edition, both players participated in the Close Combat part of each player's turn.
the difference is if you interrupt the action and the active player needs to pause, or if the reaction happens after the action
Alternating unit activations or alternating turns can be strict IGoUGo if the opponent is not allowed to interrupt your action
as soon as you need to pause your current action, like stop your charge for overwatch, it is not I go You go any more because "I start to go, than you go, than I finish going"

40k always was based around a simple action/reaction system to break IGoUGo, which has nothing to do with 40k being Alternating Player Turns instead of alternating Phases or activations

This has to be clear and yes Alternate Activations can be boring and frustrating for the opponent the same way as Phases or Turns if the player expects that he is able to react instead of strict IGoUGo

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 us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Has anyone ever made an AA system for 40k and put it out for people to try? If it does indeed work so well it shouldn't be difficult to get some people testing it.

@Lance, most of what you are describing is not unit-by-unit activation anymore, so not relevant to what I said. And a big one you just glazed over is units only fighting whe they activate--normally a unit stuck in melee can fight twice per round (once in each players turn) so that is a tremendous change on the balance of melee vs shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Deer Hunter wrote:
Imo AA is overestimated. Basically, it has always the same strategic choice; move first your strongest unit, try to knock down opponent’s strongest unit still not Activated.

Find it quiet boring after a couple of games.

True that this system can mitigate or solve the alpha strike problem, but a AA game with a lot of unit might be a pain
Yup. Alternatively camp the big shooters out of LoS or in reserve, use a bunch of MSU chaff to bleed the opponent's activations, then blast away.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/22 16:47:16


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Has anyone ever made an AA system for 40k and put it out for people to try? If it does indeed work so well it shouldn't be difficult to get some people testing it.

main problem to get people testing it is that it is not 40k

I once removed classic vehicle armour and made monsters and tanks similar, but kept facings for both (so also large monsters had a front and flank), needed people to test and got 4 or 5 who wanted to try it, everyone else just responded that this not 40k any more and therefore not worth testing it
Same with changing to full range D6, removing tables and change to having the "to hit" value in the profile and all kind of changes people are now "loving" in 9th Edition. But no one wanted to even try it because "this is not 40k any more"

I think the most successful that is still a 40k Mod is OPR Grimdark Future, and most others that kept going turned into their own game by now (like WarStrike)

Main problem with those projects usually is that you need to keep up with the changes that GW made. Like those versions that were made at the end of 5th, were dropped because not all the changes to the special rules from 6th could be added.
Same with the stuff that came out with the end of 7th, 8th Edi Stratagems not working with the AA systems based on 7th, project stopped because this is not 40k any more


from a very simple point of view, all changes that go further than "replacing Alternating Player Turns with Alternating Unit Activation" are impossible to get enough playtesters without turning it into its own game and is dead as soon as the next Codex hits the shelf.
It is easier to write a Space Marine list for Starship Troopers or FireFight and get people to test it, than make small changes to the 40k rules and people to try it

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 us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Which basically becomes an excuse for people to claim AA would work better without ever providing evidence to back that claim up.

I have heard people SAY it works better many times, I have not once seen an actual ruleset to make it so.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

Well, Warpath, Firefight, Gates of Antares or Grimdark Future would be SciFi rulesets close with alternating unit activation that work
Starship Troopers is unit activation with Action/Reaction

those work very well for a setting focused on ranged combat


And Alternate Unit Activation does not work better than Alternate Phases or Alternate Player turns
Same as Action/Reaction does not work better than IGoUGo

they work different, give a different dynamic and have different disadvantages

it is just the mess that current 40k is, with no clear design choice and a mix with a little bit from everything without thinking it thru, that does not work
and AA just solve some problems, like Alpha Strike as if one side is the potential to wipe the other side out in turn 1 limiting the the units that can act at once from "all" to "1" does help

if the army cannot to this in the first place and is meant to need 2 or 3 turns to wipe out the opponent, Alternating Turns just works as well


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 us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Agreed. It isn't the turn method used, it is how well the rules to use it are written.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Which basically becomes an excuse for people to claim AA would work better without ever providing evidence to back that claim up.


The previous versions of Apocalypse was a pretty good amplification of the IGOUGO mechanic behavior. During an Apocalypse game, it was possible to say "Here are my dice, make my rolls for me, I'm going to go get lunch", leave, and come back when your turn starts.

So that's the hurdle that you can use to determine whether the game mechanic is working fine. Is it possible for one player to paint models while the other player is taking their turn? (If there's a die roll that requires no decision by the person rolling the die, it doesn't matter who rolls the die, and the person who's trying to paint doesn't need to interrupt their painting to roll it.)

   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Has anyone ever made an AA system for 40k and put it out for people to try? If it does indeed work so well it shouldn't be difficult to get some people testing it.

@Lance, most of what you are describing is not unit-by-unit activation anymore, so not relevant to what I said. And a big one you just glazed over is units only fighting whe they activate--normally a unit stuck in melee can fight twice per round (once in each players turn) so that is a tremendous change on the balance of melee vs shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Deer Hunter wrote:
Imo AA is overestimated. Basically, it has always the same strategic choice; move first your strongest unit, try to knock down opponent’s strongest unit still not Activated.

Find it quiet boring after a couple of games.

True that this system can mitigate or solve the alpha strike problem, but a AA game with a lot of unit might be a pain
Yup. Alternatively camp the big shooters out of LoS or in reserve, use a bunch of MSU chaff to bleed the opponent's activations, then blast away.


First, it is unit by unit activation. It's has some choices you can make to rope additional activations into a single activation. The important part is that it is a CHOICE that YOU make that has consequences either way. Which makes it good actual game play unlike the vast majority of the "game play" that 40k currently has. Depleting the number of activations you have leaves you inflexible to the opponent. But a bigger activation has it's own advantages.

As for melee and balance. First, are you under any impression right now that there is any balance in the game on any level? Let's just squash that notion right now.

Second, the entire balance of the game shifts inherently when you go AA. Models get removed mid turn. Units can be charged before they get a chance to activate, which restricts how they can act when they do (who you activate, in what order, to what end all becomes a very important decision). Melee attacking on their activation is the least disruptive thing to occur when you change to AA. And it's all for the better.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Sounds great, where can I find the ruleset?

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






As was mentioned you can search the forum and find dozens of them. Beyond the gates of 40k requires basically no changes to any unit.

They all amount to the same basic core concepts.

1) Take turns choosing a unit to activate.

1.1) An activated unit does all 4 phases.

1.2) Abilities that activate during a specific phase activate during that units phase on it's activation.

1.3) Abilities that can be activated during an opponents phase can be activated during any of your opponents activation's during the phase in question. This can only be done once a game turn.

1.4) Abilities that grant a immediate benefit (The swarm lord allowing a unit to move again) activate that unit with the unit in question. I.E. if the Swarmlord allows a unit of genestealers to move a second time the genestealers activate with the Swarmlord, move twice, go through the rest of their phases with the swarmlord and then have used up their activation for the game turn.

1.5) Buffs/debuffs that last "until the next blank phase" last until the the unit that created the effects next blank phase. I.E. psychic powers will last until the casters next psychic phase. So activate early turn 1 and late turn 2 to maximize the effect. Of course this also leaves the caster sitting there potentially vulnerable. If the unit is killed their effects end at the beginning of the next game turn.

2) Transports: Units inside a transport activate with the transport when the transport activates.

2.1) A unit activated inside a transport can choose to disembark before the transport moves (just like they do now). They finish their activation with the transport when doing so.

2.2) A unit that ends it's move within 3" of a transport can choose to embark on a transport.

2.3) A unit that is in a transport can do all it's phases just like they can or cannot now depending on the transports allowances. Does the transport allow a unit inside to shoot? Well then the transported unit can shoot from inside the transport.

3) Reserves: Units in reserves count as one of your activations. They can either deploy or stay in reserves. If they deploy, they do so going through all their phases just like they do now.

4) See above for the expansion of heroic intervention.


Start playing.



Terrain rules that work better than GWs gak.
Spoiler:

Line of Sight Rules

You can trace Line of Sight from any part of your model to any part of the target unit. For the purpose of targeting I recommend using 7ths targeting rules (I.E. wings, antennae, banners) do not count as a part of the model, meaning you cannot draw los from or too these bits. That is just my personal preference, do what you want.

Targeting Occupied Terrain
Occupied Terrain is any terrain that has a unit within the terrain feature. Units that occupy a Terrain feature can see and be seen through it. Units that Occupy Terrain gain Cover from the terrain. A unit is considered to be occupying the terrain if all of it's models bases are at least partially within the terrain or meet it's other requirements. Models that do not have a base must be at least 50% within the terrain to be considered to Occupy it.

Intervening Terrain
Intervening terrain is any terrain that sits between you and the target unit but is not occupied by the target unit. You can trace LoS over a single piece of Light terrain. A second piece of Light terrain and/or Dense terrain will block LoS normally. Targeting a unit over intervening Terrain confers a -1 to hit penalty.

High Ground
If your unit is on a piece of raised terrain they may have high ground. A unit with high ground can ignore all terrain and los blocking terrain features when targeting units on a lower level so long as they can still actually trace line of sight to the unit. To repeat, you still need to be able to trace line of sight, but the target unit would gain no benefit from any intervening terrain. I personally use a lot of the Mantic Battlezones. So each layer up in my terrain is 3". So we use that 3" marker to determine height. Again, do what you want.

Intervening Units
If you cannot trace LoS to your target unit without tracing a line through an enemy unit the intervening unit counts as Light Terrain. That means if your target unit is behind both an enemy unit and a piece of Light terrain that unit is untargetable because your LoS is blocked (just like 2 pieces of light terrain). For this you are counting the entire unit and the spaces between models as 1 object. You cannot trace LoS between models in the same unit to get around this. You would need to actually be able to trace LoS around the entire unit to not be effected by the unit.

Monsters, Vehicles, and Titanic
When targeting any unit with the MONSTER or VEHICLE Keyword you ignore any intervening units when tracing Line of Sight treating them as Open Ground. When targeting any unit with the TITANIC keyword you ignore all intervening units and Light Terrain treating them as Open Ground. In addition treat all Dense Terrain as Light Terrain for the purpose of tracing LoS on TITANIC units.

Flier Units with the Flier battlefield role can be targeted freely treating all terrain and intervening units as Open Ground so long as you can still trace Line of Sight. Do the same for any LoW with the FLY Keyword.

Terrain

All terrain has 3 features.

1) Line of Sight
2) Cover
3) Difficulty

1] Line of Sight

There are 3 degrees of effect terrain has on LoS.

-Open Ground: No effect on LoS. This terrain piece can be shot over as though it was not there. Example: A water pool or river.

-Light: Blocks LoS to some extent. You can draw Line of Sight over a single piece of light terrain. A unit cannot draw LoS over 2 pieces of light terrain. Barricades, grassy hills, light copse of trees, smaller ruins/

-Dense: Dense Terrain blocks LoS entirely. Dense cops of trees, ruined whole buildings.

2) Cover

All terrain has a cover value that is a bonus to your Sv roll (Ex. +1). This bonus is granted to any unit entirely within or meets the requirements of the terrain feature.

3) Difficulty

All terrain has a difficulty value. This value is a penalty to the Movement Value of any unit that enters or attempts to move through the terrain. It is possible the Difficulty of the terrain is a 0 meaning it does not impact movement at all. They may also have special considerations such as "Impassible to VEHICLES".


So for example, the barricades that make up a Aegis Defense Line and thus AGLs themselves would be

LoS: Light
Cover: +1 - The unit must be within 1" or within 1" of a model from their unit that is within 1" of the terrain to occupy the terrain. This unit only gains the benefit of cover from units targeting them from the opposite side of the terrain.
Difficulty: 1

Thus tracing LoS over these baracades would impose a -1 to hit to any unit that is not occupying it. Provides a +1 Sv bonus to any unit that is occupying it, and eat up 1" of Movement to cross over it.

Ruined Building could be.

LoS: Dense
Cover: +1
Difficulty: 1 non-INFANTRY

You could not target units on the other side of the building even if you could trace LoS. Units that occupy the terrain gain a +1 SV bonus and any noninfantry would loose 1" of movement by entering or trying to pass through the terrain. Driving some bikes over the rough surface of the ruins is hard on them and the ruins make navigating the landscape difficult for anything that is too big and/or lacking the dexterity that Infantry have.

In addition. I propose that Character Targeting is changed to make it so a character cannot be targeted with shooting if the character is not the closest visible unit and within 3" of another visible friendly unit. This way they need to maintain a semi unit coherency to keep their protection AND a closer unit behind some LoS blocking terrain won't save them.

Any unit with Sniper Weapon/rules will also ignore intervening units when tracing LoS.


have fun.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Ok, so I have three squads of plaguebearers I want to move up the field side-by-side with my GUO, then charge all of them to tie up the enemy from shooting. How do I do that?

Can I use MSU to burn though enemy activations before deep-striking and attacking with impunity? Not that it isn't a valid tactic, it's just kinda cheesy and that's exactly what I'm trying to get away from.

Going further, it seems to reward having as big a blob of shooters as possible combined with MSU to frontload/delay as much of the armys' offense as possible. Again, not that regular 40k doesn't have issues like this it's just that I am looking for something better.

What counteracts the skew towards shooting offense? My Nurgle daemons in particular get a lot out of being able to swing back in the enemy fight phase. Your previous response of 'balance is bad, so it doesn't matter if it is made worse' makes me particularly concerned on this matter.

Two strings of 10 infantry block LoS, but one mob of 20 doesn't?

I can have a 12" long chain of dudes, end their move with one model within 3" of a transport to embark all of them, then move the transport, then shoot out of it?


And I know this all seems really abrasive, but to get a refined ruleset one needs to not look for where it works but where it doesn't. Focusing on the good while disregarding criticism is what GW does.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/10/25 00:23:43


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ok, so I have three squads of plaguebearers I want to move up the field side-by-side with my GUO, then charge all of them to tie up the enemy from shooting. How do I do that?


All at once? You can't. You can move 1 unit with the GUO. The others will need to follow in future activations. Instead of just deciding to tie up the entire enemies line without consequence to you, you instead need to start making some actual tactical choices. This is not a bug. It's a feature.

Can I use MSU to burn though enemy activations before deep-striking and attacking with impunity? Not that it isn't a valid tactic, it's just kinda cheesy and that's exactly what I'm trying to get away from.


You COULD, but if you do MSU your large number of units is going to mean each of those units are also pretty fragile. As the turns go by your number of activations is going to dwindle quickly and what you thought was an advantage in the early part of the game can end up biting you in the ass on the back end of the game. There are pros and cons to MSU and large point powerful single activations (knights). Really good lists have a decent mix of the both and sit in the middle to stay tactically flexible. If you go all in one way or the other then you will have all the pros and all the cons and smart opponents will capitalize on your weaknesses.

Going further, it seems to reward having as big a blob of shooters as possible combined with MSU to frontload/delay as much of the armys' offense as possible. Again, not that regular 40k doesn't have issues like this it's just that I am looking for something better.


See above. How many turns will your MSU last you before YOU have less activations? When your smaller number of activations with less impact per activation start failing you hows the rest of your army going to hold up? When you rely on a single large shooty unit to have your impact what happens when it gets deep struck on and tied up in a melee?

What counteracts the skew towards shooting offense? My Nurgle daemons in particular get a lot out of being able to swing back in the enemy fight phase. Your previous response of 'balance is bad, so it doesn't matter if it is made worse' makes me particularly concerned on this matter.


It's not worse. When your unit charges and attacks you don't get attacked back. If you go after units that have already activated They can't strike back until the next game turn. Then they have to choose. Are they going to try to run and hope you don't chase? If you have multiple units tied up in melees even if they run from one you can activate the other and get your melee in before they even have a chance to strike.

You need to start thinking about the game more like chess instead of rock, paper, scissors. Your actions will change the battlefield and the options the enemy has. And their actions will do the same for you. You start baiting them into advantageous situations for you, or capitalizing on openings that are made.

Right now, 40k has no tactical game play. It's all list building and strategic. This gives you tactical decision making. You start playing against the other player instead of against the other players list.

Two strings of 10 infantry block LoS, but one mob of 20 doesn't?


Yup. The game is built around unit to unit interaction (until for some feth reason it starts being about model to unit interaction. Thanks GW for being feth wits). So it's units that matter. Not number of models in a unit. If you want even more complex terrain rules that make unit positioning matter go ahead and make some. I have never had an issue playing a decent game with nice simple ones that create dynamic situations on the table.

I can have a 12" long chain of dudes, end their move with one model within 3" of a transport to embark all of them, then move the transport, then shoot out of it?


Could you do that now with the current transport rules? If no then no. The actual rules for embarking and disembarking don't change. Just how they interact with the new turn structure. Or really, it's just clarification for how they interact with the new turn structure. The actual rules for units inside a transport shooting out of the transport don't change.

You are looking at individual activations for each unit (the infantry and the transport).

Scenario 1: The Infantry are activated and move to an unactivated transport. They move (embark) psychic, shoot, charge, fight. Later in the turn when you activate the transport the unit that has already been activated is done with it's turn already. It cannot shoot again. It cannot disembark after the move. They get their 1 activation. It's done.

Scenario 2: The transport moves to the unit to let them embark. The transport does it's 4 phases. Then the opponent goes. Then you activate the unit to get them inside. See above. Shoot psychic, etc etc... On the next game turn you can activate the transport to haul them around.

And I know this all seems really abrasive, but to get a refined ruleset one needs to not look for where it works but where it doesn't. Focusing on the good while disregarding criticism is what GW does.


I am not taking it as abrasive. These questions have simply been answered a million times already. Nothing you are proposing here is bringing anything new to the table. These basic rules have been laid out and played in dozens upon dozens of games. The holes have been poked. The rules have been refined. They just work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I want to expand on the melee bit above.

Consider these scenarios.

Player 1 has alphabet units and player 2 has numerical.

Scenario 1: The opponents target unit has not activated yet.

Unit A charges Unit 1.

Unit A fights.

On player 2s turn they can activate unit 1 and choose to either fall back allowing unit 2 to shoot unit A in their next activation or stick around and fight if thats what they want to do. Unit A cannot chase this game turn because they have already been activated this turn.

Advantage: is you have limited the options of Unit 1, You may even be able to use this to bait player 2 into using a bunch of his activations to focus on Unit A while you make use of the rest of your army to do other crap like score objectives.

Disadvantage: Because Unit 1 had not activated yet your unit is not safe for the rest of the game turn. The opponent can turn you into a pin cushion if they want.

Scenario 2: The opponents units have already been activated this turn.

Player 1 charges Units A and B into units 1 and 2 which have already been activated.

For the rest of the game turn they are locked in melee. The opponent could charge other units in there to beat on you or leave you alone.

On the following game turn whoever goes first has some choices. Do they fall back and leave the other unit open for shooting? Do they activate first and get their fights in before the opponent has a chance to react? Do they use the whole fight scenario as a distraction and activate other units in the army with other tactical objectives in mind?

What you activate, when you activate it, and to what end you activate it all has a very important part to play in how the game goes and there are often no clear best answers. Doing something over here often comes at forfeiting something else over there. The game is only improved by this and melee in no way is nerfed by it.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/25 01:29:59



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






All this is just confirming what I said in the very first post; trading old flaws for new flaws. Instead of exploiting IGUG tactically I'm exploiting AA tactically. It isn't any worse, but it isn't any better.

And again, in normal 40k a unit can fight twice per round. In this it can only fight once per round. That is an objective nerf, there is no room for interpretation in 2 > 1.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
All this is just confirming what I said in the very first post; trading old flaws for new flaws. Instead of exploiting IGUG tactically I'm exploiting AA tactically. It isn't any worse, but it isn't any better.



Excatly, AA isn't objectively better or more balanced than IGOUGO, it's just different. Basically an action/reaction game rather than a turn based game. Some people prefer the former, hence why they advocate for switching to the AA system.

 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






 NinthMusketeer wrote:
All this is just confirming what I said in the very first post; trading old flaws for new flaws. Instead of exploiting IGUG tactically I'm exploiting AA tactically. It isn't any worse, but it isn't any better.

And again, in normal 40k a unit can fight twice per round. In this it can only fight once per round. That is an objective nerf, there is no room for interpretation in 2 > 1.


First, there is no tactically n IGOUGO. You make strategic decisions in current 40k. You very rarely if ever make tactical decisions in current 40k. There is a big difference. Look it up.

Secondly, 1) Reduced downtime between player actions. 2) Increased value in player decision making. 3) greater player agency at every level of the game play. This is significantly better.

And your deciding on what it is or isn't from your arm chair theory crafting is exactly as valuable as it sounds. Go play it. Then report back what it is or isn't. The proof is in the pudding.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Well, I played out a few games and I have to say I prefer this way of playing a LOT more than what we have in the rule book... that said something that came up was moral. It was an easy fix though as we moved the Moral check to the beginning of unit activation.

Another issue was auras, we played one game where characters moved like everyone else, and one game where they moved like lance845 suggested and that seemed to make more sense, we just used a different marker to designate that the character had already moved. Additionally, we made it so that characters could move with a unit before or after they activated to make auras work a bit more as intended. In this case we had Tiggy put up his Invul bubble in the first game and everything was moving out of it when they activated... so when we tried it with character moves attached to unit moves we added that caveat.

As I've been typing this out, I think that targeted psychic powers would need to be adjusted somehow as they were a lot harder to use effectively. Auras have a huge advantage in that they don't require an activation for them to be used whereas a psychic buff does. Not sure how to fix this imbalance other than to move the psychic phase into the command phase (which has it's own disadvantages as well, good for buffs, bad for debuffs)

   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: