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.

So one of the flaws with E:A is how the activation system rewards maintaining a certain level of activations to formations to activate. Stuff like tank armies with less activations can be really out manoeuvred ands it limits to army design space.

So I wrote in a different thread a mod we admittedly only playtested twice from E:A was inspired by the kill team 'overwatch' rule. It was meant to try and help out armies that were out activated as otherwise it drives a lot of army creation. Also that late turn manoeuvring around big blocks of units bristling with guns has a bit more peril.

We had a load of discussion about different options, from a reactive move, to shooting to ultimately a very watered down idea about getting blast markers from units you were operating near. This was scaled back and back and ended up after one army has activated or passed with its last detachment it had the following 'reaction' it could do if any enemy units activated.

In playtest 1, any enemy detachment that wanted to activate within effective range (i.e. in range of a weapon that can fire, so no used up one shot weapons or broken units, and had to have LOS) of the enemy that had activated its last formation received a blast marker and then tried to activate.
Through bad luck this had a surprising impact and also was thought to be another boost to the player that went first as even equal numbers of formations would result in a small unintended boost for them at the end of the round. Discussed moving the blast marker to after movement so it would only affect shooting/CC but still stung about after game 1 we went with...

In playtest 2 this was modified to after a formation had activated. So it has moved, shot, etc. This gave a chance to ambush the enemy and wipe them out/break them, and not suffer ay problems. You also got a chance to clear the blast marker in the end phase.

This didn't make that much difference so ended up feeling symbolic. Sadly at that point EA games died off locally and I haven't played since!

Thoughts? Alternatives? Other ideas you have played with?

The_Real_Chris wrote:
we went with...

In playtest 2 this was modified to after a formation had activated. So it has moved, shot, etc. This gave a chance to ambush the enemy and wipe them out/break them, and not suffer ay problems. You also got a chance to clear the blast marker in the end phase.

This didn't make that much difference so ended up feeling symbolic.

I read it in the other thread, and IMO it is an excellent idea.

I haven't tried yet, but to me it feels more than just symbolic, it can bring some extra "balance" to the activation wars.

The only problem I see: autobreak to certain formations wanting to activate in effective range of enemies (formations only 1 blast marker away from breaking), even if they just want to go away or go into OW.

I think Epic: Armageddon is the best wargame out there, but the activation mechanic has that serious flaw indeed.

Well a player can always pass and take no more fire.

We actually did discuss that - but back then we had some level of annoyance with the one unit survivors of formations snatching/contesting objectives, and this would stop that. But some armies I think really needed it, so would have to test it more to see the impact. It could have I guess just emphasised who the winner is more, as the scattered remnants of formations are normally the side who are getting pasted.

End of the day though we only got two games in with the rules, so its not much basis to draw conclusions from. I know there are multiple 'fixes' for alternating activation systems out there, but they tend to be more baked into game and army design. The solutions discussed for E:A tend to be after the event so the impacts are more unpredictable.

There is also another idea: after the opposing player has finished activating the whole army, all remaining activations get an additional -1.

It seems a bit gamey though. And potentially too powerful?

SU-152 wrote:
There is also another idea: after the opposing player has finished activating the whole army, all remaining activations get an additional -1.

It seems a bit gamey though. And potentially too powerful?

Yeah we chatted about stuff like that, it was why the first playtest was take a BM if in range at start of activation (in essence a similar effect for armies close to the enemy) - part of the problem is we are all used to playing the game as is, and as we all with one army or another rely on activation shenanigans it makes it hard to think radically.
One of the problem around modifiers (or indeed playtest 1 with taking a BM by activating near the enemy) is it has a bigger impact on some armies than others. More elite armies tend to have more activations, in general, and so suffer least. If you have 2+/3+ activation armies they suffer more. And how much do you want to change from the status quo? Of course BM management is built into he game and does adding more in this way balance things or reinforce existing advantages and disadvantages?

We thought for example about having activation be continuous with the turn ending once both sides had fully activated. For example a-e vs 123. A is activated, then 1, then B, etc. Until you get to D, then 1,2 or 3 can activate again. Here thought he advantage shifts radically to low activation armies that admittedly risk having BMs more but will be doing a lot more in a game. Is also some admin tracking them and the problem of switchover if you decimate the enemy then end up with more activations. Would probably need chits that you put in a cup as you activate to track things. Actually would be fun to try as a one off, if somewhat complex. Also makes little sense big tank companies are activating more than small elite formations.

Also talked about doing things linked to strategy rating which then would have affected the price of units in armies, but that would have resulted in less variety in each game, etc.

We thought for example about having activation be continuous with the turn ending once both sides had fully activated. For example a-e vs 123. A is activated, then 1, then B, etc. Until you get to D, then 1,2 or 3 can activate again. Here thought he advantage shifts radically to low activation armies that admittedly risk having BMs more but will be doing a lot more in a game. Is also some admin tracking them and the problem of switchover if you decimate the enemy then end up with more activations. Would probably need chits that you put in a cup as you activate to track things. Actually would be fun to try as a one off, if somewhat complex. Also makes little sense big tank companies are activating more than small elite formations

Wow I think that would be too powerful (2 activations / fm ).

I think the -1 or the blast marker are good options.

Activation war in an important flaw. And like you say, it "forces" list building a lot.

Yeah, more activations is an advantage for sure and consideration should be taken when building an army. Usually this is the disadvantage more Elite armies face for taking fewer but stronger choices.

In another ruleset I like there is a compensation factor for the player with fewer activations. He/she gets a bigger chance of getting first activation the next game turn.

In one version of the rules the player automatically got the first activation the following round.

I am not a fan of auto results, so I prefer a bonus to the Initiative roll the next game turn, if you want to try this.

PS. Some good modern rulesets have army building restrictions designed to prevent a big activation advantage, e.g. Dropzone Commander. I have not played a game of DzC where one player had more than 1 more activation than the other. Before casualties of course DS.

Your idea looks like a good one, though I imagine it'd take quite a bit of playtesting to check whether it has any unexpected consequences.

The Gates of Antares/Bolt Action dice bag activation mechanic is a simple approach that works well to create a 'fog of war' feel and mitigate (but not necessarily) avoid the long string of end-of-turn 'safe' activations of an army with lots of small formations. It's also nice and simple, and provides a fun element of tension.

To try it, each player needs a set of uniquely coloured dice (red on one side, blue on the other, for example). Each player puts one coloured die in a shared bag for each of their army's formations. The bag is then shaken up and a die drawn blind – if your colour die emerges, you activate. Rinse and repeat.

 Apologist wrote:

To try it, each player needs a set of uniquely coloured dice (red on one side, blue on the other, for example). Each player puts one coloured die in a shared bag for each of their army's formations. The bag is then shaken up and a die drawn blind – if your colour die emerges, you activate. Rinse and repeat.

Yes played a few games like that (and ones where the token drawn is the unit that activates). In general though they need to have the lethality toned down as one run of activations can simple end the game. I have played Epic:A with random activations (and large formations so it was hard to easily knock others out of the game) which is fun, but doesn't fit the more serious GT scenario. This replaced the double activation, command and Tau rule though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:

I am not a fan of auto results, so I prefer a bonus to the Initiative roll the next game turn, if you want to try this.

Certainly an interesting idea, would happily chat about it with the other Epic players if we manage to get back together any time soon. Could also probably model it mathematically for each army facing each other...

 westiebestie wrote:
Yeah, more activations is an advantage for sure and consideration should be taken when building an army. Usually this is the disadvantage more Elite armies face for taking fewer but stronger choices.

In another ruleset I like there is a compensation factor for the player with fewer activations. He/she gets a bigger chance of getting first activation the next game turn.

In one version of the rules the player automatically got the first activation the following round.

I am not a fan of auto results, so I prefer a bonus to the Initiative roll the next game turn, if you want to try this.

PS. Some good modern rulesets have army building restrictions designed to prevent a big activation advantage, e.g. Dropzone Commander. I have not played a game of DzC where one player had more than 1 more activation than the other. Before casualties of course DS.

Wow I really like the idea!!

[Bonus to Strategy next turn for the side that finished activating first] + [penalty of -1 to Ini for all activations after opposing player finished] would that be too powerfull??

I think you will find the -1 for all activations after the enemy has finished can be a bit much.

We did Eldar vs IG tank regiment with something similar (BM before activating if in range and LoS) and Eldar units activating on 3+ was very harsh, though we did have some more unlucky rolls than statistically likely. That was compounded of course by having to clear more BMs in the end phase.

While I would be open to trying the BM at end of activation if enemy in range and LoS with the +1 to strat roll, I think we would be concerned around games between say Marines and Eldar at one end with where the temptation is to finish fast to have a better chance to get that strat roll boost, to games like Guard vs Marines where Guard would in practice go to a strat rating of 3 vs 5 which won't move the dial that much. Indeed assuming Guard win draws the odds go from 17% to go first to 28%. With the Eldar incidentally it goes from 42% to 58% (these are turn 2 scenarios where the marines won turn 1).