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.

A simple poll to determine the position of this community regarding Alternative Activation in games of Warhammer 40k.
For the sake of argument, the game would be balanced around that system, and not just slapped on the current ruleset and datasheets.

Definitions :

Activation per phase : player one executes all its possible actions during a given phase (movement phase, shooting phase, combat phase...), then the other player do the same. When both players are done, the next phase begins.

Activation per unit : during every phase, players alternate activating their respective units until both players exhausted their actions, then the next phase begins.

Also a reminder that AA is a thing in Legions Imperialis, so it definitely works in a big-size GW game.
Also a reminder that 2019' Apocalypse resolved the removal of wounded models from the table at the end of the turn instead of immediately, making alpha strike and going second much less of a problem, so there are also different solutions instead of AA.

I don't want AA in this game until GW thoroughly playtests such a thing.

Why? Because while not perfect, current 40k is still playable & often fun enough.
AA sounds like an all right idea, and there's any # of other games from other companies that successfully use forms of it, but this is AA as filtered through the lense of GW we're talking about....
It'd require completely re-writing the game. Wich, because GW, will result in ALOT of ill-considered crap, pages of faqs/errata (more so than now) & likely render the game almost unplayable for at least one edition.

The lack of AA is one of the reasons we moved on to OPR. And it's also probably the main reason some of our group say: For all the flaws of OPR, we wouldn't want to miss AA and therefore won't go back to 40K .

I'm still on the pro AA side of things, but nowadays I see the appeal of 40K's IGOUGO because it makes the game pretty... approachable if that's a word. 40K is not so much a thinking game like others. You plan and do your stuff in the 20-30mins your opponent does their things and when it's your turn you do everything you want and planned. Stratagems break up the strict IGOUGO already, but they're limited. In AA you control a unit. Your opponent reacts on that unit and does his thing. You need to think again and react on that. It allows for much deeper tactics but is also a far more stressful experience. Same with lotr's alternating phases which are accompanied by heroic actions that break up the sequence.
In 40K you can empty a bottle of beer during your opponent's turn, in OPR you can only take a nip once in a while. That would make 40K a pretty laid back game if you didn't have to read up on a thousand special rules every game.

I generally prefer Alternating Activation games, but their advantages kind of fall apart with bigger game sizes and varied activation values. When you get more than 5-6 activations the system starts to feel unresponsive and if players have notably different activation counts or values it feels more like you're gaming the activation system than playing the game. Alternating Activations also tend to work better with relatively low attrition so that the above remains consistent.

So.... while I like and generally prefer Alternating Activations, I don't think slapping them on 40k works very well. You end up creating a very gamey game of trying to out activate the opponent's power pieces and double activate your own. It's not something that I think improves on 40k's current setup, particularly with the Turn Phases.

I do think there's probably a way to make a system built around squadrons or something where you alternate activations portions of your army. Armageddon played around with something like that in 8th to decent effect.

To a degree though, I think there's value in 40k playing like 40k. A LOT of people love the game as it is and if you want a game that plays like something else, there's dozens of great games out there that absolutely deserve your time and money.

It…..depends.

I’m not a fan of “Freeform” alternating activations. That is where my opponent has a full and free choice in reactions to my own shenanigans.

But, I’ve long been a fan of Epic’s version. In short? Both players issue orders to their units, using counters turned face down. Once revealed, the Orders dictate what a unit can and can’t do. Importantly, it also dictates when I can do. That means I’m largely locked into a set of actions, so I have to consider what I want a given unit to do, and second guess what I think you’re up to.

But, 40K is 40 years old next year. And I don’t see any need for it to switch to alternative activation.

I like Alternating Activation in OPR, but what would be the fun of making 40K identical to a game I already have?

I think LOTR SBGs alternating phases, with the ability to jump the gun using limited resources, is great fun and could work well for 40K.

Or, since the really big issue is the shooting phase, have the shooting phase always be simultaneous like close combat is and only have alternating movement phases. It'd be a bit more complicated to keep track of but could keep the feel of big sweeping moves while limiting the skew caused by shooting alpha strikes. Alternating unit by unit for the shooting phase would also work, meaning target priority and unit selection would be important decisions.

Edit to add: The thing that all alternating systems have to grapple with is a way to visually show who has done what that isn't obtrusive, especially for really big games.

The thing is with GW making 40K often very killy very quickly the current system has a very high chance that one side over the other gets to have one REALLY fun turn doing a LOT of damage and the other side is instantly an uphill struggle. This can quickly become very unfun for one player because they've almost lost a huge chunk of their army, plan and potential before really doing anything in the game; and they've not done anything "wrong" to reach that point.


Lowering the lethality would go a LONG way to actually resolving some the issues GW's rules have.


Another option could be partial - Age fo Sigmar currently has alternating "who goes first" close combat so they are part way there already and people seem to be plenty happy with that.

Shooting phase should ideally follow and then you're almost having alternate activation as a core mechanic.



Balance and GW are always a difficult conversation because GW's 3 year cycle and structured approach to balance and rules writing actively works against improving the situation. Even with all the good steps they've taken there are some major inherent flaws that make it an insane uphill struggle to achieve good balance and gameplay.



Going full Alternate Activation can be a great option - as noted its one reason OPR is popular. Heck in OPR games I've played I often feel far more so that the win-loss is from choices both players made and thus is something you can evaluate and improve on easily. In 40K games sometimes the win-loss feels more like one good choice or one lucky turn sequence that then upturns the game in a splitsecond. It creates a "cinematic moment" but also means that one side is basically "Oh ok so because I didn't go first I kind of lost this game"

Notably you do not alternate shooting in AoS, but honestly, I always feel like AoS is step backwards from the progress 40k has made whenever I play it.

 LunarSol wrote:
Notably you do not alternate shooting in AoS, but honestly, I always feel like AoS is step backwards from the progress 40k has made whenever I play it.

There are only two steps back in my view

1) The Double freaking turn *insert long rant*

2) The Regiments system. Whilst I get that GW wanted to
a) Create more of a divide between rank and file and AOS
b) Create a game that was cheaper to get into in general (both in terms of costs and construction/paint time)
c) Give elite and large monsters a fighting chance

I still feel that its a shame that big infantry blocks feel so convoluted now to put together because of the limits. I can see logical reasoning for it, but I still am not the biggest fan of this method of approach.




NOTE its not helped that GW also goes with the odd "build every banner you have per 10 troops (box) so a full unit even LOOKS daft because its got a huge number of banners and musicians - bot ODDLY GW only lets you take one leader model. So they DO get that it looks silly but only on one model - it would be great if we went back to "1 banner, 1 musician and if that model is killed you either lose the bonus or another model in the unit picks it up and continues on"

Is it a community desire? No-the community is not a monolith. Some people want it, some people don't.

Is it a personal desire? Yeah. I have no doubt GW could screw it up to the point it's unfun, but I'd prefer AA to IGOUGO.

 Overread wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Notably you do not alternate shooting in AoS, but honestly, I always feel like AoS is step backwards from the progress 40k has made whenever I play it.

There are only two steps back in my view

1) The Double freaking turn *insert long rant*

2) The Regiments system. Whilst I get that GW wanted to
a) Create more of a divide between rank and file and AOS
b) Create a game that was cheaper to get into in general (both in terms of costs and construction/paint time)
c) Give elite and large monsters a fighting chance

I still feel that its a shame that big infantry blocks feel so convoluted now to put together because of the limits. I can see logical reasoning for it, but I still am not the biggest fan of this method of approach.




NOTE its not helped that GW also goes with the odd "build every banner you have per 10 troops (box) so a full unit even LOOKS daft because its got a huge number of banners and musicians - bot ODDLY GW only lets you take one leader model. So they DO get that it looks silly but only on one model - it would be great if we went back to "1 banner, 1 musician and if that model is killed you either lose the bonus or another model in the unit picks it up and continues on"

AoS is a weird game for me. A lot of its systems sound fine to me in isolation, but brought together I find the overall experience lacking agency. I often feel like I'm resolving the game more than making impactful decisions. In a lot of ways the alternating combat makes me feel like I've got less meaningful choices than I do playing melee heavy armies in 40k. It definitely doesn't result in the same kind of sense of agency I get out of true AA systems. Target selection not being particularly meaningful is part of it, but I just don't feel as invested in my decisions when I play.

Granted, 40k isn't exactly one of more decision rich games I play. There are plenty others I prefer. I just personally rank AoS quite a bit lower.

I think it might come from the fact that whilst the combat resolution is alternating the actual choice of engaging or not engaging in combat in the first place is based on I-go-you-go mechanics. So you can easily end up with your opponent forcing combats you wouldn't want to have and you can't really react to those choices save to fight when its your alternate turn during the combat sequence.



Also a thought - another way GW's IGYG style of gaming could be adjusted would be to have damage allocated at the end of the whole turn. So both players move, shoot, assault and only at the end of all that do you remove models.
However that can quickly become a bit of a headache in terms of tracking wounds done to each unit and so forth.

It can mean that units don't get wiped out without doing anything and it means that an opponent is always taking a risk moving into close combat or ranged fire distances to do their own damage.

It might be easier to track if GW did a neat card system so you could mark on a card per unit/squad what damage has been done (Eg with counters) before removing the counters as you assign damage at the end of the sequence.

Yeah it's the tracking that is the problem with those sorts of approaches. I think alternating who shoots or goes first in melee is probably the best compromise.

I might try 3e with alternating shooting and see how it feels. I wonder if you'd have to make any big points changes based on that. Certainly, the ability to get into close combat and "lock" an enemy unit would become a bit less essential.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah it's the tracking that is the problem with those sorts of approaches

Yeah you end up either needing a very slick app (which can bring its own issues and not everyone wants to HAVE to use an app to play)
Or a sideboard with a very clear layout as to what is what. That worked well with Warmachine but at the same time you often only had one of each kind of unit and even when you had duplicates they were rare or a warbeast being controlled and damaged very differently.

Warhammer side you can easily have armies with lots of the same model so its super easy to get a turn or two in and forget which is connected to which card etc..

The Alternating(Per phase) works in small games like Adeptus Titanicus, but doesn't work in games where one side has a lot more units than the other.

The numerous guy simply activates his useless or never-gonna-move artillery pieces, and forces the other player to move his important guys... the numbers guy can pick the optimum positions for his troops.

I've had this happen to me multiple times in BattleTech. It's no fun, and people will abuse any rule in Tournament settings.

I'm mixed really.

I think people might find its not actually as fun or as deep as they imagine.

This is perhaps too sweeping - but based on the transports thread, I feel a lot of the appeals to a movement based game are sort of a function of wishing to play against an NPC. By which I mean you'll always be the clever, strategic player who gets to encircle the enemy and cut them down with enfilading fire - and not the player whose lumbering force is destroyed.

You are always left with this strange rub that if 40k and IGOUGO was so obviously bad to all concerned, why does it comprehensively crush games which have different/more modern/more interesting activation systems?

I mean I wouldn't mind playing some weird version of "40k meets Infinity the Game."

But... the problem is that if you start playing Infinity, against anyone with experience, you are probably condemned to lose the first 10 games. Possibly in a completely humiliating fashion. Which you might say is a good thing if you want a test of skill - but you can see why it puts people off.

Personally, I’d rather lose a game and be able to look back, say “That’s what I did wrong,” and improve for next time than win a game where my skill wasn’t particularly relevant.

Part of the issue with "why is 40K popular when its rules are so bad" is because its not just the rules.

First up GW makes REALLY good models and in plastic. For many that's enough right there. Then there's the market dominance - GW are everywhere.

Many people will accept the less than top rate rules because they CAN get a game and they don't have to spend months building a community they can just turn up to any club with a GW army and if not that week then next week get a game. Most gamers have a GW army or have played GW.

You turn up to a random club with Infinity and they MIGHT play or they might have heard of it but you could easily have not a single other player locally.


It's a very rare club that won't have any GW players at all even if they aren't playing GW games right at that very week.

Couple that to marketing; 3rd party products; physical stores selling only their product; school programs and more - GW get their claws into people early; have a huge dominance; great models; good materials (at least for plastics and FW resin on modern stuff that isn't a 30year old tank kit)



Also there's a bias to the rules system GW uses and I think the Doubleturn in AoS shows it greatly. Those who win from that turn system can really love it and sometimes people hyper fixate on the wins and overlook the loses. So suddenly its a fantastic system because they do "win" and when they win its a crushing defeat where their army totally smashes an opponent in one epic sweep

I for one prefer alternate activations, it just lets you react to your opponent as things are going on.

I don't quite get the argument that armies with lots of activations will just run roughshod over more elite armies, considering that on a unit by unit basis most elite units are much more useful than chaff. I forget what game it was, but I remember there is at least one game with alternating activations where each player throws a token in a bag for each unit they have and then draws it out. It makes it so that neither player can know exactly who activates next and the person with more drops is likely to get their turns mixed throughout rather than all at the end of the round - that seems like a decent compromise position there.

I'm not totally a fan of random activations because it destroys any potential combos or basic tactics. Eg using a caster to buff a unit before that unit then takes action. Or to curse an enemy unit before another charges in.

Random activations for your unit selection could end up with you getting some really daft orders of activation that nullify a lot of good tactical options and thinking in the game. It might well make the game feel more like you're on railtracks without much choice/agency in the game


Swarm armies VS Elite is a problem with alternate unit activations because the swarm can indeed use their chaff and hold their good units in reserve and then get a bunch of activations for them in one go whilst the elite player can't respond.

Now honestly GW's Command Points could easily come ot the fore here. You might get bonus Command points if you've fewer activations at the start of a turn. So now either your units do even more in their turn with command points or you've a bunch of abilities to throw your opponent offguard when they are activating their extra units at the end when.

Suddenly they might not want to hold all their best till last if there's a chance you can get them to lose movement or accuracy etc...

I like how Kill Team's AA worked two editions ago. I could see a slightly modified version of that working in smaller scale games of 40k. So picture something like Combat Patrol or Boarding Actions where a battle round looked something like this:

* Roll off to see who has initiative.
* Command phase: players take turns activating command phase abilities starting with the player who has initiative.
* Movement: players take turns moving units. The charge phase probably gets rolled into this.
* Shooting: Players take turns shooting "readied" units. Readied units are generally units that didn't move in the movement phase. Once all readied units have shot, take turns shooting non-readied units. Units that charged can shoot, but only at the unit they charged. Or maybe shooting after charging becomes an Assault weapon thing.
* Fight: Players take turns fighting with units that charged or have the Fights First rule. Once all such units have fought, take turns fighting with units that didn't charge and don't have Fights First.

So do that with like, 5ish units per player, and you create a lot more back and forth and some interesting decisions in terms of which units want to activate in which order, which units want to hold still to shoot sooner, which units want to charge if it means they have to put their shooting towards the thing they're charging, etc.

I'm picturing Boarding Action style "detachments" that offer some decent customization to which units you field but still require you keep things in theme and also force you to keep your total number of units/activations within a reasonable range.

 kurhanik wrote:
I for one prefer alternate activations, it just lets you react to your opponent as things are going on.

I don't quite get the argument that armies with lots of activations will just run roughshod over more elite armies, considering that on a unit by unit basis most elite units are much more useful than chaff. I forget what game it was, but I remember there is at least one game with alternating activations where each player throws a token in a bag for each unit they have and then draws it out. It makes it so that neither player can know exactly who activates next and the person with more drops is likely to get their turns mixed throughout rather than all at the end of the round - that seems like a decent compromise position there.

There are many options for resolving the different number of activations based on number of units.

A simple on is having the player with more activations to active more units at a time.

Kill Team offsets the more activation issue by giving the player with less activations the ability to add additional mini-activations to already activated units.

When dealing with high quality (knights) versus low quality (gretchin) units, you can have some require "more" activations while others require less.

I think what would be interesting is an initiative based system similar to what close combat was in 5th edition, with initiative also applying to attack order in shooting phase.

Obviously, it would require significant balancing against the advantage of initiative. But it would go a long way towards entrenching initiative order as a meaningful characteristic balanced against other characteristics, the most obvious one being toughness and general durability, and points cost obviously being a big part of the opportunity cost.

I think AA combined with initiative order could be an interesting system. In effect, you could still have an army that "goes first," but it would be consistently, and the cost would be baked in per unit.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Personally, I’d rather lose a game and be able to look back, say “That’s what I did wrong,” and improve for next time than win a game where my skill wasn’t particularly relevant.

I wouldn't want skill to be completely eliminated. If you are making decisions, there must inevitably be "good decisions" and "bad decisions". And skill is arguably making the good ones.

But there are two sides to a game. Giving one player scope often entails preventing the second player from just instantly stopping them.

I mean again - "wouldn't it be good to make initiative matter?"
"Why?"
"So my superfast Eldar can hit your sluggish Orks before they know what's happening."
"But what's in it for me as an Ork player?"
"I guess you've got slightly higher toughness, so maybe I'll roll poorly and you won't die, then you can try and hit me back."
"...doesn't seem great?"

And in a game where the Eldar player picks apart the Ork player's army (which blunders around with worse movement, lower initiative etc) what did the Ork player do wrong? Beyond playing Orks that is.

Now maybe there are people who wouldn't mind. But competitively it feels like one side would have a major advantage. And so, inevitably, GW would then have to come up with a lot of mechanisms for trying to make Orks work despite being initiative 2. Feels like we've gone down this road before.

The roll vs initiative to hit thing always sounds great to me until I consider Orks.

I think you'd have to re-distribute the Initiative stat to deal with it.

Tyel wrote:

Now maybe there are people who wouldn't mind. But competitively it feels like one side would have a major advantage. And so, inevitably, GW would then have to come up with a lot of mechanisms for trying to make Orks work despite being initiative 2. Feels like we've gone down this road before.

They did, though.

And power klaws and thunder hammers were still amazing, despite striking at initiative 1. Hidden power klaws were still a thing despite costing 25 points on a basic infantry model. Why? Because despite swinging last, they struck at double strength when it actually mattered and caused instant death, bypassed all armor saves and krunked tanks due to high strength.

Oh, and shootas were actually good. Why? Because they were assault 2 versus rapid fire 1 on most weapons. And there was a real cost to rapid fire in terms of mobility and assaulting. You might hit on 3's, but if it's with a pistol profile, assault 2 at BS5 was actually equivalent, and the points cost difference between, say, a marine and an ork boy was a factor of two. I would argue that ork boyz had a material economic advantage against a tactical marine at this point in 5th edition, which is why tactical marines were considered a troop tax, whereas a grey hunter was considered a huge step up simply because it had a CCW unlike a tactical marine. Even for +1 PPM it was considered a big upgrade since it meant +1 attack (since ork boyz had base 2 attacks compared to tactical marines, and nobz has base 3 attacks compared to vets at 2).

Now orks can't seem to catch up on volume or accuracy and shootas have been straight trash and fell behind massively in terms of power creep as rapid fire got better again and again, overwatch and free AP on everybody else's basic shooting profile, and shootas got stripped of the assault rule for the final death knell (and the assault rule was changed, along with shooting and assault in general). It used to be that you had to use pistols to assault.

To me, it makes much more sense that you have to elect to stand still and rapid fire and dump munitions into a unit and prepare for close combat. These are the things that are allowing these high mobility units like Eldar or even Marines so much more flexibility in terms of movement and assault that they didn't have before.

Complexity and effective range are always the main banes of IGOUGO - anything that slows the game down needlessly, and anything that lets units be immediately effective.

There is a gulf in gameplay between being wiped out by the units that have been maneuvering towards you for the past three turns and being wiped out by the unit that just fell from the sky, or the artillery six feet away, out of sight, before you act.


Similar to blood bowl, there is a 'good' middle ground when the teams are back and forth and you can combine multiple activations in a coherent way, but not so much when your whole team gets knocked down in one turn or the sneaky elf/skaven runner scores in a single turn while you stand around watching.

Alternative activation would be the biggest, single change to the game GW could make to improve it, imho.

It automatically reduces lethality and downtime and scales with all points sizes.

For most if not all mentioned concerns in this thread there are solutions to mitigate the problem.

It's a no from me. While I'm generally happy to give anything a go if it sounds like it would improve the game, I'm not sure you can make an AA game that can cope with alternating between wildly different scale units from nurglings to titans, over any game size from combat patrol to apocalypse. The amount of admin required to play a game would be crazy.

 Insularum wrote:
It's a no from me. While I'm generally happy to give anything a go if it sounds like it would improve the game, I'm not sure you can make an AA game that can cope with alternating between wildly different scale units from nurglings to titans, over any game size from combat patrol to apocalypse. The amount of admin required to play a game would be crazy.

I don't see why it requires so much more admin? About the only difference is you just need an activation token per unit (not per model for squads).

The issues of nurglings to Titans is basically the same no matter the rules system - a titan is always going to be a massive difference in power over a nurgling no matter what.