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.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I am against the whole IGOUGO as 40K does for the simple reason that it gives the player that goes first far to big of an advantage.

Maybe you need to play with fewer models and more terrain...

Terrain doesn't help much vs mobile shooting. In fact, it makes them more survivable against lists without access to high ROF or ignores cover weaponry.

Martel732 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I am against the whole IGOUGO as 40K does for the simple reason that it gives the player that goes first far to big of an advantage.

Maybe you need to play with fewer models and more terrain...

Terrain doesn't help much vs mobile shooting. In fact, it makes them more survivable against lists without access to high ROF or ignores cover weaponry.

Then you are not using cover properly. Hug the walls, son.

Maybe he's not using the right sort of terrain? Maybe he needs stuff that actually blocks LOS?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Maybe he's not using the right sort of terrain? Maybe he needs stuff that actually blocks LOS?

That works great against static firepower. Mobile shooters can maneuver around the LOS blockers unless you use gigantic walls.

Martel732 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I am against the whole IGOUGO as 40K does for the simple reason that it gives the player that goes first far to big of an advantage.

Maybe you need to play with fewer models and more terrain...

Terrain doesn't help much vs mobile shooting. In fact, it makes them more survivable against lists without access to high ROF or ignores cover weaponry.

But this problem will not be solved by changing the phase system

Yeah, I'm not 100% certain the phasing is the problem.

@Martel - as an experiment, try a 1,000 pt battle on a 5x4' urban or jungle board and let us know how it goes.

For Example even if we would have alternating unit activation
A Tau player can still Alpha strike you by just activating one unit.

without adjusting the codex rules the problem will still exist (maybe not that big and not for all but still)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Martel - as an experiment, try a 1,000 pt battle on a 5x4' urban or jungle board and let us know how it goes.

I've played on heavy tables before. I know where you are coming from. But 7th ed is a shooting edition hands down.

Urban boards have well defined kill lanes and helps very little. Jungle is better.

We can't run experiments with BA anyway since they fail in every phase of the game.

I really like the first warzone activation system as well the bolt action, also i played tank systems were commander leadership was a thing to even activate the unit.

@Kodos.
I do not think any one is saying there is one simple fix to address the many issues in the 40k rules.

But the '..add on extra rules to try to get the game working how you think it should without changing the core rules ..' mentality has just delivered masses of complication and not fixed any issues, just moved them around a bit.

Several people have pointed out areas for concern, and the alternating game turn is one area that generates more issues than it solves.

The pointless use of multiple resolution methods, and lack of synergy between the stat line and the in game interaction are other areas of concern.

The game would improve immeasurably by alternating phases.

Right now a lot of games are decided by the end of the first turn.

Lanrak wrote:
@Kodos.
I do not think any one is saying there is one simple fix to address the many issues in the 40k rules.

Some post sounds exactly like that....

But the '..add on extra rules to try to get the game working how you think it should without changing the core rules ..' mentality has just delivered masses of complication and not fixed any issues, just moved them around a bit.

That's why we will never see a "good" 40k rule system from gw

Several people have pointed out areas for concern, and the alternating game turn is one area that generates more issues than it solves.

Alternating player turns are not there to solve problems, they are part of the basic design that defines the game.
Other rules which were added on top of this making the problem and again other rules that should solve those added new problems.

You can change now the basic design to solve problems made by other game mechanics, but this will just make a different game with different problems.

There is a long list of stuff that is broken and an area of concern, but the game turn design by itself is not a broken mechanic and is at the end of the list of things that need a change

@Kodos.
The 40k game scale and scope has changed dramatically from its 1st edition detailed skirmish/RPG hybrid.

The alternating game turn mechanic works fine in games where maneuver into effective weapons range is a large part of the tactical consideration in the game play.

Since the current 40k game has the playing area so crammed full of minatures, with unrestricted shooting.(If you exclude Lo.S blocking terrain which reduces the playing area even further.)

Then the alternating game turn makes all the other issues with the rules worse in the current game play.
(Alpha strike, poor balance, lack of synergy to background, lack of proportionality etc.)

To be objective about rules development you have to define the scale and scope of the game play first.Then define the game play you want to arrive at.

Then use the most suitable game mechanics and resolution methods to arrive at the intended game play.

There is nothing wrong with any of the main 4 game turn mechanic types.
Alternating game turn, alternating phase, alternating unit activation, variable bound game turn.

But each one fits a particular type of game play better than the others.

There is nothing wrong with a hammer a, screwdriver, an allen key or a spanner.

However trying to put countersunk head screws screws in with a spanner is not the best choice, neither is using a screwdriver to knock a nail in....

So defending the rules written for 'massed ranks fantasy battle games' as being fine as they work for a specific type of game play.

Is not proving they re the best choice for a sci-fi battle game using modern type units.

IF you want to scale 40k back to 2nd ed skirmish size.(EG appx half the size the game was in 5th ed.)
Then you may get away with alternating game turns.

But if you want a well defined intuitive and tactically deeper sci-fi battle game .You have to define the scale and scope of the game before you start trying to find the core game mechanics and resolution methods that are the best fit.

As 7th ed armies are bigger than some of the Epic armies I used in Epic SM, 40k is NOT a skirmish game any longer!!!

The game turn mechanic is not the only change that is needed to make 40k battle game rules elegant and intuitive by a long way.
However, it is one that is most obvious to many players.

Making the stat line relevant to the in game interaction, and resolution methods that deliver proportional results are other things than need addressing to reduce the pointless special rules , and unecessary over complication.

The alternating game turn mechanic works fine in games where maneuver into effective weapons range is a large part of the tactical consideration in the game play.

Since the current 40k game has the playing area so crammed full of minatures, with unrestricted shooting.(If you exclude Lo.S blocking terrain which reduces the playing area even further.)

Then the alternating game turn makes all the other issues with the rules worse in the current game play.
(Alpha strike, poor balance, lack of synergy to background, lack of proportionality etc.)

So the broken mechanics are the TLOS, Weapon and movement Range, model count per table size.

Changing now to alternate phasesm, the broken mechanic that remain are:
weapon and movement range is to large (alpha strike), TLOS (to less LOS blocking terrain), model count for the standard table size is still to large.


On the other hand, if you change the rules for those broken mechanics (change the TLOS to prevent from shooting through all kind of terrain, lower the weapon and movement range, lower the model count in general and reduce the amount of very large models) the original IGYG system works again.

alternating phases is than still an option to increase player interaction during the game.
The same for reactions or alternating unit activations

But, Alternating phases will solve the problems from other broken rules.
A lot of people try to sell this as the ultimate solution for large scale Skirmish games and to address the Alpha strike problem.
And this is just not true. As long as there is a model in the game which can kill anything to opponent place on the table and is able to kill more than one unit with one activation no change to the game turn mechanic will ever solve the alpha strike problem.

If this would not be the case, no one would ever lose against an Eldar or Tau SAD list if he goes first.
But because you still be dead before you arrive no matter if you have the chance to move first or not just shows that this is not the source of the problem that need a change.


A lot of other rules and units need to be changed first to get the game balanced.
Alternating anything will not bring the balance back, solve Alpha Strikes or keep you from being wiped of the table without a chance

The game needs to be built around whatever alternation level is desired, whether it is individual model (cheerleader), individual unit, phases or armies (Igo-Ugo). Grafting alternation onto a game changes it, and is just as likely to break it as it is to "fix" it. Unless the game is already fundamentally broken at many levels (40k).

Whatever level of reaction also needs to be designed in. Igo-Ugo without reactions is NOT a bad game per se - that's how most boardgames work, and the simplicity & clarity are helpful. But those games don't scale or shoot like 40k does.

I would submit that playing 40k with the Infinity game engine would be wrong, simply because it wouldn't be "40k" any more.

As an aside, I'm a bit surprised that nobody is pushing for simultaneous turns, where everybody moves, everybody shoots, etc.

 kodos wrote:

The alternating game turn mechanic works fine in games where maneuver into effective weapons range is a large part of the tactical consideration in the game play.

Since the current 40k game has the playing area so crammed full of minatures, with unrestricted shooting.(If you exclude Lo.S blocking terrain which reduces the playing area even further.)

Then the alternating game turn makes all the other issues with the rules worse in the current game play.
(Alpha strike, poor balance, lack of synergy to background, lack of proportionality etc.)

So the broken mechanics are the TLOS, Weapon and movement Range, model count per table size.

Changing now to alternate phasesm, the broken mechanic that remain are:
weapon and movement range is to large (alpha strike), TLOS (to less LOS blocking terrain), model count for the standard table size is still to large.


On the other hand, if you change the rules for those broken mechanics (change the TLOS to prevent from shooting through all kind of terrain, lower the weapon and movement range, lower the model count in general and reduce the amount of very large models) the original IGYG system works again.

alternating phases is than still an option to increase player interaction during the game.
The same for reactions or alternating unit activations

But, Alternating phases will solve the problems from other broken rules.
A lot of people try to sell this as the ultimate solution for large scale Skirmish games and to address the Alpha strike problem.
And this is just not true. As long as there is a model in the game which can kill anything to opponent place on the table and is able to kill more than one unit with one activation no change to the game turn mechanic will ever solve the alpha strike problem.

If this would not be the case, no one would ever lose against an Eldar or Tau SAD list if he goes first.
But because you still be dead before you arrive no matter if you have the chance to move first or not just shows that this is not the source of the problem that need a change.


A lot of other rules and units need to be changed first to get the game balanced.
Alternating anything will not bring the balance back, solve Alpha Strikes or keep you from being wiped of the table without a chance

As I quoted before in this thread, I have had many games using bolt action style turn sequence, and it makes a huge difference to alpha strike capabilities. Sure one unit could destroy another one, but that unit now has to wait the rest of the turn to do anything, and it is still only a fraction of an entire army shooting.

I play CSM and find even playing competitive eldar, tau, sm, and necron lists, the disparity is not nearly as large.

@Kodos.
If you alter the game mechanics and resolution methods to suit the new game play , determined by the scale and scope of game you want.
You will end up with a better rule set than the steaming pile of mess it currently is.

The only way to get the alternating game turn to fit, is to shrink the game size back to skirmish size.(Infinity,)Or to drop the minature scale to 15mm or smaller ,(F.o.W),so the ranges can be reduce appropriately.
As both options improve the amount of tactical maneuver into weapons ranges, that allows the alternating game turn to work how it is intended.

If you want to keep the minature scale , which is the main appeal of 40k to many.And the game size at the battle game level.
Then the alternating game turn is not the best game turn mechanic to use.

Even with all the other changes you may make, if the level of tactical maneuver into effective weapons range is not high enough .The game turn mechanic will not drive the game play how it should,

FWIW, 15mm FoW ranges are crazy short for the engagement distance. If you assume a typical 1 km engagement range for tanks, then 1/100 scale means you need a table 10-meters across. You're playing corner-to-corner in your garage...

Pro: It's simple and easy to learn.
Con: It sets up the potential for "first turn win" crap that people are talking about at the moment where a coin flip determines who wins.

@JohnHwangDD.
I agree that if you use direct scaling the ranges are too short in F.O.W.But they are no where near as ridiculous as the ranges in 40k.

However, the comparative ranges of weapons to model height is not the real issue, as many games use different vertical and horizontal scales.

Its down to how much of the game play is based on tactical maneuver into weapons range .

Even using 6mm minatures in Epic, the GW game developers thought alternating game turns would not work as well as more interactive game turns.(Alternating phases/actions.)


So why do people who play 7th edition that has bigger armies than some 6mm Epic armies.Think 40k will work fine with an alternating game turn?

It is not the only issue that need addressing , but it is one many gamers have talked about how a more interactive game turn would be a better fit with the 40k battle game.

Yes, it's ridiculous how short the ranges are in 40k. But 40k is fake stuff that one can handwave why it's wrong. FoW and other RL stuff are much harder for me to accept.

I agree that 7E gameplay has removed maneuver, mostly due to having too many models on the board - there will always be a target. Were 7E dialed back to 2E or 3E model counts, it'd be a much better game.

40k has far more bases on the board than Epic did. That makes a big difference in gameplay. For the sheer number of objects in modern 40k, the heavy push for anti-skill randomness, and the low importance of strategy that GW desires, Igo-Ugo is probably the best solution for 40k.

Change 40k to make it smaller, more tactical, more strategic, less random, and then I could see a reason to overhaul how it uses Igo-Ugo. As it is, 40k is pushing Candyland depths of gameplay - shallow as a drop of water spilled on the floor.

As I was under the assumption a change in game turn mechanic would be part of a re write for a war game rule set written specifically for the 40k background.

Then defining the relevant scale and scope of game, and the intended game play, would be the primary objective.

And in any rule set for 40k written for intuitive rules that deliver tactical depth over 'randum complication.'Would use alternating phases or actions game turn mechanic.
(Unless we reverted back to RT size games?But as there are dozens of excellent skirmish rules why would we do this?)

Lanrak wrote:

And in any rule set for 40k written for intuitive rules that deliver tactical depth over 'randum complication.'Would use alternating phases or actions game turn mechanic.

This is only one option.

2 Options for the player turn:
- Phases
- unit activation

3 Option for the game turn
- Alternating player action (unit activation or phases)
- IGYG
- Simultanious player actions

Option for player interaction
- Reactions
- passive player rolls dice for defensive stats/saves


All of those can be compined and have their disadvantages and work on every scale.
None is the best for a specific game type or scale. eg, there are R&F systems on large scale wich any of those and all work fine and are fun to play (because the rest of thecrules is written to fit the system)
Main thing to take care of is that Movement and Weapon Range is chosen in a way that there are no first turn kills possible or only as a high risk option for the one who goes secound.

alternating player actions don't need a reaction system, but give the secound player an advantage (thats why most games have a random determination of who goes first)

IGYG with short range reactions has the advantage that it works smoother on large scale games (because micro managment and time consuming reactions triggers later in game when the armys are closer together and are already reduced by damage).


basic 40k is a IGYG phase system with a compined close combat phase at the end of each turn
but the faction and special rules don't fit this system any more which is why it does not work any more

a nice solution to the 40k alpha strike problem I have seen long ago was that the armies move on the table in their first turn or count as moved if they are placed. But new special rules that allow death strikes even if you moved made this not working any more.
solution would be now to just remove the special rule and not to change something else.

Personally I think 40 HAS to change to this system.
Let me ask this; How many of you have lost a mission or seen your army decimated before you've even had a turn? I don't know about you but I've lost games like this a few times and to be honest it is one of the things that stopped me playing anymore.Where is the fun in a game if you've no chance from the word go?

Slipstream wrote:
Personally I think 40 HAS to change to this system.
Let me ask this; How many of you have lost a mission or seen your army decimated before you've even had a turn? I don't know about you but I've lost games like this a few times and to be honest it is one of the things that stopped me playing anymore.Where is the fun in a game if you've no chance from the word go?

Literally never for me.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Were 7E dialed back to 2E or 3E model counts, it'd be a much better game.

Couldn't model counts be adjusted down by simply playing smaller point battles ?

Slipstream wrote:
How many of you have lost a mission or seen your army decimated before you've even had a turn?

Not before the game changed with 6th/7th

 adamsouza wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Were 7E dialed back to 2E or 3E model counts, it'd be a much better game.

Couldn't model counts be adjusted down by simply playing smaller point battles ?

40k with 750 points and without maelstrom mission cards works fine

EnTyme wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I am against the whole IGOUGO as 40K does for the simple reason that it gives the player that goes first far to big of an advantage.

Maybe you need to play with fewer models and more terrain...

Terrain doesn't help much vs mobile shooting. In fact, it makes them more survivable against lists without access to high ROF or ignores cover weaponry.

Then you are not using cover properly. Hug the walls, son.

Ah yes terrain. Wonderful when your club has it on ration.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Maybe he's not using the right sort of terrain? Maybe he needs stuff that actually blocks LOS?

Even with terrain it is still to easy to build a T1 alpha strike list.

@Kodos.
Well I did say to define the scale and scope of the game play and the intended game play first.

But for a 40k battle game, (that uses modern type units), one would expect modern type game play focus.An equal focus on mobility fire power and assault.

As this worked wonderfully well for every version of Epic.(And no version of epic used alternating game turns.)

I agree that a small scale skirmish game like Infinity, allows maneuver into effective weapons range .And the ARO reaction mechanic works well at this game size.

However , alternating game phases with simultaneous resolution, has given the simplest rules , yet most tactically deep player and unit interaction in all our play tests for alternative rules for the 40k battle game.(3rd to 5th ed size.).

But then we were working on keeping the core rules familiar to the existing 40k players.By simply using what was already there, in more efficient and effective ways..