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.
2018/04/25 10:03:14
Subject: Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?
Yep, it was an entirely different way to think about it. Examples.
1) My buddy had units in a drop pod and had to wait to have a small run in order to drop the pod and activate the units inside.
2) I used a command re-roll I wouldn't normally use to ensure I killed a Rhino because it would cost my opponent a token.
3) When you have your whole army, but draw one token you start to have to prioritize differently - which is your strongest unit? Which unit is wounded and will likely not get an activation if it doesn't go now? Which unit is in line-of-sight of most enemies? Which unit is easy for your opponent to wipe out and thus reduce your tokens? How late is it in the turn? Will I get to double activate if this unit goes last and I activate it first? Can it last that long?, etc.
4) The one player with the fewest tokens did have the strongest units, but he was activating less often and rarely had a large run.
5) There was heavy consideration with who to activate early - do you activate your shootiest stuff? Or do you activate your spellcasters who will buff a unit....but what if you cast on a unit and it's destroyed before it activates?
6) The few instances where we had early turn runs, the last guy would always luck out near the end of the turn with 3-4 activations at the same time, which became a really big deal.
7) We occasionally made some banzai moves at the end of a turn, realizing the tokens were about to be put back in the mug and shaken up for a new Battle Round. So you could kind of risk hoping you'd draw first. Normally this banzai unit was slain before it ever got to go - but it was a nice option.
We all agreed that one large part of why 40K uses such large armies, is so that the second player has something left on the table when their turn comes up. The larger size doesn't add any enjoyment to the game, but we do think that you could have a really good game at 1,000 to 1,500 points with this system.
One major highlight was that we had great game with three players, because this kind of activation doesn't punish anyone - no one is "going last" The terrain bottlenecked some units into getting tag-teamed by the others (and we often tried to snipe the last wounds off of something wounded by another player), but the game ran flawlessly as a three-way game, something you simply can't do in a normal IGOUGO system.
My only fear? I won't want to play normal 40K again, lol.
Thank you for your experience. This is basically exactly what I'd want out of 40k, and your posts only reinforce it. I've played with a token system in other games before and I found it was a good compromise between player control and simulating the random and shifting nature of the battlefield.
Thanks Elbows for that report. I have thought about playing 40k that way since I came back into 40K with 8th edition. I used to play a lot of Bolt Action and what you wrote sounds a lot like the activation system from that game. So I will definitely play 40K from now on in that way. As I am no tournament gamer that should be fine for me. Thanks for the report!
Cool, let me know what issues you guys run into and how you resolve them. It does fundamentally change the game, so I know each game will present new issues to address.
2018/04/25 18:03:31
Subject: Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?
Elbows wrote: Cool, let me know what issues you guys run into and how you resolve them. It does fundamentally change the game, so I know each game will present new issues to address.
One thing that piques my interest is close combat, how did you handle it? At the end of the turn, the activated unit strikes during the activation, something else?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think alternating phases is better than alternating units, as alternating units felt very gamey, but I think it's very fair to say "I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot" etc etc because that would allow for the person who went second to counter the moves of the person who went first, while the person who went first still gets the advantage of dishing out damage first.
I actually like this. However, to make it less of an action/reaction I think this method would be the only one that could possibly support the roll of an initiative dice every turn. It feels weird in AOS as it means a player gets a huge Turn all for themselves and sometimes back to back, but with alternating phases it makes more sense.
It's worth noting that in games with an initiative roll like AoS, you only get back to back turns if you were going second the turn before. It kind of works to balance out first turn advantage, but depending on the flow of the game it can sometimes backfire if the second player is in a position to strike first. It's also probably the mechanic that's easiest to game in alternating activation systems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I can say that since I play mono-GK I only have 1 detachment 9a battalion). How would you deal with the situation of less detachments vs more?
I'd actually be curious to see what happens if you just let this slide and adjust accordingly. You have to remove the Brigade as an option regardless, but the player with fewer detachments is definitely running with a LOT less CP regardless. Alternatively, each detachment could be given an initiative bid that determines their activation order. It wouldn't quite be alternating activations at that that point, but it has interesting potential. Regardless, I don't think there's a way to do it blindly without making some adjustments to the existing detachment system; at the same time, I think it would work well enough to be worth trying as is just to flush out the problems.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/25 18:32:28
2018/04/25 18:47:28
Subject: Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?
Elbows wrote: Cool, let me know what issues you guys run into and how you resolve them. It does fundamentally change the game, so I know each game will present new issues to address.
One thing that piques my interest is close combat, how did you handle it? At the end of the turn, the activated unit strikes during the activation, something else?
The way we opted to run it this game (and it worked fine), was that you resolved the initial charge as normal. Later units which activated and charged into an existing combat would fight the unit they targeted and the targeted unit's models would fight back - but only against the charging unit (meaning it did not allow the entire combat to fight again).
We'll try this a couple more times and see if it changes anything. It played out perfectly well, so wasn't a huge deal.
2018/04/26 05:54:51
Subject: Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?
Saevus wrote: I’m going preface this with, I don’t play “competitive” 40k. It’s a fun game, I enjoy the hell out of it and 8th edition revived it in my local area in a big way. I live close to a couple major tournaments and I swing by sometimes to watch and chat and hobby but I’m not really salty about 40k or anything. However, even my group mostly uses match play rules and the competitive scene, As it were, drives discussions around the game. I see a lot of proposed “fixes” for 40ks shortcomings on different boards and the discussions on the recent FAQ got me to thinking. Every other game I currently play besides 40k, uses alternating activations in some form or another. Bolt action, chain of command, Star Wars legion. To be fair, as much fun as 8th has put back into my 40k hobby, and I’m up to 4 armies now, I’ve always felt they missed the boat and didn’t go for a hard redesign of the game.
I was just curious what other folks around here thought, with all the gnashing of teeth (or lack thereof) with FAQS and tournament results, did they miss the boat by keeping you go/I go?
Personally I think they did, and granted it would require looking at how some units work, and powers and etc, but as much fun as I am having, their latest beta rules to help address turn one are terrible and the more I look at it the more I think alternating activations would make 40k far more tactical that it is. It’s a fun game right now with some of the best models in the business but it’s not the most tactical game ever. In fact, I think it’s more about remembering every interaction you built into your list than anything else. Side note: my group hates 7th so bad we played 40k largely with bolt action rules and it wasn’t terrible. 8th is way better and more fun, but turn 1 is basically aids against any semi-hardcore list.
Been saying this for a long I've too. 40k will always have balance swing wildly and be a game of alpha strike as long as the outdated turn structure remain. Alternate activation adds so much more depth and makes for more balanced games.
GW even knows how to do it, necromunda, they even included an interesting mechanic where leader units can activate a varying number of other units with them, a great extra element.
2018/05/31 15:39:47
Subject: Re:Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?
Played two more games recently with token activation, and both were excellent.
One genuine take away (which I think I mentioned earlier) is that the game length is definitely a bit longer, as the decision process can extend the length of the game. Both games were played at 1500 points, and took 3-4 hours (played at a casual chatty rate as well). It's also a bit slower because we're still tackling occasional things which pop up and we haven't encountered before.
Things we addressed and more or less solidified over these two games:
1) When drawing X number of tokens, the player using the tokens runs a "mini turn" in which case he moves his X number of units, uses psychic powers, then shoots his X number of units, etc. Originally we had tried fully activating each unit at once, but in the case of multiple tokens we're simply running "mini turns" and it works better/cleaner.
2) We've traded the +1 to go first advantage of deployment to a temporary bonus activation token on the first turn (using a different colour token so we remember to remove it later). We're trying very much to keep the "spirit" of current 8th ed. 40K with minimal changes. So, finishing deployment first gives you a bonus token - this doesn't mean you can activate a unit more than once, but increases the chances of your token being drawn first.
3) With regard to charging into currently existing combat, we treat it like consolidation. If a unit charges into an active combat, it will swing first against the units it charged. The units which were charged and subsequently attacked will then fight. These units may choose to solely fight the new charging unit, or they may elect to target other units within 1" of them ---- HOWEVER, if they do this, those units then subsequently will get to fight as well, so it frequently benefits the charged unit to just fight the newly arrived unit. It works pretty seemlessly without many issues.
So far it's been really fun and it's increasingly likely I won't bother with normal 40K unless invited to a large event etc. The token activation system has been far more fun, fair, and enjoyable....also takes a lot more scheming to get things to work.
2018/06/06 02:36:04
Subject: Re:Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?
Unless 40k moves to alternative activation any attempts at balance will just swing wildly between two extremes by the nature of having each army take their turns entirely at once.
Alternative activations would also add so much more depth to the game with choices on what and how to counter your opponent. It's superior in every way to the current turn structure and would solve or make solvable so many of the glaring balance problems that have been around through countless editions.
