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.

After reading a post and not wanting to derail the thread, it got me thinking, in what people who play 40K really like.

For me, it has really gotten stale the I move/shoot/assault, you move/shoot/assault and find it very boring to play. I like the old Battletech, and the LotR/Hobbit way of playing games. I really like what FFG did with X-wing. Initiative actually means something now. After reading how someone said when they do an Apocalypse game, you get an hour for your turn. That means you have an hour to move/shoot/assault. Are people actually having fun when someone else is waiting an hour for someone to move/shoot/assault? That is crazy. I never played an Apocalypse game so can't speak from experience, but I can speak from experience waiting 10 or 20 minutes waiting for someone to do their turn.

So while 40K is fun for a lot of people, I am just wondering would you have more fun for something different? If so, what would you like? How would you like it implemented?

I think it should be that shooting works more like CC [both sides get to shoot]

Just keep the games small, and it's no issue.

I know GW likes to sell models (hence Apoc, etc..), but the game-play sweet-spot of 40K is probably more with something like 500 or 750 pts. games (and than simply play multiple games of that if you want to simulate "larger battles").

I think it's fine the way it is. Even when it's not your turn, you're not just sitting there staring at a wall. You get to make saves and leadership checks, you get to fight back in combat, etc...Most importantly, you get to make plans based on what your opponent does. An opponent taking 20 minutes for a turn does not mean that I'm going to be "bored".

More importantly, move/move - shoot/shoot - assault/assault would not work well with the current rules. For example, assaulting wouldn't work at all. I move right next to your unit, but you get to move at least 6" away before I get a chance to declare a charge.

Siphen wrote:
I think it's fine the way it is. Even when it's not your turn, you're not just sitting there staring at a wall. You get to make saves and leadership checks, you get to fight back in combat, etc...Most importantly, you get to make plans based on what your opponent does. An opponent taking 20 minutes for a turn does not mean that I'm going to be "bored".

More importantly, move/move - shoot/shoot - assault/assault would not work well with the current rules. For example, assaulting wouldn't work at all. I move right next to your unit, but you get to move at least 6" away before I get a chance to declare a charge.

As in LotR, if you do that, you are "locked in combat" then and can't move out. This is where either Initiative comes in, (the person with the higher Initiative moves first) or in LotR/The Hobbit, you roll for priority each new turn so someone else might be able to move first. Something to keep in mind.

I liked how Reaper's Warlord and CAV activation system worked.
You took a deck cards, and one player was red, the other black. You got one card for every unit you had. Start of the turn, shuffle the deck. Draw card, and if it was your color, you picked one of your units to activate and resolved all of that unit's actions (from movement, to shooting, to close combat). Then, draw the next card, and repeat until all units have activated once. Then start the next turn. Some units would have a special ability that added one or more cards to the deck, increasing the chances of your cards getting drawn. And, when a unit was destroyed, you removed a card from the deck.

Look up the rules for Bolt Action. It would work great with some minor tweaking.

I go you go is fine for me. But I really dislike that you have to move all your units, then shoot all your units and then assault. In Warmachine you activate a unit and go through all phases before you take the next unit. Feels way more natural to me.

To be honest, I think a lot of it comes down to simplicity in larger games. Mantic's Warpath system (a great game) has alternating activations of units, which makes the game, for me at least, far more immersive and tactical. However, I think that activation each unit in that manner would be a logistical nightmare in games that (40k system) would equate to 2000 points or higher, simply due to the number of units running around.

So really, I don't mind. I like the 40k system, I like the LOTR system, and I like the Warpath system, but more than anything else, I love the fact I have the choice in what kind of game I want to play.

Myself and a regular opponent tried an alternative activation system whereby each player nominates a unit and rolls a dice, highest dice activates their nominated unit; keep doing this untill one player has activated all units then opponent can activate any remaining inactivated units.

It worked great and added an extra tactical element to the game.

For smaller games it is just fine. The closer you get to 2000 the worse it is, once you hit 2000 it is just terrible. At the 2000 point I see so many games end pretty much on turn one because of how much fire power a shooty army can put out at that point level. I have seen half an army taken out turn one, not the best deployment by an inexperienced player but...that is not a good system for a game that half an army can be destroyed before it even gets to activate. To be fair to the guy on the receiving end he was playing DE and his opponent stole the initiative.

Siphen wrote:
I think it's fine the way it is. Even when it's not your turn, you're not just sitting there staring at a wall. You get to make saves and leadership checks, you get to fight back in combat, etc...Most importantly, you get to make plans based on what your opponent does. An opponent taking 20 minutes for a turn does not mean that I'm going to be "bored".
.

you get to remove casualties. yup, engagement right there...

why is it though that you only get to fight back in combat?

the other guy can drive his whole army into your face, and you can't do jack about it.

he can shoot with all his ordnance, all his heavy weapons, and all his small arms, and your can only stand there and take it?

seems a bit disengaging to me that i can react when the other guy is punching, but i cant react to his movement, or shooting. No sir, how 40k manages things is far from "fine", mechanically speaking. respectfully, see how other games like Infinity, or Andy Chambers' old Starship Troopers game worked. rather than seeing what your opponent does, and having twenty odd minutes to think about what you will do when you next get a chance, you're actively reacting with your units as he does things -rather than i go/you go, its active/reactive, where even if the other guy is being the active player, you are constantly engaging, reacting, and throwing a spanner in the works. its a far more engaging and involving game - since its always "your turn", you are always involved in the game.

Yes, I like. It's how this game plays.

If you want to play something with different rules then go play another game. There are lots of games out there, just go search the wargames section of BoardGameGeek.

Yeah , but it is close to impossible to find opponents for something else the GW games and maybe warmachine . At least that is how it looks here.

At 2k points the game does feel stupid. It is mostly about who can alfa strike first . It can be done with mass sternguard pods , while hiding the rest of your army or a tau/eldar shoting gallery. But the worse are games against armies who play slow as a way to win . 6 units of 35 zombis take 25-30 min to move , if they have turn 1 and when most games are 1hour or 50min , that does rise a big problem .

I wonder how many 40k players simply accept the current 40k rules and turn structure because they have not tried anything else?

NET Epic and Epic Armageddon use different game turns for battle games in the 40k universe to great effect.
And because these rules are written for the intended game play of 40k, they are much more elegant than 'WHFB in Space rules that were made to sell more toy soldiers to children'.

(E.A. covers everything in current 40k including ALL expansions , and ALL the army lists in less than 150 pages of rules.)

Simple alternating phases ,(move , move /shoot,shoot/ assault , assault.) works fine with 40k, as is with little modification.
Advanced alternating phases, (with orders to allow varied actions ,) also works well.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
For smaller games it is just fine. The closer you get to 2000 the worse it is, once you hit 2000 it is just terrible. At the 2000 point I see so many games end pretty much on turn one because of how much fire power a shooty army can put out at that point level. I have seen half an army taken out turn one, not the best deployment by an inexperienced player but...that is not a good system for a game that half an army can be destroyed before it even gets to activate. To be fair to the guy on the receiving end he was playing DE and his opponent stole the initiative.

This is my main annoyance as well. I always liked BattleTech's alternating system (you move a unit, I move a unit, until all moved, then you shoot with a unit, I shoot with a unit, etc), though when armies have a different number of units you had to figure out the ratio and whatnot... still, better than "you go, I go".