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.

Im with everyone on the gamut of current problems, but if asked what any single, easy to implement option would be, I'd say 'alternating activations'.

You move/shoot/assault a single unit, mark it as done, then your opponent does the same.

Anyone care to do a handful of test games? Clearly itd make stupid big games hard to track, but the average gamer would get a much better experience, and disparity in army alpha strike power gets incredibly brought closer to center.

I don't see how this would make it any easier. It'll only take longer and harder to track.

Honestly, I think 40k is in so deep, there is no 1 'quick fix' that will solve the games many problems.

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
I don't see how this would make it any easier. It'll only take longer and harder to track.

Because you dont auto lose the game based on 1st turn/2nd turn, CC units dont have to expose themselves to an entire army's worth of fire before moving in, suboptimal terrain effect is lessened by a huge factor.

As far as tracking? Idk. make counters for units. Sell unit 'cards' and have two stacks to signify who has gone (or make people prestack their units for additional interesting gameplay!)

From a purely move/shoot/assault standpoint itll make it faster as you put all your brainpower into a single unit rather then preplan for 10 different units for 3 different phases and remember each one as you go back through each phase. However, it may lengthen the game as alternating activations makes for more complex, in depth gameplay.

I don't think that would work to well in all honesty. I feel that I would always end up forgetting to move and shoot a unit or something.

I understand where you are coming from with this but I don't think it would fix anything. I still don't see the game having that many problems but I don't play competitively.

 Krellnus wrote:
Honestly, I think 40k is in so deep, there is no 1 'quick fix' that will solve the games many problems.

This.

Alternating activations is a mint rule, but its not enough.

Honestly, go try warpath 2.0, those rules are fantastic and I can't wait for the final release

I can comment on this, as our playgroup has been actively doing just this (along with other balancing elements/tweaks to the core rules) over the course of the last few months- probably about a dozen games or so.

It increases the enjoyment of the game ten-fold, no exaggeration.

Basically, a game turn involves every unit activating and as mentioned conducting any action they want /are capable of doing. We use those little red bead/rock things commonly used as counters in MTG to designate a unit has activated. It's really not that difficult to keep track of.

The depth of strategy and actual requirement to think about what to do next opens the game so well to an overall more enjoyable experience. Combined with other fixes to the game, we haven't enjoyed 40k this much in, well, ever.

Best of all? It requires you to actually think, and plan your next move. It becomes a game of positioning, target priority, and deciding when best to activate units (sometimes in order to do so before your opponent)).

Vanilla 40k is largely a shooting gallery/arms race, where a player just removes your models and after the smoke clears you assess what you have left and do the same. Turns aren't interactive for both players beyond rolling saves, and it can really be boring.

Activation's is far more dynamic . We love it!

 Dakkamite wrote:
Honestly, go try warpath 2.0, those rules are fantastic and I can't wait for the final release

This looks AWESOME!!!!

I remember playing dnd minis back in the day and it used the same sort of system. The problem with this type of approach is that it makes it possible to pull of a double move with select units. For example, say I have a squad of Space Marine bikes with melta guns. If I activate them at the end of one turn to close in with the an enemy vehicle, and activate them first come the next round, the bikes basically get two moves in a row, and I can essentially turbo-boost, move and then shoot without at most one enemy unit getting a turn (and sometimes no enemy taking a turn in between), essentially moving 36" into melta range and shooting before my enemy retaliate. Of course the tradeoff is now the bikes will suffer a whole enemy round of shooting plus some additional shooting next round before activating, but this turn structure is open to considerable exploitation. Still would be interesting to try though.

Honestly that standard turn format currently used in 40k could be improve considerably if the second player didn't get pounded in the beginning of the game before he even got to act. There are ways to work around this without changing the turn structure. Breaking up line of sight in particular would be huge. This is the way 4e games were done and you did not see the crippling alpha strikes in that edition that you do now. First player couldn't just blow away second on turn 1 because he had to maneuver first to obtain line of sight. This plus the second player deploying second that was added in 5e would go a long way to remedying alpha strikes. Ditch seize the initiative and let second player take jink saves on turn 1 and first ceases to become such an enormous advantage.

Phanixis wrote:
I remember playing dnd minis back in the day and it used the same sort of system. The problem with this type of approach is that it makes it possible to pull of a double move with select units. For example, say I have a squad of Space Marine bikes with melta guns. If I activate them at the end of one turn to close in with the an enemy vehicle, and activate them first come the next round, the bikes basically get two moves in a row, and I can essentially turbo-boost, move and then shoot without at most one enemy unit getting a turn (and sometimes no enemy taking a turn in between), essentially moving 36" into melta range and shooting before my enemy retaliate. Of course the tradeoff is now the bikes will suffer a whole enemy round of shooting plus some additional shooting next round before activating, but this turn structure is open to considerable exploitation. Still would be interesting to try though.

All of this is an example of why this system is a good thing universally. The only real drawback to the system would be a potential disparity between MSU armies and larger unit armies, where the MSU army has a few more 'activations' than the larger unit sized one. Granted, at a reasonable point level (1000-1850) I don't think it'd ever be a problem and factor more into the list building aspect.

As for your example, it does something the current system doesn't; gives both players a real sense of choice and difficult decisions on when to activate certain units. The opponent against the space marine bike squad could have focused a few units on destroying it before it even got a turn, potentially ruining the marine player's plan. This is a real tactical consideration that 40k doesn't have.

As for forgetting or doubling a unit, just use markers. Pennies will work even. Seriously, anything will do just fine to mark which units have gone. Its certainly no more complicated than the bloated mess of USRs and basic rules.

I've had a lot of experience with that kind of activation sequence with Dystopian wars and I would LOVE to see it put into 40k.

As for the concerns of 'but if I move this last one turn then first next turn it's gotten a double move' and 'but what if I forget what has moved', they are VERY minor issues compared to the 'oh, you got the initiative, I guess I'll just sit here and remove models that haven't even done anything yet and hope I have enough left to fight back afterwards' system that currently exist.

Simple tokens keep track of who's activated, I picked some up for like.. $12 for a bag of 30? you put a token down after each unit has activated on one turn, then the next turn you take one off each time the units activate. It.. is not something I could ever see anyone having trouble with honestly.

As for the 'double move'. That's not a problem with the game mechanics, that's a tactic. It has risks and rewards and, best of all, that kind of thing makes you think tactically.
Activation sequence in dystopian wars is a big thing, in the later turns of the game you want your battleship to activate before your opponent's so that you can cripple it before it cripples you, but at the same time you don't want your battleship too far forwards. It would add a layer of depth to a game which is. tactically speaking, rather shallow.

Another benefit of this kind of turn structure is that it would, theoretically, encourage more balanced list. Deathstars in dyst wars are not something you have to worry about because if all your points are in that 1 activation then you're going to be out deployed, out maneuvered and out activated. That is not a position you want to be in (although it probably wouldn't be too bad in 40k).

 Negator80 wrote:
Im with everyone on the gamut of current problems, but if asked what any single, easy to implement option would be, I'd say 'alternating activations'.

You move/shoot/assault a single unit, mark it as done, then your opponent does the same.

Anyone care to do a handful of test games? Clearly itd make stupid big games hard to track, but the average gamer would get a much better experience, and disparity in army alpha strike power gets incredibly brought closer to center.

I think this would help a lot. I used to play Heroscape with my son and it used an alternating system like this. It took it one step further giving you 3 activations per turn and then a role for initiative between each turn. You could choose to activate the same unit 3 times a turn if you wanted to.

I think something like this would help balance in 40 k a lot. It will never be implemented, but I think it would help.

The only real drawback to the system would be a potential disparity between MSU armies and larger unit armies, where the MSU army has a few more 'activations' than the larger unit sized one.

I remember that becoming a major problem in dnd minis. This problem was eventually patched by limiting each side to 8 models total (the game was of obviously limited scale).

I've had a lot of experience with that kind of activation sequence with Dystopian wars and I would LOVE to see it put into 40k.

This game looked really cool. I have seen it for sale in my local game store, but like a lot of cool looking games (Infinity, Dust) nobody seems to actually play it, at least not around here.

I think this would help a lot. I used to play Heroscape with my son and it used an alternating system like this. It took it one step further giving you 3 activations per turn and then a role for initiative between each turn. You could choose to activate the same unit 3 times a turn if you wanted to.

I think something like this would help balance in 40 k a lot. It will never be implemented, but I think it would help.

That seems like a major mistake. Imagine being able to activate a jetseer deathstar three turns in a row, or even just a fast assault unit. I think you still need limit models to one activation per turn, the doubling up that I mentioned before just by activating a unit last than first is borderline too much as is.

Loborocket wrote:
It will never be implemented, but I think it would help.

Well, you could always implement it yourself with a regular opponent and expand from there.

Its honestly incredibly simple and easy to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanixis wrote:

This game looked really cool. I have seen it for sale in my local game store, but like a lot of cool looking games (Infinity, Dust) nobody seems to actually play it, at least not around here.

I don't play DW, but rather FSA (which use very similar systems) I think what you need to do is double down and buy two start fleets to assemble and paint. Then you start doing demo games and getting people to play it. If they don't, fine, but at least you tried.

Spartan Games (makers of DW and FSA) are a really good bunch of guys that openly interact with the community.

Oh, and they publish their rules for free. Rulebook and army lists. Free.

Phanixis wrote:

The only real drawback to the system would be a potential disparity between MSU armies and larger unit armies, where the MSU army has a few more 'activations' than the larger unit sized one.

I remember that becoming a major problem in dnd minis. This problem was eventually patched by limiting each side to 8 models total (the game was of obviously limited scale).

I've had a lot of experience with that kind of activation sequence with Dystopian wars and I would LOVE to see it put into 40k.

This game looked really cool. I have seen it for sale in my local game store, but like a lot of cool looking games (Infinity, Dust) nobody seems to actually play it, at least not around here.

I think this would help a lot. I used to play Heroscape with my son and it used an alternating system like this. It took it one step further giving you 3 activations per turn and then a role for initiative between each turn. You could choose to activate the same unit 3 times a turn if you wanted to.

I think something like this would help balance in 40 k a lot. It will never be implemented, but I think it would help.

That seems like a major mistake. Imagine being able to activate a jetseer deathstar three turns in a row, or even just a fast assault unit. I think you still need limit models to one activation per turn, the doubling up that I mentioned before just by activating a unit last than first is borderline too much as is.

The multiple activations thing was not an issue in Heroscape because it was an all your eggs in one basket issue. If you put all activations on one unit, your opponent would typically concentrate attacks on that unit to disable it before it could use all of the activations. So activating one unit was a tactical risk. The initiative roll between turns would stop the last then first activation move at least 50% of the time.

Problem is, deathstars are more than capable of taking that kind of pounding. I doubt the controller of the jetseer star or farsight bomb would mind taking that risk (holy crap could a farsight bomb do a lot of damage if it got to move three times in a row).

 Blacksails wrote:
As for forgetting or doubling a unit, just use markers. Pennies will work even. Seriously, anything will do just fine to mark which units have gone. Its certainly no more complicated than the bloated mess of USRs and basic rules.

Othello chips would be great for that.

Phanixis wrote:
Problem is, deathstars are more than capable of taking that kind of pounding. I doubt the controller of the jetseer star or farsight bomb would mind taking that risk (holy crap could a farsight bomb do a lot of damage if it got to move three times in a row).

But it wouldn't be, it would move once per turn like anything else. I don't know about heroscape but from what people are saying it sounds like infinity, you get X number of activation then, if you want, you spend them all on 1 guy. That works for infinity in it's scale since you only have 10 guys and using only 1 will inevitably leave him exposed or dead to reaction fire.
Dystopian wars is each unit gets 1. Simple as that. A jetseer star activates once, does it's thing and then is just sitting there waiting to be hit back like it is now. The difference is that instead of going first with your deathstar and wiping out your opponent's ability to hurt it back before they can do anything or keeping it safe out of LoS/off the board/in a tansport/whatever through their turn 1 and unleashing it turn 2 you need to decide if you want to activate it early and expose it to the retaliation fire of your opponent or save it for later, let your opponent hurt the rest of your list and unleash it in relative safety after they have activated everything.

I like this idea and would love to try it out with some games.

My one hiccup is how are assault phases resolved, what with each player getting to attack? Once a unit is activated and done, is it done, and won even return attacks an enemy's assault phase? Do units also have a "enemy assault activation" marker, so they can react only once in the turn?

Everything else seems pretty plug and play to me, but the assault phase is a bramblebush.

I think the full assault would be resolved in the attacking activation. As it is both sides get to attack in the IGoYouGo system. It would mean that it's possible to assault the same unit a half a dozen times and then have it assault you back but realistically that's not going to break the game.

What if a unit you havnt activated yet is assaulted? Do you then activate it and get another round in? Then if you assault that combat with another unit, does every unit in that combat get attacks (in effect, giving other units free activations by nature of them being in the 'activated' combat). I think that has the potential to really throw things out of whack.

How about units only charge during their activation, and all assaults resolve together at the end of the turn?

That would mean that a unit that is assaulted that has not taken its turn would miss its turn entirely... which is exactly what I would want such a thing to mean!

How could you end up with back to back activation for unit like you described with the bike? If each unit gets one activation in a turn then the only way this could happen is if you rolled for initiative at the start of each turn and win for the following turn.

That's a fun and more tactical system actually. But there are huge issues with double movement. Just imagine you face a deathstar you can't even shoot down before it reaches u'r lines and wrecks u'r face. They don't even need positioning or stuff. Just go flat-out and you can charge anything without being shot at. So there must be some limitations. The more limitations u'll get - the more new issues will appear. WH units are just not designed for this.
I see this system being awesome if you both play msu. But the moment someone fields a fast mellee deathstar - it's as boring as facing a seercouncil or screamerstar.

Ofc, you could add the number-sequence. For example, if a unit goes last 1-st turn - it must go last untill the end of the game.

 Dakkamite wrote:
How about units only charge during their activation, and all assaults resolve together at the end of the turn?

That would mean that a unit that is assaulted that has not taken its turn would miss its turn entirely... which is exactly what I would want such a thing to mean!

I like this solution. I like it very much.

Are there any other instances of "event takes place at beginning or end of player turn" that can't be shifted over to "event takes place at beginning/end of unit's activation"?
I'd posit that things like psychic powers take place when that psyker is activated (maledictions/boons take place in that unit's movement phase), but what about stuff like reanimation protocall, or it-will-not-die? Furthermore, what about moral checks and regrouping?
If a unit takes fire, does it take a check at the end of the firing unit's shooting phase? Does it attempt to regroup when it is next activated? (I'd say yes to both)
Just some questions to get a more in-depth dialogue going.

double movement deathstars are a bit concerning, I agree. There's some 'prep-time' involved in letting said unit drop to the end of the turn, which should be a tip-off for a savey opponent to try to counter it with positioning, but I think some units might be too maneuverable to even care. Like said seercouncil can just hide behind cover on one side of the map, then blast across, over everything in the way for a guaranteed assault.

An idea posited in another thread suggested that a unit with higher leadership to the activated unit can interrupt it's activation and go before it (one interrupt per turn). So if a Ld7 screamerstar is activated, I could choose to interrupt with with my LD10 chapter master, and act before it, giving me an extra chance to react due to better leadership.

 Negator80 wrote:
Im with everyone on the gamut of current problems, but if asked what any single, easy to implement option would be, I'd say 'alternating activations'.

You move/shoot/assault a single unit, mark it as done, then your opponent does the same.

Anyone care to do a handful of test games? Clearly itd make stupid big games hard to track, but the average gamer would get a much better experience, and disparity in army alpha strike power gets incredibly brought closer to center.

I had thought about this. Basically using Bolt Action mechanics. Or just play Bolt Action instead

Phanixis wrote:
Honestly that standard turn format currently used in 40k could be improve considerably if the second player didn't get pounded in the beginning of the game before he even got to act. There are ways to work around this without changing the turn structure. Breaking up line of sight in particular would be huge. This is the way 4e games were done and you did not see the crippling alpha strikes in that edition that you do now. First player couldn't just blow away second on turn 1 because he had to maneuver first to obtain line of sight. This plus the second player deploying second that was added in 5e would go a long way to remedying alpha strikes. Ditch seize the initiative and let second player take jink saves on turn 1 and first ceases to become such an enormous advantage.

Given the shooty environment of 6th Ed, potential shooty armies like Tau are able to wipe a large amount of the opponent's forces on turn one.

Phanixis wrote:
Honestly that standard turn format currently used in 40k could be improve considerably if the second player didn't get pounded in the beginning of the game before he even got to act. There are ways to work around this without changing the turn structure. Breaking up line of sight in particular would be huge. This is the way 4e games were done and you did not see the crippling alpha strikes in that edition that you do now. First player couldn't just blow away second on turn 1 because he had to maneuver first to obtain line of sight. This plus the second player deploying second that was added in 5e would go a long way to remedying alpha strikes. Ditch seize the initiative and let second player take jink saves on turn 1 and first ceases to become such an enormous advantage.

I would tend to agree. Turn sequence isn't the problem, TLOS is the problem. Starting with 5th edition, terrain largely ceased to be a consideration. Instead of having to maneuver into advantageous positions to gain or deny LOS, everyone pretty much has a permanent cover save but can always be targeted, and it just turns into a game of who shoots first. The proliferation of Ignores Cover weapons isn't helping, either.

1) Area terrain blocks LOS to units on the other side
2) Units inside area terrain can see or be seen through no more than X inches of terrain

Done. Game fixed.

Well if you fix the game turn mechanic, and TLOS shenanigans.
That only leaves movement , shooting and assault problems to fix...

40k has been on a downward spiral since 1998, and 3rd ed.
15 years of trying to *improve the game, (*inspire purchases of new models ,) without changing anything much, and making everything backwards compatible..
Has left 40k in a terrinble state rules wise.
Over complicated diffuse and counter intuitive.

The simple game play of 40k should be covered in less than 50 pages of rules !

A complete rewrite is the order of the day IMO.

However, a alternating unit activation game turn would help , (I would prefer to use structured activation phases and order counters as Epic SM, NET Epic. Because these game uses similarly wide variety of units in 40k.)

The true solution to 40k is writing rules for thew game play of 40k, not trying to make WHFB rules work with 'modern units'.