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.

I hate it. I find it makes the game slow. I find it makes the game boring. I love what GW did for Lord of the Rings now The Hobbit. I love the I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, then everyone assaults.

I find it makes the game faster because I am doing things all the time, that I don't have to wait 15-30 minutes to do anything. I also find I am not just taking models off the table and not be able to do anything turn one if I am going second. I can also see if we get to use D-Weapons you can counter it, by moving out of Line of Site then. A small counter to a devastating weapon. While the game time will more likely be the same, it will feel faster because you are actually doing something instead of ignoring your opponent, or talking to friends, or even picking your nose waiting for your turn.

I find it more interaction with your opponent as well. You move, then you get to counter his move. You fire and he fires so you are both removing minis at the same time. This way it doesn't seem so bad when you are
just removing minis and it seems your opponent is not doing anything. You are both doing so it doesn't seem so one sided.

I don't know, I just wish 40K was more like this. I don't like the I do everything while my opponent does nothing but just removes minis.

So I just want to make sure, I am not missing something since I haven't gamed in ages. How come you like this system? Why do you like to move then you shoot, then you assault? What makes this fun for you?

I find the full-turn system to be the game's biggest failing.
Too much happens in each player's turn. There is no fine manouvering. You do what you can in your turn and then you wait and see how much of your army you still have for your next turn.

There is a reason why in chess you don't get to move every one of your pieces on the board before the other player gets to move what's left of his. It markedly lowers the strategy involved.

Ive heard of people using this in 40k, but for me its too confusing. What if a unit dies before it can shoot? What if your tank loses its battle cannon as its firing?

Its a fun idea, but to complicated to be seriously considered.

Put simply, I don't. Both the lotr and Deadzone activation systems are better, but at the end of the day, 40k is a game I enjoy playing regardless of the rules, so I just put up with it for the sake of the fun of playing toy soldiers.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
What if a unit dies before it can shoot?

Then it's dead and can't shoot. I don't see what's confusing about that.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
What if your tank loses its battle cannon as its firing?

It can't. You're not going at the same time, you're just alternating the phases rather than the entire turn.


Neither of these things is any different than what happens now, it's just one player isn't standing around doing nothing for a whole player turn.

That said, my favorite is still AT-43's method: Alternating unit activation rather than having phases.

*edit* been answered as I was typing.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Ive heard of people using this in 40k, but for me its too confusing. What if a unit dies before it can shoot? What if your tank loses its battle cannon as its firing?

Its a fun idea, but to complicated to be seriously considered.

If you're talking about the LOTR system of move-move, shoot-shoot, fight, then I think you might have misunderstood, It's not simultaneous, you roll a Priority at the start of each turn to see who gets to act first in each phase. If you were to port it to 40k, here's how it would work:

- I have priority, so move first. In my move phase, I move a Russ to hit one of your squads, and move everything else around wherever. In your move phase, you move that squad into cover, negating my move.

- Instead, I see you have lined up a shot on my command squad with a Predator. I get first shot this turn, so I hit that predator and destroy the turret.

As you can see, this means you have to think a lot more about positioning and movement, as you might ebd up moving second next turn or having your target move into cover or similar. Movement in particular becomes far more of a battle between players than just lining up shots the opponent can do nothing about.

I've been thinking of something similar for 40k for a while now. Didn't know it was in Hobbit/LotR.

 Purifier wrote:
I
There is a reason why in chess you don't get to move every one of your pieces on the board before the other player gets to move what's left of his. It markedly lowers the strategy involved.

This isn't chess.

Jefffar wrote:
I've been thinking of something similar for 40k for a while now. Didn't know it was in Hobbit/LotR.

Great set of rules. I can't believe 40K is not like this. So much rich character in the Characters for 40K that it's really not represented into the game.

It would also take care of a number of issues such as all those skimmers and bikers mysteriously standing still at the start of the battle and thus not benefiting from their Jink rule during the first shooting phase of the game.

I would probably get rid of Overwatch with this change though, as there will be no way for a melee unit to get in reach without taking at least a round or two of fire. Overwatch is sort of surplus after this.

I'd probably shake up interceptor too, possibly it allowing the weapon to be fired in the movement phase instead of moving. No requirements about the target coming in from reserves.

Jefffar wrote:


I would probably get rid of Overwatch with this change though, as there will be no way for a melee unit to get in reach without taking at least a round or two of fire. Overwatch is sort of surplus after this.

What I would do is say, if you don't shoot in the fire phase, you can Overwatch at full BS then. So this way there is no shooting twice per turn. OR if you Overwatch at BS 1 if you fired in your shooting phase, you can't shoot next turn.

Jefffar wrote:
I would probably get rid of Overwatch with this change though, as there will be no way for a melee unit to get in reach without taking at least a round or two of fire.

I'd probably shake up interceptor too, possibly it allowing the weapon to be fired in the movement phase instead of moving. No requirements about the target coming in from reserves.

In LOTR, charging is done as movement, which would remove that issue. Just say that a unit cab move6+d6 into contact with the enemy, let then overwatch, and you're sorted.

 Paradigm wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
I would probably get rid of Overwatch with this change though, as there will be no way for a melee unit to get in reach without taking at least a round or two of fire.

I'd probably shake up interceptor too, possibly it allowing the weapon to be fired in the movement phase instead of moving. No requirements about the target coming in from reserves.

In LOTR, charging is done as movement, which would remove that issue. Just say that a unit cab move6+d6 into contact with the enemy, let then overwatch, and you're sorted.

That is even better than what I said and more simpler. Good one.

I don't like skipping the shooting phase by going straight into charging in 40k. It sort of makes sense in a fantasy game where missile attacks are not the primary means of dealing death. In a game like 40k, shooting should play a larger role and charges should be able to be shot down far easier than they are in a fantasy setting.

To me A Moves, B Moves, A Shoots, B Shoots, A Charges, B Charges, Resolve all combats makes more sense for 40K than A Moves and Charges, B Moves and Charges, A Shoots with what isn't locked in combat, B Shoots with what isn't locked in combat, Resolve all combats.

Tried this once. If you can get your opponent to go with it it's a blast. Here's how we did it:

A moves
B moves
A shoots
B shoots

Charges done on order if initiative
If you overwatch, you don't get close combat attacks.

Jefffar wrote:
I don't like skipping the shooting phase by going straight into charging in 40k. It sort of makes sense in a fantasy game where missile attacks are not the primary means of dealing death. In a game like 40k, shooting should play a larger role and charges should be able to be shot down far easier than they are in a fantasy setting.

To me A Moves, B Moves, A Shoots, B Shoots, A Charges, B Charges, Resolve all combats makes more sense for 40K than A Moves and Charges, B Moves and Charges, A Shoots with what isn't locked in combat, B Shoots with what isn't locked in combat, Resolve all combats.

What you mean skipping the shooting phase? Either you shoot, and then don't assault, or the other person gets to assault, so it makes you not be able to shoot at a target you wanted, but you can still Over watch. It adds another layer of tactics. Make sure you don't get assaulted if you don't want to. I thought this is what a lot of people want, more tactics and abilities to have in the game.

Who knows, we can even have a rule saying if locked in combat, you can still shoot, but then your Initiative is 1 the or make it a special rule for characters. Again, another choice/tactic that can be considered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arrias117 wrote:
Tried this once. If you can get your opponent to go with it it's a blast. Here's how we did it:

A moves
B moves
A shoots
B shoots

Charges done on order if initiative
If you overwatch, you don't get close combat attacks.

I love it. I was thinking of even going one step further and say in the movement phase Initiative goes first or can "pass" and wait to see what the slower person does, or use a Ld test so Ld stats can be used more.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Ive heard of people using this in 40k, but for me its too confusing. What if a unit dies before it can shoot? What if your tank loses its battle cannon as its firing?

Its a fun idea, but to complicated to be seriously considered.

It doesn't quite work like that.
In normal 40k, if on turn 1 a unit gets killed by enemy shooting, it is removed. In LOTR, if your opponent is going first, he'll have a movement phase, and then you will. Then he will shoot, and possibly remove a unit. If that unit is removed, it is exactly like normal 40k in that it cannot do anything else. Then you can shoot.

LRBT's won't be losing it's guns as they fire. Either the enemy went first and shot them off like normal 40k, or you went first and fired them as normal.

 Gitsmasher wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I
There is a reason why in chess you don't get to move every one of your pieces on the board before the other player gets to move what's left of his. It markedly lowers the strategy involved.

This isn't chess.

How very observant of you. Did you also have a point or did you just want to show off your astute senses?

Davor wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arrias117 wrote:
Tried this once. If you can get your opponent to go with it it's a blast. Here's how we did it:

A moves
B moves
A shoots
B shoots

Charges done on order if initiative
If you overwatch, you don't get close combat attacks.

I love it. I was thinking of even going one step further and say in the movement phase Initiative goes first or can "pass" and wait to see what the slower person does, or use a Ld test so Ld stats can be used more.

You could always use ld like X-Wing uses pilot skill. Highest leadership moves last, shoots first?

Honestly, I think at that part, things get a bit too different/odd. Should mention, that we did two rounds of combat to make up for the lost round.

I like having a smoke while my opponent moves. I like the turn based system because it keeps things simple, despite GWs best efforts it seems.

darkcloak wrote:
I like having a smoke while my opponent moves. I like the turn based system because it keeps things simple, despite GWs best efforts it seems.

As much as the "I go, you go" system annoys me, one upside of it is that I get enough time to read all of the 157 rules I'll need for my turn.

 Selym wrote:

darkcloak wrote:
I like having a smoke while my opponent moves. I like the turn based system because it keeps things simple, despite GWs best efforts it seems.

As much as the "I go, you go" system annoys me, one upside of it is that I get enough time to read all of the 157 rules I'll need for my turn.

Why does it annoy you? This is what I like to see other peoples opinion of it.

Davor wrote:

 Selym wrote:

darkcloak wrote:
I like having a smoke while my opponent moves. I like the turn based system because it keeps things simple, despite GWs best efforts it seems.

As much as the "I go, you go" system annoys me, one upside of it is that I get enough time to read all of the 157 rules I'll need for my turn.

Why does it annoy you? This is what I like to see other peoples opinion of it.

Well, aside from the lack of moment-to-moment interaction, I have to spend upwards of 40 minutes not talking, playing or doing anything interesting. And if I talk, either it annoys the other player (who is trying to remember a billion rules, how many wounds his models have, and which ones have shot yet), or it distracts both of us from the game and it never gets finished.

I have only had one player with whom I can talk and play with at the same time, but he's moved away.

 Gitsmasher wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I
There is a reason why in chess you don't get to move every one of your pieces on the board before the other player gets to move what's left of his. It markedly lowers the strategy involved.

This isn't chess.

But it is a strategy game. That is the key to comprehending the analogy.

One benefit of the current system is that it gives you some down time to observe and think. I've played a lot of Epic and Twilight Imperium, and the constant need to act and think of action sequences gets exhausting after awhile. That being said, I still think I would prefer a more integrated turn structure.

There are several different formats to allowing two (or more!) sides to play a game. Honestly, I'm not sure which way is better.

Firestorm Armada uses an activation system whereby you execute the actions for a unit then the other player does one of their units and you go back and forth until it's done.

Honestly I think that adds quite a bit of time to the game. It certainly gives a more tactical feel as you can be more responsive to immediate developments. It also helps engage both sides at the same time. However, it leads to situations where one side may have several more units than the other which gives them a tactical advantage... Maybe that's a good thing?

With 40k, the only time both players aren't engaged is during movement. Shooting and Assault both require both players. For larger games, it can mean that one player is sitting for 5 or 10 minutes not doing a whole lot while the other completes movement. I tend to use this time to plot my upcoming movement and to look up any rules that I may need to know based on what's developing.

I'm not sure why'd you would be sitting there for 40 minutes not doing anything. The only reason I can think of for that is if you are in an Apoc game and your opponent has 10k worth of stuff to shuffle around. Or if you are playing someone that is brand new and needs to look up how far each and every unit can move WHILE they are in their own movement phase..

 Purifier wrote:

 Gitsmasher wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I
There is a reason why in chess you don't get to move every one of your pieces on the board before the other player gets to move what's left of his. It markedly lowers the strategy involved.

This isn't chess.

How very observant of you. Did you also have a point or did you just want to show off your astute senses?

There is no need to be ignorant/highly sarcastic, some people enjoy Warhammer because of its simplicity. And while I don't agree that doesn't mean they aren't entitled to their opinions, or that they shouldn't post their opinions on the forums. Sort of removes part of the point of a forum if you can't discuss opinions without being ridiculed.

 Purifier wrote:

 Gitsmasher wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I
There is a reason why in chess you don't get to move every one of your pieces on the board before the other player gets to move what's left of his. It markedly lowers the strategy involved.

This isn't chess.

How very observant of you. Did you also have a point or did you just want to show off your astute senses?

Your comparing apples to oranges.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
What if a unit dies before it can shoot?

Then it's dead and can't shoot. I don't see what's confusing about that.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
What if your tank loses its battle cannon as its firing?

It can't. You're not going at the same time, you're just alternating the phases rather than the entire turn.


Neither of these things is any different than what happens now, it's just one player isn't standing around doing nothing for a whole player turn.

That said, my favorite is still AT-43's method: Alternating unit activation rather than having phases.

Good point.

 Selym wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Selym wrote:

darkcloak wrote:
I like having a smoke while my opponent moves. I like the turn based system because it keeps things simple, despite GWs best efforts it seems.

As much as the "I go, you go" system annoys me, one upside of it is that I get enough time to read all of the 157 rules I'll need for my turn.

Why does it annoy you? This is what I like to see other peoples opinion of it.

Well, aside from the lack of moment-to-moment interaction, I have to spend upwards of 40 minutes not talking, playing or doing anything interesting. And if I talk, either it annoys the other player (who is trying to remember a billion rules, how many wounds his models have, and which ones have shot yet), or it distracts both of us from the game and it never gets finished.

I have only had one player with whom I can talk and play with at the same time, but he's moved away.

I feel the same as you, at the moment both me and my bro-inlaw (regular opponent) tend to remind each other about rules or reserves etc so that we don't end up forgetting stuff after having a random conversation mid game.

Back in the day we sat down with 2nd edition and tried to come up with a house rule for unit activation. We ended up using Initiative order and where we had a unit each with the same initiative we would roll a D6 and highest got to chose.

It worked ok but with bigger games it got quite confusing, especially as 2nd wasn't the most fluid of games at best of times lol.