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 like the idea of a phase by phase for both players as it does get a little drawn out with one guy waiting for the other to move and then shoot and then assault then finally its my turn, it slows a lot down.

It makes a lot of sense to alternate the phases as, realistically anyway, you're not gonna wait for your opponent to move, then shoot at you and then try and charge at you.

If you know you're in a warzone, when they move, you know it is in an attempt to get into a better position for combat so you should move in response whether to engage or to disengage.

If you are shot at, you should be able to shoot back immediately as this just seems like how battle should go about.

As for charging, I always though Overwatch was a weird and useless thing because an enemy charging at you is actually an easier target than one 24" away that you need to take more time to aim at, but that's just me.

I tend to look at things more logically though which tends to get in the way of games like this lol.

I like the idea of movement being based on a units initiative but it gets complicated if there are a lot that are the same.

To fix this just do what they do in D&D. Roll a dice for each squad or independent character and just mark down what they rolled then compile them from highest to lowest and bam, there you have a better turn order that actually ends up being more balanced.

Not to mention it reflects more realistically because cmon, a bunch of marines on foot would never move faster in a turn order then dudes in air craft as aircraft, for the most part, need to be constantly moving so they would have a higher priority for each movement phase.

Idk why but I keep double posting with one click

the problem with having inter-locked turns where you both play at the same time technically is theres a point where it drags the game on further than one-whole-turn method does. Its fine at smaller scale, but 40k has been steeping into the 2k pts is standard lately rather than 1k. When you have 80+ models moving and shooting at once, it heavily favors whoever goes first if they are able to get a shot off since they will start the game with more forces. Some cases i have nearly tabled my opponents in turn 1, just because i shot like hell and he flopped every save. No chances to recover at that point. If 40k simply adopted the Hobbit turn system, i think my games would take almost half as long MORE than they do as it is (which is around 3hrs lol)

What they COULD do, however, is break it up. Each turn is divided into how ever many turns comes up when you divide your units by 3, so every mini-turn you move/shoot/assault 3 units then your opponent does the same...and when you have none left your opponent moves/shoots whatever is left.
Every model gets moved, shoots/runs, and assaults if applicable before the same unit can do anything again.

Yes some lists would have some issues because people put all their points into 2-3 units for some dumb reason, but in that case it would basically go back to the original rules.

Case you didnt understand what i meant:
I have 12 units, size not a factor, my opponent has 14. I activate 3 to move/shoot them, then he activates 3. Then i activate another 3 (total 6), etcetc until i have activated the last of my units, which allows him to activate the last 2 units he has over me. Once we have activated every unit, a "Turn" is over and everything resets, allowing me to use the original 3 units again.

Full army UGO-IGO is a hilarious relic from the 1980s that has been dragged forward and included for 30+ years, like most of 40ks mechanics (three rolls to resolve shooting, looking up on grid resolution charts, etc.).
The fact that in your own turn you're stuck moving before shooting is also outdated and silly, and reminiscent of WFB and other Napoleonic style games. Compared to how modern wars are fought the idea of a rigid turn structure is a bad fit.

There are so many better and more interesting activation rules that 40k would really benefit from. Reactions, alternating activation, passing the initiative, etc.

But again GW will focus on minor tweaks (oooh Force Organization changed, how thrilling) instead of actual critical updates that would really make the game more enjoyable.

I'd actually love if 40K adopted the Battlegroup system. Each player rolls 1D6, 2D6, or 3D6 depending on the scale of the game (e.g. platoon, company, battalion level), and that's the number of activations they get in their turn. This means that you don't necessarily get to use everything you brought to the table every turn, and actually makes you think twice about going MSU. Also if you don't get to fire everything in that opening round, going first isn't the huge advantage it is right now.

I really despise any system where I don't get to use my full army every turn. 40k entails a RIDICULOUS amount of time, thought, and effort into assembling, converting, and painting units. Not being able to use those units in a game after paying the points to bring them would be a bigger failing than the alternating turn system. It's fine for games where most of your figs are one and two dollar pre-painted made-in-Taiwan jobs, but for a real wargame I'd prefer to use the whole army I paid for.

I WOULD like to see some kind of alternating activation system, though. Perhaps an initiative system? Give each unit an Init score, and either roll a d6 for them at the beginning of the turn (adding it to their initiative) or just have them go in Initiative order. Tied initiatives compare the base Init to break ties. (Or go at the same time.) It would open up a whole slew of commander abilities. (I would think a sweet IG ability would be for an HQ to make a Ld test, and by every point he passes it by, he can swap one init die result among his army.)

Just some random thoughts on it.

The alternating activation sequence of AT-43 and Confrontation: Age of Ragnarok were easily one of the more superior parts about those games than the IGOUGO of 40K.

They even implemented ways to tactically manipulate your activations.

Come to think of it, Epic: Armageddon uses a version of alternating activations that works tremendously.

Each of those games allows a player to use their entire army every single turn (barring units that get destroyed before getting activated).

I play about a deozen games and like each one for its differences, so I never have wished one game would do it one way or the other very much.

Flames of War is SOMEWHAT interactive, turn wise, while still maintaining turn based movement and shooting but Warhammer has adopted some of those pieces from it and Im sure others.

But you like what you like. I just think holding a game up to any other game and wishing it was LIKE that game defeats the purpose. At some point you just end up proxying models and playing the other game itself.

I like variety but thats just me. Mentally engaging to be able to do it different ways and still be competitive.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I really despise any system where I don't get to use my full army every turn. 40k entails a RIDICULOUS amount of time, thought, and effort into assembling, converting, and painting units. Not being able to use those units in a game after paying the points to bring them would be a bigger failing than the alternating turn system. It's fine for games where most of your figs are one and two dollar pre-painted made-in-Taiwan jobs, but for a real wargame I'd prefer to use the whole army I paid for.

Sure, but 40k also doesn't accomplish this.

I go first and remove 'X' units. Then you can move. Functionally the same as activating back and forth and getting to blow up a unit before you activate it, but with less down time between turns.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I really despise any system where I don't get to use my full army every turn. 40k entails a RIDICULOUS amount of time, thought, and effort into assembling, converting, and painting units. Not being able to use those units in a game after paying the points to bring them would be a bigger failing than the alternating turn system. It's fine for games where most of your figs are one and two dollar pre-painted made-in-Taiwan jobs, but for a real wargame I'd prefer to use the whole army I paid for.

Sure, but 40k also doesn't accomplish this.

I go first and remove 'X' units. Then you can move. Functionally the same as activating back and forth and getting to blow up a unit before you activate it, but with less down time between turns.

That argument is a little specious. There is a vast gulf of difference between 'my unit got killed before it could act' and 'my unit never participated in this game whatsoever.' The first is disappointing but understandable. The second is a fundamental flaw in a game system, and is one of the biggest reasons I don't participate in Clix any longer. I'm not opposed to an alternating system, but one where everyone doesn't get to go is just not going to do it for me.

 Jimsolo wrote:


That argument is a little specious. There is a vast gulf of difference between 'my unit got killed before it could act' and 'my unit never participated in this game whatsoever.' The first is disappointing but understandable. The second is a fundamental flaw in a game system, and is one of the biggest reasons I don't participate in Clix any longer. I'm not opposed to an alternating system, but one where everyone doesn't get to go is just not going to do it for me.

How is it any different? You just slightly different wording to try and make a distinction that doesn't exist.

Either way you want to word it, in either case, the destroyed unit never participated.

So again, what's the difference? If anything, the current system would destroy more models/units than an alternating activation system through a single turn of fire unmitigated by any losses.

Seriously, I don't understand the point you're making. How is it better to remove models on turn 1 from an alpha strike, than move most of your units/models in an engaging back and forth system while losing out on the same amount of models/units, if not less.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:


That argument is a little specious. There is a vast gulf of difference between 'my unit got killed before it could act' and 'my unit never participated in this game whatsoever.' The first is disappointing but understandable. The second is a fundamental flaw in a game system, and is one of the biggest reasons I don't participate in Clix any longer. I'm not opposed to an alternating system, but one where everyone doesn't get to go is just not going to do it for me.

How is it any different? You just slightly different wording to try and make a distinction that doesn't exist.

Either way you want to word it, in either case, the destroyed unit never participated.

So again, what's the difference? If anything, the current system would destroy more models/units than an alternating activation system through a single turn of fire unmitigated by any losses.

Seriously, I don't understand the point you're making. How is it better to remove models on turn 1 from an alpha strike, than move most of your units/models in an engaging back and forth system while losing out on the same amount of models/units, if not less.

If my models get taken out by my enemy's initial strike, they are still eligible for their saves, still eligible to use certain defensive abilities (depending on model/unit) and still sucking up enemy fire. In THIS edition of 40k, the only time a unit never interacts with the game is if I forget them. In which case, the fault is mine. 6th edition closed the last hole that existed on that front--units failing to arrive from Reserves.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible in, say, a Clix game (the only game I know of that uses the system you're describing) to take models that never attack, are never attacked, never get activated, and never use any special abilities. They never interact with the game in any way. And if all you did was shell out a dollar for them and fish them out of the commons bin, that's okay. But if you paid 40k prices in money, time, and work, that'd be irritating enough to keep me away from the game.

Don't get me wrong--losing models to an alpha strike is also annoying. (And some kind of alternating system where everyone eventually gets to go would STILL go a long way to eliminating that.) But there's definitely a difference between the two.

 Jimsolo wrote:

If my models get taken out by my enemy's initial strike, they are still eligible for their saves, still eligible to use certain defensive abilities (depending on model/unit) and still sucking up enemy fire. In THIS edition of 40k, the only time a unit never interacts with the game is if I forget them. In which case, the fault is mine. 6th edition closed the last hole that existed on that front--units failing to arrive from Reserves.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible in, say, a Clix game (the only game I know of that uses the system you're describing) to take models that never attack, are never attacked, never get activated, and never use any special abilities. They never interact with the game in any way. And if all you did was shell out a dollar for them and fish them out of the commons bin, that's okay. But if you paid 40k prices in money, time, and work, that'd be irritating enough to keep me away from the game.

Don't get me wrong--losing models to an alpha strike is also annoying. (And some kind of alternating system where everyone eventually gets to go would STILL go a long way to eliminating that.) But there's definitely a difference between the two.

Why are you assuming that an alternating activation game means your units will never be able to take defensive/reactionary actions? I mean, if you were to turn 40k into an alternating activation, you'd still get to roll armour saves and the like. I don't know where you got that assumption from, but I guess that explains your variance in wording.

Point is, in a proper alternating activation system, you're not going to lose out on moving units any more than an IGOUGO system. That being explained, if 40k were alternating activation, there'd be no difference in losing a 20-man Guard blob on turn 1 (despite your best efforts to roll 5+'s) in an IGOUGO system, than losing that same 20-man blob at the end of all your opponent's activations before you got to activate them.

The big difference, however, in that scenario is that neither player sat around for an exceedingly long amount of time (depending on point values and army type, obviously) for movement and other management rolling. Both players were engaged in back and forth tactical decision making about what to activate next and target prioritization.

Zodiark wrote:
Idk why but I keep double posting with one click

Just leave it. It's a glitch. If you see your double post a few hours later, delete one of them, otherwise leave it. Happens to us all sooner or later.

 Blacksails wrote:

Why are you assuming that an alternating activation game means your units will never be able to take defensive/reactionary actions? I mean, if you were to turn 40k into an alternating activation, you'd still get to roll armour saves and the like. I don't know where you got that assumption from, but I guess that explains your variance in wording.

Point is, in a proper alternating activation system, you're not going to lose out on moving units any more than an IGOUGO system. That being explained, if 40k were alternating activation, there'd be no difference in losing a 20-man Guard blob on turn 1 (despite your best efforts to roll 5+'s) in an IGOUGO system, than losing that same 20-man blob at the end of all your opponent's activations before you got to activate them.

The big difference, however, in that scenario is that neither player sat around for an exceedingly long amount of time (depending on point values and army type, obviously) for movement and other management rolling. Both players were engaged in back and forth tactical decision making about what to activate next and target prioritization.

I never said that. I said that in an alternating activation system where all the units don't get to go (such as Heroclix), it's possible to have a unit that never gets attacks, never attacks, is never the target of an ability, never uses an ability, and does nothing but take up space in the army roster. I don't think that an alternating activation system would magically take away their ability to react. That would be silly. Sorry if you got that impression, that's not what I was saying.

in 40k (or Fantasy, or Fuzzy Heroes, or every other wargame I'm aware of) the 'deadweight model' problem doesn't happen. (Don't get the wrong idea, 40k has plenty of problems, this just isn't one.) I've only ever seen it occur in Clix systems, which are the only games I'm aware of that uses an alternating activation system which doesn't end in all units being afforded the opportunity to act.

If we're talking about a theoretical IGOUGO system (which you seem to be using to mean an alternating activation system) I'm talking about the possibility of an IG infantry platoon never shooting, moving, assaulting, getting shot, getting assaulted, or being the target of any ability (friendly or enemy). Getting killed is better than never participating at all. (Shoot, for an IG infantry-themed army, getting killed can even be the proper function of a unit.)

Sorry for any miscommunications there.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Why are you assuming that an alternating activation game means your units will never be able to take defensive/reactionary actions? I mean, if you were to turn 40k into an alternating activation, you'd still get to roll armour saves and the like. I don't know where you got that assumption from, but I guess that explains your variance in wording.

Point is, in a proper alternating activation system, you're not going to lose out on moving units any more than an IGOUGO system. That being explained, if 40k were alternating activation, there'd be no difference in losing a 20-man Guard blob on turn 1 (despite your best efforts to roll 5+'s) in an IGOUGO system, than losing that same 20-man blob at the end of all your opponent's activations before you got to activate them.

The big difference, however, in that scenario is that neither player sat around for an exceedingly long amount of time (depending on point values and army type, obviously) for movement and other management rolling. Both players were engaged in back and forth tactical decision making about what to activate next and target prioritization.

I never said that. I said that in an alternating activation system where all the units don't get to go (such as Heroclix), it's possible to have a unit that never gets attacks, never attacks, is never the target of an ability, never uses an ability, and does nothing but take up space in the army roster. I don't think that an alternating activation system would magically take away their ability to react. That would be silly. Sorry if you got that impression, that's not what I was saying.

in 40k (or Fantasy, or Fuzzy Heroes, or every other wargame I'm aware of) the 'deadweight model' problem doesn't happen. (Don't get the wrong idea, 40k has plenty of problems, this just isn't one.) I've only ever seen it occur in Clix systems, which are the only games I'm aware of that uses an alternating activation system which doesn't end in all units being afforded the opportunity to act.

If we're talking about a theoretical IGOUGO system (which you seem to be using to mean an alternating activation system) I'm talking about the possibility of an IG infantry platoon never shooting, moving, assaulting, getting shot, getting assaulted, or being the target of any ability (friendly or enemy). Getting killed is better than never participating at all. (Shoot, for an IG infantry-themed army, getting killed can even be the proper function of a unit.)

Sorry for any miscommunications there.

I am puzzled. Why wouldn't the IG player get to do anything with an I go/You go system? Once I move, the IG player moves, or the IG player moves first then I move. So how is the IG player not moving?

As I stated earlier, this game is a tactical juggernaut and the current turn structure actually hinders this a bit because logically and tactically it actually ruins things a bit when you can have guys actually taken out of combat without any chance of doing anything which simply isn't logical for a game as tactical as this.

Think of it like an actual battlefield.

In what example would you see one army standing still and watching as the enemy moves into position and then starts shooting at them, while they stand there and simply take the shots to the face.

It creates a game of give and take which is fine for the bulk of the playerbase but personally, I like more in-depth strategy and tactics hence why I think GW should consider tweaking things a bit.

Until then my play groups house rules work out fairly decently.

Honestly, idk why people have played this game for so long and not found massive problems with the current give and take of the game turn, especially given the level of tech and lore for the game.

I can see the give and take working wonders in Fantasy as it was quite common historically for enemy archers for instance to actually exchange fire back and forth rather than free volleying.

The game I feel, while I haven't been playing anywhere near as long as many of you I have been an avid Warhammer lover since I was in junior high so I think it is time for the game to evolve a little and accommodate different methods of play.

Davor wrote:
I am puzzled. Why wouldn't the IG player get to do anything with an I go/You go system? Once I move, the IG player moves, or the IG player moves first then I move. So how is the IG player not moving?

The example given is an alternating activation system that doesn't guarantee every unit gets to go each turn. (Like Heroclix.) Some form of system limits the number of units you can activate each turn. (Either you can't activate any more than your opponent does, or you only get X number of activations per Y points, or some system.)

 Jimsolo wrote:

I never said that. I said that in an alternating activation system where all the units don't get to go (such as Heroclix), it's possible to have a unit that never gets attacks, never attacks, is never the target of an ability, never uses an ability, and does nothing but take up space in the army roster. I don't think that an alternating activation system would magically take away their ability to react. That would be silly. Sorry if you got that impression, that's not what I was saying.

I think we're on the same page, but part of me still doesn't understand how that's any different from losing a unit before your turn, where your only interaction with it is to roll saves (or not, depending on weapon/armour).

in 40k (or Fantasy, or Fuzzy Heroes, or every other wargame I'm aware of) the 'deadweight model' problem doesn't happen. (Don't get the wrong idea, 40k has plenty of problems, this just isn't one.) I've only ever seen it occur in Clix systems, which are the only games I'm aware of that uses an alternating activation system which doesn't end in all units being afforded the opportunity to act.

Funny enough, I think we're still talking around eachother. In 40k, currently, you can have a unit that was never afforded the opportunity to attack by being eliminated prior to your turn 1. I just don't see how that's not a 'deadweight model' problem of the same sort as losing a unit prior to its activation.

If we're talking about a theoretical IGOUGO system (which you seem to be using to mean an alternating activation system) I'm talking about the possibility of an IG infantry platoon never shooting, moving, assaulting, getting shot, getting assaulted, or being the target of any ability (friendly or enemy). Getting killed is better than never participating at all. (Shoot, for an IG infantry-themed army, getting killed can even be the proper function of a unit.)

First of all, I'll clarify that any reference to IGOUGO is current 40k. Alternating activation, I'll abbreviate to AA for my fingers.

I think we're having a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes an AA system. A most basic one would identical to 40k, only that instead of moving every unit at the same time (and the shooting/assaulting immediately after), you'd nominate a single unit to move/shoot/assault with. Then your opponent does the same in return. Repeat until all units are exhausted. Now, obviously with this rough example you're wondering what happens with lop-sided amounts of units/activations, or how assault would work, but let's ignore those details for now.

In a perfect example where each player had the same number of units, the full game turn wouldn't end until every activation is complete. This means every unit gets to act, with one exception; if a unit is destroyed before you activate, you won't get to activate it. Simple.

So I guess what I'm still confused about is that you keep saying that you'd be afraid of having a unit that just simply wouldn't get to do anything. Trust me, in a good alternating system, the least a unit would do would be identical to the least a unit would do in the current IGOUGO system.

I think you're operating under the assumption that a turn in an AA system is limited by a set number of activations, which I guess is a possibility for some games, but never any of the ones I've played.

Sorry for any miscommunications there.

Sorry on my part, it happens, but hopefully I've cleared it up a bit too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:


The example given is an alternating activation system that doesn't guarantee every unit gets to go each turn. (Like Heroclix.) Some form of system limits the number of units you can activate each turn. (Either you can't activate any more than your opponent does, or you only get X number of activations per Y points, or some system.)

Aha, I was right!

Yeah, in games like Firestorm Armada (really, any of Spartan's offering) you get to activate everything every turn...unless its already dead of course. The guy with more units to activate just gets to activate all the leftovers one after the other after his opponent runs out. Makes for interesting list building choices.

 Jimsolo wrote:

Davor wrote:
I am puzzled. Why wouldn't the IG player get to do anything with an I go/You go system? Once I move, the IG player moves, or the IG player moves first then I move. So how is the IG player not moving?

The example given is an alternating activation system that doesn't guarantee every unit gets to go each turn. (Like Heroclix.) Some form of system limits the number of units you can activate each turn. (Either you can't activate any more than your opponent does, or you only get X number of activations per Y points, or some system.)

Units simply not getting a turn is normal in a turn based game like this and many others I have played in the past. The best thing I have seen would be the system used by D&D which is a D20 with your initiative as a modifier for each unit/independent character then you go highest to lowest across the battlefield.

Some may still be wiped out on the first initial shots but it balances the game considerably.

Alright then, I think we are on the same page. I'd be bang alongside an AA system where all the units get to go (eventually)! I'd love to see 40k do something like that.

I just don't want the Heroclix system.

Why not have your own house rules, this game is more than open to it

I hate initiative count-down systems. Its maybe okay for a dozen units on the table, but for a full sized 40k game? *shudder*

You also wind up having to come with rules to break it for when one of your units can't do something because another of your units is in the way.

Personally I prefer Epic 40,000's system: at the start of each phase a chit* is drawn from a cup, whichever players chit is drawn chooses whether to activate his army first or second that phase. * two chits in the cup per phase, plus one for the army with the highest strategy rating.

 Jimsolo wrote:


I just don't want the Heroclix system.

By the sounds of it, I wouldn't either.

All cleared up.

Really though, a properly done AA system is universally superior to the dated IGOUGO system.

 Gashrog wrote:
I hate initiative count-down systems. Its maybe okay for a dozen units on the table, but for a full sized 40k game? *shudder*

You also wind up having to come with rules to break it for when one of your units can't do something because another of your units is in the way.

Personally I prefer Epic 40,000's system: at the start of each phase a chit* is drawn from a cup, whichever players chit is drawn chooses whether to activate his army first or second that phase. * two chits per phase, plus one for the army with the highest strategy rating.

To be fair, from the 2k point games I have watched online and at my local store, an initiative countdown is by fair one of the easiest to use and shortens the game considerably, not to mention adds more of a realism to it than the games current form.

Unless you are prone to having each squad be at its minimum amount and having multiple IP in every game you won't even need more than one D20 and any ties you would simply roll off and whoever rolled higher takes 1st position on it.

Its really easy actually but maybe that's because I have more experience with it.

As for units being in the way, in an actual combat scenario, you would never want to move one unit into the fire of another because then the unit behind would be unable to fire, this in turn is a tactical error by the commander and the unit behind shouldn't be able to fire as it is illogical for them to do so.

Zodiark wrote:

As for units being in the way, in an actual combat scenario, you would never want to move one unit into the fire of another because then the unit behind would be unable to fire, this in turn is a tactical error by the commander and the unit behind shouldn't be able to fire as it is illogical for them to do so.

Two infantry squads are entering a village via a narrow street behind a tank, front infantry squad wins initiative followed by the rear squad then the tank. Front squad can't move forward because the tank's in the way, rear squad can't advance because the front squad is in the way. Tank commander wonders what inbred backwater the infantry are from if they can't even manage to walk in a straight line.

D&D equivalent: Orc attacks wizard, wizard player states intention to dive out of the elf's line of fire, elf player announces he'll fire.. elf beats the wizards initiative so goes first. Okay depending on the edition there's probably a delay option, and even if there isn't any DM worth his salt would allow it anyway, but its still an issue that requires a fudge.

Yeah, I'm with jimsolo on this one, I think. I haven't seen clix, but I have watched a couple of games of malifaux before, which has the AA.

I agree that UGOIGO does create boring lapses, though they can be mitigated somewhat by playing the game at an appropriate points level, and by player experience (it's possible to even move and roll horde armies reasonably quickly with practice). But in order for AA to be better than UGOIGO, it has to actually be better, and I haven't seen that yet.

The problem with AA that's still filtered through phases (as in, it alternates movement, but all movement happens before shooting starts, for example), is that the timing of things can really screw everything up. For example, let's say that I move my uber-unit out to get line of sight on something, but then, oops, it doesn't have a target, because later, after it moved, everything else moved out of the way so it couldn't target anything. That sucks. One of the awkward ways to handle this is to basically force people to have good and crappy units, so they spend a whole pile of time moving pointless, useless crappy MSUs while they wait until the stuff they actually need to have targets waits around, which forces deathstarts surrounded by tiny squads of goobers as both players try to out-abuse the initiative system.

Meanwhile, the AA that is phase independent (single unit move-shoots-assaults) creates the exact problems jimsolo has been pointing out: exacerbating the problem of one player getting crippled before they even have a chance to play.

What we're all really looking for is some way that successfully balances the advantages of getting to move second with the advantages of getting to shoot first. UGOIGO certainly isn't perfect, but at least whoever is going second can hide their guys in cover to try and mitigate the bonus their opponent gets from shooting first, which is also balanced out by the first shooter being forced to deploy first as well.

If you're going to have an alternative, then it's got to be a BETTER alternative which, as mentioned, I've yet to see.

I didn't see anybody mention this option yet - has anyone considered doing 40K using Privateer Press' activation system? Each unit completes all of their actions before the next unit in the army goes.

So a shoota boys mob would move, take their shots, etc, before you move on to the deff dread, who moves, completes it's actions, and so on.

Thoughts?

 Ailaros wrote:


If you're going to have an alternative, then it's got to be a BETTER alternative which, as mentioned, I've yet to see.

I generally disagree with your sentiment about AA, but another alternative is purely simultaneous gameplay.

I played a spaceship combat game that used this kind of turn, where everything was considered to be simultaneous (though movement and shooting would have to happen one at a time for logistical reasons) where casualties were only removed once both players had finished their shooting.

Was certainly interesting.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I WOULD like to see some kind of alternating activation system, though. Perhaps an initiative system? Give each unit an Init score, and either roll a d6 for them at the beginning of the turn (adding it to their initiative) or just have them go in Initiative order. Tied initiatives compare the base Init to break ties. (Or go at the same time.) It would open up a whole slew of commander abilities. (I would think a sweet IG ability would be for an HQ to make a Ld test, and by every point he passes it by, he can swap one init die result among his army.)

As interesting a design concept as this is, I would hope 40k never includes such a concept. I find the game has enough unreasonable balance issues already. GW often has a problem of making core rules that unnecessarily favour particular sides, and in 40k, this usually means Space Marines. The above example would qualify. It's just yet another way that the 40k ruleset could make core rules favour particular sides. Should they have them? It's questionable. But the question of whether or not subjective decisions of better quality troops/discipline should immerse gameplay in pursuit of ideas such as "realism" (which I'll get to) is worthy of debate, but there's no question that it is going to be absolutely central to how the game plays out. It'll dominate a lot of discussions, and it wont guarantee balance, or remove boredom.

Two examples spring to mind. One will be familiar, one a few of you may have run into. So I'll start with the more familiar example.

The Lord of the Rings system, which has already been mentioned, is an underrated system, sure. One of the best core skirmish systems out there (if you ignore the blatant emphasis on Good over Evil). However, one of the primary flaws with the priority system as that the "Good" side had a higher chance of going first, and winning combats (good wins draws, elven blades etc). It puts about half of the armies on the back foot, just because in the films and books the good guys win (they evidently didn't read The Silmarilion). I still liked the LOTR system, but I always found it a bit of a deal-breaker. I don't know if the Hobbit still has this rule, as I haven't played either incarnation in a number of years.

GW aren't the only ones to use subjective scales of effectiveness. Osprey's Force on Force (and the Sci-Fi version of this ruleset: Tomorrow's War) if you can actually learn the ruleset, generally has a elite force that works better, against a more numerous force that works less better. Modifying the type or amount of dice rolled, and making it more likely that the "better" force will act first. This apparently represents modern warfare better. I don't know. I do like that the ruleset is tactical, but it's a style that will not work for every ruleset. I don't want 40k to be a modern skirmish simulator.

I find that GW imbalances all of their games both with faction rules, deliberately deathstar units, and then doesn't even try to fix any of these problems with the core rulesets, and if anything, adds to them. For me, unless a wargame has a very good and specific reason for not doing so (and newsflash: forging the narrative isn't either), the core ruleset should be neutral, and not give specific benefits to particular factions without some effort to address it. Personally, GW's rulesets should be as simple as possible, because their Rules Development Team is barely capable of producing quality at the best of times, let alone trying to throw innovation in there as well.

As an Ork player, I find the idea of using an army that is usually on the offensive, going after a defence orientated army of Space Marines is ludicrous. It does highlight that Initiative 2 for Orks is actually a bit daft anyway (and initiative 2 on Gretchin is ludicrous), but the wider issue is that if the basic core doesn't facilitate a neutral attitude to any army, those differences tend to get increased by poor writing in the codices. It's kind of like Overwatch is now. No Ork player worth his salt is going to use Slugga boyz when shootas just work better in 6th. That itself is bad design.

Whereas if assaults were initiated in the movement phase as they were in 2nd Ed, even with overwatch there, this at least gives a more equal value to shootas/sluggas. Either way, they had valid roles. This was rumoured in the "Heresy Rulebook" that was at one point rumoured to be the 6th Ed rulebook. I decided it wasn't, because I liked it. Instead, we got Gunlinehammer 40,000, and, well, TAU. Whilst a dedicated player can make combat units work, it's more slog than is necessary.

This leads me to the realism point. Does an emphasis on small arms fire make the game more realistic? Possibly. But as far as I'm concerned, screw realism. I write rulesets and fan-rulesets quite a bit. Whilst I don't think that makes me anything resembling an authority, or dismissing the views of others, I would however add that the concept of realism has never, ever mattered to me in any rules I have ever written. If I was to write a ruleset deliberately trying to be realistic, such an attitude would be moronic. But I don't think most rulesets do that. It's nice when it happens, but it isn't necessary. A game should work within the logic and principles of its own context. In other words, so long as a rule doesn't seem stupid for the ruleset, then it's fine. External considerations should always be secondary. For instance, I still hold to the opinion that True Line Of Sight does not work for 40k. It adds unnecessary advantages to the firer, and gives the recipient very little in return. It forces the need for too much LOS blocking terrain, and means that terrain built around the idea of convenience for moving miniatures through, and models designed with a dynamic (or deliberately evasive) poses cause issues that they shouldn't. I shouldn't have to model a realistic forest and struggle to move my models through it to get an in-game effect that a simple rules abstraction like the "depth" rule from 3rd Edition managed. I like when rulesets know they're rulesets, and when rules writers come up with abstracts to make up for problems of using miniatures, such as terrain made for convenience and not accuracy.

Getting back to the OP, I have no overall prejudice against any system. For me, it's what works for that ruleset. I do think there are objectively better rules, but there is no logical way that every wargamer will see that, and anyway, even if every wargaming producer out there did, it either means all games are the same, or the more likely outcome, it becomes obvious not every rule works as well for every setting. Whilst breaking it down to a way like LOTR does, that could work in interesting ways, but I doubt it would be integrated without bringing new problems, and new balance issues. For instance, pinning it to something like a statline, say Initiative, either becomes redundant because most commanders have 3 or 4 so it might as well be a roll-off, or it gives advantages to elite armies, when the better statline already provides enough of an abstract to offset some of the troop differences.

For me, such a system would have to be incorporated in such a way as it favoured neutrality. So an army could contain any mix of shooting and/or melee orientated units and function effectively regardless of some outward idea. If a game unnecessarily favours shooting (like 6th does), then melee units should just be removed completely if shooting units are "supposed" to be better. Because every faction would realise this (even Orks) and have melee as an afterthought, such as modern warfare does. 40k shouldn't weigh some ideas deliberately better. Because it has too much choice, and too many interesting things that should all have a chance.

Whilst I welcome ways to make the game more tactical, I want to see methods that don't just give more buffs to Space Marines. They get enough already. That's my take on it anyway. In essay form. Hope it was interesting.