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.

A little late to the discussion, but there is a large difference between a unit getting destroyed before it can activate, and half your army getting the same treatment. Especiallyis the game's activation type does not require you to plan the sequence of your activations beforehand.

I think I have missed something. What is AA?

As for PP never tired it yet. I bought it, got a bunch of minis but still don't know how the game works. To me it's still, I move/shoot/assault first then you do it. Could be wrong but that is the feeling I got so since I am already doing 40K, din't want to do the same system.

Davor wrote:
I think I have missed something. What is AA?

I used it as an abbreviation for Alternating Activations.

There's probably a more elegant way to say, or a better abbreviation, but for this thread, it seems to have caught on.

I think 40K would be killer if it used the same type of Alternate Activation that Epic Armageddon uses. There, an army's tactical prowess can give it a chance to activate more than one unit in a row, but there are risks involved.

In Epic:A, every single unit you bring to the table at the start of the game has an equal chance of doing something on every turn, barring getting destroyed before the player uses it.

In 40K, starting your first turn in the game with half the army you just deployed is just plain dumb, and antiquated in mechanics.

Thankyou Blacksails.

 Mr. Grey wrote:
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?

It's an interesting idea, but it would largely be an aesthetic change. There are in-game features in 40k that are starting to work like this, by fixing things to the start of certain phases (such as psychic powers and Imp Guard Orders) that have to be resolved before continuing with the phase. I generally dislike them, as they mostly just encourage gamers with better memory and generally promote gamemanship. It is at least mitigated in games that use it, such as Warmahordes, Rackham's Confrontation and so on that use cards, as you can turn the unit's card over to remind you that you've used them.

These games are also small-scale skirmish, and 40k can be at that scale, but it also can be played large scale. One of the failings of skirmish rulesets like Warmahordes, LOTR and Confrontation etc is the need for a separate ruleset to make large scale games vaguely playable. They invariably fail, because rather than modifying the existing ruleset with abstracts, they invariably go for a new ruleset altogether, or throw in unnecessary gimmicks (looking right at you, War of the Ring...).

In my view, it's not worth doing. Either incorporate the opponent's actions (potential or reactions) into the opponent's considerations, or leave it. I personally find Warmachine's unit options kind of necessary for encouraging the synergy that underpins the game, but with a game like 40k that has so little synergy (and where it does, often does use fixed points in the turn to use them) there's little need.

Worth trying, but I don't think it'll fix any problems.

Mr. Grey wrote: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?

Why?

I mean, this would make the game a little bit easier, as you wouldn't have to plan out the movement or shooting phases really all that much. There's no reason to risk overkill or stranding a unit if you knew for sure that the intended target was dead or not before it even needed to move.

Blacksails wrote:I played a spaceship combat game that used this kind of turn, where everything was considered to be simultaneous where casualties were only removed once both players had finished their shooting.

Was certainly interesting.

Hmm, that IS an interesting idea.

Though I wonder what effect it would have on a player and their decisions if they knew stuff was already dead before the moved/shot with it, etc. I mean, it completely negates the advantage of shooting first, but would it negate the advantage of moving second?

Also, it would be interesting, though unwieldy and annoying, if a player had to declare all of their targets before the first die was rolled.

AegisGrimm wrote:A little late to the discussion, but there is a large difference between a unit getting destroyed before it can activate, and half your army getting the same treatment. Especiallyis the game's activation type does not require you to plan the sequence of your activations beforehand.

But the person who goes second can plan for it accordingly. Using the fact that they deploy second to mitigate some of the effects of getting to shoot first. Of course, it doesn't do a good enough job at this (though you will find some die-hards who still think it's better to choose to go second), but that's a matter of tweaking.

Meanwhile, the method you're talking about heavily encourages uber-shooty-deathstar units where you funnel much of your resources into the few units that are going to get to strike first, and leave the rest of your army garbage that may or may not get a chance to do anything. When you're guaranteed that every non-destroyed model will get a chance to shoot on the first turn, this equalizes shooting a lot. It doesn't matter if you have 6 proverbial lascannons split over 6 squads, or all 6 on some super-lascannon-juggernaut.

In 40k, that D-weapon monster has only a 50% chance to go into ultrarape mode after you've at least got a turn to use your entire army. And, in theory (if points balanced), there wouldn't be a particular reason to take a multi-D-weapon ubertitan over several smaller individual D units, or a whole bunch of smaller units with similar killing power.

Much, much less so with the kind of AA system you're talking about.

Malifaux is able to contain this a tiny bit by completely destroying player freedom in list building, but even in that game, it seems like a nasty tendency to have the one ultrabadass surrounded by successively more pointless mooks.

 Ailaros wrote:

Hmm, that IS an interesting idea.

Though I wonder what effect it would have on a player and their decisions if they knew stuff was already dead before the moved/shot with it, etc. I mean, it completely negates the advantage of shooting first, but would it negate the advantage of moving second?

Also, it would be interesting, though unwieldy and annoying, if a player had to declare all of their targets before the first die was rolled.

It worked for this game as the ships each had their own individual tracking sheet for hull points, shields, systems, and the like, so the book-keeping was already part of the game and fairly easy to keep track of what needed attention at the end of the round.

As for moving, you had to write down orders for your ships, so as you were committed if you moved 'second'. Both players committed to their courses of action, and then played it out, removing casualties and dealing with repairs and such at the end of the turn.

Shooting was declared simultaneously as well. The game worked best fairly casually, and was expedited with a sort of mediator/helping hand to keep track and double check everything. The book keeping was tedious at times, but it was an interesting experience. Made for a pretty tactical game, considering the board was entirely empty and the game was decided on how well you maneouvred, predicted, and brought your guns to bear while maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses.

We also played blind lists, where we knew nothing of the enemies ships/fleet until a check was made to reveal its size/weaponry.

Good times.

Oh.

Well yeah, I guess it would work fine for that kind of game, but how could you possibly make that work for 40k? Write down where each of the 150 models in your green tide is going to run?

It feels like this would work better at a smaller scale, and with much less player freedom (especially in movement. Was this a hex-based game?)

Personally I LOVE the Alternating Activation system Dystopian Wars and Firestorm Armada use and if my local 40k group weren't asshats I'd love to try and port the mechanic over.

Basically at the start of each game turn both players roll for initiative. The winner picks who goes first that turn.

There are no phases, each player moves, shoots and boards (assaults) with 1 full squadron (unit) then the other does the same. If one side runs out of activations then the other simply finishes. Everything activates exactly once per turn, no exception.

I find it adds a TON of tactical depth to the game. Suddenly you're faced with the choice of alpha striking and leaving yourself vulnerable to counter attack or hold your units back and wait for an opening.

As an example in Dyst wars I will almost always go second on turn 1 and first every other turn. I want my opponent to bring his more valuable units forwards first since my fleet works at extreme range and close range, not in the middle. I go second then activate my corvettes and frigates while I wait for my opponent to run out of activations and be forced to move his battleship. I'll then use my own battleship, or destroyers, or gunships, or whatever is best suited to the task, to hit their battleship at range. Next turn I want first activation so I can run up beside their battleship and broadside it before it can activate.


Translating that over to 40k if I where to play a all comers list against a deathstar I can activate a few cheap units until my opponent is forced to bring his deathstar towards me and I can then unload everything into it because I out activate him. Or I can use most of my army before the drop pods fall and wipe half of it off the table. I've never had a problem in Dyst Wars where at the end of turn one one side has already lost enough units that the outcome is assured.

So I think the point we're all trying to make is any kind of alternating activation, or initiative based, or simultaneous move, or risk based activation, or whatever, would be an improvement on the current "Sit uninvolved for 40 minutes while your opponent does all their stuff, then do the same to them".

The problem is GW has, as far as I know, never done anything but full army IGO-UGO.
Mordheim, Necromunda, even Space Hulk (although it did at least have interrupts via command points). So I doubt they'd update their flagship product in such a large way. It's the same with the statline being built around fantasy melee (WS, I, A all for melee) instead of actual sci-fi small arms shooting. But they've used the same statline since the company was formed, so again, something we're probably stuck with.

Are you forgetting Lord of the Rings Bosky? I swear that would be a good system for 40K. Not perfect but at least better than what we have and what we are going to get in 2 weeks time.

*edit* I think a lot of people forget about LotR from GW.

 bosky wrote:
So I think the point we're all trying to make is any kind of alternating activation, or initiative based, or simultaneous move, or risk based activation, or whatever, would be an improvement on the current "Sit uninvolved for 40 minutes while your opponent does all their stuff, then do the same to them".

The problem is GW has, as far as I know, never done anything but full army IGO-UGO.
Mordheim, Necromunda, even Space Hulk (although it did at least have interrupts via command points). So I doubt they'd update their flagship product in such a large way. It's the same with the statline being built around fantasy melee (WS, I, A all for melee) instead of actual sci-fi small arms shooting. But they've used the same statline since the company was formed, so again, something we're probably stuck with.

Epic Armageddon and it's previous incarnations, LotR, The Hobbit, and possibly Battlefleet Gothic (though I'm not sure, I'll need to check with a friend who has the rules).

They had different methods. E:A specifically had unit-by-unit activation alternating between players, only moving an army by parts, never in full.

@Davor: Eh, never played it, but I guess I should have clarified to mean "anything using their standard statline", since LoTR didn't use WS/BS/S/T/etc. right? I never played LoTR, but yeah from what I've heard the activation system did sound a bit newer.

I guess to me the biggest culprit is that their skirmish scale games of Mordheim and Necromunda weren't unit-by-unit activation. If they aren't going to do it for a small scale game like that, I doubt we'll ever see anything but IGO-UGO for 40k.

@Selyum: I thought Epic was still UGO-IGO, just with a better system for deciding who goes first? Overall it sounded like a fast playing and fun game, I'm sad they discontinued it.

I glanced at the Battlefleet Gothic rules (since I had the free electronic copy from when GW had them on their site) and it seems like the entire fleet moves and acts in a turn before the opponent does. Maybe you're thinking of Firestorm Armada which has alternating ship squad-by-squad activation?

 bosky wrote:

@Selym: I thought Epic was still UGO-IGO, just with a better system for deciding who goes first? Overall it sounded like a fast playing and fun game, I'm sad they discontinued it.

I glanced at the Battlefleet Gothic rules (since I had the free electronic copy from when GW had them on their site) and it seems like the entire fleet moves and acts in a turn before the opponent does. Maybe you're thinking of Firestorm Armada which has alternating ship squad-by-squad activation?

Eh, I've never played either personally. My friend does, but he and I are not exactly strangers to modifying rulesets.

As for E:A, I have a print out of the rules, but I lost the PDF files in a data corruption, sadly. Ima check the papers if I can locate them, and I'll see if 4shared stored them.


EDIT: Scratch what I just said, but I can't be bothered to read if this is the full ruleset or just a summary:

http://onyxworkshop.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/ea-compendium-2-1_rules-only.pdf

 Selym wrote:
As for E:A, I have a print out of the rules, but I lost the PDF files in a data corruption, sadly. Ima check the papers if I can locate them, and I'll see if 4shared stored them.

Yeah you're right, it is unit-by-unit activation for Epic Armageddon. Hooray, there is hope! I have a copy of m1320000_EPIC_updated_rulebook-sections_1-4_Oct09.pdf, which I think is E:A from the GW site, and as you say they reference the alternating activation.

Do you happen to know who was the lead designer of Epic? I wonder if they're still at GW, and have any influence on 40k. EDIT: Wikipedia says it's Jervis Johnson, which seems surprising. Maybe it was a case of him getting to design a game without any pressure from management. Or heck, maybe GW doesn't even see UGO-IGO as a bad thing or outdated mechanic

@Bosky, there is stats. MOVEMENT stats which is so needed back into 40K (Can't have SM moving slower than anyone else eh? jk). It also has Strength, Defence, Wounds, Attacks and Leadership rolls as well. Also Leaders or Characters get Mana or Magic, an Might stat (I think to modify any dice roll) and a Will stat (how strong you are against magic).

So just like 40K/Fantasy but in my opinion better than 40K. (never played Fantasy so can't say on it)

Each mini is an individual unit. For 40K terms instead of individual units, just replace with squads/broods. Characters in 40K would still be individual units like they are now.

War of the Rings is squad based which I believe 8th edition of Fantasy took some stuff from that game into 8th.

Forgot to say, if you are Evil you can shoot into Close Combat, 50/50 hitting your own guy. Also another great rule is if you are taking cover from say a fence or what not, if you pass your save the fence gets hit. So this would be great for 40K. If you are using your gaunts or IG dudes or what ever unit for a cover save, if you pass it, then they get hit.

 bosky wrote:

 Selym wrote:
As for E:A, I have a print out of the rules, but I lost the PDF files in a data corruption, sadly. Ima check the papers if I can locate them, and I'll see if 4shared stored them.

Yeah you're right, it is unit-by-unit activation for Epic Armageddon. Hooray, there is hope! I have a copy of m1320000_EPIC_updated_rulebook-sections_1-4_Oct09.pdf, which I think is E:A from the GW site, and as you say they reference the alternating activation.

Do you happen to know who was the lead designer of Epic? I wonder if they're still at GW, and have any influence on 40k. EDIT: Wikipedia says it's Jervis Johnson, which seems surprising. Maybe it was a case of him getting to design a game without any pressure from management. Or heck, maybe GW doesn't even see UGO-IGO as a bad thing or outdated mechanic

It'll be somewhere on my printout, but it's either in a shed outside, where it's raining atm, or it's under stuff in my wardrobe, where a climate revolving around acid rain seems to exist...

Now the real question becomes has anyone tried playing a game of 40k with a modified Epic system? Similar rules to Epic but a "zoomed in" view? 28mm Epic I guess?

 bosky wrote:
Now the real question becomes has anyone tried playing a game of 40k with a modified Epic system? Similar rules to Epic but a "zoomed in" view? 28mm Epic I guess?

Well, the reverse occurred:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/450719.page

bosky wrote:So I think the point we're all trying to make is any kind of alternating activation, or initiative based, or simultaneous move, or risk based activation, or whatever, would be an improvement on the current "Sit uninvolved for 40 minutes while your opponent does all their stuff, then do the same to them".

No, it's not the point we're all trying to make.

Any way you slice it is going to incentivize certain player behavior and cause certain problems. The biggest problem with UGOIGO is that time lapse, but as mentioned, that can easily be worked around by playing at an appropriate points level and player experience.

So far, I'd rather have UGOIGO than what else has been presented as an alternative, either because it would be unworkable for a game like 40k, or because it would create it's own wonky problems worse than 40k. 40k may have its problems, but at least its turns are not a half an hour of the two of us silently strategizing and scribbling down notes before we reveal our plan rock-paper-scissors style and see if our two deathstars did what they were supposed to do while moving around a cloud of meaningless tiny units.

 Ailaros wrote:
No, it's not the point we're all trying to make.

Oh right, sorry, I forgot you were a grouch

Sure in an ideal world IGO-UGO turns take 10 minutes. In most real world situations I've seen it's 30-60 minutes.

Not sure how alternating activations ends up being "silently strategizing and scribbling down notes before we reveal our plan rock-paper-scissors style", but I guess it helps you make your point. There are a ton of activation systems besides UGO-IGO, but it's okay if you don't want to consider them. It's just fun to spitball a bit, it's not like 40k will ever change anyway.

bosky wrote: In most real world situations I've seen it's 30-60 minutes..

What "real world situations" are you seeing?

Play a 500 point game and tell me it takes an HOUR per turn. Because at 60 minutes a pop, you're talking about a six hour 40k game, which I've never seen outside of apocalypse. Unless you meant that there's a chance you've got to wait 60 minutes until you get to do something again, in which case you're talking about a TWELVE HOUR GAME OF 40k.

That seems a lot more like gross exaggeration than real world situation.

bosky wrote:Not sure how alternating activations ends up being "silently strategizing and scribbling down notes before we reveal our plan rock-paper-scissors style"

That was mentioned before with whichever ship game that was. Orders are done in secret, so that you're committed to your decisions once the turn begins. I can't imagine that would be terribly workable for 40k, much less all that social, or fun for a game of 40k's size. A fleet game with a handful of boats? Sure. 40k... not so much.

The problem with doing the alternative unit activation, and initiative based activation is that 40k was not designed with this in mind. And while there might not be any problems with it working this way, you can never really know unless you do a massive amount of play testing. Personally I think something similar to Infinities system would work well with 40k, considering that overwatch is little more than a shooting ARO. But the problem with it is that it would only increase the effectiveness of shooting while hurting close combat.

 bosky wrote:
In most real world situations I've seen it's 30-60 minutes.

I routinely play 5-7 turn 1500 point games in 90-120 minutes.

That time includes unpacking, set up table, clear table, and re-packing.

 Ailaros wrote:
What "real world situations" are you seeing?

Play a 500 point game and tell me it takes an HOUR per turn. Because at 60 minutes a pop, you're talking about a six hour 40k game, which I've never seen outside of apocalypse. Unless you meant that there's a chance you've got to wait 60 minutes until you get to do something again, in which case you're talking about a TWELVE HOUR GAME OF 40k.

That seems a lot more like gross exaggeration than real world situation.

I don't play a lot of pickup games, so my 40k experience has been limited to playing with the same 3 or 4 people. We tend to play 1,500 or 2k points. Between arguing about rules, re-reading codex specific rules, deciding what to do, rolling lots of dice, etc. turns CAN creep up to 60 minutes. Games very do often take from 6pm to midnight or 1am. Like I said it must be nice for you to have it otherwise. I've seen video battle reports of games being played faster (sometimes it seems like everyone is just rushing for the sake of time though, or playing incorrect rules because they're going from memory), but for whatever reason 40k just always ends up as a grinding slog for us.

And there are plenty of different activation systems besides secret orders. I think most of them are superior to UGO-IGO (even for a mass battle game), whereas you do not. :shrug:

bosky wrote:Between arguing about rules, re-reading codex specific rules, deciding what to do, rolling lots of dice, etc. turns CAN creep up to 60 minutes.

Sure. Throw in socializing, and it can take longer still.

However, just because it is possible to make a game of 40k seven hours long doesn't mean that there's a problem with 40k's rules. I'm sure it's possible to make a comparably-sized game of infinity or malifaux take that long if the main cause for length is player actions like deciding what to do and arguing about the rules, etc.

Put another way, just because you and your group are slow doesn't mean 40k is slow, and changing the turn structure won't necessarily make your group any faster.

 Ailaros wrote:
Put another way, just because you and your group are slow doesn't mean 40k is slow, and changing the turn structure won't necessarily make your group any faster.

I don't care about the games taking a long time, that's not my complaint at all.
I'll gladly sit down and play a tabletop game for an entire 12 hour stretch. The difference is I want that time to be fun and I want to be involved as a player. Right now, mainly due to the turn structure, that is not the case. Even in an ideal game of 5 turns at 2 hours, that's 20 minutes a turn. Which means for 20 minutes I'll be doing nothing but watching my opponent move units, while I roll the odd save dice here and there.
I'd prefer a 1-5 minute downtime before I, as a player, get to do something or have some involvement. Changing the turn structure WOULD achieve that.

 bosky wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Put another way, just because you and your group are slow doesn't mean 40k is slow, and changing the turn structure won't necessarily make your group any faster.

I don't care about the games taking a long time, that's not my complaint at all.
I'll gladly sit down and play a tabletop game for an entire 12 hour stretch. The difference is I want that time to be fun and I want to be involved as a player. Right now, mainly due to the turn structure, that is not the case. Even in an ideal game of 5 turns at 2 hours, that's 20 minutes a turn. Which means for 20 minutes I'll be doing nothing but watching my opponent move units, while I roll the odd save dice here and there.
I'd prefer a 1-5 minute downtime before I, as a player, get to do something or have some involvement. Changing the turn structure WOULD achieve that.

Not trying to sound ignorant, but do you really have an attention span so short that you lose interest if your not doing something every five minutes?

 Jaceevoke wrote:
Not trying to sound ignorant, but do you really have an attention span so short that you lose interest if your not doing something every five minutes?

I figured someone would frame it as attention span (or say something along the lines of "Go play a video game then!" ), hehe.
To me player involvement is directly linked to a fun game. Sitting for 20 minutes watching an opponent isn't involving me as a player, and it isn't fun, and having to "endure" the opponent's turn isn't related to attention span. It just isn't a good game. Considering these 20 minute downtime periods happen 5 times in a 5 turn game (again at the 2 hour ideal), and the downtime grows even more with the group I play with, well, you get the idea. Especially when there ARE games that involve me as a player.
It's the same reason some dry Eurogame boardgames aren't for me. Watching another player strategize and act for 20+ minutes while doing nothing (or very minor actions) is dull there too. You can call it a failure of attention span, I just call it taste.