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.

As title. Taking a break from a recent Ork Paint-a-thon, I decided to paint up some 1:56 WWII models and for fun, a buddy and I used them to shoot at eachother using Bolt Action rules. It was a good time.


That got my gaming group to talking, one of the things many of us never liked about Warhammer after all these years is the turn system. I've always felt like the reason some of the crazy deathstars and shooty-fest work so well is because you can cast all your powers, move and shoot all before your enemy can make any adjustments or react. (Rolling to go first feels really over powered when you are rocking 1 million Str gabillion twin linked shots and we all know that isn't fun) The randomized turn order system from Bolt Action was a pretty neat change of pace and me and another buddy are going to play a series of 1000 pt 40k battles with standard rules this weekend, then switch it up and replay the same battles with a modified Bolt Action setup for turn order, just to see how it works.

Sitting here right now spitballing back and forth, because while I like the pinned/shaken mechanic and the ambush mechanic, I think we'll keep it simple and just try out the turn order system. Fundamentally, the math behind the two games is very similar. Warhammer just plays as a bit crunchier game while Bolt Action feels a bit like Savage Worlds compared to say, D&D. Its light, a bit more intuitive (Cover system I like more, I've always felt cover should alter the to hit roll, not replace a save, it makes armies more meaty, but we'll stay away from anything that alters a core rule like cover right now), but lacks some of the flavor that unique units in 40k get. Thinking hard about how to approach the psychic phase, luckily the armies we are running in this test both lack anything to cast. Initial thought though is to allow a Pysker who is activated to cast on his turn as an additional action.


Just curious if anyone else has tried to use the Turn system from a game like Bolt Action, with the alternating turn order, with a game of 40k with few other fundamental changes? This was our first exposure to Bolt Action and the pulling the dice out of a hat really created some great tension and another strategic element to the game that we liked and feel is missing from 40k.

Cheers guys!

Never tried an alternating turn system, but sounds like it could be good fun. Interested in hearing any battle reports that you might have concerning this!

I've seen it used where everybody rolls a d6 for each unit you have, not including reserved units on turn 1, but every turn after. (each player needs different coloured dice). Say you have 14 units and you roll 3 6's, 4 5's, 4 4's, 2 3's and a 1. You then can pick 1 unit (of your choice) to take their entire turn, then the opponent picks one unit and does the same. Say they rolled only 1 6 that would mean you then get to move another 2 units (your other 2 6's) before they got to move a unit from their 5 rolls. You can decide to use the turn to see if a unit arrives from reserves (as long as it is not T1) and if it does it follows the appropriate rules.
You would move to your 4's after your opponent/s have finished all their 5's. So on and so forth. However, because you rolled no 2's, you wouldn't be moving any units during the 2's round.
It sounds complicated but it really isn't when you play it.
I've seen it used for 3 and 4 player games and it worked very well. In fact - I would say it added far more tactically to the game.

It remove the "alpha strike" nature of the game, and I'd be all on board for those changes.

it certainly removes the alpha strike nature, the system we are going to try, for those not familiar, you basically put one Die per unit you have into a bag. then draw randomly. This means you might go three times in a row, you might sit there through 3 units, a turn is over after all the dice in the bag are used. Each time you get one of your Dice, you use it to activate a unit and resolve its move, shooting, and/or CC + consolidation all in one activation.


Lots of good mechanics in the Bolt Action ruleset. The Math being very similar to 40k makes a good mesh, at least in theory. We'll definitely let people know how it works.

My gaming group has been working on our own version of "Tweak Hammer". This involves alternating turn order. Before deployment both players roll a d6. The high number deploys one unit, with players then alternating deployment until all units are on the board. Players then roll for first turn. Again the high roller takes first turn. They select one unit and play a full turn with that unit. After both players have exhausted all "activations", they roll off to determine first activation for the second turn. However, the player who lost the roll off last turn adds one to his die. If a player should lose more than one roll off, he adds one for each turn.

It is most definitely a work in progress, but I feel we are nearly to a complete ruleset ready to potentially be released to the internet. Currently we are working to make assaults involving more than two units work. We are also working to make allowances for armies that like to "castle", such as Dark Eldar jumping across the board to attack a flank.

Overall, the alternating activations makes it a very engaging. It is a bit smoother in smaller games. I feel like it is a bit more tactical, each of your opponent's moves can be parried by your own. It does make it more difficult to pull off combo attacks with either psychic powers, huge melees, or nuking that one unit you can't stand with shooting.

One fun way to play is assign a playing card card to each unit, and in each phase draw cards to see which unit activates.

I like the idea of alternating war hammer, that way each move is more tactical. Similar to Firestorm Armada. I find that the "one player goes, other player goes" leads to a lot of imbalance issues, but I've dealt with it because I love the game.

The houserules I use with friends have alternate activation of units (using drawn cards or dice). It works well and makes the game a lot more fun because you can constantly play, rather than having to wait all the time until your opponents finish their turn. It is almost necessary to make playing with more than two players interesting imo.

I think the single greatest advantage to that mechanic is killing the long lulls of waiting and picking your models off the table.

There are other balance benefits, but I find myself so much more engaged in an alternating system.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The houserules I use with friends have alternate activation of units (using drawn cards or dice). It works well and makes the game a lot more fun because you can constantly play, rather than having to wait all the time until your opponents finish their turn. It is almost necessary to make playing with more than two players interesting imo.

I've thought about playing like that, and using a token to indicate which units have been activated, and when all units have gone it is the end of the turn. Good to know that it works well!

So basically you are using a Bolt Action activation? Curious how it would work in 40k. I prefer alternating systems like this over one side goes then the next. There is more tactics and decision making involved.

You may also take a look at the action/reaction system in Force On Force. If your not familiar with it, both sides roll for initiative, the winner gets to activate his units first, but any time they activate a unit, any enemy unit in line of sight can "react" with fire, movement or assault. There is an opposed dice roll to determine if the defender can react before(and possibly foil) the active player.

The initiative player also has the option to put units on over watch, which can "intercept" enemy reactions with a bonus to their reaction rolls.

You can completely change 40k with this system as it is a tool kit book that allows you to create your own army, and it's platoon level, the closest equivalent to a 1500-2000 point 40K game. Tommorow's War is the sci-if version of the game, but the differences between the two are minimal.

It would absolutely screw Deep Strike lists to hell and back.

So what happens if one player has, say, three units and the other player has nineteen? Does player A get hosed by B taking all his actions at the end of the turn, or does B get dirt shanked and lose out on 16 units getting to do anything?

At first blush, I think it would require extensive reworking to make the 40k armies fit with something like this.

Jimsolo,
If you are referring to my post, units in FoF can activate once, but react multiple times, with some penalties. So for example the player with 19 units can attack unit "a" four times and unit "a" can, say, shoot back once, run to cover the second time, shoot at the third with a penalty and try to assault the fourth. For Saevus' purpose I would propose allowing the non active player to react to any unit in LOS with either shooting, move or assault, or do nothing like the regular game. However, the unit that reacted would then forfeit their activation in their turn. I've tried it, works ok but does change the flow of the game and does reduce some units effectiveness.

.

I'd be interested in an initiative system, where each unit goes during the phase based on an intiative score plus a die roll. (You'd need to give vehicles Init scores, of course. Something like normal vehicles 3, with modifiers for type: tank -1, heavy -1, skimmer +1, fast +1, flyer +2.) That might work. The die roll would give some variability, but in matchups like an all Wych cult army versus Necrons, the Wyches would still mostly go first. (Which makes sense.)

 Jimsolo wrote:
It would absolutely screw Deep Strike lists to hell and back.

So what happens if one player has, say, three units and the other player has nineteen? Does player A get hosed by B taking all his actions at the end of the turn, or does B get dirt shanked and lose out on 16 units getting to do anything?

At first blush, I think it would require extensive reworking to make the 40k armies fit with something like this.

Assuming you are talking about the Bolt Action style system: I don't think it requires extensive reworks, however, I do admit that points imbalances and unit size differences create some interesting possibilities. Armies with MSUs definitely have a kind of advantage because they will have more dice in the bag. Reserves would (and thus deep striking) would work like they always have, you have to roll to bring them on, and once you get them to come on, you'd get to put a die in the bag for that unit for that turn and could choose to drop it in at any point during the turn. I actually think a system like this would help them, because you could choose to drop a pod in reaction to an enemy move, giving you more strategic options.

A lot of the current "meta" in 40k is due to how the rules and turn orders work. How jetbike armies and Drop pod armies and deathstars and Monstruous creatures work and/or are used is a natural response to the fundamental rules in 40k. Over a long enough time playing an alternating system, a new meta would of course emerge that would probably be different to what we have today. Certainly I am not advocating for one system or the other, but I play a lot of other games and we've tried all sorts of things over the years, just so happens I avoided bolt action for a long time because I simply love painting tanks and I don't need more things in the paint que, but I was really taken by the tension and strategic options the semi-random nature of the "dice in a hat" alternating turns worked.


Some more spitballing got done at our Wed. night gaming session and unit Initiatives were brought up (It's be nice if they meant something, but honestly my personal opinion has always been that the INI scores are borked, skewed too heavily in favor of one or two armies), I told the guys about some of your guys methods (dice and cards)....like I said before, our plan is to play 3 normal 1000pt games with different armies, then replay the same battles using the alternating turn order. It very well could be that it gives too much advantage to say a CC army or a MSU army.....All things being equal....I've been trying to think about how one of the 20 model 1850 GK armies I see every so often would fair against my combined arms Ork force (As it stands, I can usually pull out wins against the small armies GK/DA termies, by sheer obj whoring)...I don't know how many units are in those GK armies off the top of my head (The mostly GK Termie list with the large exo-dreadnaught things, freadknights I think), but for fun I'll say 6. If my whole army is on the table from reserve, my 1850 list would have about 11-13 units., I start with 2-4 units in reserve most matches, so for fun sake, say I had 10 on the board at launch and he had 4 (I have no idea, played on like 6 months ago, if you reserve in those small GK list)....that's the most extreme example I can come up with something I've faced. The SW, Eldar, Chaos, Tau players I face regularly all will come close to matching me unit to unit.....anyway, just thinking as I type....


We'll see....Thanks for all the feedback guys, glad to see people out there have tried this and it at least works for some people in small doses. Definitely gonna have to punch out some rounds and keep notes on what works and what doesn't. Another thought I have is that it could lead to a weight of fire issue as one army starts clearing the table and the guy who is losing forces passes a tipping point where its hard make up ground as his opponent gets to use 2-3 units before he goes. I'll have to research how a game like Bolt Action handles that.....I'd imagine the key is making good use of objectives/missions.

Anyway, cheers! If anyone who plays alternating turns wants to share issues/concerns they have come across in their playing, or maybe just simple Pros/Cons as you see it, that'd be great!

I agree a new meta would evolve, but I'd be opposed to changes that I couldn't adapt my current armies to. If I had to go all the way back to the drawing board, I'd be pretty discouraged with the game.

Too bad none of you are in my area, I'd be willing to give some kind of concrete system a shot, but people around here aren't so open to new things; most folks don't even use the current rules system.

Hey it looks like you are only....in the furthest spot of IL from where I am in the Quad Cities. I saw IL and was like "Oh hell, can't be that far" but, yeah I was wrong, damned if that state isn't longer than it looks.


We have a small club here, and many of us have been gaming together so long, we like to try things. We play mostly stock 7th here, but every now and then we get a wild hair. I've always found the insular nature of the tabletop scene a weird thing. All the internet sites and the like devoted to this hobby and we have like 6 groups spread out within an hour of the Quad cities and if you go to each one, there is a different meta, a different pts preference and they all frequent a different store/basement to play. Maybe we'll reopen our gaming clubs website and try to unite the local scene again. <shrug>

I don't think this type system would invalidate any particular play style.....I think it just might change the alpha potential and make people be more objective conscious. You really got me thinking about a Drop Pod army, so we are going to make one of our 3 list a SW Drop Pod list since one of our guys has one. But I think that tactical feeling is something 40k has been missing for awhile......end of 5th, then 6th and now 7th really feel like a "Just shoot them off the table" version of the game. As a solidly Ork player (Though a SM/Ad Mech force is slowly assembling on my shelves), the kick in the meh that the Ork Codex was really makes every win a by the skin of my teeth knockdown epic fight, which in its own way is cool, but in the ideal world where sunshine and lollypops fly out of everyone's ass...I know I'd like to see the 40k rules be a bit more intuitive and eliminate the alpha mentality you see a lot. Not always by any means, and I can't judge the tourney scene because anyone trying to play this game as competitive game at this point has more patience than I do.


Anyway...rambling again. Cheers!

I play up in Deer Grove when visiting my wife's family. Next time I'm up northern Illinois way, maybe we can hook something up.

I would rather do a system where player 1 moves, player 2 moves, shooting is done simultaneously based on initiative like melee, and then charges are declared based on melee. If both players have units with the same initiative that want to charge each other, you dice off to see who gets the +1 attack. If the player who wins fails his charge, the opponent can counter charge.

 Toofast wrote:
I would rather do a system where player 1 moves, player 2 moves, shooting is done simultaneously based on initiative like melee, and then charges are declared based on melee. If both players have units with the same initiative that want to charge each other, you dice off to see who gets the +1 attack. If the player who wins fails his charge, the opponent can counter charge.

Out of curiosity, why not do movement based on initiative, too? (Just curious if there's a reason I'm not thinking of.)

That could work too.

 Toofast wrote:
That could work too.

I made a suggestion for squeezing vehicles into that system a little further up. Did you have your own idea on how to do that? (I'm legitimately curious, not being nitpicky, since it seems we're on the same page.)

Poly Ranger wrote:
I've seen it used where everybody rolls a d6 for each unit you have, not including reserved units on turn 1, but every turn after. (each player needs different coloured dice). Say you have 14 units and you roll 3 6's, 4 5's, 4 4's, 2 3's and a 1. You then can pick 1 unit (of your choice) to take their entire turn, then the opponent picks one unit and does the same. Say they rolled only 1 6 that would mean you then get to move another 2 units (your other 2 6's) before they got to move a unit from their 5 rolls. You can decide to use the turn to see if a unit arrives from reserves (as long as it is not T1) and if it does it follows the appropriate rules.
You would move to your 4's after your opponent/s have finished all their 5's. So on and so forth. However, because you rolled no 2's, you wouldn't be moving any units during the 2's round.
It sounds complicated but it really isn't when you play it.
I've seen it used for 3 and 4 player games and it worked very well. In fact - I would say it added far more tactically to the game.

That sounds far more complicated then I like, especially if you have summoning demons or tervigons. Why not have the unit with the highest initiative go first, roll off if tied, and alternate. Would probably have to write down a number next to each unit on your list to keep them in order.
Not really sure about going from Movement all the way through assault before another unit gets to act however.

I should have read before posting, seems kind of an obvious idea, and others already made the suggestion.

I have in mind another primitive thought: how about moving acording to battle roles in codex? Firs Fast Attack, then Elites, then Troops, then Heavy Support, then LoW.

Where do HQs come in? Or fortifications on auto fire? Or unts with no FOC slot? (some summoned units don't have one)

Just curious. Could be fun.

Then someone brings 20 small units...

I'd put most HQs in Elete slot with some exceptions of flying, jumping or HQs on bikes wich can be in Fast Attack. Fortifications in Heavy Support. And summond units still have theitr battle role written in codex.

It is realy not well thought Idea alot should be described better. I just came up with it reading this thread.