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.

 Anpu42 wrote:
I think also it depends, do you want Balance or RTS Tactical Realism?

I think most of the suggestions improve the game both for balance and realism. That was the goal for mine at least.

 Bill1138 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
I think also it depends, do you want Balance or RTS Tactical Realism?

I think most of the suggestions improve the game both for balance and realism. That was the goal for mine at least.

(This is as a decades old BattleTech Player)
The only problem I am still seeing is you can still do this kind of thing, witch to me will not fix a lot.
Fire Unit 1 at Target A: Did not Kill it!
Fire Unit 2 at Target A: Did not Kill it!
Fire Unit 3 at Target A: Finally Killed it!
Fire Unit 4 at Target B:

There is a way to get past that, but it ends up adding a Phase, Targeting.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Bill1138 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
I think also it depends, do you want Balance or RTS Tactical Realism?

I think most of the suggestions improve the game both for balance and realism. That was the goal for mine at least.

(This is as a decades old BattleTech Player)
The only problem I am still seeing is you can still do this kind of thing, witch to me will not fix a lot.
Fire Unit 1 at Target A: Did not Kill it!
Fire Unit 2 at Target A: Did not Kill it!
Fire Unit 3 at Target A: Finally Killed it!
Fire Unit 4 at Target B:

There is a way to get past that, but it ends up adding a Phase, Targeting.

I wouldn't be against adding a targeting phase. It would slow the game down more though. I think probably the easiest way of doing that would be if the table were broken into a grid. You could have 3"x3" grids, and for each unit you have, you jot down which grid coordinates they're shooting at. It doesn't matter if a target unit isn't entirely in the box selected, the grid is just to denote which unit is being fired at. If multiple units have models in the selected grid, then I would propose that the shooting unit can choose which unit to shoot at when it's his turn to shoot. It's like if you're hunting, the Targeting Phase is what direction you're facing with your gun, and choosing between two units with models in the same block would be like deciding which of the two rabbits sitting side by side to take the shot at.

Well it can go real quick, you just one of two things, if not both.
Numbered Tokens of two colors (one for each side):
>2x Red #1, 2x Red #2, 2x Blue #1, extera.
>Side Red places Token #1 by the firing unit and then the second Token #1 by the target.
Two colors of Pipe Cleaners.
>Put one end from the firing unit to the target.

 Bill1138 wrote:

 Lord Scythican wrote:
Very good suggestions everyone! It seems like this is something people would want, so let's figure out a way to make it work and playtest a few games.


So is the general consensus this?

Basing unit actions on Initiative is bad. So we will alternate actions instead. Players get to choose what unit they activate first. The unit can only perform the action that is allowed in that phase?

This all reminds me of a Nintendo game I used to play called Godzilla: Monster of Monsters where you could only move one monster at a time.

1: Movement Phase: Alternating units would work fine.

2: Psychic Phase: Each Player having their Psychic Phase back to back would be fine.

3: I believe that all of the Shooting Weapons should have their own Initiative that they shoot at (similarly to how Initiative works in close combat) This way the more devastating heavy weapons would have lower Initiatives, showing that they take longer to aim, charge up, or whatever, than something like a Bolter that's literally ready to fire in an instant. Letting the lighter weapons fire first guarantees that both sides get to fire most of their stuff without one side being devastated just because he lost a roll-off against a shooty army.

4: For the Assault Phase, if we've gotten rid of player turns, they could use their close-combat Initiative stats for determining order of declaring Assaults (If a unit of guardsmen is walking along, and a unit of Tyranids is fast enough to launch out of nowhere and latch on their faces, then the Tyranids should have the assault bonus. But if for any reason the Tyranids didn't attack the Guardsmen could assault them. This also means that if you assault a unit in the middle of a gun line, then the nearby units have the chance to join the fray to help their allies, without having to sit out a round of combat.

Yes, this would be a huge change to the game, but I think it would be worth making.

Initiative- based activation for charging would be fun, but how to implement it? If I'm playing CSM and my opponent i playing SM, our assault phases all theoretically happen 'simultaneously,' but how do we implement that?

IMO there are 2 ways to go with more interactive game turn.

Interleaved phases.
(Roll off for who goes first.)
Player A moves.
Player B shoots.
Player A reacts.(Assault , move or snap shoot.)

Player B moves.
Player A shoots.(if did not snap shoot double move or assault.)
Player B reacts(if they did not shoot.)

Or use the Game turn based on Epic SM.(As 7th ed 40k has about the same amount of units as EPIC now!)


Command Phase.
Roll off to see who has tactical superiority(activates units first.)
(Place orders face down next to units , Fire support, Charge, or Advance.)

Fire Support phase.
Players alternate activating units on Fire Support orders.(Turning over counters as they activate.)
Units may shoot now before any movement takes place .Or hold thier fire untill ALL movement has taken place.

Charge Phase.
Players alternate activating units on charge orders .(Turning over counters as they activate.)
Any units on charge orders can double move or charge into assault,

Advance Phase.
Players alternate activating units on Advance orders.(Turning over counters as they activate.)
Units may move and shoot , or shoot and move.(May only make ranged attacks with move and shoot weapons/attacks.)

Resolution phase.
Tidy up game for the start of next turn.Plot arrivals resolve morale etc.

 Powerfisting wrote:

 Bill1138 wrote:

 Lord Scythican wrote:
Very good suggestions everyone! It seems like this is something people would want, so let's figure out a way to make it work and playtest a few games.


So is the general consensus this?

Basing unit actions on Initiative is bad. So we will alternate actions instead. Players get to choose what unit they activate first. The unit can only perform the action that is allowed in that phase?

This all reminds me of a Nintendo game I used to play called Godzilla: Monster of Monsters where you could only move one monster at a time.

1: Movement Phase: Alternating units would work fine.

2: Psychic Phase: Each Player having their Psychic Phase back to back would be fine.

3: I believe that all of the Shooting Weapons should have their own Initiative that they shoot at (similarly to how Initiative works in close combat) This way the more devastating heavy weapons would have lower Initiatives, showing that they take longer to aim, charge up, or whatever, than something like a Bolter that's literally ready to fire in an instant. Letting the lighter weapons fire first guarantees that both sides get to fire most of their stuff without one side being devastated just because he lost a roll-off against a shooty army.

4: For the Assault Phase, if we've gotten rid of player turns, they could use their close-combat Initiative stats for determining order of declaring Assaults (If a unit of guardsmen is walking along, and a unit of Tyranids is fast enough to launch out of nowhere and latch on their faces, then the Tyranids should have the assault bonus. But if for any reason the Tyranids didn't attack the Guardsmen could assault them. This also means that if you assault a unit in the middle of a gun line, then the nearby units have the chance to join the fray to help their allies, without having to sit out a round of combat.

Yes, this would be a huge change to the game, but I think it would be worth making.

Initiative- based activation for charging would be fun, but how to implement it? If I'm playing CSM and my opponent i playing SM, our assault phases all theoretically happen 'simultaneously,' but how do we implement that?

When both sides have models that assault at the Same Initiative, They resolve the Assaults one unit at a time, alternating between players until all units that assault at that Initiative have done so. Which player goes first would alternate with each turn.

I would also change the rule that the unit doesn't move at all if they fail the charge. If they move anyway, then if a unit fails their charge, they're potentially in a more open position to be charged, possibly by the unit they were attempting to charge.

Overwatch would need to be tweaked:
Each unit may only fire Overwatch against a single unit.
A unit that has fired Overwatch may not declare a charge.
A unit that has attempted to charge may not fire Overwatch.

Perhaps for the assault stage, when units have the same initiative, player 1 rolls attacks/wounds, player 2 rolls attacks/wounds. after both players have rolled for the attacks/wounds, the models are removed.

What do you think of players alternating actions based on leadership? Each time you move/shoot/assault with a unit, do a leadership test. If passed, go to the next unit. If failed, your opponent goes. You could use counters to show units that have yet to move/perform other phase action. Continue until the movement phases of both players are completed. Repeat with the psychic, shooting and assault phases. You can keep turns but you have allowed for the completion of the phases in each turn by both players before going to the next phase.

In any phase, you could move/shoot with/ assault with the lowest initiative units first. This could represent a reactive quality of having a higher initiative, e.g. my shooters here broke that enemy unit, these guys are going to target this other unit.

Just ideas.

Sire122 wrote:
Perhaps for the assault stage, when units have the same initiative, player 1 rolls attacks/wounds, player 2 rolls attacks/wounds. after both players have rolled for the attacks/wounds, the models are removed.

I think you're referring to the close-combat sub-phase. The question was for the charge sub-phase. If two units from different armies declare their assaults at the same initiative step, If their plans are contradictory, which one gets their way, and who gets the charge bonus? My suggestion leaves the close-combat sub-phase pretty much as it is, which is what you described.

My suggestion was that for each Initiative step, players alternate declaring charges one unit at a time. And by alternating which player gets first pick, each turn, this stays fairly balanced.

Ex: If unit A wants to charge unit B, but unit B wants to charge unit C, which would take it out of charge range of unit A, how will it be resolved? By my method, if Unit A goes first they declare their charge and roll for charge range. If they make it into close combat, then unit B cannot charge unit C. If unit A attempted to charge and failed, then Unit B would be free to charge Unit C.

For balancing I believe that this would require tweaking the Overwatch rule. Each unit would still only be allowed to fire Overwatch at a maximum of one unit per turn, but additionally...
A unit that fired Overwatch may not declare a charge later that turn.
A unit that has attempted a charge may not fire Overwatch on that same turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eadartri wrote:
What do you think of players alternating actions based on leadership? Each time you move/shoot/assault with a unit, do a leadership test. If passed, go to the next unit. If failed, your opponent goes. You could use counters to show units that have yet to move/perform other phase action. Continue until the movement phases of both players are completed. Repeat with the psychic, shooting and assault phases. You can keep turns but you have allowed for the completion of the phases in each turn by both players before going to the next phase.

In any phase, you could move/shoot with/ assault with the lowest initiative units first. This could represent a reactive quality of having a higher initiative, e.g. my shooters here broke that enemy unit, these guys are going to target this other unit.

Just ideas.

I don't like the Leadership determining how many units fire before the opponent gets a chance to shoot back. It has the potential to be just as unbalanced as the current system. How well drilled a unit is doesn't really reflect how fast they are on the trigger, plus some weapons just take longer to fire. That's why my suggestion includes a new Initiative stat for ranged weapons. Plus, my method give a benefit to lighter weapons being as they fire first, while the heavier weapons that are more likely to deal Wounds/Hull Points with fewer shots will be fired later.

Reversing Initiative is an interesting concept, but it means that the units that are quicker on the trigger in actuality might be killed while they're waiting for their turn. My suggestion would put the lighter weapons at the higher Initiative, so they're laying out covering fire for the heavier weapons. If a Tank fires an exploding projectile into an infantry unit, there will be so much smoke, dust, and debris that lighter units will not have a clear shot to mop up survivors, whereas they'd have perfect shots before their heavy support fired. I think it works for balance and realism to have the higher initiative weapons fire earlier than the lower Initiative ones.

Those are really good points you are making. I think breaking up the player turn calls for such considerations. What do you think of initiative tests for continuing? Or, should it just proceed by initiative for both sides? Edit: I could see where the assault phase would have highest initiative charges first, and perhaps movement: lowest first.

Eadartri wrote:
Those are really good points you are making. I think breaking up the player turn calls for such considerations. What do you think of initiative tests for continuing? Or, should it just proceed by initiative for both sides? Edit: I could see where the assault phase would have highest initiative charges first, and perhaps movement: lowest first.

The Tradeoff of having lower initiative going first for the movement phase is that if both sides have a unit that want to take the same position, then the lower initiative unit takes it, and the higher initiative unit have the much more difficult time taking it, where if they'd gone first they'd have the position and only have to worry about defending it.

I'd prefer for the Movement phast to be simply based on the units stats, without the randomness of an army with good Leadership potentially getting to move their entire army taking valuable positions before their opponent gets to move. I'd rather the Movement phase to be solely Initiative based, or otherwise one might as well simply have one side move everything, then the other, the first player alternating each turn.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Bill1138 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
I think also it depends, do you want Balance or RTS Tactical Realism?

I think most of the suggestions improve the game both for balance and realism. That was the goal for mine at least.

(This is as a decades old BattleTech Player)
The only problem I am still seeing is you can still do this kind of thing, witch to me will not fix a lot.
Fire Unit 1 at Target A: Did not Kill it!
Fire Unit 2 at Target A: Did not Kill it!
Fire Unit 3 at Target A: Finally Killed it!
Fire Unit 4 at Target B:

There is a way to get past that, but it ends up adding a Phase, Targeting.

I don't see this as a problem. The difference is with alternating activation target a gets a chance to shoot even if they go second.

I say get the Lord of the Rings rule set. It works really good. It can easily be incorporated into a 40K game.

Get rid of the Assault phase, and Overwatch. Go to a "Combat Phase" Do both Psychic phases as one.

Active Player Moves and has Priority in this game turn.

Both players generate 2D6 Psychic dice plus mastery levels. The active player gets to do his power first, then the defending player gets to attempt to deny, or perform a power of his own, followed by the first getting a chance to deny or cast. Note you can use a rotation to cast OR deny, not both.

Combat phase The active player gets to act first, unless a unit has a pistol or assault weapon, you can not both charge and shoot. The active player chooses a unit, the defending player gets to respond. If the Active player chooses to charge, then the defending player can "overwatch" at full BS, but then can not fight in CC if that unit is in contact with the enemy unit, or can counter charge and fight in melee as normal counting as charging as well. If the charge is successful, casualties will not stop the charge from occurring. If the active player shoots at a unit the defending player may go to ground, or charge the attacking unit, thus making the active players attack an "overwatch" type of attack, or return fire. The defending player can not choose targets, just respond to his opponents actions.

Pistol/Assault weapons essentially give a model 2 attacks in the combat phase.

Going to ground make the unit more difficult to hit via cover save or whatever, and makes them unable to assault when they are they active player, and they move as if in difficult terrain on their turn, and fire snap shots on their turn.

I need to do a bit more tweaking, but it is a start.

Eadartri wrote:
What do you think of players alternating actions based on leadership? Each time you move/shoot/assault with a unit, do a leadership test. If passed, go to the next unit. If failed, your opponent goes. You could use counters to show units that have yet to move/perform other phase action. Continue until the movement phases of both players are completed. Repeat with the psychic, shooting and assault phases. You can keep turns but you have allowed for the completion of the phases in each turn by both players before going to the next phase.

In any phase, you could move/shoot with/ assault with the lowest initiative units first. This could represent a reactive quality of having a higher initiative, e.g. my shooters here broke that enemy unit, these guys are going to target this other unit.

Just ideas.

As a low leadership army (Orks) I'm not a fan of being penalized heavily based on a stat other players don't pay much for.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Bill1138 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
I think also it depends, do you want Balance or RTS Tactical Realism?

I think most of the suggestions improve the game both for balance and realism. That was the goal for mine at least.

(This is as a decades old BattleTech Player)
The only problem I am still seeing is you can still do this kind of thing, witch to me will not fix a lot.
Fire Unit 1 at Target A: Did not Kill it!
Fire Unit 2 at Target A: Did not Kill it!
Fire Unit 3 at Target A: Finally Killed it!
Fire Unit 4 at Target B:

There is a way to get past that, but it ends up adding a Phase, Targeting.

I have a suggestion for this - roll armour saves and armour penetration at the end of the turn. Units build up wounds etc but don't resolve them until all the shooting is done.

Same dealy could apply for any sort of alternative activation system and assault - models move into assault during the turn, but the assault doesn't play out until the end of the turn.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Get rid of the Assault phase, and Overwatch. Go to a "Combat Phase" Do both Psychic phases as one.

Active Player Moves and has Priority in this game turn.

Both players generate 2D6 Psychic dice plus mastery levels. The active player gets to do his power first, then the defending player gets to attempt to deny, or perform a power of his own, followed by the first getting a chance to deny or cast. Note you can use a rotation to cast OR deny, not both.

By that method, whoever goes first has a huge advantage in the Psychic phase. The first player sets off a power, the second player has to forgo casting a power to cancel out the first player's power. Then the first player gets to cast another power.

I think the best way to resolve the Psychic phase would be to have one side go, then the other, generating their Warp Charges as normal for each, except that any casualties from offensive powers aren't removed until both sides have cast all of the powers they were going to. Any casualties from the caster getting Perils of the Warp would happen immediately as normal.

Combat phase The active player gets to act first, unless a unit has a pistol or assault weapon, you can not both charge and shoot. The active player chooses a unit, the defending player gets to respond.

The game already has the rule that you can only assault after firing a weapon, if it was a Pistol or Assault Weapon, with Relentless being the exception for the other weapons. So this-far your Combat Phase isn't that different than the current Assault Phase.

If the Active player chooses to charge, then the defending player can "overwatch" at full BS, but then can not fight in CC if that unit is in contact with the enemy unit, or can counter charge and fight in melee as normal counting as charging as well.

I do like the idea of ranged-weapon profiles being usable in close combat. I would do it by having a special rule for close combat that states, "A model that is armed with a ranged weapon with the Pistol or Assault type, that does not fire a blast or template, may be used instead of the model's Attack value, AP, Strength, etc. Attacks made with a ranged weapon in close combat cannot benefit from the 2-weapon extra attack"

If the charge is successful, casualties will not stop the charge from occurring.

Your suggestion isn't Overwatch, it is simply giving the option to sub the unit's shooting weapons instead of their close combat profiles for the first turn of combat. I would much rather a limited number of ranged weapons to be usable in close combat for what they are, instead of just being a potential extra attack. I also prefer some measure of deterrent to a unit that wants to charge another unit, and i think that Overwatch does that just fine.

If the active player shoots at a unit the defending player may go to ground, or charge the attacking unit, thus making the active players attack an "overwatch" type of attack, or return fire. The defending player can not choose targets, just respond to his opponents actions.

So I take it that you're merging the Shooting and Assault Phases into one? And are you having that each game turn one or the other player is the "active player" so that a player may only choose his targets every other turn? I do not like that idea if I've understood it correctly. It makes it too much like those turn-based videogames where characters run forward, hit an opponent, then jogs back to their spot to allow the oponent to do the same thing.

Ideally I would like to see the game a bit more dynamic. An initiative order for ranged weapons reflects how quickly they can aquire targets, and allows the lighter weapons to fire before the heavier weapons start erasing entire units. My version of the Assault phase does alternate allowing players to declare charges, and adds a few extra tactics reflecting how battlefield tactics can change on the spot as unforeseen events occur.

Pistol/Assault weapons essentially give a model 2 attacks in the combat phase.

I would allow Pistols to be a generic +1 Attack if used as a bludgioning weapon, but also allow it to use its own profile instead (typically a single attack but potentially devastating if that is an Exitus Pistol or similar). I'd also allow heavy weapons to be used in close combat as bludgioning weapons (likely +1 or +2 Strength, but with NO Ap).

"By that method, whoever goes first has a huge advantage in the Psychic phase. The first player sets off a power, the second player has to forgo casting a power to cancel out the first player's power. Then the first player gets to cast another power."

That is actually by design. Currently the player whose turn it is has a huge advantage ie they are the only ones allowed to use powers at all. My way, however poorly I have conveyed my thoughts, is to alternate actions within the phase. It opens it up to a strategy of sorts. Which power do you use first? Which ones will I attempt to deny, if you Iron Arm somebody, will I attempt to deny, or will I cast Enfeeble on him? Do you now have to deny my power? Just my thoughts on the matter.

Overwatch, and how poor assault is currently, is a bit much of a deterrent, so that is why I thought this way would work. Your response, however, shows how bad of an idea this is in it's current form. I still believe that a single "combat" phase where all attacks and assaults would happen, I just need to figure out a better way to do it.

Lance845 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Bill1138 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
I think also it depends, do you want Balance or RTS Tactical Realism?

I think most of the suggestions improve the game both for balance and realism. That was the goal for mine at least.

(This is as a decades old BattleTech Player)
The only problem I am still seeing is you can still do this kind of thing, witch to me will not fix a lot.
Fire Unit 1 at Target A: Did not Kill it!
Fire Unit 2 at Target A: Did not Kill it!
Fire Unit 3 at Target A: Finally Killed it!
Fire Unit 4 at Target B:

There is a way to get past that, but it ends up adding a Phase, Targeting.

I don't see this as a problem. The difference is with alternating activation target a gets a chance to shoot even if they go second.

It lets one player "Optimize" his firing.
Example
Play A wants to kill off a Knight and a Russ. So he Fires his Big Guns at Knight A, if that does not kill it, his next chance he fires his next Big Gun at the Knight and then if that does not do it, a third time, it is still "Who has the Big Guns Wins". The targeting Phase cause some "Tactical" decisions and risk.

 Anpu42 wrote:
It lets one player "Optimize" his firing.
Example
Play A wants to kill off a Knight and a Russ. So he Fires his Big Guns at Knight A, if that does not kill it, his next chance he fires his next Big Gun at the Knight and then if that does not do it, a third time, it is still "Who has the Big Guns Wins". The targeting Phase cause some "Tactical" decisions and risk.

But in an actual battle, all of the shots are not hitting the target at the same instant. Units have some ability to change their tactics depending on what's happening around them. Having units firing at initiatives with lighter weapons firing first means the heavier weapon platforms have to survive the punishment of the lighter weapons before they can fire. It is NOT "Who has the Big Guns Wins".

In fact, the current version of the game isn't "Who has the Big Guns Wins". It's who has the most guns and mobility wins. You can't win unless you're claiming objectives or killing the enemy off of the board, and quite often, if you're trying to kill an enemy, the current preferred method is drowning them in weak shots so they just eventually fail enough saves to die. If Big Guns wins, the Baneblade would be over-powered, but as it is, light units get their Cover Saves and can charge it and lay it out with Melta-bombs. The Baneblade doesn't start to be worth its points unless the game is big enough that the opponent can't spread out his infantry or get them into cover.

 Bill1138 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
It lets one player "Optimize" his firing.
Example
Play A wants to kill off a Knight and a Russ. So he Fires his Big Guns at Knight A, if that does not kill it, his next chance he fires his next Big Gun at the Knight and then if that does not do it, a third time, it is still "Who has the Big Guns Wins". The targeting Phase cause some "Tactical" decisions and risk.

But in an actual battle, all of the shots are not hitting the target at the same instant. Units have some ability to change their tactics depending on what's happening around them. Having units firing at initiatives with lighter weapons firing first means the heavier weapon platforms have to survive the punishment of the lighter weapons before they can fire. It is NOT "Who has the Big Guns Wins".

In fact, the current version of the game isn't "Who has the Big Guns Wins". It's who has the most guns and mobility wins. You can't win unless you're claiming objectives or killing the enemy off of the board, and quite often, if you're trying to kill an enemy, the current preferred method is drowning them in weak shots so they just eventually fail enough saves to die. If Big Guns wins, the Baneblade would be over-powered, but as it is, light units get their Cover Saves and can charge it and lay it out with Melta-bombs. The Baneblade doesn't start to be worth its points unless the game is big enough that the opponent can't spread out his infantry or get them into cover.

I thought this was about all combat was "Simultaneous"?

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Bill1138 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
It lets one player "Optimize" his firing.
Example
Play A wants to kill off a Knight and a Russ. So he Fires his Big Guns at Knight A, if that does not kill it, his next chance he fires his next Big Gun at the Knight and then if that does not do it, a third time, it is still "Who has the Big Guns Wins". The targeting Phase cause some "Tactical" decisions and risk.

But in an actual battle, all of the shots are not hitting the target at the same instant. Units have some ability to change their tactics depending on what's happening around them. Having units firing at initiatives with lighter weapons firing first means the heavier weapon platforms have to survive the punishment of the lighter weapons before they can fire. It is NOT "Who has the Big Guns Wins".

In fact, the current version of the game isn't "Who has the Big Guns Wins". It's who has the most guns and mobility wins. You can't win unless you're claiming objectives or killing the enemy off of the board, and quite often, if you're trying to kill an enemy, the current preferred method is drowning them in weak shots so they just eventually fail enough saves to die. If Big Guns wins, the Baneblade would be over-powered, but as it is, light units get their Cover Saves and can charge it and lay it out with Melta-bombs. The Baneblade doesn't start to be worth its points unless the game is big enough that the opponent can't spread out his infantry or get them into cover.

I thought this was about all combat was "Simultaneous"?

It's simultaneous in that both sides are shooting at each other in the same block of time rather than one side sitting idly by as the other fires everything they have, and then taking their turn to fire everything they have back at the opponent. That does not mean every trigger is being pressed at the same instant. Some units on both sides will acquire their targets and fire more quickly than other units.

If you move away from alternating player turns.(current 40k game turn.)
It might be an idea to look at the alternatives available?
These fall into 3 basic types.
Alternating player phases.(LoTR.)
Alternating unit activation,(Epic SM.)
Variable bound .(Bloodbowl.)

Variable bound game turns would need a massive re-write and player adjustment .So I think it is pretty much a non starter.

So we are left with alternating phases and alternating unit activation.

Alternating unit activation needs to have some form of restriction or control on it to prevent the impact of 'deathstar alpha strike'Which is nearly as bad as the alpha strike imbalance in 40ks current game turn mechanic.(Because the range of units in game effect found in 40k is so massively varied compared to other games.).

IMO if you are having to use conditional reactions like overwatch, snap fire or charge reractions etc, the game turn is not doing its job properly.

Most good games cover this in the game turn mechanic, and with the power level in the range of units.

So unless you are happy with restricting the units in the 40k game , some other form of limitation in the game turn may be advisable.
(Orders and activation phases like Epic SM, or actions point pool like Space hulk for example.)

Alternating phases.
(Roll off to see who goes first.)
A moves,
B moves
A shoots
B Shoots
A assaults
B assaults

Worked quite well with 5th ed 40k, without too many issues to resolve.So is a good way to try out basic alternating phases to see if you like this method.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with:
A moves, B moves.

The hangup is on:
A shoots, B shoots.

This is because some armies can have so much firepower that they remove a considerable portion of the enemy in the first shooting phase, so the second player is down in army size, before they even do anything.

That's why I suggested weapons having Initiative Values so both sides fire their lighter weapons first, and the more devastating weapons are fired later. Some units might still be destroyed before they get a chance to fire, but this way one side isn't sunk because he wasn't lucky enough to have the first turn.

What we did with Flames of War:

Instead of taking whole turns where the player moves+shoots+assaults, then the other player, we'd run the whole turn on a unit by unit basis: unit from player A plays the whole turn by itself, then a unit from player B, then another one from player A, etc...

@Bill1138.
Rather than allocate initiative values or some form of restrictive sequencing to the order weapons fire , which can add quite a bit of complication.

We could add limited sensible to hit modifiers to the game.(To make shooting less powerful.)

And/or simply resolve the shooting and assaults simultaneously.
EG do not remove casualties until the end of the phase.(Mark units with wound/damage counters .)
(This also has the advantage of speeding up the game pay a bit too.)

So A rolls to hit, to wound and B rolls to save.(Mark any casualties /damage.)
Then B rolls to hit and to wound, then A rolls to save .(Mark any casualties /damage.)
After all combat has been resolved remove casualties and apply damage.
Many games log damage by using a 'damage dice' next to the unit.(D12 for example.)

Although this would make for a very different game, I've often wondered what the game would play like if the rules from the board game diplomacy were used. In that before each game turn the players write down the movement, and then possible target that they plan on shooting. The game begins and both players move their models at the same time. One movement is completed the players begin the shooting phase where units are fired in the order that they have been written down. If the target unit is destroyed any addition fire targeted to that unit is lost. Also, if a unit is destroyed before it gets a chance to shoot it is also destroyed.

That is one method or everything shoots at the same time at the intended targets. The assault phase would play out in a very similar fashion.

Not a perfect system but I'm wondering how it would play.

@UrsoerTheSquid.
Several historical older games use this method.However, it does slow the game down some what, and puts a huge amount of tactical loading on the front end of the turn, when you put the detail from a game like 40k.

However, the basic concept of this has been adapted for several war games, (giving units orders and sheduling the actions .)
EG the game turn used for Epic Space marine.
This uses set orders , but when units are activated is down the the players.(Taking some tactical loading off the front end.)
And rather than every action happen at once, it uses phases for 'focus on shooting' 'focus on moving' and 'reactions'.

Just transplanting a game turn mechanic from one game to 40k, without adapting it to suit the unique units found in the 40k universe, is not going to work that well.

I think the best suggestion so far was:

Alternate which player goes first each turn:

Movement Phase: One player moves Everything, then the other.

**Psychic Phase: One player casts powers first, generating the additional D6 Warp Charges for both sides as normal. resolve all powers, but do not remove casualties. Now do the same for the second player. After all powers have been cast, remove casualties for both sides.

Shooting Phase: One Player fires everything, then the other.*
*No models are removed as casualties until both sides have resolved their shooting. (with or without a targeting sub-phase)

Assault Phase: Players alternate declaring Assaults. In each case, the assaulting unit gets the bonus, the other does not.


Other rules could be included to further improve the setup. But I think this is probably best as a base concept that won't unnecessarily lengthen the game or introduce confusing rules.

**I can't believe I forgot the Psychic Phase.

 Bill1138 wrote:
I think the best suggestion so far was:

Alternate which player goes first each turn:

Movement Phase: One player moves Everything, then the other.

Shooting Phase: One Player fires everything, then the other.*
*No models are removed as casualties until both sides have resolved their shooting. (with or without a targeting sub-phase)

Assault Phase: Players alternate declaring Assaults. In each case, the assaulting unit gets the bonus, the other does not.


Other rules could be included to further improve the setup. But I think this is probably best as a base concept that won't unnecessarily lengthen the game or introduce confusing rules.

Looks good to me! I think I am going to try a few games and see how it goes.