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.

So, with all the alpha strike stuff out there, I'm curious who would like to see a complete change of direction.

In short you activate a unit then I activate a unit. HQ could add extra activations as follows.

Generic non-strategists type HQ no extra activations.................farseers, libarians, chaplians

Generic strategists type HQ and named non-strategist type HQ: 1 extra............Autarch, Chapter Master or Eldrad/Tigurius

Named strategist type HQ characters could do 2 extra............Yriel/Lysander

Maybe a command range of 12" allows you to make a LD test to add extra activations once per round. So, a Senior Officer/Chapter Master can once per turn make a LD test to make one extra squad 12" away from him activate at the same time as one other unit. Thus guys like Lysander could do the same thing except 2 extra units. Generic liberian/farseer get no extra activations.

try going back to 3rd edition and using strategy ratings to determine how many units you can activate per activation?

erm, meant 2nd(?) strategy rating is in the '93 rulebook, but I couldn't Find it in the 3rd one.
pg10
Race\Army Strategy Rating
Space Marines 5
Eldar 4
Orks & Chaos 3
Imperial Guard & (Race which shall not be named) 2
Tyranids 1

Tau (in 3rd ed book) 1
others would sort of depend.

another thing, how would you rule on open topped transports? since the models within were moved do they count as moving, or what? or to put it another way, scouting land raiders. move them flat out, get them within 14 of the other side's deployment and you could conceivably have t1 assaults. Or devestators on a stormlord? or any number of other things.

"Maybe" is probably the best answer I could give. "I activate, you activate" is probably smoother in a game system that doesn't have the same scale, and variance in unit sizes and values as others...*shrug*

I personally feel that "I phase, you phase" is a decent compromise, that allows a defending player to counter-move to mitigate some alphastrike damage. YMMV.

Activation-based 40K would work if you couldn't build blobs of troops. If units were limited, to say 15-20 figures max, it'd probably work. But when you can have a single unit of 50...

 Stormonu wrote:
Activation-based 40K would work if you couldn't build blobs of troops. If units were limited, to say 15-20 figures max, it'd probably work. But when you can have a single unit of 50...

Yes it would. 50 man units require two activations.

 Stormonu wrote:
Activation-based 40K would work if you couldn't build blobs of troops. If units were limited, to say 15-20 figures max, it'd probably work. But when you can have a single unit of 50...

Not seeing a issue...SM player drops 3-5 drop pods defender has 50 guys who can only target one squad, while being surrounded by 3-5 space Marine squads? The 2-4 squads left are still going to gut that squad. What if the SM went first and his warlord activated 2-3 squads and forced them to go to ground? So, now 30-40 man squad is snap firing. I think it still works.

Granted a lot of holes in what I proposed a lot of things to work out, but I think it would add a lot of tactics and mitigates alpha strike.

I would like to see it something like this:

Player 1: Movement

Player 2: Shooting

Player 1: Assault

Player 2: Movement

Player 1: Shooting

Player 2: Assault

Player 1: Movement , etc etc

Short answer: yes. Long answer: yeeeesssss.

I mean, go try Epic: Armageddon (seriously, scrounge the models and try it, you probably won't go back to 40k). Alternating unit activation works very, very well there (units are called formations in EA, I'll stick with 40k terminology).

Large discrepancies in unit strength do exist in EA. It isn't a problem, it's actually a feature. You end up having to consider the composition of your army carefully: lots of small units have more activations but no staying power, a few point heavy units are easily outmaneuvered. You generally want to strike a healthy balance.

Taking a gamble to try to activate multiple units in a row, having leaders that can activate multiple units at once, these things also exist in Epic. I think you need to add in similar suppression rules to make it work.

Honestly, you could port 40k to Epic: Armageddon and it would work pretty well.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
I would like to see it something like this:
Player 1: Movement
Player 2: Shooting
Player 1: Assault
Player 2: Movement
Player 1: Shooting
Player 2: Assault
Player 1: Movement , etc etc

move->assault->shoot? Isn't that a major change that could severely impact some armies?

alternate unti activation can work
For 40k it just has to be a little bit more complex, (and actual 40k players are not interested in because it is no 40k any more)

Wrote Rules using this 2 years ago, it worked quite weil for smaller games.

Each unit get 2 Actions, which could be ready, move, shoot, charge
the whole unit must perform the same 2 actions except for ready (a model can always take a ready action instead of the unit action) and a unit can only be activated once per turn
remove every kind of reaction (no intercept, no overwatch)

eg casting a psi power would be a ready action+ shoot/move/etc
special movement needs a ready action but has the possibility of a flyby shoot/charge action

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
I would like to see it something like this:

Player 1: Movement
Player 2: Shooting
Player 1: Assault
Player 2: Movement
Player 1: Shooting
Player 2: Assault
Player 1: Movement , etc etc

But this would not solve the "alpha strike" problem

The activation based play works for small scale games, like Kill team and ZM, but for large scale games I don't think it would go over very good. You could try how DZC does it. They use the alternating activation, but their forces are organized into battle groups (Formations) . For 40k-like example, formation apoc dread mob formation (2+ deff dreads and 2+ units of killakans) I could activate this formation. Moving, shooting, and charging/overwatch. Then after all the activation done, go to the assault phase.

I think 40K would benefit from a more interactive game turn.

However, as previously discussed . alternating phases of some sort would be the easiest way to implement more interaction.With the minimum of fuss.

And if we were to go to 'alternating unit activation ; then the units we activate would have to be better balanced than they are now.
if we are using the larger game size then 'battle group/formation; activation may be a good way to improve balance for this type of game turn mechanic.

Again, it doesn't sound like you guys have much if any real experience with alternating activation games. Units do not need to be balanced for alternating activation to work. Having the option to activate small/weak units to force your opponent to commit their large/powerful units is a valid tactic. And Epic uses alternating activation with a similar unit count to 40k (usually 8-12 activations per side). It works perfectly well at that scale. There's no reason you would need to restrict it to a low model count game, or limit yourself to 3-4 activations per game like DZC.

Also, alternating phases does very little to solve alpha strike problems. You'd be breaking the entire game structure to gain next to nothing.

Player 1 moves
Player 2 moves
Both players secretly select shooting targets for all of their eligible units and resolve them all simultaneously. The psychic phase is executed in the same way.
Both players secretly select assault targets for all of their eligible units and resolve them 1-2-1-2-1-2. If their old target is no longer in range a unit can select a new target when it becomes their turn.

Running is done in the move phase. All this will make Overwatch superfluous so we can remove it.

Alternate Activation would be easy to implement in 40k and a very welcome changed. We have already tried using Bolt Action orders dice to control activation in game and it worked fine. We had exact unit act through its own phases in during its activation. The only real inhibitor is things like orders or psy powers. There is probably an easy way to tailor 40k to an AA system.

Everything CPH has stated is right as well. AA would fix a lot of problems, but many of the main issues would remain in game.

@CalgarsPimpHand.
I have lots of experience with 'alternating unit activation' game turn games.And lots of experience with 'alternating phase' game turn games.
(In the last 34 years of being a war gamer.)
And our group have been trying to 'improve the 40k battle game rules' since 3rd ed hit.

Alternating units activation only works if the effect of activating one element, (model/unit) has a controlled/limited effect on the opposing force.
The 'Deathstar units' found in 40k, can devastate the opposing force in a way they may not recover from after they activate.
And similarly MSU type armies taken to extreme can suck all the fun out of the game play in alternating unit activation games.

You could implement alternating unit activation in 40k.BUT it would need to need lots of work and possible re scaling back to a skirmish game to get good results.
And as RP has released Gates of Antares, I would rather just play that for a 40k skirmish rule set.
(ACs Warpath III has not got enough detail for my liking but it is a lot cleaner and faster than GW 40k rules and loads of people have fun with it!)

Also the players taking one action with all their force then the opponent taking one action with all their force can be tailored to suit many larger game play styles .

And finally , alternating unit activation still lets one element perform multiple actions while the other units do nothing.And so players WILL ask for some for of additional reaction rules.(Charge reactions/ over watch etc.)

Where as alternating phases allows players to react directly after the opponent has taken a single action.So these additional rules are not required.

In a long and detailed discussion on re-writing 40k on another thread.
it was decided a game turn with phases, was part of what made 40k 40k for lots of players.(Along with using D6s.)

And to be fair the rules can be improved a great deal with minimal changes to the core mechanics and resolution methods.(But the rules look radically different even though all that is removed is the bloat of sales department driven special rules and 3rd ed WHFB legacy.)

In summary
Alternating unit activation game turn games work brilliantly in games written specifically for this game turn type.
But 40k has never been written for this type of game turn.And it would need a lot of work to get it to work properly.

If GW states that it is primarily a company to sell collectible miniatures and not a gaming company, I refuse to pay for their rules but buy their mini. if they don't support their game then neither should i.

 Filch wrote:
If GW states that it is primarily a company to sell collectible miniatures and not a gaming company, I refuse to pay for their rules but buy their mini. if they don't support their game then neither should i.

Go you!

I know that Reece from frontline has mentioned in a few streams that he would prefer activation style.
Why wouldn't it fix Alpha strike? It seems like getting at least a movement and shooting out of some of your important units before they are shot of the board would be a huge advantage?

Maybe I'm not understanding how it would work.

I happen to like activation style.

a whole lot less alpha potential and a LOT more strategic planning.

I really like the idea of strat rating for pre turn initiative.

If i want to rewrite all the rules for my own personal 40k it would be based on dystopian legion rules (which are free).

really love that stuff.

 vercingatorix wrote:

Why wouldn't it fix Alpha strike? It seems like getting at least a movement and shooting out of some of your important units before they are shot of the board would be a huge advantage?

Maybe I'm not understanding how it would work.

It depends on what kind of "activation" your are talking about and if there are rules to go around the restrictions

unit activation (a unit moves, shoot, attack before the next one is activated) with limited actions but IGYG
or alternating unit activation

alternating unit activation helps with the alpha strike problem but does not solve it for the existing 40k rules because some formations (like TAU) have rules which still allows them to alpha strikes.

So just changing the phase-system to an alternating-unit-activation-system does not solve the problem as long as the fractions rules are not completely reworked.
But on the other hand, completely reworked Codex rules will solve a lot of problems anyway without making drastic changes to the core rules.

@Kodos.
I think most people realize 40k needs a reset to 4th/5th ed and some changes to game mechanics and resolution methods.
If the lack of 40k game development at GW towers for the last 17 years has taught us anything.It is 'Quick fixes' in isolation (adding on more special rules, )does not work.

The best results require a complete re-write focusing on the intended game play.
(Which ever one the new rules choose to focus on.Trying to cover everything in one rule set also has lead to a massive fail in the 40k rules.)

I vote for:

Alternating phases

Movement player A
Movement player B
Shooting player A
Shooting player B
etc.

Combined with a system of dnd 3.5 style readied actions preferably with faced down cards that have specific scenarios or triggers on them. This should replace all of the out of synch actions such as intercept and overwatch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Squad based activation I would probably not like at all. Unless my fear of boosting deathstars and extra time consumption is unfounded.

I would love alternate activations. It would really only require a couple rules changes with the most complex ones coming from assault.

A turn comprises a single activation of every unit. You determine first player just like you do normally for who activates first and stealing initiative and all that. You alternate first activation on each subsequent turn.

At the beginning of the turn before any activations, generate warp charges. Warp charges are generated by adding up total mastery levels and adding 2d6. Current first player makes the roll. These charges are used both to deny the witch AND to cast abilities. A psyker can attempt to manifest powers during the psychic phase of their activation.

Activating a unit in reserves means rolling to see if they arrive, having them arrive if they do, and following any phases they are allowed to take. (personally, with this set up, I think units should be capable to assaulting after arriving. See below for changes to over watch to help balance this.)

Every unit activated goes through the 4 phases.

During the fight sub-phase of the assault phase all the steps follow as per normal with the following additional amendments.

-If a unit participates in multiple assaults in a single turn the unit reduces it's number of attacks by 2 per model to a minimum of 1 per model for each fight sub-phase after the first. Example. Player activates unit A and charges unit B. They fight as per normal ending the activation just before determining the result of the assault. Player 2 activates unit C and charges into the combat with A and B. Combat commences as per normal moving through the initiative steps with the exception that A and B reduce their number of attacks by 2 per model to a minimum of 1. Note: If there are multiple enemy units in the combat it is a disorganized charge.

-You determine assault results and check moral at the end of the turn after all activation's have completed.

This allows assault units to potentially be overwhelmed by multiple attackers. But also to keep doing what they do best as each unit runs in to face them. They will always have at least 1 attack.

Over Watch- Instead of shooting or running during the shooting phase a unit may go on Over Watch.

-A unit on Over Watch may choose to shoot at any enemy unit that is currently activated, is in line of sight to the unit, is not currently in assault, and is in range of their guns.

-This attack takes place at the end of any phase. Example: Player 1 places unit A on over watch. Player 2 activates unit B. They move the unit towards unit A. After moving Player 1 declares that Unit A will activate and shoot at unit B. They get to shoot.

-Shooting Over Watch is resolved as snap shots. Each unit may only fire over watch once per turn.

-All units begin turn 1 in Over Watch (Trying to throw drop in drop pods or other crap in your first couple activations would be a really bad choice since the entire enemy force is on Over Watch)



I think that would resolve the entire game as a alternate activation game.

why so complicated?

each unit can perform 3 actions, move, shoot, charge, every action can only be done once except for move which can be done twice
models can perform a ready action which is needed to use heavy weapons or use psi powers

if a unit finish an action in 10" of an enemy model, this model (not the whole unit) can perform a reaction (move, shoot, charge).


No need for sub-phases, overwatch etc.

 kodos wrote:
why so complicated?

each unit can perform 3 actions, move, shoot, charge, every action can only be done once except for move which can be done twice
models can perform a ready action which is needed to use heavy weapons or use psi powers

if a unit finish an action in 10" of an enemy model, this model (not the whole unit) can perform a reaction (move, shoot, charge).


No need for sub-phases, overwatch etc.

Because 40k has a lot of core and special rules that influence the effectiveness of the individual models and in particular whole armies with their own unique special rules. Maintaining the basic structure of 40k and in particular the phases where those special rules take effect lets you keep the general game wholly the same without having to rewrite or reinvent whole unit or rules. The psychic powers are built around the phases. Models are currently costed based on the idea that they can generate powers, move, shoot and assault. Reducing the game to 3 actions, 2 of which are needed to cast a power drastically changes the effectiveness of the models capable of psychic powers and makes them grossly over costed.

You have to chose, keep the phase or alternate activations

Both will not work

And if a unit which is activated has to perform all its actions before another unit is activated you can remove the phases and let them act more freely.

A strict "first move, than shoot, than charge!" for one unit and the enemy activate his unit which can "move, run, shoot, move" will lead to much more problems than the current system has.

Also close combat must be changed because alternate activation with the possibility that the attacked enemy unit strikes first is equivalent to a free activation to point cost for all units must be reworked because higher initiative is much more worth with this system (one reason why there is a charge reaction)

 kodos wrote:
You have to chose, keep the phase or alternate activations

Both will not work

And if a unit which is activated has to perform all its actions before another unit is activated you can remove the phases and let them act more freely.

A strict "first move, than shoot, than charge!" for one unit and the enemy activate his unit which can "move, run, shoot, move" will lead to much more problems than the current system has.

I disagree entirely.

There is no reason why each units activation could not follow the 4 phases. It is just the current system with more tactical choices in terms of who you activate when, more small units or less large ones, and how you try to get your enemy to act while you react to your enemy. Oh yeah, and the removal of alpha strikes. A single activation can only cause the damage a single unit could cause. Not an entire army of shooting before you get to do anything.

Lance845 wrote:
Oh yeah, and the removal of alpha strikes. A single activation can only cause the damage a single unit could cause. Not an entire army of shooting before you get to do anything.

Because you keep phases, do not change point cost and don't want to rework the fractions rules, alpha strike is still there.
You know the Tau formation which allows to the whole army the shoot as one unit in the shooting phase? The rule is still there and not banned by alternate activation but much stronger. the same for 12" Overwatch.

There is no reason why each units activation could not follow the 4 phases. It is just the current system with more tactical choices in terms of who you activate when,

More tactical choices for some lists while other are much weaker.
Each and every unit which can do stuff in different phase will become much stronger (running in the shooting phase and still be able to shoot, move in the assault phase etc) while units which are limited to a strict move/shoot/charge become weaker because stuff like combined attack (ranged or melee) to remove a single enemy unit is gone.

The result will be that strong fractions like Eldar or Tau will become stronger while already weak fractions will become weaker

So minor changes will not solve anything without changing the codex rules.
You are adding only a more complicated system on top of an already overcomplicated rule set

Without a clear focus on the end game play,you can end up with an over complicated mess of a rule set unless you are very careful..

So first of all define what game play you want to achieve and work up from that.
Just randomly chucking the ideas you like from several different rule sets, with no clear overview, can get unnecessarily complicated very quickly.
As the above posts seem to prove...

It would be easier if units acted based on their initiative. Like, in the Movement Phase all I10 models move, then all I9, etc... If units from two sides have the same initiative, the players dice off at the beginning and then move one unit each, alternating until they're done.

the shooting phase would act like the assault phase; units shoot based on initiative and if a unit is killed by another of the same initiative, they don't croak until they get a chance to shoot.

in the Assault Phase, charge is handled like it is in the movement phase, and ofc combat would be resolved like it is now.

This makes it so that you can actually build an army around alpha strikes by using high-initiative models. It does require rebalancing almost all existing units, but it's a bit farer than the "alpha strike" model we have now (where you're liable to lose 10-25% of your forces if you don't get the first shooting phase).