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.

Greetings Designers,

In the past, we have talked about the roll of Command Points, but now let's move to the much humbler Action Points. An action point is basically a way to determine how many things a model can do during its activation or a turn. Games use a variety of methods to generate action points for a model/unit. Some of them are listed below:

1. Random Action Points based on die/card usage.
2. Profile assigned action points- I.e. all infantry have 2
3. An Action Pool that is then distributed across units
4. Earned. When a unit does X, they earn Y number of Action Points
5. Combinations of the above

There are other methods out there as well. So, let's talk about the role of Action Points in wargames. What games use them well, and how is it done? What are novel ways to generate them you have experienced? Your thoughts on what Action Points allow mechanically that other methods do not?

Discuss!

I think Action Points were discussed nicely under Cards.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/653467.page#8374587

By far my favourite implementation of this mechanic is the Batman (and now Spiderman, but that's basically just an expansion at the moment) Miniatures Game from Knight Models. Each character has a Willpower stat that determines there available action counters, which are then assigned to various characteristics for that turn (attack, defence, move and special). There's a few reasons why I love this system and how it's used:

- you get complete control over how your characters play each turn, something that no other game I know of really does quite as well. There are plenty where you can choose to attack or defend and get certain bonuses, but in BMG your get even more than that; you chose the exact split, so you can go all in on attack to unload a beatdown and hope you ko the opponent before he hits back (as you have no defence available), you could split 50/50, playing it safer, you could put one or two into attack and the rest in move to get a quick hit in before pulling back, so on and all forth. In a game that is so character focused, it really adds a lot.

- damage has a meaning beyond just bringing you closer to death/unconsciousness as you lose Action Counters when you take it. Every two damage you inflict in a turn knocks a counter off for that turn, and every two damage at the start of a turn gives you one less to assign in the first place. This I think makes combat a lot more brutal; if Batman lands a few hits on someone, even if they're not immediately knocked out, there's a good chance you've crippled their ability to fight back this turn, and if they're not then careful, the model may be useless for several more turns unless it recovers a few hit points.

Action points can work very nicely, but there's a common pitfall - when the system fails to give a negative consequence to putting all your action points in to one single, optimum action.

The most common example I've seen of this is in games where you are AP to assign between movement and some kind of attack. Without any greater tactical concept the obvious optimum strategy is to move to a good position and then sit there spamming attacks until the enemy is all dead. You end up with a very static, very dull game.

And it isn’t only a problem that shows up with individual models being given action points. It is a really common problem in games that assign an overall number of action points per side. In many games the obvious optimum strategy is to just activate the same very strong units every turn. Most of the army will stand there doing absolutely nothing. It’s only when a big guy dies that they might finally get to do something.

The problem is far from insurmountable, but given how many action point system fail to address it, it seems like an issue that is almost never addressed.

As to the various kinds of AP systems, well I can’t say I have a preference for any of them, any system that can answer that basic issue of ‘why shouldn’t I pick one optimum action and spend all my AP on that every turn’ has a chance of being a decent game, any system that doesn’t can’t be.

 sebster wrote:
Action points can work very nicely, but there's a common pitfall - when the system fails to give a negative consequence to putting all your action points in to one single, optimum action.

The most common example I've seen of this is in games where you are AP to assign between movement and some kind of attack. Without any greater tactical concept the obvious optimum strategy is to move to a good position and then sit there spamming attacks until the enemy is all dead. You end up with a very static, very dull game.

And it isn’t only a problem that shows up with individual models being given action points. It is a really common problem in games that assign an overall number of action points per side. In many games the obvious optimum strategy is to just activate the same very strong units every turn. Most of the army will stand there doing absolutely nothing. It’s only when a big guy dies that they might finally get to do something.

The problem is far from insurmountable, but given how many action point system fail to address it, it seems like an issue that is almost never addressed.

As to the various kinds of AP systems, well I can’t say I have a preference for any of them, any system that can answer that basic issue of ‘why shouldn’t I pick one optimum action and spend all my AP on that every turn’ has a chance of being a decent game, any system that doesn’t can’t be.

I wonder if the problems you present could be resolved via a system similar to Warmachines focus mechanic- you must assign focus/action points at the start of the turn, and any unused points are lost. This could also be combined with some form of "Reaction" for your opponent (meaning that models that don't receive action points are not useless), opening the possibility that you lose a bunch of action points if your big guy gets killed early (a devastating loss of momentum). This system would require a bit more pre-planning than "spam, spam, maneuver, repeat".

So Infinity's cheerleader approach is a bug, not a feature?

The simple fix is to require that no unit have more than one action per turn.

Seen a few reviews of Iron Cross pop up here and there of late whilst searching for rules and other rules related items.

There is also Crossfire, which doesn't seem to really use activations or turn limits per se.

_
_

^ ^ Infinity attempts to get round the "cheerleader" issue by adding things like infiltrating camo or airborne deployment troops (or simply someone with a grenade launcher, in extremis); a way to get in amongst the cheerleaders and kill them while the single powerful model can't respond.

YMMV as to whether it works.

A lot of games use the " decreasing rewards" or "increasing risk" method of dealing with it. Something like Warmaster's orders system (make a Ld check every time you want to order a unit to move; fail and that officer can;t issue any more orders) or making the activation roll harder (Epic Armageddon adds +1 to the score needed to activate a detachment after the first, but then adds a cap that you can only activate 2 in a row anyway).

Infinity's way of dealing with the issue is how lethal the system is and the fact that models that do not move create a static defense in a fluid battlefield.

That means, models that get orders spend on them have an increased chance of dying or at least receiving damage because of ARO, the models that do not receive orders are static and can be circumvented by the enemy.

IMO, the cheerleader effect is a major negative, and should be discouraged mechanically.

If you want cheerleading, then I'd allocate APs at the start of each turn. Ld test for each action after the 1st, with an increasing penalty to the test for each prior action. Upon failure, no further AP may be spent, player will pass ALL remaining actions, as the mooks stand around slack-jawed.

That's a proper risk-reward scenario, whereby a no risk / low reward strategy of lots of mediocre dudes each burn 1 AP vs high risk / high reward of putting all the APs on one uber-dude, with the risk that he throws away a ton of potential actions.

The Batman mechanic sounds really cool.

and i agree i really dont like the cheerleader effect ether though thats my person opinion.

Whats the difference with the "waste" units other wargames have that do nothing except maybe die because the arbitrary force composition dictates their inclusion.

In contrast in Infinity everybody can be the "active model" and everybody can be the "cheerleader".

The orders system has way too much risk reward and the choice of been a cheerleader is not one to take lightly.

It seems to me that you're working really hard to justify a poor mechanic.

You may dislike it, but it is not a poor mechanic, its commercial success and the fact that is is very well received by the players are a testament on how good the mechanic is.

Yes, it may be a difficult mechanic to work with and other designers may be intimidated by it, but its a solid good mechanic that utilizes well the risk reward, does not fall into the problem of having variable action points per model and allows the units not suited for the engagement to contribute.

It is a well thought and well designed game mechanic.

Commercial success in the miniatures gaming space has practically nothing to do with the actual game mechanics underlying the system. Recall for a fact that GW is, and continues to be, the dominant player in miniatures wargaming, and will almost certainly continue to be so for years to come.

The fact that some players have come to grips with it, doesn't make it a good one, either. Infinity isn't setting the world on fire. Really, you sound like Brandon about how Heavy Gear is good, because the True Believers and White Knights still play it. Self selection for a niche game doesn't mean the mechanics are good. It just means there's a player for every game, no matter how bad it might be.

And your risk-reward claims are laughable, given the Infinity practice of slicing the pie to limit AROs to exactly one at a time. If every 40k encounter allows me to manage my turn so that my Terminator gets to engage a single Guardsman at a time, the risk is low and the reward is high. It's bad game design, pure and simple.

Lets agree on disagreeing then, no point I will present you will persuade you, whether is backed by good data or not and you will insist on your unsupported personal opinion.

And yes, if your companies name is not GW then commercial success means your game system is well done and liked, there is quite a big competition out there and no company will succeed without a good trinity of models, system and fluff.

I wonder what "sets the world on fire" according to you and please DP9 is in coma more than a decade now, CB is expanding a decade now.

Fair enough. We've each said our piece and will move on, even though your "data" is nothing but conjecture, and my personal opinion is strongly supported by the market vastly preferring 40k to Infinity...

Warmahordes set the world on fire. So did Flames of War. CB? Pretty minis, but a meh game.

But then, that's just my personal opinion.

It certainly grabbed the scify animu niche niche

Well the vast majority of players definitely prefer 40k over every other system or company out there so your point is?

If you want to debate the reasons about it, the game system is not it.

Flames of war and warmahords setting the world on fire? maybe some well localized fires perhaps especially towards US for warmahordes, but the whole world? sure.

My data is not conjecture, I know the game system is well received and it is not just the "pretty miniatures".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
It certainly grabbed the scify animu niche niche

The game system?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Well the vast majority of players definitely prefer 40k over every other system or company out there so your point is?

If you want to debate the reasons about it, the game system is not it.

Flames of war and warmahords setting the world on fire? maybe some well localized fires perhaps especially towards US for warmahordes, but the whole world? sure.

My data is not conjecture, I know the game system is well received and it is not just the "pretty miniatures".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
It certainly grabbed the scify animu niche niche

The game system?

Market. the anime niche of things.

 Easy E wrote:
[..]So, let's talk about the role of Action Points in wargames. What games use them well, and how is it done? What are novel ways to generate them you have experienced? Your thoughts on what Action Points allow mechanically that other methods do not?
Discuss!

I think any discussion of [Action Points] must/should inevitably include talking about [Reaction(s)] as well by virtue of being the other side of the same coin, and in many systems a direct subset of action points triggered by an activating model using some sort of AP mechanic.
While already slightly covered in the [Turn Sequence] thread, reaction could probably benefit from a more in depth look as part of this thread.

In my experience however, whether through play, reviews, or readings, reactions in a lot of rulesets seems for the most part to turn into one of the biggest generators of game lengthening ''analysis paralysis'' that eats into both the fun and comfortable time allotment factors.
Having said that, systems without any at all, or much any, capability to react to the activating player(s) in certain situations tend not to be all that fun either; it's a very treacherous middle ground that a lot of games don't navigate all that well.

_
_

Maybe, although one can argue that the market segment that wanted a clean sci fi look is bigger, there is definitely an overlap between the Anime and Sci Fi markets and the aesthetic and background facilitates both, I am more fascinated by the people who dislike anime or sci fi but select Ariadna or haqqislam as their forces because they like how they look.

But from a game systems point of view the vast majority loves the fluidity the orders system delivers and the ARO mechanic, its something a traditional game system cannot deliver.

I am of a mind that Reactions are generally a poor thing and an indicator to a bad game system, characterized by excessive complexity. Reactions are triggered, they interrupt the gameflow, they have all sorts of special rules. Lots and lots of rules for very little net effect.

As I see it, Reactions are generally a result of particular Actions being too powerful, so needing something to blunt it for balance sake. Typically, it's an move-and-attack -with-devastating-effect Action that needs a Reaction to break it up. If the fundamental Action weren't broken, there wouldn't be the need for a Reaction to break it up.

If each player has a sufficient number of turns, then an regular Action in reaction to an opponent's Action is actually better than an explicit Reaction. Game can proceed with a clean Igo-Ugo sequence, without the clutter of interruptions and such.

Personally, the best Reaction that I've seen is BFG's Brace for Impact, which costs the player their next Action. That was really well implemented.

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

In my experience however, whether through play, reviews, or readings, reactions in a lot of rulesets seems for the most part to turn into one of the biggest generators of game lengthening ''analysis paralysis'' that eats into both the fun and comfortable time allotment factors.
Having said that, systems without any at all, or much any, capability to react to the activating player(s) in certain situations tend not to be all that fun either; it's a very treacherous middle ground that a lot of games don't navigate all that well.

AP always sets in when there are meaningful choices to be made, in reactions it is interesting to observe each designers way of dealing with it, most go for an indirect reaction ether with alternative activation or with some limited "overwatch" mechanic, many prefer to leave the interaction altogether like Cavatores systems for mantic, and most parts of GW systems, few give true "simultaneous" reactions.

The batman system mentioned above is interesting it kinda gives a reaction in assigning the dice at the start of the round.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I am of a mind that Reactions are generally a poor thing and an indicator to a bad game system, characterized by excessive complexity. Reactions are triggered, they interrupt the gameflow, they have all sorts of special rules. Lots and lots of rules for very little net effect.

... I am impressed on how directly opposite our design philosophies are, I disagree of course, but I am intrigued in reading this its rare I find somebody who expresses the polar opposite ideas than I do and reading their point of view is always fascinating and enriching.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
I wonder if the problems you present could be resolved via a system similar to Warmachines focus mechanic- you must assign focus/action points at the start of the turn, and any unused points are lost. This could also be combined with some form of "Reaction" for your opponent (meaning that models that don't receive action points are not useless), opening the possibility that you lose a bunch of action points if your big guy gets killed early (a devastating loss of momentum). This system would require a bit more pre-planning than "spam, spam, maneuver, repeat".

Yeah, I think that’s a really good solution. Especially when there’s a balance where you might not need a point allocated to one area, such as defence, but if you need it and don’t have it it can be disastrous. That requires players to make tactical judgements on how few points they can allocate to certain areas.

There's plenty of other solutions possible, as long as it forces players to make some kind of judgement in allocating points – so there isn’t one obvious, superior choice. Space Hulk has an interesting structure, as in any given turn the optimum choice is to just sit there spending all your points on shooting and overwatch. But the enemy is infinite and you have an objective, so you have to make that judgement about when to advance.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
So Infinity's cheerleader approach is a bug, not a feature?

Some people seem to like it. I was skeptical after reading the rules and found after a couple of games, no matter the strengths of the system in other places, it was simply not a game I was ever going to enjoy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
As I see it, Reactions are generally a result of particular Actions being too powerful, so needing something to blunt it for balance sake. Typically, it's an move-and-attack -with-devastating-effect Action that needs a Reaction to break it up. If the fundamental Action weren't broken, there wouldn't be the need for a Reaction to break it up.

Unless that’s the basic design concept. It isn’t bad game design to give units powerful attacks that can devastate armies if left unchecked, and then build the strategy of the game around having to ration your reaction moves to limit the enemy’s attacks, and then planning your own attacks to overcome his reactions.

Now there’s lots of other elements that will go in to that which could stop it being fun and tactical, and probably the biggest of them ‘interrupting the flow, as you say’. If executing an interruption is too fiddly and takes too long then it can be a big problem. But if it’s as simple as putting a card on the table…

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I am of a mind that Reactions are generally a poor thing and an indicator to a bad game system, characterized by excessive complexity. Reactions are triggered, they interrupt the gameflow, they have all sorts of special rules. Lots and lots of rules for very little net effect.

... I am impressed on how directly opposite our design philosophies are, I disagree of course, but I am intrigued in reading this its rare I find somebody who expresses the polar opposite ideas than I do and reading their point of view is always fascinating and enriching.

Heh, yeah. Right now, I'm on a simplicity & streamlining kick, having gotten tired of high chrome systems that tack things on, and then tack fixes on kludges - the whole thing starts to seem excessively fiddly. So I start to pare back and think - what is the minimum required to do X?

Now, that's not to say that a reaction-based game can't be good. Magic, for example, is amazing with it's unified stack mechanic, but to me, its card-based integrated instant/interrupt unified stack mechanic is kinda the special exception that proves the general rule.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
IMO, the cheerleader effect is a major negative, and should be discouraged mechanically.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Infinity's way of dealing with the issue is how lethal the system is and the fact that models that do not move create a static defense in a fluid battlefield.

I just want to touch on this a sec. Not to cause the discussion to go around and around again, I know you both said your pieces but wanted to add a touch. I think you are both correct and wrong at the same time.

Even though there are ARO so the non-active player still plays a role and because of this, there is a risk when moving for the active player as well.. I do believe it is slightly flawed in the aspects that a person can spend all the orders on just one person. I have only seen it happen a few times but that tends to because Veteran players know how to adjust properly, while newer players aren't quite sure how to deal with the situation. This creates a place where a skilled player with a powerful character is more effective than a skilled player with less powerful characters. That can be adjusted properly with game balance, but it does make it harder. I prefer to see how skilled players play when they are forced to utilize orders on less pivotal characters (ie: cheerleaders) so they stop being cheerleaders and contribute more than generating AP.

Now with that in mind, I believe the answer is by limiting activation depending on the model. In other words you can't just use 10 AP to activate the same model 10 times. You can at minimum activate it once, even a second or third time (depending on the model) but then at the risk of fatigue, you get negatives for more activation beyond their limit. Fatigue can come in different forms from less dice pool, shorter movement or other disadvantages but overall to continue moving and activating, there is an increased level of risk.

I love Infinity, it is one of my favorite games. However I do think that being able to activate a unit an unlimited amount of times is a poor mechanic or rather harder to imagine linearly how it happens in a battle timewise. There are times however where units should be able to press an advantage and simply activating once is too little. I like the options of being able to choose and not forced to activate every single unit, but I think it goes to the extreme so that a balance is better.

You loose the flexibility of the system in that way, it becomes too stale, that been said it has been tested extensively to come to that conclusion.

the solution of "ramboing" is the 3 turns limit and the scenarios, making such tactics really sub-optimal.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
You loose the flexibility of the system in that way, it becomes too stale, that been said it has been tested extensively to come to that conclusion.

the solution of "ramboing" is the 3 turns limit and the scenarios, making such tactics really sub-optimal.

If activation were limited to simple 1 activation only, yes the system would loose the flexibility and it could become stale. The idea though isn't to completely remove flexibility but to force players to utilize more flexibility in order management and execution. I don't know what the magic number is without doing testing. I think 1-2 limitations may be too little given the game designs but 3-4 might be closer to a proper balance.

The issue though is that 3 turns and scenarios ultimately only effect tournament play, it is a soft barrier created as a solution in tournaments. The fact that there needs to be a solution of that nature designed to softcap and stop "rambo" means that there is a flaw in the mechanic, even if it is a small one. It is common for new players to play elimination or scenarios with elimination but not always limited to 3 turns. It pops up often on the forums, even here in Dakka where someone is having trouble with lists because they haven't quite gotten the grasp of proper counters. When playing Infinity, you almost have to throw out everything you know about other miniatures games, start from scratch because if you utilize 'other game' strategies you will find yourself coming short. When I talk to people in the Northwest region who pulled in because of beautiful miniatures, low model count and why they stopped playing, these are similar discussions that come up. Yes it is easy to say, oh if you play this way, it is a different game. But... you shouldn't have to say that.

That is my opinion and view though. It just reminds me of when dealing with M:tG and WoW TCG players casual players vs competitive players. There are more casual players unfortunately they tend to migrate to their own 'private' groups vs playing in a store because of competitive players. That is why I think you are both correct and incorrect on it, just from my experience in similar environments. So I'm looking at it from the point of view of why and what effects it from growing at a store level, at least from a USA perspective.

In an Action Point fatigue model, the easiest way to balance it is to simply charge more for each subsequent action. That is, in a balanced AP scenario, each Action costs a number of AP equal to the total number of actions to be performed, so the total cost is equal to Actions * Actions:
- 1 Action? Great, that costs 1 AP.
- 2 Actions? 4 AP, please.
- 3 Actions??? 9 AP.
And so on.

You can have 10 guys doing 10 Actions for 10 AP. Or, you can have Rambo take 3 Actions for 9 AP, with his sidekick doing 1 Action with the last AP.

I'd call that balanced. The rapid cost escalation is a simple fix to balance really strong models vs weak models.