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.

@Killkrazy.
Have you read my post higher up , the general overview of different game turn mechanics?

40k is not really suited to the alternating game turn mechanic as most units start in weapons range, or are in weapons range after turn one!
And this type of game turn relies on tactical maneuver into weapons range to work well.

I was simply pointing out alternating phases would be the most straight forward game turn to use, to address this issue, in game like 40k.
(Along with extensive re-writing of the core rules to remove pointless complication in the case of 40ks rule set obviously!)

Yes, I have read it.

I agree with your opinion that 40K doesn't work with the current IGOUGO turn sequence, owing to a number of reasons. I also agree that there are many other things wrong with 40K, but changing the turn sequence would be a fairly easy way of restoring some realism.

However on a more general point, fire and movement tactics are based on the idea of getting into assault distance, then assaulting (at which point often the defenders run away.) Therefore a game based on fire and movement needs in some way to allow the attacker to perform this kind of action without giving the defender too much chance to avoid it until his own turn. Since while everything in real life is simultaneous, in reality there is usually an ebb and flow in combat situations with one side holding the initiative and the other side only reacting. This implies a kind of turn and turn structure of events.

Squad Leader (Avalon Hill, 1977) always seemed to work well. The so-called semi-simultaneous sequence was:

Wikipedia wrote:Rally Phase (in which "broken" units attempt to rally and malfunctioning weapons are repaired),
Prep Fire Phase (in which the player whose turn it is may fire on enemy units; any units that Prep Fire cannot move or fire again for the rest of the player turn),
Movement Phase (in which the player may move his units on the board),
Defensive Fire Phase (in which the other player may fire on units that just moved),
Advancing Fire Phase (in which any units that moved may fire, at reduced strength),
Rout Phase (in which any "broken" units must flee for cover),
Advance Phase (in which the player whose turn it is may move every unit one hex)
Close Combat phase (in which any units from opposite sides that start that phase in the same hex engage in close combat)

Squad leader of course was a board wargame using hex maps, but the subject matter is highly relevant to 40K.

@Killkrazy,
I agree that the game play of 40k should be more in line with a modern battle.
With an equal focus on mobility, fire power and assault.
Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement and assault to contest objectives.

So we need to fix a lot of the lacking functions in the 40k core rules while we are at it!

The actual game turn I am using ATM is.

Command Phase.
Rally units on poor morale. suppressed/routing units.
Request off table support, reserves and air/artillery strikes.

Movement phase.
Units may remain stationary and fire to full effect in the shooting phase.

Units may move up to double their movement rate and not make any attacks in the shooting phase.

Units may move up to their mobility rate and fire move and fire weapons in the shooting phase, or go to ground.

Units may declare an assault and move up to double thier mobility rate into base to base contact with the enemy.

Shooting phase.
Units may shoot at enemy units ,if eligible.( following the rules for shooting in the shooting section of the rules.).

Assault phase.
Units may fight with close combat attacks against enemy units they are in base to base/hull contact with.

Resolution phase.
(Tidy up phase, before the new game turn starts.Plot arrivals and resolve arty/Air strikes etc.)

I am using s simple suppression mechanic based on failed saves, and resolving assaults after one round, and using 'push backs' to clear enemy units off objectives.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The great advantage of IGOUGO is that it is very simple and everyone os familiar with it from childhood games.

The problem you have described arises when IGOUGO rules allow a side to deliver too much combat power

40K is an obvious example of a game with this problem.

There are various ideas that break up the flow of a game turn and make it more interleaved. Of course these complicate the rules, so, unless they are desirable because the time divisions of the game are small, it is better to stick with IGOUGO.

For example, in Star Fleet Battles (Task Force Games, 1979) the turn is broken down into 31 phases.

It can just lead to a situation in which the two sides cautiously approach each other, trying not to be the one that gets into charge range at the end of your own movement phase, as this allows the other side to get its charges in first.

Exactly. Igo-Ugo is very clear and very clean, because everybody knows how to play this way. This is quite desirable.

40k has a *lot* of problems, and may fairly be chosen as the poster child for a great many of them in its current incarnation. The massive bloat in points values and power creep exacerbates every issue of Igo-Ugo that 40k ever had. Note that the fact that 40k does something badly, because players and organizers choose to construct bad games from it, doesn't mean that the underlying elements are bad. Particularly Igo-Ugo.

Interleaving isn't terrible, but it adds increasing amounts of dead time every time you break a game turn into more sub-turns. In some ways, you end up with the worst of all worlds, because the shooter still gets to leverage all of their firepower before the opponent goes, but now, the turn structure is slower.

Breaking a single game round into 30 discrete phases is not good design, either. Same with the notion of carrying fractional allocations across turns for future use. And damage boxes. OMG. One imagines a gaming dystopia that marries the modern complexity of 40k with SFB, except that SFB has already traveled that path.

GW "fixes" this with more random, via random charges. Which goes with Fleet of Foot, but against the fixed 6" movement. It's a terrible mis-mash.

31 discrete phases is good design for a space combat game in which giant ships moving near light speed can unleash a wide variety of weapons and take discrete bits of damage while manoeuvring like fighter planes.

It works for Star Fleet Battles and gives the game a unique flavour. That doesn't make the system suitable for other games, necessarily.

@JohnHwangDD.
Alternating game turns, (IGO,UGO) would work fine in 40k IF;-

The minatures were the appropriate scale for the game size played on a 6 x 4 table.(Eg 6 to 15mm.Epic/FoW.)
Or the game size was scaled down to a large skirmish , like 2nd ed .

Both of these things help address the lack of tactical maneuver in to weapons range, which 40k is currently lacking.(The rest of the core resolution methods would need improving and reducing in number to remove pointless complication as well obviously.)

Why on earth would you need to break the game turn into 30+ sub phases for 40k?What is wrong with just move shoot assault interleaved for each player, as outlined in my post?
A lots of players do not like the 'long down time'between the current game turns.

Its my opinion if GW had written a rule set specifically for 40k, rather than mutate WHFB clone, the game play could shine, and we would not need to re set the rules every few years to address the stale game play.

Lanrak wrote:
@JohnHwangDD.
Alternating game turns, (IGO,UGO) would work fine in 40k IF;-

The minatures were the appropriate scale for the game size played on a 6 x 4 table.(Eg 6 to 15mm.Epic/FoW.)
Or the game size was scaled down to a large skirmish , like 2nd ed .

Yes. And yes. You get no argument from me here.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
What makes you think that the they're just waiting?

As above, how does your system not encourge overwatch camping as the default play mode? Why should anybody attack when the clear advantage is to hold deep cover and shoot when models appear?

Does that make for a good game?

Objective are the simplest and most obvious answer. The defender might have the advantage of cover and bonuses to fire, but then that's true of actual war. But objectives are still targeted and taken because commanders use their 3:1 ratio (or more) and use suppressive fire and all sorts of other good stuff to take objectives.

A game in which one player is trying to assault 1 or more objective in that fashion while the enemy is doing the same to them sounds like a pretty good game, to be honest. And it's a concept made more deep and more interesting by giving the defender some natural advantages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
Why on earth would you need to break the game turn into 30+ sub phases for 40k?What is wrong with just move shoot assault interleaved for each player, as outlined in my post?
A lots of players do not like the 'long down time'between the current game turns.

Something like Battletech, with alternating movement followed by simultaneous shooting, would work pretty well I think. You could modify that structure to have a charging phase after combat, where any unit with x" of an enemy can charge, and you'd have most of the game done.

Or you could look at something like Epic, with each unit activating and completing its whole turn (move, shoot, charge, rally, whatever) before moving on to the next unit. That'd probably need to be heavily modified, it's alpha strike system works okay for Epic, but would need to include either a reaction fire mechanic or something else in a 40K setting.

@sebster.
I think something like Battletech game turn would be a better fit for 40k than alternating unit activation,(And the extra rules resulted for scheduling, reactions.)

If we use simple interleaved phase.
A moves.
B moves

A shoots
B shoots

A assaults
B assaults.

We could simply leave casualty removal until after both sides have made attacks .To represent simultaneous hits in shooting/assault.
(When we play tested this we just pot a D10 next to the unit to show the damage/wounds sustained.)

Lanrak wrote:
@sebster.
I think something like Battletech game turn would be a better fit for 40k than alternating unit activation,(And the extra rules resulted for scheduling, reactions.)

If we use simple interleaved phase.

That’s sort of, but not quite how Battletech works. Movement in Battletech is alternating, but sequence matters. So if I move to a hex in my turn, you can’t move there with your mech, and if I move first then you know where I am so you can move to avoid me, or move to the range that gives you the best advantage, or to target my weak rear armour etc. Because it’s alternating it becomes a case of judging your key units and also your most vulnerable, and trying to move those units as late as possible in your turn.

You’d probably need something similar in 40K, if one side moved everything first, then the other side it’d get screwy, most likely.

The other thing to note is that in Battletech shooting is simultaneous, and physical attacks are simultaneous, but not with each other. Ie damage from shooting is appled before physical attacks, if you destroy or sufficiently damage a mech in shooting you can make it incapable of attacking in the physical attack phase. You’d probably need something similar in this 40K set up, it would just work better if defenders got to thin out the ranks of their charging enemies before assault.

@sebster.
I am aware of how Battle tech models its 'simultaneous action'.
But as Battletech has much more in common with a detailed skirmish game,(using 'mechs instead of a single infantry model as is common in most skirmish games.)

I believe it is necessary to use a much simpler and straightforward game turn in a battle game as large and complicated as 40K 3rd-5th ed are.
Interleaved phases, leaving damage resolution until both sides have performed attacks , works well enough, with the much more straightforward rules I am working on.

I like to use abstraction to simplify the rules , while maintaining the tactical elements of the game play.

(Players can alternate going first, or roll off each game turn.)

Start if turn Phase')

Movement Phase.(All movement performed in this phase, and units tactical stance decided here,)
A moves then B moves.

Shooting Phase,
A shoots with their units one at a time and B marks any resulting damage on their units.(We use a D10)
B shoots with their units one at a time,and A markes any resulting damage on their units,
Then SHOOTING casualties are removed and SHOOTING damage noted on vehicles /MCs

Assault Phase,
A fights in close combat with their units one at a time and B marks any resulting damage on their units.(We use a D10)
B fights in close combat with their units one at a time and A marks any resulting damage on their units.
Then CLOSE COMBAT casualties are removed and CLOSE COMBAT damage noted on vehicles /MCs

End of Turn phase.

This replicates the simultaneous shooting resolution that is resolved before physical attacks in assault are resolved.
I am nit sure there is a bit of mis understanding going on here.As it is about 15 years since I played CBT , It is probably me .

Lanrak wrote:
@sebster.
I am aware of how Battle tech models its 'simultaneous action'.

Fair enough. I assumed you weren't familiar with the details, as I'm not sure why you'd ignore its mechanics in your proposal. Alternating activation for movement is simpler a strong system for a 40K style game. It removes most of the funkiness and all around weirdness that would come with moving a whole army before you've seen how your opponent moves his whole army. And probably more importantly - it would be quicker in play, because instead of one player sitting there inactive while the other guy moves his whole army, you'd have a player able to announce his intent, then start moving individual models while the other player announces his intent and starts moving models.

But at this point I'm talking from a very hypothetical position, while you're talking about a design you're moving ahead with. So there's not much else I can say, but I do hope you consider what I've written.

I have decade or more to play battletech but I strongly remember that mechs destroyed early on the turn by a lucky hit or actual damage became suicide attackers because it was already concluded that they are dead, so why bother with heat?

At least the movement was already concluded.

@sebster.
I have nothing against the game turn from Battletech. And I if I was writing a completely a new game it would be in the top of my to try list.

Its just every time I have tried ANY form of alternating unit activation in a 40k re-write.Current 40k players I have talked to seem to have objections, as they 'want to take actions with armies not units'.

Also when letting some current 40k players pick which unit they move and the order of activation, from a selection of a dozen or more units, they suffer from analysis paralysis.(In my experience , more so than when they move their entire armies one unit at a time, which they are familiar with.)

I am simply trying to cover the game play of 40k with a straightforward as rules as possible.(Keeping the core elements of the game play 40k players are familiar with.)

Lanrak wrote:
Its just every time I have tried ANY form of alternating unit activation in a 40k re-write.Current 40k players I have talked to seem to have objections, as they 'want to take actions with armies not units'.

A problem with 40k is that it's armies of individual models, not armies of units a la Flames of War...

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I have decade or more to play battletech but I strongly remember that mechs destroyed early on the turn by a lucky hit or actual damage became suicide attackers because it was already concluded that they are dead, so why bother with heat?

That can happen, but it’s not that likely. There are way bigger problems with Battletech, mostly stemming from being a game written three decades ago that’s seen many versions, but almost no change to its core rules.

So it’s slow as molasses. And at least half of the playing time is spent rolling masses of dice and marking off small amounts of destroyed armour, purely mechanical stuff with no tactical decision making. And it has very simple rules for core mechanics (like who acts first) but has hyper-detail in the most random places (the current rule set will tell you when a sensor mounted on a boat can detect below or above the water line).

I’m not trying to say to people to make more games like Battletech, because they shouldn’t. I’m just using it’s broad structure as a guide to talking about simultaneous activation.

Lanrak wrote:
Its just every time I have tried ANY form of alternating unit activation in a 40k re-write.Current 40k players I have talked to seem to have objections, as they 'want to take actions with armies not units'.

Don’t change your game design because people said they like this and don’t like that. Especially when their criticism is vague and kind of meaningless. You need to go where the design takes you, work on rules elements until they produce a satisfying game.

Also when letting some current 40k players pick which unit they move and the order of activation, from a selection of a dozen or more units, they suffer from analysis paralysis.(In my experience , more so than when they move their entire armies one unit at a time, which they are familiar with.)

Sure, because the concept has tactical considerations that they’re unfamiliar with. But that’s a feature, not a bug. People will quickly pick up the basic tactics, trying to set it up so you’re in a position to react to enemy units that have already moved, and avoid the enemy doing the same to you.

Compare it to the idea that one player has to move every single unit, commit to where it’s going across the board, before the enemy can then move every single unit he has, free to position each unit to gain advantage. That’s a massive tactical disadvantage with no real tactic play available to minimise it.

I am simply trying to cover the game play of 40k with a straightforward as rules as possible.(Keeping the core elements of the game play 40k players are familiar with.)

Probably one of the key 40K elements is the turn structure. If you’re going to change that, there’s no point changing it a little so it becomes unfamiliar but still problematic.

@JohnHwangDD.
I am aware that GW plc tend to focus on rules for individual models, as they see selling models as their business model.And all the options that would support a more tactical game play focus, are discarded in favor of high casualties/ high model count solutions.

However, I think a focus on detailed unit interaction , using the models that compose the units as a basis of the interaction , is a better approach for '40k the battle game'.

@sebster.
I am not changing my game design, I am trying to arrive at the intended game play of 40k the battle game.
Using the most 'transparent' and straightforward core rules I can think of.Eg maximum game play minimum of complication.

I want to start with the simplest solutions that support tactical game play, and only add complication to the rules if necessary.

I have found that it does not matter how technically brilliant the rules may be, if the game play does not feel like 40K, then the majority of 40k players will not see the rules as 40k rules.

I want to change just enough to get the the intended game play without all the pointless complication GW plc seem to favor.

If players want to take actions with their army as a cohesive whole, that is a pretty clear statement of how the players feel the game play of 40k should be. And I do not particularly feel inclined to ignore play testers feed back .

@Lanrak - If you want to improve 40k, bring the points down to where units can breathe and maneuver matters.

@JohnHwangDD.
If you mean reduce the model count to a more reasonable level , and make shooting and assault have more tactical depth and different tactical uses,(beyond just killing stuff.)Then yes I agree.

Yup, you got it!