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.

Movement Phase

One player moves one unit. Then, the next player moves one unit. Repeat until all units have been moved.

Shooting Phase

Pretty much like the movement phase. One player elects a unit to shoot/run/turboboost, then the next player. Repeat until all units have performed an action in the shooting phase (or all units that wish to).

Assault Phase

One player declares a charge (or alternative action, such as Assault Moves on Jetpack units) and resolves it. Then, the next player declares a charge. Repeat until every unit that is going to take actions takes actions. Then, resolve all combats in any order. (In case of a dispute, roll off. The winner decides which combat is done first, the loser decides which one is second, the winner third, etc.)

End Of Turn

Score objectives for both players, and both players mat discard a card.

Thoughts on how this would affect the game?

I have played quite a few game systems with alt moves - Initiative Sinks do become an interesting element of the game.

This idea pops up on here quite a bit. It's interesting, but runs into a lot of problems. An MSU army, for instance, will get a lot of consecutive actions after a unit with relatively few units runs out of actions. This gives the MSU a lot more flexibility and information when taking their actions.

For instance, you can shuffle around some units whose positioning you don't care about much (scoot a dark reaper one inch or something) until your opponent has moved all of his units, then move your remaining units in a perfect fashion to counter their movement.

Similar problems crop up in the shooting/assault/psychic phase.

I kind of like the idea of a variation on this, but i t's a bit more in depth. Something like...

*Armies are created using an agreed upon number of formations.
*Each formation is relatively small. Think something the size of an allied detachment, but with unique options/themeing/rules. For instance, you might have a tech priest and up to four tanks as part of an "armored detachment."
*Now take your idea from above, but have players take turns moving formations/detachments rather than units.

So player A activates his armored detachment and moves his tanks around. Then player B activates his Saim-Hann Battle Clan detachment and moves the jetbikes and vypers it contains around. Repeat until both players have moved all their detachments, then do the same thing but for the shooting and assault phases.

The hypothetical end result is that there's more back-and-forth and less downtime between player decisions, but the advantage of MSU armies is staggered by the fact that you're both activating the same number of detachments even though those detachments might contain a different number of units.

I also kind of like that this system would force a greater emphasis on detachment leaders (usually characters, and usually HQ types) and force you to spend points on upgrades rather than additional units.

Obviously this would favor certain armies over others without additional tweaks.

Wyldhunt wrote:
This idea pops up on here quite a bit. It's interesting, but runs into a lot of problems. An MSU army, for instance, will get a lot of consecutive actions after a unit with relatively few units runs out of actions. This gives the MSU a lot more flexibility and information when taking their actions.

For instance, you can shuffle around some units whose positioning you don't care about much (scoot a dark reaper one inch or something) until your opponent has moved all of his units, then move your remaining units in a perfect fashion to counter their movement.

Similar problems crop up in the shooting/assault/psychic phase.

I kind of like the idea of a variation on this, but i t's a bit more in depth. Something like...

*Armies are created using an agreed upon number of formations.
*Each formation is relatively small. Think something the size of an allied detachment, but with unique options/themeing/rules. For instance, you might have a tech priest and up to four tanks as part of an "armored detachment."
*Now take your idea from above, but have players take turns moving formations/detachments rather than units.

So player A activates his armored detachment and moves his tanks around. Then player B activates his Saim-Hann Battle Clan detachment and moves the jetbikes and vypers it contains around. Repeat until both players have moved all their detachments, then do the same thing but for the shooting and assault phases.

The hypothetical end result is that there's more back-and-forth and less downtime between player decisions, but the advantage of MSU armies is staggered by the fact that you're both activating the same number of detachments even though those detachments might contain a different number of units.

I also kind of like that this system would force a greater emphasis on detachment leaders (usually characters, and usually HQ types) and force you to spend points on upgrades rather than additional units.

Obviously this would favor certain armies over others without additional tweaks.

Wyld, I like that idea a lot. It also relates to a way I've thought about fixing formations-namely, make sure every single unit can fit into multiple, good formations.

In a game like 40k where there is such a disparity in the number of units possible at a given points level, I can see this breaking down.

I'd prefer I Move-You Move, I Shoot-You Shoot, I Charge-You Charge, Fight.

Maybe for added fun the ability to try to steal initiative each game turn.

Jefffar wrote:
In a game like 40k where there is such a disparity in the number of units possible at a given points level, I can see this breaking down.

I'd prefer I Move-You Move, I Shoot-You Shoot, I Charge-You Charge, Fight.

Maybe for added fun the ability to try to steal initiative each game turn.

I'm not a big fan of alternating initiative like that. It's too easy for a shooty army to demolish its opponent by getting two shooting phases in a row without letting them react/take cover. You'd end up with situations where stealing the initiative and getting a double turn let you shift the momentum of the game, but not through a series of interesting choices. It would just be, "Heads or tails? Heads, the game keeps going. Tails, I get to wail on you twice in a row and win because you couldn't meaningfully react to my actions or predict that I'd get to execute them. "

Wyldhunt wrote:
This idea pops up on here quite a bit. It's interesting, but runs into a lot of problems. An MSU army, for instance, will get a lot of consecutive actions after a unit with relatively few units runs out of actions. This gives the MSU a lot more flexibility and information when taking their actions.

On the other hand an army with a smaller number of powerful units has much greater alpha strike power. While your opponent is plinking away with tiny units you're removing a unit from the table every time you activate, before that unit can shoot/run away/etc. In a well-designed system it's not obvious that either approach is correct. And if you're willing to adjust point costs in addition to changing the core rules you can do something like 30k: the cost per model for the initial purchase is much higher than the cost per model to add additional models, so MSU armies pay considerably more per model than an army with maximum-size squads.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
This idea pops up on here quite a bit. It's interesting, but runs into a lot of problems. An MSU army, for instance, will get a lot of consecutive actions after a unit with relatively few units runs out of actions. This gives the MSU a lot more flexibility and information when taking their actions.

On the other hand an army with a smaller number of powerful units has much greater alpha strike power. While your opponent is plinking away with tiny units you're removing a unit from the table every time you activate, before that unit can shoot/run away/etc. In a well-designed system it's not obvious that either approach is correct. And if you're willing to adjust point costs in addition to changing the core rules you can do something like 30k: the cost per model for the initial purchase is much higher than the cost per model to add additional models, so MSU armies pay considerably more per model than an army with maximum-size squads.

That's certainly a fair point, especially in a system like 30k that encourages large squads over MSU. Mechanically, a revised version of 40k that discourages MSU (which would be a massive undertaking and worthy of several threads all on its own) might make this idea more doable. That said, I'll say now that I don't particularly care for the idea of armies like eldar, harlequins, and so forth sending out large squads rather than having lots of small units working in coordination. It simply isn't as fluffy/doesn't match their play style in my opinion.