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.

 whembly wrote:

As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?

4 units are in a combat.
A, B, C, and D.

Units A and C belong to Player 1.
Unit B and D belong to Player 2.

Unit D is engaged with Unit A.
Unit C is fighting Unit B.

It's Player 2's turn, so they activate their unit first.
P2 activates Unit D.
P1 activates Unit C.

You don't resolve a combat at the same time. You resolve by units, activating them one at a time and resolving their attacks, until you run out of units.
Once one side runs out of units to activate, it then just goes to whoever has to finish activating units.

changemod wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)

No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.

Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.

I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".

Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.

You're literally the first person I've ever heard this from, even haters, unless you're the only inhabitant of that camp. But well...

As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?

You pick a unit to go, then your opponent picks a unit to go. Lowers verisimilitude, lowers variation between armies, lowers tactics by making things less reliable.

I'm going to continue and call bullpucky because that means you need more tactics to paliate the uncertainity. As for lowering variation, my guess the source is a certain place... But, don't worry, we won't burst the bubble. You totes have an actual argument.

 whembly wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
It literally self describes itself...

So... er... in movement round, I move "one unit", then my opponent moves "one unit"... alternating till you/opponent can't move?

Then, repeat in shooting/assaulting/etc...

O.o

Odd system...

Only for combat.

We have combat A on one side of the table, combat B on the other side. Each one has one unit from each of our armies. I activate my unit in Combat A, dealing damage. You activate your unit in combat B, swinging before my combat B dudes get to swing. Your combat A dudes are "safe" because the only thing that hit them already went, so you don't have to activate them until all is done.

That's the simplest version, it gets complicated and tactical once you have lots of combats with variable amounts of units in them. Do you swing your strong unit that is in combat with three different weak chaff units? Or do you swing your weak unit that is going to die so it does some damage before going down? Do you swing your hero so he can kill the thing that is trying to kill him, or swing the unit that is with him which can potentially do more damage? Etc.

Wondering how alternate unit activation combat will work with the charger's attacking first rule.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)

No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.

Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.

I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".

Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.

You're literally the first person I've ever heard this from, even haters, unless you're the only inhabitant of that camp. But well...

As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?

You've got three units in CQC, opponent does too and it's my turn. I go, he goes, I go, he goes, I go and he goes. Then it's his turn: He goes, I go, He goes, I go.
If I killed a unit before it would be: He goes, I go, He goes, I go, Igo.

GOT IT! Thanks!

I'll reserve judgment if that's a good system... but, since there's no initiative value, that looks like the direction we're heading.

changemod wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)

No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.

Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.

I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".

Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.

You're literally the first person I've ever heard this from, even haters, unless you're the only inhabitant of that camp. But well...

As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?

You pick a unit to go, then your opponent picks a unit to go. Lowers verisimilitude, lowers variation between armies, lowers tactics by making things less reliable.

Defenders of the concept every time it's brought up claim it's -more- tactical rather than less because it's a decision to be made.

As to the about six people saying they've never heard of this complaint: I can assure you I've seen it around a lot, only slightly less than the alternating turns complaint. I kinda suspect if you haven't you've been focusing more on the wailing and gnashing of teeth complaints about AoS rather than the "I dislike specific thing X for Y specific reason" discussion.

I'd love to have more detail as to why it lowers versimilitude and tactics, because I'm really not seeing how.

I guess it means that traditionally 'fast' armies don't necessarily get the first strike against traditionally 'slow' armies, but frankly that's always been a bit of a drag and can be compensated for with things like faction-based command point uses and special rules.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?

4 units are in a combat.
A, B, C, and D.

Units A and C belong to Player 1.
Unit B and D belong to Player 2.

Unit D is engaged with Unit A.
Unit C is fighting Unit B.

It's Player 2's turn, so they activate their unit first.
P2 activates Unit D.
P1 activates Unit C.

You don't resolve a combat at the same time. You resolve by units, activating them one at a time and resolving their attacks, until you run out of units.
Once one side runs out of units to activate, it then just goes to whoever has to finish activating units.

All making sense now. Thanks!

Zatsuku wrote:
Wondering how alternate unit activation combat will work with the charger's attacking first rule.

Stuff like that exists in AoS - essentially you just get to swing all those units before the opponent gets to choose one. Simple and straightforward.

 whembly wrote:

As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?

After resolving charge moves, the person whose turn it is picks one unit from the whole board that is within 3" of an enemy, pile-s that unit in 3" and resolves all their attacks, wounds are caused, casualties are pulled, etc. Then the opponent does the same, etc etc.

The alternating combat makes things go much faster than 40k as it removes the layers of resolving a particular combat at a time, and each at a particular initiative step. It still has a good amount of depth, choices and anticipation. It does have some weakness and gamey-ness to it but overall I have liked the mechanic so far.

Zatsuku wrote:
Wondering how alternate unit activation combat will work with the charger's attacking first rule.

I imagine the player whose turn it is resolves all charging unit attacks, then all remaining units are activated one at a time, alternating between the players, starting with the player whose turn it is.

 davou wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).

Didn't they say in the Q&A that cover was going to be a modifier on your to-hit, a la Shadow War?

If cover gives a modifier to hit what will that do to ork shooting?

It means we snap fire all the time and don't give a crap about having to

better get into CC instead

Thats what i am afraid of, orks will be a one dimensional target for everyone.

I bet they will get movement 4... (you saw it here first!)

I don't think the alternating player combat order is less tactical, though I do dislike that it is more abstract. It is really hard for me to imagine what it would possibly be representing.

Especially if we are in a game where a lot of models get removed easily, it means that sometimes unit A might wipe out most of unit B before B gets to attack, and B will therefore do very little damage in return. And sometimes the exact opposite. And for no other reason than a choice made by the player that doesn't seem to relate to anything "in universe". To me it lessens the immersion and the narrative and seems "gamey".

Lord Kragan wrote:
I'm going to continue and call bullpucky because that means you need more tactics to paliate the uncertainity. As for lowering variation, my guess the source is a certain place... But, don't worry, we won't burst the bubble. You totes have an actual argument.

You cut out the bit where I already made this argument for you, don't pretend I'm less listening to your side of the argument than I actually am.

Anyhow I'm not a chess player so take this as an example rather than chess elitism, but uncertainty =/= tactics. Some of the games thought of as most tactical have the least uncertain elements beyond each player's ability to track what's going on. This is just a less extreme version of the "You have to plan for double turns, so they're tactical" argument.

Now, the charger goes first mechanic is a fairly good mitigator, it means that dedicated assault units can reliably do their job when they charge a unit that they can kill or cripple in a single turn, but I'm still not pleased at this being ported over to 40k.

Let's just wait til tomorrow and find out what they have to say.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I don't think the alternating player combat order is less tactical, though I do dislike that it is more abstract. It is really hard for me to imagine what it would possibly be representing.

Especially if we are in a game where a lot of models get removed easily, it means that sometimes unit A might wipe out most of unit B before B gets to attack, and B will therefore do very little damage in return. And sometimes the exact opposite. And for no other reason than a choice made by the player that doesn't seem to relate to anything "in universe". To me it lessens the immersion and the narrative and seems "gamey".

That's a reasonable criticism. I don't think there's a great way to represent the chaos of melee, though. At least not one that I've played. I never though Initiative was much better - sure it represents someone with better reflexes or skill going first, but just because you're quick doesn't mean you butcher every opponent before they throw a punch. Plus, the whole charging through cover and grenades rules really made it feel blah in some cases.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 davou wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).

Didn't they say in the Q&A that cover was going to be a modifier on your to-hit, a la Shadow War?

If cover gives a modifier to hit what will that do to ork shooting?

It means we snap fire all the time and don't give a crap about having to

better get into CC instead

Thats what i am afraid of, orks will be a one dimensional target for everyone.

I bet they will get movement 4... (you saw it here first!)

I saw it in Shadow War first
Move 4 won't be the worst thing to happen to Orks - just be sure to bring trukks!
If I'm right about to-hit mods, I don't think it will change much for Ork shooting. It was all about volume of fire before, and that certainly won't change!

 Jambles wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 davou wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).

Didn't they say in the Q&A that cover was going to be a modifier on your to-hit, a la Shadow War?

If cover gives a modifier to hit what will that do to ork shooting?

It means we snap fire all the time and don't give a crap about having to

better get into CC instead

Thats what i am afraid of, orks will be a one dimensional target for everyone.

I bet they will get movement 4... (you saw it here first!)

I saw it in Shadow War first
Move 4 won't be the worst thing to happen to Orks - just be sure to bring trukks!
If I'm right about to-hit mods, I don't think it will change much for Ork shooting. It was all about volume of fire before, and that certainly won't change!

Well while they aren't the same game, AoS Orks (Orruks, bleh) have lots of things that give them extra movement. So many times they'll be moving 4" + d6" and can still Charge since that extra move isn't a Run. We may see similar stuff in 40k!

Requizen wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I don't think the alternating player combat order is less tactical, though I do dislike that it is more abstract. It is really hard for me to imagine what it would possibly be representing.

Especially if we are in a game where a lot of models get removed easily, it means that sometimes unit A might wipe out most of unit B before B gets to attack, and B will therefore do very little damage in return. And sometimes the exact opposite. And for no other reason than a choice made by the player that doesn't seem to relate to anything "in universe". To me it lessens the immersion and the narrative and seems "gamey".

That's a reasonable criticism. I don't think there's a great way to represent the chaos of melee, though. At least not one that I've played. I never though Initiative was much better - sure it represents someone with better reflexes or skill going first, but just because you're quick doesn't mean you butcher every opponent before they throw a punch. Plus, the whole charging through cover and grenades rules really made it feel blah in some cases.

In theory, a lower initiative army will have greater strength or durability, assuming we're still talking assault units anyhow. For an example of this done right, look at Necrons who are currently great in assault but I2.

I'd consider lowering verisimilitude between editions bad design in and of itself. Maybe in a vacuum it's less of a big deal so long as it runs smoothly.

Exactly, Ironjawz are a force that's very good on speed that can move 4 (2 for abilities and 2 for charging)d6+4 inches a turn! Coupled with a few things, you could give your boys a 32 inches maximum threat radius.

 Jambles wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 davou wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).

Didn't they say in the Q&A that cover was going to be a modifier on your to-hit, a la Shadow War?

If cover gives a modifier to hit what will that do to ork shooting?

It means we snap fire all the time and don't give a crap about having to

better get into CC instead

Thats what i am afraid of, orks will be a one dimensional target for everyone.

I bet they will get movement 4... (you saw it here first!)

I saw it in Shadow War first
Move 4 won't be the worst thing to happen to Orks - just be sure to bring trukks!
If I'm right about to-hit mods, I don't think it will change much for Ork shooting. It was all about volume of fire before, and that certainly won't change!

Yeah... no more shootas, lootas and flashgits. Just slugga boyz in trucks.
I have close to 300 painted footsloggers that i really would love to be able to use again.

 insaniak wrote:

Warhammer Community wrote:Don’t worry though – stuff still dies quickly, ...

So... not very close, then.

Disagree! If more than 25% of both players's armies still live, it was a dull affair!

Requizen wrote:


Well while they aren't the same game, AoS Orks (Orruks, bleh) have lots of things that give them extra movement. So many times they'll be moving 4" + d6" and can still Charge since that extra move isn't a Run. We may see similar stuff in 40k!

For sure; Rokkit packs, red paint job, trukks, waaagh... Hell wounds may even come from whever you want now! That means we can pick our drops off the back of a squad.

I really dont care how it works, as long as its ballanced.... and they're telling us that they've playtested all the units...

Wha... Ork rockets hitting the table? Crazy talk!

Still excited. Can't wait. Hurry up with them rules!

Reading in the thread but had a thought.

Initiative is gone, but I bet close combat weapons have some sort of weapon speed attribute attached to them that determines when they strike in melee. Since all the weapons a model has are probably on their datasheet, it would allow for things like Commander Dante' s extremely fast attacks with a power axe, or a regular captain attacking slow with a power fist.

I am excited about #new40k, although not quite as excited as yesterday. Stat line reveal was slightly disappointing. I expected a radical change similar to AoS, but I hope that new stats were result of playtesters' feedback instead of lack of guts to make big changes. I certainly wouln't have minded if the stats were just Move/Wounds/Leadership/Save. I still wonder why they didn't put Attack values into weapon stats. That would have been nice way to make melee weapons more unique (I assume shooting weapons still have number of attacks listed on them).

I am actually happy that Vehicles now follow the same statlines as anyone else. Dreadnought and Terminators still appear to be very resilient to small arms fire. I expect lasgun to hit Dread on 4's, wound on 6's and have no save modifier, meaning that 1 in 36 shots should cause a wound. With 50 lasgun shots, that is 25% chance of doing no damage at all, and 83% chance of doing 0 or 1 wound.

Speaking of vehicles, I wonder how they are going to deal with melta weapons and other stuff that should be able to wreck them. If Land Raider has 14 wounds (just a guess), is it possible to destroy it outright with one lucky melta gun shot?

If I knew more about current 40k and release was a bit further away, I would have fun guessing at new rules. Choppas have -1 Rend at first round of combat? Orks get +1 to hit in close combat if unit has 20 or more models? Gauss weapons cause a mortal wound on a 6 to hit? All Psykers get access to 2 basic Psychic Powers: offensive power that inflicts D3 mortal wounds on one enemy unit within 18" and defensive power that gives +1 to armour saves for one friendly unit within 18"?

 davou wrote:

Requizen wrote:


Well while they aren't the same game, AoS Orks (Orruks, bleh) have lots of things that give them extra movement. So many times they'll be moving 4" + d6" and can still Charge since that extra move isn't a Run. We may see similar stuff in 40k!

For sure; Rokkit packs, red paint job, trukks, waaagh... Hell wounds may even come from whever you want now! That means we can pick our drops off the back of a squad.

I really dont care how it works, as long as its ballanced.... and they're telling us that they've playtested all the units...

And who did the playtesting.

I'm excited for the new stat line when it comes to MC, Walkers and Vehicles. Hopefully they'll all prove tougher to kill. MC should see more wounds on their profile, and the like of Dreads seem less likely to be one-shotted, or worse immobilised in their deployment zone.

Fixed To Hit rolls don't bother me none. There wasn't an awful lot of variety previously after all, so this arguably just removes the chart.

The one thing I'm intrigued by is who strikes when during Ongoing Combat. As a friend pointed out, Emperor's Children in Heresy work around having that important higher Initiative - and much the same for Eldar and Dark Eldar. Sure, you can spunk a Command Point to get a tactically well timed slapping in, but without I, who knows?

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I don't think the alternating player combat order is less tactical, though I do dislike that it is more abstract. It is really hard for me to imagine what it would possibly be representing.

Especially if we are in a game where a lot of models get removed easily, it means that sometimes unit A might wipe out most of unit B before B gets to attack, and B will therefore do very little damage in return. And sometimes the exact opposite. And for no other reason than a choice made by the player that doesn't seem to relate to anything "in universe". To me it lessens the immersion and the narrative and seems "gamey".

That's a reasonable criticism. I don't think there's a great way to represent the chaos of melee, though. At least not one that I've played. I never though Initiative was much better - sure it represents someone with better reflexes or skill going first, but just because you're quick doesn't mean you butcher every opponent before they throw a punch. Plus, the whole charging through cover and grenades rules really made it feel blah in some cases.

In theory, a lower initiative army will have greater strength or durability, assuming we're still talking assault units anyhow. For an example of this done right, look at Necrons who are currently great in assault but I2.

I'd consider lowering verisimilitude between editions bad design in and of itself. Maybe in a vacuum it's less of a big deal so long as it runs smoothly.

I don't think It's fair to require that low Initiative assault units be as resilient as Necron in order to be viable.

Initiative always struck me as too all-or-nothing of a system. If they add army specific rules that let armies like Eldar have advantages during melee activation, they could replicate the same finesse effect without having to use Initiative as a permenant bonus (unless you trip on a branch and don't have grenades).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 davou wrote:

Requizen wrote:


Well while they aren't the same game, AoS Orks (Orruks, bleh) have lots of things that give them extra movement. So many times they'll be moving 4" + d6" and can still Charge since that extra move isn't a Run. We may see similar stuff in 40k!

For sure; Rokkit packs, red paint job, trukks, waaagh... Hell wounds may even come from whever you want now! That means we can pick our drops off the back of a squad.

I really dont care how it works, as long as its ballanced.... and they're telling us that they've playtested all the units...

And who did the playtesting.

A bunch of the different American tournie groups, for a start.

I know

That's the point I was making

Well, thats better than Jervis Johnson and his two friends in a weekend... no?