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.

Is anyone else disappointed that 8th doesn't have alternating player turns like AoS during each phase? Once again it's sit and watch you opponent go with his whole army before you get to do much of anything...

I am so used to alternating player actions from other games that I am not sure I can back to old 40k ways. I wonder why they stuck with it?

 KillusMaximus wrote:
Is anyone else disappointed that 8th doesn't have alternating player turns like AoS during each phase? Once again it's sit and watch you opponent go with his whole army before you get to do much of anything...

I am so used to alternating player actions from other games that I am not sure I can back to old 40k ways. I wonder why they stuck with it?

...AoS doesn't have that either. They only alternate activations during combat. And the whole doible turn thing.

It will still be a situation where you're mostly going to be waiting on your opponent, but it sounds like some Stratagems can be used during your opponent's turn so that might help.

 KillusMaximus wrote:
Is anyone else disappointed that 8th doesn't have alternating player turns like AoS during each phase? Once again it's sit and watch you opponent go with his whole army before you get to do much of anything...

I am so used to alternating player actions from other games that I am not sure I can back to old 40k ways. I wonder why they stuck with it?

I know what you mean, even Blood Bowl is engaging cause you're taking turns quite fast sometimes. 40k always felt kind of old school to me, like not a very modern slick ruleset. They have improved it a bit with the new edition but it's still not as easy to play as AoS.

You're not alone in your dissapointment... could have been much more fluid with each player countering the last's rapid-fire decision. It seems as the with the way things are going one turn can make or break a match if it goes the right/wrong way.

I intend to get the new book, play a few games so i make sure i understand the nuance of the new mechanics, and then write a alternating activation house rule.

Sitting around waiting for the entire other players army to go is dull as dirt and takes away from the tactical depth alternating activations brings to the game.

Yes. Disappointing.

alternating activations IMO would make 40k and AoS much better games, but GW is pretty set on its current model.

I am not disappointed in 40K giving into the activation du jour that is alternating activation. Pure alternating activation miniatures war games is one of my least favorite methods of player turn interaction. Especially if the game doesn't have a mechanism for passing.

Alternating activation feels far to neat and orderly for the chaos of war. I also don't like the emergent tactics of tic-for-tac that can happen or taking the initiative one an area of the table has activated and hoping to get that all important double action. It also makes pulling off coordinated actions very difficult (try using a tank for rolling cover in an alternating activation game).

I don't mind IGOUGO games. If handled properly, it is actually one of my preferred activation methods. One of my favorites was Dust Warfare which had a Command Phase that allowed players to take half actions deal with the opposing forces (mostly taking a quick shot for short move) as well as a decent reaction system that required a one-two punch of suppressing the enemy with one unite to assault with another. It also had units that didn't feel like they were made of basal wood and could weather some damage. It also helped that outside artillery, weapon ranged were limited to 36" making alpha strikes hard to pull off.

I don't mind the inactive player status of IGOUGO, which if the game has a decent reaction system isn't really a thing anyways. Sadly, I don't think 40K will have that, but I at very least I can sit back and relax, enjoy a beer while my opponent takes his turn.

Yes, very disappointing indeed. But not all hope is lost. If some mechanics bother you, then you should just apply some houserules to the ruleset. This is your game after all. The rulebook is not holy scripture and can be altered by your gaming group in any way you deem necessary. Have fun is rule numer one.

 KillusMaximus wrote:
Is anyone else disappointed that 8th doesn't have alternating player turns like AoS during each phase? Once again it's sit and watch you opponent go with his whole army before you get to do much of anything...

I am so used to alternating player actions from other games that I am not sure I can back to old 40k ways. I wonder why they stuck with it?

As much as I would've loved a new alternating ruleset there's a very vocal group in the player base that would've up and dropped the game immediately had it been adopted. A lot of people are upset with just the relatively minor changes we've gotten already like armor mods and charging out of deepstrike. Changing the entire foundation would've probably pushed them over the edge.

Oh well, we can always cross our fingers it'll show up in 9th I guess

At least they seem to have fixed most of the other issues the game has. I can deal with old school turn order if the rest of the game is balanced and fun

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 KillusMaximus wrote:
Is anyone else disappointed that 8th doesn't have alternating player turns like AoS during each phase? Once again it's sit and watch you opponent go with his whole army before you get to do much of anything...

I am so used to alternating player actions from other games that I am not sure I can back to old 40k ways. I wonder why they stuck with it?

As much as I would've loved a new alternating ruleset there's a very vocal group in the player base that would've up and dropped the game immediately had it been adopted. A lot of people are upset with just the relatively minor changes we've gotten already like armor mods and charging out of deepstrike. Changing the entire foundation would've probably pushed them over the edge.

Oh well, we can always cross our fingers it'll show up in 9th I guess

At least they seem to have fixed most of the other issues the game has. I can deal with old school turn order if the rest of the game is balanced and fun

A loud minority is exactly that. Of bigger concern to GW is bringing in new blood. If half the game is spent watching tv, looking at your phone, or wandering outside to have a smoke while the other guy does his turn then it's really hard to bring in new players if your game is so incredibly not engaging.

Old players have already bought their models. New players have to build up their armies. If GW wants to really get the game boosted and make more money they need to grow their player base. The most engaging most entertaining game possible is the best way to do that.

I would gladly participate in any kind of letter writing/petition/facebook-twitter campaign to get GW to release a set of alternate rules in the next general handbook that supports alternating activations instead of IGOUGO.

In smaller games i dont see it as too much of a problem, but in larger games sitting for his entire turn could be boring. however in larger games alternating unit activation may take longer than alternate turns, as people plan out more. An interesting middle ground might be alternating detachments in larger battles for tactical play as you give orders to sections of an army rather than individual units. doesnt lose the large battle feel as you still move large amonts each time but you dont have as long on wait times,

Something worth mentioning is you should be doing something during 3/6 of the enemy phases. Psychic is just denial, charge is overwatch (and heroic intervention), and fight does have alternating activation.

Alternate activation is a freaking mess when you have a lot of units.
Something like a battle company can easilly have 30-40 units.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I am not disappointed in 40K giving into the activation du jour that is alternating activation. Pure alternating activation miniatures war games is one of my least favorite methods of player turn interaction. Especially if the game doesn't have a mechanism for passing.

Alternating activation feels far to neat and orderly for the chaos of war. I also don't like the emergent tactics of tic-for-tac that can happen or taking the initiative one an area of the table has activated and hoping to get that all important double action. It also makes pulling off coordinated actions very difficult (try using a tank for rolling cover in an alternating activation game).

I don't mind IGOUGO games. If handled properly, it is actually one of my preferred activation methods. One of my favorites was Dust Warfare which had a Command Phase that allowed players to take half actions deal with the opposing forces (mostly taking a quick shot for short move) as well as a decent reaction system that required a one-two punch of suppressing the enemy with one unite to assault with another. It also had units that didn't feel like they were made of basal wood and could weather some damage. It also helped that outside artillery, weapon ranged were limited to 36" making alpha strikes hard to pull off.

I don't mind the inactive player status of IGOUGO, which if the game has a decent reaction system isn't really a thing anyways. Sadly, I don't think 40K will have that, but I at very least I can sit back and relax, enjoy a beer while my opponent takes his turn.

Usually the alternating activation systems have some sort of mechanism shaking things up, like passes (e.g. Batman), possibility of activating other units after one unit has activated (e.g. Batman again or Epic) limits to the number of activations (like in Dropzone commander) or the activation is otherwise mixed (like in bolt action / antares).

I didn't think that they would have changed it to the 40k though, as it's so big part of the "warhammer experience". Wouldn't have minded it though as I have also been thinking about how to implement it to the rules. In AoS it's not that bad, as the combat is so big part of the game and it's handled like that, but it wouldn't be too bad in that either. For apocalypses, some sort of alternating detachments is a must, otherwise the game is very uneventful to play.

I am glad they keep it how it is. i don't like alternating player turns.

 Lance845 wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 KillusMaximus wrote:
Is anyone else disappointed that 8th doesn't have alternating player turns like AoS during each phase? Once again it's sit and watch you opponent go with his whole army before you get to do much of anything...

I am so used to alternating player actions from other games that I am not sure I can back to old 40k ways. I wonder why they stuck with it?

As much as I would've loved a new alternating ruleset there's a very vocal group in the player base that would've up and dropped the game immediately had it been adopted. A lot of people are upset with just the relatively minor changes we've gotten already like armor mods and charging out of deepstrike. Changing the entire foundation would've probably pushed them over the edge.

Oh well, we can always cross our fingers it'll show up in 9th I guess

At least they seem to have fixed most of the other issues the game has. I can deal with old school turn order if the rest of the game is balanced and fun

A loud minority is exactly that. Of bigger concern to GW is bringing in new blood. If half the game is spent watching tv, looking at your phone, or wandering outside to have a smoke while the other guy does his turn then it's really hard to bring in new players if your game is so incredibly not engaging.

Old players have already bought their models. New players have to build up their armies. If GW wants to really get the game boosted and make more money they need to grow their player base. The most engaging most entertaining game possible is the best way to do that.

I would gladly participate in any kind of letter writing/petition/facebook-twitter campaign to get GW to release a set of alternate rules in the next general handbook that supports alternating activations instead of IGOUGO.

Is there any proof that you guys who want alternating turn sequences/phases aren't also just a loud minority?

Right now I am considering something along the lines of characters Gaining something like "Lead From The Front" which allows a player who activates a unit to also activate a character that is within x" of the activated unit. That way you can bring your bubble buffs with you and bring the characters along for a charge etc.

But it's just a thought about a potential problem I don't actually know exists yet.

In my experience its just a matter of short attention span. In smaller games the 'I go, you go' approach doesn't matter at all. And in larger games, which are completely by the players choice btw, why are you whining that the turn is 'taking too long'? You were the one you decided to play that game! I don't know about you but I actually like long wargames.

Then there's the whole fact of the matter when these people just leave or ignore everything you're doing when its not their turn. Like, you aren't even going to look at the field to see what the other player does? You're just going to wish it was another one of YOUR phases instead? Seems a bit rude.

This is from personal experience though, if you aren't that impatient then that's understandable. But it usually comes down to respecting that its a 2 player game.

 Don Savik wrote:
In my experience its just a matter of short attention span. In smaller games the 'I go, you go' approach doesn't matter at all. And in larger games, which are completely by the players choice btw, why are you whining that the turn is 'taking too long'? You were the one you decided to play that game! I don't know about you but I actually like long wargames.

Then there's the whole fact of the matter when these people just leave or ignore everything you're doing when its not their turn. Like, you aren't even going to look at the field to see what the other player does? You're just going to wish it was another one of YOUR phases instead? Seems a bit rude.

This is from personal experience though, if you aren't that impatient then that's understandable. But it usually comes down to respecting that its a 2 player game.

First, it's not respect. I don't feel disrespected when someone goes to grab a drink or take a gak when it's the beginning of my turn and I pull out my tape measure and start moving around blobs of 15-20 hormagaunts, fiddly gargoyles, and all kinds of other gak. My actual moving them doesn't matter. What the table looks like when I am done does. He has no reason to watch how the sausage is made, he just needs to see the end result. And he barely needs to do that.

It's not like he can react and DO anything about where I put my guys.


Second, it's about wanting more tactical depth in my game. When it's alternating unit activation I have to pick and choose who to move and when. Do I activate psykers early and get buffs? Do I hold them back to wait for the enemy to move into a more favorable position for psyker attacks? Do I move this unit here to try and draw him out? Does he fall for it? Alternating activation is more interesting. As I said above, with IGOUGO it doesn't actually matter where I move. He cannot do anything about it. With alternating activation where I move is a decision laden with risk and reward that my opponent is actively engaged in because it influences his next few minutes of game play. Not watching me. Gameplay.

3rd, I can see why someone might jump to the conclusion that it's about short attention spans. And yeah, some people have short attention spans. But that is not what this is about. I am not interested in alternating activations because I want to pander to the lowest common denominator. I am interested in it because I want a better, more engaging, game that plays more like Chess than Monopoly. (Monopoly, the sledge hammer tactic of buy everything generally always works best.)

Finally, no matter what they do, in a IGOUGO game the first player has a very large advantage. Lets break that down easily. If each army is made up of 100 models and it's reasonable to assume that in 1 in 10 models will successfully kill an enemy each turn than in the first turn player 1 kills 10 models and player 2 kills 9.

Turn 2 Player 1 kills 9.1 and player 2 kills 8ish. And so on.

Except in 40k it's worse, because 1 in 10 is not accurate. Some single models can remove much more than their # in a turn and can weather the return fire better than others (looking at you storm surge). But with a alternating activation system the amount of damage that can be done before the second player gets to respond is limited by the potential fire power of a single unit. First player advantage is extremely diminished in this way. Again, a better game.

Actually, with the typical scenarios and reserve possibilities, it's often the one going second who gets the massive advantage, but otherwise, it's the same thing.

alternating turn sequence really gives a buff to the side with the big hitters.

If I have x points in 10 units and you have the same x points in 4 units.

Then by the time you have activated all 4 of your units (100% of your force optimization) I am likely to still have over half my force optimization to go in the same turn.

Yes I agree that first turn player has the advantage. But games with the big hitters usually favor them over horde armies in turn activation and you are not really fixing the first turn issue. What you are doing is encouraging to take fewer and nastier units than your opponent.

Strategy ratings can be offset with reactionary Overwatch (like 2nd ed) starting units in cover as Hidden or Going to Ground??, or giving them speed modifiers to make them harder to hit, having reserves come in 1st turn, etc

I REALLY REALLY like the suggestion of activating entire detachments as an alternating system. It still belies that bigger detachments will benefit more than multiple detachments. So the game would be predicated that each side has the same number of detachments or even the same type of detachments so that the advantages of different armies could be mitigated.

interesting

 admironheart wrote:
alternating turn sequence really gives a buff to the side with the big hitters.

If I have x points in 10 units and you have the same x points in 4 units.

Then by the time you have activated all 4 of your units (100% of your force optimization) I am likely to still have over half my force optimization to go in the same turn.

What it does is give you a reason to want to build up larger units over MSU. MSU have tactical advantage in granting you more activations with more mobility. You have a better ability to respond and you minimize the damage of a mistake made during a activation.

But the bigger your unit the more impact it has. But it's mistakes eat up a larger portion of your force and you dedicate more to each individual activation with less over all activations. Thats INTERESTING. It's strategic and tactical decisions you make in list building and on the table top. It's not really a buff to the big hitters. It's a inherent counter to MSU.

Yes I agree that first turn player has the advantage. But games with the big hitters usually favor them over horde armies in turn activation and you are not really fixing the first turn issue. What you are doing is encouraging to take fewer and nastier units than your opponent.

Strategy ratings can be offset with reactionary Overwatch (like 2nd ed) starting units in cover as Hidden or Going to Ground??, or giving them speed modifiers to make them harder to hit, having reserves come in 1st turn, etc

I REALLY REALLY like the suggestion of activating entire detachments as an alternating system. It still belies that bigger detachments will benefit more than multiple detachments. So the game would be predicated that each side has the same number of detachments or even the same type of detachments so that the advantages of different armies could be mitigated.

interesting

I don't understand what you think would be happening here. Do you think if I have 10 units and you have 5 that I would only get to activate 5? In alternating activation you spend your activations and I get to respond. A army made up of MSU gets some extra activations at the end of the turn free of your reprisal. Or scattered throughout (if it's more of the bolt action method).

As far as alternating turn sequence goes, I'm not sold on that idea. It seems like too fundamental a change. As for some other stuff being said here... *deep breath*
.
If you finish your turn and then leave your opponent to his go while you twiddle on your phone, leave the table to chat to someone else over nothing or stare blankly at a wall that is incredibly rude. Even if you ignore the matter of accusations of cheating when you get back, your opponent isn't here to move models and roll dice by themselves. They could get two armies and do it alone. This isn't an online match, or a move-and-leave-it chess game. This is a face to face match which amazingly enough requires human interaction. Chilling by the table and sipping a beer is fine, becuase you're present and engaging with your opponent all the same. You don't have to be a chatterbox, sledger or cheerleader. You just have to be present.

As far as rudeness goes, I would put it up there with ignoring someone speaking to you to watch TV. Or pulling your phone out to look at memes in the middle of a social gathering or business meeting.

Lance845 wrote:I don't understand what you think would be happening here. Do you think if I have 10 units and you have 5 that I would only get to activate 5? In alternating activation you spend your activations and I get to respond. A army made up of MSU gets some extra activations at the end of the turn free of your reprisal. Or scattered throughout (if it's more of the bolt action method).

Well I am not familiar with your latter reference, but If you play multiple MSU and I have a few huge hard hitting units....I can bring far more power to bear on you with each of my activations compared to your many smaller ones. There would be a real chance that many of the MSU wont exist by the time I am done with My 5 bigger badder units. You made a reference that perhaps that was a positive.

Some people like to play the Queen with a supporting cast in chess, some like to use the Rooks, knights and bishops with the queen as a sacrificial trade off piece. Different styles for different players. In one miniature game I played the game went from a handful of equal powerful pieces on a team to rules that benefitted a single dominant piece with a couple supporting buffering pieces. The game got boring as tactical positioning became less integral as your pieces relied more on their own merits rather than the support of their teammate units.

personally I enjoy a game where you need a balanced force to thrive.

 admironheart wrote:
alternating turn sequence really gives a buff to the side with the big hitters.

No it doesn't. MSU vs. death stars is actually a very difficult decision because of the advantages in going last, after everyone else has committed. Yeah, you can activate your whole army for an alpha strike, but I can keep my units behind cover, delay my key threats by activating expendable cannon fodder, and only bring out my big guns once you've activated everything and can only watch passively as I kill your stuff without any return fire. In a well-designed alternating activation system you have MSU, death stars, and armies that take a middle ground with some of each. And all of those strategies have arguments in their favor, and are viable options.

one of the big problems with an alternating activation system is horde armies. what do you do when a Grey Knights player (low model count) is playing against an Orc horde list?

BrianDavion wrote:
one of the big problems with an alternating activation system is horde armies. what do you do when a Grey Knights player (low model count) is playing against an Orc horde list?

You just sort it out like BattleTech?

Player A has 4 units
Player B has 12 units
Player A has initiative

the turn:
Player B moves 4 units
Player A moves 1 unit
-- repeat until all units moved
Player A shoots 1 unit
Player B shoots 4 units
-- repeat until all units shot

 admironheart wrote:

Lance845 wrote:I don't understand what you think would be happening here. Do you think if I have 10 units and you have 5 that I would only get to activate 5? In alternating activation you spend your activations and I get to respond. A army made up of MSU gets some extra activations at the end of the turn free of your reprisal. Or scattered throughout (if it's more of the bolt action method).

Well I am not familiar with your latter reference, but If you play multiple MSU and I have a few huge hard hitting units....I can bring far more power to bear on you with each of my activations compared to your many smaller ones. There would be a real chance that many of the MSU wont exist by the time I am done with My 5 bigger badder units. You made a reference that perhaps that was a positive.

Some people like to play the Queen with a supporting cast in chess, some like to use the Rooks, knights and bishops with the queen as a sacrificial trade off piece. Different styles for different players. In one miniature game I played the game went from a handful of equal powerful pieces on a team to rules that benefitted a single dominant piece with a couple supporting buffering pieces. The game got boring as tactical positioning became less integral as your pieces relied more on their own merits rather than the support of their teammate units.

personally I enjoy a game where you need a balanced force to thrive.

If the reference you didn't get was Bolt action let me explain.

Bolt action has you take a dice for each unit you have in your army and place it in a bag with a dice for each unit in the enemies army. You take turns pulling a single d6 from the bag. If it's your d6, you get to activate a unit. If it's the enemies, they get to activate a unit. Do this until the bag is empty.

In this way, you don't backload the turn with a bunch of extra activations for the guy who has more units. (In the example of one guy has 10 and the other guy has 4 we would be trading off activations 1-4 and then the guy with 10 would be doing their 5-10). The Bolt Action method, statistically, spreads those extra activations around throughout the turn and it's all luck of the draw for when it happens. It's just a optional method for choosing who goes when.

As to the rest of your reply, you point out the different strategies that can come from those different mixes of units. YES! Is there anything even remotely like that now in 40k?

Here is the thing. Lets say you make your supper killy really big really expensive unit with a few little supporting units and I go more evenly spread. 1) I can position the bulk of my units to better weather your attacks. I can more easily make use of terrain. I can send small units off to grab objectives. I can present you with a few units you would want to attack so as to distract you from the other side of the board.

You would have no particular target priorety on y side of the table all MSU units being equal. .

On the other hand I have very clear target priority. I know what to tear into because once it falls so does most of your capabilities. And while I can use those first 4 of 10 activations to kite or bait you, after those 4 I have 6 where I know I can come at you free of reprisal. My each activation may have done less, but your lack of activations has crippled your flexibility.

But like you said, those big units will probably crush the little units they hit. It will take a concentrated effort on my part to bring it down. The best is probably someplace in the middle. A few built up units and a few MSU units so you can bring the punch when you need it while staying mobile and flexible.


Where in 40k is there ANYTHING like that kind of tactical thinking? Not in the list building. Not on the table. Alternating activations keeps everyone significantly more engaged while drastically improving the quality of the game play.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
one of the big problems with an alternating activation system is horde armies. what do you do when a Grey Knights player (low model count) is playing against an Orc horde list?

I see this argument every time this comes up. There is no problem. It's no different then it is right now. The horde guys get more shots with weaker models and the elites armies gets less shots with more powerful models.

Use the activation method you prefer. Bolt action, pure alternating with the larger number of units having guys going last, or Battletech. Doesn't matter. Nothing would prevent you from house ruling whatever activation order you and your friends prefer. Play smarter.