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.

This thread needs to be closed, Im sorry, nothing has come of this thread at all.

There are plenty of alternating activation games I have enjoyed. I just don't see many of them last very long due to how complex the system usually gets for new players. The ones that do last, usually are a much smaller scale than 40k is.

I love the interaction that Infinity has when it isn't your turn, but that would never work on a large scale game. Just like the old days of the Overwatch command, you would get units who just stay in cover and refuse to move because whoever moves first gets blasted to pieces.

I'll be the first to admit, I don't count 40k as being deep strategically or tactically, but it is fun (some editions). I would love a smaller model based game rather than units that uses alternating activations with a lot of terrain and buildings where each model is basically a character.

nou wrote:

Yes, we finally do have understanding of our positions.

One last observation for you to chew on - by all your own attempts at making 40K work as AA you probably know by now, that "taking all the same datasheets and providing a new framework" don't work all that well, so it would require double amount of ruleswriting from GW and I don't think that this will ever happen. Technicalities and financial viability aside, you also underestimate psychological and sociological layers of 40K - even such small shift as introducing two ways to calculate army value in 8th created a huge rift and upset the community about the very existence of free choice in this regard, because what 40K community craves the most is a singular officialism (officialdom? What is that a proper word for it?). While oldhammer do certainly exist it is a niche and sticking to old editions is usually temporary as it hinges around having others to play with. There were A LOT of 7th ed reworks in the past two years here on dakka alone, but not even one gained speed, because they were not official. We now have Shadow War and Necromunda return announcement suddenly sprouting enthusiasm about a game, that was available for free as "oldmunda" for the last two decades and was very hard to get new people into, because it was not "officially supported anymore".

Sadly for you, your only way on getting AA version of 40K in any concievable future is not only to write it yourself (or bootstrap on BtGo40K), but also personally rising large enough community around it to actually play it on regular basis, because there are tons of non-core-rules related reasons to stick with IGOUGO official way of things. Take a lesson from this thread and do not start "converting" people by attacking their personal way of having fun as being obsolete/outdated/stupid/not proper/whatever. Be inclusive, not exclusive and try to harder to understand what actually motivates people to do what they freely choose to do.

[Sidenote: new Necromunda might be good news for you, because it is rumoured to be AA, so you could build practical interest in AA with little effort through official GW game playable at GW stores. Logical next step would be rewriting Shadow War kill teams for new "AA engine" (if GW won't do it) and then stepping up from there to full AA 40K.]

I agree that the community has become very divisive over something as inconsequential as points vs power. I also agree that the community would become equally divisive about AA vs IGOUGO. It's true that what the mass community wants is official rules, AND that it does take some tweaks to certain rules to make the units fit (though it's actually very little in general with the BTGo40k and even then it's primarily army wide rules (and mostly in interacting with pins).

I don't care if the entire community decides to play or not. I am interested in having the most fun possible with my own time. I have about 4-6 people I play with regularly who have all really enjoyed AA. We have played 8th as AA with only about 3 or 4 rules to make it work. We have played more games that way then regular 8th. When we teach new players we teach them the real game, then we ask if they want to try AA. The bulk have shifted to playing our way. If I can share with the community the way we play and anyone ends up having more fun because of it, great.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I really wish GWs 3 ways to play was 1) a smaller scale skirmish game with FOC that did not include titanic units and a hard limit to the number of vehicles allowed. 2) Regular scale 40k 3) apocalypse scale 40k.

They could have included alterations to activation methods and turn structures in each version making them usable at each level with just a little work but basically favoring different activation methods to better fit the scale.

That would have been my dream. I didn't really think we would get it, but I did hope.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
There are plenty of alternating activation games I have enjoyed. I just don't see many of them last very long due to how complex the system usually gets for new players. The ones that do last, usually are a much smaller scale than 40k is.

I love the interaction that Infinity has when it isn't your turn, but that would never work on a large scale game. Just like the old days of the Overwatch command, you would get units who just stay in cover and refuse to move because whoever moves first gets blasted to pieces.

I'll be the first to admit, I don't count 40k as being deep strategically or tactically, but it is fun (some editions). I would love a smaller model based game rather than units that uses alternating activations with a lot of terrain and buildings where each model is basically a character.

Infinity works at its scale, but doesn't scale upwards beyond that simply due to the nature of AROs. Since you can get multiple models interrupting a single Ordered model, the system does encourage excessive cover-hugging, and if you're playing on Planet Bowling Ball, your opponent gets (your number of actions x their number of models) worth of AROs, since AROs as written are "free actions."

I feel if there is going to be a scalable system, it would be one where actions and reactions eat into the same pool of available actions.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
There are plenty of alternating activation games I have enjoyed. I just don't see many of them last very long due to how complex the system usually gets for new players.

What is complex about 'I move a thing and use its actions then you move a thing and uses its actions until we're finished'.

 mugginns wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
There are plenty of alternating activation games I have enjoyed. I just don't see many of them last very long due to how complex the system usually gets for new players.

What is complex about 'I move a thing and use its actions then you move a thing and uses its actions until we're finished'.

Mechanically its not that much more complex, but it A: takes longer to complete a turn, and B: Is harder to coordinate your units because your actions are continually interrupted by enemy actions. Which can be frustrating for some.

It may be more "realistic", but Imo the play experience is less fluid. It can become more fluid with experience, but it's less immediately exciting, and less accessible.

And yet X-Wing has no problems being accessible to new players, despite using an alternating activation system that is even more complicated than the most basic concept.

 Peregrine wrote:
And yet X-Wing has no problems being accessible to new players, despite using an alternating activation system that is even more complicated than the most basic concept.

Its not that AA instantly makes a game inaccessible, but it can be another layer on top of what is there. From what I see, X-wing has a much lower model count and zero terrain. Arguably, it might barely function as a game without alternating activations.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 mugginns wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
There are plenty of alternating activation games I have enjoyed. I just don't see many of them last very long due to how complex the system usually gets for new players.

What is complex about 'I move a thing and use its actions then you move a thing and uses its actions until we're finished'.

Mechanically its not that much more complex, but it A: takes longer to complete a turn, and B: Is harder to coordinate your units because your actions are continually interrupted by enemy actions. Which can be frustrating for some.

It may be more "realistic", but Imo the play experience is less fluid. It can become more fluid with experience, but it's less immediately exciting, and less accessible.

I don't really see how it would take longer to complete a turn, to be honest. If we're doing AA, you do a thing, then I do a thing, etc. We are passing the turn and things are moving. With IGOUGO, you get to move, roll dice, then make more decisions, ponder, etc.

B is really just 'more strategy and decisions' which I don't see as complicating things.

 Peregrine wrote:
And yet X-Wing has no problems being accessible to new players, despite using an alternating activation system that is even more complicated than the most basic concept.

And yet X-Wing has essentially nothing in common with 40k and can only even be classified as the same type of game in the loosest possible fashion. Everything from the scale to the mechanics are completely different.

I love threads like this, because they inevitably boil down to a continuous feadback loop of "but x rule works great in y game," followed by the inevitable "but y game is completely different from this game". And it continues from there. Fact of the matter is alternate turns would require a complete foundation up reworking of 40k until it was a game that only vaguely resembles the game in its current form. I respect anyone like the OP's attempts to do this, but ultimately the success of such an en-devour is doubtful and you would be better off just making a brand new system allowing you to use the same models in. 40k in 8th has flaws, some of which a TO can easily fix. The way turns work is not a "flaw", it is a fundamental game mechanic, and what the game would look like without said game mechanic is impossible to say for certain without extensive rewrites and testing that requires more then a couple of guys in their garage to balance properly.

Something they could have done with 8th Edition, a ground up reworking of the game.

edit: and which they partially implemented in the melee phase!

Well, I do know for me alternating activation would slow the game down a little bit because I would no longer be able to mass-roll a couple dozen copy-pasted units at the same time. Although that technically isn't something that you're supposed to do anyway, and it's a situation specific to a few armies running particular builds.

However, it would probably feel faster to the opponent anyway because they don't have to wait it out while I roll hundreds of dice. So the slight increase in overall time would only matter from a scheduling perspective.

 mugginns wrote:
Something they could have done with 8th Edition, a ground up reworking of the game.

Which in a lot of ways they did do, and regardless in the case of this thread is something they chose not to do. If you hate I go you go enough, don't play 40k, but arguing whether or not it would have been better with alternating activation's because it works in X game that involves 10 models on the table at any 1 time is asinine.

tripchimeras wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
Something they could have done with 8th Edition, a ground up reworking of the game.

Which in a lot of ways they did do, and regardless in the case of this thread is something they chose not to do. If you hate I go you go enough, don't play 40k, but arguing whether or not it would have been better with alternating activation's because it works in X game that involves 10 models on the table at any 1 time is asinine.

I do agree that the topic is only academic, anyway, because most 40k players will only play by the rules given by GW, not house rules or homebrew etc.

However, your idea that alternating activations only works in small group level games is entirely incorrect.

 mugginns wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 mugginns wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
There are plenty of alternating activation games I have enjoyed. I just don't see many of them last very long due to how complex the system usually gets for new players.

What is complex about 'I move a thing and use its actions then you move a thing and uses its actions until we're finished'.

Mechanically its not that much more complex, but it A: takes longer to complete a turn, and B: Is harder to coordinate your units because your actions are continually interrupted by enemy actions. Which can be frustrating for some.

It may be more "realistic", but Imo the play experience is less fluid. It can become more fluid with experience, but it's less immediately exciting, and less accessible.

I don't really see how it would take longer to complete a turn, to be honest. If we're doing AA, you do a thing, then I do a thing, etc. We are passing the turn and things are moving. With IGOUGO, you get to move, roll dice, then make more decisions, ponder, etc.

B is really just 'more strategy and decisions' which I don't see as complicating things.

I might say that both your points make my point. More 'strategy and decisions' takes more time. More thinking is more complicated. Less thinking, easier.

Igougo I make a basic plan at the beginning of my turn, and react to the dice for execution. AA I make a framework of a plan and its continually interrupted by the enemy, for which I have to continually adjust. Its not bad as a mechanic, but Id argue its less relaxed and fun.

 mugginns wrote:

tripchimeras wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
Something they could have done with 8th Edition, a ground up reworking of the game.

Which in a lot of ways they did do, and regardless in the case of this thread is something they chose not to do. If you hate I go you go enough, don't play 40k, but arguing whether or not it would have been better with alternating activation's because it works in X game that involves 10 models on the table at any 1 time is asinine.

I do agree that the topic is only academic, anyway, because most 40k players will only play by the rules given by GW, not house rules or homebrew etc.

However, your idea that alternating activations only works in small group level games is entirely incorrect.

I didn't say it only works in small group games. The point I was trying to make is over the second half of this thread it had descended into people throwing out examples of games where it works, almost none of them with mechanics or scale remotely similar to how 40k is played. I am sure if either a sizeable community run group the likes of 9th age or GW themselves put their minds to it an alternating activation 40k would work. But this thread has descended into bad examples then refuted by someone else for being a bad example then refuted by someone else pointing out that it COULD work though. Not very productive.

Besides I think the reason a lot of people are pissed about this is that first strike has been the OP trend of early 8th and the counters haven't come as fast as most would like. GW is about to introduce a bunch of changes to help towards fixing this, and even without those changes I can already see the trend starting to come down a bit. As first strike becomes less reliable it will stop taking tournaments, and once it stops taking tournaments its only going to get used by that dick at the store who wants to drop a bunch of inexperienced players, and those guys will rightfully get shunned.

I've been thinking about trying to do alternating activations, and while I don't think it'd work better than alternating phases (LotR) or cutting the turn to one 'phase' (Warmachine) I'm thinking if you wanted to do it in 40k you'd need some control on the number of "activations" available to an army. You'd have some entity (call it a "command group") composed of a number of units, and an army would have a minimum/maximum number of command groups at a given points level, and then you could alternate activating groups without worrying about one side abusing model count to get too many/too few activations, or requiring players to divide the armies evenly at the table.

You could also replace the "detachment" structure with command groups to limit spamming/skew, like what would happen if the meta-detachments from 7th were used for intelligent purposes instead of to give people free stuff easily. You might, for instance, categorize command groups as "Command" (character(s), possibly with bodyguard unit, gives command points), "Core" (general units, not necessarily just Troops but keeping a lid on things like full-Devastator armies, likely with the option for another character), "Auxiliary" (medium armour, unrestricted specialized units), and "Support" (superheavies, artillery, heavy tanks, flyers), then require a certain number of other groups before you could take Auxiliary/Support choices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tripchimeras wrote:

 mugginns wrote:

tripchimeras wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
Something they could have done with 8th Edition, a ground up reworking of the game.

Which in a lot of ways they did do, and regardless in the case of this thread is something they chose not to do. If you hate I go you go enough, don't play 40k, but arguing whether or not it would have been better with alternating activation's because it works in X game that involves 10 models on the table at any 1 time is asinine.

I do agree that the topic is only academic, anyway, because most 40k players will only play by the rules given by GW, not house rules or homebrew etc.

However, your idea that alternating activations only works in small group level games is entirely incorrect.

I didn't say it only works in small group games. The point I was trying to make is over the second half of this thread it had descended into people throwing out examples of games where it works, almost none of them with mechanics or scale remotely similar to how 40k is played. I am sure if either a sizeable community run group the likes of 9th age or GW themselves put their minds to it an alternating activation 40k would work. But this thread has descended into bad examples then refuted by someone else for being a bad example then refuted by someone else pointing out that it COULD work though. Not very productive.

Besides I think the reason a lot of people are pissed about this is that first strike has been the OP trend of early 8th and the counters haven't come as fast as most would like. GW is about to introduce a bunch of changes to help towards fixing this, and even without those changes I can already see the trend starting to come down a bit. As first strike becomes less reliable it will stop taking tournaments, and once it stops taking tournaments its only going to get used by that dick at the store who wants to drop a bunch of inexperienced players, and those guys will rightfully get shunned.

The alpha-strike trend is supported more by a number of terribly-written units (Heldrakes, Manticores) and uncounterable Deep Strike than it is by the action structure. Alternating activations wouldn't really fix that problem.

tripchimeras wrote:
But this thread has descended into bad examples then refuted by someone else for being a bad example then refuted by someone else pointing out that it COULD work though. Not very productive.

Some of the examples, like rare army list types etc, are bad, but plenty of examples of AA games brought up would scale just fine for 40k.

I confess I'd be willing to give AA a go if it was implemented well, I think.

The problem is that I'm not sure it can be implemented well, or at least any better than existing 40k, which is a mess (and deliberately so).

The game is an awful mess because GW wants people to have a 'bring whatever you want' army, and I think that's neat. It allows for fluffy and cool combinations, including things like 3 Baneblades versus 1750 points of pure conscripts (with HQs, etc etc of course). It does have the effect of making a horrible mess, though, and I'm not sure the way to fix it is to go to AA. In fact, I think the way to fix it is to remove options, but that is even less appealing to me than making the game less of a mess, so let's leave it a mess :3

Options and balance may not be truly mutually exclusive but they are practically exclusive

Random thought on an approach, borrowing a bit from Battle Tech.

What if you did something like this for a turn structure:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TURN 1 (and odd turns)

- Player A moves entire force
- Player B moves entire force

- Player A shoots, charges, or runs with 1 unit
- Player B shoots, charges, or runs with 1 unit
- Repeat till all units have performed their actions

- Combined morale phase

TURN 2 (and even turns)

Same as Turn 1 except player B moves first and activates units first, as follows:


- Player B moves entire force
- Player A moves entire force

- Player B shoots, charges, or runs with 1 unit
- Player A shoots, charges, or runs with 1 unit
- Repeat till all units have performed their actions

- Combined morale phase

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The idea with this is that players make big sweeping unit advancements, and their opponent then makes their movements in response. Shooting is combined at the same step as close combat (since shooting and charging tends to be mutually exclusive). You get a little more granularity in the combat resolution systems and still have to be tactical about which units you choose to fire in which orders, but it's interspersed with what your opponent is doing during their step.

The above seems like it would be simple to implement without having to make any drastic changes to the rules.

I've played 40k as if it were alternative activation, where each player works through each phase simultaneously one unit at a time. This was years ago, and some of what I have to say may not apply to 8th edition.

While I am sure it's something I could have gotten used to, it was less enjoyable for a few reasons:

1) There's lots of models, it's harder to keep track of what has / has not been activated when you are going back and forth.

2) Movement was more dynamic and this made games go longer. I could move to within range of an opponent only to have him move back out of range. There was more dodging than assaulting and games ended with most of each army still on the table.

3) I had the sense sequencing was this really important aspect to what we were doing - i.e. moving the right unit at the right time. But it was very complicated because of the number of models on the board. For example, if I wanted to get a squad of CSMs out of the way to a Vindicator could get into position for a shot, it usually meant something else needed to move first. I always felt stymied at the start of a turn, and it was the same feeling on turn one as on turn seven.

4) It was very hard to line up for an assault because something is always ready to shoot at you. Assault was almost completely avoidable since your opponent had time to react. Think of it as overwatch plus, where the threats you really want to charge have a chance to shoot before you can get to them. For example: I would line up a squad of bikers at about 5 inches during the movement phase, and it would set them up to take fire from 3 other squads before they could pull off the charge. I could move up a daemon prince to where he's right in front of a target unit and they could shoot him down with plasma before the assault phase arrived.

My take is there would need to be an overhaul to movement, shooting and assault for AA to work. Shooting would need to come after assault to keep it fair. Backwards movement would need to be capped to half speed to prevent excessive defense on both sides. Even then, there would likely need to be more than 7 turns in a game because there is so much more defensive movement. The cover system would need to change dramatically, at the very least to include taking cover behind over troops. I would likely want to see rules prohibiting superheavies from moving / shooting until everything else has.

There was one other side to this, which may not seem important until you have tried it, and that's unit caps. In an AA system, it's very easy to use a large unit to break up activations of smaller units in other phases. For example, a large squad of Ork boys spread out over the table can split your opponent's army in half and just sit there. The impact on the game can be too much, I would rather see a squad cap of 10 models to prevent something like this from happening.

 Lance845 wrote:

nou wrote:

Yes, we finally do have understanding of our positions.

One last observation for you to chew on - by all your own attempts at making 40K work as AA you probably know by now, that "taking all the same datasheets and providing a new framework" don't work all that well, so it would require double amount of ruleswriting from GW and I don't think that this will ever happen. Technicalities and financial viability aside, you also underestimate psychological and sociological layers of 40K - even such small shift as introducing two ways to calculate army value in 8th created a huge rift and upset the community about the very existence of free choice in this regard, because what 40K community craves the most is a singular officialism (officialdom? What is that a proper word for it?). While oldhammer do certainly exist it is a niche and sticking to old editions is usually temporary as it hinges around having others to play with. There were A LOT of 7th ed reworks in the past two years here on dakka alone, but not even one gained speed, because they were not official. We now have Shadow War and Necromunda return announcement suddenly sprouting enthusiasm about a game, that was available for free as "oldmunda" for the last two decades and was very hard to get new people into, because it was not "officially supported anymore".

Sadly for you, your only way on getting AA version of 40K in any concievable future is not only to write it yourself (or bootstrap on BtGo40K), but also personally rising large enough community around it to actually play it on regular basis, because there are tons of non-core-rules related reasons to stick with IGOUGO official way of things. Take a lesson from this thread and do not start "converting" people by attacking their personal way of having fun as being obsolete/outdated/stupid/not proper/whatever. Be inclusive, not exclusive and try to harder to understand what actually motivates people to do what they freely choose to do.

[Sidenote: new Necromunda might be good news for you, because it is rumoured to be AA, so you could build practical interest in AA with little effort through official GW game playable at GW stores. Logical next step would be rewriting Shadow War kill teams for new "AA engine" (if GW won't do it) and then stepping up from there to full AA 40K.]

I agree that the community has become very divisive over something as inconsequential as points vs power. I also agree that the community would become equally divisive about AA vs IGOUGO. It's true that what the mass community wants is official rules, AND that it does take some tweaks to certain rules to make the units fit (though it's actually very little in general with the BTGo40k and even then it's primarily army wide rules (and mostly in interacting with pins).

I don't care if the entire community decides to play or not. I am interested in having the most fun possible with my own time. I have about 4-6 people I play with regularly who have all really enjoyed AA. We have played 8th as AA with only about 3 or 4 rules to make it work. We have played more games that way then regular 8th. When we teach new players we teach them the real game, then we ask if they want to try AA. The bulk have shifted to playing our way. If I can share with the community the way we play and anyone ends up having more fun because of it, great.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I really wish GWs 3 ways to play was 1) a smaller scale skirmish game with FOC that did not include titanic units and a hard limit to the number of vehicles allowed. 2) Regular scale 40k 3) apocalypse scale 40k.

They could have included alterations to activation methods and turn structures in each version making them usable at each level with just a little work but basically favoring different activation methods to better fit the scale.

That would have been my dream. I didn't really think we would get it, but I did hope.

I wrote an alternating activation system for AOS that I wanted to use in my campaign events. A lot of the guys really liked it. A lot of the guys hated it with a fiery passion because they built their armies around exploiting AOS double turns and my system invalidated that. I've had people wish cancer on me for writing comp and houserules. So I applaud your efforts and will just say this based on a couple of decades of houseruling: don't try to present it to the community at large because the community at large is not interested in houseruling and many will be outright hostile towards you for the attempt.

If its not official - it might as well not even exist.

The simplest version of AA that I have found to work works like this.

-An activation works exactly like a game turn now. You move, psychic, shoot, charge. If your having trouble keeping track of who activated and who hasn't place a chit or dice next to each activated unit.

- Heroic intervention extended to activations.: I.E. If you activate a unit within 3" of a character the character can activate with the unit.

-Tau Markerlights last until the end of the turn instead of phase.

-Units fight in melee when they activate.

-A unit that starts it's activation in melee can either fall back (all the same restrictions and what not as now) or fight.

-Psychic powers last until the casting units next activation.

-Transports: You either activate the vehicle or the unit inside. If you activate the unit inside it disembarks and acts. If you activate the transport you cannot activate the unit inside on this turn. If a unit can shoot while in the transport, the unit shoots at the same time as the transport.

-Transports that deep strike: When they deploy they activate together, similar to the character rule.

-Necron RP activate when the unit granting the RP activate. I.E. Warriors will trigger their own RP on their activation while a Ghost Ark will trigger one on it's activation and a Res Orb will trigger with the overlord,

That basically works for the vast majority of the game. Adjust any outlier units to taste in ways that make sense.

It's not perfect. But it's functional and makes the game far more engaging.

 Lance845 wrote:
The simplest version of AA that I have found to work works like this.

-An activation works exactly like a game turn now. You move, psychic, shoot, charge. If your having trouble keeping track of who activated and who hasn't place a chit or dice next to each activated unit.

- Heroic intervention extended to activations.: I.E. If you activate a unit within 3" of a character the character can activate with the unit.

-Tau Markerlights last until the end of the turn instead of phase.

-Units fight in melee when they activate.

-A unit that starts it's activation in melee can either fall back (all the same restrictions and what not as now) or fight.

-Psychic powers last until the casting units next activation.

-Transports: You either activate the vehicle or the unit inside. If you activate the unit inside it disembarks and acts. If you activate the transport you cannot activate the unit inside on this turn. If a unit can shoot while in the transport, the unit shoots at the same time as the transport.

-Transports that deep strike: When they deploy they activate together, similar to the character rule.

-Necron RP activate when the unit granting the RP activate. I.E. Warriors will trigger their own RP on their activation while a Ghost Ark will trigger one on it's activation and a Res Orb will trigger with the overlord,

That basically works for the vast majority of the game. Adjust any outlier units to taste in ways that make sense.

It's not perfect. But it's functional and makes the game far more engaging.

A question that I'm honest about:

Would having, say, 6 units inside of a Stormlord offer too much flexibility, do you think? they can shoot out at the same time as the transport and be 1 activation if you want to, or they can disembark individually and give you 7 activations for the lot. Does that increased flexibility to be able to swap between "MSU" and "Deathstar" for activation purposes have any meaningful impact? If not, awesome! If it does, maybe that's acceptable?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The simplest version of AA that I have found to work works like this.

-An activation works exactly like a game turn now. You move, psychic, shoot, charge. If your having trouble keeping track of who activated and who hasn't place a chit or dice next to each activated unit.

- Heroic intervention extended to activations.: I.E. If you activate a unit within 3" of a character the character can activate with the unit.

-Tau Markerlights last until the end of the turn instead of phase.

-Units fight in melee when they activate.

-A unit that starts it's activation in melee can either fall back (all the same restrictions and what not as now) or fight.

-Psychic powers last until the casting units next activation.

-Transports: You either activate the vehicle or the unit inside. If you activate the unit inside it disembarks and acts. If you activate the transport you cannot activate the unit inside on this turn. If a unit can shoot while in the transport, the unit shoots at the same time as the transport.

-Transports that deep strike: When they deploy they activate together, similar to the character rule.

-Necron RP activate when the unit granting the RP activate. I.E. Warriors will trigger their own RP on their activation while a Ghost Ark will trigger one on it's activation and a Res Orb will trigger with the overlord,

That basically works for the vast majority of the game. Adjust any outlier units to taste in ways that make sense.

It's not perfect. But it's functional and makes the game far more engaging.

A question that I'm honest about:

Would having, say, 6 units inside of a Stormlord offer too much flexibility, do you think? they can shoot out at the same time as the transport and be 1 activation if you want to, or they can disembark individually and give you 7 activations for the lot. Does that increased flexibility to be able to swap between "MSU" and "Deathstar" for activation purposes have any meaningful impact? If not, awesome! If it does, maybe that's acceptable?

As has been pointed out, often with alternating activations, 1 really powerful activation gets negated easily. The other guy just runs circles around you because you commit early and are unable to react to the changing battlefield.

If you deploy, you are deploying 1 at a time. Which means you vehicle is sitting still for 6 activations while people pile out of it one unit at a time (unless one of those units is a character, at which point 1 unit and 1 character can activate at the same time). All the while the other guy is able to respond to that.

I don't really see an imbalance there. You either keep them all piled up inside the vehicle and have a power house activation but loose flexibility or you take your time disembarking which would hand flexibility to the other player for a pretty long stretch of time.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The simplest version of AA that I have found to work works like this.

-An activation works exactly like a game turn now. You move, psychic, shoot, charge. If your having trouble keeping track of who activated and who hasn't place a chit or dice next to each activated unit.

- Heroic intervention extended to activations.: I.E. If you activate a unit within 3" of a character the character can activate with the unit.

-Tau Markerlights last until the end of the turn instead of phase.

-Units fight in melee when they activate.

-A unit that starts it's activation in melee can either fall back (all the same restrictions and what not as now) or fight.

-Psychic powers last until the casting units next activation.

-Transports: You either activate the vehicle or the unit inside. If you activate the unit inside it disembarks and acts. If you activate the transport you cannot activate the unit inside on this turn. If a unit can shoot while in the transport, the unit shoots at the same time as the transport.

-Transports that deep strike: When they deploy they activate together, similar to the character rule.

-Necron RP activate when the unit granting the RP activate. I.E. Warriors will trigger their own RP on their activation while a Ghost Ark will trigger one on it's activation and a Res Orb will trigger with the overlord,

That basically works for the vast majority of the game. Adjust any outlier units to taste in ways that make sense.

It's not perfect. But it's functional and makes the game far more engaging.

A question that I'm honest about:

Would having, say, 6 units inside of a Stormlord offer too much flexibility, do you think? they can shoot out at the same time as the transport and be 1 activation if you want to, or they can disembark individually and give you 7 activations for the lot. Does that increased flexibility to be able to swap between "MSU" and "Deathstar" for activation purposes have any meaningful impact? If not, awesome! If it does, maybe that's acceptable?

As has been pointed out, often with alternating activations, 1 really powerful activation gets negated easily. The other guy just runs circles around you because you commit early and are unable to react to the changing battlefield.

If you deploy, you are deploying 1 at a time. Which means you vehicle is sitting still for 7 activations while people pile out of it one unit at a time (unless one of those units is a character, at which point 1 unit and 1 character can activate at the same time). All the while the other guy is able to respond to that.

I don't really see an imbalance there. You either keep them all piled up inside the vehicle and have a power house activation but loose flexibility or you take your time disembarking which would hand flexibility to the other player for a pretty long stretch of time.

The second one is the one I'm worried about. Aren't throwaway activations that force your opponent to activate his big stuff while you dick around and do nothing meaningful a problem?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The simplest version of AA that I have found to work works like this.

-An activation works exactly like a game turn now. You move, psychic, shoot, charge. If your having trouble keeping track of who activated and who hasn't place a chit or dice next to each activated unit.

- Heroic intervention extended to activations.: I.E. If you activate a unit within 3" of a character the character can activate with the unit.

-Tau Markerlights last until the end of the turn instead of phase.

-Units fight in melee when they activate.

-A unit that starts it's activation in melee can either fall back (all the same restrictions and what not as now) or fight.

-Psychic powers last until the casting units next activation.

-Transports: You either activate the vehicle or the unit inside. If you activate the unit inside it disembarks and acts. If you activate the transport you cannot activate the unit inside on this turn. If a unit can shoot while in the transport, the unit shoots at the same time as the transport.

-Transports that deep strike: When they deploy they activate together, similar to the character rule.

-Necron RP activate when the unit granting the RP activate. I.E. Warriors will trigger their own RP on their activation while a Ghost Ark will trigger one on it's activation and a Res Orb will trigger with the overlord,

That basically works for the vast majority of the game. Adjust any outlier units to taste in ways that make sense.

It's not perfect. But it's functional and makes the game far more engaging.

A question that I'm honest about:

Would having, say, 6 units inside of a Stormlord offer too much flexibility, do you think? they can shoot out at the same time as the transport and be 1 activation if you want to, or they can disembark individually and give you 7 activations for the lot. Does that increased flexibility to be able to swap between "MSU" and "Deathstar" for activation purposes have any meaningful impact? If not, awesome! If it does, maybe that's acceptable?

As has been pointed out, often with alternating activations, 1 really powerful activation gets negated easily. The other guy just runs circles around you because you commit early and are unable to react to the changing battlefield.

If you deploy, you are deploying 1 at a time. Which means you vehicle is sitting still for 7 activations while people pile out of it one unit at a time (unless one of those units is a character, at which point 1 unit and 1 character can activate at the same time). All the while the other guy is able to respond to that.

I don't really see an imbalance there. You either keep them all piled up inside the vehicle and have a power house activation but loose flexibility or you take your time disembarking which would hand flexibility to the other player for a pretty long stretch of time.

The second one is the one I'm worried about. Aren't throwaway activations that force your opponent to activate his big stuff while you dick around and do nothing meaningful a problem?

Let's pretend that situation is going on. Every time you pull out say.. some 20 point single model unit, a couple things can occur. 1) those 20 point single model units are going to get destroyed horribly and quickly. How many points do you want to invest in throw away units so that you can wait out your opponent on turn 1 and maybe turn 2?How much of an advantage is that really going to get you over the course of the whole game? 2) everyone is going to focus on your immobile big stuff and wear them down before they even get a chance to act. So what if you have a bunch of 20 point single model units? By the time your tank moves it will be at half health and degrading. Good. I hope all those minor activations were worth it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
AA Actually promotes a pretty solid mix smaller flexible units with a good amount of activations and a few heavy hitters to lay the smack down where and when needed.

Incredibly small ineffectual activations can buy you time, but it's time the enemy can use while your having no meaningful impact because they are too small to matter.

When the units are too small to matter that strategy won't hold up because they won't last. Those units will get destroyed quickly and then what?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The simplest version of AA that I have found to work works like this.

-An activation works exactly like a game turn now. You move, psychic, shoot, charge. If your having trouble keeping track of who activated and who hasn't place a chit or dice next to each activated unit.

- Heroic intervention extended to activations.: I.E. If you activate a unit within 3" of a character the character can activate with the unit.

-Tau Markerlights last until the end of the turn instead of phase.

-Units fight in melee when they activate.

-A unit that starts it's activation in melee can either fall back (all the same restrictions and what not as now) or fight.

-Psychic powers last until the casting units next activation.

-Transports: You either activate the vehicle or the unit inside. If you activate the unit inside it disembarks and acts. If you activate the transport you cannot activate the unit inside on this turn. If a unit can shoot while in the transport, the unit shoots at the same time as the transport.

-Transports that deep strike: When they deploy they activate together, similar to the character rule.

-Necron RP activate when the unit granting the RP activate. I.E. Warriors will trigger their own RP on their activation while a Ghost Ark will trigger one on it's activation and a Res Orb will trigger with the overlord,

That basically works for the vast majority of the game. Adjust any outlier units to taste in ways that make sense.

It's not perfect. But it's functional and makes the game far more engaging.

A question that I'm honest about:

Would having, say, 6 units inside of a Stormlord offer too much flexibility, do you think? they can shoot out at the same time as the transport and be 1 activation if you want to, or they can disembark individually and give you 7 activations for the lot. Does that increased flexibility to be able to swap between "MSU" and "Deathstar" for activation purposes have any meaningful impact? If not, awesome! If it does, maybe that's acceptable?

As has been pointed out, often with alternating activations, 1 really powerful activation gets negated easily. The other guy just runs circles around you because you commit early and are unable to react to the changing battlefield.

If you deploy, you are deploying 1 at a time. Which means you vehicle is sitting still for 7 activations while people pile out of it one unit at a time (unless one of those units is a character, at which point 1 unit and 1 character can activate at the same time). All the while the other guy is able to respond to that.

I don't really see an imbalance there. You either keep them all piled up inside the vehicle and have a power house activation but loose flexibility or you take your time disembarking which would hand flexibility to the other player for a pretty long stretch of time.

The second one is the one I'm worried about. Aren't throwaway activations that force your opponent to activate his big stuff while you dick around and do nothing meaningful a problem?

Let's pretend that situation is going on. Every time you pull out say.. some 20 point single model unit, a couple things can occur. 1) those 20 point single model units are going to get destroyed horribly and quickly. How many points do you want to invest in throw away units so that you can wait out your opponent on turn 1 and maybe turn 2?How much of an advantage is that really going to get you over the course of the whole game? 2) everyone is going to focus on your immobile big stuff and wear them down before they even get a chance to act. So what if you have a bunch of 20 point single model units? By the time your tank moves it will be at half health and degrading. Good. I hope all those minor activations were worth it.

So essentially having a bunch of throwaway activations isn't a problem - alright, fair enough (it's worth noting that you could do it with 8 point units though). Earlier in the thread someone said that MSU spam was a common problem in AA games.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So essentially having a bunch of throwaway activations isn't a problem - alright, fair enough (it's worth noting that you could do it with 8 point units though). Earlier in the thread someone said that MSU spam was a common problem in AA games.

It is and can be depending on the actual system.

40k is so damn lethal though that it actually kind of takes care of that on it's own. In games where everyone is so much more durable MSU will survive most of the game so that waiting it out strategy can carry you through the entire game. But in 40k 1 20 model (mid sized) unit of termagants can probably kill of 3-4 single model units in a single activation depending on what exactly we are talking about here.

So... on your first turn you ate up a bunch of time and by turn 2 you have lost a pretty solid chunk of your activations to a stiff breeze.