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.

All loyal 40k players. Games workshop has made leaps and bounds this edition to attempt to rekindle the flame for the Grim Dark universe of 40k. They have become responsive, they are attempting their best to balance the codices. FAQs are coming out quickly. And it has reflected in my FLGS. I thank Games Workshop for showing they care. Will they ever get this game perfect? Not likely. However, I love that they are willing to make improvements (albeit at the cost of our shrinking pocket books).

There is one improvement I would like to still see, and that would be the abandonment of the you-go-then-I-go-system. We have all had those games, and they seem to happen more frequently lately, that are decided on the first turn. Or you were primed to kick butt on turn one and your opponent rolled that 6 and seized and thus the game was decided. It makes me sad that games can be decided in such a fashion. So I put forth an Idea that may help solve this problem. It is not an original idea, but I am trying to give my take on the idea for validity. I would like constructive feedback please.

My proposal. We keep the phases (movement, psychic, shooting, etc.). However, instead of you watching me move everything, then cast and shoot and so on and so forth. I say we alternate activating units in a similar way we alternate deploying units.
Example...
I have 7 units on the board, you have 4.

Movement phase
I move a unit, you move, I move, you move.... unit you run out of units to move then I finish moving the rest of my units.

Psychic
I cast a power, you cast a power, I cast, you cast ... unit we are both run out of powers.

Shooting
I shoot a unit, you shoot... until we have both activated all our units. This goes the same with declaring assaults and activating units to act in CC (although I like the "if you charged you swing first" in that combat)

Once each player has completed all the phases of a turn, then the start of the next turn begins.

This type of game play could help to balance out the game a bit more. It would take away the painful and dreadful feeling of going second on the first turn. Nothing is more disheartening than watching a large chunk of your force disappear before your eyes before you can even respond and there was nothing you could do about it. It would allow both players to play the game in each phase and would engage them. This would also create new tactics.

I could see this either streamlining the game (example: while you finish moving all your termagants... Ill start moving my 30 conscripts) or elongating the game through indecision.

Is this method of running 40k feasible? Would it be enjoyable? Would it be balanced and help engage both players throughout the game?

Thoughts?

I think it might be a better system. If you look at one page rules for 40k, they made a system like that that flows pretty smoothly. You pick a unit, then decide if they are advancing, moving then shooting, standing still, or charging. Flows quicker than breaking it down to a phase each roundper unit.

While I believe alternate activations would iron out the first turn issues and probably make the game more balanced, I also believe that it would also make games unbearably long. I mean think about how long you contemplate which unit you'll deploy next. Now think about doing the same contemplation in every phase of the game. Without a discrete activation order (can't really come up with a way to implement this) each turn would involve too much of this deliberation and you could kiss your streamlined play goodbye.

Just my 2c.

With the current game structure, not really. Would i like to see an evolution of Warhammer 40k, possibly, if it was done right. But game design and balance are not GW strong points.

This proposal gives horde armies a very distinct set of advantages. It is something that would need to be curbed. Not something that would sit well with horde list players. The reaction from non horde players will be MSU spam, kick of the arms race.

GW is experimenting with a more interactive gaming system in shade spire. Solid game worth a look.

Go get a demo game for infinity in. Or watch a unedited battle report with good mics. Infinity is a conversation, while playing a game with dice. It is played with an opponent while trying to achieve a set of objectives. It is just a different game, both in scale and model count. Infinity has one of the better rule systems currently, not perfect, but damn solid.

I don't want to say 40k could not change towards something more engaging. But people need to experience what those types of games offer before demanding a very radical departure from the games fundamental design.

On the bright side 40k is not as bad as warmachine. A game that you can literally hand your damage tracking cards over to an opponent/friend/judge to mark the damage and walk away from the table (unless you have tough rolls) for their turn. Been there done that. 40k does at lesst have some level of interaction during your opponents turn. Warmachine is literally fish bowl the game, please check my measurements.

It would require a major rewrite of the rules including a reworking of at least part of the existing codices. So I find such a development extremely unlikely. But I definitely think it is feasible proposal. In fact 8th edition has already introduced alternate activations in the fight phase, and with pretty good results I think.

I don't see how alternate activations benefits horde armies in particular though.

Also it would be yet another swing in favour of MSU armies. Codexes should really start to take that into factor. Discount for bigger units would become even more important thing to add.

tneva82 wrote:
Also it would be yet another swing in favour of MSU armies. Codexes should really start to take that into factor. Discount for bigger units would become even more important thing to add.

Why would it favour MSU armies?

pismakron wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Also it would be yet another swing in favour of MSU armies. Codexes should really start to take that into factor. Discount for bigger units would become even more important thing to add.

Why would it favour MSU armies?

MSU moves, shoots etc couple tiny units, other side moves his big units, then once big unit side has depleted his units MSU side brings in real guns.

Seen that happen in so many alternative activation games I find it very suspicious GW could make it NOT work like that. Even "side with 2x units activate 2 units at a time" doesn't help with that all that much.

Is that automatically bad? No but it should be factored in with points. MSU already has advantage. Does it really need more?

tneva82 wrote:

pismakron wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Also it would be yet another swing in favour of MSU armies. Codexes should really start to take that into factor. Discount for bigger units would become even more important thing to add.

Why would it favour MSU armies?

MSU moves, shoots etc couple tiny units, other side moves his big units, then once big unit side has depleted his units MSU side brings in real guns.

Seen that happen in so many alternative activation games I find it very suspicious GW could make it NOT work like that. Even "side with 2x units activate 2 units at a time" doesn't help with that all that much.

Is that automatically bad? No but it should be factored in with points. MSU already has advantage. Does it really need more?

It doesn't actually work out that way.

These systems actually favor a more balanced list with a few small light fast units and some larger more expensive heavy hitters. But if your going to bring a bunch of small units for extra activations then they are very unlikely to have any staying power, will all die when they move forward without support to the larger units the enemy has without making any impact, and then the "stratagy" of having MSU falls apart when half your units have been deleted and your in a downward spiral of degrading activations.

I have been play testing several versions of Alternating activation 40k and pure MSU and pure giant expensive Knight lists both suffer for either being to inflexible or not having enough staying power/impact per activation.

BTW...
Beyond the Gates of 40k. A basically fully functional merging of 40k and Beyond the Gates of Antares.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/733472.page

If other rules were kept as 8th edition, the advantages of an MSU army would be outweighed by the advantages of an army with a small number of massively powerful units perhaps, in that the player with few, big units can shoot all his guns much earlier in the turn than the MSU army, giving him an effective alpha strike even with alternating activation. The ability to freely split your fire between multiple targets means that the large firepower of the big units will not go to waste (unless the other player manages shennanigans such as having his entire army outside of range/LOS).

The simplest alternative to mitigate the "going last" advantage of MSU armies is to allow the player with least units left to activate to skip his turn at activating something.

 Lance845 wrote:
BTW...
Beyond the Gates of 40k. A basically fully functional merging of 40k and Beyond the Gates of Antares.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/733472.page

This is pretty intresting, exalted for sharing it. Looks alot like how bolt action does things. Come to think of it gw has been going in the direction of bolt action in 8ed alot.

Cheeslord wrote:
If other rules were kept as 8th edition, the advantages of an MSU army would be outweighed by the advantages of an army with a small number of massively powerful units perhaps, in that the player with few, big units can shoot all his guns much earlier in the turn than the MSU army, giving him an effective alpha strike even with alternating activation. The ability to freely split your fire between multiple targets means that the large firepower of the big units will not go to waste (unless the other player manages shennanigans such as having his entire army outside of range/LOS).

The simplest alternative to mitigate the "going last" advantage of MSU armies is to allow the player with least units left to activate to skip his turn at activating something.

And MSU can hide and wait for that big unit has used it while MSU just moves small fast objective grabbers around in safety. Then when it's safe MSU brings in real guns out of hiding/with deepstrike/whatever and bombards at will.

It's not like this concept is new never used before. I have tried many games with alternative actions. Invariably it's gone to "MSU>FBU". 7th ed(though 30k goes bit against that) and 8th ed is already pro-MSU. Don't see how without anything else 40k would NOT become even more so. What makes 40k so different to every other alternative activation game?

Alternate activations allows you to, as said earlier, have a conversation with the game. Thus player tactics can react to changes on the battlefield much more readily and you've less chance of having a situation where one player gets a constant advantage over the other (at least till nearer the end game).

In alternate army activations its highly possible that one player gets a "first" on attacking and can cause significant damage. Ranged VS close combat armies show this up the most (typically although off-board delivery methods have evened this out some). The classic example being earlier versions of Tau vs Tyranids - where Tau had a huge advantage in being able to pick off tyranids before they could close to combat.


The thing is alternate activations works best in smaller game where you've got near equal numbers of units per side. It's easier to keep track of what has and hasn't moved (without using lots of tokens) and players retain a roughly equal number of activations without having to have highly strict rules on what can and can't be taken.

With large armies and games things get a bit more tricky. Firstly you've got to remember all that has and hasn't removed; then youv'e got the fact that armies with more swarm mechanics might get the favour over those without. That said the old Force Organisation chart could easily start to mitigate that - a swarm army might have more models on the table but a 30 unit of termagaunts would activate to counter a 5 man Marine unit. So the swarm army retains its swarmyness but still has a similar number of activations.



I've always felt that a properly balanced and structured alternate unit activations game provides a more level playing field for both sides. You can react to changes and the nature of the activations means that one side is far less likely to get a whole turn doing whatever they want.

Also whilst the advanced strategies are complex; the earlier levels are, I think, more friendly to newer players. Because now that new player doesn't spend a whole turn watching more than half their army get blasted off the table; they don't see their original rough plan totally torn apart leaving them with little idea what to do. Instead its chipped away at, but they can react to changes and feel like they've got more of a chance.



I'd love GW to experiment with the idea for large armies; but I feel that it might never happen. It's a huge change to game balance and they are only just getting a handle on how to balance the alterante army activations that they've setup now.

I've done it for years. I prefer it. It is ingrained in any campaign that I run many times.

Vastly prefer it.

Its tons more engaging.

You don't sit there for 30-60 mi nutes with your eyes glazed over while you remove your models. You react and your opponent reacts constantly.

It is how any wargame should be IMO.

I've always been a fan of alternating activations, but I like it where you do all actions for a unit at a time.

Then again, it'd only really work if 40k was significantly rewritten and shrunk down to an appropriate amount of models on the table.

To be honest it would probably have worked better with rank and file fantasy than large free moving squads in 40K

 Smotejob wrote:
All loyal 40k players. Games workshop has made leaps and bounds this edition to attempt to rekindle the flame for the Grim Dark universe of 40k. They have become responsive, they are attempting their best to balance the codices. FAQs are coming out quickly. And it has reflected in my FLGS. I thank Games Workshop for showing they care. Will they ever get this game perfect? Not likely. However, I love that they are willing to make improvements (albeit at the cost of our shrinking pocket books).

There is one improvement I would like to still see, and that would be the abandonment of the you-go-then-I-go-system. We have all had those games, and they seem to happen more frequently lately, that are decided on the first turn. Or you were primed to kick butt on turn one and your opponent rolled that 6 and seized and thus the game was decided. It makes me sad that games can be decided in such a fashion. So I put forth an Idea that may help solve this problem. It is not an original idea, but I am trying to give my take on the idea for validity. I would like constructive feedback please.

My proposal. We keep the phases (movement, psychic, shooting, etc.). However, instead of you watching me move everything, then cast and shoot and so on and so forth. I say we alternate activating units in a similar way we alternate deploying units.
Example...
I have 7 units on the board, you have 4.

Movement phase
I move a unit, you move, I move, you move.... unit you run out of units to move then I finish moving the rest of my units.

Psychic
I cast a power, you cast a power, I cast, you cast ... unit we are both run out of powers.

Shooting
I shoot a unit, you shoot... until we have both activated all our units. This goes the same with declaring assaults and activating units to act in CC (although I like the "if you charged you swing first" in that combat)

Once each player has completed all the phases of a turn, then the start of the next turn begins.

This type of game play could help to balance out the game a bit more. It would take away the painful and dreadful feeling of going second on the first turn. Nothing is more disheartening than watching a large chunk of your force disappear before your eyes before you can even respond and there was nothing you could do about it. It would allow both players to play the game in each phase and would engage them. This would also create new tactics.

I could see this either streamlining the game (example: while you finish moving all your termagants... Ill start moving my 30 conscripts) or elongating the game through indecision.

Is this method of running 40k feasible? Would it be enjoyable? Would it be balanced and help engage both players throughout the game?

Thoughts?

IT is a bad system for 40k as you have mentioned because it is open to huge MSU abuse. Say I bring 10 Inquisitorial acolytes, that I hide at the back of my table, I move one, you are then forced to move a unit, I move another, and so on. Then once I see your positioning I move my good units into postitions where I can damage you and not expect a ton of return fire, then Cripple your units in order.

It also makes kiting with units super easy unless you are much faster than me and our ranges are close. If I have 6" greater range than you and the same movement, you move into range I move out and then shoot you.

I think there are ways to do alternate activations to work, but your suggestion is not among them.

I think activation would need to be done by some sort of battle grouping (portions of your army of approximately equal points) to mitigate the MSU advantage. I would also rather see units do full activations rather than alternate move, then alternate shoot, then alternate assault. This prevents the kiting issue.

Then you could have stratagems for interrupting an activation to perform an action.

Breng on the flipside if you've spend 10 whole activations doing nothing then you've given board control to your opponent, plus you've likely let them start moving toward securing objectives. So yes your weaker units haven't done much, but on the flipside you've let your opponent have multiple activations to do what they want uncontested.

Having played a different activation system in 2nd ed. it does work quite well, and I've been slowly considering how to shift it over to 8th, though it's not the system discussed here.

In short, it's much better than IGOUGO in every conceivable fashion. As with all things wargaming it would of course create a new wave of people trying to beat or abuse the system - that's inescapable and should be ignored, particularly if you're just going to play it amongst friends.

I am a huge fan of alternating activation - be it freely elected units, done by initiative, activation roll, etc. over IGOUGO.

tneva82 wrote:

pismakron wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Also it would be yet another swing in favour of MSU armies. Codexes should really start to take that into factor. Discount for bigger units would become even more important thing to add.

Why would it favour MSU armies?

MSU moves, shoots etc couple tiny units, other side moves his big units, then once big unit side has depleted his units MSU side brings in real guns.

Seen that happen in so many alternative activation games I find it very suspicious GW could make it NOT work like that. Even "side with 2x units activate 2 units at a time" doesn't help with that all that much.

Is that automatically bad? No but it should be factored in with points. MSU already has advantage. Does it really need more?

The last game I played that had alternating activations had (as one of several ways to do the system) a way to stop that - if you have more units than the other guy, it presented a variety of options on how to handle left-overs. Some variants looked at the quality of the troop (more elite troops got to move more squads), some at the quality of the leader, some options were simple die roll to activate, others only let you pick one more.

M.

Breng77 wrote:

 Smotejob wrote:
All loyal 40k players. Games workshop has made leaps and bounds this edition to attempt to rekindle the flame for the Grim Dark universe of 40k. They have become responsive, they are attempting their best to balance the codices. FAQs are coming out quickly. And it has reflected in my FLGS. I thank Games Workshop for showing they care. Will they ever get this game perfect? Not likely. However, I love that they are willing to make improvements (albeit at the cost of our shrinking pocket books).

There is one improvement I would like to still see, and that would be the abandonment of the you-go-then-I-go-system. We have all had those games, and they seem to happen more frequently lately, that are decided on the first turn. Or you were primed to kick butt on turn one and your opponent rolled that 6 and seized and thus the game was decided. It makes me sad that games can be decided in such a fashion. So I put forth an Idea that may help solve this problem. It is not an original idea, but I am trying to give my take on the idea for validity. I would like constructive feedback please.

My proposal. We keep the phases (movement, psychic, shooting, etc.). However, instead of you watching me move everything, then cast and shoot and so on and so forth. I say we alternate activating units in a similar way we alternate deploying units.
Example...
I have 7 units on the board, you have 4.

Movement phase
I move a unit, you move, I move, you move.... unit you run out of units to move then I finish moving the rest of my units.

Psychic
I cast a power, you cast a power, I cast, you cast ... unit we are both run out of powers.

Shooting
I shoot a unit, you shoot... until we have both activated all our units. This goes the same with declaring assaults and activating units to act in CC (although I like the "if you charged you swing first" in that combat)

Once each player has completed all the phases of a turn, then the start of the next turn begins.

This type of game play could help to balance out the game a bit more. It would take away the painful and dreadful feeling of going second on the first turn. Nothing is more disheartening than watching a large chunk of your force disappear before your eyes before you can even respond and there was nothing you could do about it. It would allow both players to play the game in each phase and would engage them. This would also create new tactics.

I could see this either streamlining the game (example: while you finish moving all your termagants... Ill start moving my 30 conscripts) or elongating the game through indecision.

Is this method of running 40k feasible? Would it be enjoyable? Would it be balanced and help engage both players throughout the game?

Thoughts?

IT is a bad system for 40k as you have mentioned because it is open to huge MSU abuse. Say I bring 10 Inquisitorial acolytes, that I hide at the back of my table, I move one, you are then forced to move a unit, I move another, and so on. Then once I see your positioning I move my good units into postitions where I can damage you and not expect a ton of return fire, then Cripple your units in order.

It also makes kiting with units super easy unless you are much faster than me and our ranges are close. If I have 6" greater range than you and the same movement, you move into range I move out and then shoot you.

I think there are ways to do alternate activations to work, but your suggestion is not among them.

I think activation would need to be done by some sort of battle grouping (portions of your army of approximately equal points) to mitigate the MSU advantage. I would also rather see units do full activations rather than alternate move, then alternate shoot, then alternate assault. This prevents the kiting issue.

Then you could have stratagems for interrupting an activation to perform an action.

This vs I lose those units without ever getting to use them or move them. Now at least you would have to make a decision on how to Target me and I can influence your decision on how to move to counter my movement. This way I get a say each turn on how you have to move and Target me. There is also only some much kiting space on the table. Then you only get to shoot one unit before I shoot.

MSU actually suffers in one page 40k with alternating activations… if you can sling twice the shots per activation, then you will do more damage per activation until you run out of stuff to activate. Which reduces the return fire. Just saying…

I do wonder it this would require a rework for a less abusable FOC, that is the exact opposite direction GW is currently heading to (for marketing/sales reasons).

 Smotejob wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Smotejob wrote:
All loyal 40k players. Games workshop has made leaps and bounds this edition to attempt to rekindle the flame for the Grim Dark universe of 40k. They have become responsive, they are attempting their best to balance the codices. FAQs are coming out quickly. And it has reflected in my FLGS. I thank Games Workshop for showing they care. Will they ever get this game perfect? Not likely. However, I love that they are willing to make improvements (albeit at the cost of our shrinking pocket books).

There is one improvement I would like to still see, and that would be the abandonment of the you-go-then-I-go-system. We have all had those games, and they seem to happen more frequently lately, that are decided on the first turn. Or you were primed to kick butt on turn one and your opponent rolled that 6 and seized and thus the game was decided. It makes me sad that games can be decided in such a fashion. So I put forth an Idea that may help solve this problem. It is not an original idea, but I am trying to give my take on the idea for validity. I would like constructive feedback please.

My proposal. We keep the phases (movement, psychic, shooting, etc.). However, instead of you watching me move everything, then cast and shoot and so on and so forth. I say we alternate activating units in a similar way we alternate deploying units.
Example...
I have 7 units on the board, you have 4.

Movement phase
I move a unit, you move, I move, you move.... unit you run out of units to move then I finish moving the rest of my units.

Psychic
I cast a power, you cast a power, I cast, you cast ... unit we are both run out of powers.

Shooting
I shoot a unit, you shoot... until we have both activated all our units. This goes the same with declaring assaults and activating units to act in CC (although I like the "if you charged you swing first" in that combat)

Once each player has completed all the phases of a turn, then the start of the next turn begins.

This type of game play could help to balance out the game a bit more. It would take away the painful and dreadful feeling of going second on the first turn. Nothing is more disheartening than watching a large chunk of your force disappear before your eyes before you can even respond and there was nothing you could do about it. It would allow both players to play the game in each phase and would engage them. This would also create new tactics.

I could see this either streamlining the game (example: while you finish moving all your termagants... Ill start moving my 30 conscripts) or elongating the game through indecision.

Is this method of running 40k feasible? Would it be enjoyable? Would it be balanced and help engage both players throughout the game?

Thoughts?

IT is a bad system for 40k as you have mentioned because it is open to huge MSU abuse. Say I bring 10 Inquisitorial acolytes, that I hide at the back of my table, I move one, you are then forced to move a unit, I move another, and so on. Then once I see your positioning I move my good units into postitions where I can damage you and not expect a ton of return fire, then Cripple your units in order.

It also makes kiting with units super easy unless you are much faster than me and our ranges are close. If I have 6" greater range than you and the same movement, you move into range I move out and then shoot you.

I think there are ways to do alternate activations to work, but your suggestion is not among them.

I think activation would need to be done by some sort of battle grouping (portions of your army of approximately equal points) to mitigate the MSU advantage. I would also rather see units do full activations rather than alternate move, then alternate shoot, then alternate assault. This prevents the kiting issue.

Then you could have stratagems for interrupting an activation to perform an action.

This vs I lose those units without ever getting to use them or move them. Now at least you would have to make a decision on how to Target me and I can influence your decision on how to move to counter my movement. This way I get a say each turn on how you have to move and Target me. There is also only some much kiting space on the table. Then you only get to shoot one unit before I shoot.

Except you don't because I can position after you are done moving if I out activate you, so if terrain exists, I can deny you useful shots and kill your useful units first. It can be done, but your system is a poor way to do it. If LOS blocking terrain exists at all, the game would bog down to no one wanting to expose first. I'd rather lose some units prior to doing anything, than to play a game of hide and out activate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

macluvin wrote:
MSU actually suffers in one page 40k with alternating activations… if you can sling twice the shots per activation, then you will do more damage per activation until you run out of stuff to activate. Which reduces the return fire. Just saying…

This is only true if the MSU is balanced MSU. If I MSU take acolytes and then big units, I have an advantage over someone who does not. IT is also only true if no LOS blockers exist.

The MSU thing comes up every time alternating activations comes up. MSU and hordes don't break the game in any other alternating activation game. It is fine.

How about battlefield role actiovations?
1. Flyers activate
2. Fast Attack
3. Transports that are not flyers
4. Elites
5. Troops
6. Heavy support

tneva82 wrote:

MSU moves, shoots etc couple tiny units, other side moves his big units, then once big unit side has depleted his units MSU side brings in real guns.

Seen that happen in so many alternative activation games I find it very suspicious GW could make it NOT work like that. Even "side with 2x units activate 2 units at a time" doesn't help with that all that much.

Is that automatically bad? No but it should be factored in with points. MSU already has advantage. Does it really need more?

Well, that would be an advantage to MSU armies in the movement and charge phase only. In the shooting and fighting phases armies made out of fewer units would benefit. A list of three knights and magnus would be able to unload all of its shooting before the MSU-army had fired more than a handfull of small units.

A bigger problem is that the damage output of in melee units would be halved in some circumstances, as units get to fight twice each battleround in the current systems.

Apart from that, I would welcome a move to alternate activations very much. It solves a lot of problems and makes the game more engaging. I would certainly hate to move back to the accounting-style fight phase of prior editions.

 mugginns wrote:
The MSU thing comes up every time alternating activations comes up. MSU and hordes don't break the game in any other alternating activation game. It is fine.

This is false, Malifaux needed to issue a large errata at one point to address just this issue. There were lists that would force their opponent to activate out prior to moving any piece of consequence. To be fair this was for a game where each model performed a complete activation, but it was still an issue. Though not straight alternating activation it was also an issue in early x-wing with tie swarm lists. If in a game it is possible for one player to significantly out activate the other it is always an advantage if it can be done at little to no cost. Other alternating activation games like Drop zone commander use battle group activation as I have suggested, otherwise alternating activation could become an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pismakron wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

MSU moves, shoots etc couple tiny units, other side moves his big units, then once big unit side has depleted his units MSU side brings in real guns.

Seen that happen in so many alternative activation games I find it very suspicious GW could make it NOT work like that. Even "side with 2x units activate 2 units at a time" doesn't help with that all that much.

Is that automatically bad? No but it should be factored in with points. MSU already has advantage. Does it really need more?

Well, that would be an advantage to MSU armies in the movement and charge phase only. In the shooting and fighting phases armies made out of fewer units would benefit. A list of three knights and magnus would be able to unload all of its shooting before the MSU-army had fired more than a handfull of small units.

A bigger problem is that the damage output of in melee units would be halved in some circumstances, as units get to fight twice each battleround in the current systems.

Apart from that, I would welcome a move to alternate activations very much. It solves a lot of problems and makes the game more engaging. I would certainly hate to move back to the accounting-style fight phase of prior editions.

This is only true if the MSU units are meaningfully large. Consider knights + Magnus + a bunch of cheap activations (say exalted flamers, or Malefic lords pre-nerf) I still get my bonus of activating big powerful units, but I get to do so after seeing where you have moved, or powerful deepstrike units that I can deploy after you have been forced to move. Your assumption is that MSU mean, not having big powerful units, when instead it could mean big powerful units backed by super cheap throw away units. But even for MSU vs Knights and magnus, I force magnus to move, then move away from him after he has gone, then shoot him, rinse repeat, magnus dies while doing very little. Knights with their range fare a bit better, but not a whole lot.

Breng77 wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
The MSU thing comes up every time alternating activations comes up. MSU and hordes don't break the game in any other alternating activation game. It is fine.

This is false, Malifaux needed to issue a large errata at one point to address just this issue. There were lists that would force their opponent to activate out prior to moving any piece of consequence. To be fair this was for a game where each model performed a complete activation, but it was still an issue. Though not straight alternating activation it was also an issue in early x-wing with tie swarm lists. If in a game it is possible for one player to significantly out activate the other it is always an advantage if it can be done at little to no cost. Other alternating activation games like Drop zone commander use battle group activation as I have suggested, otherwise alternating activation could become an issue.

I don't understand how out activating could be done at little to no cost. If you bring more activations in Bolt Action, those troops will be worth fewer points, so will be less effective overall. I've played hundreds of BA games and never had a problem. I didn't play Malifaux at the time so I'll take your word for it.

Not a problem in Dark Age, Walking Dead, Blood and Plunder, Test of Honor, Beyond the Gates of Antares, etc. Not all of these games are strict 'alternating activation' but obvious subtle differences occur in every wargame.

edit: really though this whole thing was hashed out a month or two back with that huge thread. The same constant 'but what about this' brought up, knocked down every time.

We found alternating units to be too cumbersome and time consuming, and certainly not any more realistic. So we created what we call a Reaction Phase, where the defending player can either move or shoot a little bit before the Assault Phase if a unit passes a leadership test. No need to just sit there and take while on defense, no need for overwatch mechanics, etc.

We are pretty happy with it.