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.

It would be interesting to experiment - but I suspect unless armies were much smaller games would take ages to play.

Or at least if its move-move, shoot-shoot, assault assault etc - if its more like Necromunda where a whole unit gets "a turn" then an opponent's unit gets to go then it might be less of a problem.

I wouldn't have even thought things like MSU were a major problem. Wouldn't you want as elite a force as possible (assuming it was equally efficient/effective for its coast)? If you activate say 1000 points with 3 activations you are going to kill a lot more than your opponent whose activated say 300 points worth with the same.

I've been curious about requiring 3 detachments and alternating activations between them.

Alternative activations is cancer

I feel the issue with alternating activation, is there is too much in 40k. There are too many units, too many models, too much dice being rolled. The game would have to be rewritten to accommodate and the massive battles we love would become a burden to play.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


My issue with alternating activations is that it feels super gamey and unrealistic, and the ways in which players use it is also gamey and unrealistic even if that's not inherent in the system (though it has been with every system I've ever seen).

And the current system is totally not gamey and unrealistic?

Whatever supposed gaminess and unrealism (less than the current system by a long shot) exists, it offers far more from a gameplay perspective.

People are upset over the deep strike rules now.

I can't imagine how they would deal with alternating turns.

Having your entire deep striking army shot off the board would need some mitigation rules.

I personally find pure alternating activation (I activate a unit, you activate a unit) to be my least favorite way to handle activation. There are a lot of gamey things it creates when players know they get to go next or stacked their list so they get a several concurrent activation (which is further compound if the game doesn't allow the player with fewer units to pass). That said, I really enjoy games that have a bit of randomness to unit activation like Bolt Action or even Chain of Command. I suspect many 40K players wouldn't enjoy random activation as much some especially the ones of which that don't let you activate everything during a single turn (but the game often has far more turns than 5-7). I think a good middle ground is number of activation based on the Warlord (say 1 to 4 unit activation during a single turn) which allows for multiple unit coordinated attacks with skilled (read: high activation Warlords) commanders. Additionally, the player with fewest unactivated models can always pass not activating anything while the other player must activate at least one unit during their turn. This is to prevent army lists with several units from hammering the bottom of the round (which always seems to be an issue with alternating activation games).

The next issue is 40K would have to drop the game phase idea in favor of unit doing everything while activated as it becomes very easy to forget what did what when their are some 20+ units in an army list without a boat load tokens. While I don't mind a few tokens on the table, it doesn't take long before I think it makes things look tacky and ruins the aesthetic a nice looking table. The game size may or may not need to reduced as my experience is alternating activation games take a little longer due to the more frequent change of who is the active player.

At the same time, I think IGOUGO games can work if the designers know what they are doing. Dust Warfare by Andy Chambers is still one of my favorite miniatures wargames and it uses an IGOUGO system with a limited initial action phase as well as reactions for the inactive player. It also featured almost no long range weapons (which made it a little gamey) with almost everything having 36" or less range meaning maneuver was absolutely required to bring weapons to bear on the enemy. If you write battle reports, IGOUGO is also a much easier format to work with since it is easier to simply describe everything you did and then everything your opponent did instead of remembering why you activated this one unit to counter this other one or make sure they got to cover.

I don't mind the current (or previous way) 40K handles unit activation. While Alpha Strikes can be an issue, the rules can also be made to minimize that. I think if GW stepped into the world of alternating activations it will take them a while to not make winning and losing based on juggling your activations to keep ahead of your opponent or desynchronize them so none of their activation really mean anything anyways. Which if you look at it at the end of a game round still looks like a successful Alpha Strike.

No turn based system is without issue. Alternating activation has some weirdness and gaminess to it all its own that I'm not always a fan of. IGOUGO isn't perfect, neither is alternating activation.

That said, I think my favorite concept is from Battletech, where activation alternates, but actions all resolve together at the end of the turn (i.e. both sides alternate moving and declaring actions, but damage isnt resolved until after everything has acted). That represents the closest thing to real time Ive seen. I really liked that, and you never get the sense of "oh, my cool thing died before I could do anything with it due to gimmicky turn sequencing".

I think that Dropzone/Epic style battle-group alternating activations could work, with some modification of the detachment system (reducing the number of slots in each detachment and making the 3 detachment limit the hard limit for non-apocalypse games).

Alternating phases could also be interesting, it already kind of works that way in assault.

Problem with this kind of pie in the sky, however, is that it drastically changes the entire nature of the game. That need not be bad in itself, but the resulting game would almost certainly alienate a vast swathe of players.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

At the same time, I think IGOUGO games can work if the designers know what they are doing. Dust Warfare by Andy Chambers is still one of my favorite miniatures wargames and it uses an IGOUGO system with a limited initial action phase as well as reactions for the inactive player. It also featured almost no long range weapons (which made it a little gamey) with almost everything having 36" or less range meaning maneuver was absolutely required to bring weapons to bear on the enemy. If you write battle reports, IGOUGO is also a much easier format to work with since it is easier to simply describe everything you did and then everything your opponent did instead of remembering why you activated this one unit to counter this other one or make sure they got to cover.

In my opinion, one of the most gamey things about 40K is how two armies often begin a battle lined up in sight of each other and well within range of many of their most powerful weapons.

Well if you get rid of brigades and tone down the size of detachments....I would be for alternating 'detachments' as opposed to units.

You could go further and make the smallest detachment go first if you want and then the largest goes last. At that point your just playing with list building strats mostly.

I'd love to see more alternation between players, in whatever form. The "my army does everything, then whatever's left of your army does everything" model just encourages alpha-striking as the dominant tactic.

We've already got a single-phase alternating-activations model in assault - extending that to the other phases would be a relatively simple step.

All of my yes

II've been usiiing alternatiiing activation for over five years now. I have never seen a game take ages longer than standard IGOUGO with alternate activation I'm not sure where that idea is coming from.

It comes out to be the exact same moves and rolls, only instead of grouped together in IGOUGO its spreadout over a turn for both players.

Any form of activation which is not IGOUGO is inherently much more enjoyable. It's more engaging, requires more thought, and better captures the conditions of a battle (as much as can be done in a silly game like 40K). We play 2nd edition with an activation system and it's 10x better than when played without. We'll be doing 8th like that soon as well.

 Elbows wrote:
Any form of activation which is not IGOUGO is inherently much more enjoyable. It's more engaging, requires more thought, and better captures the conditions of a battle (as much as can be done in a silly game like 40K). We play 2nd edition with an activation system and it's 10x better than when played without. We'll be doing 8th like that soon as well.

Please share your thoughts on how you'd implement it in 8th, as well as game play experiences when you do. Straight, phases, action points?

@ Elbows

Have you tried activations based on FOC or Detachments.

patrols activate first, then HQ Commands, OutRiders, Spearheads, Vanguards, followed by Battallions, Brigades, Air Wing and fortifications.

The idea that certain structure of forces can go prior to others would add an element of game play that could be interesting.

Absolutely I've been a fan of games that do this for a long time. no more Alpha Strike BS you can have commanders active multiple units but not you entire army. Makes tactics huge in the game. No more sledgehammers vs glass shields.

Exactly. The game becomes 1000 times more engaging and makes it more than a liistbuiilding fapping.

I think unit by unit activation would require a total rewrite of the rules. As is activation control would be too powerful, as would how charging and the fight phase work. Some version of the shade spire system might work with some changes. As is I think the closest you can get and still be viable would be to look at the DZC system of battle group activations.

Breng77 wrote:
I think unit by unit activation would require a total rewrite of the rules. As is activation control would be too powerful, as would how charging and the fight phase work. Some version of the shade spire system might work with some changes. As is I think the closest you can get and still be viable would be to look at the DZC system of battle group activations.

of course it would have to be a new edition.

Take 2 games based on different activation styles


Batman

you have a strategy rating and bonus for certain people with mastermind

you add all these tokens in to a cup and a person draws a token to see who get first activation that turn is determined, I don't think this one is in the spirit og 40K so its out.


Wrath of Kings

Each player has a separate turn to activate first. A minor commander model can activate one unit near him, that unit moves and then acts (wither they shoot or do Melee). Some commanders can cause the activation of 2 while other special characters can activate 3 (depends on wither their command style is more brute force or strategy) and any unit without a commander near them are relegated to being dead last.

something like this could be adapted for 40k even with multiple phases.

Having watched a fair few Bolt Action games at our local club I really dislike alternate activations. They favour armies that have more units for the most part.

The only way I could see it work in 40K if it was a slightly staggered version of the current system.

Player 1 moves.
Player 2 moves.
Player 1 psychic phase but casualties are not removed until the end of the psychic phase.
Player 2 psychic phase (including those units "killed") but casualties are not removed until the end of the psychic phase.
Player 1 shoots but casualties are not removed until the end of the shooting phase.
Player 2 shoots (including those units "killed") but casualties are not removed until the end of the shooting phase.
Player 1 assaults but casualties are not removed until the end of the assault phase.
Player 2 assaults (including those units "killed") but casualties are not removed until the end of the assault phase.
Player 1 battleshock.
Player 2 battleshock.

This way everyone gets to fire and fight in assault rather than one side always being on top.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Any form of activation which is not IGOUGO is inherently much more enjoyable. It's more engaging, requires more thought, and better captures the conditions of a battle (as much as can be done in a silly game like 40K). We play 2nd edition with an activation system and it's 10x better than when played without. We'll be doing 8th like that soon as well.

Please share your thoughts on how you'd implement it in 8th, as well as game play experiences when you do. Straight, phases, action points?

Well, right now we've only made a few plans on simply shifting our 2nd edition version over to 8th. We actually prefer to just play the games and bash our way through it - tackling issue as they come up. The method we use for 2nd is essentially:

1) Start of a turn, each player places tokens (same size/shape, but different colour, obviously) aside; one for each unit in his army. For 2nd edition we also add some depending on Stratagy Ratings but that's no longer a thing. These tokens are placed in a cup.

2) The tokens are drawn one at a time, but you keep drawing until another colour is drawn. This allows small runs to occur, but it's exceptionally rare for more than 3-4 units of the same army to go in a row (and obviously that means the likelihood of their opponent going increases following the draw etc.)

When a token is drawn, the player owning the token chooses a single unit and activates it in its entirety. Keep in mind this is for 2nd ed. We also use a modified psychic phase, so each psyker activates independently instead of the large/time consuming old psychic phase. This is something we'd probably change using it in 8th. I'd probably activate the X number of units together as a "mini turn". In other words if you drew three tokens, you'd move your three units, shoot your three units, etc. I dunno, we'll see how it works.

To fit the current rules into this system you'd have to make some changes, such as buffs/spells/stratagems would all arbitrarily be ended when the tokens run out (i.e. a full single battle round has been played). This would limit a player from casting a spell early and then trying to activate last the next battle round so the spell stayed in progress for more than one "turn", etc. This would impact the planning of who you wanted to activate first, as you'd get more bang for your buck out of casting early, etc.

After the end of a full battle round (in this instance a turn in which both players have used all their tokens so it's really "two turns"), tokens for destroyed units are removed and the process continues. Because of this, the destruction of full units is actually more important, as it diminishes the token count of your opponent. If you have one or two infantry models left, you want to hide them somewhere so they keep generating tokens - giving your opponent another objective.

The main issue is always hand to hand combat, but that's doable. I dunno, we'll see when we try it out (may do so this weekend actually). The nice thing about this kind of activation system is that you can have genuine 3-way battles which flow the same as a normal game - without one army sitting there waiting on his ass for and hour and a half while two other armies beat the gak out of him. Heck you could really do 4-5-6 sides if you were sadistic, but then the wait times would still be there.

This kind of token system inherently benefits larger armies with more units, but it does so intentionally. An army with 24 units vs. an Imperial Knight force with six...will always have an advantage, but each time the Knight player activates he'll be using a greater percentage of his army per token, etc. Players could easily abuse this system, but it's not a suggested solution for tournaments. I don't play with gamey people, so it's been really fun so far in 2nd. I don't see any major issues with 8th - aside from getting people over their fear of "ohhh no, it's now what GW said to do!" kind of paralysis I see so often.

I would love to see alternating unit activation. Most of the current rules would work just fine with it, just close combat would need a bit of a rethink to avoid some corner cases...

Mark.

Have you played Horus Heresy Betrayal at Calth?

It does alternative activation with activation points, it is a very elegant system, and is a shame that 8th edition didn't copy any of these ideas.

There are a few fan rules for porting the system over into a full table top game, I haven't had chance to try these out yet. However I think that Betrayal at Calth has one of the best miniature combat games, so think it would transfer very well.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think alternating phases is better than alternating units, as alternating units felt very gamey, but I think it's very fair to say "I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot" etc etc because that would allow for the person who went second to counter the moves of the person who went first, while the person who went first still gets the advantage of dishing out damage first.

I actually like this. However, to make it less of an action/reaction I think this method would be the only one that could possibly support the roll of an initiative dice every turn. It feels weird in AOS as it means a player gets a huge Turn all for themselves and sometimes back to back, but with alternating phases it makes more sense.

 BlackLobster wrote:
Having watched a fair few Bolt Action games at our local club I really dislike alternate activations. They favour armies that have more units for the most part.

The only way I could see it work in 40K if it was a slightly staggered version of the current system.

Player 1 moves.
Player 2 moves.
Player 1 psychic phase but casualties are not removed until the end of the psychic phase.
Player 2 psychic phase (including those units "killed") but casualties are not removed until the end of the psychic phase.
Player 1 shoots but casualties are not removed until the end of the shooting phase.
Player 2 shoots (including those units "killed") but casualties are not removed until the end of the shooting phase.
Player 1 assaults but casualties are not removed until the end of the assault phase.
Player 2 assaults (including those units "killed") but casualties are not removed until the end of the assault phase.
Player 1 battleshock.
Player 2 battleshock.

This way everyone gets to fire and fight in assault rather than one side always being on top.

Thats pretty much one of the alternatives people have suggested; Alternating phases.
Though you do mention an interesting idea of not removing casualties until both players have finished a phase. I think I like this idea because it removes the stupid advantage of going first, and ill always be in favour of anything removing any advantage tied to a dice roll made before a game even begins.

Possibly an alternating phase system could be implemented while retaining the overall ruleset much as it is, with minor adjustments. And of course an overhaul of datasheets and special rules/traits and whatnot. Its something we could actually see in this edition, maybe as an additional way to play the game alongside open, narrative and matched.

An alternating activations, similar to bolt action, would probably require an extensive rewrite best left to a new edition. Sadly because this is the form of gameplay I would like to see.


Whatever form of alternation, Ill be in favour of it. And phases seem to be the easiest to implement.

I'm not a big fan of alternating activations. I've played Malifaux which uses that mechanic and I can tell you once an imbalance of forces begins it starts to snowball. 40K is too big a game for the mechanic and the way armies are set up makes it too akward.

For all of you who say that they don't want to just sit during their opponent's turn if you face a horde army with an elite army that will still happen but at the end of every turn.

As to the idea of using alternating detachments it's not really going to make much of a difference since you'd still have large clusters of units moving in tandem. So all that would do is break up some of the monotony but you still have to keep track of which unit is in which detachment (and vs grey armies that can be a real challenge).

To the person who suggested that, in effect, all psyker and shooting phases be simultaneous that would be disasterous. If I know that one of my models is "dead" I could then take some crazy chances knowing that if it fails it won't matter. Plus you'd need to have markers showing who acted and another set to show who was destroyed.

Sorry for all of it's faults 40K is, IMO, doing its best in an IGO/UGO format.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'm not a big fan of alternating activations. I've played Malifaux which uses that mechanic and I can tell you once an imbalance of forces begins it starts to snowball. 40K is too big a game for the mechanic and the way armies are set up makes it too akward.

For all of you who say that they don't want to just sit during their opponent's turn if you face a horde army with an elite army that will still happen but at the end of every turn.

But 40k starts to snowball the moment someone wins the roll-off for first turn.

Yes, horde and MSU armies get more activations than elite armies, but it's still better for elite armies than losing the roll-off and getting eliminated before they get to do anything at all.

Then maybe initiative should be rolled for each turn (with modifiers based on the previous turn). All I'm saying is that if you play an army with say 11 units (which is my typical army) and are facing army with 20 units you would alternate for 11 times and then sit for your opponent to move 9 more units after seeing what is where. It's a big tactical advantage to move last and with a lot of units it gets worse. If I know I'm getting the last 9 moves I can structure my units so that they can not be shot/assaulted and/or can concentrate my units to grab objectives or surround key enemy units.

I'm not saying that alternate turns are bad. I'm saying that they're bad for 40K as it now exists with army building.