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.

Hi All,

I was going to put this in the "toning down alpha strike" thread, but I didn't want to derail it so I'm making a fresh one.

So it seems that the issue with "alpha strike" is that the first player has their entire army to bring to bear on the entire army of the opponent - allowing them to concentrate all their firepower on the scariest stuff and cripple the opponents army before they so much as move.

Now, personally I've never liked the way 40k armies line up patiently without firing a single weapon and then suddenly, the fog lifts and you have at each other. So, I would propose a method of deployment which not only makes this more realistic, but it also means the game will ramp up, rather than become tedious, and it means that almost everything will get a chance to have a turn before being blown up, which is more fun for all the players.

So, the premise of this is:

Scouts start on the board, deployed within the deployment zone. Stratagems can be introduced to allow other units to deploy as scouts, to represent units getting good locations. (I know scouts isn't a rule that exists any more, but most people know what used to be scouts - Kommandos, scouts (obviously), ratlings, scout sentinels etc.)

Turn 1, All units with Movement of 11" or more can arrive from the board edge (including embarked units, if transports, as that's what they're for).
Turn 2, All units with 7" to 10" movement can arrive from the board edge
Turn 3, all remaining units must arrive.

Units can, of course, delay their arrival to ride with the slow guys, so you can have your whole army arrive on turn 3, but the opponent may have everything in position, waiting for you by then!

How I can see this affecting the game:

Only your scout units can get shot before they get to be used, unless the opponent has no scouts, but then you can move up to hide in cover so if you get caught in the open by their first turn then it's your fault!
Dedicated Transports will have more of a use than they do now - getting your troops to the field first. Like a transport is supposed to do. it's not there to park up in a line and wait for the footsloggers to arrive, then the order to move!
This will be best used in Maelstrom games, as if the opponent decides to delay to get their whole army to arrive by turn 3, you can roll around claiming objectives and building up VP.
The game would need to last a few more turns - from what I gather, most people scarcely make it past turn 3, but that would be where this game would really begin! 6-7 turns would be a good amount, I think.
Your hard hitters can hold back and arrive on turn 3, knowing where some of the enemies big guns are, and so hide/attack accordingly.

Advantage might be slightly more leaning toward the second player, as they get to deploy and attack in response to the opponent. But the first player would have the advantage of getting into positions, and claiming maelstrom objectives. They will also be the first to get out of their transports and dish out some damage - again, transports would be quite key in this.

Tyranids are the only army I can see this crippling (unless daemons don't deepstrike any more) due to the lack of transports. They could have a simple rule that means that they can arrive 1 turn earlier, due to the swarm. But I don't know what 'nids have nowadays which could arrive turn 1 - it could already be nasty!

If this got put in, various characters can have rules which allow units to be deployed at the start of the battle, etc. The rules for not deepstriking on turn 1 can be removed, as this would be a good tactic and you're unlikely to have the opponents most powerful unit available to destroy at that point. Deepstriking itself, now quite a large part of the game already, will be useful for bringing slow units into position early.

Thoughts?

The obvious problem is that your idea doesn't remove alpha strikes, it just changes their form a bit. Instead of going first and ending the game on turn 1 you go second, hold your alpha strike off the table until your opponent commits their key units, and then move on and annihilate everything in response. And now, instead of a balance between the alpha strike advantage and the huge objective claiming advantage of going second you give the player that goes second both the alpha strike and the objectives!

The correct answer, once again, is alternating activation. There's no need for complex systems that are primarily an excuse to avoid admitting that alternating activation is the answer, just solve the problem the right way.

Problem with alternating activation is that MSU lists and other armies that can't play with just a few optimized units would be crippled, encouraging to bring superheroes and maxed out units even more than now, which is something that I strongly dislike.

With alternating activation if Player A has 10 units and Player B has 15 then some of the Player A's units have the chance to play two turns before some of the Player B's units have the possibility to be actively involved in the game. And IMHO this is worse than a super killy alpha strike.

Alternating activation could be ok if this problem didn't exist. Which means Player B can use even 10+ units consecutively if all Player A's ones have already been used once.

An IK player with this system of pure alternating activation would be impossible to defeat.

The only answer is what I proposed in the similar thread: penalize first player's shooting. This way alpha strike is mitigated but second player can't do the full alpha strike because he has suffered casualties.

In an ideal world the real answer to the problem would be toning down shooty armies a lot, which means balancing the codexes by changing some profiles, rules and points costs. Only a few armies are actually able to cause devastation and basically end the game in turn 1. In 5th edition, when there wasn't the current amount of firepower available, surviving alpha strike wasn't as problematic as now.

 Peregrine wrote:
The obvious problem is that your idea doesn't remove alpha strikes, it just changes their form a bit. Instead of going first and ending the game on turn 1 you go second, hold your alpha strike off the table until your opponent commits their key units, and then move on and annihilate everything in response. And now, instead of a balance between the alpha strike advantage and the huge objective claiming advantage of going second you give the player that goes second both the alpha strike and the objectives!

The correct answer, once again, is alternating activation. There's no need for complex systems that are primarily an excuse to avoid admitting that alternating activation is the answer, just solve the problem the right way.

Alternative action would fix alpha strikes but would not work well in 40k, except in dedicated shooting or dedicated assault armies. AA would remove any capability of softening up a target before you charge - if you activate the charging unit first, it will prevent subsequent activations from shooting their target. If you shoot other units in first, by the time you charge your unit will have been shot up as well.
Then, how do you determine who fights in combat, if multiple units fight? do you only allow a unit to fight in combat if it is in its own activation? does that mean whatever activates first won't fight in combat until it's next turn? or, if a unit can fight if it's in combat, does it do so every activation? or every time a unit in combat is activated? because then 3 units vs 1 means the 1 unit fights 3 times (6 for bezerkers!).

No, I don't think AA is the solution to 40k.

 some bloke wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The obvious problem is that your idea doesn't remove alpha strikes, it just changes their form a bit. Instead of going first and ending the game on turn 1 you go second, hold your alpha strike off the table until your opponent commits their key units, and then move on and annihilate everything in response. And now, instead of a balance between the alpha strike advantage and the huge objective claiming advantage of going second you give the player that goes second both the alpha strike and the objectives!

The correct answer, once again, is alternating activation. There's no need for complex systems that are primarily an excuse to avoid admitting that alternating activation is the answer, just solve the problem the right way.

Alternative action would fix alpha strikes but would not work well in 40k, except in dedicated shooting or dedicated assault armies. AA would remove any capability of softening up a target before you charge - if you activate the charging unit first, it will prevent subsequent activations from shooting their target. If you shoot other units in first, by the time you charge your unit will have been shot up as well.
Then, how do you determine who fights in combat, if multiple units fight? do you only allow a unit to fight in combat if it is in its own activation? does that mean whatever activates first won't fight in combat until it's next turn? or, if a unit can fight if it's in combat, does it do so every activation? or every time a unit in combat is activated? because then 3 units vs 1 means the 1 unit fights 3 times (6 for bezerkers!).

No, I don't think AA is the solution to 40k.

Not true at all. AA versions of 40k exist now and play very well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
Problem with alternating activation is that MSU lists and other armies that can't play with just a few optimized units would be crippled, encouraging to bring superheroes and maxed out units even more than now, which is something that I strongly dislike.

Completely false. Basing this on what? Just thinking about it? This doesn't happen.You get a choice. MSU for more activations, More maxed out units for more impact and staying power. There is a give and take in that that you need to plan and account for and consequences to your choices. There is no clear better and most good strategies are going to include a mix of both.

With alternating activation if Player A has 10 units and Player B has 15 then some of the Player A's units have the chance to play two turns before some of the Player B's units have the possibility to be actively involved in the game. And IMHO this is worse than a super killy alpha strike.

I have never once seen anyone suggest AA works this way.

AA is game turn 1 begins. Alternate activating units until every unit on the board has been activated. Game round 2 begins.

No unit activates twice in a single game turn.

Alternating activation could be ok if this problem didn't exist. Which means Player B can use even 10+ units consecutively if all Player A's ones have already been used once.

An IK player with this system of pure alternating activation would be impossible to defeat.

A IK player actually has more of a hard time since he becomes susceptible to baiting by the more MSU player feeding him targets to draw him out. That IK players needs some smaller units (new armigers or allies) to flesh out the army.

The only answer is what I proposed in the similar thread: penalize first player's shooting. This way alpha strike is mitigated but second player can't do the full alpha strike because he has suffered casualties.

Does nothing. Again, consider Orks goes first and custodes go second. What losses are you thinking the custodes are suffering turn 1? Or all those -1 to hit chapter tactic (etc) armies going second? What a load of bull.

In an ideal world the real answer to the problem would be toning down shooty armies a lot, which means balancing the codexes by changing some profiles, rules and points costs. Only a few armies are actually able to cause devastation and basically end the game in turn 1. In 5th edition, when there wasn't the current amount of firepower available, surviving alpha strike wasn't as problematic as now.

Shooting is only a problem because the whole army shoots as one.

Okay, as there's no doubt a lot of threads out there about whether or not AA works for 40k, please can we aim to address my original suggestion? I know I helped start the discussion about AA, but I'd really like some feedback on whether people think that my idea of different units arriving to the battle at different times has any merit? Not just in trying to avoid the alpha strike issue, but in being a fun and interesting way to play?

It could be kept as just a special mission, where 2 armies have closed in on an objective at the same time, and their outriders meet first.

 Lance845 wrote:


Not true at all. AA versions of 40k exist now and play very well.

I can say that the current 40k version works very well

If AA versions of 40k were so good they would be more popular. Almost no ones plays those versions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

Shooting is only a problem because the whole army shoots as one.

That was never an issue before 7th edition. Maybe 6th, but I skipped it completely and I can't say anything about it. If penalized it doesn't shoot at full force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:
Okay, as there's no doubt a lot of threads out there about whether or not AA works for 40k, please can we aim to address my original suggestion? I know I helped start the discussion about AA, but I'd really like some feedback on whether people think that my idea of different units arriving to the battle at different times has any merit? Not just in trying to avoid the alpha strike issue, but in being a fun and interesting way to play?

It could be kept as just a special mission, where 2 armies have closed in on an objective at the same time, and their outriders meet first.

 some bloke wrote:
Okay, as there's no doubt a lot of threads out there about whether or not AA works for 40k, please can we aim to address my original suggestion? I know I helped start the discussion about AA, but I'd really like some feedback on whether people think that my idea of different units arriving to the battle at different times has any merit? Not just in trying to avoid the alpha strike issue, but in being a fun and interesting way to play?

It could be kept as just a special mission, where 2 armies have closed in on an objective at the same time, and their outriders meet first.

I spend the CP to hold back all my units into reserves for turn 3 and then alpha strike you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


Not true at all. AA versions of 40k exist now and play very well.

I can say that the current 40k version works very well

If AA versions of 40k were so good they would be more popular. Almost no ones playes those versions.

1) got data to support that?

2) 40k in it's current state does not work well. It has a full codex worth of errata just to function on any level. The sheer volume of YMDC and Proposed rules on this forum alone suggests there are many problems. The fact that ITC has to add or fundamentally change aspects of the game to create some semblance of what they consider fair play says a lot about what the actual game is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 some bloke wrote:


Shooting is only a problem because the whole army shoots as one.

That was never an issue before 7th edition. Maybe 6th, but I skipped it completely and I can't say anything about it. If penalized it doesn't shoot at full force.

I think it was an issue and you just have rose tinted glasses on and/or didn't/don't know any better. Again. Enjoy what you enjoy. Lot of people like the live action Trandformers movies apparently. Tons of people really enjoy bad things. More power to you.

Except bizarrely enough, the idea of staggered deployment, the idea of the thread, is a really good one and it could work with either alternating activation or igougo.

In either of those turn orders, there are still armies lining up across from each other without shooting and this is not only stupid but it creates some really weird concepts in the game and should have been gotten rid of a long time ago. It makes lots of sense that having good leadership and good movement would influence when a unit gets to show up to the battle, and also where - it makes sense that fast units would have a form of outflank.

This is an underdeveloped form of the concept and needs seven editions’ worth of refinement. For example; how does a battery of basilisks usually get to a battle? It’s not by charging to the front line like the proposed reserves order would suggest, usually it’s because the battle comes to them, and actually represents an assault by the other side on their position.

Deployment used to assume this. Both players had to deploy all their heavy support first, then when both had finished with heavies they’d move on to troops, HQ, elites, and finish with fast attack and then infiltrators. It makes sense for armies, like I the OP, to arrive at different times and places based in movement speed, tactical role, leadership, and troop quality. The idea that transports would be used for something other than to drive really close is a great one.

All the armies also had strategy ratings to see which side was going to deploy when and who got to choose between attacker and defender in those scenarios.

This isn’t something that competes with alternating activation it’s important no matter what turn order you use so idk try not to just shout AA at everything, aye pergrine.

pelicaniforce wrote:
This isn’t something that competes with alternating activation it’s important no matter what turn order you use so idk try not to just shout AA at everything, aye pergrine.

It doesn't directly compete, no, but the OP presented it specifically as a solution to alpha strikes. And the correct solution there is alternating activation, there's no point in wasting time on partial solutions that try to address some of the symptoms instead of fixing the core of the problem.

 Peregrine wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:
This isn’t something that competes with alternating activation it’s important no matter what turn order you use so idk try not to just shout AA at everything, aye pergrine.

It doesn't directly compete, no, but the OP presented it specifically as a solution to alpha strikes. And the correct solution there is alternating activation, there's no point in wasting time on partial solutions that try to address some of the symptoms instead of fixing the core of the problem.

Correct according to who? You? Me? GW?

 Blndmage wrote:
Correct according to who? You? Me? GW?

Correct according to basic game design and having any knowledge of how 40k works. IGOUGO is an obsolete mechanic from a 1980s fantasy game, poorly suited to the fluid and reactive nature of modern-style combat 40k is based on. And the problems with alpha strikes are a direct consequence of being able to shoot with your entire army while all your opponent can do is sit there and take it. Anything other than alternating activation is, at best, treating the symptoms of the problem while ignoring the root cause of it. IGOUGO will still be there just waiting for players to figure out a way to exploit it again, and as soon as they do (in this case, by launching a turn 2-3 alpha strike out of reserve) you're right back to alpha strikes being a problem.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:
This isn’t something that competes with alternating activation it’s important no matter what turn order you use so idk try not to just shout AA at everything, aye pergrine.

It doesn't directly compete, no, but the OP presented it specifically as a solution to alpha strikes. And the correct solution there is alternating activation, there's no point in wasting time on partial solutions that try to address some of the symptoms instead of fixing the core of the problem.

Correct according to who? You? Me? GW?

Peregrine has the right of it. Just logic it out. Work backwards. Alpha strikes exist, right? Why? What actually MAKES the alpha strike possible? What happens when the second player gets a chance to respond? What happens when that chance to respond isnt something they have to spend a valuable limited resource on and can only use once a turn and is instead just a part of the game?

 Lance845 wrote:


1) got data to support that?

2) 40k in it's current state does not work well. It has a full codex worth of errata just to function on any level. The sheer volume of YMDC and Proposed rules on this forum alone suggests there are many problems. The fact that ITC has to add or fundamentally change aspects of the game to create some semblance of what they consider fair play says a lot about what the actual game is.

1) Actually yes. The ultimate proof is that almost everyone plays the current version of 40k.

2) If it doesn't, why so many people keep playing 40k? Trying to improve the game doesn't mean that the game is awful. It's certainly not perfect and proposed rules are useful to improve it but also to wishlist, which is something that some people like as well. ITC is basically for ultracompetitive and obsessed people that only want to prove how good they are on a tabletop game. 40k works well with the real rules, always have been, even in the infamous 7th edition. It all depends on what you want from it. For me it's competitive friendly gaming with realistic and WYSIWYG lists since things like 5 stormravens, 100 brimstone horrors, 30+ dark reapers, 6+ hive tyrants, 200 conscripts or 5+ plasma scions command squads don't really exist in real life. 40k is also open and narrative, plus all the hobby part, matched games are only a fraction of it. Toning up/down and list tailoring shouldn't be considered as bad things, after all it's just a game between friends or strangers that can become friends. There's no need of re-writing the whole game, just find a group of people with the right attitude. Without that there's not perfect set of rules that matters.

 Blackie wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


1) got data to support that?

2) 40k in it's current state does not work well. It has a full codex worth of errata just to function on any level. The sheer volume of YMDC and Proposed rules on this forum alone suggests there are many problems. The fact that ITC has to add or fundamentally change aspects of the game to create some semblance of what they consider fair play says a lot about what the actual game is.

1) Actually yes. The ultimate proof is that almost everyone plays the current version of 40k.

Cool. So you did some kind of a survey you can show us the data on and of the 7.6 billion people on the planet "almost everyone" plays the current version of 40k. So almost everyone is a pretty high percentage I would say! Maybe we will chalk that up to 90%? So roughly 6,840,000,000 people in the world today play regular old vanilla 40k.

Lets drop this...

You don't have any data to support that. You have, in fact, nothing to support it. In actuality the vast majority of people who play 40k play with some kind of house rules. 1) ITC house rules are extremely popular. 2) the core book tells you to make up house rules and keep or cut parts you like or don't. 3) I HAVE run polls here on dakka (which granted, is only a small and potentially (read: likely) biased sample of the over all 40k population) asking people what 40k they play and the majority play with house rules because the regular game sucks. 4) Playing the game strictly by the rules in the book maybe has made up about 10% of the games I have played. And that mean thats at least a portion of the games all my opponents have played. I don't know of any, and have never seen, any tournament besides the GT that uses strictly the matched play rules in the book. 5) And further, I have never seen anyone strictly follow the rules in the book even when TRYING to follow the book. Do you roll all your wound rolls individually? Guess what, you fethed up. You are not allowed to mass roll wound rolls according to the rules. You are ONLY allowed to use the fast rolling alternate rule for to hit rolls with the same weapon. No rule exists giving you permission to pick up 2 colors of dice, declaring that each color is a different gun, and rolling them together. And you are DEFINITELY, EXPRESSLY, forbidden from doing so with wounds.

Be it house terrain rules. Or ITC, or just leaving out the bits they don't like, the majority of people who play 40k play with house rules.

You are making baseless statements as some kind of bull gak argument about a game that is almost universally agreed upon to be AT LEAST fundamentally flawed in it's execution if not it's scope. Come back with some data please.

2) If it doesn't, why so many people keep playing 40k? Trying to improve the game doesn't mean that the game is awful. It's certainly not perfect and proposed rules are useful to improve it but also to wishlist, which is something that some people like as well. ITC is for ultracompetitive and obsessed people that only want to proof how good they are on a tabletop game. 40k works well with the real rules, always have been, even in the infamous 7th edition. It all depends on what you want from it. For me it's competitive friendly gaming with realistic and WYSIWYG lists since things like 5 stormravens, 100 brimstone horrors, 30+ dark reapers, 6+ hive tyrants, 200 conscripts or 5+ plasma scions command squads don't really exist in real life. 40k is also open and narrative, plus all the hobby part, matched games are only a fraction of it.

OK. 40k works real well as the base game? Then you go pull out your 8 page rules, follow the steps, and tell me how a unit shoots it's assault gun after advancing?

Il help you out.

Step 1) select the unit. The unit cannot be selected if it advanced or is within 1"

Done. You cannot get to the point where you are allowed to pick the gun because the unit is not able to be picked at step 1. They had 8 pages of rules and one of the most basic elements of the game doesn't work.

If it doesn't, why so many people keep playing 40k?

The answer is obviously more complex then simply "The game has to be good!". It doesn't. And that is obviously not the answer. You're making a false equivalency. Just because people play doesn't mean the game is well made, good, or anything. There can be a lot of different reasons and I imagine most of it is a combination of many of them. But the game being well made or good are more or less provable to be false. You might ENJOY this bad game. And again, thats fine. But it IS a bad game.

You mention WYSIWYG? So thats a rule you and your play group enforce? House rule. Thats not in the book. If your just going to make up new rules from thin air for 8th then what are you even arguing about?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


1) got data to support that?

2) 40k in it's current state does not work well. It has a full codex worth of errata just to function on any level. The sheer volume of YMDC and Proposed rules on this forum alone suggests there are many problems. The fact that ITC has to add or fundamentally change aspects of the game to create some semblance of what they consider fair play says a lot about what the actual game is.

1) Actually yes. The ultimate proof is that almost everyone plays the current version of 40k.

Cool. So you did some kind of a survey you can show us the data on and of the 7.6 billion people on the planet "almost everyone" plays the current version of 40k. So almost everyone is a pretty high percentage I would say! Maybe we will chalk that up to 90%? So roughly 6,840,000,000 people in the world today play regular old vanilla 40k.

Lets drop this...

You don't have any data to support that. You have, in fact, nothing to support it. In actuality the vast majority of people who play 40k play with some kind of house rules. 1) ITC house rules are extremely popular. 2) the core book tells you to make up house rules and keep or cut parts you like or don't. 3) I HAVE run polls here on dakka (which granted, is only a small and potentially (read: likely) biased sample of the over all 40k population) asking people what 40k they play and the majority play with house rules because the regular game sucks. 4) Playing the game strictly by the rules in the book maybe has made up about 10% of the games I have played. And that mean thats at least a portion of the games all my opponents have played. I don't know of any, and have never seen, any tournament besides the GT that uses strictly the matched play rules in the book. 5) And further, I have never seen anyone strictly follow the rules in the book even when TRYING to follow the book. Do you roll all your wound rolls individually? Guess what, you fethed up. You are not allowed to mass roll wound rolls according to the rules. You are ONLY allowed to use the fast rolling alternate rule for to hit rolls with the same weapon. No rule exists giving you permission to pick up 2 colors of dice, declaring that each color is a different gun, and rolling them together. And you are DEFINITELY, EXPRESSLY, forbidden from doing so with wounds.

Of course I meant to say that the majority of 40k players uses the current rules, I wasn't considering the whole Earth population. Is it that difficult to understand?

Ok, you have some polls posted on dakka dakka, a forum site where no one prevents you from creating 50 accounts and making 50 votes. But even assuming that each vote is a real person, how many 40k players in the world are also dakkanauts? And specifically the dakkanauts that contributed to those polls? You gave the answer, just a small sample of the 40k population, probably someone that got interested in the specific matter of the poll. A lot of users don't even care about proposed rules and polls, because they're ok with the rules and just want to discuss tactics, lists and the hobby part.

Other statements make no sense at all. Following the rules means playing RAI, not RAW. It's just a game not a legal case, in which pepole rely on legal technicalities to prove their points and win the case. The fast rolling is the perfect example of that: there's no reason why you don't have to roll all the dice togheter if there's no difference than rolling individually. If someone complains that you're not following the rules RAW it's his problem, it's probably a WAAC player that is frustrated in real life and wants to succed in something. Changing some details in order to have a game that is more enjoyable has always been part of 40k, doing a complete re-write of the core mechanics like using alternate activation is a different matter.

I play WYSIWYG because I have some collections that I consider big enough to not expand, and with some work with magnets I have plenty of options to choose from. I have no problems facing someone that wants to proxy.

What's the problem about advancing and not be able to shoot with assault weapons? How is this different from the fact that in previous editions you could run INSTEAD of shooting?

8th edition rules are hot garbage, but 7th edition was hot garbage laced with medical waste and abattoir runoff.

The inherent issue with 40k is the IGOUGO system. That needs to be changed first and foremost.

I think staggered deployment is a good idea, although I wouldn't base it on the movement speed of the unit. Having less points worth of units on the board will reduce the power of the alpha strike. I think to make it fair you would need to specify how many points worth of units a player can hold back in reserve and how much must be on the table round 1, to prevent holding too much back for a "beta strike". It also has the potential to speed up games by making round 1 and deployment involve less units, especially if you restrict where the incoming units can be placed on round 2.

On a side note, alternate activation for units is a terrible, unplayable system at anything other than casual level. Not only is it difficult to keep track of, it heavily rewards armies that have either massive units or maximum MSU spam for objective control. The player with the stronger units gets to alpha strike 100% of the time in that system. People would spam Knight Castellans or the equivalent and would basically shoot first every game unless the enemy had a similar massive shooting unit and went first. "MSU for more activations" you will have less activations after the enemy's massive units delete half your army in their alpha "activation". On the flip side, horde armies that want the second turn to flood objectives will be able to act last 100% of the time by spamming MSU, unless facing a similar list. Whether massive unit spamming or MSU spamming is dominant will depend on tournament rules and terrain, but everything in between the two will be at a huge disadvantage.

 THE_LIST_MASTER wrote:
Not only is it difficult to keep track of

It really isn't. Other games have no problem doing alternating activation with similar unit counts, and a simple token next to each activated unit solves the problem entirely. In fact, even GW acknowledges this by putting a (partial) alternating activation system in kill team, a game where you can have up to 20 units on each side.

it heavily rewards armies that have either massive units or maximum MSU spam for objective control. The player with the stronger units gets to alpha strike 100% of the time in that system. People would spam Knight Castellans or the equivalent and would basically shoot first every game unless the enemy had a similar massive shooting unit and went first. "MSU for more activations" you will have less activations after the enemy's massive units delete half your army in their alpha "activation". On the flip side, horde armies that want the second turn to flood objectives will be able to act last 100% of the time by spamming MSU, unless facing a similar list. Whether massive unit spamming or MSU spamming is dominant will depend on tournament rules and terrain, but everything in between the two will be at a huge disadvantage.

This is a nice theory, but it's not how it works in practice. In real alternating activation games it tends to be the case that MSU and large units both have advantages, and you see lists at either extreme as well as lists that take a mix of large and small units to take advantage of both strengths. For example, that list of expensive knights is going to get wiped off the table by a similar list that spends a bit less on knights in exchange for taking some MSU units to increase its activation count. The mixed list gains the advantage to hold back until the pure-knight player has committed their knights (by activating MSU cannon fodder while keeping the knights out of LOS) and then deliver a counter attack once the target is exposed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
For me it's competitive friendly gaming with realistic and WYSIWYG lists since things like 5 stormravens, 100 brimstone horrors, 30+ dark reapers, 6+ hive tyrants, 200 conscripts or 5+ plasma scions command squads don't really exist in real life.

Sorry, but this is where you lose all hope of being taken seriously. You can't argue that 40k is fine as-is while simultaneously talking about your personal house-ruled version of 40k where the problem lists are banned.

Keeping units out of LOS? If it were possible for a player to have his important units out of LOS reliably then alpha strikes would not be an issue. If you can keep units of out LOS why would you need alternate activation to stop alpha strikes? Just keep your important units out of LOS...

In your example you would activate a "MSU cannon fodder" unit, then the Knight player would activate a Knight and destroy your most important un-activated units. Alternate activation changes the alpha strike problem from whoever goes first wins to whoever brings the bigger units wins. It's terrible.

For example, lets say there are two types of hypothetical units a "50 point shooter" and a "25 point shooter". A 50 point shooter can kill another 50 point shooter or 2x 25 point shooters in 1 shot. A 25 point shooter kills another 25 point shooter or half of a 50 point shooter in one shot. Lets have an army of 2x 50 pointer shooters called army A fight an army of 4x 25 point shooters called army B.

Without alternate activation:
Whoever goes first eliminates the enemy in one shot.
Result: Whoever goes first wins.

With alternate activation:
A goes first, kills 2x 25 point shooters, B activates 1 of his 2 remaining shooters and injures one of A's shooters. A activates his remaining 50 point shooter, eliminates B. A wins!
B goes first, injures 1x 50 point shooter, A activates the injured shooter and kills 2 unactivated 25 point shooters of B. B activates his last unactivated shooter and finishes off the injured shooter, A activates his remaining 50 point shooter, shoots and eliminates B. A wins!
Result: A always wins.


BONUS: If wound tables actually worked!
A goes first, kills 2x 25 point shooters, B activates shooting and degrading the unactivated 50 point shooter (turning it into a 25 point shooter). A activates his now 25 point shooter, reduces B to one 25 point shooter and B shoots w/e he wants. A finishes B with one of his 25 point shooters or his sole 50 point shooter. A wins!
B goes first, shooting and degrading a 50 point shooter of A (turning it into a 25 point shooter). A activates the uninjured 50 point shooter, eliminates 2 unactivated 25 point shooters of B. B activates his 25 point shooter, shooting and degrading the remaining 50 point shooter of A. Now A and B both have 2x 25 point shooters with B going first every turn. B wins!
Result: Whoever goes first wins.

Notice how alternate activation at best changes nothing, at worst hands out auto-wins to big units.

 THE_LIST_MASTER wrote:
Keeping units out of LOS? If it were possible for a player to have his important units out of LOS reliably then alpha strikes would not be an issue. If you can keep units of out LOS why would you need alternate activation to stop alpha strikes? Just keep your important units out of LOS...

It's an issue because at some point you have to commit and not spend the whole game hidden behind LOS blocking terrain. IGOUGO means that once you commit you have to sit and take it while your opponent hits you with their whole army. Alternating activation makes it a much more even trade as each side reacts immediately to the other side's actions.

In your example you would activate a "MSU cannon fodder" unit, then the Knight player would activate a Knight and destroy your most important un-activated units. Alternate activation changes the alpha strike problem from whoever goes first wins to whoever brings the bigger units wins. It's terrible.

Again, you're missing the whole point of the MSU strategy. You don't give the knight player anything useful to shoot at because your key threats are all out of LOS/out of range/whatever until after the knight activates. You activate an expendable MSU unit to stall, the knight player must activate a significant unit, and once they do activate their primary threat the rest of your army is clear to move because the huge knight can no longer do anything. Or maybe the MSU player has a knight of their own, and after the stall activation they move their knight out and annihilate the enemy knight. This gives a strong incentive to bring a mix of unit types so you can exploit both situations.

I'll give an example from Armada: even in lists using expensive star destroyers capable of annihilating a ship in one shot everyone was taking multiple flotillas (the cheapest possible non-fighter unit that counts as an activation), to the point that FFG had to put a 0-2 limit on them to bring some balance to the game. The ability to stall with a cheap activation and force your opponent to commit a target was so powerful that even the biggest death stars were finding room to take them.

For example, lets say there are two types of hypothetical units a "50 point shooter" and a "25 point shooter". A 50 point shooter can kill another 50 point shooter or 2x 25 point shooters in 1 shot. A 25 point shooter kills another 25 point shooter or half of a 50 point shooter in one shot. Lets have an army of 2x 50 pointer shooters called army A fight an army of 4x 25 point shooters called army B.

This is a terrible example because you're ignoring the positioning advantage offered by a higher activation count and assuming that everyone lines up and trades shots until someone dies. This is not how it works in real games.

Bingo. The game isn't supposed to be played on an empty field. All your 'issues' are fixed with smart positioning, LOS blocking, and good terrain.

I agree that LOS blocking terrain is effective at stopping alpha strikes and you seem to agree that it is necessary in an alternate activation system to prevent similar things from happening there. In your examples, it is the terrain making the alpha strike ineffective, not the alternate activation system. If you had a table with enough terrain to hide your units in IGOUGO, you aren't forced to move your important units out to be shot at turn 1. Even better, you are forced to choose between sacrificing a unit's time (its turn) or not, instead of players spamming tiny units to control the time flow in the game.

As I said before, either alternate activation will favor big unit spam for maximum alpha strike kill power, or MSU spam for maximum objective grabbing power. Maybe in the "best" case there will be big units so efficient at killing MSU units that every army will have a mixture of both, a few massive units to punish your opponent for commiting MSU to objectives and then tons of MSU to control the time/activation flow in the game.

Do you really think forcing players to spam massive units for the most powerful alpha strike in one activation and/or spam the tiniest units to control the time flow in a turn is a positive thing?

Now something actually on topic:
Staggered deployment is very similar to alternate activation, with the massive improvement in that players have very limited control over who goes first/second and a points limit can be used to force players to commit units to the board equally.

 THE_LIST_MASTER wrote:
If you had a table with enough terrain to hide your units in IGOUGO, you aren't forced to move your important units out to be shot at turn 1.

No, you're just forced to move them out on turn 2 or 3 or whatever instead. You can't hide forever, and IGOUGO means that when you do decide to commit your opponent (who has also been hiding out of LOS, waiting for you to commit) can unload everything into your army while all you can do is sit there and take it. Alternating activation fixes this problem.

As I said before, either alternate activation will favor big unit spam for maximum alpha strike kill power, or MSU spam for maximum objective grabbing power.

Again, this is a nice theory, but there are examples of real alternating activation games that prove it wrong. Multiple strategies are viable, alternating activation doesn't inherently force any particular strategy.

 THE_LIST_MASTER wrote:
I agree that LOS blocking terrain is effective at stopping alpha strikes and you seem to agree that it is necessary in an alternate activation system to prevent similar things from happening there. In your examples, it is the terrain making the alpha strike ineffective, not the alternate activation system. If you had a table with enough terrain to hide your units in IGOUGO, you aren't forced to move your important units out to be shot at turn 1. Even better, you are forced to choose between sacrificing a unit's time (its turn) or not, instead of players spamming tiny units to control the time flow in the game.

As I said before, either alternate activation will favor big unit spam for maximum alpha strike kill power, or MSU spam for maximum objective grabbing power. Maybe in the "best" case there will be big units so efficient at killing MSU units that every army will have a mixture of both, a few massive units to punish your opponent for commiting MSU to objectives and then tons of MSU to control the time/activation flow in the game.

Do you really think forcing players to spam massive units for the most powerful alpha strike in one activation and/or spam the tiniest units to control the time flow in a turn is a positive thing?

Now something actually on topic:
Staggered deployment is very similar to alternate activation, with the massive improvement in that players have very limited control over who goes first/second and a points limit can be used to force players to commit units to the board equally.

Which AA games have you played? Is this all theory craft for you or are you speaking from experience?

I have played 5 AA systems myself and some 40k AA rule sets. None of what you are saying is a reflection of reality on any level.

You aren't forced to move your units out at all, turn 1, 2, 3, etc. and you aren't forced to commit them all at once. You have some hypothetical scenario in your head where heavy shooting units are the only thing that can claim objectives and when one moves they all must move. On top of that, you didn't answer my question, but you seem to be saying that whoever spams the most tiny units should be able to control who goes last in a round 100% of the time. In the "beta" strike scenario that is the most important thing.

The whole premise of this thread is based on an alpha strike, as in a turn 1 strike where whoever goes/shoots first has an advantage. You have moved the goal posts to "assume there is always enough LOS blocking terrain for all important units" and we are now talking about a "beta" strike where players are trying to act last to be able to shoot at the enemy's important units. This is why GW added rules to limit how much of an army can be held in reserves (a lot safer than hoping for LOS mountains everywhere), beta strikes are just as bad as alpha strikes.

Here is another example: Instead of "commiting" all of your heavy shooting units all at once, just commit them one at a time. Then your enemy must commit his counterattack one at a time to avoid your devastating counter. Now you are doing essentially the same thing as alternate activation except the person who spammed the most tiny units does not automatically win.

So that would be none then. You have never actually played aa and your just speaking in ill informed hypotheticals

 Peregrine wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
For me it's competitive friendly gaming with realistic and WYSIWYG lists since things like 5 stormravens, 100 brimstone horrors, 30+ dark reapers, 6+ hive tyrants, 200 conscripts or 5+ plasma scions command squads don't really exist in real life.

Sorry, but this is where you lose all hope of being taken seriously. You can't argue that 40k is fine as-is while simultaneously talking about your personal house-ruled version of 40k where the problem lists are banned.

Yeah I think it's fine as it is, but it can be improved of course.

I don't have any personal house rules, it's just that I see a lot of complaints about something that is really broken on paper but it's unlikely to show up in a real meta. And even if it does it's not going to last. IMHO the problem lists are other things, like units and combos that are too effective and involve standard stuff. Like tons of the AM underpriced units or imperial knights. But even considering those things as issues, it's not a matter of the mechanics of the game, the problem lies in the fact that codexes are not balanced.

Take the aplha strike problem: only a few specific lists of a few specific armies are really able to win a game in turn 1. That's why a way to mitigate it is certainly interesting but I don't think there's the need to change the core mechanics of the game.

I know there are people that want to prove how skillful they are on a tabletop, I just don't think 40k should go into the direction of pleasing them. It should remain a friendly game, that involves tactics and knowledge about the rules and the features of the game, but still a game in which have fun matters more than winning or losing, not a sport or a job. That's how I imagine 40k, and IMHO it's already too competitive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


Again, you're missing the whole point of the MSU strategy. You don't give the knight player anything useful to shoot at because your key threats are all out of LOS/out of range/whatever until after the knight activates. You activate an expendable MSU unit to stall, the knight player must activate a significant unit, and once they do activate their primary threat the rest of your army is clear to move because the huge knight can no longer do anything. Or maybe the MSU player has a knight of their own, and after the stall activation they move their knight out and annihilate the enemy knight. This gives a strong incentive to bring a mix of unit types so you can exploit both situations.

You're also assuming that keeping units out of LOS means that they can do something in their turn. In the reality those units would probably be out of range themselves when it comes the time to activate them. Alternate activations also kills all those units that cannot work on their own but need some buffing character to join them. Or another unit that clears a screen. Armies with single overpowered dudes and huge blobs (or multiple smaller blobs) that can't be removed by a single unit will be even more powerful than now.

I'd really like to watch a game with this mechanics though, maybe if I watch a real game and not just theoryhammer I can make better judgements. For those who advocated the alternate activation system, can you post a good bat rep with those rules from youtube?

This is just avoiding even addressing the problem.

Alternative activation is the answer to alpha striking.

In simple terms you stop two things:

- Army wide simultaneous firepower
- Single turn dominance

These are the two key things alpha strike, by it's design, is meant to do. You cannot address the problem of alpha strike unless you address these two problems at once.

What you are suggesting only addresses the first problem temporarily, while completely ignoring the second one.

Alternative activation on the other hand, deals with both in one easy and simple way.

Army wide Simultaneous firepower is impossible with Alternative activation as you opponent can react to every move you make towards them. Even if your opponent decided to make a MSU army, it wouldn't give him any more of an advantage then the person who made all his units max sized. For what you are sacrificing in killing power, you are making up for in added flexibility.

Even if the armies were lopsided (Say 25 units to 10), if you use a simple Alternative activation system (like in Kill team *Hint Hint*) then the person who has the 10 units activates his army faster than his opponent, which can lead to his opponent being reduced dramatically due to the nature of MSU's. If those 10 units obliterated 10 units reliably, then his opponent would have only 15 units left to his opponents 10, while the 15 units would have much more diminished firepower because of their nature)

No single turn dominance. This would be impossible in AA unless you opponent is hot on his rolls (Which is RNG so doesn't count) because again, each unit will have to alternate between each other in the different phases of the battle. round. You cant have a scenario where your opponent can unleash his full armies firepower before your opponent has a chance to react in AA, because it's design expressly stops that from happening.

Morale of the story is, stop looking for stop gap solutions and actually address the problem of the game. You just have to realize that AA is the solution we need in 40k.


Also, most people who play 40k at my place don't really play 8th edition that often, most of the time we just play kill team instead. And it's way more engaging and fun when you actually have to outsmart your enemy rather than just send a butt load of firepower down a field full of terrain and just wipe an army off the board full of ruins or forest or other things without breaking a sweat

 Lance845 wrote:
So that would be none then. You have never actually played aa and your just speaking in ill informed hypotheticals

This. THE_LIST_MASTER, it's clear that you have very little knowledge or experience with alternating activation games. The issues you're discussing simply are not reality.