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.

 kodos wrote:
This alternating phase in LotR works because the focus of the game is on movement and melee and the game has a different balance

For 40k, there would be no downside in going first as having the possibility to kill everything in one shooting phase (alpha strike) is > being the reactive player

I don't think you understand what "reactive" means. It means the ability to deny/degrade the enemy shooting automatically before it is executed (by, say, moving out of LOS, or blowing your smoke dischargers, or moving a unit in front of your character, turning on your buffs, etc).

Furthermore, LOTR has a mechanic where the Non-Priority Player can shoot first (though it costs them resources to do so, and is not infinitely capable). I assume 40k would (and any game rightly should) have a mechanic that allows for that sort of "interrupt" - a reactive one.

Yes, it works in LOTR because the focus is on movement (I wouldn't really say melee; there are plenty of armies that specialize in shooting just like how 40k has plenty of armies that specialize in melee). Which is good for a wargame. Good maneuver really ought to be the emphasis of a wargame. Player decisions, and all that.

And yes, the game has a different balance. 40k's balance would have to change, but that's rather the point, innit - pivot 40k away from its current gakky-ness.

I have played LotR myself

in the local Club we also have experimented with different kind of rules for 40k in the past

alternating phases with the possibility of a double phase did not really worked that well for 40k

Shooting has too much range and is too powerful compared to melee to work out (a melee unit in LotR will still kill the ranged unit with the models that are left most of the time, while in 40k most of the time the melee unit won't be able to get the kill)

I can see why the Kill Team rules, taken as they are (removing overwatch) can work very well for 40k without needing a re-work to fit an alternating unit activation system and still have the classic turn sequence that people associate with the game

PS: as 40k is heavy in shooting and not so much into melee, going alternating unit activation for the shooting phase instead of the melee phase should have been the initial idea

I've tried building AA rules for 40k, and I found that harsher area-terrain LOS rules alongside alternating shooting makes for the biggest improvement.

 kodos wrote:
I have played LotR myself

in the local Club we also have experimented with different kind of rules for 40k in the past

alternating phases with the possibility of a double phase did not really worked that well for 40k

Shooting has too much range and is too powerful compared to melee to work out (a melee unit in LotR will still kill the ranged unit with the models that are left most of the time, while in 40k most of the time the melee unit won't be able to get the kill)

I can see why the Kill Team rules, taken as they are (removing overwatch) can work very well for 40k without needing a re-work to fit an alternating unit activation system and still have the classic turn sequence that people associate with the game

PS: as 40k is heavy in shooting and not so much into melee, going alternating unit activation for the shooting phase instead of the melee phase should have been the initial idea

I still play LOTR in the new edition, and there's no possibility of a "double phase" in either it or my proposed version of 40k.

I don't really see what the problem you're articulating is, honestly. You're just asserting it won't work because "shooting is too powerful", which doesn't make sense, because the relative power of the units is a balance problem, not an activation order problem. That's like saying "we can't play Civilization 6 as a real time strategy game because battleships are more powerful than phalanxes." Like, sure, maybe you can't play CIV as an RTS, but what does the battleship being more powerful than the phalanx have anything to do with it?

Mumble, mumble, something about the price of tea in china.

Here you have the company giving the majority what they want.

Players want fast games done as fast as possible to move on to the next game. Players want tournaments with many rounds that require not a lot of game time, so in need of a fast game.

This is a glorified board game that bases a lot of its design off of card games only using pretty miniatures.

Its also the #1 wargame of all time because of that... because thats apparently what players are willing to shovel out truck loads of money for regularly.

IGOUGO is a big part of the problem.
Bad points is another.
Bad terrain rules yet another.

But rules aren't what the average GW consumer cares highly for, they care about models, lore, and size of community first and foremost.

 auticus wrote:
Here you have the company giving the majority what they want.

Players want fast games done as fast as possible to move on to the next game. Players want tournaments with many rounds that require not a lot of game time, so in need of a fast game.

This is a glorified board game that bases a lot of its design off of card games only using pretty miniatures.

Its also the #1 wargame of all time because of that... because thats apparently what players are willing to shovel out truck loads of money for regularly.

IGOUGO is a big part of the problem.
Bad points is another.
Bad terrain rules yet another.

But rules aren't what the average GW consumer cares highly for, they care about models, lore, and size of community first and foremost.

Clearly you're correct - there's a reason why 40k is the #1 wargame on the market and bigger than it's ever been. I'd dispute the idea that it's fast though. 40k is a slow, bloated, complicated mess of rules interactions and about as far from being streamlined as you can get.

While GW could clearly keep doing what they're doing and be successful, what's frustrating is that they don't stand to lose anything by tightening up the balance a bit more. Tightening the rules may lead to more issues as the game moves away from what GW wants to sell but, IMO, that's where the game designers earn their money. It's a pity GW isn't interested in it because the less they're interested in it the less the game seems to hold the interest of a lot of the more experienced long-term players in my area.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I still play LOTR in the new edition, and there's no possibility of a "double phase" in either it or my proposed version of 40k.

So there is no possibility that the play who went last the previous phase will be first the next phase?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

You're just asserting it won't work because "shooting is too powerful", which doesn't make sense, because the relative power of the units is a balance problem, not an activation order problem

No, we tried it, previous edition but still, and the main problem is Alpha Strike in the shooting phase
and alternating phases does not solve the Alpha Strike problem at all

And re-balancing the units is a different story, but as GW just want to change core rules but will never change unit profiles at all this not a real possibility

 kodos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I still play LOTR in the new edition, and there's no possibility of a "double phase" in either it or my proposed version of 40k.

So there is no possibility that the play who went last the previous phase will be first the next phase?...

Initiative is rolled at the beginning of the round, not per phase, in LotR. You can use Heroic Actions (expending Might, a limited resource) off a Hero to interrupt the turn order and activate first, but your opponent can counter-Heroic Action and the way the turn's structured it can't produce a "double turn" the way Sigmar does where one player might get to attack twice where the other person has no opportunity to respond.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I've tried building AA rules for 40k, and I found that harsher area-terrain LOS rules alongside alternating shooting makes for the biggest improvement.

This is probably the way to go for any sort of new edition. Shooting is way too powerful, which is directly caused by weak cover rules. When I think back to 5th, just being behind another unit reduced any damage my ork army took by 50% - now I just play as if there were no terrain rules, as it's nigh impossible to get the large units into cover, and if I do AP-2 ignores it anyways.

5th wasn't perfect by any means, as armies with good saves basically didn't benefit at all, but improving cover rules to allow gaining cover much easier and cover having a higher benefit seems necessary.

 kodos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I still play LOTR in the new edition, and there's no possibility of a "double phase" in either it or my proposed version of 40k.

So there is no possibility that the play who went last the previous phase will be first the next phase?

Nope. No possibility of that at all. Priority is done by turn, not by phase.
EDIT:
Of course, there's the mechanic I keep talking about (Heroic Shoot, in LOTR) that expends a resource to let a few models go first in the next phase, even if you don't have Priority, but once you've declared you're doing it, the enemy can also declare it (again with a specific few models and expending a resource) that forces it to another 50/50 roll. So it's not something you can do super reliably unless the enemy has more limited resources (might points) than you, or has models out of position that have those resources.

 kodos wrote:

No, we tried it, previous edition but still, and the main problem is Alpha Strike in the shooting phase
and alternating phases does not solve the Alpha Strike problem at all

And re-balancing the units is a different story, but as GW just want to change core rules but will never change unit profiles at all this not a real possibility

It is unlikely that GW will change their activation order mechanics as well.

Alternating phases absolutely solves the alpha-strike problem, at least in my experience, because we've tried it also. Being able to move vulnerable units before the enemy shoots is like, the best way to mitigate alpha strike. Were you playing with LOS blocking terrain? And tons of it?

Alternating phases or even action of units (I have house ruled both, love both, would do both) would make me want to play the game again.

You shouldnt need tons of los blocking terrain. If you do, that means shooting is undercosted.

Martel732 wrote:
You shouldnt need tons of los blocking terrain. If you do, that means shooting is undercosted.

Which is utterly unrelated to whether or not alternating phases or alternating activations is good. The relative balance between units can be skewed regardless of the system in which they operate, always.

That Said, you shouldn't cost shoot units as if it's Planet Bowling Ball either, because then they'll be dramatically overcosted in a real game.

Martel732 wrote:
You shouldnt need tons of los blocking terrain. If you do, that means shooting is undercosted.

Not necessarily. One of the issues with 40k is that it's so easy to attack with everything at full efficiency every turn (due to few move-and-fire restrictions, poor LOS rules, accurate indirect fire, and very long ranges) that when a gunline hits the table the whole thing becomes a simple game of numerical efficiency where we could compute who's going to win based solely on whose guns are better/army is tougher. If you have more LOS block, independent of how the guns are costed, and the game requires you to move to get things done, that adds a whole extra phase of interesting things happening where in 8e the movement phase is all too frequently "I move towards the nearest thing" or "I maintain optimum range from the nearest thing".

Battles should be able to play out on relatively open boards. Lots of battles did.

Martel732 wrote:
Battles should be able to play out on relatively open boards. Lots of battles did.

Erm, let me introduce you to the SPADE.

This is what get's created with a spade if the fields are open and reinforcements are abundant:

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

I haven't seen many 40K tables look like that, either.

Martel732 wrote:
Battles should be able to play out on relatively open boards. Lots of battles did.

Yes and no. Lots of stupid battles were on open fields. Especially when it was fought due to "honor" and such. But in more modern battles that dont have any gentlemen agreement to duke it out in a field and decide the result that way its stupid. 2 centuries ago when we had rank and file warfare in real life and not only in games like warhammer fantasy.

Terrain matters a lot in war. If not the wars the US been in the last few decades would have been decided in days instead of years. And in 40k battles are fought species against species in all out warfare mostly so the armies are not gonna decide a place and time for a friendly spar in an open field. Lots of gritty warfare in all manners of terrain to wipe each other out is what is gonna happen.

A flat-open featureless and meaningless terrain would just be carpetbombed, orbitally, into nothingness.

"Our armies show up, then our navies reduce both forces to nothing before Top of 1" isn't the sort of 40k game I'd like to play...

Martel732 wrote:
Sometimes. Sometimes not.

I haven't seen many 40K tables look like that, either.

Laughs in trench terrain building project.

That's one table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
A flat-open featureless and meaningless terrain would just be carpetbombed, orbitally, into nothingness.

"Our armies show up, then our navies reduce both forces to nothing before Top of 1" isn't the sort of 40k game I'd like to play...

But a few bombed out buildings stop this? Using terrain as a primary balancing feature is a mistake.

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
A flat-open featureless and meaningless terrain would just be carpetbombed, orbitally, into nothingness.

"Our armies show up, then our navies reduce both forces to nothing before Top of 1" isn't the sort of 40k game I'd like to play...

But a few bombed out buildings stop this? Using terrain as a primary balancing feature is a mistake.

There's a lot of precedent of a "few bombed out buildings", features, or anything of value on/near the engagement shifting the engagement from "by the books" to something of interest.

Martel732 wrote:
Battles should be able to play out on relatively open boards. Lots of battles did.

On planed level ground with no dips or crests of any kind? Name one of those that anyone's been enough of an idiot to fight since the advent of gunpowder.

Martel732 wrote:
That's one table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
A flat-open featureless and meaningless terrain would just be carpetbombed, orbitally, into nothingness.

"Our armies show up, then our navies reduce both forces to nothing before Top of 1" isn't the sort of 40k game I'd like to play...

But a few bombed out buildings stop this? Using terrain as a primary balancing feature is a mistake.

You're wrong. Using terrain as a necessary feature is awesome. Planet bowling ball should be outright impossible in the rules so that terrain can be a source of engaging counter play.

The sooner terrain filled tables become a requirement the better.

"No terrain" is a myth. Planet Bowling Ball is a terrain. A very unengaging one.

Sometimes I wish more of AoS would make its way over to 40K:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Battles should be able to play out on relatively open boards. Lots of battles did.

On planed level ground with no dips or crests of any kind? Name one of those that anyone's been enough of an idiot to fight since the advent of gunpowder.

I said relatively. Many of the posters on here want Pac-Man boards to balance out GW's ineptitude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's one table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
A flat-open featureless and meaningless terrain would just be carpetbombed, orbitally, into nothingness.

"Our armies show up, then our navies reduce both forces to nothing before Top of 1" isn't the sort of 40k game I'd like to play...

But a few bombed out buildings stop this? Using terrain as a primary balancing feature is a mistake.

You're wrong. Using terrain as a necessary feature is awesome. Planet bowling ball should be outright impossible in the rules so that terrain can be a source of engaging counter play.

The sooner terrain filled tables become a requirement the better.

Why? Why is engaging play dependent on random terrain?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
A flat-open featureless and meaningless terrain would just be carpetbombed, orbitally, into nothingness.

"Our armies show up, then our navies reduce both forces to nothing before Top of 1" isn't the sort of 40k game I'd like to play...

But a few bombed out buildings stop this? Using terrain as a primary balancing feature is a mistake.

There's a lot of precedent of a "few bombed out buildings", features, or anything of value on/near the engagement shifting the engagement from "by the books" to something of interest.

Maybe. But then GW puts in ignore LoS weapons.

Well, maybe hiding behind a wall between you and the firer when they're firing at you indirectly.

Now, I'd agree that indirect fire should have its own costs, but a mix of LOS and non-los weaponry sounds like a good thing.

I'm just pointing out that terrain is not a panacea. There reaches the point where you can't hit the IG at all and they just blow you apart.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm just pointing out that terrain is not a panacea. There reaches the point where you can't hit the IG at all and they just blow you apart.

It shouldn't be a panacea, but it certainly should be part of the equation. I think we can mostly agree on that?