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.

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:Bolt action/ beyond the gate of Antares is a fully reactive system thats AA. It eats up your activation to perform half activations to react to an enemies unit but you could take cover, return fire, etc etc...

I am not saying that a reactive IGOUGO could not function with 40k. I am saying I have never seen anyone EVER propose a functional reactive igougo system for 40k. Again, stop telling me it COULD be and start showing me one that works that doesn't require redoing all the codexes.

AA JUST works with the codexes as is. So if we are sitting here debating the merits of AA vs IGOUGO we are spoiled for choice of options that work with the datasheets and rules as is with AA and we have jack gak for a reactive igougo with all the incredibly crap issues of the IGOUGO system it runs on now. One of these is better than the other.

I think it's odd you think I'm trying to convince you that IGOUGO is a good thing. I have never stated that. In fact, I've stated that Battletech's phased AA is my preference, and I think converting 40K to it really wouldn't require many changes to the system. It wouldn't have in 7th, but as I've said earlier, I'm not really familiar with army rules any more.

I was simply stating that one of the advantages of 40K's IGOUGO is that you can take your whole turn to set up your puzzle to work with, and only have to watch out for reactions. Bolt Action, your opponent could move one piece that destroys the tapestry of your setup, whereas in 40K, they aren't moving unless you Charge them that turn or you Shoot them off the board. It doesn't make up for the rest of 40K's ills, but I can recognize a benefit of a crap system when I see it. I think Battletech's attempt to try and make a full combined-arms crunchy system with vast amounts of damage to burn through makes for a very long game, but I still love its turn system and the fact of its creation system.

Even in Infinity, the only movement reaction is to literally dodge to cover. Oddly enough, X-Wing doesn't really do reactions that I've seen, but they have a very set initiative order that you process through instead of the randomness of Bolt Action and you roll to counter fire as they are shooting you anyway.

aphyon wrote:

Shooting is still declared and processed one player at a time, but that's just so people can keep track of what is going on and prevent cheating.

nice thing about CBT there is an entire book of optional rules like rapid firing your machineguns, ghost jamming for ECM and fire as you bear. we use all of these as they make the game more fun and speed things up a bit. we skip the declare fire phase and just fire whatever we want when it is our mechs part of the fire phase to shoot. the player who loses initiative always gets to shoot first with all their units before return fire happens.

Yeah, i think we just do the whole Firing Phase as one, that's how I remember doing it from the Compendium days, and there really isn't a need to change it. It doesn't really MATTER who declares or shoots first since the damage doesn't process till the end of the Phase anyway.

But how is it setting up your puzzle when you have an infinite amount of time to do so? That's not an advanced puzzle, that's the 12 count one you give to children.

 Charistoph wrote:

It may not seem like much, but a heavy reaction IGOUGO system is actually more powerful than an AA system. For example, Infinity is probably the most reaction heavy IGOUGO system I know of. Your opponent can move or shoot when your models complete an action in their line of sight. So that means they can shoot or move in your turn as well as theirs. In AA, he can only move or attack when it is their time to provide an action to that model.

Just to nitpick but in infinity , you can only move in your opponent's turn if you sucessfully do a dodge action, and even then its not a full movement, it'll only be a couple of inches.

I do agree that Inifinity has one of the best game system i've tried and even if its a game with a lot more depth than 40k, its got less gamey moments. Most of that is because the game is model based instead of unit based and that they have smart line of sight rules (silhouettes are the best thing to shut people up with the whole "MFA" debate).

If we were to apply that kind of IGOUGO to 40k's scale, i feel it wouldn't work as well as doing a simple AA system. It could be explored tho, i wouldn't be against playing anything more strategic/reactive than current 40k.

With regard to AA in 40k and aura effects, isn't that easily solved by adding an assigned auras phase like 9th has added the command phase?

In said aura phase, you could assign eligible units (correct unit type, within range, etc.) their aura buff and have it remain until the beginning of the next aura phase. Simple, and it could even lead to some auras effecting only 1 unit while other (weaker) auras can affect all eligible units within their range.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:But how is it setting up your puzzle when you have an infinite amount of time to do so? That's not an advanced puzzle, that's the 12 count one you give to children.

When do you get an infinite amount of time? At the very least, when you finish processing your last model, then it is the next player's turn. I can wait just as long on an AA set up, but it would only be with a single model (which I could do in 40K with just my last model sitting there).

Are you talking about uninterrupted movement and actions for all your models in a turn? That is why I mentioned things like "reactions". 40K used to be really bad at this where the only reaction was "stand and fight" or "run away" when they were Charged. At least there's a possibility of a little more with Overwatch, but it still beats Warmachine's reaction system of, "oh, you walked past me, let me spank your butt.", or "I have a special rule that allows me to move/Charge/Shoot when you get too close."

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

It may not seem like much, but a heavy reaction IGOUGO system is actually more powerful than an AA system. For example, Infinity is probably the most reaction heavy IGOUGO system I know of. Your opponent can move or shoot when your models complete an action in their line of sight. So that means they can shoot or move in your turn as well as theirs. In AA, he can only move or attack when it is their time to provide an action to that model.

Just to nitpick but in infinity , you can only move in your opponent's turn if you sucessfully do a dodge action, and even then its not a full movement, it'll only be a couple of inches.

The point that it is more movement, over all, than would be allowed without that reaction. It may be 2", but that's 2" more movement than what I get in 40K when those Bikes come roaring around a corner. They aren't giving up anything (other than position) by doing so as opposed to what was previously stated in Bolt Action by a reaction taking up part of a model's later reaction.

Of course, I'm not a fan of Infinity's cheerleading system, personally, but that and the tiny size of their models are my biggest complaints about Corvus Belli's system.

VladimirHerzog wrote:I do agree that Inifinity has one of the best game system i've tried and even if its a game with a lot more depth than 40k, its got less gamey moments. Most of that is because the game is model based instead of unit based and that they have smart line of sight rules (silhouettes are the best thing to shut people up with the whole "MFA" debate).

If we were to apply that kind of IGOUGO to 40k's scale, i feel it wouldn't work as well as doing a simple AA system. It could be explored tho, i wouldn't be against playing anything more strategic/reactive than current 40k.

Oh, agreed. While we could see Overwatch return to an ability to react by denying your shooting in your previous turn, or other unit-specific reaction mechanics like with what Deathmarks could do with Deep Striking when your opponent Deep Strike's a unit, or a unit being able to Charge a unit just Charged a nearby unit, I don't see it applying in a general rule atmosphere on 40K's scale like what Infinity has.

Model number scale should always be a determiner in what mechanics one sets up for their games. Warmachine is at the limit of the size, if not a little bit over, of what one can expect and still operate with individual model actions. Even Infinity can get a little big for everything one can do in that game. There is a reason why Classic Battletech is usually limited to about 4 Battlemechs a side for a medium game. Even 40K can get bogged down if you're looking at an IG swarm vs Tyranid swarm that minimized monsters and vehicles or start exploring Apocalypse-sized games.

The point that it is more movement, over all, than would be allowed without that reaction. It may be 2", but that's 2" more movement than what I get in 40K when those Bikes come roaring around a corner. They aren't giving up anything (other than position) by doing so as opposed to what was previously stated in Bolt Action by a reaction taking up part of a model's later reaction.

Of course, I'm not a fan of Infinity's cheerleading system, personally, but that and the tiny size of their models are my biggest complaints about Corvus Belli's system.

Funny story i once heard of a 40K play on infinity....so finally my eldar rangers don't have to sit there and wait while an entire ork mob bumbles across and open ground and into cover before i can shoot at them. it makes so much more sense now.



The cheerleading system really doesn't work that well if you get experienced in the game. i run full 10 man squads at 300 points and everything is vital. rule of thumb is 3 offensive minis with heavy weapons/CC ability and everybody else is support. remembering that every rifle is still a rifle no matter who has it. i still always back up those offensive units with a hacker, engineer, doctor(well i play HAQQ so sometimes more than one doctor), and remotes (with EVO).

The sculpt size is realistic and not heroic like 40K but that does lead to some difficult fiddly bits. they have improved it greatly with many of the resculpts to represent bulk and size as described in the lore. the new azra'il is fantastic. however i love my old djanbazans better than the new ones.....sometimes it isn't better.

 aphyon wrote:
Funny story i once heard of a 40K play on infinity....so finally my eldar rangers don't have to sit there and wait while an entire ork mob bumbles across and open ground and into cover before i can shoot at them. it makes so much more sense now.

There was a guy who went to my old LGS that would often mock 40K for situations like that.

Private Mook: "There's the enemy, let's shoot them!"

Corporal SmartA**: "We can't."

Private Mook: "Why not? They're RIGHT THERE!"

Corporal SmartA**: "It'th not our turn."

 aphyon wrote:
The cheerleading system really doesn't work that well if you get experienced in the game. i run full 10 man squads at 300 points and everything is vital. rule of thumb is 3 offensive minis with heavy weapons/CC ability and everybody else is support. remembering that every rifle is still a rifle no matter who has it. i still always back up those offensive units with a hacker, engineer, doctor(well i play HAQQ so sometimes more than one doctor), and remotes (with EVO).

So, it's either a trap or it allows models to be over-powered in one turn. I'm just saying that I don't know of another game where you can allow your Private Mook to completely give up their opportunity to move and shoot so Rambo could do more terrorizing.

Aside from X-Com 2's Buddy system, but that's even only a half action.

 aphyon wrote:
The sculpt size is realistic and not heroic like 40K but that does lead to some difficult fiddly bits. they have improved it greatly with many of the resculpts to represent bulk and size as described in the lore. the new azra'il is fantastic. however i love my old djanbazans better than the new ones.....sometimes it isn't better.

Oh, I understand the reason for it. The problem is that most of the models' torsos and legs can fit in the volume of my middle finger. I have lost enough of my fingerprints to putting arms on Necron Warriors and Nyss Hunters, so the thought of those tiny models getting lost simply because of my hands is rather intimidating, to say nothing about trying to paint all that detail when I can barely handle a Space Marine.

I don’t know if it’s been covered before but I was thinking about the wording on psychic powers... it’s going to be damn near impossible to rewrite psychic powers that work smoothly with the IGOUGO system... that alone is evidence that it needs to be alternating activation.

macluvin wrote:
I don’t know if it’s been covered before but I was thinking about the wording on psychic powers... it’s going to be damn near impossible to rewrite psychic powers that work smoothly with the IGOUGO system... that alone is evidence that it needs to be alternating activation.

What?

I think you miswrote the last bit there.

But if your concern is that psychic powers won't work with AA I would ask you to provide an example. I have never run into a single psychic power that did not work fine with AA.

 Lance845 wrote:

macluvin wrote:
I don’t know if it’s been covered before but I was thinking about the wording on psychic powers... it’s going to be damn near impossible to rewrite psychic powers that work smoothly with the IGOUGO system... that alone is evidence that it needs to be alternating activation.

What?

I think you miswrote the last bit there.

But if your concern is that psychic powers won't work with AA I would ask you to provide an example. I have never run into a single psychic power that did not work fine with AA.

Even then, I think it largely depends on how the AA system works. If it is random as to which unit activates first, having your Psyker last would make it rather useless.

Fortunately, I do believe most AA systems allow the players more input than that. It is more random as to which player gets to activate a unit next rather than which unit gets to activate next.

One thing that is happening in my group's chat is that 9th has blown open acceptance of house rules even further. We were always okay with primaris in drop pods and land raiders, custom weapon loadouts not on datasheets, that sort of thing, but now the basics are up for grabs in a way they never were during 8th.

IGOUGO getting kicked to the curb seems pretty much unanimous.

It feels like the slow drawn out opening of people to other rules sets and house rules that happened from late 4th to 7th 40k is happening in a matter of days. Those of us who returned for 8th are being reminded what a GW edition change is really about and others are experiencing it for the first time.

For a couple people they are beginning to see that GW is just making gak up as they go and there's nothing sacred about a given way to play just because they published it.

 Chamberlain wrote:
One thing that is happening in my group's chat is that 9th has blown open acceptance of house rules even further. We were always okay with primaris in drop pods and land raiders, custom weapon loadouts not on datasheets, that sort of thing, but now the basics are up for grabs in a way they never were during 8th.

IGOUGO getting kicked to the curb seems pretty much unanimous.

It feels like the slow drawn out opening of people to other rules sets and house rules that happened from late 4th to 7th 40k is happening in a matter of days. Those of us who returned for 8th are being reminded what a GW edition change is really about and others are experiencing it for the first time.

For a couple people they are beginning to see that GW is just making gak up as they go and there's nothing sacred about a given way to play just because they published it.

I just wish my playgroup allowed my CSM to deepstrike their droppods on turn one, or for their legion traits to apply to vehicles :(

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

I just wish my playgroup allowed my CSM to deepstrike their droppods on turn one, or for their legion traits to apply to vehicles :(

When the new edition comes out I would really recommended inviting people to specific gaming times (once we're doing that again) to play through all the rules content in the main rulebook. If people ask why you can say things like "we paid good money for this rulebook, we may as well try out what's in it." Starting with all the open play content, then the narrative. I'm sure they'll all play the matched play whenever.

If people aren't even willing to try anything other than a narrow slice of the published rules, you'll never get them to houserule. But many people have never even tried any of the open or narrative scenarios. Getting someone to have a fun game where the sides aren't equal is often the first step in loosening up "everything must be offical" rigid thinking.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
One thing that is happening in my group's chat is that 9th has blown open acceptance of house rules even further. We were always okay with primaris in drop pods and land raiders, custom weapon loadouts not on datasheets, that sort of thing, but now the basics are up for grabs in a way they never were during 8th.

IGOUGO getting kicked to the curb seems pretty much unanimous.

It feels like the slow drawn out opening of people to other rules sets and house rules that happened from late 4th to 7th 40k is happening in a matter of days. Those of us who returned for 8th are being reminded what a GW edition change is really about and others are experiencing it for the first time.

For a couple people they are beginning to see that GW is just making gak up as they go and there's nothing sacred about a given way to play just because they published it.

I just wish my playgroup allowed my CSM to deepstrike their droppods on turn one, or for their legion traits to apply to vehicles :(

You want CSM to have that? The solution is simple: don't buy the codex and email them. As long as people keep purchasing garbage printed content, GW continues to think they're doing a good job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Remember: don't do the job we are supposed to be paying GW to do.

 Chamberlain wrote:
One thing that is happening in my group's chat is that 9th has blown open acceptance of house rules even further. We were always okay with primaris in drop pods and land raiders, custom weapon loadouts not on datasheets, that sort of thing, but now the basics are up for grabs in a way they never were during 8th.

IGOUGO getting kicked to the curb seems pretty much unanimous.

It feels like the slow drawn out opening of people to other rules sets and house rules that happened from late 4th to 7th 40k is happening in a matter of days. Those of us who returned for 8th are being reminded what a GW edition change is really about and others are experiencing it for the first time.

For a couple people they are beginning to see that GW is just making gak up as they go and there's nothing sacred about a given way to play just because they published it.

GW rules needs a lot of love . Friendship helps.

AA works perfectly well with 8th. I've played it.

Unit activation is by drawing dice/cards, so that the difference in the number of units doesn't become an issue.

There's an additional core strategem: for 1 cp you can activate an additional unit at the same time. For 3 cps you can activate 2 additional units at the same time. This is so those character auras work.

Close combat is handled so you get two cc actions per battle round just as you do currently. Ie when you activate you get to attack (no fight back). Then after all units have been activated ALL units in cc get to fight again. This is a bit gamey but retains the deadlyness of combat.

How does this work with units that require the activiation of 2-3 things to work? Lets say I drop a unit from deep strike, then it has to be buffed by a chaplain and 2 stratagems to work properly. that is minium 2-3 activations, in between which my opponents get two activation, which can end with the unit being dead before I finish the buffing.

Karol wrote:
How does this work with units that require the activiation of 2-3 things to work? Lets say I drop a unit from deep strike, then it has to be buffed by a chaplain and 2 stratagems to work properly. that is minium 2-3 activations, in between which my opponents get two activation, which can end with the unit being dead before I finish the buffing.

If the Chaplain provides the buff by being nearby, there's only one activation: the unit from deep strike doing whatever you wanted it to do. I don't think anyone has proposed an AA system where using a stratagem counts as an activation.

Karol wrote:
How does this work with units that require the activiation of 2-3 things to work? Lets say I drop a unit from deep strike, then it has to be buffed by a chaplain and 2 stratagems to work properly. that is minium 2-3 activations, in between which my opponents get two activation, which can end with the unit being dead before I finish the buffing.

I dislike the stratagem version. I prefer the expanding "heroic intervention" version.

1) you pick a unit to activate. You choose a unit in reserves. That unit is a drop pod or whatever.

2) Vehicles activate the units inside them when you activate the transport. So you place the drop pod and then as per normal you deploy all the units.

3) do the rest of the phases with the activated units.

Or...

1) You activate a unit. If a character is within 3" you can activate it with the unit.

2) do your phases with the activated units.

 catbarf wrote:

Karol wrote:
How does this work with units that require the activiation of 2-3 things to work? Lets say I drop a unit from deep strike, then it has to be buffed by a chaplain and 2 stratagems to work properly. that is minium 2-3 activations, in between which my opponents get two activation, which can end with the unit being dead before I finish the buffing.

If the Chaplain provides the buff by being nearby, there's only one activation: the unit from deep strike doing whatever you wanted it to do. I don't think anyone has proposed an AA system where using a stratagem counts as an activation.

With the Strategem (in the original post) that allows you to activate 1 or 2 additional units.

One thing that is happening in my group's chat is that 9th has blown open acceptance of house rules even further.

Will you adopt me? House rules are the big satan where I am.

 KRakarth wrote:
AA works perfectly well with 8th. I've played it.

Unit activation is by drawing dice/cards, so that the difference in the number of units doesn't become an issue.

There's an additional core strategem: for 1 cp you can activate an additional unit at the same time. For 3 cps you can activate 2 additional units at the same time. This is so those character auras work.

Close combat is handled so you get two cc actions per battle round just as you do currently. Ie when you activate you get to attack (no fight back). Then after all units have been activated ALL units in cc get to fight again. This is a bit gamey but retains the deadlyness of combat.

Yeah, I've tried it. My experience was different.

What I'd say in favor of AA: very tactical.

- Being able to respond to an opponent's movement allowed me to shut down his assaults by just getting out of the way.
- Example: You have a squad of Cultists. Your opponent moves up a squad of Ogryns. You move the Cultists out of charge range.

- Shooting phase was more involved, target priority and shooting order for my troops mattered.
- Example: I want to kill your Knight, you also have a Dreadnought. I have 2 squads of Lascannon Havocs. Do I focus on the weaker target or the bigger threat?

- Charge phase was more interesting, charge order has bigger impact on board control.
- Example: I have 3 squads of Cultists, you have 3 squads of Intercessors. Everybody's in charge range. Whoever charges first has Linebreaker.

What I'd say against AA: screws up large games.

- Too many units makes it hard to ensure each one has a purpose.
- Example: I have three squads of Cultists and want to get them into combat. You move your Intercessors out of charge range. My Cultists are now just standing there. Next turn, they're in no-mans land.

- You can't really count on anything being able to shoot and there's an incentive to target things that haven't fired yet.
- Example: There's a Knight and a Dreadnought. You have 2 units of Lascannon Havocs. One fires, takes off 10 wounds. The Knight shoots, killing the other Havoc squad before it can shoot. The Dreadnought then gets to shoot, destroying the first squad of Havocs.

- Tough to position psychic units to use powers in range of squads when battlefield changes dynamically.
- Example: You have a Sorcerer and a squad of Cultists. You moved them close together early in your movement phase. Your opponent moved his troops out of charge range. The buff you were going to cast with the Sorcerer no longer matters.

- Charges don't result in a 'line.' Troops are staggered and this screws up board control.
- Example: I have 3 squads of Cultists. First one on the right charges 10". You charge 10", holding my second Cultist squad where it is. My third squad can't charge because it would have to go around your unit.

Over the course of a hundred AA games, I'm certain I would get the hang of things and these concerns would mean less. It's not that they can't work, it's that I'm unfamiliar and learning.

But there is a good reason to think AA would never work: 40k is not Chess. AA requires *so* much more mental bandwidth. When my opponent reacts immediately to everything I do, it takes a lot more time to figure out how to react myself.

At 2000 points, it felt like I was playing 3 games of Chess simultaneously, one to the left, one to the right, and one in the middle. That brought out this other aspect to the game, which might not be obvious when you first think about it. I had to decide which part of the table to focus on. If I was doing all my activations to the left while he was focused on the right, I could get an upper hand, and vice versa.

Think about that in the shooting phase. Doesn't matter if you have superior shooting if you can't get around to activating that section of the board because you are focused on something else or, worse yet, you ran out of activations. The activation system itself was creating this imbalance that favored the army with the most units.

So I don't know. At 1000 points, maybe AA is a great game? At 2000 points, you better really think hard about how you write your list. My impression was elite armies are going to have a hard time.

It sounds like you played aa within each phase. The example you gave of cultists moving back out of charge range is exactly why i dont recommend that version at all. Each activation does all its phases. Simpler and gives more agency to the units.

 Lance845 wrote:
It sounds like you played aa within each phase. The example you gave of cultists moving back out of charge range is exactly why i dont recommend that version at all. Each activation does all its phases. Simpler and gives more agency to the units.

Yeah, AA by phase is just bizarre and I don't think any game does that. Fully resolving every phase with each unit would be best and would probably be faster as well, since you're not going back to each unit multiple times in a round phase by phase.

KT is AA by phase i think.

I think techsoldaten basically did a hybrid of two systems that each work better in their own right for something with the scale of 40K:

-Pure AA- each unit activates one at a time and does all of its movement, shooting, melee, etc for the turn at once.

-Phased/integrated turn- One player is 'active' and the other is 'reactive' (determined by an initiative roll at the start of the turn). Within each phase the active player resolves all their units for that phase, followed by the reactive player (eg: player A moves, B moves, A shoots, B shoots, etc).

The phased/integrated turn alleviates the coordination problem of pure AA (helpful in a game heavy on auras) and speeds up play. While it can be as alpha-strike-y as pure IGOUGO, the reactive player gets to move before the active player can shoot, so there's opportunity to spoil their shots on a table with sufficient terrain and room for maneuver.

Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages- but AA within each phase definitely would be cumbersome for a large army.

I really don't think Alternating Activation is the holy grail versus the IGOUGO activation system the current 40k has.

There are plenty of games that make great use of IGOUGO, but the ones that really stick out to me as my favorites have quite a bit of interaction for the non active player, or don't try to be anything besides IGOUGO and are shorter ranged objective based games that force armies to close with each other and focus on positioning instead of cross map alpha strikes.

I really think the main issue with GW's take on IGOUGO is just that GW is poor at writing rules for 40k. Even if GW wrote 40k as an alternating activation game, I would expect it to be lackluster at this point. Before GW even attempts to move to a whole new activation system for 40k they should honestly hire new rules writers and start phasing out the ones that continue to botch every edition of 40k.

 catbarf wrote:
I think techsoldaten basically did a hybrid of two systems that each work better in their own right for something with the scale of 40K:

-Pure AA- each unit activates one at a time and does all of its movement, shooting, melee, etc for the turn at once.

-Phased/integrated turn- One player is 'active' and the other is 'reactive' (determined by an initiative roll at the start of the turn). Within each phase the active player resolves all their units for that phase, followed by the reactive player (eg: player A moves, B moves, A shoots, B shoots, etc).

The phased/integrated turn alleviates the coordination problem of pure AA (helpful in a game heavy on auras) and speeds up play. While it can be as alpha-strike-y as pure IGOUGO, the reactive player gets to move before the active player can shoot, so there's opportunity to spoil their shots on a table with sufficient terrain and room for maneuver.

Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages- but AA within each phase definitely would be cumbersome for a large army.

I personally don't think per phase is that cumbersome, and it really does help enable counter play.

Let see those armies sold OP

 techsoldaten wrote:

 KRakarth wrote:
AA works perfectly well with 8th. I've played it.

Unit activation is by drawing dice/cards, so that the difference in the number of units doesn't become an issue.

There's an additional core strategem: for 1 cp you can activate an additional unit at the same time. For 3 cps you can activate 2 additional units at the same time. This is so those character auras work.

Close combat is handled so you get two cc actions per battle round just as you do currently. Ie when you activate you get to attack (no fight back). Then after all units have been activated ALL units in cc get to fight again. This is a bit gamey but retains the deadlyness of combat.

Yeah, I've tried it. My experience was different.

What I'd say in favor of AA: very tactical.

- Being able to respond to an opponent's movement allowed me to shut down his assaults by just getting out of the way.
- Example: You have a squad of Cultists. Your opponent moves up a squad of Ogryns. You move the Cultists out of charge range.

- Shooting phase was more involved, target priority and shooting order for my troops mattered.
- Example: I want to kill your Knight, you also have a Dreadnought. I have 2 squads of Lascannon Havocs. Do I focus on the weaker target or the bigger threat?

- Charge phase was more interesting, charge order has bigger impact on board control.
- Example: I have 3 squads of Cultists, you have 3 squads of Intercessors. Everybody's in charge range. Whoever charges first has Linebreaker.

What I'd say against AA: screws up large games.

- Too many units makes it hard to ensure each one has a purpose.
- Example: I have three squads of Cultists and want to get them into combat. You move your Intercessors out of charge range. My Cultists are now just standing there. Next turn, they're in no-mans land.

- You can't really count on anything being able to shoot and there's an incentive to target things that haven't fired yet.
- Example: There's a Knight and a Dreadnought. You have 2 units of Lascannon Havocs. One fires, takes off 10 wounds. The Knight shoots, killing the other Havoc squad before it can shoot. The Dreadnought then gets to shoot, destroying the first squad of Havocs.

- Tough to position psychic units to use powers in range of squads when battlefield changes dynamically.
- Example: You have a Sorcerer and a squad of Cultists. You moved them close together early in your movement phase. Your opponent moved his troops out of charge range. The buff you were going to cast with the Sorcerer no longer matters.

- Charges don't result in a 'line.' Troops are staggered and this screws up board control.
- Example: I have 3 squads of Cultists. First one on the right charges 10". You charge 10", holding my second Cultist squad where it is. My third squad can't charge because it would have to go around your unit.

Over the course of a hundred AA games, I'm certain I would get the hang of things and these concerns would mean less. It's not that they can't work, it's that I'm unfamiliar and learning.

But there is a good reason to think AA would never work: 40k is not Chess. AA requires *so* much more mental bandwidth. When my opponent reacts immediately to everything I do, it takes a lot more time to figure out how to react myself.

At 2000 points, it felt like I was playing 3 games of Chess simultaneously, one to the left, one to the right, and one in the middle. That brought out this other aspect to the game, which might not be obvious when you first think about it. I had to decide which part of the table to focus on. If I was doing all my activations to the left while he was focused on the right, I could get an upper hand, and vice versa.

Think about that in the shooting phase. Doesn't matter if you have superior shooting if you can't get around to activating that section of the board because you are focused on something else or, worse yet, you ran out of activations. The activation system itself was creating this imbalance that favored the army with the most units.

So I don't know. At 1000 points, maybe AA is a great game? At 2000 points, you better really think hard about how you write your list. My impression was elite armies are going to have a hard time.

Honestly all your complaints seem to be "I don't like being counter played" and "I don't want to think THAT hard about positioning for my army".

Lance845 wrote:It sounds like you played aa within each phase. The example you gave of cultists moving back out of charge range is exactly why i dont recommend that version at all. Each activation does all its phases. Simpler and gives more agency to the units.

Playtesting with a few friends, we tried both. AA per phase seemed the most intuitive.

For me, it was things like Warptime, where you cast a power and expect it to work on another unit. AA with exploding activations was something we didn't really want to explore.

catbarf wrote:I think techsoldaten basically did a hybrid of two systems that each work better in their own right for something with the scale of 40K:

-Pure AA- each unit activates one at a time and does all of its movement, shooting, melee, etc for the turn at once.

-Phased/integrated turn- One player is 'active' and the other is 'reactive' (determined by an initiative roll at the start of the turn). Within each phase the active player resolves all their units for that phase, followed by the reactive player (eg: player A moves, B moves, A shoots, B shoots, etc).

The phased/integrated turn alleviates the coordination problem of pure AA (helpful in a game heavy on auras) and speeds up play. While it can be as alpha-strike-y as pure IGOUGO, the reactive player gets to move before the active player can shoot, so there's opportunity to spoil their shots on a table with sufficient terrain and room for maneuver.

Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages- but AA within each phase definitely would be cumbersome for a large army.

TBH everything seemed a lot more interesting and cumbersome, even at 1,000. It just makes you think more.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Honestly all your complaints seem to be "I don't like being counter played" and "I don't want to think THAT hard about positioning for my army".

It was more a matter of "immediately reacting to everything I do made for very defensive games that were not as much fun."

Like I said, I could see myself getting used to it for smaller games. For larger games, it was just too much and I probably wouldn't want to play.