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.

Maybe this has been discussed before but what do people think of alternating unit activations in 40k? Would that not help a lot against the almost always first turn advantage and also against the "passive nothing to do feeling" while the opponent is making all his moves and psychic etc.

Just did a game with my 2K Chaos Knights vs Tau, and my opponent got first turn, he shot and destroyed my Tyrant and severly wounded one despoiler of my two Despoilers with his Riptides that he had hid behind obscuring terrain (good hit and wound rolls on his part and lots of failed saves for me)

I then only had 1 Despoiler(1,25 maybe ) and 2 wardogs left when it was my turn, and i managed a few wounds on his riptides with their 3++ but by then it was basically over and I conceded.

Thing is, had I started it feels like things would have been a lot different, me giving all my big knights T9 etc and get a lot of shots in. Sucks that a single die roll can make such a huge difference.

How many different alternating activation rules do you think have been in the 40k proposed rules section?

The most recently published alternating activation version of 40k is the Apocalpse rules.

Just to go over ground that's been discussed elsewhere before...
- Once you have alternating activations, you have to deal with one player having more activations than the other.
- The 'and now the other player's units fight back' in 40k's melee combat rules, charging to engage units, and effects that last the entire turn, among other things, mean that you can't just slice out what each unit does in a turn out and call it an "activation".

I'm not 100% opposed to it, but play some games that use alternating activations first (Bolt Action, Cruel Seas, SW: Armada, etc) to see if you actually do like it. It's not intrinsically a move towards balance, just shifts the meta to something different (typically MSU for activation advantage).

I enjoyed kill team, but I think Bolt Action had a pretty nice system. It really helps cut down on alpha strikes, but I think the main advantage is it increases player engagement.

When I started playing 8th with imperial guard, my opponent would just get demoralized by all my shooting, because it just went on and on.

Alternating activations is something I've been praying to see in 40K for so long. It's the easiest, simplest way to mitigate the huge alpha strike problem this game has. I think most people who are against it are players who have never actually played an alternate activation game before so they automatically assume it can't work because it would be so different. Already in the thread objections have been raised that really wouldn't be issues if they were implemented.

'What happens if one person has more units?!' Well, then one person has more units. Yes, they will have more activations. No, that is not an insurmountable advantage. The other player will presumably have bigger, more powerful, more capable units that get more work done on their activations. That's not a problem, it's just another facet of the asymmetrical balance the game is already built on.

'Units have to fight back in melee, it's hard to distill each unit into alternating activations!' No, it isn't. The engaged unit just won't swing back until it's their turn to activate. Not unlike how it works now, actually.

There is absolutely zero reason 40K would not work in an AA system, people are just attached to IGOUGO because it's all they know.

Well that all depends on how many more units they have, then their opponents. inifnity is a dynamic game with big opponent interaction against your every movment, but when Poles started to play 20 model elite armies, and even bigger non elite ones. Corvus Belli had to give up and made the game cap at 15 dudes in 4th ed, from what was explained to me.

The same would happen with w40k. The armies that run around with 4-6 units and 2-3 characters would have to have mechanics to counter the fact that some armies would be running with double the number of units effectivly giving them two turns for the elite armies one. Try playing Bolt actions with 5 duds vs 15 or 20, it just doesn't work, even if your 5 dudes are all HMG and mortar crews.

I’ve used a couple different iterations of AA for a while now in 40K, and it worked fairly well - especially with Index 8E.

 solkan wrote:

- Once you have alternating activations, you have to deal with one player having more activations than the other.

And the parallel/combination issue - Activating a 700 point Knight vs the opponent having a bunch of 200 point blobs. The "solution" is something other than alternate activations at the unit level. 25%ish point blocks maybe. Casualty Removal at the end of the Battle Round to allow for simulating simultaneous shooting/fighting/destruction i.e. Anything Alive at the start of a Battle Round (I think Batlte Round was what they called two player turns, one each?) a model can act for the entirety of said Battle Round but if destroyed gets removed just prior to Battle Round 2.

Breton wrote:

 solkan wrote:

- Once you have alternating activations, you have to deal with one player having more activations than the other.

And the parallel/combination issue - Activating a 700 point Knight vs the opponent having a bunch of 200 point blobs. The "solution" is something other than alternate activations at the unit level. 25%ish point blocks maybe. Casualty Removal at the end of the Battle Round to allow for simulating simultaneous shooting/fighting/destruction i.e. Anything Alive at the start of a Battle Round (I think Batlte Round was what they called two player turns, one each?) a model can act for the entirety of said Battle Round but if destroyed gets removed just prior to Battle Round 2.

Epic works fine with alternating activations.

There are indeed multiple ways to implement alternating activations in a game and pretty much every one of them is better than IGOUGO of the current 40k. One side activating in whole is not inherently bad, but it is more at home in melee-centric games of pre-modern maneuver warfare. Kings of War as an example is more about setting a puzzle for your enemy to interact with until one side gives in to prepared flanking charges. 40k, with it's long range lethality, does not have this quality and more often allows for balance problems by removing big parts of the opposing army before they can hit back. If you begin the game and remove 20% of the opposing force, they cannot hit you as hard on their turn and the snowballing begins, unlike what you'd have in a more reactive game where you could take the hit and strike at another place before the opposition, so both players could lose assets before getting full use out of them.

Some forms of alternating activations include:

Straight one by one activation (like Titanicus), activation by detachments (like Apocalypse), activation that can be maintained (like Epic Armageddon), activation by initiative (like X-Wing), activation by card deck (like Confrontation), activation by random draw (like Bolt Action), alternating in phases (like Kill Team), activating until you screw up (like Blood Bowl), activating until enemy contact is established (like Crossfire) et cetera. These can then be further manipulated by involving commanding characters, activation queue tricks, double actions, pinning and what not. Possibilites galore.

I've personally used a modified Bolt Action system and found it very easy to slot into 40k. Count the number of units all sides have, put a corresponding number of colourcoded dice or chits in a bag, draw until the colour changes. That player can then make a full "mini-turn" with as many units as they got chits. Psychic powers and similar buff effects last until the end of the round. Depending on your tastes, melees are handled either every time someone has been charged or folks can hit back once per round. Minor issues or weird interactions can arise every now and then, but they are usually pretty trivial to rule on the spot.

 Sherrypie wrote:


Straight one by one activation (like Titanicus), activation by detachments (like Apocalypse), activation that can be maintained (like Epic Armageddon), activation by initiative (like X-Wing), activation by card deck (like Confrontation), activation by random draw (like Bolt Action), alternating in phases (like Kill Team), activating until you screw up (like Blood Bowl), activating until enemy contact is established (like Crossfire) et cetera. These can then be further manipulated by involving commanding characters, activation queue tricks, double actions, pinning and what not. Possibilites galore.

I've personally used a modified Bolt Action system and found it very easy to slot into 40k. Count the number of units all sides have, put a corresponding number of colourcoded dice or chits in a bag, draw until the colour changes. That player can then make a full "mini-turn" with as many units as they got chits. Psychic powers and similar buff effects last until the end of the round. Depending on your tastes, melees are handled either every time someone has been charged or folks can hit back once per round. Minor issues or weird interactions can arise every now and then, but they are usually pretty trivial to rule on the spot.

One of the things I like the idea of best is once per turn casualty removal Anyhing alive at the start of turn 1 gets to act during all of turn 1. Anything that dies in turn 1 is removed just before turn 2. Its not like the battle is being fought with some sort of Marquis of Queensbury rules where the army "going second" has to sit in a foxhole etc until it's their turn. At the same time Joe Bob's Screaming Death Anges from the Nightmare Rift are moving, Colonel Sanders and his Breast and Thigh Bucket Guard are also moving.

Casualty removal at the end (like Apocalypse) has its perks, offering every player the opportunity to get to play with their pretty models before they are blown to pieces. Whether or not one sees this as a good thing is up to taste, since it also does to a degree also lessen the importance of timing your activations correctly to take out critical targets.

Apoc's specific implementation has other nice elements, like keeping the suspense up because the saves are also not taken before the end of the round so players do not know if certain units are dead or not without overcommitting their resources to pour blast markers on them. For 40k purposes this doesn't directly work without a prohibitive amount of book keeping with all the various AP modifiers and Damage stats being a thing, but for straight casualty removal it works fine.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Casualty removal at the end (like Apocalypse) has its perks, offering every player the opportunity to get to play with their pretty models before they are blown to pieces. Whether or not one sees this as a good thing is up to taste,

since it also does to a degree also lessen the importance of timing your activations correctly to take out critical targets.

Actually it increases the importance. What it really does is increase the level of planning ahead you need to do. You now have to look a move or more ahead rather than just take a snapshot of the current table status and assign a fairly static target priority.

Apoc's specific implementation has other nice elements, like keeping the suspense up because the saves are also not taken before the end of the round so players do not know if certain units are dead or not without overcommitting their resources to pour blast markers on them. For 40k purposes this doesn't directly work without a prohibitive amount of book keeping with all the various AP modifiers and Damage stats being a thing, but for straight casualty removal it works fine.

Karol wrote:
Well that all depends on how many more units they have, then their opponents. inifnity is a dynamic game with big opponent interaction against your every movment, but when Poles started to play 20 model elite armies, and even bigger non elite ones. Corvus Belli had to give up and made the game cap at 15 dudes in 4th ed, from what was explained to me.

The same would happen with w40k. The armies that run around with 4-6 units and 2-3 characters would have to have mechanics to counter the fact that some armies would be running with double the number of units effectivly giving them two turns for the elite armies one. Try playing Bolt actions with 5 duds vs 15 or 20, it just doesn't work, even if your 5 dudes are all HMG and mortar crews.

I want to note inifinity isn't alternating activation. It has an IGUGO turn structure, but with the ability for the player whose turn it is not to react to the player whose turn it is. So it's not really applicable when talking alternate activation, because it isn't.

Breton wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Casualty removal at the end (like Apocalypse) has its perks, offering every player the opportunity to get to play with their pretty models before they are blown to pieces. Whether or not one sees this as a good thing is up to taste, since it also does to a degree also lessen the importance of timing your activations correctly to take out critical targets.

Actually it increases the importance. What it really does is increase the level of planning ahead you need to do. You now have to look a move or more ahead rather than just take a snapshot of the current table status and assign a fairly static target priority.

Against a static system like IGOUGO 40k, yes, but not in the alternating context Apoc natively operates. In an alternating system where you can kill or pin stuff as you go, it is critically important to decide where you want to act first at a given moment and where you are willing to let the enemy get an advantage. If you aren't thinking ahead or are unwilling to alter your plan on the fly, you're going to get your butt kicked by an opponent who can act to limit your options in a coordinated fashion. Epic Armageddon is a great example of this, the timing and coordination of your maneuvers is absolutely key to not being wrecked on the field in crossfires or overwhelming assaults.

In contrast Apoc allows you to recover from harsh mistakes or badly timed moves in a lot more forgiving way, by at least going out in a blaze of glory with a unit that has already been lost bar miraculous save tricks. I'm not saying the activation order does not matter, because of course it does in area denial, target acquisition and objective grabbing, but it is way less crucial to agonize over than you usually have in these games.

Epic: Armageddon has a functional system. Just use that.

It can also deny opportunities. If you can assess the board correctly when issuing orders you can attempt to predict what orders the opponent will give to their detachments and what they are trying to do with those orders. Then, you can issue orders and try to act first to counter whatever their plan is. If one player does the stand and shoot and I manage to charge into them I can effectively negate at least some of their shooting. Even if melee was not my optimal move for those units the negation of their shooting might be more important.

Karol wrote:
Well that all depends on how many more units they have, then their opponents. inifnity is a dynamic game with big opponent interaction against your every movment, but when Poles started to play 20 model elite armies, and even bigger non elite ones. Corvus Belli had to give up and made the game cap at 15 dudes in 4th ed, from what was explained to me.

The same would happen with w40k. The armies that run around with 4-6 units and 2-3 characters would have to have mechanics to counter the fact that some armies would be running with double the number of units effectivly giving them two turns for the elite armies one. Try playing Bolt actions with 5 duds vs 15 or 20, it just doesn't work, even if your 5 dudes are all HMG and mortar crews.

Infinity isnt an alternating activation game, its a reactions based game. And the reason CB put a maximum on army size is because in infinity, you can put all (regualar) your actions in a single model if you wish. So imagine that for each unit in your army, you could chose to instead activate your paladins, giving you an essentially "God mode" unit.

Spamming cheap bodies was also good as a "reaction spam" tactic to fill the board with smokes to block line of sight.

When I started playing 8th with imperial guard, my opponent would just get demoralized by all my shooting, because it just went on and on.

This is the problem right here. So many people think alternating activations is a magic panacea that will just fix everything. They point to games like Bolt Action as an example, but they miss the fact that games like Bolt Action are inherently more balanced to begin with. It's much easier to balance a game when everyone is "human", everyone is essentially firing some variation on the same thing, and everyone has access to somewhat similar gear. But because it uses alternating activation, they get tunnel vision on that.

I've played many games with AA and some were good and some were just as unbalanced as 40k can be. The real issue w/40k is in the army design imo. You have armies that are so good at one thing, and that one thing gets tuned to 11 so when they get to do it, the other army has no chance. Now add in the massive skew you can get in what can constitute and "army". At 1000 points I can bring several Knights. My Death Guard opponent isn't likely at that points level to have much of an answer for that. Alternating activation will fix ... exactly non of that. It will likely just prolong the already un-fun tabling.

I'm not against AA, and I don't have an inherent preference for IGOUGO, but a lot of the issues with 40k often get incorrectly assigned to "IGOUGO". Even the current 1st turn advantage could be fixed by correcting the missions themselves. I think shifting to AA would land us in a spot of "different but the same" really.

Tycho wrote:

When I started playing 8th with imperial guard, my opponent would just get demoralized by all my shooting, because it just went on and on.

This is the problem right here. So many people think alternating activations is a magic panacea that will just fix everything. They point to games like Bolt Action as an example, but they miss the fact that games like Bolt Action are inherently more balanced to begin with. It's much easier to balance a game when everyone is "human", everyone is essentially firing some variation on the same thing, and everyone has access to somewhat similar gear. But because it uses alternating activation, they get tunnel vision on that.

I've played many games with AA and some were good and some were just as unbalanced as 40k can be. The real issue w/40k is in the army design imo. You have armies that are so good at one thing, and that one thing gets tuned to 11 so when they get to do it, the other army has no chance. Now add in the massive skew you can get in what can constitute and "army". At 1000 points I can bring several Knights. My Death Guard opponent isn't likely at that points level to have much of an answer for that. Alternating activation will fix ... exactly non of that. It will likely just prolong the already un-fun tabling.

I'm not against AA, and I don't have an inherent preference for IGOUGO, but a lot of the issues with 40k often get incorrectly assigned to "IGOUGO". Even the current 1st turn advantage could be fixed by correcting the missions themselves. I think shifting to AA would land us in a spot of "different but the same" really.

Eh, that's not really the case. The point is that for a game like 40k, which is more about shooting at things and moving to objectives more than it is about jockeying for position in the proper maneuvering sense, AA simply offers deeper gameplay. If the main interactions between the forces on the table were more complex, you could have meaningful benefits from IGOUGO. As it stands, that is not the case and AA would go a long way in plugging the perceived lack of player agency in the game because both sides would get to contribute equally from the get-go. That is not a problem rooted in army design, though it is exacerbated because of it. The tablings as they happen would not happen in such a striking fashion because no-one has to start already injured, like you do currently if you go second and 20% of your army can already be gone.

As comes to the missions, that's also not the case since the end of the round is reasonably equal for both sides instead of favoring those who went first on top of them or stepped on them the last, depending on the mission. Yes, you can absolutely game some of those situations, but it is immensely harder to hardblock every single objective marker at the same time without letting the opponent do the same elsewhere.

Eh, that's not really the case. The point is that for a game like 40k, which is more about shooting at things and moving to objectives more than it is about jockeying for position in the proper maneuvering sense, AA simply offers deeper gameplay. If the main interactions between the forces on the table were more complex, you could have meaningful benefits from IGOUGO. As it stands, that is not the case and AA would go a long way in plugging the perceived lack of player agency in the game because both sides would get to contribute equally from the get-go. That is not a problem rooted in army design, though it is exacerbated because of it. The tablings as they happen would not happen in such a striking fashion because no-one has to start already injured, like you do currently if you go second and 20% of your army can already be gone.

As comes to the missions, that's also not the case since the end of the round is reasonably equal for both sides instead of favoring those who went first on top of them or stepped on them the last, depending on the mission. Yes, you can absolutely game some of those situations, but it is immensely harder to hardblock every single objective marker at the same time without letting the opponent do the same elsewhere.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/09 14:25:33

Did you play Vor? It's an older Sci-Fi game. It had alternating activations. It worked amazing until the last two army books that got released. Phaeron and Shard. Suddenly, everything people hated about GW games was being said about VOR as long as one of those two armies was involved. ALL the problems. Without balancing the army design, and without maintaining a consistent design philosophy, going to AA just shifts the problems to different places (and possibly makes the game longer) imo.

Bad deployment can't fix the game even if it's AA.

Terrain & deployment are the biggest factors in turn 1 wipes, not the game system.

All AA provides is more wiggle room for bad deployments/positioning since it gives you time to reposition your units one by one, meaning, each mistake costs you less punishment.

Solution? don't make mistakes in IGOUGO - instead, take calculated risks. AA is not a 'cure' for IGOUGO - they're simply two distinct game systems.

 skchsan wrote:
Bad deployment can't fix the game even if it's AA.

Terrain & deployment is the biggest factor in turn 1 wipes, not the game system.

All AA provides is more wiggle room for bad deployments since it gives you time to reposition your units one by one.

yes, i'd love to see tables of 40k approach the Infinity level of terrain. Make it impossible for models to see across the whole map, make it so players actually have to work to control firing lanes.

Still, considering the average terrain density, i still enjoy 40k better when i play it with alternating activations.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
yes, i'd love to see tables of 40k approach the Infinity level of terrain. Make it impossible for models to see across the whole map, make it so players actually have to work to control firing lanes.

Still, considering the average terrain density, i still enjoy 40k better when i play it with alternating activations.

I do agree that most of us plays with less than optimal amount of terrain. Hopefully the terrains getting cheaper (by virtue of everything else going up in price - looking at you $35 HQ units), minimum board size going smaller, and that chasing the meta post & his comments about terrain, etc. will make terrains more prominent part of 40k.

 skchsan wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
yes, i'd love to see tables of 40k approach the Infinity level of terrain. Make it impossible for models to see across the whole map, make it so players actually have to work to control firing lanes.

Still, considering the average terrain density, i still enjoy 40k better when i play it with alternating activations.

I do agree that most of us plays with less than optimal amount of terrain. Hopefully the terrains getting cheaper (by virtue of everything else going up in price - looking at you $35 HQ units), minimum board size going smaller, and that chasing the meta post & his comments about terrain, etc. will make terrains more prominent part of 40k.

Yeah, im my eyes, if i see someone complaining that the terrain is blocking them too much, thats the level of terrain i enjoy. I often play with a fortress of redemption in the center of the table and i'm suprised how many people complain that its blocking their movement with their big tanks.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
yes, i'd love to see tables of 40k approach the Infinity level of terrain. Make it impossible for models to see across the whole map, make it so players actually have to work to control firing lanes.

Still, considering the average terrain density, i still enjoy 40k better when i play it with alternating activations.

I do agree that most of us plays with less than optimal amount of terrain. Hopefully the terrains getting cheaper (by virtue of everything else going up in price - looking at you $35 HQ units), minimum board size going smaller, and that chasing the meta post & his comments about terrain, etc. will make terrains more prominent part of 40k.

Yeah, im my eyes, if i see someone complaining that the terrain is blocking them too much, thats the level of terrain i enjoy. I often play with a fortress of redemption in the center of the table and i'm suprised how many people complain that its blocking their movement with their big tanks.

It's actually quite refreshing to see someone who shares opinion on matter of terrain.

Our house rule is that terrains cannot be placed within 9" (7" was the most optimal in that it fits a monolith thru, but we've decided to stick with 9" for consistency with other rules) to address the 'my tank can't fit' shenanigans. Sometimes we had destroyable tank traps along the main corridor (T6, 3W, no save - concept is that anything stronger than a heavy bolter can destroy it with ease).

We already went back and forth on this in proposed rules, Skchsan. Nobody should need terrain to fix the issues. Everyone should be able to play with a varied amount of terrain in a varied amount of set ups and still have the game function. Just like nobody like bowling ball world with no terrain nobody likes giant piles of rubble every 2 inches blocking all line of sight so that nothing can shoot anything ever and maneuvering is a nightmare.

1rst turn advantage is not a result of terrain. Terrain CAN put a band-aid on it but I and many others are not interested in a band-aid with requirements. Id rather just fix the fething problem.

1. Nobody is forcing you to play the game. If don't like the given system, you can always houserule a AA version and play that. No need to uproot the existing system to make your point.
2. IGOUGO works, just not in the way you want it. Just because it doesn't work the way you want it, doesn't mean that it's broken.

P.S. I'm not saying AA is a bad system. It's just a different system with it's own pros and cons. Not all wargames need to be AA in order for it to function.

 skchsan wrote:
1. Nobody is forcing you to play the game. If don't like the given system, you can always houserule a AA version and play that. No need to uproot the existing system to make your point.

Agreed. I do.

2. IGOUGO works, just not in the way you want it. Just because it doesn't work the way you want it, doesn't mean that it's broken.

In our last conversation I provided data that showed that it was in fact the root cause of multiple problems in 40k. Not EVERY problem. Just some problems. And that by changing it those problems would in fact go away. Again, other unrelated issues would still exist. But those ones would be fixed.

P.S. I'm not saying AA is a bad system. It's just a different system with it's own pros and cons. Not all wargames need to be AA in order for it to function.

Again, agreed. But 40k suffers for it being IGOUGO. Other games that are IGOUGO don't. But 40k does. Cure the disease.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You can have both good terrain AND AA with drastically reduced downtime, much higher tactical and strategic game play, and a basically non existent first turn advantage. You loose nothing by going to AA.

Karol wrote:Well that all depends on how many more units they have, then their opponents. inifnity is a dynamic game with big opponent interaction against your every movment, but when Poles started to play 20 model elite armies, and even bigger non elite ones. Corvus Belli had to give up and made the game cap at 15 dudes in 4th ed, from what was explained to me.

The same would happen with w40k. The armies that run around with 4-6 units and 2-3 characters would have to have mechanics to counter the fact that some armies would be running with double the number of units effectivly giving them two turns for the elite armies one. Try playing Bolt actions with 5 duds vs 15 or 20, it just doesn't work, even if your 5 dudes are all HMG and mortar crews.

The only correct thing in this post is that Infinity is a dynamic game with opponent interaction.

It's not even AA.

Tycho wrote:This is the problem right here. So many people think alternating activations is a magic panacea that will just fix everything. They point to games like Bolt Action as an example, but they miss the fact that games like Bolt Action are inherently more balanced to begin with. It's much easier to balance a game when everyone is "human", everyone is essentially firing some variation on the same thing, and everyone has access to somewhat similar gear. But because it uses alternating activation, they get tunnel vision on that.

I've played Dust Warfare with hordes of lightly-armored Marines going up against all-mech SSU Steel Guard. AA works fine.

I've played World At War: Eisenbach Gap with Soviet T-72s swarming across the Fulda Gap, outnumbering US Abrams platoons 4:1. AA still works fine.

'AA only works when both sides are comparable' is such a bizarre take given how many asymmetric games use the mechanic successfully.

There are multiple ways to implement AA and multiple ways to address the action economy it introduces. As with IGOUGO, where the usual criticisms are often mitigated through reaction systems (Infinity, Starship Troopers, the venerable Squad Leader), speaking in absolutes is usually wrong.