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.

Hello,

I am gonna try out homebrew rules with some alternate activations for my local scene.
My goal is to just create a plugin to the 40k Core Rules, to keep the flavor intact, as we find OPR quite boring, even if the rules are slick.

I would like help identifying the major pitfalls that i might have missed. Thanks in advance !

All ranged weapons range reduced by 33% (scaled down 1 level)

Line of sight : a unit can be damaged if any part of the body (head, neck, trunk, legs, arms, hands, feet), are visible. Weapons, wings, and other protrusions are not eligible for determining line of sight. For vehicle, any part of the hull, as well as weapons, is eligible for line of sight.

Battle Round
Command Phase
Players roll for initiative. The player with initiative will “play first” in this and subsequent phases, unless specified otherwise.
• Command
Both players resolve Command Phase rules instead of just 1 player.
• Battle-Shock
Both players take battle-shock tests during this phase.

Movement Phase
Player 1 moves all their eligible units.
Then, Player 2 moves all their eligible units.

Ranged Phase
• Ranged attacks
Player 1 shoots with all their eligible weapons and psychic powers.
Then, Player 2 shoots with all their eligible weapons and psychic powers.
As units are attacked they will accumulate wound markers. In the following Damage phase, units that have any wound markers next to them will roll for saving throws.

• Ranged Damage Resolution
In this phase, starting with the player who has the Initiative, players 1 resolves damage for all their units by rolling their saving throws. When player 1 has done so for all its unit, Player 2 does the same.
The player commanding the unit must make one saving throw for each wound marker that is next to the unit.

Charge Phase
Starting with the player who has the Initiative, the players alternate selecting one unit at a time to charge into close combat.
A marker is laid down next to a unit who successfully charged another.

Fight Phase
In the Fight phase, players alternate selecting eligible units from their army, one at a time, starting with the player who has initiative, and fighting with them.
Fight first is NOT decided by unit abilities. If a unit successfully charged another during the charge phase, it will fight first.

Thanks for taking the time to share your work! Alternating activations is a pretty popular topic here, so you might consider searching through the Proposed Rules section for some existing threads on the topic and reviewing past ideas and criticisms.

Some scattered thoughts on what you've presented here:
* Command Phase: You'll want to define what "play first" means. Does the player with initiative get their entire command phase before the other player gets theirs? Or do they have to do one thing at a time? Some units can do damage in the command phase, so the timing here might matter.Similarly, anyone with a movement ability that activates in the command phase (the uppy downy thousand sons crystal comes to mind) could potentially interfere with their opponent's decision making by relocating potential targets for abilities. Etc. tldr; need to clarify exactly how the command phase works under your system, and we can go into other specific challenges from there.

* Movement Phase: This essentially lets the player who goes second hard counter their opponent's movements. As player 2, I'd be able to guarantee easier mortal wounds with swooping hawks, reavers, wraiths, etc., move directly away from melee threats to make their charges impossible, or use uppy downy rules to juke incoming threats entirely.

* Ranged/Damage phase: This kind of wrecks any faction that isn't durable enough to take a punch or cheap-and-lethal enough to trade-up in a shoot-out. So for instance, my various flavors of eldar are usually big on hiding, then attacking, then using movement shenanigans to hop back inside transports or re-hide behind walls. Under this system, if I want to shoot, I'm pretty much forced to let my squishy elves take as much retalitory fire to the face as my opponent wants. Or alternatively, whoever does *not* have initiative can just counter-move in the movement phase such that they have a lot of units in position to see a small number of enemy units, but only a few enemy units can see them in return. Meaning that every turn 100% of the non-initiative player's army will get to shoot while only a small percentage of the initiative playler's army will get to shoot.

As for the damage phase itself, how do these wound markers work? Is it one wound marker per point of damage? Or do you have to somehow track the damage value of each wound marker? The latter is going to involve a lot of bookkeeping. The former is going to do strange things to the effectiveness of weapons against various targets.

And are you *not* using a separate damage phase for the fight phase? Or other phases when you potentially take damage?

* Fight phase: I'm unclear on what you mean by a lot of this. Does "Fight first is NOT decided by unit abilities" mean that you're just getting rid of the Fights First special rule? Because there hasn't been an initiative stat or similar in 40k for several editions now. Which takes priority: charging or initiative? I.e. if the player without initiative succeeds on some charges but the other player does not, does the non-initiative player get to attack with all his chargers first? I need some clarification before I can really comment on how this would work out.

* Overall, unfortunately I don't think these changes would work out as they've been described. The movement phase changes break the game by opening up perfect movement counters. The shooting phase changes break the game in a couple of ways as described above.

*Alternating activations have a lot of potential, but you don't seem to be utilizing any of the benefits that come with AA. I'm curious as to what you were going for with these rules because (and I don't say this to be harsh) you kind of seem to have broken the game in several ways but aren't improving the game in any way I can see. Normally when someone pitches AA on here, they do it in a way that promotes more counterplay/reactions. But here, you've actually *removed* a lot of counterplay or else given it all to the player without intiative as they hard-counter their opponent's movement.

* You mentioned that you wanted this to be a "plugin" for the core rules of 10th, but I don't think you've succeeded in that. These changes as described would interact very strangely with a lot of stratagems and other special rules that exist in 10th edition, raising questions about how those rules work or making many of those rules significantly more or less powerful in ways that probably aren't good for the game.

Further, some of the changes you've suggested (like the introduction of the damage phase) are major overhauls in their own right that would require many factions (if not the entire game) to be overhauled to make it work.

Apologies for all the rough criticism there. I don't want to discourage your efforts, but I think you'd want to make some serious revisions to end up with a ruleset that you'll be happy with.

I'll largely echo Wyldhunt.

And I will especially emphasize, what are you trying to accomplish? Change for the sake of change is not worth it, but if you have specific design goals that you want achieved, the brewing community here can definitely help you achieve them.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to share your work! Alternating activations is a pretty popular topic here, so you might consider searching through the Proposed Rules section for some existing threads on the topic and reviewing past ideas and criticisms.

Apologies for all the rough criticism there. I don't want to discourage your efforts, but I think you'd want to make some serious revisions to end up with a ruleset that you'll be happy with.

Hey, thanks for taking the time to respond.

On second thoughts, i acknowledge that the game is heavily designed around IGOUGO and simply modifying the turn sequence without reviewing all the stratagems, abilities, and various exceptions, is bound to fail.
A simple plugin cannot work, you need to rewrite the whole game, which is obviously too much for a single individual.

But it also tells me that GW keeps layering special abilities and exception to alleviate the IGOUGO turn structure, which also tells me that this system is flawed and bloat is the only answer that was found to keep it going.

Anyway, since you used AI to draft your response, i asked AI to respond for the fun of it.

Movement Phase:
The criticism that Player 2 could “perfectly counter” Player 1 misunderstands how 40k is played today. In IGOUGO, Player 1 already dominates the first turn, while Player 2 often just hides behind terrain until it’s safe to act. My system formalizes that dynamic, giving Player 2 agency to reposition and contest objectives rather than passively wait. This creates a true positional conversation, balances alpha-strike potential, and transforms passive survival into meaningful decisions — while minor limits on repositioning can handle extreme edge cases.

Shooting Phase:
The idea that fragile armies would be “wrecked” ignores the current state of 40k, where alpha strikes decide early-game outcomes and fragile units are forced to hide. Resolving damage at the end of the phase ensures both sides act before casualties fall, creating genuine exchanges. The 30% range reduction further shifts combat into mid-board, emphasizing maneuvering and positioning over first-turn deletions. Far from removing counterplay, this ensures fragile armies gain agency and the ability to respond, rather than simply waiting for safety.

Fight Phase:
The concern about “Fight First” ignores how melee already favors charging units and predetermined sequences. My system keeps charging as a reward but alternates activations thereafter, removing layered exceptions that make melee mechanical and one-sided. This creates real tactical choices — choosing which combats to resolve first while the opponent can respond — turning melee into a decision-driven phase rather than a deterministic one.

Overall:
Claims that this system “breaks the game” overlook that modern 40k already suffers from predictable pacing, first-turn dominance, and passive counterplay. In IGOUGO, counterplay is mostly about hiding; under this system, every phase involves active, meaningful decisions: movement repositioning, shooting exchanges, and alternating melee. Full alternating activations would be unwieldy at 40k scale; this hybrid approach scales while improving engagement and tactical depth.
This isn’t about novelty or breaking the game. It’s about addressing structural flaws in agency, pacing, and interaction. Where current 40k rewards luck and list construction, this system rewards decision-making, positioning, and engagement — turning passive survival into active gameplay and finally allowing both players to meaningfully influence every phase.

Wyldhunt didn't use AI, as far as I can see.

No AI use on my side. Not sure if that was meant to be an insult? Either way, not the first time I've been accused of sounding like a robot.

Movement Phase:
The criticism that Player 2 could “perfectly counter” Player 1 misunderstands how 40k is played today. In IGOUGO, Player 1 already dominates the first turn, while Player 2 often just hides behind terrain until it’s safe to act. My system formalizes that dynamic, giving Player 2 agency to reposition and contest objectives rather than passively wait. This creates a true positional conversation, balances alpha-strike potential, and transforms passive survival into meaningful decisions — while minor limits on repositioning can handle extreme edge cases.

Pretty sure player 2 actually has a somewhat higher win rate at the moment, but don't quote me on that. In very specific terms, your proposal creates a situation where your melee units move towards my eldar, and then my eldar (who lost initiative) simply choose to move out of charge range. Probably into a position where they can shoot one of your units while being untargetable by any major shooting threats if possible.

Shooting Phase:
The idea that fragile armies would be “wrecked” ignores the current state of 40k, where alpha strikes decide early-game outcomes and fragile units are forced to hide. Resolving damage at the end of the phase ensures both sides act before casualties fall, creating genuine exchanges. The 30% range reduction further shifts combat into mid-board, emphasizing maneuvering and positioning over first-turn deletions. Far from removing counterplay, this ensures fragile armies gain agency and the ability to respond, rather than simply waiting for safety.

Going to assume the 30% thing is an AI hallucination as you didn't mention anything along those lines in your opening post.

What I'm looking at with this is the idea that my squishy eldar or dark eldar use positioning/mobility to pop out of hiding and then either move back into hiding or else have tried to leave themselves in a position where you won't be able to retaliate very effectively.

So as a basic example, in the current rules I might have some dark reapers pop out of cover to shoot at your dreadnaut, banking on the reapers doing enough damage to remove that threat and thus leave them relatively safe. Under your system, my dark reapers can't really shoot your dreadnaught without getting shot back in return. And because aeldari units tend to be squishy for their points, it's hard for me to trade well in a given fire fight.

So what I'm imagining is a scenario where my eldar are basically forced to trade shots head-on with enemy armies instead of playing the more interesting game of trying to play angles and utilize mobility to hide behind terrain. This, in turn, seems like it would lead to a situation where my units are only considered "good" if they're so points efficient that they can win said firefights.

Fight Phase:
The concern about “Fight First” ignores how melee already favors charging units and predetermined sequences. My system keeps charging as a reward but alternates activations thereafter, removing layered exceptions that make melee mechanical and one-sided. This creates real tactical choices — choosing which combats to resolve first while the opponent can respond — turning melee into a decision-driven phase rather than a deterministic one.

Tbf, it was unclear what your proposal for the fight phase actually was. See previous post where I ask how exactly you see it working. As I mentioned before, I can't really offer feedback or criticism of your proposed system when it's unclear what that proposal *is*. It sounds like maybe you're suggesting units just take turns activating regardless of who charged? In which case, we're back to punishing fragile armies because every second unit can basically expect to be killed before they get a chance to swing. Basically the problem we have where the interrupt strat discourages melee armies from charging with more than one fragile melee unit each turn because they risk being destroyed before they can attack.

And also tbf, I don't particularly like the current "initiative" system.

Overall:
Claims that this system “breaks the game” overlook that modern 40k already suffers from predictable pacing, first-turn dominance, and passive counterplay. In IGOUGO, counterplay is mostly about hiding; under this system, every phase involves active, meaningful decisions: movement repositioning, shooting exchanges, and alternating melee.

You can dislike those things about modern 40k, but that's not really a defense against the criticisms I've raised. And for all 10th edition's faults, it *is* generally considered to be much better balanced than other editions of the game.

Full alternating activations would be unwieldy at 40k scale; this hybrid approach scales while improving engagement and tactical depth.

I'm not convinced it makes the game more engaging or increases the tactical depth. It kind of sounds to me like it would replace some of the existing interesting decisions around positioning with head-on stat check fire fights and back and forth brawls that punish units for not having marine statlines. Agreed that full AA struggles to scale at larger game sizes, and I get that you're trying to present something that would scale well. But I'm not sure what you've presented would actually work well at *any* game size. And again, I wish to reiterate that I'm not saying this to be a jerk. I just genuinely don't think what you've presented would work well, and that's based on the parts of your proposal that are explained clearly enough to properly comment on.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Movement Phase:
The criticism that Player 2 could “perfectly counter” Player 1 misunderstands how 40k is played today. In IGOUGO, Player 1 already dominates the first turn, while Player 2 often just hides behind terrain until it’s safe to act. My system formalizes that dynamic, giving Player 2 agency to reposition and contest objectives rather than passively wait. This creates a true positional conversation, balances alpha-strike potential, and transforms passive survival into meaningful decisions — while minor limits on repositioning can handle extreme edge cases.

Pretty sure player 2 actually has a somewhat higher win rate at the moment, but don't quote me on that. In very specific terms, your proposal creates a situation where your melee units move towards my eldar, and then my eldar (who lost initiative) simply choose to move out of charge range. Probably into a position where they can shoot one of your units while being untargetable by any major shooting threats if possible.

Likewise, for shooty units - player 1 moves their unit to draw LOS on an enemy, player 2 just moves them away out of sight. The current system has its issues, but does at least let you set up your shots and charges without the enemy being able to move away before you can complete the action.

The only way this works is if units can 'mark' a charge or shooting target at the end of their movement so that they can still shoot or assault it if it moves away during its own activation, but that just adds a whole bunch of additional book-keeping. I don't think there is really any good way to mash alternating activation into the game while retaining separate action phases that doesn't create more problems than it solves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

On second thoughts, i acknowledge that the game is heavily designed around IGOUGO and simply modifying the turn sequence without reviewing all the stratagems, abilities, and various exceptions, is bound to fail.
A simple plugin cannot work, you need to rewrite the whole game, which is obviously too much for a single individual.

But it also tells me that GW keeps layering special abilities and exception to alleviate the IGOUGO turn structure, which also tells me that this system is flawed and bloat is the only answer that was found to keep it going.

The existence of a lot of special rules doesn't prove the system is flawed, it just proves there are a lot of special rules. Yes, that might point to underlying flaws... or it might just point to the designers' goal being to make each unit function uniquely on the table. Which is a problem for a game of 40K's scale, but not one that is dealt with by alternating activations.

Given that on-release 3rd edition is still held up by many as the best 40K rules system, it would seem that the IGOUGO system can work just fine without all of those additional rules bolted on.

Reminds me of a meme image with someone complaining about AI and then it's just an autist. It is generally a bad idea to accuse someone of using AI to write, because AI is made to sound like every internet poster and every novel written, people cannot determine whether things are written by AI and will accuse texts written before the advent of AI to be made with AI.

Having used ChatGPT a lot for Warhammer 40k and having posted too much here it is my opinion that ChatGPT was trained on Dakka posts. I have no specific examples, just some eerily similar ChatGPT replies to posts I made. It also takes huge amounts of work to adapt the output of ChatGPT (even the paid version I had back last year) to something that actually works.

I would assume fights first still works.

I don't think a plug-in is impossible at all, maybe you just need a game master for it to work smoothly while you work on a frequently asked questions document, completely normal for tabletop game development. Do not rush to tell people how things work, see how they read and resolve things, adapt your rules to fit what you want them to do and clarify anything that gets bickered over, create a ruling by the table when necessary.