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.

I'm brand new to 40K and have yet to play a game, and am curious what folks think of the I go - you go vs. a more interlaced series of player turns?

From what I've heard, the 6th edition won't change the fundamentals of the turn in this way, but I play a fair bit of Dystopian Wars (and previously Man o' War). In these games, players activated a single unit: move, shoot, resolve stuff. Then the other player did the same, until all units had gone. I've also played Warmachine, which uses the traditional move everything, do everything, then your opponent does the same. This has always felt a little artificial to me, and (particularly with Warmachine with its emphasis on unit synergies and waiting until you can get all your units set up for the killer combo to take out the enemy warcaster in one go) feels like it leads to significantly more game changing events than does the interlaced turn.

But I've really not played enough of either game to have a really solid opinion. Is this at all discussed among 40K players? I'm just curious to hear what others might think.

It's discussed, yes, though not much. As people experience other systems you'll quickly come across this type of game play in miniature wargaming. For me this is Dust Tactics, which I love for it's gaming speed and absolute brutal lethality.

The problem with Warhammer is that this type of game play is not at all what the game is about, although I can see interlaced turns - I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, I assault, you assault.

Currently working on an overhaul involving unit/unit activation, and altering damage rules to a damage vs health vs wounds system.

Hi all.
There are 4 basic game turn types.

1)Alternating GAME TURN.
(Player A does everything with all units , then player B does everything with all units.)

2)Alternating ACTIVATION.
(Player A does everything with ONE unit, then player B does everything with ONE unit.)

3)Alternating PHASES.
(Player A takes ONE action with ALL units, then player B takes ONE action with ALL units.)

4) Variable Bound game turn.
(Player A takes actions untill they run out , or FAIL.Player B takes actions untill they run out , or FAIL.)
Look at Blood Bowl for an exellent example of variable bound game turn implemented well!

1) Is mainly used for higher level command games and Ancient -Napoleonic type warfare.
Pros, simple to follow.
Cons reduces player interaction to a minimum, and needs additional conditional rules to improve the level of interaction.

2)Mainly used for modern warfare games.
Pros, simple to follow, improves player interaction.
Cons,Often needs aditional conditional rules to improve the level of interaction of elements on table.(Reaction rules like ARO in Infinity for example..)

3)Alternative for modern warfare games.
Pros , simple to follow, improves player and element interactions.
Cons ,erm, I am struggeling a bit to find anything ...

4)Used for modrn warfare games and sport 'board' games.
Pros.MAXIMUM tactical intersction.
Cons Limited use due to high level of definition of interaction required.(Mainly confined to board games , and Arty Conliffes Crossfire.)
Maximises player interaction and tactical play.


I prefer type 2 and 3 for modern war game play.

Both can be expanded to improve player chioce and tactics with simple order counters.(Like those used in AE, Net Epic etc.)

I could post up my alternating phase alternative if you are interested?

Cons for 3: Same as cons for 1. Whoever's going first gets to FIRE first. Enjoy that.

Hi chrisrawr.
IF the game allows all units to automaticaly see all other units from the get go, then yes that would be a problem.

However ,if the game uses a reasonably simple fog of war mechanic, (roll to see /hit.)Then blasting away at long range at units the attacker can NOT see clearly becomes ineffective.Just like real life!

Thankyou for pointing out my oversight.I did not specify this problem as I had thought of a simple solution .

I should have posted the need to use a simple FoW mechanic to prevent the posibility of imbalance in first activation of ranged attacks.

But as a simple FoW mechanic is less intrusive than additional conditional rules, it is still my prefered option.