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 think I may have found my new favorite turn structure. Or at the very least, tied for first.

For those of you who haven't read the latest Warpath rules, I'll summarize it.

Each person activates a unit, can attempt to activate additional units and when they fail or pass, play switches to the opponent. Sounds a lot like Warmaster and even Bloodbowl to a degree. Each time you activate another unit, it becomes harder and harder to succeed. And if a unit fails, it doesn't do anything (why you'll find yourself passing some times). But there's an extra bit too it.

One consistent issue I've had with alternating activation systems like that of Malifaux or Dystopian Wars is when one player simply has more units than the opponent and ends the turn with a huge one sided flurry of activity.

Warpath gets rid of this by having the player with more units continuing to make activation checks at a penalty for those extra units. The odds of failure being just high enough that you won't have the ability to simply carry out a string of activations while your opponent does nothing.

I like that you begin each of your activations with a sure thing and then things get less likely to occur. It prioritizes what's important and makes you have to decide whether or not it is worth risking relative inactivity for a chance to seize the initiative. Or, you can be more reactive and defensive and simply activate one thing and pass.

It's a very portable turn structure that you can insert in many, many other games. I've taken it and added it to some Napoleonic historical rules and it worked flawlessly. Gruntz15mm (a sci fi rules set made for 15mm miniatures) already has three different turn structures to choose from and this one is a natural fit to those rules.

So if someone who starts with more cheaper units goes against someone with 2 deathstars, is it that the deathstars have more turns per itteration or that the cheap units have less chance of having them all act per itteration?

The swarm will have less chances to activate. The death stars don't get to go again and again.

Warpath gets rid of this by having the player with more units continuing to make activation checks at a penalty for those extra units. The odds of failure being just high enough that you won't have the ability to simply carry out a string of activations while your opponent does nothing.

You can thank darkprince010 for that part of the rules, it was his suggestion, and Alessio added it right away.

This is the kind of awesome that happens when a company does open public betas.

Yeah, darkprince010 really came up with a great idea with that.

I like how real feedback is being taken under consideration and implemented. That's one of the best things about Mantic rules development.

My 2nd favorite turn structre (perhaps tied with this one) is the one found in Crossfire, a WW2 rules set by Arty Conliffe. It is sort of like bloodbowl where you go until you fail to accomplish the action you took. So it prioritizes the stuff that will succeed for sure and then you do the risky stuff.

It's great for WW2, modern, etc., but not as good as the Warpath turn structure for larger sci-fi games or for mass battle games as it concentrates the play on areas that don't matter as much and then chances it on the stuff that's important to you.

It's basically the other side of the coin from Warpath's system. In one, you do the important stuff knowing your first activation succeeds and then chance it on the stuff you care less about and in the other, you do the unimportant stuff and build up to risking your turn ending as you get to the tense stuff.

The good thing about the "go until you screw up" turn structure is how you can arrange things so the opponent has a very, very short turn and then you continue to press the advantage. Like in bloodbowl where you make a great defense and the offense messes up early and then you get the ball. Though I've seen my share of bloodbowl games where a great coach can just dominate as a less skilled one loses his turn trying things that he shouldn't.

So a swarm is naturally at a disadvantage over a small elite squad? If they're the same points?

A swarm has exactly the same activation chance as a small elite unit. Horde armies are likely to have more units so may be more likely to try activating several units in succession, thereby reducing the chance of some activating successfully. The nice feature of the new activation rules are that armies with large numbers of units cannot simply burn activations to run their opponent out of units to activate then rampage around the battlefield unopposed with their remaining units. After one side has run out of activations all units left on the other side then activate with the 'second unit in a row' activation penalty so success isn't guaranteed. It stops taking the maximum number of minimum size units being the obvious choice.

Also, there is a bonus for proximity. If you can activate things within a certain range (12" in Warpath) of either your last unit to activate or the last enemy to activate, you have a higher chance of activating.

So if you spam a ton of tiny units, you and your opponent might alternate back and forth for a bit, then those units of yours that are close to the action can mostly reliably activate (failing only on a 1 on a d6) and then those who are not close will fail about a third of their checks (failing on a 1 or a 2).

On a given activation phase, your first unit always will activate unless your opponent has no more activations to carry out. Then you check all your remaining in the order you like.

EDIT: The way I applied this rule to the Napoleonic game was that instead of proximity to an enemy or friend that just activated, you got a bonus to the roll if your declared action for the brigade was to move into formation with the remainder of your division. So if you kept a historical battle line and regulated the movement of your line like a historical general would, then you'd be more likely to activate all your forces. If you broke your line up and made an ahistorical blob, you'd be less likely. Would work great for a fantasy mass battle game as well.

 the_ferrett wrote:
So a swarm is naturally at a disadvantage over a small elite squad? If they're the same points?

Not quite, there is also a suppression mechanic that comes into play too to balance that out.

Yes, you can take deathstars, but if the enemy suppresses your deathstar before they get to activate then that's a lot of models that risk being unable to do anything in that turn.

20-man units have the advantage of concentrated firepower (the Onslaught! mechanic provides this) and faster activation, at the cost of being unweildly and vulnerable to suppression.

Lots of 5-man units are more likely to be destroyed, but more resistant to suppression since if one 5-man unit gets suppressed the other ones can still activate freely.


You can't make judgements about one particular rule in isolation with this ruleset, it all interacts.. you have to read it all (doesn't take long!), and ideally play a game before starting to really appreciate it.

It is way *way* better than the 1.0 rules, which were just a KoW-clone with some 40k bolt-ons.

I really like the turn structure with the fixes added. I am excited about Warpath, I really hope it takes off. All that's holding me back really is the lack of a compelling faction to pick up. I've already got a squillion Orks for 40K and I prefer their look to the Marauders, and though I like Forgefathers, I dunno that I can see myself picking up a whole army of them. Corporation are kinda cool I suppose, but I'm not as enthused by the concept. The new enforcers might change that- I think the armour style is really cool. Ver'Mynn are laaaame. I'm waiting to see what they'll come up with with Rebs, Plague and the insectoid race. I hope it's good!

You can pretty much flip your preferences 180 and you'll have mine. I think the Veer-myn are awesome. Though I also like the Enforcers.

Wait, so do units still only get 1 activation per round? Or can they activate multiple times in a round?

Everything has the chance to activate once during a round. You can either take it slow and activate one thing and pass to your opponent which guarantees that eventually everything will activate (unless your opponent runs out of things before you do) or you can try to be more aggressive and activate more than one unit before passing play back to your opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For example, I have 4 marauder units and a tank. My opponent has 3 forgefather units and an iron ancestor.

I end up going first and activate my tank. Then I take a risk and activate a unit. I fail. Play passes to my opponent and that marauder unit is done for the round.

My opponent goes and activates the iron ancestor. He then activates a squad of forge fathers and makes his roll. Then he gets a bit risky and activates another and makes it as well. Then he activates the last one and fails. Play passes to me.

I have 3 remaining units. I roll for the first to see if they activate as my opponent is out of units to activate. They fail. But then I roll for my next one, activate it and then roll for my last and make it as well.

So it adds a level of tactics to the game by needing to figure out how aggressive you should be with activation. It also rewards good positioning as units can get a bonus to activate if they are in proximity to where the action is.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Everything has the chance to activate once during a round. You can either take it slow and activate one thing and pass to your opponent which guarantees that eventually everything will activate (unless your opponent runs out of things before you do) or you can try to be more aggressive and activate more than one unit before passing play back to your opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For example, I have 4 marauder units and a tank. My opponent has 3 forgefather units and an iron ancestor.

I end up going first and activate my tank. Then I take a risk and activate a unit. I fail. Play passes to my opponent and that marauder unit is done for the round.

My opponent goes and activates the iron ancestor. He then activates a squad of forge fathers and makes his roll. Then he gets a bit risky and activates another and makes it as well. Then he activates the last one and fails. Play passes to me.

I have 3 remaining units. I roll for the first to see if they activate as my opponent is out of units to activate. They fail. But then I roll for my next one, activate it and then roll for my last and make it as well.

So it adds a level of tactics to the game by needing to figure out how aggressive you should be with activation. It also rewards good positioning as units can get a bonus to activate if they are in proximity to where the action is.

That actually sounds like a really amazing way to add strategy into your game. What's their reason for "activation" though? I mean, saying a group of guys just stands around looking pretty because they failed activation is fairly stupid, but that's also not something I'd expect from Mantic-I'm sure they have a background reason behind activation?

The background reason for failed activations is that your orders for that unit got lost/ignored/misheard in the chaos/confusion of the battlefield.

As far as background goes it's actually more realistic to real life, where military commanders do not have god-like control over their entire army.

Having a unit be less likely to activate if it is suppressed and gain a bonus to activate if it is near to friendly units ties in with that.

Yeah, even with modern technology, coordinating soldiers is still not that easy. If you absolutely have to move a unit in Warpath, you either just activate one, or you activate two and make sure the second one has the bonus for being within 12" of the first one and then you don't roll a 1!

Probably my favorite thing about play passing back and forth (other than it keeps everyone engaged and playing all the time) is that it approaches a more simultaneous movement system. And things just not doing anything because of a failed roll don't seem quite like they are doing nothing, because in a given turn, it's likely that someone is going to fail an activation roll at some time, so it's more that they just haven't yet grabbed the initiative in the ebb and flow of battle than they are just standing there being stupid.

So it isn't necessarily that they stood their and did nothing,but that others on the battle field acted more decisively than them. After all, if it is truly important that they act, they'll be a first unit activated, or at worst, a 2nd but within 12" so they only fail on a 1.

 scarletsquig wrote:
The background reason for failed activations is that your orders for that unit got lost/ignored/misheard in the chaos/confusion of the battlefield.

As far as background goes it's actually more realistic to real life, where military commanders do not have god-like control over their entire army.

Having a unit be less likely to activate if it is suppressed and gain a bonus to activate if it is near to friendly units ties in with that.

And see, giving that reason, I fully accept it with open arms. Bring on my additional reason to continue moving away from Games Workshop.

HI folks.
I am having no end of trouble getting onto the Warpath forums at Mantic.Are they locked?

Anyhow , could I say how great it is Mantic realise KoW in SPAAAACE , is NOT doing Warpath justice.
I would like to post up some alternative rules that can be used for Skirmish and Large Battle Games.

Although alternating activation is FAR better than IGO-UGO (Alternating game turn.)for hard scifi .

Here is my simple(ish) alternative .
(Defender, picks deployment area.Attacker activates first.)

Command Phase.
Players place a single order counter,(face down,) next to each of thier units on good morale.
Players request off table support.(Reserves, air and artillery .)

Primary action phase.
Attacker takes first action of order.(Turn order counter face up one at a time, as player activates units.)
Defender takes first action of order.(Turn order counter face up one at a time, as player activates units.)

Secondary action phase.
Attacker takes second action of order.(Remove counters one at a time , as player activates units.)
Defender takes secon action of order.(Remove counters one at a time , as player activates units.)

Resolution phase.
Players attempt to rally units on poor morale.
Players plot arrivals.

Order Counters.
Order counters are just 2 action sets.made up of the following actions;-
Move, model(s) may move up to its speed value.
Attack, model(s) may attack enemy units within weapon range.(Weapon resolution order.Close assault /small arms/ support/ fire support.)
Prep. model(s) prepare to perfom action with more effect.Eg Set up heavier weapons , use camo/smoke to improve stealth before moving.

Advance>move then attack.

Charge> move then move.

Evade> attack then move

Fire suport> prep then attack.

Infiltrate> prep then move

Pros.
Lets players pick what actions units perform and what order they perform them.

Allows a greater degree of interaction than alternating activation.
(Imagine a real time battle , and you look at the attackers army to see what they are doing,(one actions worth,) then look to see what the defender has done in responce.This is what this game turn models...)

Allows simple modeling of morale damage.(Replace order counter with supression/neutralised/routed marker.)

Order counters can be placed next to elements of various scales.Single models -groups of models -stands-groups of stands.

The counters next to units allow players to have refreshment-toilet breaks and KNOW EXACTLY what the state of the game is..at all times!

Anyhow.
What do you think?

HI again.
Just to explain why I posted up this alternative.

In modern warfare (hard scifi),it is unlikley any unit will get to perform several actions in sucession , while opposing units just sit and watch.

I belive this was the problem with the alternating game phases originaly used for Warpath.
This new game turn mechanic just reduces the number of units taking multiple actions unnoposed.It does NOT stop units taking multiple actions unnoposed.
Some very good dice rolls and a player could potentialy activate 3 or 4 units in sucession (taking 3 action each.), leaving the oponent without any chance to react.
Move 3 or 4 units into range and blast away while you oponent just removes casualties... how is this significantly different to what we did before?

Although better than alternating game phases.
I personaly dont think this goes far enough.

The game turn mechanic I suggested allows more even handed interaction .All units take one action before the opposing units get to react.And all units on good morale get to perform 2 actions each game turn.
(No need to have additional conditional rules to deliver interaction artificaly ...)

I have a slightly different stat line , that may be more in keeping with hard sci fi?

Speed value (As now.)
Assault value ,(What the enemy need to roll on a D6 hit you in close assault.)
Stealth value.(What the enemy need to roll on a D6 to 'aquire' you for ranged attacks)
Armour value.(What you subtract from the enemy weapon damage to arrive at a save roll.)
Disciplin value.(What you have to roll over on a D6 to pass a morale test.)
Command value .(Number of re rolls the unit leader has, and range of effect.)

And Units have thier own weapon data.(To allow more differention between units.)

Weapon name.(What the common name of the weapn is.)
Effective range .(Based on units ability, better shots have longer effective range with ranged weapons.)
Damage.(Based on skills manufacturing race/wielder strenght if assault weapon.)
Effect.(How many hits /size of template / how many models effected.)
Notes.weapon type -bonuses.(Type;- assault/small arms /support/fire support.)
(Bonuses- Dx Supression bonus/Dx Armour penetration/ignore cover/parry/crushing blow/ stunn etc.

If anything needs clarification, please let me know .