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 am generally apprehensive about aggressive houserules because of the unintentional artifacts they create. I can change one rule because I think it's dumb, but that will inevitably result in having to resolve some other conflict with another part of the system and fragment it more. But breaking up the IGOUGO paradigm in 40k doesn't break the game too much, no?

Instead of, "I move, shoot, assault, you move shoot, assault," It can be more like, "I move, you move, I shoot, etc..."

Will that bring up any other conflicts with rules? are there any USRs, or obscure parts of the 40k rulebook that will create singularities in my basement if I try this?"

I'd take a look through GW's Lord of the Rings game before trying this; the turn order there is set up this way. Nothing is going to explode immediately, off the top of my head.

In a largely shooting-based game, it results in the player moving first being at a huge disadvantage, as they move units up to get into firing position only for their opponent to move before they get to shoot...

LotR also came with a "priority" system that forced players to switch who was acting first, it didn't have the same person taking their phase first all game. That'd be pretty necessary.

The only altercation I can see doable with 40k would be activation points.

If you use standard activation method though, it would either favor high leadership armies, or MSU greatly.

The only way I can see it working for 40k would be using unit point cost and activation points to keep it balanced.

Example being: Players take turn activating units. Each turn you get for example 19 activation points in an 1850 game (1 point per 100 points rounded up). If a unit costs 300+ points it takes 4 activation points to move/shoot/assault. You can use as many points as you want (up to half at once) then your opponent gets to use the same number of points.

There's a system for some other game where units move in ascending initiative order, and then shoot in descending initiative order. It'd require a complete rerordering of 40k's initiatives, but it was pretty interesting.

X-Wing does that with pilot experience. Newb pilots move first, shoot last, Vets move last, shoot first. 40k would need some sort of way to manipulate turn order like that, otherwise whoever is first in the turn queue would be at a disadvantage.

 DanielBeaver wrote:
X-Wing does that with pilot experience. Newb pilots move first, shoot last, Vets move last, shoot first. 40k would need some sort of way to manipulate turn order like that, otherwise whoever is first in the turn queue would be at a disadvantage.

That sounds like a good idea, but what do I base it off of? points invested in the unit? So, units worth a lot of points move last, charge first and cheap units move first and charge last?

It could be based on a stat, but someone tried doing that on dakka (I think) and someone pointed out that it would unbalance the game because WS and Initiative aren't balanced for being that important, and Leadership makes no sense.

Bolt action's system looks pretty good, although I haven't had a chance to play it. Have you looked at that?

Individual units get their whole turn at once (essentially), but the two players take turns activating units.

 Powerfisting wrote:

 DanielBeaver wrote:
X-Wing does that with pilot experience. Newb pilots move first, shoot last, Vets move last, shoot first. 40k would need some sort of way to manipulate turn order like that, otherwise whoever is first in the turn queue would be at a disadvantage.

That sounds like a good idea, but what do I base it off of? points invested in the unit? So, units worth a lot of points move last, charge first and cheap units move first and charge last?

It could be based on a stat, but someone tried doing that on dakka (I think) and someone pointed out that it would unbalance the game because WS and Initiative aren't balanced for being that important, and Leadership makes no sense.

Only downside to that is trying to keep track of unit worth. And as it loses models, does its overall worth become less, meaning it now gets to move up in the cue?

It would suck for me and my opponent to have to make sure we know exactly how much our units cost (And as an Ork player...I bring a lot of units), as well as keep track of their losses and keeping the 'initiative' cue up to date for future turns.