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.

We have talked about this in separate discussions, action points, initiative, alternate activation, what they do and some preferences. I was trying to find what category this discussion fits into but although they each touched on aspects, they didn't focus on what I was asking so I made a new topic since it is fairly specific situation.

If someone does feels it fits better in one of those discussions let me know and then maybe we could get a mod to merge them, otherwise....

In this miniatures skirmish game:

Individual units generate 1 Activation Point while fireteams (3-5 units) generate 2 Activation Points. If both players consist of a force with 1 Lieutenant, 1 Sergeant and 2 fireteams (12 miniatures total per player) then they would have a total of 6 Activation Points to use on their team. Players spend Activation Points to activate a unit, which gives them 2 actions which can be spent for various actions but mostly either moving + shooting, shooting + moving, moving + moving, shooting + shooting, suppression fire, interacting with objects (doors/consoles). There are also other things like grenades, stealth, camouflage, utilizing special abilities and this is an action/reaction system.

Units have an activation limit. This can prevent full cheerleading, where all activations are spent solely on one strong unit. All units can be activated at least once per round. Some characters can be activated more than once, usually 2-3 times and others can only be activated once. If they activate more than their allowed time, they gain Fatigue status which bestows negative stats, lowering their dice pool. It lets someone push an advantage or not get stuck in a bad situation and pull back or into a better position if needed for a price. Depending on who they activate also determines if they can activate a "second unit" or use it on the activated unit again immediately afterwards.

In our example the Lieutenant, Sergeant and 1 fireteam can activate twice, while the other fireteam can only activate once. That means one activation point is lost if they don't use it (which they don't have too) unless they want to risk fatigue.

We ultimately decided we want there to be an alternate activation between players. Instead of one player activates and moves their whole force, then the other player activates and moves their whole force, we want alternate activation to alternate between individual activations (to a degree). The goal is to have the combat be more dynamic where players are reacting to other players actions and reacting to the ebb and flow of the battlefield. It also is meant to keep both players interacting with each other through action/reactions and activations.

There are a couple methods we've used to establish this and looking for feedback on the two methods or ideas for different methods to accomplish the same goals.

Method A: Players roll dice for initiative, this determines who gets to activate first. Depending on what unit they activate they might be able to spend another Activation Point to activate a different unit or activate the same unit again. After they are done the next player activates a unit and turns continue to alternate until all units have finished activating, used up all their activation points or both players have passed their turn, ending the round and moving to the next round. Rinse and repeat, with a few other things happening in between (objective, strategy cards, start of round, end of round effects, etc). Similar to M:tG (magic) Player A could technically pass their turn (still having Activation Points) and Player B could also pass, triggering the end of the round and moving to the next round wasting all their unused AP (although that can happen, there hasn't been a situation where that has happened).

Method B: There is a First Player token, that gets passed between players at the end of every round. Players roll multiple dice for initiative, one die for each possible activated units. With our example each player would be rolling 4 dice (1 for Lieutenant, 1 for Sergeant and 2 for the fireteams). They then assign those dice to their unit cards. That determines who will be able to become activated first. In the event that both Player A and Player B share the same number die, the one with the First Player token activates their unit first. Ultimately there is still alternate activations but there is some randomness with a bit of controlled strategy on how to resolve those activations. Once a unit has been activated, it could be chosen to be activated again but they couldn't choose to activate one that's initiative hasn't passed yet.

For example: Player A assigned the Sergeant 7, Lieutenant was assigned 4 while the 2 fireteams were assigned 3 and 8. He spends an Activation Point and activates the fireteam with an Initiative 8. Although he could spend another point on it, he passes his turn to Player B. Player B does stuff. Player A turn again so he can activate the fireteam that was 8 again or activate the Sergeant with a 7. He could not activate the Lieutenant or other fireteam with a 3 just yet.

Reads fiddly, I think it will probably play better than it reads.

Not sure why method A or B though.

Like a lot of rules, yes, they definitely play better than it reads. The base ideology players take alternate turns, alternating activation in which they can activate 1-2 units. One is more traditional, while the other has a bit of twist.

Method A is the more traditional method where Player-A activates a model, does stuff. Then Player-B activates a model, does stuff and they alternate until they have nothing less to activate. The main difference from the traditional method is that a unit can be activated more than once to push an advantage, get out of a bad situation however that may come at a price (if they go over their activation limit). It provides a player with a lot of choices, letting them activate who they want, when they want and gives them a complete control over the battlefield.

In Method A, if a game was played the same way, the same moves, with the same skilled players over and over, the game will play the same. That doesn't mean that the outcome will be the same because there are dice rolls but overall the game will play the same. Fireteam A moves through this cooridor towards the objective first, etc.

Method B does something a bit similar, but it changes the order or choices of who can be activated in a random format. There are a couple games that do something similar. XWing activates models based on initiative of the units. I didn't necessarily want something as static, something more dynamic. MERCs utilizes a method where you roll dice, then assign initiative to your units that determines the order they activate. This helps represents changing conditions in battle, doesn't always make the 'best' unit the best choice and requires a player to be a bit more strategic in their moves, order can sometimes effect outcome which.

In Method B the game itself may not be able to be played in the same way, with the same moves over and over. That provides a bit more changes in the ebb of flow of combat that can effect the outcome, putting less of a success determination based on a die rolls. Fireteam A may not be able to move through the cooridor towards the objective first, etc.

It is simplfied explnation of it. Not sure how to explain it differently.

Both are interesting spins the second has a much better ability to synergy between units.

You could also try a method were the unit has a fixed turn priority and things (command, friendly/ enemy actions, randomisers) shift that number.

We aren't sure what direction we'll finalize with. I hope to get more feedback from a larger playtest group as well. It could be we just stick with the basic where turns alternate between players and they choose to activate 1 unit only. We wanted to see if we could do something a bit different to give a more strategy and tactical feel to gameplay.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
You could also try a method were the unit has a fixed turn priority and things (command, friendly/ enemy actions, randomisers) shift that number.

We have been experimenting with something similar or rather we started with that. To remove needing dice for each units we put on the stat cards for units a set initiative (priority). Then depending on how many times they activated, conditions, it would increase or decrease the initiative. We have been flip flopping because sometimes I try to limit the reliance or need for lots of dice and other times, dice are nice.

Method A and Method B are actually asking 2 questions:

A - strict alternation following initial unit initiative;
B - assigned individual unit initiative with alternating tiebreaker.

Method A lacks a tiebreaker mechanism, which is surprising. Method A favors whichever player rolls higher, because they always act a half-step before the other player on average. To balance this, ties should be decided by the player which didn't activate first last time.

Method B doesn't mention units potentially spending an action to Wait / Interrupt, which I see as a very desirable option.

Really, these are very different mechanics.

For the type and scale of your game (2 Heroes & 2 Teams per side), I think something based on Method B (with Wait/Interrupt actions) is probably superior because there's more generalship involved. That is, there is a lot more decision-making as to which units should activate when, and there is always the implicit question whether to trade an action to break the flow.

Yes, Method A is a more strict method. There are ways to change who activates and types of interrupts based on actions (as explained a bit below) but the initial activation is still very strict. The dynamic part is that the player chooses who to activate and when, whenever they want to activate. They could always activate the Lieutenant every time first if they wanted too at the start of every round. A player doesn't need to look 4 activation steps ahead as they can adjust each activation as needed.

Method B is throws in a bit more random. A player does need to pay more attention a bit more. They could technically choose to activate the same Lieutenant every time first by assigning it higher initiative but they have to look at the other units. Since that effects how they can react and win, the order becomes more important because you have to think about it ahead of time. You don't know necessarily how the enemy will activate and move, so you can't necessarily just activate based on their actions alone.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Method A lacks a tiebreaker mechanism, which is surprising. Method A favors whichever player rolls higher, because they always act a half-step before the other player on average. To balance this, ties should be decided by the player which didn't activate first last time.

Good observation, thank you. It does have a tie breaker for initial initiative. I didn't include it because I was focusing more on the synergy activation of individual units than focusing on initial initiative. I included it with Method-B because tiebreaker comes up more often where Method-A it doesn't as much but I should have included that information.

If both players roll for initial initiative and they both rolled the same number, for example an 8. In that situation then as you suggested, the player which didn't activate first last time gets initiative this time. Providing that haven't no units are suffering from broken fireteam coherency or loss of leader at that time, they can utilize a Tac-Operation token to steal initiative or do other things. Although they are usually used to press an advantage and or be able to activate first when backed into a corner.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Method B doesn't mention units potentially spending an action to Wait / Interrupt, which I see as a very desirable option.

There are a few methods which is similar to a Wait/Interrupt, although they do different things depending on what action is picked.

Suppression Fire: For a penalty gives the unit access to a weapons full rate of fire when reacting to enemey movements. Any enemy unit that moves through line of sight is someone that unit can potentially choose to fire on. It is useful for creating a cone or section that is covering fire, making it less tempting for an enemy to cross without dealing with him first. It would trigger each time an enemy would cross line of sight or unless they were damaged, in which case Suppression Fire state breaks. Someone could throw a smoke grenade or grenade or AOE on the enemy unit in Suppression Fire state, dealing damage to it and breaking that state.

Overwatch: This is similar to Suppression Fire in that it gives the unit access to its full weapons rate of fire without penalty. However it is only triggered once. The unit gets access to its 2 short actions at that time. It could shoot + move or dodge + move or shoot + shoot or move + close quarters, but the enemy unit still gets to react and once triggered this unit doesn't get any reactions to any other units.

Sentinel: By expending a Activation Point they activate the unit and declare the Sentinel action. At this point they are on standby and keeping watch. They are in a preventative action, which allows them during the reactive turn to utilize a short skill. Example: Player-A expends an AP activates the Lieutenant who goes into Sentinel. Player-B expends an AP, declaring they are moving across the alley where the Lieutenant is potentially allowing them to shoot. After their first short action is done, before declaring the second one, Player-A can now activate his Lieutenant and declare an attack only triggering a response from his target or he could also choose to move preventativly (because he was aware he was being flanked) and pull back or go into a position where Player-B couldn't shoot them with the second short action or get a reaction shot.

There are also some other things that can change order in both methods depending on the units. These are just focusing on basic combat units with basic weapons so it doesn't include units that have psionic abilities which effect how they move, defensively shield front units (while removing their reactive action), debuff armor/shields, mind control, buff attacks or defenses.

Thanks for clarifying. I definitely like Method B for your game.

Assuming we are utilizing Method-B for Initiative and Activations, how about this idea? This is another thought or idea that we have had in reference to doing Active and Reactive turns but doing something a bit different with it. This helps put more emphasis on decisons and creating more tactically and strategic choices.

Normally the Active player chooses a unit to activate and does stuff. The other player in the role of the Reactive player looks for opportunities that they can respond, usually when an enemy model enters line of sight with another and it triggers a reaction. All models are capable to react, even if they haven’t been activated or have reacted previously to a different model action.

To create more situations where players have to consider risks vs rewards and plan out moves a bit more strategically. What if only models that have been previously Activated are the only ones eligible to react via line of sight? They can still react if fired upon though.

This does allow the player who activates first in a round to get into a better position without recourse just from line of sight. However now they really have to take that first activation in consideration if one unit is trying to maintain cover over an area or if they need to get out of a bad situation… Do they activate someone who can react moving forward or do they take advantage to move towards an objective, etc.

It still maintains the interaction between players and still has the benefit of action/reaction system but now they have to think more about how to properly utilize their units more effectively.

Your game sounds strongly Infinity ARO-like with LOS being a possible trigger, where your LOS reactions are taken the very instant an enemy breaks the plane; I'm not sure that level of awareness is realistic, though. Maybe you just need to re-read the N3 rulebook to get your answer?

By limiting Reactions to models that have already Activated, that seems counter-intuitive to how I'd do it. If someone lays down a web of interlocking fire down a corridor, and somebody wants to run across, and they get the initiative, they get to do so? Whereas the alternative requires the firing squad to get the initiative to go into Overwatch, so they can all react together? Each time someone tries to run across? Is that the intent of your system?

If anything, under an alternating activation system, a "ready" unit should be more able to Interrupt.

TBH, I think you kinda need to play it through a few different ways and see what is a better match for you think the game should flow.

In my game, my Reactions are more limited (either Counterattack or else Defense), and only triggered by being attacked, not by movement. In this case, LOS will have already worked out by virtue of the attack being made.

In the scenario above, there are no movement reactions, so they get to cross. However, if they stop and take a pot shot, then someone can fire back.

Side observation, this may be where Units vs Models will matter in my game. Hm.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Your game sounds strongly Infinity ARO-like with LOS being a possible trigger, where your LOS reactions are taken the very instant an enemy breaks the plane; I'm not sure that level of awareness is realistic, though. Maybe you just need to re-read the N3 rulebook to get your answer?

It will be more readily recognized as Infinity ARO but the action/reaction has more of an XCom/MtG chain build. Like Infinity the reaction can be triggered by LOS, the actual response can happen anywhere along the path within LOS of the unit.

Infinity: “A trooper owned by the Reactive Player can declare an ARO if any of the following is true: -It has Line of Fire (LoF) to a trooper being activated by the Active Player. -An enemy trooper activates within its Zone of Control (ZoC). -It has a Special Skill or piece of Equipment allowing reaction to enemy actions without LoF.

With Infinity reactions tend to have two options shoot and dodge. Infinity is more IGOUGO with reactions. Although those are primary options for most games with action reaction system, there are a few other differences. As explained earlier if they were in Suppression Fire, Overwatch or Sentinel they have a few different options. Troops in those conditions would still get their reactions even if they hadn’t been previously activated.

The choices puts more emphasis on choosing to set utilize orders to setup a cover fire zone, or instead blazing forward and then relying on reaction shots. So you could lay down a web of interlocking fire down a corridor, but to utilize it well you’d either have to do Suppression, Overwatch, Sentinel or have ability to do something similar otherwise you have to predict or attempt to predict your opponent's movements and activate accordingly.

Other than trying to put more emphasis on decisions, tactics, unit placement and movement the other effect is to not have the emphasis be on reaction shots so it doesn’t become bring a bunch of low cost cheerleaders. Fatigue plays a role in that, but this also helps create a more active emphasis on all troops contributing in different methods, instead of relying on just reaction shots.

By limiting Reactions to models that have already Activated, that seems counter-intuitive to how I'd do it. If someone lays down a web of interlocking fire down a corridor, and somebody wants to run across, and they get the initiative, they get to do so? Whereas the alternative requires the firing squad to get the initiative to go into Overwatch, so they can all react together? Each time someone tries to run across? Is that the intent of your system?

If the player had initiative they could run across without the opponents reacting. Essentially it could happen once but if they decide to fire, they could react. It simulates that units, unless in Overwatch or Sentinel they can be surprised by enemy movements.

Since there are alternate activations the player has a choice to make. Do they activate something in their interlocked corridor to prevent more enemies from slipping by (in the case of a race to an objective). Or do they instead activate a different unit to make a run over an open corridor or perhaps they do something similar taking advantage of the distraction to slip by another place. Forcing their opponent to possible change what they intend to activate next.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Your game sounds strongly Infinity ARO-like with LOS being a possible trigger, where your LOS reactions are taken the very instant an enemy breaks the plane; I'm not sure that level of awareness is realistic, though. Maybe you just need to re-read the N3 rulebook to get your answer?

It will be more readily recognized as Infinity ARO but the action/reaction has more of an XCom/MtG chain build. Like Infinity the reaction can be triggered by LOS, the actual response can happen anywhere along the path within LOS of the unit.

By limiting Reactions to models that have already Activated, that seems counter-intuitive to how I'd do it. If someone lays down a web of interlocking fire down a corridor, and somebody wants to run across, and they get the initiative, they get to do so? Whereas the alternative requires the firing squad to get the initiative to go into Overwatch, so they can all react together? Each time someone tries to run across? Is that the intent of your system?

If the player had initiative they could run across without the opponents reacting. Essentially it could happen once but if they decide to fire, they could react. It simulates that units, unless in Overwatch or Sentinel they can be surprised by enemy movements.

Since there are alternate activations the player has a choice to make. Do they activate something in their interlocked corridor to prevent more enemies from slipping by (in the case of a race to an objective). Or do they instead activate a different unit to make a run over an open corridor or perhaps they do something similar taking advantage of the distraction to slip by another place. Forcing their opponent to possible change what they intend to activate next.

OK, thanks for clarifying the N3 situation.

For the corridor, I have a team of 5 guys at one end, and I put them into Overwatch / Sentinel / whatever. You have 3 guys that want to cross. Turn ends. New Turn. You get the initiative. what happens?

If I cannot blast your guys as they try to cross, your game doesn't work the way that I expect it should.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, thanks for clarifying the N3 situation.

For the corridor, I have a team of 5 guys at one end, and I put them into Overwatch / Sentinel / whatever. You have 3 guys that want to cross. Turn ends. New Turn. You get the initiative. what happens?

If I cannot blast your guys as they try to cross, your game doesn't work the way that I expect it should.

If your fireteam wasn't in a special state or condition (ie: Overwatch, Sentinel, Suppression Fire). I could activate 1-2 units and go through without you being able to react, meaning I charged through in a surprise/unexpected fashion. Turn then goes to you and now you have a choice, do you activate a different fireteam to prevent more units from coming down a different cooridor, go for an objective point or instead activate that fireteam so that it can react to the 3rd unit. I could have also on my turn chose to move the 3rd unit, I could do so but at a Fatigue penality (dice reduction on defense/offense rolls for the round) without you being able to react. Now if during my activation instead of just charging past, I chose to move and shoot at that fireteam, the fireteam would get a reactive shot (essentially targeting gave them activated status because they were specifically targeted)

If your fireteam was in Suppression Fire, Overwatch or Sentinel which uses a full order so they would not have been able to move and be in a position (they would have had previously been there) or you would have had to use another order to move into position and then another full order to put into that state.

Suppression Fire: They are essentially considered activated and alert, able to reactive fire to any of my 3 units. They get a reduced pool since they are basically snapfiring but this triggers each time one of my units goes into line of sight.

Overwatch: Similar to Suppression but this is triggered once. On the first unit that I move, you get full dice pool for everyone in line of sight. You could shoot + move or shoot + shoot but then you wouldn't be able to react further, if I moved the other 2 units. You probably would not have chosen this state, unless it was one unit or heavier unit you wanted the full dice pool and wanted to retreat back with.

Sentinel: In response to me moving the first unit, your fireteam would activate first. Similar to overwatch to where you get to move and shoot, but you get a reduced dice pool for attacks. And you have the ability to reactive shoot at the remaining units of mine that move into line of sight.

You would most likely would not have chosen to not use a special state or Ovewatch. You probably would have chosen Sentinel or Suppression would probably be what you would have done. If I had one unit instead of three, Overwatch would have been a better option unless you were worried I could move other assets through there as well.

OK, thanks for clarifying. That was very helpful in understanding how your game is supposed to work.

On the subject of activation, I think a neat option is to be able to force the other side to activate a given unit. In essence, you have drawn them to commit a unit, and now they must act or forfeit the opportunity, reflecting indecision or reorganization. Obviously this is less useful if the unit subsequently can act again, but might be a useful option for systems where units have limited activations.

 jmurph wrote:
On the subject of activation, I think a neat option is to be able to force the other side to activate a given unit. In essence, you have drawn them to commit a unit, and now they must act or forfeit the opportunity, reflecting indecision or reorganization. Obviously this is less useful if the unit subsequently can act again, but might be a useful option for systems where units have limited activations.

There are a few games that do something similar to this, although I can't remember what they are but I remember playing some games that had something similar to this. There was also one where the opponent chose what you unit you would activate. You got to make the choices on the actions, movement, etc but you didn't get to choose when it activated, your opponent did.

A bag draw or card draw is (or can be) exactly like that.

Consider this mechanic:
- each player places 1 colored stone in a bag [suited card in a deck] for each activation that they are allowed {unit / command point}.
- players take (alternating / reversing) turns blindly drawing a stone [card] from the bag.
- the active player designates which unit of the corresponding side is to activate.
- the owning player activates the unit.

In an AP game, one can further differentiate active v passive player, whereby active player drawing the stone has more options to act than a passive player who was directed to react.

Split activation, alternating activation AND a reaction mechanic? Dare I say it sounds more like Horizon Wars than Infinity which has strict IGOUGO plus a limited reaction mechanic.

Not that I care. However, in HW I went for Method A for two reasons:

1. Players already have dice. If players don't need to make or buy yet another object to play the game, that's one less obstacle to adoption.

2. You can always add scenario or faction-specific rules to allow modifiers to an initiative dice roll, and often who gets the first activation will be tactically important. Having a dice roll gives an illusion of player agency (and some actual agency if there are modifiers) that having an alternating initiative system takes away.

R.