Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
|
2017/06/05 05:32:23
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Norn Queen
|
I got in a couple games today. Overall I really enjoy 8th ed. But I feel like it's lacking some tactical depth and with how much more deadly everything is the first turn advantage of shooting your entire army is just.... drastic. I feel like this game NEEDS alternating activation to really shine. Even more so than 7th. So here is the proposal. Use which ever method you like to choose how you activate units. 1) The Dice Bag: Place a single dice into a bag for each unit in your army and a different dice of the same size and shape but different color for each unit in your opponents army. Take turns drawing a dice out of the bag. Whoevers dice it is can activate a unit. The Benefit: This method spreads out the activations statistically and adds in a dash of randomness. A army with more units will be more likely to draw a dice but their activations are statistically going to be more evenly spread across the game turn. 2) Back and Forth: Each turn the first player activates a unit and then the other player activates a unit. Any excess units because one army has more than the other get activated at the end of the turn. This method ends up back loading the turn with more activations for the guy with more units. If you want, alternate the first player each turn so the mix of who gets to pick a unit first is fluctuating. The Benefit: It's simple and strait forward and requires no additional materials or book keeping. 3) An Even Divide: You spread the activations out as evenly as possible. (i.e. if player a has 4 units and player b has 12 than the activation order would be a b b b a b b b a b b b a b b b) The Benefit: it's a completely even distribution of activations regardless of the difference between the number of units in each players army. Core Rule changes to make it work. 1) Heroic intervention would need to change to include, "If a player activates a unit within 3" of a character they may choose to activate the character as well as part of the same activation. A character activated in this way cannot be activated again until the next game turn." This would allow characters to stay near their units and provide their aoe buffs without stepping in front of them or having their troops advance and loose their benefits. Alternatively a New rule for character would be added that does the same thing. 2) A unit who is locked in combat when they are activated can choose to either fight in melee or retreat. A unit that gets charged does not get to fight until it has been activated unless the player spends 2 command points for "Counter Offensive" A unit that uses Counter Offensive does not activate and can be activated normally.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/05 05:36:06
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
|
|
2017/06/05 06:42:10
Subject: Re:8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Hungry Ghoul
|
My group has been using your 2nd method on a revised version we've been playing for near the entire 7th edition life span. 'Back loading' typically balanced out because the player with fewer but more costly units would have more impact towards the start of the turn compared to several more smaller units activating last.
It works out well and it creates games that improve tactical options and balance (especially the latter).
But it does create rules quirks that additional rules have to accommodate, such as your character heroic intervention idea for 8th. But we obviously didn't have to deal with that specific issue in 7th.
The biggest one was how to resolve two combats in one turn, which we did by having one combat resolved during the unit's activation and another done during the end of the turn for all units still engaged. If a unit charged into a combat that already took place that turn, that unit would only fight at the end of turn combat with the rest of those engaged.
Lance845 wrote:2) A unit who is locked in combat when they are activated can choose to either fight in melee or retreat. A unit that gets charged does not get to fight until it has been activated unless the player spends 2 command points for "Counter Offensive" A unit that uses Counter Offensive does not activate and can be activated normally.
I don't think this is necessary, it would work similar to how I was describing above. For example, a unit activates--moves then charges. Resolve that combat immediately, charger and charged unit. Charger strikes first as with 8th edition rules. The counter-attack CP would work when a players' 2nd unit charged that turn.
If a charged unit didn't activate for that turn, it may still do so, but only to choose to Fall Back, if not it stays locked in combat and nothing else occurs.
This type of null activation can actually be beneficial when waiting to draw out opposing units' activations (for instance, you're waiting for your opponents unit that is hiding behind a building to move into line of sight for your lascannons to obliterate or your close combat unit to pounce on in your next activation). Again, it creates tactical options that didn't exist before.
At the very end of the turn, all combats are fought once again. That's where the back and forth choice to activate a combat in 8th would come into play.
Note, that an 'end of turn combat' doesn't mean that combats happen twice as often because in the current two player phase turn, combats can already occur twice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
---Edit---
Now that I'm thinking about it, close combat could work well with your method. Charged unit fights only when it's activated. If it already activated that turn, then it doesn't fight or choose to Fall Back until the end of combat round.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/06/05 07:33:27
|
|
|
|
2017/06/05 07:25:15
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Second Story Man
|
Overwatch counts as activation or is it a free activation for the attacked unit?
Same for blocking psionik powers?
|
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise |
|
|
|
2017/06/05 07:30:02
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Hungry Ghoul
|
kodos wrote:Overwatch counts as activation or is it a free activation for the attacked unit?
Same for blocking psionik powers?
Overwatch would not trigger an activation. Same with blocking psychic powers, which both happen during the opponents turn in the current rule set.
Though not sure if multiple overwatch could be problematic. Maybe max one overwatch a turn, similar to 7th.
|
|
|
|
2017/06/05 08:28:04
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Norn Queen
|
As the rules currently are I would say both over watch and denying powers would be "free actions" done during an enemies activation and cost you nothing. They would follow all the same restrictions for how many times they could be done now. If a psyker can attempt to deny 1 power a turn then they would be able to deny 1 power in a game turn and it would reset after all models have been activated. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mchaagen wrote:
I don't think this is necessary, it would work similar to how I was describing above. For example, a unit activates--moves then charges. Resolve that combat immediately, charger and charged unit. Charger strikes first as with 8th edition rules. The counter-attack CP would work when a players' 2nd unit charged that turn.
If a charged unit didn't activate for that turn, it may still do so, but only to choose to Fall Back, if not it stays locked in combat and nothing else occurs.
This type of null activation can actually be beneficial when waiting to draw out opposing units' activations (for instance, you're waiting for your opponents unit that is hiding behind a building to move into line of sight for your lascannons to obliterate or your close combat unit to pounce on in your next activation). Again, it creates tactical options that didn't exist before.
At the very end of the turn, all combats are fought once again. That's where the back and forth choice to activate a combat in 8th would come into play.
Note, that an 'end of turn combat' doesn't mean that combats happen twice as often because in the current two player phase turn, combats can already occur twice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
---Edit---
Now that I'm thinking about it, close combat could work well with your method. Charged unit fights only when it's activated. If it already activated that turn, then it doesn't fight or choose to Fall Back until the end of combat round.
If you get a chance to playetest my method I would appreciate any feed back. Also, could you spell out your method in clear and concise rules language. Just write it out as though you were writing a rules book so I can understand exactly how it would function in the game. I am interested.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/05 08:34:56
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
|
|
2017/06/05 08:44:46
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Hungry Ghoul
|
Lance845 wrote:If you get a chance to playetest my method I would appreciate any feed back. Also, could you spell out your method in clear and concise rules language. Just write it out as though you were writing a rules book so I can understand exactly how it would function in the game. I am interested.
Definitely. My group played through one game of 8th and we already realized that the unit by unit activations method was better for balance. So we might give standard 8th another play or two, then revert back to the alternating play-style. I like your heroic intervention rule so we'll probably run that as well.
|
|
|
|
2017/06/05 09:29:43
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Second Story Man
|
Mchaagen wrote: kodos wrote:Overwatch counts as activation or is it a free activation for the attacked unit?
Same for blocking psionik powers?
Overwatch would not trigger an activation. Same with blocking psychic powers, which both happen during the opponents turn in the current rule set.
Though not sure if multiple overwatch could be problematic. Maybe max one overwatch a turn, similar to 7th.
this can be a problem as the passiv player would get a bonus activation for being charged
with alternating activations, this should either count as activation or be an reaction for the charged unit (instead of just fight and retreat they can also decide to shoot)
|
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise |
|
|
|
2017/06/05 10:18:08
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Hungry Ghoul
|
kodos wrote:
this can be a problem as the passiv player would get a bonus activation for being charged
Charged units could still overwatch so its still a reaction for the charged unit, it wouldn't take any activation.
|
|
|
|
2017/06/05 13:53:20
Subject: Re:8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
I agree that 40k would work better from a tactical point of view with a more interactive game turn.
However, IMO alternating phases ,(with simultaneous activation,) or alternating action type game turns are a better fit.(As they do not need separate reaction rules like over watch.)
Alternating unit activation still requires reaction type rules .As it reduces some issues, but does not remove them entirely.
(The other games that work well with alternating unit activation like BA. and Epic, have far better levels of game balance than 40k ever had. )
|
|
|
|
2017/06/05 14:40:41
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I think alternating activation can work, if the "reactions" are weaker than taking an activation in the first place. I'm working on revising the core rules I had been working on with the following tentative options:
-Alternate Activations
-Each player takes a turn moving one unit after another.
-Units have 3 choices when activated: Double-Time (move twice), Engage (move and attack), or Cautious Advance (move, don't atrack, improved defense vs shooting).
-Units that are not activated can standby for "reactions". A reaction could either be a 'countercharge' (make a disordered charge an enemy that gets too close) or 'overwatch' (make a -1 to-hit penalty against a unit that's attacking a nearby friendly unit). Models that take a reaction lose their ability to be activated later on in the turn.
Working out some technicals but it's fairly abstract (Cautious Advance could be anything from Bikes jinking to transports popping smoke, to infantry crawling forward) yet scalable as the game goes upwards.
|
|
|
|
2017/06/05 16:11:42
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
|
Oddly I've found shooting to be less deadly and the first-turn advantage less significant than it was in 7th, but I've also only played two games of 8th so far, so...
The major differences between Warhammer and games that use alternating activation are the phased turn and the locked in combat state; most games that do alternating activations handle all parts of a single unit's turn in a single "activation," they don't allow units to do four or five things (move, shoot, cast a power, charge, fight in melee) the way 40k does, and they don't have anything like the persistent "in combat" state that locks shooty units out of doing much in 40k.
My immediate worry resulting from trying to do a single-phase turn this way is that the short answer (stick "run" and "charge" together so a unit can either stand still and shoot at full effectiveness, move their speed and shoot at reduced effectiveness with some kinds of guns, or move quickly and fight in melee if they get there; then give units that are charged a reaction that expends their order to let them fire overwatch/back up or advance to meet/fight in melee in some combination) does kind of mess with how pistols and Assault weapons work right now in 8th, and the "does overwatch take an order?" question remains kind of fuzzy (still not certain how I'd want to do charge reactions).
On the bright side I've only found one unit that you could make a really, truly gross abuse of an alternating activation system with (Inquisitorial Acolytes; the cheapest units are normally around 30pts, but each Acolyte can be a one-man 8pt squad and make a total mockery of the alternating-activation system without compromising your army's effectiveness by loading up on random small-arms dudes), so once they get some kind of tweak/overhaul to make the minimum squad more expensive (or a special rule that makes you activate several with one order die) that isn't too much of an issue.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/05 16:12:40
|
|
|
|
2017/06/05 17:25:47
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Norn Queen
|
AnomanderRake wrote:Oddly I've found shooting to be less deadly and the first-turn advantage less significant than it was in 7th, but I've also only played two games of 8th so far, so...
In my first game I used a single Tervigon with 2 30 man blobs of termagants (15 devourers 15 fleshborers each) for a total of 60 shots per unit rerolling 1s to hit and to wound. I managed to bring a 14 wound ghost Ark down to a single wound remaining in a single round of shooting. If I had the models to bring what I wanted to bring (2 tervigons with 3 units of Termagants) I could have wiped the ghost ark off the table and started in on the warriors.
That would remove 10-20 str 4 ap-1 d 1 shots along with the reanimation protocols boost. and it was only about half my army. Also my Tervigons would have been able to recover 20 of my gants if I suffered any losses.
In a 2000 point list I could bring that twice along with a smattering of carnifexs or venomthropes and other support units (it costs a smidge over 800 points for the 2 terv and 3 term blobs)
A first turn alpha strike can be down right devastating to the opponents key units. If I could only activate a single termagant blob before allowing him to react the sheer volume of shot would have been drastically mitigated and he would have been able to react.
The major differences between Warhammer and games that use alternating activation are the phased turn and the locked in combat state; most games that do alternating activations handle all parts of a single unit's turn in a single "activation," they don't allow units to do four or five things (move, shoot, cast a power, charge, fight in melee) the way 40k does, and they don't have anything like the persistent "in combat" state that locks shooty units out of doing much in 40k.
I agree with the locked in combat, but phases within a turn are not uncommon in many board games. Mostly it just establishes an order of operations. You cannot cast a psychic power and THAN move. You have to M and then Psychic. The locked in combat IS an issue. I want to play test what Ive got and find the real holes before I try to patch them up. Right now I think it's best to try and change as little of the core game as possible. That being said I am willing to change everything if it makes the game ore fun. I have always been for a more tactical overwatch that a player has to choose to set units up for, loosing their shooting on their activation to use it later as an interrupt on the enemies turn. But thats likely to come in later.
My immediate worry resulting from trying to do a single-phase turn this way is that the short answer (stick "run" and "charge" together so a unit can either stand still and shoot at full effectiveness, move their speed and shoot at reduced effectiveness with some kinds of guns, or move quickly and fight in melee if they get there; then give units that are charged a reaction that expends their order to let them fire overwatch/back up or advance to meet/fight in melee in some combination) does kind of mess with how pistols and Assault weapons work right now in 8th, and the "does overwatch take an order?" question remains kind of fuzzy (still not certain how I'd want to do charge reactions).
Which is why i would not recommend going to a single phase turn right now. Phases are fine.
On the bright side I've only found one unit that you could make a really, truly gross abuse of an alternating activation system with (Inquisitorial Acolytes; the cheapest units are normally around 30pts, but each Acolyte can be a one-man 8pt squad and make a total mockery of the alternating-activation system without compromising your army's effectiveness by loading up on random small-arms dudes), so once they get some kind of tweak/overhaul to make the minimum squad more expensive (or a special rule that makes you activate several with one order die) that isn't too much of an issue.
I can see how that could be a problem! Good catch. I will take that into consideration.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Lanrak wrote:I agree that 40k would work better from a tactical point of view with a more interactive game turn.
However, IMO alternating phases ,(with simultaneous activation,) or alternating action type game turns are a better fit.(As they do not need separate reaction rules like over watch.)
Alternating unit activation still requires reaction type rules .As it reduces some issues, but does not remove them entirely.
(The other games that work well with alternating unit activation like BA. and Epic, have far better levels of game balance than 40k ever had. )
I know Lanrak. You say it every time. I am very well aware of your stance on alternating phases instead of unit activations. We get it. I do not agree. But we get it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/05 17:27:33
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
|
|
2017/06/05 18:34:03
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
|
Lance845 wrote: AnomanderRake wrote:Oddly I've found shooting to be less deadly and the first-turn advantage less significant than it was in 7th, but I've also only played two games of 8th so far, so...
In my first game I used a single Tervigon with 2 30 man blobs of termagants (15 devourers 15 fleshborers each) for a total of 60 shots per unit rerolling 1s to hit and to wound. I managed to bring a 14 wound ghost Ark down to a single wound remaining in a single round of shooting. If I had the models to bring what I wanted to bring (2 tervigons with 3 units of Termagants) I could have wiped the ghost ark off the table and started in on the warriors.
That would remove 10-20 str 4 ap-1 d 1 shots along with the reanimation protocols boost. and it was only about half my army. Also my Tervigons would have been able to recover 20 of my gants if I suffered any losses.
In a 2000 point list I could bring that twice along with a smattering of carnifexs or venomthropes and other support units (it costs a smidge over 800 points for the 2 terv and 3 term blobs)
A first turn alpha strike can be down right devastating to the opponents key units. If I could only activate a single termagant blob before allowing him to react the sheer volume of shot would have been drastically mitigated and he would have been able to react.
My first game was a 2,000pt game, and I had a Land Raider eat an entire Guard gunline's shooting for four turns and keep going. Every time I tried to bring one in 7th it got exploded by turn two, usually because one drop-melta unit decided it didn't like it.
Almost killing one tank in a single round of shooting is a less damaging alpha strike than I've seen in any edition of 40k, not sure where you're getting "how much more deadly everything is". Nothing I've seen in action is more deadly, everything I've seen is tougher.
The major differences between Warhammer and games that use alternating activation are the phased turn and the locked in combat state; most games that do alternating activations handle all parts of a single unit's turn in a single "activation," they don't allow units to do four or five things (move, shoot, cast a power, charge, fight in melee) the way 40k does, and they don't have anything like the persistent "in combat" state that locks shooty units out of doing much in 40k.
I agree with the locked in combat, but phases within a turn are not uncommon in many board games. Mostly it just establishes an order of operations. You cannot cast a psychic power and THAN move. You have to M and then Psychic. The locked in combat IS an issue. I want to play test what Ive got and find the real holes before I try to patch them up. Right now I think it's best to try and change as little of the core game as possible. That being said I am willing to change everything if it makes the game ore fun. I have always been for a more tactical overwatch that a player has to choose to set units up for, loosing their shooting on their activation to use it later as an interrupt on the enemies turn. But thats likely to come in later.
I've been beating on this problem as it relates to 40k for some time, since "alternating activations!" is the second most popular "one sentence and I've fixed everything!" proposal (after "use d10s!"), and while I haven't playtested it a lot I can tell you that trying to alternate activations five times each turn would make the game run incredibly slowly. Especially given that the dice-drawing method is the only one I've tried that actually works in an environment where player A can have 4x as many units on the board as player B (and it doesn't work very well even then). (The issue with alternating activations in the first place is that you're effectively handing the player with more units control over the turn order; if he's got chaff and big guns he can either start with the big guns to get the alpha strike, or if he isn't in a good position to fire he can twiddle some Conscripts around and force the other guy to commit to his movement before he has to shoot.)
As for the question of establishing an order of operations by moving to alternating activations at all you've already utterly borked the order of operations the rules assume exists, so trying to keep control of it afterwards seems like a futile gesture to me. That said a whole bunch of games with single complex activations rather than the phased turn do have restricted order of operations within the activation (unit must move and then shoot), so it isn't like you couldn't keep some structure around.
(Honestly if you want to change as little of the core game as possible "alternating activations!" is a really bad place to start. It isn't a minor change, it's a grand overhaul to almost everything that requires re-evaluation of a whole bunch of units. The "small changes only" ship sailed long ago.)
|
|
|
|
|
2017/06/06 08:46:31
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Norn Queen
|
AnomanderRake wrote: Lance845 wrote: AnomanderRake wrote:Oddly I've found shooting to be less deadly and the first-turn advantage less significant than it was in 7th, but I've also only played two games of 8th so far, so...
In my first game I used a single Tervigon with 2 30 man blobs of termagants (15 devourers 15 fleshborers each) for a total of 60 shots per unit rerolling 1s to hit and to wound. I managed to bring a 14 wound ghost Ark down to a single wound remaining in a single round of shooting. If I had the models to bring what I wanted to bring (2 tervigons with 3 units of Termagants) I could have wiped the ghost ark off the table and started in on the warriors. That would remove 10-20 str 4 ap-1 d 1 shots along with the reanimation protocols boost. and it was only about half my army. Also my Tervigons would have been able to recover 20 of my gants if I suffered any losses. In a 2000 point list I could bring that twice along with a smattering of carnifexs or venomthropes and other support units (it costs a smidge over 800 points for the 2 terv and 3 term blobs) A first turn alpha strike can be down right devastating to the opponents key units. If I could only activate a single termagant blob before allowing him to react the sheer volume of shot would have been drastically mitigated and he would have been able to react. My first game was a 2,000pt game, and I had a Land Raider eat an entire Guard gunline's shooting for four turns and keep going. Every time I tried to bring one in 7th it got exploded by turn two, usually because one drop-melta unit decided it didn't like it. Almost killing one tank in a single round of shooting is a less damaging alpha strike than I've seen in any edition of 40k, not sure where you're getting "how much more deadly everything is". Nothing I've seen in action is more deadly, everything I've seen is tougher. I was playing 70 power and my set up was NOT optimized. I could easily have wiped the ghost ark and taken the warriors if I was. The major differences between Warhammer and games that use alternating activation are the phased turn and the locked in combat state; most games that do alternating activations handle all parts of a single unit's turn in a single "activation," they don't allow units to do four or five things (move, shoot, cast a power, charge, fight in melee) the way 40k does, and they don't have anything like the persistent "in combat" state that locks shooty units out of doing much in 40k. I agree with the locked in combat, but phases within a turn are not uncommon in many board games. Mostly it just establishes an order of operations. You cannot cast a psychic power and THAN move. You have to M and then Psychic. The locked in combat IS an issue. I want to play test what Ive got and find the real holes before I try to patch them up. Right now I think it's best to try and change as little of the core game as possible. That being said I am willing to change everything if it makes the game ore fun. I have always been for a more tactical overwatch that a player has to choose to set units up for, loosing their shooting on their activation to use it later as an interrupt on the enemies turn. But thats likely to come in later. I've been beating on this problem as it relates to 40k for some time, since "alternating activations!" is the second most popular "one sentence and I've fixed everything!" proposal (after "use d10s!"), and while I haven't playtested it a lot I can tell you that trying to alternate activations five times each turn would make the game run incredibly slowly. Especially given that the dice-drawing method is the only one I've tried that actually works in an environment where player A can have 4x as many units on the board as player B (and it doesn't work very well even then). (The issue with alternating activations in the first place is that you're effectively handing the player with more units control over the turn order; if he's got chaff and big guns he can either start with the big guns to get the alpha strike, or if he isn't in a good position to fire he can twiddle some Conscripts around and force the other guy to commit to his movement before he has to shoot.) As for the question of establishing an order of operations by moving to alternating activations at all you've already utterly borked the order of operations the rules assume exists, so trying to keep control of it afterwards seems like a futile gesture to me. That said a whole bunch of games with single complex activations rather than the phased turn do have restricted order of operations within the activation (unit must move and then shoot), so it isn't like you couldn't keep some structure around. (Honestly if you want to change as little of the core game as possible "alternating activations!" is a really bad place to start. It isn't a minor change, it's a grand overhaul to almost everything that requires re-evaluation of a whole bunch of units. The "small changes only" ship sailed long ago.) I am going to address your points here one at a time. First, I don't think alternating activations is a "One sentence and it's fixed!" solution to the problems in the game. I do think it fixes many problems and makes the game incredibly more interesting. I also think it takes more than one sentence. I also think 8th is much easier to transition into it than 7th. Second, I don't think it would make the game slower, particularly because I think it will make it more fun. The game drags for me and many because of the massive amounts of down time for each player. It's difficult to stay engaged when a turn can take 20 minutes and the opponent has no impact on anything that happens in that 20 minutes. Alternating activations makes the game faster paced and more action packed because your constantly planning your next move and what one player does influence what you do next. Maybe you don't agree? Thats fine. I guess this style of game play is not for you. Thats cool man. How you build your army to have "big guns" or Chaff" is part of the strategy and who you activate and when is what makes the game so much more tactical. Yes, MSU have more flexibility in their actions, but they also have less impact. Yes the big guns can "alpha strike" but only by doing as much damage as a single unit can do. It's a much weaker "alpha strike" then your entire army. The order of operations hasn't changed at all. Except that battle shock/moral would take place at the end of the game turn after all units have been activated. Activate a unit. Move, Psychic if it can, shoot, charge if able. Activate a unit. Move, ... etc etc... Next, I didn't say I wanted to change as little as possible. I would change everything if it made the game more entertaining. But the best rules are the simplest. The more amendments and exceptions needed to make a rule work the worse the rule is. Right now the game functions. There is no reason to change the vast majority of how it functions to switch how units activate. Characters would have been an issue. A change was needed. The fight phase would be wonky. Needs a amendment. I don't need to gut the core rule book to introduce alternating unit activation. So I won't. I will try to cause as little disruption as possible.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/06 08:47:54
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
|
|
2017/06/06 16:30:03
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Missionary On A Mission
Eastern VA
|
I know this has been proposed before, but what about alternating phases instead of per-unit alternating activations?
In 7e and before this wouldn't have been ideal because movement often took forever, but it should be considerably less fiddly now with the possible exception of conga lines to claim aura buffs
|
~4500 -- ~4000 -- ~2000 -- ~5000 -- ~5000 -- ~4000 |
|
|
|
2017/06/06 16:38:34
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Norn Queen
|
jade_angel wrote:I know this has been proposed before, but what about alternating phases instead of per-unit alternating activations?
In 7e and before this wouldn't have been ideal because movement often took forever, but it should be considerably less fiddly now with the possible exception of conga lines to claim aura buffs
2 issues come up with alternating phases.
1) In any game purely about killing long range gun armies (Tau) gain a very real advantage if they go second. Lets take Tau Vs Nids as an example. The majority of Nid guns shoot 12-18 inches. If as a Nid player on my first turn I try to move into range to shoot/charge, the tau player then just... steps back. Their guns are all place me well within range while they start to drop out of mine. When the shooting phase begins it becomes very one sided. Extend that to charge ranges. If I was in a nice 7-6" charge with most units being able to make a 6" move they simply... walk away. Now the charge is nigh impossible.
2) You don't gain the tactical depth that alternating unit activation brings to the table. One person moves exactly like they do now. Player 2 reacts to it as a hard counter. There is no give and take risk and reward. It's just one player swinging a hammer and the other player mitigating it.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
|
|
2017/06/06 16:58:06
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
AnomanderRake wrote:Oddly I've found shooting to be less deadly and the first-turn advantage less significant than it was in 7th, but I've also only played two games of 8th so far, so...
2 games so far but i find this to be kinda the case.
a friend of mine had some ridiculous shots just mulched all my tanks with two bright lances. but in general not much happens outside of actual dedicated anti X y Z
as for alternating activation. playing D wars i find that you got to be careful with that as activation spam ruins games.
|
Unit1126PLL wrote: Scott-S6 wrote:And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.
Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!
|
|
|
|
2017/06/07 16:03:32
Subject: Re:8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
@Lance845.
Both those 'issues' you appear to have with alternating phases are addressed very simply.Restricting shooting by limiting 'move and fire' effects.Model simultaneous activation.
EG
In the movement phase you can,
1)Remain stationary and fire to full effect,(Or dig in -2 to hit.)
2)Move up to your movement rate, and shoot in the shooting phase only with 'move and shoot' weapons,( Or go to ground, -1 to hit.)
3)Move up to double your movement rate and not shoot in the shooting phase.(You may fight enemy models in assault range in the assault phase.)This is the only way you can launch an assault.(Charge.)
Then simply remove casualties after both sides have made their attacks , to model simultaneous activation.
This put the tactical loading in to the movement phase where ALL movement takes place.(Similar to 2nd ed .)
And with simultaneous activation modeling the tactical depth is just a good.(In my experience.)
If you want to try alternating unit activation because you prefer it, that is cool.
But it is NOT objectively better than alternating phase game turn options.
|
|
|
|
2017/06/08 17:52:50
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Missionary On A Mission
Eastern VA
|
Doesn't that entirely kibosh units intended to both shoot and charge, by saying you can shoot XOR charge? Seems to me that's a distinctly nontrivial change for 40k: in 8e, you can almost always charge, and in 7e, only some shooting disallows charging. Was there ever an edition where you could only shoot XOR charge, never both?
|
~4500 -- ~4000 -- ~2000 -- ~5000 -- ~5000 -- ~4000 |
|
|
|
2017/06/08 19:33:47
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Norn Queen
|
jade_angel wrote:Doesn't that entirely kibosh units intended to both shoot and charge, by saying you can shoot XOR charge? Seems to me that's a distinctly nontrivial change for 40k: in 8e, you can almost always charge, and in 7e, only some shooting disallows charging. Was there ever an edition where you could only shoot XOR charge, never both?
I never suggested a unit could either shoot or charge. When you activate a unit it would function exactly like it does right now in the game. Going through all the phases that it normally would. If a unit is "locked in combat" (within 1" of an enemy model) when it is activated it has the same choices it has now if the unit was within 1" of an enemy model at the start of your turn. Fall back or fight.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
|
|
2017/06/08 20:08:27
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Missionary On A Mission
Eastern VA
|
Ok, then I think I misread. I parsed
3)Move up to double your movement rate and not shoot in the shooting phase.(You may fight enemy models in assault range in the assault phase.)This is the only way you can launch an assault.(Charge.)
as meaning that you could only charge if you double-moved, and that happened in the movement phase, thus meaning if you do that, you can't shoot, and if you don't double-move, you don't get a chance to charge.
|
~4500 -- ~4000 -- ~2000 -- ~5000 -- ~5000 -- ~4000 |
|
|
|
2017/06/08 20:13:24
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Norn Queen
|
jade_angel wrote:Ok, then I think I misread. I parsed
3)Move up to double your movement rate and not shoot in the shooting phase.(You may fight enemy models in assault range in the assault phase.)This is the only way you can launch an assault.(Charge.)
as meaning that you could only charge if you double-moved, and that happened in the movement phase, thus meaning if you do that, you can't shoot, and if you don't double-move, you don't get a chance to charge.
Ah! That was another persons suggestion. Not mine (the OP). That suggestion was based on other alternating activation games where you issue orders that disctate your permissions for the turn instead of the phases.
I agree. It does start to screw over specific units if the orders are not carefully considered.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
|
|
2017/06/08 21:25:03
Subject: Re:8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
We've applied this to 2nd ed. and it's worked out very well so far (though that game is more open to it given the changes in mechanics). However, we use the following method.
-Each player places a token/chit/dice in a cup/bag, one for each of their units (each character is considered a unit)
-The players compare Strategy Ratings and the player with the higher rating places a number of chits equal to the difference into the cup/bag. (while a unit cannot activat more than once per turn this gives the army with the higher strategy rating more flexibility in how/when it activates)
-A token is drawn, and another, etc. until one of an alternating colour is drawn. This means its still possible to luck out and get 3-4 units activating at once (allowing for more fire-and-maneuver play).
-Excess tokens are discarded at the end of the turn.
This is very similar to other games, and while it allows for the occasional "I drew five units in a row!" kind of thing - that is then countered by your opponent getting to activate equally aggressively later in the turn.
When a psyker is activated he carries out his own mini-psyker phase which we've adjusted as well. It is far and away more interesting/inclusive/enjoyable than the IGOUGO format of typical 40K. If this group I game with decides for 8th ed., we'll probably create a similar system. So much better.
|
|
|
|
2017/06/10 17:27:13
Subject: Re:8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
@jade_angel.
The first few editions of 40k did not allow a unit to shoot in the shooting phase ,and charge into assault.
Back then the '40k Overfiend' (A.C) said that firing while charging was assumed to be more suppression fire to keep the enemies heads down.(And that is why charging units would get a bonus in assault. An initiative boost, for example.Rather than the effect of aimed shots in the shooting phase.)
This made much more sense IMO.
Before the game play was lost in the mess of 'promoting toy sales'.The simple tactical options in the movement phase, made for a more challenging game.
But then removing to hit modifiers,( and not replacing them with something simple) , made shooting overly powerful.
So every edition since has 'flip flopped' between favoring shooting OR assault.Without ever sorting out the core balance issues.
Back in the earlier editions you would declare charging into assault in the movement phase.Before you moved up to twice you movement value.(As it was a very deliberate and powerful action. )
@Elbows.
Using the game turn from B.A. is fine for game with the game focused on balance between units in the game.(B.A. and BtGoT have much better balance between units than 40k.
'Simultaneous' alternating phases or actions.Means a player takes an action with his entire force, at the same tine the opponent takes an action with their entire force.
This means balance between individual units is not as critical as it is in alternating unit activation.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/10 17:29:20
|
|
|
|
2017/06/10 20:46:15
Subject: Re:8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Norn Queen
|
Lanrak wrote:
'Simultaneous' alternating phases or actions.Means a player takes an action with his entire force, at the same tine the opponent takes an action with their entire force.
This means balance between individual units is not as critical as it is in alternating unit activation.
Lanrak,
We know your opinion on alternating phases instead of alternating activation's. We know. We get it. You repeat the same few thing in every. single. thread. I happen to disagree. We have spoken at length and ad nauseam on the subject. Why do you do this every time?
Tomorrow is a 40k night at my LFGS and I intend to get in at least 2 games with someone who is interested in trying out the alternating activation's with 8ths rules. I will report back with some battle reports. Any troublesome quirks in the rules will be put on the table to see if there are any fixes that will be needed. Feeling real excited about this.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
|
|
2017/06/10 20:54:49
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
Yep, I don't find there is any need to balance units when doing unit activations...at all. If the army force is vaguely balanced enough for a game, there is zero issue with randomizing unit activations.
I appreciate you have your opinion, and I have mine (having actually played this way a lot...and it works great).
|
|
|
|
2017/06/14 11:17:10
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Hooded Inquisitorial Interrogator
|
I do prefer alternating activations!
My preference is just to have players alternate, with the player with more units then just running through them until they're done. I've tried such systems before and never found the difference in unit count a big deal, as the smaller, elite armies get their full effectiveness delivered sooner, meaning the weaker, higher count armies have to bear the brunt of it but get to swarm later in the turn.
I've also found that players often naturally move away from many weak units in such systems towards fewer, bigger units, so the difference in counts tends to go down on its own. This relies on lists allowing weaker units to get big enough for this to happen of course, but 8th edition seems reasonable in this regard. The disappearance of templates in 8th actually works very well with this shift too, as it's no longer as important that you be able to spread your forces out a lot to avoid battle cannons, flamers etc.
The main question mark in 8th are characters, since they add a bunch of extra units to the activation order; I'd probably allow characters close to other units to act at the same time to ease that pressure, as some armies are more reliant on characters than others.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/06/19 02:14:56
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Norn Queen
|
Well, I have played 3 games with these rules so far.
We used just strait alternating activations. The modification to heroic intervention is needed. The character mechanics would just fall apart without it.
So far it seems to work just fine.I have played my nids vs necrons, tau, and chaos demons.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
|
|
2017/06/19 13:53:40
Subject: 8th ed Alternating unit activations
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I started fleshing out my system more. Feel free to steal ideas.
* Armies get X amount of Command Points/turn.
* The system is a straight alternating activation. A unit can: Move twice, move&action, or move&defend. You can spend a CP to allow a second unit (only a 2nd unit) to activate.
* Should you target a unit that is unactivated or near an unactivated unit, the unit may interrupt you with a reaction: This is either to move, action, or defend. You may spend a CP for the reacting unit to perform a second action. The unactivated unit may not be activated this turn.
After all activations are complete, check for nearby units and resolve assaults. Units that didn't shoot this turn may use assault weapons in lieu of melee weapons.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/19 14:24:16
|
|
|
|
|