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.

The main issue with straight up replacing IGOUGO with an alternating system is that it halves the amount of attacks a unit makes in combat. This is a way to fix that (I hope).

So, here is how the turn structure would work. Player A nominates a unit. That unit then goes though all the phases individually. That unit moves, psychics, shoots, charges and fights. Then, any unit that had attacks made towards it during the fight phase goes though a "reactionary" fight phase (and then marked with a token as a memory aide), provided they haven't already had a reactionary fight phase that battle round. Player B then nominates a unit, and so on.

Example:
Alice activates a unit of Grey Knight Terminators. She moves it, tries to cast Smite for some reason (and fails), Shoots off their Storm Bolters, then charges a unit of Bob's Howling Banshees. She fights with the Grey Knights as normal. Bob then fights with his unit of Howling Banshees as a "reactionary" fight.

Bob now chooses to activate his Howling Banshees. They fight the Grey Knight Terminators. They then fight a "reactionary" fight.

Alice now charges those same Howling Banshees with another squad. The Howling Banshees don't get a reactionary fight because they already have had one this turn.

Bob now charges the Grey Knight Terminators, who again don't get a reactionary fight because they already did so.

It's not perfect, but so long as the reactionary fight is optional so you can choose to "save" it for a later possible unit, I think it's a fair way of addressing the issue and moving 40k over to a turn structure that doesn't result in 1500pt vs 2000pt fights due to Alpha Strike.


I also would like to see the following rules changed or added (as I mentioned in my previous thread, but these are after some feedback).

1. Modifiers apply BEFORE rerolls. Abilities that allow you to re-roll failures now takes the modifier into account before doing so. Any rule that triggers on a 1 or allows a re-roll of 1's now instead triggers only on a natural 1, ignoring modifiers. (e.g. a roll of 2 with a -1 no longer triggers gets hot, but also doesn't get a "re-roll 1's" bonus because it'll be a "re-roll natural 1's" bonus. A roll of 1 will always gets hot even if it's modified to a 2 or 0.)
2. VEHICLES and MONSTERS may move though non-VEHICLE , non-MONSTER models when falling back.
3. Weapons may fire overwatch regardless of range and line of sight. Abilities that allow units not the target of a charge (like Tau stuff) still needs LOS and Range.
4. Add the following to all variations of the Supersonic rule: "Weapons that automatically hit in the Shooting phase or Fight phase instead follow the normal roll to hit rules."

Is halving the attacks in melee really a problem though?

The core rules end up giving melee units a kind of.. double tap.

You activate on your turn and do damage but you also activate on the opponents turn and do damage. The same thing doesn't happen with shooting.

If alternating activations makes it so you only deal damage, melee or otherwise, on your own turn, doesn't that just normalize all the interactions in the game and balance out?

I agree with Lance845 on this.

In the current 40k game system shooting is overpowered compared to melee.And as melee has to compete directly with shooting for inflicting physical damage.Having
melee attacks in both players turns is required for game balance reasons.

When you move to a more interactive game turn, alternating phases /actions. Players are given tactical options to counter 'overpowered' shooting .
And so melee can be better balanced with shooting .(Especially if a simple suppression mechanic is used , so shooting can be more tactically effective in different ways to melee.)

 Lance845 wrote:
Is halving the attacks in melee really a problem though?

Simply put, yes it is. The points costs for models are made with the assumption that they will get to fight in both players turns. Removing that requires you to re-evaluate literally every single points cost in the game. Melee is already useless in the majority of times and halving the melee attacks just makes already strong shooting even stronger.

Do you have numbers to back that up?

I dont think melee centric units with similar stat lines to shooty units are more expensive in a way thay shows a clear price hike for the double tap nature of melee. Sternguard and vanguard vets are roughly the same price equipment considered. In fact, stock, vanguard are cheaper.

Hormagaunts and termagants you see the same trend.

Melee does not seem to be more expensive then shooting. A melee hive tyrant can end up less expensive then a shooty one. Same for the carnifex.

If you have any math to show a trend of paying for melee proficiency in a way that you dont pay for shooting i would be very interested to see it.

 Lance845 wrote:
Do you have numbers to back that up?

My numbers are the fact that every unit in the game is currently costed within the current framework of the rules. In this framework, you get to attack in both players turns. Therefore the game is balanced to take that into account. Halving the amount of attacks every model makes without adjusting points is not acceptable imho, any more than halving the amount of shooting attacks models make would be.

I don't know where you're getting this idea of "melee is cheaper than shooting therefore it's ok to halve all attacks" from.

Im not. Im taking into account the attacks value in a igougo structure vs a alternating activation one.

Shooting isnt nearly as powerful when every unit can be hit before delivering its shots and melee doesnt have the drawback of opening itself up to taking damage just for trying to do some.

The advantages and disadvantages fluctuate as the systems framework grants different permissions.

Melee arguably gets stronger in AA and shooting arguably gets weaker. Its a wash.

.

I agree with the OP, that you need to account for the double-dose of melee as it's structured in the current ruleset, otherwise strange things might happen.

I also like the idea of splitting this straight forward alternate activation system into two rounds. As follows:

Players alternate activating units, with each unit completing the Move-Psychic-Shoot Phases. After those are all done, players alternate activating units for the Charge-Fight Phases with reactionary fighting as described in the OP.

With AA type systems, is there an inherent in-balance in cases where one player has many more units than another? For example, if one player as 3 units and another has 6, they would alternate for the first 3 units each, then the player with more gets to move 3 extras all at once. The player with more units gets a tactical advantage (IMHO) because they can use their extra 3 units to react advantageously to the more limited player.

In the IGOUGO system, the points system is assumed to balance this out since each force gets to act in an uninterrupted manner on their turn - but with AA it seems like it could be a problem.

I'd be tempted to say that with an AA a turn is broken down into three rounds, with player activating at least 1/3 of their force each round.

A player with 6 units would activate 2 two at a time, while the player with 1 would just activate 1 at a time. Initiative could go to the player with the few units (or some other roll-off method to vary it up from turn to turn).

I'm also intrigued about the idea (especially with my two-stage idea proposed above) about shooting casualties not being removed until after all shooting is completed. This would reflect simultaneous firing and help further curb the alpha strike.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I agree with the OP, that you need to account for the double-dose of melee as it's structured in the current ruleset, otherwise strange things might happen.

I also like the idea of splitting this straight forward alternate activation system into two rounds. As follows:

Players alternate activating units, with each unit completing the Move-Psychic-Shoot Phases. After those are all done, players alternate activating units for the Charge-Fight Phases with reactionary fighting as described in the OP.

With AA type systems, is there an inherent in-balance in cases where one player has many more units than another? For example, if one player as 3 units and another has 6, they would alternate for the first 3 units each, then the player with more gets to move 3 extras all at once. The player with more units gets a tactical advantage (IMHO) because they can use their extra 3 units to react advantageously to the more limited player.

Basically, no there isn't. Assuming points are balanced (HA!) one unit should be balanced against another then the impact one activation has vs another should be roughly equivalent to their points. Someone with 6 activations will have tactical flexibility but less impact with each activation. Someone with less activation won't be able to react as well but has more potential for impact with each activation. This tends to result in the players with drastically less activations being out maneuvered. More units is strong, but only because tactics actually play a part in a AA system.

In the IGOUGO system, the points system is assumed to balance this out since each force gets to act in an uninterrupted manner on their turn - but with AA it seems like it could be a problem.

I'd be tempted to say that with an AA a turn is broken down into three rounds, with player activating at least 1/3 of their force each round.

This isn't a problem because it's the actual point of AA. IGOUGO is about swinging sledge hammers at eachother and seeing who is still alive to act next. AA is about making tactical decisions. Who goes and when. Why and how. What targets do you present to the enemy early on. Do you activate psykers early and buff or later and try to drop psychic hammers on enemies who cannot react? Because there are consequences the choices have impact and the gameplay becomes much more interesting and engaging.

A player with 6 units would activate 2 two at a time, while the player with 1 would just activate 1 at a time. Initiative could go to the player with the few units (or some other roll-off method to vary it up from turn to turn).

I'm also intrigued about the idea (especially with my two-stage idea proposed above) about shooting casualties not being removed until after all shooting is completed. This would reflect simultaneous firing and help further curb the alpha strike.

Personally I am oppossed to more book keeping. But to each their own.

Idk if anyone played the star wars miniatures game but their system was 2 units at a time.

Player one activates two models
Player two activates two models

And so on till one player finishes moving his models, if the other player has any remaining models he moves all of them.

So 5 jedi vs about 20 droids would give the jedi 3 rounds of activation before their opponent could move the rest of their models.

While the large army gets to activate many models at once its after the small army can make cautionary moves to protect his units.

In 40k this system would be based by unit and i think more than one unit at a time should activate. Melee should remain the same though in that if i charge you you make an imediate attack back on me, this would also allow fellow units in range to lend a hand to the unit now under assault. Then on the next game you can decide if that or those units will fall back or continue the brawl.

vaurapung wrote:
Idk if anyone played the star wars miniatures game but their system was 2 units at a time.

Player one activates two models
Player two activates two models

And so on till one player finishes moving his models, if the other player has any remaining models he moves all of them.

So 5 jedi vs about 20 droids would give the jedi 3 rounds of activation before their opponent could move the rest of their models.

While the large army gets to activate many models at once its after the small army can make cautionary moves to protect his units.

In 40k this system would be based by unit and i think more than one unit at a time should activate. Melee should remain the same though in that if i charge you you make an imediate attack back on me, this would also allow fellow units in range to lend a hand to the unit now under assault. Then on the next game you can decide if that or those units will fall back or continue the brawl.

The issue comes in with multiple charges over the course of a turn.

I activate and charge. we do combat. each unit getting to fight.

You activate ad add your guys to the combat. Do my guys get to fight again? Now it's starting to look like melee has no limit to the number of times they can fight.

The argument that Melee attacks being halved doesn't matter is because shooting only happens once is silly. Overwatch happens on your opponents turn. Beyond that shooting units typically get to attack every turn based on range. Melee units rarely get 5 turns worth of attacks. So if I am in melee 3 turns I get to use my weapon 6 times. If I shoot 5 times and overwatch once I get to shoot 6 times.

Shooting is already more powerful than Melee if you make melee half as effective the difference will be even more pronounced.

Breng77 wrote:
The argument that Melee attacks being halved doesn't matter is because shooting only happens once is silly. Overwatch happens on your opponents turn. Beyond that shooting units typically get to attack every turn based on range. Melee units rarely get 5 turns worth of attacks. So if I am in melee 3 turns I get to use my weapon 6 times. If I shoot 5 times and overwatch once I get to shoot 6 times.

Shooting is already more powerful than Melee if you make melee half as effective the difference will be even more pronounced.

AND - units engaged in close combat can also shoot their pistols during the shooting phase. Mostly, this means that on the turn following a charge, the defending unit (assuming they don't withdraw) STILL gets to shoot (albeit with pistols) and still make a melee attack during the fight phase.

Other than eldar fighting at stregth 3 for their melee dedicated units who else carries pistol and sword. The marines i play against have boltguns instead of pistols.

vaurapung wrote:
Other than eldar fighting at stregth 3 for their melee dedicated units who else carries pistol and sword. The marines i play against have boltguns instead of pistols.

Tactical Marines have both.

 JNAProductions wrote:

vaurapung wrote:
Other than eldar fighting at stregth 3 for their melee dedicated units who else carries pistol and sword. The marines i play against have boltguns instead of pistols.

Tactical Marines have both.

And Assault Marines have Pistol Chainsword, and the Gun Nuns Seraphim have 2 Bolt Pistols (which hits harder then their melee). That also doesn't include several other Marine variants, either.

How about instead of a pure alternating system, it's based on where units are in the FOC. The round would be divided into three phases, early mid and late. All fast attack units act in the early phase, all troops in the mid phase and all heavy support in the late phase. Elites and HQ would be free to act in any phase. Both players would activate all units they can or choose to, and the opposing player gets reactionary close combat attacks if applicable. It would make armies play differently based on what units you take but they would also fight the way they seem like how they should. And it would still keep both players involved in the whole round instead of standing around waiting for the other guy to get done moving everything. I've played Orks, I know that look...

 warpcrafter wrote:
How about instead of a pure alternating system, it's based on where units are in the FOC. The round would be divided into three phases, early mid and late. All fast attack units act in the early phase, all troops in the mid phase and all heavy support in the late phase. Elites and HQ would be free to act in any phase. Both players would activate all units they can or choose to, and the opposing player gets reactionary close combat attacks if applicable. It would make armies play differently based on what units you take but they would also fight the way they seem like how they should. And it would still keep both players involved in the whole round instead of standing around waiting for the other guy to get done moving everything. I've played Orks, I know that look...

That's a neat idea for handling initiative based on unit class. I like it.

Anyone have any idea of mitigating the advantage MSU would have in this system? I am having trouble coming up with anything meaningful.

I was also thinking in order to ensure that all units get their two rounds of CC in is that instead of reactionary rounds, there is a "Meatgrinder" phase after all units have been activated, and any units that are within 1" get to fight, using the same rules as normal 8th (charging units go first etc).

If anything this would help encourage aggressive melee army and punish gunlines (because if they activate before they get charged they only get 1 melee round instead of 2).

You can always do things similar to how SG2 did it. If you have less units than your opponent, then you can skip your activation.

So weird. I have a modified turn sequence I use for "Hivehammer". I'll PM you.

Just for fun because on the same wave length and such.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
You can always do things similar to how SG2 did it. If you have less units than your opponent, then you can skip your activation.

I have found in practice that just leads to a player always skipping until it gets even or never skipping until it becomes uneven.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
You can always do things similar to how SG2 did it. If you have less units than your opponent, then you can skip your activation.

I have found in practice that just leads to a player always skipping until it gets even or never skipping until it becomes uneven.

It is still probably the simplest solution, and would eliminate edgecases like attempting to "pseudo-skip" a turn by taking a bunch of Acolytes/Astropaths/whatever cheap unit is taken solely to maximize unit count.

A couple of comments.

1. Melee units might get fewer attacks, but shooty units would ALSO potentially get fewer attacks as they can be engaged on a given round before they've been able to shoot. Points wouldn't need to drop for anyone. The game would go faster (fewer attacks), but would probably run for more rounds (takes longer to kill a unit).

2. Adding alternating actions makes action economy massively important. We'd end up seeing people spamming low cost units to make sure that key units could activate last in any given round. You see that sort of thing all the time in SW Armada.

I'd like to see alternating activations in 40k. The current system lends itself to alpha strikes and other situations where multiple units can be wiped out before they actually participate in the game. With alternating activations, you might choose to activate Unit A first because you know otherwise that your opponent can probably kill it.

See, #2 is something I am trying to avoid. Is there anything another game has done to mitigate this?