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.

There are a lot of idea about Alternate Activation in 40K. I think this is due to the mental shift required by 8th. Also, I think there is an hidden truth here... many problems within current edition of 40K are due to IGOUGO.

So, I've got a pretty simple solutions. It's someway similar to other idea also in this forum. Basically, it's a middle ground between IGOUGO and Alternate Activation.

1) The Turn and Phases stays exactly as they are.
2) The Alternate Activation is based on the Battlefield Role, instead of total number of unit (classic approach), or Detachment (a proposal in this forum) or a dice etcetera.
That's the fulcrum of my idea: to hack something already in the game, currently underused, in order to achieve a different gameplay.
3) There is an inverse order of Battlefield Role during different Phases to keep in check any advantages a unit may have during a step (for example, move first) with a disadvantage in another step (shoot last).
4) Finally, it's less than 1 page, written in a very big font, and since Turn and Phases are kept as they are, you don't need extra bookeeping or any emendments to actual rules.


The only issue I found (until now), is that this hack completely redesign the tactical approach to the game, and requires at least a couple of game to start connecting with it.
So, if you want to playtest it (thanks! and keep me posted), keep in mind that your first game will feel a lot like your first game of 40K ever


You can find the rules here: https://tiny.cc/WHAAT
I'm currently testing them (the "beta" addendum is due to playtest), but any further comment are appreciated. Despise it's appeareance, it's not a final version (I am confortable writing already with the definitive layout)
Also, note that the first page is basically the same stuff written below... the entire idea is contained in the diagram at page 2.

P.S: Also, what do you feel will be havily at disadvantage with this hack? I'm currently a little uncertaint about how LoW like Guilliman may be nerfed, and about the correct positioning of Flyer in the chain of Battlefield Role (in the original version, they were higher than Fast Attack... but this makes them too vulnerable to positioning on the board by troops and slower units to make impossible for them to reach a target... so I move them by the end. In fact, it will be pretty easy, on the battlefield, to spot an aircraft directed toward a certain area of the battlefield)...
But, in the end, my idea is to implement a better and higher decision-making dilemma during any step of the game.

This has the same ultimate failing as alternating phases.

Longer ranged shooting armys gain a vast power increase and short/mid range shooting and melee get severely nerfed.

Consider that the basic nid gun on their infantry is a 12" range vs the Taus 30". I move forward, they move back.

I Deepstrike in my melee guys, they step backwards to be at 12" range still allowing me to charge but with the worst possible chance of success while they still get to shoot, overwatch, in all likely hood not get charged, and then do it again next round.

Alternating moving without acting will always favor the second player. Mixing it up like you are doing just means they have to react to you one step at a time and feed you undesirable targets first by planning for it in list building.

The fast vs slow mechanic is extremely good, it's something I've been trying to simulate ever since they changed the third edition deployment rules, which had the same progression. It's definitely worth it to find a workaround for spinefists and rapid fire range.

This only slightly addresses that problem, but for general purposes you can probably just remove overwatch entirely, since both sides will have a normal shooting phase before charges happen.

The idea that is like to talk about is putting elite units above fast attack. Right now, troops and elites are identical when they are fighting fast attack units. It makes sense to me that if you have an elite version of a troop unit, that the elite quality would be that it has better instincts/reactions to say, an incoming land speeder or raptor squad. The fast attack units still have the advantage of movement range, and they still have the jump on heavy, troop, and HQ choices.

 Lance845 wrote:
This has the same ultimate failing as alternating phases.

Longer ranged shooting armys gain a vast power increase and short/mid range shooting and melee get severely nerfed.

Consider that the basic nid gun on their infantry is a 12" range vs the Taus 30". I move forward, they move back.

I Deepstrike in my melee guys, they step backwards to be at 12" range still allowing me to charge but with the worst possible chance of success while they still get to shoot, overwatch, in all likely hood not get charged, and then do it again next round.

Alternating moving without acting will always favor the second player. Mixing it up like you are doing just means they have to react to you one step at a time and feed you undesirable targets first by planning for it in list building.

But in doing so, they have breached their gun line. They also will be limiting their ability to attack and hold objectives. Also, that gun line of basic troops will have moved BEFORE elites have moved or other units meaning certain mechanics like deep strike could become more valuable, as they will adjust to the oncoming troops that have moved, but not the troops that haven't or have not deployed yet.

I think it has some merit personally. The ability to dislodge a gun line is just as worthy as destroying units within that gun line. Bikes and jump pack units would be harassing units, causing the enemy to break formation or manouver to deal with or risk not, but then the rest of the battlefield roles still have their movement phase.

Blood angels deep striking could be even more viable in this rule set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think actually one change I would make is... I think the phase order should be strict.

So heavy support moves and shoots last, charges last etc.

Certain units like elites move near the end of the order list, but shoot first, and charge second or third (behind fast attack and HQ's). This would allow them to display their reactions to the battlefield conditions movement wise, and react first in terms of shooting etc.

Then you can use command points to interrupt and move a unit, or shoot a unit, or charge a unit out of the phase sequence. Or multiple command points to do this with all units of a phase etc.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Spoiler:

This has the same ultimate failing as alternating phases.

Longer ranged shooting armys gain a vast power increase and short/mid range shooting and melee get severely nerfed.

Consider that the basic nid gun on their infantry is a 12" range vs the Taus 30". I move forward, they move back.

I Deepstrike in my melee guys, they step backwards to be at 12" range still allowing me to charge but with the worst possible chance of success while they still get to shoot, overwatch, in all likely hood not get charged, and then do it again next round.

Alternating moving without acting will always favor the second player. Mixing it up like you are doing just means they have to react to you one step at a time and feed you undesirable targets first by planning for it in list building.

But in doing so, they have breached their gun line. They also will be limiting their ability to attack and hold objectives. Also, that gun line of basic troops will have moved BEFORE elites have moved or other units meaning certain mechanics like deep strike could become more valuable, as they will adjust to the oncoming troops that have moved, but not the troops that haven't or have not deployed yet.

We are talking about 8th right? Thats the game that so incredibly killy that most games don't last 5 turns because someone gets tabled? Whats more important? Moving forward and loosing your guys early or taking 2 turns to cripple your opponent and then spending the next 2-3 turns running rampant over the table because their units have been devastated and cannot fight back?
.
You are assuming those deepstrikers are not being planned for in list building. Again, what happens when most of your list is Fast Attack? Raveners, Gargoyles, Dimacherons. Move last, shoot first. Charge and fight first.

Again, your not eliminating alpha strikes. Your just changing the criteria in how to build them. This doesn't actually fix ANYTHING. It just moves the problems into a new shape.

I think it has some merit personally. The ability to dislodge a gun line is just as worthy as destroying units within that gun line.

Incredibly untrue. Only about half the missions even give a gak about objectives before the very end of the game. And removing models is always more valuable then moving them.

Bikes and jump pack units would be harassing units, causing the enemy to break formation or manouver to deal with or risk not, but then the rest of the battlefield roles still have their movement phase.

Blood angels deep striking could be even more viable in this rule set.

It would be the ONLY thing thats viable.

soo if im interpreting this right. The arrows on the left of the second page are the order for movement,Psychic and morale.

And the right is the charge,shooting and fight phase.

So this would mean LOW would move last but shoot/charge/fight first.

Is that correct?

else this initiative table feels a bit too simple. It would be nice for it to be tweaked on a phase by phase basis just to get it just right

also. I would suggest removing overwatch if this is to be a fleshed out activation

I "think" the order is read heavy support move first up to fast attack move last, fast attack shoot first down to heavy support shoot last.

In the case of dedicated transports, if a unit is embarked within a transport does it activate during the dedicated transport phase or the embarked units phase? Would charging units still go before units get to go in the fight phase?

I think there might be a case for moving some of the unit types around a bit, perhaps swapping Elites and Troops in the order to give Elites better response and more killing power than troops.

Its interesting and opens up an entirely new focus for building army lists. You would have to play test it with lists built to use it rather than just looking at current lists using the different system.

I like the idea, but I wonder if units towards the heavy support end of the list would need an advantage given to them to make them viable. Allowing them to fire with no modifier for moving and or overwatch at full BS.

As it is now, a FA unit could start the turn out of LOS to the HS and be able to move up, shoot the HS and charge them with the HS unit only getting overwatch fire against them.

I agree with Lance, this is just an even bigger middle finger to any CC armies out there; if you use this system, you'll just get CC units moving to within their charge range then the shooting players immediately moving out of it again and then firing on the charging unit. No more shooting armies having to plan ahead with positioning to limit the damage of the charge phase, in this instance they can just react to ignore the charge phase.

My interpretation:

2 units of Bikes. 2 units of Tactical Marines and 2 Predators vs 2 Dakkajets, 2 units of Ork Boyz and 2 Mek Gunz.

Movement

Roll off, Marines win.

Dakkajet 1 > Dakkajet 2

Predator 1 > Mek Gun 1 > Predator 2 -> Mek Gun 2

Tactical Marines 1 > Ork Boyz 1 > Tactical Marines 2 > Ork Boyz 2

Bikes 1 > Bikes 2

Shooting phase

Bikes 1 > Bikes 2

Tactical Marines 1 > Ork Boyz 1 > Tactical Marines 2 > Ork Boyz 2

Predator 1 > Mek Gun 1 > Predator 2 -> Mek Gun 2

Dakkajet 1 > Dakkajet 2


Or another example:

3 units of Bikes and a Captain on bike vs 3 Mek Guns and a Weirdboy.

Space Marines wins roll off and goes first.

Movement phase

Mek Gun 1 > Mek Gun 2 > Mek Gun 3

Captain on bike > Weirdboy

Bikes 1 > Bikes 2 > Bikes 3

Shooting phase

Bikes 1 > Bikes 2 > Bikes 3

Captain on bike > Weirdboy

Mek Gun 1 > Mek Gun 2 > Mek Gun 3

If this is indeed the way you intended it to work then you need to redo the points of all units, having to show your opponent where you're going to move, then letting your opponent counter that movement, shoot you before you get to shoot and charge you before you get to countercharge is devastating in a scenario like the second one I put forth.

A good turn system would not benefit the player going first and a good rework of the current system doesn't change the effectiveness of units, allowing it to exist beside the official system so you don't have to balance every unit in the game. There is no reason to nerf heavy support choices and buff fast attack.

The system becomes more simple and better if you just remove the whole thing about battlefield roles.

****

WH.A.A.T

Warhammer 40k Alternate Activation Turn

This hack allows you to split each game round up into phases that each player gets to take part in instead of splitting it up into two turns. There is a significant advantage to going first in Warhammer 40k, because they get to destroy part of their opponent's army before their opponent gets to do anything, by using an alternate activation system you avoid or at least diminish this problem.

Each battle round is cut into 6 shared phases with a number of alternate activations instead of 2 turns with 6 phases in each turn, Movement, Psychic, Shooting, Charge, Fight and Morale.

In the Movement phase the player's alternate activating a unit that is doing whatever that unit would normally be able to do in your Movement phase.

In the Shooting phase the player's alternate activating a unit again doing whatever that unit would normally be able to do in your Shooting phase.

Continue doing this for the remaining phases.

The player with the most units on the table at the start of any phase gets to make the first activation in that phase.

For the purpose of rules which activate in one player's turn, it is considered to be your turn when you are activating a unit and your opponent's turn when they are activating a unit.

****

Removing Overwatch is a bad idea, it is part of the points costs of models in the current system and removing it would further imbalance the game, I might be wrong, but I'm not.

Note that my suggested system might have problems as well, having a powerful unit to make the most of your first activation will be pretty strong, but considering that titans are crap currently, I don't think it's an issue. MSU armies are left with units to activate after your opponent has finished their turn, this is offset by MSU armies having more CP. The game was built for this system.

Wh40K needs an alternating activation system, but it needs to be built from the ground up. It's a huge re-balance. Warhammer had a far better charge/overwatch system (charge as part of movement, units could fall back or stand and shoot, etcetera) yet was far fairer to melee armies, because of reliable charge ranges, first strikes and the morale mechanics, not to mention the difficulties of maneuvering blocks of troops.

 John Prins wrote:
Wh40K needs an alternating activation system, but it needs to be built from the ground up. It's a huge re-balance. Warhammer had a far better charge/overwatch system (charge as part of movement, units could fall back or stand and shoot, etcetera) yet was far fairer to melee armies, because of reliable charge ranges, first strikes and the morale mechanics, not to mention the difficulties of maneuvering blocks of troops.

All that was changed in 8th. 7th also wasn't balanced, weak units instantly got broken and routed at even the sight of cavalry, characters routinely went through a unit in a turn. Index 40k was the most balanced game GW has ever released. It was also the best written game, because of the important of placing your model *just* right in 40k 8th the game is actually more like 7th than 6th or 7th edition 40k or even 8th edition fantasy which was very much just a grind fest because units were allowed to manoeuvre more often and thereby get out of sticky situations involving side and rear charges. Morale in all previous editions was horrible all or nothing BS. I would personally prefer units being broken and reduced to WS/BS 6+ for a turn, but losing 15 models because 5 were destroyed in Assault was... Annoying to say the least.

 vict0988 wrote:

All that was changed in 8th. 7th also wasn't balanced, weak units instantly got broken and routed at even the sight of cavalry, characters routinely went through a unit in a turn. Index 40k was the most balanced game GW has ever released. It was also the best written game, because of the important of placing your model *just* right in 40k 8th the game is actually more like 7th than 6th or 7th edition 40k or even 8th edition fantasy which was very much just a grind fest because units were allowed to manoeuvre more often and thereby get out of sticky situations involving side and rear charges. Morale in all previous editions was horrible all or nothing BS. I would personally prefer units being broken and reduced to WS/BS 6+ for a turn, but losing 15 models because 5 were destroyed in Assault was... Annoying to say the least.

Historically, units breaking and running from cavalry charges is quite realistic. Units falling back/scattering after only a few casualties is quite realistic.

GW's problem was having morale rules and then letting 90% of the units change or ignore those rules, rather than just giving them higher Leadership or something. The current battleshock system just makes people take minimum strength units, while previous ones encouraged larger units because no Morale test was required unless you lost 25% casualties, and recovery was only possible if you had a certain mass of troops left over. I'm glad at least that very few units get to ignore Battleshock these days, but there's too many incentives to have MSU for my liking.

I'd love to see the return of real morale rules. Charged by a unit with higher Power Rating than yours? Morale test or break and fall back! Charged by a melee unit period? Morale test to Overwatch. Want to charge a unit with higher Power Rating? Morale test. I'm not a big fan of units 'evaporating' like they did before, but putting broken units at a disadvantage would be fine.

Well, for start I'd like to thanks you all for the feedbacks.

A think I'd like to add is that the order between Phases is easy to apply, rather than accurate. But before I think about creating a new different order of Battlefiel Roles for any different Phase, I'm wondering what the best sequence to use in any Phase is.
I'm thinking about moving Charge Phase (or Shooting) on the other side (and maybe switch its place with Psychic Phase). Or rearrange the Phases totally.

I firmly believe many issues in the hack (like rapid fire, excessive advantage for FA etc) may be solved picking up an appropriate order for any single Phases. But at the same time, I feel probably will be too much, and will defy one of the thing I want to achieve (no bookeeping - that's also the reason why that's not simply an alternate system phase-based).

For example, I'm wondering if I can "simply" switch Psychic and/or Morale Phase with Shooting and/or Charge. But I still have to consider carefully all the interaction.
A good thing is the fact that Morale and (in a lesser extent) Psychic Phases are "irrilevant" and may be easily moved on the right side of the sequence. With "Irrelevant" I mean the fact that (barren very few exception, like Zoanthropes) those are usually HQ, and so tend to act in the same moment.


But to be more specific:

-> Lance845
I don't know how much it affect army with massive longer shooting, I still have to try them with (hopefully) tailored list.
Right now we found out that the strategy needed is much different. Honestly, I don't think I've yet played a game without making silly mistake, so I can't really speak for the effective balance. I think simply switching position for Shooting and/or Phase may suffice, but I'll check it out more carefully.

-> pelicaniforce
Removing Overwatch may be an options, and in most cases it won't make a difference. But that will nerf more than necessary auto-hit weapons like flamer.
About the Elite instead of Fast Attack... it's a good idea. I'll try it and see what happens.

-> endlesswaltz123
To be honest the reason for a double-way sequence is that I tried to avoid the "easy" option of spamming a unit you like.
If you may always move, shoot, charge etc. first (or last, if you prefer), you will probably take the best options available with the gameplay you're confortable with, already knowing exactly how to play. Hopefully, having different sequences is helpful in order to reward TAC lists.

And GREAT idea about specific Stratagems! I'll think about someone.

-> mchammadad
No, it's the opposite LOW move first, shoot last.

-> dracpanzer
Transports are a issue I implicitly solved activating separately the transport and the embarked unit. So, yes, a FA actually may disembark and charge (or shoot). Another reason to change part of the sequences.

-> vict0988
Right now we in our games happened that HS and LOW gotten longer range and are able to manage the disadvantage of shooting last (but more often than not unable to shoot to a good target. But the non-existence of cover and difficult to fully obscure anything helped a little). But yes, it favoures FA a little too much.



About Morale and comparison between 8th and , I think that ship had sailed. Right now, only incentive there is to take big unit are some Strategems.

Thank you very much, some of your observation I found myself in my last game, but the other insight were really helpful.
I'll think about some changes either for Charge or (more likely) Shooting Phase. Probably it won't solve everything but will help.

My only concern is that a "proper" balance will require more than a single sequence (however used either way). Fact is: interaction a this point will become probably a little too complex.

How abouuuuuuuut... casualties being counted at the end of each round, instead of each turn.

So you lost two squads because your opponent went first, but you still count all squads as full until the end of your own turn.

Easily trackable by your regular wound dice or counter/marker for single models.

Player going second would have an advantage with vehicles though, as he would be able to make kamikaze moves with those destroyed in turn 1 of each round.

Northern85Star wrote:
How abouuuuuuuut... casualties being counted at the end of each round, instead of each turn.

So you lost two squads because your opponent went first, but you still count all squads as full until the end of your own turn.

Charging becomes far more difficult if I can move my indestructible Rhinos in your way.

I recommend to get an "inititive" value of each unit for shooting and combat phase, which add up the result of D6 roll to determine the squence of activation.

Neophyte2012 wrote:
I recommend to get an "inititive" value of each unit for shooting and combat phase, which add up the result of D6 roll to determine the squence of activation.

That is a LOT of book keeping and time spent just figuring out who goes.

Also cripples generally slow armies. Orks or necrons vs nids or eldar would be unbelivably unfair when they cannot possibly reliably go first.

I'm a little busy at work during this first days of the year, but regardless, tonight I'm planning to test a slight variation that, MAYBE, may solve some problems (I haven't got time to edit the file above, yet).

Basically, if we call "A" the sequence from LoW to Fast Attack, and "B" the opposite sequence, I plan to change it in this way:

A sequence -> Move, Shooting, Psyker.
B sequence -> Charge, Combat, Morale.

(to sum it up, I switch places between Shooting and Morale). As bandaid to test I think may work.

...so, in theory, this will allows to LoW and HS to play a more important role, since they shoot first, but at the same time without punishing FA too much (since they move after HS, they can position whatever they want and taking a full turn of shooting will be a choice).

I'll let you know how it goes tonight.

IMPORTANT: keep in mind that a few generic Strategem accessible to anyone will probably be my choice to solve the small details or little imbalance. But right now, I'm trying to have a smooth baseline.

At this point, anyway, I think I will create a specific Sequence for any different Phase. In order to keep it simple and in less than 2 pages, I will put all the symbols on a circle (instead that on a line) and then set up a different "entry point" for any different Phases (for example, it will be good if Elite attack first rather than BTW: I'm perfectly aware that any change will make some loadout will become more or less useful (depending on the BattleField Role... for example, with last version a FA unit is better suited for close combat, if possible with Fly, since they can manouver around an HS, stay out of line of sight, and then charge first)...
But in the end, I believe that whatever distorsions I introduce will be an improvement related to current edition "AlphaStrike-Don'tEvenBotherToPutYourModelOnTheTable-GameEndedByTurn3" rules.


@NorthernStar: since I try to avoid bookeeping, I don't think a "modelkeeping" as token or as a placeholder for activation sequence may be useful. EDIT - sorry, I understand now what you meant. Yes, it can be a solution, but tbh, it's SO radical as alteration, that I think an entire different system is possible on this basis (ones that keeps IGOUGO). Even more: if I remove my model only at the end of phase/round... well, we don't even need any order. Simply, we need only a way to determine who moves first (because model cannot physically enter one in another). But, given that, the entire resolution of any effect because order-indipendent... not sure how strategy will be affected tough.

@Neophyte2012: I agree with the post above, will be punishing toward armies that (since Initiative is not a stat anymore and it is not considered in costing the unit) probably doesn't need a nerf. A workaround may be to use this Initiative Value based on Battlefield Roles (let's say, a HS as 0, a LoW-1, a FA+2). Anyway, I see two problems here: first the bookeeping goes up. Second it doesn't allow a "STRATEGICAL" use of activation. My idea is that LoW of HS Move first and Charge last to enrich and improve the tactical manouvreing. That's the reason why the system isn't random. You should be able to plan your movement knowing what is slow and what is fast... and while a random order may be interesting for other tactical situation (I can imagine a fantasy football, or mod skirmish game with this system), in my opinion this makes strategy less reliable and a little tad too much chaotic.

...I would like to take power away from list building and at the same time to discourage spamming a single or few unit. With this system, if you spam a critically undercosted unit, you risk a heavy-counter anytime an opponent has a "better" chose of Battlefield Role to activate, rather than your spammed clone.

What you are referring to is know as bolt hammer it works just fine, as the game it was inspired by, bolt action, was written by the same guy that helps right Warhammer 40k. The system works lit pretty decent, there is just one problem with it.

It's takes FOREVER, to do a game.with that system. Your looking at an extra 20 min a turn so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The way you do it is like this, get a bag you can't see theough, get 2 color dice, to represent each player. If player a has 5 units he gets 5 dice, and if player b has 8 units he gets 8 dice. You out them in the bag and shake them up, you then draw a dice from the bag. If it's play A's dice, get activates a unit, goes through the units full movement, psyker, shooting and assult phase. Or he can choose to not activate that unit and wait.

The system is lifted directly from bolt action. Again, works very similar to and works fine in 40k


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tbh what you are suggesting is basically trying to reinvent the wheel.

Hello Backspacehacker! Thank you for your feedback!

And... no... you understand it wrong (I suppose you quickly check the document and assume it's something to what you've already seen before. That's not how I usually wrote stuff ).

I'm perfectly aware of how Bolt Action work. That solution (a lazy one, IMHO):
1) requires more workaround, because an ENTIRE turn in quite "heavy" in Warhammer and some rules are phase-dependant.
2) My issue is not with "Alpha Strike" as concept, but with the situation where I have to remove a unit before doing it does ANYTHING. The old "take cover" at least allowed you to effectively DECIDE something before put your miniatures away.
3) Bolt Hammer "slightly" solves some problems of YGOUGO, but open a lot of can of worms in a game structured as WH40K (i.e. specific listing to exploit army with many filler and a few heavy hitter that will go before, Alpha Strike still there but on a unit-per-unit bases instead of per-army bases): basically, all the issues already detailed in various topic anytime someone speak about Activation System.
THIS IS DIFFERENT!!! If you move, and I move, BEFORE you shoot, I can do something tactically! I can move around cover, run away, change range (and eventually modifier to hit me). I'm not a dummy of a sitting duck who launch passive defense/armor/FnP save.
4) Time: it doesn't takes SO MUCH extra time (some because you have to acquaint with the new sequence). Why? Because in Bolt Hammer you have to (almost) completely rethink your strategy after ANY enemy activation, because a full phase for a unit means new position, some casualties eventually in critical unit, and any interaction with unit that still have to be activated.
With my system, you have to react to your opponent activation phase by phase. It's much more similar to "standard" warhammer. Also, it's easier to apply to the current rules without modification since turn structure stays the same.

I hope I've been enough clear (sometimes I get lost in my own English)

P.S: yesterday evening, in the end, we cannot playtest, because we have got only 1 table available... and made a mixed 4 player match... which finished at turn 3 (1.30 AM) for lack of time.
Next week, or maybe during the weekend, I'll give you some extra feedbacks. In the meantime, I'll try to wrote a "Battlefield Roles Wheel"

I'm going to talk this out with some people in my group and try it out if they're down. If so, I'll give some proper feedback. At a glance it doesn't look that radical of a change to me, sort of like expanding on a concept that's already in the game (when players alternate choosing units to fight in the fight phase).

I think your Battlefield Roles Wheel would be helpful vs the line, though I think when I try it we may stick to a set order per phase instead of reversing the order per whatever phase we're in.

Thinking..FA, then Elites, Troops, Heavy Support, Lords of War and the added rule that HQs can be activated at any time.

In my local we also use 'unit cards' that we made by just putting an image of the unit and putting it's stats on it in a sort of Yu-gi-oh style. Those could help immensely to sort out the what units you could choose and which had already gone (e.g. you could sort out your cards into the battlefield roles, flip over or 'tap' the card when you spent the activation for that unit already). Would speed up player OODA loop considerably.

Lastly, I'd consider changing the command interrupt stratagem to include all phases and bypass the battlefield role restriction. Might be kinda niche for movement phase but for 2CP you get to shoot 2 units in a row or charge one of your troops into an elite before it itself is charged.

I'm basically hijacking your idea and simplifying it and making it more complicated at the same time for my purposes. I could be dead wrong.