Switch Theme:

Dakka’s thoughts on alternating activations?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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.




Made in us
Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy





USA

I’m going preface this with, I don’t play “competitive” 40k. It’s a fun game, I enjoy the hell out of it and 8th edition revived it in my local area in a big way. I live close to a couple major tournaments and I swing by sometimes to watch and chat and hobby but I’m not really salty about 40k or anything. However, even my group mostly uses match play rules and the competitive scene, As it were, drives discussions around the game. I see a lot of proposed “fixes” for 40ks shortcomings on different boards and the discussions on the recent FAQ got me to thinking. Every other game I currently play besides 40k, uses alternating activations in some form or another. Bolt action, chain of command, Star Wars legion. To be fair, as much fun as 8th has put back into my 40k hobby, and I’m up to 4 armies now, I’ve always felt they missed the boat and didn’t go for a hard redesign of the game.

I was just curious what other folks around here thought, with all the gnashing of teeth (or lack thereof) with FAQS and tournament results, did they miss the boat by keeping you go/I go?

Personally I think they did, and granted it would require looking at how some units work, and powers and etc, but as much fun as I am having, their latest beta rules to help address turn one are terrible and the more I look at it the more I think alternating activations would make 40k far more tactical that it is. It’s a fun game right now with some of the best models in the business but it’s not the most tactical game ever. In fact, I think it’s more about remembering every interaction you built into your list than anything else. Side note: my group hates 7th so bad we played 40k largely with bolt action rules and it wasn’t terrible. 8th is way better and more fun, but turn 1 is basically aids against any semi-hardcore list.

"If the application of force does not solve a problem; apply more force." 
   
Made in us
Twisted Trueborn with Blaster





Yes

"But If the Earth isn't flat, then how did Jabba chakka wookiee no Solo ho ho ho hoooooooo?" 
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





Virginia

Yes.

40k:
8th Edtion: 9405 pts - Varantekh Dynasty  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

I think alternating phases is better than alternating units, as alternating units felt very gamey, but I think it's very fair to say "I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot" etc etc because that would allow for the person who went second to counter the moves of the person who went first, while the person who went first still gets the advantage of dishing out damage first.
   
Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

Alternating activations solves a lot of problems with core 40k. It provides depth by making players pick the order their units will activate in, effectively eliminates 1st alpha and deep strike nonsense, and reduces time spent waiting between turns. It structures the game better so that there isn't a constant back and forth between otherwise independent turns, and offers a new layer of list building and elements that can be added to the game, like actual overwatch and better 'out of sequence' actions.

The only 'drawback' is that it would technically make the game a little more complex, so the ultra casual crowd would likely oppose the added complexity (again, the added complexity is pretty minimal if you can work through the game's already convoluted assault phase) and they would have to work out how to deal with armies with significantly more units than others. Given the sheer size of a 'standard' 40k game, it can be a pretty dramatic difference, unlike, say, Firestorm Armada which at most had 3-4 unit difference at the largest end. On the other hand, 40k could likely see up to two dozen more units on one side, which makes the game effectively an IGOUGO scenario for half of the game's turn.

Then again, 40k should really be scaled down in my opinion, which would naturally bridge the unit count gap.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Blacksails wrote:
Alternating activations solves a lot of problems with core 40k. It provides depth by making players pick the order their units will activate in, effectively eliminates 1st alpha and deep strike nonsense, and reduces time spent waiting between turns. It structures the game better so that there isn't a constant back and forth between otherwise independent turns, and offers a new layer of list building and elements that can be added to the game, like actual overwatch and better 'out of sequence' actions.

The only 'drawback' is that it would technically make the game a little more complex, so the ultra casual crowd would likely oppose the added complexity (again, the added complexity is pretty minimal if you can work through the game's already convoluted assault phase) and they would have to work out how to deal with armies with significantly more units than others. Given the sheer size of a 'standard' 40k game, it can be a pretty dramatic difference, unlike, say, Firestorm Armada which at most had 3-4 unit difference at the largest end. On the other hand, 40k could likely see up to two dozen more units on one side, which makes the game effectively an IGOUGO scenario for half of the game's turn.

Then again, 40k should really be scaled down in my opinion, which would naturally bridge the unit count gap.


My issue with alternating activations is that it feels super gamey and unrealistic, and the ways in which players use it is also gamey and unrealistic even if that's not inherent in the system (though it has been with every system I've ever seen).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 17:18:35


 
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





Virginia

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Blacksails wrote:
Alternating activations solves a lot of problems with core 40k. It provides depth by making players pick the order their units will activate in, effectively eliminates 1st alpha and deep strike nonsense, and reduces time spent waiting between turns. It structures the game better so that there isn't a constant back and forth between otherwise independent turns, and offers a new layer of list building and elements that can be added to the game, like actual overwatch and better 'out of sequence' actions.

The only 'drawback' is that it would technically make the game a little more complex, so the ultra casual crowd would likely oppose the added complexity (again, the added complexity is pretty minimal if you can work through the game's already convoluted assault phase) and they would have to work out how to deal with armies with significantly more units than others. Given the sheer size of a 'standard' 40k game, it can be a pretty dramatic difference, unlike, say, Firestorm Armada which at most had 3-4 unit difference at the largest end. On the other hand, 40k could likely see up to two dozen more units on one side, which makes the game effectively an IGOUGO scenario for half of the game's turn.

Then again, 40k should really be scaled down in my opinion, which would naturally bridge the unit count gap.


My issue with alternating activations is that it feels super gamey and unrealistic, and the ways in which players use it is also gamey and unrealistic even if that's not inherent in the system (though it has been with every system I've ever seen).


Gamey and unrealistic? People spamming min/maxed units and bringing TFG soup lists feels kinda gamey to me already.

40k:
8th Edtion: 9405 pts - Varantekh Dynasty  
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

There would be challenges with alternating activations in 40k.

For one, elite armies with few units would be at a huge disadvantage. Opponents with a larger number of units could game the activations to make it challenging for the elite player to do much of consequence.

For another, 40k is a big game. There's often 200+ models on the board. Part of why yougoigo works for 40k is its just plain more efficient to group player actions into phases to get them over with.

There's a downside to the strategic part, which is the fact most players are not good strategists. I have a feeling this would lead to a game that's worse than what we have now.

   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator




Alternating unit activations would basically require a total redesign of 40k because there are vast differences between units in the current game. Two gun drones and ten hellblasters are both units. A Custodes army might have eight units while my Tau have 32 units.
   
Made in us
Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy





USA

What in the current game isn’t “unrealistic” and “gamey”? I am not trying bang on you, trying to understand....I’ve never played a game of 40k and thought it was realistic and with stregems and character interactions it’s as gamey as any other game. I can respect some folks may not like alternating activations. I just don’t see realism or game mechanics as the downside.

"If the application of force does not solve a problem; apply more force." 
   
Made in us
Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Alternative activation fixes a lot of issues but man, it makes games take a lot longer

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

krodarklorr wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Blacksails wrote:
Alternating activations solves a lot of problems with core 40k. It provides depth by making players pick the order their units will activate in, effectively eliminates 1st alpha and deep strike nonsense, and reduces time spent waiting between turns. It structures the game better so that there isn't a constant back and forth between otherwise independent turns, and offers a new layer of list building and elements that can be added to the game, like actual overwatch and better 'out of sequence' actions.

The only 'drawback' is that it would technically make the game a little more complex, so the ultra casual crowd would likely oppose the added complexity (again, the added complexity is pretty minimal if you can work through the game's already convoluted assault phase) and they would have to work out how to deal with armies with significantly more units than others. Given the sheer size of a 'standard' 40k game, it can be a pretty dramatic difference, unlike, say, Firestorm Armada which at most had 3-4 unit difference at the largest end. On the other hand, 40k could likely see up to two dozen more units on one side, which makes the game effectively an IGOUGO scenario for half of the game's turn.

Then again, 40k should really be scaled down in my opinion, which would naturally bridge the unit count gap.


My issue with alternating activations is that it feels super gamey and unrealistic, and the ways in which players use it is also gamey and unrealistic even if that's not inherent in the system (though it has been with every system I've ever seen).


Gamey and unrealistic? People spamming min/maxed units and bringing TFG soup lists feels kinda gamey to me already.


I have always been a critic of those type of lists, and honestly, modern 40k has actually done away with a lot of the "gameyness" that these used to be. With the 0-3 limitation on units, the last vestige of unreasonable spam is dead.

I don't consider soup lists TFG. In fact, I think a battalion of Guardsmen with almost any army in 40k is both fluffy and realistic - the little buggers are everywhere, and constantly support / are supported by every imperial force. If there's going to be two or more Imperial forces fighting in one place, Imperial Guard are likely to be one of them.

Saevus wrote:What in the current game isn’t “unrealistic” and “gamey”? I am not trying bang on you, trying to understand....I’ve never played a game of 40k and thought it was realistic and with stregems and character interactions it’s as gamey as any other game. I can respect some folks may not like alternating activations. I just don’t see realism or game mechanics as the downside.


There's a lot in the current game that's unrealistic and gamey. I'd fix those, too, starting with the bizarre iteration of indirect fire (at least make some rule about requiring a spotter, or if not, give it a penalty - something!). That doesn't mean I have to be okay with alternating activation also being unrealistic and gamey, lol.
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





Virginia

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I have always been a critic of those type of lists, and honestly, modern 40k has actually done away with a lot of the "gameyness" that these used to be. With the 0-3 limitation on units, the last vestige of unreasonable spam is dead.

I don't consider soup lists TFG. In fact, I think a battalion of Guardsmen with almost any army in 40k is both fluffy and realistic - the little buggers are everywhere, and constantly support / are supported by every imperial force. If there's going to be two or more Imperial forces fighting in one place, Imperial Guard are likely to be one of them.


1. I disagree. Even with 0-3 for 2k points or lower, you still have instances where LRBTs can be squadroned, as well as Carnifexes. And things like my Triarch Stalkers, which gained the ability to be squadroned in 7th edition, for some reason lost it. And a lot of armies were well within that boundary anyway. Not saying that rule doesn't need to exist, which I whole-heartedly believe, I'm just saying spam is far from dead.

2. I agree in your case that sometimes it's just fluffy and fun to do just that. But what I'm talking about are the obvious "I'm gonna pick the best unit from 10 different codexes hardy har" kind of player. Which I would assume the generic term "soup list" refers to.

40k:
8th Edtion: 9405 pts - Varantekh Dynasty  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 krodarklorr wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I have always been a critic of those type of lists, and honestly, modern 40k has actually done away with a lot of the "gameyness" that these used to be. With the 0-3 limitation on units, the last vestige of unreasonable spam is dead.

I don't consider soup lists TFG. In fact, I think a battalion of Guardsmen with almost any army in 40k is both fluffy and realistic - the little buggers are everywhere, and constantly support / are supported by every imperial force. If there's going to be two or more Imperial forces fighting in one place, Imperial Guard are likely to be one of them.


1. I disagree. Even with 0-3 for 2k points or lower, you still have instances where LRBTs can be squadroned, as well as Carnifexes. And things like my Triarch Stalkers, which gained the ability to be squadroned in 7th edition, for some reason lost it. And a lot of armies were well within that boundary anyway. Not saying that rule doesn't need to exist, which I whole-heartedly believe, I'm just saying spam is far from dead.

2. I agree in your case that sometimes it's just fluffy and fun to do just that. But what I'm talking about are the obvious "I'm gonna pick the best unit from 10 different codexes hardy har" kind of player. Which I would assume the generic term "soup list" refers to.


1) LRBT spam is very realistic. Imperial Guard have decades-old fluff that 10 tanks makes a company. Carnifex spam is also fluffy - they're much more like Leman Russes than, say, Hive Tyrants are, in terms of army role. Spam may not be dead, but 'gamey' spam is dead. Regular spam is very much alive, and that's a good thing, because spam is realistic. (Note: Fluffy = realistic, in the sense that "40k is unrealistic". I mean the reality in which the units exist and fight.)

2) The generic term "soup list" just means a list that brings soup. And I'm not sure what's unrealistic about it - it's not like those imperial factions wouldn't fight together. It may be TFG to be picky-and-choosy about the best units, but it's not really unrealistic. The only soup list I can think of that's unrealistic is "3 Custodes bike captains" which is unrealistic because those are unlikely to all be in the same place (since they're so rare), not because of soup.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 17:39:27


 
   
Made in se
Regular Dakkanaut




Yes please. One form or another.

Alternating phases actually sound really interesting, i think i would like that!
Im sure there are plenty of things that would have to be adjusted and adresser for this travesty of s ruleset to work with alternation but if it was done i would be back playing in a heartbeat!
   
Made in us
Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy





USA

Realism has absolutely nothing to do with 40k game design. Just my take. The imperial guard isn’t real, the writers are varied and their “fluff” is just that. This isn’t historical wargaming.

I’ll leave it at that, it’s a derailing point and I know from your other post you like your imperial armor and I respect your devotion to that fluff. I’ve got a space marine company I built with lore considerations only. It’s a powerful part of 40k but it has no real place in the rules and maybe that is why 8th wasn’t as big a retool on the rules as it should have been, that culture that tradition is powerful.

"If the application of force does not solve a problem; apply more force." 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Saevus wrote:
Realism has absolutely nothing to do with 40k game design. Just my take. The imperial guard isn’t real, the writers are varied and their “fluff” is just that. This isn’t historical wargaming.

I’ll leave it at that, it’s a derailing point and I know from your other post you like your imperial armor and I respect your devotion to that fluff. I’ve got a space marine company I built with lore considerations only. It’s a powerful part of 40k but it has no real place in the rules and maybe that is why 8th wasn’t as big a retool on the rules as it should have been, that culture that tradition is powerful.


I'm not sure it's a derail. When talking game mechanics, "how much should they reflect the lore?" is an important question.
In my opinion, there's lots of room for adjustment, precisely because the lore is so inconsistent and varied - certainly more so than a historical wargame. On the other hand, there are constants about the lore that are essentially unarguable - Imperial Guard aren't superhuman, Space Marines are organized into chapters, etc. So I think "alternating activation" doesn't feel very realistic - games that I've played that use alternating activation feel less like a "Battle" and more like ... well, a game. Right now, 40k has some of that, such as stratagems (which are a bit silly). I feel like Stratagems are "fluff" things (e.g. Firstborn Pride giving a unit +1 to hit is because the Vostroyan Firstborn are good soldiers) that have to have some limit (since saying "every Firstborn unit gets +1 to hit!" would be insane). Alternating activations would just be more gameyness stacked on top of an already rickety system.
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





I agree. Alternating turns would help a lot. My other two games are Star Trek Attack Wing and Lord of the rings, both of them have more tactical depth, the one with activations, the other one with alternating phases. There's just too much time where you sit and watch in 40K (especially when playing against Tau for example, where one phase takes significantly longer than any other, which is pretty tiresome for me as an opponent).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 18:08:30


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Alternating activation systems need a lot of support to not turn into weird games of red rover. It's very easy for activation control to become the dominant strategy and turn the game into what is essentially an IGYG system where one player gets to circumvent the counterplay that alternating activations are supposed to be about. That's not to say it can't be done. Just that its not something you can blind port into a rule system without some serious consequences.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I agree. Alternating turns would help a lot. My other two games are Star Trek Attack Wing and Lord of the rings, both of them have more tactical depth, the one with activations, the other one with alternating phases. There's just too much time where you sit and watch in 40K (especially when playing against Tau for example, where one phase takes significantly longer than any other, which is pretty tiresome for me as an opponent).


Agreed. Part of the reason for alternating phases is an effort to encourage maneuver as well, since the movement phase comes first in the phase order. Have you found that to be the case with your alternating-phases game (LOTR, presumably)?
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think alternating phases is better than alternating units, as alternating units felt very gamey, but I think it's very fair to say "I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot" etc etc because that would allow for the person who went second to counter the moves of the person who went first, while the person who went first still gets the advantage of dishing out damage first.


I think phases makes more sense for 40k, though you still need a way to stop the second player from backing out of assault range and kiting endlessly.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 LunarSol wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think alternating phases is better than alternating units, as alternating units felt very gamey, but I think it's very fair to say "I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot" etc etc because that would allow for the person who went second to counter the moves of the person who went first, while the person who went first still gets the advantage of dishing out damage first.


I think phases makes more sense for 40k, though you still need a way to stop the second player from backing out of assault range and kiting endlessly.


Hm, that's a good point - and I don't want to make that impossible, either, as I feel like a leapfrogging retreat should be a tactically viable option.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Pretty much a requirement for me to be interested. II'm not interested in standing there for 30-60 minutes watching my opponent do stuff.
   
Made in se
Regular Dakkanaut




 auticus wrote:
Pretty much a requirement for me to be interested. II'm not interested in standing there for 30-60 minutes watching my opponent do stuff.


Sorry for the tangent but when I read your post I imagined you looking exactly as that avatar picture while you are watching your opponent take their turns
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Yes alternating activations is much better than the old turn structure. Just think about how much better the fight phase works in 8th than in 7th. Unfortunately GW didn't go far enough.

I don't think that there is anything unrealistic about alternating activations compared to alternating turns.
   
Made in vn
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






What we really need is some professionals to do some battle reports to play test all the different types of game modes. This would give us examples and not just opinions based on what we think might happen.
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





Florida

Yes they missed the boat. The game should be alternating phases. You move/I move. There is still so much advantage to that first player turn.

SickSix's Silver Skull WIP thread
My Youtube Channel
JSF wrote:... this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.
= Epic First Post.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 lolman1c wrote:
What we really need is some professionals to do some battle reports to play test all the different types of game modes. This would give us examples and not just opinions based on what we think might happen.


Someone made a ruleset not long ago. It had its flaws.
   
Made in ca
Renegade Inquisitor with a Bound Daemon





Tied and gagged in the back of your car

It would help to make 40k a much better game, most notably providing a foundation-based system for mitigating the ever-present problem that GW's had, and encouraging greater and smarter tactical depth.

Now, you'd have to redesign a fair bit, but it would be well worth it to create a far better game. Give characters the ability to activate multiple units simultaneously (Robby can activate three units within 6" simultaneously, a chapter master 2, a lieutenant 1, for example), stratagems that give similar bonuses ("networked intelligence: AdMech units within 6" of a chosen dominus all activate at once), and other abilities to give more variation between leaders than just rerolls.

   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I agree. Alternating turns would help a lot. My other two games are Star Trek Attack Wing and Lord of the rings, both of them have more tactical depth, the one with activations, the other one with alternating phases. There's just too much time where you sit and watch in 40K (especially when playing against Tau for example, where one phase takes significantly longer than any other, which is pretty tiresome for me as an opponent).


Agreed. Part of the reason for alternating phases is an effort to encourage maneuver as well, since the movement phase comes first in the phase order. Have you found that to be the case with your alternating-phases game (LOTR, presumably)?


Yeah of course. In lotr a die for initative decides who can move first every turn. And at least when the armies are closing in to fight in CC that throw becomes really important as you can influence who attacks what or is screened and so on. That being said I don't consider maneuvering in 40K unimportant, it's just very different due to the one game being model-based and the other one unit-based.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: