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.

Hi Everyone,

To preface this discussion, I have never played a single round of Warhammer 40k, however I have read many of the books, older rules additions, and watched dozens of battle reports on YouTube.
My only issue is the notion that having 40K turn-based in the IGOUGO format is ridiculous and just plain stupid IMO.

Terrain helps prevent Alpha strike turn one. Well for one, terrain does not always exist in a battle, and many of 40k battles take place on open ground. There is something so off putting burying Bane blades and Land raiders behind buildings because of the potential Alpha sweep. In reality, tanks are always used for cover to advance units.

What do you think is the simplest way to change the format to allow a smooth alternate turn discussion?

Here is what I propose:
P1/P2 move, then P1/P2 shoot, P1/P2, charge, etc. units in order of descending PL or Initiative. I am aware they removed initiative from 9th edition, which is ridiculous - I think units highest with initiative, for both players act first each phase. The only thing being, wounds would be allocated at that moment like it currently is, not at the end of the turn, or that would defeat the whole purpose of having a higher initiative.

This allows you to actually have to strategize how units move, and when they move, and what units you're up against.
In the event of an initiative or PL tie, just perform a roll off, or some other rule to default to.

Deep striking can occur during the movement phase, if the unit has the correct PL or initiative at the time to move in.

This method shows that movement happens at the same time. If units move within x distance (whatever the charge/melee range is) from an enemy model, it would be a declared charge, if not, the opponent may charge back on their respected turn and lose the chance to overwatch.
After all, when you're breaching and clearing a building IRL, unless you're forced into CC, you're using your ranged weapons. It makes sense to limit movement to avoid such situation.

All the games workshop books show armies colliding on open ground, granted its the rule of cool, but none of the professional games online play this way. Its rather frustrating to watch.
I watched a tournament in which a Necron barge took out an Impulsor tank on T1 with one hit, when both were buried behind cover, and that ended up deciding the game.
I'm aware apocalypses does simultaneous wound allocation, but I am ignorant of all the other changes it makes.

Kill team again has the same issue of alternating, although it allows for some balance.

GW argues that things would be difficult to keep track of if they made this change. Personally, I don't care how many things I have to keep track of, I find complex games like this more fun the more options and choices you have.

Anyways, what are your thoughts, and would this work. Also, are people at local game stores and clubs open to changes to the core rules? Or am I stuck waiting 30 minutes every turn?

This is a long, long discussion that's been poured over by many people over the years. The basic issue with doing this to 40k is that doing alternating activations with the phased turn would be incredibly slow; Kill-Team works because there are very few entities on the table at any one time. If you look at successful alternating activation games that aren't 40k they tend to make an "activation" the unit's whole turn rather than trying to alternate units several times a turn. Converting 40k to AA is a long and complicated process because GW has built into a lot of stats the assumption that a given unit may be able to do 6-8 things a turn (move, cast, shoot, charge, fight, deny, overwatch, fight).

If you want to play a game like 40k but with alternating activations look into Bolt Action/Beyond the Gates of Antares/Konflikt '47; they're a family of closely related games (historical-WWII, sci-fi, and weird-WWII) built by ex-GW people that have a strong alternating activation system and work very well.

If you want to try and build your own AA system feel free to do so but be aware that you're dooming yourself to never finding any pick-up games; people are generally leery of homebrew stuff unless they know and trust you, you may need to build a group of people who are willing to try your stuff by being willing to play the things they find fun first.

Here is the issue with phases like you have. P1 is a melee army p2 is tau. P1 moves into charge range and p2 moves back to 12" so that not only do they shoot you in the shooting phase but when you try and fail to charge they get to overwatch you for kicks as well. Or they move a tank between you and your optimal taget.

Alternating phases as they are now will never work with 40k.

Initiative is also a bad way to do things. I.e. eldar always go first and necrons orks always go last. The point of aa is to let players make strategic choices. Not have them made for them by an attribute.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This is a long, long discussion that's been poured over by many people over the years. The basic issue with doing this to 40k is that doing alternating activations with the phased turn would be incredibly slow; Kill-Team works because there are very few entities on the table at any one time. If you look at successful alternating activation games that aren't 40k they tend to make an "activation" the unit's whole turn rather than trying to alternate units several times a turn. Converting 40k to AA is a long and complicated process because GW has built into a lot of stats the assumption that a given unit may be able to do 6-8 things a turn (move, cast, shoot, charge, fight, deny, overwatch, fight).

If you want to play a game like 40k but with alternating activations look into Bolt Action/Beyond the Gates of Antares/Konflikt '47; they're a family of closely related games (historical-WWII, sci-fi, and weird-WWII) built by ex-GW people that have a strong alternating activation system and work very well.

If you want to try and build your own AA system feel free to do so but be aware that you're dooming yourself to never finding any pick-up games; people are generally leery of homebrew stuff unless they know and trust you, you may need to build a group of people who are willing to try your stuff by being willing to play the things they find fun first.

Thanks for the advice...I guess a good balance would be to play apocalyspe rules, just minimize the amount of troops.
I'll look into the other game you mentioned... I have some time on the weekends to finally get into some hobbies. Thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Here is the issue with phases like you have. P1 is a melee army p2 is tau. P1 moves into charge range and p2 moves back to 12" so that not only do they shoot you in the shooting phase but when you try and fail to charge they get to overwatch you for kicks as well. Or they move a tank between you and your optimal taget.

Alternating phases as they are now will never work with 40k.

Initiative is also a bad way to do things. I.e. eldar always go first and necrons orks always go last. The point of aa is to let players make strategic choices. Not have them made for them by an attribute.

Another member on this forum mentioned doing it in order of descending PL level. He claimed it was a great game of 40K.
The issue is not in the game but the reasoning for running melee units into ranged fire, its suicide. Never bring a knife to a gun fight?

Apocalypses seems to apply the wound allocation after all shooting and charge phases which makes things more realistic...The funny thing is all I'm advocating for is a simple turn system that allows both players equal opportunity to fight, rather than a glorified chess game.

Maybe this is why I studied engineering...I'm never satisfied with things if I don't feel they are efficient or realistic.

Anyways, thanks for the feedback.

Th

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This is a long, long discussion that's been poured over by many people over the years. The basic issue with doing this to 40k is that doing alternating activations with the phased turn would be incredibly slow; Kill-Team works because there are very few entities on the table at any one time. If you look at successful alternating activation games that aren't 40k they tend to make an "activation" the unit's whole turn rather than trying to alternate units several times a turn. Converting 40k to AA is a long and complicated process because GW has built into a lot of stats the assumption that a given unit may be able to do 6-8 things a turn (move, cast, shoot, charge, fight, deny, overwatch, fight).

If you want to play a game like 40k but with alternating activations look into Bolt Action/Beyond the Gates of Antares/Konflikt '47; they're a family of closely related games (historical-WWII, sci-fi, and weird-WWII) built by ex-GW people that have a strong alternating activation system and work very well.

If you want to try and build your own AA system feel free to do so but be aware that you're dooming yourself to never finding any pick-up games; people are generally leery of homebrew stuff unless they know and trust you, you may need to build a group of people who are willing to try your stuff by being willing to play the things they find fun first.

Honestly this whole "It's too slow" argument has to stop. No gak it’s slower. You actually interact with your opponent. When you can't just move and shoot without a reaction from your opponent, of course you have to kinda plan ahead. None of those things are bad when the average game is already long to begin with. You can't honestly care that you might be playing 15-30 minutes longer for those benefits alone creating a significantly more tactical game.

timebandit3077 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Here is the issue with phases like you have. P1 is a melee army p2 is tau. P1 moves into charge range and p2 moves back to 12" so that not only do they shoot you in the shooting phase but when you try and fail to charge they get to overwatch you for kicks as well. Or they move a tank between you and your optimal taget.

Alternating phases as they are now will never work with 40k.

Initiative is also a bad way to do things. I.e. eldar always go first and necrons orks always go last. The point of aa is to let players make strategic choices. Not have them made for them by an attribute.

Another member on this forum mentioned doing it in order of descending PL level. He claimed it was a great game of 40K.
The issue is not in the game but the reasoning for running melee units into ranged fire, its suicide. Never bring a knife to a gun fight?

Apocalypses seems to apply the wound allocation after all shooting and charge phases which makes things more realistic...The funny thing is all I'm advocating for is a simple turn system that allows both players equal opportunity to fight, rather than a glorified chess game.

Maybe this is why I studied engineering...I'm never satisfied with things if I don't feel they are efficient or realistic.

Anyways, thanks for the feedback.

Th

So first, You can't use reasoning like "never bring a knife to a gun fight" for a game like this. Some armies are built on knives and building the core rules of the game to inherently work against them builds a bad game.

Second, the major advantage of going to AA from IGOUGO is the ability to make tactical and strategic decisions. I am going to activate these guys and move them into this position to act as bait. I am going to activate this psyker early to do some buff or late to hold off their powers until the enemy moves something into a position I can capitalize on. Who you activate and when is all the in depth tactical decision making that current 40k completely lacks. There should be NOTHING dictating to you who you activate and when. You strip all the good decision making and agency out of the turn structure by doing that and instead it becomes about list building. Which sucks.

The simplest turn structure is I pick a unit and do all my things and then you pick a unit and do all your things. It's easy and just works for the most part.

I'm inclined to agree, I don't think it would take that much longer...I've played 3-4 hour games of Allies and Axis with my friends, and it was some of the most fun we've had.
Time doesn't matter, hell DnD missions are upwards of 3 hours...I'm inclined to think this would actually speed up the process since both players are engaging. I don't see how just allowing players to alternate between each phase is necessarily going to hurt. We can scrap initiative and use the PL level since that is based on current stats. Essentially nothing else changes.

I've looked at the other tabletop games, I think 40k is up there on popularity, the models are flawless and I don't see anything else like it.

What's your take on this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

timebandit3077 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Here is the issue with phases like you have. P1 is a melee army p2 is tau. P1 moves into charge range and p2 moves back to 12" so that not only do they shoot you in the shooting phase but when you try and fail to charge they get to overwatch you for kicks as well. Or they move a tank between you and your optimal taget.

Alternating phases as they are now will never work with 40k.

Initiative is also a bad way to do things. I.e. eldar always go first and necrons orks always go last. The point of aa is to let players make strategic choices. Not have them made for them by an attribute.

Another member on this forum mentioned doing it in order of descending PL level. He claimed it was a great game of 40K.
The issue is not in the game but the reasoning for running melee units into ranged fire, its suicide. Never bring a knife to a gun fight?

Apocalypses seems to apply the wound allocation after all shooting and charge phases which makes things more realistic...The funny thing is all I'm advocating for is a simple turn system that allows both players equal opportunity to fight, rather than a glorified chess game.

Maybe this is why I studied engineering...I'm never satisfied with things if I don't feel they are efficient or realistic.

Anyways, thanks for the feedback.

Th

So first, You can't use reasoning like "never bring a knife to a gun fight" for a game like this. Some armies are built on knives and building the core rules of the game to inherently work against them builds a bad game.

Second, the major advantage of going to AA from IGOUGO is the ability to make tactical and strategic decisions. I am going to activate these guys and move them into this position to act as bait. I am going to activate this psyker early to do some buff or late to hold off their powers until the enemy moves something into a position I can capitalize on. Who you activate and when is all the in depth tactical decision making that current 40k completely lacks. There should be NOTHING dictating to you who you activate and when. You strip all the good decision making and agency out of the turn structure by doing that and instead it becomes about list building. Which sucks.

The simplest turn structure is I pick a unit and do all my things and then you pick a unit and do all your things. It's easy and just works for the most part.

I guess you're right... I tend to try to make things realistic... with that in mind I guess tyrranids would be weaker...but that just makes fielding more models more fun I guess.

I still fail to see exactly how it would be unfair though. All it is doing is cutting down the time between turns, and allowing a more live-action experience. It seems 40k is just glorified line warfare.

I don't think it would hurt the tactical decision, since most games can be decided on turn 1 if not enough terrain is present. In my opinion, it should be about list building...different battlefields call for different scenarios and units. You can still be tactical, not in who you target, but where and how you advance. It seems to be more about dice rolls, and less about where the units are on the battlefield. You can't really enjoy the concept of moving units from cover to cover if most of the time they're just gonna stand out in the open.

And for 40k, its not just picking a unit, its your entire army gets to go. Not every battle is about objectives either. Therefore during an annihilations round, I would just bring long range hard hitters and camp and hope I win the roll off for initiative. Maybe I have a bad understanding of the game but it doesn't seem tactical. I think I'm different, the more complicated something is, the more fun it is, at least that's me.

Check out this discussion here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/752742.page

I am the first response in that discussion.

And participated in the discussions I linked to.

If you click my profile and go to threads I started and posted in under proposed rules you will find a minimum of 20 different discussions I have been in over the last few years about AA and IGOUGO and alternating phases. I have tested most of the systems I have talked about. Alternating phases doesn't work unless you are changing a lot more about the way the turn works. I know. I played it. But also it's just obvious if you think about what impact it has. You need to see how your changes function in the worst possible scenario. Is the game still playable for everyone?

And tactical decision making only happens when you make decisions that have consequence and impact. Moving into charge range to have the opponent undo your action before you can make any meaningful impact isn't tactical. It's dreadful. It's a terrible game with a feels bad turn structure.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This is a long, long discussion that's been poured over by many people over the years. The basic issue with doing this to 40k is that doing alternating activations with the phased turn would be incredibly slow; Kill-Team works because there are very few entities on the table at any one time.

Thats debatable. Highly debatable. Kill team tak3s nearly as long as a normal 2k 40k game to resolve, and there are plenty of interleaved alternating turn sequence games at 40k squad level size that show such an argument to be quite flawed.

At-43 was a relevant example of that. And while the game is dead due to FFG mishandling the u.s. distribution of the game, it was quite good and i could resolve a similarly sized at-43 game in nearly half the time it took 40k at 2k points to resolve.

And the biggest bonus, was that i didnt have to take a lunch break while waiting for my opponent to complete a single turn. Both players are engaged the entire time.

This is the thing that bothers people the most about UGOIGO, and the thing the proponents of game designs that use such an outdated mechanism seem to conveniently forget while droning on endlessly extolling UGOIGO's sleep inducing "virtues".

[Edit]
All that said, 40k needs a complete overhaul to make true alternating turns, or even interleaved turns like kill team, function at all. From the ground up, truly. GW have been trying to patch holes in the hull of a structure that makes orkish architecture look positively genius, for decades. And theyve dug themselves that jole by sticking with that design for so long, that the consumers would be up in arms if it were to change into a decent design.

The reasons for that are myriad.

 Lance845 wrote:
I am the first response in that discussion.

And participated in the discussions I linked to.

If you click my profile and go to threads I started and posted in under proposed rules you will find a minimum of 20 different discussions I have been in over the last few years about AA and IGOUGO and alternating phases. I have tested most of the systems I have talked about. Alternating phases doesn't work unless you are changing a lot more about the way the turn works. I know. I played it. But also it's just obvious if you think about what impact it has. You need to see how your changes function in the worst possible scenario. Is the game still playable for everyone?

And tactical decision making only happens when you make decisions that have consequence and impact. Moving into charge range to have the opponent undo your action before you can make any meaningful impact isn't tactical. It's dreadful. It's a terrible game with a feels bad turn structure.

I didn't expect the odds to show you in the previous discussion, but I have yet to take a look at the game rules you posted.
It seems for my intensive purposes, using Apocalyspe rules for standard 40k, which has been done before online, seems to make the most sense. I guess I am ignorant to the way the games are played FOR EVERYONE, and how some armies would suffer. I still believe the game model is outdated, and that the game should be adjusted, but that may be too much to ask from GW.

Thanks for your links, I will be checking those out. Do you know if Beyond the Gates of 40k is popular and those rulesets are "well known" persay?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellfury wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This is a long, long discussion that's been poured over by many people over the years. The basic issue with doing this to 40k is that doing alternating activations with the phased turn would be incredibly slow; Kill-Team works because there are very few entities on the table at any one time.

Thats debatable. Highly debatable. Kill team tak3s nearly as long as a normal 2k 40k game to resolve, and there are plenty of interleaved alternating turn sequence games at 40k squad level size that show such an argument to be quite flawed.

At-43 was a relevant example of that. And while the game is dead due to FFG mishandling the u.s. distribution of the game, it was quite good and i could resolve a similarly sized at-43 game in nearly half the time it took 40k at 2k points to resolve.

And the biggest bonus, was that i didnt have to take a lunch break while waiting for my opponent to complete a single turn. Both players are engaged the entire time.

This is the thing that bothers people the most about UGOIGO, and the thing the proponents of game designs that use such an outdated mechanism seem to conveniently forget while droning on endlessly extolling UGOIGO's sleep inducing "virtues".

[Edit]
All that said, 40k needs a complete overhaul to make true alternating turns, or even interleaved turns like kill team, function at all. From the ground up, truly. GW have been trying to patch holes in the hull of a structure that makes orkish architecture look positively genius, for decades. And theyve dug themselves that jole by sticking with that design for so long, that the consumers would be up in arms if it were to change into a decent design.

The reasons for that are myriad.

I have to agree here. I don't see why even using squads in a Kill Team fashion would be unfair. Honestly, I don't think people would be up and arms about it. Its not like you'd have to remove everything, just rework it and rebalance it. Hell give me a salary and enough time and I'll build a massive spreadsheet balancing out all the odds. It is doable, and I think they could do it. The only thing I don't like about the game structure is the turn and phases. That is it. It doesn't make sense to wait. Even chess is alternating, and that is the oldest tabletop war game of all time, I think.

Here's my take on this topic:

While alternating activations (AA) or other alternatives to IGOUGO might be compelling and have merit - they just aren't warhammer 40k.. And I mean this on a few levels.

First are the practical applications that a lot about the gameplay flow, unit design, codexs, etc. would need to be changed for a change like this to work and be remotely balanced.

But even more importantly, much of the charm and feel of 40K is, I believe, tied to the IGOUGO format. When it's your turn you get to plan out this big sweeping offensive or series of moves. You have the latitude to orchestrate your units' movements and firing and assaulting all in one fell swoop. This gives the game, I feel, a more epic and bold character (which fits the lore). Each turn becomes its own strategic gambit and the decision making is on a grander scale. I think this is an intrinsic part of the identity and character of 40K. Changing this up risks eroding part of craziness that makes 40K what it is.

That said, IGOUGO does pose problems - and I think these got worse with 8th edition and the overall increase in lethality of shooting compared to prior editions. Starting in 8th, cover matters less, units have more flexibility in target selection (each model can shoot individually wherever), LoS rules softened, failed morale tests just remove casualties outright, etc.. These advantages are magnified if the board doesn't have enough terrain (which it often doesn't from my observations).

So, rather than ham fisting some AA system onto 40K to fix the first turn issues - why not just address the root problem directly (shooting is too strong relative to melee and relative to defensive options). If you're entertaining house ruling an AA system, why not just houserule the base rules in ways to tone down the power of shooting, especially on the first turn.

I think even without changing the rules, there are other things to consider. Use more terrain. Hold more units in reserve and deploy your board forces more defensively.

Or, just play an older (and better, IMHO) edition of 40K where this wasn't such a big issue.

There's no such thing as a strategic gambit in IGOUGO you aren't even interrupted hahahaha you serious?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
There's no such thing as a strategic gambit in IGOUGO you aren't even interrupted hahahaha you serious?

Deciding what to do with all of your units in one go is a more consequential decision than moving one unit at a time, and then seeing what one unit your opponent moves in response, and so on. AA is the epitome of incremental decisions - make one small move, opponent takes counter move, you adjust and make the next move, they adjust and make their next move, etc... The consequences of any individual action are diminished when you have this tit-for-tat interplay.

The above is in contrast to IGOUGO. When you move everything, and your big move/plan fails or the dice don't go your way or you just made a bunch of bad moves... and then your opponent gets to move their entire force and make you feel every nuance of your mistake... that's consequential. And hence I stand by assertion that the importance of strategic gambits, within the confines of a game turn, are felt more in IGOUGO compared to AA.

It may be that I used the word gambit in the wrong sense - or in a different sense than you. I think of a gambit as being a sequence of moves you're executing along some risk-reward dimension. I.e. a riskier series of moves could led to greater rewards, but if it fails it leads to greater punishment. This is the opposite of a less risky approach, where your potential gains are relative less, but you stand to lose less of your own forces.

There is no risk/reward in a system that doesn't present risks outside below average dice rolls.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Here's my take on this topic:

While alternating activations (AA) or other alternatives to IGOUGO might be compelling and have merit - they just aren't warhammer 40k.. And I mean this on a few levels.

First are the practical applications that a lot about the gameplay flow, unit design, codexs, etc. would need to be changed for a change like this to work and be remotely balanced.

But even more importantly, much of the charm and feel of 40K is, I believe, tied to the IGOUGO format. When it's your turn you get to plan out this big sweeping offensive or series of moves. You have the latitude to orchestrate your units' movements and firing and assaulting all in one fell swoop. This gives the game, I feel, a more epic and bold character (which fits the lore). Each turn becomes its own strategic gambit and the decision making is on a grander scale. I think this is an intrinsic part of the identity and character of 40K. Changing this up risks eroding part of craziness that makes 40K what it is.

That said, IGOUGO does pose problems - and I think these got worse with 8th edition and the overall increase in lethality of shooting compared to prior editions. Starting in 8th, cover matters less, units have more flexibility in target selection (each model can shoot individually wherever), LoS rules softened, failed morale tests just remove casualties outright, etc.. These advantages are magnified if the board doesn't have enough terrain (which it often doesn't from my observations).

So, rather than ham fisting some AA system onto 40K to fix the first turn issues - why not just address the root problem directly (shooting is too strong relative to melee and relative to defensive options). If you're entertaining house ruling an AA system, why not just houserule the base rules in ways to tone down the power of shooting, especially on the first turn.

I think even without changing the rules, there are other things to consider. Use more terrain. Hold more units in reserve and deploy your board forces more defensively.

Or, just play an older (and better, IMHO) edition of 40K where this wasn't such a big issue.

I don't see how some of the values in each of the codexes could be reworked, and I disagree that it is special to 40K. In fact, I think it hurts the lore even more...The only game mode that does it mostly right is Apocalyspe, in which wounds are allocated after...That being said, 40K is a good balance between Kill Team and Apocalyspe, they should just combine the rules. There is something off putting about hiding behind cover the entire game, and none of the battles you can have with players depict such in the lore.

Imagine having to cross open terrain to siege a necron fortress, unless you're rolling first, you're dead. No chance whatsoever. Its unfair and not balanced, and quite frankly, I don't think that many rules would have to change. It works for Apocalyspe, its balanced for Kill team, you're saying there is no way it would work for a hybrid of those 2? I disagree.

First of all, rolling dice is exactly a risk-reward proposition. You can even math out the odds of good or above/below average results happening and make decision based on how risky you want to be.

Second, the uncertainty of what your opponent will do is the major risk reward decision. Obviously can make informed decisions about what they might do. But the more stuff they can move on their turn the more chance there is for something unanticipated to happen.

Essentially, what I'm trying to convey, is that the bigger the potential change in the board state there is between when you have an opportunity to take a turn, the more opportunity there is for things to go wrong. Essentially, the higher the inherent risk.

Alternating activations change the scale and focus of the game space. It makes the game's decisions more tactical and does add some additional layers to the decision making. But these layers, to me, feel more like optimizing activation sequences and puzzle solving than it does having to make grander choreographed decisions.

 Mezmorki wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
There's no such thing as a strategic gambit in IGOUGO you aren't even interrupted hahahaha you serious?

Deciding what to do with all of your units in one go is a more consequential decision than moving one unit at a time, and then seeing what one unit your opponent moves in response, and so on. AA is the epitome of incremental decisions - make one small move, opponent takes counter move, you adjust and make the next move, they adjust and make their next move, etc... The consequences of any individual action are diminished when you have this tit-for-tat interplay.

The above is in contrast to IGOUGO. When you move everything, and your big move/plan fails or the dice don't go your way or you just made a bunch of bad moves... and then your opponent gets to move their entire force and make you feel every nuance of your mistake... that's consequential. And hence I stand by assertion that the importance of strategic gambits, within the confines of a game turn, are felt more in IGOUGO compared to AA.

It may be that I used the word gambit in the wrong sense - or in a different sense than you. I think of a gambit as being a sequence of moves you're executing along some risk-reward dimension. I.e. a riskier series of moves could led to greater rewards, but if it fails it leads to greater punishment. This is the opposite of a less risky approach, where your potential gains are relative less, but you stand to lose less of your own forces.

But again, you're measuring the ability of someone's tactics against how and when they move their units...It won't matter if there's LOS to every single one. It won't matter if there are no pieces of terrain. It comes down to who goes first and who gets the best dice rolls. Even chess is alternating action. Strategy is being able to adopt real time, and the closest thing to that is AA. Its not going to diminish the strategy involved, but allow you to actually adapt to what is happening, rather bending over and taking it. It just doesn't make sense to me lore wise, gameplay wise, and fun wise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:
First of all, rolling dice is exactly a risk-reward proposition. You can even math out the odds of good or above/below average results happening and make decision based on how risky you want to be.

Second, the uncertainty of what your opponent will do is the major risk reward decision. Obviously can make informed decisions about what they might do. But the more stuff they can move on their turn the more chance there is for something unanticipated to happen.

Essentially, what I'm trying to convey, is that the bigger the potential change in the board state there is between when you have an opportunity to take a turn, the more opportunity there is for things to go wrong. Essentially, the higher the inherent risk.

Alternating activations change the scale and focus of the game space. It makes the game's decisions more tactical and does add some additional layers to the decision making. But these layers, to me, feel more like optimizing activation sequences and puzzle solving than it does having to make grander choreographed decisions.

Puzzle solving is what makes up choregraphed decisions. You don't have time to do these big sweeping maneuvers uninterrupted. The fact is GW was never meant to be a game, but they turned it into one, and decided to go with the easiest possible system, which happens to be one of the first. DND, Anstares, etc all use alternating action based off of initiative. Imagine a 3 v 3 game where the 3rd player gets screwed first turn because both players gang on him/her, and they don't even get to return fire simply because they didn't win first turn. Nobody takes turns in real war, granted you cant aquire real time with plastic miniatures, you can get to the next closest thing.

Saying the rules would have to be reworked is not necessarily an answer for not doing the change, it means it is possible but GW won't bother with it. If it works for apocalypses, there is no reason why it couldn't' work for 40K. If I'm gonna play a tabletop war game, in which I spend hours painting and modeling, I don't mind spending hours playing a war. I think with this in mind I'll stick to the apocalypses rules for now and just use it on 2k-5k point games.

To be clear about my position, I'm not trying to say that IGOUGO is more tactically rich or deep. I think for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread that an AA type system can be deeper tactically or strategically. If that's the primary measure of what constitutes a "good" system, then absolutely AA or similar is the way to go.

I was merely trying to argue that, in my experience, the IGOUGO format has been a core part of the character, feel, and pacing of 40K since forever. It is likely not the best system from a gameplay depth standpoint - but it does create a distinctive experience of big sweeping back and forth movements. Does it lead to more chaotic gameplay and wild swings of fortune? I think so. Does that come at the expense of gameplay depth? Yes, probably.

For me, I'm willing to sacrifice potential gameplay depth in order to maintain the feel and pacing of the game that stems from IGOUGO - and have been investing my energy in patching other aspects of the base rules instead (i.e. ProHammer).

I say all this not as knock against AA systems, and again I agree that they might better from a gameplay depth standpoint. For me, it's just about the feeling and pace of the game that results from IGOUGO that I personally prefer.

So you just admittedly want the game to be worse.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So you just admittedly want the game to be worse.

Better/worse in regards to what criteria?

I said IGOUGO may be worse from a tactical decision depth standpoint, but might be better from a creation of drama/narrative standpoint. How that informs what you get out of the "overall" experience is a matter of personal preference. Tactical decision depth isn't the only reason people have for playing the game.

I also said that i believe IGOUGO centers the decision making around a broader set of movements (you activate your whole army on your turn) which opens up more room for making a big daring push or advance that could be harder to achieve in an AA system. Which you prefer is again a matter of preference.

So yes, I admitted that IGOUGO is worse from the perspective of tactical decision depth. If that's all that matters to you then clearly IGOUGO is a bad thing. But there are other tradeoffs and variables in the design that relate to other aspects of the experience besides just tactical depth.

Heres the thing. You have 9 editions of 40k to play igougo with. If tomorrow gw finally decided to modernize 40k and get away from their 40 year old turn structure you can always go back to play the old crap version.

This thread is about making 40k aa to break away from that crap turn structure. There is nothing to gain here by telling us you like how igougo feels.

 Lance845 wrote:
Heres the thing. You have 9 editions of 40k to play igougo with. If tomorrow gw finally decided to modernize 40k and get away from their 40 year old turn structure you can always go back to play the old crap version.

This thread is about making 40k aa to break away from that crap turn structure. There is nothing to gain here by telling us you like how igougo feels.

That's fair - and I apologize for de-railing the effort to discuss AA.

I made my initial post because the OP said they haven't yet actually played 40K (of any edition) and so I was providing some context for why IGOUGO isn't necessarily the worst thing ever (for me at least).

In an attempt to be constructive, I'll toss out a few ideas or thoughts in regards to AA-like approaches that I've contemplated over the years.

I always liked Battletech's handling of turn structure - with initiative potentially switching up each turn, but players taking turns moving + shooting with a certain portion of their army at one time. IIRC, you'd activate 25% of your forces at a time (or something like that). You'd do movement and then resolve your shooting. Like Apocalypse, you wouldn't actually apply damage until after your opponent took their turn and had a chance to shoot with models at that initiative step.

40K is tricky because you have potentially two movement phases - and assaulting units are essentially creating time that non-assaulting units don't get to utilize. Then there's the matter mentioned above of assault armies being hindered by their charge targets moving back out of change range.

I think perhaps you'd have to do something where a unit can move and then either (a) shoot or (b) assault. Assaulting could include firing assault weapons on the charge in. And likewise the defenders might get overwatch fire depending on how you want to structure it. For example, if the charged unit hasn't been activated yet - maybe they can take a reaction - either fire overwatch, brace for the charge, counter-charge, or try to flee (which could trigger sweeping advance type rules). Utilizing a reaction move means that unit can't be subsequently activated that turn (it's exhausted already). Anyway, you could do all of your shooting and assaulting as part of a unit's activation and you'd just hold off removing casualties until the end of the turn.

Anyway, those are a few thoughts I've had kicking around.

timebandit3077 wrote:
Hi Everyone,

To preface this discussion, I have never played a single round of Warhammer 40k, however I have read many of the books, older rules additions, and watched dozens of battle reports on YouTube.
My only issue is the notion that having 40K turn-based in the IGOUGO format is ridiculous and just plain stupid IMO.

...

Here is what I propose:
P1/P2 move, then P1/P2 shoot, P1/P2, charge, etc. units in order of descending PL or Initiative. I am aware they removed initiative from 9th edition, which is ridiculous - I think units highest with initiative, for both players act first each phase. The only thing being, wounds would be allocated at that moment like it currently is, not at the end of the turn, or that would defeat the whole purpose of having a higher initiative.

...

Anyways, what are your thoughts, and would this work. Also, are people at local game stores and clubs open to changes to the core rules? Or am I stuck waiting 30 minutes every turn?

The internet is a big place full of a lot of 40k player, and people adjacent to 40k players. If you have an idea for changes to the game, you can probably find someone interested in trying it out. But that big sea of players can smell when you haven't thought out your idea, or done any real work on your idea, and no one takes the bait in that situations.

No one is going to be open to changing the core rules to try a rules version that you want to propose when you don't even know what needs fixing, or why. The second biggest oversight that you've left out is "So what happens in the Fight phase, and why?" The biggest oversight that you've left out is going through ever single codex, supplement, and data slate checking for and fixing rules issues like 'start of the turn' rules, and 'start of the phase' rules.

Disclaimer: There have been enough alternating activation schemes proposed for 40k over the years that I'm almost certain that it's become a standard exercise in game design schools.

 Mezmorki wrote:
To be clear about my position, I'm not trying to say that IGOUGO is more tactically rich or deep. I think for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread that an AA type system can be deeper tactically or strategically. If that's the primary measure of what constitutes a "good" system, then absolutely AA or similar is the way to go.

I was merely trying to argue that, in my experience, the IGOUGO format has been a core part of the character, feel, and pacing of 40K since forever. It is likely not the best system from a gameplay depth standpoint - but it does create a distinctive experience of big sweeping back and forth movements. Does it lead to more chaotic gameplay and wild swings of fortune? I think so. Does that come at the expense of gameplay depth? Yes, probably.

For me, I'm willing to sacrifice potential gameplay depth in order to maintain the feel and pacing of the game that stems from IGOUGO - and have been investing my energy in patching other aspects of the base rules instead (i.e. ProHammer).

I say all this not as knock against AA systems, and again I agree that they might better from a gameplay depth standpoint. For me, it's just about the feeling and pace of the game that results from IGOUGO that I personally prefer.

I can agree with this....I'm all about indepth and tactically gameplay, thats just me. The more I have to think, the more immersed and involved I can become, the more personal my army and my decisions become. That being said, I don't think most people want to look that far into it, but I do. So that is where our paths diverge.

Best thing I can do is actually play a game and see how it feels and what the pace is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Heres the thing. You have 9 editions of 40k to play igougo with. If tomorrow gw finally decided to modernize 40k and get away from their 40 year old turn structure you can always go back to play the old crap version.

This thread is about making 40k aa to break away from that crap turn structure. There is nothing to gain here by telling us you like how igougo feels.

That's fair - and I apologize for de-railing the effort to discuss AA.

I made my initial post because the OP said they haven't yet actually played 40K (of any edition) and so I was providing some context for why IGOUGO isn't necessarily the worst thing ever (for me at least).

In an attempt to be constructive, I'll toss out a few ideas or thoughts in regards to AA-like approaches that I've contemplated over the years.

I always liked Battletech's handling of turn structure - with initiative potentially switching up each turn, but players taking turns moving + shooting with a certain portion of their army at one time. IIRC, you'd activate 25% of your forces at a time (or something like that). You'd do movement and then resolve your shooting. Like Apocalypse, you wouldn't actually apply damage until after your opponent took their turn and had a chance to shoot with models at that initiative step.

40K is tricky because you have potentially two movement phases - and assaulting units are essentially creating time that non-assaulting units don't get to utilize. Then there's the matter mentioned above of assault armies being hindered by their charge targets moving back out of change range.

I think perhaps you'd have to do something where a unit can move and then either (a) shoot or (b) assault. Assaulting could include firing assault weapons on the charge in. And likewise the defenders might get overwatch fire depending on how you want to structure it. For example, if the charged unit hasn't been activated yet - maybe they can take a reaction - either fire overwatch, brace for the charge, counter-charge, or try to flee (which could trigger sweeping advance type rules). Utilizing a reaction move means that unit can't be subsequently activated that turn (it's exhausted already). Anyway, you could do all of your shooting and assaulting as part of a unit's activation and you'd just hold off removing casualties until the end of the turn.

Anyway, those are a few thoughts I've had kicking around.

Thanks for the input about the IGOUGO system...You're right, I haven't played but I think I get the basis for what is happening. Its just every time I watch "Play on Tabletop" on YouTube, its a disappointment to see a Land Raider hiding behind a ruined structure to avoid 1st turn Alpha strike. Its a damn tank, they should be leading the charge with marines close behind using it for cover.

Apocalyspe does this, however they make it so that each squad is one unit. I don't see why that same activation system couldn't be used on individual troops. Squad A takes 8 wounds, ok so that's 8 models removed from battle at the damage allocation phase. If they could just take the average between Kill Team and Apocalypses, it is possible, I have a hard time seeing even after the discussion. Nothing seems to point directly to an issue that couldn't be modified...Maybe they should move to a D12 structure? Base the entire factions strengths, toughness, BS, etc on a 12 sided dice.

To add some ideas on the charge range, realistically, unless you're a meelee unit, you're not gonna charge from cover into an opponent. Charges could be reserved for when targeted opponents have no way to fall back, or, the charge is mutual during the assault phase: I.e space marines declare charge into orks, orks have a chance to accept the charge, or, hold position and overwatch, or fall back and give up that position - cant shoot when you're back is facing the enemy from running.

It seems most games are just open exposed units spamming dice against the opponent and taking objectives that don't seem to matter, if the opponent still has fighting capabilities.

The bulk of my 40K play time was back during 3rd and 4th edition, which predates any sort of let's play / let's watch / you tube channels - which seems to have really taken off since 8th edtion.

It WAS a different game back then. And to be honest, back in 3rd and 4th, at least with my group, we never felt like alpha strikes were a thing to be overly worried about. It's still just good practice to setup out of site or in cover if you are worried about not going first. But between cover, LoS, night fighting rules for the first turn, use of reserves, etc. it wasn't a big problem. My group also used a lot of terrain, like twice as much as I see in a typical fancy youtube video. We had a lot more soft cover (woods, etc.) that also blocks LoS more than hard cover does.

My experience with 8th edition is limited - but shooting is absolutely more deadly than it was. Cover saves get negated or reduced by weapon AP more often, games seem to be using less terrain, you get crazy command actions to re-roll critical misses and the like (essentially skewing the odds to make alpha strikes even more viable).

I don't like 8th edition and aren't currently playing it. I've been working on my own project, ProHammer, which is a revised version of 5th edition - designed to be compatible with 3rd-7th edition codexes. The gameplay keeps the classic/traditional feel from 5th edition before stuff started to get silly in 6th and 7th. I've played a handful of games in ProHammer so far and it's gone over super well.

ProHammer doesn't use an AA type system, but it does a lot of other significant changes that mess with the strength of shooting relative to defenses and relative to melee to create a more balanced and varied game. Alpha striking has been a none-issue in our ProHammer games thus far.

I have contemplated bolting on an AA-like system. One of our friends (long time Battletech player) is interested in doing something along these lines. I'm open to the idea but want to find the right balance.

One thought is that each player gets four rounds of activation per turn, where you have to activate at least 25% of your remaining units each round. Those groups of units could potentially conduct their whole turn (move, shoot, assault) during their activation. Add on the ability to make reaction moves (consuming or limiting that unit's subsequent activation choices) and then do something like Battletech where all the wounds are finally applied at the end of the turn with morale checks being made for both players. Something like that might work and be worth considering.

 Mezmorki wrote:
One thought is that each player gets four rounds of activation per turn, where you have to activate at least 25% of your remaining units each round. Those groups of units could potentially conduct their whole turn (move, shoot, assault) during their activation. Add on the ability to make reaction moves (consuming or limiting that unit's subsequent activation choices) and then do something like Battletech where all the wounds are finally applied at the end of the turn with morale checks being made for both players. Something like that might work and be worth considering.

That's pretty much what Apoc is right now, which is closest you'll get to AA in current 40k ruleset.

Kicking a few more ideas around on this topic.

Bear in mind any specific rules would come from 5th Ed / ProHammer era (not current 8th/9th era).


Players can decide to activate 1, 2, or 3 units on their turn. This would allow for some coordinated movement action (transports, auras, etc.)
Activated units would proceed through the normal game phases (move/run, shoot, assault/fight)
Activated units get an "exhausted" token to keep track of whether they were used or not.
Enemy units may be allowed certain reaction actions (i.e. return fire on charging units). Reactions would add a special "reacted" exhaustion token.
Units with a "reacted" token may still be activated but may have some restrictions and would also gain a normal reaction token.
At the end of the turn, units remove one exhaustion token. Must remove a reaction token if they have both a reaction token and a normal exhaustion token

Obviously lots of details and specifics to think through.

So I spent a bunch of time this weekend conceptualizing through different AA approaches.

What I keep coming back to is that I'm not sure what the "goal" is that an AA system is trying to solve for. Or flipping the question around a bit, what gameplay benefit/value comes out of it.

I guess the central question I come to are these questions

(1) Is the gameplay more consequential with AA (i.e. am I rewarded more or less for making good decisions?)

(2) Are the decisions I face with AA more or less challenging/complex/deep than they are otherwise?

(3) Is the game more balanced and fair feeling with AA or less?

(4) Is the game more engaging and excited with AA or IGOUGU?

I think most of the motivations for AA has been in regards to #3. The feeling that stuff like big turn 1 alpha strikes are a problem (which they certainly can be!) that needs to be fixed, and that AA is a way to address that (which is probably can).

For #1 and #2 - I'm just not sure.

Part of the issue with a lot of tactical games, especially ones like 40K, where you have freedom to activate all of your units in whatever order you want is that much of the game comes down to an puzzle solving / optimization exercise. You shoot with Unit A based on dealing with the biggest threat first. Based on the outcome of that, you shoot with unit B, and so on down the line. It's working out an optimum firing order.

AA doesn't really change this much, it just adds an additional round of re-consideration between each step. In some respects, I think it might actually make the situation worse. If your opponent shoots up your unit X, you have a strong incentive to activate and shoot back or run away with that unit before it gets targeted a second time. Wouldn't that be a fairly obvious decision on the board and lead to one-dimensional decision making?

I can see how AA does add a layer to the gameplay, but it's almost like a mini-game or game within a game called "the activation order game" which has more to do with timing and logistics of who activates what when, rather than the specifics of the actual orders themselves. It's like it building a system just so that you can then "game the system." I'm not sure that's actually worth it?

The power of IGOUGO is that it allows for coordinated action between your forces - in particular with regards to movement and closing range. The permutations of ways that a turn's movement can be sequenced when moving multiple thing at once is far greater than moving just one thing at a time. The decision space is larger, with a greater range of possibilities - and I feel a greater level of consequence as a result.

If I commit all more forces to a big press onto an objective in IGOUGO, and then my opponent cleverly gets into position and blasts a key unit apart, now my whole gameplan is in jeopardy. In AA, if I move onto an objective with just one unit, and they blast it apart, I can now reconsider all my other movements and change my plan. I get more control, but I'm losing some of the impact and consequence in the process.

I experimented with some approaches where players could activate 1, 2, or 3 units at a time, and go through all phases for those units (move, shoot/run, assault, fight). Being able to move a few units at a time allows you some degree of coordinated movement. Alternatively is requiring players to move an equal portion of their units during a series of 3-4 activation rounds (i.e. player take turns activating 1/3 of their forces at a time). This can be a possible compromise approach.

I was also thinking about a way to work in simultaneous casualty removal. So for example, causalities inflicted on units that haven't been activated wouldn't be removed until after the unit completed it's own activation. Sort of like BattleTech damage process. The rub with this however, is that if you know your unit is going to be wiped out or severely damaged, you might as well just throw caution to the wind and charge in and try to do as much damage as possible on the way out. I think this actually hurts the gameplay, because there is no longer a decision to be made between playing safe versus being risky when you know the outcomes.

The alternative would be to make sure your AA system has a whole reaction process built in, allowing you take immediate reactions to (i.e. return fire or go to ground) in such a way that still posses you with a choice. I.E., do I return fire and inflict simultaneous casualties, or do I take the hits in hopes that I can use my own activation to shoot at a more pressing target? I could see some interesting tradeoffs being made there.

I've been playing ProHammer, and one thing it does that dramatically changes the game's decision space is using declared fire - meaning each unit has to declare what it's shooting at before any hit rolls are made. This breaks apart the firing order optimization exercise I mentioned earlier because you can't play the mini-game anymore. You have to make a judgement call about how much fire to devote to what targets in the hope of getting the impact you want. It's a very consequential decision, and ALSO can dramatically break down the power of an alpha strike being able to knock out key units on Turn 1. There is a real risk of "overkilling" a target and thus wasting shots. It adds depth with little overhead.

Which got me thinking, that really, perhaps, what 40K needs is not an AA system but rather a reaction system. Something that (a) breaks up the turn structure and makes it more dynamic and (b) creates some genuinely interesting tradeoff decisions. If taking a reaction means your unit forgoes it normal actions next turn (or is limited in some way), you have choices to make. The game already has the bones of these in place. Go to Ground is a reaction to being shot. Overwatch fire is reaction to being charged. Perhaps there are others to explore that would accomplish the goal of the changes better than AA - i.e. limit alpha strike, still allow for coordinated action, add more decision depth and space, etc.

Phew. That was long. Looking for feedback or reactons!

 Lance845 wrote:
Here is the issue with phases like you have. P1 is a melee army p2 is tau. P1 moves into charge range and p2 moves back to 12" so that not only do they shoot you in the shooting phase but when you try and fail to charge they get to overwatch you for kicks as well. Or they move a tank between you and your optimal taget.

Alternating phases as they are now will never work with 40k.

Initiative is also a bad way to do things. I.e. eldar always go first and necrons orks always go last. The point of aa is to let players make strategic choices. Not have them made for them by an attribute.

Alternating phases is just fine if you adopt the lotr structure:
1) if you move full distance you cannot shoot
2) If you move half distance, you can shoot but only with a penalty - however, melee units will eventually run you down, especially if charging is 2d6 in addition to normal movement (unlike LOTR where it's just normal movement in the movement phase to charge someone).

And them moving a tank between target and chargers is called STRATEGY - you know, maneuver in reaction to the enemy and developing battlefield conditions. The enemy getting an opportunity to respond is a good thing. Plus, it isn't like this is unavoidable - after all, you have you own tanks and other units, that could serve to inhibit the enemy's movement themselves. Alternatively, you could use guns in support of your melee army (or psychic powers) to rip the tank apart and charge through the wreckage - heck, there are all sorts of options.

EDIT:
To answer your last question, the goal of Alternating Activation in wargaming is to more accurately represent the action-reaction-counteraction military rhythm of tactical combat. For example, a tank might move out in front of anti-tank weapons to take a shot at them. In a classic wargame, this would either gum up the tank in the ATG's "Zone of Control" or, in a mini's game, provoke some form of overwatch or interruption. Alternating phases allows this interruption - it allows the antitank gun to fire as soon as the tank leaves cover. In current 40k, a tank could move out of cover, stop, aim carefully, fire at the anti-tank gun, and then move back into cover (if it's got another way to move like the Tallarn order or Fire and Fade for examples) whilst the ATG watches gormlessly. This is both unrealistic and it warps the way the game is played, damaging the narrative that the game is trying to tell.

Remove overwatch because now the AA system gives you the interactivity that overwatch sought to replicate.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Here is the issue with phases like you have. P1 is a melee army p2 is tau. P1 moves into charge range and p2 moves back to 12" so that not only do they shoot you in the shooting phase but when you try and fail to charge they get to overwatch you for kicks as well. Or they move a tank between you and your optimal taget.

Alternating phases as they are now will never work with 40k.

Initiative is also a bad way to do things. I.e. eldar always go first and necrons orks always go last. The point of aa is to let players make strategic choices. Not have them made for them by an attribute.

Alternating phases is just fine if you adopt the lotr structure:
1) if you move full distance you cannot shoot
2) If you move half distance, you can shoot but only with a penalty - however, melee units will eventually run you down, especially if charging is 2d6 in addition to normal movement (unlike LOTR where it's just normal movement in the movement phase to charge someone).

And them moving a tank between target and chargers is called STRATEGY - you know, maneuver in reaction to the enemy and developing battlefield conditions. The enemy getting an opportunity to respond is a good thing. Plus, it isn't like this is unavoidable - after all, you have you own tanks and other units, that could serve to inhibit the enemy's movement themselves. Alternatively, you could use guns in support of your melee army (or psychic powers) to rip the tank apart and charge through the wreckage - heck, there are all sorts of options.

EDIT:
To answer your last question, the goal of Alternating Activation in wargaming is to more accurately represent the action-reaction-counteraction military rhythm of tactical combat. For example, a tank might move out in front of anti-tank weapons to take a shot at them. In a classic wargame, this would either gum up the tank in the ATG's "Zone of Control" or, in a mini's game, provoke some form of overwatch or interruption. Alternating phases allows this interruption - it allows the antitank gun to fire as soon as the tank leaves cover. In current 40k, a tank could move out of cover, stop, aim carefully, fire at the anti-tank gun, and then move back into cover (if it's got another way to move like the Tallarn order or Fire and Fade for examples) whilst the ATG watches gormlessly. This is both unrealistic and it warps the way the game is played, damaging the narrative that the game is trying to tell.

Remove overwatch because now the AA system gives you the interactivity that overwatch sought to replicate.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head here with the purpose of AA. Alternative Action allows the action/reaction of what may occur in a real live firefight.
I heard 9th edition changed a lot to the rules with cover, and that it is much better.

But you're right, a tank cannot interrupt an action anymore. Why should a squad be able to move behind cover and take out a tank without any reaction from the tank? Its not fair or accurate.
I am interested in using apocalypses rules, except instead of doing it by squad, its done by model. If a unit of marines takes 2 wounds, those wounds are removed, and morale checks as it normally would in 40k. Apparently apocalypse is a dumbed down version when it comes to wound and morale. Where you only take wounds if you fail morale.

I still think having a Move/move then shoot/shoot phase is better. Use descending PL level to decide what the order is. All other rules are the same. This includes charging and over watch. Its essentially IGOUGO, but done numerous times instead of one big time.