Alternate unit activation in 40k

[Lyynark]

I don't know whether I placed this thread in the correct part of the forum. But I reckon that it should be here since it isn't any real rule development but rather a discussion about alternate unit activation.

This is a thing I've been thinking about a lot recently (both for 40k and Fantasy), but after reading the second battle report by the 'ard boyz winner I felt that it was more needed than ever. The 40k/WHFB system as it is today is played by the "you go/I go" mechanic, that is, players alternate taking turns, moving all their pieces, resolving all their shooting, magic, close combat, etc.

As most of you have probably already realized this were the problem lies, apart from some dice rolling in the form of saves and the such the game is very one-sided. As the player on the opposite side you can do nothing but watch how your own army is getting beaten to a pulp. This became extremely apparent when reading his battle report, the "first turn win" became much more real than ever.

This is not what I want the game to look like, what's the point of even painting and deploying your army if all it comes down to in the end is who gets the first turn. You might as well roll a dice and be done with it.

So the discussion I'm trying to start is: "how would you feel about an alternate unit activation schema?". That is, you get to activate one unit perform their actions, then you opponent does the same, and that goes on until all units have acted, ending the turn.

There are of course some special cases that need considering, but let's keep this discussion on a reasonably high level and don't get to bogged down in specific details.

[BrotherAlpharius]

It's an interesting idea. I think that such a radical re-think of one of the fundamental game mechanics will be met with a lot of opposition on a matter of principle and a lot of problems in practice. However, upon reading the Ardboyz game 2 report I too was struck by quite how demoralising it must have been for the opponent to set up so much and then not get to use it. Yes there is the Reserves mechanic but that is quite a gamble and in this case the opponent obviously felt that he was better risking his heavy stuff being shot rather than risk the enemy officer of the fleet seeing to it that the heavies didn't arrive until it was too late.

There is the "Seize the initiative" roll but that's quite a simple mechanic. I don't play LotR but I understand that in that game system certain characters can use points (Might points?) to seize the initiative with individual heroes and units on a turn by turn basis. Perhaps this is the way to go - certain units may have one or more points per game that can be spent to make actions in the opponent's turn. HQ characters may have the ability to use their points to influence nearby units. Even if it didn't do anything in practice the mere threat of an enemy Guard Officer ordering a Lascannon Heavy Weapon Squad to fire might force the first turn player to be more cautious.

Older players will remember the second edition Overwatch mechanic which allowed firing in your opponent's turn but the problem with that was that it turned the game into a stalemate standoff.

[DarkLink]

I've actually though about trying a similar thing, though it's quite different in practice.

Rather than have a Player A Moves, Shoots, then assaults, then it's Player B's turn;

Player A moves

Player B moves

Player A shoots

Player B shoots

Player A assaults

Player B assaults

OR, alternatively, Player A would get to either move, shoot or assault, one of the three, then it would go to player B's turn to pick one. Or something like that.

I don't know how it would work out in actual gameplaybut it would certainly be different.

[therealjohnny5]

it seems to me back in the day wasn't WFB alternate? or maybe i'm thinking of something else. To me it makes a lot more sense bc combat is not static and it would force more tactical game play. The current style is probably much less problematic however, lets face it there are already a gazillion rules we all learn, so what's one more complication along the way. The turn based play does allow for a type of tactics but it lends it's self to a more direct game play style and as we saw in the 'Ard Boys article, can allow for builds to run through the opponent. It's much more fun for a nail biter game full of tension that a spank you and your momma run through for both sides i believe. With alternate game play we could at least have action reaction tactic that will force both sides to strategize more and could even level the playing ground for armies people believe are overpowered.

[Lerra]

That would be an interesting system. The LotR game is sort of a half-way point between 40k and your idea, alternating phases: you move, I move. You shoot, I shoot. You assault, I assault.

Another interesting option would be to keep the turns as they are and change the reserve system, making reserves a more important and more reliable tactical option. A lot of players are tired of playing games that are over by turn 1 (or games that are basically decided by deployment and the roll to go first). Heavier reliance on reserves would make the game more fun and it would give the player who goes second a better chance of recovery. It also reduces the first-turn alpha strike factor when a larger portion of each army is in reserve.

If I was writing 6th Ed this is what I would do ;)

The player who goes first may not bring reserves onto the table until turn 2 at the earliest (as it is now). The player who goes second may roll for reserves starting turn 1. So the player who goes second basically gets a +1 to reserve rolls compared to the current system, and any reserves will hit the table automatically at the bottom of 4 (instead of the current system where they are not guaranteed to come in until the bottom of 5, which is potentially the last round of the game!)

Alter missions to encourage use of reserves:
Dawn of War: Each player may deploy up to three units. ICs and Dedicated Transports count as one of these "units". Up to three additional units may enter play from the controlling player's table edge at the beginning of their first turn. Additional units are held in reserve.

Alter the reserve rules to add more suspense and tactical flexibility:
Rather than declaring during deployment how a unit in reserve will enter play, choose your entry method when the unit enters play from reserves. Ex: During turn 4, you pass the roll for the Scouts to enter play. You decide to walk them in off the table edge rather than outflank because they are more needed near your home base and you don't want to risk coming in on the wrong table edge.

This allows for more late-game recovery from a bad first turn, and makes reserves less risky by providing a mitigating factor to the "leak in" problem. It also makes opponents watch their backs a little bit more when they aren't sure where your reserves are going to come in.

[BDub]

I have always been a fan of activation based game-play. Though I will say that with the army sizes in 40k, a strict you move I move, you shoot I shoot, would get tedious. It works well in A.I. because the force sizes are much more manageable and it fits the flavor and pace of air combat. Instead, I would would rather see individual unit activation BUT retain the entire turn sequence for each activation.

This would give us; I activate a unit then move, shoot, assault as normal. Then you activate a unit and move, shoot, assault as normal until all units have gone. I would also institute an initiative roll (with racial modifier) at the beginning of each turn sequence.

This would give more interest and tactical importance to abilities like deep strike, infiltrate and scout as they would be free activations outside the normal sequence.

The question that always comes up is close combat. My answer is that it happens normally. Once a unit is engaged by an activated unit it is locked in combat and may only fight a close combat during it's subsequent activation until that combat is resolved as normal.

[Lyynark]

Older players will remember the second edition Overwatch mechanic which allowed firing in your opponent's turn but the problem with that was that it turned the game into a stalemate standoff.

I for one hold 2nd edition in high regard (and I'm making a compilation/rewrite/update of the rules) and one of the reasons is the overwatch mechanic. But as you say, it could lead to some "interesting" stalemates where no-one would risk their precious units necks.

There are however ways to fix this problem:


Units that wish to go on overwatch must pass a leadership to do so, and cannot be within 8" of enemies (No-one would dig in and focus all of their attention at one lane of fire when they know that there are enemies in the immediate vicinity).
The unit will fire at the first target that presents itself unless they can pass a leadership test (This gives a possibility of using sacrificial units to feed the overwatch).


This would still make overwatch a powerful tool, but it would require reasonably trained troops to pull of (you can always attach characters to boost the Ld of the unit). Most armies can bring this to the table in one form or another but there is no certainty of effect/success.


My basic premise for an alternating turn sequence is that all units act individually, that is, a units will gets to move/shoot, shoot/move and so on. But this brings some complications to the table. I have identified two below:

1. How will close combat work? With a system like this mass charges from horde armies will be a problem, we'll basically get a charge->bounce rather than charge->overrun from more horde oriented armies.

Could this be resolved through some delay mechanic, i.e. I can put more than one unit on the same initiative, but doing so will push them further back in the activation queue.

2. What will happen with MSU armies? They will most likely have a field day against larger more cumbersome opponents since they can dictate the flow of battle in a much better way. I for one wouldn't like to have activated my whole army only to realize that my opponent still has got half of his left, about which I can do nothing.

Some armies will work differently, but the last thing I want to see is that MSU builds become the only viable ones in order to reduce the effect of "activation overflow". Still, I have no concrete idea as to how this could be solved in any reasonably manner without making MSU builds worthless.



This would give us; I activate a unit then move, shoot, assault as normal. Then you activate a unit and move, shoot, assault as normal until all units have gone. I would also institute an initiative roll (with racial modifier) at the beginning of each turn sequence.

But how should the initiative be scaled? Should it be based on the characteristic of units or should it be some blanket rule or both? (For those who remember all armies had a rarely used strategy rating in 2nd edition)

I propose some combination of both, for example, Imperial Guard are standard when it comes to the reaction time of individual soldiers, but their organization is large and unwieldly, thus most of their units would be below the standard (let's say it's the arbitrary number 3 for the purpose of the discussion). Some units such as attack air craft would be faster though.

Armies such as Eldar would be extremely fast and agile, being able to adapt quickly, both on a strategic and tactical level.

Tau would be somewhere in between, they strategic doctrines make them very adaptable to changes in battlefield conditions, but on a tactical level they might be a bit behind due to lower reaction time.

[BDub]

But how should the initiative be scaled? Should it be based on the characteristic of units or should it be some blanket rule or both? (For those who remember all armies had a rarely used strategy rating in 2nd edition)


Well with regards to the turn sequence I was suggesting it would have to be army based (I was thinking about 2nd Ed when I suggested it). If it wasn't you would have to compare each of your units to each of their units every turn and that would be a drag. It would further be complicated in that I may not want to activate a unit with high initiative until later in the turn - where does that put any other unit with a lower initiative, an interrupt? - not fun.

The army based initiative would reflect the overall preparedness of the race (as in 2nd ED). You would still have special rules to add flavor - for instance, I could see berzerkers of Khorne always having to be activated before all other units in your army.

[Zaklifean]

You could also do an orders type deal, somewhat like Epic. Have 3 different levels of orders, so all of the units with order "A" would do whatever "A" allows them to do for side 1, then side 2 does their "A". Side one would do their order "B" and whatever it allows them to do, then side 2, etc, etc.

I guess thats really what everyone else is kind of saying as well, but it wouldnt necessarily mean side 1 moves, then side 2 moves, then side 1 shoots, then side 2 shoots. It could be a set of orders.

[BDub]

You could also do an orders type deal, somewhat like Epic. Have 3 different levels of orders, so all of the units with order "A" would do whatever "A" allows them to do for side 1, then side 2 does their "A". Side one would do their order "B" and whatever it allows them to do, then side 2, etc, etc.

That's definitely a better approach but appropriately it seems to have a more "strategic level" feel to it. With models representing individuals not whole units I think it might stifle the "firefight" aspects of 40K scale. Whatever system you chose to design, I think keeping in mind the individual's ability to react to the immediacy of that "firefight" would need to be preserved. This is one of the things that I think is missing or at least damaged by the current turn system.

[SandWyrm]

This is not what I want the game to look like, what's the point of even painting and deploying your army if all it comes down to in the end is who gets the first turn. You might as well roll a dice and be done with it.

I don't see why you have a problem going second. The current game has specific mechanics that give advantages to the player going second in order to balance things out. Besides getting to see how the first player sets up before you deploy, you can put units in reserve or outflank with them. Not to mention that you get the final move in objective-based missions. Those are huge advantages!

I'm not saying that you couldn't come up with another system that works, but I for one like the current turn-based 40K just fine.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, having individual unit activations would probably work better than the system I mention. I only mentioned it as I'd though about it, with mild curiosity.

I usually prefer to go second, though it depends on what list I'm facing. Usually the options are pretty well balanced, so even if a list has a preference for going first or second it can work out either way. Darkwynn's list is a rare example of a list capable of a first turn victory, but depends on getting first turn. And it can be countered to a certain degree with use of reserves, which no one who faced the list used.

[SandWyrm]

Darkwynn's list is a rare example of a list capable of a first turn victory, but depends on getting first turn. And it can be countered to a certain degree with use of reserves, which no one who faced the list used.

Yeah, or outflanking.

I see his opponent's point in wanting a chance at a massacre by stealing the initiative. He didn't think a draw or a minor win was worth having for the standings. But it's not always the case that winning a tourney requires 3 massacres, and oftentimes the sure thing is better to have than the wild chance.

[Abominable Plague Marine]

GW already have enough activation based games.

My only real objection to 40K becoming an activation based game is that there is enough pondering at the begining of each turn before a player does stuff, Im of the mentality that a quick game IS a good game, I can only see this prolonging it unnecessarily.

One thing that I have seen/experienced playing activation (or reactivation) based games is a very predictable sequence of events, for the first couple of turns anyway.

[sodcactus]

For an interesting take on game mechanics take a look at Infinity from Corvus Belli. Could probably be adapted to 40K.

[Lyynark]

I don't see why you have a problem going second. The current game has specific mechanics that give advantages to the player going second in order to balance things out. Besides getting to see how the first player sets up before you deploy, you can put units in reserve or outflank with them. Not to mention that you get the final move in objective-based missions. Those are huge advantages!

I'm not saying that you couldn't come up with another system that works, but I for one like the current turn-based 40K just fine.

I don't have a problem with going second, I do however have a problem with what looks to be a possible trend of alpha strike builds. The mechanics you mention do of course work, but they present new problems, this time for the player taking the first turn.

If this kind of army builds leads to the second player keeping all but a bare minimum of his army in reserve and trying to outflank with the rest then having the first turn is pretty much worthless since there is little to nothing to actually engage in combat of any sorts.


GW already have enough activation based games.

Really? And what are those? The only games that they are actually supporting are WHFB, 40k and LotR, as for the rest they are as far as I know following the same basic "you go/I go" mechanic.


My only real objection to 40K becoming an activation based game is that there is enough pondering at the begining of each turn before a player does stuff, Im of the mentality that a quick game IS a good game, I can only see this prolonging it unnecessarily.

While I'm not saying it's a bad mentality it's far from the only one, and I think it's a rather boring one. Sometimes I feel like quick games, but usually I don't mind some extra complexity, for me a "good" battle ranges somewhere between 4-5 hours, but then I play mostly WHFB.


One thing that I have seen/experienced playing activation (or reactivation) based games is a very predictable sequence of events, for the first couple of turns anyway.

I guess that depends on the game being played, but a game as diverse and "complex" as 40k will probably lead to some rather unpredictable games since everything can be changed in a heartbeat (This is assuming that the players involved isn't just reacting purely on their opponent but are playing their own "game" as well).

[TSINI]

i've often given consideration to a system where casualties are not removed until the end of turn 1, after both players have taken their moving, shooting and assault.

this way the "player with first go killing everything before it gets to react" is removed.

this would lead to much more heated firing casualties and assault because everyone would get to shoot, even when they are technically dead this turn.

its also simply played out on the battlefield, you simply lie down the casualties, then continue your turn firing with the dead guys, then once its time for turn 2, simply remove all the lying down guys.

[Tacoo]

the above idea is prettygood, especially if you use the i move u move i shoot u shoot i assault u assault thing. thie biggest problem with the single unit thing is that armies that have alot of units, like IG would be at a disavatage when fighting somtihing like Deathing or even normal marines, where all of there units may get to shoot 2 or 3 times before all of your stuff shoots. the only way i see the unit reaction working is if it isint so much as the unit as all the units in one slot on the FoC, like say one turn i move all my troops in the first slot and then enx turn all the troops in the second slot

[Crae]

I can recommend reading these alternate rules. I add some stuff about using initiative to have an effect in who moves first and last.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191273&highlight=crae

[Duke]

Im a fan of how Epic does unit activation...

[Abominable Plague Marine]

Lyynark

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abominable Plague Marine
GW already have enough activation based games.

Really? And what are those? The only games that they are actually supporting are WHFB, 40k and LotR, as for the rest they are as far as I know following the same basic "you go/I go" mechanic.

Well, Epic is, AI is.............my memory completely fails me on BFG, its been that long, but I have a feeling elements of the game are. I was told WotR was also but Im not 100% sure on that either. As for support, the Specialist Games are just that and I think GW are doing a fine job of supporting them by continuing to sell the miniatures and put up the articles on their website which previously NOT on there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Abominable Plague Marine
One thing that I have seen/experienced playing activation (or reactivation) based games is a very predictable sequence of events, for the first couple of turns anyway.

I guess that depends on the game being played, but a game as diverse and "complex" as 40k will probably lead to some rather unpredictable games since everything can be changed in a heartbeat (This is assuming that the players involved isn't just reacting purely on their opponent but are playing their own "game" as well).

That is true, simply being reactive to your opponent in activation type games often means you miss out on the objective as you simply end up trying to deny your opponent in everything they do. This also stands true to the current rules set of 40K to a lesser degree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Abominable Plague Marine
My only real objection to 40K becoming an activation based game is that there is enough pondering at the begining of each turn before a player does stuff, Im of the mentality that a quick game IS a good game, I can only see this prolonging it unnecessarily.

While I'm not saying it's a bad mentality it's far from the only one, and I think it's a rather boring one. Sometimes I feel like quick games, but usually I don't mind some extra complexity, for me a "good" battle ranges somewhere between 4-5 hours, but then I play mostly WHFB.

haha, each to their own of course. I dont know why, Id rather try to speed the game up than play a smaller scalled game.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

I dislike the idea of a radical rethink of the game, and here's why: this game has been around for 20 years. Obviously it must be an effective system. I would rather take the slightly flawed logic of the current system then throw away the entire guts of the game in favor of hopefully making a slightly better one. I like what we'd have and I'd rather not chance a 3-year or so gap where I have to quit 40k because a small bit of its player base played some other game with a different system and feels the need to tell these developers that what they created is insuperior.

My second point, and perhaps more poignant, is that, well...I've won plenty of games against opponents going first, second, outflanking, non outflanking, footslogging, transport-heavy, etc. The new 5th edition rules really changed the way 1st and 2nd turn played; the person going first has advantages and the person going second has advantages. Also there is the possibility of stealing the initiative and turning the whole thing on its head. Generally speaking, I find that strategically very little of the game is based on the first turn for me.

[SandWyrm]

I don't have a problem with going second, I do however have a problem with what looks to be a possible trend of alpha strike builds. The mechanics you mention do of course work, but they present new problems, this time for the player taking the first turn.

Well yeah, they do. That's why the current system is balanced. :)

I've had players choose to give me first turn. I've also gone second with everything in reserve and won. Hey, it works!


If this kind of army builds leads to the second player keeping all but a bare minimum of his army in reserve and trying to outflank with the rest then having the first turn is pretty much worthless since there is little to nothing to actually engage in combat of any sorts.

That's part of the game Lyynark.

The alpha strike fad will continue until more people learn to use reserves properly. Too many people are in the habit of just putting everything they have on the table.

[BuFFo]

This is a thing I've been thinking about a lot recently (both for 40k and Fantasy), but after reading the second battle report by the 'ard boyz winner I felt that it was more needed than ever.

Actually, what is needed is smarter 'Ard Boyz opponents. They knew to stay in reserves to have a better chance at winning, but they didn't, and they suffered for doing so.

Has nothing to do with who goes first, but everything to do with playing smart.


This became extremely apparent when reading his battle report, the "first turn win" became much more real than ever.

Apparently you missed what was apparent in those battle reports. Poor tactical decisions lost games, not the rules.


This is not what I want the game to look like, what's the point of even painting and deploying your army if all it comes down to in the end is who gets the first turn.

5th edition did away with 'whoever goes first wins' to a large extent. Play a few games of 4th to refresh your memory about a game system that truly supported the 'go first win better' mentality.

At my store, players with skill seem to have the same type of game with each other. All seems lost for one player, but he doesn't give up, and in the last two turns, he can usually win the game with smart tactical decisions.

But out of the 20+ players at my store, only about 4 really understand how 40k 5th edition works, and the rest keep complaining about the game's faulty system. Nope. They just don't know what the game is about, and after they lose their tank on turn one, they bow their heads and give up, only to realize in turn 5 they COULD have won if they on;y gave a damn during the game.

I have played many games where I was wiped out down to 5 or 6 models with my IG, only to either force a draw or regain the win. Now that is the mark of great system.

Unit activation should stay out of 40k now that 5th edition is so balanced and good.

[Melissia]

I agree with the above poster.

I never give in during a match barring time constraints. For one, that would be unfluffy for my armies to begin with, and for two, it's insulting to your opponent. If you do not give them your best, you're telling them they're not worthy of it.

[SandWyrm]

I agree with the above poster.

I never give in during a match barring time constraints. For one, that would be unfluffy for my armies to begin with, and for two, it's insulting to your opponent. If you do not give them your best, you're telling them they're not worthy of it.

I'll second that. I've both won games I was sure were beyond hope and lost games that I thought I had in the bag during the last 2 turns. If you can stay more focused than your opponent, it's amazing what can happen. :)

[BuFFo]

5th edition truly is, in my opinion, the best this game has ever been, as far as over all game balance and fun goes.

I do like unit activation, as I play Hordes, but I think 40k does just perfectly fine as is.

if you would have asked me this question in 4th edition, I would have said HELL YES to unit activation.

[Lerra]

Tournament play operates by a strange set of logic. You cannot play to win - you have to play to massacre. It's likely that there were several players who left the final round of 'ard Boyz undefeated, yet they lost the tournament because they did not win by a wide enough margin. It seems like most of the tactical mistakes at 'ard Boyz were made because Darkwynn's opponents decided to take a risk: hope that Darkwynn rolled horribly so that they could still get the massacre.

Similarly, tournament play encourages lists that can massacre an opponent. A list that wins nearly every game by a small margin will not be competitive. A list with a 50% chance to table every opponent has a decent shot at winning.

imo, The problem is more in the tournament setup than with anything.