Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
In the shooting phase it is clear to me that the rules state how to shoot. Pick, shoot move on. But lately ive been hearing that you declare all your firing then role. This sounds more accurate fluff wise because everyone on your side shoots at the same time insted of "these guys shoot here... nothing, alright these guys will try... nothing again, one more squad firing there.." It seems that you should declare all firing then roll.
Any thoughts on this would help. I also have been toying with the idea of doing the turns like this...
would that work?
Resolving all shooting at once makes sense fluff-wise but becomes rather impractical in big armies. It is important for the game to flow. By resolving shooting per unit both players have ongoing participation in the game - IMO the game would be frustrating and a little boring if you had to wait several minutes while your opponent worked out shooting for his entire army at once.
I don't think alternating phases would work very well. I'm sure GW have tested different turn structures over the years and I think that having each player complete their turn (move, shoot, assault) is the most balanced. Alternating turns for each phase would give player 2 a distinct advantage as he can respond to each of your movements before you have a chance to open fire or declare an assault. It could lead to lots of chasing around the battlefield and no-one actually achieving anything.
Your opponent wouldnt have to wait any longer. You would just say here shoots here, here shoots here, here shoots here (maybe taking 1 minute) and then roll as normal as they roll for saves etc. You have to wait for your opponent to shoot his whole army no matter how you slice it.
I do see your point on the trading turns. You are right in that it would be almost counter productive and the second player would get a huge advantage.
You're right in the fact that your turn would take just as long. What I mean to say is that under the current system your opponent gets involved throughout the process as he makes his armour saves and removes casualties unit by unit. He has to stand around waiting a lot less than if you make all of your dice rolls at once and then he makes all of his.
Keeping track of which rolls are for which weapons and against which units can be tricky too if you are handling your entire army at once. Even shooting in a single unit often gets split out with separate rolls for special/heavy weapons (if you don't have different coloured dice to hand).
If 40k were actually a futuristic game in which guns actually killed people, then this wouldn't happen. Alas, 40k is really just a variant of the WFB rules and assaults are still more powerful than shooting. Silly, aint it?It could lead to lots of chasing around the battlefield and no-one actually achieving anything.
Also, I really don't like the idea of declaring all of your shooting for each unit before you shoot. If they actually DO make that a rule, then I'll sell my 15000 points of IG and start another freakin game. IG rely on being able to go "well, that squad didn't hurt them so I'll shoot them with this squad" until they manage to do some damage.
Play LotR if you want this
The sample game I played at a GW store had it working like that, which was definitely different.
Otherwise, the game works as it is.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, even if it's wrong.
You could also try the way Epic does. One of your units moves, shoots and assaults. Then one of your opponent's units moves, shoots and assaults. Lleu is probably right that GW has most likely tested different ways to do turns and figured the current way is the best.
Sequential fire is one of the standard methods of employment used by the US Army. Allows for just the right amount of firepower to be used to achieve a desired outcome. Prevents wasting fire on a target that is already dead and allows it to be used towards destroying another target.
Most non-GW tabletop games use some type of turn sequence other than resolving the actions of the entire army each turn thing. Warmaster is a good example of a GW game that uses something else as well and I kinda like how it works. For sheer simplicity, 40k and WHFB work well (they have to have SOMETHING about them that is cut and dry...).
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.