Welcome to Librarium Online!
Just wondering if 40k was re-written which interactive game turn would be most suitable in your oppinion?
1/Simultaneous reciprication of phases
(Dice for initiative each game turn )
Player A moves.
Player B moves.
Player A shoots
player B shoots
Player A assaults,
Player B assaults.
Or if assaults are delt with at the end of the game tirn after movment and shooting , and movement into base to base contact intiates an assault. CC can steal mobility and fire power so becomes an useful but not overpowereing aspect of the game.
(Current 40k rules abstracts the game to make 'taking a knive to a gun fight' a prefered option!)
(Dice for initiative each game turn.)
Player A moves.
Player B shoots,
Player A shoots.
Player B moves ,
playe A shoots
player B shoots.
3 / singular alternating actions.
(Dice for initiative each game turn)
Player As first action.
Player Bs first action,
Player As second action.
Player Bs second action.
(Units may take different actions to other friendly units)
Prepare, (set up heavier weapons, dig in, take cover,hull down.)
Move ( move up to Movment stat.)
Shoot.(make a ranged attack.)
4/ Alternmating unit activation.
Players take turns carrying out actions sets ONE unit at a time .
Player A actrivastes ONE unit.
Player B activates ONE unit,
repeat unitll all units have activated.
Action sets (orders) used.
Fire Suport.(Prepare then shoot)
Advance.(Move then shoot.)
Evade, (Shoot then move)
Charge, (Move then move.)
Please state why you perfer a particular game turn mechanic, and feel free to post any alternatives of you own.
I think either the current player A goes then player B,A,B and so on.
or your alternate option 1.
IG Best Gen 1st overall of 10 DE 4th overall of 6
Eldar 3rd Overall/Best General of 26--2nd Overall/Best General of 7--1st Overall/Best General of 11
I must say first that I used to play with 2° edition rules, modified by our group of friends. We have tried for some times the more skirmish mode, where both players activate 1 unit per turn, with Close Combat and Psi-Phase at the end of the turn. This method is good but more for skirmishes of 500 max Pv because is very time consuming. The other drawback is that you are pushed more to react to the other player's move ratheer than to adopt an overall strategy for the battle, however is a very realistic way of playing a battle. Another problem is that doing like this you eliminate 1 turn of close combat, so sometimes we used to fight another round of HtH at the beginning of the turn to returno to the normal 2-HtH phases that you have in whk40. But maybe in the 3°-5° ediitions the HtH is deadlier so you won't need to take 2 HtH...
The 2° method proposed is very interesting, more than the first, because if you get the initiative to move, you know that yoour opponent is going to shoot you first, and that brings back a sort of overwatch fire, that has been eliminated from the 3°-5° edition.
The problem with these methods, as I have already said, is that some players will come only to react to the other player's action, maybe loosing their overall strategic plans, or with method 1, to seek always cover and to make loose their opponents the LOS and waste their fire...of course if such a defensive way of play is encouraged by the rulles, the games will last longer and become more time consuming...
I should have stated that I intend to use a simple 'fog of war' mechanic to limit interaction of units, more than in current 40k.(Not shooting the lenght of the table with only LOS restrictions.)
Also there is the posiblity of players placing action-order counters next to units at the start of the turn,(face down,)
(So they have an overall plan , but it might not survive contact with the enemy....)
Units perform the orders-actions allocated .This makes the players play more proactivley, rather than reactivley.
Thanks for the feed back so far.
I can elaborate on any points I may not have explained that well....
I repeat, unless you want a more advanced-skirmish wh40k, you should insist on your system 2, that is for me genial! Of course you should consider it as follows:
Players A B (initiative for every turn, that is more thrilling)
A assaults (then both A and B fight HtH in Initiative order as normal)
then the same with B in the place of A...
I've always disliked the method A moves-shoots-assaults that makes Initiative of the first turn TOO much important and decisive.
With your method be you add a more balancing realism, but keeping the game fast as it should be...We we'll try it the next time we join for a battle and I will ley you know the result of the play testing...
Thank you for your ideas!!!
The alternative game turn mechanics I listed above, (apart from 1), have all been used in various wargames over the last 20 years! So I dont want to take credit for other peoples ideas.
Adding the Assault at the end of the shooting is inspired my friend!
This way this turn sequence can be used in 40k with very little modification.
Please let me know how you get on...
I realy appreciate your input.
I like warhammer 40k as it is, the game turns help keep it simple, and thus I wouldnt change it.
However, out of the options listed, I like option 3 the best, although I would consider then making assault movements happen in the movement phase (Otherwise close combat armies would seriously suffer)
Rork: In the dark future of the 41st millennium there is only friendship.
Fenrir: and magic.
Kaiser-: My Little Chaos Marine, Friendship is Heresy?
So, maybe, you didn't need to post here! I like WHK40 too and because it is simple! I make only part of those people who don't accept everything GW says and publish as a Bible! GW thinks right of course: marketing is its goal, and has seplified the game to make it accessible to 13 years old gamers. But GW seems not to think about senior gamers, who would like to play, or only try playing, a more advanced form of the game.
The modifications proposed here are of the simplest, and only after playtesting one can really judge them.
Talking in particular, I think that you may be right: if an action of charge (like in the 2° edition) should be present in the game, the better. Maybe you can give the +1 A bonus only to those troops who decide to charge immediately in the move phase (with a move x2) and not give the same bonus to those who assault after shooting, having them the opportunity to fire their weapons...
But there's the reverse of the medal: because, following the mode 2 proposed here, if you move (possibly in cover), then wait your opponent's fire, then it would be good for close combat armies too to fire and assault!
I've been playing a lot of time with WHK40's 2° edition were Overwatch was possible: that was a bad rule for me, because it was possible to shoot almost every HtH squad during their move and often only a model or two managed to complete their charges. With 3°-5° edition you can move towards the enemy almost without worring about being shoot, choosing cover and waiting for the assault phase...
Keep on Experimenting...Think with your own head!
I think version 2 feels more what I think combat would work like. Advancing in turn with both sides shooting constantly. The problem is, it would change balance to favor shooting over close combat with current armies. For every phase of movement an assault-oriented army gets, there are two rounds of shooting for both sides. I like this idea a lot but you would have to rebalance everything imo.
Option 1 is a lot less invasive and addresses the 1st turn advantage problem fairly nicely. It also is close to my idea of real combat. I always though it was weird that while I was standing in a building, some guys could run across a field, shoot me up, and run in the building and punch me while I just stood and watched. Overwatch adressed it in older rules, but was probably overly complicated for how useful it was. Just alternating by phases rather than turn would help a lot with getting bored during your opponent's turn too. It might be a little harder to keep track of who moved and shot, but would have to try it out to know for sure.