PDA

View Full Version : Which interactive game turn?



lanrak
08-09-2008, 16:47
Hi.
As many gamers think the 40k rules would benifit from an interctive game turn,and a return of the 'Movement' stat.

I was wondering which of the following interactive game mechanics you think would suit 40k th best.
Dice for initiative at the start of each turn, for all the following alternative methods.

1/ 'Interupted' action phases
Player A moves.
Player B shoots.
Player A shoots
Player A assaults.

Player B moves
Player A shoots.
Player B shoots
Player A assaults.

2/ Alternating units activation.
(Player A takes 2 actions with ONE unit, player B takes 2 actions with ONE unit,repeat untill all units have been activated.)

Actions are , move /shoot/prepare/assault.
('Non move and shoot weapons' need to have taken a prepare action prior to the shoot action.Assault actions can ONLY be taken after a move action.)
This gives action sets/
orders of.
Fire suport.(Prepare -shoot.)
Advance (move -shoot)
Evade (shoot move)
Double (move -move)
Charge (move assault)

3 / Alternating singular actions.
(Friendly units can select different actions to each other.)
Player A first action.
Player B first action
Player A secoond action
Player B second action.

4/ Order placement, and activation similar to Epic Space marine.
Units are activated in sequentialy dependant on orders given.

I am aware of turn sequences that use conditional interuptions, 'Eg if unit moves into enemy awarness zone'
But as 40k is suppsed to be suitable for younger gamers I want to concider the most 'straight forward' alternative game tun mechanics.

Please feel free to post any I might have overlooked...

I just want opinions , so vote for your favorite!

TTFN
Lanrak.

simplemindedfish
08-09-2008, 16:59
Quite frankly, though I understand why people would disagree, I feel the current system works well. However, the Movement stat is needed. Considering Terminators are in their bulky armour they wouldn't move at the same rate as an Eldar Guardian. And Slow and Purposeful shouldn't be used, it makes some units harder or even pointless.

Supremearchmarshal
08-09-2008, 17:05
Hi, I think 4) is the best - its tried, tested and it works.

1) is a bad idea since its very similar to the old overwatch mechanic, and in fact gives an even greater advantage to shooty armies.

2) would work fine IMO, but I like the old Epic system more.

3) would make games too long and may cause problems remembering which unit has done what.

Daredhnu
09-09-2008, 10:45
i'd personaly go for a LotR style turn sequence

Player A moves his units
Player B moves his units
Player A shoots
Player B shoots
Player A assaults
Player B assaults

but that is just my preference

Charax
09-09-2008, 11:01
I like 2). It's less fiddly than 3), and 1) is just annoying.

I dislike 4.

Son of Sanguinius
10-09-2008, 02:45
I'm working with a simple A moves, B moves, A shoots, B shoots, both sides fight, order determined by priority. Like LOTR. Don't know how "interactive" it is though :o

I will say that I totally agree with you on a movement stat. The fact that guardsman can move as fast space marines or eldar is a little silly, on top of the fact that we're missing out on more strategic planning from everyone having (mostly) standard movement.

Askari
10-09-2008, 04:06
Another vote for LotR style turns, and the movement stat. :)

samiens
11-09-2008, 12:30
Movement stats maybe- but I'd leave the turn as it is- none of those options seem to best suite 40k

Bathfinder
11-09-2008, 12:35
They are all very different. First I think what has to be decided is wether you want to move an entire side at the time, or one unit at the time and players taking turns. It will be a very different game.

1 is a nice variation to the current system in that the opponent can react to how you move. i.e. all units gets overwatch, without all the mucking about. That way we get rid of the silly situation where someone can jump out behind a corner and blast you without getting shot in return until next turn. If this system is used, I would actually prefer to having the shooting phases happen simultaneously (don't remove causalties until end of turn) Actually I have also played a system with A moves, B shoots, A assaults, B moves, A shoots, B assaults, which is quite nice and like your nr 1 but with less shooting. Depends on how much shooting you want.

2 and 3 are quite similar, but 3 is a bit more messy on the table i think. 4 is also a cousin to the unit activation thingie.

A comment of the lots-style: If I am goin to like that idea I think that if player A moves first one turn, then player b should move first the nest turn. Why?: If A moves, B moves, and then both shoots, then B always has the upper hand and can move out of the way and A can't do anything about it. then I like nr 1. more. A bit like the same thing.

Then we have my personal favourite: a hybrid. first the players alternate movement (A moves 1 unit, B moves 1 unit etc...) and then A shoots all his units, B shoots all his units. (simultaneous shooting)

robtheguru
11-09-2008, 17:27
Im all for the movement stat. Stupid to see Terminators moving at the same speed as agile Space Elves. However, thats why Eldar have fleet.

lanrak
11-09-2008, 20:49
Hi all.
Thanks for the feed back.
I suppose the basic methods are,-

1/Sequential phases.
Eg,Move then shoot then assault.

These can be 'alternating' between players and ordered give the level of interaction that is deemed necissary.

However this simplicity of 'flowing turn mechanic' does sacrifice some tactial depth.
As you HAVE to take particular actions in the set order.(You cannot shoot then move for example.)
And some units only take one action (Shoot)while others take up to three.(Move run assault.)

2/Action sets -Orders and activations.
These mean ALL units get to take the same amount of actions (2) every turn.
The actions can be taken in a range of orders.
So you can move then shoot or shoot then move , etc.
If used with order counters placed at the start of the turn this increases the tactical conciderations conciderably.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I dont think anyone would object to the return of the M stat?

Move up to M stat in the movment phase.(And shoot in the shooting phase)

Or Run up to 2x M stat.(and not shoot.)

Or charge up to 2 x M stat into BTB contact with enemy unit.(Fight a round of CC in the assault phase.)


TTFN
Lanrak.

Killus Maximus
12-09-2008, 01:01
I prefer type 2 but with the option to interrupt a player action (usually a counter-attack that is resolved simultaneously).

Bathfinder
12-09-2008, 08:33
However this simplicity of 'flowing turn mechanic' does sacrifice some tactial depth.
As you HAVE to take particular actions in the set order.(You cannot shoot then move for example.)
And some units only take one action (Shoot)while others take up to three.(Move run assault.)


This is a good thought, but what about this way of thinking:
This is a simulation of a battlefield. In reality it should be really messy.
I think that the system should take into account that the troops react to what everyone around them are doing. For example: if you want to take into account HOW the target moves whan shooting at it, I just feel that it is a good turn sequence to have the target make its move right before your shooting. That is why many games are divided into turns of one type or another. If one unit at the time moves, this becomes more complicated, and, when you think about it, could become less intuitive.

Don't think that you always move before you shoot. Think like this you move, you shoot, you move again, you shoot again (but of course, this is supposed to represent that you do it all at the same time, continously). Then we happen to say "new turn" now and again.

At least this is my argument to give everyone the opportunity to move before getting down to shooting.

Bringer of the red dawn
12-09-2008, 11:37
I actually have been working on an alternate rules set for 40k, and one of the things that i have put in is this method of movement.

Players roll for priority, roll a D12 and add the Command skill of your general (this is optional, i have about 5 new stats added in and all stats are from 0 to 20) Each Unit gets 2 actions, just like you suggested, however, this is how movement works

player one's units all get one action
player two's units get one action
resolve these movements and shots..
Player One's units get one action
player two's units get one action
resolve these movements and shots in the order they were declared.
Then resolve combats, all assualts declared in phase 1 are resolved first, then assualts in phase 2, each combat is in order of initiative other than that.

I have much more rules and changes than this, but ill save those for later, and yes a M value is included