Pros to non-alternating activation?

[jaxom]

I see alternating unit activation brought up a lot when people talk about what they want in “future of 40k” discussions. I’m curious if there’s a chilling a effect drowning out those who don’t want that. What are pros/benefits/reasons to like non-alternating activation?

[Aarik]

I have no first-hand experience with alternating activations, but it seems like it would have the potential to slow the game down with each player having to decide which unit to activate back-and-forth.

[Mandragola]

Alternating activations can take longer. Some systems help this by having a unit do it’s whole turn when activated, rather than having a separate movement, shooting, assault etc phase. In Titanicus you do alternate everything but you have a fairly low unit count, so it’s ok. 

[The Yncarne]

I’ve been enjoying OPR in large part to alternating activations. Keeps me engaged and thinking through the (much quicker) game rather than grabbing a beverage or thinking about what I might do if that unit survives my opponents turn. 

 

if 40k was streamlined I think I’d be more ok with full IGO UGO, but it isn’t and I think the constant adjustments to keep tabling to a minimum in the first turn just needlessly adds to the complexity. 

 

[Lexington]

Been a while since I played a real alt-activation game, but one sticking point is that IGOUGO systems tend to have fewer issues of forces having very different numbers of units/activations. For something like 40K, where you could have masses of Orks versus, like, four Knights, this can present a problem for alternating activations. Nothing insurmountable, but it does take some care, and can create some real weird in-game and meta-game incentives if not handled properly.

[Kastor Krieg]

58 minutes ago, Mandragola said:

Alternating activations can take longer. Some systems help this by having a unit do it’s whole turn when activated, rather than having a separate movement, shooting, assault etc phase. In Titanicus you do alternate everything but you have a fairly low unit count, so it’s ok. 

There's no need for that. Alternating can just as well be done like in Bolt Action [ https://warlordgames.com/downloads/pdf/bolt_action_reference.pdf ]:

 

I've actually played a homerule mix of 40k with Bolt Action rule structure (interactions were kept as 40k as possible, but turn / orders were kept as close to Bolt Action as possible). It was fast, fun and really liberating from the dreaded effect of "whoever goes first makes the other one wait and then play a greatly diminished army".

[tychobi]

One big drawback is in aesthetics of an army on the move. Can't charge in a cohesive wave with alt activation. The units are acting together in spirit but it is much harder to see it on the table. Bigger deal for rank n flank games but it still applies in 40k

[MARK0SIAN]

I think alternate activations works well at small model count games or when the game is a mirror match of sorts but not in 40K.

 

For me the main thing I like about the current system is I don’t have to plan my list thinking about how many activations I’ll get or worrying about gamey tactics to try and out activate my opponent by including loads of chaff. 
 

I also prefer the flow of just being able to move and fight with all my guys without having to pause after every single unit and wait for my opponent to do the same. 
 

At the scale of a lot of 40K games it would also be difficult to form a coherent plan when you have to enact it piecemeal and have every move then countered and have to adapt your plan after each activation. Doing it by turns at least let’s you execute some kind of overall strategy in a more cohesive way. 

Edited March 9, 2023 by MARK0SIAN

[Special Officer Doofy]

The only benefit I can think of is the game can be faster.

 

The model/unit count being different is less gamey in alternative activation. Doesn't matter if it's 4 knights vs 100 infantry. 1 knight goes, then 10 guys, then 1 knight, then 10 guys, then 1 knight, then 10 guys, 1 knight then the rest of the 70 infantry goes is still waaaaay less gamey then 4 knights go then the 100 infantry or if the 100 infantry go then the 4 knights go.

 

Not sure how Alt activation somehow makes that a meta-game incentive because of a different unit count. It does change the strategy but is far more fair then I go you go. I don't think 25% of army A going, then 10% of B, 25% of A, 10% of B, 25% of A, 10% of B, 25% of A and then 70% of B going is somehow worse or less fair then 100% of A going then 100% B going. There's a reason they changed scoring for who goes second because without it whoever goes second is at a major disadvantage in this game.

[Beaky Brigade]

The main issue with you go I go that gets mentioned a lot is shooting wiping out half your army in turn one before you get a chance to fire back.

Perhaps the Apocalypse system of removing casualties at the end of the shooting phase rather than when it occurs would mitigate this?

Edited March 9, 2023 by Beaky Brigade

[Lexington]

26 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Not sure how Alt activation somehow makes that a meta-game incentive because of a different unit count. It does change the strategy but is far more fair then I go you go. I don't think 25% of army A going, then 10% of B, 25% of A, 10% of B, 25% of A, 10% of B, 25% of A and then 70% of B going is somehow worse or less fair then 100% of A going then 100% B going.

 

Basically, it heavily incentivizes MSU play, and lets numerically superior armies easily outmaneuver smaller, elite ones by activating chaff units first before sending in the heavier things after the opponent is out of activations. There's ways to mitigate this inherent advantage - fr'ex I played a lot of VOR: The Maelstrom back in the late Jurassic Era (also known as the late 90's), and if you had twice as many activations as your opponent, your opponent would be forced activate two units for your one. Or you can introduce an Overwatch/Reaction mechanic, make activation a little more randomized (a'la Bolt Action/SW Legion/Starbreach), and so on and so on.

[Special Officer Doofy]

59 minutes ago, Lexington said:

 

Basically, it heavily incentivizes MSU play, and lets numerically superior armies easily outmaneuver smaller, elite ones by activating chaff units first before sending in the heavier things after the opponent is out of activations. There's ways to mitigate this inherent advantage - fr'ex I played a lot of VOR: The Maelstrom back in the late Jurassic Era (also known as the late 90's), and if you had twice as many activations as your opponent, your opponent would be forced activate two units for your one. Or you can introduce an Overwatch/Reaction mechanic, make activation a little more randomized (a'la Bolt Action/SW Legion/Starbreach), and so on and so on.

 

Yeah but how is that any different or less fair than my whole army going first and tabling half of my opponents army before they get their first movement?

[Cpt_Reaper]

1 hour ago, Beaky Brigade said:

The main issue with you go I go that gets mentioned a lot is shooting wiping out half your army in turn one before you get a chance to fire back.

Perhaps the Apocalypse system of removing casualties at the end of the shooting phase rather than when it occurs would mitigate this?

If I remember correctly, Apoc has a casualty phase. You could roll it into the morale phase, taking casualties then rolling morale on those that are left. That way you only add a step, and not a whole new phase because adding a whole new phase would be scary!

[2PlusEasy]

Most of the tabletop wargames on the market use alternating systems nowadays, and each does so in a slightly different way. Bolt Action and Star Wars Legion use a randomised activation system to keep the players on their toes, Frostgrave/Stargrave has an order of seniority that both players activate in, Onepagerules alternates units between players and all versions of Battletech also alternate to some extent. Even Necromunda is alternate activations these days.

 

The main strength of alternate activation systems is that it keeps both players focused on the game: both players have to pay attention to the actions of the other player and react to the faster changing circumstances. As a result, there can be seen as more investment and return in the game.

 

The downsides, as some have already mentioned already, are that alternate activation systems can take longer, particularly if there is decision paralysis or if the players over-analyse the game between activations. For others, a big downside of alternate activations is the lack of control over the game: some people just don't like to react constantly to changes, preferring a wider view and plan that IGO UGO allows. Alternate activations also require additional peripherals to keep track of which units have activated, increasing cost and visual aspects on the table: as much as I'd love to inherently trust my opponent or even myself from making mistakes (innocent or otherwise), you can't always. The big downside from personal experience is that an entire day of alternate activation games is quite a draining experience because of the mental investment.

 

Which leads to IGO UGO systems which 40k, Mantic's game lines and Infinity are the main headliners (Infinity at its heart is an IGO UGO system: it's unique ARO mechanic and comprehensive input from the other player makes it feel like an alternating activation game however.) The main strengths of IGO UGO systems as others have mentioned is that, if designed well, they are a fast and streamlined method of gameplay. Another significant strength is if you're the type that likes to make a plan and then stick to it with minimal disruption in your turn, then IGO UGO is more catering then alternating activations. The other significant advantage is that IGO UGO systems often require less focus, meaning that you're less mentally fragged at the end of the game in most cases (though there are exceptions to this, such as Infinity).

 

However, there is a bit of a misconception about IGO UGO systems: that they are all like 40k in how they play. This is far from the truth: 40k may have been the classic format of modern tabletop wargaming, but IGO UGO systems are as varied in their design philosophies as the alternate activation systems on the market.

 

Where 40k has tried to be a little more intuitive in including the second player in the active turn, Mantic's main game lines have gone the opposite direction: they take IGO UGO design to the extreme where there's little to no input at all the second player. Where this can (and is) seen as a big negative by many, Mantic's game systems are designed and balanced around this trait to good success. Even at large points values, Kings of War is FAST: the average turn per player at 2500 points was often completed in 10 minutes with experienced players. Units in Kings of War also don't diminish in effectiveness with casualties until their morale breaks: this small but significant design quirk keeps the second player in the game. Blood Bowl also shares this game design philosophy, and is universally praised.

 

Infinity on the other hand goes down the other extreme where it transforms the IGO UGO format into a collaborative experience between players. The ARO system means that one player spends their order and activates their miniature, the other player reacts to that activation, which the main player then chooses to respond to those reactions before resolving outcomes. The ARO system requires the active player to weigh up the risk of their actions versus the consequences because their models can be killed in their own turn: every dead model reduces your order pool in later turns and regular orders are your most precious resource in Infinity. This means that both players are heavily invested in every activation of the game despite being an IGO UGO system. Infinity's missions, deployment and ARO system are also intentionally designed to not always benefit the player with the first turn: something I'm glad that GW has adapted in the most recent 40k and AoS editions.

 

What the above demonstrates is that IGO UGO systems have as much variety in their game design philosophy as alternate activation systems and this results in very different tabletop experiences. Mantic's systems focus on a streamlined gameplay experience with fast turns that don't compromise the importance of decision-making. Blood Bowl does the same, but incorporates  more randomised risk. Infinity focuses on the discussion of intent and reaction to that intent between players while using your limited orders to achieve the mission's objectives. 40k instead sticks to it's classic format that all players in this hobby understand (because 95% of wargamers started with, know or have played Warhammer at some point), but as discussed in a different thread, 40k's game design and GW's attitude towards its game design and playtesting in place of chasing profits is a point of contention.

Edited March 10, 2023 by 2PlusEasy

[MegaVolt87]

I prefer I go you go because I get to flip the script on my opponents turn, while they can back me into a corner. Love the tension/ stakes. I have been more of a counter puncher in my playstyle, I like punishing opponents mistakes and setting up my next turns. Part of the reason why I liked old X- wing too. 

[Valkyrion]

what about something like this;

the player turn is split into 3 phases - movement (including charges), shooting, assault.

player one selects any one of those phases and completes it then player two does the same. Once each player has completed all three phases the turn ends.

Players could do the phases in any order but completes the phase with the entire army - so if you select Movement and then decide not to move a unit, you can't then go back and move it in your Shooting phase.

 

So an example turn would be;

Player One - Shooting phase

Player Two - Movement phase

P1 - Assault phase

P2 - Assault phase

P1 - Movement phase

P2 - Shooting phase

End of turn 1.

 

I'm not talking about doing this with the current ruleset, but could such a system work at the scale current 40k is at?

[Rik Lightstar]

From having played a lot of Star Wars Legion recently both at tournaments and casual games with friends I can say that Alternating Activations don't slow a game down in either format.

 

The Standard Tournament size for games is around nine to eleven "units" in a force with some outliers in both directions, this isn't hugely dissimilar to 40k in terms of the number of things that are being used. The model count tends to be a bit lower than 40k, but really that has more of a visual impact than anything else.

 

I've not experienced any occasions where units have "double activated" because the orders system is managed through counters that are easy to track visually and don't get confused with any other game pieces.

 

Rik

[Lexington]

12 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Yeah but how is that any different or less fair than my whole army going first and tabling half of my opponents army before they get their first movement?

This isn’t an inherent trait of IGOUGO, it’s an effect of GW’s poor design choices and tendency to constantly escalate power to absurd levels.

[MARK0SIAN]

13 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Yeah but how is that any different or less fair than my whole army going first and tabling half of my opponents army before they get their first movement?

As Lexington says that’s largely a result of poor design from GW and the constant power creep rather than anything inherent in the IGOUGO system. In 30K I still generally have most of my army intact by my turn if I’m going second which shows what can be done when there’s a bit of restraint from the designers.

 

The other way it’s different is that, whilst having the first turn is an advantage in IGOUGO, a player should only get it 50% of the time. Whereas in an alternate activation system the low model count army will always be at a disadvantage against armies that can out activate them. In IGOUGO the Knight player gets to Alpha strike sometimes. In AA games the Knight player will (almost) always have less activations. 

[Valkyrion]

I haven't played 40k for the last 18 months or so but I didn't really notice an Alpha Strike issue, so much as it being blindingly obvious who was going to win by the end of turn 2. 

 

Apart from a Fury of the Ancient list I've not had any overly one-sided games of HH2.0, and not experienced any real Alpha Strike to speak off. I think there's even a mission that encourages an alpha strike, but unless you really lean into it I've found it difficult to arrange. I've lost three out of the last 4 first turns due to freakish Seize rolls, but even so - reserves can't come on, Infiltrators and Scouts are prohibited, your average assault transport is only moving 12", there's reactions - I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's not been something that has stood out as being a design flaw, so the IGOUGO system can work as evidenced by GW's own game. 

[Doghouse]

I prefer alternating units but I think at this point the "you go I go" system is pretty much almost a recognisable brand thing for the big three GW systems. I think it's part of the game's identity.

[jaxom]

Thank you all for the great, thoughtful comments! I don't have time at the moment to get through them all, but I wanted to say thank you

[Noserenda]

Its a different speed of game, alternating turns works faster and lets you (generally) smoothly work through your units efficiently without much in the way of complex decisions on the spot unless you have extreme luck kick in. You also have built in breaks when you can either be just observing opponents moves or reacting with save rolls etc and can rest the brain a bit or plan your next turn in some depth. I think its generally more relaxed in general. 

Alternating units is slower overall but you are more frequently engaged as you are swapping back and forth between active roles, which means a lot more unpredictability and change and a bit more thought on your order of operations, activating a specific unit now rather than later becomes relevant, especially in randomly alternating activation games where your opponent might get a few goes in a row and these things are magnified. Its generally a lot more engaging but tiring mentally (and possibly physically if you have to keep moving around the table in some places!  :P ) 

They both work to different people and different scales, i think personal preference plays an enormous part in this as well as how and what people play! 

[Mandragola]

On 3/10/2023 at 1:51 PM, MARK0SIAN said:

As Lexington says that’s largely a result of poor design from GW and the constant power creep rather than anything inherent in the IGOUGO system. In 30K I still generally have most of my army intact by my turn if I’m going second which shows what can be done when there’s a bit of restraint from the designers.

 

The other way it’s different is that, whilst having the first turn is an advantage in IGOUGO, a player should only get it 50% of the time. Whereas in an alternate activation system the low model count army will always be at a disadvantage against armies that can out activate them. In IGOUGO the Knight player gets to Alpha strike sometimes. In AA games the Knight player will (almost) always have less activations. 

A low model-count army isn't always at a disadvantage in alternating activation systems. It very much depends on the system.

 

I play a lot of Titanicus, often using big expensive warlord titans without too many activations. This is a disadvantage in the movement phase because my opponent can move stuff after me, arc dodge and so on. But it's an advantage in the shooting phase, because I can fire all my engines before my opponent and sometimes kill their stuff before it fires.

 

In Bolt Action you get a dice for each unit and put them in a bag. The person with the most dice in the bag is likely to get to activate the first unit, but on average you'll tend to work through the units in both armies at roughly the same speed. There are still advantages to having more activations (particularly with how pinning works in BA) but it's not totally simple.

 

In x-wing you activate units in initiative order, with better pilots getting to move later and fire first. So it actually doesn't matter how many ships each side has for this purpose.

 

Chain of Command uses a system of phases and turns that's seriously complex to explain but plays pretty easily. Basically though you roll dice each turn to see what sort of stuff you can do, and typically don't get to activate all your units.

 

So actually, not that many games use "simple" alternating activations where you simply activate one unit after another. Many (non-GW) games come up with much more complex systems to try and better create a sense of the type of combat they're representing.

On 3/10/2023 at 2:40 PM, Doghouse said:

I prefer alternating units but I think at this point the "you go I go" system is pretty much almost a recognisable brand thing for the big three GW systems. I think it's part of the game's identity.

Interesting point, which I've heard before. I'm not sure it really stacks up though. All GW's games used to be IGOUGO but over time things like necromunda and kill team have switched. 40k could, too. Would it still be 40k? I think if there were still space marines, chainswords, orks and chaos then yes, it would be 40k.