Activations and 40k -- not the end of the world, but the beginning?

in light of the woefully empty article about why alternating activation would be "the end" for 40k, i wanted to pitch three ways to address the problem that actually had reason and analysis and option, instead of a xenophobic insistence that change is always for the worst.

nobody started playing 40k because they liked IGOUGO. some did start because they lived playing certain armies, or certain ways -- i own a Vostroyan Armored Company, for instance, but i don't claim that the 8th edition changes to vehicle rules has "ruined the game" -- our players are pretty malleable. that said, sometimes certain changes *are* in fact enough to drive people away. the resistance to Age of Sigmar's skirmish style getting rid of rank-and-file was certainly jarring to some. Even still, much of the draw was the same, and the appeal different enough to scoop some lost fans and new players, so the new game was able to continue as a semi-successor.

IGOUGO is not critical to the experience of playing 40k. if anything, it is less critical to the definition of the game than vehicle rules, than the inclusion of a psychic phase, than the hyping-up and then subsequent gutting of cover mechanics, than rank-and-file (to WHF) -- and these are all changes that GW has made boldly and praised. IGOUGO is a mechanic kept out of momentum -- or the lack thereof. Until a better system is playtested and tried, by GW designers (who already have enough on their plates), it is an issue that just won't be addressed.

Meaning that players are left to their own devices to futz with it, try new things in the name of curiosity, and see what they like. it won't have any real effect on the "official" rules, nor will it make a dent in the tournament scene, but it is definitely something that narrative players can mess with to add different effects to their games, leagues, and campaigns. thus, it's worth putting some time into batting around ideas, and maybe if an idea is found that works, there can be a definite and informed suggestion passed on toward GW's design team... but that's unlikely. realistically, this is just a vanity project, and a way to have some fun by running a game differently so as to mix it up when all-alphastrike armies get boring.

There are four ways that we could, in fact, get rid of that mechanic, and add to the game.

***

SOLUTION #1: no turns

there are a few ways to utilize a turnless system. one way would harken back to the LotR system -- have one "movement phase" where both players moved, then one "shooting phase" in which all units used ranged abilities. I hear that Battletech has had luck with theirs. Really, it does make sense that everything happening on the battlefield during one turn happens more or less immediately -- nobody is pausing to wait for another unit to go before they do, at least to the extent of what it looks like in 40k. Then again, there are reasons why certain units go after others -- 1 clears the way for 2 to get into position, for instance.

my proposed system would look as follows...
1. keep the move-shoot-fight style
2. player one moves. then player two moves. player 2 would be considered to have the advantage, as their moves are based on reaction instead of blind action. Therefore, at the start of the round, it would be a roll-off: General's initiative plus a D6. lowest total goes first.
3. all shooting happens at once. in other words, go through player one's shooting and mark off (tokens next to the unit) how many are lost. then player 2 shoots, and marks off how many are lost. then, after all shooting is complete, remove all killed models and take break tests.
4. in the "fight" phase, go by straight initiative. in the event of a tie, all initiative steps are declared at once. again, tokens next to the units are fine. after all are declared, any needed rolls are made (distances etc), and units move.

and if a unit charges another unit, but is in turn charged by another, it might require a roll-off (again general's initiative) as to who gives the command first and reacts first. if unit Red A declares a charge against unit Blue B, but Blue B declares a charge against Red C... and Blue B wins the rolloff... but Blue B does not roll a high enough charge distance to enter into range... then Red A would in fact successfully charge as if Blue B did not move. this means that preparing contingency charges becomes a potential thing, and "plan b" tactics are now a consideration.

after that, each individual combat would be handled as now, with initiative steps counting down and casualties being removed by initiative steps, with simultaneous steps being a thing.

theoretical verdict: this is potentially even more streamlined than the current system, it gets rid of alphastrike issues, and it isn't terribly hard to adapt to. it also offers some tactical considerations about when to charge and how to react to shooting. target priority is still a thing, and death counts will still run high, but it will play effectively like the game dones now with some minor tweaks. also, the real changes come from mechanics that use a simple number-plus-dieroll, meaning that the increase in play time is negligible. this is what i feel GW would probably do, even if it's not my favorite... it is definitely simple. one die roll determines a minor advantage, and then everything plays out more or less equally. it would certainly be more brutal, with no removal of shooters in turn one.

i would certainly entertain the idea that an old friend suggested to me... wherein the game adds another minor qualifier. add a restriction on shooting or charging in turn one. make the first turn entirely about movement. maybe even add a bonus to shooting if a unit does nothing that round -- taking aim, being at the ready, etc.

overall, this is the simplest way, the easiest to understand, still true to core mechanics, removes the most problems, and still keeps the game fun. it doesn't play up certain ideas, nor does it really change the game all too much. personally, i think this way would be more fun than IGOUGO for a lot of reasons... but it definitely swings some of the balance back toward shooting, given that it comes before melee and given that everyone has the opportunity (not just models left over after an alphastrike).

***

SOLUTION #2:

tactical activations, my favorite system on this list.

you know that Leader, that general, right? that general needs one more number to make this work. their "command score" -- which can be a part of their battlefield role, part of their points cost, and part of their fluff abilities. a Company Commander, for instance, will be more adept at giving tactical orders than a Librarian. give them a score from 0-5 that reflects the tactical flexibility and acument of the General.

first turn, roll a die. highest places the first unit. if a tie, roll again. players alternate until all units are placed. the first one to place their last unit (including putting them in reserve) gets a +1.

then, roll 2 dice for a leadership test. add the +1 for first placement, a -1 for each formation used after the first, and the command score. then compare to the opponent's score. the winner activates the first unit. they actually get the same number of activations to use as they won the test by. so i have a CS of 2, one formation, finished placing first, and rolled a 9... so a 12. my opponent had a CS of 1 and rolled a 7... for an 8. i get four activations to start with.

i go through the normal move-shoot-fight. with each unit as i activate them. i could also use stratagems or special abilities to multi-activate -- for instance, combat squads count as one activation for both halves.

first turn finished with all units activated gets the +1 next time, to show that a tight and uniformly functional army is easier to command.

changes to the Command Score would be a minor balancing tool for a given army -- pluses or minuses for the current meta-strength of that army and/or that build or unit.

functionally, it adds one die roll and one bit of basic arithmetic to the the game per round. the math can be mitigated a bit by writing the CS at the top of the army list, and only needing to adjust by one after deployment/turn and roll off once. strategy-wise, multiple activations give units the ability to back each other up, while not all moving uniformly. reactions to an opponent's unanticipated moves can be done, while strategies like a limited alphastrike are not neutered but are definitely reduced. there are also opportunities for a non-alphastrike army to go 90% first, for those first-turn-all-out moves, for full alternating activation... it's different each time and takes some understanding of what a unit does to understand when is better to activate that unit.

Smaller forces would be easier to control by one HQ. better commanders would be more able to sync up movements and actions. allowing units to go last, or having determination for when someone can activate a unit, end up being more tactically relevant -- there would be an importance to deciding when to use a resource (unit) and when to conserve them. this reflects some actual mechanics of directing multiple units. also, the command score could be used as a way (however slight) to balance armies' abilities. one more unit going first might not mean much, but it could determine the flow of the round.

Finally, there's something to be said for the next step: including stratagems or abilities that allow one unit to activate another during their turn. thus, a unit if sniper scouts shooting at a unit might activate a support unit who in turn must target that same unit... or a unit of Pathfinders might activate a unit of Fire Warriors (but restrict them to shooting only). this would allow later-turn chain actions that themselves would be useful, and more in tune with why IGOUGO works -- that these units all act as a unified group, and some actions require other units to complete. a support unit that causes a negative effect does so because the follow-up striker unit benefits from that ability -- and the follow-up unit getting targeted and destroyed before they have a chance to use their advantage defeats the entire purpose of combined unit tactics.

***

SOLUTION #3:

full initiative, every round

this one is a bit of a doozy, and my least favorite. it's similar to #1, but everything is determined by initiative.

everything.

so... it is move time. lowest initiative moves first. go through all units. in the event of a tied init (likely), then the character who did not most recently go gets to go, and it's a one-for-one alternating move. thus...

Move phase:
Init 1+2 goes
Init 3 races goe
Astartes, MEQ, etc go
Space Marine Heroes go
Eldari go
special extra thingies go.

then, for shooting and assault...

Init 7+ (specials)
Init 6 (eldari)
Init 5 (SM heroes)
Init 4 (SM/MEQ)
Init 3 (nearly everyone else)

this makes boring games if the meta is dominated by Astartes. it also makes Eldar Alphastrike virtually guaranteed, and SM alphastroke guaranteed vs Orks, Tau, and Guard. it also creates interesting problems with characters advancing before their units, meaning that movement has to be a plan and is not unified. there are problems with losing your bubbles, if we are now in fact by design playing bubblehammer. even one round of an HQ moving without the rest of the army seems odd.

it does mean that higher init is useful -- and funny enough it's useful in the shooting phase. Eldari shooting would take away SM models before they could shoot, and Astartes would be able to affect most lower-init hordes with rate of fire reducing the retaliation. personally, i'd want to complicate it and make all Assault weapons +1 init so they'd be faster and go first... and all heavy weapons -2 init to show their unwieldiness. meaning that your Heavy Bolters would be good at killing enemy chaff, but not before they got to do something. but that would also slow up the game's speed, figuring out who shoots and when. that would be better left to a skirmish game on the individual model scale.

it does alternate... but it creates problems rather than removes them. this, in fact, would be the definition of "ruining the game"

the only alternative would be for there to be bonuses or drawbacks to init, and then it's a numbers-keeping game like 8th was trying to get rid of. in that case... it might be that finishing deployment first gives all your units +1 init this round, having fewer detachments gives everything in your warlord's detachment +1 init, holding an objective gives that unit +1 init, having beaten an enemy in close combat gives that unit +1 init, being in cover gives -1, difficult terrain -2, and dangerous terrain -3.

but then you have to keep the total every round, and that's going to bog down the game like crazy. meaning that the big choice that 8th took a side on has to be made again -- do you want thoroughness and accurate complexity, or do you want ease of play? it could be done easily... on each army list have a space to write down that turn's init, and figure it out at the end of each round, taking a minute. it wouldn't be too burdensome... but it would be an extra step. it'd add 5-10 minutes to a game, and that was the whole point of cutting certain rules. it's a hard sell.

***

Solution #4:

burn it to the ground and just play Bolt Action. they've actually put time and playtesting into trying to come up with a new idea... that's probably better than you will get out of GW at this point, even with their supposed new leaf turned over. it's sad but true - -they seem to have chosen some specific changes to make, almost like they had another game in mind, and are changing 40k and WHF to fit their model instead of adapting the game organically into its next logical step. things like insisting that the datasheet/warscroll needs to be in a specific format, and the keywords, and the like, all imply a change of vision in a directed avenue.

This is not necessarily better or worse for the players, depending on utilization... but it is definitely not looking to make the game rules the best they can be.

**

seriously, though, i encourage everyone to come up with their own mechanics. one of my main annoyances with GW's corporate isolationism over the last decade-plus is that they ignore and squander what so many businesses would kill for -- a loyal fanbase, a captive audience, and a pool of people who would test product for free. if they set up a system to support clubs, and in exchange used said clubs as playtesters occasionally, they could easily have a far superior system.

now... imagine putting one of these into effect in a campaign idea. cite "fog of war" or disrupted communications, maybe a weird time-dilating singularity is affecting the planet's surface. i'm betting the curveball of the mission will probably be an interesting change to play style. it doesn't need to work the best all the time, just as long as the change makes your players on edge once in a while.

I'm not completely convinced that getting rid of IGOUGO is the future of the game. i'm not convinced that GW will ever get experimental enough to find a better system that works, or will invest the necessary time and resources into testing until they fine-tune a system that really shows off what they want. therefore, i think that players should start experimenting with some of the inherent mechanics, and maybe we'll see some of the effect in the way the game unfolds over time...