General Quarters (ww1/ww2 naval) had one of the best turn sequences ive seen. Player A does half his movement > Player B does ALL his movement > Player A completes his movement > Player A fires > Player B fires > all damage is applied > roll for damage repair/flooding/repairs Made for a turn that mitigated one player seeing all one players moves before deciding what to do and removed first shot advantage unless you engaged where the enemy COULDN'T return fire EDIT it made the turn feel "in real time"
That does sound really good. I am trying to work on a system to emulate "real time" and had a similar idea. Working out simultaneous movement is the hardest for me. It's easier to work out simultaneous shooting (just resolve after both have shot) and simultaneous "melee" (older 40K already had this, with Initiative breaking a tie), but movement is trickier.
@@andrewbakescakes9684 Either initiative-based systems (like X-Wing, Battletech/Mechwarrior*, or Runewars) or planned movement mechanics (commonly found in naval games, where you plan each ship’s movement and resolve them simultaneously) are excellent for creating a “real-time” feeling. Another approach would involve a 'bidding' mechanic, where players use activation cards to determine both the number of actions they can take and who goes first (like in Star Wars Legion or V for Victory). Typically, choosing to do more actions means you’ll act second. *I particularly enjoy the video game system in Battletech, where the fastest mechs/Pilot can either move first or pass to a lower initiative (and continue passing at each initiative step/value). This lets them secure an advantageous position early or move last to react to others’ movements. Shooting, happens simultaneously - iirc from top of my head slowest mechs/pilots choose their targets first.
One Page Rules uses alternate activations and seems to work well. When you mentioned floods of throw away units to keep your main unit safe it reminded me of the old Star War miniatures game.
If only half these people who left comments watched the video all the way through they’d understand that you’re not saying alternate activations suck and are all terrible and bad all the time. Very clear that people aren’t capable of having an opinion that’s different and able to have a good conversation about it. As you say, there’s good and bad things about both styles and I’ve found both to be fun for what they are. I don’t agree with everything you said but that’s the beauty of the hobby, absolutely nobody can have an opinion that everyone can agree with here. All we can do is pick the things we like and stick with them. Thank you for the video!
Never played LOTR, but that does sound cool. I also like the simultaneous removal of casualties of Apocalypse. I think, across all these systems, there are some cool possibilities for combining the most fun and fair ideas into something new and wonderful.
The nice thing about the game letting your opponent do all his own stuff at once is I get to go to the bathroom without interrupting the game lol There are some players I wouldn't do this with. And yeah, if he's going to cheat while I'm in the bathroom, then congrats I guess? Winning at life? What's tough is doing that at tournaments, especially with chess clocks involved.
@@GreySectoid They're quite different. Bolt action has dice for each player put into a bag and mixed up, and each turn a die is pulled from the bag to see who's turn it is next. In Warmaster, it's "I-GO-U-GO" but with the twist that you need to pass leadership checks to maneuver your units, meaning there's a big element of planning and setting yourself up for risky gambits and sweeping moves (it can also be a bit frustrating though).
We used to play a freeform game with any toys we could find battling all over the room. It was alternate activation, each player took turns. The other players could make reactive moves for each move that the others made, but they couldn't stop any action, only add other actions of their own. Good times.
Love this topic! I tired One Page Rules a couple times and I REALLY disliked the alternate activations mechanic. Coming from AoS and WFB, I was missing the ability to set up my army in cool combo movements, shooting, and charging. I understand the frustration of AoS's double turn and I think it was a big problem in prior editions, but I really like where they took 4th editions with their command abilities. So much utility options that keep me focused through an entire game, even while it is my opponent's turn. I want more of this kind of content!
im really not a fan of alternate activation for mass battle games on the scale of 40k, and specifically horus heresy which is the main GW game system i play. for skirmish games i think alternate activation is fine but when playing full battle games about the only interruption to my turn i can stand is when the enemy fights back in combat.
One hundred percent. Alternating activations only really work in small scale games like skirmish games but once you get to larger scale games it becomes ineffective. Honestly people who complain about waiting their turn are not doing what they are supposed to. It's during your opponents turn that you plan ahead for your turn, you watch what they are doing, anticipate what will happen and then make your own plan. 40k with alternating activations would give people migraines.
alternate activations seemed amazing until my buddy crushed me in One Page Rules using cheap throw away units combined with one or two giant hammer damage dealers. Who goes first and who goes last in those games is super important.
Loving these videos. This one sent me looking back at the videos you and Dave made showing how to play 40k and where to start with 40k from 13 years ago. While the game has changed a little, I’d love to see an updated version of the “where to start” video and maybe a video like that for a bunch of different games?
I have played one page rules and it does have an alternate activation system with the exception that when you fight the other squad fights as well with some minor limitations. This being said there is always going to be a need for "useless" unit in either 40k or alternating activation. In 40K/AoS they screen your units from charges or deep strike, while in OPR they force your opponent to activate units they may not want to activate yet. The advantage of alternative activations has over I go/you go is that your army can never be alpha striked. If there was ever a feel bad moment, its lossing the game before it started.
Alternate Activation allows for "being last striked". After the opponent finishes activating everything you can still have your elite stuff or 30 ish percent of your army to go and do a lot of damage. Some games like kill team tries to tackle this by giving you some worse activation if you finished doing your stuff, but I find this being a "pata fix".
With the exception of some poorly priced/costed things like V2 dakka stuarts in Bolt Action, the randomness of dice pulls helps force anti-competitive play, which is better IMHO. You brought up increasing your odds by having more cheap units, which is fair, except it turns the odds of going first with a single unit (more on snap-to) into 60/40 ish instead of 50/50. Not much of a negative IMHO, especially when compared to the abomination that is the AoS double-turn
Alternating activations has been the best way that I have played so far, with a big asterisk, it has to have something like opr's force organization rules that already limits the number of units you can field. For tokens, yes they were a problem, what we did for the North Carolina OPR group is 3d printed small trays that hold six 12mm cubes/dice. These serve for tracking wounds, activations, spell points and we made 12mm status cubes that fit it. That way they easily travel with the unit and don't break immersion too much since it is all compact. Any new member we just give some trays and cubes as a goody bag since they are dirt cheap to print.
Very interesting video Matt! Warcry (being my fav GW game) has actually added reactions and upped the pts value of 'chaff' to discourage the playstyle you've described so in a way it's also moved away from standard Alt Activations.
I really love Star Wars: Legion, and have tried to steal their alternate activation system for other things. The only thing is that it's not truly alternating activations, like you said. You have a pile of command tokens that correspond to the different types of units you can have, leader, operative, heavy, corps, and support. You can also assign command tokens to units by using order cards, and then you can fully control when that unit is activated. However, once one player runs out of tokens, the other player has full run of the place. Also, there are reactions, so you can put your units in overwatch if you know your opponent needs to activate something else to enter your range, or if you're outnumbered. But it has so many different layers to figuring out who goes first, how many command tokens they can place pre-emptively, and how much stuff each of their units gets to do.
6:18 This is exactly like the Death Korps of Krieg/Veteran Guard Kill Team. You start with 10 units, but you can also get 4 extra troopers, totaling 14 units, while the other factions get exactly 6-10 models.
The game system isnt accessible at all. Im speaking as someone who is new to playing 40K (liked the lore for years, but now getting into the game). Having to buy a core rules book, then an army rules book, then possibly (as in my case) a THIRD rules book for my faction is absurd. Especially when the actual book will be obselete in a couple months because GW has no idea how to actually balance anything. On top of that, the rules themselves arent even approachable. Honestly, after really wanting to do 40K, ill stick to OPR with 40K models.
@@TarnaxTheBarbarianit isnt intuitive because I doubt you've even played it. You have to understand the turn structure before you can even understand all the rules interactions. You don't need any books, just use wahapedia friend
I think this is not a test took inspiration for the activation concept from the crossfire initiative system. If you don’t know it I recommend you look into crossfire, I reckon is a quite remarkable wargaming ruleset. About your question, Relicblade from Metalking studio is pure alternate activation. The only thing you can do in the opponent turn is to spend dodge tokens to try to limit damage. A couple special skills allow to move spending dodge tokens to move in the opponent turn or reposte to an attack but are very limited and marginal (this makes them really special). Some models can activate together with a companion. The game works well and it is good fun. It is a kitchen table skirmish played with 3-5 models normally, if you start spamming I am sure you can ruin the fun. I like it because it is simple, the art and the lore are crisp and it is very narrative driven.
Board games often also have chit-pull as a system. Each unit has a token (or potentially more) and you draw a token out of a bag, and whatever unit it is, you move that unit. Memoir `44 is actually alternate activation, but you use cards from your hand to determine which units you can order.
There's quite a bit of food for thought there, i like what Battletech did, which cleans up a lot of the 1-sided issues that always arise. Im going to have to watch this again and take notes. Thanks for the ideas.
That was a great video. I enjoyed your perspective and comparisons across game systems. I've played a bunch of the games mentioned and feel each system has its place. While a game could be "improved" with a change to activation order, it ceases to be the same game. I love infinity for the order/ARO system keeping both players involved, alternative activations in necromunda and battletech add to the fun, but the double turn idea of age of sigmar is one of its big factors. 40k was my first game, and alternative actions never made me like the game any less. In all these games, the thing that has made them fun or not fun to play for me has been the attitude of other players - are they playing to exploit gaps in the rules to win, or playing for the cinematic narrative feel of the games. Looking forward to your next video
I play 40k 4th edition core rules (with 3rd edition codexes) with alternating activations added in, players roll off and then alternate between units which get to do their full set of actions, it maybe skews game balance towards fast melee units but I would say that 3rd/4th were already a bit skewed that way anyways (I might consider using a MESBG style activation system too)
Kill Team, OnePageRules, and SW Legion handle alternate activations really well with just a few tweaks to the baseline scheme. The Group Activation mechanic in KT and OPR GFF helps rein in chaff units, and passes in Legion help nerf mass activation. For activations schemes, it's a lot easier to make AA fun than IGYG. Last-first is a feature, not a bug. It's something you can plan around to mitigate, and if initiative is random, it's not guaranteed.
Alternate unit activations whilst being able to interrupt your opponents plan is by far the most fun way to play a tabletop wargame. It feels far more like a real-time event, which makes it far more dynamic. The worst system is what GW has for the main games. Most people don't even play GW's rules, and they buy into the models hoping that the rules will be 'fixed'.
i think what you said about most people not playing GW's rules is a sweeping generalization that may be based off your experience but i dont think comes anywhere close to being true.
I wonder how good alternating activations work if there is a big disparity between unit numbers. Like custodes and knights could have 7 units total while i saw guardslists that had as much infantry. And then additional as many tanks. If a force is outnumbered 2-3 to one than alternate activation seems worse than i go you go.
I think Marvel Crisis Protocol counts, you take it in turns picking a hero to use back and forth, your enemy can make deffence rolls and very rarely some may be able to fight back with super powers but its not every model and its my favourite game by far :)
Both of my favourite games, Song of Ice and Fire TMG and Legions Imperialis work this way and even though what you say about actuvation spam is true, I find these games far more engaging than doing nothing for your opponents 20 minute movement phase
And it works in those systems because the designers can predict approximately how many units each side will field and how those forces will interact. However, in 'free-form' alternate activation games, players often exploit the system by taking a lot of cheap units to burn through the opponent's activations, while reserving a few elite units to act more effectively later in the turn.
@ Kill team touched on this in previous edition by having GA (Group activation) where weaker operatives would have to activate together. Id love to see how this could scale to 40k, weak troop units could have GA3 so you have to activate 3 units at once.
Hey Matthew! Great video! I can't think of a miniatures game that is alternate activations with no exceptions or a game mechanic that allows a player to activate more miniatures in a row or react to the other player's actions. Wow! If you get the chance, check out Rackham's AT-43 activation "systems". The game has several alternatives when it comes to miniatures or unit activations that I think you would like. All of them use cards. Each unit included a couple of cards, you could use them as a reference card (all of the unit stats printed on the front) but you also used those cards to shuffle them up as an activation deck. The standard activation system allowed each player to lined up their activation deck face down. You reveal the top card when your turns comes and you have to activate that unit. BUT you could spend "command tokens" to send that card to the bottom of the deck or to place it "on hold" instead of activating a unit that turn (you could only do that once). An alternative activation system was a lot more random and crazy... All the players shared a common activation deck. The cards were all shuffled together and the common deck was passed along, the player in turn revealed the top card. If the card revealed was yours, you could put it aside and activate that unit later instead of activating the unit right away (paying the usual command tokens). If the card revealed was an enemy unit, you give the card to the owner and that player was forced to activate that unit without the option of setting it aside. It was a fun and exciting game mechanic, specially when you had more than two players or several factions in play. Thanks for doing these videos Matt! Love them!
Matt,you are just playing at semantics. My friends and I have adapted alternate activations and the order system from Legions Imperialis to 40k. It makes the game extremely better! As far as your example as an Elite army vs a balanced army isn't it the fault of the player bringing an elite list rather than a balanced list in that scenario?! The fact that you avoid alpha strikes and actually USE your models before they get blown off the table is a huge advantage in alternate activations. You can state that these games are not "true" or "pure" alternate activations,but the idea of it with reactions is solid .
I think it depends. In a melee game like Warcry, if you move your mid-units up the board first, while I activated scrub units but have leftover activations for tougher stuff, I can move my units into yours and you have no recourse. Whereas in shooting skirmish games, if I have elite units and you don't, then every one of my activations is more valuable that every one of yours, so I can do more damage with my turns then you. Yes, you would have a string of activations at the end, but you won't get your full count because your stuff will be dead.
Mantic's Deadzone. You can pass if your opponent has more activations and also have a double turn with command dice. No system is prefect but I-go u-go feels less good now we have seen some great alternatives. For example, Iron Cross / 7 Days to the River Rhine have really fun activation / reaction system.
My gaming group has switched from 40k to OPR purely because the alternative activations are more engaging and fun. Would it be possible to game the system? Probably, but we're playing narratively and so that problem hasn't arisen.
One of the biggest issues with I-go-you-go games is the possibility of an alpha strike doing so much damage that the players that goes second is at a significant disadvantage. In tourneys, this is usually mitigated by having sufficient and specific terrain that breaks up line of sight. However, if you wanted to run a 40K version of the North African campaign, you'd have some problems. As you pointed out, one of the biggest issues with alternating activations is the possibility of an activation advantage, where one player can burn activations until their opponent runs out. Epic Armageddon had that issue when the Seigemasters of Baran list was released in the Swordwind supplement. You pointed out most of the ways the games designers have come up with to mitigate the issue, which are used in Apocalypse (based heavily on Epic Armageddon), Kill Team, and others. Of the two options, I prefer games with alternating activations, as the methods of 'fixing' the issues with such a system don't tend to limit game play as much as the methods used to 'fix' the issues with I-go-you-go games.
Loving these mechanics discussion videos! Keep them coming! Also, IMO, RuneWars Miniatures (RIP) had the most interesting activation system. Different movement choices had different initiative values.
When i was learning warhammer, I go you go was the most confusing part, i re-read the rules like a hundred times, i was conviced it was alternating phases, because the alternative made no sense
I think the closest to unadulterated Alternate Activations is very literally a game you just covered on MiniWarGaming. Warcaster has a pretty strict activation structure. There are some modifiers, but it is, by and by a strict Player 1[card, 1 solo, 1 other, card] then Player 2[same] for 3 sets of 3.
How about alternate activations, but if a unit that hasn't been activated is destroyed it has to be activated one last time and then removed from the game?
All coming to "how often do I get interactions" and the more often is better :P There's alternate activations in Legions Imperialis in a LotR style - players alternate moves, then alternate first fire, then alternate advanced fire. There's ocasional overwatch. The game is very bloody - choosing which group to activate is to choose who is gonna shoot before it's shoot down.
Haven't played LI yet, but it looked really good. The battles appear to be more lore-authentic, because stuff dies so fast, but you also can't be alpha-striked like in 40K.
It's the ONLY way to play games now. That's why so many people/systems have moved over. GW is still ancient and doesn't get how to make a good rules system.
Where would you put Trench Crusade? Seems pretty Alternative, although you can push for activation advantage, but there's even something baked in to balance that.
De Bellus Antiquates is a IGO-UGO game, melee and shooter vs Shooter combats are opposed rolls. But one player takes their turn then to opposite player. I enjoy the vast array of historical opponents to pick from.
Forget about "true" alternating activations. Why do you even need that term? Almost all variations of alternating activations are superior to Igo-Ugo. They make the game so much more interactive and interesting. My personal favorite is Epic Armageddon. Which is not true alternating, since you have the option of attempting two activations in a row, but there are costs associated with it.
I love Infinity’s system, but the issue of cheerleaders (having models just to generate orders for use on the elite models) and the amount of time a turn takes (along with determining LOS for all models every time an action is taken are two issues that I’ve heard a lot of comments on. It’s kinda weird to have a bunch of models that aren’t doing anything for most of the game (generally just hiding to protect orders while the more powerful or more elite units are the ones moving in the game. In addition, Infinity does have issues where the active player can be at a disadvantage during their turn due to the type of unit with LOS (Snipers with B1 weapons being the key example of this - being one roll per shot already means they don’t have any major disadvantage to firing on an ARO) can actually do more damage in reaction than on their action. And attrition is rough due to the loss of actions each time a model dies. Don’t get me wrong - I love the game. The reactive style of play keeps everyone in the game, but three turns for a full game is a tad rough strategically (though any more turns and the game would be too long time-wise - it’s the curse of AROs). The miniatures are fantastic, but not many stores stock it (at least in my locale), which also means not many people play it. And it still has a bit of the same issue that WFB players (primarily, but I’ve heard it from 40k players too), where you have to buy and paint minis that mostly act as tokens. Oh, and the LT rules don’t really give much benefit to the LT (one extra action per turn but major downsides if they’re killed), to the point that often a grunt is the LT despite the elites in the force, and they tend to hide and not really use the LT action. Doesn’t really seem to make sense for a Warlord to be a nothing unit that just hides all game. I’m looking forward to seeing N5 though to see what changes they’re planning. Thanks for the video - I enjoyed the analysis of many of the games I’ve heard of or played out there!
Interesting. I hadnt really thought about that because im not a seasoned player. Im really new tbh. Still, i think it feels like a balance thing, trying to avoid or reduce the advantage of the one that goes first. I also think that the mechanics are determined by the “feel” you’re looking for.
Another interesting insite into game rules creation. I appreciate this more to get a glimpse into the thought process, especially towards Ravaged Star, since I am awaiting some Gorkog...
What you describe as an issue doesn't sound like an issue. Your opponent wastes his activations on cheap weak units while your whole army gets to activate and act with all your best units. The player with a small number of units gets something closer to an IGoUGo turn.
I wish there was an X-wing system for a wargame, your leadership/ command stat of the "leaders" in your units determine when you activate in initiative order.
Alternate Activations usually go hand in hand with other mechanisms like overwatch, interrupting, action points, (infinity, Urban War) or beforehand selecting which units are going (confrontation), or drawing dice or chips from a bag (Bolt Action being a prime example), or blindly deciding which mini makes what move, then moving at the same time and then continue attcakc etc on that (Crimson Skies, X wing, Aeronautica Imperialis). I have not played any Miniature Wargame that is pure Alternate activation.
I think all systems have downsides but its how the system midigates the downside. I think you go I go has a big downside of the other player not being engaged enough during the game. I think alternating actions also has the problem of being so slow for bigger games. But if games actually put effort in to midigate all of the downsides it makes it much more fun and will probably prosper.
Ion Age is pretty pure alternate activation. Players roll initiative on a D6 at the start of the round, the number of activations they get is equal to the difference in the results (+1 for the winner). You then take it in turns to spend an activation (each unit can only be activated once). There's no interruptions of the sequence beyond units making return attacks if engaged in close combat or a firefight. Though I think it's a bit of a moot point. It's the pacing of the game that tends to be the problem - any system which leaves a player with nothing to do but watch their opponent play for more than a couple of minutes is likely to, with some justification, lead to complaints. As tends to be the issue with GW. Though as can also be argued, the problem there isn't the turn system itself, but the terrible job GW do at mitigation in the rules themselves (Infinity of course providing a good example of an IGO-UGO system that minimises player downtime).
Chess is not alternate activation, it is pure I-go-you-go. The rules of chess are that move one piece per turn (outside castling). I.e. according to the rules you move all your eligible pieces per turn. Alternative activation, as it applies to chess, would mean that you move all (or a set number) of your pieces "alternatively" before you could re-move a piece that has already been moved that turn. Chess is a bad example because you only move one piece per turn, but it is I-go-you-go.
21:34 this reminds me of the wargame saga by tomahawk studio. But instead you get activation dices and better units can be activated by lower value dice
Alternative activation system is the best because of one thing, and one thing only, and it beats any problems with it. It's the fact that you don't have to wait for 20-30 minutes to play. OPR is a great example, the system is bare bones, its not tactical, factions are designed badly and so on, but it's 40x more fun to play than 40k, because it's way more engaging. The issue with unit activations can be solved by taking the difference in total units of players, and allowing the player with less units to skip x-1 (x is the difference) activations. Problem solved.
It sounds like what you're trying to tackle is finding a mechanic that limit's peoples way to game the system. And in that case the problem isn't turn order, its fixing peoples obsession with trying to "break" the rules in there favor.
Please get in a few games of Kill Team. Its rules are soo much more enjoyable and interactive than 40k. If teams run from 6 - 14 operatives wouldn’t the size be comparable to number of units in a 1,000 point 40K game? You mention warcry and activation advantage, Kill team has counteract where if you are out of activations your operatives can activate again (with limits) I made the switch to kill team and haven’t been invested in 40K anymore, with the release of the new guard codex I thought I’d check out some battle reports. Man they were painful to watch, endless dice thrown back and forth with very little results. When 5-6 units shoot at another unit and it doesn’t get destroyed that’s crazy. I don’t think you’d ever get 5 activations in kill team that would fail to take out a target.
@@RMCbreezy why are they not comparable? The whole point of the video is comparing you go I go to alt activations. Obviously Killteam rule set wouldn’t directly scale to 40K but you can compare a more modern ruleset built from the ground up to a legacy ruleset hamstrung by the past. Hit, wound, save worked when models were 1 wound and AP was all or nothing. But it’s expanded and bloated so much it’s ridiculous. Kill team proves GW can create a great system (not perfect) from scratch, It would be interesting to see what they could come up with if they threw the whole lot out and started again from scratch. But now you have
@ Everything is opinion based. Just like the whole video. IMO, it doesnt work because the game has bloated so much. Theres so much dice rolling for little effect. I'm not complying, thats just my personal opinion and why I prefer Kill team mechanics. Also kill teams Action point system allows elites to feel elite in comparison to chaff. But thats a whole other can of worms
i think talking about "best" in terms of broad generalizations is a waste of time. What works best for a game is relative to how the game was designed, and is different for different games.
Well, that was boring. I lasted 10 minutes before I had enough. Every system can be good, every system can be bad. Still any system where one player doesn't sit for 45 minutes while the other does a ton of stuff is better then the one where it happens.
Wait until you learn about classical chess. Hahaha... but in most situations if you are sitting around for 45 minutes doing nothing either you or your opponent at going something wrong
I go you go can be good as long as the all the systems around it are tidied up. 40k is a mess of gotchas and so many bloody additional and stupid special rules
@@Jarlballin123 I would clarify this that the gotchas in 40k exist because there are too many factions and rules. No one can keep all of them in mind well enough. Some competitive 40k players make a damn good effort of it but they still make mistakes sometimes. And those player's lives are pretty dominated by the game as well.
The problem there would be why is one turn taking 45 minutes. I personally like having a bit of time to think about my strategy while it's the opponent's turn, thinking about my next moves. I'm shocked when I hear 40k players saying that a 1500 points game takes 4 hours.
Man, between this and the "we should play smaller games on bigger boards where Knights aren't an army" take, it feels like you're trying to tank your credibility as much as humanely possible.
The title is just clickbait. The topic can be interesting but is framed very poorly. A definition of "alternate activation" is given only at the end of the video, straw-manned multiple times during the video itself: "chess is not alternate activations because you can keep moving the same piece". A mess, 3/10. Come on man.
Maybe? This topic was something I wanted to cover for a while, mainly because whenever I mention it people always super quickly jump to "alternative activations is best." However, I feel that most people don't really delve into the intricacies of rules writing, and how these games work, which is what I wanted to address here.
General Quarters (ww1/ww2 naval) had one of the best turn sequences ive seen.
Player A does half his movement > Player B does ALL his movement > Player A completes his movement > Player A fires > Player B fires > all damage is applied > roll for damage repair/flooding/repairs
Made for a turn that mitigated one player seeing all one players moves before deciding what to do and removed first shot advantage unless you engaged where the enemy COULDN'T return fire
EDIT it made the turn feel "in real time"
That does sound really good. I am trying to work on a system to emulate "real time" and had a similar idea. Working out simultaneous movement is the hardest for me. It's easier to work out simultaneous shooting (just resolve after both have shot) and simultaneous "melee" (older 40K already had this, with Initiative breaking a tie), but movement is trickier.
@@andrewbakescakes9684 Either initiative-based systems (like X-Wing, Battletech/Mechwarrior*, or Runewars) or planned movement mechanics (commonly found in naval games, where you plan each ship’s movement and resolve them simultaneously) are excellent for creating a “real-time” feeling. Another approach would involve a 'bidding' mechanic, where players use activation cards to determine both the number of actions they can take and who goes first (like in Star Wars Legion or V for Victory). Typically, choosing to do more actions means you’ll act second.
*I particularly enjoy the video game system in Battletech, where the fastest mechs/Pilot can either move first or pass to a lower initiative (and continue passing at each initiative step/value). This lets them secure an advantageous position early or move last to react to others’ movements. Shooting, happens simultaneously - iirc from top of my head slowest mechs/pilots choose their targets first.
One Page Rules uses alternate activations and seems to work well. When you mentioned floods of throw away units to keep your main unit safe it reminded me of the old Star War miniatures game.
If only half these people who left comments watched the video all the way through they’d understand that you’re not saying alternate activations suck and are all terrible and bad all the time. Very clear that people aren’t capable of having an opinion that’s different and able to have a good conversation about it. As you say, there’s good and bad things about both styles and I’ve found both to be fun for what they are. I don’t agree with everything you said but that’s the beauty of the hobby, absolutely nobody can have an opinion that everyone can agree with here. All we can do is pick the things we like and stick with them. Thank you for the video!
Never played LOTR, but that does sound cool. I also like the simultaneous removal of casualties of Apocalypse. I think, across all these systems, there are some cool possibilities for combining the most fun and fair ideas into something new and wonderful.
The nice thing about the game letting your opponent do all his own stuff at once is I get to go to the bathroom without interrupting the game lol
There are some players I wouldn't do this with. And yeah, if he's going to cheat while I'm in the bathroom, then congrats I guess? Winning at life?
What's tough is doing that at tournaments, especially with chess clocks involved.
I like Bolt Action's system. I house ruled Flames of War to fit Bolt Action's system of orders, etc. I worked really well.
No.
Democracy is just flat garbage.
lol, that's not a bad way to put it @hawksnestspeedway3043. I even agree! For now at least. :)
And the first comment gets political! This should be good. ;)
Wasn't it copied from Warmaster?
@@GreySectoid They're quite different. Bolt action has dice for each player put into a bag and mixed up, and each turn a die is pulled from the bag to see who's turn it is next. In Warmaster, it's "I-GO-U-GO" but with the twist that you need to pass leadership checks to maneuver your units, meaning there's a big element of planning and setting yourself up for risky gambits and sweeping moves (it can also be a bit frustrating though).
Adeptus Titanicus 2018. Epic Armageddon.. Solid alternative action games
Hey Matt, I'm really loving these videos. They're helping me come up with better ideas for a tabletop game I am working on. Thank you and take care! 🙏
We used to play a freeform game with any toys we could find battling all over the room. It was alternate activation, each player took turns. The other players could make reactive moves for each move that the others made, but they couldn't stop any action, only add other actions of their own.
Good times.
Love this topic! I tired One Page Rules a couple times and I REALLY disliked the alternate activations mechanic. Coming from AoS and WFB, I was missing the ability to set up my army in cool combo movements, shooting, and charging. I understand the frustration of AoS's double turn and I think it was a big problem in prior editions, but I really like where they took 4th editions with their command abilities. So much utility options that keep me focused through an entire game, even while it is my opponent's turn.
I want more of this kind of content!
im really not a fan of alternate activation for mass battle games on the scale of 40k, and specifically horus heresy which is the main GW game system i play. for skirmish games i think alternate activation is fine but when playing full battle games about the only interruption to my turn i can stand is when the enemy fights back in combat.
One hundred percent. Alternating activations only really work in small scale games like skirmish games but once you get to larger scale games it becomes ineffective. Honestly people who complain about waiting their turn are not doing what they are supposed to. It's during your opponents turn that you plan ahead for your turn, you watch what they are doing, anticipate what will happen and then make your own plan. 40k with alternating activations would give people migraines.
@@colinbielat8558 agreed
alternate activations seemed amazing until my buddy crushed me in One Page Rules using cheap throw away units combined with one or two giant hammer damage dealers. Who goes first and who goes last in those games is super important.
I'm 2 seconds into the video and jumping into the comments section to get angry
Loving these videos. This one sent me looking back at the videos you and Dave made showing how to play 40k and where to start with 40k from 13 years ago.
While the game has changed a little, I’d love to see an updated version of the “where to start” video and maybe a video like that for a bunch of different games?
I have played one page rules and it does have an alternate activation system with the exception that when you fight the other squad fights as well with some minor limitations. This being said there is always going to be a need for "useless" unit in either 40k or alternating activation. In 40K/AoS they screen your units from charges or deep strike, while in OPR they force your opponent to activate units they may not want to activate yet. The advantage of alternative activations has over I go/you go is that your army can never be alpha striked. If there was ever a feel bad moment, its lossing the game before it started.
Alternate Activation allows for "being last striked". After the opponent finishes activating everything you can still have your elite stuff or 30 ish percent of your army to go and do a lot of damage. Some games like kill team tries to tackle this by giving you some worse activation if you finished doing your stuff, but I find this being a "pata fix".
With the exception of some poorly priced/costed things like V2 dakka stuarts in Bolt Action, the randomness of dice pulls helps force anti-competitive play, which is better IMHO. You brought up increasing your odds by having more cheap units, which is fair, except it turns the odds of going first with a single unit (more on snap-to) into 60/40 ish instead of 50/50. Not much of a negative IMHO, especially when compared to the abomination that is the AoS double-turn
Alternating activations has been the best way that I have played so far, with a big asterisk, it has to have something like opr's force organization rules that already limits the number of units you can field.
For tokens, yes they were a problem, what we did for the North Carolina OPR group is 3d printed small trays that hold six 12mm cubes/dice. These serve for tracking wounds, activations, spell points and we made 12mm status cubes that fit it. That way they easily travel with the unit and don't break immersion too much since it is all compact. Any new member we just give some trays and cubes as a goody bag since they are dirt cheap to print.
My friends and I are starting to get into OPR. Can you share the STLs for those trackers? They sound really useful.
A song of ice and fire has a great alternate activation, but cards you play can alter in some way it. Great video, keep it up
Hey Matt,
thanks for the great video - a lot of food for thoughts! I really enjoy this kind of deep dive into game design! Keep up the great work!
Very interesting video Matt!
Warcry (being my fav GW game) has actually added reactions and upped the pts value of 'chaff' to discourage the playstyle you've described so in a way it's also moved away from standard Alt Activations.
I really love Star Wars: Legion, and have tried to steal their alternate activation system for other things. The only thing is that it's not truly alternating activations, like you said. You have a pile of command tokens that correspond to the different types of units you can have, leader, operative, heavy, corps, and support. You can also assign command tokens to units by using order cards, and then you can fully control when that unit is activated. However, once one player runs out of tokens, the other player has full run of the place. Also, there are reactions, so you can put your units in overwatch if you know your opponent needs to activate something else to enter your range, or if you're outnumbered. But it has so many different layers to figuring out who goes first, how many command tokens they can place pre-emptively, and how much stuff each of their units gets to do.
6:18 This is exactly like the Death Korps of Krieg/Veteran Guard Kill Team. You start with 10 units, but you can also get 4 extra troopers, totaling 14 units, while the other factions get exactly 6-10 models.
15:51 for all the criticism of GW, they're basic marketing (Space Marines!), and their general game system is very accessable.
The game system isnt accessible at all. Im speaking as someone who is new to playing 40K (liked the lore for years, but now getting into the game). Having to buy a core rules book, then an army rules book, then possibly (as in my case) a THIRD rules book for my faction is absurd. Especially when the actual book will be obselete in a couple months because GW has no idea how to actually balance anything.
On top of that, the rules themselves arent even approachable. Honestly, after really wanting to do 40K, ill stick to OPR with 40K models.
@@TarnaxTheBarbarianit isnt intuitive because I doubt you've even played it. You have to understand the turn structure before you can even understand all the rules interactions. You don't need any books, just use wahapedia friend
I think this is not a test took inspiration for the activation concept from the crossfire initiative system. If you don’t know it I recommend you look into crossfire, I reckon is a quite remarkable wargaming ruleset.
About your question, Relicblade from Metalking studio is pure alternate activation. The only thing you can do in the opponent turn is to spend dodge tokens to try to limit damage. A couple special skills allow to move spending dodge tokens to move in the opponent turn or reposte to an attack but are very limited and marginal (this makes them really special). Some models can activate together with a companion. The game works well and it is good fun. It is a kitchen table skirmish played with 3-5 models normally, if you start spamming I am sure you can ruin the fun. I like it because it is simple, the art and the lore are crisp and it is very narrative driven.
I love the 2018 Kill team activation system. It's just the best system in my opinion.
Board games often also have chit-pull as a system. Each unit has a token (or potentially more) and you draw a token out of a bag, and whatever unit it is, you move that unit.
Memoir `44 is actually alternate activation, but you use cards from your hand to determine which units you can order.
There's quite a bit of food for thought there, i like what Battletech did, which cleans up a lot of the 1-sided issues that always arise. Im going to have to watch this again and take notes. Thanks for the ideas.
That was a great video. I enjoyed your perspective and comparisons across game systems.
I've played a bunch of the games mentioned and feel each system has its place. While a game could be "improved" with a change to activation order, it ceases to be the same game.
I love infinity for the order/ARO system keeping both players involved, alternative activations in necromunda and battletech add to the fun, but the double turn idea of age of sigmar is one of its big factors. 40k was my first game, and alternative actions never made me like the game any less.
In all these games, the thing that has made them fun or not fun to play for me has been the attitude of other players - are they playing to exploit gaps in the rules to win, or playing for the cinematic narrative feel of the games.
Looking forward to your next video
I play 40k 4th edition core rules (with 3rd edition codexes) with alternating activations added in, players roll off and then alternate between units which get to do their full set of actions, it maybe skews game balance towards fast melee units but I would say that 3rd/4th were already a bit skewed that way anyways (I might consider using a MESBG style activation system too)
Kill Team, OnePageRules, and SW Legion handle alternate activations really well with just a few tweaks to the baseline scheme. The Group Activation mechanic in KT and OPR GFF helps rein in chaff units, and passes in Legion help nerf mass activation.
For activations schemes, it's a lot easier to make AA fun than IGYG.
Last-first is a feature, not a bug. It's something you can plan around to mitigate, and if initiative is random, it's not guaranteed.
Mortem et Gloriam has pure alternate activation and it works well.
Alternate unit activations whilst being able to interrupt your opponents plan is by far the most fun way to play a tabletop wargame. It feels far more like a real-time event, which makes it far more dynamic. The worst system is what GW has for the main games. Most people don't even play GW's rules, and they buy into the models hoping that the rules will be 'fixed'.
i think what you said about most people not playing GW's rules is a sweeping generalization that may be based off your experience but i dont think comes anywhere close to being true.
I quit killteam for Infinity 3 months ago and I'll never go back!
@@adambarlev8992 killteam is alternating activation
I wonder how good alternating activations work if there is a big disparity between unit numbers. Like custodes and knights could have 7 units total while i saw guardslists that had as much infantry. And then additional as many tanks. If a force is outnumbered 2-3 to one than alternate activation seems worse than i go you go.
I think Marvel Crisis Protocol counts,
you take it in turns picking a hero to use back and forth, your enemy can make deffence rolls and very rarely some may be able to fight back with super powers but its not every model
and its my favourite game by far :)
Personal preference: I'd much rather deal with the problems of alternate activations than UGOIGO.
1000% agree
hey Matt, can you do a video on your thoughts on dice e.g. D6 vs D10 vs special dice usable only for a particular game, etc.
I agree, its the adhd response for tabletop games.
Both of my favourite games, Song of Ice and Fire TMG and Legions Imperialis work this way and even though what you say about actuvation spam is true, I find these games far more engaging than doing nothing for your opponents 20 minute movement phase
Kill team is Alternate activation, we roll off for Turning point initiative (turn), then each player activates alternating one model at a time.
And it works in those systems because the designers can predict approximately how many units each side will field and how those forces will interact. However, in 'free-form' alternate activation games, players often exploit the system by taking a lot of cheap units to burn through the opponent's activations, while reserving a few elite units to act more effectively later in the turn.
@ Kill team touched on this in previous edition by having GA (Group activation) where weaker operatives would have to activate together.
Id love to see how this could scale to 40k, weak troop units could have GA3 so you have to activate 3 units at once.
Hey Matthew! Great video! I can't think of a miniatures game that is alternate activations with no exceptions or a game mechanic that allows a player to activate more miniatures in a row or react to the other player's actions. Wow! If you get the chance, check out Rackham's AT-43 activation "systems". The game has several alternatives when it comes to miniatures or unit activations that I think you would like. All of them use cards. Each unit included a couple of cards, you could use them as a reference card (all of the unit stats printed on the front) but you also used those cards to shuffle them up as an activation deck. The standard activation system allowed each player to lined up their activation deck face down. You reveal the top card when your turns comes and you have to activate that unit. BUT you could spend "command tokens" to send that card to the bottom of the deck or to place it "on hold" instead of activating a unit that turn (you could only do that once). An alternative activation system was a lot more random and crazy... All the players shared a common activation deck. The cards were all shuffled together and the common deck was passed along, the player in turn revealed the top card. If the card revealed was yours, you could put it aside and activate that unit later instead of activating the unit right away (paying the usual command tokens). If the card revealed was an enemy unit, you give the card to the owner and that player was forced to activate that unit without the option of setting it aside. It was a fun and exciting game mechanic, specially when you had more than two players or several factions in play. Thanks for doing these videos Matt! Love them!
Matt,you are just playing at semantics. My friends and I have adapted alternate activations and the order system from Legions Imperialis to 40k. It makes the game extremely better! As far as your example as an Elite army vs a balanced army isn't it the fault of the player bringing an elite list rather than a balanced list in that scenario?! The fact that you avoid alpha strikes and actually USE your models before they get blown off the table is a huge advantage in alternate activations.
You can state that these games are not "true" or "pure" alternate activations,but the idea of it with reactions is solid .
I think it depends. In a melee game like Warcry, if you move your mid-units up the board first, while I activated scrub units but have leftover activations for tougher stuff, I can move my units into yours and you have no recourse. Whereas in shooting skirmish games, if I have elite units and you don't, then every one of my activations is more valuable that every one of yours, so I can do more damage with my turns then you. Yes, you would have a string of activations at the end, but you won't get your full count because your stuff will be dead.
I’m firmly of the belief the system that middle earth strategy battle game has is the best
Mantic's Deadzone. You can pass if your opponent has more activations and also have a double turn with command dice. No system is prefect but I-go u-go feels less good now we have seen some great alternatives. For example, Iron Cross / 7 Days to the River Rhine have really fun activation / reaction system.
My gaming group has switched from 40k to OPR purely because the alternative activations are more engaging and fun. Would it be possible to game the system? Probably, but we're playing narratively and so that problem hasn't arisen.
One of the biggest issues with I-go-you-go games is the possibility of an alpha strike doing so much damage that the players that goes second is at a significant disadvantage. In tourneys, this is usually mitigated by having sufficient and specific terrain that breaks up line of sight. However, if you wanted to run a 40K version of the North African campaign, you'd have some problems.
As you pointed out, one of the biggest issues with alternating activations is the possibility of an activation advantage, where one player can burn activations until their opponent runs out. Epic Armageddon had that issue when the Seigemasters of Baran list was released in the Swordwind supplement. You pointed out most of the ways the games designers have come up with to mitigate the issue, which are used in Apocalypse (based heavily on Epic Armageddon), Kill Team, and others.
Of the two options, I prefer games with alternating activations, as the methods of 'fixing' the issues with such a system don't tend to limit game play as much as the methods used to 'fix' the issues with I-go-you-go games.
Loving these mechanics discussion videos! Keep them coming!
Also, IMO, RuneWars Miniatures (RIP) had the most interesting activation system. Different movement choices had different initiative values.
When i was learning warhammer, I go you go was the most confusing part, i re-read the rules like a hundred times, i was conviced it was alternating phases, because the alternative made no sense
I think the closest to unadulterated Alternate Activations is very literally a game you just covered on MiniWarGaming. Warcaster has a pretty strict activation structure. There are some modifiers, but it is, by and by a strict Player 1[card, 1 solo, 1 other, card] then Player 2[same] for 3 sets of 3.
How about alternate activations, but if a unit that hasn't been activated is destroyed it has to be activated one last time and then removed from the game?
All coming to "how often do I get interactions" and the more often is better :P
There's alternate activations in Legions Imperialis in a LotR style - players alternate moves, then alternate first fire, then alternate advanced fire. There's ocasional overwatch. The game is very bloody - choosing which group to activate is to choose who is gonna shoot before it's shoot down.
Haven't played LI yet, but it looked really good. The battles appear to be more lore-authentic, because stuff dies so fast, but you also can't be alpha-striked like in 40K.
It's the ONLY way to play games now. That's why so many people/systems have moved over. GW is still ancient and doesn't get how to make a good rules system.
Gaslands, Burrows and Badgers, Bushido.
Also this distinction of what is a 'pure' system is constructed entirely so you can make a wonky point.
Gaslands is a fun game, but cheap motorcycle spam can easily break things
kill team?
Example games with perfect alternative activations: Chess, Checkeers ^^
I'm already typing an angry comment
Where would you put Trench Crusade? Seems pretty Alternative, although you can push for activation advantage, but there's even something baked in to balance that.
De Bellus Antiquates is a IGO-UGO game, melee and shooter vs Shooter combats are opposed rolls. But one player takes their turn then to opposite player. I enjoy the vast array of historical opponents to pick from.
Forget about "true" alternating activations. Why do you even need that term?
Almost all variations of alternating activations are superior to Igo-Ugo. They make the game so much more interactive and interesting.
My personal favorite is Epic Armageddon. Which is not true alternating, since you have the option of attempting two activations in a row, but there are costs associated with it.
I love Infinity’s system, but the issue of cheerleaders (having models just to generate orders for use on the elite models) and the amount of time a turn takes (along with determining LOS for all models every time an action is taken are two issues that I’ve heard a lot of comments on. It’s kinda weird to have a bunch of models that aren’t doing anything for most of the game (generally just hiding to protect orders while the more powerful or more elite units are the ones moving in the game. In addition, Infinity does have issues where the active player can be at a disadvantage during their turn due to the type of unit with LOS (Snipers with B1 weapons being the key example of this - being one roll per shot already means they don’t have any major disadvantage to firing on an ARO) can actually do more damage in reaction than on their action. And attrition is rough due to the loss of actions each time a model dies.
Don’t get me wrong - I love the game. The reactive style of play keeps everyone in the game, but three turns for a full game is a tad rough strategically (though any more turns and the game would be too long time-wise - it’s the curse of AROs). The miniatures are fantastic, but not many stores stock it (at least in my locale), which also means not many people play it. And it still has a bit of the same issue that WFB players (primarily, but I’ve heard it from 40k players too), where you have to buy and paint minis that mostly act as tokens.
Oh, and the LT rules don’t really give much benefit to the LT (one extra action per turn but major downsides if they’re killed), to the point that often a grunt is the LT despite the elites in the force, and they tend to hide and not really use the LT action. Doesn’t really seem to make sense for a Warlord to be a nothing unit that just hides all game.
I’m looking forward to seeing N5 though to see what changes they’re planning. Thanks for the video - I enjoyed the analysis of many of the games I’ve heard of or played out there!
Ain't base OPR just alt activation? Even between turns? Only time it don't is when one side runs out of units, which if that counts then yeah it aint
Interesting. I hadnt really thought about that because im not a seasoned player. Im really new tbh. Still, i think it feels like a balance thing, trying to avoid or reduce the advantage of the one that goes first. I also think that the mechanics are determined by the “feel” you’re looking for.
Another interesting insite into game rules creation. I appreciate this more to get a glimpse into the thought process, especially towards Ravaged Star, since I am awaiting some Gorkog...
What you describe as an issue doesn't sound like an issue.
Your opponent wastes his activations on cheap weak units while your whole army gets to activate and act with all your best units.
The player with a small number of units gets something closer to an IGoUGo turn.
I wish there was an X-wing system for a wargame, your leadership/ command stat of the "leaders" in your units determine when you activate in initiative order.
Fantasy flight tried it with runewars but that game had other issues
So you just took SW:Legion system...
also- SW:Shatterpoint have real alternate activation
Alternate Activations usually go hand in hand with other mechanisms like overwatch, interrupting, action points, (infinity, Urban War) or beforehand selecting which units are going (confrontation), or drawing dice or chips from a bag (Bolt Action being a prime example), or blindly deciding which mini makes what move, then moving at the same time and then continue attcakc etc on that (Crimson Skies, X wing, Aeronautica Imperialis).
I have not played any Miniature Wargame that is pure Alternate activation.
I think all systems have downsides but its how the system midigates the downside.
I think you go I go has a big downside of the other player not being engaged enough during the game.
I think alternating actions also has the problem of being so slow for bigger games.
But if games actually put effort in to midigate all of the downsides it makes it much more fun and will probably prosper.
Great discussion! I am working on a game and love this kind of video. MWG rocks.
Ion Age is pretty pure alternate activation. Players roll initiative on a D6 at the start of the round, the number of activations they get is equal to the difference in the results (+1 for the winner). You then take it in turns to spend an activation (each unit can only be activated once). There's no interruptions of the sequence beyond units making return attacks if engaged in close combat or a firefight.
Though I think it's a bit of a moot point. It's the pacing of the game that tends to be the problem - any system which leaves a player with nothing to do but watch their opponent play for more than a couple of minutes is likely to, with some justification, lead to complaints. As tends to be the issue with GW. Though as can also be argued, the problem there isn't the turn system itself, but the terrible job GW do at mitigation in the rules themselves (Infinity of course providing a good example of an IGO-UGO system that minimises player downtime).
One..page...rules. A game people should play.
100%
I do like the Battle Tech method
This is not how Warcry works. You have reactions and you can keep holding 1 or 2 actions until you use them
fallout wasteland warfare has a great alternate activation system
Love love love Infinity
Without having watched this video, I for one am outraged! How dare you speak against alternate activations.
Chess is not alternate activation, it is pure I-go-you-go. The rules of chess are that move one piece per turn (outside castling). I.e. according to the rules you move all your eligible pieces per turn. Alternative activation, as it applies to chess, would mean that you move all (or a set number) of your pieces "alternatively" before you could re-move a piece that has already been moved that turn.
Chess is a bad example because you only move one piece per turn, but it is I-go-you-go.
Conquest last argument of king..
But even then there are ways to manipulate that, such as City State's Strategic Stack. It was definitely one of the first that jumped to mind though.
Warcry has reactions
I know there exists hex/chit wargames that are pure alternate activation, but I've only ever heard bad things about them. XD
21:34 this reminds me of the wargame saga by tomahawk studio.
But instead you get activation dices and better units can be activated by lower value dice
Alternative activation system is the best because of one thing, and one thing only, and it beats any problems with it. It's the fact that you don't have to wait for 20-30 minutes to play. OPR is a great example, the system is bare bones, its not tactical, factions are designed badly and so on, but it's 40x more fun to play than 40k, because it's way more engaging.
The issue with unit activations can be solved by taking the difference in total units of players, and allowing the player with less units to skip x-1 (x is the difference) activations. Problem solved.
I love the videos. Keep it up
Chess 😅😅 Oh nvm you mentioned chess.
It sounds like what you're trying to tackle is finding a mechanic that limit's peoples way to game the system. And in that case the problem isn't turn order, its fixing peoples obsession with trying to "break" the rules in there favor.
Beter Alternate unit activations of 2 or 3 unit. I move 2 or 3 unit, you move 2 or 3 unit.
OPR
Having played enough alternate activation games and warhammer for 20 years: it’s better than your turn my turn.
I just think you’re wrong.
Please get in a few games of Kill Team. Its rules are soo much more enjoyable and interactive than 40k.
If teams run from 6 - 14 operatives wouldn’t the size be comparable to number of units in a 1,000 point 40K game?
You mention warcry and activation advantage, Kill team has counteract where if you are out of activations your operatives can activate again (with limits)
I made the switch to kill team and haven’t been invested in 40K anymore, with the release of the new guard codex I thought I’d check out some battle reports. Man they were painful to watch, endless dice thrown back and forth with very little results. When 5-6 units shoot at another unit and it doesn’t get destroyed that’s crazy. I don’t think you’d ever get 5 activations in kill team that would fail to take out a target.
Units are just stronger and healthier in kill team. One model can have more wounds than an entire squad in 40k. They really aren't comparable
@@RMCbreezy why are they not comparable? The whole point of the video is comparing you go I go to alt activations.
Obviously Killteam rule set wouldn’t directly scale to 40K but you can compare a more modern ruleset built from the ground up to a legacy ruleset hamstrung by the past.
Hit, wound, save worked when models were 1 wound and AP was all or nothing. But it’s expanded and bloated so much it’s ridiculous.
Kill team proves GW can create a great system (not perfect) from scratch, It would be interesting to see what they could come up with if they threw the whole lot out and started again from scratch.
But now you have
@@samjsnz what in your mind is the proof that hit wound and save DONT work? That seems highly subjective and purely opinion based
@ Everything is opinion based. Just like the whole video.
IMO, it doesnt work because the game has bloated so much. Theres so much dice rolling for little effect.
I'm not complying, thats just my personal opinion and why I prefer Kill team mechanics.
Also kill teams Action point system allows elites to feel elite in comparison to chaff. But thats a whole other can of worms
i think talking about "best" in terms of broad generalizations is a waste of time. What works best for a game is relative to how the game was designed, and is different for different games.
Well, that was boring. I lasted 10 minutes before I had enough. Every system can be good, every system can be bad. Still any system where one player doesn't sit for 45 minutes while the other does a ton of stuff is better then the one where it happens.
Wait until you learn about classical chess. Hahaha... but in most situations if you are sitting around for 45 minutes doing nothing either you or your opponent at going something wrong
I go you go can be good as long as the all the systems around it are tidied up. 40k is a mess of gotchas and so many bloody additional and stupid special rules
@@Jarlballin123 I would clarify this that the gotchas in 40k exist because there are too many factions and rules. No one can keep all of them in mind well enough. Some competitive 40k players make a damn good effort of it but they still make mistakes sometimes. And those player's lives are pretty dominated by the game as well.
The problem there would be why is one turn taking 45 minutes. I personally like having a bit of time to think about my strategy while it's the opponent's turn, thinking about my next moves. I'm shocked when I hear 40k players saying that a 1500 points game takes 4 hours.
Use a stratagem if you aren't you are playing suboptimally
chess
😂😂 i go you go isnt i go you go because there are reactions? Wtf
Man, between this and the "we should play smaller games on bigger boards where Knights aren't an army" take, it feels like you're trying to tank your credibility as much as humanely possible.
Isn't it a prevalent idea among older Warhammer fans that knights and custodes shouldn't if been added?
@RMCbreezy Not to my knowledge? I'm sure there are people who think that way, but if there are, they aren't in my sphere at all.
The title is just clickbait.
The topic can be interesting but is framed very poorly.
A definition of "alternate activation" is given only at the end of the video, straw-manned multiple times during the video itself: "chess is not alternate activations because you can keep moving the same piece".
A mess, 3/10. Come on man.
Is that a ragebait Video?
Maybe? This topic was something I wanted to cover for a while, mainly because whenever I mention it people always super quickly jump to "alternative activations is best." However, I feel that most people don't really delve into the intricacies of rules writing, and how these games work, which is what I wanted to address here.
@MWG_Matthew have you Played a Song of ice and fire? The Holy grail of alternate activation 😉
you are wrong, but i like your vids ☺
Sorry but you are wrong. You go I go is so boring. 😅😅
Watch the video. :P
I like the 40k system
!!!!
Clickbaiting with bad opinions on purpose eh
Alternate activation is the best one.
Ive never been more frustrated at a video for saying so many words without saying anything at all.