I like the idea of a set number of activations (1 per 500pts sounds fine). Some high startegy rating armies could have a bonus on this:
Strategy rating 1: no bonus, 2-3: +1 activation, 5 = +2 activations.
After all set activations are used up the remaining formations can only use Overwatch, Marshal or Advance ( = all passive orders). Again some armies may change this. For example: World Eaters could be allowed to use Engage instead of Overwatch.
Retaining the initiative could still be allowed and perhabs won't use up an additional "set" activation.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Like I said, that's the bits that would need debating and, most importantly, playtesting.


The simplest way is, as Atmospheric says, count up at the start of each turn, which was my original intent. This also keeps the change within the boundaries of the existing system, making the only change be the addition of passes to your activation options. Yes, it'll change the meta, but I'd hope for the better as more army builds become viable.

Yeah, and I guess you'd almost have to formulate the 'count expired' order list on an army-by-army basis, as having the same set list for everyone would penalize some armies. I could see Tau always having the option to sustain fire, or orks always having the option to do their favored orders- double and engage. Also, I had completely forgotten about marshall.

I'm not sure whether retaining should count towards the activation count or not. Under the current rules there are a lot of reasons to avoid retaining, but under my proposal there would be little reason not to retain if you had a bunch more activations than the limit. It certainly would allow for a broader range of army lists and it would serve as a already built-in loop hole in the proposed rule. I could see this being beneficial as it would help keep the game closer to the way it is now but still help prevent armies with big activation advantages from delaying all meaningful actions until the opponent has finished.

Here is a summary of my proposal:

New Rule Variant - Limiting the number of activations per player per turn

In a game using the normal tournament scenario, the number of normal activations a player may use in a game turn is limited to 1 activation for every 500pts of the starting value of the army. After a player has used this number of activations in a game turn, remaining formations that have not yet activated may only be given orders from the restricted activation orders list.

NOTE: Formations that are activated after the activation limit has been reached must still pass an action test in order to be given an order. All rules for passing or failing an action test still apply.

NOTE: The limit is on activations, not on the number of formations activated. Orders that activate multiple formations in a single activation, such as a combined assault using the commander ability, only count as single activation for purposes of the limit. Additionally, if a player chooses to retain the initiative, then any activation taken while retaining does not count toward the activation limit.

Aerospace formations activated after the limit is reached may chose from the normal list of orders available but suffer a -1 modifier to their action test, in addition to any other modifiers they may be subject to (i.e. due to blast markers or other special rules).

Restricted activation orders*:
Advance
Overwatch
Marshall
[Hold]

*Depending on the army list additional orders maybe allowed. Generally speaking Space Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, and Tyranids may also be given Engage orders. Imperial Guard and Tau may be given Sustain Fire orders

Looks useable

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

I'd really like to try something like this. The whole activation count issue has always bogged me, and something like this would give greater focus to less used things like the commander ability.

I'm not sure if it would change much. It only mean you have to do your march and double first, since thoses practically are the only orders not on the restricted list.

I quite like the idea as a variation James, but it does raise some questions:-

• Can you use 'restricted' activations earlier on and save the more aggressives ones for later in the turn? Put another way, does every initial activation count towards the limit under these definitions, or would it be every 'un-restricted' activation that counts?
• Why should retained activations not count towards the limit? As written, this would favour the Eldar and their '2nd retain'.
• Presumably you would only count successfull activations - Failed activations (resulting in Hold or Stand Down) would not count, would they?
• As this loosely relates to Command and Control, a further slight variation might be for particular characters to gain or lose an activation.
• Presumably off-table forces only count when they activate successfully?
• I am a little unsure about varying the 'restricted' orders by Race. There is a danger that this will dilute the idea to the point where it becomes meaningless.

What Atmospheric said. The allowed list is too long. Especially with the race-specific orders.


I'll give you a couple of games using the "passing" system at some point, if you like. We can try it with a mix of races.

Well, yeah, the restricted list can be pared back. Heck, I'd be okay with having the left over formations being forced to take hold actions.

One thing I have noticed is that double and march can be use late in a turn to either set up a push at the start of the following turn, or to grab objectives. When this is done and the opponent has no ability to counter the moves because he has already activated out, it is especially powerful. Simply taking away the ability of a formation to move halfway across the board should have a noticable effect.

That's one reason why I believe that 'short' moves don't really need to be restricted. Another is that in most cases the 'fancy' short-range orders like engage and sustain fire depend on prior setup to work as intended (maybe not for artillary, but most people don't wait until the end of a turn to fire their artillary anyway). Setting up a late turn action like that might be viewed as something to reward. Maybe.

In the end though, I don't know what the best restricted list should be. Hold only? Advance, overwatch, or marshall only? Either one of those lists removes most of the tactical options from a formation. Either way, it's the set number of 'free' actions that I'm promoting; what happens after the limit is reached can be settled by committee.

I also think this route is better than a rule granting a pass ability or required retaining of initiative bacause 1) it doesn't force a player to do something, it only coerces a player to act in a certain way. 2) It dovetails nicely with existing but typically unused rules mechanics like commander and retaining initiative. 3) Its something I've been thinking about for a while and I may be a bit biased.

Okay, #3 may not be a good reason.

Another thing to consider is how such a rule would affect a player's overall strategy. I think this change has potential to change how some players approach the game. Of course, this potential could turn out to be negative instead of positive.

I'd say that the restricted activation list is more forcing the player than the "pass" mechanic. Once you're out of primary activations, you're forced to use the restricted list, where the pass mechanic allows all formations to activate normally, but with more options as to *when* they activate.


Retaining the Initiative gets used almost every single game I play. Often, the first turn is cautious and cagey moves forward, leaving formations in position to attack, and the second turn is a blizzard of Retains as both players try to inflict a crippling strike on the opponent before the return punch can connect.

You never had someone go "ground attack with Thunderhawk 1, Retain, ground assault on the same formation with Thunderhawk 2 and all the infantry inside it, aaaand, everything's dead"?


Snap.

I'd consider, if using the restricted activation mechanic, starting the restricted list with just Marshall, and maybe add in one or two other orders.

Well sure it often gets used, but the way in which it gets used is fairly narrow. I may be wrong, but it seems like retaining initiative is mostly used when a player activates a support unit to place BMs on a target formation and position for support, then retain and engage that formation. That works because assualts all but guarantee a formation will be broken as a result (often removing an available activation from an opponent so the result is a wash). The only other common time it is used is to ensure aircraft and artillary can be used before the opponent's similar formations can affect them. Besides those two scenarios, how often is it actually worthwhile to retain? Only in rare cases, I think.

As I wrote it, though, my rule variation wouldn't change the usefulness of the types of situations described above, but it would encourage a more liberal use of the retain initiative ability in other situations as well.


Of course, heck I've done that myself. I'd counter with the question of how often you see the nearly indentical maneuver where a commander unit is used instead of a lander. Probably a drastically fewer number of times.

In the case of the double T-hawk, the rewards match the risk. In the case of the commander, it doesn't because it's harder to get into position to pull it off, and you are open to counterfire while you position for the assault.

Again, as I wrote it, the rule variation wouldn't affect the usefulness of ground assaults, but it would encourage an increase in the use of the commander ability. In any case, the intention of the rule variation is to address the the effects of a big disparity in the number of activation between two opposing armies without changing the things about the game that I considered to be working as intended. Unfortunately, the definition of 'working as intended' varies from player to player.

In any case, I think that having a set number of activations is less prone to abuse that the others suggested here in this thread, mainly by virtue of being a known quantity from the very start, before a player even selects his army. That is a big plus in my opinion.

My thinking was that every initial activation (except those done after retaining the initiative) count toward the limit. Basically, the limit is on the number of times a player can hold the initiative per turn. After the limit is reached there would be a sort of 'sudden death overtime' effect. This way armies with lots of formations to chose from can't simply delay until the opponent has activated out. In effect, a player will have to use it or lose it.

My thinking was that retaining initiative isn't an abuse of the current rules and therefore need not be restricted. The goal of the rule is to limit the advantage a high-activation-count army has at the end of a turn after the opponent has activated out and cannot do anything to counter. Retaining the initiative in the middle of a turn, when an opponent can still react to it and the -1 to activate modifier is still in effect, already has enough risks that it isn't a big problem.

I'm on the fence about this one. I may be listening to the little devil on my shoulder, but I don't have a problem with failed activations counting against the limit. That might be harsh, but it does simplify book keeping. This is an area that needs to be worked out.

Do you mean like having some ability for an army to add to their own or subtract from their opponents activation limit? I wouldn't be against that, but that's something that can come later.

Yes, because the limit is on how many times you activate, not how many formations you have. This rule would benefit forces that can hide formations in their pocket (in air transports, webway, etc.). This is possibly the biggest flaw in the suggested rule.

True, especially if the restricted list only discludes double and march. However, if the restricted list is limited to just a single order (like hold or marshall), then it would probably be acceptible (like for orks or tyranids to be able to engage instead of marshall, or for tau to overwatch, or Eldar to advance, etc.).

I had another random thought. Besides the ideas mentioned by myself or others in this thread, there is one other way to address the problem.

Change the rules to state: "If, when a player gains the initiative but has no formations remaining to activate, the game turn ends."

Probably a bit too harsh, but I doubt people would consider a popcorn army if that was the rule. Of course, then you'd have a race to the other end of the scale.

At first glance, I quite like this idea, though I would rephrase it to be :-
When one player runs out of activations, the turn ends when he would next activate.

However, while all these systems are intended to balance the initial position between the armies, they may well produce some unintended issues later in the game. For example in my case (usually horrendous activation failures) which my opponent takes full advantage of and then destroys half of my formations - leaving a huge disparity. Now either system heavily handicaps the winnning player and penalises his successes - not perhaps what you are intending.