One of the problems with the current system is the difficulty balancing low-activation count armies. Much has been discussed on this subject.

On one end of the continuum, extremely high activation-count ‘popcorn’ armies become disadvantageous due to vulnerability to blast markers. At the opposite end of the continuum, extremely low activation-count armies suffer due to not having enough formations to cover the objectives. This post has nothing to do with those disadvantages.

Rather, I want to focus on the tendency for an army with an activation count advantage to activate formations of lesser value in the early parts of a turn to force the opponent to 'use up' their formations. Often the problem is an army that partially resembles a popcorn army – a semi-puffed list, if you will.

So I got to thinking about imposing some sort of limit on the number of activations per turn. There a number of different ways this might be done:

1) Set a limit on the number of activations per player per turn, then either:

a. any formations that have not yet activated when the limit is reached simply lose the opportunity to activate that turn.

b. any formations that have not yet activated when the limit is reached have a limited set of orders that they can be given [such as they may only be allowed a hold action, or maybe only able to choose from single, engage, or overwatch]

c. any formations that have not yet activated when the limit is reached may only be given a single order that has been pre-assigned at the beginning of the game [sort of like instinctive behavior]. I’m imagining that this would be a global order for all formations set at the start of the game, but I can see that this could be done on a formation-by-formation basis, or even have the ‘instinctive’ order dictated by the race of the army.


2) Set a limit on the number of activations per turn (not per player). This could be done in any of the variation listed above, except the players would be competing to use all the ‘good’ activations first. This variation would see more players trying to retain the initiative than is common now, which may be a good or bad thing.

Anyway, these are just some of my thoughts. I'd like to try this out and see how it goes. My preference is 1b, and setting the activation limit to 1 activation per 400pts or portion of 400 pts

I think Dirtside II's activation system is the most elegant solution to the varying number of activations. It's pretty much EAs activation system (I activate one unit, you activate one unit, I activate one unit, etc.). The difference is there's no retaining the initiative and the player that has fewer activations left can elect to pass their activation and make the other player activate again. This prevents the player with more activations from stalling.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I like the Confrontation method of the player with the fewer activations getting to pass a number of times equal to the difference. Just adding this would make a big difference.

I wouldn't throw away the Retain the Initiative rule though. It allows for more tactical play.

The biggest problem with the 'pass' system, besides how problematic retaining makes it, is how easy variations in effectiveness comes in, and how to have that factored.

Example, my Hypothetical Marines consist of 4 Terminator Squads with Chaplain and Land Raiders. The remainder of my points (bugger all, IIRC) are Thunderbolts. My opponent is playing Theory Orks, with 20 Stormboyz formations. So I get 16 passes. But if I'm in a decent position, I can potentially break more than half of my opponent's formations before they activate. So even though he reduces in formations, I still get the ability to pass well beyond.

Another issue is heavy offboard. If I have 3 Thunderhawks all with loaded Terminators off board, does that count as 3 activations, or 6? Webways, do I count the number of portals that can be used? The number of formations in the webway? How's it affect things when I don't deploy anything through the webway for the turn? What about Spacecraft and Drop Pods? Any Tunneler rules I've seen, or Planetfall in general, cause issues. Aircraft in general are a problem too, in that they can't be removed from the equation, whereas ground formations can be broken before activation.

I'm sure there's a solution, but I've thought about this a lot, and most 'fixes' would require large tracts of text to cover all the variables that could cause problems.

Morgan Vening

You've got lots of passes free, but you've got bugger all to activate afterward, so it's a moot point. Plus, if you can break 10 formations using 4, then your opponent needs to learn to not intermingle his formations.

With the take-turns-activating-units mechanism, the Broken mechanism, the Commander ability (and the Retain mechanism), activations are always going to end up being uneven. The point being to balance activations at the top of the turn.



6, no as they're not activations, and yes, respectively. Spacecraft are an activation, as are the transported units. Drop Pods aren't a seperate activation. Aircraft aren't an issue at all, they're just a normal activation.

You'd add up the activations both on and off table. Once an activation is removed from the game, then it doesn't count. If you're standing down with an activation, whether it's staying on Overwatch, staying on CAP or staying in Reserves, then you have to declare those as your last action of the turn anyway, so any additional passes are lost.

The debate would be whether to count Slow and Steady spaceships in the first two turns, and whether to count a formation that starts a turn Broken.

If you're reducing your activations by choice by loading the Terminators into the Thawks, then that's your choice to reduce your activations in return for tactical flexibility. You could always just deploy the Terminators on the table, and use the Thawks for ground attack and objective grabbing...

Battletech dealt with a similar problem by ruling that once you have twice as many activations as the other guy, you start moving two to his one.

So if I had six and the other guy had ten, we'd each move one. I'd have five, he'd have nine, so we'd do the same again. Now I'd have four and he'd have eight, so I'd move one and he'd move two.

The advantage with this is that its neutral and works the same way at all times.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Theres a second (sudden death) iteration to this mechanic that has some very interesting effects, which is the rule that either player can 'pass,' but two consecutive 'passes' end a turn.

This does impose a certain cost to passing, in that it grants the other player the opportunity to end the turn. As a mechanic, it worked extremely well for Victory Games' Vietnam, and for many of the Area Move series games, a la Storm Over Arnhem and Turning Point Stalingrad.

Nb. one impact of the 'pass' mechanic is to magnify the value of units on Op Fire.

But it just seems that the gaming of the system shifts from high activation counts, to another format. Your argument for not intermingling is valid. So is the argument for having sufficient flexibility in the activation count. Unless a proper command and control system was implemented, which reflected an inability to effectively control large numbers of independent formations, and some form of penalty for exceeding it, the problem of disparate activations is going to exist, and that all that changes is how it gets abused.


Regarding the THawk/Terminators, I'm penalized for using the Transport rule under the new system, just in a different way than under the old?

Webways cause a problem because of their optionability. I wasn't clear, so I'll explain. I have 3 Portals. I have 4 formations off board. One of those portals is broken and can't activate. One of those portals is fixed, and in an abandoned section of the table. Now, even though I can only bring on three formations, do I count them as 3 or 4? But I'm not likely to bring on more than 1, and I can't 'pass' with ones in the Webway like I could if they were on the table, or Aircraft. I'm not saying a decision can't be made on how to organize it, I'm saying it'll a) need to be explained, and b) will likely be a problem for someone's game, regardless.


When do you count? Before or after teleports? Because if I've got 4 squads of Ulthwe Swooping Hawks, and an Avatar, it'll be important to know whether I get shafted for deploying, or not deploying them.

And aircraft can stand down during a turn as an activation. This means that they get the best of both worlds. They are an activation (like formations on the board) that can't be affected (like formations in Webways), but can choose to burn an activation in the normal sequence (unlike Teleporters, who don't count under the current system).


So, Spacecraft count as an activation even when they can't activate? And given that they aren't eliminated, would they count for the remainder of the game?

And broken units might count, even though they can't activate? Then you get the a similar issue I have with Fearless formations. Where as an opponent, I hope I DON'T wipe out a formation. If there's two relatively ineffective units left in the formation I just broke, that it is actually a bonus for me.

I'm not saying a solution can't be found, but I just think it's either going to be complicated, or it's going to be as gameable as the current system, just in a different way. The suggestion of using the BattleTech system SK suggested, has merit, but is open to abuse, especially by those who can take advantage of the Retain rule. And the Retain rule is one of the best things about the Epic activation system, IMO.

Morgan Vening

How about getting rid of turns entirely, and finding an in-game method to penalize units for multiple consecutive activations.

Warmaster: Armageddon?

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Actually, I was thinking about the GMT Great Battles of History mechanic... but yes, it's a Warmaster mechanic (Future War Commander) as well.

I don't think an activation compensation would be complicated at all. Any unit not destroyed counts, no matter if it's on table or not, broken or not.

It's counted at the start of the turn, and no one care about deployed, teleported, OW, broken or whatever. An activation is an activation, even if you plan not to use it or what. AND that makes for a simple mechanism.

You keep your forces in reserve, off board in the webway, in a thunderhawk cabin or readying to teleport, it's your choice and I don't think the rule should offer you some compensation for choosing not to use part of your forces. But an activation compensation mechanism is IMHO something that should have been implemented in E:A for a long time now.

It would open a lot of possibilities in list development, and help shift the balance away from 250 Pts formations. High activation would still give you some benefit over low activation, (an activation is still better than a "pass"), but I think it is the main (only ?) issue with the core rules. Activation count rules too much.


edit :
getting rid of turns might work, but would need more reworking. I will reread warmaster rules before commenting more on that

You mean besides the -1 modifier to activate?

I guess what I was going for in my first post was that the system as it is now encourages people to favor taking more activations, where as I believe the system should be neutral toward the number of activations an army has.

The problem with setting relative limits (i.e. when one army has fewer activations than the opposing army in a given game) is that there are many situations where the number of formations available doesn't always equal the number of activations available, and confusion can be a result.

The benefit of a fixed number of activations per player per turn is that it would be a known quantity from the beginning (thus not favoring either player), and it would encourage the use of generally underused rules mechanics already built into the system.

For example, lets say for arguements sake that the activation limit is 6 activations per player in a 3000 point game. Let us also state that any formations that are left over after the limit is reached are not prevented from activating, but are instead limited to a short list of available orders [overwatch, single, and engage]. Under those conditions, an army with 10 activations (which is normal now) would still be viable as long as some commander units where included. Under the same system loading up multiple units in a air transport is less penalized, and an all-WE army doesn't have to worry as much about being forced to activate its entire army before the opponent makes any tactically significant moves.

Another benefit of the activation limit approach is that it can be easily modified per player agreement. If 1 activation per 500pts seems too low a limit for the players, they can be free to increase it to any other value they agree to. I mean, there was a reason why I title the thread 'Rules Variation' and not 'suggested rule change'.

As for ditching turns entirely, I think its a bad idea. The 'setting' for this game is a battlefield with many simultaneous maneuvers taking place. Getting rid of the turn system and moving to a 'activate until you lose the initiative' model changes the game in a fundamental way. It would become a system where some formations would just sit on the sidelines and not participate while the formations closer to the action get activated multiple time in a row.

Probably right that it's a bad idea for E:A, mainly because it has already been done in the form of Future War Commander.

I agree with you, the problem with a turn-less system is limiting the hyper-activity of favored formations: cumulating the -1 modifier, or dropping a blast marker on any formation that has activated... something similar. But I'm not entirely sure that double and triple actions need to be totally eliminated as unrealistic: modern warfare has enough instances of contrast between fleet-footed and flat-footed organizations to grant 'hyper active' formations a degree of plausibility on the game-board.