Unless it is changed in the gold version of the rules the RAW is that I can reveal a first fire order to gain the "empthy activation" -Scream quoted the text.

It also make more sense to me (and the small danish group that plays), Scream (guess he represent the french group) and now another new player. Could we just keep the rules as they are and not introduce another confusing element (IMO).

1. Orders are placed
2. During movement the players take turn revealing an order (and move the unit if its on advance or charge)
3. During movement an opponent can reveal a first fire order and remove the order (or remove an already revealed first fire order) and then snap fire at a moving model using the rules for snap fire
4. Players are allowed to reveal first fire orders to gain an empthy activation

That are the rules as I read them today and how we remember playing them back in the day. The introduction of something else breaks with RAW I believe. I would propose such a change is discussed instead of just added to the rules.

Kind regards
Ronnie

Very interesting reading through this thread now, quite some time after the last reply During the few games we have played after getting back into the game 25+ years later, one big issue we've had has been exactly this, the activations in the movement phase.

I always play Squats and my opponent Orks. I, in true Squat spirit, tend to have a LOT of units on first fire orders, and I have always "empty activated" a lot of FF units forcing my opponent to have to reveal basically all orders he has, before I have had to activate mine (activate the important orders, i.e. non FF orders ).
It has always felt like a huge advantage for me, and I even started to try and come up with some alternative to balance it.

But now, reading this thread, I realize I/we have obviously misinterpreted how activations should be done, oh dear, how would those battles have turned out if we had played correctly Needless to say, I have won all our battles so far.

Well, this will definitely balance things I guess

Yes that feels like an advantage to static armies to me too.

I can understand the logic of RAW, and especially if you are playing tournaments and need a set of rules with everyone reading them in the same way, but for my friends and I we will use the system whereby an empty activation is not permitted.

By the actual, written wording of Gold, activating a FF detachment during movement is not only allowed, but encouraged. What Primarch was describing must therefore be considered one of his many "house rules" and not how Gold is intended to function.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Yes, agreed, reading the Gold rules it looks crystal clear that you are allowed to do exactly thatm "empty activate" a unit on FF order and force your opponent to decide.
It sounded though from Primarch's post that, this was something that had been noticed, that defensive armies/FF prone armies (as Squats for example), had a bit of too heavy advantage. That it had been noticed and probably should be dealt with for coming versions of Netepic, or perhaps a revision of the Gold rules?
Anyway, the thread looked pretty "dead" after 2016 somewhere so it was just interesting to read and see how ppl play this today.

Even though it will be a disadvantage to me as a Squat player, I still think it makes it a lot more balanced and the games more interesting. I mean, I can't see any disadvantage with "empty activations", I mean the player doing that?

Anyone else have any thoughts around how to play the empty activations, how do you play it? I mean allow it according to Gold rules or use a house rule and disallow it?