One Page Rules: The Best Part No One Talks About

Just a silly little video discussing a really hard to discuss aspect of OPR.

[@adamlay1013]

Completely agree! Alternating activations is a brilliant mechanic that keeps me engaged, thanks!

[@Rygat]

It also prevents players from being damn near tabled before they even have a chance to have their turn

[@billcedarheath387]

I have a house rule for chit pulling to determine which player is moving. Each unit for each side gets a chit/token into a bag. I use blue and red wooden blocks. Mix them up and blind draw. The color decides which player has the move and they then decide what unit they are activating. Once they complete the activation for that unit the drawn token gets put beside to show it was activated and is done for the round. Then it’s rinse and repeat unit all the tokens are drawn and all the units are activated. That completes the round. With the round over, collect the chits put them back into the bag and do it all again. When a unit is destroyed/removed from play, be sure the token is not put into the bag at the end of the turn. This method of play creates the chaos of war. This system also creates great solo play where you play each side to the best of your ability.

[@crispycritter9163]

I also use this method, great mechanic, great game. A timely video, more please.

[@TheJoyofWargaming]

My only observation - and not necessarily A criticism - here is that this mechanic inverts the consideration of "a small number of units makes it more likely I go first on later turns". An army list with a small number of units will be less likely to go first on subsequent turns. I'd have to sit down and work out the tactical ramifications of that.

[@crispycritter9163]

@@TheJoyofWargaming Good point. I think the draw method rewards having more activations. I like this because I don't like initiative to be given, I like to earn it thru play. Not to take away from what you are doing, OPR has many forms when you use the advanced rules, a strength IMO.

[@billcedarheath387]

@@TheJoyofWargaming It doesn’t make a difference. Points to build an army/list is the same for both sides. Small units or big units all have to move. You can make choices to be risky or play it safe. There are times you second guess yourself and times you get bogged down by the chit draws. Ebb and flow is never predictable. Plus, the not knowing of which chit gets pulled next adds a huge layer of decision making to the battle. My friends and I bring this system into every game we play if we can. Being that we are all military vets, we love the uncertainty of battle orders and emulates the chaos factor of war. It makes things less of a game and more of a leadership/command decision. We find it far more enjoyable. It’s a great mechanic to have in a game, but you can’t just play it once and decide if you like it or not. Because of the uncertainty of the draw you need to try it a few times to get a true feel of what it brings to a game.

[@billcedarheath387]

I’ll add this… it’s a mechanic that is in some popular wargames. Bolt Action uses a draw system for example. Bottom line is the you go I go can even suffer as if one side has 5 units and the opposing side has 3… you go an I go falls apart and the player with 5 gets 2 turns in a row at the end. With chit draw that isn’t always the case.

[@billcedarheath387]

Just a heads up for those that didn’t know. One Page Rules has a new game/ruleset for solo and co-op play. Age of Fantasy: Quest It went into public beta on June 14th. More details on it are on the One Page Rules website.

[@arjade_24]

Thats so true about holding up the enemy. That turn limit is something that makes the game a lot more pressure filled and exciting I think.

[@mr___blue]

Considering basically all of the long running games in history (chess, checkers, go, shogi, etc) use alternating activation, it shouldn't be surprising it is a good mechanic for driving engagement in a game. That being said, the whole side activation games have depth of their own way, but its of a different type.

[@TheJoyofWargaming]

Indeed. I am far more forgiving of whole side activations than most. Heck, I even use it in D&D, and very few do that these days.

[@thel1chking]

You’re absolutely correct - and it’s why this system is the most skill driven - it changes every time due to AA.

[@Squidkov]

A game is supposed to be played, it should be joyful and tell stories. Wargaming is included in this definition, i feel like.

[@Corvinuswargaming1444]

the emphasis on list-building with these rules is I think a hang-over from how current Warhammer 40k is played, where the game is essentially won or lost in list building rather than the actual tactical gameplay

[@TheJoyofWargaming]

The more dice you roll, the greater the trend towards the mean. Those buckets of dice games have that tendency to ensure that you feel like you're doing more at the table than you really are. Which kicks the important decisions up to the list-building level. List building still matters down here at the skirmish level, but not nearly to the same extent.

[@WarbossFitz]

You bring up some great points. Between camera shots I do have to think about what happened on the last activation, what the next activation should be, and what the opponents response could be. I should put more explanation of "why" a unit is activating the way it is. Love your channel!

[@TheJoyofWargaming]

Fitz, baby! Welcome to the Mutual Appreciation Society, population: us! Your channel is an inspiration and big help for us dabblers.

[@toddcarlson5324]

Great discussion! Alternating activations is the main reason I like OPR so much! An older TTG called Warzone introduced the concept to me and after playing that game, I've always looked for games that use that type of activation. Fortunately, the current TTG market has a lot of rule set options from Indie developers that are not stuck in the 1980s design space and use better (i.e. more interesting) systems for their games.

[@arjade_24]

So true. Its one of the main things that makes a game feel fair to me. I dont like a "i move my whole army, you move your whole army" game because the size of what happens before i have my turn and you have yours is so huge amd cruahingt.

[@argy8141]

Firstly, I agree with you, it is interesting and is totally game theory. However, I'm sure that KZbin content providers are not showing that level of detail largely because it is not seen as important as the rules, the models and the battlefield in providing KZbin content. Most battle reports I see are in reality game mechanics teaching videos. I suspect the detail you reference are in all the games people play that are not videoed. And that's because playing is far more important and easier than videoing and editing. And for that reason alone you deserve huge credit. i see the modelling as a painful sideshow, I am much more of a gamer. Saying that 90+% of my hobby time is modelling and army lists largely because I can't get the time with mates, friends, family, opposition etc to play. One evening to play every couple of weeks versus 6/7 nights to do stuff solo. Scenario, army design is a distraction at lunchtimes etc. Having played a lot of Nordic Weasels Five Parsecs (solo) where Ivan spent a lot of time devising systems to set up battlefields, objectives, opposition AI to provide you, as a solo gamer a real challenge. This has been enhanced with the various expansions that he has authored. My Five Parsecs crew is largely fixed but my mission objectives are varied and can have separate side ventures and in rmission events. The opposition isn't fixed and varies in size, composition, effectiveness, tactics and equipment. This gives me, the player, huge variability in the challenge and I don't always succeed in meeting that challenge. My last mission the crew leader was "killed" in mission and post mission it was confirmed that he had passed away. However i think the biggest issue our tabletop battles have is the "perfection". The perfectly curated max min army list to face the opposition. In Neil Thomas's One-Hour Wargames: Practical Tabletop Battles he addresses this alongside his many scenarios by not allowing the opposing generals to have perfectly crafted army lists. You are given an army composition, one of six from memory, to fight your tabletop battle. This, I think, provides a much better challenge and in some ways removes the "intensiveness" of my army and army list is better than yours. You have to adapt to the resources you have rather than the resources you woud like. I'm not sure the 40k crowd would agree but then again the 40k crowd are not the ones tuning into your channel and these rulesets. Thanks for the different perspective.

[@TheJoyofWargaming]

Good points all around. Neil's game turns into something of a chess match, but one in which you can't be certain of your pieces, which helps to keep games fresh even after several plays. The 30 scenarios certainly helps with that too.

[@argy8141]

@@TheJoyofWargaming This is where choosing the right ruleset for you is important. As I mature, the philosophy of good, better, best sort of fails in this arena. It becomes situational, I use to denigrate rulesets, perhaps to feel morally right (fools errand). Neil's rulesets are very simple, it's the same ruleset across each of the eras described in two pages, hardly reminiscent of the old Wargames Research Groups rulesets of the 70s and 80s. But to that end the simplest games (small rulesets), chess, draughts (checkers), backgammon are hugely strategic. So the feint and counter feint, the simplicity of the organisational units and the combat system leaves it as a "how do I engage" process to get advantage. As I've got older I've valued more the quick and simple enough, over the thorough and overly complicated. To get new blood into the hobby, I feel speed, fun and replayability become more important than accurate simulations. The old gaming group in London with the regimental sergeant majors complaining about the wrong headgear for this campaign drove me out of the hobby for 20 years. My sons and I now frequently play similar sceanrios one after another, as playing is far more important than the setting up and historical accuracy. And with quick resets and replayability comes good use of time. Have fun and keep what you're doing, it is hugely important and you may only be preaching to the choir, but it is an appreciative choir. Take care.

[@maxx142]

Jon, it's discussions like this that is why you have one of the best channels on the KZbins. Started watching since the Solo Wargaming Guide days. it made me buy the book. Keep up the good work and I'm praying for you.

[@TheJoyofWargaming]

God bless ya, friend.

[@yellowbellytabletop]

Great discussion. I love your description of the table state as a puzzle to solve in that instant and how alternating activations multiplies those instances exponentially within a game. I also think that the idea that controlling objective markers is an 'overly simple' win condition and that we need complex point systems and secondary objectives is a fallacy. Complex scenarios are not necessarily bad but they aren't needed for a game to have tactical depth.

[@SomeDudeOnYouTube]

this lad send me here.

[@nERVEcenter117]

This activation system is simple, keeps players engaged, and GW should've done it long ago. Still love Fistful of Lead's card system more. (Also Grimdark Future's lorebook was as lame as it gets. They shouldn't have wasted the time.)

[@RHampton]

It is a great mechanic. I started thinking about this when I saw a kreigsspiele light wargame called Pub Battles that uses it. I think a preemption / interruption mechanic along with some kind of grouping move can sand down some of the randomness so some more coordinated maneuvers can happen with non skirmish games.

[@tagg1080]

I think you stepped on the answer to your questions at the beginning of the video. When most of the hobby is painting and looking at unit lists then people want to be able to take 30 minute uninterrupted turns to play out the fantasy Grand tactic they've been dreaming of. That is very different from organic tactics at the table

[@danmorgan3685]

Alternating activation is so much better than I-Go-You-Go.

[@leejesm]

dude, thank you for this. this was fascinating.

[@ForcesOfBattle]

Alternating is definitely necessarily for full scale war games. Skirmishes maybe not so much but I understand the appeal. Personally I like doing all of my activations in one turn and then watching my opponent take their turn. The visuals are half the experience for me.

[@garfieldv2]

I most definitely paint (so the hobby side) more than play. Love OPR, though.

[@TheJoyofWargaming]

We all do. It is an important ingredient in the dish of miniature wargaming, and I don't mean to slight it. Only to say that those who consider painting is a means to a gaming end should not take game advice from those who consider painting the ends.

[@arjade_24]

Lmao... Mooktroops. Im definitely stealing that.

[@samhale5413]

GF Warfleets FTL not only has alternating activation, but also adds the mechanic of smallest to largest units. As in all small units, then medium units, then etc. Your board-walkers don't activate until the last which changes their strategies entirely.

[@Vegas7.62]

Im subscribed to onepagerules for all the STLs for 3d printing. Cool to see your opinion on the actual game system

[@NossCalavera1670]

I agree, alternating activations feel like chess to me. It's more engaging

[@riggermortisfpv526]

I agree, and love others that use a similar system such as gruntz 15mm. Getting people to try it is the bump in the road I am encountering, however, in my view many 40k players aren't really thinking on the same level as gamers that seek out other systems and mini producers. They want GW stuff, period, no thinking beyond that.....idk maybe Im just an old grognard.

[@N4CHobby]

OPR is more like chest, where one pawn can be decisive is used well. Great video :)

[@j453]

It's been a long while since I watched you, hope you've been well! Question, have you gotten a/some new birds? I hear something hoo-hoo'ing in your background.

[@TheJoyofWargaming]

So many birds. I have this hobby, my wife has her birds. We are watching a ground dove and a rather loud cockatiel for $$$ at the moment. In this case it was just me recording before their bedtime. They get fussy in the early evening.

[@bruced648]

you are close to the 'considered simultaneous' game turn. the next aspect to consider trying, apply the effects of any wounds - at the end of the turn. not when the wound is achieved. this allows ALL units to participate during a turn. but, if units are removed when the wound is secured, you are removing units before they could have participated. as I have said for decades - the IGYG format, is garbage.

[@kudosbudo]

battletech has i go you go movement then applies damage simultaneously

[@bruced648]

@kudosbudo the battletech format is an alternating activation. it is not player A moves everything, then player B moves everything - unless you are only using a single mech each. then, shooting is done the same way. followed by physical attacks. during end phase, damage is applied and heat effects are determined. while initiative based tactical war games are a challenge for nearly simultaneous action, battletech does have a format that actually accomplishes this. are you familiar with the double-blind rules? two (or more) players are set up on identical maps. each turn, during movement, both players move at the same time, but on separate maps. a 'referee player' then positions the opposing mech on each players map. this is similar to the game 'battleship', except that the pieces are constantly in motion. so, I have to disagree, battletech does not have an IGYG format (movement or otherwise). and a player will most of the time, not get tabled turn-one, without ever having an opportunity to use units destroyed during turn-one.

[@bryanblalack4340]

I really like your deep dive into this aspect of OPR! However, I think it is a bit of a strawman to say, "No one is talking about this." Especially when every content creator I've seen talk about OPR mentions it. Now you make excellent points that may not come up, and you definitely expanded on the strategy of AA and even gave a mention to Objective locations and deployment. Good discussion though!

[@TheJoyofWargaming]

Don't mind the clickbait. It's all part of the game.

[@charleslatora5750]

Guess I need a set of these rules...

[@MiniWarMutt]

Yes, you do, Charles. They're free and very fun to play! Easy, too. Get after it!

[@APsychicMonkey]

Alternating activations makes Ambushing much more dangerous! You can't just casually teleport/deep strike wherever you want, as the opponent can very much take the initiative and counterattack! It definitely makes the game much more dynamic and less repetitive.

[@arjade_24]

Thumbs up for chonky dwarves

[@TheJoyofWargaming]

That whole Demonworld line is so good. Amazing detail for fifteens.

[@joshuawilson8804]

I always bring it up when I compare it to 40k or Warhammer. 'You get to actually need to pay attention.'

[@SomeDudeOnYouTube]

@yellowbellytabletop sends their regards 8)

[@syd4890]

I I mean chess has done alt act for millennia and it's still going strong 😊

[@calebhebert2733]

Based

[@mikeelliott2736]

Nothing new under the sun. Alternating unit activation appeared in Dirtside II in 1993 and Stargrunt II in 1996.