"Round, turn, phase, bound, initiative, activation..." Topic

Like many gamers, I suspect, I read a lot more rulesets than I actually play.

Each game has its own idiosyncratic way of defining the "parts" of a battle. Some of the terms I've listed in the title – bound to be others I've forgotten or not come across yet.

Now it seems there is not a lot of standardisation. Older rules writers who cut their teeth on the wargames of a different era seem to like terms like "bound" or "phase". Rules authors who grew up with Games Workshop et al will be more familiar with (and therefore likely to use) less technical terms like "round" or "turn".

Horse for courses – both have their merits – just as Phil Barker writes precise rules that can't be misinterpreted, while Phil Barker writes dense rules that are painful and needlessly exclusive. Sorry Phil – just a well-known example, hardly the only author who receives mixed reviews.

However, my point is that – to me at least – some of those words "feel like" they are more broad and all-encompassing, while others "feel like" they should make up the sub-parts of whatever the larger units are.

e.g. in a turn, I expect every player will get to do something. When everyone has had at least a chance to do something, then it is a reasonable time for a turn to end, and for a new one to begin. It is reasonable to define game length in terms of a number of turns.

e.g. a phase feels like it should be a smaller part of, say, a turn. Perhaps you have a "roll for initiative phase", or a "spellcasting phase", or a "rally phase". Something specific – and limited – is done within that phase, and then you move on.

Imagine you reverse the meanings (some authors do interesting things!).

Now the game consists of four Phases. Within each Phase, there is the Movement Turn, Close Combat Turn, Ranged Combat Turn…

It just doesn't sound right, does it? So perhaps there is some sort of de facto standardisation after all – something that is gradually developing over time, perhaps?

It just doesn't sound right, does it? So perhaps there is some sort of de facto standardisation after all – something that is gradually developing over time, perhaps?

Sounds like bliss for some and a recurring nightmare for others.

Turn means I go – you go alternate plays in the game.

Phases to me means portion of – as in Phase of the moon.

In some games one side has the initiative and many options are removed from the other player, this type of game may give one side a disproportionate amount of control

A skirmish rule set may need to break down the game into smaller parts than a game based on a brigade level.

Call it phases ot turn it is just a way of organising the list of things a gamer needs to go through when he or she has control

A bound has a very specific military meaning, which maps quite well onto the stop-go nature of turn based wargames.

Having said that, I have no problem with a turn divided into phases, this works for both IGOUGO and interactive turn sequences.

In my eyes it seems natural that a round may consist of several turns where every player gets to do their stuff, but hardly the reverse.

Provided the terms are clearly and unambigously defined in the rules, I don't much care what they are called.

FWIW, I usually consider an activation as consisting of one or more actions.

I have thought of calling the time intervals of a game -innings. An inning has two parts, one for each player or side (if more than one player per side). These parts are called "ups." A player can take as much time as he wants to do every thing -- move, shoot, check, morale, melee. A "game" lasts for a fixed number of innings. Or than can be some objective to be achieved no matter how many innings are needed, but both players get same number of ups. Or, an inning may end when a certain event occurs.

Some actions in an inning are influenced by the other player (side). Shooting, for example can be done entirely by the up player or can be countered by the other player.

Another approach is "continuous action." This is like a game with innings but the up player does just one thing with one "unit" of his command, then the other player gets his ups. All consequences related to the unit that performed an action are resolved at the end of the player's ups. For example, the player who is up, moves a unit. Then any shooting or melee or morale associated with that move is resolved. A stricter form of play would have shooting and moving as distinctive actions, not both, in one player's ups.

The first wargame I learned in any detail was original D&D (partly derived from original Chainmail). So I'm used to thinking of "turn" as being a strategic or scaled out division of activities; duration could be inexact but depending on scale a minute, 10 minutes, or an hour. The main point though was that there was no combat any adversary.

Once in contact with enemy, play reverted to the "round" which was very tactical -- every figure got to do something.

And 10 rounds rolled up into 1 turn, for game effects measured in turns rather than rounds.

Further detail -- what tactical actions specifically could be completed in a round -- was looked into extensively over the years as the system evolved, and some methods (chiefly non-official) used "phase" to break up the round -- as in "shooting phase", "movement phase", "casting phase", "combat phase".

Systems I've learned since then -- chiefly the GW ones -- use "turn" and break that up into "phase" but don't use "round".

So from that background, yes I feel "turn" is bigger than "phase" and if "round" is used, it is in between.

in a turn, I expect every player will get to do something

a phase feels like it should be a smaller part of, say, a turn

I try to avoid using "turn" as a broad term, because it can also has a "it's my turn now"-meaning. I usually use "round" instead, although I'm quite accustomed to turns also because many games use that term.

In the end, it doesn't really matter what terms you are using, as long as you define them properly. Of course, it would be nice if terms used would somehow be related to the period that is being played.

I prefer 'rounds', as opposed to 'turns' as they are sometimes used to describe a units movement. This turn unit 'x' turns 45 degrees.

Not usually an issue in most games but potentially critical in others.

However 'rounds' can also refer to a unit firing individual artillery 'rounds'.

e.g. …six rounds later….

Could be interpreted in different ways?

We use "Turn" as the broad term that encompasses the active player's actions, which are defined by different "Phases". Within one of those Phases, the Combat Phase, both players resolve 'combat engagements' which broadly consist of alternating "Combat Rounds" driven by initiative at the start of each engagement.

So we use every term in your title except "Bound" and "Activation".

The turn is the entire thing

A player turn is part of the turn (generally two player turns in a turn but I have played a boardgame in which each player has two player turns in a game turn and then there is an admin phase )