Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Apparently needing to actually think about how to counter the opponent is too long a process, who needs a tactical game right?
Sorry chum, but you’re not having that one,
I do think about how to counter my opponent. That’s what I do with my deployment and movement phases. I know what I want to do come my turn, so I take steps to ensure I have as good a chance of being able to do so. I do the same when designing a list, particularly where I’ve little knowledge of my opponent’s army prior.
Same in IGOUGO as AA. Indeed, I could be a total arse and insist that AA, without Epic’s orders method allows less tactical players a chance to pull their bum out the fire before I can fully capitalise on their mistake. Except that’s just a trite willy wave, no?
In short? Neither is more tactical or strategic than the other.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The "hey this is a neat feature" thing are in the forums where they actually exist - painting and modeling and 40k background (though the latter sometimes has upheavals).
There aren't too many "neat features" to be put into 40k general, because the game doesn't have that many - certainly not many that aren't immediately burdened by junk.
Examples:
Sure, it's a neat feature that you can build any army you want in any playstyle you want - except oops, not really, no.
It's a neat feature to use command points, but some armies (daemons) have crap stratagems while others (space Marines ) have several codexes worth, so it's only neat for some people sometimes.
Daemonic Summoning is a neat and fluffy feature, but isn't actually of any utility in Matched Play, and Matched Play is the only way many people play.
The divergence between Narrative and Matched is cool in GW's rules writing, but even GW recognizes that this divergence just means everyone defaults to Matched and that's why they're doing a narrative shakeup in 9th, which I am optimistic for and excited over.
Hey, summoning lets you have more than 3x exalted flamers, thats a win in my books.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: Sounds like you're one of the people who should quit the game.
You're clearly not enjoying it. Don't be a prisoner to something you don't like.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Apparently needing to actually think about how to counter the opponent is too long a process, who needs a tactical game right?
Sorry chum, but you’re not having that one,
I do think about how to counter my opponent. That’s what I do with my deployment and movement phases. I know what I want to do come my turn, so I take steps to ensure I have as good a chance of being able to do so. I do the same when designing a list, particularly where I’ve little knowledge of my opponent’s army prior.
Same in IGOUGO as AA. Indeed, I could be a total arse and insist that AA, without Epic’s orders method allows less tactical players a chance to pull their bum out the fire before I can fully capitalise on their mistake. Except that’s just a trite willy wave, no?
In short? Neither is more tactical or strategic than the other.
Not trying to start a fight here but would you explain how being able to react to your opponent's movements in "real time" less tactical than just taking it?
Ishagu wrote:Sounds like you're one of the people who should quit the game.
You're clearly not enjoying it. Don't be a prisoner to something you don't like.
I'm enjoying it with certain armies. I like it with my Adepta Sororitas. They're in a good place, and I really enjoy the rules GW made for them. And do you know what? There's just not much for me to say about them. I like 'em, I run an Argent Shroud horde which is off-meta for them, and it works still because GW balanced the codex really well. So I don't post often, because what is there to say?
I don't enjoy it with other armies. I dislike my Daemons, because their rules are bad. And there's a lot to say about that:
1) Why melee armies are bad in general can and has been an entire thread
2) Why Daemons are bad specifically can and has been an entire thread
3) What to do about it can and has been an entire thread
4) Suggestions for improvements can and has been an entire thread
etc.
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: The "hey this is a neat feature" thing are in the forums where they actually exist - painting and modeling and 40k background (though the latter sometimes has upheavals).
There aren't too many "neat features" to be put into 40k general, because the game doesn't have that many - certainly not many that aren't immediately burdened by junk.
Examples:
Sure, it's a neat feature that you can build any army you want in any playstyle you want - except oops, not really, no.
It's a neat feature to use command points, but some armies (daemons) have crap stratagems while others (space Marines ) have several codexes worth, so it's only neat for some people sometimes.
Daemonic Summoning is a neat and fluffy feature, but isn't actually of any utility in Matched Play, and Matched Play is the only way many people play.
The divergence between Narrative and Matched is cool in GW's rules writing, but even GW recognizes that this divergence just means everyone defaults to Matched and that's why they're doing a narrative shakeup in 9th, which I am optimistic for and excited over.
Hey, summoning lets you have more than 3x exalted flamers, thats a win in my books.
True, true. It does get around the rule of 3, which is pretty neat.
Karol wrote:and are given such great arguments presented, as . You play in a tournament setting against evil people, in an evil place there for you should stop playing tournaments.
I mean, it's not wrong. Your particular environment (not necessarily you) is incredibly harsh. I wouldn't be caught dead there.
Lance845 wrote:I got it!
We can discuss the games failings so long as you do so in the form of a compliment sandwich to appease the cultists.
8th edition is the best edition so far.
But it still sucks big time as a result of many issues including bloat of rules, wargear, poor rules writing, too many books, a boring turn structure, etc...
But man those new models look sweet!
Is that better?
Calling people who enjoy the game "cultists" isn't a good start.
I appreciate the compliment sandwich, but if you avoid lacing it with drippings of condescension, that would be nice too.
Siegfriedfr wrote:labelling someone anything isn't an opener for a civil discussion.
Quite so - things such as "cultist", "white knight" and "cheerleader", for instance.
the_scotsman wrote:If you don't want discussion to be derailed by negativity, find the things that are useful to discuss and respond to them, or propose your own ideas for what might be changed based on what we know so far. If you really find people to be unrelentless haters, the ignore functionality is right there and voila, they no longer clog up your view of the thread.
There's a difference between negativity and criticism that eludes many people, in the same way there's a difference blind positivity and enjoyment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Ishagu wrote:That's exactly what I'm saying. If you believe that the bad outweighs the good then simply walk away. Come back in a few years or don't. You contribute only negativity and frankly it's boring. It's in every topic and damages every discussion.
Complaining doesn't mean we believe the bad outweighs the good.
Eldarsif wrote:I am going to be honest. If people think Warhammer is garbage I highly recommend playing other games. Nothing good comes from hanging around in a community and a game you despise, unless your life goal is to foster bitterness and hate. Life is too short for such meanderings.
Hate ain't going to solve any of your problems, and will probably cause more than not.
again, complaining doesn't mean we believe the bad outweighs the good.
Ishagu wrote:That's exactly what I'm saying. If you believe that the bad outweighs the good then simply walk away. Come back in a few years or don't. You contribute only negativity and frankly it's boring. It's in every topic and damages every discussion.
again, complaining doesn't mean we believe the bad outweighs the good.
Ishagu wrote:Not at all. There are many problems with the game that can be discussed productively.
However, if you believe that there is more bad than good, and literally don't have fun playing the game I don't see what you can offer beyond the typical snide hate, sarcasm and negativity. There is nothing positive about the discussions involving this attitude.
.
again, complaining doesn't mean we believe the bad outweighs the good.
If all someone does is complain, you can forgive people for thinking that they definitely *do* think the bad outweighs the good.
Don't think the bad outweighs the good? Fine - where are all the threads saying "hey, I like this feature"?
Abadabadoobaddon wrote:If you find negativity "boring" why are you reading/posting in a topic entitled "9th edition is already dead in the water (IGO/UGO)"?
My question is why should a thread so blatantly weighted against constructive discussion have been allowed to stay open?
VladimirHerzog wrote:Thats not the common consensus right now. it was OP's opinion but has now devolved into a "8th is perfect, don't critizise it, hater" and "we can't pass judgment on 9th until we see the rules" and "Ishagu is god".
Yeah, no-one's saying that.
But hey, if you want to misrepresent people's arguments: "this is thread is all now people calling for death threats on people who enjoy 40k!!!"
If you want people to take you seriously, don't blatantly misrepresent people's arguments. No-one's saying 8th was "perfect". They're saying they enjoyed it. Even Ishagu has pointed out things they disliked, or would have improved upon. No-one's saying "don't criticise". They're saying "if ALL you can do is criticise, what's the point in staying?"
Prove me wrong - where are the threads by people who commonly criticise 40k saying how much they like XYZ feature?
I agree that we can't pass judgment on 9th just yet, but OP is free to voice his disapointment in the lack of AA.
In a constructive manner. They failed to do so. Instead, we got hyperbole, apoplectic rage, and exaggeration in bucketloads. This is a *discussion* forum, not a venting forum.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/788704.page here you go. I didn't format the thread as "things I like" because as you said, it is a discussion forum, but if you want a positive thread from someone who regularly criticizes aspects of 8th, here you go!
VladimirHerzog wrote: Not trying to start a fight here but would you explain how being able to react to your opponent's movements in "real time" less tactical than just taking it?
No fight picking detected
I was intending to point out exactly that. AA and IGOUGO offer different decisions.
Me, I don’t like AA when there’s no restriction on what my opponent can do. This stems from my love for 2nd Ed Space Marine, where once I’d set orders, I was tied into certain permutations. To me it adds a further level of skill, as I find it requires more forethought than being free to shoot, charge or fall back etc. As far as I can say this with a straight face when talking about any war game, I find it more realistic and representative of a unit given poor orders/making a poor decision and getting jumped. Total freedom of reaction just ain’t for me.
Downside of that can be seen in X-Wing, where experience means so much that it’s bloody difficult for a newbie to not get the poop kicked out of them. The system itself is great, but in a regular group can make things a bit unwelcomingly hard for newcomers.
IGOUGO can be a pain when what initially looked like a single mistake turns into a proper kicking. But hey, that’s me being outplayed right there, and not a flaw of the system. Yes, I can lose a chunk of my force in the first turn - if I deploy poorly, or if I’m having to fight on a poorly terrained board. I’ve read posts where people tore in to 8th, claiming it’s not fair because they’d setup for first turn stomping, only to have their opponent seize and give them the kicking,
Swings and roundabouts, with neither being superior to the other,
Yes, I sure love having games turn into 1500 vs 2000 points because, despite LOS blocking terrain and "cover", the player going first can easily wipe out 25% of the opponents army with zero chance or way to prevent it.
Tell me, how am I meant to "deploy" correctly when a large chunk of my opponents army consists of mortars and basilisks, for example?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If all someone does is complain, you can forgive people for thinking that they definitely *do* think the bad outweighs the good.
Don't think the bad outweighs the good? Fine - where are all the threads saying "hey, I like this feature"?
I mean, that's human nature. We focus more on the negatives than the positives. Not liking something is a much stronger feeling than liking something, especially when it concerns something you're highly invested in (like 40k) so people are gonna vent their dislikes more than praise their likes.
This is a discussion forum. Not a venting forum.
And I'm sorry, but no - I'm not just going to buy "we don't say we like anything because it's human nature!" I dislike things about 8th, but you don't see me complaining about them in every thread, because generally speaking, I like 8th more than I dislike it, and I want my posts to reflect that. If I never posted anything positive, then I deserve any comments saying that all I do is complain.
If you're highly invested, but all you do is complain, why are you still invested?
VladimirHerzog wrote:Thats not the common consensus right now. it was OP's opinion but has now devolved into a "8th is perfect, don't critizise it, hater" and "we can't pass judgment on 9th until we see the rules" and "Ishagu is god".
Yeah, no-one's saying that.
But hey, if you want to misrepresent people's arguments: "this is thread is all now people calling for death threats on people who enjoy 40k!!!"
If you want people to take you seriously, don't blatantly misrepresent people's arguments. No-one's saying 8th was "perfect". They're saying they enjoyed it. Even Ishagu has pointed out things they disliked, or would have improved upon. No-one's saying "don't criticise". They're saying "if ALL you can do is criticise, what's the point in staying?"
Prove me wrong - where are the threads by people who commonly criticise 40k saying how much they like XYZ feature?
I was exaggerating my examples.
I know you were. Don't, if you people to take your argument seriously.
And again, criticizing is human nature, which is why you see more posts that are complaints.
That's not an excuse. Civility isn't in human nature, but that's an expectation for discussions.
If people want to dispel the image they've cultivated that all they do is complain, they have the power to do that.
I agree that we can't pass judgment on 9th just yet, but OP is free to voice his disapointment in the lack of AA.
In a constructive manner. They failed to do so. Instead, we got hyperbole, apoplectic rage, and exaggeration in bucketloads. This is a *discussion* forum, not a venting forum.
Personally, i go into "hyperbole ,apoplectic rage and exaggeration" mode when people come in here and simply dismiss all the arguements.
That's not an excuse. Don't complain about people not being civil or giving proper arguments when you admit to using hyperbole and exaggeration.
Heck, even if the subject isn't something that affects me directly, seeing someone write stuff like "The game is fine lol, why are you complaining" instead of trying to give actual arguments rubs me the wrong way.
In the same way that "the game is trash, why do you stand for this" is an actual argument?
No-one's saying "why are you complaining". They're saying "if all you do is complain, why are you here". There's a distinct difference. One is asking people to shut up and not voice their opinions. The other is calling people to act on their strongly held opinions in a constructive manner.
as for the "positive posts" if you look at the posts in general you'll notice that most posts are formulated as a question. "What is your opinion on X", "What do you think Y will bring to the game", etc. Its in these posts that you can find positivity because then it opens a discussion on something explicitely subjective. The post makes it clear that answers in them will be subjective.
Of course they'll be subjective - just like any opinion on 40k. People saying "IGOUGO sucks!" is a subjective thing, because there's clearly people who don't share those feelings, and are perfectly entitled to it. All discussion is subjective.
I'll give you positivity, heres what I personally love about the game :
Spoiler:
The various factions available that have different playstyles.
The Lore behind these factions (how do their war convocations work, how does each model operate on the battlefield).
The variety of options (in most armies, my Harlequins are sad :( ).
The look of the models. Them being goofy yet just realistic enough makes them instantly recognizeable as 40k, thats a style i like a lot.
The "epic gamer moments" that you can have in game [spoiler]best one i had was when my opponent tried smiting a model of mine and ended up periling and wiping 4 of their psykers AND taking down my model too, the warp was a fickle thing that day"
The game stays a strategy game, although quite simple, its simple to learn the basics and not complex enough for newer players to feel lost while learning it.
The fact that playing a game is a good excuse to chill with friends while having fun.
The hobby part of the game, painting minis is relaxing and the results are super satisfying.[/spoiler]
BaconCatBug wrote: Yes, I sure love having games turn into 1500 vs 2000 points because, despite LOS blocking terrain and "cover", the player going first can easily wipe out 25% of the opponents army with zero chance or way to prevent it.
Tell me, how am I meant to "deploy" correctly when a large chunk of my opponents army consists of mortars and basilisks, for example?
Why i was hoping casualties would be in its own phase at the end of the turn.
BaconCatBug wrote: Yes, I sure love having games turn into 1500 vs 2000 points because, despite LOS blocking terrain and "cover", the player going first can easily wipe out 25% of the opponents army with zero chance or way to prevent it.
Tell me, how am I meant to "deploy" correctly when a large chunk of my opponents army consists of mortars and basilisks, for example?
Define large chunk, if you’d be so kind, because hypothetical hyperbole for cheap point scoring is tres, tres passé.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Not trying to start a fight here but would you explain how being able to react to your opponent's movements in "real time" less tactical than just taking it?
No fight picking detected
I was intending to point out exactly that. AA and IGOUGO offer different decisions.
Me, I don’t like AA when there’s no restriction on what my opponent can do. This stems from my love for 2nd Ed Space Marine, where once I’d set orders, I was tied into certain permutations. To me it adds a further level of skill, as I find it requires more forethought than being free to shoot, charge or fall back etc. As far as I can say this with a straight face when talking about any war game, I find it more realistic and representative of a unit given poor orders/making a poor decision and getting jumped. Total freedom of reaction just ain’t for me.
Downside of that can be seen in X-Wing, where experience means so much that it’s bloody difficult for a newbie to not get the poop kicked out of them. The system itself is great, but in a regular group can make things a bit unwelcomingly hard for newcomers.
IGOUGO can be a pain when what initially looked like a single mistake turns into a proper kicking. But hey, that’s me being outplayed right there, and not a flaw of the system. Yes, I can lose a chunk of my force in the first turn - if I deploy poorly, or if I’m having to fight on a poorly terrained board. I’ve read posts where people tore in to 8th, claiming it’s not fair because they’d setup for first turn stomping, only to have their opponent seize and give them the kicking,
Swings and roundabouts, with neither being superior to the other,
I'm not familiar with 2nd Ed space marine so i can't pass judgment. It seems like both players would say "ill do X action with this squad" then both players would execute their actions?
Sure, AA is less noob-friendly, but thats because it offers more tactical decisions IMO.
A new player being excited and moving his big unit in the center of the table to see everything first, only for his opponents to stick every important target out of LoS is similar to mispositionning a unit during deployment and the enemy blowing it to pieces. In both cases you (should) learn from it and not do the same mistakes in your future games.
the_scotsman wrote:https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/788704.page here you go. I didn't format the thread as "things I like" because as you said, it is a discussion forum, but if you want a positive thread from someone who regularly criticizes aspects of 8th, here you go!
Thank you - however, I still don't think that's really the same as a positivity thread, more of a wishlisting thread.
A positivity thread might be more something like, as you said, a "things I like" or a "existing features and concepts I enjoy". I might even go ahead and make such a thread later on. If someone wants to ninja that, go ahead.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Or you can say how the criticisms weren't legit, except they are.
Like the same way you dismissed when I said I liked IGOUGO?
BaconCatBug wrote:Yes, I sure love having games turn into 1500 vs 2000 points because, despite LOS blocking terrain and "cover", the player going first can easily wipe out 25% of the opponents army with zero chance or way to prevent it.
Alpha striking and increased lethality is a problem. Not IGOUGO, in my opinion.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Not trying to start a fight here but would you explain how being able to react to your opponent's movements in "real time" less tactical than just taking it?
No fight picking detected
I was intending to point out exactly that. AA and IGOUGO offer different decisions.
Me, I don’t like AA when there’s no restriction on what my opponent can do. This stems from my love for 2nd Ed Space Marine, where once I’d set orders, I was tied into certain permutations. To me it adds a further level of skill, as I find it requires more forethought than being free to shoot, charge or fall back etc. As far as I can say this with a straight face when talking about any war game, I find it more realistic and representative of a unit given poor orders/making a poor decision and getting jumped. Total freedom of reaction just ain’t for me.
Downside of that can be seen in X-Wing, where experience means so much that it’s bloody difficult for a newbie to not get the poop kicked out of them. The system itself is great, but in a regular group can make things a bit unwelcomingly hard for newcomers.
IGOUGO can be a pain when what initially looked like a single mistake turns into a proper kicking. But hey, that’s me being outplayed right there, and not a flaw of the system. Yes, I can lose a chunk of my force in the first turn - if I deploy poorly, or if I’m having to fight on a poorly terrained board. I’ve read posts where people tore in to 8th, claiming it’s not fair because they’d setup for first turn stomping, only to have their opponent seize and give them the kicking,
Swings and roundabouts, with neither being superior to the other,
I sort of agree, I just think I greatly prefer a system where more interaction/reaction is available to the player whose turn it currently isn't.
It is very strange to me that in this game, there is precisely one action that my opponent gets to react to on my turn, and that's specifically hand-to-hand combat.
My opponent can have his models run out of cover, walk up to my models, point blank range, 1.00001" away, and unload shotguns into my face, and the only thing I can possibly do about that is make armor saves.
However, if those same models then want to move 0.0001" and hit my models with a stick, I get to automatically launch into a full shooting attack against them (albeit with reduced hit rolls) AND THEN after he finishes punching me, I get a chance to punch him right back.
And then suddenly, it becomes my Movement-Through-Shooting phase, and my opponent's models are the ones who freeze like statues, cheerily whistling while I walk about, smack them around with my psychic powers, blast them with my ranged weapons, just standing there and taking it like the folks at the wedding in Holy Grail. But wait, waitwaitwait, did you just go to hit me with a stick mate? Did you just pull out a sword, are you thinking of having a go? Well put up your dukes gov, now we've gotta go about this fair and square!
If the ghost of Robin Williams showed up and said he'd been reincarnated as a genie but only for Warhammer 40k and I get to write 9th edition, it'd still have my turn/your turn, but on my turn, all your units would get a Reaction token, which they could use any time any of the following occurred:
1) An enemy unit moves within 3" in the movement phase
2) An enemy unit targets them with a shooting attack
3) An enemy unit targets them with a charge in the charge phase
4) An enemy unit within 1" of them declares Fall Back
They would then discard that token, and they could either move 3" (moving within 1" of enemy models allowed) or make a Reaction attack with either their melee weapons (Fight but with no pile-ins or Consolidations and hit on 6s) or their shooting weapons (Works exactly like Overwatch does now).
and then I would remove the current Heroic Intervention and Overwatch system.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:This goes back to my original point. 8 editions. All IGOUGO. 9th set to be the same? Suddenly that’s the core and only problem ever?
...
So the very sudden declaration it’s a deal breaker is daft, no?
Exactly. The complaints I'm seeing are about lethality and the alpha strike paired with IGOUGO. I'd rather fix the lethality problem first and foremost.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Not trying to start a fight here but would you explain how being able to react to your opponent's movements in "real time" less tactical than just taking it?
No fight picking detected
I was intending to point out exactly that. AA and IGOUGO offer different decisions.
Me, I don’t like AA when there’s no restriction on what my opponent can do. This stems from my love for 2nd Ed Space Marine, where once I’d set orders, I was tied into certain permutations. To me it adds a further level of skill, as I find it requires more forethought than being free to shoot, charge or fall back etc. As far as I can say this with a straight face when talking about any war game, I find it more realistic and representative of a unit given poor orders/making a poor decision and getting jumped. Total freedom of reaction just ain’t for me.
Downside of that can be seen in X-Wing, where experience means so much that it’s bloody difficult for a newbie to not get the poop kicked out of them. The system itself is great, but in a regular group can make things a bit unwelcomingly hard for newcomers.
IGOUGO can be a pain when what initially looked like a single mistake turns into a proper kicking. But hey, that’s me being outplayed right there, and not a flaw of the system. Yes, I can lose a chunk of my force in the first turn - if I deploy poorly, or if I’m having to fight on a poorly terrained board. I’ve read posts where people tore in to 8th, claiming it’s not fair because they’d setup for first turn stomping, only to have their opponent seize and give them the kicking,
Swings and roundabouts, with neither being superior to the other,
I'm not familiar with 2nd Ed space marine so i can't pass judgment. It seems like both players would say "ill do X action with this squad" then both players would execute their actions?
Sure, AA is less noob-friendly, but thats because it offers more tactical decisions IMO.
A new player being excited and moving his big unit in the center of the table to see everything first, only for his opponents to stick every important target out of LoS is similar to mispositionning a unit during deployment and the enemy blowing it to pieces. In both cases you (should) learn from it and not do the same mistakes in your future games.
In Space Marine, each unit could be issued one of four orders. First Fire, Advance and Charge were your options, with Fall Back being a compulsory one if your unit was broken.
Each offered certain perks, and were assigned face down. Next, Orders were revealed. From there, each unit was tied to certain actions. First Fire meant as the name suggests, but you couldn’t move. Charge meant double movement, no shooting, but could start a HTH fight. Advance offered standard movement, and shooting after FF had been resolved. I can’t quite recall the exact order they were resolved in, but each set of orders was resolved in turn, on a AA basis.
The net result was pretty excellent. A canny player was one with a solid grasp of that system, and better able to predict what the foe was aiming to do.
But it also meant that I couldn’t wait and see how my Unit A fared before deciding what I wanted to do with Unit B. If I had say, two Devastor Squads with First Fire, looking to take out say, a unit of Falcon Grav Tanks? If the first unit got the job done, it was entirely possible the second squad had nothing else to usefully do that turn.
Sadly memory does not serve to recall the exact turn sequence for Orders. And hey, it’s been at least 24 years since I last had a game! But those Orders made the difference, and added a wonderful depth to proceedings.
That's the problem with the OP here - it's not really creating discussion or providing any measured critique so it's difficult to engage with. In spite of that some of the discussion here about Apoc vs regular 40k is interesting. For my part, I'm not convinced Apoc is the great saviour many think it could be because I think, as someone else pointed out, it gets a good reputation at least partially based on the fact it's niche enough that there aren't thousands of gamers trying to break it so any brokenness goes largely unnoticed. I do wish GW had taken a few more cues form Apoc though. I think an adaptation of Apoc's unit-based combat system would be beneficial. 40k is rapidly becoming comically bloated with the number of dice some units can roll. Is there really a need for a unit like Aggressors to roll over 100 dice just to resolved their hit rolls? And that's before any re-rolls! I'd much rather see some sort of adaptation that gives diminishing returns as you add more guns rather than this 1-to-1 increase on shots per model but that's probably too complex for the minor rewrite that 9th is going to be.
I agree. This thread has had some interesting discussion despite the trollish beginnings.
I found the Apoc elements being discussed particularly interesting since I've not encountered it and superheavies were one of the reasons I bailed on 40k when 7th dropped. I thought Apoc was a brilliant offering from GW when it first came out in 2007. Not from a gameplay perspective, of course, but from GW creating an avenue for players to build armies larger than the 1500ish points common at that time. Similarly I thought Allies in 6th was a smart move in letting players start new armies and get immediate use out of smaller detachments, but I didn't like how it was exploited on the tabletop. So to hear now that Apoc has evolved beyond just being giant battles of 40k is interesting to me. It reinforces the notion I've encountered before that GW does better game design outside of core 40k because it has more freedom to experiment and make substantive changes, while 40k proper just feels weighted down by basic design decisions from 30+ years ago.
Case in point. I didn't come back for 8th and the ridiculous numbers of dice you point to was one of the reasons. The huge numbers of dice are a thing because 40k is a game that doesn't know what it wants to be and so the rules don't match the scale. It still retains all the model-based rules from its skirmish origins when it really should shift to unit-based rules for the battle game it has become. It sounds like that they've done that in Apoc.
And I'm sorry, but no - I'm not just going to buy "we don't say we like anything because it's human nature!" I dislike things about 8th, but you don't see me complaining about them in every thread, because generally speaking, I like 8th more than I dislike it, and I want my posts to reflect that. If I never posted anything positive, then I deserve any comments saying that all I do is complain.
If you're highly invested, but all you do is complain, why are you still invested?
I don't only complain, the thing is my posts where i complain are the ones people notice most. Its not that humans never say they like anything, you misunderstood my meaning. Humans have a tendency to focus on things they dislike (i'm obviously generalizing here). A good example that i know applies to many people is when someone annoys you in a group, you focus on every single thing they do to become even more annoyed
That's not an excuse. Don't complain about people not being civil or giving proper arguments when you admit to using hyperbole and exaggeration.
Heck, even if the subject isn't something that affects me directly, seeing someone write stuff like "The game is fine lol, why are you complaining" instead of trying to give actual arguments rubs me the wrong way.
In the same way that "the game is trash, why do you stand for this" is an actual argument?
No-one's saying "why are you complaining". They're saying "if all you do is complain, why are you here". There's a distinct difference. One is asking people to shut up and not voice their opinions. The other is calling people to act on their strongly held opinions in a constructive manner.
Again, i don't only complain. I've been vocal in this thread because i saw people dismiss the opinion that AA would be a good thing for 40k. Its an opinion, and people gave examples of what it would better and how to implement it in a realistic way. You can't just be in a discussion forum and start telling people that "your opinion doesn't matter, the game is fine, lol". When i complain about things, i try and give examples in my arguments so people can better understand what i mean. I'm not saying they have to agree, i'd much rather they gave counterarguments.
as for the "positive posts" if you look at the posts in general you'll notice that most posts are formulated as a question. "What is your opinion on X", "What do you think Y will bring to the game", etc. Its in these posts that you can find positivity because then it opens a discussion on something explicitely subjective. The post makes it clear that answers in them will be subjective.
Of course they'll be subjective - just like any opinion on 40k. People saying "IGOUGO sucks!" is a subjective thing, because there's clearly people who don't share those feelings, and are perfectly entitled to it. All discussion is subjective.
People saying "IGOUGO sucks because i don't like it" are just as bad as people saying "AA sucks because i don't like it" IMO. I like when opinions are provided with arguments.
I'll give you positivity, heres what I personally love about the game :
Spoiler:
The various factions available that have different playstyles.
The Lore behind these factions (how do their war convocations work, how does each model operate on the battlefield).
The variety of options (in most armies, my Harlequins are sad :( ).
The look of the models. Them being goofy yet just realistic enough makes them instantly recognizeable as 40k, thats a style i like a lot.
The "epic gamer moments" that you can have in game [spoiler]best one i had was when my opponent tried smiting a model of mine and ended up periling and wiping 4 of their psykers AND taking down my model too, the warp was a fickle thing that day"
The game stays a strategy game, although quite simple, its simple to learn the basics and not complex enough for newer players to feel lost while learning it.
The fact that playing a game is a good excuse to chill with friends while having fun.
The hobby part of the game, painting minis is relaxing and the results are super satisfying.[/spoiler]
Thank you.
I think you've been getting the wrong message from my posts. I don't mind if the game stays IGOUGO or changes to AA. Nothing prevents me to modify the rules to play with my friends in a way i find more enjoyable. What i've been complaining about clumsily in this thread is the dismissive attitude that certain people (on both sides) have. Its impossible for everyone to have the same opinion, its very possible for everyone to respect other's opinions.
In Space Marine, each unit could be issued one of four orders. First Fire, Advance and Charge were your options, with Fall Back being a compulsory one if your unit was broken.
Each offered certain perks, and were assigned face down. Next, Orders were revealed. From there, each unit was tied to certain actions. First Fire meant as the name suggests, but you couldn’t move. Charge meant double movement, no shooting, but could start a HTH fight. Advance offered standard movement, and shooting after FF had been resolved. I can’t quite recall the exact order they were resolved in, but each set of orders was resolved in turn, on a AA basis.
The net result was pretty excellent. A canny player was one with a solid grasp of that system, and better able to predict what the foe was aiming to do.
But it also meant that I couldn’t wait and see how my Unit A fared before deciding what I wanted to do with Unit B. If I had say, two Devastor Squads with First Fire, looking to take out say, a unit of Falcon Grav Tanks? If the first unit got the job done, it was entirely possible the second squad had nothing else to usefully do that turn.
Sadly memory does not serve to recall the exact turn sequence for Orders. And hey, it’s been at least 24 years since I last had a game! But those Orders made the difference, and added a wonderful depth to proceedings.
So something similar to Apoc? See, thats some implementation of AA that could work, it worked in the past, it could 100% work now.
But i see what you mean that having orders would make it more complex for newer players. I feel that with GW's modern mindset (accesibility > complexity) if they were to introduce AA they probably wouldn't use tokens.
It still could happen tho. They did it with Apoc and requiring tokens would be one more thing they could sell players.
And I'm sorry, but no - I'm not just going to buy "we don't say we like anything because it's human nature!" I dislike things about 8th, but you don't see me complaining about them in every thread, because generally speaking, I like 8th more than I dislike it, and I want my posts to reflect that. If I never posted anything positive, then I deserve any comments saying that all I do is complain.
If you're highly invested, but all you do is complain, why are you still invested?
I don't only complain, the thing is my posts where i complain are the ones people notice most. Its not that humans never say they like anything, you misunderstood my meaning. Humans have a tendency to focus on things they dislike (i'm obviously generalizing here). A good example that i know applies to many people is when someone annoys you in a group, you focus on every single thing they do to become even more annoyed
Yes, but that's still not an excuse. If all you do is complain, it doesn't matter if that's human nature, you're still complaining without acting on it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: That's not an excuse. Civility isn't in human nature, but that's an expectation for discussions.
Yeah, i'll try and diminish the hyperbole.
Thank you.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: That's not an excuse. Don't complain about people not being civil or giving proper arguments when you admit to using hyperbole and exaggeration.
Heck, even if the subject isn't something that affects me directly, seeing someone write stuff like "The game is fine lol, why are you complaining" instead of trying to give actual arguments rubs me the wrong way.
In the same way that "the game is trash, why do you stand for this" is an actual argument?
No-one's saying "why are you complaining". They're saying "if all you do is complain, why are you here". There's a distinct difference. One is asking people to shut up and not voice their opinions. The other is calling people to act on their strongly held opinions in a constructive manner.
Again, i don't only complain. I've been vocal in this thread because i saw people dismiss the opinion that AA would be a good thing for 40k. Its an opinion, and people gave examples of what it would better and how to implement it in a realistic way. You can't just be in a discussion forum and start telling people that "your opinion doesn't matter, the game is fine, lol". When i complain about things, i try and give examples in my arguments so people can better understand what i mean. I'm not saying they have to agree, i'd much rather they gave counterarguments.
No-one was saying "your opinion doesn't matter, the game is fine". People were giving counterarguments - I did, and I was essentially told by Slayer-fan that my opinion was wrong. The point is that whether you prefer AA or IGOUGO or not, it it's subjective, but if you hate IGOUGO so much, what with it being historically part of 40k for decades, why are you here? It's not like it's a new feature that's recently been added in, like command points. IGOUGO isn't new - so why is it suddenly this big problem, instead of the newer issues, like increased lethality?
as for the "positive posts" if you look at the posts in general you'll notice that most posts are formulated as a question. "What is your opinion on X", "What do you think Y will bring to the game", etc. Its in these posts that you can find positivity because then it opens a discussion on something explicitely subjective. The post makes it clear that answers in them will be subjective.
Of course they'll be subjective - just like any opinion on 40k. People saying "IGOUGO sucks!" is a subjective thing, because there's clearly people who don't share those feelings, and are perfectly entitled to it. All discussion is subjective.
People saying "IGOUGO sucks because i don't like it" are just as bad as people saying "AA sucks because i don't like it" IMO. I like when opinions are provided with arguments.
But what arguments? We've had one argument be "you're just sat around waiting for half an hour", but what about the people who don't mind or actively like that feature? Subjective.
Again, as far as I'm concerned, the issues people are attributing to IGOUGO would be fixed by reducing lethality. The increased lethality is the new part, not the IGOUGO aspect.
What i've been complaining about clumsily in this thread is the dismissive attitude that certain people (on both sides) have. Its impossible for everyone to have the same opinion, its very possible for everyone to respect other's opinions.
Agreed - and it's something that the OP immediately threw out the window.
Thinking on the Epic order things, and why I liked it,
That can, to some degree, be replicated in 40k with Declared Fire.
Start of each shooting phase, I declare what each of my units is going to shoot at. This forces me to better assess my available firepower - and can prevent me leveraging above average luck.
For instance. I really, really want your Tank A ded. I have to, because reasons. But I also wouldn’t mind putting a dent in your Tank B this turn, soften it up a bit for later if I can. I have 8 Lascannons in two units of 4 to get this job done.
Right now? If I get stellar luck with My Squad 1, I could utterly wreck your Tank A. This of course frees up My Squad 2 to start laying in to Your Tank B.
But....if I had to declare my targets at the start of my phase? Well....that adds the question of just how desperately and thoroughly do I want Your Tank A ded? Do I risk leaving it alive, or massive overkill? When I can’t simply change tack mid-turn, I’ve more to think about. My resources become that much more finite.
It also means I can’t have some wag with say, a Plasma Pistol take that last, desperate Supercharge pot shot to strip the remaining wound left by My Squad A either.
See. Lots of ways, and relatively simple ones, that do not require a ground up re-write in the way AA would,
Yes, but that's still not an excuse. If all you do is complain, it doesn't matter if that's human nature, you're still complaining without acting on it.
we can't really act on it. And im not using it as an excuse, i'm explaining their cause.
No-one was saying "your opinion doesn't matter, the game is fine". People were giving counterarguments - I did, and I was essentially told by Slayer-fan that my opinion was wrong. The point is that whether you prefer AA or IGOUGO or not, it it's subjective, but if you hate IGOUGO so much, what with it being historically part of 40k for decades, why are you here? It's not like it's a new feature that's recently been added in, like command points. IGOUGO isn't new - so why is it suddenly this big problem, instead of the newer issues, like increased lethality?
Yes, and people shouldn't dismiss opinions.
I get that IGOUGO has been how 40k has worked for most of its life. I still think duscussing about other options is a valid conversation piece if done in good faith by both sides.
IMO, Changing IGOUGO to AA would be a part of the changes needed to reduce lethality in the game. I'm not a game designer by any means but from the game's of 40k i've tried with houseruled AA , most of our units got to do something during the game and the game itself ended with a much smaller difference in army size. Yes its an anecdotal argument, i know. Does me saying AA could help mean that i think CP's or the ridiculous number of dice rolled or the free AP/attacks that marines get on their weapons shouldnt be touched? absolutely not. I personally like the concept of CP but i dislike that some armies are just non-functional if they don't get tons of CP (Chaos in general). Its nice that GW seems to have worked on it for 9th and i hope CP will become less necessary and less swingy.
People saying "IGOUGO sucks because i don't like it" are just as bad as people saying "AA sucks because i don't like it" IMO. I like when opinions are provided with arguments.
But what arguments? We've had one argument be "you're just sat around waiting for half an hour", but what about the people who don't mind or actively like that feature? Subjective.
Again, as far as I'm concerned, the issues people are attributing to IGOUGO would be fixed by reducing lethality. The increased lethality is the new part, not the IGOUGO aspect.
I've personally provided arguments as to why I think AA could be an interesting option for 40k:
1. yeah, the loss of not standing around for 30 minutes is part of my arguments. (subjective)
2. it makes the game more reactive and therefore more tactical. (semi-subjective.)
3. It reduced the lethality of the alpha strikes (objective).
I'm aware that its not THE fix for the lethality problem. I'm simply stating that it would help reduce it.
That can, to some degree, be replicated in 40k with Declared Fire.
Start of each shooting phase, I declare what each of my units is going to shoot at. This forces me to better assess my available firepower - and can prevent me leveraging above average luck.
For instance. I really, really want your Tank A ded. I have to, because reasons. But I also wouldn’t mind putting a dent in your Tank B this turn, soften it up a bit for later if I can. I have 8 Lascannons in two units of 4 to get this job done.
Right now? If I get stellar luck with My Squad 1, I could utterly wreck your Tank A. This of course frees up My Squad 2 to start laying in to Your Tank B.
But....if I had to declare my targets at the start of my phase? Well....that adds the question of just how desperately and thoroughly do I want Your Tank A ded? Do I risk leaving it alive, or massive overkill? When I can’t simply change tack mid-turn, I’ve more to think about. My resources become that much more finite.
It also means I can’t have some wag with say, a Plasma Pistol take that last, desperate Supercharge pot shot to strip the remaining wound left by My Squad A either.
See. Lots of ways, and relatively simple ones, that do not require a ground up re-write in the way AA would,
fair enough, that would be an interesting way to diminish lethality. It would probably not be enough since nowadays most specialized units can wipe their prefered targets with the help of CPs but i like the direction its going.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:This goes back to my original point. 8 editions. All IGOUGO. 9th set to be the same? Suddenly that’s the core and only problem ever?
...
So the very sudden declaration it’s a deal breaker is daft, no?
Exactly. The complaints I'm seeing are about lethality and the alpha strike paired with IGOUGO. I'd rather fix the lethality problem first and foremost.
Alpha Strike is not something you fix with IGOUGO existing in the first place.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:This goes back to my original point. 8 editions. All IGOUGO. 9th set to be the same? Suddenly that’s the core and only problem ever?
...
So the very sudden declaration it’s a deal breaker is daft, no?
Exactly. The complaints I'm seeing are about lethality and the alpha strike paired with IGOUGO. I'd rather fix the lethality problem first and foremost.
Alpha Strike is not something you fix with IGOUGO existing in the first place.
This implies that an alpha strike combo is not a legitimate tactic that should exist. that's pretty silly with armies based around ambush and alpha strike (Drukhari, Eldar, GSC, etc) in the game. Alpha strike is fine, so long as you can also successfully make a list that is durability-based, for example.
the_scotsman wrote: This implies that an alpha strike combo is not a legitimate tactic that should exist. that's pretty silly with armies based around ambush and alpha strike (Drukhari, Eldar, GSC, etc) in the game. Alpha strike is fine, so long as you can also successfully make a list that is durability-based, for example.
Well, couldn't one possible manner to avoid Alpha Strike decimation be to have reserves be less punished/possibly incentivized (for some armies). If you pair this with decent LOS blocking terrain, it should be more possible to "hide" a small force for a turn, then your reserves can arrive, getting to act on your turn without the threat of dying on the opponent's?
Of course, on the other hand, if there is no disincentive, then everyone will do it, which might lead to other problems. It's hard to say, but it seems at least plausible. Then again, I don't really have a horse in the AA vs IGOUGO race, per se.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:This goes back to my original point. 8 editions. All IGOUGO. 9th set to be the same? Suddenly that’s the core and only problem ever?
...
So the very sudden declaration it’s a deal breaker is daft, no?
Exactly. The complaints I'm seeing are about lethality and the alpha strike paired with IGOUGO. I'd rather fix the lethality problem first and foremost.
Alpha Strike is not something you fix with IGOUGO existing in the first place.
This implies that an alpha strike combo is not a legitimate tactic that should exist. that's pretty silly with armies based around ambush and alpha strike (Drukhari, Eldar, GSC, etc) in the game. Alpha strike is fine, so long as you can also successfully make a list that is durability-based, for example.
In a game that chooses to use IGOUGO, it should not be a "legitimate Tactic", no. Even limited Power Alpha Strikes like the Sternguard Lias bomb I use are hilariously too powerful, and that's not even a good one!
the_scotsman wrote: This implies that an alpha strike combo is not a legitimate tactic that should exist. that's pretty silly with armies based around ambush and alpha strike (Drukhari, Eldar, GSC, etc) in the game. Alpha strike is fine, so long as you can also successfully make a list that is durability-based, for example.
Well, couldn't one possible manner to avoid Alpha Strike decimation be to have reserves be less punished/possibly incentivized (for some armies). If you pair this with decent LOS blocking terrain, it should be more possible to "hide" a small force for a turn, then your reserves can arrive, getting to act on your turn without the threat of dying on the opponent's?
Of course, on the other hand, if there is no disincentive, then everyone will do it, which might lead to other problems. It's hard to say, but it seems at least plausible. Then again, I don't really have a horse in the AA vs IGOUGO race, per se.
I shouldn't need to have to turn off my opponent's shooting for free to be able to survive. LoS terrain is turning off shooting randomly for free.
Ishagu wrote: Sounds like you're one of the people who should quit the game.
You're clearly not enjoying it. Don't be a prisoner to something you don't like.
This is where you show how wrong you are.
I think 8th Ed is a complete mess, and I haven't had this much fun playing 40K in years. It's possible to enjoy something and acknowledge the glaring flaws that it has.
Your insistence that "everything is fine, nothing is broken" just makes you appear wilfully ignorant and intentionally inured to the flaws inherent in the game.
Martel732 wrote: If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.
Yeah. I'm not too pleased with it honestly.
Seems like more ways to score is a good thing to me.
Anything that influences my list building is a negative.
W-why? You must be new here; I don't think I've even gone more than a couple months in a row without seeing some new release for an army I like and want to consider putting into my list (and therefore shuffling it around).
Martel732 wrote: What didn't you like? In my experience they made for much better games than GW missions.
They allow for planning ahead on what you want to score with or deny your opponent and build your army around that. That's not a wargame. No plan survives the first shot.
Martel732 wrote: If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.
So the new missions are the CA19 missions plus ITC secondaries (redesigned).... that's interesting i have to say...
Also, the biggest flaw of ITC isn't there. Max 15 points from kills on a total of 135. That's a good one in my book.
Any chance of a bit more info for us thickies? I’m kinda dimly aware of ITC stuff, but far from knowledgeable.
many people believe that secondaries are too much of the "real" scoring of ITC and if you have them in the bag it is too easy to have a list that does the same hting every game regardless of the "Primary" objective. It also doesn't help that ITC missions are VERY standardized and simplified compared to the amount of variability in the somewhat less individually balanced GW missions.
While GW missions may advantage 1 playstyle for 1 mission and another for a different one, ITC missions due to their standardization have a tendency to have an "optimal" strategy, leading to less list variety/strategic variety overall.
Martel732 wrote: If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.
So the new missions are the CA19 missions plus ITC secondaries (redesigned).... that's interesting i have to say...
Also, the biggest flaw of ITC isn't there. Max 15 points from kills on a total of 135. That's a good one in my book.
Making people take a range of secondaries means less skew lists since people can't just go all in on kill secondaries so that right off the bat makes me have some hope for the new system.
Martel732 wrote: If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.
Yeah. I'm not too pleased with it honestly.
Seems like more ways to score is a good thing to me.
You would think that wouldn't you? Not to sure about it myself. Never liked ITC. Need to see more of these secondary objectives.
They mentioned in the stream there will be a base set in the core rule book, each codex well see more secondaries introduced, and they'll have more for future mission packs as well.
Basically I think CA is going to be a mission pack release, and not just a points adjustment for tournament players.
Martel732 wrote: If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.
So the new missions are the CA19 missions plus ITC secondaries (redesigned).... that's interesting i have to say...
Also, the biggest flaw of ITC isn't there. Max 15 points from kills on a total of 135. That's a good one in my book.
Any chance of a bit more info for us thickies? I’m kinda dimly aware of ITC stuff, but far from knowledgeable.
many people believe that secondaries are too much of the "real" scoring of ITC and if you have them in the bag it is too easy to have a list that does the same hting every game regardless of the "Primary" objective. It also doesn't help that ITC missions are VERY standardized and simplified compared to the amount of variability in the somewhat less individually balanced GW missions.
While GW missions may advantage 1 playstyle for 1 mission and another for a different one, ITC missions due to their standardization have a tendency to have an "optimal" strategy, leading to less list variety/strategic variety overall.
Martel732 wrote: What didn't you like? In my experience they made for much better games than GW missions.
They allow for planning ahead on what you want to score with or deny your opponent and build your army around that. That's not a wargame. No plan survives the first shot.
You can do that with any mission design in Warhammer 40,000 unless it's the organizer-supplied lists I've advocated, or the missions are kept secret until the players roll for initiative.
Martel732 wrote: If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.
So the new missions are the CA19 missions plus ITC secondaries (redesigned).... that's interesting i have to say...
Also, the biggest flaw of ITC isn't there. Max 15 points from kills on a total of 135. That's a good one in my book.
Making people take a range of secondaries means less skew lists since people can't just go all in on kill secondaries so that right off the bat makes me have some hope for the new system.
Sure they can. Just of the previewed Secondaries, 2/5 are kill based in two different categories. It's not a stretch to guess that there'll be a kill based Warpcraft Secondary, a kill based Battlefield Supremacy Secondary, and multiple kill based Faction Secondaries. I have a feeling it will be absolutely possible to go all in on kill Secondaries.
Martel732 wrote: If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.
So the new missions are the CA19 missions plus ITC secondaries (redesigned).... that's interesting i have to say...
Also, the biggest flaw of ITC isn't there. Max 15 points from kills on a total of 135. That's a good one in my book.
Making people take a range of secondaries means less skew lists since people can't just go all in on kill secondaries so that right off the bat makes me have some hope for the new system.
Sure they can. Just of the previewed Secondaries, 2/5 are kill based in two different categories. It's not a stretch to guess that there'll be a kill based Warpcraft Secondary, a kill based Battlefield Supremacy Secondary, and multiple kill based Faction Secondaries. I have a feeling it will be absolutely possible to go all in on kill Secondaries.
I always stand the risk of being wrong, but I remain hopeful that the game will keep the people from being able to go all in on any single scoring method (perhaps by capping how many points you can get by killing stuff, holding stuff, ect).
Martel732 wrote: What didn't you like? In my experience they made for much better games than GW missions.
They allow for planning ahead on what you want to score with or deny your opponent and build your army around that. That's not a wargame. No plan survives the first shot.
The worst thing about ITC missions is when they make certain units bad because "they give secondaries too easely". That was never a problem with CA missions and I hope they have revised secondaries to avoid that.
Martel732 wrote: If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.
Yeah. I'm not too pleased with it honestly.
Seems like more ways to score is a good thing to me.
Anything that influences my list building is a negative.
W-why? You must be new here; I don't think I've even gone more than a couple months in a row without seeing some new release for an army I like and want to consider putting into my list (and therefore shuffling it around).
That isn't what I meant and you know it. Don't be obtuse.
Galas wrote: The worst thing about ITC missions is when they make certain units bad because "they give secondaries too easely". That was never a problem with CA missions and I hope they have revised secondaries to avoid that.
I had no problem with that. I mean, GW randomly makes units bad all the time.
Martel732 wrote: If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.
Yeah. I'm not too pleased with it honestly.
Seems like more ways to score is a good thing to me.
Anything that influences my list building is a negative.
W-why? You must be new here; I don't think I've even gone more than a couple months in a row without seeing some new release for an army I like and want to consider putting into my list (and therefore shuffling it around).
That isn't what I meant and you know it. Don't be obtuse.
I actually have no idea what you meant and I'm still confused because your reply didn't answer anything.
What is so sacred about your list building that you don't want it influenced?
Galas wrote: The worst thing about ITC missions is when they make certain units bad because "they give secondaries too easely". That was never a problem with CA missions and I hope they have revised secondaries to avoid that.
I had no problem with that. I mean, GW randomly makes units bad all the time.
Theres a ton of units that in ITC just don't work like Tau Piranhas, etc... bad units are bad in both CA and ITC but many units that are fine in CA become bad on ITC reducing even more the variety of lists. And thats the biggest flaw from that system for me.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Basically, the main thing I'm getting at is: if you think Apoc is better, play Apoc?
To really boil this all down to the core: I do think Apoc is a better game, but only in its intended scale, at the equivalent of 2000-6000pts in 40K. You can play it at smaller levels, but I find the play experience degrades substantially- that's where the description of 'company to battalion' scale comes from; it's the scale at which the game is designed and plays best, even if it could be played at smaller or larger scales.
Can you play a 200+ model battle with the Kill Team rules? Yes. Will it be fun? Maybe, but I would expect the takeaway would be that 40K works better at that scale.
The biggest difference between 40K and Apoc to me is how 40K represents individuals, while Apoc only tracks units. If I'm going to spend 2+ hours painting a model, I generally like for it to be individually represented. That's why I tend to prefer games at ~1500pts in 40K, where individual models still feel valuable, rather than the big 3k+ blowouts. Apoc abstracts out a lot of aspects of individual models, like small arms and wargear, into generic profiles or ignores them altogether. That's a very different game experience, and not a like substitute.
You can't turn Apoc into a skirmish ruleset without rewriting half the rules, since things like damage resolution wouldn't translate. But there's no reason why certain specific mechanics that work well can't be brought into 40K. The cover system is one, the activation system is another.
Spoletta wrote: Well, the overwatch is changing, that much we know.
Also, the first turn lethality seems to be going down.
Is this going to be the magical fix needed for 40K? Difficult to say without details.
I wonder how GW is going to do it. It would be real nice if they do it right. But if it is just some blanket rule that makes interaction between armies on turn one very low, then we are just pushing the alfa striking to turn 2, and that would hardly be a fix.
ITC didnt invent it, competitive players looking to make melee work did, and GW accepted it as an official tactic. with the amount of no downside fallback that many armies have access to nowadays, its sad that what many consider a "loophole" in the rules is a required tactic.
I've had many people complain and argue with me the first time i used that on them
Martel732 wrote:But GW didn't errata it or address it. And their rules allowed it in the first place.
And what makes you think tri-pointing will be gone in 9th? I've not heard it mentioned in any of the previous streams.
Karol wrote:
Spoletta wrote: Well, the overwatch is changing, that much we know.
Also, the first turn lethality seems to be going down.
Is this going to be the magical fix needed for 40K? Difficult to say without details.
I wonder how GW is going to do it. It would be real nice if they do it right. But if it is just some blanket rule that makes interaction between armies on turn one very low, then we are just pushing the alfa striking to turn 2, and that would hardly be a fix.
Wouldn't change anything for me. Turn two is where the Eighth Legion goes to work.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In Space Marine, each unit could be issued one of four orders. First Fire, Advance and Charge were your options, with Fall Back being a compulsory one if your unit was broken.
Each offered certain perks, and were assigned face down. Next, Orders were revealed. From there, each unit was tied to certain actions. First Fire meant as the name suggests, but you couldn’t move. Charge meant double movement, no shooting, but could start a HTH fight. Advance offered standard movement, and shooting after FF had been resolved. I can’t quite recall the exact order they were resolved in, but each set of orders was resolved in turn, on a AA basis.
The net result was pretty excellent. A canny player was one with a solid grasp of that system, and better able to predict what the foe was aiming to do.
But it also meant that I couldn’t wait and see how my Unit A fared before deciding what I wanted to do with Unit B. If I had say, two Devastor Squads with First Fire, looking to take out say, a unit of Falcon Grav Tanks? If the first unit got the job done, it was entirely possible the second squad had nothing else to usefully do that turn.
Sadly memory does not serve to recall the exact turn sequence for Orders. And hey, it’s been at least 24 years since I last had a game! But those Orders made the difference, and added a wonderful depth to proceedings.
FWIW, this is almost exactly the set of orders used in Apocalypse, except that instead of the equivalent to First Fire letting you fire first, it lets you shoot at +1 to hit when activated. The orders are also given to formations, not individual units.
It's a simple and quick system that works quite well. I would be quite happy to see something like that come back to 40K. YMMV.
Galas wrote: The worst thing about ITC missions is when they make certain units bad because "they give secondaries too easely". That was never a problem with CA missions and I hope they have revised secondaries to avoid that.
Well, at the very least GW's Kill Point system seems a little less asinine than "destroy units."
it's 1 point per model, 10 points for...something, could be Vehicle or Monster or something like that.
Obviously, still tilted toward horde killing but at least not maybe quite as dumb as kill points by unit? IDK. actually, probably not. Just more tedious to track. At least 30 orks /= 10 orks.
Galas wrote: The worst thing about ITC missions is when they make certain units bad because "they give secondaries too easely". That was never a problem with CA missions and I hope they have revised secondaries to avoid that.
Well, at the very least GW's Kill Point system seems a little less asinine than "destroy units."
it's 1 point per model, 10 points for...something, could be Vehicle or Monster or something like that.
Obviously, still tilted toward horde killing but at least not maybe quite as dumb as kill points by unit? IDK. actually, probably not. Just more tedious to track. At least 30 orks /= 10 orks.
because hordes were a issue excactly how long in 8th? At the start? which then promptly got nerfed so hard that no more horde showed up, heck even orks got the hit. So we have a system skewing against a "potential" skew listtype which hasn't been an issue for 3/4 of the whole previous edition?
Galas wrote: The worst thing about ITC missions is when they make certain units bad because "they give secondaries too easely". That was never a problem with CA missions and I hope they have revised secondaries to avoid that.
Well, at the very least GW's Kill Point system seems a little less asinine than "destroy units."
it's 1 point per model, 10 points for...something, could be Vehicle or Monster or something like that.
Obviously, still tilted toward horde killing but at least not maybe quite as dumb as kill points by unit? IDK. actually, probably not. Just more tedious to track. At least 30 orks /= 10 orks.
because hordes were a issue excactly how long in 8th? At the start? which then promptly got nerfed so hard that no more horde showed up, heck even orks got the hit. So we have a system skewing against a "potential" skew listtype which hasn't been an issue for 3/4 of the whole previous edition?
disposable footslogging screening units that generate CP have been strong pretty much throughout 8th until GW literally slam dunked the new marine codexes into the game, a move I am beginning to suspect may have at least partially been to drum up interest in marines and dissatisfaction with the balance of 8th, which may have been a little too good to justify dropping a new edition.
It's hard to imagine releasing the marine supplements without understanding at least on some level that these are head-and-shoulders better than everything they're up against.
But so far it looks like 9th is going to favor loyalist marines at the start. An emphasis on mono faction armies, which loyalists get strong bonuses for already. Weapons that are better against hordes, helping elite armies. A mere 17% increase in price for intercessors compared to a 50% increase for cultists. Fixed cp when loyalist's free abilities mean they don't need as much as other armies. 9th isn't going to affect the loyalist marine meta, at least at the start.
Gadzilla666 wrote: But so far it looks like 9th is going to favor loyalist marines at the start. An emphasis on mono faction armies, which loyalists get strong bonuses for already. Weapons that are better against hordes, helping elite armies. A mere 17% increase in price for intercessors compared to a 50% increase for cultists. Fixed cp when loyalist's free abilities mean they don't need as much as other armies. 9th isn't going to affect the loyalist marine meta, at least at the start.
Bud I am more sick of marines than most folks I know but this comment is gonna earn a dismissive "burn your models" from me.
We know two point values so far, and the barest details of almost every changed mechanic. Two out of....gotta be over 2000 point values in the game, doesn't it? We're gonna make that call on literally 0.01% of the info?
Martel732 wrote: I also wonder if they can fix AT guns. I doubt it...
I would bet single-shot antitank weaponry ends up in a worse state than it is now with increased access to cover for more models. I'm also fairly certain that cover isn't just going to add to your armor save as well. The natural penalty would be to to-hit rolls, which frontloads the chance that the shot will fail, further disincentivizing taking regular antitank weaponry in favor of stuff like high-ROF stuff that causes mortal wounds on a natural 6 or junk like that.
Gadzilla666 wrote: But so far it looks like 9th is going to favor loyalist marines at the start. An emphasis on mono faction armies, which loyalists get strong bonuses for already. Weapons that are better against hordes, helping elite armies. A mere 17% increase in price for intercessors compared to a 50% increase for cultists. Fixed cp when loyalist's free abilities mean they don't need as much as other armies. 9th isn't going to affect the loyalist marine meta, at least at the start.
Yeah basically no armies needed their pts value going up except marines... it seems that they are abandoning all pretense of balance, and are only focusing on selling as many marine models as possible now.
Gadzilla666 wrote: But so far it looks like 9th is going to favor loyalist marines at the start. An emphasis on mono faction armies, which loyalists get strong bonuses for already. Weapons that are better against hordes, helping elite armies. A mere 17% increase in price for intercessors compared to a 50% increase for cultists. Fixed cp when loyalist's free abilities mean they don't need as much as other armies. 9th isn't going to affect the loyalist marine meta, at least at the start.
Yeah basically no armies needed their pts value going up except marines... it seems that they are abandoning all pretense of balance, and are only focusing on selling as many marine models as possible now.
Marines didn't need it either, they needed rules taken away. Intercessors at 10pt/W are very unattractive. I'll take the 12 pt oldbois.
Martel732 wrote: I also wonder if they can fix AT guns. I doubt it...
Fixed damage of some kind would be a giant start.
Gotta get past a lot of points of failure before I worry about the damage.
While true, if a Lascannon hits, wounds, and gets through a save if there is one...why should I ROLL damage at that point. A strict D4 or even D5 would go a long way to making them dangerous to big stuff and characters (since Marine variants laugh at the DD6 currently).
Gadzilla666 wrote: But so far it looks like 9th is going to favor loyalist marines at the start. An emphasis on mono faction armies, which loyalists get strong bonuses for already. Weapons that are better against hordes, helping elite armies. A mere 17% increase in price for intercessors compared to a 50% increase for cultists. Fixed cp when loyalist's free abilities mean they don't need as much as other armies. 9th isn't going to affect the loyalist marine meta, at least at the start.
Bud I am more sick of marines than most folks I know but this comment is gonna earn a dismissive "burn your models" from me.
We know two point values so far, and the barest details of almost every changed mechanic. Two out of....gotta be over 2000 point values in the game, doesn't it? We're gonna make that call on literally 0.01% of the info?
I said at the start. Just reading the signs. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am.
Drachii wrote: Dear lord this really is peak dakka, isn't it?
OP is being hyperbolic, clearly. But there are people who are put off by IGO/UGO design; that’s a totally legitimate point of discussion.
Yeah, alternate activation would have been the most important mechanic to implement. Alas, it won't come to pass.
9th will be a lazy copy/paste job of 8th with a few changes sprinkled for the sake of change. Nothing more, nothing less. Another grand opportunity for GW to milk it's customer's purses.
Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.
Spoletta wrote: Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.
It is hard to trust GW making good point changes, specialy if there are no known players from your faction in the design studio. Plus for all we know we may end up playing more then 2000pts in models from 8th ed. I have strong doubt GW would want people to play and most important buy, fewer models to play.
Gadzilla666 wrote: But so far it looks like 9th is going to favor loyalist marines at the start. An emphasis on mono faction armies, which loyalists get strong bonuses for already. Weapons that are better against hordes, helping elite armies. A mere 17% increase in price for intercessors compared to a 50% increase for cultists. Fixed cp when loyalist's free abilities mean they don't need as much as other armies. 9th isn't going to affect the loyalist marine meta, at least at the start.
Bud I am more sick of marines than most folks I know but this comment is gonna earn a dismissive "burn your models" from me.
We know two point values so far, and the barest details of almost every changed mechanic. Two out of....gotta be over 2000 point values in the game, doesn't it? We're gonna make that call on literally 0.01% of the info?
I said at the start. Just reading the signs. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am.
I mean the Info we have atleast for me gives me second thoughts.
We know that vigilus and PA remain, through that we know how the factions atleast initially will play .
We know the cp now which is a trickle plus gamesize.
We also know that Performance of Units will not really Change except in regards to points .
I am cautiously optimistic still because fixed cp and trickle were things i really wanted, if the stratagems were rebalanced accordingly per faction which we as of yet have no indication that that happened.
This is my Main point of concern , well that and Basically Siting another Edition out for my r&h but that is another Story.
Spoletta wrote: Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.
Yes but granularity is gained by increasing everything the same amount and then using that extra space to adjust.
We obviously don't have the complete picture but I can't imagine a scenario where after adding multiple anti horde mechanics to the core ruleset you settle on the increase we've seen here in relation to a known power option in the Intercessors.
Spoletta wrote: Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.
Yes but granularity is gained by increasing everything the same amount and then using that extra space to adjust.
We obviously don't have the complete picture but I can't imagine a scenario where after adding multiple anti horde mechanics to the core ruleset you settle on the increase we've seen here in relation to a known power option in the Intercessors.
Why wouldn't giving VP per actual value in points killed work?
Spoletta wrote: Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.
Yes but granularity is gained by increasing everything the same amount and then using that extra space to adjust.
We obviously don't have the complete picture but I can't imagine a scenario where after adding multiple anti horde mechanics to the core ruleset you settle on the increase we've seen here in relation to a known power option in the Intercessors.
Why wouldn't giving VP per actual value in points killed work?
Because killing 6 points of Cultist is not the same as killing 6 points of Custodes.
Spoletta wrote: Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.
Yes but granularity is gained by increasing everything the same amount and then using that extra space to adjust.
We obviously don't have the complete picture but I can't imagine a scenario where after adding multiple anti horde mechanics to the core ruleset you settle on the increase we've seen here in relation to a known power option in the Intercessors.
Why wouldn't giving VP per actual value in points killed work?
Because killing 6 points of Cultist is not the same as killing 6 points of Custodes.
Really? Any other point table wouldn't be even worse? How would you "fairly" award VP per kill then?
Spoletta wrote: Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.
It is hard to trust GW making good point changes, specialy if there are no known players from your faction in the design studio. Plus for all we know we may end up playing more then 2000pts in models from 8th ed. I have strong doubt GW would want people to play and most important buy, fewer models to play.
Especially when they weren't increased equally. They could've just doubled everything as is now and then wait for making Chapter Approved to do more adjustments. It was likely a conversation of "how about we increase X by Y points" and they just rolled with it.
Spoletta wrote: Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.
It is hard to trust GW making good point changes, specialy if there are no known players from your faction in the design studio. Plus for all we know we may end up playing more then 2000pts in models from 8th ed. I have strong doubt GW would want people to play and most important buy, fewer models to play.
Except that this already happened relatively recently with the launch of 8th?
for me 2 years is not a recently. I don't know how many models were being used in 7th ed, but non of the armies being used in 8th looked small. The only small army was the BAscouts+castellan+loyal32 and it still was over 50 models.
Spoletta wrote: Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.
It is hard to trust GW making good point changes, specialy if there are no known players from your faction in the design studio. Plus for all we know we may end up playing more then 2000pts in models from 8th ed. I have strong doubt GW would want people to play and most important buy, fewer models to play.
Especially when they weren't increased equally. They could've just doubled everything as is now and then wait for making Chapter Approved to do more adjustments. It was likely a conversation of "how about we increase X by Y points" and they just rolled with it.
There are a lot of assumptions on how GW has dropped the ball on this, based solely on information about two units, and no wargear. It's a little premature to be calling this busted with so little information.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: for me 2 years is not a recently. I don't know how many models were being used in 7th ed, but non of the armies being used in 8th looked small. The only small army was the BAscouts+castellan+loyal32 and it still was over 50 models.
That's because due to how CP generated horde units where more valuable than more elite units, often only existing to protect one or two bomb units as they only otherwise existed as a CP tax in many lists.
I know we are looking at 9th as if its 8th which is part of the issue with cultist pts vs intercessor pts. However, if missions offer objectives where you have to give up moving/shooting/assault to achieve then a cultist is a more efficient investment than a intercessor. You are not really using right now for anything but screening and CP farming (and Chaos Marines sucking). But I give up less to cap an objective with a cultist squad than an intercessor squad. I can take a bunch of cultists and have points probably to take a ton of other cool stuff. It sounds like Primaris will have to think about how they do things in missions as something not shooting or assaulting is not easy to just give up.
BrotherGecko wrote: I know we are looking at 9th as if its 8th which is part of the issue with cultist pts vs intercessor pts. However, if missions offer objectives where you have to give up moving/shooting/assault to achieve then a cultist is a more efficient investment than a intercessor. You are not really using right now for anything but screening and CP farming (and Chaos Marines sucking). But I give up less to cap an objective with a cultist squad than an intercessor squad. I can take a bunch of cultists and have points probably to take a ton of other cool stuff. It sounds like Primaris will have to think about how they do things in missions as something not shooting or assaulting is not easy to just give up.
Exactly my thought too. It makes chaffe horde units more valuable and needing a points cost to balance that increased utility in the game.
Not Online!!! wrote: because hordes were a issue excactly how long in 8th? At the start? which then promptly got nerfed so hard that no more horde showed up, heck even orks got the hit. So we have a system skewing against a "potential" skew listtype which hasn't been an issue for 3/4 of the whole previous edition?
GW balancing their rules to tackle a problem that was a problem years ago but isn't now is par for the course though.
I have problems with really swingy weapons as much as the next guy, the problem with AT weapons isn't their inability to kill things. Their problem is that the "everything can wound everything" toughness chart means that mid-strength multi-shot mid-range damage weapons are just superior. If you're wounding on 5's, but sending out 3 times as many shots and still causing 2-3 damage per hit, who needs anti-tank weapons?
Anti-tank should have a minimum damage + a D3. Like 3+D3 for Lascannons. Or 2+D3 for Krack Missiles.
And I don't hate the "everything can hurt everything" but maybe what we need is a keyword that makes targetting monsters and vehicles more valuable (like maybe anything without the keyword loses 1AP to a minimum of +1 to the target's save or something).
I think most weapons should have X+D3 rather than just D6's. So many stupidly swingy weapons would be fixed by changing to an X+D3 method (flamers, venom cannons, etc.). This applies not just to shots fired, but damage as well.
ClockworkZion wrote: There are a lot of assumptions on how GW has dropped the ball on this, based solely on information about two units, and no wargear. It's a little premature to be calling this busted with so little information.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think most weapons should have X+D3 rather than just D6's. So many stupidly swingy weapons would be fixed by changing to an X+D3 method (flamers, venom cannons, etc.). This applies not just to shots fired, but damage as well.
ClockworkZion wrote: There are a lot of assumptions on how GW has dropped the ball on this, based solely on information about two units, and no wargear. It's a little premature to be calling this busted with so little information.
It's not an assumption. It's pattern recognition.
Pattern recognition based on old patterns that aren't as valid as they used to be.
ClockworkZion wrote: Pattern recognition based on old patterns that aren't as valid as they used to be.
I see no evidence of their lack of validity. Again, look at the state 8th is in now.
Look at the actual actions by the studio compared to the actions of the studio in the past. More frequent patching, attempts at rebalancing, actual tournament presence to collect data to better understand the things people get stuck on or the things people aren't having fun with and then attempting to create fixes to factions.
And that's not even getting into the Chapter Approved stuff.
The only thing actively hurting the game right now (that isn't being patch in 9th, as far as we know so far) is the dominance of certain Marine builds (even if melee improves I don't see Black Templars sitting on the top of any meta lists) but we can't even prove that they will or won't still sit there after the 9th ed update.
Look, I get setting expectations low, but the actions of the studio have been a large net positive over the actions they used to pull in the past.
I don't agree that 8th sits that low. But I'm not dragging baggage into this edition, or into 9th and judging them based on the the way they operated under Kirby's "leadership".
Heck, most of the people that the community complained about on the rules team have left, moved onto AoS or only do lore writing these days. The only one left from the old team we know of is Cruddace and I haven't heard anything regarding him in some time, so maybe he's not as involved as he once was.
I don't agree that 8th sits that low. But I'm not dragging baggage into this edition, or into 9th and judging them based on the the way they operated under Kirby's "leadership".
Heck, most of the people that the community complained about on the rules team have left, moved onto AoS or only do lore writing these days. The only one left from the old team we know of is Cruddace and I haven't heard anything regarding him in some time, so maybe he's not as involved as he once was.
The point is, "Doing better" doesn't mean "Doing good."
Not Online!!! wrote: because hordes were a issue excactly how long in 8th? At the start? which then promptly got nerfed so hard that no more horde showed up, heck even orks got the hit. So we have a system skewing against a "potential" skew listtype which hasn't been an issue for 3/4 of the whole previous edition?
GW balancing their rules to tackle a problem that was a problem years ago but isn't now is par for the course though.
I have problems with really swingy weapons as much as the next guy, the problem with AT weapons isn't their inability to kill things. Their problem is that the "everything can wound everything" toughness chart means that mid-strength multi-shot mid-range damage weapons are just superior. If you're wounding on 5's, but sending out 3 times as many shots and still causing 2-3 damage per hit, who needs anti-tank weapons?
Yeah, there's a lot of return to the 6E/7E paradigm of anti-infantry and medium strength weapons being put to far too effective AT/anti-monster use, why bother with a trio of Lascannons when you can roll around with small arms sporting -2AP and various reroll and to-hit/wound bonuses that'll match the AT guns for damage output and do double duty as muppet mowers?
I don't agree that 8th sits that low. But I'm not dragging baggage into this edition, or into 9th and judging them based on the the way they operated under Kirby's "leadership".
Heck, most of the people that the community complained about on the rules team have left, moved onto AoS or only do lore writing these days. The only one left from the old team we know of is Cruddace and I haven't heard anything regarding him in some time, so maybe he's not as involved as he once was.
The point is, "Doing better" doesn't mean "Doing good."
I still disagree. 8th was doing good. I'm honestly hoping 9th will be doing great.
Now don't get that confused, good is not the same as perfect, it means they finally hit the same bar 5th edition was on in terms of how enjoyable I found the game. It's not perfect, but neither was 5th. But it's also a lot easier to pick up and learn and it has a LOT less of the sort of bad play experiances that GW was becoming known for.
Not Online!!! wrote: because hordes were a issue excactly how long in 8th? At the start? which then promptly got nerfed so hard that no more horde showed up, heck even orks got the hit. So we have a system skewing against a "potential" skew listtype which hasn't been an issue for 3/4 of the whole previous edition?
GW balancing their rules to tackle a problem that was a problem years ago but isn't now is par for the course though.
I have problems with really swingy weapons as much as the next guy, the problem with AT weapons isn't their inability to kill things. Their problem is that the "everything can wound everything" toughness chart means that mid-strength multi-shot mid-range damage weapons are just superior. If you're wounding on 5's, but sending out 3 times as many shots and still causing 2-3 damage per hit, who needs anti-tank weapons?
There WAS a problem for them killing things because of that seeing damage.
Gadzilla666 wrote: But so far it looks like 9th is going to favor loyalist marines at the start. An emphasis on mono faction armies, which loyalists get strong bonuses for already. Weapons that are better against hordes, helping elite armies. A mere 17% increase in price for intercessors compared to a 50% increase for cultists. Fixed cp when loyalist's free abilities mean they don't need as much as other armies. 9th isn't going to affect the loyalist marine meta, at least at the start.
Bud I am more sick of marines than most folks I know but this comment is gonna earn a dismissive "burn your models" from me.
We know two point values so far, and the barest details of almost every changed mechanic. Two out of....gotta be over 2000 point values in the game, doesn't it? We're gonna make that call on literally 0.01% of the info?
I said at the start. Just reading the signs. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am.
I mean the Info we have atleast for me gives me second thoughts.
We know that vigilus and PA remain, through that we know how the factions atleast initially will play .
We know the cp now which is a trickle plus gamesize.
We also know that Performance of Units will not really Change except in regards to points .
I am cautiously optimistic still because fixed cp and trickle were things i really wanted, if the stratagems were rebalanced accordingly per faction which we as of yet have no indication that that happened.
This is my Main point of concern , well that and Basically Siting another Edition out for my r&h but that is another Story.
I'm hoping a stratagem rebalance is part of the day one errata. Otherwise this system will benefit some armies more than others. Hopefully that's what they're doing.
As for R&H, I'm worried that even if we get new rules the anti-cheap infantry trend we're seeing could leave them DOA. That and the points changes have me even more interested in seeing these mythical New Forge World Books. I can't believe they'd actually increase the price of the marine super heavys. If they do I guess my big toys will be sitting out for a while too. Have to wait and see.
ClockworkZion wrote:Anti-tank should have a minimum damage + a D3. Like 3+D3 for Lascannons. Or 2+D3 for Krack Missiles.
That's how I would do it. Works for the Executioner's main gun, works for my Cerberus. They could be doing something like that. I doubt they've announced every change.
Nurglitch wrote:I'm interested to see what they do with morale. I'd like to see single models be affected by it.
Having shooting work like combat would be cool too.
Me too. They said Night Lords would be better. I want to see how. If it's true then I'm even more excited for this edition, despite my other trepidations.
ClockworkZion wrote:Anti-tank should have a minimum damage + a D3. Like 3+D3 for Lascannons. Or 2+D3 for Krack Missiles.
That's how I would do it. Works for the Executioner's main gun, works for my Cerberus. They could be doing something like that. I doubt they've announced every change.
This, or replace D6 with 2D3, or a roll of 1 or 2 counts as 3.
BrotherGecko wrote: I know we are looking at 9th as if its 8th which is part of the issue with cultist pts vs intercessor pts. However, if missions offer objectives where you have to give up moving/shooting/assault to achieve then a cultist is a more efficient investment than a intercessor. You are not really using right now for anything but screening and CP farming (and Chaos Marines sucking). But I give up less to cap an objective with a cultist squad than an intercessor squad. I can take a bunch of cultists and have points probably to take a ton of other cool stuff. It sounds like Primaris will have to think about how they do things in missions as something not shooting or assaulting is not easy to just give up.
Chances are hordes like cultists will see more threat coming from vehicles now with the new blast rules and that vehicles can shoot in close combat. That's a considerable change and nerf to lowly units. No longer can a termagant deny a tank its shooting just by hugging it, and that tank can possibly kill a ton of termagants in a single shooting with the new blast rules.
BrotherGecko wrote: I know we are looking at 9th as if its 8th which is part of the issue with cultist pts vs intercessor pts. However, if missions offer objectives where you have to give up moving/shooting/assault to achieve then a cultist is a more efficient investment than a intercessor. You are not really using right now for anything but screening and CP farming (and Chaos Marines sucking). But I give up less to cap an objective with a cultist squad than an intercessor squad. I can take a bunch of cultists and have points probably to take a ton of other cool stuff. It sounds like Primaris will have to think about how they do things in missions as something not shooting or assaulting is not easy to just give up.
Chances are hordes like cultists will see more threat coming from vehicles now with the new blast rules and that vehicles can shoot in close combat. That's a considerable change and nerf to lowly units. No longer can a termagant deny a tank its shooting just by hugging it, and that tank can possibly kill a ton of termagants in a single shooting with the new blast rules.
I was thinking about this and honestly the blast rule buffs Guard tanks the most, though it'll help the Vindicator as well, by Guard has the highest number of weapons that were traditionally "blast" in the past.
Sounds like GW is trying to move away from horde armies with the point increase and the new blast rules. Less models mean less dice are rolled, which is always good.
BrotherGecko wrote: I know we are looking at 9th as if its 8th which is part of the issue with cultist pts vs intercessor pts. However, if missions offer objectives where you have to give up moving/shooting/assault to achieve then a cultist is a more efficient investment than a intercessor. You are not really using right now for anything but screening and CP farming (and Chaos Marines sucking). But I give up less to cap an objective with a cultist squad than an intercessor squad. I can take a bunch of cultists and have points probably to take a ton of other cool stuff. It sounds like Primaris will have to think about how they do things in missions as something not shooting or assaulting is not easy to just give up.
Chances are hordes like cultists will see more threat coming from vehicles now with the new blast rules and that vehicles can shoot in close combat. That's a considerable change and nerf to lowly units. No longer can a termagant deny a tank its shooting just by hugging it, and that tank can possibly kill a ton of termagants in a single shooting with the new blast rules.
I was thinking about this and honestly the blast rule buffs Guard tanks the most, though it'll help the Vindicator as well, by Guard has the highest number of weapons that were traditionally "blast" in the past.
We also don't know how much blast weapons will cost. There could be a big price for all those shots.
p5freak wrote: Sounds like GW is trying to move away from horde armies with the point increase and the new blast rules. Less models mean less dice are rolled, which is always good.
p5freak wrote: Sounds like GW is trying to move away from horde armies with the point increase and the new blast rules. Less models mean less dice are rolled, which is always good.
How does that help Guard/Orks/'Nids then?
they are perfectly fine and balanced, they still can defeat SM, which is infact too good for them /S
p5freak wrote: Sounds like GW is trying to move away from horde armies with the point increase and the new blast rules. Less models mean less dice are rolled, which is always good.
Nids are never a problem to balance. There is no point cost so low that nids no longer feel like nids. Marines had a problem that you had to buff them with something that wasn't simply cost reductions, because if you did that, they would become an horde army, which would have felt "wrong".
Aeldari factions have similar problems, but nids?
For nids, even if a fex ends up being 40 points, it is still a perfectly good representation of nids on the table.
Something similar is also true for orks and guards. They are supposed to be endless.
Assume for a moment that guards, boyz and gants are not affected by the cost increase. That would already fix it.
Spoletta wrote: Nids are never a problem to balance. There is no point cost so low that nids no longer feel like nids. Marines had a problem that you had to buff them with something that wasn't simply cost reductions, because if you did that, they would become an horde army, which would have felt "wrong".
Aeldari factions have similar problems, but nids?
For nids, even if a fex ends up being 40 points, it is still a perfectly good representation of nids on the table.
Something similar is also true for orks and guards. They are supposed to be endless.
Assume for a moment that guards, boyz and gants are not affected by the cost increase. That would already fix it.
I’ll politely disagree on the Nids thing.
I’ve never really been able to list up a satisfying (to me) Nid list since 3rd Ed. My preference is for a suitably mixed bag of gribblies. I want a decent number of little ‘uns for scuttling about and being a pest, middle ‘uns to keep everyone together and act as fine pressure points, and big ‘uns for stomping the enemy into little splutchy, easily digested pancakes.
And I just cannot get a list together that feels right on the tabletop. This is broadly reflected in lists we see from Tournaments and other organised events, where Nid players (understandably) tend to specialise in one area. Nidzilla is of course the classical if not exactly modern example.
And the smaller the points, the harder it is to run my list preference.
But perfectly happy to accept that’s just me being a weirdo!
A universal points increase is good for everyone and the game. As they said in the article it allows for more granularity. Just as an example if all points doubled then a termagant being 8 points can be balanced by dropping them to 7 or 5 instead of a 4 point Gant having nowhere to go but 3 or 2.
There is more room for nuance which allows everything to be balanced better against each other.
Again. It's good for everyone.
If after the points insrease it costs you 4k points to field the same number of models then fine.
Play 4k games.
Lance845 wrote: A universal points increase is good for everyone and the game. As they said in the article it allows for more granularity. Just as an example if all points doubled then a termagant being 8 points can be balanced by dropping them to 7 or 5 instead of a 4 point Gant having nowhere to go but 3 or 2.
There is more room for nuance which allows everything to be balanced better against each other.
Again. It's good for everyone.
If after the points insrease it costs you 4k points to field the same number of models then fine.
Play 4k games.
No discussion there, what people are probably slightly concerned with is the fact that intercissors go up 17% with their rules intact due to what we know what remains, whilest cultists go up by 50%
1) take no point value as gospel till it's released.
2) GW is going to release a book every year with new point values anyway. Expect the values to be broken in one way or another forever. What has always been will always be.
3) maybe the app means you won't have to buy the book?
p5freak wrote: Sounds like GW is trying to move away from horde armies with the point increase and the new blast rules. Less models mean less dice are rolled, which is always good.
Banning re-rolls also means less dice are rolled. That should be a goal, not to reduce the models count. A game with no re-rolls and less powerful auras would be way better IMHO.
Lance845 wrote: A universal points increase is good for everyone and the game. As they said in the article it allows for more granularity. Just as an example if all points doubled then a termagant being 8 points can be balanced by dropping them to 7 or 5 instead of a 4 point Gant having nowhere to go but 3 or 2.
There is more room for nuance which allows everything to be balanced better against each other.
Again. It's good for everyone.
If after the points insrease it costs you 4k points to field the same number of models then fine.
Play 4k games.
No discussion there, what people are probably slightly concerned with is the fact that intercissors go up 17% with their rules intact due to what we know what remains, whilest cultists go up by 50%
Makes perfect sense in the light of the mission spoiled. The value of a unit simply "existing" has increased. Even if you are bad at shooting and chopping, you can still perform actions.
Lance845 wrote: A universal points increase is good for everyone and the game. As they said in the article it allows for more granularity. Just as an example if all points doubled then a termagant being 8 points can be balanced by dropping them to 7 or 5 instead of a 4 point Gant having nowhere to go but 3 or 2.
There is more room for nuance which allows everything to be balanced better against each other.
Again. It's good for everyone.
If after the points insrease it costs you 4k points to field the same number of models then fine.
Play 4k games.
No discussion there, what people are probably slightly concerned with is the fact that intercissors go up 17% with their rules intact due to what we know what remains, whilest cultists go up by 50%
But we also don't know what else is buffing them or nerfing them. Heck re-rolls might be harder to get even as marine.
p5freak wrote: Sounds like GW is trying to move away from horde armies with the point increase and the new blast rules. Less models mean less dice are rolled, which is always good.
Banning re-rolls also means less dice are rolled. That should be a goal, not to reduce the models count. A game with no re-rolls and less powerful auras would be way better IMHO.
To a point. It would make many things just feel terrible to play and with damage levels going down (which we all want) but if they go down to much then massive MSU horde armies will be a thing, combining new cover that is. You can Horde without needs massive units. But that is all speculations. Also thats another reason why a tight FoC was important IMO, it made it hard for a "Horde" army to MSU like you can now, right now nids can just have 18x10 mans instead of 6x30mans. Its the same models, but plays completely differently and blast weapons might not be as effective.
p5freak wrote: Sounds like GW is trying to move away from horde armies with the point increase and the new blast rules. Less models mean less dice are rolled, which is always good.
Banning re-rolls also means less dice are rolled. That should be a goal, not to reduce the models count. A game with no re-rolls and less powerful auras would be way better IMHO.
Kinda why I like some of the AoS design. AoS has a pattern regarding rerolls for the most part(there are offenders here and there). Reroll 1s tend to be the only ones with Reroll all only reserved for epic big units, and the unit getting rerolls has to be wholly within the aura or not get anything at all. Add on this that a lot of those reroll abilities are tied to CP usage.
Then you have stuff like rerolling and Feeding Frenzy Ghouls in Flesh-Eater Courts that get gazillion attacks with possible rerolls and an extra attack phase. I've seen the will to live fade out in my opponent's face as I attack with a blob of 40 ghouls and get 150+ attacks with rerolling 1s on hit and reroll on wounds with the option of making them all pile in and attack again(Feeding Frenzy) with the same modifiers. Soul-crushing mechanic for all parties.
Spoletta wrote: Nids are never a problem to balance. There is no point cost so low that nids no longer feel like nids. Marines had a problem that you had to buff them with something that wasn't simply cost reductions, because if you did that, they would become an horde army, which would have felt "wrong".
Aeldari factions have similar problems, but nids?
For nids, even if a fex ends up being 40 points, it is still a perfectly good representation of nids on the table.
Something similar is also true for orks and guards. They are supposed to be endless.
Assume for a moment that guards, boyz and gants are not affected by the cost increase. That would already fix it.
We aren't talking about point drops. Point increases yes. With chaos cultist 6 pts ork boyz will be 8-10 pts.
Makes perfect sense in the light of the mission spoiled. The value of a unit simply "existing" has increased. Even if you are bad at shooting and chopping, you can still perform actions.
Non horde just takes killy secondaries and avoids that issue.
Kinda why I like some of the AoS design. AoS has a pattern regarding rerolls for the most part(there are offenders here and there). Reroll 1s tend to be the only ones with Reroll all only reserved for epic big units, and the unit getting rerolls has to be wholly within the aura or not get anything at all. Add on this that a lot of those reroll abilities are tied to CP usage.
Yeah, I mean some specific re-rolls may be nice: take a single unit in the codex like tankbustas who can re-roll hits against a specific kind of targets (vehicles) or a single character (Badrukk) who gives the re-roll of 1s only to a specific unit (Flash Gitz). That is acceptable, a character that allows ANYTHING to automatically re-roll hits and/or wounds is flat out bad and needs to be addressed. Auras that buff defensive stats like the KFF, Haemonculus bonus to coven stuff or some buffing morale auras are also nice because they reduce killyness.
To a point. It would make many things just feel terrible to play and with damage levels going down (which we all want) but if they go down to much then massive MSU horde armies will be a thing, combining new cover that is. You can Horde without needs massive units. But that is all speculations. Also thats another reason why a tight FoC was important IMO, it made it hard for a "Horde" army to MSU like you can now, right now nids can just have 18x10 mans instead of 6x30mans. Its the same models, but plays completely differently and blast weapons might not be as effective.
And what's the problem with orks or nids hordes? They certainly don't look impossibile to deal with anyway in 8th. The only real problem I see with hordes is that you can ally some cheap troops to armies that aren't designed to have any of them, with no drawbacks. Another issue could be related to slow playing but we'd be talking about lists with 180+ cheap troops. Many "hordes" lists have actually 90ish cheap dudes in total. To "fix" those 180+ cheap bodies lists just bring back limitations on the FOC. 6 troops at most, unless handicapping yourself somehow, should fix pretty much everything related to that matter. Some armies could still bring 180 dudes but none of them is actually something overpowered.
Kinda why I like some of the AoS design. AoS has a pattern regarding rerolls for the most part(there are offenders here and there). Reroll 1s tend to be the only ones with Reroll all only reserved for epic big units, and the unit getting rerolls has to be wholly within the aura or not get anything at all. Add on this that a lot of those reroll abilities are tied to CP usage.
Yeah, I mean some specific re-rolls may be nice: take a single unit in the codex like tankbustas who can re-roll hits against a specific kind of targets (vehicles) or a single character (Badrukk) who gives the re-roll of 1s only to a specific unit (Flash Gitz). That is acceptable, a character that allows ANYTHING to automatically re-roll hits and/or wounds is flat out bad and needs to be addressed. Auras that buff defensive stats like the KFF, Haemonculus bonus to coven stuff or some buffing morale auras are also nice because they reduce killyness.
To a point. It would make many things just feel terrible to play and with damage levels going down (which we all want) but if they go down to much then massive MSU horde armies will be a thing, combining new cover that is. You can Horde without needs massive units. But that is all speculations. Also thats another reason why a tight FoC was important IMO, it made it hard for a "Horde" army to MSU like you can now, right now nids can just have 18x10 mans instead of 6x30mans. Its the same models, but plays completely differently and blast weapons might not be as effective.
And what's the problem with orks or nids hordes? They certainly don't look impossibile to deal with anyway in 8th. The only real problem I see with hordes is that you can ally some cheap troops to armies that aren't designed to have any of them, with no drawbacks. Another issue could be related to slow playing but we'd be talking about lists with 180+ cheap troops. Many "hordes" lists have actually 90ish cheap dudes in total. To "fix" those 180+ cheap bodies lists just bring back limitations on the FOC. 6 troops at most, unless handicapping yourself somehow, should fix pretty much everything related to that matter. Some armies could still bring 180 dudes but none of them is actually something overpowered.
B.c i'm talking about what ifs for 9th sense they talked about what ifs. Im saying with all re-rolls are gone and blasts are the only real Anti-horde, 10mans are not counted as a horde, and with new terrain rules then 10mans MSU units could become OP. SO you need to be careful about rules interactions and no-rr's
Also b.c no rr's it could make single shot guns 100% worthless, there are good reasons why we don't see Lascanonns or Dark Lances, evenif they got better rules to hurt vehicles, if they can't hit why even take them? Remember 5th? Rhino rush and Spearhead tactics was superior until GK and Necrons b.c even if you had 12 Lascannons it wasn't enough to break the LR, Rhinos, and Razorbacks b.c you still miss with 1/3 of the shots and 1/3 of the wounds.
I'm just showing what ifs before we declare XYZ is good for the game.
The specific implementation can be done poorly (and knowing GW it likely will be). But that is a different thing from if the general design concept is good for the game.
Let me be clear when I say this. Point increases across the board IS good for the game. There is no doubt of that. It's just true. Giving yourself more design space to play in is better.
Wether or not GW USES that design space to make the game better is another thing entirely. And I don't exactly trust GWs ability to do anything.
I mean, this is kind of a moot point. Almost all rerolls are directly on unit datasheets. They've said datasheets won't be changing much with the new edition. I think rerolls are here to stay.
the_scotsman wrote: I mean, this is kind of a moot point. Almost all rerolls are directly on unit datasheets. They've said datasheets won't be changing much with the new edition. I think rerolls are here to stay.
Agreed.
They COULD implement a general rule that you can only reroll one roll per attack, like only hits OR wounds and if your rule states you can reroll both you have to decide which one to use in the new system. But I'm not seeing it yet.
Haven't seen much Ishagu after that mission preview. I want to hear how secondaries are great and he always supported them and GW is genius and ITC stole the idea from GW all along.
Martel732 wrote: Haven't seen much Ishagu after that mission preview. I want to hear how secondaries are great and he always supported them and GW is genius and ITC stole the idea from GW all along.
Hey, heyheyhey, whatever happened to observing the beautful transformations of nature, rather than interfering with them. Less peanut gallery, more david attenborough.
We're about to witness a beautiful transmogrification in one direction or another. The larval stage is nearly complete, and it has begun weaving an intricate nest. Posts stating minor discontent with the current structures of the edition have begun to show, clearly indicating that an anticipation to a full pivot to the newest edition may be required. But can the burden of mental dissonance be withstood? Can the grand pivot be achieved, or will he, like so many others, fail in his task and become another of the Wistful Nostalgics, continually harking back to the lost golden age?
Truly, one of nature's great dramas is about to unfold. Let's observe.
Martel732 wrote:Haven't seen much Ishagu after that mission preview. I want to hear how secondaries are great and he always supported them and GW is genius and ITC stole the idea from GW all along.
Gee, it's almost like people who enjoyed certain things and were happy to defend them don't like other things, and people don't just blindly support GW!
If Ishagu doesn't start making threads complaining about secondaries and starts making non-constructive rants and whining in every thread, that's already a better standard than many other people.
B.c i'm talking about what ifs for 9th sense they talked about what ifs. Im saying with all re-rolls are gone and blasts are the only real Anti-horde, 10mans are not counted as a horde, and with new terrain rules then 10mans MSU units could become OP. SO you need to be careful about rules interactions and no-rr's
Which 10man MSU units could really become OP though? Ork boyz are pure trash in those numbers, always have been barring a few old list with tons of trukks which were never really competitive anyway. Now even more than previous editions as they lost the attack they used to get on the charge and power klaws are a joke.
Martel732 wrote: Haven't seen much Ishagu after that mission preview. I want to hear how secondaries are great and he always supported them and GW is genius and ITC stole the idea from GW all along.
The new missions are neither CA oriented nor ITC oriented. They are a good mix which takes the best of the two systems. I have to see how much you can get by just killing secondaries, but for now i like it.
Martel732 wrote: Haven't seen much Ishagu after that mission preview. I want to hear how secondaries are great and he always supported them and GW is genius and ITC stole the idea from GW all along.
The new missions are neither CA oriented nor ITC oriented. They are a good mix which takes the best of the two systems. I have to see how much you can get by just killing secondaries, but for now i like it.
I suppose that's important because killing secondary + enemy denial of scoring = double dipping from killing.
The two that we saw are actually meant to be punishing specific skews.
Many lists don't have 5 characters. Especially in this new single detachment world.
Many lists don't have 150 models.
I expect the killing secondaries to be aimed at punishing extreme builds, more than being an easy way for lists to get points while ignoring the mission.
TLDR - 40k's success and legacy means it's stuck being IGOUGO forever, despite the distinct possibility of rules writers wanting to redesign it with different activation models, with a couple of real world examples for comparison
Martel732 wrote: Haven't seen much Ishagu after that mission preview. I want to hear how secondaries are great and he always supported them and GW is genius and ITC stole the idea from GW all along.
The new missions are neither CA oriented nor ITC oriented. They are a good mix which takes the best of the two systems. I have to see how much you can get by just killing secondaries, but for now i like it.
I suppose that's important because killing secondary + enemy denial of scoring = double dipping from killing.
I think I saw him on Bolter and Chainsword where he said he'd been given a time out by the mods. He was emphatically against it initially, I think he used tersm like swamp water trickling into the studio or some such.
I currently think the way GW are implementing some ITC elements seems good, it's a blend between ITC and what they were moving towards previously.
I think the key difference that we've seen so far between current ITC and what GW are proposing is the Four Pillars primary gives no points for killing the enemy, so it's all about board control. It's a subtle difference, but not being able to get a point a turn just for killing something means you have to engage with the mission a lot more and I hope we'll see more missions with similar set-ups where you can take an army and tailor the secondary missions for it but you still need to be able to complete the primary in order to win.
TLDR - 40k's success and legacy means it's stuck being IGOUGO forever, despite the distinct possibility of rules writers wanting to redesign it with different activation models, with a couple of real world examples for comparison
I don't buy it. GW has changed a lot of fundamental concepts of 40K over the years, so why is an IGOUGO turn structure sacrosanct? If they could throw out the FOC (a staple of the game for literally decades!) and replace it with a flexible detachment system, tie it to a command point generation and CCG-esque game layer on top, and simultaneously radically overhaul the hit, wound, AP, morale, and vehicle systems, it doesn't seem like adhering to nostalgia is paramount.
Even without throwing out IGOUGO altogether, there's plenty of scope for a reaction system. Andy Chambers' first project after leaving GW, Starship Troopers, was an IGOUGO system with a reaction mechanic that made it significantly more dynamic. Early turns are straight IGOUGO, but as forces close within reaction range, it gets very fast-paced and closer to AA while still being within a technically IGOUGO paradigm.
To use the analogy in the post, I'd say 8th Ed already is the Caiman. There are those who still play 7th or 30K, being the classic and familiar design, but 8th is the redesigned and updated system that butchered a lot of sacred cows from the past six or seven editions and reworked many core mechanics from the ground up. We're already firmly into the realm of an evolving game; no reason why straight walk-away-for-thirty-minutes IGOUGOneeds to stay.
3 hour games of IGOUGO are boring. The birth of so many other systems proves some form of alternate activation is just better. We also know GW is incapable of making good design decisions, because they are a model company not a game company. The best designed GW games ever were created by FFG. FFG also tightened up the L5R LCG by redesign of the AEG legacy mess. With this in mind I think the best way to fix 40k is for Asmodee to acquire GW.
IGOUGO isn't great for tournaments and playing with strangers in stores, because you aren't in control of the environment and you usually don't know your opponents very well. I know many posters on Dakka only play this way, so I understand why they feel this way.
But for home players, the break between turns is awesome. It gives you a chance to breathe, to talk to everyone else in the room, to change the tunes, order the pizza, make the drinks, etc.
If 40k demanded my continuous attention for the amount of time it takes to set up, play and teardown, I would hate it. I've used comparisons between Baseball and American Football (which feel like IGOUGO games) vs. Basketball, Tennis and Hockey (which feel like AA games).
Because there are some people who like one type of sport or the other, I had hoped to illustrate that IGOUGO vs. AA is a preference, not a situation where one system is inherently better than the other.
In my experience, those with an IGOUGO preference tend to understand the appeal of AA despite their preference, while those with an AA preference fail to understand how anyone could like IGOUGO, and blame it entirely for all the failings of the game when other factors (such as poor LOS and Terrain rules) are far more responsible for the problem than IGOUGO.
The other thing that frustrates me about AA advocates is that they already have solutions to their problems, because they could just choose to play Apocalypse and be happy, but for some sick and twisted reason which I fail to comprehend, they prefer to play 40k, hate every minute of it, whine endlessly about it on the internet and bring everyone else down.
I don't think AA advocates actually want the thing they claim to want, since they already have it and aren't happy. I think what they actually want is for no one else to be able to enjoy the game unless it is on their terms. It's a case of "I can already play the game the way I like, but I want everyone else to be forced to play the game I like."
Sticking with IGOUGO in 40k for as long as Apocalypse continues to exist is an everyone wins scenario, because no one is losing anything. If Apocalypse dies, well, we'll have to revisit the conversation, because at that point, people with an AA preference won't have an option. But as it stands, they do, so they should use it and leave everyone else's game alone.
An if Apocalypse is allowed to die, that brings up another hole in the AA argument. If AA is as much better than IGOUGO as all these AA advocates claim, why isn't Apocalypse the hottest selling system in the range?
Could it be that they have over estimated the importance of their competitive/tournament based bubble of a couple hundred thousand players against the overwhelming majority of millions of players who play casually in garages and basements with friends?
I mean, I'm just saying if it smells like max profit for IGOUGO and minimal profit from AA, it might just mean that the majority of players have been speaking loudly with wallets for 33 years.
But of course an armchair game designer on Dakka knows better, right?
PenitentJake wrote: The other thing that frustrates me about AA advocates is that they already have solutions to their problems, because they could just choose to play Apocalypse and be happy, but for some sick and twisted reason which I fail to comprehend, they prefer to play 40k, hate every minute of it, whine endlessly about it on the internet and bring everyone else down.
I don't think AA advocates actually want the thing they claim to want, since they already have it and aren't happy. I think what they actually want is for no one else to be able to enjoy the game unless it is on their terms. It's a case of "I can already play the game the way I like, but I want everyone else to be forced to play the game I like."
If you want the ability to get up and order pizza or change the music or whatever while playing a game, why don't you play Yahtzee?
What's that? It's not the same game, and that single trait isn't the sole criterion on which you decide what game to play? Please, tell me more.
Maybe Dakka gives you a skewed view of people, but I think most of us do actually enjoy 40K for what it is; we would just enjoy it more with a more modern turn structure. Apocalypse is a completely different game that I find fun every once in a while, but isn't skirmish-level and doesn't scale down to the 1k-1.5k games I play most in 40K. It is not '40K with AA'. If such a system did exist as an officially supported system, I would happily play it and stop engaging with old-school IGOUGO40K at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: An if Apocalypse is allowed to die, that brings up another hole in the AA argument. If AA is as much better than IGOUGO as all these AA advocates claim, why isn't Apocalypse the hottest selling system in the range?
Sales volume is hardly the best metric for objectively determining quality, especially when comparing two dissimilar games with different price points and entry requirements. Very few players will have an Apocalypse army but not play 40K, while plenty of 40K players will never own an Apoc-sized army.
I don't for a second believe that you actually buy into this logic, unless you're ready to die on the hill that says Transformers is a better movie than Citizen Kane on account of sheer sales volume.
PenitentJake wrote: But of course an armchair game designer on Dakka knows better, right?
I mean, I hold a degree in Game Design & Development and have worked as a designer on a couple of fairly high-profile videogame projects, but appeals to authority are intrinsically worthless.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh! And I shouldn't leave out that Andy Chambers- the lead architect of 3rd Ed, which is when 40K exploded in popularity, and laid the groundwork for the game system ever since- upon leaving GW immediately designed a system that added AA elements to IGOUGO, and then went on to design several directly AA systems.
He has said in interview that he wanted to change up 40K, but the suits wouldn't let him, and those ideas were what he took to Mongoose.
So I mean, if you want to pull the 'designers know better than you' card, there's a prolific and skilled designer with substantial industry impact who wanted 40K to have AA circa 2004.
IGOUGO isn't great for tournaments and playing with strangers in stores, because you aren't in control of the environment and you usually don't know your opponents very well. I know many posters on Dakka only play this way, so I understand why they feel this way.
But for home players, the break between turns is awesome. It gives you a chance to breathe, to talk to everyone else in the room, to change the tunes, order the pizza, make the drinks, etc.
If 40k demanded my continuous attention for the amount of time it takes to set up, play and teardown, I would hate it.
I fully agree, I have the same feeling. Overly competitive 40k has never been appealing to me. It's also very easy to balance lists, even competitive ones, if you play with a friend. Gaming against strangers can be fun, I also do it sometimes, and adds variety but I don't feel like a have to prove anything when I play so I'm not interested in winning at any cost. IGOUGO has never been an issue for me.
Well, it depends on what you expect from the game. Due to IGOUGO40K is not a very deep, tactical system like lotr for example. With the new CC rules and stratagems in 8th it has become more tactical than previous versions, but overall 40K is still more for watching the carnage. 40K is mainly about the narrative experience, you make up a cool scenario, build fitting lists for that and then watch all those funny hilarious TV-Tropes fight it out. Unlike in 6th and 7th edition you have more control over the actual game and decisions to make, but as I said, it's really more about the funny situation. Goblins fighting WW1 tanks fighting Aliens(tm) fighting Terminators(tm) fighting Zombies fighting Gundam and so on. Artillery firing point blank range - at a plane and a guy with a chainsaw is hacking at an ogre. That's 40K. Drink a beer, make up your plan for the next round and then do it without that much thinking about every possible move and reaction.
You can literally just take a break and order a pizza real quick. It doesn't take 30 minutes. It also doesn't take 30 minutes to throw on a new playlist, go to the restroom, and mix a drink. All of these activities together are 15 minutes max.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also once again Baseball and Football are NOT IGOUGO because the players don't sit their twiddling their thumbs when the ball is thrown or hit.
Okay, didn't know about the degree in game theory/ design, and sorry to assume. I'd like to point out that calling someone an armchair designer is about as personal as I tend to get. Thanks for correcting my unfair assumptions about your expertise.
As for Citizen Kane vs Transformers, no, relative numbers don't mean one is better than the other, but if someone was suggesting that Transformers was terrible, and broken and needed to be changed, I would suggest that its box office numbers seem to suggest that there is no problem with the movie for the people who enjoy it, and that's really all I'm saying about 40k.
As for the first little rant where you criticize the wanting a break as not being a valid singular reason for choosing a game... Good. I'm glad you saw that. Because I've been trying to convince AA people on Dakka for MONTHS that the AA/IGOUGO debate IS only one element of lethality.
The fact that you can tell me it's only one element of a game or a problem when I talk about it, but you don't see it the same way when you talk about it is the part that still confuses me.
Finally, I would say that of the categories of games (millions of ways to categorize; not suggesting that the classification system I'm about to employ is perfect or complete)- Pen and Paper RPG's, Tabletop Wargames, Collectible Card Games, Board Games and Video Games, the latter is the one with which I have the least experience and expertise.
But as a video game guy, I thought I'd dust off my football vs basketball analogy and try one from the videogame world. Because I admit less experience here, I may have to reference a franchise that isn't as popular as a lot of others, because with minimal videogame experience, I'm only really familiar enough with my favourite franchise to do it:
Dynasty Warriors vs. Dynasty Warrior Tactics.
I loved both. Clearly DW represents AA games, and clearly DWT is more IGOUGO. Again, it's about intensity. DW raises your heartbeat, makes you sweat, and FORCES you to pay attention the entire time you are playing. DWT gives you time to think, allows multitasking and has a rhythm that doesn't monopolize 100% of your attention the whole time you are playing.
Also, I want you to know that I do see the validity of what you've said about Apocolypse not being the perfect substitute for 40k- especially your point about it not scaling down, and about how many 40k players will never have Apocalypse sized forces. All of those points are valid.
I'm also genuinely grateful for you pointing out the thing about Andy Chambers (what's the name of his game BTW, and is it still played?). I do appreciate that there is a spectrum between AA and IGOUGO and that it's not a strict binary, and I do like hearing suggestions that play to a spectrum solution.
But see how I acknowledge the validity of the points of view?
That's kinda what I'd like from the rabid AA crowd. All I want is the simple acknowledgement that if you get your way, there will be three games set in the 40k universe that are AA and none that are IGOUGO, meaning people who have liked that rhythm and stuck by it for 33 years will have nothing. I'd also like to see acknowledgement that, yeah, there are some people who prefer IGOUGO, and that while you personally are not one of those people and you would prefer AA, you do understand that different people may have different preferences and that's okay. At that point, you can launch into all the reasons why you prefer AA, and I would hazard a guess that I'd probably see the validity of all of them, even if I continued to maintain my own preferences due my differing priorities.
You don't have to agree. Acknowledge the legitimacy of the point of view, and I'll shut up. Heck, I further promise to not come back to this thread, because I'm not going to change anyone's mind anyway.
I think I'm pretty fair about acknowledging the validity of points of view with which I personally disagree. I also tend to apologize or at least acknowledge when I've judged a person or point of view unfairly.
While I will happily retreat from the debate in this thread, I will of course continue express my opinion in other threads where this comes up- it has a way of doing that at least once every week or two.
(As a sidenote, it's never IGOUGO people who bring this up. You won't find any threads where we we advocate making KT or Apocalypse IGOUGO; you won't find any threads where we suggest that nobody should be able to play an AA game ever because it's inherently bad game design.)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's because the IGOUGO people know their system is worse.
Well Slayer, thanks for proving my point about how insensitive an intolerant some in the AA crowd are. I'm pretty sure not all of them are as bent as you are, and to be fair, there are some folks on Dakka who hit back pretty hard at you on here, and I get how a person can be jaded over time. I may even be getting there myself.
Quarantine has left me spending too much time on Dakka.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's because the IGOUGO people know their system is worse.
Well Slayer, thanks for proving my point about how insensitive an intolerant some in the AA crowd are. I'm pretty sure not all of them are as bent as you are, and to be fair, there are some folks on Dakka who hit back pretty hard at you on here, and I get how a person can be jaded over time. I may even be getting there myself.
Quarantine has left me spending too much time on Dakka.
The problem is you haven't MADE a single good point. I calculated everything you could do in that half hour to take up 15 minutes. Chances are you won't need to order another pizza again you know. You try comparing to certain sports that aren't actually like IGOUGO because defense doesn't sit their twiddling their thumbs when the ball is hit or kick. So what's the real defense for IGOUGO? The only reasonable one made was "shorter game", and quite frankly that's solved via "play a smaller game" which has been the solution to people already complaining about a long game to begin with.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's because the IGOUGO people know their system is worse.
Well Slayer, thanks for proving my point about how insensitive an intolerant some in the AA crowd are. I'm pretty sure not all of them are as bent as you are, and to be fair, there are some folks on Dakka who hit back pretty hard at you on here, and I get how a person can be jaded over time. I may even be getting there myself.
Quarantine has left me spending too much time on Dakka.
The problem is you haven't MADE a single good point. I calculated everything you could do in that half hour to take up 15 minutes. Chances are you won't need to order another pizza again you know. You try comparing to certain sports that aren't actually like IGOUGO because defense doesn't sit their twiddling their thumbs when the ball is hit or kick. So what's the real defense for IGOUGO? The only reasonable one made was "shorter game", and quite frankly that's solved via "play a smaller game" which has been the solution to people already complaining about a long game to begin with.
One has to say though, you don't really do nothing in the opponents phase. There are stratagems to activate, saving throws to make, overwatch, CC, heroic intervention, rolling to explode.
Aside from strats these aren't really reactions that need a lot of thought, but they're still things you have to do.
Honest question to the people claiming they "do nothing" during their opponent's turn: Are you not playing with people you would consider friends? Even when you're not activating stratagems, rollings saves, and all the other things Sgt. Cortez mentioned, are you not chatting with your opponent? This is intended to be a social game. You should try using it as an excuse to socialize.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm also genuinely grateful for you pointing out the thing about Andy Chambers (what's the name of his game BTW, and is it still played?). I do appreciate that there is a spectrum between AA and IGOUGO and that it's not a strict binary, and I do like hearing suggestions that play to a spectrum solution.
His first post-GW game was Starship Troopers, which was then adapted into Battlefield Evolution. I would argue that it was an excellent game system, but Mongoose wasn't able to support the hobby and logistics side of things, and it died in the late-2000s.
SST was IGOUGO at its core, but with one wrinkle: when you do something within 12" of the enemy, they can perform reactions. So you shoot a unit, and it can either shoot back or immediately move. You melee, they immediately melee back (much like 40K, really). It made for games that started out slowly from a distance, but when the two sides get close then the instant reactions start piling up.
He was subsequently the chief designer on Dust Warfare, which took things in a slightly different direction. Dust has four phases, and within each phase its IGOUGO. However, similarly to SST, if you get shot at or an enemy moves near you you can immediately make a reaction, but this comes at the cost of being able to make an action in a subsequent phase.
He also wrote Dropfleet Commander, but I'm not familiar with that system.
PenitentJake wrote: But see how I acknowledge the validity of the points of view?
That's kinda what I'd like from the rabid AA crowd. All I want is the simple acknowledgement that if you get your way, there will be three games set in the 40k universe that are AA and none that are IGOUGO, meaning people who have liked that rhythm and stuck by it for 33 years will have nothing. I'd also like to see acknowledgement that, yeah, there are some people who prefer IGOUGO, and that while you personally are not one of those people and you would prefer AA, you do understand that different people may have different preferences and that's okay. At that point, you can launch into all the reasons why you prefer AA, and I would hazard a guess that I'd probably see the validity of all of them, even if I continued to maintain my own preferences due my differing priorities.
You don't have to agree. Acknowledge the legitimacy of the point of view, and I'll shut up. Heck, I further promise to not come back to this thread, because I'm not going to change anyone's mind anyway.
Hey man, I will absolutely recognize that IGOUGO is simpler to design (MUCH simpler to design), simpler to play, and doesn't require the same level of investment and commitment from players that AA does. IGOUGO systems with AA elements do require you to pay close attention to what's going on, and pure-AA systems have much shorter 'turns' with less down time. But to be honest, from a design perspective I see that as a feature rather than a bug- and I think GW is starting to feel the same way, given all the defensive stratagems that require you to have some degree of investment in your opponent's turn, and their commitment to having saving throws be rolled by the owning player rather than the attacker.
The thing is, if you want to get more interaction in an IGOUGO system, you have to basically rewrite the rules to add reactions or full-blown AA or whatever other alteration fits your interests. If you want to have more down time in an AA system, you can always just take a break from the game between rounds or activations, or even strip out the AA elements to turn it into IGOUGO. Take something like Bolt Action- that's a pure AA game. Normally each player puts a token into a bag for each model on their side, then you randomly draw a token, and whoever's color is drawn gets to activate a model. Want to convert it to IGOUGO? Just have each player do all their activations sequentially. It's really that simple. Converting 40K to AA, on the flipside, is a lot more of a headache.
Consider also the venue element you mentioned earlier. You can play with whatever house rules you want, right? But players who are doing tournament play or mostly play pick-up games at stores are largely limited to rules as written. If, as you said before, AA is better-suited to their style of play, everybody wins if the core rules accommodate them but give you the tools to adjust the game to your liking. GW could even include IGOUGO as an optional variant directly in the core rules.
FWIW, I'm not a tournament player- most of my gaming is done with friends, in my house, over a few beers. But like, we can do that with Bolt Action, Apocalypse, or Dust too; it's just more along the lines of 'lemme go put in the pizza order while you resolve that one trooper's activation', and less 'lemme go file my taxes while you resolve your Ork horde's movement phase'. It's still doable in a casual context.
I will admit that I am a strong AA fan (in the context of skirmish wargaming- it is not appropriate for genres like naval warfare); partly because it's increasingly become industry standard for good reason, and partly because I find that many 40K players who defend the IGOUGO structure haven't had much experience with non-GW games. I know there are people who have given it a fair shake and genuinely prefer IGOUGO, but I think they're a minority compared to those who have done both and prefer AA, and in all honesty a majority of players probably don't really care and will go with whatever GW publishes.
EnTyme wrote: Honest question to the people claiming they "do nothing" during their opponent's turn: Are you not playing with people you would consider friends? Even when you're not activating stratagems, rollings saves, and all the other things Sgt. Cortez mentioned, are you not chatting with your opponent? This is intended to be a social game. You should try using it as an excuse to socialize.
There are people who like chatting while playing but there are also people who don't like being distracted.
Strategems is the only thing you mentioned that the defending player has any agency over. You make no decisions about any of the other things you mentioned. You're not DOING anything. It's requires no brain power. The other guy tells you how many dice to roll for saves.
As for the igougo crowd getting acknowledged. I acknowledge that you don't like change and you say that repeatedly while making up nonsense arguments about why igougo is great design wise like "I enjoy taking long breaks to order pizza" which anyone could just do at any time anyway.
There is no acknowledgement of your points because you are not making any on the discussion we are having. AA says this is the design elements that suck the fun out of the game, make it less engaging, have consequences like first turn advantage and alpha strikes, etc...
And your rebuttal is "but I don't wanna". Which is.... Whatever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's because the IGOUGO people know their system is worse.
Well Slayer, thanks for proving my point about how insensitive an intolerant some in the AA crowd are. I'm pretty sure not all of them are as bent as you are, and to be fair, there are some folks on Dakka who hit back pretty hard at you on here, and I get how a person can be jaded over time. I may even be getting there myself.
Quarantine has left me spending too much time on Dakka.
The problem is you haven't MADE a single good point. I calculated everything you could do in that half hour to take up 15 minutes. Chances are you won't need to order another pizza again you know. You try comparing to certain sports that aren't actually like IGOUGO because defense doesn't sit their twiddling their thumbs when the ball is hit or kick. So what's the real defense for IGOUGO? The only reasonable one made was "shorter game", and quite frankly that's solved via "play a smaller game" which has been the solution to people already complaining about a long game to begin with.
One has to say though, you don't really do nothing in the opponents phase. There are stratagems to activate, saving throws to make, overwatch, CC, heroic intervention, rolling to explode.
Aside from strats these aren't really reactions that need a lot of thought, but they're still things you have to do.
Literally none of those have any thought besides Interventions. Everything else is a result of what the opponent did. It isn't reactionary, but rather it's triggered.
EnTyme wrote: Honest question to the people claiming they "do nothing" during their opponent's turn: Are you not playing with people you would consider friends? Even when you're not activating stratagems, rollings saves, and all the other things Sgt. Cortez mentioned, are you not chatting with your opponent? This is intended to be a social game. You should try using it as an excuse to socialize.
There are people who like chatting while playing but there are also people who don't like being distracted.
EnTyme wrote: Honest question to the people claiming they "do nothing" during their opponent's turn: Are you not playing with people you would consider friends? Even when you're not activating stratagems, rollings saves, and all the other things Sgt. Cortez mentioned, are you not chatting with your opponent? This is intended to be a social game. You should try using it as an excuse to socialize.
I don't need 30 minute breaks to socialize. I can socialize while my opponent is moving a unit, not all 20 of them.
Also rolling saves isn't interaction because literally nothing changes if I just let my opponent do it instead. Also pretty much all Strats you use in the opponent's phases are either "I'll make my deathstar harder to kill" or "better overwatch".
EnTyme wrote: Honest question to the people claiming they "do nothing" during their opponent's turn: Are you not playing with people you would consider friends? Even when you're not activating stratagems, rollings saves, and all the other things Sgt. Cortez mentioned, are you not chatting with your opponent? This is intended to be a social game. You should try using it as an excuse to socialize.
There are people who like chatting while playing but there are also people who don't like being distracted.
That just sounds boring to me.
And trying to distract the opponent for 30 minutes isn't boring somrhow?
To be honest in the opponent's turn the other player still has to roll saves, decide what models to remove as casualties, try to deny psychic powers, roll overwatch, fight with units locked in combat, and some stratagems, a few of them even game-breaking (who says Agents of Vect?), can be activated in the opponent's turn. It's nothing like watching someone playing while doing nothing.
Nothing would change if my opponent rolled the saves or overwatch or anything, so calling that interaction isn't so much a stretch so much as it is just plain inaccurate.
I've never been a fan of IGOUGO, but I haven't really had a chance to try any of the AA systems, either. The only tabletop games I've played are Battletech, 40K, and Warmachine, and while Bolt Action exists around here, I haven't seen anyone actually play it. The closest AA game I've seen played is X-Wing, but while it is big in popularity, it really isn't big in terms of models on the table (when compared to 40K or Warmachine).
IGOUGO does provide the ability to develop puzzles/alpha strikes during your turn, which is great when you do it. The downside is that you can end up losing a lot of units while having zero ability to counter act it aside from reaction systems (if any). IGOUGO in 40K has also lead to some very interesting and frustrating breaks from military strategy, such as wiping out a unit in melee and just standing their to be shot up on your opponent's turn.
AA does prevent the ease of developing puzzles/alpha strikes, unless you're lucky or game the system (having high initiative pilots in X-Wing, for example). It does provide for a more active scenarios to work with.
However, I still feel the best system was Battletech. That may be because I'm a stick-in-the-mud about my first tabletop game, but I'll attribute it to everyone being able to make choices in a phase, and only the end of Phase sees the damage realized, taking the pain out of those alpha strikes.
" If, as you said before, AA is better-suited to their style of play, everybody wins if the core rules accommodate them but give you the tools to adjust the game to your liking. GW could even include IGOUGO as an optional variant directly in the core rules."
I'll take it. That's enough of a compromise for me. It's all I'm going to get. And now, as promised, I retire from this thread.
Charistoph wrote: I've never been a fan of IGOUGO, but I haven't really had a chance to try any of the AA systems, either. The only tabletop games I've played are Battletech, 40K, and Warmachine, and while Bolt Action exists around here, I haven't seen anyone actually play it. The closest AA game I've seen played is X-Wing, but while it is big in popularity, it really isn't big in terms of models on the table (when compared to 40K or Warmachine).
IGOUGO does provide the ability to develop puzzles/alpha strikes during your turn, which is great when you do it. The downside is that you can end up losing a lot of units while having zero ability to counter act it aside from reaction systems (if any). IGOUGO in 40K has also lead to some very interesting and frustrating breaks from military strategy, such as wiping out a unit in melee and just standing their to be shot up on your opponent's turn.
AA does prevent the ease of developing puzzles/alpha strikes, unless you're lucky or game the system (having high initiative pilots in X-Wing, for example). It does provide for a more active scenarios to work with.
However, I still feel the best system was Battletech. That may be because I'm a stick-in-the-mud about my first tabletop game, but I'll attribute it to everyone being able to make choices in a phase, and only the end of Phase sees the damage realized, taking the pain out of those alpha strikes.
If you look back a few pages i gave examples of variations of AA systems. and they do play much better and both players are much more involved than the igougo system 40K still uses. they are not quite as involved as infinity's total reaction system, but that system is designed as a skirmish system and as such that it does not lend itself to 40K sized play
Spoletta wrote: I never get bored during the opponent's turn. I'm busy planning my next one following every steps he makes.
I'm in the same boat. It speeds up game play since I don't have to think re-actively every move like I'm trying to have a large scale chess match of some kind.
Honestly I just don't think AA is the magic cure all people say it is. Experiance has shown me that no matter the system people will game it and they'll find ways to break it. I'm not saying it to be pessimistic, but rather realistic: we'll only trade one set of complaints for another and everyone will just blame GW anyways.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nothing would change if my opponent rolled the saves or overwatch or anything, so calling that interaction isn't so much a stretch so much as it is just plain inaccurate.
What about choosing what casualties to remove, fighting with engaged models (maybe even against multiple targets) and the possibility of using stratagems?
From your perspective even rolling to hit, to wound, etc is never an interaction because the defending player can make all those rolls for the attacking player and nothing would change as well. Basically the entire dice rolling wouldn't be an interaction
The difference is having agency and making decisions that matter.
If you kill 6 of 30 hormagaunts guess what picking casualties is? A nothing action. Rolling saves? No choices there. Fighting? Only if engaged with 2 units and even then how often is that choice non obvious? Overwatch? You can't even choose to NOT overwatch. You have to do it.
Strategems sure. In the rare case that someone has a strat to use on the enemies turn AND it's worth doing the defending player has A choice to make. To use it or not to use it.
Lance845 wrote: The difference is having agency and making decisions that matter.
If you kill 6 of 30 hormagaunts guess what picking casualties is? A nothing action. Rolling saves? No choices there. Fighting? Only if engaged with 2 units and even then how often is that choice non obvious? Overwatch? You can't even choose to NOT overwatch. You have to do it.
Strategems sure. In the rare case that someone has a stray to use on the enemies turn AND it's worth doing the defending player has A choice to make.
By this logic a player has very little interaction even in his own turn. Basically movement (if you need to move), psychic phase (if you have psykers), declaring stratagems and chosing targets in shooting or assault phase. Anything else can be done by the opponent as well, including all the dice rolling, which is what really takes time in 40k.
And removing casualties isn't a nothing action at all. Still matters for negating enemy charge range to units behind the target, for avoiding breaking buffing auras, removing from behind in order to be closer and get easy charge next turn, etc...
Lance845 wrote: The difference is having agency and making decisions that matter.
If you kill 6 of 30 hormagaunts guess what picking casualties is? A nothing action. Rolling saves? No choices there. Fighting? Only if engaged with 2 units and even then how often is that choice non obvious? Overwatch? You can't even choose to NOT overwatch. You have to do it.
Strategems sure. In the rare case that someone has a stray to use on the enemies turn AND it's worth doing the defending player has A choice to make.
By this logic a player has very little interaction even in his own turn. Basically movement (if you need to move), psychic phase (if you have psykers), declaring stratagems and chosing targets in shooting or assault phase. Anything else can be done by the opponent as well, including all the dice rolling, which is what really takes time in 40k.
Hence why 40k isn't particulary deep game tactialy speaking.
It doesn't need to be but atm we have a bit of a puddle instead of a swimming pool situation going on.
Lance845 wrote: The difference is having agency and making decisions that matter.
If you kill 6 of 30 hormagaunts guess what picking casualties is? A nothing action. Rolling saves? No choices there. Fighting? Only if engaged with 2 units and even then how often is that choice non obvious? Overwatch? You can't even choose to NOT overwatch. You have to do it.
Strategems sure. In the rare case that someone has a stray to use on the enemies turn AND it's worth doing the defending player has A choice to make.
By this logic a player has very little interaction even in his own turn. Basically movement (if you need to move), psychic phase (if you have psykers), declaring stratagems and chosing targets in shooting or assault phase. Anything else can be done by the opponent as well, including all the dice rolling, which is what really takes time in 40k.
Hence why 40k isn't particulary deep game tactialy speaking.
It doesn't need to be but atm we have a bit of a puddle instead of a swimming pool situation going on.
Ding ding ding! A winner!
But when you switch it to AA your first choice is who to activate in what order. Then where you move trying to anticipate how the enemy will react. Maybe even trying to bait them into a situation for your next activation. Tactical meaningful decision making goes WAY the feth up the moment you ditch this igougobs.
hence why we switched it around alot in 8th with KT like activation and cover rules (not bad but required a bit of downsizing of the game to 1.5k or 1k.)
Or adapted terrain rules like KT which made shooting overall a lot less deadly.
Any codex who is write with multiple over laping units and abilities being used would be super punished. If I use two or three activations to buff up one of my big units, and my opponent just deletes the buffed up unit, then I just wasted 2-3 moves.
And if the army happens to be elite, then there is a good chance that there is no replacment unit for the destroyed one, specialy if the points go down. an activiation system would be a huge buff to hordes and armies that can run 6+ good units, because even if someone wipes out two units of intercessors there is still 4 more identical units on the board. If your opponent blows up your knight castellan or aura buffer in his two first moves, and your army stops to work without the aura or spell, then the game is done right there, just as fast as it is today. Maybe even faster.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: hence why we switched it around alot in 8th with KT like activation and cover rules (not bad but required a bit of downsizing of the game to 1.5k or 1k.)
Or adapted terrain rules like KT which made shooting overall a lot less deadly.
how did you deal with armies running 2-3 thunderfire cannons and 9 eliminators or full flyer lists, even with KT terrain rules?
Tlos, want to strafe a unit you can't see because it has a roof over it, the flyer ain't going to dakka that. can still bomb it though. A bit of abstraction. ( also we changed that around in a more private ish setting between close friends and we didn't bring top of the crop competitive lists except when we were testing some performances for ourselves.)
And eliminators aswell as thunderfire were and are still issues but that has less to do with their capability but rather with GW not appropriatly pricing them.
Every functional version of AA 8th I have seen has made allowances for activating certain units together. X unit plus y character within 3" plus z unit that protects x or y.
Necrons warriors a cryptek and it's lich guard. Or Tau firewarriors their fireblade and a drones unit. Etc etc.
Wanna Da Jump your Boyz? Then activate the psyker with the Boyz and do it.
Want to combine like 5 activations abilities? Then gamble on wether the enemy sees what you are doing and tries to stop you or not.
that far we didn't go, didn't need to, considering how much better just implementing KT stuff was, didn't fix the other core issues though with CP batteries, and wombo combos sadly were still very much important, just less insta gibbing of 3-500 pts in the first turn.
Lance845 wrote: Every functional version of AA 8th I have seen has made allowances for activating certain units together. X unit plus y character within 3" plus z unit that protects x or y.
Necrons warriors a cryptek and it's lich guard. Or Tau firewarriors their fireblade and a drones unit. Etc etc.
Wanna Da Jump your Boyz? Then activate the psyker with the Boyz and do it.
Want to combine like 5 activations abilities? Then gamble on wether the enemy sees what you are doing and tries to stop you or not.
But there is no gambel for most armies. When I have 4 characters and one unit of 10 paladins, then everyone knows what a GK player is going to to do with it. And the counter argument of don't playing a paladin bomb is a weak one, because besides that GK don't really have a good way of going against other armies good stuff.
Playing an army with a lot of strikes or a lot of termintors is just playing a much weaker version of a regular marine army, that just costs more points.
normal marines have it good, because they can buff stuff with auras or have 4 mastercrafted thunder hammers in close proximity to each other. Elite armies on the other hand have more or less pre build phases, you know where the Astral Aim goes and so does your opponent, you know where the blessed ammo for the 10 man squads goes, because you are going to have max 2 of those in your army. Prognosticators etc both you and your opponent know where and when it is going to be cast.
AA can be implemented only in the way apoc did it, by reducing the total activations (detachments instead of units).
Else, the game would be impossibly long. You add a "Thinking time" between each action, because I have to see the outcome of your action before I can decide my next one.
In the IGOUGO system, there is no need for such thinking time. By the time it is my turn, I've had enough time to ponder my next actions, especially since the movement psy and shoot phases come early in the turn, which are the ones which shape the battlefield the most.
Lance845 wrote: Every functional version of AA 8th I have seen has made allowances for activating certain units together. X unit plus y character within 3" plus z unit that protects x or y.
Necrons warriors a cryptek and it's lich guard. Or Tau firewarriors their fireblade and a drones unit. Etc etc.
Wanna Da Jump your Boyz? Then activate the psyker with the Boyz and do it.
Want to combine like 5 activations abilities? Then gamble on wether the enemy sees what you are doing and tries to stop you or not.
But there is no gambel for most armies. When I have 4 characters and one unit of 10 paladins, then everyone knows what a GK player is going to to do with it. And the counter argument of don't playing a paladin bomb is a weak one, because besides that GK don't really have a good way of going against other armies good stuff.
Playing an army with a lot of strikes or a lot of termintors is just playing a much weaker version of a regular marine army, that just costs more points.
normal marines have it good, because they can buff stuff with auras or have 4 mastercrafted thunder hammers in close proximity to each other. Elite armies on the other hand have more or less pre build phases, you know where the Astral Aim goes and so does your opponent, you know where the blessed ammo for the 10 man squads goes, because you are going to have max 2 of those in your army. Prognosticators etc both you and your opponent know where and when it is going to be cast.
I'm sorry GW sucks at balance. GW being bad at making your armies rules doesnt mean the basic structure of the game should stay worse so that you can exploit that structure to build a death star unit. In aa your army looses. In igougo your army still looses but so does everyone else for having the shittier game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: AA can be implemented only in the way apoc did it, by reducing the total activations (detachments instead of units).
Else, the game would be impossibly long. You add a "Thinking time" between each action, because I have to see the outcome of your action before I can decide my next one.
In the IGOUGO system, there is no need for such thinking time. By the time it is my turn, I've had enough time to ponder my next actions, especially since the movement psy and shoot phases come early in the turn, which are the ones which shape the battlefield the most.
Apoc has some great rules but saying it takes longer is untrue. I've played it. It's not longer. What's your experience with actually playing?
if a game is too long or not has nothing to do if there is Alternating Unit Activation, Alternating Phases or Alternating Player Turns (or if any if those is IGoUGo or Action/Reaction based)
It is only about how many steps need to be made to get one Activation/Phase/Turn
usually this comes down to dice rolls, measurments and checks
if I need to measure all models in a unit for range or just one makes a difference in speed, same if I need to roll dice for each one or just for the unit etc
If this is done via Unit Activation with IGoUGo or Unit Activation with Action/Reaction makes no big difference any more
Another point is, the more often I need to touch the models, the more time it takes
So having the possibility to move my units 3 times per turn, one time per phase and I need to go thru all of my units with the first move before I can make the secound one, this makes the game longer
Unit Activation, Alternating Phases or Alternating Player Turns has no influence on the speed here
(some might remember that a common house rule in 5th was that movement+running and charge if the unit could do it, was done in one go to speed up the game)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nothing would change if my opponent rolled the saves or overwatch or anything, so calling that interaction isn't so much a stretch so much as it is just plain inaccurate.
What about choosing what casualties to remove, fighting with engaged models (maybe even against multiple targets) and the possibility of using stratagems?
From your perspective even rolling to hit, to wound, etc is never an interaction because the defending player can make all those rolls for the attacking player and nothing would change as well. Basically the entire dice rolling wouldn't be an interaction
You aren't choosing what casualties to remove with overwatch, and once again you're still trying to talk about triggered actions rather than making choices. Also, most Strats that are used during the opponents turn are the same. They're mostly "make this unit harder to kill", which is rarely a thing that's a hard decision to make.
Lance845 wrote: Every functional version of AA 8th I have seen has made allowances for activating certain units together. X unit plus y character within 3" plus z unit that protects x or y.
Necrons warriors a cryptek and it's lich guard. Or Tau firewarriors their fireblade and a drones unit. Etc etc.
Wanna Da Jump your Boyz? Then activate the psyker with the Boyz and do it.
Want to combine like 5 activations abilities? Then gamble on wether the enemy sees what you are doing and tries to stop you or not.
But there is no gambel for most armies. When I have 4 characters and one unit of 10 paladins, then everyone knows what a GK player is going to to do with it. And the counter argument of don't playing a paladin bomb is a weak one, because besides that GK don't really have a good way of going against other armies good stuff.
Playing an army with a lot of strikes or a lot of termintors is just playing a much weaker version of a regular marine army, that just costs more points.
normal marines have it good, because they can buff stuff with auras or have 4 mastercrafted thunder hammers in close proximity to each other. Elite armies on the other hand have more or less pre build phases, you know where the Astral Aim goes and so does your opponent, you know where the blessed ammo for the 10 man squads goes, because you are going to have max 2 of those in your army. Prognosticators etc both you and your opponent know where and when it is going to be cast.
I'm sorry GW sucks at balance. GW being bad at making your armies rules doesnt mean the basic structure of the game should stay worse so that you can exploit that structure to build a death star unit. In aa your army looses. In igougo your army still looses but so does everyone else for having the shittier game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: AA can be implemented only in the way apoc did it, by reducing the total activations (detachments instead of units).
Else, the game would be impossibly long. You add a "Thinking time" between each action, because I have to see the outcome of your action before I can decide my next one.
In the IGOUGO system, there is no need for such thinking time. By the time it is my turn, I've had enough time to ponder my next actions, especially since the movement psy and shoot phases come early in the turn, which are the ones which shape the battlefield the most.
Apoc has some great rules but saying it takes longer is untrue. I've played it. It's not longer. What's your experience with actually playing?
Reread my post, i never said that Apoc takes too long.
if a game is too long or not has nothing to do if there is Alternating Unit Activation, Alternating Phases or Alternating Player Turns (or if any if those is IGoUGo or Action/Reaction based)
It is only about how many steps need to be made to get one Activation/Phase/Turn
usually this comes down to dice rolls, measurments and checks
if I need to measure all models in a unit for range or just one makes a difference in speed, same if I need to roll dice for each one or just for the unit etc
If this is done via Unit Activation with IGoUGo or Unit Activation with Action/Reaction makes no big difference any more
Another point is, the more often I need to touch the models, the more time it takes
So having the possibility to move my units 3 times per turn, one time per phase and I need to go thru all of my units with the first move before I can make the secound one, this makes the game longer
Unit Activation, Alternating Phases or Alternating Player Turns has no influence on the speed here
(some might remember that a common house rule in 5th was that movement+running and charge if the unit could do it, was done in one go to speed up the game)
I disagree with this this analysis. The phases that require you to touch the models don't take particularly longer than the ones where you roll dices. Actually, the movement phase tends to be one of the shortest ones.
That doesn't mean that moving a piece takes no time, it still take some, hence the common habit of moving and running together to save time in 5th. You will perform the same actions and take the same time both in one system and in the other, what changes is the decision time of involved players. In IGOUGO it's almost zero, since you start your turn and already have a plan, you need to stop and rethink your actions midturn only if the dices demand so. In AA, any action from the opponent may require you to rethink your next move.
People like to spout off about how IGOUGO is the antithesis of good gameplay, and is the definition of cancer which is eating away at 40k.
Guess what: It's not.
IGOUGO is perfectly fine so far as an order of operations go, and is not inherently flawed. Now it is flawed in 40k, but 40k is flawed to the extent that shifting from IGOUGO would not fix it. Not to mention it'd make already long games take even longer.
For a good example of IGOUGO done well, look at Apocalypse. The implementation of "Remove casualties after the battleround" fixed nearly all IGOUGO grievances.
morganfreeman wrote: People like to spout off about how IGOUGO is the antithesis of good gameplay, and is the definition of cancer which is eating away at 40k.
Guess what: It's not.
IGOUGO is perfectly fine so far as an order of operations go, and is not inherently flawed. Now it is flawed in 40k, but 40k is flawed to the extent that shifting from IGOUGO would not fix it. Not to mention it'd make already long games take even longer.
For a good example of IGOUGO done well, look at Apocalypse. The implementation of "Remove casualties after the battleround" fixed nearly all IGOUGO grievances.
Spoletta wrote: what changes is the decision time of involved players. In IGOUGO it's almost zero. since you start your turn and already have a plan, you need to stop and rethink your actions midturn only if the dices demand so. In AA, any action from the opponent may require you to rethink your next move.
the time a player wants to take to make a decision has nothing to do with what turn sequenze you use
Chess is the best example, as it is IGoUGo, the time to make decision how to move should be Zero because you already had enough time to think about what to do while you waited for the opponent to make his move
except that you cannot make your decision until the opponent is done, you can think about your posibilities but if your turn takes zero time or not has nothing with IGoUGo (more like how unexpected the move of the opponent was)
Just because more time passes with alternating player turns, than with alternating phases does not mean that people take less time thinking about what to do at the start of their turn
"Thinking" time is the only thing the rules cannot handle unless you add a time limit and a clock
the rules can speed up dice rolls, measurment, checks, model handling, but not how long a player wants to take to make a decision unless you add a timer
an there is a reason why chess with a timer playes different than without
but timed chess does magically playes faster because they switched from alternating model activation to alternating player turns
I guess a lot of people don't know what IGoUGo really means but just use it to describe "classic GW type Turn based games" because GW called it that way
Counterpoint: Infinity could also be described as "IGOUGO" but it has vastly more stuff for players to do when it isn't their turn. GW's design model of one player spending twenty minutes doing stuff while the other player watches and then switching isn't purely down to the discrete turns.
BaconCatBug wrote: IGOUGO means Player A takes their Turn, then Player B takes their turn.
Chess is IGOUGO. 40k is IGOUGO. Apoc is alternating action based on detachments.
this is what I meant, some people use the term as "everything that GW is doing is IGoUGo"
and technically, 40k is not IGoUGo any more as the opponent can interrupt my "Go" and I have to wait until his interruption is done to finish my action
Spoletta wrote:Else, the game would be impossibly long.
There are a lot of games that make it work, so clearly there are some unexamined assumptions in your post.
Leaving aside the possibility that decision time being done during your opponent's short activation means there is negligible additional downtime, there are clearly lots of things slowing down 40K that have nothing to do with activation. For starters, getting rid of re-rolls would more than offset any delay imposed by AA. If your concern is game length, there are bigger fish to fry.
morganfreeman wrote:People like to spout off about how IGOUGO is the antithesis of good gameplay, and is the definition of cancer which is eating away at 40k.
Guess what: It's not.
IGOUGO is perfectly fine so far as an order of operations go, and is not inherently flawed. Now it is flawed in 40k, but 40k is flawed to the extent that shifting from IGOUGO would not fix it. Not to mention it'd make already long games take even longer.
For a good example of IGOUGO done well, look at Apocalypse. The implementation of "Remove casualties after the battleround" fixed nearly all IGOUGO grievances.
Spoletta wrote: what changes is the decision time of involved players. In IGOUGO it's almost zero. since you start your turn and already have a plan, you need to stop and rethink your actions midturn only if the dices demand so. In AA, any action from the opponent may require you to rethink your next move.
the time a player wants to take to make a decision has nothing to do with what turn sequenze you use
Chess is the best example, as it is IGoUGo, the time to make decision how to move should be Zero because you already had enough time to think about what to do while you waited for the opponent to make his move
except that you cannot make your decision until the opponent is done, you can think about your posibilities but if your turn takes zero time or not has nothing with IGoUGo (more like how unexpected the move of the opponent was)
Just because more time passes with alternating player turns, than with alternating phases does not mean that people take less time thinking about what to do at the start of their turn
"Thinking" time is the only thing the rules cannot handle unless you add a time limit and a clock
the rules can speed up dice rolls, measurment, checks, model handling, but not how long a player wants to take to make a decision unless you add a timer
an there is a reason why chess with a timer playes different than without
but timed chess does magically playes faster because they switched from alternating model activation to alternating player turns
I guess a lot of people don't know what IGoUGo really means but just use it to describe "classic GW type Turn based games" because GW called it that way
Chess is an AA game, and the perfect example of why they take longer to play by definition. The time that passes between my opponent's main action and the start of my actions is zero in chess. Reason why a chess game can take a long time even though the actual mechanical movements of a game could be done in less than a minute.
kodos wrote: and technically, 40k is not IGoUGo any more as the opponent can interrupt my "Go" and I have to wait until his interruption is done to finish my action
IGOUGO with interruptions is till IGOUGO as the fundamental structure- and that's fine. When people complain about IGOUGO, they're complaining about pure I-do-everything-with-no-opportunity-to-react IGOUGO that 40K embodies. I think the vast majority of people asking for AA would be satisfied by IGOUGO with reactions a la Starship Troopers, Infinity, or Dust.
There's nothing sacrosanct about wholly alternating unit activations. The most direct benefit is the increased interactivity and ability to respond, which can be accomplished multiple ways. AA is a shorthand for that kind of interactivity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Chess is an AA game, and the perfect example of why they take longer to play by definition. The time that passes between my opponent's main action and the start of my actions is zero in chess. Reason why a chess game can take a long time even though the actual mechanical movements of a game could be done in less than a minute.
Chess is IGOUGO. Each turn is wholly independent from prior ones. There is no restriction on activating your queen a second time until every pawn has activated too.
Spoletta wrote:Else, the game would be impossibly long.
There are a lot of games that make it work, so clearly there are some unexamined assumptions in your post.
Leaving aside the possibility that decision time being done during your opponent's short activation means there is negligible additional downtime, there are clearly lots of things slowing down 40K that have nothing to do with activation. For starters, getting rid of re-rolls would more than offset any delay imposed by AA. If your concern is game length, there are bigger fish to fry.
morganfreeman wrote:People like to spout off about how IGOUGO is the antithesis of good gameplay, and is the definition of cancer which is eating away at 40k.
Guess what: It's not.
IGOUGO is perfectly fine so far as an order of operations go, and is not inherently flawed. Now it is flawed in 40k, but 40k is flawed to the extent that shifting from IGOUGO would not fix it. Not to mention it'd make already long games take even longer.
For a good example of IGOUGO done well, look at Apocalypse. The implementation of "Remove casualties after the battleround" fixed nearly all IGOUGO grievances.
Apocalypse is AA.
What non-GWAA games have you played?
I'm not saying that AA means "long games" by definition. If your game is designed for that, it will work. Applying the AA scheme to a game like 40K that takes a long time even with the IGOUGO system, will create problems.
kodos wrote: and technically, 40k is not IGoUGo any more as the opponent can interrupt my "Go" and I have to wait until his interruption is done to finish my action
IGOUGO with interruptions is till IGOUGO as the fundamental structure- and that's fine. When people complain about IGOUGO, they're complaining about pure I-do-everything-with-no-opportunity-to-react IGOUGO that 40K embodies. I think the vast majority of people asking for AA would be satisfied by IGOUGO with reactions a la Starship Troopers, Infinity, or Dust.
There's nothing sacrosanct about wholly alternating unit activations. The most direct benefit is the increased interactivity and ability to respond, which can be accomplished multiple ways. AA is a shorthand for that kind of interactivity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Chess is an AA game, and the perfect example of why they take longer to play by definition. The time that passes between my opponent's main action and the start of my actions is zero in chess. Reason why a chess game can take a long time even though the actual mechanical movements of a game could be done in less than a minute.
Chess is IGOUGO. Each turn is wholly independent from prior ones. There is no restriction on activating your queen a second time until every pawn has activated too.
You have a really strange definition of what a IGOUGO game is then... Chess is AA, there is no other way to look at it.
Spoletta wrote: You have a really strange definition of what a IGOUGO game is then... Chess is AA, there is no other way to look at it.
No, not really, I just don't think you're really examining the mechanics. The distinguishing characteristic of IGOUGO vs AA is turn structure. If each activation is in the context of a larger 'round' that limits what each activated piece can do until the next round begins, it's AA. If each activation is wholly independent from the previous one, with no activation-to-activation restrictions, it's IGOUGO. The number of pieces you are allowed to activate at once is not relevant; it can be IGOUGO whether you're allowed to activate your entire army at once or just one piece.
Chess as it currently stands- where each activation is independent and can be any piece, regardless of how many times it has already activated- is IGOUGO.
A theoretical chess variant where you can only activate a piece a second time after every other piece has been activated, turning the game structure into a sequence of turns (in which each piece will activate exactly once) subdivided into individual piece activations, would be AA.
Edit: To put it another way, it's a matter of time scale. IGOUGO has you resolve the entirety of events within a time step (a turn) at once. AA subdivides the time step to resolve constituent components sequentially, allowing opportunity for counterplay. A chess turn represents a discrete (albeit highly abstract) time step, as does a Bolt Action turn, but in the latter the turn is subdivided into a number of activations. Each activation models what an actor is doing during the encompassing time step, and only once all activations have been resolved can you move on to the next time step.
Phased games are a method of incorporating AA elements into the IGOUGO structure. Rather than have you resolve all your forces' actions for a given time step, the time step is subdivided into phases during which both players have the opportunity to act.
kodos wrote: and technically, 40k is not IGoUGo any more as the opponent can interrupt my "Go" and I have to wait until his interruption is done to finish my action
IGOUGO with interruptions is till IGOUGO as the fundamental structure- and that's fine. When people complain about IGOUGO, they're complaining about pure I-do-everything-with-no-opportunity-to-react IGOUGO that 40K embodies. I think the vast majority of people asking for AA would be satisfied by IGOUGO with reactions a la Starship Troopers, Infinity, or Dust.
There's nothing sacrosanct about wholly alternating unit activations. The most direct benefit is the increased interactivity and ability to respond, which can be accomplished multiple ways. AA is a shorthand for that kind of interactivity.
A thought thru Reaction System would be fine, it is just that GW mixes stuff together to solve problems that have nothing to do with it
eg:
Alternating Player Turns, but as tose take too much time and the opponent gets board, instead of making the game faster, they let the opponet roll some dice so he has something to do
did not help, they added Reactions and all kind of stuff
the original problem stayed, the turn takes too much time
I would ask for Unit Activation just that GW need to think thru all the steps and remove those that are not needed.
Spoletta wrote: Chess is an AA game, and the perfect example of why they take longer to play by definition. The time that passes between my opponent's main action and the start of my actions is zero in chess. Reason why a chess game can take a long time even though the actual mechanical movements of a game could be done in less than a minute.
Chess is IGOUGO. Each turn is wholly independent from prior ones. There is no restriction on activating your queen a second time until every pawn has activated too.
You have a really strange definition of what a IGOUGO game is then... Chess is AA, there is no other way to look at it.
Alternating Unit Activation: you activate a unit, your opponent activate a unit, until all units are activated than the turn ends (including some end of turn sequences if needed)
IGoUGo: you take your turn, your opponent takes his turn
Chess is classic IGoUGo, Kings of War is IGoUGo, same as 40k, AoS or WM/H
Bolt Action or Warpath are AA games
IGOUGO is a system where you take a group of actions together and then it is your opponent turn.
MTG is an IGOUGO.
AA is a system where you take a single action and the turn passes to your opponent.
Legends of Runeterra is an AA
This is the definition I use and I think that it is the defintion that anyone would commonly use.
But let's go with your definition and say that chess is an IGOUGO. Since the action quantum that you take as your "turn" is equivalent to the quantum of action of an hypotethical AA40K, you can easily see how that would mean an increased decision time required. We can change the semantic, but the concept is the same. Smaller actions per player --> More game time required.
Now, don't misunderstand me. I love apoc and I vastly prefer AA games over IGOUGO games, but I would be lying to myself if I thought that a 3 hour game in 40K would still be a 3 hour game with an AA system applied.
Spoletta wrote: what changes is the decision time of involved players. In IGOUGO it's almost zero. since you start your turn and already have a plan, you need to stop and rethink your actions midturn only if the dices demand so. In AA, any action from the opponent may require you to rethink your next move.
the time a player wants to take to make a decision has nothing to do with what turn sequenze you use
Chess is the best example, as it is IGoUGo, the time to make decision how to move should be Zero because you already had enough time to think about what to do while you waited for the opponent to make his move
except that you cannot make your decision until the opponent is done, you can think about your posibilities but if your turn takes zero time or not has nothing with IGoUGo (more like how unexpected the move of the opponent was)
Just because more time passes with alternating player turns, than with alternating phases does not mean that people take less time thinking about what to do at the start of their turn
"Thinking" time is the only thing the rules cannot handle unless you add a time limit and a clock
the rules can speed up dice rolls, measurment, checks, model handling, but not how long a player wants to take to make a decision unless you add a timer
an there is a reason why chess with a timer playes different than without
but timed chess does magically playes faster because they switched from alternating model activation to alternating player turns
I guess a lot of people don't know what IGoUGo really means but just use it to describe "classic GW type Turn based games" because GW called it that way
Chess is actually AA. If it were IGOUGO, all the white pieces would move before the black ones.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Chess is actually AA. If it were IGOUGO, all the white pieces would move before the black ones.
Define for us, if you would, your definition of AA and IGOUGO. Because I have a feeling you're operating under some faulty information.
I have to agree with Slayer-Fan: chess is AA; not IGOUGO.
AA = Players take turns activating one piece/unit/detachment. This could be all phases of the turn (ex. APOC), or just a specific phase (ex. shooting in Kill Team is AA while movement is more IGOUGO).
IGOUGO = Player 1 activates all of their pieces/units/detachments and takes actions with all of them in all phases of the turn (movement, psychic, shooting, melee, etc.). Then Player 2 does the same for their side. Ex. 40k; Blood Bowl; AOS.
Chess is actually AA. If it were IGOUGO, all the white pieces would move before the black ones.
if it would be AA it won't be allowed to move the same piece several times in a row but each one must be moved once before any other piece is moved again
IGoUGo is a different name for Turn Based Game, you make your turn and the opponent makes his turn
there is no further restriction what you can do each turn, if you can move one piece a turn or all pieces a turn, it is still one turn for me and one turn for you
Alternate Unit Activation is also IGoUGo as I activate a unit, you activate a unit, but not as in a turn based game, as the game-turn is done after both activated all units
hence why I rather talk about Alternating Player Turns VS Alternating Unit Activation
Now, don't misunderstand me. I love apoc and I vastly prefer AA games over IGOUGO games, but I would be lying to myself if I thought that a 3 hour game in 40K would still be a 3 hour game with an AA system applied.
of course, because the stuff that slows the game down has nothing to do with the turn sequenze used and using AA for 40k without removing the stuff that slow the game down would result in the same slow game
Gnarlly wrote: I have to agree with Slayer-Fan: chess is AA; not IGOUGO.
AA = Players take turns activating one piece/unit/detachment. This could be all phases of the turn (ex. APOC), or just a specific phase (ex. shooting in Kill Team is AA while movement is more IGOUGO).
IGOUGO = Player 1 activates all of their pieces/units/detachments and takes actions with all of them in all phases of the turn (movement, psychic, shooting, melee, etc.). Then Player 2 does the same for their side. Ex. 40k; Blood Bowl; AOS.
Looking at whether you activate one thing or several is overly reductionist. Missing the forest for the trees. You can have IGOUGO systems where only one unit activates at a time, and you can have AA systems where multiple units activate at once.
If there is no subdivision of the turn into alternating activations by both players, it's not AA. If a single game turn doesn't involve both players alternating back and forth within it, it's not AA.
I've some old Avalon Hill wargames where the number of units you can activate in a turn is dictated by the quality of your C&C. If you have poor C&C, you might only be able to activate one unit per turn, if you have good C&C, it would be more. The IGOUGO implementation is player A performs all the activations they can, then player B does the same, and repeat for the length of the game. The AA implementation is within a turn, each player alternates carrying out an activation until both have completed their full number of activations, then the turn resets.
Chess is exactly that first type, with the limitation of a fixed value of one activation per player per turn.
The relevance here is that an actual AA system with one-piece-at-a-time activation usually imposes the limitation that a piece cannot be activated again until all units have activated and the round resets. In contrast, single-activation IGOUGO allows for a 'cheerleader effect', where activations are often put into one unit over and over again. Infinity works this way; it is firmly an IGOUGO system despite the use of limited activations and a robust reaction system.
I can understand the argument that chess is igougo.
AA breaks up the game turn into a series of back and forth turns. It tends to have the limitation that once something has been activated it cannot be activated again until the next game turn.
A single move in chess is not a piece of a bigger game turn. It's the entire turn. Therefore it's igougo.
Given that only once piece is being moved at a time, as opposed to all pieces of one side, and that one can move the same piece as often as one wants without activating other pieces or the other pieces really having any relevancy aside from their position and *potential* moves (they're not granting actions the way they do in say, Infinity), and that there really isn't any other relevant actions/reactions a player can make other than "move", I don't think the Chess analogy really works well for either AA or IGOUGO as it relates to miniatures wargames.
You guys are conflating 3 types of wargame into 2 and it is causing problems.
The Impulse Model is not the same thing as AA, and *that* is what "having players alternating within a single turn" is actually called. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse-based_turn_system). This is what let's you command any number of things within a single turn (whether one or thirty) typically constrained by things like C2 capability, game state, etc.
Chess is Alternating Activations, because you only command one thing at a time.
40k is IGOUGO, because you command everything available all at once without constraint.
Chess is IGOUGO, its just that you have 50-200 turns because you can only move one peice a turn. But you still do everything you want to do in your turn while your opponent does nothing.
If say in 40k, you could activate a unit - it could then move, psychic, shoot, charge, assault etc, and then your opponent activated one unit and did the same, and then you could activate your *same* unit again, it would still be IGOUGO, even though you were not commanding your whole army at once. Units would simply sit there idle (well, assault I guess) until you chose to spend a turn on them. (Whether its a unit or a detachment or a whole army doesn't really impact things philosophically or gameplay wise - because your opponent is still stuck and can only respond in their go with the same level of force.)
AA it seems to me depends on this idea that you shoot with your unit X, then your opponent shoots with their unit Y, and now you have to shoot unit Z. You can't pick unit X again - its had its go "this turn". As a result the turn is effectively shared between players - rather than one having a go, and then the other.
So assault has always had an element of AA - because both players get to have a go (regardless of how you determine the order things activate). Movement and shooting (except for maybe things like really oldschool overwatch) have not.
aphyon wrote:If you look back a few pages i gave examples of variations of AA systems. and they do play much better and both players are much more involved than the igougo system 40K still uses. they are not quite as involved as infinity's total reaction system, but that system is designed as a skirmish system and as such that it does not lend itself to 40K sized play
You can give all the examples you want, but unless I've had experience in their play (even just watching it), it won't mean as much to my preferences. As I said, not a fan of IGOUGO, and I haven't had a chance to deal with AA, with the exception of watching some X-Wing games.
Chess is a board game. It is neither AA or IGOUGO.
Yes, you only control one piece a turn in Chess, but Bolt Action, one of the biggest names in AA, you control all your pieces in a turn.
It is IGOUGO in that each player performs a turn, but you're not moving all your pieces at the same time, so it doesn't quite fit in that definition, either.
What Chess isn't is a tabletop wargame like Warhammer, Warmachine, Bolt Action, etc.
Chess is IGOUGO, its just that you have 50-200 turns because you can only move one peice a turn. But you still do everything you want to do in your turn while your opponent does nothing
Not true depends on the system. In DUST if you get close enough(reaction range) your opponent has the opportunity to interrupt your action and take their action(s) instead.
In classic battletech only movement is AA everything else happens at the same time. so both players get to go even if they die.
IGOUGO in Chess would imply that you move all your pieces, then they move all of theirs. It's not IGOUGO.
Newcromunda is kinda sorta AA, given that you rarely move more than 1 mini at a time before it swaps back t your opponent. Some units can activate other units around then, but it remains AA overall.
BattleTech is the one AA game I've played a lot of. The main thing about that game, and this could be applied to 40K even with IGOUGO (and is, apparently, something Apoc does now), is apply all damage at the end of the phase.
So if your 'Mech gets absolutely hammered and ripped to pieces during the ranged weapon phase, and it had declared ranged weapon attacks at the start of the phase, it still gets to make those. Then the end of the phase comes, the damage's effects take place, and then the unit dies (or falls over, or shuts down, or whatever).
Keeping track of AA with large forces (12 units per side) can be pretty tedious though. I can't imagine what it'd be like doing that for the size of some 40K armies.
Unit1126PLL wrote: You guys are conflating 3 types of wargame into 2 and it is causing problems.
The Impulse Model is not the same thing as AA, and *that* is what "having players alternating within a single turn" is actually called. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse-based_turn_system). This is what let's you command any number of things within a single turn (whether one or thirty) typically constrained by things like C2 capability, game state, etc.
Chess is Alternating Activations, because you only command one thing at a time.
40k is IGOUGO, because you command everything available all at once without constraint.
I've never heard the term 'impulse' in this context. Definitely interesting.
'An impulse-based turn system is a game mechanic where a game turn is broken up into a series of discrete, repeating segments, or impulses'
I would assume dropzone commander would be 'impulse model' then as you activate portions of your army before swapping over by this definition? I would have always considered dzc as a variant of aa. Necromunda, warcry, bolt action, test of honour etc are all aa, or variations of. I would consider chess aa.
I think it's pretty fair overall to state that neither Igougo or aa are monolithic entities. They are umbrella definitions and each have variants.
At its core, igoyougo is 'you do all your stuff with your dudes in your turn, then you swap over'.
This ranges from Warmachine and 40k where what you do in the other guys turn is extremely limited. But this nuclear descriptive isn't all that the igoyougo term encompasses, which is, I think, a mistake some people make.
Infinity is igoyougo. I do all the stuff with my dudes in my turn. Then swap over. However infinity has a very intricate and involved reaction system. I use the term 'interrupted igoyougo'
Lord of the rings is igoyougo. I do all the stuff with my dudes in my turn then swap over. However, the turn structure is broken up differently so it's move/move/shoot/shoot/fight. I use rge term a 'broken phase' igoyougo
Someone mentioned starship troopers earlier. It was a game that was ahead of its time and had some great ideas. However it was also severely flawed in so many ways both in terms of scope and mechanics.
Keeping track of AA with large forces (12 units per side) can be pretty tedious though. I can't imagine what it'd be like doing that for the size of some 40K armies.
Actually it isn't nearly as hard as you think if the system is well designed.
on a 4X6 table a DUST army roughly 150-200 points equals a full 40K army for size in it's space occupied on the table. even though it is AA the turns have loads of stuff happen so both players are always very active. and stuff still dies alot so after just a few turns both armies are pretty well mauled. however it doesn't feel like a short changed game like 8th does when you get totally mauled by turn 2 and there is no reason to continue.
This was a large game at 225 points IIRC and i think we finished it in about an hour after like 3 turns.
At the end both sides were down to a walker/tank, a command squad, and a command vehicle.
because area terrain blocks LOS and you roll initiative at the start of every turn. tactical choices when it comes to activations and reactions become a key part of the game.,
aphyon wrote: Actually it isn't nearly as hard as you think if the system is well designed.
I suppose you're right. I mean, on second thought my comparison isn't all that valid because BattleTech is a very crunchy system. Controlling 12 units can become difficult not because tracking AA is hard, but because every single unit has its own sheet where you're tracking your movement, your weapons, ammo, heat, armour, sub-systems/electronics and who knows what else. I take it that Dust wouldn't quite hit that level of "rules heavy" play.
Regardless of what chess is, 40k IS IGOUGO and 40k does nt have a well designed IGOUGO.
40k has not only what, many consider to be an inferior turn structure for tactical decision making in a miniature war game but it is so poorly implemented that it actively hurts the game play experience.
Regardless of your trepidation with AA being used in 40k, 40k as is is not well made.
Lance845 wrote: Regardless of what chess is, 40k IS IGOUGO and 40k does nt have a well designed IGOUGO.
40k has not only what, many consider to be an inferior turn structure for tactical decision making in a miniature war game but it is so poorly implemented that it actively hurts the game play experience.
Regardless of your trepidation with AA being used in 40k, 40k as is is not well made.
And yet, 40K has been around over 30 years and is the most popular miniature tabletop game. I concur there are issues with 40K, and lack of AA may be one of them. But, people have voted with their wallets for over 3 decades in support of 40K. Does it mean it is a superior product? No, but it is a product people have supported and there appears to be no indication support is going to drastically dwindle.
Lance845 wrote: Regardless of what chess is, 40k IS IGOUGO and 40k does nt have a well designed IGOUGO.
40k has not only what, many consider to be an inferior turn structure for tactical decision making in a miniature war game but it is so poorly implemented that it actively hurts the game play experience.
Regardless of your trepidation with AA being used in 40k, 40k as is is not well made.
And yet, 40K has been around over 30 years and is the most popular miniature tabletop game. I concur there are issues with 40K, and lack of AA may be one of them. But, people have voted with their wallets for over 3 decades in support of 40K. Does it mean it is a superior product? No, but it is a product people have supported and there appears to be no indication support is going to drastically dwindle.
As you say, quality does not have anything to do with popularity or profitability. Or at the very least other factors can completely overwhelm it as a factor.
So in what way exactly, does pointing that out have anything to do with what I said?
Sarigar wrote: And yet, 40K has been around over 30 years and is the most popular miniature tabletop game.
and we have seen 8 different 40k games in that time, each with variation of quality and popularity
40k is now the most popular game, it wasn't during the whole time and we have also seen a decrease in popularity if the quality of the game went down (during an edition as well as with editions as a whole)
the current popularity has also to do with GW realsing that marketing and comunnity building is a thing, but there is a limit what marketing can do for a bad product (and it also can backfire)
aphyon wrote: Actually it isn't nearly as hard as you think if the system is well designed.
I suppose you're right. I mean, on second thought my comparison isn't all that valid because BattleTech is a very crunchy system. Controlling 12 units can become difficult not because tracking AA is hard, but because every single unit has its own sheet where you're tracking your movement, your weapons, ammo, heat, armour, sub-systems/electronics and who knows what else. I take it that Dust wouldn't quite hit that level of "rules heavy" play.
Cool looking board though.
DUST is more akin to 40K in scale. (i think it is 32mm instead of 28mm) all infantry, save characters, only ever have 1 wound. the higher the armor class the less shots some guns get at them to represent how much harder they are to kill. vehicles use a wound system similar to 7th ed 40K hull points (without the damage chart) but vary alot more from 2 all the way up to like 11 as they go from light to superheavy armor. overall the complexity of BT means you only need 4 minis to play for a few hours because there is so much detail. but the detail (well written rules) and the lore is what makes it such a good game (and cheap to start).
Here is a good video batrep for DUST with 3d terrain(it can be played as a tile board game as well) to show you how the AA system works.
Sarigar wrote:
Lance845 wrote: Regardless of what chess is, 40k IS IGOUGO and 40k does nt have a well designed IGOUGO.
40k has not only what, many consider to be an inferior turn structure for tactical decision making in a miniature war game but it is so poorly implemented that it actively hurts the game play experience.
Regardless of your trepidation with AA being used in 40k, 40k as is is not well made.
And yet, 40K has been around over 30 years and is the most popular miniature tabletop game. I concur there are issues with 40K, and lack of AA may be one of them. But, people have voted with their wallets for over 3 decades in support of 40K. Does it mean it is a superior product? No, but it is a product people have supported and there appears to be no indication support is going to drastically dwindle.
Classic battletech has been around just as long has just as hardcore of a fanbase with even more lore.. The rules are far more detailed and better written but the gaming groups tend to be hit and miss depending on where you are . it does not have the marketing presence that GW developed. (that may be in part to the IP being owned by 3 different companies over the years). there is another topic here at dakkadakka that discusses why GW made it to where they are in the hobby market.
Today, aside from GW stores dryhumping new players into buying their product , they are a self fulfilling prophecy. people want a game they can play anywhere. if there is nobody to play with, there is no reason to collect the game/build an army and because 40K is the most widely available it becomes the go-to game system.
Again, not disputing the quality of rules. However, the fact remains that people have consistently voted with their wallets supporting 40K. Battetech has been around and I remember playing it with cardboard figures on a cardboard playing surface in the 80s. I remember when geohex got popular and Battletech had cool, sprawling tables at conventions. Then , it became less and less of a draw and it is a niche game these days. Does that mean it is a bad game? Of course not. It is simply not a game that is widely played and will stay the course, assuming they can continue keep the IP going.
The OP and others indicate they do not like the game mechanics of 40K and would rather not play it. For those folks, enjoy whatever you want to spend your fee time playing. However, claims that 40K will go away and it hurts the game experience has little to no merit. I've literally played through every edition and see the same banter of the likes; 40K is dead and GW do some GW bashing. It simply has not been and is not true.
Now, I'm off to watch Twitch to see the new 40K boxset contents.
IGOUGO is a term that's been around since the wargaming email lists that were still in common usage until the early 2000s. It is a short form of the following:
I go with all my stuff then you go with all your stuff.
Example from a forum post in 2005:
"The card activation is awesome. I've just about sworn off IGOUGO rules, they just don't have the right feel to me now. Every commander's/pilot's best laid plans gets jacked by events completely out of their control and the sequence of the cards reflects this quite nicely." http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=44096
And 2006:
"Flames of War. Beautifully done books (and many of them). Lots of terrific photos. They are often compared to Games Workshop in their approach (main rulebook, then army books for different nations and different periods of the war). Plays reasonably fast. By that I mean you can game in 2-3 hours. Figures are 1:1, with 3-5 figures being half a squad, so six stands of infantry plus a command stand equal to a platoon of three squads. It's IGOUGO, no command or control rules." http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=66487
At this point the term is already jargon and people can use it and expect people to understand it means "with all your stuff" tacked on. In these cases they are contrasting card activation systems with the more common IGOUGO approaches.
Sarigar wrote: Again, not disputing the quality of rules. However, the fact remains that people have consistently voted with their wallets supporting 40K. Battetech has been around and I remember playing it with cardboard figures on a cardboard playing surface in the 80s. I remember when geohex got popular and Battletech had cool, sprawling tables at conventions. Then , it became less and less of a draw and it is a niche game these days. Does that mean it is a bad game? Of course not. It is simply not a game that is widely played and will stay the course, assuming they can continue keep the IP going.
The OP and others indicate they do not like the game mechanics of 40K and would rather not play it. For those folks, enjoy whatever you want to spend your fee time playing. However, claims that 40K will go away and it hurts the game experience has little to no merit. I've literally played through every edition and see the same banter of the likes; 40K is dead and GW do some GW bashing. It simply has not been and is not true.
Now, I'm off to watch Twitch to see the new 40K boxset contents.
1) Quote me saying that the game will "go away".
2) It hurts the game experience. That has all the merit in the world. Something selling does not make it good. IGOUGO hurts the game experience. The game COULD be better than it is and this is one of the major ways it which that is true among many. If that idea has no merit, then battle it with facts based on that and not sales figures which we both agree are not related.
Sarigar wrote: Again, not disputing the quality of rules. However, the fact remains that people have consistently voted with their wallets supporting 40K. Battetech has been around and I remember playing it with cardboard figures on a cardboard playing surface in the 80s. I remember when geohex got popular and Battletech had cool, sprawling tables at conventions. Then , it became less and less of a draw and it is a niche game these days. Does that mean it is a bad game? Of course not. It is simply not a game that is widely played and will stay the course, assuming they can continue keep the IP going.
The OP and others indicate they do not like the game mechanics of 40K and would rather not play it. For those folks, enjoy whatever you want to spend your fee time playing. However, claims that 40K will go away and it hurts the game experience has little to no merit. I've literally played through every edition and see the same banter of the likes; 40K is dead and GW do some GW bashing. It simply has not been and is not true.
Now, I'm off to watch Twitch to see the new 40K boxset contents.
1) Quote me saying that the game will "go away".
2) It hurts the game experience. That has all the merit in the world. Something selling does not make it good. IGOUGO hurts the game experience. The game COULD be better than it is and this is one of the major ways it which that is true among many. If that idea has no merit, then battle it with facts based on that and not sales figures which we both agree are not related.
1. Claiming the game is not well made is why I ended up quoting you. I should have just broadly posted in this thread. Threads like this, 9th edition is dead in the water, crop up after every edition (since 3rd edition, at least for dakkadakka). There is no facts to back this and is generally folks that are salty over some aspect of the game. I generally avoid these as the negativity over a game of toy soldiers is generally off putting. And after this post, I will back out of this thread.
2. Thousands of paying customers voting with their wallets is an indicator of the game experience. Having the largest miniature wargame tourney scene across the planet is a significant indicator that its game mechanics are not hurting game experience. While some may think it is, it certainly was not of any significance to deviate from the IGOUGO. I've conceded there are better game mechanics out there. Won't dispute that. Facts are the game has world wide popularity that has been cultivated for over 30 years. The biggest downturn I've observed with 40K was 6th and 7th edition. GW clearly recognized the downturn and made what I would consider significant changes to rectify that. If you or others think 8th edition is a bad game, then don't support it. However, lots of people around the world did support it and 40K continues to thrive. I see zero indicators 9th edition will suddenly take a downturn in popularity. This is a game competing with things like XBOX and Play Station. When I travel and attend events, I'm playing with folks ranging from their late teens to early twenties to folks in their early fifties (I'm 46). GW is continuing to build a new player base, which I personally find remarkable considering all the offerings out there for our entertainment. IGOUGO may not be the ideal mechanic, but it is clearly acceptable to thousands of wargamers across the planet as evidence to its continued popularity and gameplay.
Again you turn to popularity of the game (something made up of a great many factors and can have absolutely nothing to do with quality) instead of debating the merits of the mechanic and the impact it has on the game.
We usually play with so much terrain that we don't get major first turn army wipe outs from shooting or close combat, but I recently got to play a game that had closer to the normal amount of terrain and what I could do shooting in turn one was pretty ghastly.
I definitely like games where each side gets to do stuff before losing a big portion of their models. I thought the Apocalypse rules were clever in this regard.
Lance845 wrote: Again you turn to popularity of the game (something made up of a great many factors and can have absolutely nothing to do with quality) instead of debating the merits of the mechanic and the impact it has on the game.
What are you even here for?
Turning to the popularity of the game in this case does have value however.
Debating the mechanics In terms of them 'hurting the game experience' is fairly subjective. If lots of people are playing and enjoying themselves, can you say it's hurting the game experience for them?
if igoyougo has an impact, maybe that is the point of using it? Zooming out to the bigger picture, In WMH for example. it was very much the point as the game was build around synergy building for example. Personally, I value the 'feel' of being in control of all of my army in my turn, whether it was 40k, WMH or infinity. I always found aa kind of disjointed and jarring and feel personally it hampers my immersion. I much prefer broken phase or interpted igoyougo mechanics myself. Always found lots sbg all kinds of sublime and infinity is probsbly the most technically brilliant wargame out there.
Personally, I would argue he huge damage output of 40k and the ability to do massive alphastrikes is a bigger issue. Along with the wide gulf in ability between units (the ,'gw can't balance games') feed more into hurting the game experience. Aa doesn't necessarily solve it. We tried aa in flames of war a couple of times. All you do functionally is run down the list from biggest guns down to littlest guns. And again, aa has issues where there are discrepancies between unit counts across both armies. There are aa games I really enjoy such as necromunda. It's a solid game. Aa is fine for what it does, but it's not 'better', at least to me.
Lance845 wrote: Again you turn to popularity of the game (something made up of a great many factors and can have absolutely nothing to do with quality) instead of debating the merits of the mechanic and the impact it has on the game.
What are you even here for?
Turning to the popularity of the game in this case does have value however.
Debating the mechanics In terms of them 'hurting the game experience' is fairly subjective. If lots of people are playing and enjoying themselves, can you say it's hurting the game experience for them?
Yes. I can. People having fun is subjective. But if we were to put a numerical value on it and say they are having 4 fun when they could be having 8 fun if x, y, z elements of the game were repaired then there is no point in using the argument that some people are having some fun. If x y z elements are preventing further fun then They are hurting the game experience.
if igoyougo has an impact, maybe that is the point of using it? Zooming out to the bigger picture, In WMH for example. it was very much the point as the game was build around synergy building for example. Personally, I value the 'feel' of being in control of all of my army in my turn, whether it was 40k, WMH or infinity. I always found aa kind of disjointed and jarring and feel personally it hampers my immersion. I much prefer broken phase or interpted igoyougo mechanics myself. Always found lots sbg all kinds of sublime and infinity is probsbly the most technically brilliant wargame out there.
Personally, I would argue he huge damage output of 40k and the ability to do massive alphastrikes is a bigger issue. Along with the wide gulf in ability between units (the ,'gw can't balance games') feed more into hurting the game experience. Aa doesn't necessarily solve it. We tried aa in flames of war a couple of times. All you do functionally is run down the list from biggest guns down to littlest guns. And again, aa has issues where there are discrepancies between unit counts across both armies. There are aa games I really enjoy such as necromunda. It's a solid game. Aa is fine for what it does, but it's not 'better', at least to me.
Once again, alpha strikes are a direct result of igougo. You can't do them if you get rid of the turn structure. Just like deathstar units can't exist without ic rules.think alpha strikes are a huge issue? That attack the source.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Alpha Strike will always be king as long as IGOUGO exists though.
Not necessarily.
Take WMH as as example. Hugely restricted range to guns (essentially being equivelant to charge range) meant you couldn't just camp and blast the other guys army to bits. Similarly, clever, or just reasonable positioning/blocking charge lanes can mitigate the ability to wreck a whole army in a single go.
Dropzone commander had range limitations as well with the active counter measures.
Take lotr for example. Restricted ability to gunline (you could only equip a third of your guys with ranged weapons) and the lower strength of range do weappns overall, along with the turn structure (i.e. Move/move/shoot/shoot/simultaneous melee) severely dented the alpha strike.
Take infinity for example. Reaction mechanic means you can't just Rambo your way to victory with a big gun and shoot everything off the board.
Take earlier editions of 40k. Prior to fifth, it was hard to alpha. This kind of thing wasn't really the thing. The relative damage output of things was more limited and most damage was in cc.
Igoyougo isn't necessarily the problem. Alpha strike will always be kind with igoyougo? It's fairer to say it's the other way round. that massive alpha strikes makes igoyougo far too deadly when there are other imbalances.
Yes. I can. People having fun is subjective. But if we were to put a numerical value on it and say they are having 4 fun when they could be having 8 fun if x, y, z elements of the game were repaired then there is no point in using the argument that some people are having some fun. If x y z elements are preventing further fun then They are hurting the game experience.
.
People having fun is subjective, for sure, assigning a quantified numerical value to fun is also subjective. Your argument is flawed. Who gets to define these numerical values? All you are doing is making up math to back up your opinion. What if, for example, I say aa is a minus seven for me since I prefer other forms of igoyougo? I gave my reasonings up above, and listed some of the games I enjoy.
Once again, alpha strikes are a direct result of igougo. You can't do them if you get rid of the turn structure. Just like deathstar units can't exist without ic rules.think alpha strikes are a huge issue? That attack the source.
Wrong. See above. Plenty examples out there of igoyougo games that don't have issues with massive alphastrikes or have various mechanisms in place to limit them. Seems to me the issue is deathstar units. And in aa games, your deathstar unit doesn't stop being a deathstar unit becuase of lack of a turn structure.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Alpha Strike will always be king as long as IGOUGO exists though.
Not necessarily.
Take WMH as as example. Hugely restricted range to guns (essentially being equivelant to charge range) meant you couldn't just camp and blast the other guys army to bits. Similarly, clever, or just reasonable positioning/blocking charge lanes can mitigate the ability to wreck a whole army in a single go.
Dropzone commander had range limitations as well with the active counter measures.
Take lotr for example. Restricted ability to gunline (you could only equip a third of your guys with ranged weapons) and the lower strength of range do weappns overall, along with the turn structure (i.e. Move/move/shoot/shoot/simultaneous melee) severely dented the alpha strike.
Take infinity for example. Reaction mechanic means you can't just Rambo your way to victory with a big gun and shoot everything off the board.
Take earlier editions of 40k. Prior to fifth, it was hard to alpha. This kind of thing wasn't really the thing. The relative damage output of things was more limited and most damage was in cc.
Igoyougo isn't necessarily the problem. Alpha strike will always be kind with igoyougo? It's fairer to say it's the other way round. that massive alpha strikes makes igoyougo far too deadly when there are other imbalances.
Yes. I can. People having fun is subjective. But if we were to put a numerical value on it and say they are having 4 fun when they could be having 8 fun if x, y, z elements of the game were repaired then there is no point in using the argument that some people are having some fun. If x y z elements are preventing further fun then They are hurting the game experience.
.
People having fun is subjective, for sure, assigning a quantified numerical value to fun is also subjective. Your argument is flawed. What if I say aa is a minus seven for me since I prefer other forms of igoyougo?
Once again, alpha strikes are a direct result of igougo. You can't do them if you get rid of the turn structure. Just like deathstar units can't exist without ic rules.think alpha strikes are a huge issue? That attack the source.
Wrong. See above. Plenty examples out there of igoyougo games that don't have issues with massive alphastrikes or have various mechanisms in place to limit them. Seems to me the issue is deathstar units. And in aa games, your deathstar unit doesn't stop being a deathstar unit becuase of laxkcof a turn structure.
Alpha Strike was still a thing in older editions. Less lethality was a thing, but Alpha Strikes were still existing. As long as one person has the ability to do everything uninterrupted, that one person will do everything to cripple the opponent. Forget about silly "mY fLuFf SaYs My MaRiNeS dOnT" stuff. A game system shouldn't be broken as easily as 40k has been.
In game design those extra limiting factors are called exceptions. The less exceptions you need to make a mechanic work the better. Preferably none. Igougo doesn't work without exceptions. A LOT of exceptions. And 40k now doesn't have them.
As for quantifying fun, THATS why it's a dumb argument and why I started saying there is no merit to it in this discussion. Argue the mechanics. Don't tell me it's popular. Don't tell me some people are having some fun. Argue the nuts and bolts and their impact on game play.
Automatically Appended Next Post: How about this. What does igougo add to the game play experience that aa wouldn't equal or improve upon?
Kind of a pros and cons list for each. Where does igougo excel? How does it elevate the game?
Deadnight wrote: Dropzone commander had range limitations as well with the active counter measures.
Take lotr for example. Restricted ability to gunline (you could only equip a third of your guys with ranged weapons) and the lower strength of range do weappns overall, along with the turn structure (i.e. Move/move/shoot/shoot/simultaneous melee) severely dented the alpha strike.
Take infinity for example. Reaction mechanic means you can't just Rambo your way to victory with a big gun and shoot everything off the board.
Take earlier editions of 40k. Prior to fifth, it was hard to alpha. This kind of thing wasn't really the thing. The relative damage output of things was more limited and most damage was in cc.
Dropzone Commander uses battle group alternating activation (like Apocalypse), LotR uses phased activation (like Kill Team), Infinity's reaction system is core to the game, and 2nd Ed had Overwatch as an interruption fire mechanic.
I think maybe you're misunderstanding the criticism- it's not that IGOUGO is irredeemably bad; it's that pure IGOUGO without these AA elements to add back in a measure of interactivity and reactivity is bad. Bolt Action-esque pure AA is easier to implement and balance, but I'd be completely happy with 40K staying IGOUGO but adding a well-thought-out reaction system.
Lance845 wrote: Kind of a pros and cons list for each. Where does igougo excel? How does it elevate the game?
It's fast, requires little to no bookkeeping (generally easy to remember which units have activated so far), allows uninterrupted combos (not always a bad thing- it's the bread and butter of Warmachine), and prevents timing issues (eg AA in an Age of Sail wargame can do weird things to how formations maneuver).
It has upsides, and pure IGOUGO is appropriate for certain games and genres. Just generally not 28mm modern/sci-fi skirmish wargaming.
It is no faster than AA. the amount of actions are equivalent. In my experience the game actually runs faster in AA because everyone stays more engaged.
requires little to no bookkeeping (generally easy to remember which units have activated so far),
The same general easiness to remember which units have activated so far is true of AA. But I will conceed that hey, if you were going to do book keeping placing a dice next to a unit that has activated is something you could do.
allows uninterrupted combos (not always a bad thing- it's the bread and butter of Warmachine),
Directly responsible for one of the biggest and most common complaints in 40k. Too killy alpha strikes. In THIS case. It's a very bad thing.
and prevents timing issues (eg AA in an Age of Sail wargame can do weird things to how formations maneuver).
Which are easily addressed in AA with heroic intervention style activating of characters with units as a single activation.
It has upsides, and pure IGOUGO is appropriate for certain games and genres. Just generally not 28mm modern/sci-fi skirmish wargaming.
I am not seeing anything in that list that is something BETTER than AA. At best its equal to. And some of them are just flat out worse.
Lance, I'm firmly pro-AA for 40K, but you asked for the advantages of IGOUGO as a mechanic, and those are the ones that are commonly accepted in the industry.
catbarf wrote: Lance, I'm firmly pro-AA for 40K, but you asked for the advantages of IGOUGO as a mechanic, and those are the ones that are commonly accepted in the industry.
I know you are.
What I was doing was pointing out that those "advantages" are not advantages. The closest thing to an advantage is the book keeping. Which again, is as easy as placing one of your dozens of dice next to the unit and in other systems is integrated into the activation (bolt action and Beyond the gates of Antares using order dice). Unless someone can come up with some REAL good advantages to the mechanic there really is no reason for it to be used here in 40k. It's not bringing anything to the table that can't be met or improved upon by something else.
In this discussion of igougo i keep seeing the same fallacy repeated,
"BALANCE"
the origin of 40K as a game was never intended to be a balanced game like chess. in fact the current state of the game with as many factions and the attempt to make them unique in their in universe personas makes it impossible to have a balanced game.
This monster is one of GWs own making with the advent of rogue trader and grand tournaments officially created/sanctioned by GW. starting back in late 3rd edition. up to that point it was hero quest in space. you played scific army men with your buddies for some fun in a narrative driven environment often against impossible odds similar to DnD.. IIRC there were often game masters in RT and 2nd
The hardcore touney player niche within the game community has driven this obsession with more and more alpha strike power builds and the counter argument for some way to balance it out. like the arms race between offensive weapons capability and the defenses against them. igougo just spotlights the first half of the phenomenon because that player gets to do everything at once. then it was doubled when 8th edition increased the rate of fire for everything and also added the WHFBAP system to the game removing both the balancing factor of hard armor as well as hard cover saves/movement penalties.
There is a point where the mechanics break. it is the reason why infinity will never work as an army game. it was designed to prevent it from being anything other than skirmish level. the changes to the (40K) game from the model used roughly from 3rd-7th over to the changes for 8+ have pushed the game mechanics to the breaking point so much that they are now looking backwards for ideas to the pre-8th ed editions.
As for quantifying fun, THATS why it's a dumb argument and why I started saying there is no merit to it in this discussion. Argue the mechanics. Don't tell me it's popular. Don't tell me some people are having some fun. Argue the nuts and bolts and their impact on game play.
Mechanics aren't everything though (but if you want me to say 40k mechanics are poor, and clunky I will happily say this. There are far more technically interesting games out there)
Quantifying fun is a bad argument. Especially bad faith arguments where you invent numbers purely to back up your assertions. Fun is subjective. Valuing fun and feel and personal enjoyment is perfectly acceptable especially in terms of disagreeing about things 'hurting the game experience' which was the original point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: How about this. What does igougo add to the game play experience that aa wouldn't equal or improve upon?
Kind of a pros and cons list for each. Where does igougo excel? How does it elevate the game?
Asked and answered already.
And for the record, I do not think igoyougo is better than aa, nor do I think it's worse, especially when we consider the modern iterations of the systems. And let's face it, these must be included for any kind of honest debate.
For the record, my favourite games tend to be across the spectrum of both aa and igoyougo lotr has a special place in my heart and infinity is brilliant. I've also recently really enjoyed aa games like necromunda and warcry. And have played plenty others of both besides.
catbarf wrote: I think maybe you're misunderstanding the criticism- it's not that IGOUGO is irredeemably bad; it's that pure IGOUGO without these AA elements to add back in a measure of interactivity and reactivity is bad. Bolt Action-esque pure AA is easier to implement and balance, but I'd be completely happy with 40K staying IGOUGO but adding a well-thought-out reaction system.
No I understand it well enough catbarf - it's just in my experience those having an issue with Igougo tend to ignore its more modern iterations and evolutions, and tar the whole thing an 'bad'. Hence my response is to point out the bigger picture, it's an umbrella, there are variations and those variations often address a lot of the issues. Now, if said complaints focused on saying 'traditional igoyougo' or 'the igoyougo systems without responsive elements' I wouldn't have an issue. But that is not the case, is it?
And I am in agreement with you - having a reaction system would be a good step forward. You were the one that's mentioned starship troopers earlier, weren't you? It was a good game, well ahead of its time. With some very innovative concepts but it was flawed. The reaction system needed more than a bit of work (in my experience, the mi did far more work in the bugs turn than their own!) but the concept was solid,
Directly responsible for one of the biggest and most common complaints in 40k. Too killy alpha strikes. In THIS case. It's a very bad thing.
Misleading. This is Only partially true,
the damage output, combined with various atrategems etc, combined with ridiculously long kill ranges leads to the Killy alpha strikes. Despite it being igoyougo (and arguably, a purer igoyougo than 40k) You don't see things like this in Warmachine (unless you play terribly) which indicates at least a par that of the problem lies elsewhere.
I have never seen anyone propose a comprehensive reaction system to 40ksigougo that works. Don't just tell us it COULD be done. Show us. Make that game.
I have written myself or participated in several versions of aa. I've played at least 50 games of fan made rule sets using them. What have you got to show us?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Strats don't cause alpha strikes. They make them worse. But they don't cause it. Alpha strike and first turn advantage was an issue long before 8th came around. The damage output in 40k is fine imo. think about the sheer volume of dice that have to get thrown to kill anything. It's insanity. Ive rolled 180 dice from a termagant bomb at some marines in a ruin and not wiped out the unit. The game needs it's lethality so that all that time amounts to anything happening at all. All of these elements are only issues against the backdrop of using your entire army at once. Any one unit. Even big ol knights, just are not that big of an issue.
Lance845 wrote: I have never seen anyone propose a comprehensive reaction system to 40ksigougo that works. Don't just tell us it COULD be done. Show us. Make that game.
I have written myself or participated in several versions of aa. I've played at least 50 games of fan made rule sets using them. What have you got to show us?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Strats don't cause alpha strikes. They make them worse. But they don't cause it. Alpha strike and first turn advantage was an issue long before 8th came around.
They can't make that game because they just say "but previous editions!!!!!1!" forgetting they're using rose tinted glasses to tell us that is a good example.
And it's not just that a reactive game has never been proposed.
AA transplants 40k as is directly. All the strats. All the data sheets. They just work. So few clarifications need to be made. Beyond the gates of 40k was like... A 7 page document. And that version had orders you had to issue to units and blast markers for morale.
Scrap the blast markers and the morale and bcb has most of what's left in a thread in proposed rules right now. AA JUST works. Show me a reaction igougo system. Then show me it function with everyone's codex as is.
Lance845 wrote: And it's not just that a reactive game has never been proposed.
AA transplants 40k as is directly. All the strats. All the data sheets. They just work. So few clarifications need to be made. Beyond the gates of 40k was like... A 7 page document. And that version had orders you had to issue to units and blast markers for morale.
Scrap the blast markers and the morale and bcb has most of what's left in a thread in proposed rules right now. AA JUST works. Show me a reaction igougo system. Then show me it function with everyone's codex as is.
This would seem an opportune time to plug out sci fi game, but we're likely to have a COVID vaccine before that happens let me plug One Page Rules Grimdark Future, which is basically a streamlined AA40k. To my mind it's a little too simplistic but the framework is there.
aphyon wrote:In classic battletech only movement is AA everything else happens at the same time. so both players get to go even if they die.
Shooting is still declared and processed one player at a time, but that's just so people can keep track of what is going on and prevent cheating.
H.B.M.C. wrote:BattleTech is the one AA game I've played a lot of. The main thing about that game, and this could be applied to 40K even with IGOUGO (and is, apparently, something Apoc does now), is apply all damage at the end of the phase.
I'd label Battletech more as a Phased AA game. No one model is moving, shooting, punching, then another does the same thing. This is something that can largely be done with 40K with minimal changes, I think. I could be wrong, I'm hardly a tenth as up to date on the game and army rules as I used to be.
aphyon wrote:Classic battletech has been around just as long has just as hardcore of a fanbase with even more lore.. The rules are far more detailed and better written but the gaming groups tend to be hit and miss depending on where you are . it does not have the marketing presence that GW developed. (that may be in part to the IP being owned by 3 different companies over the years). there is another topic here at dakkadakka that discusses why GW made it to where they are in the hobby market.
It also didn't hurt that GW wasn't sued because some of their robots looked like another person's robots because they were designed and sold to each by the same person. This haunted FASA till WizKids bought out the properties, and still haunted the property until Mechwarrior Online developers has some fight and told the other company to suck it. GW has done more in the C&D/lawsuit prep than has received, I believe, when it comes to its properties.
Lance845 wrote:How about this. What does igougo add to the game play experience that aa wouldn't equal or improve upon?
As I stated earlier, IGOUGO allows a player to set up and execute a puzzle with their pieces. Even with Reactions in the game, this is still possible if planned and measured properly. WMH has even fewer reaction options than 40K has, limited to the only basic one being if you walk away/behind a model while in its melee range, and some special Counter-Charge/Blast rules for specific models.
AA will interfere with this because your opponent's activation will happen between yours, unless you can game the system like in X-Wing. Of course, this can be a good thing, too, but that depends on your preferences.
In AA the puzzle is something more advanced than a 12 piece picture made for a 5 yr old.
The puzzle involves predicting how the enemy will react and planning accordingly to how you in turn will answer. If you are playing as without thinking several actions ahead then you are playing a very unskilled game.
In that respect consider chess. No good player of chess is ever only looking at their one move in front of them. What is all that forward thinking?
A games doesn't become easier or harder to be play because it is IGOUGO or AA. It doesn't matter at all.
I remember that WM/H games were really challenging to play, and yet that is an IGOUGO system with even less interaction and interruptions than 40K (talking about MK2, i don't know other editions). Almost all the rules that allowed you to interrupt the other player's turn were purged when transitioning from MK1 to MK2 and in many games your only choice during an opponent turn was to either transfer the damage from your warlock or take it. No dispersion, no common melee phase, no stratagems, no armor saves... literally nothing to do during your opponent's turn, and yet no one would define WM/H as an easy game.
Spoletta wrote: A games doesn't become easier or harder to be play because it is IGOUGO or AA. It doesn't matter at all.
I remember that WM/H games were really challenging to play, and yet that is an IGOUGO system with even less interaction and interruptions than 40K (talking about MK2, i don't know other editions). Almost all the rules that allowed you to interrupt the other player's turn were purged when transitioning from MK1 to MK2 and in many games your only choice during an opponent turn was to either transfer the damage from your warlock or take it. No dispersion, no common melee phase, no stratagems, no armor saves... literally nothing to do during your opponent's turn, and yet no one would define WM/H as an easy game.
40ksigougo does in fact make it easier. Charistophs example of the "advantage" of igougo in 40k shows how in igougo you are playing against the game. Did you build your puzzle to maximum efficiency and maximum impact?
In AA you have to play against the opponent instead. Because it's not an understanding of the pieces in the armies that limits you but how the enemy will react to what your doing and try to foil your plans. A game where you actually face another player is inherently more difficult than the bull crap that is igougo.
Spoletta wrote: A games doesn't become easier or harder to be play because it is IGOUGO or AA. It doesn't matter at all.
I remember that WM/H games were really challenging to play, and yet that is an IGOUGO system with even less interaction and interruptions than 40K (talking about MK2, i don't know other editions). Almost all the rules that allowed you to interrupt the other player's turn were purged when transitioning from MK1 to MK2 and in many games your only choice during an opponent turn was to either transfer the damage from your warlock or take it. No dispersion, no common melee phase, no stratagems, no armor saves... literally nothing to do during your opponent's turn, and yet no one would define WM/H as an easy game.
40ksigougo does in fact make it easier. Charistophs example of the "advantage" of igougo in 40k shows how in igougo you are playing against the game. Did you build your puzzle to maximum efficiency and maximum impact?
In AA you have to play against the opponent instead. Because it's not an understanding of the pieces in the armies that limits you but how the enemy will react to what your doing and try to foil your plans. A game where you actually face another player is inherently more difficult than the bull crap that is igougo.
Exactly. People figure out all the broken combos REAL quick once we get leaks. There isn't any puzzle for uninterrupted playing. That's the opposite.
Spoletta wrote: A games doesn't become easier or harder to be play because it is IGOUGO or AA. It doesn't matter at all.
I remember that WM/H games were really challenging to play, and yet that is an IGOUGO system with even less interaction and interruptions than 40K (talking about MK2, i don't know other editions). Almost all the rules that allowed you to interrupt the other player's turn were purged when transitioning from MK1 to MK2 and in many games your only choice during an opponent turn was to either transfer the damage from your warlock or take it. No dispersion, no common melee phase, no stratagems, no armor saves... literally nothing to do during your opponent's turn, and yet no one would define WM/H as an easy game.
40ksigougo does in fact make it easier. Charistophs example of the "advantage" of igougo in 40k shows how in igougo you are playing against the game. Did you build your puzzle to maximum efficiency and maximum impact?
In AA you have to play against the opponent instead. Because it's not an understanding of the pieces in the armies that limits you but how the enemy will react to what your doing and try to foil your plans. A game where you actually face another player is inherently more difficult than the bull crap that is igougo.
I'm not talking about 40K, I'm talking about IGOUGO in general and provided an example. Thank you for ignoring my point.
Spoletta wrote: A games doesn't become easier or harder to be play because it is IGOUGO or AA. It doesn't matter at all.
I remember that WM/H games were really challenging to play, and yet that is an IGOUGO system with even less interaction and interruptions than 40K (talking about MK2, i don't know other editions). Almost all the rules that allowed you to interrupt the other player's turn were purged when transitioning from MK1 to MK2 and in many games your only choice during an opponent turn was to either transfer the damage from your warlock or take it. No dispersion, no common melee phase, no stratagems, no armor saves... literally nothing to do during your opponent's turn, and yet no one would define WM/H as an easy game.
40ksigougo does in fact make it easier. Charistophs example of the "advantage" of igougo in 40k shows how in igougo you are playing against the game. Did you build your puzzle to maximum efficiency and maximum impact?
In AA you have to play against the opponent instead. Because it's not an understanding of the pieces in the armies that limits you but how the enemy will react to what your doing and try to foil your plans. A game where you actually face another player is inherently more difficult than the bull crap that is igougo.
I'm not talking about 40K, I'm talking about IGOUGO in general and provided an example. Thank you for ignoring my point.
Great. But WE have been talking about 40k. How does IGOUGO work with 40k? I asked if anyone had a example of IGOUGO working with 40k and reactions in a functional way. Warmahordes all good and fine for it's very small scale games is great. What relevance does it have here?
Well maybe the relevance is that w40k is too big sized right now. It is possible that the game will never work well when played with the number of models, we get to play with right now.
Also stuff lack rule stacking and aura stacking works way different when you have 1-2 characters and 20-30 models, and when you have 5-6 characters and 120+ models.
3 tau shield drones are an interesting addition to a tau list. a bucket of them protecting a gigantic gunline is not that much fun.
Lance845 wrote: In AA the puzzle is something more advanced than a 12 piece picture made for a 5 yr old.
The puzzle involves predicting how the enemy will react and planning accordingly to how you in turn will answer. If you are playing as without thinking several actions ahead then you are playing a very unskilled game.
In that respect consider chess. No good player of chess is ever only looking at their one move in front of them. What is all that forward thinking?
I don't think it is a more advanced puzzle, just a puzzle you can't work in the same manner. It's like comparing Jenga to Tetris. Different format, pieces, and timing.
With AA, you have to work in different ways in opening up the hard hits that don't quite apply in IGOUGO. The only time in AA that you don't have to worry about your opponent's model doing something is if they have already acted. With IGOUGO, you don't have to set up your puzzle with immediate actions of your opponent in mind, just any possible reactions.
It may not seem like much, but a heavy reaction IGOUGO system is actually more powerful than an AA system. For example, Infinity is probably the most reaction heavy IGOUGO system I know of. Your opponent can move or shoot when your models complete an action in their line of sight. So that means they can shoot or move in your turn as well as theirs. In AA, he can only move or attack when it is their time to provide an action to that model.
Now, 40K's reaction system is rather anemic and pretty much only applies to Charging and Melee, with a couple of exceptions in unit rules, and WMH is far more limited. But I guess one advantage in AA is you don't have to worry as much about including reaction systems or providing stupid rules against reactions that IGOUGO generally provides (ex: wiping out a unit you just Charged and left completely exposed to enemy shooting right after).
aphyon wrote: In this discussion of igougo i keep seeing the same fallacy repeated,
"BALANCE"
the origin of 40K as a game was never intended to be a balanced game like chess. in fact the current state of the game with as many factions and the attempt to make them unique in their in universe personas makes it impossible to have a balanced game.
This monster is one of GWs own making with the advent of rogue trader and grand tournaments officially created/sanctioned by GW. starting back in late 3rd edition. up to that point it was hero quest in space. you played scific army men with your buddies for some fun in a narrative driven environment often against impossible odds similar to DnD.. IIRC there were often game masters in RT and 2nd
The hardcore touney player niche within the game community has driven this obsession with more and more alpha strike power builds and the counter argument for some way to balance it out. like the arms race between offensive weapons capability and the defenses against them. igougo just spotlights the first half of the phenomenon because that player gets to do everything at once. then it was doubled when 8th edition increased the rate of fire for everything and also added the WHFBAP system to the game removing both the balancing factor of hard armor as well as hard cover saves/movement penalties.
There is a point where the mechanics break. it is the reason why infinity will never work as an army game. it was designed to prevent it from being anything other than skirmish level. the changes to the (40K) game from the model used roughly from 3rd-7th over to the changes for 8+ have pushed the game mechanics to the breaking point so much that they are now looking backwards for ideas to the pre-8th ed editions.
I'm glad someone is saying this besides me. When you take away all of the min/max WAAC nonsense, play with he units you like with augmented homebrewed missions, the game is 100% enjoyable and fun. Every. Time.
aphyon wrote: In this discussion of igougo i keep seeing the same fallacy repeated,
"BALANCE"
the origin of 40K as a game was never intended to be a balanced game like chess. in fact the current state of the game with as many factions and the attempt to make them unique in their in universe personas makes it impossible to have a balanced game.
This monster is one of GWs own making with the advent of rogue trader and grand tournaments officially created/sanctioned by GW. starting back in late 3rd edition. up to that point it was hero quest in space. you played scific army men with your buddies for some fun in a narrative driven environment often against impossible odds similar to DnD.. IIRC there were often game masters in RT and 2nd
The hardcore touney player niche within the game community has driven this obsession with more and more alpha strike power builds and the counter argument for some way to balance it out. like the arms race between offensive weapons capability and the defenses against them. igougo just spotlights the first half of the phenomenon because that player gets to do everything at once. then it was doubled when 8th edition increased the rate of fire for everything and also added the WHFBAP system to the game removing both the balancing factor of hard armor as well as hard cover saves/movement penalties.
There is a point where the mechanics break. it is the reason why infinity will never work as an army game. it was designed to prevent it from being anything other than skirmish level. the changes to the (40K) game from the model used roughly from 3rd-7th over to the changes for 8+ have pushed the game mechanics to the breaking point so much that they are now looking backwards for ideas to the pre-8th ed editions.
I'm glad someone is saying this besides me. When you take away all of the min/max WAAC nonsense, play with he units you like with augmented homebrewed missions, the game is 100% enjoyable and fun. Every. Time.
Melee armies still need to do tripoint nonsense because fallback ruins so many matchups even in casual.
Lance845 wrote: In AA the puzzle is something more advanced than a 12 piece picture made for a 5 yr old.
The puzzle involves predicting how the enemy will react and planning accordingly to how you in turn will answer. If you are playing as without thinking several actions ahead then you are playing a very unskilled game.
In that respect consider chess. No good player of chess is ever only looking at their one move in front of them. What is all that forward thinking?
I don't think it is a more advanced puzzle, just a puzzle you can't work in the same manner. It's like comparing Jenga to Tetris. Different format, pieces, and timing.
With AA, you have to work in different ways in opening up the hard hits that don't quite apply in IGOUGO. The only time in AA that you don't have to worry about your opponent's model doing something is if they have already acted. With IGOUGO, you don't have to set up your puzzle with immediate actions of your opponent in mind, just any possible reactions.
It may not seem like much, but a heavy reaction IGOUGO system is actually more powerful than an AA system. For example, Infinity is probably the most reaction heavy IGOUGO system I know of. Your opponent can move or shoot when your models complete an action in their line of sight. So that means they can shoot or move in your turn as well as theirs. In AA, he can only move or attack when it is their time to provide an action to that model.
Now, 40K's reaction system is rather anemic and pretty much only applies to Charging and Melee, with a couple of exceptions in unit rules, and WMH is far more limited. But I guess one advantage in AA is you don't have to worry as much about including reaction systems or providing stupid rules against reactions that IGOUGO generally provides (ex: wiping out a unit you just Charged and left completely exposed to enemy shooting right after).
Bolt action/ beyond the gate of Antares is a fully reactive system thats AA. It eats up your activation to perform half activations to react to an enemies unit but you could take cover, return fire, etc etc...
I am not saying that a reactive IGOUGO could not function with 40k. I am saying I have never seen anyone EVER propose a functional reactive igougo system for 40k. Again, stop telling me it COULD be and start showing me one that works that doesn't require redoing all the codexes.
AA JUST works with the codexes as is. So if we are sitting here debating the merits of AA vs IGOUGO we are spoiled for choice of options that work with the datasheets and rules as is with AA and we have jack gak for a reactive igougo with all the incredibly crap issues of the IGOUGO system it runs on now. One of these is better than the other.
aphyon wrote: In this discussion of igougo i keep seeing the same fallacy repeated,
"BALANCE"
the origin of 40K as a game was never intended to be a balanced game like chess. in fact the current state of the game with as many factions and the attempt to make them unique in their in universe personas makes it impossible to have a balanced game.
This monster is one of GWs own making with the advent of rogue trader and grand tournaments officially created/sanctioned by GW. starting back in late 3rd edition. up to that point it was hero quest in space. you played scific army men with your buddies for some fun in a narrative driven environment often against impossible odds similar to DnD.. IIRC there were often game masters in RT and 2nd
The hardcore touney player niche within the game community has driven this obsession with more and more alpha strike power builds and the counter argument for some way to balance it out. like the arms race between offensive weapons capability and the defenses against them. igougo just spotlights the first half of the phenomenon because that player gets to do everything at once. then it was doubled when 8th edition increased the rate of fire for everything and also added the WHFBAP system to the game removing both the balancing factor of hard armor as well as hard cover saves/movement penalties.
There is a point where the mechanics break. it is the reason why infinity will never work as an army game. it was designed to prevent it from being anything other than skirmish level. the changes to the (40K) game from the model used roughly from 3rd-7th over to the changes for 8+ have pushed the game mechanics to the breaking point so much that they are now looking backwards for ideas to the pre-8th ed editions.
I'm glad someone is saying this besides me. When you take away all of the min/max WAAC nonsense, play with he units you like with augmented homebrewed missions, the game is 100% enjoyable and fun. Every. Time.
AKA as long as you modify the game and make up rules, which should be GW's job, the game works?
To enjoy GW games, I have had to heavily modify them as well. To the point where I got tired of arguing with people and just sold all my stuff and got out with the acknowledgement that GW does not make games for people like me, and thats ok.
I've had discussions about Alternate Activation and IGOUGO for 20 odd years online, and I can say this is the first time I've seen people latch on so passionately about trying to nitpick the conversation to death over the definition lol.
Alternate activation is something I love very much, and I define it simply as moving a part of my overall force, and then you get to do the same to respond or launch your own attack. It feels much more interactive to me.
GWIGOUGO is standing there for 45 minutes being punched in the face with no response, while people figure out how to listbuild an alpha strike list that lets them erase half or more of your army in turn 1 after deployment, crippling your force so that your response is not able to amount to much of anything, giving them the sweet sweet victory and full battle points so they can top the leaderboard and have a shot at being glorified on forums as placing in the top 10. In AOS' case, thats 45-90 minutes of being double turned with no response.
Yes nitpickers will respond saying the combat phase is technically Alternate Activation, but most people understand the spirit of where I'm coming from.
I've played with Alternate Activation houserules in place in both 40k and WHFB and later AOS since 2010, and I can say unequivocally that ten years of playing AA style GW games, I would never play stock rules ever again so long as GW sticks to the IGOUGO of stand there and get punched in the face for 45 minutes (or up to 90 minutes if you're playing AOS and getting double turned).
It also certainly does not take longer. My games are comparable and some go longer and some go shorter with AA as opposed to the IGOUGO games. I could get a 2000 point AOSAA game done in 90 minutes. I can get an IGOUGO game of 2000 points of AOS in 90 minutes as well. This whole thing about AA games taking longer is mythological; if its taking longer that is because there are players making it take longer through analysis paralysis and clocks are a good thing to enforce if time is something you want shortened.
40k being IGOUGO to me however does not kill it, and to the OP that is to me an inflated statement with no real merit or backing. GW could release 40k: turd edition with Mr Hanky as the mascot and it would continue to flourish because 40k is the juggernaut it is not because its rules are great ... but because it is the world's largest gaming fission reactor that feeds itself. People play because other people play. Other people play because people play. They know their investment is safe and they don't care about IGOUGO or AA at the core. THey'd still play no matter what because they know that they can go anywhere in the world with their army and get a game in.
You can't say that with any other game.
For my $$$ - I'm good with stepping out of public events and no longer having a lot of players to play with because I found 40k to be a bad game overall to the point of me not standing it a few years ago, and AOS I gave up last fall for the same reasons. And the people that love 40k or AOS are not people I enjoy playing wargames with for the most part anyway, because I'm after command and control, battlefield management, and victory by positioning whereas they are after a game that is about listbuilding combos and crippling your force in a turn or summoning an extra 2000 points to win by creating a 4000 pt to 2000 pt matchup (AOS - triple keeper of secrets looking at you). Those aren't games that I enjoy, but thats the type of game I'm going to keep getting in GW-land.
I follow along because I spent so much money and time on it that I will always be interested to see where it goes, but their ruleset has never been a good one nor do I think 9th edition will be any different. It will still cater to min max power listing and absurd abstract extremities, and I think thats designed as intended.
Shooting is still declared and processed one player at a time, but that's just so people can keep track of what is going on and prevent cheating.
nice thing about CBT there is an entire book of optional rules like rapid firing your machineguns, ghost jamming for ECM and fire as you bear. we use all of these as they make the game more fun and speed things up a bit. we skip the declare fire phase and just fire whatever we want when it is our mechs part of the fire phase to shoot. the player who loses initiative always gets to shoot first with all their units before return fire happens.
Karol wrote:Well maybe the relevance is that w40k is too big sized right now. It is possible that the game will never work well when played with the number of models, we get to play with right now.
Also stuff lack rule stacking and aura stacking works way different when you have 1-2 characters and 20-30 models, and when you have 5-6 characters and 120+ models.
3 tau shield drones are an interesting addition to a tau list. a bucket of them protecting a gigantic gunline is not that much fun.
So we are back yet again to the old FOC where at max you had 2 HQ characters and a minimum of 2 troops and a max of 3 of everything not troops. those HQs also had less impact compared to auras most times they need to join a squad to give it any benefits they imparted and their gear was limited. general librarians for example could have at best no more than 2 powers which had to be chosen before the game . forcing some strategic planning
aphyon wrote: In this discussion of igougo i keep seeing the same fallacy repeated,
"BALANCE"
the origin of 40K as a game was never intended to be a balanced game like chess. in fact the current state of the game with as many factions and the attempt to make them unique in their in universe personas makes it impossible to have a balanced game.
This monster is one of GWs own making with the advent of rogue trader and grand tournaments officially created/sanctioned by GW. starting back in late 3rd edition. up to that point it was hero quest in space. you played scific army men with your buddies for some fun in a narrative driven environment often against impossible odds similar to DnD.. IIRC there were often game masters in RT and 2nd
The hardcore touney player niche within the game community has driven this obsession with more and more alpha strike power builds and the counter argument for some way to balance it out. like the arms race between offensive weapons capability and the defenses against them. igougo just spotlights the first half of the phenomenon because that player gets to do everything at once. then it was doubled when 8th edition increased the rate of fire for everything and also added the WHFBAP system to the game removing both the balancing factor of hard armor as well as hard cover saves/movement penalties.
There is a point where the mechanics break. it is the reason why infinity will never work as an army game. it was designed to prevent it from being anything other than skirmish level. the changes to the (40K) game from the model used roughly from 3rd-7th over to the changes for 8+ have pushed the game mechanics to the breaking point so much that they are now looking backwards for ideas to the pre-8th ed editions.
I'm glad someone is saying this besides me. When you take away all of the min/max WAAC nonsense, play with he units you like with augmented homebrewed missions, the game is 100% enjoyable and fun. Every. Time.
AKA as long as you modify the game and make up rules, which should be GW's job, the game works?
No what he is saying is that the attitude towards to game has been changed in part by GW themselves and it is a bad change because it has created a certain mindset that has ingrained itself in the general community. you don't even need to play a narrative mission or campaign either home made or one published by GW.
This is a social contract between you and other gamers the idea here is to have an enjoyable social event., 40K can be incredibly fun even with both players desiring a win. however now we have gotten to the point where competition has overtaken the fun of the social activity in a game that literally can not be balanced because the game is to large with to many factions and to many options based roughly on in universe lore.
It uses a system that favors heavy alpha strikes limited to a simple d6 variance system (in RT and 2nd there were d10s 12s, 6s and so on) and a focus on list tailoring akin to MTG because of the introduction of the strat/cp system. then it is compounded by the 100% increase in shooting coupled with an AP degradation system that drastically reduces survivability, the insane amount of re-roll availability and removal of meaningful terrain effects (even the new 9th ed rules for it are only marginally better).
Many of us have played other systems by other companies that are better written, far more balanced (in the sense both players have an equal chance at winning), use a different turn mechanic and yet both be competitive and fun at the same time.
Unfortunately those systems are not able to compete in the market place in the manner GW does. think of GW like microsoft or google when it comes to market effects. they are the giant in the room, you can go almost anywhere in the world and find 40K games. there are GW stores, video games, dedicated forums, tv and movie series, novels and other media that GWs position in the market allows them to operate.
They may not have the best system but they have the most accessible system. they have a game attached to their models but that is secondary to selling said models to begin with it is just a vehicle for it.
40k is (and will remain) IGOUGO for the same reason we’re all still typing on QWERTY keyboards. History, inertia and expectations. QWERTY is not the best keyboard layout, it’s deliberately and specifically designed as a bad one in fact, but it’s what everyone is used to. 40k is GWs most valuable property, they’re simply not going to change the formula that much.
And I know it’ll make some peeps on Dakka splutter in rage, but specific game mechanics don’t sell games to the vast majority of the target market. GW isn’t about making the perfect gaming mechanic battle system, they’re about selling boatloads of minis. And they’re doing that very well with IGOUGO mechanics in their primary game.
MaxT wrote: 40k is GWs most valuable property, they’re simply not going to change the formula that much.
And that's why they'll never overhaul the AP system, ditch vehicle rules entirely, add in CCG-esque army abilities and a vitally important new economy, and throw out the FOC. Since rules apparently don't sell minis, no reason to change.
For my $$$ - I'm good with stepping out of public events and no longer having a lot of players to play with because I found 40k to be a bad game overall to the point of me not standing it a few years ago, and AOS I gave up last fall for the same reasons. And the people that love 40k or AOS are not people I enjoy playing wargames with for the most part anyway, because I'm after command and control, battlefield management, and victory by positioning whereas they are after a game that is about listbuilding combos and crippling your force in a turn or summoning an extra 2000 points to win by creating a 4000 pt to 2000 pt matchup (AOS - triple keeper of secrets looking at you). Those aren't games that I enjoy, but thats the type of game I'm going to keep getting in GW-land.
I follow along because I spent so much money and time on it that I will always be interested to see where it goes, but their ruleset has never been a good one nor do I think 9th edition will be any different. It will still cater to min max power listing and absurd abstract extremities, and I think thats designed as intended.
Interestingly we got the local FLGS game area up and running again yesterday, with limited time and occupancy restrictions, while one of our regulars and i were cleaning up from our game of WMH and talking shop a new player to our store came in and we got into the discussion we are having here. he is a player totally devoted to the competitive scene, ITC and the like and he is of the opinion that 9th edition will be some kind of wonderful change to the game. Players like him are the ones who are only interested in the newest thing/current edition.
Like you, after all these years, edition changes, armies bought, built, and sold, i told him i am off the rollercoaster. my collection is large enough that i can play what i want. i will never buy another new kit for regular 40K, i am at the point i have no need to buy another kit for any of the dozen or so systems i still play. i will never again have to worry about FAQs, new rules/rulebooks/codexes changes to points or wargear or so forth. everything for the editions i am willing to play are complete. 40K in particular i have the rulebooks for 3rd-8th and horus heresy. i have a large number of codexes form those editions as well.
I also love the lore and will follow what the game is doing, however to me 5th edition will always be the pinnacle of the army battle system(as opposed to the skirmish system of RT/2nd) for 40K with HH coming in a close second, 8th stripped down is fine for epic with some range reductions. there is a group of players at the FLGS who have been with the scene for as long as i have and feel very much the same. perhaps i can bring new players to use the old system if i promote it. that is something i am ok with, even if i am likely to get less games of 40K in because i am not moving ahead with the next edition.
40K was ok for a simple army game with fast play in the previous editions but it has always had a bad set of rules in places that has only gotten worse over the last few editions. rather it be power creep, lethality increase, formation bloat, CP farming, stratagem bloat, unnecessary extra phases and the like.
LOL! I've been away from Dakka for a few weeks until today, and this was literally the first non-sticky post I walked into. One thing will always remain true with Dakka: it's consistent.
Edit: On closer inspection, it would appear that this thread has become the defacto 9th edition impressions thread (that I can find at least) so I'll add mine here.
9th edition sounds great! If Lawrence and the guys from Tabletop Tactics give it their seal of approval, then I trust them. That said, I personally won't be picking up Indomitus for a couple of reasons. Firstly, while all of the models look great, I just don't particularly want them myself. Secondly, I have already complained a lot about having to get an expensive big rulebook for every new edition, and while I understand the argument that 3 years for EUR50 isn't actually all that bad, for reasons that aren't really relevant, I personally didn't get a lot of mileage out of 8th edition and neither did my friends. But from the little we do play, we all really enjoy 8th. So for now, I think we're all just going to stick with what we've already invested in. I'll keep my eye on some YouTube battle reports and maybe borrow a few ideas from 9th that we can get for free. And if we do ramp up our gaming in the future, maybe it won't be too much of a problem to convince ourselves to make the leap then. I hope by then they will have a more inexpensive, rules only book we can pick up. I really do have enough introductory lore on my shelf by now.
Lance845 wrote:Bolt action/ beyond the gate of Antares is a fully reactive system thats AA. It eats up your activation to perform half activations to react to an enemies unit but you could take cover, return fire, etc etc...
I am not saying that a reactive IGOUGO could not function with 40k. I am saying I have never seen anyone EVER propose a functional reactive igougo system for 40k. Again, stop telling me it COULD be and start showing me one that works that doesn't require redoing all the codexes.
AA JUST works with the codexes as is. So if we are sitting here debating the merits of AA vs IGOUGO we are spoiled for choice of options that work with the datasheets and rules as is with AA and we have jack gak for a reactive igougo with all the incredibly crap issues of the IGOUGO system it runs on now. One of these is better than the other.
I think it's odd you think I'm trying to convince you that IGOUGO is a good thing. I have never stated that. In fact, I've stated that Battletech's phased AA is my preference, and I think converting 40K to it really wouldn't require many changes to the system. It wouldn't have in 7th, but as I've said earlier, I'm not really familiar with army rules any more.
I was simply stating that one of the advantages of 40K's IGOUGO is that you can take your whole turn to set up your puzzle to work with, and only have to watch out for reactions. Bolt Action, your opponent could move one piece that destroys the tapestry of your setup, whereas in 40K, they aren't moving unless you Charge them that turn or you Shoot them off the board. It doesn't make up for the rest of 40K's ills, but I can recognize a benefit of a crap system when I see it. I think Battletech's attempt to try and make a full combined-arms crunchy system with vast amounts of damage to burn through makes for a very long game, but I still love its turn system and the fact of its creation system.
Even in Infinity, the only movement reaction is to literally dodge to cover. Oddly enough, X-Wing doesn't really do reactions that I've seen, but they have a very set initiative order that you process through instead of the randomness of Bolt Action and you roll to counter fire as they are shooting you anyway.
aphyon wrote:
Shooting is still declared and processed one player at a time, but that's just so people can keep track of what is going on and prevent cheating.
nice thing about CBT there is an entire book of optional rules like rapid firing your machineguns, ghost jamming for ECM and fire as you bear. we use all of these as they make the game more fun and speed things up a bit. we skip the declare fire phase and just fire whatever we want when it is our mechs part of the fire phase to shoot. the player who loses initiative always gets to shoot first with all their units before return fire happens.
Yeah, i think we just do the whole Firing Phase as one, that's how I remember doing it from the Compendium days, and there really isn't a need to change it. It doesn't really MATTER who declares or shoots first since the damage doesn't process till the end of the Phase anyway.
I don't think you are trying to convince me charistophs. I used your example as the example it was. In no way do I think that single piece of information reflects your whole point of view.
MaxT wrote: 40k is GWs most valuable property, they’re simply not going to change the formula that much.
And that's why they'll never overhaul the AP system, ditch vehicle rules entirely, add in CCG-esque army abilities and a vitally important new economy, and throw out the FOC. Since rules apparently don't sell minis, no reason to change.
Wait a minute.
None of that is as fundamental to the game as igougo, or for example using d6’s.
And rules refreshes (I.e. new editions) sell games. What those rules ARE matters a lot less
Lance845 wrote:Bolt action/ beyond the gate of Antares is a fully reactive system thats AA. It eats up your activation to perform half activations to react to an enemies unit but you could take cover, return fire, etc etc...
I am not saying that a reactive IGOUGO could not function with 40k. I am saying I have never seen anyone EVER propose a functional reactive igougo system for 40k. Again, stop telling me it COULD be and start showing me one that works that doesn't require redoing all the codexes.
AA JUST works with the codexes as is. So if we are sitting here debating the merits of AA vs IGOUGO we are spoiled for choice of options that work with the datasheets and rules as is with AA and we have jack gak for a reactive igougo with all the incredibly crap issues of the IGOUGO system it runs on now. One of these is better than the other.
I think it's odd you think I'm trying to convince you that IGOUGO is a good thing. I have never stated that. In fact, I've stated that Battletech's phased AA is my preference, and I think converting 40K to it really wouldn't require many changes to the system. It wouldn't have in 7th, but as I've said earlier, I'm not really familiar with army rules any more.
I was simply stating that one of the advantages of 40K's IGOUGO is that you can take your whole turn to set up your puzzle to work with, and only have to watch out for reactions. Bolt Action, your opponent could move one piece that destroys the tapestry of your setup, whereas in 40K, they aren't moving unless you Charge them that turn or you Shoot them off the board. It doesn't make up for the rest of 40K's ills, but I can recognize a benefit of a crap system when I see it. I think Battletech's attempt to try and make a full combined-arms crunchy system with vast amounts of damage to burn through makes for a very long game, but I still love its turn system and the fact of its creation system.
Even in Infinity, the only movement reaction is to literally dodge to cover. Oddly enough, X-Wing doesn't really do reactions that I've seen, but they have a very set initiative order that you process through instead of the randomness of Bolt Action and you roll to counter fire as they are shooting you anyway.
aphyon wrote:
Shooting is still declared and processed one player at a time, but that's just so people can keep track of what is going on and prevent cheating.
nice thing about CBT there is an entire book of optional rules like rapid firing your machineguns, ghost jamming for ECM and fire as you bear. we use all of these as they make the game more fun and speed things up a bit. we skip the declare fire phase and just fire whatever we want when it is our mechs part of the fire phase to shoot. the player who loses initiative always gets to shoot first with all their units before return fire happens.
Yeah, i think we just do the whole Firing Phase as one, that's how I remember doing it from the Compendium days, and there really isn't a need to change it. It doesn't really MATTER who declares or shoots first since the damage doesn't process till the end of the Phase anyway.
But how is it setting up your puzzle when you have an infinite amount of time to do so? That's not an advanced puzzle, that's the 12 count one you give to children.
It may not seem like much, but a heavy reaction IGOUGO system is actually more powerful than an AA system. For example, Infinity is probably the most reaction heavy IGOUGO system I know of. Your opponent can move or shoot when your models complete an action in their line of sight. So that means they can shoot or move in your turn as well as theirs. In AA, he can only move or attack when it is their time to provide an action to that model.
Just to nitpick but in infinity , you can only move in your opponent's turn if you sucessfully do a dodge action, and even then its not a full movement, it'll only be a couple of inches.
I do agree that Inifinity has one of the best game system i've tried and even if its a game with a lot more depth than 40k, its got less gamey moments. Most of that is because the game is model based instead of unit based and that they have smart line of sight rules (silhouettes are the best thing to shut people up with the whole "MFA" debate).
If we were to apply that kind of IGOUGO to 40k's scale, i feel it wouldn't work as well as doing a simple AA system. It could be explored tho, i wouldn't be against playing anything more strategic/reactive than current 40k.
With regard to AA in 40k and aura effects, isn't that easily solved by adding an assigned auras phase like 9th has added the command phase?
In said aura phase, you could assign eligible units (correct unit type, within range, etc.) their aura buff and have it remain until the beginning of the next aura phase. Simple, and it could even lead to some auras effecting only 1 unit while other (weaker) auras can affect all eligible units within their range.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:But how is it setting up your puzzle when you have an infinite amount of time to do so? That's not an advanced puzzle, that's the 12 count one you give to children.
When do you get an infinite amount of time? At the very least, when you finish processing your last model, then it is the next player's turn. I can wait just as long on an AA set up, but it would only be with a single model (which I could do in 40K with just my last model sitting there).
Are you talking about uninterrupted movement and actions for all your models in a turn? That is why I mentioned things like "reactions". 40K used to be really bad at this where the only reaction was "stand and fight" or "run away" when they were Charged. At least there's a possibility of a little more with Overwatch, but it still beats Warmachine's reaction system of, "oh, you walked past me, let me spank your butt.", or "I have a special rule that allows me to move/Charge/Shoot when you get too close."
It may not seem like much, but a heavy reaction IGOUGO system is actually more powerful than an AA system. For example, Infinity is probably the most reaction heavy IGOUGO system I know of. Your opponent can move or shoot when your models complete an action in their line of sight. So that means they can shoot or move in your turn as well as theirs. In AA, he can only move or attack when it is their time to provide an action to that model.
Just to nitpick but in infinity , you can only move in your opponent's turn if you sucessfully do a dodge action, and even then its not a full movement, it'll only be a couple of inches.
The point that it is more movement, over all, than would be allowed without that reaction. It may be 2", but that's 2" more movement than what I get in 40K when those Bikes come roaring around a corner. They aren't giving up anything (other than position) by doing so as opposed to what was previously stated in Bolt Action by a reaction taking up part of a model's later reaction.
Of course, I'm not a fan of Infinity's cheerleading system, personally, but that and the tiny size of their models are my biggest complaints about Corvus Belli's system.
VladimirHerzog wrote:I do agree that Inifinity has one of the best game system i've tried and even if its a game with a lot more depth than 40k, its got less gamey moments. Most of that is because the game is model based instead of unit based and that they have smart line of sight rules (silhouettes are the best thing to shut people up with the whole "MFA" debate).
If we were to apply that kind of IGOUGO to 40k's scale, i feel it wouldn't work as well as doing a simple AA system. It could be explored tho, i wouldn't be against playing anything more strategic/reactive than current 40k.
Oh, agreed. While we could see Overwatch return to an ability to react by denying your shooting in your previous turn, or other unit-specific reaction mechanics like with what Deathmarks could do with Deep Striking when your opponent Deep Strike's a unit, or a unit being able to Charge a unit just Charged a nearby unit, I don't see it applying in a general rule atmosphere on 40K's scale like what Infinity has.
Model number scale should always be a determiner in what mechanics one sets up for their games. Warmachine is at the limit of the size, if not a little bit over, of what one can expect and still operate with individual model actions. Even Infinity can get a little big for everything one can do in that game. There is a reason why Classic Battletech is usually limited to about 4 Battlemechs a side for a medium game. Even 40K can get bogged down if you're looking at an IG swarm vs Tyranid swarm that minimized monsters and vehicles or start exploring Apocalypse-sized games.
The point that it is more movement, over all, than would be allowed without that reaction. It may be 2", but that's 2" more movement than what I get in 40K when those Bikes come roaring around a corner. They aren't giving up anything (other than position) by doing so as opposed to what was previously stated in Bolt Action by a reaction taking up part of a model's later reaction.
Of course, I'm not a fan of Infinity's cheerleading system, personally, but that and the tiny size of their models are my biggest complaints about Corvus Belli's system.
Funny story i once heard of a 40K play on infinity....so finally my eldar rangers don't have to sit there and wait while an entire ork mob bumbles across and open ground and into cover before i can shoot at them. it makes so much more sense now.
The cheerleading system really doesn't work that well if you get experienced in the game. i run full 10 man squads at 300 points and everything is vital. rule of thumb is 3 offensive minis with heavy weapons/CC ability and everybody else is support. remembering that every rifle is still a rifle no matter who has it. i still always back up those offensive units with a hacker, engineer, doctor(well i play HAQQ so sometimes more than one doctor), and remotes (with EVO).
The sculpt size is realistic and not heroic like 40K but that does lead to some difficult fiddly bits. they have improved it greatly with many of the resculpts to represent bulk and size as described in the lore. the new azra'il is fantastic. however i love my old djanbazans better than the new ones.....sometimes it isn't better.
aphyon wrote: Funny story i once heard of a 40K play on infinity....so finally my eldar rangers don't have to sit there and wait while an entire ork mob bumbles across and open ground and into cover before i can shoot at them. it makes so much more sense now.
There was a guy who went to my old LGS that would often mock 40K for situations like that.
Private Mook: "There's the enemy, let's shoot them!"
Corporal SmartA**: "We can't."
Private Mook: "Why not? They're RIGHT THERE!"
Corporal SmartA**: "It'th not our turn."
aphyon wrote: The cheerleading system really doesn't work that well if you get experienced in the game. i run full 10 man squads at 300 points and everything is vital. rule of thumb is 3 offensive minis with heavy weapons/CC ability and everybody else is support. remembering that every rifle is still a rifle no matter who has it. i still always back up those offensive units with a hacker, engineer, doctor(well i play HAQQ so sometimes more than one doctor), and remotes (with EVO).
So, it's either a trap or it allows models to be over-powered in one turn. I'm just saying that I don't know of another game where you can allow your Private Mook to completely give up their opportunity to move and shoot so Rambo could do more terrorizing.
Aside from X-Com 2's Buddy system, but that's even only a half action.
aphyon wrote: The sculpt size is realistic and not heroic like 40K but that does lead to some difficult fiddly bits. they have improved it greatly with many of the resculpts to represent bulk and size as described in the lore. the new azra'il is fantastic. however i love my old djanbazans better than the new ones.....sometimes it isn't better.
Oh, I understand the reason for it. The problem is that most of the models' torsos and legs can fit in the volume of my middle finger. I have lost enough of my fingerprints to putting arms on Necron Warriors and Nyss Hunters, so the thought of those tiny models getting lost simply because of my hands is rather intimidating, to say nothing about trying to paint all that detail when I can barely handle a Space Marine.
I don’t know if it’s been covered before but I was thinking about the wording on psychic powers... it’s going to be damn near impossible to rewrite psychic powers that work smoothly with the IGOUGO system... that alone is evidence that it needs to be alternating activation.
macluvin wrote: I don’t know if it’s been covered before but I was thinking about the wording on psychic powers... it’s going to be damn near impossible to rewrite psychic powers that work smoothly with the IGOUGO system... that alone is evidence that it needs to be alternating activation.
What?
I think you miswrote the last bit there.
But if your concern is that psychic powers won't work with AA I would ask you to provide an example. I have never run into a single psychic power that did not work fine with AA.
macluvin wrote: I don’t know if it’s been covered before but I was thinking about the wording on psychic powers... it’s going to be damn near impossible to rewrite psychic powers that work smoothly with the IGOUGO system... that alone is evidence that it needs to be alternating activation.
What?
I think you miswrote the last bit there.
But if your concern is that psychic powers won't work with AA I would ask you to provide an example. I have never run into a single psychic power that did not work fine with AA.
Even then, I think it largely depends on how the AA system works. If it is random as to which unit activates first, having your Psyker last would make it rather useless.
Fortunately, I do believe most AA systems allow the players more input than that. It is more random as to which player gets to activate a unit next rather than which unit gets to activate next.
One thing that is happening in my group's chat is that 9th has blown open acceptance of house rules even further. We were always okay with primaris in drop pods and land raiders, custom weapon loadouts not on datasheets, that sort of thing, but now the basics are up for grabs in a way they never were during 8th.
IGOUGO getting kicked to the curb seems pretty much unanimous.
It feels like the slow drawn out opening of people to other rules sets and house rules that happened from late 4th to 7th 40k is happening in a matter of days. Those of us who returned for 8th are being reminded what a GW edition change is really about and others are experiencing it for the first time.
For a couple people they are beginning to see that GW is just making gak up as they go and there's nothing sacred about a given way to play just because they published it.
Chamberlain wrote: One thing that is happening in my group's chat is that 9th has blown open acceptance of house rules even further. We were always okay with primaris in drop pods and land raiders, custom weapon loadouts not on datasheets, that sort of thing, but now the basics are up for grabs in a way they never were during 8th.
IGOUGO getting kicked to the curb seems pretty much unanimous.
It feels like the slow drawn out opening of people to other rules sets and house rules that happened from late 4th to 7th 40k is happening in a matter of days. Those of us who returned for 8th are being reminded what a GW edition change is really about and others are experiencing it for the first time.
For a couple people they are beginning to see that GW is just making gak up as they go and there's nothing sacred about a given way to play just because they published it.
I just wish my playgroup allowed my CSM to deepstrike their droppods on turn one, or for their legion traits to apply to vehicles :(
I just wish my playgroup allowed my CSM to deepstrike their droppods on turn one, or for their legion traits to apply to vehicles :(
When the new edition comes out I would really recommended inviting people to specific gaming times (once we're doing that again) to play through all the rules content in the main rulebook. If people ask why you can say things like "we paid good money for this rulebook, we may as well try out what's in it." Starting with all the open play content, then the narrative. I'm sure they'll all play the matched play whenever.
If people aren't even willing to try anything other than a narrow slice of the published rules, you'll never get them to houserule. But many people have never even tried any of the open or narrative scenarios. Getting someone to have a fun game where the sides aren't equal is often the first step in loosening up "everything must be offical" rigid thinking.
Chamberlain wrote: One thing that is happening in my group's chat is that 9th has blown open acceptance of house rules even further. We were always okay with primaris in drop pods and land raiders, custom weapon loadouts not on datasheets, that sort of thing, but now the basics are up for grabs in a way they never were during 8th.
IGOUGO getting kicked to the curb seems pretty much unanimous.
It feels like the slow drawn out opening of people to other rules sets and house rules that happened from late 4th to 7th 40k is happening in a matter of days. Those of us who returned for 8th are being reminded what a GW edition change is really about and others are experiencing it for the first time.
For a couple people they are beginning to see that GW is just making gak up as they go and there's nothing sacred about a given way to play just because they published it.
I just wish my playgroup allowed my CSM to deepstrike their droppods on turn one, or for their legion traits to apply to vehicles :(
You want CSM to have that? The solution is simple: don't buy the codex and email them. As long as people keep purchasing garbage printed content, GW continues to think they're doing a good job.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Remember: don't do the job we are supposed to be paying GW to do.
Chamberlain wrote: One thing that is happening in my group's chat is that 9th has blown open acceptance of house rules even further. We were always okay with primaris in drop pods and land raiders, custom weapon loadouts not on datasheets, that sort of thing, but now the basics are up for grabs in a way they never were during 8th.
IGOUGO getting kicked to the curb seems pretty much unanimous.
It feels like the slow drawn out opening of people to other rules sets and house rules that happened from late 4th to 7th 40k is happening in a matter of days. Those of us who returned for 8th are being reminded what a GW edition change is really about and others are experiencing it for the first time.
For a couple people they are beginning to see that GW is just making gak up as they go and there's nothing sacred about a given way to play just because they published it.
Unit activation is by drawing dice/cards, so that the difference in the number of units doesn't become an issue.
There's an additional core strategem: for 1 cp you can activate an additional unit at the same time. For 3 cps you can activate 2 additional units at the same time. This is so those character auras work.
Close combat is handled so you get two cc actions per battle round just as you do currently. Ie when you activate you get to attack (no fight back). Then after all units have been activated ALL units in cc get to fight again. This is a bit gamey but retains the deadlyness of combat.
How does this work with units that require the activiation of 2-3 things to work? Lets say I drop a unit from deep strike, then it has to be buffed by a chaplain and 2 stratagems to work properly. that is minium 2-3 activations, in between which my opponents get two activation, which can end with the unit being dead before I finish the buffing.
Karol wrote: How does this work with units that require the activiation of 2-3 things to work? Lets say I drop a unit from deep strike, then it has to be buffed by a chaplain and 2 stratagems to work properly. that is minium 2-3 activations, in between which my opponents get two activation, which can end with the unit being dead before I finish the buffing.
If the Chaplain provides the buff by being nearby, there's only one activation: the unit from deep strike doing whatever you wanted it to do. I don't think anyone has proposed an AA system where using a stratagem counts as an activation.
Karol wrote: How does this work with units that require the activiation of 2-3 things to work? Lets say I drop a unit from deep strike, then it has to be buffed by a chaplain and 2 stratagems to work properly. that is minium 2-3 activations, in between which my opponents get two activation, which can end with the unit being dead before I finish the buffing.
I dislike the stratagem version. I prefer the expanding "heroic intervention" version.
1) you pick a unit to activate. You choose a unit in reserves. That unit is a drop pod or whatever.
2) Vehicles activate the units inside them when you activate the transport. So you place the drop pod and then as per normal you deploy all the units.
3) do the rest of the phases with the activated units.
Or...
1) You activate a unit. If a character is within 3" you can activate it with the unit.
Karol wrote: How does this work with units that require the activiation of 2-3 things to work? Lets say I drop a unit from deep strike, then it has to be buffed by a chaplain and 2 stratagems to work properly. that is minium 2-3 activations, in between which my opponents get two activation, which can end with the unit being dead before I finish the buffing.
If the Chaplain provides the buff by being nearby, there's only one activation: the unit from deep strike doing whatever you wanted it to do. I don't think anyone has proposed an AA system where using a stratagem counts as an activation.
With the Strategem (in the original post) that allows you to activate 1 or 2 additional units.
KRakarth wrote: AA works perfectly well with 8th. I've played it.
Unit activation is by drawing dice/cards, so that the difference in the number of units doesn't become an issue.
There's an additional core strategem: for 1 cp you can activate an additional unit at the same time. For 3 cps you can activate 2 additional units at the same time. This is so those character auras work.
Close combat is handled so you get two cc actions per battle round just as you do currently. Ie when you activate you get to attack (no fight back). Then after all units have been activated ALL units in cc get to fight again. This is a bit gamey but retains the deadlyness of combat.
Yeah, I've tried it. My experience was different.
What I'd say in favor of AA: very tactical.
- Being able to respond to an opponent's movement allowed me to shut down his assaults by just getting out of the way.
- Example: You have a squad of Cultists. Your opponent moves up a squad of Ogryns. You move the Cultists out of charge range.
- Shooting phase was more involved, target priority and shooting order for my troops mattered.
- Example: I want to kill your Knight, you also have a Dreadnought. I have 2 squads of Lascannon Havocs. Do I focus on the weaker target or the bigger threat?
- Charge phase was more interesting, charge order has bigger impact on board control.
- Example: I have 3 squads of Cultists, you have 3 squads of Intercessors. Everybody's in charge range. Whoever charges first has Linebreaker.
What I'd say against AA: screws up large games.
- Too many units makes it hard to ensure each one has a purpose.
- Example: I have three squads of Cultists and want to get them into combat. You move your Intercessors out of charge range. My Cultists are now just standing there. Next turn, they're in no-mans land.
- You can't really count on anything being able to shoot and there's an incentive to target things that haven't fired yet.
- Example: There's a Knight and a Dreadnought. You have 2 units of Lascannon Havocs. One fires, takes off 10 wounds. The Knight shoots, killing the other Havoc squad before it can shoot. The Dreadnought then gets to shoot, destroying the first squad of Havocs.
- Tough to position psychic units to use powers in range of squads when battlefield changes dynamically.
- Example: You have a Sorcerer and a squad of Cultists. You moved them close together early in your movement phase. Your opponent moved his troops out of charge range. The buff you were going to cast with the Sorcerer no longer matters.
- Charges don't result in a 'line.' Troops are staggered and this screws up board control.
- Example: I have 3 squads of Cultists. First one on the right charges 10". You charge 10", holding my second Cultist squad where it is. My third squad can't charge because it would have to go around your unit.
Over the course of a hundred AA games, I'm certain I would get the hang of things and these concerns would mean less. It's not that they can't work, it's that I'm unfamiliar and learning.
But there is a good reason to think AA would never work: 40k is not Chess. AA requires *so* much more mental bandwidth. When my opponent reacts immediately to everything I do, it takes a lot more time to figure out how to react myself.
At 2000 points, it felt like I was playing 3 games of Chess simultaneously, one to the left, one to the right, and one in the middle. That brought out this other aspect to the game, which might not be obvious when you first think about it. I had to decide which part of the table to focus on. If I was doing all my activations to the left while he was focused on the right, I could get an upper hand, and vice versa.
Think about that in the shooting phase. Doesn't matter if you have superior shooting if you can't get around to activating that section of the board because you are focused on something else or, worse yet, you ran out of activations. The activation system itself was creating this imbalance that favored the army with the most units.
So I don't know. At 1000 points, maybe AA is a great game? At 2000 points, you better really think hard about how you write your list. My impression was elite armies are going to have a hard time.
It sounds like you played aa within each phase. The example you gave of cultists moving back out of charge range is exactly why i dont recommend that version at all. Each activation does all its phases. Simpler and gives more agency to the units.
Lance845 wrote: It sounds like you played aa within each phase. The example you gave of cultists moving back out of charge range is exactly why i dont recommend that version at all. Each activation does all its phases. Simpler and gives more agency to the units.
Yeah, AA by phase is just bizarre and I don't think any game does that. Fully resolving every phase with each unit would be best and would probably be faster as well, since you're not going back to each unit multiple times in a round phase by phase.
I think techsoldaten basically did a hybrid of two systems that each work better in their own right for something with the scale of 40K:
-Pure AA- each unit activates one at a time and does all of its movement, shooting, melee, etc for the turn at once.
-Phased/integrated turn- One player is 'active' and the other is 'reactive' (determined by an initiative roll at the start of the turn). Within each phase the active player resolves all their units for that phase, followed by the reactive player (eg: player A moves, B moves, A shoots, B shoots, etc).
The phased/integrated turn alleviates the coordination problem of pure AA (helpful in a game heavy on auras) and speeds up play. While it can be as alpha-strike-y as pure IGOUGO, the reactive player gets to move before the active player can shoot, so there's opportunity to spoil their shots on a table with sufficient terrain and room for maneuver.
Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages- but AA within each phase definitely would be cumbersome for a large army.
I really don't think Alternating Activation is the holy grail versus the IGOUGO activation system the current 40k has.
There are plenty of games that make great use of IGOUGO, but the ones that really stick out to me as my favorites have quite a bit of interaction for the non active player, or don't try to be anything besides IGOUGO and are shorter ranged objective based games that force armies to close with each other and focus on positioning instead of cross map alpha strikes.
I really think the main issue with GW's take on IGOUGO is just that GW is poor at writing rules for 40k. Even if GW wrote 40k as an alternating activation game, I would expect it to be lackluster at this point. Before GW even attempts to move to a whole new activation system for 40k they should honestly hire new rules writers and start phasing out the ones that continue to botch every edition of 40k.
catbarf wrote: I think techsoldaten basically did a hybrid of two systems that each work better in their own right for something with the scale of 40K:
-Pure AA- each unit activates one at a time and does all of its movement, shooting, melee, etc for the turn at once.
-Phased/integrated turn- One player is 'active' and the other is 'reactive' (determined by an initiative roll at the start of the turn). Within each phase the active player resolves all their units for that phase, followed by the reactive player (eg: player A moves, B moves, A shoots, B shoots, etc).
The phased/integrated turn alleviates the coordination problem of pure AA (helpful in a game heavy on auras) and speeds up play. While it can be as alpha-strike-y as pure IGOUGO, the reactive player gets to move before the active player can shoot, so there's opportunity to spoil their shots on a table with sufficient terrain and room for maneuver.
Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages- but AA within each phase definitely would be cumbersome for a large army.
I personally don't think per phase is that cumbersome, and it really does help enable counter play.
KRakarth wrote: AA works perfectly well with 8th. I've played it.
Unit activation is by drawing dice/cards, so that the difference in the number of units doesn't become an issue.
There's an additional core strategem: for 1 cp you can activate an additional unit at the same time. For 3 cps you can activate 2 additional units at the same time. This is so those character auras work.
Close combat is handled so you get two cc actions per battle round just as you do currently. Ie when you activate you get to attack (no fight back). Then after all units have been activated ALL units in cc get to fight again. This is a bit gamey but retains the deadlyness of combat.
Yeah, I've tried it. My experience was different.
What I'd say in favor of AA: very tactical.
- Being able to respond to an opponent's movement allowed me to shut down his assaults by just getting out of the way.
- Example: You have a squad of Cultists. Your opponent moves up a squad of Ogryns. You move the Cultists out of charge range.
- Shooting phase was more involved, target priority and shooting order for my troops mattered.
- Example: I want to kill your Knight, you also have a Dreadnought. I have 2 squads of Lascannon Havocs. Do I focus on the weaker target or the bigger threat?
- Charge phase was more interesting, charge order has bigger impact on board control.
- Example: I have 3 squads of Cultists, you have 3 squads of Intercessors. Everybody's in charge range. Whoever charges first has Linebreaker.
What I'd say against AA: screws up large games.
- Too many units makes it hard to ensure each one has a purpose.
- Example: I have three squads of Cultists and want to get them into combat. You move your Intercessors out of charge range. My Cultists are now just standing there. Next turn, they're in no-mans land.
- You can't really count on anything being able to shoot and there's an incentive to target things that haven't fired yet.
- Example: There's a Knight and a Dreadnought. You have 2 units of Lascannon Havocs. One fires, takes off 10 wounds. The Knight shoots, killing the other Havoc squad before it can shoot. The Dreadnought then gets to shoot, destroying the first squad of Havocs.
- Tough to position psychic units to use powers in range of squads when battlefield changes dynamically.
- Example: You have a Sorcerer and a squad of Cultists. You moved them close together early in your movement phase. Your opponent moved his troops out of charge range. The buff you were going to cast with the Sorcerer no longer matters.
- Charges don't result in a 'line.' Troops are staggered and this screws up board control.
- Example: I have 3 squads of Cultists. First one on the right charges 10". You charge 10", holding my second Cultist squad where it is. My third squad can't charge because it would have to go around your unit.
Over the course of a hundred AA games, I'm certain I would get the hang of things and these concerns would mean less. It's not that they can't work, it's that I'm unfamiliar and learning.
But there is a good reason to think AA would never work: 40k is not Chess. AA requires *so* much more mental bandwidth. When my opponent reacts immediately to everything I do, it takes a lot more time to figure out how to react myself.
At 2000 points, it felt like I was playing 3 games of Chess simultaneously, one to the left, one to the right, and one in the middle. That brought out this other aspect to the game, which might not be obvious when you first think about it. I had to decide which part of the table to focus on. If I was doing all my activations to the left while he was focused on the right, I could get an upper hand, and vice versa.
Think about that in the shooting phase. Doesn't matter if you have superior shooting if you can't get around to activating that section of the board because you are focused on something else or, worse yet, you ran out of activations. The activation system itself was creating this imbalance that favored the army with the most units.
So I don't know. At 1000 points, maybe AA is a great game? At 2000 points, you better really think hard about how you write your list. My impression was elite armies are going to have a hard time.
Honestly all your complaints seem to be "I don't like being counter played" and "I don't want to think THAT hard about positioning for my army".
Lance845 wrote:It sounds like you played aa within each phase. The example you gave of cultists moving back out of charge range is exactly why i dont recommend that version at all. Each activation does all its phases. Simpler and gives more agency to the units.
Playtesting with a few friends, we tried both. AA per phase seemed the most intuitive.
For me, it was things like Warptime, where you cast a power and expect it to work on another unit. AA with exploding activations was something we didn't really want to explore.
catbarf wrote:I think techsoldaten basically did a hybrid of two systems that each work better in their own right for something with the scale of 40K:
-Pure AA- each unit activates one at a time and does all of its movement, shooting, melee, etc for the turn at once.
-Phased/integrated turn- One player is 'active' and the other is 'reactive' (determined by an initiative roll at the start of the turn). Within each phase the active player resolves all their units for that phase, followed by the reactive player (eg: player A moves, B moves, A shoots, B shoots, etc).
The phased/integrated turn alleviates the coordination problem of pure AA (helpful in a game heavy on auras) and speeds up play. While it can be as alpha-strike-y as pure IGOUGO, the reactive player gets to move before the active player can shoot, so there's opportunity to spoil their shots on a table with sufficient terrain and room for maneuver.
Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages- but AA within each phase definitely would be cumbersome for a large army.
TBH everything seemed a lot more interesting and cumbersome, even at 1,000. It just makes you think more.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Honestly all your complaints seem to be "I don't like being counter played" and "I don't want to think THAT hard about positioning for my army".
It was more a matter of "immediately reacting to everything I do made for very defensive games that were not as much fun."
Like I said, I could see myself getting used to it for smaller games. For larger games, it was just too much and I probably wouldn't want to play.
/S
