Continuing with the highly degenerate and toxic UGO/IGO system is pointless.

They've got several other games using alternating activations which are all universally considered better than 8th, yet they've chosen to ignore it.

No reason to even read more about 9th.

Fine. Sell your armies then and don't post here. Good bye.

Obvious troll is obvious.

tneva82 wrote:
Fine. Sell your armies then and don't post here. Good bye.

If we got rid of all the people who claim [current edition] 40k is an awful game Dakka would lose like 70% of the people who post here.

Feel free to check the poll results of whether Apocalypse is better at being a 40k game than 40k is.

How many more years of unlimited turn one command points to lose half your army before you start playing do you really want?

Not sure how this post is supposed to foster any kind of discussion. Seems like something you should put on Facebook or your blog.

DarknessEternal wrote:Continuing with the highly degenerate and toxic UGO/IGO system is pointless.

They've got several other games using alternating activations which are all universally considered better than 8th, yet they've chosen to ignore it.

No reason to even read more about 9th.

Cool. How much are you selling your armies for? Not that you'll be keeping them or sticking around in the 40k section of the forum, if you're so adamant about 9th being trash.

And hey, I'm being serious - more power to you. You've presumably made the smart decision to know when it's time to quit and enjoy doing something else with your time, such as not interacting with any 40k stuff for the duration of 9th. Now, if you'd care to put that smart decision into practice...

Yeah... I can be negative too. Frankly, I was so eager for 8th, was so disappointed in it that I was glad to have been so busy with work to never be able to play, and now... am excited for 9th but who knows. IgoUgo worked for 2nd ed well enough, anyways, with some tweaks... why not now? Maybe there will be alternating activations for "crusade" or command point based out of turn unit activations will be common for everyone. We dont know. It is a bit early yet to kill the baby.

 Sim-Life wrote:
If we got rid of all the people who claim [current edition] 40k is an awful game Dakka would lose like 70% of the people who post here.

Would that be such a bad thing?

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Feel free to check the poll results of whether Apocalypse is better at being a 40k game than 40k is.

How many more years of unlimited turn one command points to lose half your army before you start playing do you really want?

So either it's not dead game or you are hypocrite seeing you still keep posting about 40k...

Good job.

I don’t agree with OP that Ninth is DOA. But I think IGO/UGO is one of those sacred cows that should be reconsidered. Alternating activation of units does really feel more dynamic and engaging to me; specifically, I think it de-emphasizes strategic play in favor of tactical play, which seems more appropriate to the scale of 40k. IGO/UGO feels like a holdover from the historical mass battles mindset via WHFB.

Dear lord this really is peak dakka, isn't it?

 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.

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t agree with OP that Ninth is DOA. But I think IGO/UGO is one of those sacred cows that should be reconsidered. Alternating activation of units does really feel more dynamic and engaging to me; specifically, I think it de-emphasizes strategic play in favor of tactical play, which seems more appropriate to the scale of 40k. IGO/UGO feels like a holdover from the historical mass battles mindset via WHFB.

I disagree with the OP but it's certainly a question worth discussing.

I think that besides the 25+ year legacy of the game rules IGO/UGO persists because it puts a lot of the burden for winning on army building (and more importantly buying) rather than in play tactics.

This requires a lot more engagement on the part of players than a game where you can respond to your enemy during the match. It's a feature, not a bug.

EDIT-Made the title clearer

Yeah army building is certainly one of the elements I had in mind when I implied 40k was “strategic.” But this-era GW seems to be gradually side-lining purely competitive play in favor of various kinds of narrative-focused developments (at this point, Crusade). So maybe it is time to reconsider this particular sacred cow.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t agree with OP that Ninth is DOA. But I think IGO/UGO is one of those sacred cows that should be reconsidered. Alternating activation of units does really feel more dynamic and engaging to me; specifically, I think it de-emphasizes strategic play in favor of tactical play, which seems more appropriate to the scale of 40k. IGO/UGO feels like a holdover from the historical mass battles mindset via WHFB.

I disagree with the OP but it's certainly a question worth discussing.

I think that besides the 25+ year legacy of the game rules IGO/UGO persists because it puts a lot of the burden for winning on army building (and more importantly buying) rather than in play tactics.

This requires a lot more engagement on the part of players than a game where you can respond to your enemy during the match. It's a feature, not a bug.

Because no AA game has EVER ended up with a heavy emphasis on listbuilding as well as on table play...

While I agree with the OP's point....the fact that you used the word "degenerate" and "toxic" ...you now get zero points. Internet buzzwords are fething obnoxious.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t agree with OP that Ninth is DOA. But I think IGO/UGO is one of those sacred cows that should be reconsidered. Alternating activation of units does really feel more dynamic and engaging to me; specifically, I think it de-emphasizes strategic play in favor of tactical play, which seems more appropriate to the scale of 40k. IGO/UGO feels like a holdover from the historical mass battles mindset via WHFB.

I disagree with the OP but it's certainly a question worth discussing.

I think that besides the 25+ year legacy of the game rules IGO/UGO persists because it puts a lot of the burden for winning on army building (and more importantly buying) rather than in play tactics.

This requires a lot more engagement on the part of players than a game where you can respond to your enemy during the match. It's a feature, not a bug.

Exactly. Why is it more fun to wait an hour to do anything? Strats honestly don't count because they're overall the same "oh defensive buff of some kind", which honestly is not engaging in any form. Also that costs resources.

I can’t tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with Kid_Kyoto.

IGOUGO is not inherently bad.

For a game 40k's size, though, it'd likely be better to move to Alternating Activations. Assuming GW did it right, which is... You know, not likely.

 Manchu wrote:
I can’t tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with Kid_Kyoto.

I'm at the point where I think 3 of us could write a better rule system over a pint at the bar.

But that's not the point. GW is not in business to write great rules, they never have. Their business is synergizing cool models and complex ever-changing rules that require heavy buy in and monthly commitments (in time and attention at least if not in money) to keep up.

And well, I'm here, so obviously it works. However many times I have thrown up my hands and said THAT'S IT!

So basically I think this thread is 'Young Man Yells at Cloud'.

But we should at least know why things are like this.

ERJAK wrote:
Because no AA game has EVER ended up with a heavy emphasis on listbuilding as well as on table play...

Army building is certainly an important element of games that don’t use IGO/UGO but it seems more important in games that do because those games are structured so that the players use all of their forces in a coordinated, uninterrupted manner, all at once.

 Elbows wrote:
the fact that you used the word "degenerate" and "toxic"

Yeah it’s hard to see how these are not just being used a synonyms for “something I don’t like.” I’m not sure how IGO/UGO is either degenerate or toxic, and I’m no fan of IGO/UGO.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
How many more years of unlimited turn one command points to lose half your army before you start playing do you really want?

You could fix that in lots of ways besides alternating activations. Better terrain rules, 'escalating' rules for engagements (a la Omega level rules in 4th edition), are some examples. From what I've heard about 9th they might be going this route.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Feel free to check the poll results of whether Apocalypse is better at being a 40k game than 40k is.

How many more years of unlimited turn one command points to lose half your army before you start playing do you really want?

A poll on Dakka and $1.80 CAD will get you a coffee. How is Apocalypse doing out there in the wild after a year? I bought it, played it once and now it sits on the shelf for lack of opponents. I certainly don't see it played in either of the gaming communities I frequent. For some reason people (including me) prefer to play 40K with our gaming time. Weird eh?

Because people already have core rules for 40k and didn't want to pay for more rules again

 Manchu wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Because no AA game has EVER ended up with a heavy emphasis on listbuilding as well as on table play...

Army building is certainly an important element of games that don’t use IGO/UGO but it seems more important in games that do because those games are structured so that the players use all of their forces in a coordinated, uninterrupted manner, all at once.

 Elbows wrote:
the fact that you used the word "degenerate" and "toxic"

Yeah it’s hard to see how these are not just being used a synonyms for “something I don’t like.” I’m not sure how IGO/UGO is either degenerate or toxic, and I’m no fan of IGO/UGO.

There are plenty of merits for both systems, but this thread wasn't framed for a discussion. It's just about the op complaining.

 Sasori wrote:
There are plenty of merits for both systems, but this thread wasn't framed for a discussion. It's just about the op complaining.

Exactly. All you have to do is look at the title, and the purpose of the thread is made very clear.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Continuing with the highly degenerate and toxic UGO/IGO system is pointless.

They've got several other games using alternating activations which are all universally considered better than 8th, yet they've chosen to ignore it.

No reason to even read more about 9th.

I won't tell you to quit and sell your models (though it's an option).

But I will tell you to play Kill Team or Apocalypse and leave the rest of us alone. Only because this topic comes up all the time, and I always write lengthy posts that are diplomatic and polite. It is perhaps unfair to assume that you are the same person, or one of the group who consistently post this, but there you have it.

I've been politely pointing out for two years that you can solve your own problem, and that if you refuse to do so, it is a choice. And only you are in charge of your choices.

For those of us that have enjoyed IGOUGO for 31 uninterrupted years, when GW says: the game you love, only better, well, we're the ones they are talking to; I respect AA games. They are fun- I have two by GW that I can play. 40k is what I play when I feel like a break from AA, which is frequently, because AA games don't let you take breaks, where as IGOUGO leaves you a built in space to go to to the bathroom, prepare the food and drinks or change the music.

But I guess some people prefer a world where only they win to a world where everybody wins, so some people will always suggest modifying everything to fit their desires rather than using the tools they've already been given.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
There are plenty of merits for both systems, but this thread wasn't framed for a discussion. It's just about the op complaining.

Exactly. All you have to do is look at the title, and the purpose of the thread is made very clear.

He's not wrong though. GW manages to screw it up early in the edition. However the least they could do is actually make a ruleset that's interactive. IGOUGO is not that. If I can run to a nearby store and grab something to eat while my opponent is taking a turn, there's clearly a flaw in the core rules in the "game" where two people should be playing.

IGOUGO works well for alternate phases like gw's LOTR does it. When is ALL of the phases like 40k it becomes too much.

PenitentJake wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Continuing with the highly degenerate and toxic UGO/IGO system is pointless.

They've got several other games using alternating activations which are all universally considered better than 8th, yet they've chosen to ignore it.

No reason to even read more about 9th.

I won't tell you to quit and sell your models (though it's an option).

But I will tell you to play Kill Team or Apocalypse and leave the rest of us alone. Only because this topic comes up all the time, and I always write lengthy posts that are diplomatic and polite. It is perhaps unfair to assume that you are the same person, or one of the group who consistently post this, but there you have it.

I've been politely pointing out for two years that you can solve your own problem, and that if you refuse to do so, it is a choice. And only you are in charge of your choices.

For those of us that have enjoyed IGOUGO for 31 uninterrupted years, when GW says: the game you love, only better, well, we're the ones they are talking to; I respect AA games. They are fun- I have two by GW that I can play. 40k is what I play when I feel like a break from AA, which is frequently, because AA games don't let you take breaks

But I guess some people prefer a world where only they win to a world where everybody wins, so some people will always suggest modifying everything to fit their desires rather than using the tools they've already been given.

Why are you playing to take a break? Why bother to even get out models if you have a sensation of "I can't wait for the opponent to take their turn so I can do nothing for half an hour?" At that point...why even pick up a game?

9th might have some rules that can be transplanted with apocalypse to be a functional and decent game. But 9th being igougo is a deal breaker.

2nd-4th editions were great IGO/UGO game systems. When warhammer 40k entered its dark years (5,6,7) some of the quirks associated with the system really became apparent. If 9th tones down the lethality of alpha striking IGO/UGO will be fine. It is understandably frustrating for a player to spend all the time and energy in putting an army on the table only to watch it get tabled in the first shooting phase.

Though I suspect GW is aware of all this and perhaps 10th edition will result in an entirely new mode of playing (didn't the whiteboard say something about no dice and coins?)

Anyway, getting tabled turn 1 sucks, but so does getting salty. Its a game - part of the strategy is not getting tilted. Go read a book or something if it bugs you too much. Or just learn 2 play. The choice is yours!

@K_K, I posted that in regard to Slayerfan’s post but yeah I see how you’re “defending” IGO/UGO with, shall we say, eyes wide open.

But I think your analysis is more fitting for last-era GW. Keep in mind that this-era GW kicked off with AoS, which dispensed with one of the biggest sacred cows, points. This was super controversial but in the long run has been pretty well-received with most people I know who continue to play 40k preferring PL to points.

2nd-4th editions were great IGO/UGO game systems. When warhammer 40k entered its dark years (5,6,7) some of the quirks associated with the system really became apparent. If 9th tones down the lethality of alpha striking IGO/UGO will be fine. It is understandably frustrating for a player to spend all the time and energy in putting an army on the table only to watch it get tabled in the first shooting phase.

Though I suspect GW is aware of all this and perhaps 10th edition will result in an entirely new mode of playing (didn't the whiteboard say something about no dice and coins?)

Anyway, getting tabled turn 1 sucks, but so does getting salty. Its a game - part of the strategy is not getting tilted. Go read a book or something if it bugs you too much. Or just learn 2 play. The choice is yours!

 Sasori wrote:
There are plenty of merits for both systems, but this thread wasn't framed for a discussion.

Nevertheless, there’s something worth discussing here, obviously.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Why are you playing to take a break? Why bother to even get out models if you have a sensation of "I can't wait for the opponent to take their turn so I can do nothing for half an hour?" At that point...why even pick up a game?

Some people are fine with IGOUGO, and don't mind not being active for half an hour. Others don't, and some of those people hate it so much that they make threads clearly brooking no discussion like this one. Why are those people still active in the community? At that point, why even pick up their fingers to type?

Been using AA instead of IGOUGO since start of 8E. I don't need GW's permission to do so.

Biggest hindrance to me as far as 40K goes has been setup & teardown. If that didn't take so long, I'd probably get a lot more games in.

 Manchu wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
There are plenty of merits for both systems, but this thread wasn't framed for a discussion.

Nevertheless, there’s something worth discussing here, obviously.

Then why not start a clean thread with the intent of discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the systems? This thread if full of posts telling the OP to leave, sell his models, 9th is dead, etc and will continue to pop up because of the OP.

As far as we know 9th is much less lethal than 8th (CP are not fronloaded but given turn by turn), so there isn't a strict need for IGOUGO.

IGO/UGO can certainly work, but admittedly GW has done its utmost over the various editions to make the system seem heavily lop-sided.

In our group we use IGO/UGO but the current turn player moves OR shoots first and then the other player has some options to react before the first player finishes his turn.

It's not alternate unit activation, which I find very tedious, slow and clumsy. I guess my point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with IGO/UGO, just the way it is implemented...especially by GW. But this next edition may do wonders to alleviate its issues. I guess we'll see.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Why are you playing to take a break? Why bother to even get out models if you have a sensation of "I can't wait for the opponent to take their turn so I can do nothing for half an hour?" At that point...why even pick up a game?

Some people are fine with IGOUGO, and don't mind not being active for half an hour. Others don't, and some of those people hate it so much that they make threads clearly brooking no discussion like this one. Why are those people still active in the community? At that point, why even pick up their fingers to type?

Except, why is it okay? After all, a lot of the people that defend the IGOUGO system are the same people that say that pregame negotiations are fine, and if you don't like that you're antisocial. Why shouldn't the game be the actual social interaction?

Dear lord this really is peak dakka, isn't it?

Not yet. For that to happen we need someone to come in, be the "voice of reason" and explain to us that, before we can even consider the statements in the OP, we need to all define, and agree upon said definitions for the phrases "IGOUGO", "9th ed" and "Dead in the water". After about 20 pages of that, THEN, and ONLY THEN will it be "Peak Dakka"

Been using AA instead of IGOUGO since start of 8E.

That's interesting. I've been curious if it would work without major rewrites to some other things. Obviously you liked it since you said you've been doing it since the start of 8th, but do you have any notes or anything we might find interesting? Things it fixed, things it didn't fix, anything you had to change to accommodate it? I'd be interested in hearing all of that.

I think alternating activation is more interesting and engaging, but if GW is going to stick with the current approach they should at least go for a better version of it like the one KoW uses. In KoW the person whose turn it is rolls all of the dice, which greatly speeds up the game and makes it a lot more clock friendly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Why are you playing to take a break? Why bother to even get out models if you have a sensation of "I can't wait for the opponent to take their turn so I can do nothing for half an hour?" At that point...why even pick up a game?

Some people are fine with IGOUGO, and don't mind not being active for half an hour. Others don't, and some of those people hate it so much that they make threads clearly brooking no discussion like this one. Why are those people still active in the community? At that point, why even pick up their fingers to type?

Except, why is it okay?

Why isn't it? You think that waiting half an hour is bad, I don't mind it. Sounds more like a difference of opinion there, not some kind of objective wrong.

After all, a lot of the people that defend the IGOUGO system are the same people that say that pregame negotiations are fine, and if you don't like that you're antisocial. Why shouldn't the game be the actual social interaction?

The pre-game negotations are part of the game. The banter between the players in between dice being rolled is part of the game.

At least, to me. I'm not going to pretend that those standards apply to everyone, nor am I going to say that you're wrong if you don't think so. But if OP's reaction to hearing that IGOUGO is still around is calling it "toxic" and "degenerate", why bother sticking around and interacting? At a certain point, it goes from criticism to masochism.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Why are you playing to take a break? Why bother to even get out models if you have a sensation of "I can't wait for the opponent to take their turn so I can do nothing for half an hour?" At that point...why even pick up a game?

Some people are fine with IGOUGO, and don't mind not being active for half an hour. Others don't, and some of those people hate it so much that they make threads clearly brooking no discussion like this one. Why are those people still active in the community? At that point, why even pick up their fingers to type?

Except, why is it okay?

Why isn't it? You think that waiting half an hour is bad, I don't mind it. Sounds more like a difference of opinion there, not some kind of objective wrong.

After all, a lot of the people that defend the IGOUGO system are the same people that say that pregame negotiations are fine, and if you don't like that you're antisocial. Why shouldn't the game be the actual social interaction?

The pre-game negotations are part of the game. The banter between the players in between dice being rolled is part of the game.

At least, to me. I'm not going to pretend that those standards apply to everyone, nor am I going to say that you're wrong if you don't think so. But if OP's reaction to hearing that IGOUGO is still around is calling it "toxic" and "degenerate", why bother sticking around and interacting? At a certain point, it goes from criticism to masochism.

You say you don't mind it. That doesn't mean you like it.

So the real question is whether you LIKE waiting for half an hour or just accept it for what it is. The latter implies there's a problem.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You say you don't mind it. That doesn't mean you like it.

So the real question is whether you LIKE waiting for half an hour or just accept it for what it is. The latter implies there's a problem.

No, it means it's not a problem in my gaming experience, and I have no objection to it being in the game. What I expect out of Kill Team (which is AA) and 40k (which is IGOUGO) are managed by what I expect from those systems, and I enjoy them in their own respective manners appropriately.

I see no problem personally.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You say you don't mind it. That doesn't mean you like it.

So the real question is whether you LIKE waiting for half an hour or just accept it for what it is. The latter implies there's a problem.

Not at all.

Things aren't EXTREME ZERO/SUM Slayer. Not minding something doesn't imply 'there's a problem' at all.

I don't mind crime shows on tv.

I don't mind my wife's favourite bands.

I don't mind the colour red.

Nothing there implies there is a problem. Or that I have a problem with any of these things. At worst, it implies neutrality.

Now regarding liking Igougo, it's necessary for certain styles of game. Synergy/Combo-focussed games like Warmachine work because you have full access to your army and full control of your turn in order to work the gears in the right way. I enjoyed Warmachine for years.

Heck, Igougo doesn't even necessarily prevent active countering on the part of the other person - take for example games like infinity (interrupted Igougo) or gw's old lotr sbg (and plenty historicals) with their broken phase Igougo.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Continuing with the highly degenerate and toxic UGO/IGO system is pointless.

They've got several other games using alternating activations which are all universally considered better than 8th, yet they've chosen to ignore it.

No reason to even read more about 9th.

I won't tell you to quit and sell your models (though it's an option).

But I will tell you to play Kill Team or Apocalypse and leave the rest of us alone. Only because this topic comes up all the time, and I always write lengthy posts that are diplomatic and polite. It is perhaps unfair to assume that you are the same person, or one of the group who consistently post this, but there you have it.

I've been politely pointing out for two years that you can solve your own problem, and that if you refuse to do so, it is a choice. And only you are in charge of your choices.

For those of us that have enjoyed IGOUGO for 31 uninterrupted years, when GW says: the game you love, only better, well, we're the ones they are talking to; I respect AA games. They are fun- I have two by GW that I can play. 40k is what I play when I feel like a break from AA, which is frequently, because AA games don't let you take breaks

But I guess some people prefer a world where only they win to a world where everybody wins, so some people will always suggest modifying everything to fit their desires rather than using the tools they've already been given.

Why are you playing to take a break? Why bother to even get out models if you have a sensation of "I can't wait for the opponent to take their turn so I can do nothing for half an hour?" At that point...why even pick up a game?

Because I'm one of those people for whom a games night is a social event. When we play 40k, it's usually a kid of party. Theirs usually two or three other people in the room who may not be playing, and we're there to visit them as much as we are to play the game. I know a lot of people who post on Dakka don't share that experience, because the average Dakka user seems to play in stores and at tournaments; seldom have I done so in my 31 years of playing (though it has happened once or twice, it is never as fun as campaigning beer hammer).

It is also for this reason that I think Dakka is sometimes unaware of how many players like me exist; we're there, I assure you. I also believe we outnumber tournament players, but not as many of us post here, so it's easy to underestimate our numbers when Dakka is your goto frame of reference.

I have also used this analogy:

AA is like Tennis, Basket Ball, or Hockey- it's fast paced and exciting all the way through and some people prefer that.
IGOUGO is like American football or Baseball, which both have distinctive offense/ defense phases that create a specific rhythm that other people prefer.

Most people who have difficulty seeing it when viewed through the lens of warhammer can see the contrast more easily when talking about sports- especially those who like both, because they know that the feelings that get from each sport is different, and that sometimes you're in the mood for one and sometimes the other.

And that does describe me too, because sometimes I feel like high energy AA. When I do, I play Kill Team, Apocalypse or Blackstone instead of playing 40k when I know it isn't what in the mood for and then whining about it on the Internet. See how everybody wins and I win twice because I like both styles at different times and GW is awesome enough toi give me all the tools that I need to be a grown up and solve my own problems?

Are we clear yet, or will you not be happy until everything in the world is designed for you and only you?

Shame there isn't a defensive Phase though.

I think 9th being IGOUGO was inevitable. It's disappointing, perhaps, but not something I'd consider a deal-breaker.

My main concern, however, is that I'm not convinced 9th is going to actually fix any of the other problems with 8th.

I don't think they are getting rid of auras.

 vipoid wrote:
I think 9th being IGOUGO was inevitable. It's disappointing, perhaps, but not something I'd consider a deal-breaker.

My main concern, however, is that I'm not convinced 9th is going to actually fix any of the other problems with 8th.

Agree but maybee fw Indexes and some of the more ridicoulousness gets Toned down a bit?

PenitentJake wrote:
Most people who have difficulty seeing it when viewed through the lens of warhammer can see the contrast more easily when talking about sports- especially those who like both, because they know that the feelings that get from each sport is different, and that sometimes you're in the mood for one and sometimes the other.

And that does describe me too, because sometimes I feel like high energy AA. When I do, I play Kill Team, Apocalypse or Blackstone instead of playing 40k when I know it isn't what in the mood for and then whining about it on the Internet.

Agree with the whole post, but especially this bit at the end. If I found 40k dull or boring because of IGOUGO, why would I play 40k and complain about it, when I could put my models to use by playing Kill Team, Apocalypse, or just playing another game entirely?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Shame there isn't a defensive Phase though.

Not formally, but using all my defensive strats to interfere with my enemy's shooting does feel like a defensive phase for me, as does counter attacking if I survive an enemy's charge, or denying my opponent's witchery.

When I want a stronger feeling of playing Defense then that, I play Blood Bowl, though I can only do that when someone's willing to lend me a team since I don't own one myself. I often have a spare kill team or two when they need one, so it tends to work out.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think 9th being IGOUGO was inevitable. It's disappointing, perhaps, but not something I'd consider a deal-breaker.

My main concern, however, is that I'm not convinced 9th is going to actually fix any of the other problems with 8th.

Agree but maybee fw Indexes and some of the more ridicoulousness gets Toned down a bit?

Yeah, well, wake me when they bring back Corsairs.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think 9th being IGOUGO was inevitable. It's disappointing, perhaps, but not something I'd consider a deal-breaker.

My main concern, however, is that I'm not convinced 9th is going to actually fix any of the other problems with 8th.

Agree but maybee fw Indexes and some of the more ridicoulousness gets Toned down a bit?

The new FW books being released for 9th were written by the main studio. If anything, they'll be toned UP.

 vipoid wrote:
I think 9th being IGOUGO was inevitable. It's disappointing, perhaps, but not something I'd consider a deal-breaker.

My main concern, however, is that I'm not convinced 9th is going to actually fix any of the other problems with 8th.

This is kinda where I'm at. My big worry is that the lethality is only going to increase further, which admittedly is exacerbated by IGOUGO, but I'm not going to call 9E dead on arrival either. All in all, it's looking to be to 8th was 4E was to 3E, in which case, most people who are happy with (or who will at least tolerate) 8th will be with 9th.

 vipoid wrote:
I think 9th being IGOUGO was inevitable. It's disappointing, perhaps, but not something I'd consider a deal-breaker.

My main concern, however, is that I'm not convinced 9th is going to actually fix any of the other problems with 8th.

Not sure if their fix will work, but we know they're trying to fix cover, which is probably the single single biggest complaint in this edition.

We know they're changing up CP and soup, which are the second and third biggest complaints about this edition.

Again, we'll see how they do in execution, but the fact that they've very clearly identified these as things they are working on should at least be cause for cautious optimism.

There need to be a downside to get the first turn in some way.

This situation where the first player obliterates the other army and gain a decisive advantage cannot go on.

PenitentJake wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Shame there isn't a defensive Phase though.

Not formally, but using all my defensive strats to interfere with my enemy's shooting does feel like a defensive phase for me, as does counter attacking if I survive an enemy's charge, or denying my opponent's witchery.

When I want a stronger feeling of playing Defense then that, I play Blood Bowl, though I can only do that when someone's willing to lend me a team since I don't own one myself. I often have a spare kill team or two when they need one, so it tends to work out.

No, that isn't a defensive Phase and the domination of Alpha strike and only an except few factions actually having defensive or reactive tools via stratagem doesn't lend itself to something Like it.

It is what makes the igougo unbearable because it accentuates the really tilted balance in favour of offensive shooting capability and the really wierd balance in General in regards to Units.

An aa game has a kinda bigger allowance of unit power difference preciscly because it is aa and snowballing effects get Stalled out longer .

My point is , that regardless what Option gw Picks it's proabaly not Working because the core doesn't which makes igougo just a victim of circumstance, atleast partially that is .

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And that does describe me too, because sometimes I feel like high energy AA. When I do, I play Kill Team, Apocalypse or Blackstone instead of playing 40k when I know it isn't what in the mood for and then whining about it on the Internet.

Agree with the whole post, but especially this bit at the end. If I found 40k dull or boring because of IGOUGO, why would I play 40k and complain about it, when I could put my models to use by playing Kill Team, Apocalypse, or just playing another game entirely?

Tbf after we tried kt rules (first for shooting and then for activation and morale ) it became a much better game, IF you avoid skew lists and play around 1000-1500 pts.

IGOUGO has its advantages, or at least, Alternating Activations has its own set of disadvantages that have to be worked around. I dare say its inferior for games without a lot of build restrictions that allow for a large diversity in activation values. Both systems require elements to minimize their weaknesses and the quality of a game is usually more about how well the developers control those issues than the core mechanic itself.

I got back into 40k with 8th after playing in the 90's with 2nd and a very brief run with 4th edition. 8th's rules, minus the bloat of the supplement/campaign books that I avoid (I am not a tournament type player), have been a breath of fresh air in streamlining the core game, including the IGOUGO system that has been part of the game since as long as I can recall. However, the main problem with 40k IMO is the lethality of weapons and units now, leading to the first turn player having often having an unfair advantage. I don't remember earlier editions I played being so lethal with armies able to delete much of an opponents army in the first turn.

I picked up the latest Kill Team rules and have enjoyed the more balanced approach in that game with alternating shooting actions. Then I took a chance on the new Apocalypse rules, and have been really impressed by how a proper alternating activations system can work with 40k models even at lower point games, especially with damage determined at the end of the round for both sides. I never played Epic 40k which the new Apocalypse's rules are based on, but now I know why so many liked that system.

I had hoped that 9th would incorporate more aspects of the new Apocalypse system, including alternating activations, damage calculated at the end of the turn, and simplified universal special rules. But if the lethality of 8th can be toned down, I will give 9th a chance. If the lethality is the same or worse in 9th as I fear, then I will likely focus on playing Apocalypse and Kill Team more with my models, as I notice my models stay on the table and get much more use in those games.

 Gnarlly wrote:
I got back into 40k with 8th after playing in the 90's with 2nd and a very brief run with 4th edition. 8th's rules, minus the bloat of the supplement/campaign books that I avoid (I am not a tournament type player), have been a breath of fresh air in streamlining the core game, including the IGOUGO system that has been part of the game since as long as I can recall. However, the main problem with 40k IMO is the lethality of weapons and units now, leading to the first turn player having often having an unfair advantage. I don't remember earlier editions I played being so lethal with armies able to delete much of an opponents army in the first turn.

I picked up the latest Kill Team rules and have enjoyed the more balanced approach in that game with alternating shooting actions. Then I took a chance on the new Apocalypse rules, and have been really impressed by how a proper alternating activations system can work with 40k models even at lower point games, especially with damage determined at the end of the round for both sides. I never played Epic 40k which the new Apocalypse's rules are based on, but now I know why so many liked that system.

I had hoped that 9th would incorporate more aspects of the new Apocalypse system, including alternating activations, damage calculated at the end of the turn, and simplified universal special rules. But if the lethality of 8th can be toned down, I will give 9th a chance. If the lethality is the same or worse in 9th as I fear, then I will likely focus on playing Apocalypse and Kill Team more with my models, as I notice my models stay on the table and get much more use in those games.

Happened a lot in 2nd with power gamers.

Martel732 wrote:

 Gnarlly wrote:
I got back into 40k with 8th after playing in the 90's with 2nd and a very brief run with 4th edition. 8th's rules, minus the bloat of the supplement/campaign books that I avoid (I am not a tournament type player), have been a breath of fresh air in streamlining the core game, including the IGOUGO system that has been part of the game since as long as I can recall. However, the main problem with 40k IMO is the lethality of weapons and units now, leading to the first turn player having often having an unfair advantage. I don't remember earlier editions I played being so lethal with armies able to delete much of an opponents army in the first turn.

I picked up the latest Kill Team rules and have enjoyed the more balanced approach in that game with alternating shooting actions. Then I took a chance on the new Apocalypse rules, and have been really impressed by how a proper alternating activations system can work with 40k models even at lower point games, especially with damage determined at the end of the round for both sides. I never played Epic 40k which the new Apocalypse's rules are based on, but now I know why so many liked that system.

I had hoped that 9th would incorporate more aspects of the new Apocalypse system, including alternating activations, damage calculated at the end of the turn, and simplified universal special rules. But if the lethality of 8th can be toned down, I will give 9th a chance. If the lethality is the same or worse in 9th as I fear, then I will likely focus on playing Apocalypse and Kill Team more with my models, as I notice my models stay on the table and get much more use in those games.

Happened a lot in 2nd with power gamers.

True, though my friends and I at the time were not using a lot of characters or units like Space Wolf terminators with assault cannons and cyclone missile launchers. There always seem to be some broken units in 40k.

 Gnarlly wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Gnarlly wrote:
I got back into 40k with 8th after playing in the 90's with 2nd and a very brief run with 4th edition. 8th's rules, minus the bloat of the supplement/campaign books that I avoid (I am not a tournament type player), have been a breath of fresh air in streamlining the core game, including the IGOUGO system that has been part of the game since as long as I can recall. However, the main problem with 40k IMO is the lethality of weapons and units now, leading to the first turn player having often having an unfair advantage. I don't remember earlier editions I played being so lethal with armies able to delete much of an opponents army in the first turn.

I picked up the latest Kill Team rules and have enjoyed the more balanced approach in that game with alternating shooting actions. Then I took a chance on the new Apocalypse rules, and have been really impressed by how a proper alternating activations system can work with 40k models even at lower point games, especially with damage determined at the end of the round for both sides. I never played Epic 40k which the new Apocalypse's rules are based on, but now I know why so many liked that system.

I had hoped that 9th would incorporate more aspects of the new Apocalypse system, including alternating activations, damage calculated at the end of the turn, and simplified universal special rules. But if the lethality of 8th can be toned down, I will give 9th a chance. If the lethality is the same or worse in 9th as I fear, then I will likely focus on playing Apocalypse and Kill Team more with my models, as I notice my models stay on the table and get much more use in those games.

Happened a lot in 2nd with power gamers.

True, though my friends and I at the time were not using a lot of characters or units like Space Wolf terminators with assault cannons and cyclone missile launchers. There always seem to be some broken units in 40k.

Those were tame compared to the noise marines and eldar.

Siegfriedfr wrote:
There need to be a downside to get the first turn in some way.

This situation where the first player obliterates the other army and gain a decisive advantage cannot go on.

I'm hoping that new cover rules + CP per turn rather than all at once will somewhat mitigate the lethality of first strike, rendering an additional fix unnecessary.

I think alternating sub phases is our best bet at this point. With a roll off at the beginning of each sub phase to see who gains initiative to avoid having players make overly aggressive/defensive maneuvers.

There are so many variations on alternating activations you can go with, it's not just a choice between IGO UGO and 'one unit each alternating'.

For example:

Apocalypse's detachment activation
randomised activation using token/card draw
Roll for activations
Roll to see how many units activate



I've been thinking about one that goes like this:

During the round each player rolls 1d3 to determine how many units they can activate at this step. Whoever rolls the LOWEST activates them first. Once both players have activated the total number of units, roll again and repeat until all units in both forces have been activated.

TC should quit. Post your armies on ebay.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Fine. Sell your armies then and don't post here. Good bye.

If we got rid of all the people who claim [current edition] 40k is an awful game Dakka would lose like 70% of the people who post here.

It would be great. Those people contribute nothing.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Feel free to check the poll results of whether Apocalypse is better at being a 40k game than 40k is.

How many more years of unlimited turn one command points to lose half your army before you start playing do you really want?

guess what the preview implies command points are something you get per turn now rather then all in a lump sum at once...

 Ishagu wrote:
TC should quit. Post your armies on ebay.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Fine. Sell your armies then and don't post here. Good bye.

If we got rid of all the people who claim [current edition] 40k is an awful game Dakka would lose like 70% of the people who post here.

It would be great. Those people contribute nothing.

But your cheerleading and condescending attitude does?

BrianDavion wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Feel free to check the poll results of whether Apocalypse is better at being a 40k game than 40k is.

How many more years of unlimited turn one command points to lose half your army before you start playing do you really want?

guess what the preview implies command points are something you get per turn now rather then all in a lump sum at once...

Or its both..... B.c there are pregame stratagems like relics/wl traits, etc...

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
TC should quit. Post your armies on ebay.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Fine. Sell your armies then and don't post here. Good bye.

If we got rid of all the people who claim [current edition] 40k is an awful game Dakka would lose like 70% of the people who post here.

It would be great. Those people contribute nothing.

But your cheerleading and condescending attitude does?

I thought you said you were quitting and never playing again? Lol

Unlike you I love this hobby. I wouldn't spend my time discussing something which makes me miserable!

I never said that. Your usual terrible reading comprehension in play. I said I had played my last live game of 8th. Looks like i was 100% correct.

Martel732 wrote:
But your cheerleading and condescending attitude does?

A condescending attitude I can understand being an issue, but cheerleading? What's wrong with spreading a bit of optimism and enjoyment around?

I'd certainly prefer that over the kind of stuff we got in the OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I never said that. Your usual terrible reading comprehension in play. I said I had played my last live game of 8th. Looks like i was 100% correct.

So, if you're not playing, what are you doing? Painting? Collecting for the sake of it? There's nothing wrong with either of those two things, they're totally valid ways to enjoy the hobby - but if so, why get involved with discussions about the gaming side?

You don't see me jumping in on conversations about game systems I don't play.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
9th edition is already dead

Well, no. It's not. Objectively so. Demonstratively so. Maybe come out of your eternal darkness and see that.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Feel free to check the poll results of whether Apocalypse is better at being a 40k game than 40k is.

Wait... there's a poll? A poll??? Nobody told me there was a poll.

This. Changes. Everything.

Or doesn't, because, y'know, who cares about a poll here at Dakka about Apoc, a game GW abandoned almost the second they released it.

It would be great. Those people contribute nothing.

buddy, you blindly praise everything GW does.

We contribute actual thoughtful, legitimate criticism of a deeply, deeply flawed game.

You're the guy who says if you don't like it move to another country when someone brings up a problem with the system.

As if criticism doesn't come from a place of love. If we didn't like or love this game, why would we waste our time on here in a forum discussing it, trying to make it better?

Tough love, is still love.

I don't want to sound like a total donkey-cave here, but your unwavering jingoistic optimism is frankly vomit inducing.

Martel732 wrote:
I never said that. Your usual terrible reading comprehension in play. I said I had played my last live game of 8th. Looks like i was 100% correct.

This hobby makes you miserable. You really should walk away.

You know why I win? Because I'm happy! I love the game, it's the best it's ever been and it's about to get better. I love collecting, the lore, the models, etc.
You just sulk and complain. I've never seen anything to the contrary from you.
I have even seen you try to talk people out of joining the hobby. It's a bit depressing, really.

@Brutus_Apex

Actually most of the time you contribute nothing but whinging on subjective issues. It's funny when the complaining starts before the new edition has even dropped lol

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But your cheerleading and condescending attitude does?

A condescending attitude I can understand being an issue, but cheerleading? What's wrong with spreading a bit of optimism and enjoyment around?

I'd certainly prefer that over the kind of stuff we got in the OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I never said that. Your usual terrible reading comprehension in play. I said I had played my last live game of 8th. Looks like i was 100% correct.

So, if you're not playing, what are you doing? Painting? Collecting for the sake of it? There's nothing wrong with either of those two things, they're totally valid ways to enjoy the hobby - but if so, why get involved with discussions about the gaming side?

You don't see me jumping in on conversations about game systems I don't play.

Board game simulator? LIVE game. LIVE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I never said that. Your usual terrible reading comprehension in play. I said I had played my last live game of 8th. Looks like i was 100% correct.

This hobby makes you miserable. You really should walk away.

You know why I win? Because I'm happy! I love the game, it's the best it's ever been and it's about to get better. I love collecting, the lore, the models, etc.
You just sulk and complain. I've never seen anything to the contrary from you.
I have even seen you try to talk people out of joining the hobby. It's a bit depressing, really.

@Brutus_Apex

Actually most of the time you contribute nothing but whinging on subjective issues. It's funny when the complaining starts before the new edition has even dropped lol

If they don't remove tripoint, I'll be hard pressed to continue playing for sure.

Actually most of the time you contribute nothing but whinging on subjective issues

Actually, most of the time you contribute nothing except to be a troll to people trying to better the game.

like this for instance. You know I'm right, and you have nothing to say for yourself.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

It would be great. Those people contribute nothing.

buddy, you blindly praise everything GW does.

We contribute actual thoughtful, legitimate criticism of a deeply, deeply flawed game.

You're the guy who says if you don't like it move to another country when someone brings up a problem with the system.

As if criticism doesn't come from a place of love. If we didn't like or love this game, why would we waste our time on here in a forum discussing it, trying to make it better?

Tough love, is still love.

I don't want to sound like a total donkey-cave here, but your unwavering jingoistic optimism is frankly vomit inducing.

This is why the cheerleading is bad.

I enjoy the game and most of my biggest concerns are being addressed with the new edition. Why would I be critical until I've properly seen all it has to offer?

It's funny how everything I want seems to happen. Must be the power of optimism at play....

 Ishagu wrote:
I enjoy the game and most of my biggest concerns are being addressed with the new edition. Why would I be critical until I've properly seen all it has to offer?

It's funny how everything I want seems to happen. Must be the power of optimism at play....

Or you know ahead of time.

 Manchu wrote:
OP is being hyperbolic, clearly.

No, he's not. This started in the thread in N&R.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
... (didn't the whiteboard say something about no dice and coins?)...

That was a joke.

honestly I find cheerleading better then the constant "GW SUCKS! 40K SUCKS!" I mean.. I understand why someone like Ishagu is here, some people whom do nothing but say how aweful 40k's game system is, how aeful the fluff is, how aweful the factions are, there's a point when it's clear "you like NOTHING about 40k, so why are you here?"

honestly I find cheerleading better then the constant "GW SUCKS! 40K SUCKS!" I mean.. I understand why someone like Ishagu is here, some people whom do nothing but say how aweful 40k's game system is, how aeful the fluff is, how aweful the factions are, there's a point when it's clear "you like NOTHING about 40k, so why are you here?"

Yeah, I get that. It can be a total drag too.

I always try to let GW know when they've done a good job.

I'm loving the new Necrons, some of the new marines (finally got some knightly models) and the Sisters line was probably one of the best ever released.

I like a lot of the stories. Some are bad, whatever.

Truthfully, the game leaves a lot to be desired. It pretty much always has. And I'm not even a competitive player anymore. I like campaigns and fluffy armies. But some of the design flaws are too much to handle sometimes.

Brutus_Apex wrote:buddy, you blindly praise everything GW does.

Ishagu, perhaps. But me?

We contribute actual thoughtful, legitimate criticism of a deeply, deeply flawed game.

Some people. Not all. Not naming any names, but there's people who provide nothing constructive beyond "this game sucks, GW suck, you're bad if you enjoy this broken garbage".

There's a balance between "everything is awesome" and "everything sucks", but if I had to pick, I'm going to choose the one that fills me with at least a shred of positivity.

You're the guy who says if you don't like it move to another country when someone brings up a problem with the system.

This is a toy soldier board game. Not real life geopolitics with all the implications that some lives are worth more or less than others.

As if criticism doesn't come from a place of love. If we didn't like or love this game, why would we waste our time on here in a forum discussing it, trying to make it better?

Honestly, your guess is a good as mine, but I'm willing to bet all my armies that there's people who don't love the game, and complain because that's all they've got left to let them feel involved.

Tough love, is still love.

And shouting into an echo chamber is still not getting your voice heard.

I don't want to sound like a total donkey-cave here, but your unwavering jingoistic optimism is frankly vomit inducing.

I don't want to sound like a total donkey-cave, but some people unwavering hatred of all things GW is just depressing to see.

See, it swings both ways!

Martel732 wrote:Board game simulator? LIVE game. LIVE.

What's the difference between simulated 40k and live 40k? What's the miraculous digital panacea that somehow warms the cockles of your heart?

Martel732 wrote:This is why the cheerleading is bad.

I didn't see a single reason in there why cheerleading was bad. Or, at the very least, why it was any worse than endless negativity.

Hmm...what is it the kids say these days? Oh yes.....”BYE, Felicia!!!”

What's the difference between simulated 40k and live 40k?

A 40 minute drive and potential COVID exposure.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
But some of the design flaws are too much to handle sometimes.

Perhaps, perhaps. But that doesn't mean they're "toxic", or "degenerate", or "dead in the water". It doesn't excuse the overwhelming hatred some users have, the kind that genuinely makes me wonder why they even bother to remain part of the hobby.

As I'm sure you'll appreciate, there's a great difference between criticising things, putting those criticisms in the appropriate channels without airing them over and over in the same place, and what we see on Dakka.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You say you don't mind it. That doesn't mean you like it.

So the real question is whether you LIKE waiting for half an hour or just accept it for what it is. The latter implies there's a problem.

No, it means it's not a problem in my gaming experience, and I have no objection to it being in the game. What I expect out of Kill Team (which is AA) and 40k (which is IGOUGO) are managed by what I expect from those systems, and I enjoy them in their own respective manners appropriately.

I see no problem personally.

Honestly that's just the attitude of settling for it. You ought to expect better of GW.

Martel732 wrote:
What's the difference between simulated 40k and live 40k?

A 40 minute drive and potential COVID exposure.

If I recall correctly, you were announcing your retirement from live 40k before COVID. So, let's leave that one out, shall we? As for the 40 minute drive, understandable. But still doesn't explain why you even bother to play 40k if you feel so permanently negative about it, judging from your posts.

Deadnight wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You say you don't mind it. That doesn't mean you like it.

So the real question is whether you LIKE waiting for half an hour or just accept it for what it is. The latter implies there's a problem.

Not at all.

Things aren't EXTREME ZERO/SUM Slayer. Not minding something doesn't imply 'there's a problem' at all.

I don't mind crime shows on tv.

I don't mind my wife's favourite bands.

I don't mind the colour red.

Nothing there implies there is a problem. Or that I have a problem with any of these things. At worst, it implies neutrality.

Now regarding liking Igougo, it's necessary for certain styles of game. Synergy/Combo-focussed games like Warmachine work because you have full access to your army and full control of your turn in order to work the gears in the right way. I enjoyed Warmachine for years.

Heck, Igougo doesn't even necessarily prevent active countering on the part of the other person - take for example games like infinity (interrupted Igougo) or gw's old lotr sbg (and plenty historicals) with their broken phase Igougo.

War machine is also a mostly melee focused game with a team of writers that TRY for balance. It would still be better with an AA system anyway. IGOUGO is not interactive at all, so how is that a good gaming experience?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You say you don't mind it. That doesn't mean you like it.

So the real question is whether you LIKE waiting for half an hour or just accept it for what it is. The latter implies there's a problem.

No, it means it's not a problem in my gaming experience, and I have no objection to it being in the game. What I expect out of Kill Team (which is AA) and 40k (which is IGOUGO) are managed by what I expect from those systems, and I enjoy them in their own respective manners appropriately.

I see no problem personally.

Honestly that's just the attitude of settling for it.

No, that's the attitude of enjoying what I have. That's like saying "if you're not a millionaire, you're just settling for being poor". I'm happy with enough money to put food on the table, and I'm happy with IGOUGO.

You ought to expect better of GW.

With all due respect, I'll follow my expectations and standards, not yours. I "ought" to do nothing.

By all means, you're free to hold your own, but they're not an objective standard.

PenitentJake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Continuing with the highly degenerate and toxic UGO/IGO system is pointless.

They've got several other games using alternating activations which are all universally considered better than 8th, yet they've chosen to ignore it.

No reason to even read more about 9th.

I won't tell you to quit and sell your models (though it's an option).

But I will tell you to play Kill Team or Apocalypse and leave the rest of us alone. Only because this topic comes up all the time, and I always write lengthy posts that are diplomatic and polite. It is perhaps unfair to assume that you are the same person, or one of the group who consistently post this, but there you have it.

I've been politely pointing out for two years that you can solve your own problem, and that if you refuse to do so, it is a choice. And only you are in charge of your choices.

For those of us that have enjoyed IGOUGO for 31 uninterrupted years, when GW says: the game you love, only better, well, we're the ones they are talking to; I respect AA games. They are fun- I have two by GW that I can play. 40k is what I play when I feel like a break from AA, which is frequently, because AA games don't let you take breaks

But I guess some people prefer a world where only they win to a world where everybody wins, so some people will always suggest modifying everything to fit their desires rather than using the tools they've already been given.

Why are you playing to take a break? Why bother to even get out models if you have a sensation of "I can't wait for the opponent to take their turn so I can do nothing for half an hour?" At that point...why even pick up a game?

Because I'm one of those people for whom a games night is a social event. When we play 40k, it's usually a kid of party. Theirs usually two or three other people in the room who may not be playing, and we're there to visit them as much as we are to play the game. I know a lot of people who post on Dakka don't share that experience, because the average Dakka user seems to play in stores and at tournaments; seldom have I done so in my 31 years of playing (though it has happened once or twice, it is never as fun as campaigning beer hammer).

It is also for this reason that I think Dakka is sometimes unaware of how many players like me exist; we're there, I assure you. I also believe we outnumber tournament players, but not as many of us post here, so it's easy to underestimate our numbers when Dakka is your goto frame of reference.

I have also used this analogy:

AA is like Tennis, Basket Ball, or Hockey- it's fast paced and exciting all the way through and some people prefer that.
IGOUGO is like American football or Baseball, which both have distinctive offense/ defense phases that create a specific rhythm that other people prefer.

Most people who have difficulty seeing it when viewed through the lens of warhammer can see the contrast more easily when talking about sports- especially those who like both, because they know that the feelings that get from each sport is different, and that sometimes you're in the mood for one and sometimes the other.

And that does describe me too, because sometimes I feel like high energy AA. When I do, I play Kill Team, Apocalypse or Blackstone instead of playing 40k when I know it isn't what in the mood for and then whining about it on the Internet. See how everybody wins and I win twice because I like both styles at different times and GW is awesome enough toi give me all the tools that I need to be a grown up and solve my own problems?

Are we clear yet, or will you not be happy until everything in the world is designed for you and only you?

You don't need a game for what you're describing then. Also to say Baseball and Football are IGOUGO is completely inaccurate because when the player hits or catches the ball the other team doesn't sit there twiddling their thumbs. There's actual tactical interaction which the current system has 0%. Unless you think defensive Strats of "oh please don't kill me just yet" are somehow interactive.

I don't want to sound like a total donkey-cave, but some people unwavering hatred of all things GW is just depressing to see.

See, it swings both ways!

I agree, and I never said I hated GW. Actually, based on some articles I've read recently. I'd say they are a very stand up company. Keeping most of their production in the UK to keep people working, paying full taxes without attempting to use off shore banking accounts and only expanding when they have the financial capability to do so are all very admirable qualities in a company in this day and age. Thats one of the reasons I don't mind paying their prices, that and fortunately I have a job that can afford me that luxury.

Perhaps, perhaps. But that doesn't mean they're "toxic", or "degenerate", or "dead in the water". It doesn't excuse the overwhelming hatred some users have, the kind that genuinely makes me wonder why they even bother to remain part of the hobby.

As I'm sure you'll appreciate, there's a great difference between criticising things, putting those criticisms in the appropriate channels without airing them over and over in the same place, and what we see on Dakka.

I'm not going to defend terms like toxic or degenerate or whatever. It is still a game. Obviously, this topic is a prime example of Dakka hyperbolic rhetoric. I often use hyperbole too, but mostly as a joke. But at the heart of it, he has a point about the IGOUGO system.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You say you don't mind it. That doesn't mean you like it.

So the real question is whether you LIKE waiting for half an hour or just accept it for what it is. The latter implies there's a problem.

No, it means it's not a problem in my gaming experience, and I have no objection to it being in the game. What I expect out of Kill Team (which is AA) and 40k (which is IGOUGO) are managed by what I expect from those systems, and I enjoy them in their own respective manners appropriately.

I see no problem personally.

Honestly that's just the attitude of settling for it.

No, that's the attitude of enjoying what I have. That's like saying "if you're not a millionaire, you're just settling for being poor". I'm happy with enough money to put food on the table, and I'm happy with IGOUGO.

You ought to expect better of GW.

With all due respect, I'll follow my expectations and standards, not yours. I "ought" to do nothing.

By all means, you're free to hold your own, but they're not an objective standard.

A more accurate statement would be that you're settling for a terrible pay at your job but you stay with it because you get some food on the table.

Brutus_Apex wrote:

I don't want to sound like a total donkey-cave, but some people unwavering hatred of all things GW is just depressing to see.

See, it swings both ways!

I agree, and I never said I hated GW. Actually, based on some articles I've read recently. I'd say they are a very stand up company. Keeping most of their production in the UK to keep people working, paying full taxes without attempting to use off shore banking accounts and only expanding when they have the financial capability to do so are all very admirable qualities in a company in this day and age. Thats one of the reasons I don't mind paying their prices, that and fortunately I have a job that can afford me that luxury.

Perhaps, perhaps. But that doesn't mean they're "toxic", or "degenerate", or "dead in the water". It doesn't excuse the overwhelming hatred some users have, the kind that genuinely makes me wonder why they even bother to remain part of the hobby.

As I'm sure you'll appreciate, there's a great difference between criticising things, putting those criticisms in the appropriate channels without airing them over and over in the same place, and what we see on Dakka.

I'm not going to defend terms like toxic or degenerate or whatever. It is still a game. Obviously, this topic is a prime example of Dakka hyperbolic rhetoric. I often use hyperbole too, but mostly as a joke. But at the heart of it, he has a point about the IGOUGO system.

I respect that they feel that IGOUGO is a bad system, and they're more than entitled to their opinions on it. But if they're so apoplectic with anger and rage about it being in 9th edition that they're going to use the phrases they have, why bother sticking around? If they're *that* bothered by it, is it not better for them to put their time into another, superior game?

Again, criticism = fine. Unending, ceaseless criticism followed up by "GW are trash/this game is trash/you're trash for enjoying it" = not fine by me.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:A more accurate statement would be that you're settling for a terrible pay at your job but you stay with it because you get some food on the table.

Terrible pay is relative. Millionaires would call the wages of some of their own employees terrible, but that's because of their lofty standards. If I'm living happily (or, as happily as one can in the current climate), I'm not settling. I have no incentive to break my back to reach ever higher if I'm perfectly content and enjoying what I have. The same extent applies to my hobby.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What's the difference between simulated 40k and live 40k?

A 40 minute drive and potential COVID exposure.

If I recall correctly, you were announcing your retirement from live 40k before COVID. So, let's leave that one out, shall we? As for the 40 minute drive, understandable. But still doesn't explain why you even bother to play 40k if you feel so permanently negative about it, judging from your posts.

I don't even remember anymore. Pretty sure I was talking about live games of 8th ed due to the drive. Drive 40 min both way, be forced to use tactics I hate was not doing it for me.

Even I'm not saying it's dead in the water. But they need to fix fallback and tripoint for me continue to have any interest.

"I'd say they are a very stand up company. Keeping most of their production in the UK to keep people working, paying full taxes without attempting to use off shore banking accounts and only expanding when they have the financial capability to do so are all very admirable qualities in a company in this day and age"

Or they're too stupid and don't understand real life rules, either.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Brutus_Apex wrote:

I don't want to sound like a total donkey-cave, but some people unwavering hatred of all things GW is just depressing to see.

See, it swings both ways!

I agree, and I never said I hated GW. Actually, based on some articles I've read recently. I'd say they are a very stand up company. Keeping most of their production in the UK to keep people working, paying full taxes without attempting to use off shore banking accounts and only expanding when they have the financial capability to do so are all very admirable qualities in a company in this day and age. Thats one of the reasons I don't mind paying their prices, that and fortunately I have a job that can afford me that luxury.

Perhaps, perhaps. But that doesn't mean they're "toxic", or "degenerate", or "dead in the water". It doesn't excuse the overwhelming hatred some users have, the kind that genuinely makes me wonder why they even bother to remain part of the hobby.

As I'm sure you'll appreciate, there's a great difference between criticising things, putting those criticisms in the appropriate channels without airing them over and over in the same place, and what we see on Dakka.

I'm not going to defend terms like toxic or degenerate or whatever. It is still a game. Obviously, this topic is a prime example of Dakka hyperbolic rhetoric. I often use hyperbole too, but mostly as a joke. But at the heart of it, he has a point about the IGOUGO system.

I respect that they feel that IGOUGO is a bad system, and they're more than entitled to their opinions on it. But if they're so apoplectic with anger and rage about it being in 9th edition that they're going to use the phrases they have, why bother sticking around? If they're *that* bothered by it, is it not better for them to put their time into another, superior game?

Again, criticism = fine. Unending, ceaseless criticism followed up by "GW are trash/this game is trash/you're trash for enjoying it" = not fine by me.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:A more accurate statement would be that you're settling for a terrible pay at your job but you stay with it because you get some food on the table.

Terrible pay is relative. Millionaires would call the wages of some of their own employees terrible, but that's because of their lofty standards. If I'm living happily (or, as happily as one can in the current climate), I'm not settling. I have no incentive to break my back to reach ever higher if I'm perfectly content and enjoying what I have. The same extent applies to my hobby.

Happily living only for a current state of mind though is key. Also the only reason most people don't finally wall away is because trying to start new groups is a pain in the ass. So yeah they actually have standards and want better rules.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

We also have people put off by AA (especially newer players as a whole game can fall apart for you if you screw up sequencing), so having one game that doesn't use it while Kill Team and Apoc do seems fair. We have three ways to engage with the setting in minature format and it seems silly to demand they all be the same.

AA isn't difficult for new players. I have had more new players decide to not buy in because they got bored watching me do a million things on my turn then they ever did with any amount of complexity.

Igougo is boring. That is it's greatest sin. The sheer volume of consecutive downtime for players. Arguing that new players would find it difficult to do some degree of tactical thinking and planning on a miniature wargame I would argue is counter to wanting to play a miniature war game where tactical thinking and planning should be the single most important factor in deciding games.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I can’t tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with Kid_Kyoto.

I'm at the point where I think 3 of us could write a better rule system over a pint at the bar.

But that's not the point. GW is not in business to write great rules, they never have. Their business is synergizing cool models and complex ever-changing rules that require heavy buy in and monthly commitments (in time and attention at least if not in money) to keep up.

And well, I'm here, so obviously it works. However many times I have thrown up my hands and said THAT'S IT!

So basically I think this thread is 'Young Man Yells at Cloud'.

But we should at least know why things are like this.

I'd argue that they're nailing it pretty well from the sounds of the improvements over 8th, but I feel people mistake the end goal of the rules. 8th edition (and by extension 9th) are written with the goal of being more accessible to players both new and old. They've done a lot to improve the game's ability to be picked up and played by basically anyone and 9th looks like it's cleaning up rules interactions (introducing new phases and steps inside of phases to clear up when rules trigger for example) and levelling the playing field for people in terms of CP and the like.

By the metric of accessiblity the rules are pretty damn good. Are they perfect? No, but that's why we're getting 9th. Will 9th be perfect with no flaws and never need updating? Not likely, but it'll be easier to pick up and play than 8th was which still meets their design goals.

The impression I've gotten over the years community seems to think the only successful version of a game is one that is perfectly balanced and never needs updating. There is no such game anywhere. Even Chess developed new game types (speed chess for example) and evolved rules over time, and it's considered on of the most complete games in existence. Some people think AA will cure all the games possible woes. Others say changing the dice will. Some say we need to do both. Ect. Ect. Ect.

There is no perfect game. But there are good games that meet the intent of the creators pretty well, and I feel 40k is one of those games.

That said, we all have things we'd like to see in the game in the future. I mean personally I'd still like casualties pulled at the end of game turn like Apoc does, but that's more because it negates first turn advantage while giving both players a fair shot at impacting the game state regardless of how turn mechanics work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Why are you playing to take a break? Why bother to even get out models if you have a sensation of "I can't wait for the opponent to take their turn so I can do nothing for half an hour?" At that point...why even pick up a game?

Some people are fine with IGOUGO, and don't mind not being active for half an hour. Others don't, and some of those people hate it so much that they make threads clearly brooking no discussion like this one. Why are those people still active in the community? At that point, why even pick up their fingers to type?

Heck, some people take the time to think about what their opponent is doing and plan their turns so they don't have to think about what they're doing so much on their own turn. AA doesn't give you that freedom, meaning more time on the clock thinking about what you need to be doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think 9th being IGOUGO was inevitable. It's disappointing, perhaps, but not something I'd consider a deal-breaker.

My main concern, however, is that I'm not convinced 9th is going to actually fix any of the other problems with 8th.

Agree but maybee fw Indexes and some of the more ridicoulousness gets Toned down a bit?

The new FW books being released for 9th were written by the main studio. If anything, they'll be toned UP.

I'd be more impressed if they made them somehow worse. Namely because I'm not sure it's possible at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
AA isn't difficult for new players. I have had more new players decide to not buy in because they got bored watching me do a million things on my turn then they ever did with any amount of complexity.

Igougo is boring. That is it's greatest sin. The sheer volume of consecutive downtime for players. Arguing that new players would find it difficult to do some degree of tactical thinking and planning on a miniature wargame I would argue is counter to wanting to play a miniature war game where tactical thinking and planning should be the single most important factor in deciding games.

AA can put off new players depending on how it's written, especially if you don't know rules of your opponent's army well enough to avoid "gotchas" where you should have activated in a different order to deal with the issue.

I'm not saying they're bad, I'm just saying that they can have a higher bar to get into for new players.

As for "boring" that's relative. I prefer to spend my time planning my moves relative to my opponent's turn, discussing intent, reminding them of rules I have, or stuff they forgot. I stay engaged even when I'm not rolling dice. Engagement is what you make it, and if you make it only the moments you're actively rolling dice you're going to find yourself less engaged.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
2nd-4th editions were great IGO/UGO game systems. When warhammer 40k entered its dark years (5,6,7) some of the quirks associated with the system really became apparent. If 9th tones down the lethality of alpha striking IGO/UGO will be fine. It is understandably frustrating for a player to spend all the time and energy in putting an army on the table only to watch it get tabled in the first shooting phase.

2nd ed was a great IGO/UGO system. That 'dark time' you reference started in 3rd edition, with the streamlining of the game resulting in the non-active player having less to do in their opponent's turn, coinciding with it becoming easier to wipe out multiple, entire units in a single round.

The problem with 40K post 2nd ed isn't IGO/UGO specifically... it's that it's too easy to kill things, and that there's little in the way of two-player involvement happening for most of the turn. If you're going to have a game with turns that can stretch out for an hour or more, you absolutely need mechanics in there that keep both players involved, and you need to give players a chance to use their units before they get removed as casualties.

The funny thing is, I think the average person with no history of table top gaming leans towards alternating activations.

Every single time I show this game to friends who want to try it out, they assume we alternate activations. I have to tell them that each player uses their whole army at one time, and they don't seem to understand why it's played that way.

They seem to get it, I don't know why GW doesn't.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The funny thing is, I think the average person with no history of table top gaming leans towards alternating activations.

Every single time I show this game to friends who want to try it out, they assume we alternate activations. I have to tell them that each player uses their whole army at one time, and they don't seem to understand why it's played that way.

They seem to get it, I don't know why GW doesn't.

Probably because your evidence is anecdotal and doesn't represent a meaningful sample size of anything?

 insaniak wrote:

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
2nd-4th editions were great IGO/UGO game systems. When warhammer 40k entered its dark years (5,6,7) some of the quirks associated with the system really became apparent. If 9th tones down the lethality of alpha striking IGO/UGO will be fine. It is understandably frustrating for a player to spend all the time and energy in putting an army on the table only to watch it get tabled in the first shooting phase.

2nd ed was a great IGO/UGO system. That 'dark time' you reference started in 3rd edition, with the streamlining of the game resulting in the non-active player having less to do in their opponent's turn, coinciding with it becoming easier to wipe out multiple, entire units in a single round.

The problem with 40K post 2nd ed isn't IGO/UGO specifically... it's that it's too easy to kill things, and that there's little in the way of two-player involvement happening for most of the turn. If you're going to have a game with turns that can stretch out for an hour or more, you absolutely need mechanics in there that keep both players involved, and you need to give players a chance to use their units before they get removed as casualties.

Agreed and even if you stuck with a IGO/UGO system you can make the gameplay more interactive and give waiting player opportunities to perform defensive or reactive actions in response to the opponents actions.

Sadly I don't think GW has learned this and will continue to front load the game to be extremely lethal. I feel 8th can best be described as the blood bath edition and each update/codex just ratchets up the killing power more.

 Vankraken wrote:

Agreed and even if you stuck with a IGO/UGO system you can make the gameplay more interactive and give waiting player opportunities to perform defensive or reactive actions in response to the opponents actions.

Sadly I don't think GW has learned this and will continue to front load the game to be extremely lethal. I feel 8th can best be described as the blood bath edition and each update/codex just ratchets up the killing power more.

Obscuring terrain should decrease some of that lethality, and the less buffs we can see stacked onto single rolls should weaken some of that shooting.

It's too early to tell, but GW seems to have been doing stuff to make the game more balanced.

 Vankraken wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
2nd-4th editions were great IGO/UGO game systems. When warhammer 40k entered its dark years (5,6,7) some of the quirks associated with the system really became apparent. If 9th tones down the lethality of alpha striking IGO/UGO will be fine. It is understandably frustrating for a player to spend all the time and energy in putting an army on the table only to watch it get tabled in the first shooting phase.

2nd ed was a great IGO/UGO system. That 'dark time' you reference started in 3rd edition, with the streamlining of the game resulting in the non-active player having less to do in their opponent's turn, coinciding with it becoming easier to wipe out multiple, entire units in a single round.

The problem with 40K post 2nd ed isn't IGO/UGO specifically... it's that it's too easy to kill things, and that there's little in the way of two-player involvement happening for most of the turn. If you're going to have a game with turns that can stretch out for an hour or more, you absolutely need mechanics in there that keep both players involved, and you need to give players a chance to use their units before they get removed as casualties.

Agreed and even if you stuck with a IGO/UGO system you can make the gameplay more interactive and give waiting player opportunities to perform defensive or reactive actions in response to the opponents actions.

Sadly I don't think GW has learned this and will continue to front load the game to be extremely lethal. I feel 8th can best be described as the blood bath edition and each update/codex just ratchets up the killing power more.

That's exactly what's happening. A lot of the fundamentals of 8E were good ideas from the previous era, and honestly I like what I'm hearing out of 9E as a core rule set, but I think where the problems are is the armies themselves, they're just so insanely killy that it kinda overwhelms almost any rules system you'd put them in, and GW's approach to balance issues has largely been to make stuff even killier or cheaper (or both) and ensuring that nothing is impossible to destroy. In some ways that's been good because we haven't seen the deathstar units of previous editions that people hated, but at the same time, particularly coupled with IGOUGO, it's far too easy to destroy an opponent simply based on first turn.

I'm encouraged by what we are hearing about terrain and whatnot, but at the same time the new Admech rules seem to be a further escalation of that killing power.

 insaniak wrote:
The problem with 40K post 2nd ed isn't IGO/UGO specifically... it's that it's too easy to kill things, and that there's little in the way of two-player involvement happening for most of the turn. If you're going to have a game with turns that can stretch out for an hour or more, you absolutely need mechanics in there that keep both players involved, and you need to give players a chance to use their units before they get removed as casualties.

I think this is reflected in 8th Ed quite a bit.

 Ishagu wrote:
TC should quit. Post your armies on ebay.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Fine. Sell your armies then and don't post here. Good bye.

If we got rid of all the people who claim [current edition] 40k is an awful game Dakka would lose like 70% of the people who post here.

It would be great. Those people contribute nothing.

Should I take that personally or....?
Maybe you just mean in general?
Because I am having some trouble reconciling your words with facts.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The funny thing is, I think the average person with no history of table top gaming leans towards alternating activations.

Every single time I show this game to friends who want to try it out, they assume we alternate activations. I have to tell them that each player uses their whole army at one time, and they don't seem to understand why it's played that way.

They seem to get it, I don't know why GW doesn't.

Probably because your evidence is anecdotal and doesn't represent a meaningful sample size of anything?

Why is it strange someone that doesn't know anything about the game would assume both players would make meaningful decisions instead of just waiting for someone's Tau to shoot you and you aren't shooting back?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
2nd-4th editions were great IGO/UGO game systems. When warhammer 40k entered its dark years (5,6,7) some of the quirks associated with the system really became apparent. If 9th tones down the lethality of alpha striking IGO/UGO will be fine. It is understandably frustrating for a player to spend all the time and energy in putting an army on the table only to watch it get tabled in the first shooting phase.

2nd ed was a great IGO/UGO system. That 'dark time' you reference started in 3rd edition, with the streamlining of the game resulting in the non-active player having less to do in their opponent's turn, coinciding with it becoming easier to wipe out multiple, entire units in a single round.

The problem with 40K post 2nd ed isn't IGO/UGO specifically... it's that it's too easy to kill things, and that there's little in the way of two-player involvement happening for most of the turn. If you're going to have a game with turns that can stretch out for an hour or more, you absolutely need mechanics in there that keep both players involved, and you need to give players a chance to use their units before they get removed as casualties.

Except there are no mechanics besides Overwatch and the occasional "have a harder time killing THIS unit" Strats, which really aren't interactive to be honest.

 insaniak wrote:

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
2nd-4th editions were great IGO/UGO game systems. When warhammer 40k entered its dark years (5,6,7) some of the quirks associated with the system really became apparent. If 9th tones down the lethality of alpha striking IGO/UGO will be fine. It is understandably frustrating for a player to spend all the time and energy in putting an army on the table only to watch it get tabled in the first shooting phase.

2nd ed was a great IGO/UGO system. That 'dark time' you reference started in 3rd edition, with the streamlining of the game resulting in the non-active player having less to do in their opponent's turn, coinciding with it becoming easier to wipe out multiple, entire units in a single round.

The problem with 40K post 2nd ed isn't IGO/UGO specifically... it's that it's too easy to kill things, and that there's little in the way of two-player involvement happening for most of the turn. If you're going to have a game with turns that can stretch out for an hour or more, you absolutely need mechanics in there that keep both players involved, and you need to give players a chance to use their units before they get removed as casualties.

I am constantly puzzled as to why GW doesn’t revisit 2nd ed more, spirit and substance. It was their real launching point. Most of the purchasing power resides with this demographic, including 50yr old cats buying for their kids. Including.. gasp.. templates.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
AA isn't difficult for new players. I have had more new players decide to not buy in because they got bored watching me do a million things on my turn then they ever did with any amount of complexity.

Igougo is boring. That is it's greatest sin. The sheer volume of consecutive downtime for players. Arguing that new players would find it difficult to do some degree of tactical thinking and planning on a miniature wargame I would argue is counter to wanting to play a miniature war game where tactical thinking and planning should be the single most important factor in deciding games.

AA can put off new players depending on how it's written, especially if you don't know rules of your opponent's army well enough to avoid "gotchas" where you should have activated in a different order to deal with the issue.

I'm not saying they're bad, I'm just saying that they can have a higher bar to get into for new players.

As for "boring" that's relative. I prefer to spend my time planning my moves relative to my opponent's turn, discussing intent, reminding them of rules I have, or stuff they forgot. I stay engaged even when I'm not rolling dice. Engagement is what you make it, and if you make it only the moments you're actively rolling dice you're going to find yourself less engaged.

You know what's a bigger "gotcha" moment? Killing half the new player's army and telling them to make a comeback.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except there are no mechanics besides Overwatch and the occasional "have a harder time killing THIS unit" Strats, which really aren't interactive to be honest.

There was more to it than that, but you choose to ignore less lethality, effectively and factually much larger table, more concern for positioning and maneuvering and even model placement and orientation... watching these finer points come together was in and of itself more engaging, like a drama unfolding... current edition games are more like card games with expensive chits. Like watching solitaire.

 jeff white wrote:

I am constantly puzzled as to why GW doesn’t revisit 2nd ed more, spirit and substance. It was their real launching point. Most of the purchasing power resides with this demographic, including 50yr old cats buying for their kids. Including.. gasp.. templates.

I imagine largely because armies would be half or a third the size in order to play games that will fit into a couple of hours, and selling big expensive toys like Knights which have high margins but only minimally increased variable costs over things like Troops kits don't fit into that scale terribly well, and even what was in 2E had issues with scale in many ways as they fleshed out different armies. They are a model company first and foremost, they want people to amass and play with large collections, which is fine, but precludes a ruleset like 2E, where a typical Space Marine army might only be two dozen models, and even a "horde" army like IG or Orks might be less than 50 models at 1500pts (IIRC the 2E IG codex example army is is 47 models, including 2 vehicles), it puts a damper on that business plan.

When comparing igo/ugo to AA one has to remember that the AA systems are not all the same. GW has it's own variations like the new kill teams (far to complex for large scale games) and the new apocalypse (that may be to simple for regular scale games, but some of the mechanics could work out)

lets look at 3 different AA systems

1.heavy gear-
.you roll initiative every turn
.each player activates a single unit of minis back and forth, and they do their moving and shooting/close combat the balance comes into play in the fact that there is reaction fire(if you are close enough) as well as the defending player getting to roll counter (think of them as dodging) dice against every attack.

2.classic battletech
.again initiative is rolled every turn
.movement is the key deciding strategy as you alternate movements. notice it is not units for example if i have 5 units and you have 4 left there will be a total of 4 moves on both sides. the player with the larger number of units will have to move 2 at once to maintain parity.
.shooting and close combat happen at the same time after all movement is done by both players. so even if a unit dies it still gets to shoot or swing in CC.

3. DUST 1947
.initiative is rolled at the start of every turn-you see a pattern here used to prevent one sided games as you never know who goes first next round.
.similar to battletech as you alternate movements players with less models can choose to "pass" on moving units so that the number of moves are equal however it is not required.
.unlike battletech however all the actions of a unit are done at once. every unit gets a minimum of 2 actions(unless they have a special 3rd) and they can be any combination movement/shooting/close combat/special skill (in the case of command squads and special characters). however every unit in the game that has not already activated that turn has a chance to roll to react and interrupt the actions of the active unit. the reactive distance is limited to a blanket of 16" standard and 24" for anti-air units.

the equivalent of a 40K 2k game in dust at between 150-200 points still doesn't take very long, often times not going past turn 3 and taking less time to play. however so much stuff is happening for both players in each full turn, often time by turn 3 both armies are pretty well mauled.

Each one of these examples has it's own strengths and weaknesses, however overall it tends to lead to much more enjoyable gameplay for BOTH players in my experience given the entire body of rules for these systems over what 40K has become using the igo/ugo system.

I didn't mention infinity that uses a complete reactive system as it really isn't designed to work above a skirmish level game with insane amounts of blocking LOS terrain.

And that is indeed part of the problem. GW wants more and more models on the board at any given time to facilitate buying more models. The more units on the table the more abstractions they're going to want to take, while skimping on model-by-model micro management.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
And that is indeed part of the problem. GW wants more and more models on the board at any given time to facilitate buying more models. The more units on the table the more abstractions they're going to want to take, while skimping on model-by-model micro management.

which is why I've long said AA won't work in 40k without a major revision. I play battletech, the init system wouldn't work with 40k. a long "all day" battletech game is absolutely tiny compared to 40k.

BrianDavion wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
And that is indeed part of the problem. GW wants more and more models on the board at any given time to facilitate buying more models. The more units on the table the more abstractions they're going to want to take, while skimping on model-by-model micro management.

which is why I've long said AA won't work in 40k without a major revision. I play battletech, the init system wouldn't work with 40k. a long "all day" battletech game is absolutely tiny compared to 40k.

The sizecreep in General hurt 40k though, an igougo System that has place for smart manouvering and decent cover rules like early editions of 40k had, was a lot less lethal,whilest the smaller gamesize Cut down in waiting even if overwatch at the time wasn't a thing making the game in General alot more interactive overall.

Personally i have stopped playing 1500+ pts Games because it feels more then apocalypse without the better rules for that size game aswell as just in General a feel of collapsing balance in General after that point. It also doesn't help that 8th was marred with Bad Design for Terrain if you can even call it that .

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Continuing with the highly degenerate and toxic UGO/IGO system is pointless.

They've got several other games using alternating activations which are all universally considered better than 8th, yet they've chosen to ignore it.

No reason to even read more about 9th.

Honestly yep.
The whole "I kill 1/3rd of your army you kill 1/6th of my army and we decide the game turn 1" rubbish is old.
In earlier editions it wasn't so bad as it wasn't quite as deadly.
But now... Its boring.
But it's GW... And the majority of the fanbase doesn't want improvements. They want stagnation because it's safe and bland.

 jeff white wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except there are no mechanics besides Overwatch and the occasional "have a harder time killing THIS unit" Strats, which really aren't interactive to be honest.

There was more to it than that, but you choose to ignore less lethality, effectively and factually much larger table, more concern for positioning and maneuvering and even model placement and orientation... watching these finer points come together was in and of itself more engaging, like a drama unfolding... current edition games are more like card games with expensive chits. Like watching solitaire.

It still wasn't very interactive then. If you'd take off those rose tinted sunglasses you'd know that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

War machine is also a mostly melee focused game with a team of writers that TRY for balance.

No. They tried for technical writing. Their games are not balanced. At least by the lofty and impossible standards folks like yourself seem to demand.

At best, the balance of WMH was 'more or less good enough, some of the time'. And despite this, they left plenty howlers through the gate and didn't bother fixing for years - ask anyone who had to deal with cryx in mk2, or the likes of epic Haley.

If that's 'trying', and you seem happy to let them off the hook, maybe you should consider cutting gw some slack.

Oh, and there's plenty guns in WMH. Ranged armies have plenty abilities and roles.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It would still be better with an AA system anyway.

No, it wouldn't. it would destroy one of the core elements of WMH, which is the synergy building nature of the game. Like it or not, that is the nature of the game.

Plus, you know, times turns and chess clocks.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

IGOUGO is not interactive at all, so how is that a good gaming experience?

Actually no, This is blatantly false Slayer.

Igougo can be plenty interactive. You should actually try reading what people say because I already talked about this.

Take for example Infinity. Infinity is probably the most technically brilliant wargame out there. It is Igougo. And yet it allows for so much interactivity the tag line for the game is basically that 'it's always your turn'.

Beyond that, Take for example various historicals, or even gw's excellent old lotr sbg game. Igougo. And yet by the nature of the turn structure, they allows for a great amount of player reactivity and interactivity. Move/move. Shoot/shoot. Resolve close combat.

Biggest issue with 40k is the damage output mated to the range of the guns, not necessarily Igougo.

You need to get over this obsession with alternative activation. Aa is absolutely fine. There's nothing wrong with it. Igougo in its various forms is also absolutely fine.

As to how it's a good gaming experience - it depends entirely on the type of game you are playing and who you are playing against. I've had great Igougo games, and terrible aa games. Almost like the turn structure had very little to do with it....

I wonder how people imagine the game becoming less deadly, when for all we know the new basic game may end up being 2250pts or better yet it is going to be 1750, but everything had it costs slashed by 2/3.

But this is my first edition switch, so expiriance wise, all I know is based on stories from other.

Who knows maybe everyone is going to play games that are 1500pts in todays army size, or crusade all 9th edition.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Continuing with the highly degenerate and toxic UGO/IGO system is pointless.

They've got several other games using alternating activations which are all universally considered better than 8th, yet they've chosen to ignore it.

No reason to even read more about 9th.

Lol. I know that preorders aren't "actually up" yet for the new edition boxes, but my local store already has a list of 39 people who want to preorder as soon as the box is available. Our local store is extremely small too. I for one am extremely excited. 8th edition has been the most fun I've had playing 40K, I've had hundreds of amazing games and two full years of LVO fun as well with this edition. 8.5/9.0 is going to make it even better! Can't wait to get my hands on those amazing new Necron sculpts!

Good for you, my army good fun rules at the very end of 8th, and then corona hit, so I didn't even get to play for it besides 3 games. They 3 games I did have were fun .

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Why is it strange someone that doesn't know anything about the game would assume both players would make meaningful decisions instead of just waiting for someone's Tau to shoot you and you aren't shooting back?

Probably because it's anecdotal (the lowest level of proof) and your sample size means that it could be a regional preference thing. I could make the claim against AA by pointing to how in NW Montana and upstate NY I didn't know anyone who was pro-AA but that doesn't prove that AA is bad, it just means the handful of people innthose regions I knew didn't like it.

And at the end of the day that's all the arguement really is, which one do people like more. Both systems have pros and cons, and neither system is a silver bullet to all the reported game issues (such as "winning in the list builsing stage" a claim I heard back in 5th ed (not to mention onward to even 9th) and largely used as an excuse by players who never want to change their lists to match the current meta). Heck, given the size of 40k's playerbase even AA can be broken with enough eyes looking at the system with the intent of gaming it.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Continuing with the highly degenerate and toxic UGO/IGO system is pointless.

They've got several other games using alternating activations which are all universally considered better than 8th, yet they've chosen to ignore it.

No reason to even read more about 9th.

If you want to get rid of your models I'd be more than happy to give them a new home

For me AA in a game as big as 40K would make no sense. It would slow down the game and create more problems. It can work in smaller games like KT and that's where it should remain.
Example: with AA super-heavies or huge models would be even stronger. If my first activation is a Taunar/Astraeus/Castellan Knight/etc you would still lose a good chunk of your army with a single unit shooting phase.

I'm super happy that IGOUGO is still the norm and I'm super stoked about 9th ed. To each their own, I guess.

40k is just about at the scale where Epic rules would work well.

I think there is room for breaking IGYG a bit without removing the current turn mechanic.

Expanding on mechanics such as overwatch, opportunity attacks, heroic interventions and so on would make players feel less like a punching bag in the opponents turn.

Lethality also plays a role. For example, on charge damage is too damn high. Good melee units can wipe almost anything non charge, making it feel less interactive than a more drawn out fight.

I honestly believe that wh30k mechanics are more interesting than the streamlined AoS or 40k; even if they are not balanced.

If IGOUGO leads to first-turn wins, doesn't an overhaul of reserves help here?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You know what's a bigger "gotcha" moment? Killing half the new player's army and telling them to make a comeback.

Not as prevelant as the internet claims as that requires a certain level of play by one player.and some really bad play by the other to even be possible on turn one. And if you're intentionally doing that to new players instead of walking them through good deployment habits and good threat saturation it's likely you're in the baby seal smashing club in your local area.

And yes, you can do that in AA as well before you even try to tell me that AA prevents that. AA just adds in the additional factor that when someone screws up there is less room to let them go back and fix things since in AA that dramatically alters gamestate to fix those mistakes, putting a greater burden on newer players who need more help with the rules.

AA has other issues, like game length since both players get less "free" thinking space as their opponent goes meaning that they basically run the clock up every activation trying to determine their moves.

That's not even getting into how not all AA's are created equal. A "one move plus one action" AA is way different than something like "play out each phase via AA" and I don't think we could get a consensus between everyone on what form of AA would work best for 40k.

I still standby that AA isn't even the thing 40k needs from Apoc, but rather no matter the system we need Apoc's casualty mechanics as it keeps units from being dead until the end of the round allowing both sides the ability to always use all their toys each turn before they lose things (and allows the person who does lose half their army in a turn a chance to push that at least to a trade, if not allow them to be even mpre aggressive Sith units they know are already dead).

Because playing fake games with fake armies, and not punishing new players, makes so much more sense and it so much better. They invest in to full armies, think the game is played in a certain way. And as soon as they play their first real game the army evaporation happens. Only now they invested in to a 2000pts army, and have no wiggle room to fix stuff.

When you get tabled in a turn, or practicaly tabled when you play 750 or 1000pts you can do stuf. Maybe buy a different codex, maybe play only kill team , maybe even quit and not invest more.

The wait till 2000pts to show a no longer noob what the game is about is a horrible thing to do. Specialy if they pick a non top tier army.

Karol wrote:
Because playing fake games with fake armies, and not punishing new players, makes so much more sense and it so much better. They invest in to full armies, think the game is played in a certain way. And as soon as they play their first real game the army evaporation happens. Only now they invested in to a 2000pts army, and have no wiggle room to fix stuff.

When you get tabled in a turn, or practicaly tabled when you play 750 or 1000pts you can do stuf. Maybe buy a different codex, maybe play only kill team , maybe even quit and not invest more.

The wait till 2000pts to show a no longer noob what the game is about is a horrible thing to do. Specialy if they pick a non top tier army.

It's very rare for a new player to just buy a full 2000 point army and show up to use it without knowing the rules at all. I don't think I've ever seen that happen in any group I've been a part of. Players will generally acquire models over time, building up to 1500 or 2000 points or more very gradually and getting more experience with the game at each stage of army building. It's hardly a "fake game with fake armies" if you decide not to utterly crush a new player in their first game. There's no point in that for either side. But you've had this explained to you before and didn't seem to get it then so I'm not sure why you'd get it now.

As for 9th being dead in the water because it doesn't change something that was not likely to change, that's a bold claim. We'll just see how it pans out over the next few months. I don't think IGOUGO is inherently flawed but I do think GW needs to do something to reduce the lethality in general and particularly the first-turn lethality. Personally I'd do that with a much greater focus on objective play while also just not boosting offense any more. Any time a designer even thinks about adding extra AP, or Strength or numbers of shots they should be made to stand in a corner, facing the walls for the next 3 hours to reflect on their terrible life choices

The change to CP generation per turn may help alleviate the alpha strike a little, but we'll need to see the details of that first before we know for sure.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Hmm...what is it the kids say these days? Oh yes.....”BYE, Felicia!!!”

Are we not saying 23 Skidoo anymore?

I've not kept up on these things.

I love the current 40k system of player turns, as do many other people. Most people in fact.

It's by far the most social. I can read my codex, plan for longer, have a drink, etc

AA is no quicker. I think some people here want it because it might give them a chance to interact with some units before they are destroyed? Why don't we wait and see how terrain rules have changed.

Also this entire topic is a perfect showcase of the terrible community that has evolved on this forum. I get attacked for being optimistic, at the same time people are perfectly happy to support a topic which literally labels the game as "Toxic" and "Degenerate"

The double standards are truly comical, and the negativity is so over the top it's simply sad. Anyone who actually feels that a game of painted model soldiers is "Degenerate" should really not be involved in this anymore. Check you mental health, because you clearly see things from an unreasonably negative lens.

BrianDavion wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
And that is indeed part of the problem. GW wants more and more models on the board at any given time to facilitate buying more models. The more units on the table the more abstractions they're going to want to take, while skimping on model-by-model micro management.

which is why I've long said AA won't work in 40k without a major revision. I play battletech, the init system wouldn't work with 40k. a long "all day" battletech game is absolutely tiny compared to 40k.

Well lets be honest here were talking about a turn mechanic not he entire rules set for classic battletech. it is a super complex(dare i say super solid and clearly well written set of rules for basically every situation imaginable) skirmish game where both players are operating with only 4 or 5 minis and still having a 2+ hour game.

Karol wrote:Because playing fake games with fake armies, and not punishing new players, makes so much more sense and it so much better. They invest in to full armies, think the game is played in a certain way. And as soon as they play their first real game the army evaporation happens. Only now they invested in to a 2000pts army, and have no wiggle room to fix stuff.

When you get tabled in a turn, or practicaly tabled when you play 750 or 1000pts you can do stuf. Maybe buy a different codex, maybe play only kill team , maybe even quit and not invest more.

The wait till 2000pts to show a no longer noob what the game is about is a horrible thing to do. Specialy if they pick a non top tier army.

Any time you start a new player off by pile driving them you are doing a dis-service to the community and the hobby. nobody looking to get into a game will really be interested in continuing the experience if that experience is terrible out of the gate.

When i demo a game for a new potential player no matter what system it is, my #1 goal and question when it is all said and done is-DID YOU HAVE FUN?

AA isn't only about stopping half your army getting destroyed. It's also about expanding tactical game play and options. It's about move and counter move. Being able to bait your enemy. A player playing against another player instead of an army list.

40k can take a solid lesson from almost everything in apoc. Not everything
Not quite. But almost.

I don’t think it’s the worst thing GW could keep, other games have shown you can have good games using it.

But I don’t think GW will fix many real issues with its game, and mostly just shuffle stuff around to keep it sorta running.

 Lance845 wrote:
AA isn't only about stopping half your army getting destroyed. It's also about expanding tactical game play and options. It's about move and counter move. Being able to bait your enemy. A player playing against another player instead of an army list.

40k can take a solid lesson from almost everything in apoc. Not everything
Not quite. But almost.

I think Apoc is inferior to 40k in every way, having played it enough times to form an opinion.

If it was a better game it would be more popular. It's not.

 Ishagu wrote:
I love the current 40k system of player turns, as do many other people. Most people in fact.

It's by far the most social. I can read my codex, plan for longer, have a drink, etc

AA is no quicker. I think some people here want it because it might give them a chance to interact with some units before they are destroyed? Why don't we wait and see how terrain rules have changed.

Also this entire topic is a perfect showcase of the terrible community that has evolved on this forum. I get attacked for being optimistic, at the same time people are perfectly happy to support a topic which literally labels the game as "Toxic" and "Degenerate"

The double standards are truly comical, and the negativity is so over the top it's simply sad. Anyone who actually feels that a game of painted model soldiers is "Degenerate" should really not be involved in this anymore. Check you mental health, because you clearly see things from an unreasonably negative lens.

1) in fact you have no data to say what percent of anyone likes anything. Don't present your opinions as a majority consensus because you wish it was so.

2) I don't think anyones on you for optimism. But there is a difference between optimism and blind cultish devotion. You don't look at the game and hope for the best. You shut down any statement of criticism and answer with blind devotion. That's not optimism. It's fanatacism

I have no data? How about the record sales, popularity and community involvement in the current 40k?

There is no blind devotion from me. I simply am mature enough to accept 40k for what it is, rather than hate it because it isn't what I want it to be.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
AA isn't only about stopping half your army getting destroyed. It's also about expanding tactical game play and options. It's about move and counter move. Being able to bait your enemy. A player playing against another player instead of an army list.

40k can take a solid lesson from almost everything in apoc. Not everything
Not quite. But almost.

I think Apoc is inferior to 40k in every way, having played it enough times to form an opinion.

If it was a better game it would be more popular. It's not.

Better things are not more popular. Bumblebee is the best live action transformers movie and it made half of every unbelievably bad Michael bay one. Good does not always translate to $$.

You are entitled to your opinions. But I know your slavish devotion to 40k. Your opinions are near meaningless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
I have no data? How about the record sales, popularity and community involvement in the current 40k?

There is no blind devotion from me. I simply am mature enough to accept 40k for what it is, rather than hate it because it isn't what I want it to be.

Correct. No data. The people here lamenting igougo Also paid for 8th. So explain to us your math. If you have x number of sales and y percent of those sales wish igougo would go away how do you figure out y?

Good luck.

You're not mature because you can't accept a critical analysis and decide everything must be perfect. Because optimism?

Where is your data that most of the community wants AA?

Show me the proof that more than 50% of the 40k global community wants AA. You sound so confident it must be easy for you to come up with the evidence.

Or do you have no data? Surely it's not just anecdotal? That would be a bit awkward and you'd look a bit silly after coming on so strong.

 Ishagu wrote:

Also this entire topic is a perfect showcase of the terrible community that has evolved on this forum. I get attacked for being optimistic, at the same time people are perfectly happy to support a topic which literally labels the game as "Toxic" and "Degenerate"

What thread are you reading? Most of the first page is people criticising the OP for hyperbolic language and specifically saying they're wrong. In any forum above a certain size you'll get people on both ends of the spectrum but singling out only one end of that spectrum for criticism isn't helpful, nor is attempting to use those extremes as the basis of any reasonable argument. I have a simple rule for whether I take people seriously on any forum: if I can look at their name and guess with greater than 90% accuracy what their post will contain before I even read it, they're probably not worth listening to. That goes for overly negative or overly positive posters.

We already know 9th edition will do just fine, it may even bring back a lot of people who became disillusioned with 8th, but I think GW might have a harder time of that than they think. 8th degenerated quite badly towards the end of its life and it was due to the same problems GW has had for a number of editions. They let power creep get out of hand and can't stick to a unified design philosophy for an entire edition. I think that, more than any number of mechanical tweaks, would be the best change GW could make in 9th edition.

I never claimed most of anyone wanted anything. I said MY opinions which others on this small niche community agree with and others disagree with. The "dakka" sample is a poor sample of the 40k player base at large. Which doesn't make it wrong. It makes it meaningless on its own.

That's how science works. Again, where is your math. You made a bold claim AND said you have proof. I'm waiting.

When did I use the word proof?

Lance845 wrote:I don't think anyones on you for optimism. But there is a difference between optimism and blind cultish devotion. You don't look at the game and hope for the best. You shut down any statement of criticism and answer with blind devotion. That's not optimism. It's fanatacism

Very true, but there's also a difference between criticism and shouting curses into an empty void that similarly eludes many other Dakka users. They look at the game and see only the worst, ignoring every other feature. They shut down praise and more reasoned criticism with hyperbole and blind rage. That's not criticism. It's masochism.

Let's not pretend that it doesn't swing both ways.

Okay. You claimed to have data to support your argument. Often refered to as proof. You did not use the word proof. But you said you have data. Are you going to keep dodging the fact that you said unfounded bs and presented it as fact?

Karol wrote:
Because playing fake games with fake armies, and not punishing new players, makes so much more sense and it so much better. They invest in to full armies, think the game is played in a certain way. And as soon as they play their first real game the army evaporation happens. Only now they invested in to a 2000pts army, and have no wiggle room to fix stuff.

When you get tabled in a turn, or practicaly tabled when you play 750 or 1000pts you can do stuf. Maybe buy a different codex, maybe play only kill team , maybe even quit and not invest more.

The wait till 2000pts to show a no longer noob what the game is about is a horrible thing to do. Specialy if they pick a non top tier army.

Obviously, I'm falling into the "that's just your own anecdotal evidence!" here, but judging from other people's comments supporting the same - most players don't buy a 2000 point list right off the top without any prior experience of the game.

Most players buy a small force, somewhere around 500, and get a feel of the game from that. They might even buy a dedicated starter set to do just that with. Because, as you say, even if you get hammered hard in lower point sizes, you can take steps to work around that, or the financial blow, if you feel the game isn't suitable, isn't so crippling - which is why people DON'T start with full armies.

And again, being accommodating of new players is nothing to be scoffed at, and is the best way of letting them gently into the community. We don't throw children into the deepest part of a swimming pool, we teach them to swim going from the shallow end. Any club or group that is unwilling to adapt even slightly to provide measures for new blood to enter is a group not worth joining.

 Lance845 wrote:
Okay. You claimed to have data to support your argument. Often refered to as proof. You did not use the word proof. But you said you have data. Are you going to keep dodging the fact that you said unfounded bs and presented it as fact?

Show me where I said: "I have data"

I'm pretty sure I stick to my opinions and observations on the general health of the hobby as indicators of how much right and wrong it's doing.

Where did I use the 3 words "I have data"?

----

Going back to the discussion. I see comments from people who are unhappy with their army based on performance after having completed 2k points?

1: Did you have no discussion with your local community as you built up the army?
2: What is your reason for collecting the particular army?
3: Why are you not able to arrange games against opponents and lists that aren't too overpowered compared to your particular force?

Karol wrote:
Good for you, my army good fun rules at the very end of 8th, and then corona hit, so I didn't even get to play for it besides 3 games. They 3 games I did have were fun .

I expect you'll have that army for a good chunk of 9th so here's hoping GKs are solid.

Short and snappy.

Nine editions.

All IGOUGO

If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

 Ishagu wrote:
I enjoy the game and most of my biggest concerns are being addressed with the new edition. Why would I be critical until I've properly seen all it has to offer?

It's funny how everything I want seems to happen. Must be the power of optimism at play....

Come on Ishagu, just for me, just between us, tell me what you didn't like about 8th that 9th is fixing. It would make me oh so happy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:
Because playing fake games with fake armies, and not punishing new players, makes so much more sense and it so much better. They invest in to full armies, think the game is played in a certain way. And as soon as they play their first real game the army evaporation happens. Only now they invested in to a 2000pts army, and have no wiggle room to fix stuff.

When you get tabled in a turn, or practicaly tabled when you play 750 or 1000pts you can do stuf. Maybe buy a different codex, maybe play only kill team , maybe even quit and not invest more.

The wait till 2000pts to show a no longer noob what the game is about is a horrible thing to do. Specialy if they pick a non top tier army.

Obviously, I'm falling into the "that's just your own anecdotal evidence!" here, but judging from other people's comments supporting the same - most players don't buy a 2000 point list right off the top without any prior experience of the game..

I will tell you as someone who has seen hundreds of players come and go, "Guy bought TONS AND TONS OF POINTS ALL AT ONCE and then found out he bought stuff that didn't work and didn't know how to use any of it and is now super overwhelmed even contemplating trying to paint it" is probably the single most common factor in people quitting the game soon after starting.

I have absolutely seen people buy 2,000 point armies in one single crazy shot. I have seen people absolutely refuse to play any games until they've got 2,000 points, and instead just hang around and build and buy minis. I don't know what it is and I wish I did know the magic words that would make people just stop doing that dumb dumb thing.

Things that needed fixing in my opinion:

-Modifiers went too far and some armies like Guard can end up not being able to interact with units.

-Terrain rules were too bland. I personally didn't have too many issues as my local group has access to large pieces of painted, LoS blocking terrain but I understand not everyone does.

-Reward for mono armies, less incentive to soup up. In 8th there were often no downsides to bringing armies from multiple books, eg Eldar with Harlequins. Now at least it might cost CP.

-Too many FAQs and Erratas outside of the core rules. The edition of 8th that dropped initially felt almost like a Beta after 2 years of updates and core rule additions.

Karol wrote:
I wonder how people imagine the game becoming less deadly, when for all we know the new basic game may end up being 2250pts or better yet it is going to be 1750, but everything had it costs slashed by 2/3.

But this is my first edition switch, so expiriance wise, all I know is based on stories from other.

Who knows maybe everyone is going to play games that are 1500pts in todays army size, or crusade all 9th edition.

I can think of a few ways it could.

A new terrain system that grants more impactful cover more readily would absolutely help

implementation of "long range" penalties would certainly help

Removal of armies starting the game with a big honkin' chunk of CP allowing for you to drop something turn 2 and spend 9 CP on it to charge, fight twice with +1 to wound and +1A per model and rerolling to-hits

A morale system that does less to remove models from the board and more to reduce models' offensive output like it did in previous editions, where units would fall back temporarily when they failed morale rather than die

There are tons of ways you could easily reduce lethality and alpha-strike potential while sticking to the core rules of the game. Hell, you could implement limited alternating activations within an IGOUGO system, the way that Kill Team and Age of Sigmar both do, which would even further limit your potential for super-swingy crazy alpha strikes. In AOS, they do this by having most units be close combat units, and by having units that charge not necessarily go first. Boom, suddenly you need your close combat units to SURVIVE BY HAVING DEFENSES rather than surviving by straight up murderizing everything before the enemy gets to go, and your opponent has the means to meaningfully interact with you even on your turn.

You could even maybe implement Apocalypse's "Units die at the end of the turn" system....sort of...in standard 40k. You wouldn't be able to have the risk/reward aspect of it where you hold saving throw rolls to the end of the turn, which forces the attacking player to determine just how much they want to load wounds to a unit to ensure they take it out, but you could have a system by which units are only removed from the board at the end of the battle round but they still get to act the turn they are "destroyed" and say that you're simulating a simultaneous combat sequence.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Short and snappy.

Nine editions.

All IGOUGO

If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

Nailed it.

Its not like 40K was AA for several editions and then switched to IGOUGO leaving some people frustrated. If IGOUGO is a deal-breaker for some gamers, well, then I guess its a deal-breaker for them and they don't play? There are a bunch of wargames that I do not play, and indeed never played. I don't go on sites dedicated to those games and complain about them.

 Ishagu wrote:
Things that needed fixing in my opinion:

-Modifiers went too far and some armies like Guard can end up not being able to interact with units.

-Terrain rules were too bland. I personally didn't have too many issues as my local group has access to large pieces of painted, LoS blocking terrain but I understand not everyone does.

-Reward for mono armies, less incentive to soup up. In 8th there were often no downsides to bringing armies from multiple books, eg Eldar with Harlequins. Now at least it might cost CP.

-Too many FAQs and Erratas outside of the core rules. The edition of 8th that dropped initially felt almost like a Beta after 2 years of updates and core rule additions.

Thank you. Honestly, it does my heart good to know that there was something, anything you did not like.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
And that is indeed part of the problem. GW wants more and more models on the board at any given time to facilitate buying more models. The more units on the table the more abstractions they're going to want to take, while skimping on model-by-model micro management.

That's a whole other issue, GW loves to micromanage the options, the current rules where every single melee weapon has it's own stats being a particular nadir. Even 2nd edition was willing lump knives, clubs and rifle butts into one category (though not swords because swords get parry!). Yet they also want 100+ models on the field.

If they must have both they should have small game and large game rules. In a small game the difference between a power hammer and power pick is VERY IMPORTANT. But in a large game everything becomes either a weapon or power weapon.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Lance845 wrote:I don't think anyones on you for optimism. But there is a difference between optimism and blind cultish devotion. You don't look at the game and hope for the best. You shut down any statement of criticism and answer with blind devotion. That's not optimism. It's fanatacism

Very true, but there's also a difference between criticism and shouting curses into an empty void that similarly eludes many other Dakka users. They look at the game and see only the worst, ignoring every other feature. They shut down praise and more reasoned criticism with hyperbole and blind rage. That's not criticism. It's masochism.

Let's not pretend that it doesn't swing both ways.

I agree and I'd take it further, honestly. It's not even about being 'shut down', it's the binary and extreme polarisation, the devaluing and the dismissal of anything that isn't CHANNELING ALL THE HATE ALL OF THE TIME and anyone challenging that viewpoint, or merely not not accepting it AND AMPLIFYING IT is seen as the enemy and it is extremely frustrating to me. Or that disagreeing with criticism (oftentimes I find criticism of stuff here can be aggressive, extreme and sadly, in my mind, it comes across verging on toxic) or simply the act of not being as offended to the point of apoplectic rage by these things is answering 'with blind cultish devotion' and 'fanaticism'

There's people like me, yourself, Ishagu etc that seem to accept that wargames are limited systems, arent unicorns and can't actually do the impossible tasks people demand of them, that instead value other things, we are happy to work on the front end to mitigate issues (you know... talk to the other guy, maybe accomodate, maybe my even be willing to play or even worse, enjoy taking something that isn't the top tier fotm build) and feel maybe the players themselves have a role to play, and for that, we get called apologists, or 'white knights' or worse. It's disheartening And frustrating to me that sometimes the only valued emotion and response here is the RAGE. Hell, both you and I got told that 'not minding' something is akin to having problems with it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Short and snappy.

Nine editions.

All IGOUGO

If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

Because back in 3rd/4th edition I didn't have 80% of my army blasted away via my opponents alpha strike. Because back in 3rd/4th edition Space Marines actually got to take their saves most of the time. Because in 3rd/4th edition we didn't have enemy armies with a blanket -1 to hit against them.

Because, despite the less than perfect games, I loved the universe and the lore. And then GW had to screw that up to.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Short and snappy.

Nine editions.

All IGOUGO

If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

Because back in 3rd/4th edition I didn't have 80% of my army blasted away via my opponents alpha strike. Because back in 3rd/4th edition Space Marines actually got to take their saves most of the time. Because in 3rd/4th edition we didn't have enemy armies with a blanket -1 to hit against them.

I really miss the old days were i wan't scare to put models on the table and i new a unit was going to die maybe 2 at the most. Now i'm lucky if its only 2 units.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The funny thing is, I think the average person with no history of table top gaming leans towards alternating activations.

Every single time I show this game to friends who want to try it out, they assume we alternate activations. I have to tell them that each player uses their whole army at one time, and they don't seem to understand why it's played that way.

They seem to get it, I don't know why GW doesn't.

Probably because your evidence is anecdotal and doesn't represent a meaningful sample size of anything?

No way, really? My story about my friends playing this game is anecdotal?

When did I say it was a scientific study?

This site is the sample size. There are hundreds of us here showing our real world experiences of the game. If you were doing a study and conducting an interview with multiple people about their experience with 40K would you just tell them their experience is anecdotal and then not process their results? And clearly there are enough of us here who don't like IGOUGO to make a point about changing it.

Just because it's anecdotal doesn't mean it ain't true or doesn't have merit.

I don't need a sample size of 1000 people to tell me that IGOUGO is a dated system, and waiting around 20 min while I get a quarter of my army swept off the board is bad for the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Short and snappy.

Nine editions.

All IGOUGO

If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

Because I want a better game than the one we have now.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Short and snappy.

Nine editions.

All IGOUGO

If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

Because I want a better game than the one we have now.

Then go play a different game? I like 40K as it is, IGOUGO style, and I'm happy to play it.
If I did not like it, I wouldn't play it, plain and simple.

8th is the best 40k has ever been imo. Or at least the best of all the editions I have ever played. It's so many light years ahead of 7th they are not even comparable.

But it's still crap. The shiniest turd still goes in the toilet.

They made a ton of moves in the right direction. But they didn't go far enough.

The micromanagement of war gear as mentioned. Apoc shows you how to handle the wargear better while opening up significantly more modeling options. The vast maority of stuff can be condenced. We don't need 6 different kinds of power weapons. Just "Power Weapon" and then let people model whatever the hell they want.

The individual model stat line and model to unit interaction. Apocs unit to unit interaction is better. the unit should be shooting not the model. The unit should be fighting, not the model. The time wasted with pile ins and counting models to see who can and cannot fight and then mass rolling dice... it's a waste. Trim it back to units at the scale 40k is at.

Terrain as mentioned. Apoc handles terrain much better. Including occupying it, attacking into and out of it. Shooting into and out of it. And shooting through it.

The idea of stratagems is fine, the implementation needs massive amounts of work. We will see what 9th brings.

Other stuff. Near endless stuff. So much of 40k is bogged down by trying to adhere to it's past instead of moving forward. It's like DnD in that way. Purposefully including bad mechanics just because they existed 50 years ago.

 Lance845 wrote:
8th is the best 40k has ever been imo. Or at least the best of all the editions I have ever played. It's so many light years ahead of 7th they are not even comparable.

But it's still crap. The shiniest turd still goes in the toilet.

They made a ton of moves in the right direction. But they didn't go far enough.

The micromanagement of war gear as mentioned. Apoc shows you how to handle the wargear better while opening up significantly more modeling options. The vast maority of stuff can be condenced. We don't need 6 different kinds of power weapons. Just "Power Weapon" and then let people model whatever the hell they want.

The individual model stat line and model to unit interaction. Apocs unit to unit interaction is better. the unit should be shooting not the model. The unit should be fighting, not the model. The time wasted with pile ins and counting models to see who can and cannot fight and then mass rolling dice... it's a waste. Trim it back to units at the scale 40k is at.

Terrain as mentioned. Apoc handles terrain much better. Including occupying it, attacking into and out of it. Shooting into and out of it. And shooting through it.

The idea of stratagems is fine, the implementation needs massive amounts of work. We will see what 9th brings.

Other stuff. Near endless stuff. So much of 40k is bogged down by trying to adhere to it's past instead of moving forward. It's like DnD in that way. Purposefully including bad mechanics just because they existed 50 years ago.

Again, if you don't like 40K, go play Apoc. To each their own.
There's people like me who like the current 40K ruleset. I'm happy if the new edition stays as close as possible to the current one rules-wise.
There's also people who don't like it and IMHO the solution for them should be simple: don't play it. Just avoid constantly complaining about this and that, drawing parallels with rulesets written years or decades ago.
I was into WHFB and they blew it up. I tried AoS, didn't like it. I gave it a couple of years time, still didn't like it so I've sold everything WHFB I had. And now I don't go in AoS discussions telling everyone how the game they're playing sucks, that the game they like is gak and they're doing everything wrong.

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Fine. Sell your armies then and don't post here. Good bye.

If we got rid of all the people who claim [current edition] 40k is an awful game Dakka would lose like 70% of the people who post here.

Nothing lost.

You are entitled to your opinion. And so am I. I do play Apoc exclusively now.

This here is a discussion forum for people to discuss things. If you don't like hearing opinions other than your own you should stop looking at forums and speak to yourself in a mirror. It's the simplest solution after all.

BaconCatBug wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

Because back in 3rd/4th edition I didn't have 80% of my army blasted away via my opponents alpha strike. Because back in 3rd/4th edition Space Marines actually got to take their saves most of the time. Because in 3rd/4th edition we didn't have enemy armies with a blanket -1 to hit against them.

So, IGOUGO isn't the main issue, it's the increased lethality.

Don't blame IGOUGO for other issues. If IGOUGO was the issue, you'd have been complaining about it in 3/4th.

Lance845 wrote:We don't need 6 different kinds of power weapons. Just "Power Weapon" and then let people model whatever the hell they want.

Agreed. It breaks my heart to see people break apart their models only to give them the new strongest weapon. While I'm okay with certain weapons (mostly ranged ones) being differentiated in stats, I don't think things like power weapons should be.

The individual model stat line and model to unit interaction. Apocs unit to unit interaction is better. the unit should be shooting not the model. The unit should be fighting, not the model. The time wasted with pile ins and counting models to see who can and cannot fight and then mass rolling dice... it's a waste. Trim it back to units at the scale 40k is at.

Eh, that's if you're playing at the multiple detachments scale. At 500 points, models should be the focus. Which is why, when GW said about 9th about making 40k work at all sizes, I hope they feature some kind of "at <1500 points/75 PL, operate under XYZ rules" and another "at >1500 points/75 PL, operate under ZYX rules". Or, provide multiple rulesets/developments on free core ruleset, and have players decide for themselves what scale to operate on.

Isn't crazy lethality good for GW's bottom line though? In aggregate their customers only have a finite amount of gaming hours to spend. Every time a player spends time moving, shooting or assaulting with a unit, they spend gaming hours on that unit. Obviously if the rules are designed to allow units to be removed first turn before they get to act, they minimize the number of gaming hours spent per unit and therefore the number of gaming hours you get per dollar spent.

They should probably figure out a way to make assembling and painting faster too.

 Lance845 wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion. And so am I. I do play Apoc exclusively now.

This here is a discussion forum for people to discuss things. If you don't like hearing opinions other than your own you should stop looking at forums and speak to yourself in a mirror. It's the simplest solution after all.

I hear the acoustics of empty forums make for excellent echo chambers.

 Lance845 wrote:
This here is a discussion forum for people to discuss things. If you don't like hearing opinions other than your own you should stop looking at forums and speak to yourself in a mirror. It's the simplest solution after all.

Understood, but at the same time, going onto a forum for a game that you either don't play, or have so negative opinions about that you might as well not play it isn't exactly something that should be encouraged.

The standards of "constructive" criticism have slipped.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Short and snappy.

Nine editions.

All IGOUGO

If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

GW added a completely new mechanic to 8th in the form of command points and stratagems. What makes that change a valid evolution, despite breaking from the precedent of every prior edition, but wanting a non-IGOUGO turn structure invalid?

A lot of us play because it's the game suited to the models we like, not because it's the best game system we've ever played. For skirmish wargaming, IGOUGO is a relic of the 90s. I was fine with it once, but I have been spoiled by more modern and engaging systems, like Bolt Action's chit-draw, Infinity's direct AA, or World At War's blind activation.

Apocalypse and Kill Team are both different concepts for layering AA onto the 40K turn structure, and I think they both work quite well. Clearly GW is willing to experiment- even if they are reluctant to make such a significant change to their flagship product.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Isn't crazy lethality good for GW's bottom line though? In aggregate their customers only have a finite amount of gaming hours to spend. Every time a player spends time moving, shooting or assaulting with a unit, they spend gaming hours on that unit. Obviously if the rules are designed to allow units to be removed first turn before they get to act, they minimize the number of gaming hours spent per unit and therefore the number of gaming hours you get per dollar spent.

They should probably figure out a way to make assembling and painting faster too.

I don't really understand at all the logic behind this.

Like, maybe I'm wrong here, but I wasn't under the impression that people spent *all* their time playing games, and killing off their own units in order to cram more games in?

I mean, you phrase "moving, shooting or assaulting with a unit" as some kind of waste of "gaming hours", but by moving/shooting/assaulting with that unit, that IS gaming? What would they be doing with those "gaming hours" if not moving/shooting/assaulting?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
pocalypse and Kill Team are both different concepts for layering AA onto the 40K turn structure, and I think they both work quite well. Clearly GW is willing to experiment- even if they are reluctant to make such a significant change to their flagship product.

Great, so there IS an AA element you can use with the models you like. Why not play Apoc?

I like Kill Team and 40k, but I don't want to make them the same thing. I like my Knights, but I'm not clamouring to use them in Kill Team.

I have played a couple of unit based AA games and they always feel a little extrange for me.


The alternative phases like LOTR does it feels the most inmersive, because it represents how in real life normally both armies are acting as armies at the same time (Unit based AA works best for skirmish games with single model units IMO) . And it feels the more engaging, watchin how your opponent moves, trying to out-manouver it, and it keeps you on the game.

Of all GW games, LOTR is the one I actually felt like I was making tactical movements and those mattered to achieve a win or a defeat. Playing Fantasy, AoS or 40k I don't feel that. I mean, I still have a blast playing them but is more about using the right resources and prioritizing what you are killing, much less tactical.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
This here is a discussion forum for people to discuss things. If you don't like hearing opinions other than your own you should stop looking at forums and speak to yourself in a mirror. It's the simplest solution after all.

Understood, but at the same time, going onto a forum for a game that you either don't play, or have so negative opinions about that you might as well not play it isn't exactly something that should be encouraged.

The standards of "constructive" criticism have slipped.

Entering a thread entitled "9th edition is already dead in the water (IGO/UGO)" to tell the OP about how much you love IGOUGO is the same as me being on the forum to discuss both the state of the game and what direction it is heading in. Everyone is entitled to be here and everyone is entitled to say how they feel about whatever topic they decide to post in. Telling people to just not play the game if they don't like the current state of things is the same as telling people to not participate in discussions with opinions other than their own.

Instead of more or less telling people to feth off you (not YOU Smudge but the people in this discussion who keep falling back on those statements) should have an actual discussion.

IGOUGO wouldnt be so bad if losses are removed at the end of the turn, which happens in apocalypse. There is a damage phase, after shooting and fighting, where sv rolls are made and killed units are removed. But, seeing the phases for 9th, there is nothing like a damage phase, after shooting and fighting.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Great, so there IS an AA element you can use with the models you like. Why not play Apoc?

I like Kill Team and 40k, but I don't want to make them the same thing. I like my Knights, but I'm not clamouring to use them in Kill Team.

Because Apoc isn't 40K? Try playing Apoc at the equivalent of a 1K-1.5K army in 40K and see how it goes. The system isn't designed for that.

'Wanting to make them the same thing' is a straw man. The difference between Kill Team's AA, 40K's IGOUGO, and Apoc's AA is not the defining difference between the three games. You could make Kill Team or Apoc IGOUGO and they would still be distinctly different games from 40K, and you could make 40K AA and it would still be different from Kill Team or Apoc.

Bringing up Knights is a terrible argument too. Knights don't fit the scale of Kill Team. Scale is the defining difference between Kill Team, 40K, and Apoc. Expanding Kill Team to let you bring whole armies and Knights would be encroaching on 40K. Changing its unit activation system wouldn't.

 p5freak wrote:
IGOUGO wouldnt be so bad if losses are removed at the end of the turn, which happens in apocalypse. There is a damage phase, after shooting and fighting, where sv rolls are made and killed units are removed. But, seeing the phases for 9th, there is nothing like a damage phase, after shooting and fighting.

And there can't be. In Apoc it works because 1) you are not killing models. You are damaging units. 2) The sheer volume of dice and wounds is drastically reduced which makes book keeping through tokens manageable. 3) The game comes with the tokens you need to do it.

If 9th were to implement Apocs damage phase you would need 10x the number of tokens and some way to keep track of how they are moving within the unit on the models themselves. The book keeping would be astronomical. A single unit of Termagants can shoot 180 times. Statistically 90 will hit and 45 will wound a t3 unit. (not counting rerolls). So if I bought 2 units of termagants (and why wouldn't I?) thats more than the blast tokens that comes in the apoc box. It doesn't work.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Isn't crazy lethality good for GW's bottom line though? In aggregate their customers only have a finite amount of gaming hours to spend. Every time a player spends time moving, shooting or assaulting with a unit, they spend gaming hours on that unit. Obviously if the rules are designed to allow units to be removed first turn before they get to act, they minimize the number of gaming hours spent per unit and therefore the number of gaming hours you get per dollar spent.

They should probably figure out a way to make assembling and painting faster too.

I don't really understand at all the logic behind this.

Like, maybe I'm wrong here, but I wasn't under the impression that people spent *all* their time playing games, and killing off their own units in order to cram more games in?

I mean, you phrase "moving, shooting or assaulting with a unit" as some kind of waste of "gaming hours", but by moving/shooting/assaulting with that unit, that IS gaming? What would they be doing with those "gaming hours" if not moving/shooting/assaulting?

I'm talking about this from the perspective of the of the company designing the rules. GW doesn't make any more money if you get a lot of use out of a unit. It makes more money if you need to buy lots of units because half of them get removed before they can act.

 p5freak wrote:
IGOUGO wouldnt be so bad if losses are removed at the end of the turn, which happens in apocalypse. There is a damage phase, after shooting and fighting, where sv rolls are made and killed units are removed. But, seeing the phases for 9th, there is nothing like a damage phase, after shooting and fighting.

Yeah i was really hoping for a damage phase.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
This here is a discussion forum for people to discuss things. If you don't like hearing opinions other than your own you should stop looking at forums and speak to yourself in a mirror. It's the simplest solution after all.

Understood, but at the same time, going onto a forum for a game that you either don't play, or have so negative opinions about that you might as well not play it isn't exactly something that should be encouraged.

The standards of "constructive" criticism have slipped.

Suggesting that certain mechanics from Apocalypse that function well within that game system could be easily and functionally applied to 40k 8th ed and make it a better game system IS constructive criticism, though.

I have played 8th using Apoc's terrain system, and honestly it plays like a DREAM compared to 8th's default terrain rules.

Terrain is broken up into two types: Obstacles and Ruins.

If a target unit is within 3" of an obstacle (we changed this to "if all models in a unit are within 3" for 40k, since model-level rules do not exist in apoc) and the obstacle is closer to the firing unit than the target unit is, the target unit gains cover.

No need for LOS checking, no need for nearly as much micromanagement as 90% of 8ths core terrain rules, and far more permissive than most 8th ed terrain sets. Much, MUCH better for small terrain pieces than the 8th ed "barricade", "crater" or "Statuary" rules.

Ruins are any terrain type large enough to put a full unit on or within, and they work more similarly to transport vehicles in 8th than terrain in 8th. When a unit (again, changed to all models) ends their move within 3", you can embark them upon the ruin and put them on or within it. For all line of sight, range finding, and charge coherency purposes as long as that unit is within the ruin, the models within the unit become the ruin itself, and the unit gains cover for the duration.

Can you see the ruin? Then you can see the unit inside. Can the ruin see you? Then the unit inside can see you. You don't have to micro-position every single model inside the unit so they can peer out of a window or try and carefully stack up the bases and hope against hope that your poor scourge doesn't yet again slip from his perch when your buddy bumps the table, causing his delicate plastic spiky bits to snap off, you just have to have the models SOMEWHERE inside the ruin so you know they're in there.

and it works the same way for close combat. If you're within 1" of the ruin, you're within 1" of the models inside, and then you fight.

The apoc ruin system solves so many common complaints with 8th ed terrain at once it's not even funny, and it is so, so easy to plug right into the game.

-Cheesing an opponent by stacking all your dudes on an upper level so they can't assault you
-Denying overwatch by stacking all your dudes behind walls of the building that you're in
-ITC magic LOS-block boxes that make Drones and deny-LOS shooters invincible
-having to try and figure out unit coherency, aura range, close combat engagement range, and movement vertically up and down the levels of a ruin that you have to crouch over and try to stick your big sausage fingers in to carefully push the model you want to move over to where he has to be to draw LOS and feth you've just knocked your guy off the top level AGAIN and broken the model AGAIN
-having to put bases on every single terrain piece so you know where "within" is when GW doesn't sell their ding-dang ruins with bases
-vehicles, monsters, bikes, etc not being able to meaningfully interact with units inside ruins because they can't move through them
-Giant knights not being able to attack models on upper levels at the height of their knees

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Short and snappy.

Nine editions.

All IGOUGO

If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

Because back in 3rd/4th edition I didn't have 80% of my army blasted away via my opponents alpha strike. Because back in 3rd/4th edition Space Marines actually got to take their saves most of the time. Because in 3rd/4th edition we didn't have enemy armies with a blanket -1 to hit against them.

Because, despite the less than perfect games, I loved the universe and the lore. And then GW had to screw that up to.

So if it used to be okay when 80% of your army didn't get blasted away, why not rant about lethality instead of Igougo? You realize some of those defending the system that has existed since the game was created might actually be behind you if you were complaining about lethality right?

I think everyone agrees the game should be less lethal- even GW, which is why they are changing terrain and drip feeding CP instead of making them all available on turn 1. And BTW, once those changes are implemented, you might be able to go back to enjoying the game you used to play in 3rd. I know, there is certainly a chance that GW may not execute as well as they promote, but these changes do have a lot of potential to solve the actual problem, lethality, while letting the game maintain the feel and signature rythm that it has always had.

And I think that's some of the IGOUGO defenders' issue with OP. 9th could be perfect, but OP will never know, because OP has already decided if it isn't AA it can't possibly be good. I mean, you heard him right? He's not even gonna give it a chance; won't even download the free rules when they drop. And sure, that's totally his right- I get it; sometimes you reach a breaking point.

But I think all AA folks set themselves up for that disappointment. In 33 years, this game has changed almost every mechanic except that one; expecting that they would change a 3 decade + constant in order to address a lethality problem would be kinda like sayin to a car manufacturer, "You have a problem with acceleration on your most recent line of cars, and I think the best solution is to find an alternative to tires. If your next car has tires, I'm not interested in reading about it, looking at it or hearing about because if it has tires there's no way it's going to be able to accelerate as fast as I want it to, and if it doesn't excelerate as fast as I want it to then it is objectively useless and sucks and everyone who likes it is wrong, despite the fact that it's the best selling car on the market."

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
IGOUGO wouldnt be so bad if losses are removed at the end of the turn, which happens in apocalypse. There is a damage phase, after shooting and fighting, where sv rolls are made and killed units are removed. But, seeing the phases for 9th, there is nothing like a damage phase, after shooting and fighting.

Yeah i was really hoping for a damage phase.

The problem with porting that over is that in apoc, there is no distinction between damage. No weapon has an AP value or a damage value, just a strength vs light stuff and a strength vs big stuff. And on top of that, there are a lot fewer dice involved (A maxed-out choppa boyz blob rolls I think 16 dice in apoc, vs 150 in 40k). To implement the damage phase exactly as in apoc in 40k, you'd need to be tracking "OK, this unit took 12 AP-2 D1 wounds, 5 AP-3 Dd6 hits, 4 AP-1 d2 hits...now I gotta roll saves for that..."

I think the best way to get something LIKE that into 8th without changing datasheets would to be to have there be some kind of "Critical Damage" rule where units on the second player's turn still get to act even once they've taken enough damage to kill them, but I think that'd just take the First Turn Problem and turn it into a Second Turn Problem.

The other thing it loses from Apoc is the uncertainty factor, which further reduces the lethality of Apoc. in Apoc, you're never sure if you've REALLY destroyed a unit, because it hasn't rolled saves OR used any of its defensive stratagems yet. No matter how much you wail on a unit, it could still make its saves against the big blasts you've stacked up, and it could use a card to make those 4+ saves from big blasts on terminators into 2+ saves. This means that to do the maximum damage possible, you need to give the most units a chance to die by putting a small amount of damage on them, but this makes it more likely for units to actually get to stay on the board the longest.

I think you definitely need to do something to address lethality. I'm not certain that die at the end of the turn is exactly it, though. I think going off AOS' example, you can greatly reduce the super alpha strike-ness by allowing units to alternate attacking during a phase. In AOS, that amounts to close combat always being alternating - it works exactly like 8th except there's no blanket Go First if you Charged. Since most combat is melee, that means most turns damage-dealing alternates between players, and it's less viable to put your whole strategy into just super-duper killmurder alpha strike.

 catbarf wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Great, so there IS an AA element you can use with the models you like. Why not play Apoc?

I like Kill Team and 40k, but I don't want to make them the same thing. I like my Knights, but I'm not clamouring to use them in Kill Team.

Because Apoc isn't 40K? Try playing Apoc at the equivalent of a 1K-1.5K army in 40K and see how it goes. The system isn't designed for that.

I have, and it works fine. Obviously it works better at the ~3k (150PL) level, but it works fine at 50 or 100PL.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Great, so there IS an AA element you can use with the models you like. Why not play Apoc?

I like Kill Team and 40k, but I don't want to make them the same thing. I like my Knights, but I'm not clamouring to use them in Kill Team.

Because Apoc isn't 40K? Try playing Apoc at the equivalent of a 1K-1.5K army in 40K and see how it goes. The system isn't designed for that.

I have, and it works fine. Obviously it works better at the ~3k (150PL) level, but it works fine at 50 or 100PL.

My 2k nid list at the time that apoc released was roughly 126ish PL in apoc. 100-150 PL is the sweet spot and the game works fantastic. You get about 3 decent sized functional detachments. Maybe 4 or 5 if you make them into small strike teams.

PenitentJake wrote:
In 33 years, this game has changed almost every mechanic except that one

All the more reason not to regard it as an inviolable sacred cow. Especially when the 40K-adjacent systems intended for the same models at both smaller and larger scales use different mechanics.

the_scotsman wrote:
The problem with porting that over is that in apoc, there is no distinction between damage. No weapon has an AP value or a damage value, just a strength vs light stuff and a strength vs big stuff. And on top of that, there are a lot fewer dice involved (A maxed-out choppa boyz blob rolls I think 16 dice in apoc, vs 150 in 40k). To implement the damage phase exactly as in apoc in 40k, you'd need to be tracking "OK, this unit took 12 AP-2 D1 wounds, 5 AP-3 Dd6 hits, 4 AP-1 d2 hits...now I gotta roll saves for that..."

FWIW, in the Starship Troopers system, armor-percing ability and multiple damage were baked into the unit's offensive profile, and achieved more granularity than Apoc. Weapons could inflict two types of hits depending on how well you rolled- regular hits, which allowed a save, and kills, which didn't allow saves. With a system like that (or something similar- Apoc is pretty close), it'd be easy to track how many Hit and Kill results a unit has received in a single turn, then make saves for the Hits and remove models accordingly.

To get to the point, I agree with you; Apoc was written around offloading all those messy details of attack resolution onto the attack roll itself, so that there's less bookkeeping involved in tracking those hits for later. That system wouldn't work for 40K without a major rewrite.

 catbarf wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
In 33 years, this game has changed almost every mechanic except that one

All the more reason not to regard it as an inviolable sacred cow. Especially when the 40K-adjacent systems intended for the same models at both smaller and larger scales use different mechanics.

the_scotsman wrote:
The problem with porting that over is that in apoc, there is no distinction between damage. No weapon has an AP value or a damage value, just a strength vs light stuff and a strength vs big stuff. And on top of that, there are a lot fewer dice involved (A maxed-out choppa boyz blob rolls I think 16 dice in apoc, vs 150 in 40k). To implement the damage phase exactly as in apoc in 40k, you'd need to be tracking "OK, this unit took 12 AP-2 D1 wounds, 5 AP-3 Dd6 hits, 4 AP-1 d2 hits...now I gotta roll saves for that..."

FWIW, in the Starship Troopers system, armor-percing ability and multiple damage were baked into the unit's offensive profile, and achieved more granularity than Apoc. Weapons could inflict two types of hits depending on how well you rolled- regular hits, which allowed a save, and kills, which didn't allow saves. With a system like that (or something similar- Apoc is pretty close), it'd be easy to track how many Hit and Kill results a unit has received in a single turn, then make saves for the Hits and remove models accordingly.

To get to the point, I agree with you; Apoc was written around offloading all those messy details of attack resolution onto the attack roll itself, so that there's less bookkeeping involved in tracking those hits for later. That system wouldn't work for 40K without a major rewrite.

Keep in mind, whenever I speculate on 9th ed's rules possibilities I'm talking about what I think is feasible within what GW has stated theyre doing: Rewriting the core rules to change the game while leaving all the current rules content untouched.

So a system where rules that I personally would LOVE to be rid of, like Overwatch, just seems impossible within the established framework of 9th ed. It's just too baked into unit rules at this point, you can't be rid of it despite how much I feel it both slows down the game and incentivizes very boring, static playstyles. Same thing with random charge rolls. I hate hate hate them, but acknowledge they're here to stay due to how many rules affect them.

But the core rules like terrain, possibly the current Character system could be retooled to be more of a sliding scale of "you can shoot it"-ness rather than the current hard break-point of 9 wounds being SUPER SUPER CRITICAL for your character survival, that could be done.

What if to shoot at a character that is not the closest target, you had to roll below their Wounds stat on 2d6, and if you failed your unit had to target the closest enemy unit to that character with the ranged weapons you chose to fire at the character? That could be a viable option they could implement with 9th ed while still keeping the codex rules firmly in place.

Before CPs turned up in 8th, there were 'once per game' powers for some models.
Infiltration and reserves were more prevalent, orbital strikes were available, hunker-killer missiles were unlimited range, etc.
Alpha strikes were possible, as were drop-pods in the first turn, in the enemy's deployment area.
CPs laid out the options to be seen more easily, and if an option is there, there is now a card for it. You can blow your CP pool in the first turn on all sorts of silliness, leaving you open to anything that survives.

BaconCatBug wrote:I have, and it works fine. Obviously it works better at the ~3k (150PL) level, but it works fine at 50 or 100PL.

Lance845 wrote:My 2k nid list at the time that apoc released was roughly 126ish PL in apoc. 100-150 PL is the sweet spot and the game works fantastic. You get about 3 decent sized functional detachments. Maybe 4 or 5 if you make them into small strike teams.

100PL is fine, and I think I prefer Apoc over 40K at the 2K/100PL level.

But below that and I miss the granularity of 40K, and feel that the detachment/command systems- which work great for Apoc at larger game scales- become too restrictive. Having two, maybe detachments in Apoc severely curtails operational mobility, and forces restrictive detachment composition since shooting and melee elements don't play well together in the same detachment.

Which is why 'just go play Apoc' is a useless, defensive, knee-jerk reaction. I'm not looking for Apoc here; I'm looking for 40K with one or two of Apoc's mechanics.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
IGOUGO wouldnt be so bad if losses are removed at the end of the turn, which happens in apocalypse. There is a damage phase, after shooting and fighting, where sv rolls are made and killed units are removed. But, seeing the phases for 9th, there is nothing like a damage phase, after shooting and fighting.

Yeah i was really hoping for a damage phase.

The problem with porting that over is that in apoc, there is no distinction between damage. No weapon has an AP value or a damage value, just a strength vs light stuff and a strength vs big stuff. And on top of that, there are a lot fewer dice involved (A maxed-out choppa boyz blob rolls I think 16 dice in apoc, vs 150 in 40k). To implement the damage phase exactly as in apoc in 40k, you'd need to be tracking "OK, this unit took 12 AP-2 D1 wounds, 5 AP-3 Dd6 hits, 4 AP-1 d2 hits...now I gotta roll saves for that..."

I think the best way to get something LIKE that into 8th without changing datasheets would to be to have there be some kind of "Critical Damage" rule where units on the second player's turn still get to act even once they've taken enough damage to kill them, but I think that'd just take the First Turn Problem and turn it into a Second Turn Problem.

The other thing it loses from Apoc is the uncertainty factor, which further reduces the lethality of Apoc. in Apoc, you're never sure if you've REALLY destroyed a unit, because it hasn't rolled saves OR used any of its defensive stratagems yet. No matter how much you wail on a unit, it could still make its saves against the big blasts you've stacked up, and it could use a card to make those 4+ saves from big blasts on terminators into 2+ saves. This means that to do the maximum damage possible, you need to give the most units a chance to die by putting a small amount of damage on them, but this makes it more likely for units to actually get to stay on the board the longest.

I think you definitely need to do something to address lethality. I'm not certain that die at the end of the turn is exactly it, though. I think going off AOS' example, you can greatly reduce the super alpha strike-ness by allowing units to alternate attacking during a phase. In AOS, that amounts to close combat always being alternating - it works exactly like 8th except there's no blanket Go First if you Charged. Since most combat is melee, that means most turns damage-dealing alternates between players, and it's less viable to put your whole strategy into just super-duper killmurder alpha strike.

A Damage phase in 40k wouldn't be to see "if you damage them", it would be just "when you took the damage", combine it with the moral phase at the same time "My Guard unit had 7 wounds on it, so 7 dies, I takes XYZ modifiers, now lets see what moral debuff they get". This would mean all damage is dealt mid turns, but you don't remove casualties until after both players went. Giving the feeling of alternating actions and a living battle.

The only bad part is the book keeping.

And that's a massive negative which outweighs any perceived positive. The elegance of the game will be lost.

How about we play the new edition before we complain about it? Also AA isn't coming, thankfully.

 Ishagu wrote:
And that's a massive negative which outweighs any perceived positive. The elegance of the game will be lost.

How about we play the new edition before we complain about it? Also AA isn't coming, thankfully.

Yes, because after seeing how 6th, 7th, and 8th turned out, we've decided to cut out the pattern recognition part of our brains?

If you stick your hand on a hot stove, how many more times do you need to slap your hand on it until you get the message? For me it was zero additional times.

You're blaming one aspect of game design for all the problems?

If you've written the game off already you should just quit. You're clearly unhappy. You're not a prisoner of GW!

 Ishagu wrote:
You're blaming one aspect of game design for all the problems?

If you've written the game off already you should just quit. You're clearly unhappy. You're not a prisoner of GW!

I am saying that IGOUGO is by far the biggest contributor to the issues the game has. No, Alt Action isn't a magic fix, but when you have a bridge made of marzipan falling to bits, the first step is to change the material you are using.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
And that's a massive negative which outweighs any perceived positive. The elegance of the game will be lost.

How about we play the new edition before we complain about it? Also AA isn't coming, thankfully.

Yes, because after seeing how 6th, 7th, and 8th turned out, we've decided to cut out the pattern recognition part of our brains?

If you stick your hand on a hot stove, how many more times do you need to slap your hand on it until you get the message? For me it was zero additional times.

8th was better than 6th and 7th. I'd probably put it on par with 5th in terms of popularity, and 9th seems to be a lot of fixes to the things identified as the worst parts of 8th (hint: it wasn't the IGOUGO system). Lumping 8th in with 6th and 7th in is just silly.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
IGOUGO wouldnt be so bad if losses are removed at the end of the turn, which happens in apocalypse. There is a damage phase, after shooting and fighting, where sv rolls are made and killed units are removed. But, seeing the phases for 9th, there is nothing like a damage phase, after shooting and fighting.

Yeah i was really hoping for a damage phase.

The problem with porting that over is that in apoc, there is no distinction between damage. No weapon has an AP value or a damage value, just a strength vs light stuff and a strength vs big stuff. And on top of that, there are a lot fewer dice involved (A maxed-out choppa boyz blob rolls I think 16 dice in apoc, vs 150 in 40k). To implement the damage phase exactly as in apoc in 40k, you'd need to be tracking "OK, this unit took 12 AP-2 D1 wounds, 5 AP-3 Dd6 hits, 4 AP-1 d2 hits...now I gotta roll saves for that..."

I think the best way to get something LIKE that into 8th without changing datasheets would to be to have there be some kind of "Critical Damage" rule where units on the second player's turn still get to act even once they've taken enough damage to kill them, but I think that'd just take the First Turn Problem and turn it into a Second Turn Problem.

The other thing it loses from Apoc is the uncertainty factor, which further reduces the lethality of Apoc. in Apoc, you're never sure if you've REALLY destroyed a unit, because it hasn't rolled saves OR used any of its defensive stratagems yet. No matter how much you wail on a unit, it could still make its saves against the big blasts you've stacked up, and it could use a card to make those 4+ saves from big blasts on terminators into 2+ saves. This means that to do the maximum damage possible, you need to give the most units a chance to die by putting a small amount of damage on them, but this makes it more likely for units to actually get to stay on the board the longest.

I think you definitely need to do something to address lethality. I'm not certain that die at the end of the turn is exactly it, though. I think going off AOS' example, you can greatly reduce the super alpha strike-ness by allowing units to alternate attacking during a phase. In AOS, that amounts to close combat always being alternating - it works exactly like 8th except there's no blanket Go First if you Charged. Since most combat is melee, that means most turns damage-dealing alternates between players, and it's less viable to put your whole strategy into just super-duper killmurder alpha strike.

A Damage phase in 40k wouldn't be to see "if you damage them", it would be just "when you took the damage", combine it with the moral phase at the same time "My Guard unit had 7 wounds on it, so 7 dies, I takes XYZ modifiers, now lets see what moral debuff they get". This would mean all damage is dealt mid turns, but you don't remove casualties until after both players went. Giving the feeling of alternating actions and a living battle.

The only bad part is the book keeping.

The 'if you took the damage' part is what makes Apoc so much less deadly than 8th - because in Apoc, it's much easier to cheat death by using a card at the end of the turn to make your unit live rather than die, and it also incentivizes a lot more overkill than you get in 40k, where you can fully resolve a unit's heavy weapons fire at a transport, destroy it, then resolve your anti-infantry firepower at the unit inside, destroy it, move on to the next thing, etc.

The best thing you'd get with "Die at the end" pasted on to 40k would be suicide transports. So, so many suicide transports stuffed chockablock full of Repentia squads, Khorne Bezerkers, death company, Incubi, whatever. This is honestly kind of a problem in Apoc as well, where a single Raider filled with 10 individual Lhameans is an absolute nightmare to deal with. Part of the reason there's such a "grass is greener' effect with apoc is that it doesn't have the same legion of professional powergamers working to find and exploit the worst holes in its mechanics as 40k does. when you convince someone to play apoc, you're both willingly stepping into a game where fewer people have found out how to break it, and so the benefits of its mechanics are more apparent while the flaws are trickier to figure out. Usually, I find that a few people are able to figure out a few of the goofiest moves (Manticores that can fire everything then re-arm with a card to fire everything again the next turn, stuff like that) but it's much rarer than the amount of times you see people showing up to 40k games with optimized strategies.

Things we take for granted, like knowing that a character with 9 wounds is significantly stronger than a character with 10, are not yet known when people step into apoc, and you might not have someone realize that 30 grots in apoc is an unstoppable juggernaut of death and destruction for the scant 3pl they cost. But once you know that the grotvolushun will not be stopped, well then the opponent will need to adapt or die, and soon you'll have flying jokaero monkeybuses and unstoppable krootox/kroot murderhordes....apoc's imbalanced units are borderline comical, it's one of my favorite parts of that game. It feels like that brief wacky period in 8th when you had conga lines of Culexus assassins and the best drukhari list was a horde of birds.

I think it could work, if implemented properly, but I think you could also implement it badly very easily and end up with just as much of an alpha strike problem as now, but more so because your super glass cannon nightmare combo unit would be so much easier to guarantee.

 Lance845 wrote:
8th is the best 40k has ever been imo. Or at least the best of all the editions I have ever played. It's so many light years ahead of 7th they are not even comparable.

But it's still crap. The shiniest turd still goes in the toilet.

They made a ton of moves in the right direction. But they didn't go far enough.

The micromanagement of war gear as mentioned. Apoc shows you how to handle the wargear better while opening up significantly more modeling options. The vast maority of stuff can be condenced. We don't need 6 different kinds of power weapons. Just "Power Weapon" and then let people model whatever the hell they want.

The individual model stat line and model to unit interaction. Apocs unit to unit interaction is better. the unit should be shooting not the model. The unit should be fighting, not the model. The time wasted with pile ins and counting models to see who can and cannot fight and then mass rolling dice... it's a waste. Trim it back to units at the scale 40k is at.

Terrain as mentioned. Apoc handles terrain much better. Including occupying it, attacking into and out of it. Shooting into and out of it. And shooting through it.

The idea of stratagems is fine, the implementation needs massive amounts of work. We will see what 9th brings.

Other stuff. Near endless stuff. So much of 40k is bogged down by trying to adhere to it's past instead of moving forward. It's like DnD in that way. Purposefully including bad mechanics just because they existed 50 years ago.

I agree with the sentiment on within unit differences.

I find the obsession with fully within, within, tripointing, minimum distances and so on to be bad. It allows gamey approaches and, to me, adds nothing to immersion or realism.

At the level of the individual miniature, abstract a bit more. At a higher tactical level, add realism/simulation aspects.

Ishagu wrote:And that's a massive negative which outweighs any perceived positive. The elegance of the game will be lost.

How about we play the new edition before we complain about it? Also AA isn't coming, thankfully.

Ishagu wrote:You're blaming one aspect of game design for all the problems?

If you've written the game off already you should just quit. You're clearly unhappy. You're not a prisoner of GW!

Look, just because people criticize an aspect of the game doesn't mean they dont like the game. I see no reason why people aren't allowed to discuss what they think could be an upgrade to the system or the parts that they feel are the weakest. You coming in here and being dismissive while refusing to see from other poster's point of view isn't helping.

They didnt blame IGOUGO for being the source of all problems, merely stated that IGOUGO was a part of what they disliked in the game.

Just because people are vocal about disliking an aspect of the game doesn't mean they should quit.

Personally i prefer games with AA because they provide more tactical options and there is less downtime between turns where you're just being pummelled by the enemy. Rolling saves for 30 minutes isnt something i personally enjoy and from the few games of 40k i've tried with AA, I found them more interesting.

That doesn't mean i dislike 40k and should quit it.

Its as if you were telling people complaining about release IronHands to quit 40k instead of complaining.

AA does not equate to more Tactical options lol. It's simply a different system of play. And it's 100% not happening so this discussion is actually redundant.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
IGOUGO wouldnt be so bad if losses are removed at the end of the turn, which happens in apocalypse. There is a damage phase, after shooting and fighting, where sv rolls are made and killed units are removed. But, seeing the phases for 9th, there is nothing like a damage phase, after shooting and fighting.

Yeah i was really hoping for a damage phase.

The problem with porting that over is that in apoc, there is no distinction between damage. No weapon has an AP value or a damage value, just a strength vs light stuff and a strength vs big stuff. And on top of that, there are a lot fewer dice involved (A maxed-out choppa boyz blob rolls I think 16 dice in apoc, vs 150 in 40k). To implement the damage phase exactly as in apoc in 40k, you'd need to be tracking "OK, this unit took 12 AP-2 D1 wounds, 5 AP-3 Dd6 hits, 4 AP-1 d2 hits...now I gotta roll saves for that..."

I think the best way to get something LIKE that into 8th without changing datasheets would to be to have there be some kind of "Critical Damage" rule where units on the second player's turn still get to act even once they've taken enough damage to kill them, but I think that'd just take the First Turn Problem and turn it into a Second Turn Problem.

The other thing it loses from Apoc is the uncertainty factor, which further reduces the lethality of Apoc. in Apoc, you're never sure if you've REALLY destroyed a unit, because it hasn't rolled saves OR used any of its defensive stratagems yet. No matter how much you wail on a unit, it could still make its saves against the big blasts you've stacked up, and it could use a card to make those 4+ saves from big blasts on terminators into 2+ saves. This means that to do the maximum damage possible, you need to give the most units a chance to die by putting a small amount of damage on them, but this makes it more likely for units to actually get to stay on the board the longest.

I think you definitely need to do something to address lethality. I'm not certain that die at the end of the turn is exactly it, though. I think going off AOS' example, you can greatly reduce the super alpha strike-ness by allowing units to alternate attacking during a phase. In AOS, that amounts to close combat always being alternating - it works exactly like 8th except there's no blanket Go First if you Charged. Since most combat is melee, that means most turns damage-dealing alternates between players, and it's less viable to put your whole strategy into just super-duper killmurder alpha strike.

A Damage phase in 40k wouldn't be to see "if you damage them", it would be just "when you took the damage", combine it with the moral phase at the same time "My Guard unit had 7 wounds on it, so 7 dies, I takes XYZ modifiers, now lets see what moral debuff they get". This would mean all damage is dealt mid turns, but you don't remove casualties until after both players went. Giving the feeling of alternating actions and a living battle.

The only bad part is the book keeping.

The 'if you took the damage' part is what makes Apoc so much less deadly than 8th - because in Apoc, it's much easier to cheat death by using a card at the end of the turn to make your unit live rather than die, and it also incentivizes a lot more overkill than you get in 40k, where you can fully resolve a unit's heavy weapons fire at a transport, destroy it, then resolve your anti-infantry firepower at the unit inside, destroy it, move on to the next thing, etc.

The best thing you'd get with "Die at the end" pasted on to 40k would be suicide transports. So, so many suicide transports stuffed chockablock full of Repentia squads, Khorne Bezerkers, death company, Incubi, whatever. This is honestly kind of a problem in Apoc as well, where a single Raider filled with 10 individual Lhameans is an absolute nightmare to deal with. Part of the reason there's such a "grass is greener' effect with apoc is that it doesn't have the same legion of professional powergamers working to find and exploit the worst holes in its mechanics as 40k does. when you convince someone to play apoc, you're both willingly stepping into a game where fewer people have found out how to break it, and so the benefits of its mechanics are more apparent while the flaws are trickier to figure out. Usually, I find that a few people are able to figure out a few of the goofiest moves (Manticores that can fire everything then re-arm with a card to fire everything again the next turn, stuff like that) but it's much rarer than the amount of times you see people showing up to 40k games with optimized strategies.

Things we take for granted, like knowing that a character with 9 wounds is significantly stronger than a character with 10, are not yet known when people step into apoc, and you might not have someone realize that 30 grots in apoc is an unstoppable juggernaut of death and destruction for the scant 3pl they cost. But once you know that the grotvolushun will not be stopped, well then the opponent will need to adapt or die, and soon you'll have flying jokaero monkeybuses and unstoppable krootox/kroot murderhordes....apoc's imbalanced units are borderline comical, it's one of my favorite parts of that game. It feels like that brief wacky period in 8th when you had conga lines of Culexus assassins and the best drukhari list was a horde of birds.

I think it could work, if implemented properly, but I think you could also implement it badly very easily and end up with just as much of an alpha strike problem as now, but more so because your super glass cannon nightmare combo unit would be so much easier to guarantee.

Whats wrong with suicide transports? I do that now to stop OW, so what if they die now or later, the point was to make the game still IGOUGO but felt and acted like alternating actions to not change how 40k actually works as a whole and to give players a reason to take many more units b.c no fear of them dying turn 1.

Also Apoc IS NOT 40k. You can not do a 1 to 1 comparision like you are trying to do. In Apoc you can Melee right out of DSing on turn 1 with any unit in the game. 40k has many other rules in place were Apoc doesn't.

 Ishagu wrote:
AA does not equate to more Tactical options lol. It's simply a different system of play. And it's 100% not happening so this discussion is actually redundant.

Again with your fething annoying tone.

What i stated was MY opinion. I respect the fact the you like IGOUGO more than AA but i'd enjoy if you didn't just dismiss what people say.

I find AA brings more tactical options because it adds one simple thing : outmaneuvering your opponent in a meaningful way. Being able to deny LoS completely on a HVT after you opponent moved his guns to take it down is an additionnal tactical option that isnt there in IGOUGO.

Having to think about what order you should activate your units IS an additionnal tactical option.

And if people weren't allowed to think about "impossible" things then humanity wouldn't have made it far. I know its an extreme comparison but its still the same: "Going to space is 100% not happening so this discussion is actually redundant".

Plus, some people do modify the game to play with AA. Someone posted in this very thread that they do that.

I'd be curious about what exact changes they make.

 Ishagu wrote:
And that's a massive negative which outweighs any perceived positive. The elegance of the game will be lost.

How about we play the new edition before we complain about it? Also AA isn't coming, thankfully.

What elegance? Killing a third of the opponent's army and watching them struggle to come back is more elegant?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plus, some people do modify the game to play with AA. Someone posted in this very thread that they do that.

I'd be curious about what exact changes they make.

When i played it we did it this way :

players deploy units one at a time.

players move units one at a time.

players psychic power one at a time.

players shoot/charge one unit at a time.

players fight one unit at a time.

normal morale.

then on the second turn, the player that didnt do everything first on the first turn gets to be the first.

It worked pretty decently for something we brainstormed 5 minutes before the game started and in only 2 games we could see the different approach that it brought to 40k.

AND the game wasn't noticeably longer.

 Ishagu wrote:
You're blaming one aspect of game design for all the problems?

If you've written the game off already you should just quit. You're clearly unhappy. You're not a prisoner of GW!

It's actually that aspect of the game that leads to power creep getting worse the moment a broken unit is released since you can't actually counter it with anything.

Have you played 9th?

 Ishagu wrote:
Have you played 9th?

Have you?

You're white knighting for something you have no idea about how good it is or not.

Meanwhile, we have nearly a decade of prior acts. When you bounce a ball the same way 100 times, the 101st time is almost certainly going to be the same.

 Ishagu wrote:
Have you played 9th?

We don't need to holy feth. We've played 8th enough to see that AA would alleviate many problems.

Yes, OP was bitching baout 9th but the thread derailed because your highness came in here and started gaking on people that said 8th had problems that could translate to 9th.