Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem isn't IGOUGO as such it's the fact that everything can start so close together, which means that combat occurs from the first turn, reducing the need and opportunity for manoeuvre.

Another thing with LotR (don't know about WotR), is that you're getting 12-16 turns in during a game. While it's a 4x4 table, and move is typically 6 inches for infantry, having that many turns in a 2 hour game lets you do maneuvres. You can start on one flank and move across the back of your DZ with half your army - and they can still get to melee. Even with Run in fifth 40k, you can't do that.

As far as getting back on topic (as opposed to discussing the merits of different systems and bascialyy doing the considering FOR GW), no. From everything I have read and understood, if GW were to consider NIGOUGO as a basisi for 40k, their fething heads would explode and bacon butties soaked in tea would fall out.

Which has NOTHING to do with whether or not they should ABANDON IGOUGO. Which they should, like rats from a sinking fething ship.

I agree that the main problem with the current system is that everything starts so close together. I also think that the short amount of turns creates too harsh of an artificial time limit that negates a lot of potential strategies.

The more I think about this the more I can't help but remember the original XCom/UFO Defense computer game that used Time Units (TU). If this were to be converted to table top we would get rid of separate movement, shooting and assault phases completely. Instead, each unit would receive a certain amount of points per turn and each action would cost a certain amount of points. The best part about this is the amount of options it opens up, both for unit design and player strategy. For example...

A standard infantry unit might receive 50 points per turn. Moving might cost 5 points per inch. Long range aimed shots might cost 15 points per shot while shorter ranged less accurate shots might cost 10. This simple mechanic opens a huge amount of choices for the player.

You could move 10 inches and not shoot or you could shoot 5 close range shots without moving. You could also mix things up and choose the order in which you do things. You could shoot 2 long range shots and then move 4 inches, you could move 4 inches and then shoot 3 short range shots or you could move 7 inches and then shoot 1 long range shot.

Another huge advantage to this system is that you can easily create special rules or unit types. Scout unit movement might cost only 4 points per inch instead of 5. Moving over dangerous terrain might cost +2 points per inch to slow you down. The possibilities are endless.

The only real drawback that I can think of is that you would have to have a paper to keep track of how many points each unit has and that this could slightly complicate or lengthen games. However, I think that the system is much more intuitive and would actually, once learned, speed things up and be easier. What do you guys think?

/me begins writing a new ruleset using this theory...

Speaking from the perspective of a long time historical wargamer, I can say that there are many rulesets in different eras which use IGOUGO with some kind of intermixed turns or initiative timing. Some are old, some are completely modern.

IGOUGO has many advantages as a basic game structure.

The two key problems in 40K are that that the whole army moving first gets to be effective (thanks to rangem etc) in one turn out of an average 6, without any countermove. The system is used at the most basic level of sophistication.

dietrich wrote:Look at how Epic handles the turn sequence. I think, although I might remember wrong, you take turns activating a unit. You can try to activate a second before giving the 'move' back to your opponent, but have to roll. I think Marines always do so on a 2+. Orks are a 4+, but if they're charging, they get a +2 to the die roll.

Epic is good in that regard. It provides the additional benefit in that
1. Its way to reflect impact no morale. The lower the morale the harder to activate.
2. Inversely its a way to positive mirror abilities. Marines can generally activate easier, eldar have the ability to use farseers and do multiple chain activations wherein you can perform true combined arms attacks on one target.

The flip side is that Firefights are similar to CC in generally going at the same time. It keeps off the stupid I move, my army takes out 1/3 of your army before anything you can do to respond sitations that can occur.

Ghod yes! The blast markers in Epic are terrific! The way that they simulate both morale and the suppressive effects of coming under fire is very elegant.

HI all.
I agree that 'army level IGO-UGO ' is a poor choice for game turn mechanic in the current 40k game.
Either 'singular action IGO UGO' , where one player takes ONE action will all units/or alternating unit activation , where one player takes all actions with one unit , then the opposing player does the same .

Would allow for greater tactical depth.

Unfortunatley the development of 40k appears to be focused on making thing so simple, they fail to work in the scope of the expected game play.And so a mirriad of poorly conceved/explianed exeptions/additions are used to try to get the game play beter.(20+ universal special rules , and 50+ codex special rules . )

Using other concepts and game mechanics could make 40k much less complicated with far easily understood and allow deeper tactical game play.

If we allow 'order markers' to be given to units to show what they are going to do /have done , like EPIC Space Marine's game turn.

We could get simple game turn with far more tatical consideration.Picking an order for each unit at the start of turn means forward planning.
Or even placing the order after it was taken would help old fogeys like me keep track of what has happened....

Just a note on E. A. turn system .
This is IDEAL for the batallion and higher level games, which focus more on command and control issues , rather than detailed unit differences.

Thats why I sugetsed the Epic SM game turn , as a more suitable option for 40k .IMO.

TTFN
Lanrak.

IMO, GW are unlikely to take such a radical step.

The current game structure is ideally suited to the core target demographic of 13+ boys. They love the rather nerdy detail of 20+ USRs and 50+ codex SRs. Their heads might explode if presented with a non-obvious turn sequence.

It's easy to experiment with alternative turn sequences at home.

Hi all.
I totaly agree that GW will keep 40k practicaly the same , just 're-arrange the funiture ' every 5 years or so.

But is there any reason why we could not discuss alternatives in this thread?

Just to give other gamers a few ideas for thier own rules perhaps?

TTFN
Lanrak.

GW attempted to implement an alternating activation system for the original Codex: Cityfight; however, they found in playtesting that the system hurt the flow of the game and didn't add as much as they had hoped.

fetterkey: then is it likely they fouled up said implementation?

grizgrin wrote:fetterkey: then is it likely they fouled up said implementation?

Surely you jest! Everyone knows that GW can't make mistakes...

LuciusAR wrote:IGOUGO has never sat that well with me.

I just never liked the fact that a unit could pop out of cover walk across the open fire their weapons a few times (In 40K) and then charge in.

I know a few (non GW) games use opportunity fire and over watch but I think perhaps the time has come for a rethink.

Anyway my point is that this system, with a bit thought, could easily be applied to 40K or WFB.

I've reached the point at which IgoUgo no longer bothers me. I look at turns as a representative simplification of what happens, rather than some kind of literal simulation of activity.

A unit popping out and charging can be thought of advancing under support fire / distraction / surprise - remember that the 40k battlefield isn't nearly as neat and tidy as what the board presents. Certainly, reaction fire / movement could be done, but then Assault power and Charge bonuses would have to be amped up even further to compensate. So it's a balancing effect.

WotR interleaved turns are fine as well, but they work for a different game. Same with continuous dicing, Warmaster / Epic command / retention, and so on. 40k uses IgoUgo because it scales very cleanly to huge Apoc battles, whereas interleaved systems don't do this quite as well.

And if, for example, WFB moved to interleaved turns, then WotR wouldn't be as special and distinctive. I like that WotR is doing something different from WFB.
____

Oh, yeah, don't forget: 40k is beer & pretzels gaming at its heart...

Hi all.
JohnHwangDD.
I can accept that many 40k gamers are willing to suspend thier disbelief while playing the current rule set.And the obvious disjoints in game play can be willfully ignored.(With the aid of beer and pretzels if required. )

However I must stronngly object to the assumption that army level IGO-UGO 'scales better to Apoc sized games'.
Infact , unless much larger playing area is used , larger more cramped battles highlights the unsuitability of army level IGO-UGO for the 40k game.

And as the larger scale 'Epic' games NEVER USED army level IGO UGO game turn .As 40k gets bigger in size ,I feel the redundancy of this game turn mechanic will become evident to more players.

Why base the 40k game rules on Warhammer , wouldnt it be better to base 40k game rules on Epic?
Take Epic and adjust the focus to suit the higher level of detail in the units perhaps?

TFN
Lanrak

@Lanrak: Epic isn't nearly as model-dense as 40k, nor as laden with chrome. They're different games, for the sake of being different.

Belphegor wrote:to Green-Git: Was it the Deadlands RPG?

It was most likely The Great Rail Wars which was the miniatures wargaming spin-off of the Deadlands RPG. Each squad or character received a playing card which determined when they acted that turn. A few characters had special rules to allow them to swap their card for another card to simulate 'fast' characters or quick-thinkers, and a Joker could activate any time they wanted to do so (but only between activations, as I remember).

Interestingly this system was a very trimmed-down game based on Deadlands very fun but admittedly cumbersome RPG system (Which had wound levels for individual body parts, multiple dice of different types for skill tests, and some special abilities required a couple die rolls and drawing a hand of cards from an extra deck to build a poker hand to resolve). This system was then used for Savage Worlds by adding some 'RPG' stuff back in. Savage Worlds then got a book for the Deadlands setting, so it's all a big circle...

I've got the GRW and a couple of the expansion books. It had some nice ideas but the setting was always a little rough (The setting focused on battles to build transcontinental rail lines, but rules for trains were several books down the road...) and the miniatures were kind of rough. Still, some fun units, like the Iron Dragon Human Bombs or the baby worm-things.

Hi.
Lots of RPG/skirmish games that use a 'unit activation' game turn, randomise activation order.(Cards, dice , number of command points etc.)This keeps player on thier toes, and promotes multi-level tactics.(Make sure you have a back up plan! )

Just taking existing rule set plonking it in a completley different game without concidering the resulting game play is a bad idea.
And using the same basic game mechanics when a game has evolved beyond thier scope is just as bad IMO.

I did say that the rules for Epic would have to be altered to include more unit detail , scale up the unit interaction detail to suit the 40k game size.

Epic SM rule set would just be a starting point to base the game turn on.
The finalised conversion to suit 40k would not be recognisable as the Epic rule set.(If the most suitable game mechanics were used , borrowing from the full range currently available.)

As 40k is used as a 'introduction' game .Then the rules should be intuative and straight forward as possible.
The game turn mechanic is the frame which the rest of the game play /player inteaction hangs.

Get it wrong and you spend ages patching up the game play/rules with exeptions and additions....sound familiar 40k players?

Get it right and the game development flows as well as the game play!

If the players have a choice of actions to take with thier units.
EG , move OR shoot OR ready OR assault .

Then the game turn could be like this....

Player A takes first action with all units.(Freindly units do not have to take the same action.)

Player B takes first action with all units.(Freindly units do not have to take the same action.)

Player A takes second action with all units.(Freindly units do not have to take the same action.)

Player B takes second action with all units..(Freindly units do not have to take the same action.)

ALL units get 2 actions per turn , and no player get more than one action with a unit before the opponent can respond.

Current game turn example .

Nid unit moves, fleets , assaults. (3 actions) .IG target, unit survivors fight back.(1 action)

Proposed game turn example .

Nids move,
IG shoot.
Nids assault
IG fight back.

And with the simple implementation of awarness and supression mechanics , assaults will work well when supported with supressive fire.
Charge into enemy gun line across open ground and watch as you troops turn into red mist.....
Supress the gun line / drop smoke screen first, then assault and you have a much better result.

Anyhow this isnt rules development forum, so I will stop here.

Happy gaming.
Lanrak.

Yes they should change turn rules, but I don't think they will...
Vor the maelstrom had a unit activation. Players would alternate using a unit, they could move or shoot or move a little and shot, etc. Then the next player chose a unit to use. The game flowed good and I have had no problems with a UgoIgo unit activation system. Roll dice, winner goes first no problems. I am pretty new to 40k and there a few things that bug me.

Mort wrote:Warhammer is built around the IGOUGO mechanic, though, and I don't think it'd be that simple to make a quick & easy move to alternate activation without some serious design considerations.

Check out Crocodile Games Wargods for WFB converted to d10 and alternating action....

I'm thinking the best idea to make alternating phases is to implement something from WFB. Make moving and charging happen in the same phase. If you go a strict A move B move A shoot B shoot A assault B assault, it can lead to issues where it can be very easy to avoid assaults. By allowing a player to make his assault move along with his normal move, its would make it much easier to assault things. You can still allow the other player to shoot the assaulters, but he wouldn't be able to run away from them. Although I personally don't have that much of a problem with the IGOUGO system, as it keeps the game flowing nicely. 5th edition corrected the who gets first turn wins problem fairly well.

Here is an even better idea...

1: Have players alternate unit by unit. Once both players have used each unit once, go to the next "turn" and do it all again.

2: Drop separate phases completely. Combine it all into a single phase.

3: Use modifiers for unit types, weapons, abilities and such to determine the roles and abilities of everything.

For example...

Player 1 picks any unit that hasn't yet acted this turn and performs one of the following actions with it. Once done, the other player gets to pick one of their units to do the same thing, alternating like this until both players have used every unit.

- Stand idle and do nothing.
- Perform a half or full move.
- Perform a half or full move AND shoot.
- Shoot without moving.

Close combat is automatic when you get within range and the rolling works exactly the same as it does for shooting (which is slightly different than 40k). Even the rolls are streamlined by combining logically similar things such as to-hit and cover in a way that actually expands the possibilities while making it simpler and faster at the same time. And with a few simple modifiers for various units, weapons or abilities you can make some very diverse combinations that make complete sense and work as you would expect. Rifle class weapons could be more powerful with a longer range but might suffer a to-hit penalty for moving while shooting while assault class weapons would be able to shoot and move without penalty.

It also allows for some really cool additions to the game and really improves the fairness and tactics of the game while still being streamlined and fast. The only real trick is finishing up the entire rule system and then trying to get people to try it out

I'm against a card based initiative that involves creating a deck. Let's face it, not everyone can shuffle or even handle cards well, I know I can't.

Now if we could find some boardgame-like method of handling initiative that could be interesting. It could involve various mechanics like bidding, Epic style initiative drive, buying activations, etc...

Actually I'm of the mind that miniature wargames could take a few more elements from boardgames like the ones from fantasy flight, by using some good looking parts to help with book keeping.

alternating unit activation has it's own set of problems... Primarily, it tends to favor whomever has more units as they can move the cheap, disposable fodder as sacrifices. It may be batter, but it's not 'perfect.'

Balance wrote:alternating unit activation has it's own set of problems... Primarily, it tends to favor whomever has more units as they can move the cheap, disposable fodder as sacrifices. It may be batter, but it's not 'perfect.'

That is true. It can be alleviated by a move phase like this:

Side A with 10 Units. Move 2, 2, 2, 2, 2
Side B with 5 Units. Move 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

It can be adjusted for any imbalance in the number of units.

HI all.
There are two main problems with the current 40k game turn.

1/It is restrictive in the order actions are performed, you HAVE to move THEN shoot THEN assault.

2/It enforces unatural time dialation.One side is effectivly in stasis ,(does nothing) while the other side moves then shoots then assaults.)

Alternating unit activation solves problem one ,by giving the option of simple orders made up of 2 actions,
EG Move+move, (Run .)
or Move+shoot.(Advance.)
or Shoot +move(Evade)
or Ready + shoot (Fire support)
or Move +assault.(Charge,)

And eleviates problem two, by minimising the impact of 'stasis' .One unit performs 2 actions before the opponent can respond, (as oppposed to ALL units performing all actions, in the current 40k game turn.)

If a force has twice as many units an an opposing force, shouldnt they be able to out use this to thier advantage?MSU (multiple small units )are supposed to be more tacticaly flexible than FLU(few large units.)

However, to be a totaly 'integrated' game turn ,all units on one side take only one action, before the opponent takes one action.
As used by lots of WWII- modern rule sets.(As outlined in previous post.)


How do you feel about variable bound game mechanics?(As used in blood bowl.)
Its your go untill you finish all actions ,OR most likley fail a action.

EG
Actions that automaticaly suceed.
Moving units, not in or pasing through enemy awarness zones.
Targeting a previously aquired target .

Actions that may fail.
Moving units into or through enemy awarness zone , enemy gets a 'reaction roll'.
Targeting a new unit , 'spotting roll' .
Failing to cause required level of damage ,
Failing to rally units on poor moral.

I may not have eplained that very well.
But I will try to clarify things if if required.

TTFN
Lanrak.

I've always agreed that the 40k system was screwy, it offers little in the way of tactical maneuvering.

One question I've always had was why does everyone in the grimdark move then shoot? Can noone shoot then move?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Balance wrote:alternating unit activation has it's own set of problems... Primarily, it tends to favor whomever has more units as they can move the cheap, disposable fodder as sacrifices. It may be batter, but it's not 'perfect.'

That is true. It can be alleviated by a move phase like this:

Side A with 10 Units. Move 2, 2, 2, 2, 2
Side B with 5 Units. Move 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

It can be adjusted for any imbalance in the number of units.

I've never been happy with the activation systems favouring hordes of units and cheap units to activate early for later advantage with their heavy hitters.

I'd prefer a fixed number of activations per side per turn to be utilized as the general wishes (perhaps based on size of game, i.e. point value with some variations for armies with good C&C). Combines that with free reactions such as fighting back in close combat and returning fire when shot at and I think you're pretty well off.

Jack

The game isn't truly IGOUGO. Assault happens on both turns, passing and failing Leadership/Morale checks happens on both turns, and many special abilities take place on both turns. Moving and shooting is alternated, but it's clean, not chaotic, and accurately simulates the frequent punch-counterpunch tactics of war. At least as accurately as one could with little plastic men.

Just as a side note: Overwatch was the most broken and abused product of the old systems.

Turn 1
Space Marine player: "Overwatch... go."
Other Space Marine player: "Overwatch... go."

Turn 2
(SMp moves a guy)
OSMp: "I'll shoot him."
SMp: "D'oh..."

Repeat until end of game.

Daggermaw wrote:One question I've always had was why does everyone in the grimdark move then shoot? Can noone shoot then move?

In the dark grim grimdark future there is only:
movethenshoot

you will not be missed, except on a one....

A modified turn sequence would work better than an entire re-do of the game.

Something like :
Roll off for advantage , HQ with higher [I] has a +1 to roll.
Winner of the advantage roll picks : Player A or Player B

Player A moves
Player B shoots
Player B moves
Player A shoots
Remove kills
Break tests
Player A assault moves
Player B assault moves
Work out assaults
Remove Kills
Break tests (run downs included here)

Repeat next turn.

And before someone inquires , yes dead stuff can still shoot.