|
Yes it is a bit of a misnomer, but IGOUGO is often used to describe what people said above: one side completing its turn, followed by the opponent(s).
Whle this can occasionally work okay in a game, it rarely does - and it absolutely does not when used with the 40K brand, namely the following issues:
1) 40K is more "killy" than it's ever been before.
2) No one uses terrain populated tables.
3) The game has always been breakable, even more so now and people abuse this with the turn structure to avoid even playing the game against someone (read: Alpha Strike)
40K is not much of a "wargame" in the classical sense. There's little use of a command structure, no spotting rolls, no reconnaissance mechanic, etc. A lot of these thematic elements which are popular in historical games are absent in 40K meaning there's nothing stopping an army from just instantly seeing/shooting its enemy to pieces due to the luck of a dice roll. In fact this is partially why you even have 2000 point games. Because you need to be ready to lose 650 points before you even get to use your army. This directly benefits GW of course, because you need more models = more sales. Note: I don't begrudge them for this, it's just a fact of how they do business.
In most other games you'll find a variety of activation structures, all of which tend to provide a much more interesting and intriguing method of game play - one which keeps players far more engaged. It also better represents the chaotic nature of a battlefield.
1) Card activations (units are assigned one or more card activations and these cards are then shuffled into a deck)
2) Faction card activations/tokens (each player has X number of tokens or cards which allow him to activate a unit of his choice)
3) Command orders (each turn a player may issue commands using command or HQ figures to other units, either the whole side or one commander at a time)
4) Dice activation (similar to tokens, common with Bolt Action)
5) Momentum systems (a system in which one side begins a turn with opportunities for their opponent to "steal" the momentum and this carries on for the entirety of the game turn or the game itself)
6) Zoned activations (a system common in some board games where cards are drawn or chosen to activate X units on a certain side or zone of the tabletop - similar to the Battle Lore rules and Borgs other stuff)
7) Iniative systems (a common system where each unit is assigned an initiative, speed, or reflex value which creates the turn order for the game - often declared up front, and manipulated by army/unit selection - think X-Wing)
etc.
There are loads of ways to do army handling activations. In addition to this, a lot of systems and wargames use command values to determine if a unit activates and how well - some units are limited to certain activations unless within range of a command unit. Some games involve spotting and reconnaisance. Some games have a large sub-game at the beginning for deploying and reconning each other (Chain of Command). The world of actual wargaming is vast, and this should be no surprise - they're mostly better or more enjoyable than 40K. 40K's rules have always been relatively simple by comparison because they're trying to get model counts up --- the size games you play would be exceptionally rare in any other period beyond rank and file (Napoleonics, etc.).
Remember, GW has no vested interest in making perfect rules. They need rules which are "good enough" to warrant people buying minis. As such, I always modify Warhammer 40K rules and will continue to do so. If you're going to sit back and wait for the perfect version of 40K to arrive...you will indeed be buried with a rulebook and tape measure.
|
