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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

yeah, the GW kool-aid is hard to deviate from sadly. I've got a few people playing and its slowly growing locally

Yeah I'm going to try and work my local area a bit too, I think. For starters just to play more with it to evaluate the rules. But otherwise because it's fast and cheap and so far at least, quite fun.

I think one thing that's important when trying to get people to try a new game or a new rules set with their current models is to not insult the game they are currently playing.

I see a lot of people go "40K Xed is trash, rubbish horrible, only idiots would play. Come play Y rules set instead".

Now the problem with that kind of approach is its hostile. You're talking to someone (or several people) who are enjoying what they play and telling them that they are fools, idiots or such for enjoying it and that your way is superior and better.
It sets you up for a fail in getting them to join and sets you up to build wall between you. At which point the game qualities go out the window and it becomes a case of egos and then you've lost all chance.



The key isn't to insult or such; the key is to simply show the fun you're having with your system and encourage them to experiment and try it out. To give positive reinforcement not negative.

^Agree 100%. It pays to revisit the fable about the sun and the wind competing to get a man's coat off.

 kodos wrote:
and no, IGoUGo is not an issue by itself and nearly all games that have a reaction mechanic or break down from alternate turns or phases to alternate activations still use IGoUGo as they don't interrupt a players "go" but let the opponent react to it

You're missing the forest for the trees.

People don't complain about 40K's IGOUGO because it is a turn-based game where an entire army activates at once.

They complain because it is a turn-based game where an entire army activates at once and the opponent does next to nothing.

There are mere wisps of alternating activation in the melee system, and there are stratagems to act as gotchas, but by and large the opponent is a passive player taking hits while waiting for their turn to come around. That is what people complain about. Using an IGOUGO system is not inherently bad; using an IGOUGO system where each player has a whopping total of 5 major decision points (turns) and can go make a sandwich and eat it while their opponent takes their movement phase is bad.

 kodos wrote:
change the game to alternating phases or alternating activations, combine this with the possibility to wipe out the opponent's army in one phase/activation (one "go") and we have the same problem again (that the player has to sit there and just remove models without doing anything)

Yeah, if you changed 40K to alternating activation, and then also changed it so that one unit could kill the entire enemy army in one activation on its own, then you'd have the same problem.

Why the feth would you do that?

 catbarf wrote:

 kodos wrote:
and no, IGoUGo is not an issue by itself and nearly all games that have a reaction mechanic or break down from alternate turns or phases to alternate activations still use IGoUGo as they don't interrupt a players "go" but let the opponent react to it

You're missing the forest for the trees.

People don't complain about 40K's IGOUGO because it is a turn-based game where an entire army activates at once.

They complain because it is a turn-based game where an entire army activates at once and the opponent does next to nothing.

There are mere wisps of alternating activation in the melee system, and there are stratagems to act as gotchas, but by and large the opponent is a passive player taking hits while waiting for their turn to come around. That is what people complain about. Using an IGOUGO system is not inherently bad; using an IGOUGO system where each player has a whopping total of 5 major decision points (turns) and can go make a sandwich and eat it while their opponent takes their movement phase is bad.

It's also bad when, right now, in one turn you can decimate an opposing force. So not only can one player end up doing nothing save rolling for, well, saves whilst waiting. They are also often left with whatever battleplan they had being torn to bits because their opponent just blasted a huge chunk of their forces off the table. Full army alternating activations in a system with high lethality can easily create situations where the game is over in one turn and that one turn is early in the game. Which creates a negative play experience for the side that loses and can even create a negative one for the winner because they've won so early that the rest of the game is a boring, time consuming, mop-up.

 Overread wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 kodos wrote:
and no, IGoUGo is not an issue by itself and nearly all games that have a reaction mechanic or break down from alternate turns or phases to alternate activations still use IGoUGo as they don't interrupt a players "go" but let the opponent react to it

You're missing the forest for the trees.

People don't complain about 40K's IGOUGO because it is a turn-based game where an entire army activates at once.

They complain because it is a turn-based game where an entire army activates at once and the opponent does next to nothing.

There are mere wisps of alternating activation in the melee system, and there are stratagems to act as gotchas, but by and large the opponent is a passive player taking hits while waiting for their turn to come around. That is what people complain about. Using an IGOUGO system is not inherently bad; using an IGOUGO system where each player has a whopping total of 5 major decision points (turns) and can go make a sandwich and eat it while their opponent takes their movement phase is bad.

Decimate means to reduce by 1/10th. I think you mean obliterate? Decimation per turn would actually be a worthy balance of the Meta. If any player ONLY loses 200pts per turn after an entire army is done shooting and fighting, they've done well. That like, 2 vehicles or a max troops unit.

It's also bad when, right now, in one turn you can decimate an opposing force. So not only can one player end up doing nothing save rolling for, well, saves whilst waiting. They are also often left with whatever battleplan they had being torn to bits because their opponent just blasted a huge chunk of their forces off the table. Full army alternating activations in a system with high lethality can easily create situations where the game is over in one turn and that one turn is early in the game. Which creates a negative play experience for the side that loses and can even create a negative one for the winner because they've won so early that the rest of the game is a boring, time consuming, mop-up.

 catbarf wrote:
Why the feth would you do that?

ask GW why they thjink it is a good idea
and I ask you what make you think GW would change this part if the game with a different activation system

if they would see it as a problem that one "go" wipes out an army, they could already change that without altering the phase/turn sequence but they are doing the exact opposite and make it even easier over time
but they don't want to do it because either they are that bad at writing rules, or they don't want to do it and in both cases, it would not change by changing the turn sequence

I am sure they will find a cool way to do it (like a Stratagem that lets you activate multiple units at once or let multiple units shoot several times instead of moving) so that people would not complain about bad design or the game but other players or "competitive" being the issue

 catbarf wrote:
They complain because it is a turn-based game where an entire army activates at once and the opponent does next to nothing

which is what I wrote above, that people use a "fancy term" to complain about the game that has nothing to do with the problem they have with the game

but also the "I do nothing" is not the case for 40k any more, Kings of War or Warmachine playes that way and by suprise it works for them because a turn is done fast
40k already changes the system in the past to have more interaction and let the opponent do a lot of stuff but the main problem is "Alpha Strike" and this did not get any better (well, because people complain about "IGoUGo" and GW changing that did not solve the actual problem) and in addition all the cool sounding interactions (like alternate activation in melee) just slowed the game down

40k mains problem:
- long range/first turn lethality
- taking too long to do something (the game using model2model skirmish/RPG style rules for a mass battle game)
- "bloat", not necessary layers of rules that give the illusion of interaction and tactical depth
- you play against the game not the opponent ("gamey")

and switching from alternate turns to alternate activation solves non of those but some are made worse (e.g. alternating turns are chosen because it plays faster than activations which benefits army level games so for 40k expect that you activate a unit once every 2-3 hours)

PS: yes even Alpha Strike is not solved by that as just because the opponent has the chance to move some of his models does not remove the possibility to kill his army in the first turn, it just gives the illusion that they have done something before the game is over, the same as all the gimmicks are doing now

Apparently the people with the WE leaks suggest that there isn't a big reset coming. Nothing more than that, just that they're not invalidating everything.

well, depends on what the big reset means

so because Codices are not replaced by an Index does not mean there are no major changes in the core rules
(something simple like a different "to wound" table would be a big reset for the game without being obvious)

 kodos wrote:
- you play against the game not the opponent ("gamey")

Could you give an example? I use gamey to mean the opposite of fluffy or simulationist, but a mechanic can be gamey while being inflicted by the opponent. I consider tri-pointing gamey, but that's not the game doing it is it, that's your opponent choosing to tri-point to prevent you from falling back until the tri-pointed model has been destroyed or you use the Stratagem that lets you fly while falling back. I'd consider the mechanics of previous editions like being forced to pile in and fall back in specific directions more to be something where you are playing against the game rather than your opponent.

 kodos wrote:
ask GW why they thjink it is a good idea
and I ask you what make you think GW would change this part if the game with a different activation system

No, I'm asking you why you assume that if GW switched to alternating activation, they would also make the game so hyper-lethal that a SINGLE UNIT can wipe out an ENTIRE ARMY like you implied.

That makes no sense.

 kodos wrote:
40k mains problem:
- long range/first turn lethality
- taking too long to do something (the game using model2model skirmish/RPG style rules for a mass battle game)
- "bloat", not necessary layers of rules that give the illusion of interaction and tactical depth
- you play against the game not the opponent ("gamey")

and switching from alternate turns to alternate activation solves non of those but some are made worse (e.g. alternating turns are chosen because it plays faster than activations which benefits army level games so for 40k expect that you activate a unit once every 2-3 hours)

PS: yes even Alpha Strike is not solved by that as just because the opponent has the chance to move some of his models does not remove the possibility to kill his army in the first turn, it just gives the illusion that they have done something before the game is over, the same as all the gimmicks are doing now

I have to ask, have you played games besides 40K? Grimdark Future is pretty much as lethal as 9th Ed, but it's way less oppressive when each time your opponent does something, you get to react in kind. A unit killing a third of its own value in one activation is a problem when your whole army can do it at once and take a third of your opponent's army off the board; it's way less of a problem when you kill a third of a unit and then your opponent immediately does it back to one of your units. It doesn't 'give the illusion that they have done something before the game is over', it actually successfully neuters alpha strike as a mechanic altogether. Getting the first turn with a high-lethality glass hammer army is not an auto-win, because you are taking damage as quickly as you are dishing it out. And the game avoids taking longer to play out by going to just 4 turns, while having considerably more on-the-fly decision-making in that time.

I don't think I or anyone else said that all of 40K's problems are IGOUGO or that some flavor of alternate activation system would fix everything, but it does have problems from the non-interactive IGOUGO structure, and others (like lethality) that might not be a problem on their own but are grossly exacerbated by the turn structure. And even if a different activation system takes longer to play out, if it substantially improves the interactivity of the game, it's worth it. Nix the bloat and rolling to see if you can roll and you could keep current play times with a better experience.

 catbarf wrote:

 kodos wrote:
ask GW why they thjink it is a good idea
and I ask you what make you think GW would change this part if the game with a different activation system

No, I'm asking you why you assume that if GW switched to alternating activation, they would also make the game so hyper-lethal that a SINGLE UNIT can wipe out an ENTIRE ARMY like you implied.
That makes no sense.

why would GW chose alternating turns and make it so hyper lethal that you can wipe out an ENTIRE ARMY in a SINGLE turn
that makes no sense either
at the same time, you ask how I think GW would be that stupid after what happened from 5th to 9th?

and I never said a single unit, I said a single activation, there is a difference, same as in an hypothetical game with different phases every unit would move once and shoot once, it would make no sense to have a unit moving in the shooting phase or shooting twice
GW will find a way to make you kill the opponents army in one go and people will defend it because it is fluffy or impossible to balance, simply because the want to do it or hire idiots as designers

there is no good reason to have this now outside of someone at the studio think this is needed to have "fun", so I don't see how GW would remove the core element of "fun" if they ever switch to AA

I have to ask, have you played games besides 40K?

well, OPR is an interesting example because it was different in the days when it first came up and it is also very different depending on the factions you play
there are not only the 40k factions, but also from other games/settings and if I play the 40k ones against each other I get into the same troubles I have with 40k
it needs some experience and tweaking of not taking certain units against some factions and not power game by accident but the game is a more fun version of 40k and I would say it is the game 8th Edition wanted to be

I don't think I or anyone else said that all of 40K's problems are IGOUGO or that some flavor of alternate activation system would fix everything

yet I might think you either don't read much on dakka or are new here

but this is pretty much what is going on for years now on almost all channels, be it dakka, reddit, etc. IGoUGo (or what some 40k players think IGoUGo is) as the source of all problems and all the problems are solved by AA
people arguing that AA by default won't solve anything because GW writing bad rules is not solved by writing more bad rules are a minority and usually someone comes up talking about that perfect balance is impossible and/or that 40k is too big to write good rules

And even if a different activation system takes longer to play out, if it substantially improves the interactivity of the game, it's worth it.

that simply depends on what you want from the game
of course you can use activations in all scales, but to get the game done within a reasonable time other things need to be cut, usually dice rolling and how detailed movement/attacks are resolved

another example of an activation based mass battle game would be LaSalle, but again there are not many detailed mechanics or dice rolled to speed things up (a full unit attacking rolling 4 dice for their attacks)

now assuming that because OPR works, it would work for 40k as well, than there would have been no need for 9th Edition and now people would not want to have a reset with 10th, as the game would already work well

Star Wars Legion or Warpath Firefight also work well and are better games than 40k, but not because of their basic mechanics, but the designers actually wanted to make a fun and balanced game
GW does not want that hence it won't happen unless they change their mind

 vict0988 wrote:
Could you give an example?.

to keep it short and simple in 40k you don't write lists to bring the right tools to handle all possibilities your opponent might have, you write a list that reduces the RNG or make units more reliable and add gimmicks to change the odds
or some stupid rules like that close combat range in 8th, making units immune to melee by placing them higher (it was changed bit this is still a good example)

 kodos wrote:
and I never said a single unit, I said a single activation, there is a difference

If a single activation consists of a single unit activating which is how alternating activation usually works then the only way a single activation can result in the same lethality problem is if a single unit can kill half the enemy's army in a single activation.

How, in your mind, does AA not resolve the problem of killing half the other army before they can do anything back to you?

 kodos wrote:
but this is pretty much what is going on for years now on almost all channels, be it dakka, reddit, etc. IGoUGo (or what some 40k players think IGoUGo is) as the source of all problems and all the problems are solved by AA

I think you are inventing straw men, because I have never seen anyone say IGOUGO is the source of all problems and everything would be fixed by AA.

I have seen a lot of people say IGOUGO is one of the things they dislike most.

 kodos wrote:
of course you can use activations in all scales, but to get the game done within a reasonable time other things need to be cut, usually dice rolling and how detailed movement/attacks are resolved

Yeah, but 40K isn't exactly fast-play, so there's plenty of room for improvement there.

Like, say, not having a mechanic that involves someone saying 'hang on, I think I have a stratagem for this' and then burning two minutes poring over their rulebook. Or having basic shooting attacks that require 60+ dice rolls on average for a 50-100pt unit. Or having units able to move, cast, shoot, charge, and fight all in the same turn, all mechanics that take time to resolve.

This isn't uncharted territory. Lots of games make it work.

 catbarf wrote:
If a single activation consists of a single unit activating which is how alternating activation usually works.

alternating activation means alternating activation, how many units are possible activated at once depends on the game and yes group activations are a thing and common as is a pass on activations
and with a setting like 40k were you have elite VS hordes, an opponent ending with multiple units to activate at once is there by default as you can only alternate until 1 player runs out
unless you limit the amount of activations to be equal but than again group activations are a thing to get all units activated

but put it simple, "phases" usually means that you do a certain thing only on the according phase, than compare this to 40k and tell me again that if GW will use a system how it is "usually" used

Yeah, but 40K isn't exactly fast-play, so there's plenty of room for improvement there.

hence adding another layer to slow things down won't help but make it worse
first of all there need to be someone in the higher ups who think they need a well written game, than a lot of things are an option, until that AA solves nothing

This isn't uncharted territory. Lots of games make it work.

lot of games make alternate turns work, others have strict IGoUGo and they work
thing is, if people want such a game that works, they need to play those games as waiting for GW do to it is wasted time, it will never happen

Yeah AA does seem to be the current fashionable solve all ills buzzword, that and bigger dice. There has been one and they have always changed (and occasionally been implemented) throughout the history of the game.

Dai wrote:
Yeah AA does seem to be the current fashionable solve all ills buzzword, that and bigger dice. There has been one and they have always changed (and occasionally been implemented) throughout the history of the game.

To be fair, AA solves the bigger problems of lethality, alpha strike, and the non-game problem of sitting around for half an hour doing nothing. Those alone make it a fix-all.

Ah yes. Turn one a squadron of Voidweavers blows up one of the three units in your army that can hurt voidweavers. Your single guy can't kill a squadron of them, neither the one in range or the two other behind cover. Next move the second unit from your army that can hurt tanks gets blown up by the second squadron of void. etc So much balance, such drop in lethality and alpha strike ability.

Karol wrote:
Ah yes. Turn one a squadron of Voidweavers blows up one of the three units in your army that can hurt voidweavers. Your single guy can't kill a squadron of them, neither the one in range or the two other behind cover. Next move the second unit from your army that can hurt tanks gets blown up by the second squadron of void. etc So much balance, such drop in lethality and alpha strike ability.

As compared to all three squads blowing up everything?

Overtuned units are overtuned either way. IGOUGO doesn’t make them better to deal with.

 kodos wrote:

hence adding another layer to slow things down won't help but make it worse
first of all there need to be someone in the higher ups who think they need a well written game, than a lot of things are an option, until that AA solves nothing

i've played 40k as-is but by adding AA (by phase) and the games actually went much faster. IDK where this misconception that AA = longer to play comes from


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Karol wrote:
Ah yes. Turn one a squadron of Voidweavers blows up one of the three units in your army that can hurt voidweavers. Your single guy can't kill a squadron of them, neither the one in range or the two other behind cover. Next move the second unit from your army that can hurt tanks gets blown up by the second squadron of void. etc So much balance, such drop in lethality and alpha strike ability.

As compared to all three squads blowing up everything?

Overtuned units are overtuned either way. IGOUGO doesn’t make them better to deal with.

yeah, thats another thing people get confused, if we add AA, other things should be changed around it obviously, and AA won't magically fix all 40k's problems, but it will alleviate many of them

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 kodos wrote:

hence adding another layer to slow things down won't help but make it worse
first of all there need to be someone in the higher ups who think they need a well written game, than a lot of things are an option, until that AA solves nothing

i've played 40k as-is but by adding AA (by phase) and the games actually went much faster. IDK where this misconception that AA = longer to play comes from

Makes sense I suppose. Instead of resolve a block of actions you resolve them one at a time.
Sort of like the difference between eating a bit of cake and trying to eat the whole cake at once.

If the new system doesn't make the situation better, then changing for changing sake is a moot enterprise. And the idea that GW is not going to make over tuned units or even armies, is as probable as thinking that next month you will win in Lotto.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


yeah, thats another thing people get confused, if we add AA, other things should be changed around it obviously, and AA won't magically fix all 40k's problems, but it will alleviate many of them

So what, another 3-5 editions waiting as GW fine tunes the rules around releases, hoping that this time they will get them good or at least get them good for ones army? No thank you. I had the expiriance of 8th full reset, it sucks.

Karol wrote:
If the new system doesn't make the situation better, then changing for changing sake is a moot enterprise. And the idea that GW is not going to make over tuned units or even armies, is as probable as thinking that next month you will win in Lotto.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


yeah, thats another thing people get confused, if we add AA, other things should be changed around it obviously, and AA won't magically fix all 40k's problems, but it will alleviate many of them

So what, another 3-5 editions waiting as GW fine tunes the rules around releases, hoping that this time they will get them good or at least get them good for ones army? No thank you. I had the expiriance of 8th full reset, it sucks.

If it's not perfect, don't bother, then?
It's possible to improve without fixing everything.

Because, again-would you rather have three Voidweavers shoot before you can respond, or nine Voidweavers and the rest of the Harlequin army shoot and melee before you can respond?

GW would find a way to mess up alternating activations (horde armies dominating seems the obvious way they'd trip up over their shoe laces) but at least the game would be a lot more interesting at the current scale than phone-browsing for fifteen minutes and occasionally pulling a stratagem out.

Alternating activations indeed comes with its own slew of problems.

One of which is indeed how you handle out activations per full turn. One per unit can run the risk that an elite army can end up with a major disadvantage because they've far fewer individual units to activate than a hoard army.

Meanwhile if you go with a "You get X number of activations to spread over your army per turn" you can end up punishing armies that might use more individual units which are weaker in stats - so a hoard army that isn't running just huge blocks.
That system can also run the risk of super units dominating the game. Even if you restrict a unit to 2 or 3 activations per turn the players are going to favour those units above all others.


No game system is without its faults and issues. The core problem with GW is two fold

1) They have a casual attitude toward rules writing in the first place. This isn't just the writers, but the time, budget, resources and such that get assigned to them

2) They have a desire to shake things up, right now every 3 years, by releasing a new edition. Each edition is a reworking and hence every time we get one all the work on the previous is mostly thrown out the window. As a result even when GW are using the right tools and taking the right approach, it gets stalled because after 3 years it has to start again.

they have a desire to shake things up after a year
hence we see a design shift mid-edition and it is not possible to get a whole 3 year cycle with all books following the same guideline

and they are proud of it and even stated in interviews that they see it as an advantage to publish all the crazy ideas they have every 2 minutes

 Arbitrator wrote:
GW would find a way to mess up alternating activations (horde armies dominating seems the obvious way they'd trip up over their shoe laces) but at least the game would be a lot more interesting at the current scale than phone-browsing for fifteen minutes and occasionally pulling a stratagem out.

like playing elite VS horde, you alternate activate your 5 units and than the opponent activates his remaining 15 in a row while you watch him and roll some saves once in a while?

 JNAProductions wrote:


If it's not perfect, don't bother, then?
It's possible to improve without fixing everything.

Because, again-would you rather have three Voidweavers shoot before you can respond, or nine Voidweavers and the rest of the Harlequin army shoot and melee before you can respond?

AA skews in favour of horde and msu armies. You are not going to find many people who play elite ones, who are fond of the idea. If the end result is the same under both systems, and I have to over lay it with GW quality and favouritism over it, a whole system change is not going to help. Change for change sake is stupid.
Plus we would be talking about stuff that would happen in 11th or 12th edition. 10th core rules are already write as are the initial codex. Ton of people that started in 9th or 8th, are not going to be playing by then.

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


If it's not perfect, don't bother, then?
It's possible to improve without fixing everything.

Because, again-would you rather have three Voidweavers shoot before you can respond, or nine Voidweavers and the rest of the Harlequin army shoot and melee before you can respond?

AA skews in favour of horde and msu armies. You are not going to find many people who play elite ones, who are fond of the idea. If the end result is the same under both systems, and I have to over lay it with GW quality and favouritism over it, a whole system change is not going to help. Change for change sake is stupid.
Plus we would be talking about stuff that would happen in 11th or 12th edition. 10th core rules are already write as are the initial codex. Ton of people that started in 9th or 8th, are not going to be playing by then.

Which is better-20 weak activations or 10 strong ones?

20 weak activations let you control the flow of battle more.
10 strong activations let you have more impact with a single activation.

You could also have more activations with elite units. But, people are acting like the difference is huge, and that it would be worse than current 40k.

Current 40k, the horde player gets just as many activations. The elite player has to wait their turn to even do anything.

I do not see how AA makes this worse in any way. Especially since I've played 40k with AA, modifying nothing but turn structure.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
You could also have more activations with elite units. But, people are acting like the difference is huge, and that it would be worse than current 40k.

Current 40k, the horde player gets just as many activations. The elite player has to wait their turn to even do anything.

I do not see how AA makes this worse in any way. Especially since I've played 40k with AA, modifying nothing but turn structure.

I think the issue is with how its spread out. With alternating turns you each take your full turn at once. With alternating activations it alternates, but whoever has the most units will tend to "end" each activation sequence with a block of just them going over and over again until the limit point. So it can feel more unfair and be harder to balance because they do get a block of units at the end which take a single series of actions all in one go. It means that they can more easily gang up on a target in the latter part of the turn without the opponent being able to manoeuvre, counter, protect that ganged up target.

Now granted you can make elite armies stronger and swarm armies weaker so that can somewhat balance things out. However it might be that with such a system GW might have to lower the relative power of some things so that you don't have hero characters that can take up the best part of 1K points (ergo half an army); because that starts to introduce some really powerful swings in number of activations and relative powers.


Of course no system is perfect and the biggest barrier we have isn't the activation sequence structure, but rather the attitude, focus, skills, direction, budget and all of the balance team

Flow of what, elite armies most of the time, and especialy in the case of marines do not trade 1 to 2. Most of the time they don't even trade one to one. The resiliance and offensive power of marine units would have to go through the roof, for a 1 for 2 trades to be possible. And I am avarging stuf out here. Vs the really good armies or marine hard counters playing marines, feels like giving up points to the opponent.

Right now if an AA system got implemented. The elite killer armies would be wiping out marines without any chance of counter play. While horde armies would be just overloading the marine player to do anything . AND on top of that the marine player would have to buy two armies, because an army which would try to do something vs elite killers would do nothing vs horde armies. At the same time the horde and elite killer armies would just be playing the same things they play now. Ah and the marine player better be a lucky "good" faction marine player. If he isn't BA, then his 11-12th ed expiriance would start really bad, worse then it is right now.


And by the way I am from the country where Kurwa comp was invented for Infinity. The way we played it, was considered so toxic and core game rule breaking that corvus belli changed their rules of an entire edition, just to accomdate our list building. Because in an AA system I could tell you what I would do with something like custodes. I would took all the dreads and tanks I could get. minimal troops and then max out on allarus termintors and then as first move on my first turn, I would turn a unit of 5-10 allarus in to 10 units of single allarus.