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.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
It sounds like you played aa within each phase. The example you gave of cultists moving back out of charge range is exactly why i dont recommend that version at all. Each activation does all its phases. Simpler and gives more agency to the units.

Yeah, AA by phase is just bizarre and I don't think any game does that. Fully resolving every phase with each unit would be best and would probably be faster as well, since you're not going back to each unit multiple times in a round phase by phase.

Classic Battletech says hi since the late 1980s and today. Of course, there aren't things like Running in the Shooting Phase like some 40K editions have had. Any accelerated movement (Running for Mechs, Flank Speed for Vehicles) is all handled during Movement with appropriate consequences dependent on the unit's type, any other maneuvers made, and any advanced rules previously agreed upon (like skidding on roads).

It also nerfs Alpha Strikes from being completely dominate with damage being applied at the end of the Phase, so there is that.

Most games don't try to play with the model and unit counts 40k does, nor try to portray and make individual infantry carried handguns and swords meaningful in the same "D6 and Dining Room Table" oriented design space as orbital artillery and ICMBs. 40k's breadth of scope and scale forces it to the lowest common denominator in terms of tactical depth and game design choices. IGOUGO is an expression of that, in that it's simple and easily manageable in such terms.

If we look at most other games, stuff that people typically consider to be more tactically engaging, and that is usually built around AA, they often have force sizes with a third or a quarter the model count of a typical 40k army (or less even). Infinity, Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, Battletech, etc all play with ~10-20 models, and they all stick very doggedly to one scale, anything that doesn't fit gets abstracted or left out. Infinity will portray swords and pistols, but doesn't do anything much larger than about a Crisis Suit or maybe Dreadnought equivalent. Dropzone Commander will let you play an armored walker company led by a giant super walker, but you're only going to have like 6 tank-equivalents and your infantry are abstracted as an entire squad of 5 dudes acting as one model.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most games don't try to play with the model and unit counts 40k does, nor try to portray and make individual infantry carried handguns and swords meaningful in the same "D6 and Dining Room Table" oriented design space as orbital artillery and ICMBs. 40k's breadth of scope and scale forces it to the lowest common denominator in terms of tactical depth and game design choices. IGOUGO is an expression of that, in that it's simple and easily manageable in such terms.

If we look at most other games, stuff that people typically consider to be more tactically engaging, and that is usually built around AA, they often have force sizes with a third or a quarter the model count of a typical 40k army (or less even). Infinity, Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, Battletech, etc all play with ~10-20 models, and they all stick very doggedly to one scale, anything that doesn't fit gets abstracted or left out. Infinity will portray swords and pistols, but doesn't do anything much larger than about a Crisis Suit or maybe Dreadnought equivalent. Dropzone Commander will let you play an armored walker company led by a giant super walker, but you're only going to have like 6 tank-equivalents and your infantry are abstracted as an entire squad of 5 dudes acting as one model.

DUST 1947

Depending on the unit types you take you can do quite a good sized horde army at a 40K points scale -light/medium infantry are only 5 man squads where as heavy and super heavy are 3s but the AA system used lets you play quite balanced and quite fast. it also integrates a limited range infinity style reaction system. It is a direct rival to the type of game 8th ed 40K is, unlike skirmish level games like infinity or classic battletech.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most games don't try to play with the model and unit counts 40k does, nor try to portray and make individual infantry carried handguns and swords meaningful in the same "D6 and Dining Room Table" oriented design space as orbital artillery and ICMBs. 40k's breadth of scope and scale forces it to the lowest common denominator in terms of tactical depth and game design choices. IGOUGO is an expression of that, in that it's simple and easily manageable in such terms.

Maybe, I understand that Bolt Action usually runs at a model count somewhere between 40K and WMH, but I could be wrong. I've never actually seen anyone play it, it's Weird War 2 alternative, Gates of Antares, or Gates of 40K. But I think how 40K uses dice, what scale the base operations work on (model vs unit) and how resilient the models are are more indicative of the scale that 40K reaches for than its turn system does.

Classic Battletech's (CBT) biggest problem for speed is that the average Mech literally is covered with 185 points of health, with about 90 points of internal health, all divided between 8 sections which you roll a 2D6 to see where you hit on, and you're plinking with an average of about 9 damage per gun. Some things will speed it up such as shooting the back, hitting ammunition, and just carrying a but load of weapons that will strip the health at a rapid rate. There is also the fact that CBT has a lot more granularity in its rules as it tries to be more detailed in its wargaming than the abstract levels that 40K achieves. People have recreated some of the more epic battles in the game's history (Battle of Luthien actually had an abstracted scenario, but some just did it whole sale), but because of the damage each unit could take and the level of detail that exists is just so ridiculously high that it exceeds Apocalypse time frames. Outside of infantry, every model is individually represented. If you had to operate every Marine individually for everything, running a 40K game would be like running Kill Team with a team of 40 instead of your usual 5-10.

Realistically, it wouldn't be really that hard to set up 40K in to a Phased AA system like CBT using 40K's current Phase system. All it would take is a willingness of someone to apply it. Damage isn't too hard to track, as Necron players did it for years with no difficulty, and there were few rules that would be greatly affected by it in 7th, and I doubt the game has changed THAT much in 8th.

A full AA system like what Bolt Action runs would require a lot of special rules to be reviewed and adjusted as a result of the units interact, however

Bolt action, beyond the gates, and konflict were written by an ex GW game designer and it shows. Those games more or less translate directly to 40k with slight modifications to the stat line and a AA turn structure.

Its why the project beyond the gates of 40k worked so well. You barely had to do anything to translate 40k to btgoa core mechanics.

Lord of the Rings is written by a game designer at GW, and has alternating phases:

I move
You move
I shoot
You shoot
We stab simultaneously (and actually simultaneously, like literally roll the dice at the same time)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Lord of the Rings is written by a game designer at GW, and has alternating phases:

I move
You move
I shoot
You shoot
We stab simultaneously (and actually simultaneously, like literally roll the dice at the same time)

The problem with this in 40k is, well, shooting.

I am Orks, you are T'au.
I move my Boyz towards your T'au.
You turn 360 degrees and walk away.
My sluggas are now out out range.
You delete my unit with 15" guns.

I have played 40k with AA for a number of years. I wouldn't play IGOUGO 40k again. The issues people bring up about AA and 40k are not anything I have ever seen.

There are a number of AA games on the market in some form, from low model count to 40k sized armies. They work great.

It just depends on what you are after in a game.

A bit hypocritical of me to post this, but if you're not into 40k then why comment on it? Why not go chat about one of the games you're into?

Nurglitch wrote:
A bit hypocritical of me to post this, but if you're not into 40k then why comment on it? Why not go chat about one of the games you're into?

Why try and improve X you like, just forget it exists!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
A bit hypocritical of me to post this, but if you're not into 40k then why comment on it? Why not go chat about one of the games you're into?

Why try and improve X you like, just forget it exists!

You're not going to improve it though. We have no effect or influence on the design of the game. To change it so fundamentally means you're going to be playing a different game. And as someone else mentioned there's plenty of those out there. And perhaps people being enthusiastic about those other games is what has caused GW to engage in positive change over the years, such as Warhammer Community, keywords, etc. I'm not saying to forget it exists (like I said, I'm still here), but maybe explore some of those other games with the features you want.

Nurglitch wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
A bit hypocritical of me to post this, but if you're not into 40k then why comment on it? Why not go chat about one of the games you're into?

Why try and improve X you like, just forget it exists!

You're not going to improve it though. We have no effect or influence on the design of the game. To change it so fundamentally means you're going to be playing a different game. And as someone else mentioned there's plenty of those out there. And perhaps people being enthusiastic about those other games is what has caused GW to engage in positive change over the years, such as Warhammer Community, keywords, etc. I'm not saying to forget it exists (like I said, I'm still here), but maybe explore some of those other games with the features you want.

People can like 40k because it has great models, interesting lore, a large playerbase...

Moreover, if you're going to say "Don't bother posting anything that won't directly affect GW's design decisions," you should post that in literally every single Proposed Rule thread and quite a few in General Discussion too.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Lord of the Rings is written by a game designer at GW, and has alternating phases:

I move
You move
I shoot
You shoot
We stab simultaneously (and actually simultaneously, like literally roll the dice at the same time)

The problem with this in 40k is, well, shooting.

I am Orks, you are T'au.
I move my Boyz towards your T'au.
You turn 360 degrees and walk away.
My sluggas are now out out range.
You delete my unit with 15" guns.

LOTR has shooting, and you know what? You can't do it if you move more than half your move. That's it, can't shoot at all. And if you move under half your move, you have a big penalty (but at least you can). Just like 3rd edition 40k, you'll have to nerf shooting with Rapid Fire weapons if you want the game to function. If everyone's gun is at full effectiveness forever during movement, then yes, this problem happens, because of course it would - what incentive is there to not walk away when you could?

But GW's been moving the other direction. First, you couldn't shoot except one shot at 12". Then 2 shots at 12". Then it didn't matter for rapid-fire, but heavy couldn't shoot. Suddenly, heavy can shoot, but snapfire. Now, heavy can shoot at a -1. Future? Heavy can shoot at a -1 for infantry, and with impunity with other unit types...

 auticus wrote:
I have played 40k with AA for a number of years. I wouldn't play IGOUGO 40k again. The issues people bring up about AA and 40k are not anything I have ever seen.

There are a number of AA games on the market in some form, from low model count to 40k sized armies. They work great.

It just depends on what you are after in a game.

I play those other systems that use AA or some other system than igougo-DUST, heavy gear, victory at sea, classic battletech, infinity

When it comes to 40K i still play 5th ed. it may still be igougo but the counterbalance of terrain (usually lots of it) interaction, and much reduced shooting/CC attacks and wounds really curbs the negatives. it is more a game about what you tactically do on the TT than how 8th ed plays. to the point it feels like a completely different game.