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.

I've read a lot of comments in other threads complaining about the IGOUGO system, but I really don't understand. Every multiplayer game is like this.
If both players go at the same time, how do you keep track of what is going on? Both players rolling dice simultaneously for different actions would be confusing.

Is IGOUGO specifically meaning one player resolves their entire force before the other player?
Chess, for example, is IGOUGO as well, but only 1 piece at a time. So does the term IGOUGO not apply to Chess?

Can anyone explain how a game works that is not IGOUGO?

Thanks

 Galef wrote:
I've read a lot of comments in other threads complaining about the IGOUGO system, but I really don't understand. Every multiplayer game is like this.
If both players go at the same time, how do you keep track of what is going on? Both players rolling dice simultaneously for different actions would be confusing.

Is IGOUGO specifically meaning one player resolves their entire force before the other player?
Chess, for example, is IGOUGO as well, but only 1 piece at a time. So does the term IGOUGO not apply to Chess?

Can anyone explain how a game works that is not IGOUGO?

Thanks

It refers to entire armv yes. Alternative is unit by unit. Shifts balance from he who gets first turn toward either deathstars or msu generally(msu being common benefitter'

Ok that makes more sense. So in an not IGOUGO system, are there typically rules in place to prevent the same unit from going over and over again?

For example, in Chess, you can keep moving the same piece each of your turns.
For a game like 40K, it would be pretty skewed if you could just spam the same powerful unit and just keep shooting with that unit. If it dies, you move onto the next identical unit.

-

tneva82 wrote:
It refers to entire armv yes. Alternative is unit by unit. Shifts balance from he who gets first turn toward either deathstars or msu generally(msu being common benefitter'

Would a cost based activation move things away from MSU? Say roll D6, you have that many activation points this pass, a troop squad costs 1 to act, fast attack and elite cost 2 and HQ and heavy cost 3. At such a point wouldn't a larger unit that both survives to act and has a larger number of bodies within it afford an economy of action?

I've played other games. Mostly fleet combat games that use an alternating unit activation system. Typically they are games for 3-4 units per player but there is no limit on how many units each side can have.

The game I liked best - which has many different spin off versions was called Babylon 5 wars (a game with ships from the show Babylon 5).

Each ship (unit) had an inititive which it adds to the value of a d20 at the start of each turn. The number you get is a score and this score determines where that unit will activate in the turn. It's possible that one player rolls higher on all their ships and they would get to go first with all their units but usually there is a good mix (because of a d20).

Then each ship has a certain number of things they can do per turn based on how much engine power they have an such. It could be easily modified to a game like this. Would it be harder to track what is going on? Absolutely. Would it make the game to long and unfun? ehhh... IDK. I am honestly having the most fun when I feel both players have a chance to win. going first in 40k is just such a huge advantage. My friends and I actually do a handshake "good game sir" after the player who's going first is determined just to kind of mock how silly the system is. Sure you can win going second in 40k (I do it all the time) it is an uphill battle though and entirely dependent on your opponent not rolling well at that point.

You can find a "deck of fun" concept thread in the Proposed Rules section, where I outlined one idea. More importantly, a couple of replies give insight into how other systems do it.

A common theme is limiting each unit to one move per "battle round". So there are still "battle rounds" in most of these games, but you trade off who moves.

There are a lot of different ways to do it. Chess does it by making always moving your queen suboptimal and dangerous. Checkers does it by being really simple. I'm not sure either would work out well for 40k.

chess isn't played IGOUGO. If it was, the opposite side would move all of their pieces, then you'd move all of yours.

I've seen several systems proposed for 40k. Put unit 'names' in a bag. draw them 1 at a time until the bag is empty. Kind of paperwork/tracking heavy though IMO.

Another way would be to put a token next to each unit - then each side activates 1 at a time, going through all of the phases until no more units have tokens.

Battletech does something like this - and makes it balanced by resolving all damage/effects at the end of the turn.

I started in 3rd and people complained about IGOUGO then too. 40k will not change, ever, no matter how loudly people cry.

tneva82 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I've read a lot of comments in other threads complaining about the IGOUGO system, but I really don't understand. Every multiplayer game is like this.
If both players go at the same time, how do you keep track of what is going on? Both players rolling dice simultaneously for different actions would be confusing.

Is IGOUGO specifically meaning one player resolves their entire force before the other player?
Chess, for example, is IGOUGO as well, but only 1 piece at a time. So does the term IGOUGO not apply to Chess?

Can anyone explain how a game works that is not IGOUGO?

Thanks

It refers to entire armv yes. Alternative is unit by unit. Shifts balance from he who gets first turn toward either deathstars or msu generally(msu being common benefitter'

Well - there would still be turns and no unit can active more than once per turn. Also another way you counter that deathstar strategy is you make larger units have a lower chance of going first and units with very high chance of going first lose power or cost more points for that chance of going first.

 Galef wrote:
Ok that makes more sense. So in an not IGOUGO system, are there typically rules in place to prevent the same unit from going over and over again?

For example, in Chess, you can keep moving the same piece each of your turns.
For a game like 40K, it would be pretty skewed if you could just spam the same powerful unit and just keep shooting with that unit. If it dies, you move onto the next identical unit.

-

All of the games I played that didn't use IGOUGO forced you to activate each unit you had once before the next turn would start. Generally you have markers, tokens, or a sheet of paper you tick off to keep track if you're playing with lots of units. There are lots of ways to go about determining when and how players activate their units. Someone on this board uses a system borrowed from another game where you put two different colours of tokens in a bag, and take turns drawing tokens. If you draw your colour, activate a unit. Draw after activating. If you draw your colour again, you repeat. If you draw your opponent's, they activate, then draw a token. I've played games with an initiative value that determined when and how many units you could activate in your round, and I've played some that were simple alternating activations, with one player getting extra activations at the end if they had more units.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756545.page

There are lots of other counter-IGOUGO threads in proposed rules as well.

SirWeeble wrote:
chess isn't played IGOUGO. If it was, the opposite side would move all of their pieces, then you'd move all of yours.

I get that now, but the term isn't very clear. Because in Chess, I go (move 1 piece) and then You go (move 1 piece). Hence the source of my confusion.

-

We'll see in the new Kill Team how Alternating Activation will fare.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I've played other games. Mostly fleet combat games that use an alternating unit activation system. Typically they are games for 3-4 units per player but there is no limit on how many units each side can have.

The game I liked best - which has many different spin off versions was called Babylon 5 wars (a game with ships from the show Babylon 5).

Each ship (unit) had an inititive which it adds to the value of a d20 at the start of each turn. The number you get is a score and this score determines where that unit will activate in the turn. It's possible that one player rolls higher on all their ships and they would get to go first with all their units but usually there is a good mix (because of a d20).

Then each ship has a certain number of things they can do per turn based on how much engine power they have an such. It could be easily modified to a game like this. Would it be harder to track what is going on? Absolutely. Would it make the game to long and unfun? ehhh... IDK. I am honestly having the most fun when I feel both players have a chance to win. going first in 40k is just such a huge advantage. My friends and I actually do a handshake "good game sir" after the player who's going first is determined just to kind of mock how silly the system is. Sure you can win going second in 40k (I do it all the time) it is an uphill battle though and entirely dependent on your opponent not rolling well at that point.

I really like that idea. However, if GW were to implement it, they would probably give eldar or space marines a lot if initiative and orks or nercrons very little, basically resulting in getting shot before moving your fist unit anyways.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I've played other games. Mostly fleet combat games that use an alternating unit activation system. Typically they are games for 3-4 units per player but there is no limit on how many units each side can have.

The game I liked best - which has many different spin off versions was called Babylon 5 wars (a game with ships from the show Babylon 5).

Each ship (unit) had an inititive which it adds to the value of a d20 at the start of each turn. The number you get is a score and this score determines where that unit will activate in the turn. It's possible that one player rolls higher on all their ships and they would get to go first with all their units but usually there is a good mix (because of a d20).

Then each ship has a certain number of things they can do per turn based on how much engine power they have an such. It could be easily modified to a game like this. Would it be harder to track what is going on? Absolutely. Would it make the game to long and unfun? ehhh... IDK. I am honestly having the most fun when I feel both players have a chance to win. going first in 40k is just such a huge advantage. My friends and I actually do a handshake "good game sir" after the player who's going first is determined just to kind of mock how silly the system is. Sure you can win going second in 40k (I do it all the time) it is an uphill battle though and entirely dependent on your opponent not rolling well at that point.

I really like that idea. However, if GW were to implement it, they would probably give eldar or space marines a lot if initiative and orks or nercrons very little, basically resulting in getting shot before moving your fist unit anyways.

I feel like an ork boy or a space marine should have the same inititive bonus in this regaurd (equal chance of going first) Eldar being all about mobility would probably have a better rating but this wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is now. The D20 has a lot of sway.

It would require some rebalancing, obviously. Such as, if CWE got a substantial boost on initiative, they might not have Battle Focus anymore. Fire & Fade might not be the same. Forewarned/Auspex Scan behave differently.

It drastically complicates the game, especially if both players have a lot of units to activate. You can seriously get into a situation where "Umm, whose turn is it again?" As an example, go play Infinity. You will see how complicated it can get.

IGOUGO is a cry by the players who foolishly think it will somehow "save" 40K. It won't. All it will do it skew the meta even more and over complicate an already over burdened rule set that is full of special rules and exceptions.

edit: I foolishly interpreted IGOUGO as alternate unit activation, not as "My whole army activates, then my turn is over. Your turn!". I'm trying to say that with the number of units in a 40K army, and the number of models in each in each of those units, an alternate activation system would be a nightmare. It works in Infinity because you have ~10 models. Maybe more, maybe less depending on game missions/factors. It works, but can be stupid complicated. And that's from a rule system that was built from the ground up for that style of play. Just dropping such a system into 40K 8th? Nope. GW would need to rewrite all the rules for it.

SirWeeble wrote:
chess isn't played IGOUGO. If it was, the opposite side would move all of their pieces, then you'd move all of yours.

I've seen several systems proposed for 40k. Put unit 'names' in a bag. draw them 1 at a time until the bag is empty. Kind of paperwork/tracking heavy though IMO.

Another way would be to put a token next to each unit - then each side activates 1 at a time, going through all of the phases until no more units have tokens.

Battletech does something like this - and makes it balanced by resolving all damage/effects at the end of the turn.

I started in 3rd and people complained about IGOUGO then too. 40k will not change, ever, no matter how loudly people cry.

Bag draw will get heavy critique from games being decided often by luck of draw then no doubt.

IMO best I have seen is simple pick up units one at a time. If you have 2xmore then 2 units. Yes this will tend to favour either death stars or more commonly MSU though the way 8th ed rules work as is I think it would favour death stars more than others. But every system favours SOMETHING. Current system favours the one who gets 1st turn for example. And certainly current system makes apoc sized games hard(and not in a good sense).

Everything favours something. Q is what people want to be favoured.

 Galef wrote:

SirWeeble wrote:
chess isn't played IGOUGO. If it was, the opposite side would move all of their pieces, then you'd move all of yours.

I get that now, but the term isn't very clear. Because in Chess, I go (move 1 piece) and then You go (move 1 piece). Hence the source of my confusion.

-

IGoUGo means that one makes everything and than the other player does the same

Chess and similar is alternating activation, Magic the Gathering is IGoUGo
And there are multiple different versions, you can gave IGoUGo with per unit activation instead of phases (Starship Troopers), or alternate activation with phases.

Both have their advantage, while alternating per unit activation gives a more dynamic gameplay better suited for modern type combat games

 Tamwulf wrote:
It drastically complicates the game, especially if both players have a lot of units to activate. You can seriously get into a situation where "Umm, whose turn is it again?" As an example, go play Infinity. You will see how complicated it can get.

This gas nothing to do with alternating activation
Infinity is designed that way to have a 10 model detailed Skirmish game
Go and play Battletech to see how complicated IGoUGo can be

Or go and play SST to see how well per unit activation works, or use Warpath, or WP FireFight as an example how uncomplicated Alternating Activation is.
Just because GW is not able to write uncomplicated rules is no reason to blame a game mechanic

 Galef wrote:

SirWeeble wrote:
chess isn't played IGOUGO. If it was, the opposite side would move all of their pieces, then you'd move all of yours.

I get that now, but the term isn't very clear. Because in Chess, I go (move 1 piece) and then You go (move 1 piece). Hence the source of my confusion.

-

That's alternating action, not IGOUGO.

Sorry Kodos, I misspoke on my response above. Go see my edit please.

I'm not sure I understand your last line:

Just because GW is not able to write uncomplicated rules is no reason to blame a game mechanic

This is a GW game, and GW would have to write the rules for this game mechanic in their game. I don't think GW could properly pull it off in 40K.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the alternate unit activation system, and in the games you mention, it works very well. Those games were designed for it from the ground up. To do the same thing in 40K would require GW to shift the game development radically in a different direction then what we have had in 8 (9? If you call 3.5 an edition) editions of 40K. We've seen the outcry over the change from 7th to 8th edition. Can you imagine all the crying we would see if GW did this for 9th edition?

Side note: IGOUGO is complicated in Battletech because the effects of combat (crits, weapon loss, injury, knockdown, etc. etc), heat, and movement don't impact the Mech until the end of the turn. This is fine when your Mech hasn't taken any previous damage, but becomes very difficult as the combat progresses. We tried using different color dry or wet erase markers and sheet protectors for each round- blue, then red, then green, etc. In the end, it was just easier to use paper and a pen/pencil to annotate when the damage was taken for the next round of combat. I abhor filling in dots and using hex based maps and much, much rather play Alpha Strike which loses a lot of granularity, but makes for a smoother, faster, more intuitive game.

Bharring wrote:
It would require some rebalancing, obviously. Such as, if CWE got a substantial boost on initiative, they might not have Battle Focus anymore. Fire & Fade might not be the same. Forewarned/Auspex Scan behave differently.

Yeah really - a lot of units would need to change to.

If you want a GW example check out the rules for Epic 40k.
http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp/rules/

 Tamwulf wrote:
.
I'm not sure I understand your last line:

Just because GW is not able to write uncomplicated rules is no reason to blame a game mechanic

This is a GW game, and GW would have to write the rules for this game mechanic in their game. I don't think GW could properly pull it off in 40K.
.

What I mean is that all game mechanics have their advantage and disadvantage but it is on the game designer to use them

40k could be changed to alternating phases (I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, combined close combat phase) without changing anything
alternating unit activation would need rules changes

But I doubt the designer woukd take the full advantage of such a system as they do not with the current one
It is not the mechanic to blame if something does not work

 Galef wrote:
I've read a lot of comments in other threads complaining about the IGOUGO system, but I really don't understand. Every multiplayer game is like this.
If both players go at the same time, how do you keep track of what is going on? Both players rolling dice simultaneously for different actions would be confusing.

Is IGOUGO specifically meaning one player resolves their entire force before the other player?
Chess, for example, is IGOUGO as well, but only 1 piece at a time. So does the term IGOUGO not apply to Chess?

Can anyone explain how a game works that is not IGOUGO?

Thanks

Specifically, igougo Refers to activating your whole army, then he activates his, and then back to you.

The most commonly regarded alternative is alternative actions where you activate one model/unit/section of your army and then he does the same until everything has had a go, and then it seems the next turn.

Other alternatives are what I call 'broken phases' or 'pseudo-igougo'. Gw's lord of the rings is a cracking example of the former, infinityis a cracking example of the latter.

Lord of the rings is a game where you roll for priority (highest goes first). Player 1 moves all their stuff. Player 2 moves theirs. Player 1 shoots. Player 2 shoots. Following that, anything in melee (from the movement phase) dukes it out. It's a surprisingly elegant system, and that in my mind, seeely under rated and under appreciated. It's probably gw's best rules set.

Infinity is a 'pseudo-igougo' game. In theory, I do all the stuff with my army, and then you do all the stuff with yours. In reality, infinity is a game best described as 'its alwaŷs your turn'. When it's 'your turn' you are the 'active player'. When it's not, you are the 'reactive player'. In the simples sense, the Active player gets to do more stuff slightly better (more 'actions', better rate of fire etc), while the defensive player always gets to respond. Active player moves out of cover? Assuming reactive dudes player have Los, he can take a potshot. Or duck out of the way. I regard Infinity as technically the best Wargame out there. Fabulous models too. Very cerebral though, so it's not always something I want.

A lot of game systems go in with the idea that alternating activations are strictly better, but they're really just different and create their own problems and limitations. It definitely has its advantages, but its very hard to mitigate the advantage that high activation count lists create. I've seen plenty of games with otherwise excellent balance get dominated by even a single extra activation. I don't think its something that can be made to work with 40k's wildly varying unit pricing without some pretty major changes.

It's a semantics argument. The game will always boil down to one person doing one thing, at one time. The core concept that underlies this game, and any table top games, is sequencing. Everything has to occur in a sequence, or as you said we'd be rolling dice at the same time.

Ultimately, the best way to play these games is with each phase following its own alternating activation sequence, with some stratagems interrupting that.

For example:

Movement Phase - players take turns moving one unit at a time.

End of movement phase - players take turns arriving from reserves.

Psychic Phase - players take turns casting spells one unit at a time.

Shooting Phase - players take turns shooting one unit at a time.

Charge Phase - players take turns charging one unit at a time.

Fight Phase - Alternating between units that have charged (effectively initiative step 0 like it is now) followed by the rest of the units already locked in combat.

Would this work? I'm not entirely certain. Some stratagems would cease to function (Custodes counter charge) and some would be very, very strong (fire & fade).

Ultimately i think this would be better tested on a game like AoS where much of the game is already alternating (melee combat).

The other approach is Infinity, where anything involving your opponents models is a combined action between the two players. So you shoot a guy but he can move (towards you or into cover) or shoot you back. So if you blaze away at something dangerous in CC you better kill it or it will be on you. Also shooting an effective shooting target with a crap one is a bad idea as your guy might die rather than theirs.

(Not totally sure I am covering it correctly here, someone can confirm, but hopefully I am giving you the rough idea.)

Its not perfect by any means, but its a genuine interactive system rather than "my guy gets to go, you get to roll armour saves and look sad as you pick up your models."

The problem is this would require a total redesign and I don't see GW ever doing it. Its also massively more complicated to learn than 40k hence why its so niche today.

Necromunda had alternate actions, and after an initial rush people seem to have gone off it. Not convinced this is because of alternate actions though, it just seems to be missing something versus the old version. I think the problem - which applies to 40k - is that stuff is too lethal.

 Marmatag wrote:

Would this work? I'm not entirely certain. Some stratagems would cease to function (Custodes counter charge) and some would be very, very strong (fire & fade).

I think it would quickly feel very gamey. Taking cheap activations so you can guarantee moving your big melee threat last would be the only way to get an important charge off. I'd be very very afraid of it turning into red rover games (see Imperial Assault's first championship for the worst version of this).

Personally, I think the way you'd want to test it out in 40k is by alternating detachment activations and requiring the same number of detachments from players. This probably demands a bit of a rework on detachments themselves, but its a middle ground I've seen work okay in other games.

For a game like 40K , I agree that the Lord of the Rings system would be ideal. Part of what hurts 40Ks IGOUGO system is the amount of long range fire powers armies can put out, many lists are capable of crippling their opponent in a single shooting phase. When the player going second doesn't even have a chance to do anything like, move, or pop smoke, or cast defensive magic. They are actually more defenseless against that first turn of shooting than in any other game turn. The LotR system where A moves B moves, A psychic B psychic, A shoot B shoot, Close Combat, actually does a lot to help the defensive player to take effective cover and get defensive tech in place before player A unloads with his weapons.

Anyway, other systems I've played include;
Bolt Action: Bolt Action is an alternating activation system, earmarked by complete randomness. Each of your units puts an "order dice" into a hat, and an "order dice" is randomly pulled from the hat. If the dice is yours, you get to assign it to one of your models, and have them take an action. Bolt Action has a reaction system where there are some reactions your units can do if they are shot at or charged for instance. In any case using a reaction requires you to take one of your dice out of the bag and assign it to them (giving up activating them normally later). Reactions can include over watching at an enemy assault, going DOWN! to make yourself harder to hit, etc. If a unit already has received an order or reacts, they are done. At the end of the game turn, you pick up all the order dice and start the process over.

The Bolt Action system creates a very dynamic game and forces players to adapt to unpredictable situations as getting to activate a unit is essentially random. Having more units than your opponent increases your chances, but does not guarentee. This can make bolt action frustrating to play from a purely competitive standpoint as you cannot necessarily plan for an activation because you don't know when it will come. It does suffer to an extent from breaking down when one player spams the board with models, however to get around this most tournaments house-rule the maximum number of individual units a player can bring. The major benefit of the Bolt Action system is it keeps both players engaged at all phases of the game, using their dice to react or take action, and the players must constantly think from their hip and adapt to changing circumstances. Activating your best unit last can actually be bad, because it gives your opponent more chances to place pins on it (as a unit gets more pins it becomes more likely to go down instead of what you want). So usually you want to move your key pieces first so they can do their job before getting pined by the enemy fire.

Malifaux uses a pure alternating activation- with some potential for "chain activation" wherein a certain unit ability will let you activate a nearby friendly model immediately after your unit finished activating. Malifaux's system works pretty well, and it does a good job keeping the players engaged with the game. Each unit can move once per turn (unless they are reactivated in some way). Its on the players to keep track of who has activated and who hasn't. Malifaux's problems are that it can entail a lot of book keeping, and it can definitely favor high activation count armies- especially ones that are capable of summoning. Overall I prefer Malifaux's system to 40Ks because you are a bit less hosed not getting first turn.

Generally, the benefits of alternating activation in practice outweigh the cons. The biggest cons are favoring armies that have high activation counts so they can strategically chose when to activate their key players, or bait out the opponents key players with disposable activation of their own. However the main benefit is that both players are more evolved in the game, and Elite units and armies can still be very well done as long as they are priced appropriately and their abilities reflect the inherent weaknesses of eliteness in the system. Typically activation control armies are very strong in early turns, but are more liable to fall apart as they take casualties, and start losing their activation control edge. which makes even the issue outlined above often a non starter. compared to pure IGOUGO alternating activation has a tendency to keep players more engaged in each turn and adapt to changing circumstances.

The IGOUGO system is just horrible when a match is decided by the roll for initiative in the very first turn. Play with more LOS blocking terrain you might say? It still doesn´t remove the totally boring gameplay aspect of one player doing all activations for his army while the other player is allowed to do next to nothing apart from dying. Our gaming group implemented an alternating activiation principle years ago for 40K and it suited us just fine.