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.

Sometimes w40k in MtG terms feels as if you were playing a 50 cards draft deck, and your opponent had 900$ tournament deck. You do nothing in some phases, when they can turn 3 zerg the board and you can't do nothing.

40k is roughly speaking, as a former magic player, like both players have very slow decks filled with big creatures. A stompy deck if you will, and they do very little on each others turns and only hit each other in the face every player turn.

Though some lists are weenie decks with tons of tokens they throw at each other, also only on their turn of course.

It lacks the instants, and ability to do much at the end of turn, etc that some MtG decks can be build around, also lacks activated abilities aside from ones used just on your turn as well.

I just wish 40k didn't feel like MtG at all.

 flandarz wrote:
Again, like I said, even across a whole army, you're getting, at best, a 16.7% durability increase. At worst (which is gonna be pretty common considering all the AP and "ignore cover" around and how often you'll hide your good units out of LOS and/or in Cover anyway) it does nothing for ya. And, I guess importantly, it only applies to a single phase of the entire game. Your guys still sitting out in the open on T2? No longer helps them. You might be better off using a sub-faction ability that gives Cover when you're outside a certain distance from the enemy, cuz at least that lasts more than 1 Phase.

To reiterate: not saying it's a bad stratagem. It's solid. But don't play it off like it's broken either. Be objective about it.

Edit: also doesn't apply to units with the Flyer battlefield role either.

Math is weird. Even though it only increases your save by one, for some units vs Ap0 weapons that translates to a 50% reduction in casualties.

Even so, it's not that big a deal imo. Plenty of other games have advantages for the second player.
Warmachine, player 2 gets a larger deployment zone.
Hearthstone, player w gets an extra card AND the coin.

My real issue with the strat is how *useless* it is a lot of the time. Yes the ideal for a Sv3+ vs Ap0 is amazing, but the reality vs ignores cover, high Ap, or armies that need the benefit the most (daemons) getting no benefit at all

 auticus wrote:
I just wish 40k didn't feel like MtG at all.

Agreed. Magic is a great game, and I play every week, but I want a battle with 40k., not stacking card synergies. 40k doesn't even have half the interaction a game of Magic does!

Blastaar wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I just wish 40k didn't feel like MtG at all.

Agreed. Magic is a great game, and I play every week, but I want a battle with 40k., not stacking card synergies. 40k doesn't even have half the interaction a game of Magic does!

Maybe because IGOUGO causes turns to be 30+ minutes.

 flandarz wrote:
Again, like I said, even across a whole army, you're getting, at best, a 16.7% durability increase.

Ap increases damage non-linearly, having AP- or AP-1 against a 2+ Sv and a 6+ Sv are very different things, against a 2+ Sv AP- will need 6 wounds to penetrate the save once, while AP-1 will need 3 wounds to penetrate the save once (causing 100% more damage), while against a 6+ Sv AP- will need 1,167 wounds to penetrate the save once, while AP-1 will need 1 wound to penetrate the save once (causing 16,7% more damage).

The same is true in the opposite direction. So at best you are getting a 100% durability increase.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 amanita wrote:
I don't think 40K needs alternating activation. AA simply introduces other problems and tends to slow game play down which is anathema to an already somewhat bloated game system. The problem is that 40K allows too many phases or too much activity per side per turn.

We play 40K with a Reaction Phase whereas the defender has the possibility to either move slightly or shoot at half strength at nearby enemy units (no overwatch). It breaks up the block of phases each side has without compromising tactical execution.

I've played AA games, and they aren't inherently any more tactical or realistic than IGOUGO. But I do understand that 40K has long exacerbated the worst qualities of IGOUGO, prompting gamers to look for alternatives.

How in the hell is AA any slower than IGOUGO? I'm doing stuff around the same time my opponent is with AA. In IGOUGO I wait half an hour.

You tell me which is ACTUALLY slower.

Given amanita didn't say that AA turns were slower - which is what you referenced with your "half hour" assertion - it is possible that it is game length under AA which is being referenced.

And I could understand decision paralysis being more of an issue in AA games than IGOUGO games, as you have to figure out what makes the most sense to activate next, as opposed to knowing you can activate anything on your side, in the order that you see fit. The only exception to that I'm aware of in 40k at the minute would be the CC phase, where you do have to decide the order in which units will fight.

Final point - you are AWARE that using RANDOM block capital WORDS doesn't really help your ATTEMPTS at DEBATE, right? Shouting into the void convinces no-one, especially not the void.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I just wish 40k didn't feel like MtG at all.

Agreed. Magic is a great game, and I play every week, but I want a battle with 40k., not stacking card synergies. 40k doesn't even have half the interaction a game of Magic does!

Maybe because IGOUGO causes turns to be 30+ minutes.

Thats more of an issue with rules bloat then IGOUGO, Kings of War handles 40k amount of models and IGOUGO without slowing down to a crawl.

And I would say AA would slow down 40k even more in it's current state. In a AA game you have to re-evaluate your plan every activation, while in a IGOUGO game you can stick to a plan for your entire turn.

Mulling it over, I think blending the two methods might work. Something like Player A does their movement phase, then player B, then player A and B alternatively activate their psykers, then alternate activation for shooting, then A has their fight phase, then B has their fight phase.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Mulling it over, I think blending the two methods might work. Something like Player A does their movement phase, then player B, then player A and B alternatively activate their psykers, then alternate activation for shooting, then A has their fight phase, then B has their fight phase.

That does not work.
It's called alternate phases, and leads to the dude going second to just hide.
You either go full AA or you get an even worse ruleset.

Why not just play one of the million alternative activation miniatures games out there?


Let 40K be the game for people that don't like alternative activation (which are far more of a rarity to begin with .. if anything, we need more non-AA games on the market, not less).

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Why not just play one of the million alternative activation miniatures games out there?


Let 40K be the game for people that don't like alternative activation (which are far more of a rarity to begin with .. if anything, we need more non-AA games on the market, not less).

Because with Kill Team and Apoc it's already branching out into being an AA game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Mulling it over, I think blending the two methods might work. Something like Player A does their movement phase, then player B, then player A and B alternatively activate their psykers, then alternate activation for shooting, then A has their fight phase, then B has their fight phase.

That does not work.
It's called alternate phases, and leads to the dude going second to just hide.
You either go full AA or you get an even worse ruleset.

I feel like that could be addressed with a tutn by turn scoring system that requires you to hold points and kill models every turn in order to win. Say 5 objectives arranged into a cross or X on the board, and players need to hold 3 to get 1 point that turn, 4 to get 2 points or 5 to get three points. Kill points could be calculated as 1 for every 5 wounds a unit has (units with less than 5 count as 5 for the purpose of scoring).

Player with the highest score wins, even if they're tabled.

That would overcomplicate things i feel like that.

I feel like that could be addressed with a tutn by turn scoring system that requires you to hold points and kill models every turn in order to win. Say 5 objectives arranged into a cross or X on the board, and players need to hold 3 to get 1 point that turn, 4 to get 2 points or 5 to get three points. Kill points could be calculated as 1 for every 5 wounds a unit has (units with less than 5 count as 5 for the purpose of scoring).

which means any elite army that has problems with killing a lot of stuff per turn, is going to be ending games with zero VPs from time to time.

Why not just play one of the million alternative activation miniatures games out there?


Let 40K be the game for people that don't like alternative activation (which are far more of a rarity to begin with .. if anything, we need more non-AA games on the market, not less).

well first of all probably in most places in the world you can play w40k, but you can't play other games, or there is like 4-5 people playing them. And second of all, the game does require some tweeks or changes. Either to the rules sets or the the army rules, because there can't be armies that deal with it easily and others that can't, without getting anything in return. It is one thing to play against another army, or a better rules set, it is way a different thing to have armies that have to play against the corener stones of the game.

Not Online!!! wrote:
That would overcomplicate things i feel like that.

Why? A similar sort of system of hold and kill is used in ITC and other similar formats just find. If anything scoring each turn keeps players from turtling too much

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Because with Kill Team and Apoc it's already branching out into being an AA game?

.

Exactly. So play Kill Team or Apoc.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Because with Kill Team and Apoc it's already branching out into being an AA game?

.

Exactly. So play Kill Team or Apoc.

I'm just saying that 40k might not stay IGOUGO with the writers dabbling in AA systems for it already.

dyndraig wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I just wish 40k didn't feel like MtG at all.

Agreed. Magic is a great game, and I play every week, but I want a battle with 40k., not stacking card synergies. 40k doesn't even have half the interaction a game of Magic does!

Maybe because IGOUGO causes turns to be 30+ minutes.

Thats more of an issue with rules bloat then IGOUGO, Kings of War handles 40k amount of models and IGOUGO without slowing down to a crawl.

And I would say AA would slow down 40k even more in it's current state. In a AA game you have to re-evaluate your plan every activation, while in a IGOUGO game you can stick to a plan for your entire turn.

You mean you have to think for a minute about evaluating if your original plan is a good idea? OH NO!

That's literally the worst complaint against AA so far. I'm almost impressed you decided to use it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Why not just play one of the million alternative activation miniatures games out there?


Let 40K be the game for people that don't like alternative activation (which are far more of a rarity to begin with .. if anything, we need more non-AA games on the market, not less).

Maybe because more and more designers are realizing how bad IGOUGO is for wargames? Who would've thunk it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 amanita wrote:
I don't think 40K needs alternating activation. AA simply introduces other problems and tends to slow game play down which is anathema to an already somewhat bloated game system. The problem is that 40K allows too many phases or too much activity per side per turn.

We play 40K with a Reaction Phase whereas the defender has the possibility to either move slightly or shoot at half strength at nearby enemy units (no overwatch). It breaks up the block of phases each side has without compromising tactical execution.

I've played AA games, and they aren't inherently any more tactical or realistic than IGOUGO. But I do understand that 40K has long exacerbated the worst qualities of IGOUGO, prompting gamers to look for alternatives.

How in the hell is AA any slower than IGOUGO? I'm doing stuff around the same time my opponent is with AA. In IGOUGO I wait half an hour.

You tell me which is ACTUALLY slower.

Given amanita didn't say that AA turns were slower - which is what you referenced with your "half hour" assertion - it is possible that it is game length under AA which is being referenced.

And I could understand decision paralysis being more of an issue in AA games than IGOUGO games, as you have to figure out what makes the most sense to activate next, as opposed to knowing you can activate anything on your side, in the order that you see fit. The only exception to that I'm aware of in 40k at the minute would be the CC phase, where you do have to decide the order in which units will fight.

Final point - you are AWARE that using RANDOM block capital WORDS doesn't really help your ATTEMPTS at DEBATE, right? Shouting into the void convinces no-one, especially not the void.

>Interactive Game where you take a minute to decide if your original plan is a good idea
>Wait half an hour and then see what's left of your original plan
Good one, dude. These arguments against AA are almost surrealistic

40k works great with alternating actions, I've had a blast with it by using a modified Bolt Action -style system. It really doesn't require too much fiddling with and just works. Auras, orders, psionics... had no problems. CoD terrain rules used to fullest also help, as does playing all sizes between 500-2000. And I'm not a tournament player either, my force is being lovingly crafted through the years while I mull over narrative scenarios

While everyone can like what they like, personally I find it somewhat odd why folks would want to stay in the IGOUGO paradigm for any non-nostalgic reason. Ones presented in this thread haven't been too convincing from game design or play experience, given that we probably want to leave most of the rules text otherwise intact. Games like Kings of War or even Warhammer Fantasy get away with it, because rank and flank games are more often about shimmying your lines about and setting puzzles for your opponent than they are about straight up damaging their forces. A core action of KoW might be "right, that's my bid to taunt you forwards into my trap, what's your answer?" whereas in 40k it's "right, so this unit moves to position and tries to remove 50% from that unit". A shooting game is more fast paced in its actions, if not playing time, and every unit of action more directly hurts your opponents ability to contribute to the game. IGOUGO compounds the issue and reduces the agency of the player, whereas with AA you can counter continuously and the game flows nicely with less gamey shenanigans or huge swings in the players' capabilities.

As for suggestions of just playing Apocalypse, it's a different game. It is a good game and I urge folks to play it (especially with 6 mm miniatures), but it is a step above into company levels from the nice platoon skirmish that AA 40k can offer.

I have nothing against AA per se, and I would be fine if 40K moved to that providing it was done well. I just don't think it such an panacea that many people seem to think. It has its own share of problems and 40K's issues could be fixed under IGOUGO paradigm as well.

 Crimson wrote:
I have nothing against AA per se, and I would be fine if 40K moved to that providing it was done well. I just don't think it such an panacea that many people seem to think. It has its own share of problems and 40K's issues could be fixed under IGOUGO paradigm as well.

That is if GW wanted to actually fix issues.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I have nothing against AA per se, and I would be fine if 40K moved to that providing it was done well. I just don't think it such an panacea that many people seem to think. It has its own share of problems and 40K's issues could be fixed under IGOUGO paradigm as well.

That is if GW wanted to actually fix issues.

Yeah sure. And thus I don't think they would fare any better with AA.

I can see them moving to an AA system. A very bare basic one. I think overall the design strategy is to keep the game as open to as many people as possible. The more complicated rules are, the less open it is to everyone.

I would consider playing 40k again if it flushed IGO UGO.

 Crimson wrote:
I have nothing against AA per se, and I would be fine if 40K moved to that providing it was done well. I just don't think it such an panacea that many people seem to think. It has its own share of problems and 40K's issues could be fixed under IGOUGO paradigm as well.

It would help issues without needing to change several codices and adding several more Strats. As already pointed out, the 1st turn Cover Strat is broken in concept to begin with.

I know I'm late here but I wanted to comment on this:

 vict0988 wrote:

I think UGOIGO is a problem, but there are a million other solutions for every problem it creates other than AA. AA would be pretty awkward for aura characters and would benefit players that can make one activation count for a lot versus players that need more activations to get through their army. Some rules like auras just work, while other players would have to activate all their support characters first before they'd be able to get around to their units that are getting buffed. Oh you MWBD that unit? Yeah, I'm going to point my hellblasters at them before they get to shoot, now your MWBD is wasted.

Firstly, I think auras were a horrible idea to begin with and should be replaced in 9th edition (IMO single-target abilities like MWBD would be vastly better for the game).

Second, other games that use AA often have characters that allow an extra unit activation. So with the example of a Necron Overlord using MWBD, the ability could be tweaked such that the unit buffed by MWBD then gets to activate as soon as the Overlord's activation ends.

 Dysartes wrote:
Given amanita didn't say that AA turns were slower - which is what you referenced with your "half hour" assertion - it is possible that it is game length under AA which is being referenced.

And I could understand decision paralysis being more of an issue in AA games than IGOUGO games, as you have to figure out what makes the most sense to activate next, as opposed to knowing you can activate anything on your side, in the order that you see fit. The only exception to that I'm aware of in 40k at the minute would be the CC phase, where you do have to decide the order in which units will fight.

Final point - you are AWARE that using RANDOM block capital WORDS doesn't really help your ATTEMPTS at DEBATE, right? Shouting into the void convinces no-one, especially not the void.

Yes, AA turns tend to take longer than IGOUGO turns. This is pretty much an indisputable fact.

That said, the increased amount of interplay between players means that you can achieve a satisfying outcome in fewer turns. One turn in IGOUGO is one player reacting to deployment, and then the other player reacting to that, and then you're done. One turn in AA is, depending on the armies, anywhere between 5 and 20 rounds of back and forth play and counterplay.

Really if 40K managed to strip out the constant rerolls, that alone would more than offset the time penalty incurred by AA.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Let 40K be the game for people that don't like alternative activation (which are far more of a rarity to begin with

There's a reason for that. Just saying. Traditional wargames (as in, hex and counter) started to escape the IGOUGO paradigm in the late 80s, with various AA systems producing a better play experience for many settings, and miniatures wargames have been catching up.

There's lots of ways to do AA, too. There's straight AA, as in Apoc or Kill Team. Then there's token-based with selective activation, like Bolt Action. Or totally token-based (where the unit you draw activates), like in Nations At War/World At War. You have phase-based AA (more of a hybrid with IGOUGO), like in GW's Lord of the Rings game. And then you have IGOUGO systems that incorporate AA elements, like the reaction systems in Infinity or Starship Troopers, or the active/reactive system in Dust Warfare.

There are a few settings where IGOUGO makes for a better play experience, primarily large-scale Ancients or medieval fantasy games. But those, in turn, pin their decision space on unreliable C&C mechanics, coupled with an emphasis on maneuver- 40K does not (actually, if you want a good example of this style, check out Epic). There are also games where MTG-esque comboing is intended by design, such as Warmachine, where the ability to perfectly synchronize your forces with no risk of the other player being able to respond is considered a feature rather than a bug.

40K's style of IGOUGO doesn't benefit the game. It's just a carryover from an earlier era.

I think that 40k and AOS both are designed like warmachine. I think it is a huge feature that its fanbase loves being able to synchronize their forces with zero risk of a response.

Its at its core the heartbeat of both games.

A turnstructure like Lotr would go a long way of making 40K more interactive. There's a reason the system is basically unchanged since 2003, it has GWs best rules.
I like 8th Edition and see few of the problems many people on dakka like to complain about, but its turn structure should really change, right now the CC phase is the most interesting one because you can react and need to be careful which unit to use first, while in the shooting phase one is usually just watching. Gets annoying when you play against Tau who can do a lot of overwatch shenanigans in your assault phase while you'll have to watch them mark and shoot for 40 minutes .

 insaniak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

To make it worse some players actually prefer tables with little to no terrain..

...and will then complain about getting tabled by shooty armies in the first turn.

Was in my local GW today, saw a poor GK player playing on a 6x4 board with sparse terrain on it. Dude didn't even last 2 turns v new SMs. The terrain (or lack thereof) was a massive factor in this. All the SM player did was sit there and roll dice.

 Dysartes wrote:


And I could understand decision paralysis being more of an issue in AA games than IGOUGO games, as you have to figure out what makes the most sense to activate next, as opposed to knowing you can activate anything on your side, in the order that you see fit. The only exception to that I'm aware of in 40k at the minute would be the CC phase, where you do have to decide the order in which units will fight.

Although it is an IGOUGO game, the decision paralysis in WMH is quite prevalent. I've seen people near shut down (even with Deathclock) trying to work out what order to activate things in late in the game.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Mulling it over, I think blending the two methods might work. Something like Player A does their movement phase, then player B, then player A and B alternatively activate their psykers, then alternate activation for shooting, then A has their fight phase, then B has their fight phase.

That does not work.
It's called alternate phases, and leads to the dude going second to just hide.
You either go full AA or you get an even worse ruleset.

Then why does it work in LOTR? Genuine question- not played that game in a long while.