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 always liked the first warzone rules, it was activation and action-reaction in one, and units had 3 actions to spend, making the game very strategic.

But first the current game issues have to be indentified, a governing body must be chosen, testers/proofreaders must be named.

Because otherwise it will be just be 50 captains and one confused wheelman.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
If anyone out there has played the original EPIC rules by jervis, you will see this coming..
play with an order sequence.
Each player gives thier detatchments orders before the turn.

This is and will always be a fantastic system. 40k converted to this would be awesome.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Are you saying that IGOUGO is objectively bad?

Oh good, I can already see where this is going. You're going to complain about how there's no such thing as "objective" in this context, and compare playing non-IGOUGO games to having sex with your dog.

And to answer the relevant question, yes, IGOUGO is bad. If you replaced saves with rolling to defeat saves (mathematically equal) you could have one player walk away and get lunch while their opponent takes their turn and not miss anything. Having to spend long periods of time watching someone else play the game instead of playing just isn't fun. And that's not even considering the balance issues with alpha strike armies, or the absurdity of trying to explain the fluff of what is going on when a unit charges across half the table and slaughters your troops in melee while they stand around waiting for permission to shoot back.

Your proof that IGOUGO is objectively bad...is that you don't enjoy it.

Ah perigrine. Carry on dear boy, carry on

xruslanx wrote:
Your proof that IGOUGO is objectively bad...is that you don't enjoy it.

Ah perigrine. Carry on dear boy, carry on

His objection- which is sailing clear over your head- is that IGOUGO is non interactive. Interacting with your oppoent is the essence of collaboration and competition.

 Kojiro wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Your proof that IGOUGO is objectively bad...is that you don't enjoy it.

Ah perigrine. Carry on dear boy, carry on

His objection- which is sailing clear over your head- is that IGOUGO is non interactive. Interacting with your oppoent is the essence of collaboration and competition.

So any enjoyment gathered by it is invalid?

I enjoy watching my opponent manouvre his forces, planning counter-attacks, contemplating what he'll shoot at, wondering where i'll deep strike - if he wipes out x unit then i'll deep-strike there, if he shoots at y unit then i'll deep-strike there. I enjoy watching my opponent's movements unfold like a battleplan as I sit and plot my response - how is that "objectively inferior" to anything?

How would you know? You've never experienced anything else.

xruslanx wrote:
So any enjoyment gathered by it is invalid?

No, but then that's not what was asked or what was said. The comment was about the system itself, not how much you enjoy it. You could, for example, enjoy sex with animals but that wouldn't make it the best sex possible.

xruslanx wrote:
I enjoy watching my opponent manouvre his forces, planning counter-attacks, contemplating what he'll shoot at, wondering where i'll deep strike - if he wipes out x unit then i'll deep-strike there, if he shoots at y unit then i'll deep-strike there. I enjoy watching my opponent's movements unfold like a battleplan as I sit and plot my response - how is that "objectively inferior" to anything?

Your enjoyment is not at all objective, it's entirely subjective. But again, we're talking about the IGOUGO systems objective quality, not your subjective enjoyment of it.

If you want to claim it's a good system, make an argument for why a lack of interaction is superior to more interaction.

 Kojiro wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
So any enjoyment gathered by it is invalid?

No, but then that's not what was asked or what was said. The comment was about the system itself, not how much you enjoy it. You could, for example, enjoy sex with animals but that wouldn't make it a good idea.

Perigrine stated that IGOUGO was objectively inferior. If a game - something that is designed to be *fun* to the people who play it - cannot be judged on how much enjoyment the people who play it garner, then it cannot be judged at all.

Your enjoyment is not at all objective, it's entirely subjective. But again, we're talking about the IGOUGO systems objective quality, not your subjective enjoyment of it.

If you want to claim it's a good system, make an argument for why a lack of interaction is superior to more interaction.

See above. You can't judge something that is designed to be fun, then declare that peoples' fun experiences with it are irrelevent. If peregrine (or you) doesn't enjoy IGOUGO, for whatever reason, then fine. But to claim that it is objectively inferior to alternatives is untrue.

But you're only judging it on the amount of fun you have, rather than the community at large, and it has been well established you have no frame of reference and could possibly have more fun under another system, but how would you know?

 azreal13 wrote:
But you're only judging it on the amount of fun you have, rather than the community at large, and it has been well established you have no frame of reference and could possibly have more fun under another system, but how would you know?

I was going to post something sarcastic and scathing but you did it for me

xruslanx wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
But you're only judging it on the amount of fun you have, rather than the community at large, and it has been well established you have no frame of reference and could possibly have more fun under another system, but how would you know?

I was going to post something sarcastic and scathing but you did it for me

Only by your own lack of understanding.

Surely, by all the posts in all the threads that have been written around this subject recently, where many people with waay more patience than me have attempted to explain in multiple ways to you their feelings on the subject, and the apparent lack of more than one or two people who have even vaguely agreed with you, surely, somewhere in that closed off, 40K-centric brain of yours, you might be coming to suspect that perhaps you're in a minority here?

If you are indeed, in a minority of people who genuinely feel that 40K is as good as it gets for wargaming and is as good as it can be, then you must, at the very least concede that you aren't a great measure of that ruleset's quality?

 azreal13 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
But you're only judging it on the amount of fun you have, rather than the community at large, and it has been well established you have no frame of reference and could possibly have more fun under another system, but how would you know?

I was going to post something sarcastic and scathing but you did it for me

Only by your own lack of understanding.

Surely, by all the posts in all the threads that have been written around this subject recently, where many people with waay more patience than me have attempted to explain in multiple ways to you their feelings on the subject, and the apparent lack of more than one or two people who have even vaguely agreed with you, surely, somewhere in that closed off, 40K-centric brain of yours, you might be coming to suspect that perhaps you're in a minority here?

If you are indeed, in a minority of people who genuinely feel that 40K is as good as it gets for wargaming and is as good as it can be, then you must, at the very least concede that you aren't a great measure of that ruleset's quality?

I never said that 40k was "as good as it gets", or that it is flawless - indeed its flaws are many, and I would be happy to discuss them. But if the *only* way that people can rationalise a critisism of 40k is by saying "try other rulesets", it leads me to believe that 40k is - more or less - as good as a game with such a large scope can be. I would love to read a logical argument for how 40k could be improved while - and this is important - retaining the depth and diversity of 40k. Saying "it should have less rule inconsistancies" is pointless. Yes, everything should have as few mistakes as possible, and maybe 40k should have less than it does. But that's not a philosophical argument, and by and large pointless.

Tell me xruslanx, which systems- and why- is IGOUGO superior to?

Anyone can claim 'I enjoy X the best!' and even mean it.

I'll say it again- interaction is reason we have an opponent. Interaction makes things dynamic, shifting and brings more of the player to the table. These are good things, no? Make an argument for a lack of interaction if you're so in favour ot it. Stop claiming it's the best and explain why it is and don't use subjective (ie your personal enjoyment) to justify it.

xruslanx wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
But you're only judging it on the amount of fun you have, rather than the community at large, and it has been well established you have no frame of reference and could possibly have more fun under another system, but how would you know?

I was going to post something sarcastic and scathing but you did it for me

Only by your own lack of understanding.

Surely, by all the posts in all the threads that have been written around this subject recently, where many people with waay more patience than me have attempted to explain in multiple ways to you their feelings on the subject, and the apparent lack of more than one or two people who have even vaguely agreed with you, surely, somewhere in that closed off, 40K-centric brain of yours, you might be coming to suspect that perhaps you're in a minority here?

If you are indeed, in a minority of people who genuinely feel that 40K is as good as it gets for wargaming and is as good as it can be, then you must, at the very least concede that you aren't a great measure of that ruleset's quality?

I never said that 40k was "as good as it gets", or that it is flawless - indeed its flaws are many, and I would be happy to discuss them. But if the *only* way that people can rationalise a critisism of 40k is by saying "try other rulesets", it leads me to believe that 40k is - more or less - as good as a game with such a large scope can be. I would love to read a logical argument for how 40k could be improved while - and this is important - retaining the depth and diversity of 40k. Saying "it should have less rule inconsistancies" is pointless. Yes, everything should have as few mistakes as possible, and maybe 40k should have less than it does. But that's not a philosophical argument, and by and large pointless.

40K could simply be improved by thorough play testing, and regular updates to errata and FAQ to address conflicts where the rules are inadequate. You know, like the makers of other games do.

You still have yet to allow that depth and diversity are not mutually exclusive to well written rules with no room for misinterpretation, nor that a balanced ruleset, where there are no bad choices, just choices, is inherently more desirable than a ruleset which allows for such a disparity in quality that units range from game-breaking to unplayable the moment you start to even consider the possibility of designing a list to have a chance of winning.

These things exist in the wargaming hobby, they are achievable, if not completely, then certainly substantially, and those of us with a broader perspective hold these things to be self evident, you, however, do not, in no small part because your frame of reference is so narrow.

I've seen numerous, specific, examples of how things work in other systems cited to you, yet you still ignore them, you state other people "only rationalise criticism of 40K by saying try other rulesets" Well how the bloody hell else to you criticise something if not in comparison to its peers? That's just nonsense, the only way to assess something is in comparison to other things.

Until you at least concede the possibility that your position is flawed, and it is flawed, then there is no hope for any sort of dialogue.

once again why people insist the non interaction is part of IGOUGO?

You do understand that alternative activation games can be non interactive too?

interaction between players is a game design decision that is separate from the activation sequence.

Isn't Warmachine IGOUGO?

I've always liked the system in the Lord of the Rings game, where at the beginning of the turn, both players roll for priority. The winner (P1) moves all his things, the other player moves his, P1 shoots, the other player does, and then close combat is done simultaneously. I've tried it before in 40k, moving the charging bit to the movement phase, and it works remarkably well, evening out some of the issues that there are.

xruslanx wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
But you're only judging it on the amount of fun you have, rather than the community at large, and it has been well established you have no frame of reference and could possibly have more fun under another system, but how would you know?

I was going to post something sarcastic and scathing but you did it for me

Only by your own lack of understanding.

Surely, by all the posts in all the threads that have been written around this subject recently, where many people with waay more patience than me have attempted to explain in multiple ways to you their feelings on the subject, and the apparent lack of more than one or two people who have even vaguely agreed with you, surely, somewhere in that closed off, 40K-centric brain of yours, you might be coming to suspect that perhaps you're in a minority here?

If you are indeed, in a minority of people who genuinely feel that 40K is as good as it gets for wargaming and is as good as it can be, then you must, at the very least concede that you aren't a great measure of that ruleset's quality?

I never said that 40k was "as good as it gets", or that it is flawless - indeed its flaws are many, and I would be happy to discuss them. But if the *only* way that people can rationalise a critisism of 40k is by saying "try other rulesets", it leads me to believe that 40k is - more or less - as good as a game with such a large scope can be. I would love to read a logical argument for how 40k could be improved while - and this is important - retaining the depth and diversity of 40k. Saying "it should have less rule inconsistancies" is pointless. Yes, everything should have as few mistakes as possible, and maybe 40k should have less than it does. But that's not a philosophical argument, and by and large pointless.

Wait, i think i know this guy. Arent you the forever smug pseudo intellectual that's only here to feel good about yourself by contributing nothing to the situation but controversy? Yeah i know you.

Could have counter pointed any of the logical negatives to IGOUGO, but you didn't. You didn't because you spun it into 'feelies' and of course, NOBODY can prove feelies wrong. And your'e only here to look down your nose at folks, so I suppose that's all we'll get from you in this thread. Even this last post of yours was full of nothing. no substance. lots of open ended implications, vagueries, and subtle challenges (because arguing against vague 'feelies' lets you troll easier). Just here to say 'nuhuh, you guys are wrong'. You arent a politician are you?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope this initiative goes places.

I'm sure the above post breaks at least one of the rules.

IGOUGO is an activation method, it has the advantage of providing a player the means to make more coherent use of his forces elements and formulate a more coordinated strategy.

Its disadvantages are that there are no means to use your elements in direct response to your opponents use, there are many reaction mechanisms used in many game systems to counter this from the plainer "overwatch" style reaction used in 40k 2nd edition to the more sophisticated (and the best up to date in my opinion) ARO of Infinity.

Alternative Activation is an activation method in which each players elements take turn, one at a time, this increases the players ability to respond on opponents actions, but has the disadvantage of been incoherent and making the use of elements synergy problematic, there are mechanics like delay that can allow players to make more coherent use of their force.

I don't really have a problem with IGOUGO. I don't feel a back-and-forth initiative based system would benefit a game on the scale of 40K. It would get clumsy rather quickly. I base this on other games like it that I've played. I mean, BattleTech has an Initiative system that I really like, but the scale of the game supports such a thing. You've got like 12 units at most, and that's a big game, and then maybe tanks/infantry/aircraft, but each unit is a major thing with its own record sheet and accounting for its actions, heat, ammo and so on. It's not 6 Tactical Squads, all with different weapons, some with transports, plus Bikes, Dreads, Termies, Characters, tanks and half a dozen other things across an analogue table-top (NB: analogue as in measured by hand, not done on a hex-grid like BTech, something which removes a lot of the ambiguities allowing you to focus better on the initiative-based alternate activation method). Epic (some versions of it) had similar methods, moving "detachments", at a time, which is a nice discreet unit of which you only have a few. Easier to focus on.

I could see a non-IGOUGO system working with a smaller scale game like Necromunda (again, for the same reasons - limited model count, individual playing pieces over squads). I don't think IGOUGO is bad for 40K. The current system is certainly better than, say, 2nd Ed 40K, where there was no interaction outside of the psychic phase. As the concept of "cover saves" didn't exist your own turns just consisted of removing your own units. From 3rd Ed onwards, the introduction of Cover Saves meant you had something to do during your opponent's turn.

 Kojiro wrote:
... which is sailing clear over your head...

A reoccurring theme, wouldn't you say?

xruslanx wrote:
I was going to post something sarcastic and scathing but you did it for me

I'll go ahead and add "scathing" and "sarcastic" alongside "strawman" on the list of things you don't know the definition of.




And I just ended a sentence with "of". Uhh! I did it again!!!

 AndrewC wrote:

Mike712 wrote:


Proof readers....NO TYPOS ALOUD!

Oh the irony! (That should be ALLOWED)

But since I put my head above the parapet, I'm happy to proof-read.

Cheers

Andrew

It was an intentional mistake

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Mike712 wrote:
The 40k rule-set has potential in it

Really? What potential do you see in the rules? IMO what 40k needs is a complete re-write from the beginning to get rid of awful mechanics like the IGOUGO turn structure and the D6 stat lines.

Amen.

I've had an idea playing in my head for quite a while. A mixing of what I find best in the games I play. Streamlined stats based on troop types all across factions (Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Armoured Infantry, etc). A turn sequence based heavily off Infinity (with the exception of a 'moral status' rule which either allows or limits AROs based on the status (either Ready, Spent, Broken or Panicked) of the unit). Limitations on the amount of dice throwing (only one dice to to both hit/wound), different armour rules (giving armour values only to vehicules and armoured troops) and a Living Card Game system to replace Reserve and the Army Org system and to include a bit of strategic gameplay above the table gameplay.

Which would leave the game looking nothing like 40k, and more like a frankenstein monster built from 40k, Wm/H, Infinity and Netrunner.

I'm going to start polls soon, to see if everyone thinks the project should focus on a adaptation of the current rules or a complete re-write.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I always liked the first warzone rules, it was activation and action-reaction in one, and units had 3 actions to spend, making the game very strategic.

But first the current game issues have to be indentified, a governing body must be chosen, testers/proofreaders must be named.

Because otherwise it will be just be 50 captains and one confused wheelman.

At this stage I'm still looking for support for the idea, the first poll I'll run will be a question about if people are actually interested in seeing a new community made rule-set, if it gets say 1000 positive votes and those votes outweigh the negative or don't care by a factor of at least 2 the project is worth investing my time in.

I would suggest starting small....skirmish level....then work your way up. Balance will be hard from every standpoint as you may have to literally reinvent the Hobby for GW.

xruslanx wrote:
I never said that 40k was "as good as it gets", or that it is flawless - indeed its flaws are many, and I would be happy to discuss them. But if the *only* way that people can rationalise a critisism of 40k is by saying "try other rulesets", it leads me to believe that 40k is - more or less - as good as a game with such a large scope can be. I would love to read a logical argument for how 40k could be improved while - and this is important - retaining the depth and diversity of 40k. Saying "it should have less rule inconsistancies" is pointless. Yes, everything should have as few mistakes as possible, and maybe 40k should have less than it does. But that's not a philosophical argument, and by and large pointless.

Variety is the spice of life as they say young man. One cannot measure how great something is until they measure it against its peers. Manchester United can't be considered the greatest football club of all time if they have no one to compete against. 40k cannot be considered 'as good as it gets', flawless, or anything else if you don't compare it to other game systems. In a bubble of GW, 40k is the greatest game you'll ever experience. Once you leave the shadow of the Ivory Tower of GW and venture into the Iron Kingdoms, Malifaux, WWII Earth, etc... you'll never appreciate the 40k rules for what they are, good or bad. You may venture forth and travel the world of miniature wargaming hobbies and find that none of these games scratch the itch that 40k does, or you may find yourself play multiple games and being all the happier for it.

There's not wrong with wanting a better 40k, regardless of the existence of 'better' rulesets.

IGOUGO is not flawed in itself, it's just the choices that GW has made in implementing it that fail too often.

GW's way of making rules is bad, even if some of the actual rules are not. It needs a complete overhaul into a tighter and better ruleset. Why start with the turn sequence and then put all sorts of rules that have nothing to do with it INSIDE that section? What if I shoot outside the shooting phase? How does that work? etc..

Undoing this will be a lot of work, especially since you'd need to re-do all the codices too.

Good luck.

I agree there is nothing wrong with the core mechanics and resolutions used in 40k.

IF they were used in different games ,in completely different combinations.

But they way they are used for 40k is about as sub optimal as I have seen.

I would much prefer starting with Epic rules, (Space Marine/Armageddon.) And ADD DETAIL to bring it up to 28mm from 6mm scale.

Starting with good battle game rules , and ADDING detail makes more sense than starting with WHFB skirmish rules and chopping lumps out.(IMO.)

So I would vote for a complete re-write.

Lanrak wrote:
I agree there is nothing wrong with the core mechanics and resolutions used in 40k.

IF they were used in different games ,in completely different combinations.

But they way they are used for 40k is about as sub optimal as I have seen.

I would much prefer starting with Epic rules, (Space Marine/Armageddon.) And ADD DETAIL to bring it up to 28mm from 6mm scale.

Starting with good battle game rules , and ADDING detail makes more sense than starting with WHFB skirmish rules and chopping lumps out.(IMO.)

So I would vote for a complete re-write.

I think 28mm epic would be fun and would stand alone on its own. Armageddon is a disaster where 28mm epic could be both a replacement for 40k and armageddon.

The fundamental problem of 40k is the scale and scope, 28mm are too big for what is on the table, even with the minimal terrain 40k has it is cluttered with few possibilities for tactical maneuvers.

But I still think a really good game designer can salvage the system without essentially writing a new system, but for me the huge amount of models and vehicles on the table must either go or the rules be made abstract enough to correctly facilitate company level engagements.

While for GWs financials more models = great, from gameplay perspective, especially if one would love to have the fluff on the table smaller engagements might be better.

A good game designer could write rules specifically for the intended game play of 40k.

NO-ONE can salvage the GW rules for 40k. As they are just horribly mutated WHFB skirmish rules hatcheted up and crudely patched with counter intuitive special rules.

(Alessio gave up on fantasy in space after the first beta test of Warpath GW have been trying to get it right with a TEAM of professional game developers for 15 years...)

There is NOT ONE game mechanic or resolution method in 40k ,that can not be replaced with more intuitive /simpler/more synergistic one.

Current 40k is based on 30 year old Napoleonic rules .I think MODERN rules for MODERN combat would suit it much better, .

If you want a improved 40k rule set,Look at 'Grim Dark' rules by Rabid on the rules development forum.

You can keep the game play of 40k , but use other rules you know.
I have used other rules to play games of 40k,Tomorrows War, Warpath, Stargrunt ,etc.

So please dont think its not 40k when you use other rules.(Epic Space Marine/fan supported Net Epic, has always been my favorite rules set for the 40k universe.)

Oh I will not agree with that, the question is, when somebody says "I play WH40K" he means the background or the game rules and is the level included in his/her expectations?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The fundamental problem of 40k is the scale and scope, 28mm are too big for what is on the table, even with the minimal terrain 40k has it is cluttered with few possibilities for tactical maneuvers

I'm wholeheartedly behind this project but please, please, please look at the scale. Especially if you want to be true to the fluff.

At 28mm you want to be focusing on each model, it's gear and it's placement because that's the 'unit' of model you have. Contrast that with Epic or other game where you have a squad to a base. I strongly urge you to keep Epic scale models- Baneblades, Stompas, Titans, even Wraithknighs and Riptides- out of the new rules. And I would add fliers to that unless they're some small attack craft or Little BIrd like analogue.

A better idea, altogether may be to just convert 40K to a better rules set.