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.

Changing the IGOUGO activation system of 40K could turn things in the game on their head in a very positive way.

I have played several games that operate at the scale of 40K that work perfectly fine with alternating activation. From what I hear EPIC had it. And two of my favorite games, despite them being no longer in active print, are AT-43 and Confrontation:Age of Ragnorok.

I regularly take to the field in AT-43 with armies that are the same model count as a 2000-2500pt 40K army, and our games play just as fast as 40K, while at the same time keeping the other player from being bored for the entire time I activate an entire army. And AT-43 even has a system in place that is a bit more complicated that a simple "pick a unit to activate", and that still doesn't make the game last longer than a game of 40K.

One of the other things keeping me out of 6th edition is that I absolutely hate is the giant list of Universal Special Rules. My god.

Also, agree that flyers belong in Epic. Period.

And no, you shouldn't be able to ally with yourself. At least with the allies from 2nd edition, having an Imperial Guard army throw in an Eldar Avater still had to worry about whether that Avatar and their Imperial Guard HQ didn't go over 25% of the army points total. Still janky, but at least it was more of a balance than a simple Force Org slot.

I can honestly say that I could expect to get a casual gamer (like my wife) to learn, play, and enjoy 2nd edition with me much easier than 6th edition, barring the obvious 2nd edition Hand to Hand phase issues. Of course, I worry about the multiple heart attacks a Black Templars player would suffer upon learning that in 2nd edition, they are just vanilla marines, lol.

that may just be me though, but I doubt it. I am well versed in 40K from 2nd edition to 4th edition, and my first look at the 6th edition rules had me with a bewildered look on my face and and muttering "holy crap" to myself while shaking my head at how I would never be able to convince any of my friends or wife to play it with me, let alone delve into it myself.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Changing the IGOUGO activation system of 40K could turn things in the game on their head in a very positive way.

I have played several games that operate at the scale of 40K that work perfectly fine with alternating activation. From what I hear EPIC had it. And two of my favorite games, despite them being no longer in active print, are AT-43 and Confrontation:Age of Ragnorok.

I regularly take to the field in AT-43 with armies that are the same model count as a 2000-2500pt 40K army, and our games play just as fast as 40K, while at the same time keeping the other player from being bored for the entire time I activate an entire army. And AT-43 even has a system in place that is a bit more complicated that a simple "pick a unit to activate", and that still doesn't make the game last longer than a game of 40K.

One of the other things keeping me out of 6th edition is that I absolutely hate is the giant list of Universal Special Rules. My god.

Also, agree that flyers belong in Epic. Period.

And no, you shouldn't be able to ally with yourself. At least with the allies from 2nd edition, having an Imperial Guard army throw in an Eldar Avater still had to worry about whether that Avatar and their Imperial Guard HQ didn't go over 25% of the army points total. Still janky, but at least it was more of a balance than a simple Force Org slot.

I can honestly say that I could expect to get a casual gamer (like my wife) to learn, play, and enjoy 2nd edition with me much easier than 6th edition, barring the obvious 2nd edition Hand to Hand phase issues. Of course, I worry about the multiple heart attacks a Black Templars player would suffer upon learning that in 2nd edition, they are just vanilla marines, lol.

that may just be me though, but I doubt it. I am well versed in 40K from 2nd edition to 4th edition, and my first look at the 6th edition rules had me with a bewildered look on my face and and muttering "holy crap" to myself while shaking my head at how I would never be able to convince any of my friends or wife to play it with me, let alone delve into it myself.

I agree. igougo was outdated and crappy.... 15 years ago.

any other turn based strategy game could be used for ideas.

i was thinking of a system (edit: many turn based strategy games use something like this) where first you would rework the initiative statistic from the ground up and then have units activate in initiative order from highest to lowest. it would not really be alternate activation though. All of someone's units could end up going dead last if that player decided to field all slow units.

Not sure how you would settle a tie though (units with the same initiative). Havnt thought that far ahead.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Changing the IGOUGO activation system of 40K could turn things in the game on their head in a very positive way.

I have played several games that operate at the scale of 40K that work perfectly fine with alternating activation. From what I hear EPIC had it. And two of my favorite games, despite them being no longer in active print, are AT-43 and Confrontation:Age of Ragnorok.

So you want the most successful game in the market to adopt a core mechanic that already bankrupted two competing companies/games?

Really?

Not to diss your enjoyment of AT-43 and/or Confrontation, etc.., but it does sound a lot like somebody telling Apple they should change their products to be more like Blackberry's

1) Allies. The whole unfluffy chart (Grey Knights allying with Necrons, Black Templars with Eldar...), not to mention the ridiculous combos you can field, such as Space Marine armies backed up by 9 xv-88 broadside battlesuits with high-yield missile pods and skyfire, or Imperial Guard adding an Eldar Avatar as secondary HQ to tear up the enemy in close combat and whatnot. No thanks. There are some combos that make sense, like Eldar and Tau or IG and Space Marines, but you could technically already field these in 5th edition, you merely had to take 2 Force Organization Charts. Compared to 6th, that would mean 1 more troops choice and the permission of your opponent.

Yay. Another complaint about "fluff" allies. Alright, as far as GK/crons go, the crons have a fluff temporary alliance with SM. GK use any tech they can get their hands on. Necrons are all tech. Do the math. What should bother is that the SM fluff connection to Crons cant be taken as allies. As far as SM allied with Tau, the points cost alone to take 9XV88+HQ+Troops for the allied detachment is rediculous. If you are playing at that cost level you are better off playing Apoc. Fair enough on the rest.

2) Psychic disciplines. Fluffwise, I liked how in 5th edition each psyker had his own set of powers that made sense. Now, in addition to that psykers can specialise all across the board, and you have those cards cluttering your table. Also, the fact that you have to roll for, and receive random psychic powers doesn't sit with me. It makes the game less tactical and more luck oriented.

Fair enough, but the psychic powers are so much better, and have so much more variation, with the power changes and individual model allowance changes this is far better. Also: See Primaris Power.

3) The whole "buy your own terrain and bring it to the battlefield" concept. Oh and no, not just any terrain. That godawful looking aegis defence line is selling like hotcakes now because of the new rules.

Fair enough...
Don't forget the other godawful terrain pieces... *sigh* If you don't like them ignore them. I don't know of a single person who uses them. They cost too much (both ways) and provide far too little where the points are better invested. I think they are an amazing idea with poor execution.

4) Flyers. In 5th edition, as fast skimmers, they were already balanced. Now they got boosted to kingdom come just because GW wants them to sell. Remember when in the Necron codex, the Night Scythe and the Ghost Ark were competing with each other, but the latter only slightly winning because of its regenerative capacity? Well it's pretty one sided now, isn't it?

With the introduction of skyfire, interceptor, and fliers to the new codices, this is a pretty minor complaint. Sorry mate, but this was something that we needed to add a bit of threat to backlines. They are universally easy to destroy and provide almost no tactical use early game. Also, I am a necron player. Night scythes are garbage. A armor 11 on all sides, glanced to death immediately (they are huge targets, snap shots only hit on 6's but you'd be surprise how often that happens) I take ghost arks over them any day of the week. Also, Necron air force is worthless against any opponent with any kind of tactical thinking.

5) Speaking of one-sided, the rule that irks me most is the fact that rapid-fire weapons are now completely overpowered, rendering assault weapons useless ("but you can still assault with them" *slow clap*). Now you can move 6" and fire a bolter to its full range? That makes Dire Avengers useless. It also means that as a Tau player, I can spam Firewarriors and have them either advance, effectively having a 36" threat range (akin to costlier, stationary snipers!), or retreat and keep firing, denying advancing Space Marines or Guard to even get off a single shot, while they are being mowed down in turn. In 5th edition if I ran back with Tau Warriors I could only shoot at upto 6" from where I originally stood, while now it is 24". It just breaks the game and it doesn't surprise me that too many 12 year olds with their ultramarine armies were whining that their super soldiers cant shoot their guns at the enemy's face when they moved, so Mama GW fixed it for them.

Fair enough. Like I said, necron player... 12" rapid fire gauss s4 ap5 is nice, but worthless against anything with 18 or 24" range. The nerf to assaulting sucks, but it is not as bad as you make it seem.

6) The new ruling on power weapons. The fact that regular power weapons now only work upto and including AP3 means Terminators got that much of a boost. Back in 5th, Eldar Banshees (and regular Grey Knights and their Death Cult Assassins) were a unit to be feared. In 6th, Banshees are cannon fodder - T3, 4+ save, costs as much as a marine, occupies an Elite slot, needs a transport to be effective - all these weaknesses were remedied in 5th in that they could jump out of a stationary transport, move, fleet, assault and tear up a terminator squad in close combat, given they get to strike first and the termies have to rely on their measly 5+ inv. save to survive. The Banshees still need 5s to wound T4 enemies though, but they usually managed to do this with their plethora of attacks. Now in 6th, their power weapons are about as effective as a bunch of guardsmen in close comat against the same terminator squad. It was already bad enough that close combat termies carrying storm shields were boosted from 4+ inv. in CC to 3+ inv. even at range when the 5th ed SM codex came out (3+ inv. in cc would have been fair), but that was a long time ago and we've accepted it. But this...this is just wrong. If an AP3 weapon would reduce a 2+ save to a 4+ or something it would be fair...but nope.

The Banshees vs. Striking Scorpions debate is also now completely one-sidedly settled. In 5th, you had to choose between 3+ armor save, +1S, +1A and infiltration ability OR striking first in CC, completely ignoring armor saves, and having fleet-of-foot (move + run + assault) as well as the Exarch fielding a S5 power weapon. And even then the Scorps were slightly better since they didn't need a transport (infiltrate) and their Exarch could carry an armor save ignoring scorpion claw, albeit it struck last. But now the banshees are completely out of the picture. Especially with the 6th edition Eldar codex not beefing them in any way and in turn, making the Striking Scorp Exarch's Scorp Claw strike at normal Initiative.

While I agree that it does make artificier armor, sempiternal weave, iridium armor and such a viable choice (nobody would take them in 5th because you could get an iron halo or other inv. save granting equipment for your commander for about the same amount of points), it still makes power weapons (incl. ICs fielding them) nigh useless, given that everyone can field termies now and not have to worry about (almost) anything, except short-ranged demolisher cannons, plasma weaponry and single shot AT-weapons to take out termies while they still get their inv. save.

Fair enough.

7) new codices now cost almost as much as the hardcover rulebook. Sure, they are hard back and in full color but does this justify their cost? Escpecially when you are collecting multiple armies, this drives the cost of just keeping up with the game really high. Other game manufacturers actually offer army books and such at reduced cost or sometimes even free, because their marketing strategy says giving rules to players will convince them of starting new armies. At the current price rate, if I were a new player I doubt I would field more than 2 armies simply because the cost for the rules alone discourage me.

I agree with you 150% here. GW double dips the marketplace? Say it isn't so. I get that they're a business and they have a profit margin to keep but it seems like they like to go about it the wrong way. Instead of screwing their players (codex/supplement prices, the yearly price increases, finecast, "package" deals that cost more than the models individually) they should be releasing new models, codices, armies, apps, terrain etc... keep the players they have and bring more in. This attitude of *paraphrasing here* the best part of the hobby is buying GW stuff */paraphrase* is garbage.

8) supplements now cost as much as the new codex and you'll need to buy both if you want to use the supplement. Thankfully, supplements are crap in that they are 10% new rules and the rest only background, special missions or artwork / army showcase.

See above.

9) the new wound allocation rules. Your special weapon guy has to make a save for getting hit and failed it? Too bad, he is dead. While I agree that this makes *not* fielding special weapons, i.e. barebones squads, a sensible choice now (literally everyone would load up on special weapons and such in 5th edition), I still think that it takes the fun out of the game when you have to constantly keep your special weapon guys in the back ranks or risk it and lose them prematurely. There are already enough variables to worry about when playing a game of 40k, do we now also need to micromanage our miniatures' position within their squad at all times???

I think that the commander of the attacking army should be able to allocate wounds. Makes sense, as you're shooting specific targets. If the unit commander is the target of opportunity, my crons would shoot him first.

10) random assault charge ranges....seriously? Sure, this means the average assault range is 7" now, but still...I'd hate to roll snake eyes and watch my squad not only receive the mandatory overwatch barrage, but also get shot to bits in the enemy turn's shooting phase even though I didn't charge through difficult terrain at all. Assault armies already have a tough time by being forced to take the fight to the enemy halfway across the battlefield while the defending player gets to sit back and shoot at them, but now also being denied the charge AND being the victim of (multiple) overwatch? That's too much.

I agree this is garbage. There should be a set charge range. I get the need for randomness to simulate terrain (rubble slows you down, so does terrain unevenness.) But this is rediculous. Between this and overwatch it has destroyed melee armies.

11) Challenges. Oh, how I hate these. This makes taking out Independent Characters and/or Monstrous Creatures who are characters in close combat next to impossible. Back in 5th edition, if my Space Marine squad had a sergeant with powerfist, the thought of being charged by a Wraithlord wasn't so bad - he would have to munch through 9 of my marines and all the while my sergeant would be able to wound it. Granted, if I had an independent character with a powerfist, then of course I would be forced to go to base contact with the Wraithlord to be able to deliver my attacks, and the Wraithlord could choose to directly attack me instead, but usually my IC would have access to invulnerable save wargear and would also be better in CC that the sergeant. Now in 6th, because the Wraithlord is a character, it can declare a challenge to my sarge and either make him useless in CC (if he doesnt accept it) or if he accepts it, insta-kill him because the 'Lord will strike before his Powerfist is able to. And without the sarge, the Space Marine squad is useless. So really....powerfists became utterly useless against ICs now, unless your own IC with an inv. save is wielding one. This just takes the fun out of the game when you know that you won't be able to kill enemy ICs no matter how hard you try, because against ranged fire they have Lookout, Sir! and against close combat special weapons, they can issue a challenge and take your sarge out with extreme ease. Thanks for ruining the game balance, GW. It's not like it was ever cheap to buy a powerfist for a ranged infantry squad, given that its use was so situational, but it was insurance against being charged by big bad guys, now there is no point to it at all.

I love challenges. Let me rephrase that, I love the IDEA of challenges. The execution is piss poor, I agree. A simple fix I'm getting ready to test in my group is the "roll for initiative" in challenges. Each player rolls a d6. High one goes first that round. The characters initiative matters not. The fluff reason: as each side cheers their challenger on, and the challengers circle each other poised to strike... roll a d6. the winner strikes first. Obviously this means nothing in tournaments, but as I don't play in any (the nearest GW store is 2 1/2 hours away) that doesn't matter to me.

12) Drop Pod Assault. Granted, this was already introduced in mid to late 5th edition but now that Black Templars have FAQ'd access to it in 6th, as a BT player I can smell the ridiculous cheese half a mile away. For 35 points, guaranteeing that one of my 10 man Crusader Initiate squads will arrive as close to the enemy as possible on turn 1 itself? That's plain nasty. Especially since it means they only have to wither 1 turn of enemy fire instead of 2 (or 3 if the opponent got 1st turn!) before going into CC means Drop-pods are a MUST now in every assault oriented space marine army from 500 points all the way up to 2k or more. Granted, only half of the pods you have in your army benefit from the Drop Pod Assault, but since this is rounded up, 1 is all you need to make sure that at least one of your squads won't get hurt.

It gets even better when you drop-pod a venerable dread with a multi-melta next to the tank. That's a very good chance of getting rid of a 150+ point vehicle that would have made life hell for your guys if it could get its shots off. Once this is done, the drop-podded Dread can use its HF to fry infantry.

If the drop pods costed twice as much as they currently do, it would be fairer, but right now I don't see any point whatsoever in ever taking Rhinos for my BT army, since 6th edition doesnt allow me to assault on the same turn as I disembark, even if I didn't move the transport (back in 5th I would move out of cover 12" with the Rhino on my turn 1, then an additional 12" on turn 2 and pop smoke, and disembark and charge on turn 3. So even if the enemy went first, it would only give him 2 turns to take out the rhino (during one of which the rhino has a 50% chance to negate all incoming hits) either way making my guys more survivable than if they were footslogging.

Fair enough. I haven't played a DPA army yet so I have no opinion, but it smells of ricotta.

13) All over again. And by that I mean - at the close of 5th ed, all armies had either updated 5th ed. codices, or 4th edition ones, with erratas and everything, as well as Planetstrike, Planetary Empires and Battle Missions to round off the 5th ed experience in terms of supplements. It felt complete. Done. Now that we are in 6th, you feel dissatisfied again because all armies need to get updated to 6th, not to mention that the new codices look and feel different to the old ones who had pretty similar layouts. First, there was a stream of errata that defined how many hull points vehicles of each codex etc. got and so on. Then, the actual new codices arrived (at huge costs, mind you). As a player of 6 armies (Eldar, BT, Tau, IG, GK and Necrons), it is really difficult for players like me to "keep up" with the progression of the game given that it is - at the end of the day - a hobby and not a collectible card game, but if you dont keep spending money to update your stuff, you get left out.

Agreed. How can you be a necron player and value a night scythe over a ghost ark?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Changing the IGOUGO activation system of 40K could turn things in the game on their head in a very positive way.

I have played several games that operate at the scale of 40K that work perfectly fine with alternating activation. From what I hear EPIC had it. And two of my favorite games, despite them being no longer in active print, are AT-43 and Confrontation:Age of Ragnorok.

So you want the most successful game in the market to adopt a core mechanic that already bankrupted two competing companies/games?

Really?

Not to diss your enjoyment of AT-43 and/or Confrontation, etc.., but it does sound a lot like somebody telling Apple they should change their products to be more like Blackberry's

this is your argument against it?

Really?

ill just say that many Microsoft programs suck. and so do apple people

kb305 wrote:


this is your argument against it?

Really?

ill just say that many Microsoft programs suck. and so do apple people

An argument? No. Just pointing out the curious observation of seeing somebody point out "this game, which went broke and this game, that also went broke" as allegedly prime sources for improving the world's bestselling miniature wargame.

There's nothing inherently wrong with IGOUGO. It actually has advantages in itself in playing speed (turn transitions between players do slow things down a little).

The problems occur when things 'break' it like the Combat/running system (immunity to being shot) and ATSKNF, where it becomes to 'gamey' and less like an OTT simulation.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Wound allocation. It's back to where it makes sense. If your guy with the special weapon is in a vulnerable spot, he's going to die. If you're charging at the enemy and get hosed down, the guys in front are going to die first. Duh. Do you need to micromanage your mini positions? Yes. Good lord, it's a war game. And 40K is ridiculously simple. If you can't handle that, well, uh, maybe you need to play checkers.

No, it really doesn't make any sense. Even conscripts can figure out things like "ignore the guy in terminator armor tanking all your shots and shoot the guy next to him that's aiming a lascannon at your tank". You have the absurd situation of all of your troops being expert marksmen that can always hit the one fingertip of the closest model that is poking out from behind cover instead of taking shots at the model slightly farther away that has half its body out of cover. And then of course you get the stupidity of barrage sniping, where a Basilisk is a better sniper weapon than an expert sniper with a rifle. Or of blocking LOS to all but one model in a squad with spare transports so that everyone gets to snipe the single target model out of the squad.

As for micromanaging, no, it doesn't make sense. Nitpicking the exact placement of every model would make sense in a skirmish-scale game where there are only a few models on the table and all of them are separate "characters". It doesn't make sense in a 40k-scale game where units matter and models are just parts of units, and where you have potentially hundreds of models on the table. When you have to measure precisely to see which model is 0.1" closer (and then argue about it) just so you can see which meatshield takes a wound, or obsess over whether the melta gun is in the exact perfect spot to avoid taking a wound, the system is broken.

In short, the current wound allocation system is the worst of both worlds. As a "realistic" method it's just stupid, and as an abstracted method it's tedious and overcomplicated.

Remember how I said in one of the X-Wing threads we rarely agree? I'm 100% with you here. I played my first game of 6th a couple weeks ago and had the opposing player consistently tell me "that model is barely closer, you have to remove it". The game sucked. He was following the rules, and playing correctly. It's the rules that are stupid and should never have been created. You'd think they would follow the fantasy setup for musicians and banner bearers-if they're presumed killed, another model picks up the item and it stays on the board. Somebody is going to argue that it takes skill to fire those special weapons that regular guys don't have. Well, it takes skill to play a trumpet or bang a drum to a tune that can be matched to. Random noise doesn't maintain order. Hence, ruling is stupid. And when I failed a 5 inch charge with 4 inches...I was ready to throw the game. Random charges are stupid. No, I don't care for them in fantasy either.

With the introduction of skyfire, interceptor, and fliers to the new codices, this is a pretty minor complaint. Sorry mate, but this was something that we needed to add a bit of threat to backlines.

You mean after they nerfed outflanking, infiltrating, and other methods of getting to the backfield with assault?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Changing the IGOUGO activation system of 40K could turn things in the game on their head in a very positive way.

I have played several games that operate at the scale of 40K that work perfectly fine with alternating activation. From what I hear EPIC had it. And two of my favorite games, despite them being no longer in active print, are AT-43 and Confrontation:Age of Ragnorok.

So you want the most successful game in the market to adopt a core mechanic that already bankrupted two competing companies/games?

Really?

Not to diss your enjoyment of AT-43 and/or Confrontation, etc.., but it does sound a lot like somebody telling Apple they should change their products to be more like Blackberry's

Spartan Game's games use the 'I move a unit, you move a unit' and they seem to be hugely popular for something that isn't 40k/warmachine.

 Zagman wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
If 7th edition returns to 2nd edition save modifiers, I will happily cheer. I miss those modifiers so...

I wish we could do away with the AP mechanic in favor of a Save modifier mechanic.

AP1 could be save -5
AP2 could be save -4
AP3 could be save -3
AP4 could be save -2
AP5 could be save -1
AP6/- would be save -0

Then take Invulnerable Saves after armor.

Like 2nd ED did? Whats old to be new again? Oh and Term armor rolled 2d6 and added it up!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
Had to check the post date to see if this thread was necro'd. It's like travelling back in time.

Agreed, 6th was released June 2012! Rant most have been a saved round...

 jonolikespie wrote:


Spartan Game's games use the 'I move a unit, you move a unit' and they seem to be hugely popular for something that isn't 40k/warmachine.

True. Though Warhammer 40K uses IGO-UGO and it seems to be hugely popular for something that isn't Spartan Games.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Wound allocation. It's back to where it makes sense. If your guy with the special weapon is in a vulnerable spot, he's going to die. If you're charging at the enemy and get hosed down, the guys in front are going to die first. Duh. Do you need to micromanage your mini positions? Yes. Good lord, it's a war game. And 40K is ridiculously simple. If you can't handle that, well, uh, maybe you need to play checkers.

No, it really doesn't make any sense. Even conscripts can figure out things like "ignore the guy in terminator armor tanking all your shots and shoot the guy next to him that's aiming a lascannon at your tank". You have the absurd situation of all of your troops being expert marksmen that can always hit the one fingertip of the closest model that is poking out from behind cover instead of taking shots at the model slightly farther away that has half its body out of cover. And then of course you get the stupidity of barrage sniping, where a Basilisk is a better sniper weapon than an expert sniper with a rifle. Or of blocking LOS to all but one model in a squad with spare transports so that everyone gets to snipe the single target model out of the squad.

As for micromanaging, no, it doesn't make sense. Nitpicking the exact placement of every model would make sense in a skirmish-scale game where there are only a few models on the table and all of them are separate "characters". It doesn't make sense in a 40k-scale game where units matter and models are just parts of units, and where you have potentially hundreds of models on the table. When you have to measure precisely to see which model is 0.1" closer (and then argue about it) just so you can see which meatshield takes a wound, or obsess over whether the melta gun is in the exact perfect spot to avoid taking a wound, the system is broken.

In short, the current wound allocation system is the worst of both worlds. As a "realistic" method it's just stupid, and as an abstracted method it's tedious and overcomplicated.

Remember how I said in one of the X-Wing threads we rarely agree? I'm 100% with you here. I played my first game of 6th a couple weeks ago and had the opposing player consistently tell me "that model is barely closer, you have to remove it". The game sucked. He was following the rules, and playing correctly. It's the rules that are stupid and should never have been created. You'd think they would follow the fantasy setup for musicians and banner bearers-if they're presumed killed, another model picks up the item and it stays on the board. Somebody is going to argue that it takes skill to fire those special weapons that regular guys don't have. Well, it takes skill to play a trumpet or bang a drum to a tune that can be matched to. Random noise doesn't maintain order. Hence, ruling is stupid. And when I failed a 5 inch charge with 4 inches...I was ready to throw the game. Random charges are stupid. No, I don't care for them in fantasy either.

Agreed. The two above rules changes were the dealbreaker for 40k for me. Everything else I could tolerate to varying degrees, even though I think a lot of them are utterly stupid (Flyers, challenges). But random charge distances and the utterly utterly asinine casualty removal rules just make for an absolute chore of a game.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Changing the IGOUGO activation system of 40K could turn things in the game on their head in a very positive way.

I have played several games that operate at the scale of 40K that work perfectly fine with alternating activation. From what I hear EPIC had it. And two of my favorite games, despite them being no longer in active print, are AT-43 and Confrontation:Age of Ragnorok.

So you want the most successful game in the market to adopt a core mechanic that already bankrupted two competing companies/games?

Really?

Not to diss your enjoyment of AT-43 and/or Confrontation, etc.., but it does sound a lot like somebody telling Apple they should change their products to be more like Blackberry's

Really? Really? The alternating activation mechanic was the cause of Rackham's complete and utter commercial ineptitude? Sounds like someone who is still angry about Confrontation being turned into a pre-paint.

Even GW has used a form of alternating activations in their games, like Epic. So do many other companies out there. It's just as viable as IGOUGO, but keeps the momentum of a game alive. I'm not an idiot for using a gaming example that I am familiar with.

Risk is a hugely popular board game and uses the IGOUGO system just to burst the bubble of those that think IGOUGO is silly

I do hate aegis defense lines. But its because of tau going to ground for a 2+ cover save..... Oh well it will pass as things change.

Zweischneid wrote:So you want the most successful game in the market to adopt a core mechanic that already bankrupted two competing companies/games?

False causal attribution is hilarious.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Actually about hull points, it might've been better had they added say, more hull points.


Say with 3-4 being the bare minimum (for say like Dark Eldar open topped AV10 vehicles)

With about 10+ for land raider types.

Walkers being about 6-8 due to needing to be durable to defend the person inside, and having to protect it in melee combat.

Etc.

Perhaps. I mostly like the idea because it always bothered me that a glancing hit could take out a vehicle. What exactly did it glance in order to do that?

The number of hull pts each vehicle is debateable. If I was to give a personal preference then perhaps I would like to see basic vehicles with 4 hull points and then Land Raiders with 5 or 6.

Zweischneid wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Changing the IGOUGO activation system of 40K could turn things in the game on their head in a very positive way.

I have played several games that operate at the scale of 40K that work perfectly fine with alternating activation. From what I hear EPIC had it. And two of my favorite games, despite them being no longer in active print, are AT-43 and Confrontation:Age of Ragnorok.

So you want the most successful game in the market to adopt a core mechanic that already bankrupted two competing companies/games?

Correlation does not equal causation, dude.

A GumyBear wrote:Risk is a hugely popular board game and uses the IGOUGO system just to burst the bubble of those that think IGOUGO is silly

Risk doesn't try to balance a plethora of units and races with widely varying ranged/melee abilities. In fact it only really has one 'unit' that is identical for every player and the only variation is that you can have multiples of them. I've never seen anyone lose a game of risk on the first turn to long range artillery from the other side of the board. I can't really think of a good IGOUGO analogy for 40k, as I haven't really played many non-GW wargames that support so many units/races.

A much better analogy to alternating activation is Chess. It's not perfect of course (both sides are identical, unlike 40k), but it shows the spirit behind trying to constantly predict, counter and react to an opponent with every move.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarthOvious wrote:

Perhaps. I mostly like the idea because it always bothered me that a glancing hit could take out a vehicle. What exactly did it glance in order to do that?

The number of hull pts each vehicle is debateable. If I was to give a personal preference then perhaps I would like to see basic vehicles with 4 hull points and then Land Raiders with 5 or 6.

It always bothered me that you couldn't kill vehicles with glances in earlier editions. Surely with enough weight of fire you'd eventually sever fuel lines, incapacitate crew members, or detonate ammo. I always liked the idea of tanks being slowly incapacitated in this manner rather than forcing people to use things like melta and lascannon constantly.

My only gripe with it is that glances probably shouldn't automatically remove a hull point, making it happen on a 3+/4+ instead would be more balanced.

The big issue with alternating activation and 40k is the major reworking of how the game works. There is a LOT that would need to change to make the game run better than it would straight out of the gate just swapping who does what when.

Also what level of alternating activation would be best? Would all units only activate once a turn? Or would they still have 3 phases and they activate then?

There is a lot to consider beyond a blanket "this would make it all better" statement I think.

 insaniak wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
The rules need to be changed every few years or so in order to keep the game fresh and interesting.

Campaign books and new armies can keep the game 'fresh and interesting' without the need to drastically change the core rules every few years.

Weren't there complaints at the end of 5th that the game was getting boring though?

 DarthOvious wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
The rules need to be changed every few years or so in order to keep the game fresh and interesting.

Campaign books and new armies can keep the game 'fresh and interesting' without the need to drastically change the core rules every few years.

Weren't there complaints at the end of 5th that the game was getting boring though?

There are always complaints.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The big issue with alternating activation and 40k is the major reworking of how the game works. There is a LOT that would need to change to make the game run better than it would straight out of the gate just swapping who does what when.

Also what level of alternating activation would be best? Would all units only activate once a turn? Or would they still have 3 phases and they activate then?

There is a lot to consider beyond a blanket "this would make it all better" statement I think.

I don't think it would be as extensive as hull points. GW has to reprint stats for every vehicle in the main rule book to clarify that one.

The biggest issue I can see would be how assault would work. Do you
a) charge with a unit, then resolve the fight immediately, or
b) charge with a unit, then wait until the end of the turn to resolve all melees at once?

The former can make multi-charge complex, as you could end up charging an existing melee and having a unit act twice. The latter leaves the difficulty in keeping track of who charged who.

Many other issues can be solved with simple changes to the main rules. For example, when a unit is under an effect that normally lasts until the beginning of its next turn, it instead lasts until the units next activation.

As for what level of activation, I would treat it as if a unit got a normal turn to itself. It would move, then shoot, then charge as required. Once it has done so, it can't be activated again until the following turn.

So a unit could have potentially three actions in a row uninterrupted? Yeah, I hate to say it but that would be broken pretty fast. Armies like Orks would love it though.

Another issue: the time it'd take the game. Alternating activation tends to lead to slower play as the players are much more concerned with how each move is reacted too.

I'm not saying it can't work, I'm just saying that it doesn't work without some wide changes to the game.

 xttz wrote:

It always bothered me that you couldn't kill vehicles with glances in earlier editions. Surely with enough weight of fire you'd eventually sever fuel lines, incapacitate crew members, or detonate ammo. I always liked the idea of tanks being slowly incapacitated in this manner rather than forcing people to use things like melta and lascannon constantly.

In the case of weapons that didn't have AP1 then you are correct, but it was still possible to destroy a vehicle with a glancing hit. You just wrecked the vehicle instead of exploding it, except in the case of open topped vehicles which could still explode. In my mind a glancing hit is something that catches the vehicle but shouldn't be doing an extraordinary amount of damage, whereas a penetrating hit is what I would consider to be a hit that causes a vehicle damage.

However we probably have a different idea of what we consider to be a glancing it and a penetrating hit. Severing fuel lines is something I would consider to be a penetrating hit rather than a glancing hit. Hence why we view the rules in a different way.

My only gripe with it is that glances probably shouldn't automatically remove a hull point, making it happen on a 3+/4+ instead would be more balanced.

Like I mentioned before I am fairly easy going with the rules and I understand changes are made in a rule set, so the above suggestion wouldn't bother me if it was indeed implemented but also I am fairly ok with the way it currently works as well. Perhaps this could be a suggestion made for a future edition. I would be happy with it as long as it works out in a reasonable way that doesn't cause massive imbalance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The big issue with alternating activation and 40k is the major reworking of how the game works. There is a LOT that would need to change to make the game run better than it would straight out of the gate just swapping who does what when.

Also what level of alternating activation would be best? Would all units only activate once a turn? Or would they still have 3 phases and they activate then?

There is a lot to consider beyond a blanket "this would make it all better" statement I think.

I agree with this. Changing the system would take a massive overhaul. 40k would be a completely different game. Although I like rules changes and freshing things up every few years I think this would be too much of a massive gamble for GW. The risk of losing interest in players would be too great. I could see it being a massive fail with players dropping interest.

 DarthOvious wrote:
Weren't there complaints at the end of 5th that the game was getting boring though?

There were complaints at the [i]start[/u] of 5th edition that the game was getting boring. As there are every edition. You don't need to rebuild the entire game to get people excited again.

Most of the 'fun stuff' that was added in 6th could just as easily have been added with expansion books in 5th edition. Death From The Skies introduce flyers and anti-air for all armies. A character expansion to introduce Warlord traits, extra psychic powers, and rules for taking a character and a small retinue as allies in other armies. A terrain expansion to add Fortifications and Mysterious terrain. Random objectives could have gone into the Battle Missions book. And so on.

The other big issue with 5th was simply the over-domincance of vehicles. Which could have been fixed without the need for Hull point by simply adding more abilities in codexes for dealing with vehicles.


This cycle of 'release a core rulebook, redo half of the codexes, then release a new core rulebook that completely changes the game and start all over again' is certainly one option for driving sales, but it's most definitely not the only way to keep the game fresh and fun.

I don't agree with any of the 13 gripes in the OP, and neither does Kronk Kronkington I. I've had more fun playing 6th edition than I did 5th edition, and I loved 5th edition.

My gripes are only 5% with the CRB and 95% with the codices. But that's probably true of each edition now that I think about it.

Martel732 wrote:
My gripes are only 5% with the CRB and 95% with the codices. But that's probably true of each edition now that I think about it.

This is a fair complaint.

 DarthOvious wrote:
Weren't there complaints at the end of 5th that the game was getting boring though?

I found 5th Edition boring as hell from beginning to end.

I actually started in 3rd Edition and really enjoyed it. I enjoy sixth also. Why do people say 3rd was so bad?