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.

 bosky wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:
Not trying to sound ignorant, but do you really have an attention span so short that you lose interest if your not doing something every five minutes?

I figured someone would frame it as attention span (or say something along the lines of "Go play a video game then!" ), hehe.
To me player involvement is directly linked to a fun game. Sitting for 20 minutes watching an opponent isn't involving me as a player, and it isn't fun, and having to "endure" the opponent's turn isn't related to attention span. It just isn't a good game. Considering these 20 minute downtime periods happen 5 times in a 5 turn game (again at the 2 hour ideal), and the downtime grows even more with the group I play with, well, you get the idea. Especially when there ARE games that involve me as a player.
It's the same reason some dry Eurogame boardgames aren't for me. Watching another player strategize and act for 20+ minutes while doing nothing (or very minor actions) is dull there too. You can call it a failure of attention span, I just call it taste.

Alright I can understand that, just was curious because that was how it came off to me but you do make a good point. Like you said it is a matter of taste, though I am kind of curious why you choose a game like 40k if you don't like that. Was it more involved in earlier editions?

Well I started 40k in 2nd edition, back when I was a kid and didn't know of other games. As with today 40k was the biggest and most well known, so it was an easy gateway. I played a lot smaller scale back then, and in my youthful ignorance skipped any boring rules, tacked on my own creations, etc. so the problem wasn't as pronounced.
Once I found other games, basically before 3rd even came out, I stopped playing 40k. The 3 gaming friends I mentioned earlier got into it around the tail end of 5th, and I didn't have a steady wargame going at the time, so I figured some kind of tabletop game was better than nothing
Thankfully we've moved on to other games now (for the most part), so I actually don't play much 40k anymore. More Firestorm Armada, X-Wing, Netrunner, a mish mash of indie games, etc.

Still fun to post here though. And I would love 40k to be more my type of game, because I do have a lot of figures leftover, and enjoy some parts of the fluff.

bosky wrote:Even in an ideal game of 5 turns at 2 hours, that's 20 minutes a turn. Which means for 20 minutes I'll be doing nothing but watching my opponent move units, while I roll the odd save dice here and there.
I'd prefer a 1-5 minute downtime before I, as a player, get to do something or have some involvement. Changing the turn structure WOULD achieve that.

120 minutes divided by 5 is 24 minutes per game turn. That means 12 minutes per player turn. Given that you still are doing things in your opponent's turn (rolling armor saves, etc.), is it really so horribly awful?

If this is literally the only thing that matters, then yeah, you could play rock paper scissors and get to do stuff every six seconds. Rock paper scissors isn't 40k, though, and you'd have to make a LOT of compromises to make this time scale work. You'd be butchering the entire rest of the game for this one metric.

Now, bring it back from the extreme. Why is it worth it to compromise 40k to focus so much on this one metric?

If there was a way where you could get faster turnaround time without causing other problems, well sure, it would just be straight better. Haven't heard it, though.

 Ailaros wrote:
120 minutes divided by 5 is 24 minutes per game turn. That means 12 minutes per player turn. Given that you still are doing things in your opponent's turn (rolling armor saves, etc.), is it really so horribly awful?

Haha, whoops, math

Anyway I'm not finishing a game of 40k in 2 hours, so even with (correct ) math the 12 minute turn is still not what my games end up being :( And I doubt 12 minute turns are the norm, so I think my point still stands.

It's not "literally the only thing that matters", but I think having player involvement and a sense of dynamic back-and-forth during combat would help 40k.

I'm not saying just crudely tacking on a non-UGOIGO system is the solution (or "butchering the entire rest of the game" as you call it). In my daydream I think 40k needs a full rewrite from the ground up. Given GW's specialist games it seems like they CAN write fun games. I just wish they did that for 40k. If you like 40k and enjoy playing it, that's great. In it's current state I don't. But my point is I wish I did, because I have a bunch of minis and terrain that I'd like to use in their universe, instead of for other games I enjoy more.

 Ailaros wrote:


So far, I'd rather have UGOIGO than what else has been presented as an alternative, either because it would be unworkable for a game like 40k, or because it would create it's own wonky problems worse than 40k. 40k may have its problems, but at least its turns are not a half an hour of the two of us silently strategizing and scribbling down notes before we reveal our plan rock-paper-scissors style and see if our two deathstars did what they were supposed to do while moving around a cloud of meaningless tiny units.

Actually, I think the alternating activation mechanic from Epic: Armageddon would work for 40K quite well. It would not be anything like you describe, it would simply be activating by unit versus by formation. You could even have the army strategy value in place from Epic. Deathstar strategies are in every tabletop game, some just mitigate their use very well.

Also, never once had such a problem with AT-43 or Confrontation AoR, either, except where the latter has characters that are far too powerful. None of my army builds have ever been a Deathstar with a bunch of crappy units to fill out points.

 Ailaros wrote:
Oh.

Well yeah, I guess it would work fine for that kind of game, but how could you possibly make that work for 40k? Write down where each of the 150 models in your green tide is going to run?

It feels like this would work better at a smaller scale, and with much less player freedom (especially in movement. Was this a hex-based game?)

Well, obviously, I was just describing a different system for the sake of showing something like that exists.

This game has roughly 10-20 ships per side, at most. If playing with BFG-esque ships, that would go down to 5-10, so it was fairly manageable.

Definitely not fit for 40k though.

I suppose the question, then, is how do you design a system that balances shooting first vs. moving second (rather than awkwardly splitting it up between players while removing one but not the other) in a way that works for 40k. And also addresses the problems.

It's one thing to say "it can be done" or "I like this system", while it's another to say "how it can be done", or "why this system is just better".

 bosky wrote:

Yeah you're right, it is unit-by-unit activation for Epic Armageddon. Hooray, there is hope! I have a copy of m1320000_EPIC_updated_rulebook-sections_1-4_Oct09.pdf, which I think is E:A from the GW site, and as you say they reference the alternating activation.

Do you happen to know who was the lead designer of Epic? I wonder if they're still at GW, and have any influence on 40k. EDIT: Wikipedia says it's Jervis Johnson, which seems surprising. Maybe it was a case of him getting to design a game without any pressure from management. Or heck, maybe GW doesn't even see UGO-IGO as a bad thing or outdated mechanic

The original Epic games (Space Marine 1st edition and Adeptus Titanicus) gave sole Game Design credit to Jervis, the later editions were co-written by him and Mr 40k himself Andy Chambers. Chambers reputedly ended his employment at GW by storming out of the office on a Friday after a heated discussion with management about the new edition of 40k: He supposedly wanted to drastically alter the rules. I remember reading his designers notes for Epic Armageddon in that months issue of.. Fanatic Magazine I think, and thinking "Crumbs, this must be one of the last things he published for GW?"

 Ailaros wrote:
I suppose the question, then, is how do you design a system that balances shooting first vs. moving second (rather than awkwardly splitting it up between players while removing one but not the other) in a way that works for 40k. And also addresses the problems.

That really is the question...probably the million dollar question, since if you could create a better 40k (or convince GW to do it while getting credit) you'd probably be rolling in the dough. And I think any answer would change what the accepted view of 40k, as a rules system, really is. For example, why force units to move then shoot then assault. Why not let them go in any order?

 Gashrog wrote:
The original Epic games (Space Marine 1st edition and Adeptus Titanicus) gave sole Game Design credit to Jervis, the later editions were co-written by him and Mr 40k himself Andy Chambers. Chambers reputedly ended his employment at GW by storming out of the office on a Friday after a heated discussion with management about the new edition of 40k: He supposedly wanted to drastically alter the rules. I remember reading his designers notes for Epic Armageddon in that months issue of.. Fanatic Magazine I think, and thinking "Crumbs, this must be one of the last things he published for GW?"

Interesting tidbit. Very interesting indeed! Do you happen to know if the original Epic incarnations were as streamlined as Epic: Armageddon appears to be? Or was that purely Andy Chambers influence? Also do you have a source for the "Friday storm out" rumor?
I do think it's neat to see what some of the ex-GW staffers have done since they left, such as Bolt Action (Rick Priestley) and Deadzone (Jake Thornton) and Dust Warfare (Andy Chambers). As far as I know all of those have some interesting mechanics involved around activation.

 Ailaros wrote:
I suppose the question, then, is how do you design a system that balances shooting first vs. moving second (rather than awkwardly splitting it up between players while removing one but not the other) in a way that works for 40k. And also addresses the problems.

It's one thing to say "it can be done" or "I like this system", while it's another to say "how it can be done", or "why this system is just better".

How about you decide, if you want to move or shoot? So it's your turn phase, you pick a unit, you decide if this unit will shoot or move. Then I pick a unit and then decide If it moves, or shoots. Then next time its your turn phase you shoot. If you decide to shoot, then next turn phase you move.

This way you have a move turn and a shooting turn but you decide when you do it. Do you take that chance and fire and remain stationary so your opponent might be able to hit it or assault it, or do you move to get a better vantage point and then shoot?

The activation method, as I see it, would be too cumbersome, for 40K's size and diversity. Because, there could be an in balance of units per army. For example a Deathwing Terminator Army v.s. a Imperial Guard Army. The Deathwing army might have as little as 5 units (Independ Characters in squad) and the Imperial Guard having 15 units. If the activation method, did a 1 for 1 then the Imperial Guard player would get 11 units to move unchecked. If the units were divided i.e. the Deathwing player would moved 1 and the imperial guard play moved 3, would work till units are removed. For example if the deathwing play lost a unit and the imperial guard player lost 4. There would be then inequality, and they would have to recalculate the ratio. If there was any type if change in the number of units i.e. disembarking or embarking a transport, an independent character leaving a squad, reserves showing up. All of these things would gum up the works sort to speak.

I'll add my remedy later.

The activation method, as I see it, would be too cumbersome, for 40K's size and diversity. Because, there could be an in balance of units per army. For example a Deathwing Terminator Army v.s. a Imperial Guard Army. The Deathwing army might have as little as 5 units (Independ Characters in squad) and the Imperial Guard having 15 units. If the activation method, did a 1 for 1 then the Imperial Guard player would get 11 units to move unchecked.

Well, that's pretty much the same as it is now, except all 15 Imperial Guard units act unchecked during that player's turn.

The above reason is actually why alternating activation games don;t get overloaded with Deathstar tactics, as either the Deathstar unit moves early and then gets swarmed, or they wait and get hit first. So each activation is potentially important, so armies tend to get chosen to have synergy.

Bakedbeans wrote:
The activation method, as I see it, would be too cumbersome, for 40K's size and diversity. Because, there could be an in balance of units per army. For example a Deathwing Terminator Army v.s. a Imperial Guard Army. The Deathwing army might have as little as 5 units (Independ Characters in squad) and the Imperial Guard having 15 units. If the activation method, did a 1 for 1 then the Imperial Guard player would get 11 units to move unchecked. If the units were divided i.e. the Deathwing player would moved 1 and the imperial guard play moved 3, would work till units are removed. For example if the deathwing play lost a unit and the imperial guard player lost 4. There would be then inequality, and they would have to recalculate the ratio. If there was any type if change in the number of units i.e. disembarking or embarking a transport, an independent character leaving a squad, reserves showing up. All of these things would gum up the works sort to speak.

I'll add my remedy later.

Pretty simple I think. Back in the Battletech days, if say the ratio was 2:1 or 3:1, then you move 2 squads or 3 squads to the persons one squad.

One thing I am not understanding is, why are people saying the UgoIgo will take longer than what we have now? If anything it will be the same now or quicker because you can do something sooner rather than later. What I like is you are not waiting 15-30 minutes doing nothing. Your opponents move, you respond to if. It's almost like dog fighting you zig, your opponents zag.

I know when my buddy and I played AT-43, we were quite pleasantly surprised at how the alternating activations felt when we were both 40K veterans.

One of the reasons I am working on forces for Epic is so I can play with my wife and she doesn't have to wait my whole turn just to do anything other than roll armor saves, because I know that would bore her to death.

Davor wrote:How about you decide, if you want to move or shoot? So it's your turn phase, you pick a unit, you decide if this unit will shoot or move. Then I pick a unit and then decide If it moves, or shoots. Then next time its your turn phase you shoot. If you decide to shoot, then next turn phase you move.

What does this really fix, though?

AegisGrimm wrote:Well, that's pretty much the same as it is now, except all 15 Imperial Guard units act unchecked during that player's turn.

Except it doesn't matter that the guard player has 15 units. With UGOIGO, it literally doesn't matter if a person brings 1 unit or 100, because they get to do everything in a single group.

Needing to spam tiny pointless MSU so that you can abuse an initiative system better doesn't make the game better.

Davor wrote:One thing I am not understanding is, why are people saying the UgoIgo will take longer than what we have now? If anything it will be the same now or quicker because you can do something sooner rather than later.

Yeah.

Being able to plan during your opponent's turn is nice, rather than having to plan and then re-plan after every single move.

Not that it really matters either way, of course, but UGOIGO only appears to be more annoying.

I guess i just don't get the negativity. In my forays into AA games, I have neither spammed multiple small units, nor have I relied on Deathstars. My armies are always designed to get the most effectiveness out of each activation of a unit. They look like "normal" 40K armies, many times with units that are at or near their maximum size. My regular opponents do the same.

Several games (At43, Confrontation AoR) have even had alternating activation sequences, where you make an order of activations out of the units you have, and other than some tactical tweaks that the rules allow, have to activate those units in that order. And you keep your sequence separate from your opponent until the unit is activated, so there is a "fog of war" involved where you have to adapt with what you are activating, not just the best stuff at the perfect time.

Do people really sit and plan for 10+ minutes?

Alternating activations still gives you a minute here or there as your opponent activates to think, and you can take a bit of time in your turn to plan.

Ultimately for me it simply comes down to:
Pros
Less insta win deathstars
No long waits where you just roll saves and remove models
No alpha strikes wiping out half your army before you cam do anything

Cons
Its new and therefore scary

Sorry about my post it waste last 10 minutes of work and it took long to write then expected.

@Grimm and Davor

Not talking about Deathstar units but the "elite" armies like Grey Knights and Deathwing, Wolfwing and the like. These army types would have a decided disadvantage in a 1 for 1 style, no matter who had the initiative. Think of this the Deathwing player again with 5 units and the Imperial Guard Player again with 15 units. Say the DW players goes first 1DW 1IG, 1DW 1IG, 1DW 1IG, 1DW 1IG, 1DW 11IG. Now lets say the IG player goes first 1IG 1DW, 1IG 1DW, 1IG 1DW, 1IG 1DW, 1IG 1DW, 10IG or possibly 11IG 1DW.

Swarm armies would always have the advantage because they always out number. (Not a bad idea for GW, because you would have to have MOAR! units then your opponent to win)

If we/they did an ratio system like Davor suggested each turn there would be a rebalancing of the ratio as units die, disembark or come in from reserves, ect.

Going back to the Deathwing play and the Guard player, asuming that both players start with all their units on the field the DW play would move 1 unit per 3 of the IG player. The turn ends the DW player does not lose a unit but the IG player loses 2 units. So now the DW player moves 1 per 2 IG unit except for the last 3 DW units the IG player moves 3 units to make up the remaining units. Next turn the DW player loses a unit the IG player loses two more but also decides to embark a unit on a transport. Now the DW player has 4 units and IG player has 10. The new ratio would be 1dw 2ig, 1dw 2ig, 1dw 3ig, 1dw 3ig.

I'm of the opinion that this ratio system would be a drag.

My solution would be;

Top of the turn roll army wide initiative,

Lowest roll moves all units first, then highest moves.

Everyone shots that wants to shoot, all causalities are removed at the end of the shooting phase.

Resolve moral.

Assault phase, the highest initiative declares first, then lowest all causalities are removed.

Resolve moral.

Repeat.

Davor wrote:

Bakedbeans wrote:
The activation method, as I see it, would be too cumbersome, for 40K's size and diversity. Because, there could be an in balance of units per army. For example a Deathwing Terminator Army v.s. a Imperial Guard Army. The Deathwing army might have as little as 5 units (Independ Characters in squad) and the Imperial Guard having 15 units. If the activation method, did a 1 for 1 then the Imperial Guard player would get 11 units to move unchecked. If the units were divided i.e. the Deathwing player would moved 1 and the imperial guard play moved 3, would work till units are removed. For example if the deathwing play lost a unit and the imperial guard player lost 4. There would be then inequality, and they would have to recalculate the ratio. If there was any type if change in the number of units i.e. disembarking or embarking a transport, an independent character leaving a squad, reserves showing up. All of these things would gum up the works sort to speak.

I'll add my remedy later.

Pretty simple I think. Back in the Battletech days, if say the ratio was 2:1 or 3:1, then you move 2 squads or 3 squads to the persons one squad.

One thing I am not understanding is, why are people saying the UgoIgo will take longer than what we have now? If anything it will be the same now or quicker because you can do something sooner rather than later. What I like is you are not waiting 15-30 minutes doing nothing. Your opponents move, you respond to if. It's almost like dog fighting you zig, your opponents zag.

Well, I'm sold. Next battle that I get the chance, I'll try out alternating activation. Will start at 750, then move up in 250 pts battles up to 2k to see how it goes.

Looking forward to it Selym. Just wish my gaming group would have tried it but no go.

I don't but have to based on the mechanic of the game.