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.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

However, once you actually go away and play any other mini wargame, you realise just how poor the rules of the GW games are. I'm not saying I haven't had fun playing them, it just took GW pushing me away to find much greener grass everywhere else. Although everyone talks of a new 40k v8 next year, I can't see me playing it again, despite having a wardrobe with 16 old GW hardcases of figures. Whatever guise new 40k comes in, it will still revolve around the current trend of massively oversized expensive models - rather than a boss, some troops and a few special models that made the army stand out.

As for one of the things you said several pages ago about a wargame needing our models building from plastic sprues.... I guess the 40k and WHFB I grew up with weren't wargames. We only had metal Citadel Miniatures back then.

You still need to unsprue your metals, de-mold-line, assemble, clean, prime, paint . still a kit to me.

Anyway you are long past liking 40K and to me, that means you're not anywhere close to spending a dime on it.
So when you buy any other game, you're not removing money from the GW pool, you're just spending money somewhere else.
And before you even considered spending money, there wasn't a split second where you considered spending it on GW produce.
To me, that doesn't sound like GW and FFG competed for your game dollar.

At one point, you would spend most your gaming money on GW.
Then you stopped.
And now you spend it on something else.


In other words, when disgruntled ex-GW customers buy something from another miniature foundry, they are *not* driving revenue away from GW.
When a current GW customer buys one less box of marines to afford a starter X-Wing set, then he *is* driving revenue away from GW and towards FFG.


I just don't think the old "I don't care for GW anymore" crew can seriously be counted as potential GW customers.

morgoth wrote:


In other words, when disgruntled ex-GW customers buy something from another miniature foundry, they are *not* driving revenue away from GW.
When a current GW customer buys one less box of marines to afford a starter X-Wing set, then he *is* driving revenue away from GW and towards FFG.

So does it come down to the purchasers state of mind then? i.e. if I 'hate' GW or not when I go into a shop to buy that box of X-Wing stuff?

 TheWaspinator wrote:

Yeah, you don't get to spend that long aggressively attacking the idea that X-Wing could be beating 40K as the premiere miniatures game and then pretend that you were just saying you personally don't like X-Wing. Because no, he was coming up with weird "it feels like a board game so it doesn't count" statements but never saying what about the game mechanics actually support that.

Have you seen an X-Wing starter ?
Have you seen the board game "Blue Mage" ?

We've been talking about wargames and now you're shifting it to "miniatures game".
If we're going to talk about "miniatures games", then, imo, Zombicide is doing a lot better than X-Wing because it's actually being played by non-geeks, a lot of them.
Also, it's a miniatures game.
And a board game.
And it comes in an affordable all-in-one package, just like X-Wing.


Game mechanics are irrelevant in the end.
What positions the product in the market favorably against GW products is not whether it's a board game or miniatures game or war game, it's that it requires zero personal investment beyond cash (like board games) and happens to be fun to play (like any good game), easy to start (like board games) and riding on one of the most successful franchises ever.
And no, I still don't believe that has *anything* in common with 40K, a game which requires major personal investment, is not easy to start and has its own lesser known universe.
The fact of the matter is that the immense majority of X-Wing players would never consider a game where buy-in starts at 300 bucks used, where you have to spend 10 hours on each unit before it's "table ready' and where the rules are vast enough that almost nobody knows them perfectly.



The very criticism you have on 40K is what puts it in an entirely different category from X-Wing, and it makes no sense to state that people buying pre-painted star wars ships would have likely been interested in non-assembled, unpainted space marines.



A market is defined by a demographic, a group of people who are likely to buy products from that market.
I truly believe the market for Zombicide is a lot wider than for X-Wing, and that's a lot wider than the market for 40K, which is still a lot wider than the market for Inquisitor or some other obscure game.
In other words, there's only a tiny fraction of the Zombicide market which overlaps with X-Wing, and the same between X-Wing and 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:

morgoth wrote:


In other words, when disgruntled ex-GW customers buy something from another miniature foundry, they are *not* driving revenue away from GW.
When a current GW customer buys one less box of marines to afford a starter X-Wing set, then he *is* driving revenue away from GW and towards FFG.

So does it come down to the purchasers state of mind then? i.e. if I 'hate' GW or not when I go into a shop to buy that box of X-Wing stuff?

Of course it does.
If somebody comes into a toy store with the mindset: "I hate barbie dolls", that customer does not count in the market share for "barbie dolls" and it wouldn't make any sense to say that when he buys "Lego", that revenue was taken from mattel and given to lego.

In our case, if people hate GW's guts and have sworn an oath never to buy their products again, them buying anything doesn't take any money away from GW, since they already decided to spend 0 on GW.

Just to clarify some of the terms I saw used in this thread :

40k and X-Wing are both scifi miniature wargames according to their own descriptions and to most definitions of the terms.

Both games are indeed in a different subcategory of wargames scifi miniature wargames, for exemple 40k is ground themed with infantry and tanks as the main models while X-wing is space based with small fighter and some bigger ships, but that's not what was discussed here.

Yes you can always select a specific set of conditions to define your group in a different way, but when the discussion started to involve X-Wing, the topic was about 40k being the supposed top dog in *scifi miniature wargaming*, with one of the early post acknowledging this by explicitely ignoring other wargames like FoW because they were not scifi, introducing X-Wing was perfectly valid in this context, and if you want to starts talking about things like painting or modelling, then you are eitheir changing the target, or starting a different discussion altogether.

It's perfectly fine to say that you prefer wargames with a painting and modelling aspect (and note than X-Wing can have both if you want, it's just lest of a requirement), but it's wrong to say that it's not a wargame without those aspects.

When I started Warhammer, I eitheir used cardboard squares of the appropriate size to represent most of the models of my army because I was too young to afford more than a few models, and of thoe models, many where one piece metal or monopose plastic with no assembly required outside of putting them on their slotabase. Does it means that I was not doing wargaming then ? And what about earlier editions of 40k where you might have played a game with a number of models just above what you would expect nowadays in a skirmish game, was 40k not a wargame in thos those early days ?

morgoth wrote:

So when you buy any other game, you're not removing money from the GW pool, you're just spending money somewhere else.
And before you even considered spending money, there wasn't a split second where you considered spending it on GW produce.
To me, that doesn't sound like GW and FFG competed for your game dollar.

You have a certain amount of money you can spend on things you enjoy; some will go on takeaway, films etc... stuff not in the "tabletop hobby" sphere. That money is unlikely to havr been spent on your tabletop hobby, so while they do kind of compete with GW in terms of "this is money that I will spend on things I enjoy", the chances of it being spent on tabletop hobby stuff is low.

You will have a certain amount of money that you will spend on tabletop related things. That is money GW and every other tabletop game company are directly competing over with their products, community, business choices, and customer interactions.

People will be more or less inclined to spend money on certain types of game - I personally am not a huge fan of Star Wars so will be less likely to spend it on X-Wing. People are more inclined to buy into games that are played locally - this means I will probably not be buying any more Dust Tactics as no one else plays it, but I may pick up some drop fleet commander as there are a few people who have it. There are some companies who I do not agree with how they have or are doing things so will be less inclined to buy stuff from them (GW, Dust Tactics, etc).

The point is that even though I may be more or less inclined to spend money with them, they are all selling in the market I am buying from, and I only have a certain amount of money that will be spent in that market. Every pound I spend with company A is money that is not going to companys B-Z.

And in a market where player groups often determine what people buy, if players stop buying and playing your games, you will find it hugely difficult to break back in to that meta. Especially if you are actively pissing off those players...

morgoth wrote:


Of course it does.
If somebody comes into a toy store with the mindset: "I hate barbie dolls", that customer does not count in the market share for "barbie dolls" and it wouldn't make any sense to say that when he buys "Lego", that revenue was taken from mattel and given to lego.

In our case, if people hate GW's guts and have sworn an oath never to buy their products again, them buying anything doesn't take any money away from GW, since they already decided to spend 0 on GW.

You've got to be kidding me. Also, nice false analogy.

I am not a potential customer for Barbie unless I will have a baby girl, but I am a potential customer for GW and not-GW wargame products.
I have no infinite money, so if I spend in GW I do not spend in not-GW, and the other way around. Some people jump ship and do not go back, other go back and forth, but it works this way.

morgoth, what are you doing here is damage control, sorry.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

One thing though- I don't think that X-Wing is the de-facto place for ex-GW gamers to go. The hobby and gaming elements are very different, so I can see how some of the (many) other games might appeal more..

I think X-Wing is very much a side game for most people, with a few playing it as their main/only game. It's ideal as a side game because the cost of entry is minimal (can get started for the cost of a GW tank), the rules are really easy to pick up (either from reading the 5 page rules, or playing through a turn), and it plays pretty quickly. So it's very easy to grab a game of X-Wing in a lunch break, or after you've finished your main game, or waiting on people turning up at the games club.

That used to be where things like Blood Bowl sat, and maybe it'll come back, but at the moment can anyone really see Blood Bowl displacing X-Wing?

Pretty much every new forum member that joins the x-wing forums is a former GW customer that's finally had enough of their crap.

So, now we have plastic Sisters coming. With their release, Genestealer Cults, and Blood Bowl, I feel like GW is really swinging back towards the "Good" side. Rules in 40k are still bananas, but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication, hopefully 8th will balance it out some.

 jreilly89 wrote:
but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication,

???????

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication,

???????

What? The rules for AoS are pretty straightforward and much easier to play than 40k. Now that it has an actual points system, it's a pretty good game. It even addresses a lot of the Monstrous Creature issues with monsters getting weaker as they take wounds.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication,

???????

What? The rules for AoS are pretty straightforward and much easier to play than 40k. Now that it has an actual points system, it's a pretty good game. It even addresses a lot of the Monstrous Creature issues with monsters getting weaker as they take wounds.

In anticipation of the following comments:

But, but, but... it has only four pages... it has to be shallow and bad ... yadda-yadda-yadda...

SKR.HH wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication,

???????

What? The rules for AoS are pretty straightforward and much easier to play than 40k. Now that it has an actual points system, it's a pretty good game. It even addresses a lot of the Monstrous Creature issues with monsters getting weaker as they take wounds.

In anticipation of the following comments:

But, but, but... it has only four pages... it has to be shallow and bad ... yadda-yadda-yadda...

Either "The rules are too bloated!" or "It's too simple, it's for kids!". Basically just "GW IS BAD!"

 jreilly89 wrote:

SKR.HH wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication,

???????

What? The rules for AoS are pretty straightforward and much easier to play than 40k. Now that it has an actual points system, it's a pretty good game. It even addresses a lot of the Monstrous Creature issues with monsters getting weaker as they take wounds.

In anticipation of the following comments:

But, but, but... it has only four pages... it has to be shallow and bad ... yadda-yadda-yadda...

Either "The rules are too bloated!" or "It's too simple, it's for kids!". Basically just "GW IS BAD!"

Yup.

 Pacific wrote:

morgoth wrote:


In other words, when disgruntled ex-GW customers buy something from another miniature foundry, they are *not* driving revenue away from GW.
When a current GW customer buys one less box of marines to afford a starter X-Wing set, then he *is* driving revenue away from GW and towards FFG.

So does it come down to the purchasers state of mind then? i.e. if I 'hate' GW or not when I go into a shop to buy that box of X-Wing stuff?

Of course it does - and it does not matter what you are buying - if you are in the grocery store say to yourself 'I am buying this oatmeal because I hate GW!'

It will make you feel better, trust me.

The Auld Grump - these socks, I dedicate to my hatred of GW!

I bought every single one of my Christmas gifts this year purely because of my hatred for GW.

None of them were wargaming related of course, but that's no surprise, considering the most important criteria for determining whether something is a wargame product is apparently: "is the product made by GW", or "is this product 40K"

Now that I think about it, since neither X-wing, a loaf of bread or a pair of underwear is wargaming products (as we've learned in this thread), anything I buy, I can choose to buy purely out of spite of GW. It sure feel good to know I hit them where it counts everytime I go out to get some groceries.

 jreilly89 wrote:

SKR.HH wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication,

???????

What? The rules for AoS are pretty straightforward and much easier to play than 40k. Now that it has an actual points system, it's a pretty good game. It even addresses a lot of the Monstrous Creature issues with monsters getting weaker as they take wounds.

In anticipation of the following comments:

But, but, but... it has only four pages... it has to be shallow and bad ... yadda-yadda-yadda...

Either "The rules are too bloated!" or "It's too simple, it's for kids!". Basically just "GW IS BAD!"

It is not the fact that it is four pages of rules, it is that it is four pages of crappy rules.

GW is BAD - but for the first time in over a decade seems to be putting some effort into turning itself around.

Sadly, while I am again willing to buy from GW, their current games are not such that they attract me (and why I so very much hope that any new Mordheim does not suck). If that changes, I am likely to at least look at new offerings.

I have things that I like better that I am willing to pour my money into (one of those things has started teething... I will be pouring my money into that for almost twenty years, I think).

But it will also take time for GW to walk back from some of those bad decisions made during those ten years - inexpensive miniatures would not devalue the brand, but abruptly dropping the prices would - so what they have to do is improve their offerings - still charge what I consider far too much, but make that still a worthwhile price to pay.

It was easy for me to walk away from the AoS box - I had no interest in any of the contents; from the rules to the minis. (I do not like the artistic direction that their miniatures have taken - it makes it easier to just say no.)

If the repackaging of Island of Blood catches my eye, it may be enough for me to make a purchase.

Importantly, the game itself has to be something that I consider a worthwhile waste of my time - I will not be using the box to play either AoS or WHFB 8 - I will be using it for Kings of War. (Itself having a very short set of core rules.)

The Auld Grump

I feel like I should start a separate topic to talk about complexity levels in games. I feel I've got too much to say on it to keep on topic.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


The Auld Grump - to repeat, I am actually in the camp that believes that GW is getting better - but with the caveat that 'better' does not necessarily mean 'good'.

Sure- we all have different thresholds for "good" and they certainly have dug themselves a deep hole to climb out of. For some of us, they've pulled themselves up far enough for us to be hopeful for the future, and for others, they still have a long enough ways to go.


I think you're absolutely right about the state of GW. They have offended a lot of older gamers who are plugging for some of the very diverse games out there, while younger gamers are finding other games with which to enter the hobby.

I'm sure a lot of X-Wing sales are to kids who are the age I was when I picked up my Space Crusade set. Back in the day, if you wanted to do minis games, you went with either a GW game or Battletech.



But one last point- a lot of games that aren't in 'direct' competition with 40k are chipping away at its hold. Sure, Kingdom Death has a board, but I find I'm spending most of my hobby time (and money) with it right now.

We're living in an age of the thriving miniatures board game- a lot of people are playing and painting Shadows of Brimstone, Zombicide Black Plague, Arcadia Quest, Super Dungeon Explore, Journey, Blood Rage, Conan and many others. I know I've seen a lot of people pulled away from tabletop wargames because they found these miniatures hobby board games to scratch that itch.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
It is not the fact that it is four pages of rules, it is that it is four pages of crappy rules.

GW is BAD - but for the first time in over a decade seems to be putting some effort into turning itself around.

Sadly, while I am again willing to buy from GW, their current games are not such that they attract me (and why I so very much hope that any new Mordheim does not suck). If that changes, I am likely to at least look at new offerings.

I have things that I like better that I am willing to pour my money into (one of those things has started teething... I will be pouring my money into that for almost twenty years, I think).

But it will also take time for GW to walk back from some of those bad decisions made during those ten years - inexpensive miniatures would not devalue the brand, but abruptly dropping the prices would - so what they have to do is improve their offerings - still charge what I consider far too much, but make that still a worthwhile price to pay.

It was easy for me to walk away from the AoS box - I had no interest in any of the contents; from the rules to the minis. (I do not like the artistic direction that their miniatures have taken - it makes it easier to just say no.)

If the repackaging of Island of Blood catches my eye, it may be enough for me to make a purchase.

Importantly, the game itself has to be something that I consider a worthwhile waste of my time - I will not be using the box to play either AoS or WHFB 8 - I will be using it for Kings of War. (Itself having a very short set of core rules.)

The Auld Grump

Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.

If you don't like the setting or the models, neato, no gripes from me. But saying the rules are crappy is just wrong. It's definitely the better ruleset than anything they've done in the past years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 odinsgrandson wrote:


But one last point- a lot of games that aren't in 'direct' competition with 40k are chipping away at its hold. Sure, Kingdom Death has a board, but I find I'm spending most of my hobby time (and money) with it right now.

We're living in an age of the thriving miniatures board game- a lot of people are playing and painting Shadows of Brimstone, Zombicide Black Plague, Arcadia Quest, Super Dungeon Explore, Journey, Blood Rage, Conan and many others. I know I've seen a lot of people pulled away from tabletop wargames because they found these miniatures hobby board games to scratch that itch.

But the same can be said of Privateer Press or X-Wing. I don't think that's anything really damning of GW, more just a statement of tabletop games as a whole.

I actually agree with TheAuldGrump here

Sitting on nearly $1000 of GW models - all of my money has gone to HWG/PP/Mantic in the past few years. These box sets have been great, the Total War PC game, AoS Reboot in my local area is making a killing, and the allure of 30k keeps coming back to me.

I might be a potential customer again in the coming year

 jreilly89 wrote:


Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.

Why? Pretty much every other prominent wargame has alternate activation, or at least has features the help keep the inactive player engaged. In X Wing the gambit for activation advantage is a whole other sub game to consider when list building. Why was IGOUGO to be expected when GW had literally thrown away the rules and started from scratch, and long periods of inactivity is a frequent criticism players make of IGOUGO games?

 jreilly89 wrote:
So, now we have plastic Sisters coming. With their release, Genestealer Cults, and Blood Bowl, I feel like GW is really swinging back towards the "Good" side. Rules in 40k are still bananas, but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication, hopefully 8th will balance it out some.

Prices however will continue to lock kids out because you can't buy anything but a pot of paint for pocket money, prices will continue to keep vets from returning.

I honestly dread 8th edition of 40k after AoS, having left the walled garden and playing good games it made me realize how bad GW's devs are.

Sisters getting plastic sets is nice but it's not fixing the big problem that makes GW the lowest standard the wargaming community has, prices must drop rules must improve the rest is just irrelevant dross that won't long hold the attention of people.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.

Why? Pretty much every other prominent wargame has alternate activation, or at least has features the help keep the inactive player engaged. In X Wing the gambit for activation advantage is a whole other sub game to consider when list building. Why was IGOUGO to be expected when GW had literally thrown away the rules and started from scratch, and long periods of inactivity is a frequent criticism players make of IGOUGO games?

Because building a ruleset that doesn't revolve around IGOUGO would be a whole new undertaking for them? Bloodbowl also has IGOUGO, Mordheim has IGOUGO, pretty much every game by GW I can think of does IGOUGO of some sort, so thinking AoS wouldn't have IGOUGO is ridiculous (it does, kinda, you end up rolling to see who goes 1st each turn).

Note: I'm not saying IGOUGO is a better system, just that it is to be expected in GW games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hobojebus wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
So, now we have plastic Sisters coming. With their release, Genestealer Cults, and Blood Bowl, I feel like GW is really swinging back towards the "Good" side. Rules in 40k are still bananas, but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication, hopefully 8th will balance it out some.

Prices however will continue to lock kids out because you can't buy anything but a pot of paint for pocket money, prices will continue to keep vets from returning.

On the major kits, sure, but Battle for Vedros addressed exactly that point.

I honestly dread 8th edition of 40k after AoS, having left the walled garden and playing good games it made me realize how bad GW's devs are.

Sisters getting plastic sets is nice but it's not fixing the big problem that makes GW the lowest standard the wargaming community has, prices must drop rules must improve the rest is just irrelevant dross that won't long hold the attention of people.

AoS did improve on the rules, but I get it: nothing GW does will appease you.

jreilly89 wrote:So, now we have plastic Sisters coming.

Do you mean a Sisters of Battle line coming out? If so, I don't think so. I could be wrong, but I don't see anything here but just wish listing and guessing. I know we are having a Celestine coming out in plastic with 2 body guards (they are called Gemini?) To me that is not plastic Sisters coming. That is just building up the hype and might get a lot of people upset for no reason at all.

The very least we should just be saying we are getting a plastic Sister Character unless someone is going to buy like 25 kits to have 50 Sisters of Battles.

Does lotr count as IGOUGO?
Roll of at the start of every turn
Winner does his move
Loser moves
Winner shoots
Loser shoots
Fight phase. Winner chooses order in which fights are resolved.
Repeat until game ends.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.

Why? Pretty much every other prominent wargame has alternate activation, or at least has features the help keep the inactive player engaged. In X Wing the gambit for activation advantage is a whole other sub game to consider when list building. Why was IGOUGO to be expected when GW had literally thrown away the rules and started from scratch, and long periods of inactivity is a frequent criticism players make of IGOUGO games?

Because building a ruleset that doesn't revolve around IGOUGO would be a whole new undertaking for them? Bloodbowl also has IGOUGO, Mordheim has IGOUGO, pretty much every game by GW I can think of does IGOUGO of some sort, so thinking AoS wouldn't have IGOUGO is ridiculous (it does, kinda, you end up rolling to see who goes 1st each turn).

Note: I'm not saying IGOUGO is a better system, just that it is to be expected in GW games.

.

So, essentially what we're saying is all of GW's rulesets are based on what is now largely considered an antiquated turn structure, chiefly because AOS is the only one of the core games that isn't at least almost two decades old, and we don't expect them to depart from that?

Doesn't sound terribly optimistic for the "gotten better" camp if they're in any way interested in the rules playing better.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Because building a ruleset that doesn't revolve around IGOUGO would be a whole new undertaking for them? Bloodbowl also has IGOUGO, Mordheim has IGOUGO, pretty much every game by GW I can think of does IGOUGO of some sort, so thinking AoS wouldn't have IGOUGO is ridiculous (it does, kinda, you end up rolling to see who goes 1st each turn).

Note: I'm not saying IGOUGO is a better system, just that it is to be expected in GW games.

GW hadn't previously blown up their entire game world in order to bring space marines into fantasy and nobody expected them to do so but that didn't stop them doing it.

So I don't think "They hadn't done it before" is a valid argument as to why they didn't do it with their brand new game which was meant to completely revitalise their fantasy range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da krimson barun wrote:
Does lotr count as IGOUGO?
Roll of at the start of every turn
Winner does his move
Loser moves
Winner shoots
Loser shoots
Fight phase. Winner chooses order in which fights are resolved.
Repeat until game ends.

That would be a kind of alternating activation, I think. It certainly works better than each player doing move-shoot-fight before the opponent gets any opportunity to react, I think.

It prevents a hero like Aragorn charging one goblin out of group of ten nearby, safe in the knowledge that he will most likely murder it whilst his archer buddies can pepper the others with arrows as they just stand there watching Gerry get cut to pieces less than a metre away from them as arrows hit them in the eye.

Instead it goes: Aragorn charges Gerry, whose mates see him in trouble and all pile in to help. Archers don't want to shoot into the swirling mass of bodies in case they hit their king and then Aragorn gets brutally murdered by the howling mob of goblins who are hugely pissed off at him bullying Gerry who is only 2 days away from retirement.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.

Why? Pretty much every other prominent wargame has alternate activation, or at least has features the help keep the inactive player engaged. In X Wing the gambit for activation advantage is a whole other sub game to consider when list building. Why was IGOUGO to be expected when GW had literally thrown away the rules and started from scratch, and long periods of inactivity is a frequent criticism players make of IGOUGO games?

Because building a ruleset that doesn't revolve around IGOUGO would be a whole new undertaking for them? Bloodbowl also has IGOUGO, Mordheim has IGOUGO, pretty much every game by GW I can think of does IGOUGO of some sort, so thinking AoS wouldn't have IGOUGO is ridiculous (it does, kinda, you end up rolling to see who goes 1st each turn).

Note: I'm not saying IGOUGO is a better system, just that it is to be expected in GW games.

.

So, essentially what we're saying is all of GW's rulesets are based on what is now largely considered an antiquated turn structure, chiefly because AOS is the only one of the core games that isn't at least almost two decades old, and we don't expect them to depart from that?

Doesn't sound terribly optimistic for the "gotten better" camp if they're in any way interested in the rules playing better.

Whatever man, I get it. Nothing but the absolute holy grail will satisfy those GW had wronged.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Because building a ruleset that doesn't revolve around IGOUGO would be a whole new undertaking for them? Bloodbowl also has IGOUGO, Mordheim has IGOUGO, pretty much every game by GW I can think of does IGOUGO of some sort, so thinking AoS wouldn't have IGOUGO is ridiculous (it does, kinda, you end up rolling to see who goes 1st each turn).

Note: I'm not saying IGOUGO is a better system, just that it is to be expected in GW games.

GW hadn't previously blown up their entire game world in order to bring space marines into fantasy and nobody expected them to do so but that didn't stop them doing it.

So I don't think "They hadn't done it before" is a valid argument as to why they didn't do it with their brand new game which was meant to completely revitalise their fantasy range.

Why? It's much more believable they'd change the fluff or lore of a game than they'd make a new ruleset that didn't revolve around IGOUGO. AoS has Hero phase, movement phase, shooting, and combat, which is very similar to the turn structure WHFB had.

The IGOUGO turn sequence is way far down the list of issues with the AoS rules. Just the fact that pretty much not a single person plays the movement or measuring rules as written says quite a lot.

While GW has improved in communication and possibly attitude, I have seen few indication that there has been any improvement in the rules writing. If anything, they've doubled down on all the issues that's made me lose any interest in 40K and AoS is just a bad joke from the start, even if the handbook manage to introduce some kind of balance through a points system.

They'd need to make 40K 8th edition a hard reboot in rules terms to get it back on track. They can release as many supplements and campaign books as they like, but that'll just increase the bloat further.

And I can understand why they'd be reluctant to do serious rule-reboot. It wouldn't be popular among the whales buying hardback rulebooks and supplements for 100's or even 1000's of $ per year to keep up with the recent pace of releases.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.

Why? Pretty much every other prominent wargame has alternate activation, or at least has features the help keep the inactive player engaged. In X Wing the gambit for activation advantage is a whole other sub game to consider when list building. Why was IGOUGO to be expected when GW had literally thrown away the rules and started from scratch, and long periods of inactivity is a frequent criticism players make of IGOUGO games?

Because building a ruleset that doesn't revolve around IGOUGO would be a whole new undertaking for them? Bloodbowl also has IGOUGO, Mordheim has IGOUGO, pretty much every game by GW I can think of does IGOUGO of some sort, so thinking AoS wouldn't have IGOUGO is ridiculous (it does, kinda, you end up rolling to see who goes 1st each turn).

Note: I'm not saying IGOUGO is a better system, just that it is to be expected in GW games.

.

So, essentially what we're saying is all of GW's rulesets are based on what is now largely considered an antiquated turn structure, chiefly because AOS is the only one of the core games that isn't at least almost two decades old, and we don't expect them to depart from that?

Doesn't sound terribly optimistic for the "gotten better" camp if they're in any way interested in the rules playing better.

Whatever man, I get it. Nothing but the absolute holy grail will satisfy those GW had wronged.

If by "holy grail" you mean "address severe playability issues with their core product" then you're correct.

I'd love an excuse to buy some of the new stuff, but if I were to buy most of it "just to paint" then I'd be sacrificing my chance to buy some genuinely extraordinary product from other companies that aren't, at their core, rather chunky and busy (as much of GW proper stuff tends to be, even the good stuff, it's just the good stuff tends to play into those traits.)

But, and I'm sure I'm not alone, I look at some of the lovely stuff coming out (Ahriman = , and my CSM are Emp Children) and think "what am I actually going to do with it?" I've never been a FB player, so AOS was never likely to draw me in, and 40K is still a misshapen lump of unbalanced bloat that doesn't present anything like the engaging gameplay of pretty much every other game I try.

I don't think waiting for/hoping for/expecting a genuine attempt to fix the large effort in vs low enjoyment out problem 40K currently has is the holy grail, I think it's looking for an attempt to fix the foundations rather than just repainting the doors and mowing the lawn.