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.

It's hard to discuss with people who don't seem to have much or any experience with alternating activations of any kind.

The "bbbbbbbut I can activate MY ONE SUPERPOWER and then it's the same as IGoUGo!" Is absolutely easily refuted with a simple dice bag system that is extremely well liked and used in the very popular Bolt Action. Lots of these fake scenarios just seem like problems that nobody has ever had.

I dunno. Having 3 baneblades vs 50 squads of guardsmen with a dice bag sounds a lot like me standing around getting shot to I draw one of the 3/53rds coloured cubes.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I dunno. Having 3 baneblades vs 50 squads of guardsmen with a dice bag sounds a lot like me standing around getting shot to I draw one of the 3/53rds coloured cubes.

Then build a more balanced force. The thing with alternating unit activations is YOU and only YOU are responsible for how long you wait. You want very few activations that are all heavy hitters? That is your CHOICE. You want a ton of activations that all have little to no impact? That is on you. It's not the mechanics that force you into that situation. It's you coming into the fight with a crap inflexible strategy. Build a more balanced list.

 Lance845 wrote:
So my fan 8th which has an actual change log as every iteration was tested, and beyond the gates of 40k which is heavily based on using 40ks units in a actual published system are both untested and unproven theoretical structures?

Don't know what to tell you. More games on the market use alternating activations over IGOUGO because more people want actual game play and a quick interactive turn structure. Who would have thought?

Citation? Or is it just your gut feeling? All the card games, all the RPGs, all the board games, just about everything from WizKids or Fantasy Flight or Wizards (HeroClix/AttackWing), none of them use this system that you say is more popular than one player turn after another. This is because people want a simple and casual game that isn't overly complicated on meta rules, hence what we have on 8th edition, which has taken a large step backward in depth to give us better army interactions.

 mugginns wrote:
It's hard to discuss with people who don't seem to have much or any experience with alternating activations of any kind.

The "bbbbbbbut I can activate MY ONE SUPERPOWER and then it's the same as IGoUGo!" Is absolutely easily refuted with a simple dice bag system that is extremely well liked and used in the very popular Bolt Action. Lots of these fake scenarios just seem like problems that nobody has ever had.

Do you go to court and expect your opponent's attorney to argue your case for you as well? Expecting others to make your arguments for you makes about as much sense as asking the guy who is suing you for legal advice. It's hard to discuss anything with people who leave facts out of the paragraphs and merely spout "I hate this", "That sucks", "This was crap", "This is the best ever", "More games use what I like over everything else" without a shred of reasoning behind them. As if we're all supposed to be psychic and understand the glory that is your mind and its machinations, intricate though they must be, and anyone who doesn't immediately accept what's been stated as hyperbolic fact must be not understanding anything about the source material you're drawing inspiration from.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
So my fan 8th which has an actual change log as every iteration was tested, and beyond the gates of 40k which is heavily based on using 40ks units in a actual published system are both untested and unproven theoretical structures?

Don't know what to tell you. More games on the market use alternating activations over IGOUGO because more people want actual game play and a quick interactive turn structure. Who would have thought?

Citation? Or is it just your gut feeling? All the card games, all the RPGs, all the board games, just about everything from WizKids or Fantasy Flight or Wizards (HeroClix/AttackWing), none of them use this system that you say is more popular than one player turn after another. This is because people want a simple and casual game that isn't overly complicated on meta rules, hence what we have on 8th edition, which has taken a large step backward in depth to give us better army interactions.

 mugginns wrote:
It's hard to discuss with people who don't seem to have much or any experience with alternating activations of any kind.

The "bbbbbbbut I can activate MY ONE SUPERPOWER and then it's the same as IGoUGo!" Is absolutely easily refuted with a simple dice bag system that is extremely well liked and used in the very popular Bolt Action. Lots of these fake scenarios just seem like problems that nobody has ever had.

Do you go to court and expect your opponent's attorney to argue your case for you as well? Expecting others to make your arguments for you makes about as much sense as asking the guy who is suing you for legal advice. It's hard to discuss anything with people who leave facts out of the paragraphs and merely spout "I hate this", "That sucks", "This was crap", "This is the best ever", "More games use what I like over everything else" without a shred of reasoning behind them. As if we're all supposed to be psychic and understand the glory that is your mind and its machinations, intricate though they must be, and anyone who doesn't immediately accept what's been stated as hyperbolic fact must be not understanding anything about the source material you're drawing inspiration from.

What over complication with "meta rules"? Heroscape used alternating unit activations. A significantly more simple game then any other miniature war game I have ever played.

But you see, you clearly don't understand. You make snap judgements with no basis in the reality of all the games that have been running for years and years using these systems. You claim all these problems WILL crop up. They HAVE to. It's and INHERENT part of these mechanics that make them clearly inferior to IGOUGO.

And yet they don't show up in any of those other games. They are not problems. It's all just in your head and you are sticking to your guns that these problems must be.

You ignore the points I made about gameplay being a drag in IGOUGO. About the tactical and strategic depth that alternating activations adds to the game. You ignore that the systems I posted to you HAVE been tested and DO function and instead ask me to make a list of all the games that use alternating activations.

Sure here are some purely minature war games.

Bolt Action
Knoflict 47
BTGoA
Heroscape
Xwing
Star Trek
SW Armada
War Hammer Disk Wars
Rune Wars
Dog Fight
Dust Tactics
Battletech
Oh yeah... Epic 40k.

Most of the games on that list have pretty recent releases. Like... in the last 5 years. And it's nowhere near a comprehensive list.

Why don't you provide me with a list of games that have come out in the last few years that are IGOUGO?

Il get your started. 40k for some reason.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I dunno. Having 3 baneblades vs 50 squads of guardsmen with a dice bag sounds a lot like me standing around getting shot to I draw one of the 3/53rds coloured cubes.

Then build a more balanced force. The thing with alternating unit activations is YOU and only YOU are responsible for how long you wait. You want very few activations that are all heavy hitters? That is your CHOICE. You want a ton of activations that all have little to no impact? That is on you. It's not the mechanics that force you into that situation. It's you coming into the fight with a crap inflexible strategy. Build a more balanced list.

Awesome. I love changes to the game that reduce options and murder fluffy armies.

 Lance845 wrote:
Why don't you provide me with a list of games that have come out in the last few years that are IGOUGO?

I'Il get your started. 40k for some reason.

Warmachine Mk3, and Kings of War off the top of my head. Trying to think of other notable ones atm, but I'm drawing a blank. Either way, I do believe it's disingenious to say "it's up to the player to build a balanced army" because that has been used to sweep over system issues. As mentioned, the Bolt Action random draw system can definitely converge towards being akin to IGOUGO, either if one player has a disproportionate larger number of units, or both players have large numbers of units combined with a large number of Officers to activate everyone around them, as though they were Fire Emblem Dancers.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I dunno. Having 3 baneblades vs 50 squads of guardsmen with a dice bag sounds a lot like me standing around getting shot to I draw one of the 3/53rds coloured cubes.

Then build a more balanced force. The thing with alternating unit activations is YOU and only YOU are responsible for how long you wait. You want very few activations that are all heavy hitters? That is your CHOICE. You want a ton of activations that all have little to no impact? That is on you. It's not the mechanics that force you into that situation. It's you coming into the fight with a crap inflexible strategy. Build a more balanced list.

Awesome. I love changes to the game that reduce options and murder fluffy armies.

I feel you on the Baneblade situation. I know there's a lot of hate for such armies because of the general hamfistedness of adding flyers and superheavies to "standard" 40k, but from your posts, you seem like a pretty chill guy to game with and the Concordians sound like a fun matchup.

Anyway, I recently replayed through Universe At War and was entertained by the concept of the Hierarchy. As an army, they're pretty much unlike any RTS force in pretty much any other game. Rather than having a base, workers building refineries to harvest Vespene Gas, building barracks, etc, they instead start with a giant Defiler-like Walker, that can build sub-components which function as RTS building analogues, all while it's a dangerous fighter in its own right. The Hierarchy Endgame was basically akin to running a Knight army, as you had 3 super-walkers that were one part mobile base, one part superweapon. (And amusingly enough, you had to destroy all subcomponents on said walker before you could target their core)

I wonder if you could kludge the activation system some for super-heavies in a similar way. At the risk of making it *too* granular, I imagine something like a Baneblade or Knight could be "split" so its activations go to multiple "subcomponents" which can be targeted in turn (as let's be honest, there's always *that* part of us that watched Star Trek and enjoyed "target their engines") or so.

Most my Warstack testing has been "marine scale combat", and the vehicle rules are still rather nebulous. I am trying to make tanks feel tough but ponderous, but I'm also trying to strike a balance between "sensible" and "streamlined."

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Warmachine Mk3, and Kings of War off the top of my head. Trying to think of other notable ones atm, but I'm drawing a blank.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I dunno. Having 3 baneblades vs 50 squads of guardsmen with a dice bag sounds a lot like me standing around getting shot to I draw one of the 3/53rds coloured cubes.

Then build a more balanced force. The thing with alternating unit activations is YOU and only YOU are responsible for how long you wait. You want very few activations that are all heavy hitters? That is your CHOICE. You want a ton of activations that all have little to no impact? That is on you. It's not the mechanics that force you into that situation. It's you coming into the fight with a crap inflexible strategy. Build a more balanced list.

Awesome. I love changes to the game that reduce options and murder fluffy armies.

I feel you on the Baneblade situation. I know there's a lot of hate for such armies because of the general hamfistedness of adding flyers and superheavies to "standard" 40k, but from your posts, you seem like a pretty chill guy to game with and the Concordians sound like a fun matchup.

Anyway, I recently replayed through Universe At War and was entertained by the concept of the Hierarchy. As an army, they're pretty much unlike any RTS force in pretty much any other game. Rather than having a base, workers building refineries to harvest Vespene Gas, building barracks, etc, they instead start with a giant Defiler-like Walker, that can build sub-components which function as RTS building analogues, all while it's a dangerous fighter in its own right. The Hierarchy Endgame was basically akin to running a Knight army, as you had 3 super-walkers that were one part mobile base, one part superweapon.

I wonder if you could kludge the activation system some for super-heavies in a similar way. At the risk of making it *too* granular, I imagine something like a Baneblade or Knight could be "split" so its activations go to multiple "subcomponents" which can be targeted in turn (as let's be honest, there's always *that* part of us that watched Star Trek and enjoyed "target their engines") or so.

Most my Warstack testing has been "marine scale combat", and the vehicle rules are still rather nebulous. I am trying to make tanks feel tough but ponderous, but I'm also trying to strike a balance between "sensible" and "streamlined."

What you propose is a viable solution of the same sort as "formation activations", in other words - block activations of roughly same pont size and damage output - but in the opposite direction. Instead of grouping smaller entities into single, larger ones, your approach divides large individuals into separate ones. This could in fact lead to a wildly different playstyles between IKs /Titans (less mobility but much more resilience) and MSU style armies while keeping them both valid. I like it. But it would require a ground-up rework of unit classes and would probably result in pretty much 7th ed scale of complexity of ruleset, as it would require different resolution methods for infantry squads, small vechicles and superheavies.

@Lance: your designed systems cannot be treated as "playtested" in the same sense as commercial systems are playtested. Number of iterations one can make himself doesn't ever get close to what whole communities of players can achieve. I played close to a 100 games of incrementally (and massively) reworked 7th ed, but I'll never claim that it has been playtested outside of the forces and table setups I play with. Being both the creator and playtester one is simply not equipped well enough to "break things", as you unconciously make a huge deal of silent assumptions and don't go outside of your habits far enough to see the whole picture. No one is and claiming otherwise is purely false sense of grandeur. Systems as complex and sandbox as tabletop wargames fall under Gödel's incompleteness theorems - you'll always encounter "bugs and contradictions" that need "most important rule of roll-off" to temporarily resolve and then need to be included in the ruleset permanently, resulting in rules bloat. Large bulk of this thread is focused on your inability to admit, that large power-output units are problem that has to be adressed in alternative activation systems, just like alpha strikes have to be adressed in high damage output IGOUGO systems...

 Arkaine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
So my fan 8th which has an actual change log as every iteration was tested, and beyond the gates of 40k which is heavily based on using 40ks units in a actual published system are both untested and unproven theoretical structures?

Don't know what to tell you. More games on the market use alternating activations over IGOUGO because more people want actual game play and a quick interactive turn structure. Who would have thought?

Citation? Or is it just your gut feeling? All the card games, all the RPGs, all the board games, just about everything from WizKids or Fantasy Flight or Wizards (HeroClix/AttackWing), none of them use this system that you say is more popular than one player turn after another. This is because people want a simple and casual game that isn't overly complicated on meta rules, hence what we have on 8th edition, which has taken a large step backward in depth to give us better army interactions.

 mugginns wrote:
It's hard to discuss with people who don't seem to have much or any experience with alternating activations of any kind.

The "bbbbbbbut I can activate MY ONE SUPERPOWER and then it's the same as IGoUGo!" Is absolutely easily refuted with a simple dice bag system that is extremely well liked and used in the very popular Bolt Action. Lots of these fake scenarios just seem like problems that nobody has ever had.

Do you go to court and expect your opponent's attorney to argue your case for you as well? Expecting others to make your arguments for you makes about as much sense as asking the guy who is suing you for legal advice. It's hard to discuss anything with people who leave facts out of the paragraphs and merely spout "I hate this", "That sucks", "This was crap", "This is the best ever", "More games use what I like over everything else" without a shred of reasoning behind them. As if we're all supposed to be psychic and understand the glory that is your mind and its machinations, intricate though they must be, and anyone who doesn't immediately accept what's been stated as hyperbolic fact must be not understanding anything about the source material you're drawing inspiration from.

People have been posting well thought out detailed posts through the whole thread - this is basically just ignoring facts for a cool post you wanted to make. I suggest you read back through. Many of the theory only "well this is what will happen!!!" posts were talked about multiple times on pages one and two.

I have found that playing on a decent sized game board that encourages movement and is full of terrain eliminates the alpha strike. (up to 1K on 4x6, up to 2k on 6x8, up to 6K on 6x12).

We have played around with Variations and the "best" that disrupts the official rules the least is to make each phase IgoUgo instead of each turn..

When it comes time to move its I move one unit, you move one unit. Which gives the "advantage" to the party with the most units. (Which normally means weaker, easier to kill units) and balanced is maintained.

Slows down the overall game a tad but no one has 20-30 minutes of waiting on the ork horde to move either.

I haven’t got a degree in Games Design nor do my three buddies but we mashed up a system because we wanted to use our GW models in a much more interesting and engaging way.

Our ‘Gates of 40K’ isn’t perfect but after many revisions we’ve come to a point where it works great. Random unit activations via blind draw and the reaction system work in tandem to keep both players involved at all times.

Some have mentioned fielding multiple MSU to game the blind draw but in our experience that hasn’t been an issue. Granted, we usually run scenarios with lists to play them out, but if two complete strangers played any of the games that feature this mechanic all it takes is for one of them to be TFG and I’m sure any and all dickery will occur. True for any system.

Another issue some have is with the randomness of unit activations and/or run of activations for one side or the other. I see this as a feature not a bug. Sometimes initiative is with you and you’re able to dictate the flow of battle, sometimes it’s with your opponent.

Either way, it’s balanced because at no point are you sitting around watching and waiting for your opponent to finish his entire army’s moves. Any of your units with LOS to his activating units can react and interrupt where needed.

Deathstars are not a thing because of the Action/Reaction system. At most you can activate 2 units alongside a Character activation. Once again, whatever you or your opponent choose to do with them can be reacted to by other units.

The constant back and forth, presenting decisions of what to activate, when to stall, where to react makes for a game so different from standard 40K that I can see why some would find it difficult to adjust to.

As I said, Gates of 40K isn’t perfect so suggestions on how to polish it up are always welcome.

 Lance845 wrote:
Why don't you provide me with a list of games that have come out in the last few years that are IGOUGO?

Il get your started. 40k for some reason.

Xwing and Star Trek are off the table on your list since they operate on initiative order, not alternating activations, which I commented on being preferable to your system yet here you are pointing them out in your own defense. They have the inherent balance mechanic of units that move last shoot first, which is spectacular and allows slower units the tactical advantage while speedy pros have the shooting advantage. It's more than possible for my entire army to go before yours if my guys are faster and the only thing that alternates is whose turn it is (initiative token). Which, oddly enough, makes it more of an IGOUGO game than an alternating activation game.

HeroClix however is on my list and is one of country's top games at every major gaming convention, and wouldn't you know it... it still operates on a action-based IGOUGO turn structure with $15,000 cash prizes at just one of their tourneys, pretty popular.

WarmaHordes (Warmachine and Hordes) remain top 5 war games, two from the same company, and feature that IGOUGO turn structure, activating all his models before his opponent gets to. A lot of 40k players abandoned ship to go play this until the company started pulling GW moves.

Infinity is praised as the best tactical/reaction-based and realistic game system around yet sports that same IGOUGO activate my army before you do turn sequence, launching its newest edition in recent years because it's actually being successful and standing the test of time. A lot of our 40k players actually abandoned ship to go play this and still are. I even have an Ariadna army myself.

You forgot GW's other game! Age of Sigmar also sports an IGOUGO turn sequence except during the combat phase, but 40k does the same thing now too with its Fight phase. It's a good compromise to Initiative's removal from the game and prevents the Fantasy shenanigans of Elves annihilating you before you even blink.

And hey, let's mention that superior Flames of War ruleset that recently gave birth to Team Yankee! A game that's actually sucked the life and soul out of my community as everyone finds it to be a better version of 40k. Meh, feth that, not enough dragon-planes and cult zombies. But wouldn't you know... it's IGOUGO... <_<

Oh and none of these games are dead in the water either. They've all received updates and new models recently. Oh and let's give a hand to our honorable mention, which while no longer being the popularity storm it once was, has spawned two online video games, promotes the finest of American passtimes, and remains possibly the ONLY remotely balanced game GW has ever made. Give up? It's BLOODBOWL!!! It's back and better than ever with shiny new models and a slowly growing following, despite still being IGOUGO. Wonder if the new version of Necromunda will be the same way?


Oh and to be nice, I only mentioned the war games this time around. Let's not forget all the card games, RPGs, and board games I mentioned earlier that also use alternating TURN sequences. Such a thing just isn't going the way of the dodo yet. In fact, the alternating activation games seem to either be grossly unpopular or quite few in number because they just aren't making it big in the spotlights like these others are.

Something being popular doesn't exactly make it more fun or enjoyable. 40K has been hugely popular for years...and if I'm honest, as much as I enjoy the game/models/lore - from a design standpoint it's one of the worst ones out there.

IGOUGO is popular because it's easy...and in turn is much easier to create. Again, doesn't make it a good design decision. I feel like you're defending a position based on popularity and sales/prize support - not really addressing why you think it actually works and is engaging as a game mechanic.

 Elbows wrote:
Something being popular doesn't exactly make it more fun or enjoyable. 40K has been hugely popular for years...and if I'm honest, as much as I enjoy the game/models/lore - from a design standpoint it's one of the worst ones out there.

IGOUGO is popular because it's easy...and in turn is much easier to create. Again, doesn't make it a good design decision. I feel like you're defending a position based on popularity and sales/prize support - not really addressing why you think it actually works and is engaging as a game mechanic.

So you're trying to argue there's no correlation between 'well-designed' and 'popular'? Alright, fair enough, but in that case, a 'well-designed' game isn't actually a very good one, as a game must have something more than a written ruleset - it has to have 'players'. If the most technically perfect game that all others aspire to be and has a completely flawless execution method and is designed by game-development deities has 0 players, one might argue it's not a game at all; it's just words on a page.

Sheeple.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Something being popular doesn't exactly make it more fun or enjoyable. 40K has been hugely popular for years...and if I'm honest, as much as I enjoy the game/models/lore - from a design standpoint it's one of the worst ones out there.

IGOUGO is popular because it's easy...and in turn is much easier to create. Again, doesn't make it a good design decision. I feel like you're defending a position based on popularity and sales/prize support - not really addressing why you think it actually works and is engaging as a game mechanic.

So you're trying to argue there's no correlation between 'well-designed' and 'popular'? Alright, fair enough, but in that case, a 'well-designed' game isn't actually a very good one, as a game must have something more than a written ruleset - it has to have 'players'. If the most technically perfect game that all others aspire to be and has a completely flawless execution method and is designed by game-development deities has 0 players, one might argue it's not a game at all; it's just words on a page.

I was going to post something similar but you did it before I even read his comment.

Elbow: I'm not defending the position on popularity. I enjoy all of those games and their structures. I find them to be preferable and superior to the other proposed rules and lacking many of the flaws I've already pointed out. I also am not going to repeat myself -- I spent the past few pages addressing why I think it actually works and is engaging as a game mechanic. Go read it.

Considering my quoted opponent merely listed a bunch of a games with NO explanations, I think I've improved on the process.

That's exactly what I'm arguing.

Games Workshop products have never, ever, been popular because of their game mechanics. In the 25 years I've been playing GW games, I've enjoyed them because they're cool, and yes back in the 90's had far more nerdy geekdom involved. But even the games I loved best, like Necromunda and Warhammer Quest had some pretty crap rules. The saving grace here was the ridiculous amount of content and the support for the game - the "feel" of the game was damn cool.

We're not discussing commercial success of 40K in this thread, we're discussing the archaic and boring IGOUGO turn structure.

40K has never been a success because of its rules - it's a success because of the lore and the cool models. No one ever played a demo game and thought "whoa, that's a fantastic, brilliant game design..." they thought "damn, those Space Marines are pretty cool...".

That's not really relevant to this thread is it?

The one connection you could make is that an IGOUGO game is more open to the dreaded "mathhammer" and thus is far more likely to end up as a tournament game (something 40K was never intended for - as stated numerous times in the early versions of the game). If you're gunning for tournament wins you obviously want meta/netlisting alpha-striking math...and not a genuinely fluid, chaotic game which you can't beat into submission with math.

You see the same thing in any game which becomes a tournament game. Magic, X-Wing etc. are all based on mathhammer-esque tournament lists etc. So, I will concede that the IGOUGO structure may make a game more popular as a tournament game. But the rules are not what draw people into the 40K "universe" as it were.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I dunno. Having 3 baneblades vs 50 squads of guardsmen with a dice bag sounds a lot like me standing around getting shot to I draw one of the 3/53rds coloured cubes.

Then build a more balanced force. The thing with alternating unit activations is YOU and only YOU are responsible for how long you wait. You want very few activations that are all heavy hitters? That is your CHOICE. You want a ton of activations that all have little to no impact? That is on you. It's not the mechanics that force you into that situation. It's you coming into the fight with a crap inflexible strategy. Build a more balanced list.

Awesome. I love changes to the game that reduce options and murder fluffy armies.

3 Baneblades isn't a fluffy army. Also, it's still an option. It's just an option you suffer the consequences for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:


@Lance: your designed systems cannot be treated as "playtested" in the same sense as commercial systems are playtested. Number of iterations one can make himself doesn't ever get close to what whole communities of players can achieve. I played close to a 100 games of incrementally (and massively) reworked 7th ed, but I'll never claim that it has been playtested outside of the forces and table setups I play with. Being both the creator and playtester one is simply not equipped well enough to "break things", as you unconciously make a huge deal of silent assumptions and don't go outside of your habits far enough to see the whole picture. No one is and claiming otherwise is purely false sense of grandeur. Systems as complex and sandbox as tabletop wargames fall under Gödel's incompleteness theorems - you'll always encounter "bugs and contradictions" that need "most important rule of roll-off" to temporarily resolve and then need to be included in the ruleset permanently, resulting in rules bloat. Large bulk of this thread is focused on your inability to admit, that large power-output units are problem that has to be adressed in alternative activation systems, just like alpha strikes have to be adressed in high damage output IGOUGO systems...

I agree. I wasn't the only tester. I had other people from Dakka and about 6 or 7 players from 2 LFGS that were giving the game a whirl. I purosfully even saught out a TFG because I knew he would try to break it.

I don't admit it because I don't think it's that big of an issue. The mechanics themselves often mitigates their over all impact.

 Elbows wrote:

You see the same thing in any game which becomes a tournament game. Magic, X-Wing etc. are all based on mathhammer-esque tournament lists etc. So, I will concede that the IGOUGO structure may make a game more popular as a tournament game. But the rules are not what draw people into the 40K "universe" as it were.

I agree. Which is why I am not arguing on the basis of popularity. I spent the past several pages supporting my reasons regarding the mechanics themselves. Mentioning popularity merely denotes that I'm not the only one that finds them to be quite favorable.

If as the quality of a game increases, the popularity decreases, then as has been said before... you're looking at a calculus problem where the limit approaches 0. I don't find that to be a good game at all.

Every gamer falls somewhere along the spectrum I suppose. If there exist people who think a homebrew game that only 2 people can stand playing is the best game ever then more power to them. It's simply a testament of how unique each individual is that they seek games that are more and more niche to fine tune their experience to match their preferred areas of enjoyment. I guess that's why "crappy rules" are so popular. They appeal to the most people overall by giving everyone something to connect with but never truly focusing on one particular group's extremely eccentric notions of balance and fun.

 Elbows wrote:
That's exactly what I'm arguing.

Games Workshop products have never, ever, been popular because of their game mechanics. In the 25 years I've been playing GW games, I've enjoyed them because they're cool, and yes back in the 90's had far more nerdy geekdom involved. But even the games I loved best, like Necromunda and Warhammer Quest had some pretty crap rules. The saving grace here was the ridiculous amount of content and the support for the game - the "feel" of the game was damn cool.

We're not discussing commercial success of 40K in this thread, we're discussing the archaic and boring IGOUGO turn structure.

40K has never been a success because of its rules - it's a success because of the lore and the cool models. No one ever played a demo game and thought "whoa, that's a fantastic, brilliant game design..." they thought "damn, those Space Marines are pretty cool...".

That's not really relevant to this thread is it?

The one connection you could make is that an IGOUGO game is more open to the dreaded "mathhammer" and thus is far more likely to end up as a tournament game (something 40K was never intended for - as stated numerous times in the early versions of the game). If you're gunning for tournament wins you obviously want meta/netlisting alpha-striking math...and not a genuinely fluid, chaotic game which you can't beat into submission with math.

You see the same thing in any game which becomes a tournament game. Magic, X-Wing etc. are all based on mathhammer-esque tournament lists etc. So, I will concede that the IGOUGO structure may make a game more popular as a tournament game. But the rules are not what draw people into the 40K "universe" as it were.

This. FF as a video game series has been running off the same principle. As video games they are crap. As interactive anime story books with drudgery between each new snippet of the story they excel. Mechanically they are garbage but it doesn't stop them from being popular.

8th is the best we have seen in a LONG LONG time from GW, but that doesn't quite make it good.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I dunno. Having 3 baneblades vs 50 squads of guardsmen with a dice bag sounds a lot like me standing around getting shot to I draw one of the 3/53rds coloured cubes.

Then build a more balanced force. The thing with alternating unit activations is YOU and only YOU are responsible for how long you wait. You want very few activations that are all heavy hitters? That is your CHOICE. You want a ton of activations that all have little to no impact? That is on you. It's not the mechanics that force you into that situation. It's you coming into the fight with a crap inflexible strategy. Build a more balanced list.

Awesome. I love changes to the game that reduce options and murder fluffy armies.

3 Baneblades isn't a fluffy army. Also, it's still an option. It's just an option you suffer the consequences for.

You're right, Superheavy Tank Companies have never existed in the fluff before.

And yes, but it's disingenuous to say "Well, it's more interactive!" and then make me wait while my enemy activates most of his 50 units so I can activate 3. I get to sit there and roll saves, just like I do now.

 Elbows wrote:
That's exactly what I'm arguing.

Games Workshop products have never, ever, been popular because of their game mechanics. In the 25 years I've been playing GW games, I've enjoyed them because they're cool, and yes back in the 90's had far more nerdy geekdom involved. But even the games I loved best, like Necromunda and Warhammer Quest had some pretty crap rules. The saving grace here was the ridiculous amount of content and the support for the game - the "feel" of the game was damn cool.

We're not discussing commercial success of 40K in this thread, we're discussing the archaic and boring IGOUGO turn structure.

40K has never been a success because of its rules - it's a success because of the lore and the cool models. No one ever played a demo game and thought "whoa, that's a fantastic, brilliant game design..." they thought "damn, those Space Marines are pretty cool...".

That's not really relevant to this thread is it?

I'd argue it's exactly relevant to the thread. The models and background are cool, and the game is easy to play. Those combined make it a popular and successful game/product. Because the game is easy to understand and play, it's good design, simply because it effectively does what it needs to do.

I've never liked the IGOUGO turn system. At certain points it leaves a person feeling like they can do nothing while their army gets wiped out. It can also leave a person bored if the opponent has a large army with little for them to do but remove models.

But, my first tabletop game was Battletech which relies on an initiative system closer to what X-Wing uses now, which colors my considerations. And in Battletech, no matter how much damage you do during a Phase of a turn, it will not negate my unit from retaliating in kind. Damage results only apply at the end of the Phase which balanced out the Initative factor.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I dunno. Having 3 baneblades vs 50 squads of guardsmen with a dice bag sounds a lot like me standing around getting shot to I draw one of the 3/53rds coloured cubes.

Then build a more balanced force. The thing with alternating unit activations is YOU and only YOU are responsible for how long you wait. You want very few activations that are all heavy hitters? That is your CHOICE. You want a ton of activations that all have little to no impact? That is on you. It's not the mechanics that force you into that situation. It's you coming into the fight with a crap inflexible strategy. Build a more balanced list.

Awesome. I love changes to the game that reduce options and murder fluffy armies.

3 Baneblades isn't a fluffy army. Also, it's still an option. It's just an option you suffer the consequences for.

You're right, Superheavy Tank Companies have never existed in the fluff before.

And yes, but it's disingenuous to say "Well, it's more interactive!" and then make me wait while my enemy activates most of his 50 units so I can activate 3. I get to sit there and roll saves, just like I do now.

Or use reactions to act in response however you would want to act. (System depending)

It's disingenuous to argue that a situation you place yourself in is weaker and that that is the fault of the system as opposed to you. In 7th ed 40k I could build a tyranid list that had no synapse because OOE was a HQ option. If I brought that list and then complained that I was constantly rolling and failing my IB tests and had no control over my army whos fault would that be? I should be playing the game by utilizing the systems I have available to me. If I dig myself into a hole because GW has poor unit scaling that is on me for playing with GWs bad rules and then using them in the worst way possible.

If you WANT to take 3 super heavies into a fight with alternating activations you do so understanding the mechanics and what that means. That is on you. The game is not at fault because you dug yourself into a hole with your list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
That's exactly what I'm arguing.

Games Workshop products have never, ever, been popular because of their game mechanics. In the 25 years I've been playing GW games, I've enjoyed them because they're cool, and yes back in the 90's had far more nerdy geekdom involved. But even the games I loved best, like Necromunda and Warhammer Quest had some pretty crap rules. The saving grace here was the ridiculous amount of content and the support for the game - the "feel" of the game was damn cool.

We're not discussing commercial success of 40K in this thread, we're discussing the archaic and boring IGOUGO turn structure.

40K has never been a success because of its rules - it's a success because of the lore and the cool models. No one ever played a demo game and thought "whoa, that's a fantastic, brilliant game design..." they thought "damn, those Space Marines are pretty cool...".

That's not really relevant to this thread is it?

I'd argue it's exactly relevant to the thread. The models and background are cool, and the game is easy to play. Those combined make it a popular and successful game/product. Because the game is easy to understand and play, it's good design, simply because it effectively does what it needs to do.

5th 6th and 7th are not simple and easy to play and yet have always been popular. Anyone who thinks 7th was a good design needs to be knocked upside their head Flintstones style until they get their head strait.

 Lance845 wrote:

This. FF as a video game series has been running off the same principle. As video games they are crap. As interactive anime story books with drudgery between each new snippet of the story they excel. Mechanically they are garbage but it doesn't stop them from being popular.

I haven't even played most of them, and I know they've changed the mechanics around a lot- most mechanics in FF aren't consistent from game to game, particularly when they switched from turn based to phased turns in real time.

The later part is pure subjective nonsense, whether you like them or not.

Voss wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

This. FF as a video game series has been running off the same principle. As video games they are crap. As interactive anime story books with drudgery between each new snippet of the story they excel. Mechanically they are garbage but it doesn't stop them from being popular.

I haven't even played most of them, and I know they've changed the mechanics around a lot- most mechanics in FF aren't consistent from game to game, particularly when they switched from turn based to phased turns in real time.

The later part is pure subjective nonsense, whether you like them or not.

When they went to phase based they made it so you only controlled a single character in the party. The other 2 were NPCs that acted on preset conditions. Definition of game play: A series of interesting choices. You loose control over 2/3rds of what little choices you were making in the "game" while those choices were mostly uninteresting auto swings anyway... well... to what extent is that a game?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'd argue it's exactly relevant to the thread. The models and background are cool, and the game is easy to play. Those combined make it a popular and successful game/product. Because the game is easy to understand and play, it's good design, simply because it effectively does what it needs to do.

5th 6th and 7th are not simple and easy to play and yet have always been popular. Anyone who thinks 7th was a good design needs to be knocked upside their head Flintstones style until they get their head strait.

Agreed. Indeed, I don't think any of the previous editions were ever "easy to play", considering the size of the books and the necessity for human involvement in the rules to get them to work. When you consider all the arguments that got in to the wording of the rules for 5th, 6th, and 7th, that is a good indication of just how "easy" it was to play those editions.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'd argue it's exactly relevant to the thread. The models and background are cool, and the game is easy to play. Those combined make it a popular and successful game/product. Because the game is easy to understand and play, it's good design, simply because it effectively does what it needs to do.

5th 6th and 7th are not simple and easy to play and yet have always been popular. Anyone who thinks 7th was a good design needs to be knocked upside their head Flintstones style until they get their head strait.

Agreed. Indeed, I don't think any of the previous editions were ever "easy to play", considering the size of the books and the necessity for human involvement in the rules to get them to work. When you consider all the arguments that got in to the wording of the rules for 5th, 6th, and 7th, that is a good indication of just how "easy" it was to play those editions.

Also has YMDC ever been an unpopular part of this forum? There is a reason for it's high traffic. The rules are so poorly written and designed that the community has had to build it's own support structure to figure out wtf is going on just so the game COULD be played.

 Lance845 wrote:

5th 6th and 7th are not simple and easy to play and yet have always been popular. Anyone who thinks 7th was a good design needs to be knocked upside their head Flintstones style until they get their head strait.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the problems with 7th were the Codexes, not the core rules. 7th was just as simple to pick up as previous editions, the only exception being the USR bloat.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

5th 6th and 7th are not simple and easy to play and yet have always been popular. Anyone who thinks 7th was a good design needs to be knocked upside their head Flintstones style until they get their head strait.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the problems with 7th were the Codexes, not the core rules. 7th was just as simple to pick up as previous editions, the only exception being the USR bloat.

I disagree. All the different unit types were bad. Especially having to remember what made each one special. Was it really needed to have jump and jetpack be 2 different things? The vehicle rules were bad. The disparity between MC and vehicles. Random tables.... all the random tables. Having 5 different resolution methods just to deal some damage is ridiculous.

USRs were a problem, but they were not even the biggest problem. It was the sheer complication.