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.

 Elbows wrote:
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.

And yet I also showed examples of how the proposed alternating activation system we were arguing about for pages was more prone to math-hammer alpha strikes than the IGOUGO version of the same system. But rather than conceding the point as correct, people have merely gone on to throw more and more convolution and alternate loophole bandaids that can circumvent the issue rather than acknowledging that there was an issue to begin with (quite the opposite in fact, I had to argue for quite some time with someone believing the issue didn't even EXIST). I say that circumvents instead of solves because that's all convolution tends to do. The ruleset becomes so broken that you need to include a thousand exceptions to the rules, to the point that it often becomes more complicated to play than 40k already is, which is horrible when rules lawyers attack anything long enough. The problem still exists, you've merely made it harder to exploit at this time, perhaps even impossibly so. But with the right shift of balance, the right mix of abilities, it can be back in full force. We saw this often with the previous edition granting formation rules that broke basic tenets of the game. THOSE RULES EXISTED FOR A REASON!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As UAT is primarily about video game design, that's the area of expertise I relate with. Programming is all about exceptions to rules but the BEST programming occurs when no exceptions are necessary. When the system runs smoothly without needing to flow through half a dozen loop tests, it's considered efficient. Designers and programmers both look for ways to eliminate unnecessary bloat to their programs and rules, to streamline them without reducing the tactical decision making or fun elements that drive them, and often the biggest reason that something gets cut from the release is because it would be too much of an obnoxious tedium to try to make it work with the existing system.

The insane corner cases you and others have brought up to try to "break" alternating activations have already been debunked. New games using modern activation systems don't have the issues you are trying to invent.

No, you have discussed how half a dozen different systems of alternate activation seperately deal with specific issues of IGOUGO.

It reminds of a poll a while back on this forum (about USR vs bespoke or 3 ways to play idea, I think can't remember) And the conclusion was that the most people still choose GW's system (30% voted GW's system whereas any competitor had 15-20). Yet in the actual thread people were constantly wailing on Gw'sq system there wasn't a good replacementfound. I believe in the same logic here, I don't think there is a specific kind of alternate actvation that as a whole beats out IGOUGO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The answer to OP first question in the thread name might very well be the existence of the second question.

 mugginns wrote:
The insane corner cases you and others have brought up to try to "break" alternating activations have already been debunked. New games using modern activation systems don't have the issues you are trying to invent.

No, they haven't been debunked, they've been CLAIMED as being debunked and then we're supposed to all just move on with our lives. XD Here you are even calling them "insane", showing your clear bias for the position you hold.

New games aren't what was being discussed, nor is the activation system in general, which I approve of! In fact, if you bothered to read anything I write rather than throw out these one liners after skimming through the first two sentences, you'll have noticed where I said alternating activations can be done well, though I much prefer the iniative-oriented ones for they alleviate the states problems. Simply put, however, the presented version was not in fact "done well" and carried an obvious flaw that was repeatedly swept under the rug... as you're doing even now.

This prompted some to begin linking or citing other games that don't have this issue. That's well and good for OTHER games but unless you'd like to discuss a way to implement them HERE for 40k then it's rather pointless to bring them up at all. It simply shows that other designers are less braindead when it comes to balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Earth127 wrote:
The answer to OP first question in the thread name might very well be the existence of the second question.

The thread title questions may as well be "What is the meaning to Life?" for all the variation in answers you'll receive. Yet while some (myself) are open to discussing alternatives, when presented in a CLEAR and CONCISE manner, others (???) would prefer to declare that this system is broken and can never be repaired while ACTIVELY repairing their own system's loopholes each time a new flaw is mentioned.

Earth127 wrote:
No, you have discussed how half a dozen different systems of alternate activation seperately deal with specific issues of IGOUGO.

It reminds of a poll a while back on this forum (about USR vs bespoke or 3 ways to play idea, I think can't remember) And the conclusion was that the most people still choose GW's system (30% voted GW's system whereas any competitor had 15-20). Yet in the actual thread people were constantly wailing on Gw'sq system there wasn't a good replacementfound. I believe in the same logic here, I don't think there is a specific kind of alternate actvation that as a whole beats out IGOUGO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The answer to OP first question in the thread name might very well be the existence of the second question.

Imagine that, a gw game forum prefers gw rules by a slim minority lol.

Post 2017/08/13 16:15:59 Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
mugginns wrote:
The insane corner cases you and others have brought up to try to "break" alternating activations have already been debunked. New games using modern activation systems don't have the issues you are trying to invent.
No, they haven't been debunked, they've been CLAIMED as being debunked and then we're supposed to all just move on with our lives. XD Here you are even calling them "insane", showing your clear bias for the position you hold.

New games aren't what was being discussed, nor is the activation system in general, which I approve of! In fact, if you bothered to read anything I write rather than throw out these one liners after skimming through the first two sentences, you'll have noticed where I said alternating activations can be done well, though I much prefer the iniative-oriented ones for they alleviate the states problems. Simply put, however, the presented version was not in fact "done well" and carried an obvious flaw that was repeatedly swept under the rug... as you're doing even now.

This prompted some to begin linking or citing other games that don't have this issue. That's well and good for OTHER games but unless you'd like to discuss a way to implement them HERE for 40k then it's rather pointless to bring them up at all. It simply shows that other designers are less braindead when it comes to balance.

Various alternatives have been presented because someone says "well what about this one army that I played against once six years ago? Your proposal INVALIDATES THAT LIST."

i really don't know what you're on about now - if you like alternating activations, then we agree. If you still think IGoUGo is better, why not bring up insane corner cases there too? Your opponent puts down 600 models on the table and insists on measuring and moving them individually. His turn takes two hours. How is that fun? System invalidated.

 mugginns wrote:
Imagine that, a gw game forum prefers gw rules by a slim minority lol.

50% to 100% more votes is a slim minority. -mugginns2017

I'm guessing you're not aware that having more choices thins out voting density. Kind of like how having more than the Democratic and Republican parties can siphon off voters from one or both of them. Which is actually the intended purpose of most of those third+ candidates.

Most people define majority as more than half.

I think this thread is a good example of why Warhammer 40K players are viewed as being quite odd by the rest of the tabletop gaming community.

 mugginns wrote:


mugginns wrote:
The insane corner cases you and others have brought up to try to "break" alternating activations have already been debunked. New games using modern activation systems don't have the issues you are trying to invent.
No, they haven't been debunked, they've been CLAIMED as being debunked and then we're supposed to all just move on with our lives. XD Here you are even calling them "insane", showing your clear bias for the position you hold.

Most people dismiss my experience that more LOS blocking terrain hinders shooty armies whille IG artilery that ignore LOS become even more OP.
Yet my consistent experience when increasing terrain density is more fun games. If one fringe exception breaks a system that works 99% of the time maybe the exception should be adressed and not the system

I haven't stated a corner case. I remarked that I think Deathstars might become too powerfull/ break the system and Peregrine countered saying that isn't what happens in practice in other games.

 Arkaine wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
The insane corner cases you and others have brought up to try to "break" alternating activations have already been debunked. New games using modern activation systems don't have the issues you are trying to invent.

No, they haven't been debunked, they've been CLAIMED as being debunked and then we're supposed to all just move on with our lives. XD Here you are even calling them "insane", showing your clear bias for the position you hold.

Ok. So what constitutes debunked to you? What would everyone need to show that these things are not problems? ::rolls eyes::

 Lance845 wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
The insane corner cases you and others have brought up to try to "break" alternating activations have already been debunked. New games using modern activation systems don't have the issues you are trying to invent.

No, they haven't been debunked, they've been CLAIMED as being debunked and then we're supposed to all just move on with our lives. XD Here you are even calling them "insane", showing your clear bias for the position you hold.

Ok. So what constitutes debunked to you? What would everyone need to show that these things are not problems? ::rolls eyes::

For example, you can start with showing how exactly an army of three IKs/WKs against low-power hordes or mid-strenght elite army on a standard ITC table don't have an inherent advantage of early activation of 100% of it's firepower in each and every game? On an ITC table you cannot hide your entire army behind LOS blocking terrain, so no matter who goes first, if you don't wipe out one IK/WK with your first activated unit, IKs/WKs practically start the game with net point advantage... For the ease of debunking let assume for a moment, that every roll in said game returns expected value of damage/saves succeded (to rid out luck factor) and that both armies are completely present on the table at the start of first turn (no reserves). IK/WK/superheavy armies are perfectly battle forged and legal under both 7th and 8th 40K rulesets. This is not a border edge case, but a common matchup during 7th ed... We are NOT discussing "alternating activation systems" as a whole, we are discussing "alternating activation 40K" with the whole spectrum of curently available models/units.

 mugginns wrote:
Most people define majority as more than half.

Have you ever seen Presidential election majorities? 49% is pretty common. Any time you have 2 choices, the majority will be in the 50%+ range. If you have 8 million choices.... good luck getting a majority higher than 10%.

All this theory and speculation about alternating activation is ridiculous. We have actual games that do alternating activation, and they do not have the supposed death star problem. For example, Armada has the most basic version of the system and it recently had to get a balance errata to nerf MSU a bit because the sheer value of having additional activations was dominating the meta. "Death star" lists like dual ISDs are terrible because of their low activation count, lists with more activations can fly circles around them despite the dual ISD list being able to activate half their point value in each of two activations. The alpha strike value is far outweighed by the value of being able to time your activations effectively and delay until your opponent commits.

 Arkaine wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
Most people define majority as more than half.

Have you ever seen Presidential election majorities? 49% is pretty common. Any time you have 2 choices, the majority will be in the 50%+ range. If you have 8 million choices.... good luck getting a majority higher than 10%.

If this is really, actually, a problem, then you add in other stuff to your alternating activation system. Random dice bag, initiative, whatever. Been stated countless times already. Next?

 mugginns wrote:
If this is really, actually, a problem, then you add in other stuff to your alternating activation system. Random dice bag, initiative, whatever. Been stated countless times already. Next?

But again, no one is being explicit about those things because they fear being pointed as wrong or something. I proposed the initiative system MYSELF and got it shot to pieces by the same person who argued that these problems don't even EXIST. That's why we're still arguing these points, these corner situations as you call them, so many pages later. Because what you find a reasonable answer... others don't.

I'm not sure how a dice bag with only 1 dice in it would work though. I'm always up for hearing better systems and poking holes in any flaws they may have to improve them.

If you have four units and I have fifteen, I have a better chance of activating first because you chose to bring a list with very few activations. Initiative is used in xwing and its fine.

If you don't find the solutions (again, solutions that many wargamers are now using with great success) reasonable then perhaps a discussion just can't be had.

nou wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
The insane corner cases you and others have brought up to try to "break" alternating activations have already been debunked. New games using modern activation systems don't have the issues you are trying to invent.

No, they haven't been debunked, they've been CLAIMED as being debunked and then we're supposed to all just move on with our lives. XD Here you are even calling them "insane", showing your clear bias for the position you hold.

Ok. So what constitutes debunked to you? What would everyone need to show that these things are not problems? ::rolls eyes::

For example, you can start with showing how exactly an army of three IKs/WKs against low-power hordes or mid-strenght elite army on a standard ITC table don't have an inherent advantage of early activation of 100% of it's firepower in each and every game? On an ITC table you cannot hide your entire army behind LOS blocking terrain, so no matter who goes first, if you don't wipe out one IK/WK with your first activated unit, IKs/WKs practically start the game with net point advantage... For the ease of debunking let assume for a moment, that every roll in said game returns expected value of damage/saves succeded (to rid out luck factor) and that both armies are completely present on the table at the start of first turn (no reserves). IK/WK/superheavy armies are perfectly battle forged and legal under both 7th and 8th 40K rulesets. This is not a border edge case, but a common matchup during 7th ed... We are NOT discussing "alternating activation systems" as a whole, we are discussing "alternating activation 40K" with the whole spectrum of curently available models/units.

At worst, it turns the game into almost normal 40k. That's what you're complaining about. An edge case that turns the game back into normal 40k. Outside the edge case it's an improvement....at the edge case it's a wash. Why does it matter then?

nou wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
The insane corner cases you and others have brought up to try to "break" alternating activations have already been debunked. New games using modern activation systems don't have the issues you are trying to invent.

No, they haven't been debunked, they've been CLAIMED as being debunked and then we're supposed to all just move on with our lives. XD Here you are even calling them "insane", showing your clear bias for the position you hold.

Ok. So what constitutes debunked to you? What would everyone need to show that these things are not problems? ::rolls eyes::

For example, you can start with showing how exactly an army of three IKs/WKs against low-power hordes or mid-strenght elite army on a standard ITC table don't have an inherent advantage of early activation of 100% of it's firepower in each and every game? On an ITC table you cannot hide your entire army behind LOS blocking terrain, so no matter who goes first, if you don't wipe out one IK/WK with your first activated unit, IKs/WKs practically start the game with net point advantage... For the ease of debunking let assume for a moment, that every roll in said game returns expected value of damage/saves succeded (to rid out luck factor) and that both armies are completely present on the table at the start of first turn (no reserves). IK/WK/superheavy armies are perfectly battle forged and legal under both 7th and 8th 40K rulesets. This is not a border edge case, but a common matchup during 7th ed... We are NOT discussing "alternating activation systems" as a whole, we are discussing "alternating activation 40K" with the whole spectrum of curently available models/units.

what a rediculous set up. Not a lot of los blocking terrain and, while using all the units of 40k and playing 40k, no reserves or deepstrikes. Pft.

With reserves its easy. How many targets can each one actually shoot? 3? Maybe 4 if they go all out guns. Mostly high dmg but lower hits?

Enjoy shooting at 3 blobs of 30 hormagaunts. With venomthrope support. The first one to activate gets charged. Now the other models caanot shoot at that unit anymore. After your s3cond activation deepstrike a trygon with genestealers. Charge and rip apart either one of the 2 that already activated. When after your 3rd do it again. I can garantee that at the very least 2 of your 3 models have dropped below 1/2 health and begun to degrade in effectivness. I stil have the rest of my turn to prep for the next round of combat. Taking positions. Grabing objectives. Doing whatever i want.

On turn 2 you step one guy out of combat. Half my major hitters that i even bothered to list are still in combat. I guess you can shoot those hormagaunts though!

Again. Your lack of flexibility cripples you. You commit early and i can exploit that. Targets use melee to protect themselves. Because what are you going to do about it? Deepstrikers can enter at liesure with no risk of retaliation. How many hormagaunts can a IK actually kill in shooting at start of game? Enjoy that. I am sure it was worth the points.

Something valid to consider when looking at polls and threads on popularity of particular games and rule mechanics - GW has long dominated the wargaming scene, with their excellent model ranges and marketing (if not their rules). That is to say that a considerable percentage of gamers, particularly younger ones, have only played GW games. That is to say that a considerable percentage of gamers have no familiarity of game systems that are not IGOUGO.

Here is the list i just made. Everything comes stock.

3 malathropes for hqs

3 units of 20 GENESTEALERS

3 UNITS OF Hormagaunts, 2 30 models 1 29 models.

2 trygons

1 trygon prime.

1999 points. Your "alpha strike" would be compleyely negated shooting at hormagaunts and the real threats would eat you alive because you are incapable of reacting properly

 argonak wrote:
At worst, it turns the game into almost normal 40k. That's what you're complaining about. An edge case that turns the game back into normal 40k. Outside the edge case it's an improvement....at the edge case it's a wash. Why does it matter then?

Not so! It doesn't turn the game into 40k because 40k doesn't make your Imperial Knights always activate first. There's a dice roll involved for turn sequence. Horde armies can sometimes go before they do. The so-called edge case turns the game into 40k where elite armies act quicker than horde armies and therefore simulates them always going first. Could you imagine 40k if simply by the virtue of bringing a knight list you automatically Sieze the Initiative? Every time?

 mugginns wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
Most people define majority as more than half.

Have you ever seen Presidential election majorities? 49% is pretty common. Any time you have 2 choices, the majority will be in the 50%+ range. If you have 8 million choices.... good luck getting a majority higher than 10%.

If this is really, actually, a problem, then you add in other stuff to your alternating activation system. Random dice bag, initiative, whatever. Been stated countless times already. Next?

Each of those solutions invalidates some part of current model/unit range of 40K while promoting other part. No random dice bag on planet bowling ball? Superheavies FTW. With dice bag? Pure luck in drawing your activations soon enough not to be wiped out before you do anything. Initiative? Depends on activation structure - if it's "all moves first, all shooting later in reverse order" then it's sensible if things are ballanced. If it's "entire activation before next initiative orded" then initiative becomes the only truly relevant stat in the game. Etc...

Any form of time quantification in game systems creates some form of bias, that has to be accounted for. if you design your game from ground up, you can keep said bias in check. What is problematic with 40K is that it has a huge line of existing models with HUGE powerl level discrepancies. You have to account for all of that and produce a system as inclusive as possible. Simple answers like "deathstars don't belong in 40K proper" or "Titans have no place outside of Apocalypse" or "you like cheap hordes? then put them on moving trays or GTFO" aren't answers at all...

Somewhere on pages 1-3 of this thread there are some nice and sensible solutions to many of those "inclusion" problems, but none of them are straightforward implementations of either alternating activations or IGOUGO...

 Arkaine wrote:

 argonak wrote:
At worst, it turns the game into almost normal 40k. That's what you're complaining about. An edge case that turns the game back into normal 40k. Outside the edge case it's an improvement....at the edge case it's a wash. Why does it matter then?

Not so! It doesn't turn the game into 40k because 40k doesn't make your Imperial Knights always activate first. There's a dice roll involved for turn sequence. Horde armies can sometimes go before they do. The so-called edge case turns the game into 40k where elite armies act quicker than horde armies and therefore simulates them always going first. Could you imagine 40k if simply by the virtue of bringing a knight list you automatically Sieze the Initiative? Every time?

Most scenarios out of the rulebook allow the player with fewer deployments to go first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

 mugginns wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
Most people define majority as more than half.

Have you ever seen Presidential election majorities? 49% is pretty common. Any time you have 2 choices, the majority will be in the 50%+ range. If you have 8 million choices.... good luck getting a majority higher than 10%.

If this is really, actually, a problem, then you add in other stuff to your alternating activation system. Random dice bag, initiative, whatever. Been stated countless times already. Next?

Each of those solutions invalidates some part of current model/unit range of 40K while promoting other part. No random dice bag on planet bowling ball? Superheavies FTW. With dice bag? Pure luck in drawing your activations soon enough not to be wiped out before you do anything. Initiative? Depends on activation structure - if it's "all moves first, all shooting later in reverse order" then it's sensible if things are ballanced. If it's "entire activation before next initiative orded" then initiative becomes the only truly relevant stat in the game. Etc...

Any form of time quantification in game systems creates some form of bias, that has to be accounted for. if you design your game from ground up, you can keep said bias in check. What is problematic with 40K is that it has a huge line of existing models with HUGE powerl level discrepancies. You have to account for all of that and produce a system as inclusive as possible. Simple answers like "deathstars don't belong in 40K proper" or "Titans have no place outside of Apocalypse" or "you like cheap hordes? then put them on moving trays or GTFO" aren't answers at all...

Somewhere on pages 1-3 of this thread there are some nice and sensible solutions to many of those "inclusion" problems, but none of them are straightforward implementations of either alternating activations or IGOUGO...

There are a lot of assumptions and hyperbole in this quote.

 Lance845 wrote:

nou wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
The insane corner cases you and others have brought up to try to "break" alternating activations have already been debunked. New games using modern activation systems don't have the issues you are trying to invent.

No, they haven't been debunked, they've been CLAIMED as being debunked and then we're supposed to all just move on with our lives. XD Here you are even calling them "insane", showing your clear bias for the position you hold.

Ok. So what constitutes debunked to you? What would everyone need to show that these things are not problems? ::rolls eyes::

For example, you can start with showing how exactly an army of three IKs/WKs against low-power hordes or mid-strenght elite army on a standard ITC table don't have an inherent advantage of early activation of 100% of it's firepower in each and every game? On an ITC table you cannot hide your entire army behind LOS blocking terrain, so no matter who goes first, if you don't wipe out one IK/WK with your first activated unit, IKs/WKs practically start the game with net point advantage... For the ease of debunking let assume for a moment, that every roll in said game returns expected value of damage/saves succeded (to rid out luck factor) and that both armies are completely present on the table at the start of first turn (no reserves). IK/WK/superheavy armies are perfectly battle forged and legal under both 7th and 8th 40K rulesets. This is not a border edge case, but a common matchup during 7th ed... We are NOT discussing "alternating activation systems" as a whole, we are discussing "alternating activation 40K" with the whole spectrum of curently available models/units.

what a rediculous set up. Not a lot of los blocking terrain and, while using all the units of 40k and playing 40k, no reserves or deepstrikes. Pft.

With reserves its easy. How many targets can each one actually shoot? 3? Maybe 4 if they go all out guns. Mostly high dmg but lower hits?

Enjoy shooting at 3 blobs of 30 hormagaunts. With venomthrope support. The first one to activate gets charged. Now the other models caanot shoot at that unit anymore. After your s3cond activation deepstrike a trygon with genestealers. Charge and rip apart either one of the 2 that already activated. When after your 3rd do it again. I can garantee that at the very least 2 of your 3 models have dropped below 1/2 health and begun to degrade in effectivness. I stil have the rest of my turn to prep for the next round of combat. Taking positions. Grabing objectives. Doing whatever i want.

On turn 2 you step one guy out of combat. Half my major hitters that i even bothered to list are still in combat. I guess you can shoot those hormagaunts though!

Again. Your lack of flexibility cripples you. You commit early and i can exploit that. Targets use melee to protect themselves. Because what are you going to do about it? Deepstrikers can enter at liesure with no risk of retaliation. How many hormagaunts can a IK actually kill in shooting at start of game? Enjoy that. I am sure it was worth the points.

Congratiulations, you just went AROUND the question... I didn't ask you "how to beat this hypothetical list". You just showed that you can try and build a list to account for IKs/WKs inherent first shoot advantage in my example, bypassing it using reserves and alpha-strike Trygons as an example in a thread about how alternating activations help to get rid of alpha strike problem... And how exactly are you activating Trygons and genestealers at the same time? Right after you unload your Genestealers from Trygon activation they get obliterated by third Knight activation... Or am I missing something obvious? And ~2000pts is 5 WKs, not three. If we can cross-tailor, then I can exchange one knight for as many legal 20pts khymerae units I can and play the waiting game against you (you have 6 possible activations before commiting Trygons) and then unleashing 400pts of fire power with every knight activation. All I need is one more spare unit than you - we now have close to same number of activations but if there are units worh 20pts and 400pts in the same game, then as you can see your entire "alternating activations is best" devolves to "who can stall longer before unleashing main guns"... My solution to this, as wrote many pages earlier, would be to use Epic style formation "block activations" of roughly same point value (or of much, much smaller power/cost discrepancies than 20:1).

This "ridiculous setup" was specifically set this way because there will be A LOT of games not involving armies with mass deep strike/reserves tailored against those IKs/WKs. Amuse me with writing lists with same "hide in reserves and deep strike assault" principle for Harlequins or Ad Mech...

After all your arguments I don't really see any "inherently better for 40K" in alternating activations. All I see is change in what is optimal strategy to game the system from a set of similiarily dumb and unrealistic choices. That is hardly any improvement.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mugginns wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 argonak wrote:
At worst, it turns the game into almost normal 40k. That's what you're complaining about. An edge case that turns the game back into normal 40k. Outside the edge case it's an improvement....at the edge case it's a wash. Why does it matter then?

Not so! It doesn't turn the game into 40k because 40k doesn't make your Imperial Knights always activate first. There's a dice roll involved for turn sequence. Horde armies can sometimes go before they do. The so-called edge case turns the game into 40k where elite armies act quicker than horde armies and therefore simulates them always going first. Could you imagine 40k if simply by the virtue of bringing a knight list you automatically Sieze the Initiative? Every time?

Most scenarios out of the rulebook allow the player with fewer deployments to go first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

 mugginns wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
Most people define majority as more than half.

Have you ever seen Presidential election majorities? 49% is pretty common. Any time you have 2 choices, the majority will be in the 50%+ range. If you have 8 million choices.... good luck getting a majority higher than 10%.

If this is really, actually, a problem, then you add in other stuff to your alternating activation system. Random dice bag, initiative, whatever. Been stated countless times already. Next?

Each of those solutions invalidates some part of current model/unit range of 40K while promoting other part. No random dice bag on planet bowling ball? Superheavies FTW. With dice bag? Pure luck in drawing your activations soon enough not to be wiped out before you do anything. Initiative? Depends on activation structure - if it's "all moves first, all shooting later in reverse order" then it's sensible if things are ballanced. If it's "entire activation before next initiative orded" then initiative becomes the only truly relevant stat in the game. Etc...

Any form of time quantification in game systems creates some form of bias, that has to be accounted for. if you design your game from ground up, you can keep said bias in check. What is problematic with 40K is that it has a huge line of existing models with HUGE powerl level discrepancies. You have to account for all of that and produce a system as inclusive as possible. Simple answers like "deathstars don't belong in 40K proper" or "Titans have no place outside of Apocalypse" or "you like cheap hordes? then put them on moving trays or GTFO" aren't answers at all...

Somewhere on pages 1-3 of this thread there are some nice and sensible solutions to many of those "inclusion" problems, but none of them are straightforward implementations of either alternating activations or IGOUGO...

There are a lot of assumptions and hyperbole in this quote.

There are exactly zero assumptions, only more fundamental level of game design goal made clear and a simple fact of power discrepancies pointed out.

nou wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

nou wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
The insane corner cases you and others have brought up to try to "break" alternating activations have already been debunked. New games using modern activation systems don't have the issues you are trying to invent.

No, they haven't been debunked, they've been CLAIMED as being debunked and then we're supposed to all just move on with our lives. XD Here you are even calling them "insane", showing your clear bias for the position you hold.

Ok. So what constitutes debunked to you? What would everyone need to show that these things are not problems? ::rolls eyes::

For example, you can start with showing how exactly an army of three IKs/WKs against low-power hordes or mid-strenght elite army on a standard ITC table don't have an inherent advantage of early activation of 100% of it's firepower in each and every game? On an ITC table you cannot hide your entire army behind LOS blocking terrain, so no matter who goes first, if you don't wipe out one IK/WK with your first activated unit, IKs/WKs practically start the game with net point advantage... For the ease of debunking let assume for a moment, that every roll in said game returns expected value of damage/saves succeded (to rid out luck factor) and that both armies are completely present on the table at the start of first turn (no reserves). IK/WK/superheavy armies are perfectly battle forged and legal under both 7th and 8th 40K rulesets. This is not a border edge case, but a common matchup during 7th ed... We are NOT discussing "alternating activation systems" as a whole, we are discussing "alternating activation 40K" with the whole spectrum of curently available models/units.

what a rediculous set up. Not a lot of los blocking terrain and, while using all the units of 40k and playing 40k, no reserves or deepstrikes. Pft.

With reserves its easy. How many targets can each one actually shoot? 3? Maybe 4 if they go all out guns. Mostly high dmg but lower hits?

Enjoy shooting at 3 blobs of 30 hormagaunts. With venomthrope support. The first one to activate gets charged. Now the other models caanot shoot at that unit anymore. After your s3cond activation deepstrike a trygon with genestealers. Charge and rip apart either one of the 2 that already activated. When after your 3rd do it again. I can garantee that at the very least 2 of your 3 models have dropped below 1/2 health and begun to degrade in effectivness. I stil have the rest of my turn to prep for the next round of combat. Taking positions. Grabing objectives. Doing whatever i want.

On turn 2 you step one guy out of combat. Half my major hitters that i even bothered to list are still in combat. I guess you can shoot those hormagaunts though!

Again. Your lack of flexibility cripples you. You commit early and i can exploit that. Targets use melee to protect themselves. Because what are you going to do about it? Deepstrikers can enter at liesure with no risk of retaliation. How many hormagaunts can a IK actually kill in shooting at start of game? Enjoy that. I am sure it was worth the points.

Congratiulations, you just went AROUND the question... I didn't ask you "how to beat this hypothetical list". You just showed that you can try and build a list to account for IKs/WKs inherent first shoot advantage in my example, bypassing it using reserves and alpha-strike Trygons as an example in a thread about how alternating activations help to get rid of alpha strike problem... And how exactly are you activating Trygons and genestealers at the same time? Right after you unload your Genestealers from Trygon activation they get obliterated by third Knight activation... Or am I missing something obvious? And ~2000pts is 5 WKs, not three. If we can cross-tailor, then I can exchange one knight for as many legal 20pts khymerae units I can and play the waiting game against you (you have 6 possible activations before commiting Trygons) and then unleashing 400pts of fire power with every knight activation. All I need is one more spare unit than you - we now have close to same number of activations but if there are units worh 20pts and 400pts in the same game, then as you can see your entire "alternating activations is best" devolves to "who can stall longer before unleashing main guns"... My solution to this, as wrote many pages earlier, would be to use Epic style formation "block activations" of roughly same point value (or of much, much smaller power/cost discrepancies than 20:1).

This "ridiculous setup" was specifically set this way because there will be A LOT of games not involving armies with mass deep strike/reserves tailored against those IKs/WKs. Amuse me with writing lists with same "hide in reserves and deep strike assault" principle for Harlequins or Ad Mech...

After all your arguments I don't really see any "inherently better for 40K" in alternating activations. All I see is change in what is optimal strategy to game the system from a set of similiarily dumb and unrealistic choices. That is hardly any improvement.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mugginns wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 argonak wrote:
At worst, it turns the game into almost normal 40k. That's what you're complaining about. An edge case that turns the game back into normal 40k. Outside the edge case it's an improvement....at the edge case it's a wash. Why does it matter then?

Not so! It doesn't turn the game into 40k because 40k doesn't make your Imperial Knights always activate first. There's a dice roll involved for turn sequence. Horde armies can sometimes go before they do. The so-called edge case turns the game into 40k where elite armies act quicker than horde armies and therefore simulates them always going first. Could you imagine 40k if simply by the virtue of bringing a knight list you automatically Sieze the Initiative? Every time?

Most scenarios out of the rulebook allow the player with fewer deployments to go first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

 mugginns wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
Most people define majority as more than half.

Have you ever seen Presidential election majorities? 49% is pretty common. Any time you have 2 choices, the majority will be in the 50%+ range. If you have 8 million choices.... good luck getting a majority higher than 10%.

If this is really, actually, a problem, then you add in other stuff to your alternating activation system. Random dice bag, initiative, whatever. Been stated countless times already. Next?

Each of those solutions invalidates some part of current model/unit range of 40K while promoting other part. No random dice bag on planet bowling ball? Superheavies FTW. With dice bag? Pure luck in drawing your activations soon enough not to be wiped out before you do anything. Initiative? Depends on activation structure - if it's "all moves first, all shooting later in reverse order" then it's sensible if things are ballanced. If it's "entire activation before next initiative orded" then initiative becomes the only truly relevant stat in the game. Etc...

Any form of time quantification in game systems creates some form of bias, that has to be accounted for. if you design your game from ground up, you can keep said bias in check. What is problematic with 40K is that it has a huge line of existing models with HUGE powerl level discrepancies. You have to account for all of that and produce a system as inclusive as possible. Simple answers like "deathstars don't belong in 40K proper" or "Titans have no place outside of Apocalypse" or "you like cheap hordes? then put them on moving trays or GTFO" aren't answers at all...

Somewhere on pages 1-3 of this thread there are some nice and sensible solutions to many of those "inclusion" problems, but none of them are straightforward implementations of either alternating activations or IGOUGO...

There are a lot of assumptions and hyperbole in this quote.

There are exactly zero assumptions, only more fundamental level of game design goal made clear and a simple fact of power discrepancies pointed out.

Yes! You can buy cheap units and play a waiting game. You can add more units to add more flexibility. Or have more units that actually do something to have both activations and impact. THATS the point. Note: I didnt bring msu. I bought all full sized units. I could easily have bought 9 units of 10 hormagaunts to further mitigate your shooting and maximize my activations. I did not.

You are missing something. In each of the systems i have seen that propose alternating activations there are rules that allow a couple units to activate together. Units within 3" of a character can activate both the unit and the character as an example. With 8ths auras its needed to keep the auras active. Also deepstriker and their cargo (drop pod and the marines inside/trygon and their tunnel occupants). Its the only way to keep those units viable.

Im not "alpha striking" trygons. Because if you had more units you would actually be able to do something about them in between each one arriving. Its only an "alpha strike" because you built a gak list that cannot react to anyone. I didnt go AROUND your proposition. I built a perfectly legal list that would function well in an alternating activation system amongst a large variety of lists. You didnt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You asked how i could possibly negate your "alpha strike of shooting 2k points in 3 activations". I showed it.

 Arkaine wrote:

 argonak wrote:
At worst, it turns the game into almost normal 40k. That's what you're complaining about. An edge case that turns the game back into normal 40k. Outside the edge case it's an improvement....at the edge case it's a wash. Why does it matter then?

Not so! It doesn't turn the game into 40k because 40k doesn't make your Imperial Knights always activate first. There's a dice roll involved for turn sequence. Horde armies can sometimes go before they do. The so-called edge case turns the game into 40k where elite armies act quicker than horde armies and therefore simulates them always going first. Could you imagine 40k if simply by the virtue of bringing a knight list you automatically Sieze the Initiative? Every time?

Well obviously 40k doesn't make you activate anything, your whole army goes first if you have the first turn. And like you said its just a stupid 1/6 dice roll to seize, with a reroll if you play that way. So what? Right now the knight has a 70% chance of going first, even if you reroll.

If we're using the bolt action system, then in an army with 3 drops versus one with 10, your knight has a 3/13 chance to get the first draw.

How is this worse than 40k where the person who goes first goes with his ENTIRE army? It would be BETTER.

 Lance845 wrote:

You asked how i could possibly negate your "alpha strike of shooting 2k points in 3 activations". I showed it.

No, I wrote an abstract scenario, open enough so that many, many currently playable and valid 40K lists fall under it and you bypassed it by showing how to beat it with some specific list. This is NOT adressing an issue with the system. By your logic, there was absolutely nothing wrong with 7th ed deathstars or superheavies because spammable D-weapon Wraithguard and Stomp existed... And I'm still waiting for this Harlequins or AdMech lists that beat those Knights... Remember, one positive example doesn't prove definite statements, one counter-argument is enough to disprove such statements - logic 101... And you try to defend position, that alternating activations are inherently superior to IGOUGO in every way, which is simply false. My Khymera example is not some new revelation, I perfectly understand how alternating activation systems work, what their limitations are and how they are exploitable (depending of course on entirety of a given system) - you changed my scenario when you wrote your answer and I just replied with an example on how to beat your reserves solution in one sentence.

Alternating activations are not flawless and "be all end all" solution to every imaginable problem. And they are not some mythical "higher form of fun" - they suit you, you like them, many do, many don't. There are other valid ways of creating tactical games, many mentioned by Arkaine. IGOUGO systems as a whole have exactly one unavoidable (psychological) flaw - increase of waiting time between activity with increase of game size (which I personally don't mind). Things like alpha strike immunity or meaningfull decisions are perfectly attainable within IGOUGO boundaries by carefully setting game parameters (just to give one GW made example - low gang level Necromunda is perfectly immune to alpha strikes because of low damage output and is full of meanigfull movement/hiding/priorities decisions; it doesn't even have inherent first turn advantage on crowded enough terrain. It is so ballanced in this regard, that it can even stall indefinately). Low damage output, shooting only IGOUGO with simultanous resolution and initiative switching have only slight advantage for reactive player each turn. Alternating activations remove that single "waiting endlessly" flaw (and this is their main feature) but create their own inherent problems. Those might not be an issue for you, but might be for others.

First, i wont be putting together an admech or harelquinn list. I do not play those armies. I have fought 1 players admech twice. I am not familiar enough with them to do their lists justice.

Second, i never said it was the is all to end all best system. I said it was better then what 40k has now.

Third, there are bigger problems with 40ks igougo then down time. It degrades tactical game play and interesting choices. It favors actual alpha strikes. It makes first turn first player a significantly larger advantage.

 mugginns wrote:

Most scenarios out of the rulebook allow the player with fewer deployments to go first.

Scenarios hehe... did you know they changed the rules to be a rolloff with a +1 for fewer deployments now?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 argonak wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 argonak wrote:
At worst, it turns the game into almost normal 40k. That's what you're complaining about. An edge case that turns the game back into normal 40k. Outside the edge case it's an improvement....at the edge case it's a wash. Why does it matter then?

Not so! It doesn't turn the game into 40k because 40k doesn't make your Imperial Knights always activate first. There's a dice roll involved for turn sequence. Horde armies can sometimes go before they do. The so-called edge case turns the game into 40k where elite armies act quicker than horde armies and therefore simulates them always going first. Could you imagine 40k if simply by the virtue of bringing a knight list you automatically Sieze the Initiative? Every time?

Well obviously 40k doesn't make you activate anything, your whole army goes first if you have the first turn. And like you said its just a stupid 1/6 dice roll to seize, with a reroll if you play that way. So what? Right now the knight has a 70% chance of going first, even if you reroll.

If we're using the bolt action system, then in an army with 3 drops versus one with 10, your knight has a 3/13 chance to get the first draw.

How is this worse than 40k where the person who goes first goes with his ENTIRE army? It would be BETTER.

I'm growing quite tired of repeating myself when this was all explained pages ago. You're failing to look past the first turn. A person who wins the roll off goes first in an IGOUGO system. This only happens some of the time, and gives hordes a chance to go first as well. Knights don't have a 70% chance of going first because the go first for faster deployment was changed.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/09/new-matched-play-rules-in-chapter-approved-aug-9gw-homepage-post-1/

A chance is merely a chance but grants a chance nonetheless. It's worse than 40k because, like I've explained for what must be the fifth time in this thread, the elite army will finish their activations before your army EVERY SINGLE TURN. Not only if they win the roll off, not only if the seize the initiative, but EVERY SINGLE TIME.

As I'm growing increasingly annoyed at restating things for people who haven't read the topic, I'll start ignoring those who continue with that.

You keep repeating it and those familiar with these systems keep telling you it doesn't work out that way.