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 pretty crazy to pick that hill to die on. Something actually illogical and based on a corner case scenario.

Why not just play one of the myriad of games that have alternating actions if that's your thing? It's like saying Monopoly would be fun if it was more like clue. In that case, just play clue.

I remember when Warzone came out, and people were hard-selling the initiative based turn activation. They said it was so much better than IGOUGO that it would dethrone 40K as the fan favorite game. I wish I could track down those people and ask how that's doing for them.




IGOUGO is still around because it's the simplest way of handling turn sequence, it's what people have been used to for decades of 40K and even longer with other systems, and there hasn't been an alternative good enough to dethrone it.

 mugginns wrote:
It's pretty crazy to pick that hill to die on. Something actually illogical and based on a corner case scenario.

It's pretty crazy to call someone dying on a hill. But that's just me. Especially when it's merely that you disagree with their argument to the point that it obliterates your mind and renders you incapable of responding with little more than veiled insults.

Perfectly logical, happens every game, corner case is another way of saying "only matters when being powergamed" which I suppose renders most of the FAQs that already exist meaningless. As it doesn't surprise me that so many of the proponents for such a system seem utterly unequipped to actually discuss the merits of a system and fall back to Shooting Phase any time flaws are mentioned, I think you've selected a perfect "hill to die on". The conversation dies here and with it any chance for your rebuttal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SideshowLucifer wrote:Why not just play one of the myriad of games that have alternating actions if that's your thing? It's like saying Monopoly would be fun if it was more like clue. In that case, just play clue.

Just Tony wrote:IGOUGO is still around because it's the simplest way of handling turn sequence, it's what people have been used to for decades of 40K and even longer with other systems, and there hasn't been an alternative good enough to dethrone it.

Excellent points!

Sorry for going back a couple pages...

Insectum7 wrote: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.

There were many problems with the codices in 7th Edition, but that doesn't mean that there weren't problems with the core rules of the Edition started interacting with the Unit Types and USRs that they did not address for two years.

If you want to take things as literally as they are provided, there were problems with the interaction between Super-Heavy Shooting/Power of the Machine Spirit and the new Shooting Sequence. There were issues on when a Flying Monstrous Creature started being considered a Jump Creature. Then there was the chronic issue of the Independent Character instructing you to look at another USR to define an interaction and that other USR didn't say anything about Independent Characters.

The Core Rules may have worked out fine, but they failed before you were halfway through the Unit Types, a rather core part of the game. GW's inability to properly communicate how exceptions should be processed is just bad.

This doesn't begin to go over the problems with IGOUGO, but there were other exceptions listed in the rules which were inserted because of the IGOUGO nature of the game that I never had in Battletech, such as the restriction against Charging for units arriving from Reserves or the inclusion of the Overwatch mechanic.

Lance845 wrote: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?

To be fair, there are a LOT of differences in how Jet Pack and Jump units operate, and have since 5th Edition.

Just Tony wrote:IGOUGO is still around because it's the simplest way of handling turn sequence, it's what people have been used to for decades of 40K and even longer with other systems, and there hasn't been an alternative good enough to dethrone it.

IGOUGO is still around because the longest running TT game uses it, and they have been reluctant to change so drastically. If they are still buying it, then it must still work, right? Only, it only works because we aren't willing to vote against it ourselves.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Why not just play one of the myriad of games that have alternating actions if that's your thing? It's like saying Monopoly would be fun if it was more like clue. In that case, just play clue.

40k is more than it's rules (which have traditionally been pretty bad since... 3rd?). GW make great models. They have stupid but fun lore. The armies are incredibly interesting with a lot of flavor and scope. Tyranid and orks and SM and Tau. It's a fun universe to play in. It's a fun bunch of model kits to build and to paint.

Many people WANT to play within the setting with the models, but also want more tactical depth from the game itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
I remember when Warzone came out, and people were hard-selling the initiative based turn activation. They said it was so much better than IGOUGO that it would dethrone 40K as the fan favorite game. I wish I could track down those people and ask how that's doing for them.




IGOUGO is still around because it's the simplest way of handling turn sequence, it's what people have been used to for decades of 40K and even longer with other systems, and there hasn't been an alternative good enough to dethrone it.

As above 40k is more than it's rule set. The idea that something is going to come along and dethrone 40k because of a rule set is nonsense. You need the PR machine. The support. The models need to not just look good, but come together well with all their options and poseability. They need to be fun to build and paint. GW, in a lot of cases, has the best models on the market (and also some of the worst... WTF bending leg Hierophant/fine cast!).

They would need to release with 7-10 factions ready to go. Not 2 with a slow increase. 40k has had so long to build up all that it is and all that it offers. It can afford to have a crappier rule set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote: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?

To be fair, there are a LOT of differences in how Jet Pack and Jump units operate, and have since 5th Edition.

Yeah but was it really NEEDED? Was the added complexity of those differences worth the pay off in the actual game? I really don't think so.

Just Tony wrote:IGOUGO is still around because it's the simplest way of handling turn sequence, it's what people have been used to for decades of 40K and even longer with other systems, and there hasn't been an alternative good enough to dethrone it.

IGOUGO is still around because the longest running TT game uses it, and they have been reluctant to change so drastically. If they are still buying it, then it must still work, right? Only, it only works because we aren't willing to vote against it ourselves.

Yup.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Why not just play one of the myriad of games that have alternating actions if that's your thing? It's like saying Monopoly would be fun if it was more like clue. In that case, just play clue.

Ok, then why aren't we playing Rogue Trader anymore?

 Arkaine wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
It's pretty crazy to pick that hill to die on. Something actually illogical and based on a corner case scenario.

It's pretty crazy to call someone dying on a hill. But that's just me. Especially when it's merely that you disagree with their argument to the point that it obliterates your mind and renders you incapable of responding with little more than veiled insults.

Perfectly logical, happens every game, corner case is another way of saying "only matters when being powergamed" which I suppose renders most of the FAQs that already exist meaningless. As it doesn't surprise me that so many of the proponents for such a system seem utterly unequipped to actually discuss the merits of a system and fall back to Shooting Phase any time flaws are mentioned, I think you've selected a perfect "hill to die on". The conversation dies here and with it any chance for your rebuttal.

Lol

Alternating system -

Pro's

It allows you to have a snot nosed elitist wanky attitude.

 Lance845 wrote:
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.

After a good night sleep one more thing about your Trygon "solution" - it's just more of the same problem I've been pointing out for a couple of pages. Your Trygon+Genestealers combo is 300pts singular activation I can only react to passively (I cannot preemptively shoot deep striking unit and if I remember correctly, reactions in your system are a bit penalized, yes?) or "trick" via gaming the game and stalling with lots of thrash khymerae-like units. You didn't beat IKs/WKs by alternating nature of your system, but via instagib nature of your reserves and you did it at listbuilding stage. Your list does exactly the same in IGOUGO - it kills me outright if you go first or kill me just right after if you go second, because of exactly same reserves play advantage. There is nothing in your solution, that screams "alternating activation is superior".

So let me reiterate one last time what my entire activity in this thread is about - alternating activations DO NOT help with overly killy nature of 40K, which is the main reason why alpha strikes can happen in the first place. Currently 40K has it's power scaled so that most powerfull units/combos can return more than their point value in a single volley and "up to the teeth" games of 8th end within two turns (damage output around 70%-80% of total points per turn) and even the "properly ballanced game" is designed to last about 5 turns (damage output around 30% of value per turn). What alternating activations do, in principle, is dividing this power output into smaller chunks, "smoothing out" decay rate throughout the turn and increase interaction frequency, but don't really change the outcome of an optimally played game. This same argument can be made without involving IKs, but using entirely very killy MSU units - if we play symetrical forces but each activation can always erase one unit at a time, then first player always wins with one unit left, no matter the "pawn removing strategy" of defending player (with smart counter-activations it just takes more turns to lose). Different in-game gimmicks just obscure such fundamental nature of high-power output games.

Now imagine, that power output is set far lower, like 10% per turn and you can take full advantage of movement/cover/los blockers to lower this damage defensively or multiply a bit offensively by flanking/outmanouvering/bottle necking/concentrating fire. This is when interesting tactical choices start to happen and the game can no longer be won at listbulding stage. This is what most skirmish games play like (there are often turns without any oportunity to inflict any damage and you must concentrate on movement play). And I agree, that with such modifiable damage output game, alternating activations do indeed increase number of possible interesting strategies.

Is this finally a clear enough explanation of what I'm arguing about?

This thread is funny.

"Adopt a change to IGOUGO because its the FUTURE and without it you will DIE!"

"Yeah but I like IGOUGO and plenty of fun and engaging games still use it."

"BUT IT IS NOT THE FUTURE! DIE HERETIC!"

That's definitely a really accurate summary of the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:


So let me reiterate one last time what my entire activity in this thread is about - alternating activations DO NOT help with overly killy nature of 40K, which is the main reason why alpha strikes can happen in the first place. Currently 40K has it's power scaled so that most powerfull units/combos can return more than their point value in a single volley and "up to the teeth" games of 8th end within two turns (damage output around 70%-80% of total points per turn) and even the "properly ballanced game" is designed to last about 5 turns (damage output around 30% of value per turn). What alternating activations do, in principle, is dividing this power output into smaller chunks, "smoothing out" decay rate throughout the turn and increase interaction frequency, but don't really change the outcome of an optimally played game. This same argument can be made without involving IKs, but using entirely very killy MSU units - if we play symetrical forces but each activation can always erase one unit at a time, then first player always wins with one unit left, no matter the "pawn removing strategy" of defending player (with smart counter-activations it just takes more turns to lose). Different in-game gimmicks just obscure such fundamental nature of high-power output games.

Now imagine, that power output is set far lower, like 10% per turn and you can take full advantage of movement/cover/los blockers to lower this damage defensively or multiply a bit offensively by flanking/outmanouvering/bottle necking/concentrating fire. This is when interesting tactical choices start to happen and the game can no longer be won at listbulding stage. This is what most skirmish games play like (there are often turns without any oportunity to inflict any damage and you must concentrate on movement play). And I agree, that with such modifiable damage output game, alternating activations do indeed increase number of possible interesting strategies.

Is this finally a clear enough explanation of what I'm arguing about?

What if we got rid of three ik lists or whatever - just put them out of the equation, as they're rare (I've never played one) and players could figure out what to do with their models.

And then, I tell you I've played plenty of AA games with elite armies (say, nine activations) and nonelite (20+) and the problem you're describing doesn't happen.

Would that be enough to use a system where a) you're not sitting for hours doing nothing with no interaction, b) you have more Tactical choice (what to activate, when, targets, etc) and c) you have a better chance at a more balanced game (less chance of alpha strike, less chance of bottom of turn six objective grab with nothing you can do)

Just to shove my two cents in here- we've never liked IGOUGO, so when Dan and I put together our games system, we went with a VERY simple alternate activation system with units performing actions in any order - move/move, fire/move, fire/fire, move fire etc.

As for the fact it buffs MSU armies, you build that into the lists themselves - for example, the Holy Soviet Army is a rolling firestorm of bug clunky tanks and conscript squads, whereas the Atlantic Alliance rely on the flexibility given by splitting into two man fireteams and try to inflict death by a thousand cuts on a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut!

The Soviet player has the advantage of higher numbers and more firepower - the Alliance player has the advantage of having more small units and therefore more tactical flexibility and agility.

nou wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
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.

After a good night sleep one more thing about your Trygon "solution" - it's just more of the same problem I've been pointing out for a couple of pages. Your Trygon+Genestealers combo is 300pts singular activation I can only react to passively (I cannot preemptively shoot deep striking unit and if I remember correctly, reactions in your system are a bit penalized, yes?) or "trick" via gaming the game and stalling with lots of thrash khymerae-like units. You didn't beat IKs/WKs by alternating nature of your system, but via instagib nature of your reserves and you did it at listbuilding stage. Your list does exactly the same in IGOUGO - it kills me outright if you go first or kill me just right after if you go second, because of exactly same reserves play advantage. There is nothing in your solution, that screams "alternating activation is superior".

So let me reiterate one last time what my entire activity in this thread is about - alternating activations DO NOT help with overly killy nature of 40K, which is the main reason why alpha strikes can happen in the first place. Currently 40K has it's power scaled so that most powerfull units/combos can return more than their point value in a single volley and "up to the teeth" games of 8th end within two turns (damage output around 70%-80% of total points per turn) and even the "properly ballanced game" is designed to last about 5 turns (damage output around 30% of value per turn). What alternating activations do, in principle, is dividing this power output into smaller chunks, "smoothing out" decay rate throughout the turn and increase interaction frequency, but don't really change the outcome of an optimally played game. This same argument can be made without involving IKs, but using entirely very killy MSU units - if we play symetrical forces but each activation can always erase one unit at a time, then first player always wins with one unit left, no matter the "pawn removing strategy" of defending player (with smart counter-activations it just takes more turns to lose). Different in-game gimmicks just obscure such fundamental nature of high-power output games.

Now imagine, that power output is set far lower, like 10% per turn and you can take full advantage of movement/cover/los blockers to lower this damage defensively or multiply a bit offensively by flanking/outmanouvering/bottle necking/concentrating fire. This is when interesting tactical choices start to happen and the game can no longer be won at listbulding stage. This is what most skirmish games play like (there are often turns without any oportunity to inflict any damage and you must concentrate on movement play). And I agree, that with such modifiable damage output game, alternating activations do indeed increase number of possible interesting strategies.

Is this finally a clear enough explanation of what I'm arguing about?

If we are talking about the BTGo40k that Mithras001 was making, no. One of the orders is "ambush" which essentially has your unit buckle down and hold off to do a reaction. (BTW any unit that has not been issued an order yet CAN do a reaction in response to whatever the enemy is doing, but it's generally only part of what a full order can be, but it's an interrupt on the opponents turn and it eats up their own activation). One of which is stand and shoot. Essentially an over watch at full BS. If you know someone has deepstrikers it would be Intelligent to utilize a couple units as protectors and use them to cover your other units. If you had a list with 12 units like mine, you could have held 6 on Ambush around the field in preparation for my deepstrikers while 6 dealt with what I had. Or better, just 4, allowing your 8 units to put up a fight with my 6 on the field and having at minimum 1 unit covering every 2 others.

With BTGo40k, any unit that gets a wound allocated to it in a single round of shooting gets a pin. Basically the unit is under fire. Not only would you have been able to react to both the GS and the Trygon you very likely would have applied pins to them reducing their effectiveness (each pin is a -1 to hit using a d12 system) not only likely killing off some genestealers, but also reducing their effectivness on their arrival.

I didn't have to worry about doing any of that though. Why would I? With the dumb ass list you bought I could out maneuver you at every step. But if you did bring that 12 unit list instead of just 3, my list would have made for a really interesting game with a lot of twists and turns on how you and I were interacting with each other. Even if I went first. Where am I sending my blob of hormagaunts/Malanthrope? I don't have as clear targets anymore. I don't get to act at leisure while your just as mobile. My deepstrikers are still a powerful tool but now your 12 units on the field leave you far more flexible at the beginning of the game vs my 6 and my initial activations put me at a disadvantage.

Does this help clear up what WE have been talking about? You have been so concerned about what impact the powerful units are going to have. What a single activation can do. We have said over and over that that is not how this actually works out. It's not the few powerful activations, it's having MORE activations that often gets crazy powerful. Not because you stand around waiting it out. But because you can have more tools at your disposal.

If you bring a bunch of 20 point single model units, especially with 40k now having mass split fire, your number of activations will drastically dwindle with every turn. You want a good number of units with a bit of lasting power to have any kind of actual impact in the game. If you bring nothing but a few giant hammer units you will get outmaneuvered. What actually works best in this system, is have a good mix between some heavy hitters and a bunch of smaller light scout units and some middle ground tac squads that actually probably do most of the heavy lifting.

Are you seeing the bigger picture yet?

I understand how killy 40k is. How often in 40k do you actually see a single unit 1 shot an entire other unit? It's not a 1 unit vs 1 unit thing that causes hole units to disappear. It's The entire army focus firing on a single unit until it's gone (or will be after moral) and then hitting the next one with whatever units remain. Alternating activations with reactions at least allow those units being focus fired to DO something while they are being shot at.

So your not actually upset about alternating activation systems. In fact you agree that it's a more tactical more interactive game structure. You just think that 40ks units are not really suited for it because of the extreme damage output and general lack of durability?

 mugginns wrote:
That's definitely a really accurate summary of the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:


So let me reiterate one last time what my entire activity in this thread is about - alternating activations DO NOT help with overly killy nature of 40K, which is the main reason why alpha strikes can happen in the first place. Currently 40K has it's power scaled so that most powerfull units/combos can return more than their point value in a single volley and "up to the teeth" games of 8th end within two turns (damage output around 70%-80% of total points per turn) and even the "properly ballanced game" is designed to last about 5 turns (damage output around 30% of value per turn). What alternating activations do, in principle, is dividing this power output into smaller chunks, "smoothing out" decay rate throughout the turn and increase interaction frequency, but don't really change the outcome of an optimally played game. This same argument can be made without involving IKs, but using entirely very killy MSU units - if we play symetrical forces but each activation can always erase one unit at a time, then first player always wins with one unit left, no matter the "pawn removing strategy" of defending player (with smart counter-activations it just takes more turns to lose). Different in-game gimmicks just obscure such fundamental nature of high-power output games.

Now imagine, that power output is set far lower, like 10% per turn and you can take full advantage of movement/cover/los blockers to lower this damage defensively or multiply a bit offensively by flanking/outmanouvering/bottle necking/concentrating fire. This is when interesting tactical choices start to happen and the game can no longer be won at listbulding stage. This is what most skirmish games play like (there are often turns without any oportunity to inflict any damage and you must concentrate on movement play). And I agree, that with such modifiable damage output game, alternating activations do indeed increase number of possible interesting strategies.

Is this finally a clear enough explanation of what I'm arguing about?

What if we got rid of three ik lists or whatever - just put them out of the equation, as they're rare (I've never played one) and players could figure out what to do with their models.

And then, I tell you I've played plenty of AA games with elite armies (say, nine activations) and nonelite (20+) and the problem you're describing doesn't happen.

Would that be enough to use a system where a) you're not sitting for hours doing nothing with no interaction, b) you have more Tactical choice (what to activate, when, targets, etc) and c) you have a better chance at a more balanced game (less chance of alpha strike, less chance of bottom of turn six objective grab with nothing you can do)

Yep. Let's just throw my army away because you've never played it.

Awesome plan. Great game. Best design.

Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote: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?

To be fair, there are a LOT of differences in how Jet Pack and Jump units operate, and have since 5th Edition.

Yeah but was it really NEEDED? Was the added complexity of those differences worth the pay off in the actual game? I really don't think so.

Defined "needed". It would be more fair to say that they were both needed more than other concepts. Jet Bike, for instance, was literally a Jet Pack Bike, and would have been far better used in that manner. Skimmers were Jet Pack Vehicles, aside from the Flat Out boost and Jink.

The different movement types were beneficial to making a difference in the game between a Crisis Suit and an Assault Marine. The fact that it also allowed them to change Necron Destroyers from Jet Bikes to a slower type but the same mobility is also an advantage.

So, "needed" is more about how much diversity is desired in the game and how much you want to use Unit Type to define those changes.

NenkotaMoon wrote:

Malalice always has my vote. Both my Chaos Marines and custom Black Templar-style Chapter were based on his concept.

Unit1126PLL wrote:This thread is funny.

"Adopt a change to IGOUGO because its the FUTURE and without it you will DIE!"

"Yeah but I like IGOUGO and plenty of fun and engaging games still use it."

"BUT IT IS NOT THE FUTURE! DIE HERETIC!"

And then there is another group saying, "IGOUGO has always sucked. It doesn't matter if it is past or future, it sucked then, and it sucks now." I brought up a system that is almost as old as Warhammer that does not use IGOUGO at all. The mechanic I prefer was never the problem, but the fact that it was more of a simulation with an in depth damage and tracking system which was the problem.

 Lance845 wrote:

So your not actually upset about alternating activation systems. In fact you agree that it's a more tactical more interactive game structure. You just think that 40ks units are not really suited for it because of the extreme damage output and general lack of durability?

I never was "upset" with those systems I was (am) upset with definite statements about superiority in every/any context/goal. I agree, that it is more interactive (but not inherently more tactical, that depends on exact details of particular IGOUGO and AA systems) and yes, you got that last part about damage output and durability right at last - both IGOUGO and AA structures are totally indpependent from content you put into them. 40K content is so hard to handle and playerbase so all over the place, that no system will ever satisfy everyone (just read Unit1126PL responses here, he's not a sole fan of big tanks/robots that EXIST in this game). Your particular AA solution/GtGo40K just handle YOUR preferred type of armies better and do "strange" things to other. Hey, even simple Maelstrom scoring each turn upsets a whole deal of players who do not like to think along the way and want pre-planned strategies to work out-of-the-box in every single game they play...

I find simulations are mostly shunned because they are several degrees more difficult for most people to get good with.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
That's definitely a really accurate summary of the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:


So let me reiterate one last time what my entire activity in this thread is about - alternating activations DO NOT help with overly killy nature of 40K, which is the main reason why alpha strikes can happen in the first place. Currently 40K has it's power scaled so that most powerfull units/combos can return more than their point value in a single volley and "up to the teeth" games of 8th end within two turns (damage output around 70%-80% of total points per turn) and even the "properly ballanced game" is designed to last about 5 turns (damage output around 30% of value per turn). What alternating activations do, in principle, is dividing this power output into smaller chunks, "smoothing out" decay rate throughout the turn and increase interaction frequency, but don't really change the outcome of an optimally played game. This same argument can be made without involving IKs, but using entirely very killy MSU units - if we play symetrical forces but each activation can always erase one unit at a time, then first player always wins with one unit left, no matter the "pawn removing strategy" of defending player (with smart counter-activations it just takes more turns to lose). Different in-game gimmicks just obscure such fundamental nature of high-power output games.

Now imagine, that power output is set far lower, like 10% per turn and you can take full advantage of movement/cover/los blockers to lower this damage defensively or multiply a bit offensively by flanking/outmanouvering/bottle necking/concentrating fire. This is when interesting tactical choices start to happen and the game can no longer be won at listbulding stage. This is what most skirmish games play like (there are often turns without any oportunity to inflict any damage and you must concentrate on movement play). And I agree, that with such modifiable damage output game, alternating activations do indeed increase number of possible interesting strategies.

Is this finally a clear enough explanation of what I'm arguing about?

What if we got rid of three ik lists or whatever - just put them out of the equation, as they're rare (I've never played one) and players could figure out what to do with their models.

And then, I tell you I've played plenty of AA games with elite armies (say, nine activations) and nonelite (20+) and the problem you're describing doesn't happen.

Would that be enough to use a system where a) you're not sitting for hours doing nothing with no interaction, b) you have more Tactical choice (what to activate, when, targets, etc) and c) you have a better chance at a more balanced game (less chance of alpha strike, less chance of bottom of turn six objective grab with nothing you can do)

Yep. Let's just throw my army away because you've never played it.

Awesome plan. Great game. Best design.

Lets say you play alternating activation stuff and you find it fun and tactical and less time is spent on your cellphone waiting for your opponent - would you then still cling to the old ways because "well I have this list that almost nobody else plays, and well I don't think it'll work with a new system..."

I am not a game dev, I can't humblebrag about a game design degree or whatever that other dude did, but I'm sure they could figure it out.

nou wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

So your not actually upset about alternating activation systems. In fact you agree that it's a more tactical more interactive game structure. You just think that 40ks units are not really suited for it because of the extreme damage output and general lack of durability?

I never was "upset" with those systems I was (am) upset with definite statements about superiority in every/any context/goal. I agree, that it is more interactive (but not inherently more tactical, that depends on exact details of particular IGOUGO and AA systems) and yes, you got that last part about damage output and durability right at last - both IGOUGO and AA structures are totally indpependent from content you put into them. 40K content is so hard to handle and playerbase so all over the place, that no system will ever satisfy everyone (just read Unit1126PL responses here, he's not a sole fan of big tanks/robots that EXIST in this game). Your particular AA solution/GtGo40K just handle YOUR preferred type of armies better and do "strange" things to other. Hey, even simple Maelstrom scoring each turn upsets a whole deal of players who do not like to think along the way and want pre-planned strategies to work out-of-the-box in every single game they play...

Cool, at the very least you and I seem to have reached some understanding here.

Let me explain my stance real fast for the sake of clarity. I am not making any definitive statement about any generic broad mechanic. IGOUGO works really well in systems where there is quick turn around and counter play. (Magic the Gathering). I AM making a definitive statement about 40ks mechanics where there is no counter play. Where turns are not quick. And where the tactical decisions are so few and far between that they basically don't exist. There is a little bit about where you place your models to be in range of x and out of range of y. But.... they cannot do anything about it. So it's less about an interesting decision of risk and reward with one player playing against the other and all about how to maximize your effectiveness with obvious plays that boil down to the math of it. The exception to this is do you or don't you deny that particular power (if you even have the option) and who you activate and when during melee (if there are enough units tied up in melee for this to even come up).

40ks content CAN be hard to handle. There are outriders because it covers such a large range of points and power. 8th could really use something like the FoC of 30k. 8ths FoCs are so all encompassing... it's crazy. And not interesting. There are players who really enjoy the swinging sledge hammers at each other style of game play of 8th. There are players who really enjoy bringing all titans and knights and want to just lay down all their fire power as some kind of strategy. Fine. Good. Play 40k as it is. Go back to ANY edition for your favorite style of doing that. That exists. Suggesting that there could actually be another way to play 40k doesn't remove the ways that have already existed. They are still there. 8th doesn't remove 7th. Some people still play 7th because they don't like 8th. Great! Good on them. Do what you like.

If tomorrow 40k announced that there were releasing a book of New Ways to Play that took all the same datasheets but provided a new framework that was alternating activations instead of IGOUGO the players would pick the way they like to play and play. The same way they do with open, narrative, or matched. It wouldn't REMOVE IGOUGO. It would simply provide another style of game play. Im all for that. I made a thread soon after 8th dropped saying how disappointed I was that "3 ways to play" amounted to different missions and 2 styles of building a list. Not actually playing differently, just list building. It was a real bummer.

I don't give a gak that IGOUGO exists. But I also don't understand why AA doesn't. Especially for how 40k is built, basically ANY other set up would be more tactical. And the lack of tactical depth is 40ks biggest problem. Yeah, some people suggested bringing back initiative. Except I don't want orks and necrons to always get trounced by everyone because they are slower to react. And I don't want to win because I always act first as Nids.

 Elbows wrote:
I won't lie, I'm pretty amazed anyone can even try (note: "try") to defend IGOUGO as a reasonable option for a wargame. That's pretty incredible to me.

This.

There are basically two arguments I could make in favor of full-turn structure:
-40k would probably take a lot of work to incorporate alternating activations
-without proper mitigation, swarm/horde/msu lists can mess with alternating activation lists

The first is conservative and lazy; the second implies a lack of foresight. Both are realistically looking at potential problems rather than actual issues.

Anything to decrease stretches of downtime will tend to make the game more engaging games and decrease the potential for alpha strike nonsense or being able to execute stupid combos without your opponent being able to react.

 mugginns wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
That's definitely a really accurate summary of the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:


So let me reiterate one last time what my entire activity in this thread is about - alternating activations DO NOT help with overly killy nature of 40K, which is the main reason why alpha strikes can happen in the first place. Currently 40K has it's power scaled so that most powerfull units/combos can return more than their point value in a single volley and "up to the teeth" games of 8th end within two turns (damage output around 70%-80% of total points per turn) and even the "properly ballanced game" is designed to last about 5 turns (damage output around 30% of value per turn). What alternating activations do, in principle, is dividing this power output into smaller chunks, "smoothing out" decay rate throughout the turn and increase interaction frequency, but don't really change the outcome of an optimally played game. This same argument can be made without involving IKs, but using entirely very killy MSU units - if we play symetrical forces but each activation can always erase one unit at a time, then first player always wins with one unit left, no matter the "pawn removing strategy" of defending player (with smart counter-activations it just takes more turns to lose). Different in-game gimmicks just obscure such fundamental nature of high-power output games.

Now imagine, that power output is set far lower, like 10% per turn and you can take full advantage of movement/cover/los blockers to lower this damage defensively or multiply a bit offensively by flanking/outmanouvering/bottle necking/concentrating fire. This is when interesting tactical choices start to happen and the game can no longer be won at listbulding stage. This is what most skirmish games play like (there are often turns without any oportunity to inflict any damage and you must concentrate on movement play). And I agree, that with such modifiable damage output game, alternating activations do indeed increase number of possible interesting strategies.

Is this finally a clear enough explanation of what I'm arguing about?

What if we got rid of three ik lists or whatever - just put them out of the equation, as they're rare (I've never played one) and players could figure out what to do with their models.

And then, I tell you I've played plenty of AA games with elite armies (say, nine activations) and nonelite (20+) and the problem you're describing doesn't happen.

Would that be enough to use a system where a) you're not sitting for hours doing nothing with no interaction, b) you have more Tactical choice (what to activate, when, targets, etc) and c) you have a better chance at a more balanced game (less chance of alpha strike, less chance of bottom of turn six objective grab with nothing you can do)

Yep. Let's just throw my army away because you've never played it.

Awesome plan. Great game. Best design.

Lets say you play alternating activation stuff and you find it fun and tactical and less time is spent on your cellphone waiting for your opponent - would you then still cling to the old ways because "well I have this list that almost nobody else plays, and well I don't think it'll work with a new system..."

I am not a game dev, I can't humblebrag about a game design degree or whatever that other dude did, but I'm sure they could figure it out.

I think the thing you're attributing to me here is that I have 'free time' to be on my cellphone or whatever while my opponent is doing stuff.

That couldn't be further from the truth.

For moving, I often ask them if what they are doing is the most tactical move, to try to help them. If it's a competitive game, I try to get into their mind as to why they'd make a move (if it is different than the one I predicted) because that can be a clue as to which units they're afraid of / want to kill - their target priority is not always what I would suspect it to be against my own army. If they are beating me, I try to watch their movement even more closely because movement is the most tactical phase (shooting is just target selection and rolling dice, after all), and I clearly have something to learn. If they are acting differently in the movement phase than I've predicted, it's because I don't understand something about their army, or more alarmingly, my own.
So I'm not really 'free' in the movement phase.

In shooting, same thing. I watch them. I watch their target priority, give them hints and tips, try to figure out why they targeted what they did and see if I can learn from any of it. I watch their dice rolls, try to calculate a likely number of saves ahead of time so I can save time by getting an approximate number of dice ready. I try to make plans for the next turn based on what shooting damage they are doing, what they are shooting at, and how I expect assaults to go.
I'm not really 'free' in the shooting phase.

In the charge & fight phases - well, if you don't understand why I'd be active in the phases of the opponents turn where I literally get to shoot and stab things and roll my own dice, I don't know what to tell you.

So no, I don't really see trouble with the IGOUGO because their turn gives me time to pick and calculate my options - rarely do I form a plan for how the game is going to go, anticipate the opponent's moves perfectly, and have the plan go off flawlessly. If that happened often, yeah, probably I'd be on my phone because at that point the army runs itself. Fortunately, though I'm bad enough (or my opponents are good enough, or my army list is bad enough, or my opponent's army lists are good enough) that I find the game challenging, and my opponents turn is an opportunity to think through some of the challenges.

What you consider time to calculate, I consider boring down time, more often than not. Most of the time, you can kinda play 40k on autopilot (heavy weapons target high priorities; anti infantry targets whatever's the best soft target; you charge fights you think you can win). Maybe my opponent will make a smart move I wouldn't have thought of, or maybe they'll do something dumb that I can take advantage of. Either way, there's generally no way in which their un/impressive play would be more interesting or engaging if I need to wait instead of being able to counter.

 Lance845 wrote:

nou wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

So your not actually upset about alternating activation systems. In fact you agree that it's a more tactical more interactive game structure. You just think that 40ks units are not really suited for it because of the extreme damage output and general lack of durability?

I never was "upset" with those systems I was (am) upset with definite statements about superiority in every/any context/goal. I agree, that it is more interactive (but not inherently more tactical, that depends on exact details of particular IGOUGO and AA systems) and yes, you got that last part about damage output and durability right at last - both IGOUGO and AA structures are totally indpependent from content you put into them. 40K content is so hard to handle and playerbase so all over the place, that no system will ever satisfy everyone (just read Unit1126PL responses here, he's not a sole fan of big tanks/robots that EXIST in this game). Your particular AA solution/GtGo40K just handle YOUR preferred type of armies better and do "strange" things to other. Hey, even simple Maelstrom scoring each turn upsets a whole deal of players who do not like to think along the way and want pre-planned strategies to work out-of-the-box in every single game they play...

Cool, at the very least you and I seem to have reached some understanding here.

Let me explain my stance real fast for the sake of clarity. I am not making any definitive statement about any generic broad mechanic. IGOUGO works really well in systems where there is quick turn around and counter play. (Magic the Gathering). I AM making a definitive statement about 40ks mechanics where there is no counter play. Where turns are not quick. And where the tactical decisions are so few and far between that they basically don't exist. There is a little bit about where you place your models to be in range of x and out of range of y. But.... they cannot do anything about it. So it's less about an interesting decision of risk and reward with one player playing against the other and all about how to maximize your effectiveness with obvious plays that boil down to the math of it. The exception to this is do you or don't you deny that particular power (if you even have the option) and who you activate and when during melee (if there are enough units tied up in melee for this to even come up).

40ks content CAN be hard to handle. There are outriders because it covers such a large range of points and power. 8th could really use something like the FoC of 30k. 8ths FoCs are so all encompassing... it's crazy. And not interesting. There are players who really enjoy the swinging sledge hammers at each other style of game play of 8th. There are players who really enjoy bringing all titans and knights and want to just lay down all their fire power as some kind of strategy. Fine. Good. Play 40k as it is. Go back to ANY edition for your favorite style of doing that. That exists. Suggesting that there could actually be another way to play 40k doesn't remove the ways that have already existed. They are still there. 8th doesn't remove 7th. Some people still play 7th because they don't like 8th. Great! Good on them. Do what you like.

If tomorrow 40k announced that there were releasing a book of New Ways to Play that took all the same datasheets but provided a new framework that was alternating activations instead of IGOUGO the players would pick the way they like to play and play. The same way they do with open, narrative, or matched. It wouldn't REMOVE IGOUGO. It would simply provide another style of game play. Im all for that. I made a thread soon after 8th dropped saying how disappointed I was that "3 ways to play" amounted to different missions and 2 styles of building a list. Not actually playing differently, just list building. It was a real bummer.

I don't give a gak that IGOUGO exists. But I also don't understand why AA doesn't. Especially for how 40k is built, basically ANY other set up would be more tactical. And the lack of tactical depth is 40ks biggest problem. Yeah, some people suggested bringing back initiative. Except I don't want orks and necrons to always get trounced by everyone because they are slower to react. And I don't want to win because I always act first as Nids.

Yes, we finally do have understanding of our positions.

One last observation for you to chew on - by all your own attempts at making 40K work as AA you probably know by now, that "taking all the same datasheets and providing a new framework" don't work all that well, so it would require double amount of ruleswriting from GW and I don't think that this will ever happen. Technicalities and financial viability aside, you also underestimate psychological and sociological layers of 40K - even such small shift as introducing two ways to calculate army value in 8th created a huge rift and upset the community about the very existence of free choice in this regard, because what 40K community craves the most is a singular officialism (officialdom? What is that a proper word for it?). While oldhammer do certainly exist it is a niche and sticking to old editions is usually temporary as it hinges around having others to play with. There were A LOT of 7th ed reworks in the past two years here on dakka alone, but not even one gained speed, because they were not official. We now have Shadow War and Necromunda return announcement suddenly sprouting enthusiasm about a game, that was available for free as "oldmunda" for the last two decades and was very hard to get new people into, because it was not "officially supported anymore".

Sadly for you, your only way on getting AA version of 40K in any concievable future is not only to write it yourself (or bootstrap on BtGo40K), but also personally rising large enough community around it to actually play it on regular basis, because there are tons of non-core-rules related reasons to stick with IGOUGO official way of things. Take a lesson from this thread and do not start "converting" people by attacking their personal way of having fun as being obsolete/outdated/stupid/not proper/whatever. Be inclusive, not exclusive and try to harder to understand what actually motivates people to do what they freely choose to do.

[Sidenote: new Necromunda might be good news for you, because it is rumoured to be AA, so you could build practical interest in AA with little effort through official GW game playable at GW stores. Logical next step would be rewriting Shadow War kill teams for new "AA engine" (if GW won't do it) and then stepping up from there to full AA 40K.]

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yep. Let's just throw my army away because you've never played it.

Awesome plan. Great game. Best design.

Your list is fairly typical in New Jersey and large tournaments. People will bring the Lords of War because 40k is an attrition game and they are more difficult to remove than a pack of infantry. The infantry lose shots with every casualty. If some people don't play them that's their local meta's problem. A guy here runs the Forge World titans in normal games and one brought a warlord to our megabattle. Other parts of the country may have less internet, less players, less powergamers, or simply less money. Canada at least has an excuse with the nearest town being an hour away from your own but I have over 20 densely populated cities within 5 miles of me.

Just two quick questions:

Are you all still talking about alternating individual units?
Are you deliberately ignoring my suggestion of alternating detachment activation?

just curious...

 combatcotton wrote:
Just two quick questions:

Are you all still talking about alternating individual units?
Are you deliberately ignoring my suggestion of alternating detachment activation?

just curious...

Well, I am afraid that current detachments are too large for it to really be an impact. You'd have to shrink detachments down. Which would be a fine solution.

GW's own Epic 40k did exactly this. Your standard sized army had 3-5 detachments, and you alternated activations. It worked great. If it had been a new game I think it would have succeeded, but the old Space Marine players rejected it out of hand because it lacked the nearly idiotic level of granularity the previous edition had. I frankly loved Epic 40k, and thought it was one of the best systems GW ever made. My friends and I were disappointed that BFG lacked alternating activations, and we immediately ported it in and it worked great too.

I've played many other games with alternating activations, and it really helps make for a more fluid and enjoyable experience. The best part is that one player doesn't spend half an hour just rolling saves while his army gets shot.

I had stated that detachments would need some rework. If my initial post is too convoluted to understand or I simply suck at explaining there is always the option of improvement.

Guess I gotta start working on more than that first draft.

The more I read here it appears to be obvious that both camps are somewhat right.
IGOUGO is stupidly simple therefor idiot-proof. Everybody gets instantly how it works.
AA provides more detailed and less swingy turns with basically no downtime.

If those things could be combined we could call it www.
win-win-warhammer.

 combatcotton wrote:

IGOUGO is stupidly simple therefor idiot-proof. Everybody gets instantly how it works.

And yet, GW still has screwed it up with all the other rules to counter it.

Honestly, I am in the camp that neither are the best, but I've said that already.