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.

Has anyone tried a bolt action style mechanic in 40k? Like 40k everything but the conduct of the turn being Bolt Action style, I think it could create a more fluid gameplay vice the IGOUGO method we hafve currently.

Discussed in numerous threads. Generally boils down to:

A) People who have actually tried it and enjoy it.

B) People who haven't tried it arguing blindly that it ruins the game.

Very well, I appreciate the short and to the point answer good Elbows

 Elbows wrote:
Discussed in numerous threads. Generally boils down to:

A) People who have actually tried it and enjoy it.

B) People who haven't tried it arguing blindly that it ruins the game.

I don't think anyone could have thought of a more biased way to boil down anything. Congratulations.

I'm currently working on a 40k alternative that uses that system. Personally I don't see the disadvantages of using it, but then I haven't tested it enough to determine any problems with it.

I'd certainly give it a go for curiosity's sake, and see how it goes.

 Purifier wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Discussed in numerous threads. Generally boils down to:

A) People who have actually tried it and enjoy it.

B) People who haven't tried it arguing blindly that it ruins the game.

I don't think anyone could have thought of a more biased way to boil down anything. Congratulations.

But, seems to match what I have seen on this board.
Is this assessment in error?

 jeff white wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Discussed in numerous threads. Generally boils down to:

A) People who have actually tried it and enjoy it.

B) People who haven't tried it arguing blindly that it ruins the game.

I don't think anyone could have thought of a more biased way to boil down anything. Congratulations.

But, seems to match what I have seen on this board.
Is this assessment in error?

Of course it is. I've seen loads of people positive to the idea that haven't tested it. And it stands to reason that people that have tried it are going to be positive to it, I mean they were interested enough in it to actually put in the extra effort to try it. If you're not interested in that kind of play, of course you're not going to be the one to put in the work to attempt to try it.

Personally, I think it's a good idea, but I'm not interested enough to actually try and set up my group of mates to try it, and we're happy enough with 8th that it's not an issue. If someone that's positive towards it doesn't find it to be worth the hassle, you think people that aren't into it would?

It's an incredibly biased simplification that doesn't at all do the argument justice.

It would work really well and help to neuter turn one alpha strikes.
The problem lies in the entrenched views of the 40K fanbase, to whit that GW can do no wrong, and that the idea of giving one side a massive advantage based on a dice roll is perfectly fine.

 master of ordinance wrote:
It would work really well and help to neuter turn one alpha strikes.
The problem lies in the entrenched views of the 40K fanbase, to whit that GW can do no wrong, and that the idea of giving one side a massive advantage based on a dice roll is perfectly fine.

How to attack a strawman 101. No one is saying GW can do no wrong. That's all in your head. No one (or incredibly few people) is saying getting massive advantage on a dice roll is perfectly fine. You're making those arguments up. I think 8th is a good game. I would have liked a better alternative to IGOUGO, and I think it a failure to keep it, but that's what it is now. That doesn't mean I don't think GW made a mistake. They certainly did. They had a chance here to move beyond it, and they didn't take it. But the game is still pretty good now, and I enjoy it. And I want to play by the official rules, such as they are, flaws and all.

But sure, distil that into "YOU ARE IN LOVE WITH GW TO WHIT YOU LIKE-LIKE THEM!"

 Purifier wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
It would work really well and help to neuter turn one alpha strikes.
The problem lies in the entrenched views of the 40K fanbase, to whit that GW can do no wrong, and that the idea of giving one side a massive advantage based on a dice roll is perfectly fine.

How to attack a strawman 101. No one is saying GW can do no wrong. That's all in your head. No one (or incredibly few people) is saying getting massive advantage on a dice roll is perfectly fine. You're making those arguments up. I think 8th is a good game. I would have liked a better alternative to IGOUGO, and I think it a failure to keep it, but that's what it is now. That doesn't mean I don't think GW made a mistake. They certainly did. They had a chance here to move beyond it, and they didn't take it. But the game is still pretty good now, and I enjoy it. And I want to play by the official rules, such as they are, flaws and all.

But sure, distil that into "YOU ARE IN LOVE WITH GW TO WHIT YOU LIKE-LIKE THEM!"

You're taking this very personally?

 Huron black heart wrote:

You're taking this very personally?

No, I'm replying to posts on a discussion forum. You're asking rather silly questions?

 Purifier wrote:

 Huron black heart wrote:

You're taking this very personally?

No, I'm replying to posts on a discussion forum. You're asking rather silly questions?

In a passive aggressive manner, but hey, I don't really care.
I like the idea of alternating unit actions, only problem I see is the way psychic powers currently work and at what point would you take morale tests.

 Huron black heart wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Huron black heart wrote:

You're taking this very personally?

No, I'm replying to posts on a discussion forum. You're asking rather silly questions?

In a passive aggressive manner, but hey, I don't really care.

... what exactly was this interaction?

 Purifier wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
It would work really well and help to neuter turn one alpha strikes.
The problem lies in the entrenched views of the 40K fanbase, to whit that GW can do no wrong, and that the idea of giving one side a massive advantage based on a dice roll is perfectly fine.

How to attack a strawman 101. No one is saying GW can do no wrong. That's all in your head. No one (or incredibly few people) is saying getting massive advantage on a dice roll is perfectly fine. You're making those arguments up. I think 8th is a good game. I would have liked a better alternative to IGOUGO, and I think it a failure to keep it, but that's what it is now. That doesn't mean I don't think GW made a mistake. They certainly did. They had a chance here to move beyond it, and they didn't take it. But the game is still pretty good now, and I enjoy it. And I want to play by the official rules, such as they are, flaws and all.

But sure, distil that into "YOU ARE IN LOVE WITH GW TO WHIT YOU LIKE-LIKE THEM!"

Sheesh, you really are touchy arent you?
I never mentioned names, I merely put my views forwards and you chose to pounce on me like I was some kind of wrongdoer, inadvertently proving my point in an indirect way.

IGOUGO is not a good system, especially not with GW's child-level mechanics. It will never be. There is no fun with going second and finding ones army being crippled by the enemies initial volley, or hopelessly out of position because the enemy has deepstruck a load of units around you. a BA style mechanic would greatly alleviate the powerless feeling that one gets from going 2nd, but as it is GW failed to implement any such mechanism.
Ultimately this is their responsibility, but that does not account for the blatant fanboyism that is rife within the 40K playerbase, and the snub-nosed regard that any mechanism other than the sanctified GW one is inherently wrong.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
It would work really well and help to neuter turn one alpha strikes.
The problem lies in the entrenched views of the 40K fanbase, to whit that GW can do no wrong, and that the idea of giving one side a massive advantage based on a dice roll is perfectly fine.

How to attack a strawman 101. No one is saying GW can do no wrong. That's all in your head. No one (or incredibly few people) is saying getting massive advantage on a dice roll is perfectly fine. You're making those arguments up. I think 8th is a good game. I would have liked a better alternative to IGOUGO, and I think it a failure to keep it, but that's what it is now. That doesn't mean I don't think GW made a mistake. They certainly did. They had a chance here to move beyond it, and they didn't take it. But the game is still pretty good now, and I enjoy it. And I want to play by the official rules, such as they are, flaws and all.

But sure, distil that into "YOU ARE IN LOVE WITH GW TO WHIT YOU LIKE-LIKE THEM!"

Sheesh, you really are touchy arent you?
I never mentioned names, I merely put my views forwards and you chose to pounce on me like I was some kind of wrongdoer, inadvertently proving my point in an indirect way.

IGOUGO is not a good system, especially not with GW's child-level mechanics. It will never be. There is no fun with going second and finding ones army being crippled by the enemies initial volley, or hopelessly out of position because the enemy has deepstruck a load of units around you. a BA style mechanic would greatly alleviate the powerless feeling that one gets from going 2nd, but as it is GW failed to implement any such mechanism.
Ultimately this is their responsibility, but that does not account for the blatant fanboyism that is rife within the 40K playerbase, and the snub-nosed regard that any mechanism other than the sanctified GW one is inherently wrong.

Jesus christ, I say they were making mistakes, they aren't perfect and the system should have been replaced, and you're implying I'm a part of the "blatant fanboyism." So thanks for proving my point. You are reading not what people are writing, but what you want to read and when you say "fanboyism is rife" it's completely nonsensical and based on nothing but what you read that isn't there. You're not helping any argument by just making stuff up. "I didn't mention any names, I just drew a broad brush calling anyone that doesn't agree with me fanboys, how dare you disagree with me specifically!" You seem pretty touchy yourself.

I would appreciate if you guys didn't make things personal here. I am all about a good heated discussion, but be nice It is just a game after all.

Yeah, that was... unexpected.

Still, I'd be interested in what you find out. While I'm incorporating the rules, I haven't actually tried it, mainly because I don't know anyone really here and work is bogging me down to much to head on down to the LGS and interact with the 40k community. On paper the idea sounds like it's without flaw, but it'd be good to know if any problems do crop up with playing the game that way.

 master of ordinance wrote:
[
Sheesh, you really are touchy arent you?
I never mentioned names, I merely put my views forwards and you chose to pounce on me like I was some kind of wrongdoer,

Don't take it as a personal attack (again), but:
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent." - it's literally what you did, that's why he's pointing it out.
You created it by saying "the 40k fanbase"s view would be that "that GW can do no wrong, and that the idea of giving one side a massive advantage based on a dice roll is perfectly fine." - noone ever claimed that, yet you use it to prop up your point of view. That's what a straw man is. And you claim that's "the problem" here. Knocking the straw man down, just without any arguments.

It's nothing "personal" nor a "personal attack" to point out fallacies.

inadvertently proving my point in an indirect way.

and there is the next one.

I have no idea what Bolt Action is. Is that the "activation" thingy that generated the 20-page long thread a while ago?

Again, I have not tried but, but wouldn't be averse to trying it. However anything can be bad if designed improperly, and can be good if designed properly. One of the issues with IGOUGO in the 40k system is that armies don't have a way of receiving attacks nor did they even try to balance for it. I remember in an interview (from looooooooong ago) that they said with the way targetting worked and the relative lack of long range weapons (and there were few movement modifiers back then) the first person that goes will only get to bring a fraction of their firepower to bear, so the player that goes second may lose out on a portion of their army, but they would have more guns in range on their turn. It wasn't perfect, but at least they tried (and there's some potential there).

If Bolt Action is what I think it is, then it could work, but GW still needs to get a competent, united rules team together, since no matter how good the concept, a poor execution will make it no better than what we have right now.