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.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Spoken like a LOSER!

In all seriousness, I want to feel like I *earned* my win. I want to compete, and actually play the game without having to wait for my opponent to do everything.

Hence why 40k sticks to IGOUGO continues to baffle me, alongside the general removal of what few choices a player had when it wasn't their turn.

I remember watching something about tiny wars or whatever the book was called by HP Mfing lovecraft that was effectively the first miniature war game and IIRC it used IGOUGO. its probably just ingrained into 40k and fantasy as its been around pretty damn long.

Do older Napoleonic and historical (not fow or boltaction) use igug?

I haven't had an amazing amount of games since 8th started (maybe 15 total), and I don't go to tournaments or play competitive games, but so far it has been a lot easier to have a relatively balanced friendly/semi-competitive game than it was in 7th.

During the last year of 7th my group would have to place restrictions like "if you want to play X or Y, then tell me so I don't bring Z because it's too one-sided", " and so on. Hell, tau was a pain to play just because the only way games would be fun was to use the weakest half of the codex.

8th has similar problems, but all the problems I'm experiencing are slowly getting fixed when the respective codices are released. The big problems for me involved having footslogging daemons across the board, orks being useless (I play speed freaks), and most tau suits are overpriced. Well, 1 out of the 3 codices have been released and 1 of my 3 big problems has been fixed.

I'll wait until all the codexes are out before I bother whining/celebrating, but so far GW has impressed me. Not 100% of the time, but enough to start to trust them a tad more. Still cautious of codex creep though

In 7th ed, almost every game I had resulted in both players having models on the table still, but the outcome was almost always predictable as early as turn 1, sometimes even deployment depending on how epic a deathstar one player formed over the other.

In 8th ed, almost every game I've had resulted in one player not having ANY models on the table still, but the outcome of the game has been anyone's guess on up to even turn 3. There've even been a few that came down to every last guy shooting at the end of turn 5.

There's some outliers there. The only army I've lost to with IG is Eldar/Ynarri, but I've beaten them too. I heavily lost a game with SM/GK against Eldar. I beat a SW/BA (post codex) army with DA.

The balance isn't perfect, but from my own experience, it seems much closer than I remember it being since 5th.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Spoken like a LOSER!

In all seriousness, I want to feel like I *earned* my win. I want to compete, and actually play the game without having to wait for my opponent to do everything.

Hence why 40k sticks to IGOUGO continues to baffle me, alongside the general removal of what few choices a player had when it wasn't their turn.

Then you agree with me, if your in an area with casuals you taking a fully optimised list and winning turn 2 isnt an Earned win.

Inversely, making the game overemphasize the list instead of the game...

...mind, I ran Chaos Space Marines, and it threw most players off by a long shot.

I've run the numbers on the tournaments in the last 2 and a half months of 7th. I'll spare everyone the full breakdown by faction, but the short highlights are:

Last months of 7th had 28 factions played
For top 10%, 16 factions were within 1 deviation of expected results, 10 between 1 and 2 deviations, and 2 factions more than 2 deviations away
For top 4, 18 factions within 1 deviation of expected, 8 from 1 to 2, 1 faction from 2 to 3, and 1 faction more than 3 deviations from expected

Compared to January of this year which had 26 factions played.
Top 10 % had 23 within 1 deviation, 1 between 1 and 2, and 2 more than 2 deviations away
Top 4 had 20 within 1 deviation, 5 between 1 and 2, and 1 more than 1 deviations away

As a quick and dirty metric of overall balance, I took the standard deviation of the all standardized residuals. The lower the number, the closer to statistical faction balance the environment is:

Top 10%
7th: 1.11
Jan 2018: 1.02

Top 4
7th: 1.22
Jan 2018: 0.90

So 8th as it currently stands does indeed appear to have a better faction balance than 8th did at the end. This is a relatively small data set for 8th, though. I'll look forward to updating it with LVO and other results, and looking at 8th stats from before Chapter Approved.

I'll also note that 8th is doing that with fewer differences between tournament rules and the standard edition rules as well - no real extensive ITC, NOVA, etc FAQ that significantly change the rules, mainly different mission sets, which 7th also had.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Spoken like a LOSER!

In all seriousness, I want to feel like I *earned* my win. I want to compete, and actually play the game without having to wait for my opponent to do everything.

Hence why 40k sticks to IGOUGO continues to baffle me, alongside the general removal of what few choices a player had when it wasn't their turn.

Aside from alpha strike you had all the choices leading up to that turn. And even with alpha strike you have choice in list making and deployment.

 Desubot wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Spoken like a LOSER!

In all seriousness, I want to feel like I *earned* my win. I want to compete, and actually play the game without having to wait for my opponent to do everything.

Hence why 40k sticks to IGOUGO continues to baffle me, alongside the general removal of what few choices a player had when it wasn't their turn.

I remember watching something about tiny wars or whatever the book was called by HP Mfing lovecraft that was effectively the first miniature war game and IIRC it used IGOUGO. its probably just ingrained into 40k and fantasy as its been around pretty damn long.

Do older Napoleonic and historical (not fow or boltaction) use igug?

You're thinking of Little Wars by HG Wells. Alas that he had not the foresight to include the Martians or Morlocks as actual playable armies (granted: Martians and morlocks would be a boss name for a game). It didn't use dice either, but spring-loaded toy cannons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medicinal Carrots wrote:
I've run the numbers on the tournaments in the last 2 and a half months of 7th. I'll spare everyone the full breakdown by faction, but the short highlights are:

Last months of 7th had 28 factions played
For top 10%, 16 factions were within 1 deviation of expected results, 10 between 1 and 2 deviations, and 2 factions more than 2 deviations away
For top 4, 18 factions within 1 deviation of expected, 8 from 1 to 2, 1 faction from 2 to 3, and 1 faction more than 3 deviations from expected

Compared to January of this year which had 26 factions played.
Top 10 % had 23 within 1 deviation, 1 between 1 and 2, and 2 more than 2 deviations away
Top 4 had 20 within 1 deviation, 5 between 1 and 2, and 1 more than 1 deviations away

As a quick and dirty metric of overall balance, I took the standard deviation of the all standardized residuals. The lower the number, the closer to statistical faction balance the environment is:

Top 10%
7th: 1.11
Jan 2018: 1.02

Top 4
7th: 1.22
Jan 2018: 0.90

So 8th as it currently stands does indeed appear to have a better faction balance than 8th did at the end. This is a relatively small data set for 8th, though. I'll look forward to updating it with LVO and other results, and looking at 8th stats from before Chapter Approved.

I'll also note that 8th is doing that with fewer differences between tournament rules and the standard edition rules as well - no real extensive ITC, NOVA, etc FAQ that significantly change the rules, mainly different mission sets, which 7th also had.

Scoring by faction is arguably loaded though ever since 6th added allies. I remember reading about Orks winning Wargamescon 2015 for example...only it wasn't Orks. It was a Daemon army, Fateweaver and all, and it took Mogrok's Bossboyz to add +1 to Seize and some throwaway Shokk Attack Gunz, but mostly to turn off the Warp Storm.

Of course, Wargamescon 2017 was a Superfriends list of 5 Culexus Assassins, 3 Vindicare, 3 Eversor, Gulliman, Draigo, Celestine, etc all taking full advantage of Character targeting rules. In fact, a single unit of Retributors was the only non-Character unit.

Dakkacon 2017 was a "Tyranid + Elysian" list with a single Acolyte as a linker, etc.

How do you actually measure faction balance under these metrics? In 7th, soup was a problem but in a different way.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

How do you actually measure faction balance under these metrics? In 7th, soup was a problem but in a different way.

On one hand, you can argue that what's really happening is the removal of a lot of factions that didn't really need to be factions in the first place. There are a good number of factions that are only defined by what color you paint the same set of models (which is weird when alt color schemes are a thing...). If you consolidate them down, you're talking more about internal faction balance than anything.

By the same token, its actually fairly surprising how many unit options in the game lack meaningful differences in the model line. Outside of the obvious Red marines vs Blue marines vs Spikey marines, Grey Knights are notably bad for going way out of their way in trying to make an entire faction out of like.... 3 kits. Knights are also pretty humorous for giving us 4 options that are identical outside of which weapon option they take. There's lots of stuff like this, but overall I think direction of fewer factions with more diverse model ranges is way more interesting than "how little do I need to add to make this technically a new faction?" I know I'm personally way happier with the idea that a new release might add to my existing army rather than needing to buy 2-3 of everything to try and reach 2000 points.

in 7th I played a game where thanks to gladius formation I ended a game with more points in models on the field than the supposed game that was being played. note me and the opponent did this on purpose to show A how bad orks were with one of the strongest possible orks lists at the time vs showing how stupid OP formations could be.

by comparison I have never seen that unbalanced level in 8th sure things need adjusting but 7th was rough.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
in 7th I played a game where thanks to gladius formation I ended a game with more points in models on the field than the supposed game that was being played. note me and the opponent did this on purpose to show A how bad orks were with one of the strongest possible orks lists at the time vs showing how stupid OP formations could be.

Except there really was only a couple of formations thay were broken. I'm not defending what 7th became, but let's not pretend it was Formations in general. Most of them were just good to super terrible. Gladius/Battle Demi-Company, Aspect Shrine, etc were exceptions, not the rule.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
in 7th I played a game where thanks to gladius formation I ended a game with more points in models on the field than the supposed game that was being played. note me and the opponent did this on purpose to show A how bad orks were with one of the strongest possible orks lists at the time vs showing how stupid OP formations could be.

Except there really was only a couple of formations thay were broken. I'm not defending what 7th became, but let's not pretend it was Formations in general. Most of them were just good to super terrible. Gladius/Battle Demi-Company, Aspect Shrine, etc were exceptions, not the rule.

FW formations were banned b.c how strong they where. Apoc blast D weapons.. for like 600pts-650pts (cant remember) but if you killed 1 of the 3 models you still have 2 more warp hunters...., i mean come on...

 Jaxler wrote:

8th edition:
admech

No, not really.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
in 7th I played a game where thanks to gladius formation I ended a game with more points in models on the field than the supposed game that was being played. note me and the opponent did this on purpose to show A how bad orks were with one of the strongest possible orks lists at the time vs showing how stupid OP formations could be.

Except there really was only a couple of formations thay were broken. I'm not defending what 7th became, but let's not pretend it was Formations in general. Most of them were just good to super terrible. Gladius/Battle Demi-Company, Aspect Shrine, etc were exceptions, not the rule.

The players have their role in imbalance as well. I took Aspect Shrines but there's a difference between my Shrine of Banshees, Spears and Scorpions and one of three Warp Spiders.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
in 7th I played a game where thanks to gladius formation I ended a game with more points in models on the field than the supposed game that was being played. note me and the opponent did this on purpose to show A how bad orks were with one of the strongest possible orks lists at the time vs showing how stupid OP formations could be.

Except there really was only a couple of formations thay were broken. I'm not defending what 7th became, but let's not pretend it was Formations in general. Most of them were just good to super terrible. Gladius/Battle Demi-Company, Aspect Shrine, etc were exceptions, not the rule.

FW formations were banned b.c how strong they where. Apoc blast D weapons.. for like 600pts-650pts (cant remember) but if you killed 1 of the 3 models you still have 2 more warp hunters...., i mean come on...

You're not really proving me wrong so I don't know what you're trying to say.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
in 7th I played a game where thanks to gladius formation I ended a game with more points in models on the field than the supposed game that was being played. note me and the opponent did this on purpose to show A how bad orks were with one of the strongest possible orks lists at the time vs showing how stupid OP formations could be.

Except there really was only a couple of formations thay were broken. I'm not defending what 7th became, but let's not pretend it was Formations in general. Most of them were just good to super terrible. Gladius/Battle Demi-Company, Aspect Shrine, etc were exceptions, not the rule.

FW formations were banned b.c how strong they where. Apoc blast D weapons.. for like 600pts-650pts (cant remember) but if you killed 1 of the 3 models you still have 2 more warp hunters...., i mean come on...

You're not really proving me wrong so I don't know what you're trying to say.

Im saying there was many formations not just the few you said. It wasnt a couple.. that book alone had many, tho 3 in it were really bad (banned from ITC/Adepticon and many others). I wasnt trying to prove you wrong either, just saying there was more than you thought........