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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Wrong. IGOUGO is not objectively bad design.
You think it is bad design. You are not the arbitrator of what is or is not good or bad. You do not get to make judgements for other people, and claim yourself as being "correct".

So I see that, rather than address my criticism of IGOUGO as a mechanic and make any defense of it, you have nothing but "that's just your opinion, man". At least Insaniak, as wrong as he is, is attempting to try to make an argument.

They are different approaches to game design that have wildly different variants under their umbrella.

That said, which version of alternating activation are we using here for the discussion? Is it one or two actions per unit per activation? Is it one activation per phase? Is it one activation per turn? Even AA has a lot of different varients and to argue against it we need to know what flavor of AA we're talking about first.

 insaniak wrote:
If they have different rules, and the objective is to have them be represented as different things so that people can differentiate between a sword and an axe, then they're meaningfully different. The fact that you personally don't think that level of differentiation is warranted doesn't mean the rest of us don't want it, or that having it is intrinsically bad.

In what way are they meaningful? What on-table decisions are determined by the choice? Is there any level of difference between choices that is sufficiently small that you would consider it irrelevant, or is even something as absurd as "if you are playing this game at 5:40pm on 9/14/19 and roll three consecutive 6s followed by a 1 with this weapon you may re-roll the 1" still a "meaningful difference" that is a legitimate rule to put on a datasheet?

Yeah, you have that all twisted around. If the rules aren't 'meaningfully different' then what weapon your unit is armed with only matters on a conceptual or fluff level. The slightly different rules are only there to provide differentiation between the options.

No, you're just missing the point. What the plastic miniature on the table is equipped with matters on a conceptual or fluff level. The rules, in this case, do not. An example of why I draw that line is missile launchers. From a balance point of view there is no reason to ever take them and the option might as well not exist, but on a conceptual level the missile launcher is at least trying to do something different from a lascannon even if GW sucks at dice math and made frag missiles too weak to matter. In theory GW could fix the D6 shots issue and make the choice a relevant one again. Contrast that with power weapons, where the only difference between them is minor dice optimization that has zero impact on how you play the unit on the table.

While we're making irrelevant points, I feel I should point out that ANZAC biscuits are inherently superior to all other types of biscuits. Although we should probably avoid going down the rabbit hole of 'crispy vs soft'...

How exactly is it irrelevant? The argument that IGOUGO is good because it is simple and easy to learn applies just as well to making all die rolls succeed on a 4+. In fact, an alternating activation game with all die rolls succeeding on a 4+ would probably be a better game than one that uses IGOUGO. So you can't simultaneously argue that all of the rules bloat and complexity of 8th edition is a legitimate thing and that IGOUGO is good because it is simple.

Yes, misrepresenting the argument and declaring yourself the winner is certainly the best way to make your point. Well done.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. "I just want some rules to push models around the table" is a textbook example of having low standards for a game.

I'm done here. If you're really so set on the idea that 40K needs to be a different game in order to be playable, then go play a different game. 40K is never going to be the game that you appear to want it to be. Sitting here insisting that the people who like something you don't are inherently wrong is beyond pointless. Just move on, dude.

Ah yes, the last resort of someone who has no better argument in defense of their position: "if you don't like it then leave".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Wrong. IGOUGO is not objectively bad design.
You think it is bad design. You are not the arbitrator of what is or is not good or bad. You do not get to make judgements for other people, and claim yourself as being "correct".

So I see that, rather than address my criticism of IGOUGO as a mechanic and make any defense of it, you have nothing but "that's just your opinion, man". At least Insaniak, as wrong as he is, is attempting to try to make an argument.

You're not criticising IGOUGO though. You're criticising the people who haven't got a problem with it, and saying they're "objectively wrong". That's the difference here.

If you only have a problem with IGOUGO, you wouldn't need to say that the people who like it are "objectively wrong" (read: inferior), or need to go on some kind of tangent about "you have nothing to say except defending your opinion".

Instead, you make it blatantly clear that this isn't just about your personal dislike of a game mechanic, but an inability to respect the opinions of people you disagree with. If you only cared about the game mechanics, you wouldn't care if I had a different opinion. Unfortunately, how other people like to have fun is somehow offensive to you.

And you mock people for their ridiculous opinions on things - the irony is staggering.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They are different approaches to game design that have wildly different variants under their umbrella.

Sure, and in all reasonable approaches to game design IGOUGO is a terrible mechanic. The only approach that leads to IGOUGO is "this is how our company did it in 1980 and that's how it always has to be".

That said, which version of alternating activation are we using here for the discussion? Is it one or two actions per unit per activation? Is it one activation per phase? Is it one activation per turn? Even AA has a lot of different varients and to argue against it we need to know what flavor of AA we're talking about first.

Any of them would be an improvement over IGOUGO. Once you acknowledge that IGOUGO is a terrible mechanic you can start considering the best option to replace it, but that's far past where we are now in this discussion.

Not Online!!! wrote:
You realise that smudge is mostly just agitating you because you once again lacked basic manners?

Probably not.

Apparently not. If the Big Bird doesn't agree with it, it's clearly fake news. /s


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Once you acknowledge that IGOUGO is a terrible mechanic you can start considering the best option to replace it, but that's far past where we are now in this discussion.

We were past that the moment you started claiming that "everyone who likes IGOUGO is WRONG" like some toddler who can't handle other people's opinions about his toys.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If you only have a problem with IGOUGO, you wouldn't need to say that the people who like it are "objectively wrong" (read: inferior), or need to go on some kind of tangent about "you have nothing to say except defending your opinion".

Sure I would, because one directly follows from the other. If the earth is not flat then anyone defending flat earth theories is wrong. If IGOUGO is an inexcusably terrible mechanic then anyone defending it is wrong. If you want to extend that to meaning that anyone who has a wrong opinion about game design is inferior then that's on you, because it's certainly not a position that I'm advocating.

And it's hardly a tangent to point out that your argument consists entirely of "that's just your opinion, man" and is utterly lacking in any defense of why IGOUGO is actually good compared to the alternatives.

Instead, you make it blatantly clear that this isn't just about your personal dislike of a game mechanic, but an inability to respect the opinions of people you disagree with.

What about those opinions is worthy of respect? The mere fact that you possess them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You realise that smudge is mostly just agitating you because you once again lacked basic manners?

Probably not.

I prefer to assume that opinions expressed here are genuine, given that trolling (which "just agitating you" certainly qualifies as) is against forum rules. If you would like to accuse them of violating forum rules then feel free to hit that yellow triangle.

Atleast he presented a valid argument at the beginning. Contrary to your little ad hominem Trip here.

Also i will not, because frankly before someone should get marked for trolling the opposite should first learn manners.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If you only have a problem with IGOUGO, you wouldn't need to say that the people who like it are "objectively wrong" (read: inferior), or need to go on some kind of tangent about "you have nothing to say except defending your opinion".

Sure I would, because one directly follows from the other. If the earth is not flat then anyone defending flat earth theories is wrong. If IGOUGO is an inexcusably terrible mechanic then anyone defending it is wrong. If you want to extend that to meaning that anyone who has a wrong opinion about game design is inferior then that's on you, because it's certainly not a position that I'm advocating.

You're seriously comparing someone's personal enjoyment of a toy soldier game mechanic to disagreeing and actively resisting science? And you still claim you're the "rational" one here?

And it's hardly a tangent to point out that your argument consists entirely of "that's just your opinion, man" and is utterly lacking in any defense of why IGOUGO is actually good compared to the alternatives.

That's not what I'm even arguing about. I don't care if you think IGOUGO is better or worse, because I'm not here to justify my enjoyment of it to you.

What I am doing is pointing out how utterly idiotic it is to claim "hurr anyone who likes this is WRONG" as if you have some kind of authority on the matter.

What about those opinions is worthy of respect? The mere fact that you possess them?

Nah. Rule 1 of this forum claims that though.

Peregrine wrote:I prefer to assume that opinions expressed here are genuine, given that trolling (which "just agitating you" certainly qualifies as) is against forum rules. If you would like to accuse them of violating forum rules then feel free to hit that yellow triangle.

Big words from someone who claims to have so little disregard for other people's opinions that they style themselves as some kind of omniscient arbiter of All That Is Good And Right.

And yes, I already have.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You're seriously comparing someone's personal enjoyment of a toy soldier game mechanic to disagreeing and actively resisting science? And you still claim you're the "rational" one here?

It's perhaps a bit exaggerated for effect, but IGOUGO really is such a bad mechanic that there shouldn't be any controversy over it. It's not like, say, the argument over 28mm vs. 6mm scale where both sides have a point and it's a matter of which one you prefer.

What I am doing is pointing out how utterly idiotic it is to claim "hurr anyone who likes this is WRONG" as if you have some kind of authority on the matter.

IOW, "that's just your opinion, man". If the best you can say in defense of the other side is some weird general appeal to the idea that all opinions are valid then yes, I absolutely am justified in saying that they are wrong. If they weren't wrong then you'd be able to have more than "that's just your opinion, man" as an argument.

Nah. Rule 1 of this forum does though.

Rule #1 says that I have to respect the person holding the opinion, not the opinion itself. The two are not the same.

 Peregrine wrote:

Ah yes, the last resort of someone who has no better argument in defense of their position: "if you don't like it then leave".

That wasn't an argument, it was a suggestion. You've moved way beyond being critical and into self-parody, by this point. If you're really so unhappy with the fundamentals of a game that is never going to be what you want it to be, then at some point you have to stop and ask yourself why you are bothering. Instead of wasting everyone's time insisting that all of those who like something you dislike are wrong, find something better suited to your preferences.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You're seriously comparing someone's personal enjoyment of a toy soldier game mechanic to disagreeing and actively resisting science? And you still claim you're the "rational" one here?

It's perhaps a bit exaggerated for effect, but IGOUGO really is such a bad mechanic that there shouldn't be any controversy over it. It's not like, say, the argument over 28mm vs. 6mm scale where both sides have a point and it's a matter of which one you prefer.

I disagree. All the negatives you have given I personally don't have a problem with.

That's not to claim that they aren't there, and that isn't supposed to devalue your own opinion on the matter. However, it does mean to highlight that not all negatives are universally important or relevant, and so to claim that something is "objectively" better or worse only works if you ignore other people's perception.

What I am doing is pointing out how utterly idiotic it is to claim "hurr anyone who likes this is WRONG" as if you have some kind of authority on the matter.

IOW, "that's just your opinion, man". If the best you can say in defense of the other side is some weird general appeal to the idea that all opinions are valid then yes, I absolutely am justified in saying that they are wrong. If they weren't wrong then you'd be able to have more than "that's just your opinion, man" as an argument.

Imagine having such an inflated sense of self-importance that actively ignoring the opinions of other people is a good thing.

Nah. Rule 1 of this forum does though.

Rule #1 says that I have to respect the person holding the opinion, not the opinion itself. The two are not the same.

Please, O Big Bird of Wisdom, how does claiming that "Those people are wrong" and other similar disregards of people's opinions and personal beliefs not violate Rule 1?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
All the negatives you have given I personally don't have a problem with.

You honestly have no problem with a non-interactive game where you can literally walk away from the table for half an hour to get lunch while your opponent plays solitaire until they tell you how many casualties to remove? You don't think it would be better to have an interactive game that keeps both players engaged at all times? I think that W word you hate so much really applies...

Imagine having such an inflated sense of self-importance that actively ignoring the opinions of other people is a good thing.

I'm not ignoring anything. I've read your opinion and dismissed it as wrong. Don't confuse lack of agreement with lack of understanding.

Please, O Big Bird of Wisdom, how does claiming that "Those people are wrong" and other similar disregards of people's opinions and personal beliefs not violate Rule 1?

Because being wrong is not an insult. Lots of people are wrong about lots of subjects, it just means they are wrong. Should we start banning people in YMDC for posting rulebook quotes and saying "you are wrong"?

 Peregrine wrote:

You honestly have no problem with a non-interactive game where you can literally walk away from the table for half an hour to get lunch while your opponent plays solitaire until they tell you how many casualties to remove? You don't think it would be better to have an interactive game that keeps both players engaged at all times? I think that W word you hate so much really applies...

IGOUGO doesn't need to be like that. A good IGOUGO game has things you can do as reactions to your opponents actions. Go to ground when shot, various charge reactions, choose to use defensive stratagems and items etc. Now the current edition has way too little of such things, but that's another matter.

 Crimson wrote:
IGOUGO doesn't need to be like that. A good IGOUGO game has things you can do as reactions to your opponents actions. Go to ground when shot, various charge reactions, choose to use defensive stratagems and items etc. Now the current edition has way too little of such things, but that's another matter.

The entire point of IGOUGO is that you don't have significant actions during the other player's turn. And in the past with 40k few of these decisions have ever been very interesting ones. Do I fire overwatch? Of course I do. Do I use the powerful defensive stratagem? Yes. Etc. And the more you add in these things the more you end up with all of the complexity of an alternating activation system but without the full benefits of one.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Please, O Big Bird of Wisdom, how does claiming that "Those people are wrong" and other similar disregards of people's opinions and personal beliefs not violate Rule 1?

Someone's opinion can be wrong when it relates to something factual. For example, having the opinion that the world is flat would be wrong, because the world being flat is objectively, demonstrably incorrect.

The problem here is that because Peregrine has convinced himself that IGOUGO is objectively bad, that make its badness a fact, in which case any statement that iGOUGO is good can be instantly dismissed as incorrect. That's not inherently rude, unless its being done deliberately in order to troll people, just misguided.

Although I feel that at some point, sheer refusal to even consider that other points of view might be valid does seem likely to result in continued argument being construed as trolling.

 insaniak wrote:
Although I feel that at some point, sheer refusal to even consider that other points of view might be valid does seem likely to result in continued argument being construed as trolling.

I have considered that they might be valid, and come to the conclusion that they are not. I am open to changing this conclusion but it is going to require a strong argument in favor of IGOUGO, far stronger than anything that has been presented so far. And "that's just your opinion, man" is not even close.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
IGOUGO doesn't need to be like that. A good IGOUGO game has things you can do as reactions to your opponents actions. Go to ground when shot, various charge reactions, choose to use defensive stratagems and items etc. Now the current edition has way too little of such things, but that's another matter.

The entire point of IGOUGO is that you don't have significant actions during the other player's turn. And in the past with 40k few of these decisions have ever been very interesting ones. Do I fire overwatch? Of course I do. Do I use the powerful defensive stratagem? Yes. Etc. And the more you add in these things the more you end up with all of the complexity of an alternating activation system but without the full benefits of one.

Nonsense. Previous editions had such things, Fantasy Battle had such things and now there are stratagems you can use on your opponents turn. If you have limited resources such as CP or stratagem uses or magic points or number of denials then you have meaningful choices. If you can choose to do something defensive that weakens your offensive later you have meaningful choices. Now overwatch rarely is a meaningful choice anymore, as basically is the only charge reaction you can choose. But that doesn't need to be so. MTG is one of the most successful games ever and most people would consider it to be well designed. It is IGOUGO but there are reactions and interrupts you can do on your opponent's turn.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Although I feel that at some point, sheer refusal to even consider that other points of view might be valid does seem likely to result in continued argument being construed as trolling.

I have considered that they might be valid, and come to the conclusion that they are not. I am open to changing this conclusion but it is going to require a strong argument in favor of IGOUGO, far stronger than anything that has been presented so far. And "that's just your opinion, man" is not even close.

Except you haven't, because you've approached it with the mindset that your position is the 'correct' one due to an 'objective' fact that you're entirely made up. People's reasons for liking IGOUGO aren't 'invalid'... they're just not things that convince you to like it.

'That's just your opinion, man' is a perfectly valid argument for a subjective value judgement.

 insaniak wrote:
Except you haven't, because you've approached it with the mindset that your position is the 'correct' one due to an 'objective' fact that you're entirely made up.

I'm glad to know you can read my mind and know where I approached the discussion from. Is there any point in having any conversation with you when you're going to build whatever straw man narrative fits your opinion and present it as fact?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Nonsense. Previous editions had such things, Fantasy Battle had such things and now there are stratagems you can use on your opponents turn. If you have limited resources such as CP or stratagem uses or magic points or number of denials then you have meaningful choices. If you can choose to do something defensive that weakens your offensive later you have meaningful choices. Now overwatch rarely is a meaningful choice anymore, as basically is the only charge reaction you can choose. But that doesn't need to be so. MTG is one of the most successful games ever and most people would consider it to be well designed. It is IGOUGO but there are reactions and interrupts you can do on your opponent's turn.

In theory you can. In practice those reactions tend to be superficial non-decisions where the choice is obvious. And, again, the more of that kind of stuff you include the closer you get to the complexity of a true alternating activation system with an awkward pseudo-IGOUOGO compromise. So why not just use alternating activation at that point? It says a lot that the best defense of IGOUGO you can come up with is that a system is improved the more it moves away from pure IGOUGO.

As for MTG, it's not a very good comparison. Aside from being designed from the ground up with a significant non-IGOUGO element of using spells and abilities during your opponent's turn MTG is also a game where turn can happen in a minute or less. It doesn't share the same crippling flaw of IGOUGO in a game like 40k, the extended non-interactive periods caused by the sheer amount of stuff you have to do to resolve your entire army's actions.

So, in other words, IGOUGO isn't inherently bad, it's just a design choice.

Now, I certainly agree it's done pretty badly in 40k, but if it works for MtG, it's clearly not inherently bad.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
IGOUGO doesn't need to be like that. A good IGOUGO game has things you can do as reactions to your opponents actions. Go to ground when shot, various charge reactions, choose to use defensive stratagems and items etc. Now the current edition has way too little of such things, but that's another matter.

The entire point of IGOUGO is that you don't have significant actions during the other player's turn. And in the past with 40k few of these decisions have ever been very interesting ones. Do I fire overwatch? Of course I do. Do I use the powerful defensive stratagem? Yes. Etc. And the more you add in these things the more you end up with all of the complexity of an alternating activation system but without the full benefits of one.

This is not true. 'Igougo' as a system has evolved since the seventies. These things are not static. There is no reason To describe Igougo as either 'flawed' or that you can bugger off for half an hour while the other guy does his stuff.

The idea that in Igougo systems you don't or can't have significant actions during the other players turn is bunk. There are various ways of implementing Igougo, which is essentially, 'I do all the stuff with my army, then you do it with yours'.

One example is broken phase Igougo. Look at gw's own lotr sbg or various historicals. Technically, I go you go in that I do all my stuff with my army, and then you with yours, but it's broken into a movement (I move my stuff, you move yours), shooting (I shoot, then you shoot), then the fight phase where both sides simultaneously crack skulls. you often see this, or variations of this in historicals too.

Another example is interrupted phase Igougo. Look at Corvus beli's infinity, probably the most technically brilliant wargame on the market. The game is Igougo (I get my turn where I activate all of my stuff, then you get your turn where you activate all of your stuff) but inherent to the game is the idea of the 'active turn' and 'reactive turn'. When it's your turn, and you are doing all of your stuff and spending orders activating all of your units, I can react with mine, by shooting back, attempting to dodge, moving etc - essentially, it's an Igougo game where 'it's always your turn'. It's a brilliant game and very engaging.

You could argue that maybe gw should build in more 'out of your turn' elements into their game, but this isn't necessarily a good thing either. I remember in mk1 warmachine, the game often groaned to a halt because of out-of-control-out-of-activation antics that were possible. You could build an entire army back then that operated outside of its own turn, and it was a huge negative play experience overall. There was a reason a lot of that stuff got cut out in the edition change to mk2.

Andy chambers old starship troopers game (from the early/mid noughties) was ahead of its time, and it also had a reaction system built into it.

I have no huge preference either way. Alternative activation has its strengths. So does Igougo. For me, another point in favour of Igougo that I don't get in alternative activation systems is the feel of implementing a plan across a whole army. Games like warmachine/hordes require the Igougo game for the synergy building and combo stacking nature of the game. Alternative activations to me often feels disjointed in comparison.

The funniest thing about this whole „IGOUGO is objectively terribad design” is that this mechanics gave birth to one of the most iconic and most community dissected series of strategic/tactical computer games - I’m talking about X-COM series, both original and modern remakes use simple IGOUGO with overwatch, only Apocalypse tried to introduce a form of simultaneous/real time resolution.

But apparently all those folks are just wrong and want to push their little groups of pixels and just have a laugh

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, in other words, IGOUGO isn't inherently bad, it's just a design choice.

Now, I certainly agree it's done pretty badly in 40k, but if it works for MtG, it's clearly not inherently bad.

I think the "in a game like 40k" part of the statement that IGOUGO is bad should be obviously implicit even when not stated explicitly. You can't really compare mechanics between such different games, even if the turn structure is superficially similar how it works out on the table is very different between a CCG and a wargame. The "IGOUGO" that exists in MTG has essentially nothing to do with the concept as it exists in wargames.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If they have different rules, and the objective is to have them be represented as different things so that people can differentiate between a sword and an axe, then they're meaningfully different. The fact that you personally don't think that level of differentiation is warranted doesn't mean the rest of us don't want it, or that having it is intrinsically bad.

In what way are they meaningful? What on-table decisions are determined by the choice? Is there any level of difference between choices that is sufficiently small that you would consider it irrelevant, or is even something as absurd as "if you are playing this game at 5:40pm on 9/14/19 and roll three consecutive 6s followed by a 1 with this weapon you may re-roll the 1" still a "meaningful difference" that is a legitimate rule to put on a datasheet?

Yeah, you have that all twisted around. If the rules aren't 'meaningfully different' then what weapon your unit is armed with only matters on a conceptual or fluff level. The slightly different rules are only there to provide differentiation between the options.

No, you're just missing the point. What the plastic miniature on the table is equipped with matters on a conceptual or fluff level. The rules, in this case, do not. An example of why I draw that line is missile launchers. From a balance point of view there is no reason to ever take them and the option might as well not exist, but on a conceptual level the missile launcher is at least trying to do something different from a lascannon even if GW sucks at dice math and made frag missiles too weak to matter. In theory GW could fix the D6 shots issue and make the choice a relevant one again. Contrast that with power weapons, where the only difference between them is minor dice optimization that has zero impact on how you play the unit on the table.

While we're making irrelevant points, I feel I should point out that ANZAC biscuits are inherently superior to all other types of biscuits. Although we should probably avoid going down the rabbit hole of 'crispy vs soft'...

How exactly is it irrelevant? The argument that IGOUGO is good because it is simple and easy to learn applies just as well to making all die rolls succeed on a 4+. In fact, an alternating activation game with all die rolls succeeding on a 4+ would probably be a better game than one that uses IGOUGO. So you can't simultaneously argue that all of the rules bloat and complexity of 8th edition is a legitimate thing and that IGOUGO is good because it is simple.

Yes, misrepresenting the argument and declaring yourself the winner is certainly the best way to make your point. Well done.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. "I just want some rules to push models around the table" is a textbook example of having low standards for a game.

I'm done here. If you're really so set on the idea that 40K needs to be a different game in order to be playable, then go play a different game. 40K is never going to be the game that you appear to want it to be. Sitting here insisting that the people who like something you don't are inherently wrong is beyond pointless. Just move on, dude.

Ah yes, the last resort of someone who has no better argument in defense of their position: "if you don't like it then leave".

I'm weighing in late so I probably missed some details, but let me give this a shot:

In asking about IGOUGO and wanting somebody who likes it make a defense of it, here goes:

a) Because both Kill Team and I think Apocalypse use AA, having 40k be different allows people to experience variety when they happen to be fans of cross platform gaming. This feature may not matter to you if you either don't like cross platform gaming or prefer your cross platform gaming experience to be more steamlined, in which case, you could argue that this objectively true argument in favour IGOUGO is not valid from your point of view. But since I do like cross platform game with a degree of variance between each of the systems, from my point of view, it is a valid reason that IGOUGO better is the best fit for 40k.

b) you dismiss "this is the way we did it in 1990" without considering the deep validity of it. See, when you drop a huge game altering bomb like a new edition, you kinda need to carry a few things over in order to ensure that you keep some of the fan base. There are many players who would have left if you combined AA with all the other changes that were almost but not quite enough to break the camel's back. Beyond keeping the customers though, for some people tradition REALLY matters. And all of the arguments I'm giving in defense of IGOUGO have a bit more weight because they are a part of a tradition which is 8 editions and 3 decades long. And of course you're free to disagree, but that doesn't make the statement objectively wrong. Truth is not mutually exclusive- many things are true at the same time, and some even appear to contract each other in certain contexts.

c) I don't know if you've ever played a 15k vs 15k six player game that took a total of twelve hours to play, but I have. In IGOUGO, when it's not your turn, your the guy who makes the food, goes for the beer run, does the DJ duties. In AA, it feels like IT"S ALWAYS YOUR TURN! You like that feeling when the game is 3-4 hours. Try it when the game is 10 hours on day one and another 8 hours on day two.

d) There is a certain satisfaction, best described as a drop from peak intensity; it entails a feeling of satisfaction or relief. In an IGOUGO game, you experience it when you execute a complete turn; the feeling is one of working, working, working seeing gradual improvements in your army's overall tactical advantage when things work out, or a gradual gloom as failures necessitate spontaineous revisions to well rehearsed "plays." Either way, when your turn ends, the rest while the other player moves comes as a bit of a relief. It provides a rhythm to the game. People who enjoy this feeling probably prefer watching American football or Baseball to watching Basketball or Soccer. The differences in rhythm are similar; they are also "objectively real" and "true." Many will prefer one or the other; some, like those mentioned in part a, will prefer a mix of both, just like some people like Hockey AND American football. No mater which category they fall into, all of their points of view are objectively valid and true, all at the same time.

e) Building on the American football reference above, every coach has a personal playbook, cobbled together over years of experience that defines his or her personal style. Each "play" describes the action that every team member will take as a default and attempt to execute; in such plays, all members of their team are executing their assigned default action simultaneously, without any knowledge of what the default actions of their opponents will be. Now I will concede that since both teams in a football game are executing their plans at the same time, AA can work to simulate this experience, but from my perspective, IGOUGO better captures the "playbook" feel.

I could go on all night, because I'm an inherently empathetic person, and I genuinely enjoy putting myself in other people's shoes. Seeing things from other people's point of view has taught me so much over the years. It's also why I can say that you are right too; there are certain advantages that AA would bring to 40K, and I'm sure an AA version of it would be really fun in different ways. I'm just happy with what I've got, especially since if I want the AA rush of IT"S ALWAYS MY TURN, I can just play Kill Team, Apocalypse or Blackstone Fortress with the exact same models I use in 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Except you haven't, because you've approached it with the mindset that your position is the 'correct' one due to an 'objective' fact that you're entirely made up.

I'm glad to know you can read my mind and know where I approached the discussion from. Is there any point in having any conversation with you when you're going to build whatever straw man narrative fits your opinion and present it as fact?

Dude, you've just spent multiple pages banging on about how the system is objectively bad. That's not mind reading.

But no, there is no point continuing this conversation so long as you continue in this vein. Either accept that your viewpoint is not written in the bedrock of the universe, or move on.

Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
All the negatives you have given I personally don't have a problem with.

You honestly have no problem with a non-interactive game where you can literally walk away from the table for half an hour to get lunch while your opponent plays solitaire until they tell you how many casualties to remove? You don't think it would be better to have an interactive game that keeps both players engaged at all times?

I haven't got a problem with that. And guess what - that's just as valid as your opinion to disagree.

You're welcome.

I think that W word you hate so much really applies...

And I think that's wrong.

Imagine having such an inflated sense of self-importance that actively ignoring the opinions of other people is a good thing.

I'm not ignoring anything. I've read your opinion and dismissed it as wrong. Don't confuse lack of agreement with lack of understanding.

No, that's very much ignoring. Either through stupidity or malice, that's still very much a lack of understanding.

I'm not asking you to agree. I'm asking you to understand that my opinion is as valuable as yours, and as much as mine is "wrong", yours is too, and as much as yours is "right", mine is too.

Please, O Big Bird of Wisdom, how does claiming that "Those people are wrong" and other similar disregards of people's opinions and personal beliefs not violate Rule 1?

Because being wrong is not an insult. Lots of people are wrong about lots of subjects, it just means they are wrong. Should we start banning people in YMDC for posting rulebook quotes and saying "you are wrong"?

If you can't tell the difference between someone being wrong when answering a question with an objective answer (what do the rules say) and someone having an opinion (I like this!), then you very much ARE wrong.

As I've said - I haven't got a problem with you pointing out the fact that IGOUGO causes lots of downtime. What *is* a problem is your claiming that it's an objective problem.
The problem is that you're citing facts, but ignoring that those facts may or may not mean anything to people; just because you think that they're a problem doesn't make it so.

Or, if you're so sure that "being wrong is not an insult" - tell that to anyone who may have been told their sexual preferences were "wrong".
See how utterly ridiculous that is?

insaniak wrote:Someone's opinion can be wrong when it relates to something factual. For example, having the opinion that the world is flat would be wrong, because the world being flat is objectively, demonstrably incorrect.

Yes, but we're not talking about flat earth, we're talking about opinions here, as you said.

But obviously, yes, I agree with that, because the earth being round is a proven fact. Flat Earthers are arguing that a fact is wrong.
That is not what's happening here though. What's happening here would be like "I don't like that the Earth is round, because it means that there's no edge of the world". That's an opinion, and that's not wrong or right. It's just an opinion. That person isn't denying that the Earth is round, they're not arguing against data, they're simply saying that they don't like that fact. They're not *wrong* though, as much as you might not hold that same opinion.

Unfortunately, as you say below, Peregrine has not grasped this.

The problem here is that because Peregrine has convinced himself that IGOUGO is objectively bad, that make its badness a fact, in which case any statement that iGOUGO is good can be instantly dismissed as incorrect. That's not inherently rude, unless its being done deliberately in order to troll people, just misguided.

Although I feel that at some point, sheer refusal to even consider that other points of view might be valid does seem likely to result in continued argument being construed as trolling.

Trolling, impoliteness - almost certainly.

Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Except you haven't, because you've approached it with the mindset that your position is the 'correct' one due to an 'objective' fact that you're entirely made up.

I'm glad to know you can read my mind and know where I approached the discussion from.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Peregrine.

Please, express more outrage about people assuming to know your mind and opinions and viewpoints on something! Continue to be upset when someone tells you how you "actually" feel about something and how you're supposed to be behaving and thinking, by all means.

Maybe you might have a little self-reflection.

Is there any point in having any conversation with you when you're going to build whatever straw man narrative fits your opinion and present it as fact?

I don't know - is there any point in having a conversation with you, Peregrine?

And yeah, whilst I would prefer if there was a bit more ways I could react during my opponent's turn, I do not find the basic concept of there being portions of the game when I have less to do to be a problem. As noted, it gives the game a pleasant rhythm and gives me time to plot my next move.

insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Although I feel that at some point, sheer refusal to even consider that other points of view might be valid does seem likely to result in continued argument being construed as trolling.

I have considered that they might be valid, and come to the conclusion that they are not. I am open to changing this conclusion but it is going to require a strong argument in favor of IGOUGO, far stronger than anything that has been presented so far. And "that's just your opinion, man" is not even close.

Except you haven't, because you've approached it with the mindset that your position is the 'correct' one due to an 'objective' fact that you're entirely made up. People's reasons for liking IGOUGO aren't 'invalid'... they're just not things that convince you to like it.

'That's just your opinion, man' is a perfectly valid argument for a subjective value judgement.

I think at this point Pere is pretty much incapable of making the base distinction between sub vs objective.

Their conclusion is based on not quite understanding that someone can have a differing opinion. this is just S.O.P. for them.
The Peregrine Guide to Posting on dakkadakka checklist:
#1 come to a conclusion.
#2 deduce that it is the only logical/rational one (all while misunderstanding objectivity vs. subjectivity.)
#3 post broad generalizations about others, but do it in the most assholery way possible
#4 then proceed to state that everyone's position is wrong, irrespective of any external evidence(both anecdotal and not)
#5 Lather....Rinse....Repeat

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They are different approaches to game design that have wildly different variants under their umbrella.

Sure, and in all reasonable approaches to game design IGOUGO is a terrible mechanic. The only approach that leads to IGOUGO is "this is how our company did it in 1980 and that's how it always has to be".

That said, which version of alternating activation are we using here for the discussion? Is it one or two actions per unit per activation? Is it one activation per phase? Is it one activation per turn? Even AA has a lot of different varients and to argue against it we need to know what flavor of AA we're talking about first.

Any of them would be an improvement over IGOUGO. Once you acknowledge that IGOUGO is a terrible mechanic you can start considering the best option to replace it, but that's far past where we are now in this discussion.

I disagree. If we gave units 1 action a turn each it'd be turns of people shuffling around of just shooting their entrenched gunlines at each other.

Not every varient of AA suits 40k.

I'd be most in favor in it working in a phase by phase basis, but even then we could just end up with melee armies suffering further as they chase armies like Tau around the table who just move in reaction to the melee units moving closer.

 Crimson wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Narrative army builds can lean into taking subpar choices on the table to stick to a specific feel or apsect of lore, while competetive armies lean into finding the most powerful combos.

Then again, why are there subpar choices? Why not make those option better? One thing that bugged me on the video was when Gallagher was talking about taking stuff that was not so great but fitted thematically to the army. You are the rules writer, FFS! Making the things that are thematically appropriate for a given faction to also be worthwhile competitively for that faction is your fething job! If subfaction rules have to exist then that is what they should be doing.

I find it pretty telling no one commented on this. Here, I'll handle this, they let units be sub par, knowing they are subpar because what kind of fun would it be if you felt all your units were good ? You miss out on all the joy of wasting lots of money on units that get smashed in even relaxed casual match ups. The fact that they knew some units are stinkers, yet seemingly never actually make them better is pretty lame of them. Like Ogryns, they've been meh for a long long time. Now, Bullgryns do everything Ogryns would do just better and Ogryns still meh, probably for a long time yet. I call it the GW surprise mechanic, Surprise! You modeled that expensive kit wrong, maybe one day we'll make them good, or just play narrative. Would you like to know more ?