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.

I think Ogryns would probably be more liked if they had a bodyguard rule of some sort.

Andykp wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
So why even bring up the point of " Their use is they are cheap ", when that cheapness means nothing because it isn't reasonable enough for that to be considered a trait or even a real consideration point. You're better off spending more on Bullgryns and saving points elsewhere as one does the job and the other doesn't.

I brought it up in response to your previous point, which was that Ogryns are cheaper but should still be as good as Bullgryns, because that just isn't how points work.

If your point is now that the difference isn't significant enough to make Ogryns an attractive option, then that's potentially valid (I don't mathHammer, so I have no idea whether it is or not) but is a different point entirely. And if so, then making Ogryns better is only one of the potential fixes to that situation - you could also make Ogryns still cheaper, or make Bullgryns more expensive, depending on how that works in with the rest of the army.


Regardless of whether or not GW get the formula exactly right in any specific scenario, being cheaper than a better unit is a valid reason for taking something. Every unit shouldn't be equally effective, and less effective units should be cheaper.

As well, they are made from the same box so the fact they can't even dream up some way to make them both viable is pretty shocking.

It's not that shocking if you have been paying attention to the way GW have been designing army lists for the last 30 years. There's far less mathHammer, and far more 'That feels about right' going on than there tends to be in the online community, and they're not remotely interested in the form of play that revolves around optimised army lists. So it's less that they can't think of a way to fix the imbalance you're seeing, and more that they don't perceive it to need fixing because they play (and so design) a much more casual game than you do.

What the mod says is right. You also have to appreciate not every unit was designed with a specific role or gap to fill. Ogryns were brought in because space ogres would be cool. And this brings up old units that have had their role taken away by newer units. Thirty years of models and back ground their will be overlap.

Not every unit needs a unique role. Some units should be their so that people who like the, can have a choice. I housed rules Ogryn Mercs for ORKS and a criticism I got of the rules when I post them on here for feedback was that nobz with big choppas did the same job better. But that missed the point of why I wanted to have ogryns in my ORK army. It was because of nostalgia. And in a game I would be willing to pay more for a less effective unit because I really liked it and wanted it in my army. GW get this and make units like that for players like me.

Why does narrative=subpar?

Okay, your Ogryn argument has been so prevalent that I dug up my dex to look some things up. Here's how I see it:


Ogryns can shoot and fight at their base cost of 30pts each. There are no upgrades available to them.

Now the Bullgryns themselves, only cost 5 points more; they get either a +2 to their save (which is already +1 over an Ogryn) or a 4+ invulnerable for free. At this point, your argument about the cost difference not being enough to justify taking Ogryns instead is totally on point.

But unlike Ogryns, they MUST be equipped with either a decent HtH weapon at 7 points, or a shooty weapon at 10 points.

That shooty weapon, by the way? One less strength than the ripper gun and 1d6 shots as opposed to the ripper gun's guaranteed 3. An objectively worse weapon that you have to take at 10 extra points if you want the privilege of shooting at all.

So strictly in terms of offensive capacity:

For +12 points, a Bullgryn can be better in HTH, but have no shooting capacity.

For +15 points, a Bullgryn can be slightly worse at shooting, and equal in hand to hand.

Either way of course, Bullgryns are better defensively, which is why they cost either 40% (HtH build) or 50% (shooty build) more.

So for every 2 shooty bullgryns, you could buy 3 ogryns. I do think that discount is significant enough to be a selling factor.

For every 3 fighty bullgryns, you get 4 ogryns + an extra 6 points to spend elsewhere. This point differential is less selling factor, but remember that these bullgryns have no capacity for shooting- meaning the better differential comes with an additional penalty.

I'm assuming you usually kit your Bullryns out for HtH, because that's they only way to make their offensive output superior to their bargain bin brethren.

So, instead of 3 units of 6 bullgryns, you could have 3 units of 8 ogryns. That's an extra 18 shots, an extra 24 attacks on a charge or 18 in any other fight. It's also 18 more wounds.

Now it's true that because of the defensive disadvantages, fewer of the extra attacks will ever land, but you can't really say the same about the shots, because HtH bullgryns don't shoot at all!

What I would do is take 2 x 8 Ogryn and 1 x 6 Bullgryn. I'd advance them behind tanks, because most players will go for the tanks. I'd try to aim them at an isolated flank, but that's pretty situational.

Now, you might also say that nobody in their right mind would use that many Ogryns or Bullgryns. But I think the whole "value for points" debate usually a lot more nuanced than many Dakkanaughts think. For starters, the word "useless" is almost always hyperbole. One unit not being as good as another unit does not make the unit useless.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
So why even bring up the point of " Their use is they are cheap ", when that cheapness means nothing because it isn't reasonable enough for that to be considered a trait or even a real consideration point. You're better off spending more on Bullgryns and saving points elsewhere as one does the job and the other doesn't.

I brought it up in response to your previous point, which was that Ogryns are cheaper but should still be as good as Bullgryns, because that just isn't how points work.

If your point is now that the difference isn't significant enough to make Ogryns an attractive option, then that's potentially valid (I don't mathHammer, so I have no idea whether it is or not) but is a different point entirely. And if so, then making Ogryns better is only one of the potential fixes to that situation - you could also make Ogryns still cheaper, or make Bullgryns more expensive, depending on how that works in with the rest of the army.


Regardless of whether or not GW get the formula exactly right in any specific scenario, being cheaper than a better unit is a valid reason for taking something. Every unit shouldn't be equally effective, and less effective units should be cheaper.

As well, they are made from the same box so the fact they can't even dream up some way to make them both viable is pretty shocking.

It's not that shocking if you have been paying attention to the way GW have been designing army lists for the last 30 years. There's far less mathHammer, and far more 'That feels about right' going on than there tends to be in the online community, and they're not remotely interested in the form of play that revolves around optimised army lists. So it's less that they can't think of a way to fix the imbalance you're seeing, and more that they don't perceive it to need fixing because they play (and so design) a much more casual game than you do.

What the mod says is right. You also have to appreciate not every unit was designed with a specific role or gap to fill. Ogryns were brought in because space ogres would be cool. And this brings up old units that have had their role taken away by newer units. Thirty years of models and back ground their will be overlap.

Not every unit needs a unique role. Some units should be their so that people who like the, can have a choice. I housed rules Ogryn Mercs for ORKS and a criticism I got of the rules when I post them on here for feedback was that nobz with big choppas did the same job better. But that missed the point of why I wanted to have ogryns in my ORK army. It was because of nostalgia. And in a game I would be willing to pay more for a less effective unit because I really liked it and wanted it in my army. GW get this and make units like that for players like me.

Why does narrative=subpar?

Not what I was saying at all. Just can mean units can do similar jobs, not as well or less well than others. Not everything needs a a unique niche.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
So why even bring up the point of " Their use is they are cheap ", when that cheapness means nothing because it isn't reasonable enough for that to be considered a trait or even a real consideration point. You're better off spending more on Bullgryns and saving points elsewhere as one does the job and the other doesn't.

I brought it up in response to your previous point, which was that Ogryns are cheaper but should still be as good as Bullgryns, because that just isn't how points work.

If your point is now that the difference isn't significant enough to make Ogryns an attractive option, then that's potentially valid (I don't mathHammer, so I have no idea whether it is or not) but is a different point entirely. And if so, then making Ogryns better is only one of the potential fixes to that situation - you could also make Ogryns still cheaper, or make Bullgryns more expensive, depending on how that works in with the rest of the army.


Regardless of whether or not GW get the formula exactly right in any specific scenario, being cheaper than a better unit is a valid reason for taking something. Every unit shouldn't be equally effective, and less effective units should be cheaper.

As well, they are made from the same box so the fact they can't even dream up some way to make them both viable is pretty shocking.

It's not that shocking if you have been paying attention to the way GW have been designing army lists for the last 30 years. There's far less mathHammer, and far more 'That feels about right' going on than there tends to be in the online community, and they're not remotely interested in the form of play that revolves around optimised army lists. So it's less that they can't think of a way to fix the imbalance you're seeing, and more that they don't perceive it to need fixing because they play (and so design) a much more casual game than you do.

What the mod says is right. You also have to appreciate not every unit was designed with a specific role or gap to fill. Ogryns were brought in because space ogres would be cool. And this brings up old units that have had their role taken away by newer units. Thirty years of models and back ground their will be overlap.

Not every unit needs a unique role. Some units should be their so that people who like the, can have a choice. I housed rules Ogryn Mercs for ORKS and a criticism I got of the rules when I post them on here for feedback was that nobz with big choppas did the same job better. But that missed the point of why I wanted to have ogryns in my ORK army. It was because of nostalgia. And in a game I would be willing to pay more for a less effective unit because I really liked it and wanted it in my army. GW get this and make units like that for players like me.

No the mod is NOT right. Being cheaper means nothing when the equivalent points of Ogryns is always worse than the equivalent points of Bullgryns.

In other words, if you can't afford Bullgryns, it is pointless to even consider Ogryns as a reasonable substitute.

I never thought I'd ever agree with Slayer Fan, here I am agreeing with him. The underworld is very cold today. That is the real point. Cheapness is only a consideration if it actually means something. Ogryns have no use, when the designers have infinite space to dream up things they could do with them and don't. My point was never they should be as good as Bullgryns, my point was always just that they are cheaper but have the same role as Bullgryns but do it worse and the cheapness doesn't help them at all.

My further thoughts on it are that they could be given rules or ability to fill some sort of other role to make that cheapness mean something, or make them offensive and the Bullgryns more defensive by nature something to make them a viable choice, anything really. The advent of Bullgryns doesn't take away the fact that as long as I've played guard Ogryns have been a bad choice it just got shown quite clearly when they created Bullgryns who did what you wanted to do with Ogryns just better.

We even have someone saying they needed to dream up a way to use them out of army just to give them some kind of point. That is awful design, poor balance and not even good narrative drive if that is their intention. It's simple analysis to see which units does its job, which doesn't and if you have space to work, and they do, you can find the path to make it work. GW often times doesn't do it however. They settle and leave dead choices and that is a problem, intent or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
Okay, your Ogryn argument has been so prevalent that I dug up my dex to look some things up. Here's how I see it:


Ogryns can shoot and fight at their base cost of 30pts each. There are no upgrades available to them.

Now the Bullgryns themselves, only cost 5 points more; they get either a +2 to their save (which is already +1 over an Ogryn) or a 4+ invulnerable for free. At this point, your argument about the cost difference not being enough to justify taking Ogryns instead is totally on point.

But unlike Ogryns, they MUST be equipped with either a decent HtH weapon at 7 points, or a shooty weapon at 10 points.

That shooty weapon, by the way? One less strength than the ripper gun and 1d6 shots as opposed to the ripper gun's guaranteed 3. An objectively worse weapon that you have to take at 10 extra points if you want the privilege of shooting at all.

So strictly in terms of offensive capacity:

For +12 points, a Bullgryn can be better in HTH, but have no shooting capacity.

For +15 points, a Bullgryn can be slightly worse at shooting, and equal in hand to hand.

Either way of course, Bullgryns are better defensively, which is why they cost either 40% (HtH build) or 50% (shooty build) more.

So for every 2 shooty bullgryns, you could buy 3 ogryns. I do think that discount is significant enough to be a selling factor.

For every 3 fighty bullgryns, you get 4 ogryns + an extra 6 points to spend elsewhere. This point differential is less selling factor, but remember that these bullgryns have no capacity for shooting- meaning the better differential comes with an additional penalty.

I'm assuming you usually kit your Bullryns out for HtH, because that's they only way to make their offensive output superior to their bargain bin brethren.

So, instead of 3 units of 6 bullgryns, you could have 3 units of 8 ogryns. That's an extra 18 shots, an extra 24 attacks on a charge or 18 in any other fight. It's also 18 more wounds.

Now it's true that because of the defensive disadvantages, fewer of the extra attacks will ever land, but you can't really say the same about the shots, because HtH bullgryns don't shoot at all!

What I would do is take 2 x 8 Ogryn and 1 x 6 Bullgryn. I'd advance them behind tanks, because most players will go for the tanks. I'd try to aim them at an isolated flank, but that's pretty situational.

Now, you might also say that nobody in their right mind would use that many Ogryns or Bullgryns. But I think the whole "value for points" debate usually a lot more nuanced than many Dakkanaughts think. For starters, the word "useless" is almost always hyperbole. One unit not being as good as another unit does not make the unit useless.

Ogryns, are taken for the same reason you take Bullgryns, the difference is the defensive stand and better HTH which is much much better, is a big difference. Enough to make you not need to look at the Ogryns, value of their buy or not. As you already admit, the paper of their armor means you'd need more to ever make it into combat, making their cost difference pretty poor a selling point if you can consider it a selling point at all. No one is taking Ogryns for their ripper guns, they are meh at best and like I said, yes you could buff them ( the ripper guns ) up to make them a factor, but until then there is a reason in any list you could call competitive you'd only maybe see Bullgryns, and not Ogryns. Down playing the defensive boons out weighing in the limited shooting is not speaking in all honesty. Considering you can still use the grenade strat on the bullgryns who I believe keep the frag bombs so they'd all have a close range shooting attack for free with the cost of 1 command point of which a guard list has tons.

Also, who in their right mind would sacrifice an expensive tank, that might have a role, for protecting Ogryns who are supposed to be the value choice, shouldn't that be the other way around ? One unit does indeed make another useless if they serve the same job, just one works and one doesn't.

Ogryns are a CC support unit, with some very mild shooting. They want to charge into CC so do bullgryns, just without shooting or with more limited shooting. The real factor is Bullgryns can maybe live to see the line, Ogryns probably won't, Bullgryns can maybe live in the CC, Ogryns probably won't. They could buff Ogryns, but don't. and still have them cheaper so they feel like a choice and not a model mistake for new players.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:
But the point difference isn't big enough for anyone to ever take ogryns, unless someone plays some weird point armies and not 2000.

1750 is pretty common in Europe.
1500 aswell
1000 doubles and single also.

1750 is only for tournaments, never seen or heard anyone playing 1500pts. And for doubles you need someone who would want to play on your side. And that is not always the case.

The reasons (until recently with a ton of changes ) you always saw scouts over tacticals or just F it go get the loyal 32 is that there are to many units and weapons that don't care whether it's a terminator, an orgyn or a grot. They all die the same so I might as well just bring the most bodies and hope for screens and sixes to save the day

That is true for GK termintors and strikes/interceptors. A terminator costs twice as much as a strike, technicaly has +1W and +1sv, but because of the weapon used in 8th, his save doesn't really matter and 2W on a single model, instead of 2W on two separate models, is actualy a bad side. To top it all of the strikes bring in double the attacks and double the shoting for same points, making the termintor a horrible option for twice the points.

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:
But the point difference isn't big enough for anyone to ever take ogryns, unless someone plays some weird point armies and not 2000.

1750 is pretty common in Europe.
1500 aswell
1000 doubles and single also.

1750 is only for tournaments, never seen or heard anyone playing 1500pts. And for doubles you need someone who would want to play on your side. And that is not always the case.

Thats unfortunate, around my area 2000pts is maybe the most common but still less than half, many tournaments are run anywhere between 750 and 1850. I think lower points is actually tonnes of fun.
pas

@Ogryn vs Bullgryn.
The response from Insaniak was: You can't say that bullgryn are ALWAYS BETTER ALL THE TIME than Ogyrns, because Ogryns are better in one aspect (points). Yes, they're not cheaper enough to be justified in most situations, but it is still a possibility of game space that can be explored.
The really abysmal options in the game are ones where they have literally no redeeming features. Like when you find that Disintegrators do better damage vs every target in the game than Dark Lances, while being cheaper.
Thankfully those are few and far between, and much more common are the Ogryn vs Bullgryn debates, where one is clearly better.

The problem I have with those kind of debates, where one unit is clearly outperforming for its points cost, is that they are very easy to tell. And this gets back to the Rules writers's job - if Joe Random on the internet can pick up a codex and identify the best options with ease, why can't the designers do that? Its literally their job.

I don't know friend. Maybe it is expected that a new player will not read the codex, forums etc (happened to me) just go off and buy models. Build two units of normal ogryns, two units of bullgryns, and then find out that ogryns are meh, and then go out and buy a third box of bullgryns.

Also on the ogryns being cheaper, but less effective. In some cases, when you can't buy the good thing you want, like lets say bullgryns for something melee in an IG list, you are just not going to build the list or buy something totaly different for the points. Why spend X% less points on an inefficient unit of ogryns, when you can take the same points and spend it on something good.

GK have this with GM NDK and normal NDK. GMs are cheaper for the buffed stats, and rules they have. But if for what ever reason you would not be able to run GM NDKs, lets say you play in an event that says no monster HQs, your not going to take the less efficient NDK instead, because it is just crap. Doesn't matter that is 10 or 15 pts cheaper, then the superior GM version.

Karol wrote:

GK have this with GM NDK and normal NDK. GMs are cheaper for the buffed stats, and rules they have. But if for what ever reason you would not be able to run GM NDKs, lets say you play in an event that says no monster HQs, your not going to take the less efficient NDK instead, because it is just crap. Doesn't matter that is 10 or 15 pts cheaper, then the superior GM version.

This. Tau suffer from this also. Limiting the number of commanders we can take has not meant that anyone takes normal crisis suits or crisis bodyguards in competitive lists as limiting the number of commanders has not fixed the root cause of why commanders were being spammed whilst other crisis suits were left at home.

And this way tau armies end up as 3 riptides, 3 foot cmds with markers, some suit commanders and 2,000,000 drones.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
It's tragic sad that after all this time they've been around they've been bad. Couldn't they just figure out some imagine role for ogryns ? Maybe they have another special rule ? Give their ripper gun more capability ? Increase their movement for the lighter armor ? A number of other things could be done. They give lip service to the dream of balance.

It is particularly tragic when you consider the fact that Ogryns have never been good. Not even by accident. They're always been overcosted, susceptible to Instant Death, unable to reliably reach their targets, crippled by Ld 6, etc, depending on edition and codex. The best they did was probably in 2nd edition, and that's highly conjectural given the scarcity of anecdotes, nevermind data. It was something of a pastime of mine in the 4th / 5th edition days to houserule different ways to make the unit worth taking, but they never were.

In the end, I began to wish for them to be removed from the codex instead, to have them put out of their misery (because short ranged shock assault troops seemed contrary to how the IG list of the time was built, it was questionable if they should have had a place within it). And I felt that way not out of malice, but despair. I own 15 Ogryns which I've never been able to field all at once, because they cost as much as a Baneblade, yet could not reliably handle a squad of Dire Avengers worth maybe 20% of their points (and fared even worse against anything harder-hitting than that). They were a joke back then. I was actually laughed at for fielding them, doubly so since I'd spent so much time customizing my own squad with what I naively thought were good sculpting and painting efforts (they weren't, my entire army still looks like dogshit).

I think they need some sort of specific ogryn only rules. Maybe make the guns 12" range, but also auto hit like flamers. Or let ogryns be attached to squads like heavy weapon teams are.

Ripper guns actually used to automatically hit in 2nd edition. It was only at very short range, up to 6 or 8 inches or whatever the innermost range bracket was, but it was unique to them. The rationale being that at that range, throwing all those shotgun pellets at the enemy was bound to hit SOMETHING. Rippers were also Sustained Fire 2D weapons, I recall, so a squad of 5 ogryns could expect a decent amount of wound rolls.

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:
But the point difference isn't big enough for anyone to ever take ogryns, unless someone plays some weird point armies and not 2000.

1750 is pretty common in Europe.
1500 aswell
1000 doubles and single also.

1750 is only for tournaments, never seen or heard anyone playing 1500pts. And for doubles you need someone who would want to play on your side. And that is not always the case.

1500 is actually pretty common for me. 1000 or 2000 below that. Hardly ever see or play 1750 personally.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:
But the point difference isn't big enough for anyone to ever take ogryns, unless someone plays some weird point armies and not 2000.

1750 is pretty common in Europe.
1500 aswell
1000 doubles and single also.

1750 is only for tournaments, never seen or heard anyone playing 1500pts. And for doubles you need someone who would want to play on your side. And that is not always the case.

1500 is actually pretty common for me. 1000 or 2000 below that. Hardly ever see or play 1750 personally.

1500 was super common in 5th but big tournaments jumped to 2k in 6th and we've largely been there since.

I feel like if we dialed ot back to 1500 we might see less abuse in the system but you can't really expect people to put the genie back in the bottle.

I really like the VoxCast episodes with the rules designers and game developers. Also the Echoes from the Warp articles in White Dwarf.

In the round I think GW do a good job. 40K as a game is still as awesome as it's always been. There's too much errata (mistakes in GW's expensive printed rules), but once you've read it it's there online for reference - no need to print it and take it along to games. The FAQs are largely clarifications that I suspect most players don't need. As for needing over 100 rules publications to play, I get by with the BRB, latest CA and my codex (with supplement if I'm playing my SM army). So it seems does everyone else in my local gaming group. Many of us use BattleScribe too for convenience (to avoid writing anything down and having to add up ). It's also nice to share lists in advance of games via social media.

I've never played AA so I can't comment on how much better (or not) it might be, but I have no problem with IGOUGO. Similarly I like the detail of having different scale units in the game as well as individual statlines for all weapons. I'm sure there could be improvements to the rules, but I don't see it as the disaster that some people seem to. Why so many rules threads on here descend into strawman arguments and personal attacks is beyond me. You wouldn't think we all share a common hobby some of the time.

As for narrative vs matched play, I only play matched play, but might take a look at the narrative missions as there's a lot in the BRB and CA that I feel I might be missing out on. One thing I'm proposing to friends right now is a multiplayer game using the rules expansion in the BRB. I'm sure it won't be fair, but I suspect it'll be a good laugh.

 Brother Castor wrote:
I really like the VoxCast episodes with the rules designers and game developers. Also the Echoes from the Warp articles in White Dwarf.

In the round I think GW do a good job. 40K as a game is still as awesome as it's always been. There's too much errata (mistakes in GW's expensive printed rules), but once you've read it it's there online for reference - no need to print it and take it along to games. The FAQs are largely clarifications that I suspect most players don't need. As for needing over 100 rules publications to play, I get by with the BRB, latest CA and my codex (with supplement if I'm playing my SM army). So it seems does everyone else in my local gaming group. Many of us use BattleScribe too for convenience (to avoid writing anything down and having to add up ). It's also nice to share lists in advance of games via social media.

I've never played AA so I can't comment on how much better (or not) it might be, but I have no problem with IGOUGO. Similarly I like the detail of having different scale units in the game as well as individual statlines for all weapons. I'm sure there could be improvements to the rules, but I don't see it as the disaster that some people seem to. Why so many rules threads on here descend into strawman arguments and personal attacks is beyond me. You wouldn't think we all share a common hobby some of the time.

As for narrative vs matched play, I only play matched play, but might take a look at the narrative missions as there's a lot in the BRB and CA that I feel I might be missing out on. One thing I'm proposing to friends right now is a multiplayer game using the rules expansion in the BRB. I'm sure it won't be fair, but I suspect it'll be a good laugh.

They do no good job.
Infact even if we disregard IGOUGO issues and other core mechanics, if you are not imperium better pray that you get a propper update.

Honestly the fact we got people defending the IGOUGO system is bonkers, with the reasons for that being even stranger still.

Easy to learn? Seriously? If that's one of the best arguments someone can come up with, you really need to attempt to learn another game.

I think the summary of this whole debate is that we all like different aspects of the hobby. There are just some people who aren’t happy with that.

And I like igougo. Always have. I like turn based strategy games. Something about it appeals to me way of processing things. I’ve played alternate activation and I only like it for small skirmish games. Otherwise feels like you are going in one turn for ages. Gets stale quick. And you end up with units at around for ages doing nothing. Igougo feels like your army moves and fights as a whole.

And as said above. If you changed it or would not feel like the game I’ve played for 30 years. Because it would be a different game.

Andykp wrote:

And as said above. If you changed it or would not feel like the game I’ve played for 30 years. Because it would be a different game.

But there are people who have hated the game for thirty years, and who are somehow still incapable of letting go.

Andykp wrote:
I think the summary of this whole debate is that we all like different aspects of the hobby. There are just some people who aren’t happy with that.

And I like igougo. Always have. I like turn based strategy games. Something about it appeals to me way of processing things. I’ve played alternate activation and I only like it for small skirmish games. Otherwise feels like you are going in one turn for ages. Gets stale quick.

I like TBS games too, but even in Heroes of Might and Magic, in combat the different units fight in order according to their initiative value- you don't move/fight with all of yours before the AI takes its first action. Going "in one turn for ages" is the entire point of alternating activation- both players stay engaged with the battle the entire time, instead of making all their moves, then taking a nap.

And you end up with units at around for ages doing nothing. Igougo feels like your army moves and fights as a whole.

And as said above. If you changed it or would not feel like the game I’ve played for 30 years. Because it would be a different game.

Huh? How does trading priority after 2-3 activations leave units "sitting around for ages doing nothing?" That is precisely why many of us dislike IGOUGO so much- one player moves, shoots, assaults, then they do nothing for the next 20 minutes while the other person acts. Your army may be "fighting as a whole," but they aren't fighting the enemy really, since they can't respond to anything you do.

Because the units chosen last to do things sit around while other units do loads of stuff on both sides.

I like civilisation. It’s like 40k. You go. The opponents go. Straight forward and no shenanigans. You get reactions to certain things like overwatch. And get to fight back in close combat.

I also like my whole army moving and shooting as one. Operating as one. I am also a fan of the eb flow of a game of 40k. 1 good turn and you can turn around a game in your armies favour. It feels like your units are weathering a storm waiting for a counter attack opportunity. And you get the nerves of weathering your opponents turn then the anticipation of your chance to fight back. And I’m not sat there doing nothing in their turn. When not fighting back and rolling dice I’m planning my next turn and things I hope to do as long he doesn’t shoot up my unit etc.

Alternating activation works for skirmish games like killteam for me. But for bigger games, 50 power level + its igougo all the way. Like 40k should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Andykp wrote:

And as said above. If you changed it or would not feel like the game I’ve played for 30 years. Because it would be a different game.

But there are people who have hated the game for thirty years, and who are somehow still incapable of letting go.

Makes you wonder why they invest so much time, effort and money into something they hate so much.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly the fact we got people defending the IGOUGO system is bonkers, with the reasons for that being even stranger still.

Easy to learn? Seriously? If that's one of the best arguments someone can come up with, you really need to attempt to learn another game.

If that's what you took as the 'best' argument for IGOUGO, then you weren't actually paying attention. It was presented as an argument for IGOUGO, nothing more. You're free to disagree. The world would be a boring place if we all liked the same things.

I don't hate the current 40k rule set but AA leads to a lot more thinking and planning. It's among many reasons I think kill teams structure is much better than 40ks. I'm fine with certain actions happening all at once but shooting and psychic powers shouldn't be one of them. One good turn really means one good turn one alpha strike and for many games it's pretty much over turn one.

There are ways to mitigate that via terrain and mission types but going first is often way to decisive this edition.

Between Kill Team and Apoc it seems like GW is flirting with moving towards moving into an AA system in thd future, but it's hard to know if that plan will actually happen.

Andykp wrote:
Because the units chosen last to do things sit around while other units do loads of stuff on both sides.

I like civilisation. It’s like 40k. You go. The opponents go. Straight forward and no shenanigans. You get reactions to certain things like overwatch. And get to fight back in close combat.

I also like my whole army moving and shooting as one. Operating as one. I am also a fan of the eb flow of a game of 40k. 1 good turn and you can turn around a game in your armies favour. It feels like your units are weathering a storm waiting for a counter attack opportunity. And you get the nerves of weathering your opponents turn then the anticipation of your chance to fight back. And I’m not sat there doing nothing in their turn. When not fighting back and rolling dice I’m planning my next turn and things I hope to do as long he doesn’t shoot up my unit etc.

Alternating activation works for skirmish games like killteam for me. But for bigger games, 50 power level + its igougo all the way. Like 40k should be.

Which units are last changes each turn. Someone will always be 'last." Even with IGOUGO, one of your units is always last to move, to shoot, to make melee attacks and so on. Things like Overwatch or reactive close combat attacks are things you will always, or nearly always do- not much of a choice. Rolling saves is even worse, because that's all dice. They are things that, in a videogame, would be done automatically. Sure, you "weather the storm," but that's just it- gameplay revolves around attrition, outlasting the other guy, not actively making decisions.

Andykp wrote:
Because the units chosen last to do things sit around while other units do loads of stuff on both sides.

I like civilisation. It’s like 40k. You go. The opponents go. Straight forward and no shenanigans. You get reactions to certain things like overwatch. And get to fight back in close combat.

I also like my whole army moving and shooting as one. Operating as one. I am also a fan of the eb flow of a game of 40k. 1 good turn and you can turn around a game in your armies favour. It feels like your units are weathering a storm waiting for a counter attack opportunity. And you get the nerves of weathering your opponents turn then the anticipation of your chance to fight back. And I’m not sat there doing nothing in their turn. When not fighting back and rolling dice I’m planning my next turn and things I hope to do as long he doesn’t shoot up my unit etc.

Alternating activation works for skirmish games like killteam for me. But for bigger games, 50 power level + its igougo all the way. Like 40k should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Andykp wrote:

And as said above. If you changed it or would not feel like the game I’ve played for 30 years. Because it would be a different game.

But there are people who have hated the game for thirty years, and who are somehow still incapable of letting go.

Makes you wonder why they invest so much time, effort and money into something they hate so much.

You know what makes more sense than the whole army moving at once?

Both armies actually doing that. Your complaint about AA makes NO sense because the opponent doesn't do anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Between Kill Team and Apoc it seems like GW is flirting with moving towards moving into an AA system in thd future, but it's hard to know if that plan will actually happen.

It would solve a LOT of issues with the game, as much as the defenders of IGOUGO wouldn't like to admit because "lemme shoot you and charge you and THEN see what's left of your army to kill me!" is somehow more realistic for how armies work?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly the fact we got people defending the IGOUGO system is bonkers, with the reasons for that being even stranger still.

Easy to learn? Seriously? If that's one of the best arguments someone can come up with, you really need to attempt to learn another game.

If that's what you took as the 'best' argument for IGOUGO, then you weren't actually paying attention. It was presented as an argument for IGOUGO, nothing more. You're free to disagree. The world would be a boring place if we all liked the same things.

It literally IS the best argument for IGOUGO. The other defenses literally make no sense and are amazing mental gymnastics.

If we get an AA system I sincerely want Apoc's where casualties tally at end of turn.

Just adding that to the IGOUGO system would make alpha strike a whole lot less deadly.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If we get an AA system I sincerely want Apoc's where casualties tally at end of turn.

I really don't like that. It removes a lot of potential for targeting priority tactics.