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.

 Sentineil wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

my army alone had 12 Grenadier upgraded squads.
it's as simple as a tick box. And as simple as you make it modelling wise.
That is not valid as an excuse imo for misshandeling traits and warlord interactions as GW does.
Also warlord traits allready don't scale well, cough knights cough.

Sorry, I didn't mean number of squads, I meant if you had a number of different traits, which will all have variable value depending on the unit it's attached to.

A trait of reroll 1s is a lot more valuable to a leman Russ than a squad of infantry, which means individual prices for units for each potential trait. It just seems like it gets messy fast.

No you would ofcourse go back and limit the traits by a only allowing 1 trait carrier E.g. Warlord and secondly upgrades and abilities were tied to specific units.
Recycling only worked on militia and only if atleast 15+ models were in the squad.
Grenadiers upgrade only for vets.
And you get only one of these.

And by jove, just finally remove rerolls. Especially in conjunction with auras.

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Tons of issues cannot BE fixed because of IGOUGO. Melee armies will always suffer, Alpha + Beta Strike will ALWAYS be king, and complete deletion of 15-25% of the opponent's army without appropriate response is garbage.

Of course they can be fixed. If the problem with the current IGOUGO system is that you can suffer too many casualties before you get to respond, then the way to fix it is to reduce the amount of damage that can be caused in a single turn, and/or give players ways to respond.

The ease with which stuff dies has been one of my issues with 40K for a very long time now... Even aside from a balance perspective, it's a bit crappy when that unit that you really like, or that new thing that you were excited to get onto the table, doesn't actually get to do anything before being obliterated. I trot this story out every time this sort of discussion comes up - but I bought the metal/plastic hybrid Vindicator kit when it was first released in 3rd edition, and it was at least a decade before it actually got to shoot anything before being destroyed.

Removing IGOUGO isn't necessary to fix that. Making it harder to hurt things, and giving players more reactive options and better ways to utilise cover would go a long way. Reintroducing Overwatch was a good start, but it should have been more akin to the 2nd edition version, and been accompanied by other reaction options like taking cover or falling back from enemy attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Community survey that led to Sisters
Legitimate and regular rebalancing
Two week FAQs and regular updates
A plethora of specialist games and avenues into the hobby
Some attempt at playtesting

What about those things is just marketing?

To be fair, the first one was just marketing. They didn't release Sisters because a survey said it would be a good idea. They released Sisters because they finally had plastics technology good enough to do the models properly. Pinning it on the survey was just marketing spin.


But yes, GW's attitude towards supporting their core games has certainly changed from late 5th/6th/7th edition, and it's good to see.

This has been an issue since 3rd "everything is too lethal" with unit deleting happening very often. As these complaints have gone on for YEARS, don't you think the fact that everyone does everything at once...then you go, MiGHT be the primary issue?

No. Because I think that if the problem with the current IGOUGO system is that you can suffer too many casualties before you get to respond, then the way to fix it is to reduce the amount of damage that can be caused in a single turn, and/or give players ways to respond.

Switching to alternating activation wouldn't change the fact that stuff dies too easily.

 insaniak wrote:
No. Because I think that if the problem with the current IGOUGO system is that you can suffer too many casualties before you get to respond, then the way to fix it is to reduce the amount of damage that can be caused in a single turn, and/or give players ways to respond.

Switching to alternating activation wouldn't change the fact that stuff dies too easily.

Well it would allow for more balanced situation where killing power would be slightly blunted but yeah it would not solve killing power issues of certain problem units.

It was mitigated somewhat in previous editions by being able to just cram more terrain on the board... (although that didn't work for those tournaments with insufficient terrain, or players who insisted on playing in planet Bowling Ball) but from what I've heard, that's less effective with the current terrain rules.


For my money, 40K with alternating activation wouldn't be 40K. I would much rather see the game tweaked and balanced around the existing turn structure than have it turned into a completely different game.

 insaniak wrote:
No. Because I think that if the problem with the current IGOUGO system is that you can suffer too many casualties before you get to respond, then the way to fix it is to reduce the amount of damage that can be caused in a single turn, and/or give players ways to respond.

Switching to alternating activation wouldn't change the fact that stuff dies too easily.

Would still be skewed, though. Lets say your opponent has units of the castellan or repulsor type. They engange one or two units you own, probably destroying them. If you have fewer models on the table, or your army is limited in the number units that can delete other units, the end result is going to be the same. Because either your opponent will feed you chaff units, which killing is not going lower his ability to kill your stuff, or if you can't hide your whole army, or have to move on to objective, they are going to be killing them anyway. doesn't matter if the IGYG is done per unit or per army in the end.

 insaniak wrote:
No. Because I think that if the problem with the current IGOUGO system is that you can suffer too many casualties before you get to respond, then the way to fix it is to reduce the amount of damage that can be caused in a single turn, and/or give players ways to respond.

Switching to alternating activation wouldn't change the fact that stuff dies too easily.

Per my point though, how toned down do you need to make lethality before the game is just hordes holding objectives indefinitely though?

IGOUGO is the problem, and pretending it's part of 40k's identity is really holding the game back.

Well maybe it is not as much a problem of lethality, but how many models there can be on the table? when most armies run around with 60-80 plus models, out of which some a multi wound vehicles, the game has to be lethal, otherwise it would be like armoured dudes slapping each other with wet towels.

the fix could be smaller armies, and few units being used. Big units not being part of normal games. But the chance of this ever happening is exactly zero.

Karol wrote:
Well maybe it is not as much a problem of lethality, but how many models there can be on the table? when most armies run around with 60-80 plus models, out of which some a multi wound vehicles, the game has to be lethal, otherwise it would be like armoured dudes slapping each other with wet towels.

the fix could be smaller armies, and few units being used. Big units not being part of normal games. But the chance of this ever happening is exactly zero.

Chicken/egg. If a unit can be casually one-rounded as easily as it can in 8e if you aren't playing 80+ models you just get tabled.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Per my point though, how toned down do you need to make lethality before the game is just hordes holding objectives indefinitely though?

There's a balance. Hordes should die easily but make up for it in numbers. More elite troops should be much more difficult to kill.

IGOUGO is the problem, and pretending it's part of 40k's identity is really holding the game back.

There is no 'pretending'. The core of a game's structure does form a part of that game's identity. If you change the fundamental nature of the game's structure, you have a different game.

IGOUGO is not the problem, and switching to an alternating activation system just because everyone else is doing it wouldn't fix the actual underlying problems, which are down to balance, not structural issues. Making 40K into a different game wouldn't do anything to bring me back, because I don't want to play a different game, I want to play 40K.

Which, incidentally, is why I'm not playing 8th. It was too big a departure from the game I enjoyed playing. When I do find time to get back into 40K, it will be a home-edited version of either 5th or 2nd edition.

I have often wondered about this question..

Waiting for positive change.

Indeed, trying to encourage it.

Tonight, let myself watch the new Scorp 82 batrep after work.
Took some time, had some wine.

His tables were always pretty, but these days...
not so much. Well, having to completely block line of sight seemed to force a certain scenery selection, that's all...
Not to speak badly of the guy, I have been a big fan for years.

But, batreps before 8th were... more dramatic.
Better.

And all this talk about "lists"...
cards littering the table... re-roll upon re-roll.
Units shooting through units.
Charges intended to wrap around, tie up, take advantage of wobbly model syndrome gak...

Funny, but the scale that would work on a table this size is exactly that which is unrepresented in GW's product line.

Almost as if they intend the game to be broken, to draw people into their own maelstrom of consumption.

Where is the scale between Kill Team and 40k
with initiative and strength to balance H2H against ranged attacks?

Where is the realism that makes having such gorgeous terrain worth it in the first place?
Now people WANT to play with cardboard boxes because they block line of sight?

Why not have rules for shooting through windows,
and use line of sight to individiual models,
with sensible ranges and variable movement,
charges a multiple of movement mediated by terrain,
cover defensible, some more than others,
so troops entrenchable,
overwatch used to catch units in crossfires,
and ... a turn of movement and tactics before shppting across the table through anything that isn't made from a cardboard box?

Oh, yeah, and no blast templates.

Combo gotcha gimmicky garbage.

Ew.

Playing Kill Team, which I suppose is technically 40K.

Might do an eldar army in the future...

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Per my point though, how toned down do you need to make lethality before the game is just hordes holding objectives indefinitely though?

There's a balance. Hordes should die easily but make up for it in numbers. More elite troops should be much more difficult to kill.

IGOUGO is the problem, and pretending it's part of 40k's identity is really holding the game back.

There is no 'pretending'. The core of a game's structure does form a part of that game's identity. If you change the fundamental nature of the game's structure, you have a different game.

IGOUGO is not the problem, and switching to an alternating activation system just because everyone else is doing it wouldn't fix the actual underlying problems, which are down to balance, not structural issues. Making 40K into a different game wouldn't do anything to bring me back, because I don't want to play a different game, I want to play 40K.

Which, incidentally, is why I'm not playing 8th. It was too big a departure from the game I enjoyed playing. When I do find time to get back into 40K, it will be a home-edited version of either 5th or 2nd edition.

IGOUGO isn't part of the core identity of 40k. The setting itself is. Apocalypse is functioning. Killteam is functioning. Necromunda is functioning.

Why isn't 40k? What's hindering 40k in each bloody edition that has come out? There IS a common factor with everything that has been tried but NEVER changed.

Move, shoot, assault. (Plus a psychic phase, lately).

The d6.

Marines with spikes are Chaos.

IGO,UGO


Don’t get me wrong, I think implementing some kind of interleaved turn structure would be good. But really, it’s pretty much a core element of the game of 40k.

Also, let it go. You’re getting to be a bit of a running joke by bringing up IGOUGO at *every* opportunity. We get it, you don’t like it. It doesn’t have to be pistols at dawn every single time the notion enters your noggin.

Pfft, If I'm drawing pistols it's happening around late afternoon, I'm sleeping in. Not going to wake up early just to risk death, would rather do that sometime after lunch.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

IGOUGO isn't part of the core identity of 40k. The setting itself is.

If 40K had the same setting, but used the rules for Monopoly, it wouldn't be 40K. It would be a completely different game set in the 40K universe. The structure of the game is what makes the game. The setting is just the stuff that makes it pretty, and makes you (hopefully) care about the factions that you choose from... changing the setting doesn't change the actual experience of playing the game. Changing the rules does.

Apocalypse is functioning. Killteam is functioning. Necromunda is functioning.

Why isn't 40k?

I like hyperbole as much as the next 20 billion people, but that's overstating things more than a little. 40K is functioning. It might not be functioning the way you want it to, but the resurgence in popularity since 8th edition dropped suggests that plenty of people out there are enjoying it just fine.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

IGOUGO isn't part of the core identity of 40k. The setting itself is. Apocalypse is functioning. Killteam is functioning. Necromunda is functioning.

than it should not be a big problem to replace standard 40k with Apocalypse for the standard 1500-2000 points

it has the better rules, better balanced, plays faster and as the core of 40k is just the setting no one should care which rules are used.
You just need to announce that the next big torunament will be with Apo rules and everyone should be happy

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well maybe it is not as much a problem of lethality, but how many models there can be on the table? when most armies run around with 60-80 plus models, out of which some a multi wound vehicles, the game has to be lethal, otherwise it would be like armoured dudes slapping each other with wet towels.

the fix could be smaller armies, and few units being used. Big units not being part of normal games. But the chance of this ever happening is exactly zero.

Chicken/egg. If a unit can be casually one-rounded as easily as it can in 8e if you aren't playing 80+ models you just get tabled.

well that is great, but then GW has to either make elite armies super resilient or rethink how they cost stuff, because what they do right now makes no sense if they test it only for internal or only for external balance.

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well maybe it is not as much a problem of lethality, but how many models there can be on the table? when most armies run around with 60-80 plus models, out of which some a multi wound vehicles, the game has to be lethal, otherwise it would be like armoured dudes slapping each other with wet towels.

the fix could be smaller armies, and few units being used. Big units not being part of normal games. But the chance of this ever happening is exactly zero.

Chicken/egg. If a unit can be casually one-rounded as easily as it can in 8e if you aren't playing 80+ models you just get tabled.

well that is great, but then GW has to either make elite armies super resilient or rethink how they cost stuff, because what they do right now makes no sense if they test it only for internal or only for external balance.

A lot of elite army are not really elite at the scale of 40k. THere is only so much you can do when there is supposed to be units/tanks that blow most infantry up no matter what defense they have.
ANd with the shift the game has gone, i wonder if they have made that balance even harder.

Its at this point i wonder if the stats as a base are just not up to what they want on the battlefield.

I don't play 40k but i maniacally play Kill Team. And there are no really live places in the internet where Kill Team is discussed.
Reddit and 4chan thread claim to have Kill Team as their main topic, but actially their main topic is "Look, i can paint my miniatures".
And while this place is not about KT, it seems to have something close to it So i am just trying to distract myself.

of course the stats are not up date for the specific battlefield roles

the stats we have for most units are still written for 7th edition core rules and not for 8th

I play Oldhammer 40K a few times a year. The reason why I visit this site is to inform myself how 40K itself degrades as time goes by. It´s the same with train wrecks. They are terrible to behold but you can´t turn your eyes away when you are exposed to them.

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Per my point though, how toned down do you need to make lethality before the game is just hordes holding objectives indefinitely though?

There's a balance. Hordes should die easily but make up for it in numbers. More elite troops should be much more difficult to kill.

IGOUGO is the problem, and pretending it's part of 40k's identity is really holding the game back.

There is no 'pretending'. The core of a game's structure does form a part of that game's identity. If you change the fundamental nature of the game's structure, you have a different game.

IGOUGO is not the problem, and switching to an alternating activation system just because everyone else is doing it wouldn't fix the actual underlying problems, which are down to balance, not structural issues. Making 40K into a different game wouldn't do anything to bring me back, because I don't want to play a different game, I want to play 40K.

Which, incidentally, is why I'm not playing 8th. It was too big a departure from the game I enjoyed playing. When I do find time to get back into 40K, it will be a home-edited version of either 5th or 2nd edition.

True, the turn structure is part of the game's identity. That does not preclude it from being problematic, however. Much of 40k's problems really are systemic. Balance in particular, is something that, for the scope of 40k, can be achieved either by simplifying the game further, introducing more homogeneity than probably anyone wants, or writing a more complex framework to operate within. If 40k's mechanical identity were to change, it may still be a better, more enjoyable game.

Other systems using AA is not a good reason for 40k to switch. Opening up new gameplay possibilities, making balance between and within the factions easier, is. Familiarity is not enough of a reason to maintain the status quo. Not all changes are good. But not making positive changes out of a desire for comfort isn't any better.

In my experience, IGOUGO games where you can respond during the opponent's turn only work when the game has hidden information. 40k has no hidden information.

another solution is too expand the Action/Reaction System to all phases (and clean it up)

as you can strike back in combat if you are in range, it should be possible in all phases but therefore removing anything that interrupts an action (like overwatch)

limit it to a small range so that it is not time consuming and you get more interaction, less Alpha strike capabilities and still keep IGoUGo

 kodos wrote:
another solution is too expand the Action/Reaction System to all phases (and clean it up)

as you can strike back in combat if you are in range, it should be possible in all phases but therefore removing anything that interrupts an action (like overwatch)

limit it to a small range so that it is not time consuming and you get more interaction, less Alpha strike capabilities and still keep IGoUGo

I am skeptical this will work. For reactions to work well, it seems that players need to be able to surprise each other, like in Magic, You can't do that in a game like 40k, where all knowledge is, must be, shared with your opponents.

The phases, too, I think greatly restrict what is possible to do during games, as well as make balance difficult, and just generally inhibit smooth, dynamic gameplay.

it not necessary need to be a surprise to work but in the case of 40k it will add another risk/reward mechanism

like moving to close in the movement phase can trigger a reaction but will be an advantage for shooting/assault

the only thing that could be a problem would be to less LOS blocking terrain, but Terrain rules need to be re-written anyway

For me it is the Sunk cost fallacy, mixed with a nostalgia for when I used to enjoy the game.

Still really like the background and (most of) the models, but the rules are so bad that they have become a joke. Which is at the very least entertaining.

I do hope that GW fix the situation, as they have proven recently that they can make good rule systems when they put their mind to it.

I am on an extended break from 40k but the reason I keep following it is the hope that things eventually balance out. Wishful thinking I know at this point, since "good enough" is the rule of the day, but I hope that I'll feel it's in a decent place and can play some casual games again soon.

Blastaar wrote:

True, the turn structure is part of the game's identity. That does not preclude it from being problematic, however. Much of 40k's problems really are systemic. Balance in particular, is something that, for the scope of 40k, can be achieved either by simplifying the game further, introducing more homogeneity than probably anyone wants, or writing a more complex framework to operate within. If 40k's mechanical identity were to change, it may still be a better, more enjoyable game.

Maybe. But it would still be a different game, and that sucks for people who like the existing game. The bigger the change, the bigger the risk of alienating your existing playerbase, even if the end result is a 'better' game.


I'd rather see GW experiment with those different mechanics in different games, as they've done with Apocalypse, rather than changing 40K in such a fundamental way.

In my experience, IGOUGO games where you can respond during the opponent's turn only work when the game has hidden information. 40k has no hidden information.

That would be the case where you only have one option (and is part of why Overwatch in its current form is rather lame... it's not a tactical choice, it's just an automatic reaction to being charged). The 'hidden' information comes from your opponent having multiple reaction options and you having to guess which one they are likely to choose in a given situation.