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.

 catbarf wrote:

tneva82 wrote:It's also faster to do than "right" order.

Consider ten boltgun hits on a group of Space Marines. Ten rolls to wound, and about half wound, so then about five armor saves. But if you did armor first, you'd make ten saves, and then only about three would pass, followed by three wound rolls.

In any case where a target is more likely to pass its save than the attacker is to wound it, doing armor and then wounding results in fewer rolls overall. The reverse is true when a target is less likely to pass its save than it is to be wounded.

It's not the number of shots but counting and opponent picking dices. Now attacker can just pick hits and roll again for wound. "correct" order you need to actually count and opponent pick up correct dice number twice. Currently no need to count succesfull hits. Just roll all dices.

It literally results in slower game without any benefit. To get rid of this would require dropping stage(save) completely. Which means either changing from d6 to other dice or variance between units go less and there would be even less difference between say leman russ and land raider

As other's have said, its just efficient to do this order. Player A picks up the hits and rolls them for wound. Easy peasy.

Also:
To get rid of one or the other of wound/save the rolls, but still have the unit differentiation they represent would require moving to a different die. AND you'd have to do more modifier math.
Another aspect is that combining the rolls on a single larger die would be more swingy.

rbstr wrote:
As other's have said, its just efficient to do this order. Player A picks up the hits and rolls them for wound. Easy peasy.

Also:
To get rid of one or the other of wound/save the rolls, but still have the unit differentiation they represent would require moving to a different die. AND you'd have to do more modifier math.
Another aspect is that combining the rolls on a single larger die would be more swingy.

This is not true. Moving to a larger die is one option, that's all. This depends on whether a system is built upon fixed rolls, or comparing one value to another to determine the minimum roll needed to succeed, as well as many other factors, like terrain and morale rules.

Sumilidon wrote:
So although this is a bit random, does anyone else think the wounding sequence is just wrong?

Yes I get it, it’s a game and yes we shouldn’t lean too much into reality, but the wounding sequence is blatantly out of step.

Step 1 - roll to hit
Step 2 - roll to wound
Step 3 - roll to save
Step 4 - any additional saves

It should be

Step 1 - roll to hit
Step 2 - roll to save
Step 3 - roll to wound
Step 4 - any additional saves.

Rationale is simple - the save effectively represents the offending object hitting something like armour for example. Armour fails, then it’s a question of how badly it wounds what is under it. The traditional sequence in the context of being shot would be that you’re hit with a bullet, your wounded by the bullet, and then time rolls backwards as your armour stops it.

It’s just plain wrong.

I like your idea.

But I disagree with your qualification.

I think that the realism is what helps people communicate and coordinate expectations about what is supposed to be happening on the table.
Otherwise, it is all rules lawyering trivia card deck building combo playing trickery.

tneva82 wrote:
It's not the number of shots but counting and opponent picking dices. Now attacker can just pick hits and roll again for wound. "correct" order you need to actually count and opponent pick up correct dice number twice. Currently no need to count succesfull hits. Just roll all dices.

To get rid of this would require dropping stage(save) completely. Which means either changing from d6 to other dice or variance between units go less and there would be even less difference between say leman russ and land raider

...Or just have armor penetration rolled by the attacker. If you guys really care about efficiency, the defender shouldn't be involved in the attack sequence to begin with. The handoff for saves just slows down combat resolution, and adds more weird leaps of logic (eg, I can command point re-roll my shot's likelihood to wound, but not its likelihood to penetrate armor).

In any case, I can name you plenty of D6-based games that involve a fraction as many rolls than 40K, and yet still manage to have comparable or greater depth in their unit modeling. 40K's granular series of individual trials for each step of combat is one way to do it, but it's far from the only way.

Considering that dice are one of the major ways to cheat in this game, forcing your opponent to pick up the successful prior dice and not have to ignore the dicing portions of the game is a reason for the OP's suggestion, not a reason against it.

 Flinty wrote:
The weapon strength isn't irrelevant in that case, it's just rolled into a single roll tone if the firing undertaken by a single.model is effective or not. You could also come up with a mechanic that takes into account the rate of fire of the weapon as well but that would require a substantial reworking of how current multi-wound models are dealt with.

The old stargrunt rules for example had a simple opposed dice roll between the attached and defender. Rolling different types of die (d4, d6, d10 etc) depending on the quality of the troops, the amount of firepower being carried by a squad, the range and any cover that might be involved. It is a really elegant system, but doesnt really have the same buckets of dice feel that GW has gone for.

Because you wouldnt know if it wounds you until its gone through your armour.

I get what the OP is saying and it annoyed me since 1980's

The whole system is an abstraction. Whether you roll for armour first, or to.wound first makes no real diffeence in terms of game mechanics. The entire dice rolling rigmarole is just to see if the action being taken by one model/unit (I.e. shooting or hitting them) is effective in making the target combat ineffective. Modifiers are there to make it more or less.likely for the action to be effective, so if the order of the dice rolling changes then the modifiers would also have to change to have the precise same.effdct but it could be done.

I get is an abstract....but its always baffled me.

You manage to hit somebody, you wound them.

Oh wait, you havnt wound them, the armor they are wearing stops the wound...that you have already done to them.

In terms of text, would make much better sense to say I hit you, your armour has failed to stop the shot....and it has now left you wounded.

Armour saves have nothing to do with breaking up IGOUGO, it was to add another layer of operation to help differentiate units from one another. The order is the way it is because it's quicker for the attacker to roll a bunch of dice and then pick up the hits and roll again immediately, then the defender only needs to pick a handful of dice for wounding.

IGO-UGO is the by far best system and the main reason people play 40K.

Tried a few alternatives like Bolt Action, Infinity, etc.. and they are absolutely terrible, IMO.

That said, if you like those systems, they are out there. The market is not lacking for options for people who don't enjoy IGO-UGO.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
IGO-UGO is the by far best system and the main reason people play 40K.

Tried a few alternatives like Bolt Action, Infinity, etc.. and they are absolutely terrible, IMO.

That said, if you like those systems, they are out there. The market is not lacking for options for people who don't enjoy IGO-UGO.

People play 40k for IGOUGO?

Blastaar wrote:


People play 40k for IGOUGO?

Definitely. What other game would you recommend to somebody looking for an IGOUGO sci-fi miniature wargame with as few as possible of the unnecessary, clumsy and messy back-and-forth BS all those kickstarters, etc.. put in to appease today's ADD hipster kids?

Sunny Side Up wrote:
IGO-UGO is the by far best system and the main reason people play 40K.

Tried a few alternatives like Bolt Action, Infinity, etc.. and they are absolutely terrible, IMO.

I'm assuming this is some really terrible joke right?

Well now we all can no longer state "I want a IGOUGO, said no one ever."

The wounding sequence can make sense if you think of it like this. Hit rolls are "Did this hit them at all?" Wound rolls are "Did this hit them in a place/in a way that will wound/kill them if their armor/shield fails?" Armor/Invuln saves are "Did their armor/shield fail?"
For example, a marine shoots a guardsman:
Hit roll of 2 so the bolter completely wiffs.
Hit roll of 6 so the bolter round hits the guardsman. Wound roll of 1: The round deflects off the guardsman's shoulder pad and detonates safely 10 yards behind him.
Hit roll of 6 so the bolter round hits the guardsman. Wound roll of 5 so the round slams square into the guardsman's chest armor. Armor save of 6: The bolter round slams into the flak vest and detonates knocking the guardsman to the ground. The guardsman picks himself up and is amazed the armor held.
Hit roll of 6 so the bolter round hits the guardsman. Wound roll of 5 so the round slams square into the guardsman's chest armor. Armor save of 1: The bolter round slams into his vest and detonates turning the guardsman into hamburger.

 alextroy wrote:
Well now we all can no longer state "I want a IGOUGO, said no one ever."

Why would that be a problem? As long as there're games on the market for every taste and flavour, all should be well. Diversity is the key to happiness for all.

It only becomes a problem if game-designers converge on one type of game system, whether it's 40K going towards alternating activation or Infinity, etc.. going to IGO-UGO or whatever, and some players end up with no game catering to their preferences.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Well now we all can no longer state "I want a IGOUGO, said no one ever."

Why would that be a problem? As long as there're games on the market for every taste and flavour, all should be well. Diversity is the key to happiness for all.

It only becomes a problem if game-designers converge on one type of game system, whether it's 40K going towards alternating activation or Infinity, etc.. going to IGO-UGO or whatever, and some players end up with no game catering to their preferences.

He didn't say it's a problem. He made a joke about how that's an incredibly rare opinion.

Igougo is inherently bad in my opinion and 40k is popular not because of it, but despite of it.
I'd love to introduce Bolt Action or Legion style initiative to 40k,and Apocalypse is already testing the waters, if you ask me.

nekooni wrote:

He didn't say it's a problem. He made a joke about how that's an incredibly rare opinion.

Igougo is inherently bad in my opinion and 40k is popular not because of it, but despite of it.
I'd love to introduce Bolt Action or Legion style initiative to 40k,and Apocalypse is already testing the waters, if you ask me.

Perhaps. Though I know quite a few people who played around with things like Bolt Action and came back to 40K.

If you prefer those games, why not play those? Even with 40K miniatures if you prefer the aesthetic and lore of GW?

Whether rare or not, a market with games catering to preference A and games catering to preference B is inarguably always going to be better than a market with only games catering to preference B and players prefering A being left out, no?

Sunny Side Up wrote:

nekooni wrote:

He didn't say it's a problem. He made a joke about how that's an incredibly rare opinion.

Igougo is inherently bad in my opinion and 40k is popular not because of it, but despite of it.
I'd love to introduce Bolt Action or Legion style initiative to 40k,and Apocalypse is already testing the waters, if you ask me.

Perhaps. Though I know quite a few people who played around with things like Bolt Action and came back to 40K.

If you prefer those games, why not play those?

I do, how is this relevant? I'm still a 40k player, too.

Even with 40K miniatures if you prefer the aesthetic and lore of GW?

Because that doesn't work. How would you go and play Tyranids in Bolt Action, for example? The entire idea crashes at the point where you realise that there are tons of things you'd have to introduce to those other rule sets, and you only have to introduce ONE thing, an alternative initiative system, to 40k. Just like Apocalypse did, for example. It's easy, it works and it's way more engaging in my opinion.

But none of that was my point. My point was that I think that igougo isn't the reason why people prefer 40k. I think it'd quite the opposite, because, as you said - "why not play something without igougo?"

Warmachine is the only other commercially successful pure IGOUGO wargame I can think of, and that's entirely because it is a conscious design decision to facilitate the combos that form the core of Warmachine's gameplay.

Even otherwise relatively IGOUGO games like Starship Troopers (Andy Chambers '40k 2.0' project after leaving GW) and Dust incorporate some form of reaction system to break up the IGOUGO paradigm. Now Apocalypse is joining in.

I, too, have never before heard anyone actively praise the completely non-interactive IGOUGO that 40K runs on. I guess there's a first for everything. I play 40K in spite of its terribly antiquated turn structure, not because of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Blastaar wrote:


People play 40k for IGOUGO?

Definitely. What other game would you recommend to somebody looking for an IGOUGO sci-fi miniature wargame with as few as possible of the unnecessary, clumsy and messy back-and-forth BS all those kickstarters, etc.. put in to appease today's ADD hipster kids?

I was going to recommend Beyond the Gates of Antares (written by Rick Priestly), but apparently it, too, has a reaction system.

If simple reaction systems are there to 'appease today's ADD hipster kids', I'd love to see your take on Advanced Squad Leader.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
IGO-UGO is the by far best system and the main reason people play 40K.

Tried a few alternatives like Bolt Action, Infinity, etc.. and they are absolutely terrible, IMO.

That said, if you like those systems, they are out there. The market is not lacking for options for people who don't enjoy IGO-UGO.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! My sides are legit in orbit! OMFG!

nekooni wrote:

But none of that was my point. My point was that I think that igougo isn't the reason why people prefer 40k. I think it'd quite the opposite, because, as you said - "why not play something without igougo?"

As I said. I did.

I played Infinity. Bolt Action. Saga. some other stuff like X-Wing which is a bit more distant also in miniatures.

Rules-wise, those are terrible games with vastly inferior game systems/engines running at their core than the GW rules.

That said, I'd love to see some take adaptation of 40K rules to play with Infinity models or some such, which are quite nice and refreshingly different from 40K. It's just that the rules are pure cancer from a game-design perspective.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

nekooni wrote:

But none of that was my point. My point was that I think that igougo isn't the reason why people prefer 40k. I think it'd quite the opposite, because, as you said - "why not play something without igougo?"

As I said. I did.

I played Infinity. Bolt Action. Saga. some other stuff like X-Wing which is a bit more distant also in miniatures.

Rules-wise, those are terrible games with vastly inferior game systems/engines running at their core than the GW rules.

That said, I'd love to see some take adaptation of 40K rules to play with Infinity models or some such, which are quite nice and refreshingly different from 40K. It's just that the rules are pure cancer from a game-design perspective.

Whats your point? If you don't like those games, that's absolutely fine. But the issues with these systems, in my opinion, aren't that they're not igougo. As you said, you don't like the rules of these games in general, so changing them to igougo would probably not fix that for you, right?

Your claim is that people in general play 40k BECAUSE it's igougo. That might be true for you, but I highly doubt that you're representing a majority of players, or even a significant portion of the playerbase, with that opinion.
And even then it's still a huge jump to get to it being the MAIN reason why people prefer 40k.

nekooni wrote:

Whats your point? If you don't like those games, that's absolutely fine. But the issues with these systems, in my opinion, aren't that they're not igougo. As you said, you don't like the rules of these games in general, so changing them to igougo would probably not fix that for you, right?

Your claim is that people in general play 40k BECAUSE it's igougo. That might be true for you, but I highly doubt that you're representing a majority of players, or even a significant portion of the playerbase, with that opinion.
And even then it's still a huge jump to get to it being the MAIN reason why people prefer 40k.

What is your point? You don't like the 40K rules. That's absolutely fine. But there are plenty of other systems out there. In my opinion IGOUGO is perfectly fine (if not the best system for miniature games out there). You don't like the rules of that particular game, but many people do and changing them to appease people unhappy with 40K would likely alienate people happy with 40K, which seems unnecessary, as there is plenty of variety in the marketplace.

And I never said that IGOUGO is the MAIN reason people prefer 40K. I just said that people looking to play an IGOUGO system (with a sci-fi / sci-fantasy theme) like myself would probably gravitate to 40K, as there're few alternatives (though some were named above, I never really heard of them and they don't appear to be commercial properties with regular releases, etc..).

Changing 40K to alternating activation would leave the market without a viable IGOUGO sci-fi game out there, unless simultaneously some other company like Corvus Belli or so would change their game to IGOUGO in return (at which point, it probably be easier for companies to just stick with what they are doing and what their customers/fans come to enjoy and expect of them).

Sunny Side Up wrote:

And I never said that IGOUGO is the MAIN reason people prefer 40K. I just said that people looking to play an IGOUGO system (with a sci-fi / sci-fantasy theme) like myself would probably gravitate to 40K, as there're few alternatives (though some were named above, I never really heard of them and they don't appear to be commercial properties with regular releases, etc..).

Sunny Side Up wrote:
IGO-UGO is the by far best system and the main reason people play 40K.

Tried a few alternatives like Bolt Action, Infinity, etc.. and they are absolutely terrible, IMO.

That said, if you like those systems, they are out there. The market is not lacking for options for people who don't enjoy IGO-UGO.

Emphasis mine.

What is your point? You don't like the 40K rules.

All I'm saying is that I would prefer if 40k had something other than IGOUGO. I'm not "unhappy" with 40k, I don't dislike 40k - I still play it way more than any other system (pretty much once a week).