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.

Continuing with the highly degenerate and toxic UGO/IGO system is pointless.

They've got several other games using alternating activations which are all universally considered better than 8th, yet they've chosen to ignore it.

No reason to even read more about 9th.

Fine. Sell your armies then and don't post here. Good bye.

Obvious troll is obvious.

tneva82 wrote:
Fine. Sell your armies then and don't post here. Good bye.

If we got rid of all the people who claim [current edition] 40k is an awful game Dakka would lose like 70% of the people who post here.

Feel free to check the poll results of whether Apocalypse is better at being a 40k game than 40k is.

How many more years of unlimited turn one command points to lose half your army before you start playing do you really want?

Not sure how this post is supposed to foster any kind of discussion. Seems like something you should put on Facebook or your blog.

DarknessEternal wrote:Continuing with the highly degenerate and toxic UGO/IGO system is pointless.

They've got several other games using alternating activations which are all universally considered better than 8th, yet they've chosen to ignore it.

No reason to even read more about 9th.

Cool. How much are you selling your armies for? Not that you'll be keeping them or sticking around in the 40k section of the forum, if you're so adamant about 9th being trash.

And hey, I'm being serious - more power to you. You've presumably made the smart decision to know when it's time to quit and enjoy doing something else with your time, such as not interacting with any 40k stuff for the duration of 9th. Now, if you'd care to put that smart decision into practice...

Yeah... I can be negative too. Frankly, I was so eager for 8th, was so disappointed in it that I was glad to have been so busy with work to never be able to play, and now... am excited for 9th but who knows. IgoUgo worked for 2nd ed well enough, anyways, with some tweaks... why not now? Maybe there will be alternating activations for "crusade" or command point based out of turn unit activations will be common for everyone. We dont know. It is a bit early yet to kill the baby.

 Sim-Life wrote:
If we got rid of all the people who claim [current edition] 40k is an awful game Dakka would lose like 70% of the people who post here.

Would that be such a bad thing?

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Feel free to check the poll results of whether Apocalypse is better at being a 40k game than 40k is.

How many more years of unlimited turn one command points to lose half your army before you start playing do you really want?

So either it's not dead game or you are hypocrite seeing you still keep posting about 40k...

Good job.

I don’t agree with OP that Ninth is DOA. But I think IGO/UGO is one of those sacred cows that should be reconsidered. Alternating activation of units does really feel more dynamic and engaging to me; specifically, I think it de-emphasizes strategic play in favor of tactical play, which seems more appropriate to the scale of 40k. IGO/UGO feels like a holdover from the historical mass battles mindset via WHFB.

Dear lord this really is peak dakka, isn't it?

 Drachii wrote:
Dear lord this really is peak dakka, isn't it?

OP is being hyperbolic, clearly. But there are people who are put off by IGO/UGO design; that’s a totally legitimate point of discussion.

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t agree with OP that Ninth is DOA. But I think IGO/UGO is one of those sacred cows that should be reconsidered. Alternating activation of units does really feel more dynamic and engaging to me; specifically, I think it de-emphasizes strategic play in favor of tactical play, which seems more appropriate to the scale of 40k. IGO/UGO feels like a holdover from the historical mass battles mindset via WHFB.

I disagree with the OP but it's certainly a question worth discussing.

I think that besides the 25+ year legacy of the game rules IGO/UGO persists because it puts a lot of the burden for winning on army building (and more importantly buying) rather than in play tactics.

This requires a lot more engagement on the part of players than a game where you can respond to your enemy during the match. It's a feature, not a bug.

EDIT-Made the title clearer

Yeah army building is certainly one of the elements I had in mind when I implied 40k was “strategic.” But this-era GW seems to be gradually side-lining purely competitive play in favor of various kinds of narrative-focused developments (at this point, Crusade). So maybe it is time to reconsider this particular sacred cow.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t agree with OP that Ninth is DOA. But I think IGO/UGO is one of those sacred cows that should be reconsidered. Alternating activation of units does really feel more dynamic and engaging to me; specifically, I think it de-emphasizes strategic play in favor of tactical play, which seems more appropriate to the scale of 40k. IGO/UGO feels like a holdover from the historical mass battles mindset via WHFB.

I disagree with the OP but it's certainly a question worth discussing.

I think that besides the 25+ year legacy of the game rules IGO/UGO persists because it puts a lot of the burden for winning on army building (and more importantly buying) rather than in play tactics.

This requires a lot more engagement on the part of players than a game where you can respond to your enemy during the match. It's a feature, not a bug.

Because no AA game has EVER ended up with a heavy emphasis on listbuilding as well as on table play...

While I agree with the OP's point....the fact that you used the word "degenerate" and "toxic" ...you now get zero points. Internet buzzwords are fething obnoxious.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t agree with OP that Ninth is DOA. But I think IGO/UGO is one of those sacred cows that should be reconsidered. Alternating activation of units does really feel more dynamic and engaging to me; specifically, I think it de-emphasizes strategic play in favor of tactical play, which seems more appropriate to the scale of 40k. IGO/UGO feels like a holdover from the historical mass battles mindset via WHFB.

I disagree with the OP but it's certainly a question worth discussing.

I think that besides the 25+ year legacy of the game rules IGO/UGO persists because it puts a lot of the burden for winning on army building (and more importantly buying) rather than in play tactics.

This requires a lot more engagement on the part of players than a game where you can respond to your enemy during the match. It's a feature, not a bug.

Exactly. Why is it more fun to wait an hour to do anything? Strats honestly don't count because they're overall the same "oh defensive buff of some kind", which honestly is not engaging in any form. Also that costs resources.

I can’t tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with Kid_Kyoto.

IGOUGO is not inherently bad.

For a game 40k's size, though, it'd likely be better to move to Alternating Activations. Assuming GW did it right, which is... You know, not likely.

 Manchu wrote:
I can’t tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with Kid_Kyoto.

I'm at the point where I think 3 of us could write a better rule system over a pint at the bar.

But that's not the point. GW is not in business to write great rules, they never have. Their business is synergizing cool models and complex ever-changing rules that require heavy buy in and monthly commitments (in time and attention at least if not in money) to keep up.

And well, I'm here, so obviously it works. However many times I have thrown up my hands and said THAT'S IT!

So basically I think this thread is 'Young Man Yells at Cloud'.

But we should at least know why things are like this.

ERJAK wrote:
Because no AA game has EVER ended up with a heavy emphasis on listbuilding as well as on table play...

Army building is certainly an important element of games that don’t use IGO/UGO but it seems more important in games that do because those games are structured so that the players use all of their forces in a coordinated, uninterrupted manner, all at once.

 Elbows wrote:
the fact that you used the word "degenerate" and "toxic"

Yeah it’s hard to see how these are not just being used a synonyms for “something I don’t like.” I’m not sure how IGO/UGO is either degenerate or toxic, and I’m no fan of IGO/UGO.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
How many more years of unlimited turn one command points to lose half your army before you start playing do you really want?

You could fix that in lots of ways besides alternating activations. Better terrain rules, 'escalating' rules for engagements (a la Omega level rules in 4th edition), are some examples. From what I've heard about 9th they might be going this route.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Feel free to check the poll results of whether Apocalypse is better at being a 40k game than 40k is.

How many more years of unlimited turn one command points to lose half your army before you start playing do you really want?

A poll on Dakka and $1.80 CAD will get you a coffee. How is Apocalypse doing out there in the wild after a year? I bought it, played it once and now it sits on the shelf for lack of opponents. I certainly don't see it played in either of the gaming communities I frequent. For some reason people (including me) prefer to play 40K with our gaming time. Weird eh?

Because people already have core rules for 40k and didn't want to pay for more rules again

 Manchu wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Because no AA game has EVER ended up with a heavy emphasis on listbuilding as well as on table play...

Army building is certainly an important element of games that don’t use IGO/UGO but it seems more important in games that do because those games are structured so that the players use all of their forces in a coordinated, uninterrupted manner, all at once.

 Elbows wrote:
the fact that you used the word "degenerate" and "toxic"

Yeah it’s hard to see how these are not just being used a synonyms for “something I don’t like.” I’m not sure how IGO/UGO is either degenerate or toxic, and I’m no fan of IGO/UGO.

There are plenty of merits for both systems, but this thread wasn't framed for a discussion. It's just about the op complaining.

 Sasori wrote:
There are plenty of merits for both systems, but this thread wasn't framed for a discussion. It's just about the op complaining.

Exactly. All you have to do is look at the title, and the purpose of the thread is made very clear.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Continuing with the highly degenerate and toxic UGO/IGO system is pointless.

They've got several other games using alternating activations which are all universally considered better than 8th, yet they've chosen to ignore it.

No reason to even read more about 9th.

I won't tell you to quit and sell your models (though it's an option).

But I will tell you to play Kill Team or Apocalypse and leave the rest of us alone. Only because this topic comes up all the time, and I always write lengthy posts that are diplomatic and polite. It is perhaps unfair to assume that you are the same person, or one of the group who consistently post this, but there you have it.

I've been politely pointing out for two years that you can solve your own problem, and that if you refuse to do so, it is a choice. And only you are in charge of your choices.

For those of us that have enjoyed IGOUGO for 31 uninterrupted years, when GW says: the game you love, only better, well, we're the ones they are talking to; I respect AA games. They are fun- I have two by GW that I can play. 40k is what I play when I feel like a break from AA, which is frequently, because AA games don't let you take breaks, where as IGOUGO leaves you a built in space to go to to the bathroom, prepare the food and drinks or change the music.

But I guess some people prefer a world where only they win to a world where everybody wins, so some people will always suggest modifying everything to fit their desires rather than using the tools they've already been given.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
There are plenty of merits for both systems, but this thread wasn't framed for a discussion. It's just about the op complaining.

Exactly. All you have to do is look at the title, and the purpose of the thread is made very clear.

He's not wrong though. GW manages to screw it up early in the edition. However the least they could do is actually make a ruleset that's interactive. IGOUGO is not that. If I can run to a nearby store and grab something to eat while my opponent is taking a turn, there's clearly a flaw in the core rules in the "game" where two people should be playing.

IGOUGO works well for alternate phases like gw's LOTR does it. When is ALL of the phases like 40k it becomes too much.