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.

Hmm...what is it the kids say these days? Oh yes.....”BYE, Felicia!!!”

What's the difference between simulated 40k and live 40k?

A 40 minute drive and potential COVID exposure.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
But some of the design flaws are too much to handle sometimes.

Perhaps, perhaps. But that doesn't mean they're "toxic", or "degenerate", or "dead in the water". It doesn't excuse the overwhelming hatred some users have, the kind that genuinely makes me wonder why they even bother to remain part of the hobby.

As I'm sure you'll appreciate, there's a great difference between criticising things, putting those criticisms in the appropriate channels without airing them over and over in the same place, and what we see on Dakka.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You say you don't mind it. That doesn't mean you like it.

So the real question is whether you LIKE waiting for half an hour or just accept it for what it is. The latter implies there's a problem.

No, it means it's not a problem in my gaming experience, and I have no objection to it being in the game. What I expect out of Kill Team (which is AA) and 40k (which is IGOUGO) are managed by what I expect from those systems, and I enjoy them in their own respective manners appropriately.

I see no problem personally.

Honestly that's just the attitude of settling for it. You ought to expect better of GW.

Martel732 wrote:
What's the difference between simulated 40k and live 40k?

A 40 minute drive and potential COVID exposure.

If I recall correctly, you were announcing your retirement from live 40k before COVID. So, let's leave that one out, shall we? As for the 40 minute drive, understandable. But still doesn't explain why you even bother to play 40k if you feel so permanently negative about it, judging from your posts.

Deadnight wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You say you don't mind it. That doesn't mean you like it.

So the real question is whether you LIKE waiting for half an hour or just accept it for what it is. The latter implies there's a problem.

Not at all.

Things aren't EXTREME ZERO/SUM Slayer. Not minding something doesn't imply 'there's a problem' at all.

I don't mind crime shows on tv.

I don't mind my wife's favourite bands.

I don't mind the colour red.

Nothing there implies there is a problem. Or that I have a problem with any of these things. At worst, it implies neutrality.

Now regarding liking Igougo, it's necessary for certain styles of game. Synergy/Combo-focussed games like Warmachine work because you have full access to your army and full control of your turn in order to work the gears in the right way. I enjoyed Warmachine for years.

Heck, Igougo doesn't even necessarily prevent active countering on the part of the other person - take for example games like infinity (interrupted Igougo) or gw's old lotr sbg (and plenty historicals) with their broken phase Igougo.

War machine is also a mostly melee focused game with a team of writers that TRY for balance. It would still be better with an AA system anyway. IGOUGO is not interactive at all, so how is that a good gaming experience?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You say you don't mind it. That doesn't mean you like it.

So the real question is whether you LIKE waiting for half an hour or just accept it for what it is. The latter implies there's a problem.

No, it means it's not a problem in my gaming experience, and I have no objection to it being in the game. What I expect out of Kill Team (which is AA) and 40k (which is IGOUGO) are managed by what I expect from those systems, and I enjoy them in their own respective manners appropriately.

I see no problem personally.

Honestly that's just the attitude of settling for it.

No, that's the attitude of enjoying what I have. That's like saying "if you're not a millionaire, you're just settling for being poor". I'm happy with enough money to put food on the table, and I'm happy with IGOUGO.

You ought to expect better of GW.

With all due respect, I'll follow my expectations and standards, not yours. I "ought" to do nothing.

By all means, you're free to hold your own, but they're not an objective standard.

PenitentJake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 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

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.

Why are you playing to take a break? Why bother to even get out models if you have a sensation of "I can't wait for the opponent to take their turn so I can do nothing for half an hour?" At that point...why even pick up a game?

Because I'm one of those people for whom a games night is a social event. When we play 40k, it's usually a kid of party. Theirs usually two or three other people in the room who may not be playing, and we're there to visit them as much as we are to play the game. I know a lot of people who post on Dakka don't share that experience, because the average Dakka user seems to play in stores and at tournaments; seldom have I done so in my 31 years of playing (though it has happened once or twice, it is never as fun as campaigning beer hammer).

It is also for this reason that I think Dakka is sometimes unaware of how many players like me exist; we're there, I assure you. I also believe we outnumber tournament players, but not as many of us post here, so it's easy to underestimate our numbers when Dakka is your goto frame of reference.

I have also used this analogy:

AA is like Tennis, Basket Ball, or Hockey- it's fast paced and exciting all the way through and some people prefer that.
IGOUGO is like American football or Baseball, which both have distinctive offense/ defense phases that create a specific rhythm that other people prefer.

Most people who have difficulty seeing it when viewed through the lens of warhammer can see the contrast more easily when talking about sports- especially those who like both, because they know that the feelings that get from each sport is different, and that sometimes you're in the mood for one and sometimes the other.

And that does describe me too, because sometimes I feel like high energy AA. When I do, I play Kill Team, Apocalypse or Blackstone instead of playing 40k when I know it isn't what in the mood for and then whining about it on the Internet. See how everybody wins and I win twice because I like both styles at different times and GW is awesome enough toi give me all the tools that I need to be a grown up and solve my own problems?

Are we clear yet, or will you not be happy until everything in the world is designed for you and only you?

You don't need a game for what you're describing then. Also to say Baseball and Football are IGOUGO is completely inaccurate because when the player hits or catches the ball the other team doesn't sit there twiddling their thumbs. There's actual tactical interaction which the current system has 0%. Unless you think defensive Strats of "oh please don't kill me just yet" are somehow interactive.

I don't want to sound like a total donkey-cave, but some people unwavering hatred of all things GW is just depressing to see.

See, it swings both ways!

I agree, and I never said I hated GW. Actually, based on some articles I've read recently. I'd say they are a very stand up company. Keeping most of their production in the UK to keep people working, paying full taxes without attempting to use off shore banking accounts and only expanding when they have the financial capability to do so are all very admirable qualities in a company in this day and age. Thats one of the reasons I don't mind paying their prices, that and fortunately I have a job that can afford me that luxury.

Perhaps, perhaps. But that doesn't mean they're "toxic", or "degenerate", or "dead in the water". It doesn't excuse the overwhelming hatred some users have, the kind that genuinely makes me wonder why they even bother to remain part of the hobby.

As I'm sure you'll appreciate, there's a great difference between criticising things, putting those criticisms in the appropriate channels without airing them over and over in the same place, and what we see on Dakka.

I'm not going to defend terms like toxic or degenerate or whatever. It is still a game. Obviously, this topic is a prime example of Dakka hyperbolic rhetoric. I often use hyperbole too, but mostly as a joke. But at the heart of it, he has a point about the IGOUGO system.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You say you don't mind it. That doesn't mean you like it.

So the real question is whether you LIKE waiting for half an hour or just accept it for what it is. The latter implies there's a problem.

No, it means it's not a problem in my gaming experience, and I have no objection to it being in the game. What I expect out of Kill Team (which is AA) and 40k (which is IGOUGO) are managed by what I expect from those systems, and I enjoy them in their own respective manners appropriately.

I see no problem personally.

Honestly that's just the attitude of settling for it.

No, that's the attitude of enjoying what I have. That's like saying "if you're not a millionaire, you're just settling for being poor". I'm happy with enough money to put food on the table, and I'm happy with IGOUGO.

You ought to expect better of GW.

With all due respect, I'll follow my expectations and standards, not yours. I "ought" to do nothing.

By all means, you're free to hold your own, but they're not an objective standard.

A more accurate statement would be that you're settling for a terrible pay at your job but you stay with it because you get some food on the table.

Brutus_Apex wrote:

I don't want to sound like a total donkey-cave, but some people unwavering hatred of all things GW is just depressing to see.

See, it swings both ways!

I agree, and I never said I hated GW. Actually, based on some articles I've read recently. I'd say they are a very stand up company. Keeping most of their production in the UK to keep people working, paying full taxes without attempting to use off shore banking accounts and only expanding when they have the financial capability to do so are all very admirable qualities in a company in this day and age. Thats one of the reasons I don't mind paying their prices, that and fortunately I have a job that can afford me that luxury.

Perhaps, perhaps. But that doesn't mean they're "toxic", or "degenerate", or "dead in the water". It doesn't excuse the overwhelming hatred some users have, the kind that genuinely makes me wonder why they even bother to remain part of the hobby.

As I'm sure you'll appreciate, there's a great difference between criticising things, putting those criticisms in the appropriate channels without airing them over and over in the same place, and what we see on Dakka.

I'm not going to defend terms like toxic or degenerate or whatever. It is still a game. Obviously, this topic is a prime example of Dakka hyperbolic rhetoric. I often use hyperbole too, but mostly as a joke. But at the heart of it, he has a point about the IGOUGO system.

I respect that they feel that IGOUGO is a bad system, and they're more than entitled to their opinions on it. But if they're so apoplectic with anger and rage about it being in 9th edition that they're going to use the phrases they have, why bother sticking around? If they're *that* bothered by it, is it not better for them to put their time into another, superior game?

Again, criticism = fine. Unending, ceaseless criticism followed up by "GW are trash/this game is trash/you're trash for enjoying it" = not fine by me.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:A more accurate statement would be that you're settling for a terrible pay at your job but you stay with it because you get some food on the table.

Terrible pay is relative. Millionaires would call the wages of some of their own employees terrible, but that's because of their lofty standards. If I'm living happily (or, as happily as one can in the current climate), I'm not settling. I have no incentive to break my back to reach ever higher if I'm perfectly content and enjoying what I have. The same extent applies to my hobby.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What's the difference between simulated 40k and live 40k?

A 40 minute drive and potential COVID exposure.

If I recall correctly, you were announcing your retirement from live 40k before COVID. So, let's leave that one out, shall we? As for the 40 minute drive, understandable. But still doesn't explain why you even bother to play 40k if you feel so permanently negative about it, judging from your posts.

I don't even remember anymore. Pretty sure I was talking about live games of 8th ed due to the drive. Drive 40 min both way, be forced to use tactics I hate was not doing it for me.

Even I'm not saying it's dead in the water. But they need to fix fallback and tripoint for me continue to have any interest.

"I'd say they are a very stand up company. Keeping most of their production in the UK to keep people working, paying full taxes without attempting to use off shore banking accounts and only expanding when they have the financial capability to do so are all very admirable qualities in a company in this day and age"

Or they're too stupid and don't understand real life rules, either.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Brutus_Apex wrote:

I don't want to sound like a total donkey-cave, but some people unwavering hatred of all things GW is just depressing to see.

See, it swings both ways!

I agree, and I never said I hated GW. Actually, based on some articles I've read recently. I'd say they are a very stand up company. Keeping most of their production in the UK to keep people working, paying full taxes without attempting to use off shore banking accounts and only expanding when they have the financial capability to do so are all very admirable qualities in a company in this day and age. Thats one of the reasons I don't mind paying their prices, that and fortunately I have a job that can afford me that luxury.

Perhaps, perhaps. But that doesn't mean they're "toxic", or "degenerate", or "dead in the water". It doesn't excuse the overwhelming hatred some users have, the kind that genuinely makes me wonder why they even bother to remain part of the hobby.

As I'm sure you'll appreciate, there's a great difference between criticising things, putting those criticisms in the appropriate channels without airing them over and over in the same place, and what we see on Dakka.

I'm not going to defend terms like toxic or degenerate or whatever. It is still a game. Obviously, this topic is a prime example of Dakka hyperbolic rhetoric. I often use hyperbole too, but mostly as a joke. But at the heart of it, he has a point about the IGOUGO system.

I respect that they feel that IGOUGO is a bad system, and they're more than entitled to their opinions on it. But if they're so apoplectic with anger and rage about it being in 9th edition that they're going to use the phrases they have, why bother sticking around? If they're *that* bothered by it, is it not better for them to put their time into another, superior game?

Again, criticism = fine. Unending, ceaseless criticism followed up by "GW are trash/this game is trash/you're trash for enjoying it" = not fine by me.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:A more accurate statement would be that you're settling for a terrible pay at your job but you stay with it because you get some food on the table.

Terrible pay is relative. Millionaires would call the wages of some of their own employees terrible, but that's because of their lofty standards. If I'm living happily (or, as happily as one can in the current climate), I'm not settling. I have no incentive to break my back to reach ever higher if I'm perfectly content and enjoying what I have. The same extent applies to my hobby.

Happily living only for a current state of mind though is key. Also the only reason most people don't finally wall away is because trying to start new groups is a pain in the ass. So yeah they actually have standards and want better rules.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

We also have people put off by AA (especially newer players as a whole game can fall apart for you if you screw up sequencing), so having one game that doesn't use it while Kill Team and Apoc do seems fair. We have three ways to engage with the setting in minature format and it seems silly to demand they all be the same.

AA isn't difficult for new players. I have had more new players decide to not buy in because they got bored watching me do a million things on my turn then they ever did with any amount of complexity.

Igougo is boring. That is it's greatest sin. The sheer volume of consecutive downtime for players. Arguing that new players would find it difficult to do some degree of tactical thinking and planning on a miniature wargame I would argue is counter to wanting to play a miniature war game where tactical thinking and planning should be the single most important factor in deciding games.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 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.

I'd argue that they're nailing it pretty well from the sounds of the improvements over 8th, but I feel people mistake the end goal of the rules. 8th edition (and by extension 9th) are written with the goal of being more accessible to players both new and old. They've done a lot to improve the game's ability to be picked up and played by basically anyone and 9th looks like it's cleaning up rules interactions (introducing new phases and steps inside of phases to clear up when rules trigger for example) and levelling the playing field for people in terms of CP and the like.

By the metric of accessiblity the rules are pretty damn good. Are they perfect? No, but that's why we're getting 9th. Will 9th be perfect with no flaws and never need updating? Not likely, but it'll be easier to pick up and play than 8th was which still meets their design goals.

The impression I've gotten over the years community seems to think the only successful version of a game is one that is perfectly balanced and never needs updating. There is no such game anywhere. Even Chess developed new game types (speed chess for example) and evolved rules over time, and it's considered on of the most complete games in existence. Some people think AA will cure all the games possible woes. Others say changing the dice will. Some say we need to do both. Ect. Ect. Ect.

There is no perfect game. But there are good games that meet the intent of the creators pretty well, and I feel 40k is one of those games.

That said, we all have things we'd like to see in the game in the future. I mean personally I'd still like casualties pulled at the end of game turn like Apoc does, but that's more because it negates first turn advantage while giving both players a fair shot at impacting the game state regardless of how turn mechanics work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Why are you playing to take a break? Why bother to even get out models if you have a sensation of "I can't wait for the opponent to take their turn so I can do nothing for half an hour?" At that point...why even pick up a game?

Some people are fine with IGOUGO, and don't mind not being active for half an hour. Others don't, and some of those people hate it so much that they make threads clearly brooking no discussion like this one. Why are those people still active in the community? At that point, why even pick up their fingers to type?

Heck, some people take the time to think about what their opponent is doing and plan their turns so they don't have to think about what they're doing so much on their own turn. AA doesn't give you that freedom, meaning more time on the clock thinking about what you need to be doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think 9th being IGOUGO was inevitable. It's disappointing, perhaps, but not something I'd consider a deal-breaker.

My main concern, however, is that I'm not convinced 9th is going to actually fix any of the other problems with 8th.

Agree but maybee fw Indexes and some of the more ridicoulousness gets Toned down a bit?

The new FW books being released for 9th were written by the main studio. If anything, they'll be toned UP.

I'd be more impressed if they made them somehow worse. Namely because I'm not sure it's possible at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
AA isn't difficult for new players. I have had more new players decide to not buy in because they got bored watching me do a million things on my turn then they ever did with any amount of complexity.

Igougo is boring. That is it's greatest sin. The sheer volume of consecutive downtime for players. Arguing that new players would find it difficult to do some degree of tactical thinking and planning on a miniature wargame I would argue is counter to wanting to play a miniature war game where tactical thinking and planning should be the single most important factor in deciding games.

AA can put off new players depending on how it's written, especially if you don't know rules of your opponent's army well enough to avoid "gotchas" where you should have activated in a different order to deal with the issue.

I'm not saying they're bad, I'm just saying that they can have a higher bar to get into for new players.

As for "boring" that's relative. I prefer to spend my time planning my moves relative to my opponent's turn, discussing intent, reminding them of rules I have, or stuff they forgot. I stay engaged even when I'm not rolling dice. Engagement is what you make it, and if you make it only the moments you're actively rolling dice you're going to find yourself less engaged.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
2nd-4th editions were great IGO/UGO game systems. When warhammer 40k entered its dark years (5,6,7) some of the quirks associated with the system really became apparent. If 9th tones down the lethality of alpha striking IGO/UGO will be fine. It is understandably frustrating for a player to spend all the time and energy in putting an army on the table only to watch it get tabled in the first shooting phase.

2nd ed was a great IGO/UGO system. That 'dark time' you reference started in 3rd edition, with the streamlining of the game resulting in the non-active player having less to do in their opponent's turn, coinciding with it becoming easier to wipe out multiple, entire units in a single round.

The problem with 40K post 2nd ed isn't IGO/UGO specifically... it's that it's too easy to kill things, and that there's little in the way of two-player involvement happening for most of the turn. If you're going to have a game with turns that can stretch out for an hour or more, you absolutely need mechanics in there that keep both players involved, and you need to give players a chance to use their units before they get removed as casualties.

The funny thing is, I think the average person with no history of table top gaming leans towards alternating activations.

Every single time I show this game to friends who want to try it out, they assume we alternate activations. I have to tell them that each player uses their whole army at one time, and they don't seem to understand why it's played that way.

They seem to get it, I don't know why GW doesn't.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The funny thing is, I think the average person with no history of table top gaming leans towards alternating activations.

Every single time I show this game to friends who want to try it out, they assume we alternate activations. I have to tell them that each player uses their whole army at one time, and they don't seem to understand why it's played that way.

They seem to get it, I don't know why GW doesn't.

Probably because your evidence is anecdotal and doesn't represent a meaningful sample size of anything?

 insaniak wrote:

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
2nd-4th editions were great IGO/UGO game systems. When warhammer 40k entered its dark years (5,6,7) some of the quirks associated with the system really became apparent. If 9th tones down the lethality of alpha striking IGO/UGO will be fine. It is understandably frustrating for a player to spend all the time and energy in putting an army on the table only to watch it get tabled in the first shooting phase.

2nd ed was a great IGO/UGO system. That 'dark time' you reference started in 3rd edition, with the streamlining of the game resulting in the non-active player having less to do in their opponent's turn, coinciding with it becoming easier to wipe out multiple, entire units in a single round.

The problem with 40K post 2nd ed isn't IGO/UGO specifically... it's that it's too easy to kill things, and that there's little in the way of two-player involvement happening for most of the turn. If you're going to have a game with turns that can stretch out for an hour or more, you absolutely need mechanics in there that keep both players involved, and you need to give players a chance to use their units before they get removed as casualties.

Agreed and even if you stuck with a IGO/UGO system you can make the gameplay more interactive and give waiting player opportunities to perform defensive or reactive actions in response to the opponents actions.

Sadly I don't think GW has learned this and will continue to front load the game to be extremely lethal. I feel 8th can best be described as the blood bath edition and each update/codex just ratchets up the killing power more.

 Vankraken wrote:

Agreed and even if you stuck with a IGO/UGO system you can make the gameplay more interactive and give waiting player opportunities to perform defensive or reactive actions in response to the opponents actions.

Sadly I don't think GW has learned this and will continue to front load the game to be extremely lethal. I feel 8th can best be described as the blood bath edition and each update/codex just ratchets up the killing power more.

Obscuring terrain should decrease some of that lethality, and the less buffs we can see stacked onto single rolls should weaken some of that shooting.

It's too early to tell, but GW seems to have been doing stuff to make the game more balanced.

 Vankraken wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
2nd-4th editions were great IGO/UGO game systems. When warhammer 40k entered its dark years (5,6,7) some of the quirks associated with the system really became apparent. If 9th tones down the lethality of alpha striking IGO/UGO will be fine. It is understandably frustrating for a player to spend all the time and energy in putting an army on the table only to watch it get tabled in the first shooting phase.

2nd ed was a great IGO/UGO system. That 'dark time' you reference started in 3rd edition, with the streamlining of the game resulting in the non-active player having less to do in their opponent's turn, coinciding with it becoming easier to wipe out multiple, entire units in a single round.

The problem with 40K post 2nd ed isn't IGO/UGO specifically... it's that it's too easy to kill things, and that there's little in the way of two-player involvement happening for most of the turn. If you're going to have a game with turns that can stretch out for an hour or more, you absolutely need mechanics in there that keep both players involved, and you need to give players a chance to use their units before they get removed as casualties.

Agreed and even if you stuck with a IGO/UGO system you can make the gameplay more interactive and give waiting player opportunities to perform defensive or reactive actions in response to the opponents actions.

Sadly I don't think GW has learned this and will continue to front load the game to be extremely lethal. I feel 8th can best be described as the blood bath edition and each update/codex just ratchets up the killing power more.

That's exactly what's happening. A lot of the fundamentals of 8E were good ideas from the previous era, and honestly I like what I'm hearing out of 9E as a core rule set, but I think where the problems are is the armies themselves, they're just so insanely killy that it kinda overwhelms almost any rules system you'd put them in, and GW's approach to balance issues has largely been to make stuff even killier or cheaper (or both) and ensuring that nothing is impossible to destroy. In some ways that's been good because we haven't seen the deathstar units of previous editions that people hated, but at the same time, particularly coupled with IGOUGO, it's far too easy to destroy an opponent simply based on first turn.

I'm encouraged by what we are hearing about terrain and whatnot, but at the same time the new Admech rules seem to be a further escalation of that killing power.

 insaniak wrote:
The problem with 40K post 2nd ed isn't IGO/UGO specifically... it's that it's too easy to kill things, and that there's little in the way of two-player involvement happening for most of the turn. If you're going to have a game with turns that can stretch out for an hour or more, you absolutely need mechanics in there that keep both players involved, and you need to give players a chance to use their units before they get removed as casualties.

I think this is reflected in 8th Ed quite a bit.

 Ishagu wrote:
TC should quit. Post your armies on ebay.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

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.

It would be great. Those people contribute nothing.

Should I take that personally or....?
Maybe you just mean in general?
Because I am having some trouble reconciling your words with facts.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The funny thing is, I think the average person with no history of table top gaming leans towards alternating activations.

Every single time I show this game to friends who want to try it out, they assume we alternate activations. I have to tell them that each player uses their whole army at one time, and they don't seem to understand why it's played that way.

They seem to get it, I don't know why GW doesn't.

Probably because your evidence is anecdotal and doesn't represent a meaningful sample size of anything?

Why is it strange someone that doesn't know anything about the game would assume both players would make meaningful decisions instead of just waiting for someone's Tau to shoot you and you aren't shooting back?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
2nd-4th editions were great IGO/UGO game systems. When warhammer 40k entered its dark years (5,6,7) some of the quirks associated with the system really became apparent. If 9th tones down the lethality of alpha striking IGO/UGO will be fine. It is understandably frustrating for a player to spend all the time and energy in putting an army on the table only to watch it get tabled in the first shooting phase.

2nd ed was a great IGO/UGO system. That 'dark time' you reference started in 3rd edition, with the streamlining of the game resulting in the non-active player having less to do in their opponent's turn, coinciding with it becoming easier to wipe out multiple, entire units in a single round.

The problem with 40K post 2nd ed isn't IGO/UGO specifically... it's that it's too easy to kill things, and that there's little in the way of two-player involvement happening for most of the turn. If you're going to have a game with turns that can stretch out for an hour or more, you absolutely need mechanics in there that keep both players involved, and you need to give players a chance to use their units before they get removed as casualties.

Except there are no mechanics besides Overwatch and the occasional "have a harder time killing THIS unit" Strats, which really aren't interactive to be honest.

 insaniak wrote:

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
2nd-4th editions were great IGO/UGO game systems. When warhammer 40k entered its dark years (5,6,7) some of the quirks associated with the system really became apparent. If 9th tones down the lethality of alpha striking IGO/UGO will be fine. It is understandably frustrating for a player to spend all the time and energy in putting an army on the table only to watch it get tabled in the first shooting phase.

2nd ed was a great IGO/UGO system. That 'dark time' you reference started in 3rd edition, with the streamlining of the game resulting in the non-active player having less to do in their opponent's turn, coinciding with it becoming easier to wipe out multiple, entire units in a single round.

The problem with 40K post 2nd ed isn't IGO/UGO specifically... it's that it's too easy to kill things, and that there's little in the way of two-player involvement happening for most of the turn. If you're going to have a game with turns that can stretch out for an hour or more, you absolutely need mechanics in there that keep both players involved, and you need to give players a chance to use their units before they get removed as casualties.

I am constantly puzzled as to why GW doesn’t revisit 2nd ed more, spirit and substance. It was their real launching point. Most of the purchasing power resides with this demographic, including 50yr old cats buying for their kids. Including.. gasp.. templates.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
AA isn't difficult for new players. I have had more new players decide to not buy in because they got bored watching me do a million things on my turn then they ever did with any amount of complexity.

Igougo is boring. That is it's greatest sin. The sheer volume of consecutive downtime for players. Arguing that new players would find it difficult to do some degree of tactical thinking and planning on a miniature wargame I would argue is counter to wanting to play a miniature war game where tactical thinking and planning should be the single most important factor in deciding games.

AA can put off new players depending on how it's written, especially if you don't know rules of your opponent's army well enough to avoid "gotchas" where you should have activated in a different order to deal with the issue.

I'm not saying they're bad, I'm just saying that they can have a higher bar to get into for new players.

As for "boring" that's relative. I prefer to spend my time planning my moves relative to my opponent's turn, discussing intent, reminding them of rules I have, or stuff they forgot. I stay engaged even when I'm not rolling dice. Engagement is what you make it, and if you make it only the moments you're actively rolling dice you're going to find yourself less engaged.

You know what's a bigger "gotcha" moment? Killing half the new player's army and telling them to make a comeback.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except there are no mechanics besides Overwatch and the occasional "have a harder time killing THIS unit" Strats, which really aren't interactive to be honest.

There was more to it than that, but you choose to ignore less lethality, effectively and factually much larger table, more concern for positioning and maneuvering and even model placement and orientation... watching these finer points come together was in and of itself more engaging, like a drama unfolding... current edition games are more like card games with expensive chits. Like watching solitaire.

 jeff white wrote:

I am constantly puzzled as to why GW doesn’t revisit 2nd ed more, spirit and substance. It was their real launching point. Most of the purchasing power resides with this demographic, including 50yr old cats buying for their kids. Including.. gasp.. templates.

I imagine largely because armies would be half or a third the size in order to play games that will fit into a couple of hours, and selling big expensive toys like Knights which have high margins but only minimally increased variable costs over things like Troops kits don't fit into that scale terribly well, and even what was in 2E had issues with scale in many ways as they fleshed out different armies. They are a model company first and foremost, they want people to amass and play with large collections, which is fine, but precludes a ruleset like 2E, where a typical Space Marine army might only be two dozen models, and even a "horde" army like IG or Orks might be less than 50 models at 1500pts (IIRC the 2E IG codex example army is is 47 models, including 2 vehicles), it puts a damper on that business plan.

When comparing igo/ugo to AA one has to remember that the AA systems are not all the same. GW has it's own variations like the new kill teams (far to complex for large scale games) and the new apocalypse (that may be to simple for regular scale games, but some of the mechanics could work out)

lets look at 3 different AA systems

1.heavy gear-
.you roll initiative every turn
.each player activates a single unit of minis back and forth, and they do their moving and shooting/close combat the balance comes into play in the fact that there is reaction fire(if you are close enough) as well as the defending player getting to roll counter (think of them as dodging) dice against every attack.

2.classic battletech
.again initiative is rolled every turn
.movement is the key deciding strategy as you alternate movements. notice it is not units for example if i have 5 units and you have 4 left there will be a total of 4 moves on both sides. the player with the larger number of units will have to move 2 at once to maintain parity.
.shooting and close combat happen at the same time after all movement is done by both players. so even if a unit dies it still gets to shoot or swing in CC.

3. DUST 1947
.initiative is rolled at the start of every turn-you see a pattern here used to prevent one sided games as you never know who goes first next round.
.similar to battletech as you alternate movements players with less models can choose to "pass" on moving units so that the number of moves are equal however it is not required.
.unlike battletech however all the actions of a unit are done at once. every unit gets a minimum of 2 actions(unless they have a special 3rd) and they can be any combination movement/shooting/close combat/special skill (in the case of command squads and special characters). however every unit in the game that has not already activated that turn has a chance to roll to react and interrupt the actions of the active unit. the reactive distance is limited to a blanket of 16" standard and 24" for anti-air units.

the equivalent of a 40K 2k game in dust at between 150-200 points still doesn't take very long, often times not going past turn 3 and taking less time to play. however so much stuff is happening for both players in each full turn, often time by turn 3 both armies are pretty well mauled.

Each one of these examples has it's own strengths and weaknesses, however overall it tends to lead to much more enjoyable gameplay for BOTH players in my experience given the entire body of rules for these systems over what 40K has become using the igo/ugo system.

I didn't mention infinity that uses a complete reactive system as it really isn't designed to work above a skirmish level game with insane amounts of blocking LOS terrain.