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.

And that is indeed part of the problem. GW wants more and more models on the board at any given time to facilitate buying more models. The more units on the table the more abstractions they're going to want to take, while skimping on model-by-model micro management.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
And that is indeed part of the problem. GW wants more and more models on the board at any given time to facilitate buying more models. The more units on the table the more abstractions they're going to want to take, while skimping on model-by-model micro management.

which is why I've long said AA won't work in 40k without a major revision. I play battletech, the init system wouldn't work with 40k. a long "all day" battletech game is absolutely tiny compared to 40k.

BrianDavion wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
And that is indeed part of the problem. GW wants more and more models on the board at any given time to facilitate buying more models. The more units on the table the more abstractions they're going to want to take, while skimping on model-by-model micro management.

which is why I've long said AA won't work in 40k without a major revision. I play battletech, the init system wouldn't work with 40k. a long "all day" battletech game is absolutely tiny compared to 40k.

The sizecreep in General hurt 40k though, an igougo System that has place for smart manouvering and decent cover rules like early editions of 40k had, was a lot less lethal,whilest the smaller gamesize Cut down in waiting even if overwatch at the time wasn't a thing making the game in General alot more interactive overall.

Personally i have stopped playing 1500+ pts Games because it feels more then apocalypse without the better rules for that size game aswell as just in General a feel of collapsing balance in General after that point. It also doesn't help that 8th was marred with Bad Design for Terrain if you can even call it that .

 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.

Honestly yep.
The whole "I kill 1/3rd of your army you kill 1/6th of my army and we decide the game turn 1" rubbish is old.
In earlier editions it wasn't so bad as it wasn't quite as deadly.
But now... Its boring.
But it's GW... And the majority of the fanbase doesn't want improvements. They want stagnation because it's safe and bland.

 jeff white wrote:

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.

It still wasn't very interactive then. If you'd take off those rose tinted sunglasses you'd know that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

War machine is also a mostly melee focused game with a team of writers that TRY for balance.

No. They tried for technical writing. Their games are not balanced. At least by the lofty and impossible standards folks like yourself seem to demand.

At best, the balance of WMH was 'more or less good enough, some of the time'. And despite this, they left plenty howlers through the gate and didn't bother fixing for years - ask anyone who had to deal with cryx in mk2, or the likes of epic Haley.

If that's 'trying', and you seem happy to let them off the hook, maybe you should consider cutting gw some slack.

Oh, and there's plenty guns in WMH. Ranged armies have plenty abilities and roles.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It would still be better with an AA system anyway.

No, it wouldn't. it would destroy one of the core elements of WMH, which is the synergy building nature of the game. Like it or not, that is the nature of the game.

Plus, you know, times turns and chess clocks.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

IGOUGO is not interactive at all, so how is that a good gaming experience?

Actually no, This is blatantly false Slayer.

Igougo can be plenty interactive. You should actually try reading what people say because I already talked about this.

Take for example Infinity. Infinity is probably the most technically brilliant wargame out there. It is Igougo. And yet it allows for so much interactivity the tag line for the game is basically that 'it's always your turn'.

Beyond that, Take for example various historicals, or even gw's excellent old lotr sbg game. Igougo. And yet by the nature of the turn structure, they allows for a great amount of player reactivity and interactivity. Move/move. Shoot/shoot. Resolve close combat.

Biggest issue with 40k is the damage output mated to the range of the guns, not necessarily Igougo.

You need to get over this obsession with alternative activation. Aa is absolutely fine. There's nothing wrong with it. Igougo in its various forms is also absolutely fine.

As to how it's a good gaming experience - it depends entirely on the type of game you are playing and who you are playing against. I've had great Igougo games, and terrible aa games. Almost like the turn structure had very little to do with it....

I wonder how people imagine the game becoming less deadly, when for all we know the new basic game may end up being 2250pts or better yet it is going to be 1750, but everything had it costs slashed by 2/3.

But this is my first edition switch, so expiriance wise, all I know is based on stories from other.

Who knows maybe everyone is going to play games that are 1500pts in todays army size, or crusade all 9th edition.

 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.

Lol. I know that preorders aren't "actually up" yet for the new edition boxes, but my local store already has a list of 39 people who want to preorder as soon as the box is available. Our local store is extremely small too. I for one am extremely excited. 8th edition has been the most fun I've had playing 40K, I've had hundreds of amazing games and two full years of LVO fun as well with this edition. 8.5/9.0 is going to make it even better! Can't wait to get my hands on those amazing new Necron sculpts!

Good for you, my army good fun rules at the very end of 8th, and then corona hit, so I didn't even get to play for it besides 3 games. They 3 games I did have were fun .

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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?

Probably because it's anecdotal (the lowest level of proof) and your sample size means that it could be a regional preference thing. I could make the claim against AA by pointing to how in NW Montana and upstate NY I didn't know anyone who was pro-AA but that doesn't prove that AA is bad, it just means the handful of people innthose regions I knew didn't like it.

And at the end of the day that's all the arguement really is, which one do people like more. Both systems have pros and cons, and neither system is a silver bullet to all the reported game issues (such as "winning in the list builsing stage" a claim I heard back in 5th ed (not to mention onward to even 9th) and largely used as an excuse by players who never want to change their lists to match the current meta). Heck, given the size of 40k's playerbase even AA can be broken with enough eyes looking at the system with the intent of gaming it.

 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.

If you want to get rid of your models I'd be more than happy to give them a new home

For me AA in a game as big as 40K would make no sense. It would slow down the game and create more problems. It can work in smaller games like KT and that's where it should remain.
Example: with AA super-heavies or huge models would be even stronger. If my first activation is a Taunar/Astraeus/Castellan Knight/etc you would still lose a good chunk of your army with a single unit shooting phase.

I'm super happy that IGOUGO is still the norm and I'm super stoked about 9th ed. To each their own, I guess.

40k is just about at the scale where Epic rules would work well.

I think there is room for breaking IGYG a bit without removing the current turn mechanic.

Expanding on mechanics such as overwatch, opportunity attacks, heroic interventions and so on would make players feel less like a punching bag in the opponents turn.

Lethality also plays a role. For example, on charge damage is too damn high. Good melee units can wipe almost anything non charge, making it feel less interactive than a more drawn out fight.

I honestly believe that wh30k mechanics are more interesting than the streamlined AoS or 40k; even if they are not balanced.

If IGOUGO leads to first-turn wins, doesn't an overhaul of reserves help here?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

Not as prevelant as the internet claims as that requires a certain level of play by one player.and some really bad play by the other to even be possible on turn one. And if you're intentionally doing that to new players instead of walking them through good deployment habits and good threat saturation it's likely you're in the baby seal smashing club in your local area.

And yes, you can do that in AA as well before you even try to tell me that AA prevents that. AA just adds in the additional factor that when someone screws up there is less room to let them go back and fix things since in AA that dramatically alters gamestate to fix those mistakes, putting a greater burden on newer players who need more help with the rules.

AA has other issues, like game length since both players get less "free" thinking space as their opponent goes meaning that they basically run the clock up every activation trying to determine their moves.

That's not even getting into how not all AA's are created equal. A "one move plus one action" AA is way different than something like "play out each phase via AA" and I don't think we could get a consensus between everyone on what form of AA would work best for 40k.

I still standby that AA isn't even the thing 40k needs from Apoc, but rather no matter the system we need Apoc's casualty mechanics as it keeps units from being dead until the end of the round allowing both sides the ability to always use all their toys each turn before they lose things (and allows the person who does lose half their army in a turn a chance to push that at least to a trade, if not allow them to be even mpre aggressive Sith units they know are already dead).

Because playing fake games with fake armies, and not punishing new players, makes so much more sense and it so much better. They invest in to full armies, think the game is played in a certain way. And as soon as they play their first real game the army evaporation happens. Only now they invested in to a 2000pts army, and have no wiggle room to fix stuff.

When you get tabled in a turn, or practicaly tabled when you play 750 or 1000pts you can do stuf. Maybe buy a different codex, maybe play only kill team , maybe even quit and not invest more.

The wait till 2000pts to show a no longer noob what the game is about is a horrible thing to do. Specialy if they pick a non top tier army.

Karol wrote:
Because playing fake games with fake armies, and not punishing new players, makes so much more sense and it so much better. They invest in to full armies, think the game is played in a certain way. And as soon as they play their first real game the army evaporation happens. Only now they invested in to a 2000pts army, and have no wiggle room to fix stuff.

When you get tabled in a turn, or practicaly tabled when you play 750 or 1000pts you can do stuf. Maybe buy a different codex, maybe play only kill team , maybe even quit and not invest more.

The wait till 2000pts to show a no longer noob what the game is about is a horrible thing to do. Specialy if they pick a non top tier army.

It's very rare for a new player to just buy a full 2000 point army and show up to use it without knowing the rules at all. I don't think I've ever seen that happen in any group I've been a part of. Players will generally acquire models over time, building up to 1500 or 2000 points or more very gradually and getting more experience with the game at each stage of army building. It's hardly a "fake game with fake armies" if you decide not to utterly crush a new player in their first game. There's no point in that for either side. But you've had this explained to you before and didn't seem to get it then so I'm not sure why you'd get it now.

As for 9th being dead in the water because it doesn't change something that was not likely to change, that's a bold claim. We'll just see how it pans out over the next few months. I don't think IGOUGO is inherently flawed but I do think GW needs to do something to reduce the lethality in general and particularly the first-turn lethality. Personally I'd do that with a much greater focus on objective play while also just not boosting offense any more. Any time a designer even thinks about adding extra AP, or Strength or numbers of shots they should be made to stand in a corner, facing the walls for the next 3 hours to reflect on their terrible life choices

The change to CP generation per turn may help alleviate the alpha strike a little, but we'll need to see the details of that first before we know for sure.

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

Are we not saying 23 Skidoo anymore?

I've not kept up on these things.

I love the current 40k system of player turns, as do many other people. Most people in fact.

It's by far the most social. I can read my codex, plan for longer, have a drink, etc

AA is no quicker. I think some people here want it because it might give them a chance to interact with some units before they are destroyed? Why don't we wait and see how terrain rules have changed.

Also this entire topic is a perfect showcase of the terrible community that has evolved on this forum. I get attacked for being optimistic, at the same time people are perfectly happy to support a topic which literally labels the game as "Toxic" and "Degenerate"

The double standards are truly comical, and the negativity is so over the top it's simply sad. Anyone who actually feels that a game of painted model soldiers is "Degenerate" should really not be involved in this anymore. Check you mental health, because you clearly see things from an unreasonably negative lens.

BrianDavion wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
And that is indeed part of the problem. GW wants more and more models on the board at any given time to facilitate buying more models. The more units on the table the more abstractions they're going to want to take, while skimping on model-by-model micro management.

which is why I've long said AA won't work in 40k without a major revision. I play battletech, the init system wouldn't work with 40k. a long "all day" battletech game is absolutely tiny compared to 40k.

Well lets be honest here were talking about a turn mechanic not he entire rules set for classic battletech. it is a super complex(dare i say super solid and clearly well written set of rules for basically every situation imaginable) skirmish game where both players are operating with only 4 or 5 minis and still having a 2+ hour game.

Karol wrote:Because playing fake games with fake armies, and not punishing new players, makes so much more sense and it so much better. They invest in to full armies, think the game is played in a certain way. And as soon as they play their first real game the army evaporation happens. Only now they invested in to a 2000pts army, and have no wiggle room to fix stuff.

When you get tabled in a turn, or practicaly tabled when you play 750 or 1000pts you can do stuf. Maybe buy a different codex, maybe play only kill team , maybe even quit and not invest more.

The wait till 2000pts to show a no longer noob what the game is about is a horrible thing to do. Specialy if they pick a non top tier army.

Any time you start a new player off by pile driving them you are doing a dis-service to the community and the hobby. nobody looking to get into a game will really be interested in continuing the experience if that experience is terrible out of the gate.

When i demo a game for a new potential player no matter what system it is, my #1 goal and question when it is all said and done is-DID YOU HAVE FUN?

AA isn't only about stopping half your army getting destroyed. It's also about expanding tactical game play and options. It's about move and counter move. Being able to bait your enemy. A player playing against another player instead of an army list.

40k can take a solid lesson from almost everything in apoc. Not everything
Not quite. But almost.

I don’t think it’s the worst thing GW could keep, other games have shown you can have good games using it.

But I don’t think GW will fix many real issues with its game, and mostly just shuffle stuff around to keep it sorta running.

 Lance845 wrote:
AA isn't only about stopping half your army getting destroyed. It's also about expanding tactical game play and options. It's about move and counter move. Being able to bait your enemy. A player playing against another player instead of an army list.

40k can take a solid lesson from almost everything in apoc. Not everything
Not quite. But almost.

I think Apoc is inferior to 40k in every way, having played it enough times to form an opinion.

If it was a better game it would be more popular. It's not.

 Ishagu wrote:
I love the current 40k system of player turns, as do many other people. Most people in fact.

It's by far the most social. I can read my codex, plan for longer, have a drink, etc

AA is no quicker. I think some people here want it because it might give them a chance to interact with some units before they are destroyed? Why don't we wait and see how terrain rules have changed.

Also this entire topic is a perfect showcase of the terrible community that has evolved on this forum. I get attacked for being optimistic, at the same time people are perfectly happy to support a topic which literally labels the game as "Toxic" and "Degenerate"

The double standards are truly comical, and the negativity is so over the top it's simply sad. Anyone who actually feels that a game of painted model soldiers is "Degenerate" should really not be involved in this anymore. Check you mental health, because you clearly see things from an unreasonably negative lens.

1) in fact you have no data to say what percent of anyone likes anything. Don't present your opinions as a majority consensus because you wish it was so.

2) I don't think anyones on you for optimism. But there is a difference between optimism and blind cultish devotion. You don't look at the game and hope for the best. You shut down any statement of criticism and answer with blind devotion. That's not optimism. It's fanatacism

I have no data? How about the record sales, popularity and community involvement in the current 40k?

There is no blind devotion from me. I simply am mature enough to accept 40k for what it is, rather than hate it because it isn't what I want it to be.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
AA isn't only about stopping half your army getting destroyed. It's also about expanding tactical game play and options. It's about move and counter move. Being able to bait your enemy. A player playing against another player instead of an army list.

40k can take a solid lesson from almost everything in apoc. Not everything
Not quite. But almost.

I think Apoc is inferior to 40k in every way, having played it enough times to form an opinion.

If it was a better game it would be more popular. It's not.

Better things are not more popular. Bumblebee is the best live action transformers movie and it made half of every unbelievably bad Michael bay one. Good does not always translate to $$.

You are entitled to your opinions. But I know your slavish devotion to 40k. Your opinions are near meaningless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
I have no data? How about the record sales, popularity and community involvement in the current 40k?

There is no blind devotion from me. I simply am mature enough to accept 40k for what it is, rather than hate it because it isn't what I want it to be.

Correct. No data. The people here lamenting igougo Also paid for 8th. So explain to us your math. If you have x number of sales and y percent of those sales wish igougo would go away how do you figure out y?

Good luck.

You're not mature because you can't accept a critical analysis and decide everything must be perfect. Because optimism?

Where is your data that most of the community wants AA?

Show me the proof that more than 50% of the 40k global community wants AA. You sound so confident it must be easy for you to come up with the evidence.

Or do you have no data? Surely it's not just anecdotal? That would be a bit awkward and you'd look a bit silly after coming on so strong.

 Ishagu wrote:

Also this entire topic is a perfect showcase of the terrible community that has evolved on this forum. I get attacked for being optimistic, at the same time people are perfectly happy to support a topic which literally labels the game as "Toxic" and "Degenerate"

What thread are you reading? Most of the first page is people criticising the OP for hyperbolic language and specifically saying they're wrong. In any forum above a certain size you'll get people on both ends of the spectrum but singling out only one end of that spectrum for criticism isn't helpful, nor is attempting to use those extremes as the basis of any reasonable argument. I have a simple rule for whether I take people seriously on any forum: if I can look at their name and guess with greater than 90% accuracy what their post will contain before I even read it, they're probably not worth listening to. That goes for overly negative or overly positive posters.

We already know 9th edition will do just fine, it may even bring back a lot of people who became disillusioned with 8th, but I think GW might have a harder time of that than they think. 8th degenerated quite badly towards the end of its life and it was due to the same problems GW has had for a number of editions. They let power creep get out of hand and can't stick to a unified design philosophy for an entire edition. I think that, more than any number of mechanical tweaks, would be the best change GW could make in 9th edition.

I never claimed most of anyone wanted anything. I said MY opinions which others on this small niche community agree with and others disagree with. The "dakka" sample is a poor sample of the 40k player base at large. Which doesn't make it wrong. It makes it meaningless on its own.

That's how science works. Again, where is your math. You made a bold claim AND said you have proof. I'm waiting.

When did I use the word proof?