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.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Great, so there IS an AA element you can use with the models you like. Why not play Apoc?

I like Kill Team and 40k, but I don't want to make them the same thing. I like my Knights, but I'm not clamouring to use them in Kill Team.

Because Apoc isn't 40K? Try playing Apoc at the equivalent of a 1K-1.5K army in 40K and see how it goes. The system isn't designed for that.

'Wanting to make them the same thing' is a straw man. The difference between Kill Team's AA, 40K's IGOUGO, and Apoc's AA is not the defining difference between the three games. You could make Kill Team or Apoc IGOUGO and they would still be distinctly different games from 40K, and you could make 40K AA and it would still be different from Kill Team or Apoc.

Bringing up Knights is a terrible argument too. Knights don't fit the scale of Kill Team. Scale is the defining difference between Kill Team, 40K, and Apoc. Expanding Kill Team to let you bring whole armies and Knights would be encroaching on 40K. Changing its unit activation system wouldn't.

 p5freak wrote:
IGOUGO wouldnt be so bad if losses are removed at the end of the turn, which happens in apocalypse. There is a damage phase, after shooting and fighting, where sv rolls are made and killed units are removed. But, seeing the phases for 9th, there is nothing like a damage phase, after shooting and fighting.

And there can't be. In Apoc it works because 1) you are not killing models. You are damaging units. 2) The sheer volume of dice and wounds is drastically reduced which makes book keeping through tokens manageable. 3) The game comes with the tokens you need to do it.

If 9th were to implement Apocs damage phase you would need 10x the number of tokens and some way to keep track of how they are moving within the unit on the models themselves. The book keeping would be astronomical. A single unit of Termagants can shoot 180 times. Statistically 90 will hit and 45 will wound a t3 unit. (not counting rerolls). So if I bought 2 units of termagants (and why wouldn't I?) thats more than the blast tokens that comes in the apoc box. It doesn't work.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Isn't crazy lethality good for GW's bottom line though? In aggregate their customers only have a finite amount of gaming hours to spend. Every time a player spends time moving, shooting or assaulting with a unit, they spend gaming hours on that unit. Obviously if the rules are designed to allow units to be removed first turn before they get to act, they minimize the number of gaming hours spent per unit and therefore the number of gaming hours you get per dollar spent.

They should probably figure out a way to make assembling and painting faster too.

I don't really understand at all the logic behind this.

Like, maybe I'm wrong here, but I wasn't under the impression that people spent *all* their time playing games, and killing off their own units in order to cram more games in?

I mean, you phrase "moving, shooting or assaulting with a unit" as some kind of waste of "gaming hours", but by moving/shooting/assaulting with that unit, that IS gaming? What would they be doing with those "gaming hours" if not moving/shooting/assaulting?

I'm talking about this from the perspective of the of the company designing the rules. GW doesn't make any more money if you get a lot of use out of a unit. It makes more money if you need to buy lots of units because half of them get removed before they can act.

 p5freak wrote:
IGOUGO wouldnt be so bad if losses are removed at the end of the turn, which happens in apocalypse. There is a damage phase, after shooting and fighting, where sv rolls are made and killed units are removed. But, seeing the phases for 9th, there is nothing like a damage phase, after shooting and fighting.

Yeah i was really hoping for a damage phase.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
This here is a discussion forum for people to discuss things. If you don't like hearing opinions other than your own you should stop looking at forums and speak to yourself in a mirror. It's the simplest solution after all.

Understood, but at the same time, going onto a forum for a game that you either don't play, or have so negative opinions about that you might as well not play it isn't exactly something that should be encouraged.

The standards of "constructive" criticism have slipped.

Suggesting that certain mechanics from Apocalypse that function well within that game system could be easily and functionally applied to 40k 8th ed and make it a better game system IS constructive criticism, though.

I have played 8th using Apoc's terrain system, and honestly it plays like a DREAM compared to 8th's default terrain rules.

Terrain is broken up into two types: Obstacles and Ruins.

If a target unit is within 3" of an obstacle (we changed this to "if all models in a unit are within 3" for 40k, since model-level rules do not exist in apoc) and the obstacle is closer to the firing unit than the target unit is, the target unit gains cover.

No need for LOS checking, no need for nearly as much micromanagement as 90% of 8ths core terrain rules, and far more permissive than most 8th ed terrain sets. Much, MUCH better for small terrain pieces than the 8th ed "barricade", "crater" or "Statuary" rules.

Ruins are any terrain type large enough to put a full unit on or within, and they work more similarly to transport vehicles in 8th than terrain in 8th. When a unit (again, changed to all models) ends their move within 3", you can embark them upon the ruin and put them on or within it. For all line of sight, range finding, and charge coherency purposes as long as that unit is within the ruin, the models within the unit become the ruin itself, and the unit gains cover for the duration.

Can you see the ruin? Then you can see the unit inside. Can the ruin see you? Then the unit inside can see you. You don't have to micro-position every single model inside the unit so they can peer out of a window or try and carefully stack up the bases and hope against hope that your poor scourge doesn't yet again slip from his perch when your buddy bumps the table, causing his delicate plastic spiky bits to snap off, you just have to have the models SOMEWHERE inside the ruin so you know they're in there.

and it works the same way for close combat. If you're within 1" of the ruin, you're within 1" of the models inside, and then you fight.

The apoc ruin system solves so many common complaints with 8th ed terrain at once it's not even funny, and it is so, so easy to plug right into the game.

-Cheesing an opponent by stacking all your dudes on an upper level so they can't assault you
-Denying overwatch by stacking all your dudes behind walls of the building that you're in
-ITC magic LOS-block boxes that make Drones and deny-LOS shooters invincible
-having to try and figure out unit coherency, aura range, close combat engagement range, and movement vertically up and down the levels of a ruin that you have to crouch over and try to stick your big sausage fingers in to carefully push the model you want to move over to where he has to be to draw LOS and feth you've just knocked your guy off the top level AGAIN and broken the model AGAIN
-having to put bases on every single terrain piece so you know where "within" is when GW doesn't sell their ding-dang ruins with bases
-vehicles, monsters, bikes, etc not being able to meaningfully interact with units inside ruins because they can't move through them
-Giant knights not being able to attack models on upper levels at the height of their knees

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Short and snappy.

Nine editions.

All IGOUGO

If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

Because back in 3rd/4th edition I didn't have 80% of my army blasted away via my opponents alpha strike. Because back in 3rd/4th edition Space Marines actually got to take their saves most of the time. Because in 3rd/4th edition we didn't have enemy armies with a blanket -1 to hit against them.

Because, despite the less than perfect games, I loved the universe and the lore. And then GW had to screw that up to.

So if it used to be okay when 80% of your army didn't get blasted away, why not rant about lethality instead of Igougo? You realize some of those defending the system that has existed since the game was created might actually be behind you if you were complaining about lethality right?

I think everyone agrees the game should be less lethal- even GW, which is why they are changing terrain and drip feeding CP instead of making them all available on turn 1. And BTW, once those changes are implemented, you might be able to go back to enjoying the game you used to play in 3rd. I know, there is certainly a chance that GW may not execute as well as they promote, but these changes do have a lot of potential to solve the actual problem, lethality, while letting the game maintain the feel and signature rythm that it has always had.

And I think that's some of the IGOUGO defenders' issue with OP. 9th could be perfect, but OP will never know, because OP has already decided if it isn't AA it can't possibly be good. I mean, you heard him right? He's not even gonna give it a chance; won't even download the free rules when they drop. And sure, that's totally his right- I get it; sometimes you reach a breaking point.

But I think all AA folks set themselves up for that disappointment. In 33 years, this game has changed almost every mechanic except that one; expecting that they would change a 3 decade + constant in order to address a lethality problem would be kinda like sayin to a car manufacturer, "You have a problem with acceleration on your most recent line of cars, and I think the best solution is to find an alternative to tires. If your next car has tires, I'm not interested in reading about it, looking at it or hearing about because if it has tires there's no way it's going to be able to accelerate as fast as I want it to, and if it doesn't excelerate as fast as I want it to then it is objectively useless and sucks and everyone who likes it is wrong, despite the fact that it's the best selling car on the market."

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
IGOUGO wouldnt be so bad if losses are removed at the end of the turn, which happens in apocalypse. There is a damage phase, after shooting and fighting, where sv rolls are made and killed units are removed. But, seeing the phases for 9th, there is nothing like a damage phase, after shooting and fighting.

Yeah i was really hoping for a damage phase.

The problem with porting that over is that in apoc, there is no distinction between damage. No weapon has an AP value or a damage value, just a strength vs light stuff and a strength vs big stuff. And on top of that, there are a lot fewer dice involved (A maxed-out choppa boyz blob rolls I think 16 dice in apoc, vs 150 in 40k). To implement the damage phase exactly as in apoc in 40k, you'd need to be tracking "OK, this unit took 12 AP-2 D1 wounds, 5 AP-3 Dd6 hits, 4 AP-1 d2 hits...now I gotta roll saves for that..."

I think the best way to get something LIKE that into 8th without changing datasheets would to be to have there be some kind of "Critical Damage" rule where units on the second player's turn still get to act even once they've taken enough damage to kill them, but I think that'd just take the First Turn Problem and turn it into a Second Turn Problem.

The other thing it loses from Apoc is the uncertainty factor, which further reduces the lethality of Apoc. in Apoc, you're never sure if you've REALLY destroyed a unit, because it hasn't rolled saves OR used any of its defensive stratagems yet. No matter how much you wail on a unit, it could still make its saves against the big blasts you've stacked up, and it could use a card to make those 4+ saves from big blasts on terminators into 2+ saves. This means that to do the maximum damage possible, you need to give the most units a chance to die by putting a small amount of damage on them, but this makes it more likely for units to actually get to stay on the board the longest.

I think you definitely need to do something to address lethality. I'm not certain that die at the end of the turn is exactly it, though. I think going off AOS' example, you can greatly reduce the super alpha strike-ness by allowing units to alternate attacking during a phase. In AOS, that amounts to close combat always being alternating - it works exactly like 8th except there's no blanket Go First if you Charged. Since most combat is melee, that means most turns damage-dealing alternates between players, and it's less viable to put your whole strategy into just super-duper killmurder alpha strike.

 catbarf wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Great, so there IS an AA element you can use with the models you like. Why not play Apoc?

I like Kill Team and 40k, but I don't want to make them the same thing. I like my Knights, but I'm not clamouring to use them in Kill Team.

Because Apoc isn't 40K? Try playing Apoc at the equivalent of a 1K-1.5K army in 40K and see how it goes. The system isn't designed for that.

I have, and it works fine. Obviously it works better at the ~3k (150PL) level, but it works fine at 50 or 100PL.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Great, so there IS an AA element you can use with the models you like. Why not play Apoc?

I like Kill Team and 40k, but I don't want to make them the same thing. I like my Knights, but I'm not clamouring to use them in Kill Team.

Because Apoc isn't 40K? Try playing Apoc at the equivalent of a 1K-1.5K army in 40K and see how it goes. The system isn't designed for that.

I have, and it works fine. Obviously it works better at the ~3k (150PL) level, but it works fine at 50 or 100PL.

My 2k nid list at the time that apoc released was roughly 126ish PL in apoc. 100-150 PL is the sweet spot and the game works fantastic. You get about 3 decent sized functional detachments. Maybe 4 or 5 if you make them into small strike teams.

PenitentJake wrote:
In 33 years, this game has changed almost every mechanic except that one

All the more reason not to regard it as an inviolable sacred cow. Especially when the 40K-adjacent systems intended for the same models at both smaller and larger scales use different mechanics.

the_scotsman wrote:
The problem with porting that over is that in apoc, there is no distinction between damage. No weapon has an AP value or a damage value, just a strength vs light stuff and a strength vs big stuff. And on top of that, there are a lot fewer dice involved (A maxed-out choppa boyz blob rolls I think 16 dice in apoc, vs 150 in 40k). To implement the damage phase exactly as in apoc in 40k, you'd need to be tracking "OK, this unit took 12 AP-2 D1 wounds, 5 AP-3 Dd6 hits, 4 AP-1 d2 hits...now I gotta roll saves for that..."

FWIW, in the Starship Troopers system, armor-percing ability and multiple damage were baked into the unit's offensive profile, and achieved more granularity than Apoc. Weapons could inflict two types of hits depending on how well you rolled- regular hits, which allowed a save, and kills, which didn't allow saves. With a system like that (or something similar- Apoc is pretty close), it'd be easy to track how many Hit and Kill results a unit has received in a single turn, then make saves for the Hits and remove models accordingly.

To get to the point, I agree with you; Apoc was written around offloading all those messy details of attack resolution onto the attack roll itself, so that there's less bookkeeping involved in tracking those hits for later. That system wouldn't work for 40K without a major rewrite.

 catbarf wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
In 33 years, this game has changed almost every mechanic except that one

All the more reason not to regard it as an inviolable sacred cow. Especially when the 40K-adjacent systems intended for the same models at both smaller and larger scales use different mechanics.

the_scotsman wrote:
The problem with porting that over is that in apoc, there is no distinction between damage. No weapon has an AP value or a damage value, just a strength vs light stuff and a strength vs big stuff. And on top of that, there are a lot fewer dice involved (A maxed-out choppa boyz blob rolls I think 16 dice in apoc, vs 150 in 40k). To implement the damage phase exactly as in apoc in 40k, you'd need to be tracking "OK, this unit took 12 AP-2 D1 wounds, 5 AP-3 Dd6 hits, 4 AP-1 d2 hits...now I gotta roll saves for that..."

FWIW, in the Starship Troopers system, armor-percing ability and multiple damage were baked into the unit's offensive profile, and achieved more granularity than Apoc. Weapons could inflict two types of hits depending on how well you rolled- regular hits, which allowed a save, and kills, which didn't allow saves. With a system like that (or something similar- Apoc is pretty close), it'd be easy to track how many Hit and Kill results a unit has received in a single turn, then make saves for the Hits and remove models accordingly.

To get to the point, I agree with you; Apoc was written around offloading all those messy details of attack resolution onto the attack roll itself, so that there's less bookkeeping involved in tracking those hits for later. That system wouldn't work for 40K without a major rewrite.

Keep in mind, whenever I speculate on 9th ed's rules possibilities I'm talking about what I think is feasible within what GW has stated theyre doing: Rewriting the core rules to change the game while leaving all the current rules content untouched.

So a system where rules that I personally would LOVE to be rid of, like Overwatch, just seems impossible within the established framework of 9th ed. It's just too baked into unit rules at this point, you can't be rid of it despite how much I feel it both slows down the game and incentivizes very boring, static playstyles. Same thing with random charge rolls. I hate hate hate them, but acknowledge they're here to stay due to how many rules affect them.

But the core rules like terrain, possibly the current Character system could be retooled to be more of a sliding scale of "you can shoot it"-ness rather than the current hard break-point of 9 wounds being SUPER SUPER CRITICAL for your character survival, that could be done.

What if to shoot at a character that is not the closest target, you had to roll below their Wounds stat on 2d6, and if you failed your unit had to target the closest enemy unit to that character with the ranged weapons you chose to fire at the character? That could be a viable option they could implement with 9th ed while still keeping the codex rules firmly in place.

Before CPs turned up in 8th, there were 'once per game' powers for some models.
Infiltration and reserves were more prevalent, orbital strikes were available, hunker-killer missiles were unlimited range, etc.
Alpha strikes were possible, as were drop-pods in the first turn, in the enemy's deployment area.
CPs laid out the options to be seen more easily, and if an option is there, there is now a card for it. You can blow your CP pool in the first turn on all sorts of silliness, leaving you open to anything that survives.

BaconCatBug wrote:I have, and it works fine. Obviously it works better at the ~3k (150PL) level, but it works fine at 50 or 100PL.

Lance845 wrote:My 2k nid list at the time that apoc released was roughly 126ish PL in apoc. 100-150 PL is the sweet spot and the game works fantastic. You get about 3 decent sized functional detachments. Maybe 4 or 5 if you make them into small strike teams.

100PL is fine, and I think I prefer Apoc over 40K at the 2K/100PL level.

But below that and I miss the granularity of 40K, and feel that the detachment/command systems- which work great for Apoc at larger game scales- become too restrictive. Having two, maybe detachments in Apoc severely curtails operational mobility, and forces restrictive detachment composition since shooting and melee elements don't play well together in the same detachment.

Which is why 'just go play Apoc' is a useless, defensive, knee-jerk reaction. I'm not looking for Apoc here; I'm looking for 40K with one or two of Apoc's mechanics.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
IGOUGO wouldnt be so bad if losses are removed at the end of the turn, which happens in apocalypse. There is a damage phase, after shooting and fighting, where sv rolls are made and killed units are removed. But, seeing the phases for 9th, there is nothing like a damage phase, after shooting and fighting.

Yeah i was really hoping for a damage phase.

The problem with porting that over is that in apoc, there is no distinction between damage. No weapon has an AP value or a damage value, just a strength vs light stuff and a strength vs big stuff. And on top of that, there are a lot fewer dice involved (A maxed-out choppa boyz blob rolls I think 16 dice in apoc, vs 150 in 40k). To implement the damage phase exactly as in apoc in 40k, you'd need to be tracking "OK, this unit took 12 AP-2 D1 wounds, 5 AP-3 Dd6 hits, 4 AP-1 d2 hits...now I gotta roll saves for that..."

I think the best way to get something LIKE that into 8th without changing datasheets would to be to have there be some kind of "Critical Damage" rule where units on the second player's turn still get to act even once they've taken enough damage to kill them, but I think that'd just take the First Turn Problem and turn it into a Second Turn Problem.

The other thing it loses from Apoc is the uncertainty factor, which further reduces the lethality of Apoc. in Apoc, you're never sure if you've REALLY destroyed a unit, because it hasn't rolled saves OR used any of its defensive stratagems yet. No matter how much you wail on a unit, it could still make its saves against the big blasts you've stacked up, and it could use a card to make those 4+ saves from big blasts on terminators into 2+ saves. This means that to do the maximum damage possible, you need to give the most units a chance to die by putting a small amount of damage on them, but this makes it more likely for units to actually get to stay on the board the longest.

I think you definitely need to do something to address lethality. I'm not certain that die at the end of the turn is exactly it, though. I think going off AOS' example, you can greatly reduce the super alpha strike-ness by allowing units to alternate attacking during a phase. In AOS, that amounts to close combat always being alternating - it works exactly like 8th except there's no blanket Go First if you Charged. Since most combat is melee, that means most turns damage-dealing alternates between players, and it's less viable to put your whole strategy into just super-duper killmurder alpha strike.

A Damage phase in 40k wouldn't be to see "if you damage them", it would be just "when you took the damage", combine it with the moral phase at the same time "My Guard unit had 7 wounds on it, so 7 dies, I takes XYZ modifiers, now lets see what moral debuff they get". This would mean all damage is dealt mid turns, but you don't remove casualties until after both players went. Giving the feeling of alternating actions and a living battle.

The only bad part is the book keeping.

And that's a massive negative which outweighs any perceived positive. The elegance of the game will be lost.

How about we play the new edition before we complain about it? Also AA isn't coming, thankfully.

 Ishagu wrote:
And that's a massive negative which outweighs any perceived positive. The elegance of the game will be lost.

How about we play the new edition before we complain about it? Also AA isn't coming, thankfully.

Yes, because after seeing how 6th, 7th, and 8th turned out, we've decided to cut out the pattern recognition part of our brains?

If you stick your hand on a hot stove, how many more times do you need to slap your hand on it until you get the message? For me it was zero additional times.

You're blaming one aspect of game design for all the problems?

If you've written the game off already you should just quit. You're clearly unhappy. You're not a prisoner of GW!

 Ishagu wrote:
You're blaming one aspect of game design for all the problems?

If you've written the game off already you should just quit. You're clearly unhappy. You're not a prisoner of GW!

I am saying that IGOUGO is by far the biggest contributor to the issues the game has. No, Alt Action isn't a magic fix, but when you have a bridge made of marzipan falling to bits, the first step is to change the material you are using.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
And that's a massive negative which outweighs any perceived positive. The elegance of the game will be lost.

How about we play the new edition before we complain about it? Also AA isn't coming, thankfully.

Yes, because after seeing how 6th, 7th, and 8th turned out, we've decided to cut out the pattern recognition part of our brains?

If you stick your hand on a hot stove, how many more times do you need to slap your hand on it until you get the message? For me it was zero additional times.

8th was better than 6th and 7th. I'd probably put it on par with 5th in terms of popularity, and 9th seems to be a lot of fixes to the things identified as the worst parts of 8th (hint: it wasn't the IGOUGO system). Lumping 8th in with 6th and 7th in is just silly.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
IGOUGO wouldnt be so bad if losses are removed at the end of the turn, which happens in apocalypse. There is a damage phase, after shooting and fighting, where sv rolls are made and killed units are removed. But, seeing the phases for 9th, there is nothing like a damage phase, after shooting and fighting.

Yeah i was really hoping for a damage phase.

The problem with porting that over is that in apoc, there is no distinction between damage. No weapon has an AP value or a damage value, just a strength vs light stuff and a strength vs big stuff. And on top of that, there are a lot fewer dice involved (A maxed-out choppa boyz blob rolls I think 16 dice in apoc, vs 150 in 40k). To implement the damage phase exactly as in apoc in 40k, you'd need to be tracking "OK, this unit took 12 AP-2 D1 wounds, 5 AP-3 Dd6 hits, 4 AP-1 d2 hits...now I gotta roll saves for that..."

I think the best way to get something LIKE that into 8th without changing datasheets would to be to have there be some kind of "Critical Damage" rule where units on the second player's turn still get to act even once they've taken enough damage to kill them, but I think that'd just take the First Turn Problem and turn it into a Second Turn Problem.

The other thing it loses from Apoc is the uncertainty factor, which further reduces the lethality of Apoc. in Apoc, you're never sure if you've REALLY destroyed a unit, because it hasn't rolled saves OR used any of its defensive stratagems yet. No matter how much you wail on a unit, it could still make its saves against the big blasts you've stacked up, and it could use a card to make those 4+ saves from big blasts on terminators into 2+ saves. This means that to do the maximum damage possible, you need to give the most units a chance to die by putting a small amount of damage on them, but this makes it more likely for units to actually get to stay on the board the longest.

I think you definitely need to do something to address lethality. I'm not certain that die at the end of the turn is exactly it, though. I think going off AOS' example, you can greatly reduce the super alpha strike-ness by allowing units to alternate attacking during a phase. In AOS, that amounts to close combat always being alternating - it works exactly like 8th except there's no blanket Go First if you Charged. Since most combat is melee, that means most turns damage-dealing alternates between players, and it's less viable to put your whole strategy into just super-duper killmurder alpha strike.

A Damage phase in 40k wouldn't be to see "if you damage them", it would be just "when you took the damage", combine it with the moral phase at the same time "My Guard unit had 7 wounds on it, so 7 dies, I takes XYZ modifiers, now lets see what moral debuff they get". This would mean all damage is dealt mid turns, but you don't remove casualties until after both players went. Giving the feeling of alternating actions and a living battle.

The only bad part is the book keeping.

The 'if you took the damage' part is what makes Apoc so much less deadly than 8th - because in Apoc, it's much easier to cheat death by using a card at the end of the turn to make your unit live rather than die, and it also incentivizes a lot more overkill than you get in 40k, where you can fully resolve a unit's heavy weapons fire at a transport, destroy it, then resolve your anti-infantry firepower at the unit inside, destroy it, move on to the next thing, etc.

The best thing you'd get with "Die at the end" pasted on to 40k would be suicide transports. So, so many suicide transports stuffed chockablock full of Repentia squads, Khorne Bezerkers, death company, Incubi, whatever. This is honestly kind of a problem in Apoc as well, where a single Raider filled with 10 individual Lhameans is an absolute nightmare to deal with. Part of the reason there's such a "grass is greener' effect with apoc is that it doesn't have the same legion of professional powergamers working to find and exploit the worst holes in its mechanics as 40k does. when you convince someone to play apoc, you're both willingly stepping into a game where fewer people have found out how to break it, and so the benefits of its mechanics are more apparent while the flaws are trickier to figure out. Usually, I find that a few people are able to figure out a few of the goofiest moves (Manticores that can fire everything then re-arm with a card to fire everything again the next turn, stuff like that) but it's much rarer than the amount of times you see people showing up to 40k games with optimized strategies.

Things we take for granted, like knowing that a character with 9 wounds is significantly stronger than a character with 10, are not yet known when people step into apoc, and you might not have someone realize that 30 grots in apoc is an unstoppable juggernaut of death and destruction for the scant 3pl they cost. But once you know that the grotvolushun will not be stopped, well then the opponent will need to adapt or die, and soon you'll have flying jokaero monkeybuses and unstoppable krootox/kroot murderhordes....apoc's imbalanced units are borderline comical, it's one of my favorite parts of that game. It feels like that brief wacky period in 8th when you had conga lines of Culexus assassins and the best drukhari list was a horde of birds.

I think it could work, if implemented properly, but I think you could also implement it badly very easily and end up with just as much of an alpha strike problem as now, but more so because your super glass cannon nightmare combo unit would be so much easier to guarantee.

 Lance845 wrote:
8th is the best 40k has ever been imo. Or at least the best of all the editions I have ever played. It's so many light years ahead of 7th they are not even comparable.

But it's still crap. The shiniest turd still goes in the toilet.

They made a ton of moves in the right direction. But they didn't go far enough.

The micromanagement of war gear as mentioned. Apoc shows you how to handle the wargear better while opening up significantly more modeling options. The vast maority of stuff can be condenced. We don't need 6 different kinds of power weapons. Just "Power Weapon" and then let people model whatever the hell they want.

The individual model stat line and model to unit interaction. Apocs unit to unit interaction is better. the unit should be shooting not the model. The unit should be fighting, not the model. The time wasted with pile ins and counting models to see who can and cannot fight and then mass rolling dice... it's a waste. Trim it back to units at the scale 40k is at.

Terrain as mentioned. Apoc handles terrain much better. Including occupying it, attacking into and out of it. Shooting into and out of it. And shooting through it.

The idea of stratagems is fine, the implementation needs massive amounts of work. We will see what 9th brings.

Other stuff. Near endless stuff. So much of 40k is bogged down by trying to adhere to it's past instead of moving forward. It's like DnD in that way. Purposefully including bad mechanics just because they existed 50 years ago.

I agree with the sentiment on within unit differences.

I find the obsession with fully within, within, tripointing, minimum distances and so on to be bad. It allows gamey approaches and, to me, adds nothing to immersion or realism.

At the level of the individual miniature, abstract a bit more. At a higher tactical level, add realism/simulation aspects.

Ishagu wrote:And that's a massive negative which outweighs any perceived positive. The elegance of the game will be lost.

How about we play the new edition before we complain about it? Also AA isn't coming, thankfully.

Ishagu wrote:You're blaming one aspect of game design for all the problems?

If you've written the game off already you should just quit. You're clearly unhappy. You're not a prisoner of GW!

Look, just because people criticize an aspect of the game doesn't mean they dont like the game. I see no reason why people aren't allowed to discuss what they think could be an upgrade to the system or the parts that they feel are the weakest. You coming in here and being dismissive while refusing to see from other poster's point of view isn't helping.

They didnt blame IGOUGO for being the source of all problems, merely stated that IGOUGO was a part of what they disliked in the game.

Just because people are vocal about disliking an aspect of the game doesn't mean they should quit.

Personally i prefer games with AA because they provide more tactical options and there is less downtime between turns where you're just being pummelled by the enemy. Rolling saves for 30 minutes isnt something i personally enjoy and from the few games of 40k i've tried with AA, I found them more interesting.

That doesn't mean i dislike 40k and should quit it.

Its as if you were telling people complaining about release IronHands to quit 40k instead of complaining.

AA does not equate to more Tactical options lol. It's simply a different system of play. And it's 100% not happening so this discussion is actually redundant.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
IGOUGO wouldnt be so bad if losses are removed at the end of the turn, which happens in apocalypse. There is a damage phase, after shooting and fighting, where sv rolls are made and killed units are removed. But, seeing the phases for 9th, there is nothing like a damage phase, after shooting and fighting.

Yeah i was really hoping for a damage phase.

The problem with porting that over is that in apoc, there is no distinction between damage. No weapon has an AP value or a damage value, just a strength vs light stuff and a strength vs big stuff. And on top of that, there are a lot fewer dice involved (A maxed-out choppa boyz blob rolls I think 16 dice in apoc, vs 150 in 40k). To implement the damage phase exactly as in apoc in 40k, you'd need to be tracking "OK, this unit took 12 AP-2 D1 wounds, 5 AP-3 Dd6 hits, 4 AP-1 d2 hits...now I gotta roll saves for that..."

I think the best way to get something LIKE that into 8th without changing datasheets would to be to have there be some kind of "Critical Damage" rule where units on the second player's turn still get to act even once they've taken enough damage to kill them, but I think that'd just take the First Turn Problem and turn it into a Second Turn Problem.

The other thing it loses from Apoc is the uncertainty factor, which further reduces the lethality of Apoc. in Apoc, you're never sure if you've REALLY destroyed a unit, because it hasn't rolled saves OR used any of its defensive stratagems yet. No matter how much you wail on a unit, it could still make its saves against the big blasts you've stacked up, and it could use a card to make those 4+ saves from big blasts on terminators into 2+ saves. This means that to do the maximum damage possible, you need to give the most units a chance to die by putting a small amount of damage on them, but this makes it more likely for units to actually get to stay on the board the longest.

I think you definitely need to do something to address lethality. I'm not certain that die at the end of the turn is exactly it, though. I think going off AOS' example, you can greatly reduce the super alpha strike-ness by allowing units to alternate attacking during a phase. In AOS, that amounts to close combat always being alternating - it works exactly like 8th except there's no blanket Go First if you Charged. Since most combat is melee, that means most turns damage-dealing alternates between players, and it's less viable to put your whole strategy into just super-duper killmurder alpha strike.

A Damage phase in 40k wouldn't be to see "if you damage them", it would be just "when you took the damage", combine it with the moral phase at the same time "My Guard unit had 7 wounds on it, so 7 dies, I takes XYZ modifiers, now lets see what moral debuff they get". This would mean all damage is dealt mid turns, but you don't remove casualties until after both players went. Giving the feeling of alternating actions and a living battle.

The only bad part is the book keeping.

The 'if you took the damage' part is what makes Apoc so much less deadly than 8th - because in Apoc, it's much easier to cheat death by using a card at the end of the turn to make your unit live rather than die, and it also incentivizes a lot more overkill than you get in 40k, where you can fully resolve a unit's heavy weapons fire at a transport, destroy it, then resolve your anti-infantry firepower at the unit inside, destroy it, move on to the next thing, etc.

The best thing you'd get with "Die at the end" pasted on to 40k would be suicide transports. So, so many suicide transports stuffed chockablock full of Repentia squads, Khorne Bezerkers, death company, Incubi, whatever. This is honestly kind of a problem in Apoc as well, where a single Raider filled with 10 individual Lhameans is an absolute nightmare to deal with. Part of the reason there's such a "grass is greener' effect with apoc is that it doesn't have the same legion of professional powergamers working to find and exploit the worst holes in its mechanics as 40k does. when you convince someone to play apoc, you're both willingly stepping into a game where fewer people have found out how to break it, and so the benefits of its mechanics are more apparent while the flaws are trickier to figure out. Usually, I find that a few people are able to figure out a few of the goofiest moves (Manticores that can fire everything then re-arm with a card to fire everything again the next turn, stuff like that) but it's much rarer than the amount of times you see people showing up to 40k games with optimized strategies.

Things we take for granted, like knowing that a character with 9 wounds is significantly stronger than a character with 10, are not yet known when people step into apoc, and you might not have someone realize that 30 grots in apoc is an unstoppable juggernaut of death and destruction for the scant 3pl they cost. But once you know that the grotvolushun will not be stopped, well then the opponent will need to adapt or die, and soon you'll have flying jokaero monkeybuses and unstoppable krootox/kroot murderhordes....apoc's imbalanced units are borderline comical, it's one of my favorite parts of that game. It feels like that brief wacky period in 8th when you had conga lines of Culexus assassins and the best drukhari list was a horde of birds.

I think it could work, if implemented properly, but I think you could also implement it badly very easily and end up with just as much of an alpha strike problem as now, but more so because your super glass cannon nightmare combo unit would be so much easier to guarantee.

Whats wrong with suicide transports? I do that now to stop OW, so what if they die now or later, the point was to make the game still IGOUGO but felt and acted like alternating actions to not change how 40k actually works as a whole and to give players a reason to take many more units b.c no fear of them dying turn 1.

Also Apoc IS NOT 40k. You can not do a 1 to 1 comparision like you are trying to do. In Apoc you can Melee right out of DSing on turn 1 with any unit in the game. 40k has many other rules in place were Apoc doesn't.

 Ishagu wrote:
AA does not equate to more Tactical options lol. It's simply a different system of play. And it's 100% not happening so this discussion is actually redundant.

Again with your fething annoying tone.

What i stated was MY opinion. I respect the fact the you like IGOUGO more than AA but i'd enjoy if you didn't just dismiss what people say.

I find AA brings more tactical options because it adds one simple thing : outmaneuvering your opponent in a meaningful way. Being able to deny LoS completely on a HVT after you opponent moved his guns to take it down is an additionnal tactical option that isnt there in IGOUGO.

Having to think about what order you should activate your units IS an additionnal tactical option.

And if people weren't allowed to think about "impossible" things then humanity wouldn't have made it far. I know its an extreme comparison but its still the same: "Going to space is 100% not happening so this discussion is actually redundant".

Plus, some people do modify the game to play with AA. Someone posted in this very thread that they do that.

I'd be curious about what exact changes they make.

 Ishagu wrote:
And that's a massive negative which outweighs any perceived positive. The elegance of the game will be lost.

How about we play the new edition before we complain about it? Also AA isn't coming, thankfully.

What elegance? Killing a third of the opponent's army and watching them struggle to come back is more elegant?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plus, some people do modify the game to play with AA. Someone posted in this very thread that they do that.

I'd be curious about what exact changes they make.

When i played it we did it this way :

players deploy units one at a time.

players move units one at a time.

players psychic power one at a time.

players shoot/charge one unit at a time.

players fight one unit at a time.

normal morale.

then on the second turn, the player that didnt do everything first on the first turn gets to be the first.

It worked pretty decently for something we brainstormed 5 minutes before the game started and in only 2 games we could see the different approach that it brought to 40k.

AND the game wasn't noticeably longer.

 Ishagu wrote:
You're blaming one aspect of game design for all the problems?

If you've written the game off already you should just quit. You're clearly unhappy. You're not a prisoner of GW!

It's actually that aspect of the game that leads to power creep getting worse the moment a broken unit is released since you can't actually counter it with anything.

Have you played 9th?