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.

 Ishagu wrote:
Have you played 9th?

Have you?

You're white knighting for something you have no idea about how good it is or not.

Meanwhile, we have nearly a decade of prior acts. When you bounce a ball the same way 100 times, the 101st time is almost certainly going to be the same.

 Ishagu wrote:
Have you played 9th?

We don't need to holy feth. We've played 8th enough to see that AA would alleviate many problems.

Yes, OP was bitching baout 9th but the thread derailed because your highness came in here and started gaking on people that said 8th had problems that could translate to 9th.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 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.

I had thought about a similar system where you roll for D6 units at a time to do stuff with so it didn't get extreme stalemate, but good to know one at a time worked okayish.

And you guys are dismissing something without trying it.

I'd rather be optimistic than endlessly complain. Removed - Rule # 1

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 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.

Take this basic structure (combined turns, sequential by phase) and throw in the minor additional complexity of having all stationary units shoot before all moving units, and you get a fast-playing system that's a lot less alpha-strike-y than IGOUGO 40K with dramatically more decision points and opportunity for counterplay.

It's a good system, and best of all doesn't require radically overhauling the core rules.

 Ishagu wrote:
Have you played 9th?

Have you played 40k in any other edition and blatantly forgot the signs?

 Ishagu wrote:
And you guys are dismissing something without trying it.

I'd rather be optimistic than endlessly complain. Removed - Rule # 1

EDIT: Removed, Rule #1

And we're not saying (well OP is) that IGOUGO means 9th won't be enjoyable at all, we're saying it COULD make it better

 Ishagu wrote:
And you guys are dismissing something without trying it.

I'd rather be optimistic than endlessly complain. Removed - Rule # 1

It's always better to be pessimistic because you'll never be disappointed.

 catbarf wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 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.

Take this basic structure (combined turns, sequential by phase) and throw in the minor additional complexity of having all stationary units shoot before all moving units, and you get a fast-playing system that's a lot less alpha-strike-y than IGOUGO 40K with dramatically more decision points and opportunity for counterplay.

It's a good system, and best of all doesn't require radically overhauling the core rules.

yeah, adding a "ready" system like KT would be a nice addition, tho it would require a bit more bookkeeping.

EDIT: and in only two games we found some things that needed to be changed. The most obvious one was making the charge part of the shooting phase. My 6 wraithblades getting shot by the entire enemy army before they could even do anything made it clear that charges needed to happen in the shooting phase.

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..."

You wouldnt be able to implement the damage phase in 40k exactly as in apoc. I dont see a problem for a modified damage phase in 40k. You would shoot/fight, wound and make save rolls as usual. But the models wouldnt be removed, instead you would place a dice indicating how many models have been killed. No need for dozens of tokens, like in apocalypse. When the damage phase comes at the end of the battle round, after both players had their turn, the killed models would be removed, and you would make morale checks.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 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.

Take this basic structure (combined turns, sequential by phase) and throw in the minor additional complexity of having all stationary units shoot before all moving units, and you get a fast-playing system that's a lot less alpha-strike-y than IGOUGO 40K with dramatically more decision points and opportunity for counterplay.

It's a good system, and best of all doesn't require radically overhauling the core rules.

yeah, adding a "ready" system like KT would be a nice addition, tho it would require a bit more bookkeeping.

EDIT: and in only two games we found some things that needed to be changed. The most obvious one was making the charge part of the shooting phase. My 6 wraithblades getting shot by the entire enemy army before they could even do anything made it clear that charges needed to happen in the shooting phase.

TBH, "Ready" is my least favorite thing about KT. It takes what could be an alternating activation system, and says "Unless you're playing a stationary gunline, that is *wink*"

If people think that 8th has an alpha strike problem, and some of that problem is caused by the fact that we have alternating combat *except* for when you charge, which with the game's currently lethality is "almost all the time when you're doing it right" then don't bake a loophole right into an alternating shooting phase system that benefits the most boring, toxic pattern in the shooting playstyle.

I've played so many dull, dull games of Kill Team where one player has long range guns and just goes "Yup, I"ve deployed up here on the upper levels of stuff, we rolled a mission that doesn't require me to move, I hope you like hearing the word "Ready!" "

the_scotsman wrote:

TBH, "Ready" is my least favorite thing about KT. It takes what could be an alternating activation system, and says "Unless you're playing a stationary gunline, that is *wink*"

If people think that 8th has an alpha strike problem, and some of that problem is caused by the fact that we have alternating combat *except* for when you charge, which with the game's currently lethality is "almost all the time when you're doing it right" then don't bake a loophole right into an alternating shooting phase system that benefits the most boring, toxic pattern in the shooting playstyle.

I've played so many dull, dull games of Kill Team where one player has long range guns and just goes "Yup, I"ve deployed up here on the upper levels of stuff, we rolled a mission that doesn't require me to move, I hope you like hearing the word "Ready!" "

Fair enough, in KT its never been a problem for me so far but i dont have that many games in and i usually play with a pretty full board so if someone spams ready i can just move to a point where they can't see me.

Its true that adding that to 40k would remove a big part of AA's purpose.

 p5freak wrote:

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..."

You wouldnt be able to implement the damage phase in 40k exactly as in apoc. I dont see a problem for a modified damage phase in 40k. You would shoot/fight, wound and make save rolls as usual. But the models wouldnt be removed, instead you would place a dice indicating how many models have been killed. No need for dozens of tokens, like in apocalypse. When the damage phase comes at the end of the battle round, after both players had their turn, the killed models would be removed, and you would make morale checks.

The second half of my post talked about how what you just described wouldn't necessarily benefit 40k in the same way it benefits Apoc, because removing uncertainty also removes the much larger potential for Overkill that the apoc system has in place. If you put a 40k unit up against another 40k unit and an apoc unit up against another apoc unit, and just have them shoot at each other, the lethality isn't *that* much different. The reason apoc games end with Objective points on turn 7 with a solid 1/4 of either player's army left, and 40k games end top of turn 3 by tabling is because making the best tactical move in apoc often means purposefully dealing damage inefficiently in order to GUARANTEE you remove what needs to be removed.

in a system where you know "OK, I have dealt 10 damage to that rhino, it is 100% dead now at the end of the turn" you can immediately start focusing other things just like now, and your opponent now knows they can launch that unit in a suicide attack that deals as much damage as possible because, might as well!

I think that a system like that would be different, and definitely feel much, much better to play as the person who did not get first turn, but I think it would be just as deadly/alphastrike heavy if not a little bit more than current 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

TBH, "Ready" is my least favorite thing about KT. It takes what could be an alternating activation system, and says "Unless you're playing a stationary gunline, that is *wink*"

If people think that 8th has an alpha strike problem, and some of that problem is caused by the fact that we have alternating combat *except* for when you charge, which with the game's currently lethality is "almost all the time when you're doing it right" then don't bake a loophole right into an alternating shooting phase system that benefits the most boring, toxic pattern in the shooting playstyle.

I've played so many dull, dull games of Kill Team where one player has long range guns and just goes "Yup, I"ve deployed up here on the upper levels of stuff, we rolled a mission that doesn't require me to move, I hope you like hearing the word "Ready!" "

Fair enough, in KT its never been a problem for me so far but i dont have that many games in and i usually play with a pretty full board so if someone spams ready i can just move to a point where they can't see me.

Its true that adding that to 40k would remove a big part of AA's purpose.

Yeah, the whole reason why AOS doesn't feel like nearly as much of a crazy "IGOUGO' experience is that combat is alternating except for very rare instances of special unit abilities/command abilities, and it doesn't just come down to who gets the charge off.

You have a similar situation with games like Infinity, where they're technically not AA, but they allow for a much greater deal of reactive play when you're not the one whose turn it currently is. It's sort of like the way fall back/overwatch works in KT, where you don't just have one choice when you react to a charge.

the_scotsman wrote:

Yeah, the whole reason why AOS doesn't feel like nearly as much of a crazy "IGOUGO' experience is that combat is alternating except for very rare instances of special unit abilities/command abilities, and it doesn't just come down to who gets the charge off.

You have a similar situation with games like Infinity, where they're technically not AA, but they allow for a much greater deal of reactive play when you're not the one whose turn it currently is. It's sort of like the way fall back/overwatch works in KT, where you don't just have one choice when you react to a charge.

Yeah, trying out infinity after playing 40k for a while was breath of fresh air. the tactical decisions actually matter and theres is no such thing as modeling for advantage.

Lance845 wrote:Entering a thread entitled "9th edition is already dead in the water (IGO/UGO)" to tell the OP about how much you love IGOUGO is the same as me being on the forum to discuss both the state of the game and what direction it is heading in.

Except the thread being titled in such a clearly and blatantly aggressive/close minded tone is the problem here.

If the OP started a thread with no intention of it actually being discussed, then the thread should have been closed, as it offered no discussion.

All I'm saying is that 40k should be discussed by people actually invested in 40k, not people who have no positive experience with it.

Everyone is entitled to be here and everyone is entitled to say how they feel about whatever topic they decide to post in. Telling people to just not play the game if they don't like the current state of things is the same as telling people to not participate in discussions with opinions other than their own.

It's nowhere near the same - people are more than welcome to discuss opinions other than their own, but that to *discuss*, not to shout into a void. And you're telling me that I can jump into any other forums and post deliberately inflammatory comments in other games I have no investment in because "I'm entitled to say how I feel about whatever topic"?

Instead of more or less telling people to feth off you (not YOU Smudge but the people in this discussion who keep falling back on those statements) should have an actual discussion.

Perhaps the OP of this thread should have been told that before they started.

catbarf wrote: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.

Oh, so you understand that certain systems aren't designed for certain things! Great! So why shouldn't we have a system where a 1k-1.5k list uses the IGOUGO system, and larger lists use the Apoc system?

After all, Apoc =/= 40k.

'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.

That depends on the scale you're fighting at in 40k. A small 40k game using AA wouldn't be that far from Kill Team. The differences seem trivial.

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.

But 40k doesn't have a set scale. 40k is played using units, putting it a scale above Kill Team, but those units can number a handful of squads, or full crusade-sized armies. What is 40k's "scale"?

the_scotsman wrote: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.

Yes, it is. But the whole "you're just settling for IGOUGO" or "degenerate/toxic" and "you're just cheerleading" comments are not. That's what I'm calling out.

BaconCatBug wrote:It's always better to be pessimistic because you'll never be disappointed.

That's the kind of nihilistic "I hate all humans equally" mentality that puts up immediate red flags.

Why the fear of disappointment? Why be afraid to get your hopes up over a toy soldiers game? Also, not reposting that absurdly reductive (and frankly, in poor taste) graph. If you genuinely believe that people are incapable of handling being disappointed in a less... self destructive manner, I despair for your expectations.

Why not be disappointed? That's basically GWs thing to do. They always manage to screw up royally.

Also part of the attitude with keeping IGOUGO is a complete resistance to change, period.

 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 really like 8th ed. and i like the IGOUGO system. but i don't like the current apocalypse rules they are over simplified. if the game was less deadly the IGOUGO would not be such a problem. 8th ed. is most popular ed. in GW's history so i think your assumtion about most people not liking 8th is wrong.

IGOUGO is not the problem. Lack of reactive gameplay is.

Getting psyched/shot for a whole turn without being able to do anything but rely on some -1 to hit is neither fun nor balanced.

 nordsturmking 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 really like 8th ed. and i like the IGOUGO system. but i don't like the current apocalypse rules they are over simplified. if the game was less deadly the IGOUGO would not be such a problem. 8th ed. is most popular ed. in GW's history so i think your assumtion about most people not liking 8th is wrong.

Popular is not a synonym for Quality.

Neither is unpopularity?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 nordsturmking 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 really like 8th ed. and i like the IGOUGO system. but i don't like the current apocalypse rules they are over simplified. if the game was less deadly the IGOUGO would not be such a problem. 8th ed. is most popular ed. in GW's history so i think your assumtion about most people not liking 8th is wrong.

Popular is not a synonym for Quality.

I know. And i did not say it is the best possible quality. But what i heard from GW about 9th sounded pretty good they are taking the biggest flaws which IMO are
terrain(most importat by far IMO),
Melee army are getting better.
Command Points
Army Composition
how tanks and mosters work
New core stratagems
Modifiers locked to +/- 1
The Morale phase
All Forgeworld rules will now be handled by GW rules team.
Flyers

After all these points i find in pretty hard to find a big problem in game.

Hey remember when they said we would love how they fixed the flaws of going 7th to 8th? That was pretty hilarious.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Hey remember when they said we would love how they fixed the flaws of going 7th to 8th? That was pretty hilarious.

Hey, remember how 7th drove away a whole heap of players and 8th brought them all back and they really enjoy it? Guess all those people who push GW stock through the roof are all wrong.

 Ishagu wrote:
AA does not equate to more Tactical options

Yes it does.

If for no reason then when I move forward to put this unit in range to shoot you it then puts it in range for you to shoot it. Then you have to pick and choose what to activate and in what order. the order in which you activate things and what you do with them becomes a tactical choice. In the current set up your only choice is "How do I optimize to cause as much damage as possible before they can respond?" It's the one and only question that matters.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Hey remember when they said we would love how they fixed the flaws of going 7th to 8th? That was pretty hilarious.

Hey, remember how 7th drove away a whole heap of players and 8th brought them all back and they really enjoy it? Guess all those people who push GW stock through the roof are all wrong.

You mean the same players being pushed away now from the bloat they've created?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Hey remember when they said we would love how they fixed the flaws of going 7th to 8th? That was pretty hilarious.

Hey, remember how 7th drove away a whole heap of players and 8th brought them all back and they really enjoy it? Guess all those people who push GW stock through the roof are all wrong.

You mean the same players being pushed away now from the bloat they've created?

Proof?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Hey remember when they said we would love how they fixed the flaws of going 7th to 8th? That was pretty hilarious.

They fixed A LOT.

 nordsturmking wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 nordsturmking 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 really like 8th ed. and i like the IGOUGO system. but i don't like the current apocalypse rules they are over simplified. if the game was less deadly the IGOUGO would not be such a problem. 8th ed. is most popular ed. in GW's history so i think your assumtion about most people not liking 8th is wrong.

Popular is not a synonym for Quality.

I know. And i did not say it is the best possible quality. But what i heard from GW about 9th sounded pretty good they are taking the biggest flaws which IMO are
terrain(most importat by far IMO),
Melee army are getting better.
Command Points
Army Composition
how tanks and mosters work
New core stratagems
Modifiers locked to +/- 1
The Morale phase
All Forgeworld rules will now be handled by GW rules team.
Flyers

After all these points i find in pretty hard to find a big problem in game.

Have they explained how they made melee better somewhere? im eager to learn about it because with tanks/MC being able to shoot in combat and blast weapons doing max hits against hordes, i'm really curious how melee will be made better

This edition will be maligned for many reasons.

It's coming at a bad time when we don't even know when we'll get to really get games in. When a good many people are just not up for spending the money outlay this will take and yes even those sitting well now will suffer the longer this goes on the system can't only run at the high levels forever eventually when it breaks down it hits everyone. Especially if this rebounds this fall/winter what then ?

As well this will end up an even more expensive public beta that will be " The best ! " While keeping some deep problems from 8th and fixing the things we knew were issues months into 8th while breaking things deeper this time around. That will be " The Best ! "...of course until 10th edition which is the real #New40k, and the real " Best " !

AngryAngel80 wrote:
This edition will be maligned for many reasons.

Every edition of 40k since 3rd has been maligned, either when it was current or in retrospect.