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.

 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.

No, but it is an indicator of customer approval, and it is a very hard counter to those of you who insist that the game is bad. Presumably, if previous versions had been better they would have sold better. I mean, you're right- it's not that simple. But in general terms, you've got to admit it's a pretty compelling argument.

I've come to respect a lot of the opinions on both sides of the fence. There was a guy the other day who said, "Just because we're criticizing the game doesn't mean we hate it," and I loved that; it revealed a flaw in my own thinking, because I realized that some of the people who I had dismissed as haters weren't. So thanks to that guy; I'll try and be a little more aware of the spectrum.

I also thought it was interesting that some Apocalypse players and fans contributed for us; one that I thought was particularly interesting is the guy who said that even though Apocalypse has AA, and that he preferred AA, but he still liked 40k better. Proof positive that for some folks, AA isn't the magic bullet that some in the AA camp.

Heck, I've clashed with Slayer on this issue many times in many threads, but he got in a good one a while back, outlining that from his perspective, he goes after IGOUGO because he thinks it is the one single change that could solve the greatest number of problems. We've clashed so often that I assumed his objection was more ideological.

Anyway, the slomotion trainwreck that is this thread has started, and I've played my part more than once to push it along. I hope the changes that they've announced diminish the lethality of the game; I'd say odds are decent they will. Hopefully there will be no unintended consequences.

 Sim-Life wrote:

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.

Hehe. I was going to say the same thing.

Maybe to some but not to me. I actually miss some of the old editions of 40k. Sometimes they had odd mechanics but generally speaking they often felt like a change and not a " This is the best ! " type of feeling which they apparently want to cultivate now.

So saying this will be maligned because others have been as well really just leaves little room anyone should have hope in this edition.

Though I will admit, I didn't like 6th and did dread 7th when they were announced. I don't think that 9th will be maligned for those same reasons but it's a damn poor time to try and stir up hype.

Sgt_Smudge wrote: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?

Well, because the IGOUGO system as it stands promotes a one-sided gameplay experience where one player is largely inactive for 30+ minutes at a time, greatly reduces the number of decision points and ability to react in contrast to an AA system, and magnifies the problems with alpha-striking.

AA allows for constant interaction, promotes instant reactions, and is generally a better simulation of small-scale conflict, doing a decent job of modeling the fast-paced nature of tactical operations. That is a big part of why it is now the de facto standard for skirmish wargaming, while strategic games tend to still be IGOUGO. Having the small-scale game be AA, the medium-scale game be IGOUGO, and the large-scale game be AA doesn't make sense.

I want to point out that my previous post was in reply to 'if you want AA, go play Apoc'. The fact that Apoc is a significantly different game and not just 40K-with-AA should be self-evident if you've played both. I don't know if it was your intent, but 'If you want [minor mechanic from other game], go play [radically different other game]' reads like another flavor of the all-too-common defensive 'if you don't think this game is perfect, git out' fanboyism.

Sgt_Smudge wrote: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.

Trivial? Really? I mean, for starters, the fact that a large game of Kill Team consists of a bunch of individuals versus a small game of 40K consisting of a handful of units makes a pretty enormous difference in how they play. Kill Team places organization emphasis on individuals with its specialist roles, while 40K places emphasis on units with its wargear allowances. These are structured completely differently, and the differences in core mechanics have significant impact on balance (eg multi-wound models being less valuable in Kill Team).

Suggesting that Kill Team is just 'small 40K with AA' makes it sound like you haven't played it.

Sgt_Smudge wrote: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"?

40K's scale was originally platoon-level, nowadays is closer to company-level. Kill Team is squad-level. Apocalypse is company to battalion.

These descriptions are based on the number of actors and level of abstraction involved at the points levels the game is designed for and typically played at.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
generally speaking they often felt like a change and not a " This is the best ! " type of feeling which they apparently want to cultivate now.

That's because up until 2016 GW ran their company like it was still a niche shop in Nottingham and the internet was just a weird curiosity for rich nerds.

I'm often lambasted for saying this, but IGOUGO is unlikely to be removed from 40K for a number of reasons, but the primary reason is the following:

Non-IGOUGO will almost invariably lead to a longer game...
A longer game leads to smaller forces to reduce said game length...
Smaller forces means less models...
Less models means less sales...
Less sales means less moneys...

GW's rules for 40K have never been amazing, even in editions I really like (2nd edition), the rules are more or less...mediocre. There are cool rules, funny rules, but very rarely clever or elegant or well thought out rules. GW has one main goal; sales, mainly of models. This means the rules don't have to be amazing, they simply have to be "good enough". If they were new to the market, they'd have to put more work into it, because it would be received as a mess and wouldn't gain market traction. Right now, GW has a massively captive audience. At this point rules need to simply be good enough to play, and rules need to lean heavily into selling new models/books/units, vs. maintaining a balanced game, etc.

This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's simple business practice. It's not one I fault GW for. GW has been streamlining and simplifying the game over the past 20-25 years. The size of games and the model count has grown which in turn generates more sales.

Expecting GW to pursue more modern or "better" rules for the game is kind of a lost cause. If it doesn't generate more sales, it's not being done.

Having said that, when I was playing 8th edition, I played Tokenhammer almost exclusively. Super easy to convert over, and far more interesting/better. However, it does lengthen the games, though you get far more use out of your 1250 or 1500 point games.

 Sim-Life wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
generally speaking they often felt like a change and not a " This is the best ! " type of feeling which they apparently want to cultivate now.

That's because up until 2016 GW ran their company like it was still a niche shop in Nottingham and the internet was just a weird curiosity for rich nerds.

The "rich nerds" clause might have been true in 1997.

Their advertising definitely changed recently, though.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
generally speaking they often felt like a change and not a " This is the best ! " type of feeling which they apparently want to cultivate now.

That's because up until 2016 GW ran their company like it was still a niche shop in Nottingham and the internet was just a weird curiosity for rich nerds.

The "rich nerds" clause might have been true in 1997.

Their advertising definitely changed recently, though.

Well you still better be rich to start a new large army that is still pretty on point.

Sure could fool me, the number of 30+ year olds back here greatly out numbered the number of teens.

My teenage son has no interest at all. That's my primary data point. Way too slow and archaic.

Karol wrote:
Sure could fool me, the number of 30+ year olds back here greatly out numbered the number of teens.

Yes. I do not follow GW ads too closely (had a bad encounter recently, but still), but it is surprising how the models in them are older dudes.

While I am sure they sell minis to teenagers who probably play a couple years, I honestly believe (cannot prove) that the majority of their clients are young male adults.

I don't think an avarge teenager here can afford to play w40k.

Have nothing against the add though. It is a nice long cinematic. nothing strange or wierd in it.

In my experience personally, it was always generally college aged people and older playing 40k, never really teenagers. Mostly that ~20-40 bracket. Old enough to have a job of some sort, young enough for kids and careers to not occupy all of their time. The last few events I attended I think the youngest person was ~25ish and the oldest almost 60, most were in their 30's.

Yeah, pretty exclusively dads and grads here. Roughly 85% white dudes 20-40.

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

When I heard those words I thought he was being a troll.

Then go play a different game? I like 40K as it is, IGOUGO style, and I'm happy to play it.

sigh...this gak again?

How about this? Go form a better opinion.

I've sunk thousands upon thousands of hours and dollars into this game. I will give my fething opinion on this game when and where I please.

catbarf wrote:Well, because the IGOUGO system as it stands promotes a one-sided gameplay experience where one player is largely inactive for 30+ minutes at a time, greatly reduces the number of decision points and ability to react in contrast to an AA system, and magnifies the problems with alpha-striking.

AA allows for constant interaction, promotes instant reactions, and is generally a better simulation of small-scale conflict, doing a decent job of modeling the fast-paced nature of tactical operations. That is a big part of why it is now the de facto standard for skirmish wargaming, while strategic games tend to still be IGOUGO. Having the small-scale game be AA, the medium-scale game be IGOUGO, and the large-scale game be AA doesn't make sense.

I want to point out that my previous post was in reply to 'if you want AA, go play Apoc'. The fact that Apoc is a significantly different game and not just 40K-with-AA should be self-evident if you've played both. I don't know if it was your intent, but 'If you want [minor mechanic from other game], go play [radically different other game]' reads like another flavor of the all-too-common defensive 'if you don't think this game is perfect, git out' fanboyism.

From my experience, Apoc isn't all *that* different from regular 40k, especially not when the armies are both large scale.

And no, I'm not saying "if it ain't perfect, get out", I'm saying if you want want XYZ, go to a game system that provides XYZ. And in my personal experience, Apoc isn't significantly different from 40k in the same way Kill Team *feels* a lot more different (if only because it's not squad based).

Sgt_Smudge wrote: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.

Trivial? Really? I mean, for starters, the fact that a large game of Kill Team consists of a bunch of individuals versus a small game of 40K consisting of a handful of units makes a pretty enormous difference in how they play. Kill Team places organization emphasis on individuals with its specialist roles, while 40K places emphasis on units with its wargear allowances. These are structured completely differently, and the differences in core mechanics have significant impact on balance (eg multi-wound models being less valuable in Kill Team).

Suggesting that Kill Team is just 'small 40K with AA' makes it sound like you haven't played it.

Yeah, I'll grant that Kill Team is more different, but my point is on scale. A 40k game played at something like 25 PL isn't far off of Kill Team in terms of size. I mean, what, Kill Team with Commander goes up to typically about 200 points? There isn't *that*much of a difference. Off the top of my head, a Shield Captain and 4 Custodes is around 20PL, and that same total is near 250 points in Kill Team.

When you get to Apoc, the difference between scale is almost non-existant. My point is that there isn't really a "scale", and I'd rather rather GW just folded the Apoc ruleset as an optional element of the core 40k rules, like Variant Encumbrance in D&D.

Sgt_Smudge wrote: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"?

40K's scale was originally platoon-level, nowadays is closer to company-level. Kill Team is squad-level. Apocalypse is company to battalion.

These descriptions are based on the number of actors and level of abstraction involved at the points levels the game is designed for and typically played at.

Sure, but there's no actual way to enforce that. I've seen games of 40k played using the core 40k rules that realistically could well have used Apoc rules, and some of the examples of Apoc battles don't look like they need that ruleset. So, there isn't exactly any kind of solid scale. Hence why I'd vastly prefer if Apoc were just folded in as an optional way to play in the core game.

Basically, the main thing I'm getting at is: if you think Apoc is better, play Apoc?

If you think 40k is all sunshine and roses, why do you care other people don't like it?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you think 40k is all sunshine and roses, why do you care other people don't like it?

If you think 40k is a broken mess, why do you care if other people don't agree?

 Sim-Life wrote:

Hey, remember how 7th drove away a whole heap of players and 8th brought them all back and they really enjoy it?

'All' is overstating it somewhat. 7th was the final straw for me, and 8th did not bring me back .. it was one 'reinvention instead of refinement' too many. I've gone back to 2nd edition for my 40K fix.

I'm still curious to see what they've actually done with 9th, but 8th was not a style of game I was at all interested in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you think 40k is all sunshine and roses, why do you care other people don't like it?

Most people don't care that others don't like it. What gets them riled is when they're trying to talk about it and the thread gets derailed by people making hyperbolic statements about how broken it is, without making any useful contribution to the actual discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In my experience personally, it was always generally college aged people and older playing 40k, never really teenagers. Mostly that ~20-40 bracket. Old enough to have a job of some sort, young enough for kids and careers to not occupy all of their time. The last few events I attended I think the youngest person was ~25ish and the oldest almost 60, most were in their 30's.

Not seeing teenagers at events doesn't mean they don't play... just that they don't play at events. I would expect that teens would be more likely to be in the camp that plays at home with friends or family.

 insaniak wrote:
7th was the final straw for me, and 8th did not bring me back .. it was one 'reinvention instead of refinement' too many. I've gone back to 2nd edition for my 40K fix.

I'm still curious to see what they've actually done with 9th, but 8th was not a style of game I was at all interested in.

See, I really respect that. You knew you didn't enjoy it, the game didn't interest you, so you played another version of it. You did probably the most mature option, and I respect that decision.

 insaniak wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you think 40k is all sunshine and roses, why do you care other people don't like it?

Most people don't care that others don't like it. What gets them riled is when they're trying to talk about it and the thread gets derailed by people making hyperbolic statements about how broken it is, without making any useful contribution to the actual discussion.

^^^This. It works the other way too - people who turn up in any critical thread and come out with things like "the game is fine, if you don't like it leave" are also part of the problem IMO. It's possible to not like the game and provide constructive criticism or useful discussion topics and it's possible to be a fan of the game while providing supporting opinions for that position that may also create discussion. Just trying to shut down any opinion with "it's great, you all suck" or "this game sucks!!!!!" isn't helpful. Nor is repeating the same tired complaint/praise like some sort of mantra without any further contribution.

That's the problem with the OP here - it's not really creating discussion or providing any measured critique so it's difficult to engage with. In spite of that some of the discussion here about Apoc vs regular 40k is interesting. For my part, I'm not convinced Apoc is the great saviour many think it could be because I think, as someone else pointed out, it gets a good reputation at least partially based on the fact it's niche enough that there aren't thousands of gamers trying to break it so any brokenness goes largely unnoticed. I do wish GW had taken a few more cues form Apoc though. I think an adaptation of Apoc's unit-based combat system would be beneficial. 40k is rapidly becoming comically bloated with the number of dice some units can roll. Is there really a need for a unit like Aggressors to roll over 100 dice just to resolved their hit rolls? And that's before any re-rolls! I'd much rather see some sort of adaptation that gives diminishing returns as you add more guns rather than this 1-to-1 increase on shots per model but that's probably too complex for the minor rewrite that 9th is going to be.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Then go play a different game? I like 40K as it is, IGOUGO style, and I'm happy to play it.

sigh...this gak again?

How about this? Go form a better opinion.

I've sunk thousands upon thousands of hours and dollars into this game. I will give my fething opinion on this game when and where I please.

Chances are I’ve sunk just as much time and money into it. Yet IGOUGO is 40k, and. 40k is IGOUGO.

You’re change in preference if it’s a recent shift, or difference in opinion doesn’t mean GW need to listen to you. They’re making money hand over fist, so clearly people are broadly happy with the game as it is.

Don’t get me wrong, I cut me teeth on 2nd Ed Space Marine (not a flex), and that used an order lead Alternate Activation. For those unaware, each unit had four possibilities for Orders. Three were optional - First Fire, Advance and Charge. One was compulsory if your unit was Broken, and was Fall Back.

The Orders phase was possibly the most tactical. I had to not only plan what I wanted my units to achieve, but also anticipate your counter. Because once the orders were revealed? You were stuck with them. And each dictated what that unit could do, and when. It was a great system, definitely one of my all time favourites, and not just because of the Rose Tinted Goggles of a Sad Old Git. It tied each player to certain possible permutations in a given turn,

The win method was also tied to that quite heavily. See, VPs were somewhat fluid, and the amount needed for a win depended upon the size of the game (or player preference, no GW rule being set in stone). You got them for Breaking enemy units (inflicting a set level of casualties), wiping out enemy units, and holding Objectives.

Objectives were worth 5VP each, so were solid building blocks. Those were awarded at the end of each turn, in a non cumulative way, and Objectives could all too easily change hands.

So as an example, if I held 5 Objectives at the end of turn two ( entirely possible with swift moving armies), that’s 25VPs in the bag. But, if at the end of turn three you’d wrested control of two of them, I only scored 15VPs, plus whatever others I’d generated during the general carnage and mayhem.

I really, really liked that system. And if we see Epic again, I hope we see that system return.

But do I want it for 40k? Well, kinda I guess. But it’s so far from being a deal breaker, because I didn’t get into 40k expecting Alternate Activation.

 insaniak wrote:

Most people don't care that others don't like it. What gets them riled is when they're trying to talk about it and the thread gets derailed by people making hyperbolic statements about how broken it is, without making any useful contribution to the actual discussion. .

how is that different from people claiming that 8th is good or even the best edition that ever was, and you just went through 2 years of playing GK, and are given such great arguments presented, as . You play in a tournament setting against evil people, in an evil place there for you should stop playing tournaments. And you have played in one store tournament over 2 years.

So it seems like there is no understanding between people thinking the game is good or bad, just winning by being loudest. And if the other people don't care how you are doing, then why should anyone thing that the other side is right or agree with them. Specialy as it is not like the 8th is good crew isn't using hyberboles.

8th edition is thus far the best edition overall, but that doesn't mean it's perfect or that some factions weren't given a chance to shine due to sub par rules.

It also doesn't mean that every topic on this forum should be filled with frothing-at-the-mouth haters who have a fetish for incessant complaining and only focus on the negatives.

I got it!

We can discuss the games failings so long as you do so in the form of a compliment sandwich to appease the cultists.

8th edition is the best edition so far.

But it still sucks big time as a result of many issues including bloat of rules, wargear, poor rules writing, too many books, a boring turn structure, etc...

But man those new models look sweet!

Is that better?

Well you've proven you're a frothing-at-the-mouth hater, if nothing else.

You can't say a single positive thing about the game.

 Ishagu wrote:
Well you've proven you're a frothing-at-the-mouth hater, if nothing else.

You can't say a single positive thing about the game.

Can you point out anything positive that isn't totally subjective and thus not really relevant?

 Lance845 wrote:
I got it!

We can discuss the games failings so long as you do so in the form of a compliment sandwich to appease the cultists.

8th edition is the best edition so far.

But it still sucks big time as a result of many issues including bloat of rules, wargear, poor rules writing, too many books, a boring turn structure, etc...

But man those new models look sweet!

Is that better?

you got it all wrong. When someone criticizes your person instead of discussing your arguments, you should just ignore them completely.

It doesn't work in real life (read Schopenhauer), but it's perfect on the internet.

Siegfriedfr wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I got it!

We can discuss the games failings so long as you do so in the form of a compliment sandwich to appease the cultists.

8th edition is the best edition so far.

But it still sucks big time as a result of many issues including bloat of rules, wargear, poor rules writing, too many books, a boring turn structure, etc...

But man those new models look sweet!

Is that better?

you got it all wrong. When someone criticizes your person instead of discussing your arguments, you should just ignore them completely.

It doesn't work in real life (read Schopenhauer), but it's perfect on the internet.

Labelling someone who only hates something as a hater isn't controversial.