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.

Given that only once piece is being moved at a time, as opposed to all pieces of one side, and that one can move the same piece as often as one wants without activating other pieces or the other pieces really having any relevancy aside from their position and *potential* moves (they're not granting actions the way they do in say, Infinity), and that there really isn't any other relevant actions/reactions a player can make other than "move", I don't think the Chess analogy really works well for either AA or IGOUGO as it relates to miniatures wargames.

You guys are conflating 3 types of wargame into 2 and it is causing problems.

The Impulse Model is not the same thing as AA, and *that* is what "having players alternating within a single turn" is actually called. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse-based_turn_system). This is what let's you command any number of things within a single turn (whether one or thirty) typically constrained by things like C2 capability, game state, etc.

Chess is Alternating Activations, because you only command one thing at a time.

40k is IGOUGO, because you command everything available all at once without constraint.

Chess is IGOUGO, its just that you have 50-200 turns because you can only move one peice a turn. But you still do everything you want to do in your turn while your opponent does nothing.

If say in 40k, you could activate a unit - it could then move, psychic, shoot, charge, assault etc, and then your opponent activated one unit and did the same, and then you could activate your *same* unit again, it would still be IGOUGO, even though you were not commanding your whole army at once. Units would simply sit there idle (well, assault I guess) until you chose to spend a turn on them. (Whether its a unit or a detachment or a whole army doesn't really impact things philosophically or gameplay wise - because your opponent is still stuck and can only respond in their go with the same level of force.)

AA it seems to me depends on this idea that you shoot with your unit X, then your opponent shoots with their unit Y, and now you have to shoot unit Z. You can't pick unit X again - its had its go "this turn". As a result the turn is effectively shared between players - rather than one having a go, and then the other.

So assault has always had an element of AA - because both players get to have a go (regardless of how you determine the order things activate). Movement and shooting (except for maybe things like really oldschool overwatch) have not.

aphyon wrote:If you look back a few pages i gave examples of variations of AA systems. and they do play much better and both players are much more involved than the igougo system 40K still uses. they are not quite as involved as infinity's total reaction system, but that system is designed as a skirmish system and as such that it does not lend itself to 40K sized play

You can give all the examples you want, but unless I've had experience in their play (even just watching it), it won't mean as much to my preferences. As I said, not a fan of IGOUGO, and I haven't had a chance to deal with AA, with the exception of watching some X-Wing games.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chess is a board game. It is neither AA or IGOUGO.

Yes, you only control one piece a turn in Chess, but Bolt Action, one of the biggest names in AA, you control all your pieces in a turn.

It is IGOUGO in that each player performs a turn, but you're not moving all your pieces at the same time, so it doesn't quite fit in that definition, either.

What Chess isn't is a tabletop wargame like Warhammer, Warmachine, Bolt Action, etc.

Chess is IGOUGO, its just that you have 50-200 turns because you can only move one peice a turn. But you still do everything you want to do in your turn while your opponent does nothing

Not true depends on the system. In DUST if you get close enough(reaction range) your opponent has the opportunity to interrupt your action and take their action(s) instead.

In classic battletech only movement is AA everything else happens at the same time. so both players get to go even if they die.

IGOUGO in Chess would imply that you move all your pieces, then they move all of theirs. It's not IGOUGO.

Newcromunda is kinda sorta AA, given that you rarely move more than 1 mini at a time before it swaps back t your opponent. Some units can activate other units around then, but it remains AA overall.

BattleTech is the one AA game I've played a lot of. The main thing about that game, and this could be applied to 40K even with IGOUGO (and is, apparently, something Apoc does now), is apply all damage at the end of the phase.

So if your 'Mech gets absolutely hammered and ripped to pieces during the ranged weapon phase, and it had declared ranged weapon attacks at the start of the phase, it still gets to make those. Then the end of the phase comes, the damage's effects take place, and then the unit dies (or falls over, or shuts down, or whatever).

Keeping track of AA with large forces (12 units per side) can be pretty tedious though. I can't imagine what it'd be like doing that for the size of some 40K armies.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You guys are conflating 3 types of wargame into 2 and it is causing problems.

The Impulse Model is not the same thing as AA, and *that* is what "having players alternating within a single turn" is actually called. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse-based_turn_system). This is what let's you command any number of things within a single turn (whether one or thirty) typically constrained by things like C2 capability, game state, etc.

Chess is Alternating Activations, because you only command one thing at a time.

40k is IGOUGO, because you command everything available all at once without constraint.

I've never heard the term 'impulse' in this context. Definitely interesting.

'An impulse-based turn system is a game mechanic where a game turn is broken up into a series of discrete, repeating segments, or impulses'

I would assume dropzone commander would be 'impulse model' then as you activate portions of your army before swapping over by this definition? I would have always considered dzc as a variant of aa. Necromunda, warcry, bolt action, test of honour etc are all aa, or variations of. I would consider chess aa.

I think it's pretty fair overall to state that neither Igougo or aa are monolithic entities. They are umbrella definitions and each have variants.

At its core, igoyougo is 'you do all your stuff with your dudes in your turn, then you swap over'.

This ranges from Warmachine and 40k where what you do in the other guys turn is extremely limited. But this nuclear descriptive isn't all that the igoyougo term encompasses, which is, I think, a mistake some people make.

Infinity is igoyougo. I do all the stuff with my dudes in my turn. Then swap over. However infinity has a very intricate and involved reaction system. I use the term 'interrupted igoyougo'

Lord of the rings is igoyougo. I do all the stuff with my dudes in my turn then swap over. However, the turn structure is broken up differently so it's move/move/shoot/shoot/fight. I use rge term a 'broken phase' igoyougo

Someone mentioned starship troopers earlier. It was a game that was ahead of its time and had some great ideas. However it was also severely flawed in so many ways both in terms of scope and mechanics.

Keeping track of AA with large forces (12 units per side) can be pretty tedious though. I can't imagine what it'd be like doing that for the size of some 40K armies.

Actually it isn't nearly as hard as you think if the system is well designed.

on a 4X6 table a DUST army roughly 150-200 points equals a full 40K army for size in it's space occupied on the table. even though it is AA the turns have loads of stuff happen so both players are always very active. and stuff still dies alot so after just a few turns both armies are pretty well mauled. however it doesn't feel like a short changed game like 8th does when you get totally mauled by turn 2 and there is no reason to continue.

This was a large game at 225 points IIRC and i think we finished it in about an hour after like 3 turns.

At the end both sides were down to a walker/tank, a command squad, and a command vehicle.




because area terrain blocks LOS and you roll initiative at the start of every turn. tactical choices when it comes to activations and reactions become a key part of the game.,

Which is another way of saying 'any unit that doesn't have a super impactful activation is actively detrimental to bring along'.

 aphyon wrote:
Actually it isn't nearly as hard as you think if the system is well designed.

I suppose you're right. I mean, on second thought my comparison isn't all that valid because BattleTech is a very crunchy system. Controlling 12 units can become difficult not because tracking AA is hard, but because every single unit has its own sheet where you're tracking your movement, your weapons, ammo, heat, armour, sub-systems/electronics and who knows what else. I take it that Dust wouldn't quite hit that level of "rules heavy" play.

Cool looking board though.

Tyel wrote:
Chess is IGOUGO, its just that you have 50-200 turns because you can only move one peice a turn.

Well, unless you are castling

Regardless of what chess is, 40k IS IGOUGO and 40k does nt have a well designed IGOUGO.

40k has not only what, many consider to be an inferior turn structure for tactical decision making in a miniature war game but it is so poorly implemented that it actively hurts the game play experience.

Regardless of your trepidation with AA being used in 40k, 40k as is is not well made.

 Lance845 wrote:
Regardless of what chess is, 40k IS IGOUGO and 40k does nt have a well designed IGOUGO.

40k has not only what, many consider to be an inferior turn structure for tactical decision making in a miniature war game but it is so poorly implemented that it actively hurts the game play experience.

Regardless of your trepidation with AA being used in 40k, 40k as is is not well made.

And yet, 40K has been around over 30 years and is the most popular miniature tabletop game. I concur there are issues with 40K, and lack of AA may be one of them. But, people have voted with their wallets for over 3 decades in support of 40K. Does it mean it is a superior product? No, but it is a product people have supported and there appears to be no indication support is going to drastically dwindle.

 Sarigar wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Regardless of what chess is, 40k IS IGOUGO and 40k does nt have a well designed IGOUGO.

40k has not only what, many consider to be an inferior turn structure for tactical decision making in a miniature war game but it is so poorly implemented that it actively hurts the game play experience.

Regardless of your trepidation with AA being used in 40k, 40k as is is not well made.

And yet, 40K has been around over 30 years and is the most popular miniature tabletop game. I concur there are issues with 40K, and lack of AA may be one of them. But, people have voted with their wallets for over 3 decades in support of 40K. Does it mean it is a superior product? No, but it is a product people have supported and there appears to be no indication support is going to drastically dwindle.

As you say, quality does not have anything to do with popularity or profitability. Or at the very least other factors can completely overwhelm it as a factor.

So in what way exactly, does pointing that out have anything to do with what I said?

 Sarigar wrote:
And yet, 40K has been around over 30 years and is the most popular miniature tabletop game.

and we have seen 8 different 40k games in that time, each with variation of quality and popularity

40k is now the most popular game, it wasn't during the whole time and we have also seen a decrease in popularity if the quality of the game went down (during an edition as well as with editions as a whole)

the current popularity has also to do with GW realsing that marketing and comunnity building is a thing, but there is a limit what marketing can do for a bad product (and it also can backfire)

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
Actually it isn't nearly as hard as you think if the system is well designed.

I suppose you're right. I mean, on second thought my comparison isn't all that valid because BattleTech is a very crunchy system. Controlling 12 units can become difficult not because tracking AA is hard, but because every single unit has its own sheet where you're tracking your movement, your weapons, ammo, heat, armour, sub-systems/electronics and who knows what else. I take it that Dust wouldn't quite hit that level of "rules heavy" play.

Cool looking board though.

DUST is more akin to 40K in scale. (i think it is 32mm instead of 28mm) all infantry, save characters, only ever have 1 wound. the higher the armor class the less shots some guns get at them to represent how much harder they are to kill. vehicles use a wound system similar to 7th ed 40K hull points (without the damage chart) but vary alot more from 2 all the way up to like 11 as they go from light to superheavy armor. overall the complexity of BT means you only need 4 minis to play for a few hours because there is so much detail. but the detail (well written rules) and the lore is what makes it such a good game (and cheap to start).

Here is a good video batrep for DUST with 3d terrain(it can be played as a tile board game as well) to show you how the AA system works.

Sarigar wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Regardless of what chess is, 40k IS IGOUGO and 40k does nt have a well designed IGOUGO.

40k has not only what, many consider to be an inferior turn structure for tactical decision making in a miniature war game but it is so poorly implemented that it actively hurts the game play experience.

Regardless of your trepidation with AA being used in 40k, 40k as is is not well made.

And yet, 40K has been around over 30 years and is the most popular miniature tabletop game. I concur there are issues with 40K, and lack of AA may be one of them. But, people have voted with their wallets for over 3 decades in support of 40K. Does it mean it is a superior product? No, but it is a product people have supported and there appears to be no indication support is going to drastically dwindle.

Classic battletech has been around just as long has just as hardcore of a fanbase with even more lore.. The rules are far more detailed and better written but the gaming groups tend to be hit and miss depending on where you are . it does not have the marketing presence that GW developed. (that may be in part to the IP being owned by 3 different companies over the years). there is another topic here at dakkadakka that discusses why GW made it to where they are in the hobby market.

Today, aside from GW stores dryhumping new players into buying their product , they are a self fulfilling prophecy. people want a game they can play anywhere. if there is nobody to play with, there is no reason to collect the game/build an army and because 40K is the most widely available it becomes the go-to game system.

Again, not disputing the quality of rules. However, the fact remains that people have consistently voted with their wallets supporting 40K. Battetech has been around and I remember playing it with cardboard figures on a cardboard playing surface in the 80s. I remember when geohex got popular and Battletech had cool, sprawling tables at conventions. Then , it became less and less of a draw and it is a niche game these days. Does that mean it is a bad game? Of course not. It is simply not a game that is widely played and will stay the course, assuming they can continue keep the IP going.

The OP and others indicate they do not like the game mechanics of 40K and would rather not play it. For those folks, enjoy whatever you want to spend your fee time playing. However, claims that 40K will go away and it hurts the game experience has little to no merit. I've literally played through every edition and see the same banter of the likes; 40K is dead and GW do some GW bashing. It simply has not been and is not true.

Now, I'm off to watch Twitch to see the new 40K boxset contents.

IGOUGO is a term that's been around since the wargaming email lists that were still in common usage until the early 2000s. It is a short form of the following:

I go with all my stuff then you go with all your stuff.

Example from a forum post in 2005:

"The card activation is awesome. I've just about sworn off IGOUGO rules, they just don't have the right feel to me now. Every commander's/pilot's best laid plans gets jacked by events completely out of their control and the sequence of the cards reflects this quite nicely."
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=44096

And 2006:

"Flames of War. Beautifully done books (and many of them). Lots of terrific photos. They are often compared to Games Workshop in their approach (main rulebook, then army books for different nations and different periods of the war). Plays reasonably fast. By that I mean you can game in 2-3 hours. Figures are 1:1, with 3-5 figures being half a squad, so six stands of infantry plus a command stand equal to a platoon of three squads. It's IGOUGO, no command or control rules."
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=66487

At this point the term is already jargon and people can use it and expect people to understand it means "with all your stuff" tacked on. In these cases they are contrasting card activation systems with the more common IGOUGO approaches.

 Sarigar wrote:
Again, not disputing the quality of rules. However, the fact remains that people have consistently voted with their wallets supporting 40K. Battetech has been around and I remember playing it with cardboard figures on a cardboard playing surface in the 80s. I remember when geohex got popular and Battletech had cool, sprawling tables at conventions. Then , it became less and less of a draw and it is a niche game these days. Does that mean it is a bad game? Of course not. It is simply not a game that is widely played and will stay the course, assuming they can continue keep the IP going.

The OP and others indicate they do not like the game mechanics of 40K and would rather not play it. For those folks, enjoy whatever you want to spend your fee time playing. However, claims that 40K will go away and it hurts the game experience has little to no merit. I've literally played through every edition and see the same banter of the likes; 40K is dead and GW do some GW bashing. It simply has not been and is not true.

Now, I'm off to watch Twitch to see the new 40K boxset contents.

1) Quote me saying that the game will "go away".

2) It hurts the game experience. That has all the merit in the world. Something selling does not make it good. IGOUGO hurts the game experience. The game COULD be better than it is and this is one of the major ways it which that is true among many. If that idea has no merit, then battle it with facts based on that and not sales figures which we both agree are not related.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
Again, not disputing the quality of rules. However, the fact remains that people have consistently voted with their wallets supporting 40K. Battetech has been around and I remember playing it with cardboard figures on a cardboard playing surface in the 80s. I remember when geohex got popular and Battletech had cool, sprawling tables at conventions. Then , it became less and less of a draw and it is a niche game these days. Does that mean it is a bad game? Of course not. It is simply not a game that is widely played and will stay the course, assuming they can continue keep the IP going.

The OP and others indicate they do not like the game mechanics of 40K and would rather not play it. For those folks, enjoy whatever you want to spend your fee time playing. However, claims that 40K will go away and it hurts the game experience has little to no merit. I've literally played through every edition and see the same banter of the likes; 40K is dead and GW do some GW bashing. It simply has not been and is not true.

Now, I'm off to watch Twitch to see the new 40K boxset contents.

1) Quote me saying that the game will "go away".

2) It hurts the game experience. That has all the merit in the world. Something selling does not make it good. IGOUGO hurts the game experience. The game COULD be better than it is and this is one of the major ways it which that is true among many. If that idea has no merit, then battle it with facts based on that and not sales figures which we both agree are not related.

1. Claiming the game is not well made is why I ended up quoting you. I should have just broadly posted in this thread. Threads like this, 9th edition is dead in the water, crop up after every edition (since 3rd edition, at least for dakkadakka). There is no facts to back this and is generally folks that are salty over some aspect of the game. I generally avoid these as the negativity over a game of toy soldiers is generally off putting. And after this post, I will back out of this thread.

2. Thousands of paying customers voting with their wallets is an indicator of the game experience. Having the largest miniature wargame tourney scene across the planet is a significant indicator that its game mechanics are not hurting game experience. While some may think it is, it certainly was not of any significance to deviate from the IGOUGO. I've conceded there are better game mechanics out there. Won't dispute that. Facts are the game has world wide popularity that has been cultivated for over 30 years. The biggest downturn I've observed with 40K was 6th and 7th edition. GW clearly recognized the downturn and made what I would consider significant changes to rectify that. If you or others think 8th edition is a bad game, then don't support it. However, lots of people around the world did support it and 40K continues to thrive. I see zero indicators 9th edition will suddenly take a downturn in popularity. This is a game competing with things like XBOX and Play Station. When I travel and attend events, I'm playing with folks ranging from their late teens to early twenties to folks in their early fifties (I'm 46). GW is continuing to build a new player base, which I personally find remarkable considering all the offerings out there for our entertainment. IGOUGO may not be the ideal mechanic, but it is clearly acceptable to thousands of wargamers across the planet as evidence to its continued popularity and gameplay.

Again you turn to popularity of the game (something made up of a great many factors and can have absolutely nothing to do with quality) instead of debating the merits of the mechanic and the impact it has on the game.

What are you even here for?

We usually play with so much terrain that we don't get major first turn army wipe outs from shooting or close combat, but I recently got to play a game that had closer to the normal amount of terrain and what I could do shooting in turn one was pretty ghastly.

I definitely like games where each side gets to do stuff before losing a big portion of their models. I thought the Apocalypse rules were clever in this regard.

 Lance845 wrote:
Again you turn to popularity of the game (something made up of a great many factors and can have absolutely nothing to do with quality) instead of debating the merits of the mechanic and the impact it has on the game.

What are you even here for?

Turning to the popularity of the game in this case does have value however.

Debating the mechanics In terms of them 'hurting the game experience' is fairly subjective. If lots of people are playing and enjoying themselves, can you say it's hurting the game experience for them?

if igoyougo has an impact, maybe that is the point of using it? Zooming out to the bigger picture, In WMH for example. it was very much the point as the game was build around synergy building for example. Personally, I value the 'feel' of being in control of all of my army in my turn, whether it was 40k, WMH or infinity. I always found aa kind of disjointed and jarring and feel personally it hampers my immersion. I much prefer broken phase or interpted igoyougo mechanics myself. Always found lots sbg all kinds of sublime and infinity is probsbly the most technically brilliant wargame out there.

Personally, I would argue he huge damage output of 40k and the ability to do massive alphastrikes is a bigger issue. Along with the wide gulf in ability between units (the ,'gw can't balance games') feed more into hurting the game experience. Aa doesn't necessarily solve it. We tried aa in flames of war a couple of times. All you do functionally is run down the list from biggest guns down to littlest guns. And again, aa has issues where there are discrepancies between unit counts across both armies. There are aa games I really enjoy such as necromunda. It's a solid game. Aa is fine for what it does, but it's not 'better', at least to me.

Alpha Strike will always be king as long as IGOUGO exists though.

Deadnight wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Again you turn to popularity of the game (something made up of a great many factors and can have absolutely nothing to do with quality) instead of debating the merits of the mechanic and the impact it has on the game.

What are you even here for?

Turning to the popularity of the game in this case does have value however.

Debating the mechanics In terms of them 'hurting the game experience' is fairly subjective. If lots of people are playing and enjoying themselves, can you say it's hurting the game experience for them?

Yes. I can. People having fun is subjective. But if we were to put a numerical value on it and say they are having 4 fun when they could be having 8 fun if x, y, z elements of the game were repaired then there is no point in using the argument that some people are having some fun. If x y z elements are preventing further fun then They are hurting the game experience.

if igoyougo has an impact, maybe that is the point of using it? Zooming out to the bigger picture, In WMH for example. it was very much the point as the game was build around synergy building for example. Personally, I value the 'feel' of being in control of all of my army in my turn, whether it was 40k, WMH or infinity. I always found aa kind of disjointed and jarring and feel personally it hampers my immersion. I much prefer broken phase or interpted igoyougo mechanics myself. Always found lots sbg all kinds of sublime and infinity is probsbly the most technically brilliant wargame out there.

Personally, I would argue he huge damage output of 40k and the ability to do massive alphastrikes is a bigger issue. Along with the wide gulf in ability between units (the ,'gw can't balance games') feed more into hurting the game experience. Aa doesn't necessarily solve it. We tried aa in flames of war a couple of times. All you do functionally is run down the list from biggest guns down to littlest guns. And again, aa has issues where there are discrepancies between unit counts across both armies. There are aa games I really enjoy such as necromunda. It's a solid game. Aa is fine for what it does, but it's not 'better', at least to me.

Once again, alpha strikes are a direct result of igougo. You can't do them if you get rid of the turn structure. Just like deathstar units can't exist without ic rules.think alpha strikes are a huge issue? That attack the source.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Alpha Strike will always be king as long as IGOUGO exists though.

Not necessarily.

Take WMH as as example. Hugely restricted range to guns (essentially being equivelant to charge range) meant you couldn't just camp and blast the other guys army to bits. Similarly, clever, or just reasonable positioning/blocking charge lanes can mitigate the ability to wreck a whole army in a single go.

Dropzone commander had range limitations as well with the active counter measures.

Take lotr for example. Restricted ability to gunline (you could only equip a third of your guys with ranged weapons) and the lower strength of range do weappns overall, along with the turn structure (i.e. Move/move/shoot/shoot/simultaneous melee) severely dented the alpha strike.

Take infinity for example. Reaction mechanic means you can't just Rambo your way to victory with a big gun and shoot everything off the board.

Take earlier editions of 40k. Prior to fifth, it was hard to alpha. This kind of thing wasn't really the thing. The relative damage output of things was more limited and most damage was in cc.

Igoyougo isn't necessarily the problem. Alpha strike will always be kind with igoyougo? It's fairer to say it's the other way round. that massive alpha strikes makes igoyougo far too deadly when there are other imbalances.

 Lance845 wrote:

Yes. I can. People having fun is subjective. But if we were to put a numerical value on it and say they are having 4 fun when they could be having 8 fun if x, y, z elements of the game were repaired then there is no point in using the argument that some people are having some fun. If x y z elements are preventing further fun then They are hurting the game experience.
.

People having fun is subjective, for sure, assigning a quantified numerical value to fun is also subjective. Your argument is flawed. Who gets to define these numerical values? All you are doing is making up math to back up your opinion. What if, for example, I say aa is a minus seven for me since I prefer other forms of igoyougo? I gave my reasonings up above, and listed some of the games I enjoy.

 Lance845 wrote:

Once again, alpha strikes are a direct result of igougo. You can't do them if you get rid of the turn structure. Just like deathstar units can't exist without ic rules.think alpha strikes are a huge issue? That attack the source.

Wrong. See above. Plenty examples out there of igoyougo games that don't have issues with massive alphastrikes or have various mechanisms in place to limit them. Seems to me the issue is deathstar units. And in aa games, your deathstar unit doesn't stop being a deathstar unit becuase of lack of a turn structure.

Deadnight wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Alpha Strike will always be king as long as IGOUGO exists though.

Not necessarily.

Take WMH as as example. Hugely restricted range to guns (essentially being equivelant to charge range) meant you couldn't just camp and blast the other guys army to bits. Similarly, clever, or just reasonable positioning/blocking charge lanes can mitigate the ability to wreck a whole army in a single go.

Dropzone commander had range limitations as well with the active counter measures.

Take lotr for example. Restricted ability to gunline (you could only equip a third of your guys with ranged weapons) and the lower strength of range do weappns overall, along with the turn structure (i.e. Move/move/shoot/shoot/simultaneous melee) severely dented the alpha strike.

Take infinity for example. Reaction mechanic means you can't just Rambo your way to victory with a big gun and shoot everything off the board.

Take earlier editions of 40k. Prior to fifth, it was hard to alpha. This kind of thing wasn't really the thing. The relative damage output of things was more limited and most damage was in cc.

Igoyougo isn't necessarily the problem. Alpha strike will always be kind with igoyougo? It's fairer to say it's the other way round. that massive alpha strikes makes igoyougo far too deadly when there are other imbalances.

 Lance845 wrote:

Yes. I can. People having fun is subjective. But if we were to put a numerical value on it and say they are having 4 fun when they could be having 8 fun if x, y, z elements of the game were repaired then there is no point in using the argument that some people are having some fun. If x y z elements are preventing further fun then They are hurting the game experience.
.

People having fun is subjective, for sure, assigning a quantified numerical value to fun is also subjective. Your argument is flawed. What if I say aa is a minus seven for me since I prefer other forms of igoyougo?

 Lance845 wrote:

Once again, alpha strikes are a direct result of igougo. You can't do them if you get rid of the turn structure. Just like deathstar units can't exist without ic rules.think alpha strikes are a huge issue? That attack the source.

Wrong. See above. Plenty examples out there of igoyougo games that don't have issues with massive alphastrikes or have various mechanisms in place to limit them. Seems to me the issue is deathstar units. And in aa games, your deathstar unit doesn't stop being a deathstar unit becuase of laxkcof a turn structure.

Alpha Strike was still a thing in older editions. Less lethality was a thing, but Alpha Strikes were still existing. As long as one person has the ability to do everything uninterrupted, that one person will do everything to cripple the opponent. Forget about silly "mY fLuFf SaYs My MaRiNeS dOnT" stuff. A game system shouldn't be broken as easily as 40k has been.

In game design those extra limiting factors are called exceptions. The less exceptions you need to make a mechanic work the better. Preferably none. Igougo doesn't work without exceptions. A LOT of exceptions. And 40k now doesn't have them.

As for quantifying fun, THATS why it's a dumb argument and why I started saying there is no merit to it in this discussion. Argue the mechanics. Don't tell me it's popular. Don't tell me some people are having some fun. Argue the nuts and bolts and their impact on game play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How about this. What does igougo add to the game play experience that aa wouldn't equal or improve upon?

Kind of a pros and cons list for each. Where does igougo excel? How does it elevate the game?

Deadnight wrote:
Dropzone commander had range limitations as well with the active counter measures.

Take lotr for example. Restricted ability to gunline (you could only equip a third of your guys with ranged weapons) and the lower strength of range do weappns overall, along with the turn structure (i.e. Move/move/shoot/shoot/simultaneous melee) severely dented the alpha strike.

Take infinity for example. Reaction mechanic means you can't just Rambo your way to victory with a big gun and shoot everything off the board.

Take earlier editions of 40k. Prior to fifth, it was hard to alpha. This kind of thing wasn't really the thing. The relative damage output of things was more limited and most damage was in cc.

Dropzone Commander uses battle group alternating activation (like Apocalypse), LotR uses phased activation (like Kill Team), Infinity's reaction system is core to the game, and 2nd Ed had Overwatch as an interruption fire mechanic.

I think maybe you're misunderstanding the criticism- it's not that IGOUGO is irredeemably bad; it's that pure IGOUGO without these AA elements to add back in a measure of interactivity and reactivity is bad. Bolt Action-esque pure AA is easier to implement and balance, but I'd be completely happy with 40K staying IGOUGO but adding a well-thought-out reaction system.

 Lance845 wrote:
Kind of a pros and cons list for each. Where does igougo excel? How does it elevate the game?

It's fast, requires little to no bookkeeping (generally easy to remember which units have activated so far), allows uninterrupted combos (not always a bad thing- it's the bread and butter of Warmachine), and prevents timing issues (eg AA in an Age of Sail wargame can do weird things to how formations maneuver).

It has upsides, and pure IGOUGO is appropriate for certain games and genres. Just generally not 28mm modern/sci-fi skirmish wargaming.

 catbarf wrote:

It's fast,

It is no faster than AA. the amount of actions are equivalent. In my experience the game actually runs faster in AA because everyone stays more engaged.

requires little to no bookkeeping (generally easy to remember which units have activated so far),

The same general easiness to remember which units have activated so far is true of AA. But I will conceed that hey, if you were going to do book keeping placing a dice next to a unit that has activated is something you could do.

allows uninterrupted combos (not always a bad thing- it's the bread and butter of Warmachine),

Directly responsible for one of the biggest and most common complaints in 40k. Too killy alpha strikes. In THIS case. It's a very bad thing.

and prevents timing issues (eg AA in an Age of Sail wargame can do weird things to how formations maneuver).

Which are easily addressed in AA with heroic intervention style activating of characters with units as a single activation.

It has upsides, and pure IGOUGO is appropriate for certain games and genres. Just generally not 28mm modern/sci-fi skirmish wargaming.

I am not seeing anything in that list that is something BETTER than AA. At best its equal to. And some of them are just flat out worse.