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.

Lance, I'm firmly pro-AA for 40K, but you asked for the advantages of IGOUGO as a mechanic, and those are the ones that are commonly accepted in the industry.

 catbarf wrote:
Lance, I'm firmly pro-AA for 40K, but you asked for the advantages of IGOUGO as a mechanic, and those are the ones that are commonly accepted in the industry.

I know you are.

What I was doing was pointing out that those "advantages" are not advantages. The closest thing to an advantage is the book keeping. Which again, is as easy as placing one of your dozens of dice next to the unit and in other systems is integrated into the activation (bolt action and Beyond the gates of Antares using order dice). Unless someone can come up with some REAL good advantages to the mechanic there really is no reason for it to be used here in 40k. It's not bringing anything to the table that can't be met or improved upon by something else.

In this discussion of igougo i keep seeing the same fallacy repeated,

"BALANCE"

the origin of 40K as a game was never intended to be a balanced game like chess. in fact the current state of the game with as many factions and the attempt to make them unique in their in universe personas makes it impossible to have a balanced game.

This monster is one of GWs own making with the advent of rogue trader and grand tournaments officially created/sanctioned by GW. starting back in late 3rd edition. up to that point it was hero quest in space. you played scific army men with your buddies for some fun in a narrative driven environment often against impossible odds similar to DnD.. IIRC there were often game masters in RT and 2nd

The hardcore touney player niche within the game community has driven this obsession with more and more alpha strike power builds and the counter argument for some way to balance it out. like the arms race between offensive weapons capability and the defenses against them. igougo just spotlights the first half of the phenomenon because that player gets to do everything at once. then it was doubled when 8th edition increased the rate of fire for everything and also added the WHFB AP system to the game removing both the balancing factor of hard armor as well as hard cover saves/movement penalties.


There is a point where the mechanics break. it is the reason why infinity will never work as an army game. it was designed to prevent it from being anything other than skirmish level. the changes to the (40K) game from the model used roughly from 3rd-7th over to the changes for 8+ have pushed the game mechanics to the breaking point so much that they are now looking backwards for ideas to the pre-8th ed editions.

 Lance845 wrote:

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.

Mechanics aren't everything though (but if you want me to say 40k mechanics are poor, and clunky I will happily say this. There are far more technically interesting games out there)

Quantifying fun is a bad argument. Especially bad faith arguments where you invent numbers purely to back up your assertions. Fun is subjective. Valuing fun and feel and personal enjoyment is perfectly acceptable especially in terms of disagreeing about things 'hurting the game experience' which was the original point.

 Lance845 wrote:

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?

Asked and answered already.

And for the record, I do not think igoyougo is better than aa, nor do I think it's worse, especially when we consider the modern iterations of the systems. And let's face it, these must be included for any kind of honest debate.

For the record, my favourite games tend to be across the spectrum of both aa and igoyougo lotr has a special place in my heart and infinity is brilliant. I've also recently really enjoyed aa games like necromunda and warcry. And have played plenty others of both besides.

 catbarf wrote:

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.

No I understand it well enough catbarf - it's just in my experience those having an issue with Igougo tend to ignore its more modern iterations and evolutions, and tar the whole thing an 'bad'. Hence my response is to point out the bigger picture, it's an umbrella, there are variations and those variations often address a lot of the issues. Now, if said complaints focused on saying 'traditional igoyougo' or 'the igoyougo systems without responsive elements' I wouldn't have an issue. But that is not the case, is it?

And I am in agreement with you - having a reaction system would be a good step forward. You were the one that's mentioned starship troopers earlier, weren't you? It was a good game, well ahead of its time. With some very innovative concepts but it was flawed. The reaction system needed more than a bit of work (in my experience, the mi did far more work in the bugs turn than their own!) but the concept was solid,

 Lance845 wrote:

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.

Misleading. This is Only partially true,

the damage output, combined with various atrategems etc, combined with ridiculously long kill ranges leads to the Killy alpha strikes. Despite it being igoyougo (and arguably, a purer igoyougo than 40k) You don't see things like this in Warmachine (unless you play terribly) which indicates at least a par that of the problem lies elsewhere.

 Lance845 wrote:

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.

Surely it's also fair to say that igoyougo, with elements of reactivity etc do a long way towards dealing with the issues you have?

I have never seen anyone propose a comprehensive reaction system to 40ks igougo that works. Don't just tell us it COULD be done. Show us. Make that game.

I have written myself or participated in several versions of aa. I've played at least 50 games of fan made rule sets using them. What have you got to show us?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Strats don't cause alpha strikes. They make them worse. But they don't cause it. Alpha strike and first turn advantage was an issue long before 8th came around. The damage output in 40k is fine imo. think about the sheer volume of dice that have to get thrown to kill anything. It's insanity. Ive rolled 180 dice from a termagant bomb at some marines in a ruin and not wiped out the unit. The game needs it's lethality so that all that time amounts to anything happening at all. All of these elements are only issues against the backdrop of using your entire army at once. Any one unit. Even big ol knights, just are not that big of an issue.

 Lance845 wrote:
I have never seen anyone propose a comprehensive reaction system to 40ks igougo that works. Don't just tell us it COULD be done. Show us. Make that game.

I have written myself or participated in several versions of aa. I've played at least 50 games of fan made rule sets using them. What have you got to show us?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Strats don't cause alpha strikes. They make them worse. But they don't cause it. Alpha strike and first turn advantage was an issue long before 8th came around.

They can't make that game because they just say "but previous editions!!!!!1!" forgetting they're using rose tinted glasses to tell us that is a good example.

And it's not just that a reactive game has never been proposed.

AA transplants 40k as is directly. All the strats. All the data sheets. They just work. So few clarifications need to be made. Beyond the gates of 40k was like... A 7 page document. And that version had orders you had to issue to units and blast markers for morale.

Scrap the blast markers and the morale and bcb has most of what's left in a thread in proposed rules right now. AA JUST works. Show me a reaction igougo system. Then show me it function with everyone's codex as is.

 Lance845 wrote:
And it's not just that a reactive game has never been proposed.

AA transplants 40k as is directly. All the strats. All the data sheets. They just work. So few clarifications need to be made. Beyond the gates of 40k was like... A 7 page document. And that version had orders you had to issue to units and blast markers for morale.

Scrap the blast markers and the morale and bcb has most of what's left in a thread in proposed rules right now. AA JUST works. Show me a reaction igougo system. Then show me it function with everyone's codex as is.

This would seem an opportune time to plug out sci fi game, but we're likely to have a COVID vaccine before that happens let me plug One Page Rules Grimdark Future, which is basically a streamlined AA 40k. To my mind it's a little too simplistic but the framework is there.

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

Shooting is still declared and processed one player at a time, but that's just so people can keep track of what is going on and prevent cheating.

H.B.M.C. wrote: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.

I'd label Battletech more as a Phased AA game. No one model is moving, shooting, punching, then another does the same thing. This is something that can largely be done with 40K with minimal changes, I think. I could be wrong, I'm hardly a tenth as up to date on the game and army rules as I used to be.

aphyon wrote: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.

It also didn't hurt that GW wasn't sued because some of their robots looked like another person's robots because they were designed and sold to each by the same person. This haunted FASA till WizKids bought out the properties, and still haunted the property until Mechwarrior Online developers has some fight and told the other company to suck it. GW has done more in the C&D/lawsuit prep than has received, I believe, when it comes to its properties.

Lance845 wrote:How about this. What does igougo add to the game play experience that aa wouldn't equal or improve upon?

As I stated earlier, IGOUGO allows a player to set up and execute a puzzle with their pieces. Even with Reactions in the game, this is still possible if planned and measured properly. WMH has even fewer reaction options than 40K has, limited to the only basic one being if you walk away/behind a model while in its melee range, and some special Counter-Charge/Blast rules for specific models.

AA will interfere with this because your opponent's activation will happen between yours, unless you can game the system like in X-Wing. Of course, this can be a good thing, too, but that depends on your preferences.

In AA the puzzle is something more advanced than a 12 piece picture made for a 5 yr old.

The puzzle involves predicting how the enemy will react and planning accordingly to how you in turn will answer. If you are playing as without thinking several actions ahead then you are playing a very unskilled game.

In that respect consider chess. No good player of chess is ever only looking at their one move in front of them. What is all that forward thinking?

A games doesn't become easier or harder to be play because it is IGOUGO or AA. It doesn't matter at all.

I remember that WM/H games were really challenging to play, and yet that is an IGOUGO system with even less interaction and interruptions than 40K (talking about MK2, i don't know other editions). Almost all the rules that allowed you to interrupt the other player's turn were purged when transitioning from MK1 to MK2 and in many games your only choice during an opponent turn was to either transfer the damage from your warlock or take it. No dispersion, no common melee phase, no stratagems, no armor saves... literally nothing to do during your opponent's turn, and yet no one would define WM/H as an easy game.

Spoletta wrote:
A games doesn't become easier or harder to be play because it is IGOUGO or AA. It doesn't matter at all.

I remember that WM/H games were really challenging to play, and yet that is an IGOUGO system with even less interaction and interruptions than 40K (talking about MK2, i don't know other editions). Almost all the rules that allowed you to interrupt the other player's turn were purged when transitioning from MK1 to MK2 and in many games your only choice during an opponent turn was to either transfer the damage from your warlock or take it. No dispersion, no common melee phase, no stratagems, no armor saves... literally nothing to do during your opponent's turn, and yet no one would define WM/H as an easy game.

40ks igougo does in fact make it easier. Charistophs example of the "advantage" of igougo in 40k shows how in igougo you are playing against the game. Did you build your puzzle to maximum efficiency and maximum impact?

In AA you have to play against the opponent instead. Because it's not an understanding of the pieces in the armies that limits you but how the enemy will react to what your doing and try to foil your plans. A game where you actually face another player is inherently more difficult than the bull crap that is igougo.

 Lance845 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
A games doesn't become easier or harder to be play because it is IGOUGO or AA. It doesn't matter at all.

I remember that WM/H games were really challenging to play, and yet that is an IGOUGO system with even less interaction and interruptions than 40K (talking about MK2, i don't know other editions). Almost all the rules that allowed you to interrupt the other player's turn were purged when transitioning from MK1 to MK2 and in many games your only choice during an opponent turn was to either transfer the damage from your warlock or take it. No dispersion, no common melee phase, no stratagems, no armor saves... literally nothing to do during your opponent's turn, and yet no one would define WM/H as an easy game.

40ks igougo does in fact make it easier. Charistophs example of the "advantage" of igougo in 40k shows how in igougo you are playing against the game. Did you build your puzzle to maximum efficiency and maximum impact?

In AA you have to play against the opponent instead. Because it's not an understanding of the pieces in the armies that limits you but how the enemy will react to what your doing and try to foil your plans. A game where you actually face another player is inherently more difficult than the bull crap that is igougo.

Exactly. People figure out all the broken combos REAL quick once we get leaks. There isn't any puzzle for uninterrupted playing. That's the opposite.

 Lance845 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
A games doesn't become easier or harder to be play because it is IGOUGO or AA. It doesn't matter at all.

I remember that WM/H games were really challenging to play, and yet that is an IGOUGO system with even less interaction and interruptions than 40K (talking about MK2, i don't know other editions). Almost all the rules that allowed you to interrupt the other player's turn were purged when transitioning from MK1 to MK2 and in many games your only choice during an opponent turn was to either transfer the damage from your warlock or take it. No dispersion, no common melee phase, no stratagems, no armor saves... literally nothing to do during your opponent's turn, and yet no one would define WM/H as an easy game.

40ks igougo does in fact make it easier. Charistophs example of the "advantage" of igougo in 40k shows how in igougo you are playing against the game. Did you build your puzzle to maximum efficiency and maximum impact?

In AA you have to play against the opponent instead. Because it's not an understanding of the pieces in the armies that limits you but how the enemy will react to what your doing and try to foil your plans. A game where you actually face another player is inherently more difficult than the bull crap that is igougo.

I'm not talking about 40K, I'm talking about IGOUGO in general and provided an example. Thank you for ignoring my point.

Spoletta wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
A games doesn't become easier or harder to be play because it is IGOUGO or AA. It doesn't matter at all.

I remember that WM/H games were really challenging to play, and yet that is an IGOUGO system with even less interaction and interruptions than 40K (talking about MK2, i don't know other editions). Almost all the rules that allowed you to interrupt the other player's turn were purged when transitioning from MK1 to MK2 and in many games your only choice during an opponent turn was to either transfer the damage from your warlock or take it. No dispersion, no common melee phase, no stratagems, no armor saves... literally nothing to do during your opponent's turn, and yet no one would define WM/H as an easy game.

40ks igougo does in fact make it easier. Charistophs example of the "advantage" of igougo in 40k shows how in igougo you are playing against the game. Did you build your puzzle to maximum efficiency and maximum impact?

In AA you have to play against the opponent instead. Because it's not an understanding of the pieces in the armies that limits you but how the enemy will react to what your doing and try to foil your plans. A game where you actually face another player is inherently more difficult than the bull crap that is igougo.

I'm not talking about 40K, I'm talking about IGOUGO in general and provided an example. Thank you for ignoring my point.

Great. But WE have been talking about 40k. How does IGOUGO work with 40k? I asked if anyone had a example of IGOUGO working with 40k and reactions in a functional way. Warmahordes all good and fine for it's very small scale games is great. What relevance does it have here?

Well maybe the relevance is that w40k is too big sized right now. It is possible that the game will never work well when played with the number of models, we get to play with right now.

Also stuff lack rule stacking and aura stacking works way different when you have 1-2 characters and 20-30 models, and when you have 5-6 characters and 120+ models.

3 tau shield drones are an interesting addition to a tau list. a bucket of them protecting a gigantic gunline is not that much fun.

 Lance845 wrote:
In AA the puzzle is something more advanced than a 12 piece picture made for a 5 yr old.

The puzzle involves predicting how the enemy will react and planning accordingly to how you in turn will answer. If you are playing as without thinking several actions ahead then you are playing a very unskilled game.

In that respect consider chess. No good player of chess is ever only looking at their one move in front of them. What is all that forward thinking?

I don't think it is a more advanced puzzle, just a puzzle you can't work in the same manner. It's like comparing Jenga to Tetris. Different format, pieces, and timing.

With AA, you have to work in different ways in opening up the hard hits that don't quite apply in IGOUGO. The only time in AA that you don't have to worry about your opponent's model doing something is if they have already acted. With IGOUGO, you don't have to set up your puzzle with immediate actions of your opponent in mind, just any possible reactions.

It may not seem like much, but a heavy reaction IGOUGO system is actually more powerful than an AA system. For example, Infinity is probably the most reaction heavy IGOUGO system I know of. Your opponent can move or shoot when your models complete an action in their line of sight. So that means they can shoot or move in your turn as well as theirs. In AA, he can only move or attack when it is their time to provide an action to that model.

Now, 40K's reaction system is rather anemic and pretty much only applies to Charging and Melee, with a couple of exceptions in unit rules, and WMH is far more limited. But I guess one advantage in AA is you don't have to worry as much about including reaction systems or providing stupid rules against reactions that IGOUGO generally provides (ex: wiping out a unit you just Charged and left completely exposed to enemy shooting right after).

 aphyon wrote:
In this discussion of igougo i keep seeing the same fallacy repeated,

"BALANCE"

the origin of 40K as a game was never intended to be a balanced game like chess. in fact the current state of the game with as many factions and the attempt to make them unique in their in universe personas makes it impossible to have a balanced game.

This monster is one of GWs own making with the advent of rogue trader and grand tournaments officially created/sanctioned by GW. starting back in late 3rd edition. up to that point it was hero quest in space. you played scific army men with your buddies for some fun in a narrative driven environment often against impossible odds similar to DnD.. IIRC there were often game masters in RT and 2nd

The hardcore touney player niche within the game community has driven this obsession with more and more alpha strike power builds and the counter argument for some way to balance it out. like the arms race between offensive weapons capability and the defenses against them. igougo just spotlights the first half of the phenomenon because that player gets to do everything at once. then it was doubled when 8th edition increased the rate of fire for everything and also added the WHFB AP system to the game removing both the balancing factor of hard armor as well as hard cover saves/movement penalties.


There is a point where the mechanics break. it is the reason why infinity will never work as an army game. it was designed to prevent it from being anything other than skirmish level. the changes to the (40K) game from the model used roughly from 3rd-7th over to the changes for 8+ have pushed the game mechanics to the breaking point so much that they are now looking backwards for ideas to the pre-8th ed editions.

I'm glad someone is saying this besides me. When you take away all of the min/max WAAC nonsense, play with he units you like with augmented homebrewed missions, the game is 100% enjoyable and fun. Every. Time.

 Togusa wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
In this discussion of igougo i keep seeing the same fallacy repeated,

"BALANCE"

the origin of 40K as a game was never intended to be a balanced game like chess. in fact the current state of the game with as many factions and the attempt to make them unique in their in universe personas makes it impossible to have a balanced game.

This monster is one of GWs own making with the advent of rogue trader and grand tournaments officially created/sanctioned by GW. starting back in late 3rd edition. up to that point it was hero quest in space. you played scific army men with your buddies for some fun in a narrative driven environment often against impossible odds similar to DnD.. IIRC there were often game masters in RT and 2nd

The hardcore touney player niche within the game community has driven this obsession with more and more alpha strike power builds and the counter argument for some way to balance it out. like the arms race between offensive weapons capability and the defenses against them. igougo just spotlights the first half of the phenomenon because that player gets to do everything at once. then it was doubled when 8th edition increased the rate of fire for everything and also added the WHFB AP system to the game removing both the balancing factor of hard armor as well as hard cover saves/movement penalties.


There is a point where the mechanics break. it is the reason why infinity will never work as an army game. it was designed to prevent it from being anything other than skirmish level. the changes to the (40K) game from the model used roughly from 3rd-7th over to the changes for 8+ have pushed the game mechanics to the breaking point so much that they are now looking backwards for ideas to the pre-8th ed editions.

I'm glad someone is saying this besides me. When you take away all of the min/max WAAC nonsense, play with he units you like with augmented homebrewed missions, the game is 100% enjoyable and fun. Every. Time.

Melee armies still need to do tripoint nonsense because fallback ruins so many matchups even in casual.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
In AA the puzzle is something more advanced than a 12 piece picture made for a 5 yr old.

The puzzle involves predicting how the enemy will react and planning accordingly to how you in turn will answer. If you are playing as without thinking several actions ahead then you are playing a very unskilled game.

In that respect consider chess. No good player of chess is ever only looking at their one move in front of them. What is all that forward thinking?

I don't think it is a more advanced puzzle, just a puzzle you can't work in the same manner. It's like comparing Jenga to Tetris. Different format, pieces, and timing.

With AA, you have to work in different ways in opening up the hard hits that don't quite apply in IGOUGO. The only time in AA that you don't have to worry about your opponent's model doing something is if they have already acted. With IGOUGO, you don't have to set up your puzzle with immediate actions of your opponent in mind, just any possible reactions.

It may not seem like much, but a heavy reaction IGOUGO system is actually more powerful than an AA system. For example, Infinity is probably the most reaction heavy IGOUGO system I know of. Your opponent can move or shoot when your models complete an action in their line of sight. So that means they can shoot or move in your turn as well as theirs. In AA, he can only move or attack when it is their time to provide an action to that model.

Now, 40K's reaction system is rather anemic and pretty much only applies to Charging and Melee, with a couple of exceptions in unit rules, and WMH is far more limited. But I guess one advantage in AA is you don't have to worry as much about including reaction systems or providing stupid rules against reactions that IGOUGO generally provides (ex: wiping out a unit you just Charged and left completely exposed to enemy shooting right after).

Bolt action/ beyond the gate of Antares is a fully reactive system thats AA. It eats up your activation to perform half activations to react to an enemies unit but you could take cover, return fire, etc etc...

I am not saying that a reactive IGOUGO could not function with 40k. I am saying I have never seen anyone EVER propose a functional reactive igougo system for 40k. Again, stop telling me it COULD be and start showing me one that works that doesn't require redoing all the codexes.

AA JUST works with the codexes as is. So if we are sitting here debating the merits of AA vs IGOUGO we are spoiled for choice of options that work with the datasheets and rules as is with AA and we have jack gak for a reactive igougo with all the incredibly crap issues of the IGOUGO system it runs on now. One of these is better than the other.

 Togusa wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
In this discussion of igougo i keep seeing the same fallacy repeated,

"BALANCE"

the origin of 40K as a game was never intended to be a balanced game like chess. in fact the current state of the game with as many factions and the attempt to make them unique in their in universe personas makes it impossible to have a balanced game.

This monster is one of GWs own making with the advent of rogue trader and grand tournaments officially created/sanctioned by GW. starting back in late 3rd edition. up to that point it was hero quest in space. you played scific army men with your buddies for some fun in a narrative driven environment often against impossible odds similar to DnD.. IIRC there were often game masters in RT and 2nd

The hardcore touney player niche within the game community has driven this obsession with more and more alpha strike power builds and the counter argument for some way to balance it out. like the arms race between offensive weapons capability and the defenses against them. igougo just spotlights the first half of the phenomenon because that player gets to do everything at once. then it was doubled when 8th edition increased the rate of fire for everything and also added the WHFB AP system to the game removing both the balancing factor of hard armor as well as hard cover saves/movement penalties.


There is a point where the mechanics break. it is the reason why infinity will never work as an army game. it was designed to prevent it from being anything other than skirmish level. the changes to the (40K) game from the model used roughly from 3rd-7th over to the changes for 8+ have pushed the game mechanics to the breaking point so much that they are now looking backwards for ideas to the pre-8th ed editions.

I'm glad someone is saying this besides me. When you take away all of the min/max WAAC nonsense, play with he units you like with augmented homebrewed missions, the game is 100% enjoyable and fun. Every. Time.

AKA as long as you modify the game and make up rules, which should be GW's job, the game works?

To enjoy GW games, I have had to heavily modify them as well. To the point where I got tired of arguing with people and just sold all my stuff and got out with the acknowledgement that GW does not make games for people like me, and thats ok.

I've had discussions about Alternate Activation and IGOUGO for 20 odd years online, and I can say this is the first time I've seen people latch on so passionately about trying to nitpick the conversation to death over the definition lol.

Alternate activation is something I love very much, and I define it simply as moving a part of my overall force, and then you get to do the same to respond or launch your own attack. It feels much more interactive to me.

GW IGOUGO is standing there for 45 minutes being punched in the face with no response, while people figure out how to listbuild an alpha strike list that lets them erase half or more of your army in turn 1 after deployment, crippling your force so that your response is not able to amount to much of anything, giving them the sweet sweet victory and full battle points so they can top the leaderboard and have a shot at being glorified on forums as placing in the top 10. In AOS' case, thats 45-90 minutes of being double turned with no response.

Yes nitpickers will respond saying the combat phase is technically Alternate Activation, but most people understand the spirit of where I'm coming from.

I've played with Alternate Activation houserules in place in both 40k and WHFB and later AOS since 2010, and I can say unequivocally that ten years of playing AA style GW games, I would never play stock rules ever again so long as GW sticks to the IGOUGO of stand there and get punched in the face for 45 minutes (or up to 90 minutes if you're playing AOS and getting double turned).

It also certainly does not take longer. My games are comparable and some go longer and some go shorter with AA as opposed to the IGOUGO games. I could get a 2000 point AOS AA game done in 90 minutes. I can get an IGOUGO game of 2000 points of AOS in 90 minutes as well. This whole thing about AA games taking longer is mythological; if its taking longer that is because there are players making it take longer through analysis paralysis and clocks are a good thing to enforce if time is something you want shortened.

40k being IGOUGO to me however does not kill it, and to the OP that is to me an inflated statement with no real merit or backing. GW could release 40k: turd edition with Mr Hanky as the mascot and it would continue to flourish because 40k is the juggernaut it is not because its rules are great ... but because it is the world's largest gaming fission reactor that feeds itself. People play because other people play. Other people play because people play. They know their investment is safe and they don't care about IGOUGO or AA at the core. THey'd still play no matter what because they know that they can go anywhere in the world with their army and get a game in.

You can't say that with any other game.

For my $$$ - I'm good with stepping out of public events and no longer having a lot of players to play with because I found 40k to be a bad game overall to the point of me not standing it a few years ago, and AOS I gave up last fall for the same reasons. And the people that love 40k or AOS are not people I enjoy playing wargames with for the most part anyway, because I'm after command and control, battlefield management, and victory by positioning whereas they are after a game that is about listbuilding combos and crippling your force in a turn or summoning an extra 2000 points to win by creating a 4000 pt to 2000 pt matchup (AOS - triple keeper of secrets looking at you). Those aren't games that I enjoy, but thats the type of game I'm going to keep getting in GW-land.

I follow along because I spent so much money and time on it that I will always be interested to see where it goes, but their ruleset has never been a good one nor do I think 9th edition will be any different. It will still cater to min max power listing and absurd abstract extremities, and I think thats designed as intended.

Shooting is still declared and processed one player at a time, but that's just so people can keep track of what is going on and prevent cheating.

nice thing about CBT there is an entire book of optional rules like rapid firing your machineguns, ghost jamming for ECM and fire as you bear. we use all of these as they make the game more fun and speed things up a bit. we skip the declare fire phase and just fire whatever we want when it is our mechs part of the fire phase to shoot. the player who loses initiative always gets to shoot first with all their units before return fire happens.

Karol wrote:Well maybe the relevance is that w40k is too big sized right now. It is possible that the game will never work well when played with the number of models, we get to play with right now.

Also stuff lack rule stacking and aura stacking works way different when you have 1-2 characters and 20-30 models, and when you have 5-6 characters and 120+ models.

3 tau shield drones are an interesting addition to a tau list. a bucket of them protecting a gigantic gunline is not that much fun.

So we are back yet again to the old FOC where at max you had 2 HQ characters and a minimum of 2 troops and a max of 3 of everything not troops. those HQs also had less impact compared to auras most times they need to join a squad to give it any benefits they imparted and their gear was limited. general librarians for example could have at best no more than 2 powers which had to be chosen before the game . forcing some strategic planning

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
In this discussion of igougo i keep seeing the same fallacy repeated,

"BALANCE"

the origin of 40K as a game was never intended to be a balanced game like chess. in fact the current state of the game with as many factions and the attempt to make them unique in their in universe personas makes it impossible to have a balanced game.

This monster is one of GWs own making with the advent of rogue trader and grand tournaments officially created/sanctioned by GW. starting back in late 3rd edition. up to that point it was hero quest in space. you played scific army men with your buddies for some fun in a narrative driven environment often against impossible odds similar to DnD.. IIRC there were often game masters in RT and 2nd

The hardcore touney player niche within the game community has driven this obsession with more and more alpha strike power builds and the counter argument for some way to balance it out. like the arms race between offensive weapons capability and the defenses against them. igougo just spotlights the first half of the phenomenon because that player gets to do everything at once. then it was doubled when 8th edition increased the rate of fire for everything and also added the WHFB AP system to the game removing both the balancing factor of hard armor as well as hard cover saves/movement penalties.


There is a point where the mechanics break. it is the reason why infinity will never work as an army game. it was designed to prevent it from being anything other than skirmish level. the changes to the (40K) game from the model used roughly from 3rd-7th over to the changes for 8+ have pushed the game mechanics to the breaking point so much that they are now looking backwards for ideas to the pre-8th ed editions.

I'm glad someone is saying this besides me. When you take away all of the min/max WAAC nonsense, play with he units you like with augmented homebrewed missions, the game is 100% enjoyable and fun. Every. Time.

AKA as long as you modify the game and make up rules, which should be GW's job, the game works?

No what he is saying is that the attitude towards to game has been changed in part by GW themselves and it is a bad change because it has created a certain mindset that has ingrained itself in the general community. you don't even need to play a narrative mission or campaign either home made or one published by GW.


This is a social contract between you and other gamers the idea here is to have an enjoyable social event., 40K can be incredibly fun even with both players desiring a win. however now we have gotten to the point where competition has overtaken the fun of the social activity in a game that literally can not be balanced because the game is to large with to many factions and to many options based roughly on in universe lore.

It uses a system that favors heavy alpha strikes limited to a simple d6 variance system (in RT and 2nd there were d10s 12s, 6s and so on) and a focus on list tailoring akin to MTG because of the introduction of the strat/cp system. then it is compounded by the 100% increase in shooting coupled with an AP degradation system that drastically reduces survivability, the insane amount of re-roll availability and removal of meaningful terrain effects (even the new 9th ed rules for it are only marginally better).

Many of us have played other systems by other companies that are better written, far more balanced (in the sense both players have an equal chance at winning), use a different turn mechanic and yet both be competitive and fun at the same time.

Unfortunately those systems are not able to compete in the market place in the manner GW does. think of GW like microsoft or google when it comes to market effects. they are the giant in the room, you can go almost anywhere in the world and find 40K games. there are GW stores, video games, dedicated forums, tv and movie series, novels and other media that GWs position in the market allows them to operate.

They may not have the best system but they have the most accessible system. they have a game attached to their models but that is secondary to selling said models to begin with it is just a vehicle for it.

40k is (and will remain) IGOUGO for the same reason we’re all still typing on QWERTY keyboards. History, inertia and expectations. QWERTY is not the best keyboard layout, it’s deliberately and specifically designed as a bad one in fact, but it’s what everyone is used to. 40k is GWs most valuable property, they’re simply not going to change the formula that much.

And I know it’ll make some peeps on Dakka splutter in rage, but specific game mechanics don’t sell games to the vast majority of the target market. GW isn’t about making the perfect gaming mechanic battle system, they’re about selling boatloads of minis. And they’re doing that very well with IGOUGO mechanics in their primary game.

MaxT wrote:
40k is GWs most valuable property, they’re simply not going to change the formula that much.

And that's why they'll never overhaul the AP system, ditch vehicle rules entirely, add in CCG-esque army abilities and a vitally important new economy, and throw out the FOC. Since rules apparently don't sell minis, no reason to change.

Wait a minute.

 auticus wrote:


For my $$$ - I'm good with stepping out of public events and no longer having a lot of players to play with because I found 40k to be a bad game overall to the point of me not standing it a few years ago, and AOS I gave up last fall for the same reasons. And the people that love 40k or AOS are not people I enjoy playing wargames with for the most part anyway, because I'm after command and control, battlefield management, and victory by positioning whereas they are after a game that is about listbuilding combos and crippling your force in a turn or summoning an extra 2000 points to win by creating a 4000 pt to 2000 pt matchup (AOS - triple keeper of secrets looking at you). Those aren't games that I enjoy, but thats the type of game I'm going to keep getting in GW-land.

I follow along because I spent so much money and time on it that I will always be interested to see where it goes, but their ruleset has never been a good one nor do I think 9th edition will be any different. It will still cater to min max power listing and absurd abstract extremities, and I think thats designed as intended.

Interestingly we got the local FLGS game area up and running again yesterday, with limited time and occupancy restrictions, while one of our regulars and i were cleaning up from our game of WMH and talking shop a new player to our store came in and we got into the discussion we are having here. he is a player totally devoted to the competitive scene, ITC and the like and he is of the opinion that 9th edition will be some kind of wonderful change to the game. Players like him are the ones who are only interested in the newest thing/current edition.

Like you, after all these years, edition changes, armies bought, built, and sold, i told him i am off the rollercoaster. my collection is large enough that i can play what i want. i will never buy another new kit for regular 40K, i am at the point i have no need to buy another kit for any of the dozen or so systems i still play. i will never again have to worry about FAQs, new rules/rulebooks/codexes changes to points or wargear or so forth. everything for the editions i am willing to play are complete. 40K in particular i have the rulebooks for 3rd-8th and horus heresy. i have a large number of codexes form those editions as well.

I also love the lore and will follow what the game is doing, however to me 5th edition will always be the pinnacle of the army battle system(as opposed to the skirmish system of RT/2nd) for 40K with HH coming in a close second, 8th stripped down is fine for epic with some range reductions. there is a group of players at the FLGS who have been with the scene for as long as i have and feel very much the same. perhaps i can bring new players to use the old system if i promote it. that is something i am ok with, even if i am likely to get less games of 40K in because i am not moving ahead with the next edition.

40K was ok for a simple army game with fast play in the previous editions but it has always had a bad set of rules in places that has only gotten worse over the last few editions. rather it be power creep, lethality increase, formation bloat, CP farming, stratagem bloat, unnecessary extra phases and the like.

LOL! I've been away from Dakka for a few weeks until today, and this was literally the first non-sticky post I walked into. One thing will always remain true with Dakka: it's consistent.

Edit: On closer inspection, it would appear that this thread has become the defacto 9th edition impressions thread (that I can find at least) so I'll add mine here.

9th edition sounds great! If Lawrence and the guys from Tabletop Tactics give it their seal of approval, then I trust them. That said, I personally won't be picking up Indomitus for a couple of reasons. Firstly, while all of the models look great, I just don't particularly want them myself. Secondly, I have already complained a lot about having to get an expensive big rulebook for every new edition, and while I understand the argument that 3 years for EUR50 isn't actually all that bad, for reasons that aren't really relevant, I personally didn't get a lot of mileage out of 8th edition and neither did my friends. But from the little we do play, we all really enjoy 8th. So for now, I think we're all just going to stick with what we've already invested in. I'll keep my eye on some YouTube battle reports and maybe borrow a few ideas from 9th that we can get for free. And if we do ramp up our gaming in the future, maybe it won't be too much of a problem to convince ourselves to make the leap then. I hope by then they will have a more inexpensive, rules only book we can pick up. I really do have enough introductory lore on my shelf by now.

Lance845 wrote:Bolt action/ beyond the gate of Antares is a fully reactive system thats AA. It eats up your activation to perform half activations to react to an enemies unit but you could take cover, return fire, etc etc...

I am not saying that a reactive IGOUGO could not function with 40k. I am saying I have never seen anyone EVER propose a functional reactive igougo system for 40k. Again, stop telling me it COULD be and start showing me one that works that doesn't require redoing all the codexes.

AA JUST works with the codexes as is. So if we are sitting here debating the merits of AA vs IGOUGO we are spoiled for choice of options that work with the datasheets and rules as is with AA and we have jack gak for a reactive igougo with all the incredibly crap issues of the IGOUGO system it runs on now. One of these is better than the other.

I think it's odd you think I'm trying to convince you that IGOUGO is a good thing. I have never stated that. In fact, I've stated that Battletech's phased AA is my preference, and I think converting 40K to it really wouldn't require many changes to the system. It wouldn't have in 7th, but as I've said earlier, I'm not really familiar with army rules any more.

I was simply stating that one of the advantages of 40K's IGOUGO is that you can take your whole turn to set up your puzzle to work with, and only have to watch out for reactions. Bolt Action, your opponent could move one piece that destroys the tapestry of your setup, whereas in 40K, they aren't moving unless you Charge them that turn or you Shoot them off the board. It doesn't make up for the rest of 40K's ills, but I can recognize a benefit of a crap system when I see it. I think Battletech's attempt to try and make a full combined-arms crunchy system with vast amounts of damage to burn through makes for a very long game, but I still love its turn system and the fact of its creation system.

Even in Infinity, the only movement reaction is to literally dodge to cover. Oddly enough, X-Wing doesn't really do reactions that I've seen, but they have a very set initiative order that you process through instead of the randomness of Bolt Action and you roll to counter fire as they are shooting you anyway.

aphyon wrote:

Shooting is still declared and processed one player at a time, but that's just so people can keep track of what is going on and prevent cheating.

nice thing about CBT there is an entire book of optional rules like rapid firing your machineguns, ghost jamming for ECM and fire as you bear. we use all of these as they make the game more fun and speed things up a bit. we skip the declare fire phase and just fire whatever we want when it is our mechs part of the fire phase to shoot. the player who loses initiative always gets to shoot first with all their units before return fire happens.

Yeah, i think we just do the whole Firing Phase as one, that's how I remember doing it from the Compendium days, and there really isn't a need to change it. It doesn't really MATTER who declares or shoots first since the damage doesn't process till the end of the Phase anyway.

I don't think you are trying to convince me charistophs. I used your example as the example it was. In no way do I think that single piece of information reflects your whole point of view.

 catbarf wrote:

MaxT wrote:
40k is GWs most valuable property, they’re simply not going to change the formula that much.

And that's why they'll never overhaul the AP system, ditch vehicle rules entirely, add in CCG-esque army abilities and a vitally important new economy, and throw out the FOC. Since rules apparently don't sell minis, no reason to change.

Wait a minute.

None of that is as fundamental to the game as igougo, or for example using d6’s.

And rules refreshes (I.e. new editions) sell games. What those rules ARE matters a lot less