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.

Cronch wrote:
AA is straight up more involving and therefore more fun way to play games. IGOUGO is like another relic of the 80s game design,like relying on RNGesus for reserves.

80s? One would have to go much farther back than that. It's largely been a format for wargaming since Chess and Go were played by aristocracy.

AA concepts are very new to wargaming.

Moving one piece at a time in those ancient games would be more akin to AA no? You don't move every piece before I get a turn.

Alternating Player Turns, what GW is calling IGoUGo, is more or less something exclusive to GW and systems based in their ideas
and you can track it back to the 80ies were it was the innovative new system

chess is IGoUGo, but not like GW systems are and would be more like what people mean with AA

PS: you just need to watch YT Reviews of 40k or KT from people coming from Boardgames, were they call the classic Boadgame meachnic IGoUGo and GW games "Alternating Turns"

Eldarain wrote:Moving one piece at a time in those ancient games would be more akin to AA no? You don't move every piece before I get a turn.

Not really. It is only a difference of the proportion of the units one can utilize per turn than being true AA. It's not like one has to wait to move the King before one moves their pawns again, for example.

kodos wrote:Alternating Player Turns, what GW is calling IGoUGo, is more or less something exclusive to GW and systems based in their ideas
and you can track it back to the 80ies were it was the innovative new system

How were Napoleonic games handled before Warhammer? I thought they were akin to how GW had Warhammer run, as Warhammer Fantasy was often defined as being Napoleonic wargame with magic and monsters. And tabletop wargames are tied to the original Napoleonic strategy systems.

kodos wrote:chess is IGoUGo, but not like GW systems are and would be more like what people mean with AA

PS: you just need to watch YT Reviews of 40k or KT from people coming from Boardgames, were they call the classic Boadgame meachnic IGoUGo and GW games "Alternating Turns"

That may not be the best resource. YouTube is much younger than most of these historical concepts. Unless someone video-recorded their review on 8mm, VHS, or BetaMax and then digitized it, it won't be that fresh of a concept.

Well original Kriegspiele were ran by umpires, with players just giving orders, so they were more RTS than turn-based really.

But yes, most traditional games are far closer to alternate activation than the weird "I move everything on the board while you can take a coffee break" thing that 70's-90's wargames introduced.

 Charistoph wrote:

That may not be the best resource. YouTube is much younger than most of these historical concepts. Unless someone video-recorded their review on 8mm, VHS, or BetaMax and then digitized it, it won't be that fresh of a concept.

this is not about history, but what people played before

someone who never played any GW game or games based on GW design before won't recognise them as IGoUGo because from the other games they are coming from, IGoUGo means the opposite of what GW uses it

 Charistoph wrote:

How were Napoleonic games handled before Warhammer?

depending on the rules used but random activation of any kind was common
eg roll for Initiative at the start, put cards of your colours in the deck according to the rolled number, the opponent does the same, draw cards to determine who is activating a unit

stuff like everyone moves, everyone shoots and than close combat for everyone was also a thing as an order system, were the players write down what they want to do with each unit and than it resolved simultaneously with casualties removed after

I think IGOUGO works as a concept for massive (read: thousands of men) armies. Particularly when the general (the player) doesn't have perfect command and control of their army. Something where even issuing move and attack orders don't always work out. Typically the kinds of things presumably player of GW type games would like since they have to yield a lot of manipulating their army to the whims of fate and making due with the situation.

I also think IGOUGO can work sufficiently if the game allows for the inactive, reacting, non-initiative player, etc. options to counter play. Such as reactions, interrupts or spontaneous defensive actions. A subphase to allow a units to act out of sequence doesn't usually hurt either.

One of my favorite miniatures wargames is Dust Warfare by Andy Chambers. It is the most effective IGUGO system I have ever played of about 20 or so mini wargames systems I have played. The way it played was each unit on the table generated an initiative die with the player rolling the fewest successes going first for that round. So more elite, or later game, more badly beaten forces had a better chance to go first.

At the same time, each success in the Initiative roll allowed a unit to take a half action before the proper activation phase. So units caught out in the open could find cover, or they could make a simple attack and if surviving to their proper turn could make another simple attack. Which was pretty much the only way for a unit to attack twice.

Even during the active player's proper turn phase. The inactive player could take reactions. Usually by going-to-ground and increasing the difficulty to being destroyed. Which could be argued worked too well as Dust Warfare, if I remember correctly, required enough successes to match the target unit's armor and/or cover before any damage was applied. Making it sometimes very tough to damage anything without committing a full attack action (which allowed a re-roll of misses) to ensure enough damage was done to bypass armor and cover. This was also the reason why taking two attacks was not always the best action.

Man, I miss Dust Warfare. But the point is it is possible for IGOUGO to work. Do I think GW has it in them to create such a system? Not unless they got back Andy Chambers or maybe Rick Priestley to write it. Even then, I'd be a little concerned it be a little bit behind the modern gaming zeitgeist. So I think it would probably be best for GW to consider moving away from IGOUGO towards a alternating activation. More so with 40k than AoS, but I see no reason to not consider it for AoS either.

Dust Warfare did handle things really well. Shame the mess that Dust devolved into.

kodos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

That may not be the best resource. YouTube is much younger than most of these historical concepts. Unless someone video-recorded their review on 8mm, VHS, or BetaMax and then digitized it, it won't be that fresh of a concept.

this is not about history, but what people played before

Um... Are you SURE about that? History would be about what people played before, either on a grand scale or a personal scale.

There are a lot of people who do reviews today based on concepts and opinions of today, not from a fresh perspective when it was new.

kodos wrote:someone who never played any GW game or games based on GW design before won't recognise them as IGoUGo because from the other games they are coming from, IGoUGo means the opposite of what GW uses it

Reference for a proper explanation, please, as that may not be entirely factual. A lot depends on what they have played before. If someone never played Warhammer, but played a lot of Warmachine, they may fully recognize it as such. Too much is dependent on the person's history and study.

kodos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

How were Napoleonic games handled before Warhammer?

depending on the rules used but random activation of any kind was common
eg roll for Initiative at the start, put cards of your colours in the deck according to the rolled number, the opponent does the same, draw cards to determine who is activating a unit

stuff like everyone moves, everyone shoots and than close combat for everyone was also a thing as an order system, were the players write down what they want to do with each unit and than it resolved simultaneously with casualties removed after

Could you provide a reference to look up?

 Charistoph wrote:

kodos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

That may not be the best resource. YouTube is much younger than most of these historical concepts. Unless someone video-recorded their review on 8mm, VHS, or BetaMax and then digitized it, it won't be that fresh of a concept.

this is not about history, but what people played before

Um... Are you SURE about that?

yes, it has nothing do to with people playing games before the Internet exists or that their videos need to be old 8mm footage to be a person who is coming from a different niche of gaming

 Charistoph wrote:

Reference for a proper explanation, please, as that may not be entirely factual.

as an example here at 3:30 https://youtu.be/E46mvQnkwiQ

 kodos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

kodos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

That may not be the best resource. YouTube is much younger than most of these historical concepts. Unless someone video-recorded their review on 8mm, VHS, or BetaMax and then digitized it, it won't be that fresh of a concept.

this is not about history, but what people played before

Um... Are you SURE about that?

yes, it has nothing do to with people playing games before the Internet exists or that their videos need to be old 8mm footage to be a person who is coming from a different niche of gaming

I don't think you understand what history is. History in this context would literally be what people played before. Reviews from people who were playing wargames at the time Warhammer Fantasy was released would more likely be articles in magazines than blog posts, as it was 1983. For relevance, Apple first announced its first Macintosh line in 1984. Regular public internet access didn't occur until the 1990s.

Anyone posting a YouTube video about the changes Warhammer brought to tabletop gaming would not be doing it from a fresh perspective, but from a historical one. Being a historical perspective, a lot of influences would be present in the reviewer, including what research they have done as well as any other experiences with other games.

 kodos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Reference for a proper explanation, please, as that may not be entirely factual.

as an example here at 3:30 https://youtu.be/E46mvQnkwiQ

That is a comparison between Kill Team and DeadZone. The reviewer is not presenting what their perspective is based on But goes right in to the review. As he presents the concept of "IGOUGO" as a "traditional game sequence", he didn't provide the basis on that "tradition". Is it from a board gaming perspective or a tabletop wargaming perspective? Has he been playing napoleonic games throughout their generations, or is this the closest he's ever come to a tabletop wargame?

In other words, it rather fails as a proper reference, especially since it was a relatively recent review. It only provides his perspective on what that means.

I find it rather amusing that the discussion swerved into argument if igougo is only 50-years old ancient (dating back to 70s) or as old as Hammurabi's law and as relevant to modern gaming as that.

 Charistoph wrote:

In other words, it rather fails as a proper reference, especially since it was a relatively recent review. It only provides his perspective on what that means.

so what do you actually want?

there is a boardgame channel that references what you call Alternating Activations as "classic IGoUGo".

saying that IGoUGo always refers to the "Alternating Player Turns Sequence" of Warhammer and therefore Chess is not IGoUGo and Alternating Activations is something very new does not hold in that context

History in this context would literally be what people played before.

yes and came up with "if there is a video it must be a relic from the 80ies as no one making a new video today would say such thing"

yet I know people who played wargames in the 60ies/70ies were Papercraft WW2 games were the hot new stuff while rules were more just guidelines and heavily modified in the local clubs
and there random unit activation or alternating phases was way to go and not player turns like we know from Warhammer

If Warhammer was the first game to use this I don't know, but it was the game to make this kind popular
And Alternate Activations are definitely not something new to Wargaming while "Alternating Player Turns consisting of different Phases" is the hundred years old system everyone uses

even looking at Battletech that was released around the same time as the first Warhammer Editions, there you have a Movement Phases were the players alternately move a unit, fire phase were they alternately declare fire and damage resolve phase
no alternating player turns

Cronch wrote:
I find it rather amusing that the discussion swerved into argument if igougo is only 50-years old ancient (dating back to 70s) or as old as Hammurabi's law and as relevant to modern gaming as that.

It's been interesting to read though.

 kodos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

In other words, it rather fails as a proper reference, especially since it was a relatively recent review. It only provides his perspective on what that means.

so what do you actually want?

there is a boardgame channel that references what you call Alternating Activations as "classic IGoUGo".

saying that IGoUGo always refers to the "Alternating Player Turns Sequence" of Warhammer and therefore Chess is not IGoUGo and Alternating Activations is something very new does not hold in that context

I think my critique gave sufficient statements to what was missing.

It brought no basis on what type of channel it was. Was this a board game or tabletop gaming channel? This video brought no basis on that. This left when he stated "traditional game sequence" out as to which perspective he was presenting it on.

Furthermore, it presented no information on how much tabletop gaming experience he had and how it ties in to his definition of "traditional", especially when it comes to other napoleonic-based games.

If you're going to ask what more a person wants, you may actually what to read what the critique was and if it answered that question.

 kodos wrote:

History in this context would literally be what people played before.

yes and came up with "if there is a video it must be a relic from the 80ies as no one making a new video today would say such thing"

That's partly because I was looking at it from the perspective of someone looking at it when Warhammer was introduced. From that perspective, no video on YouTube could apply unless it was just such a relic.

 kodos wrote:
yet I know people who played wargames in the 60ies/70ies were Papercraft WW2 games were the hot new stuff while rules were more just guidelines and heavily modified in the local clubs and there random unit activation or alternating phases was way to go and not player turns like we know from Warhammer

Okay, that's papercraft ww2 games, not the Napoleonic games that Warhammer is notedly based on. Not to mention, are they just remembering it this way or do they have the rules they can present to you? You mentioned that they were "heavily modified", so could those be their modifications?

 kodos wrote:
If Warhammer was the first game to use this I don't know, but it was the game to make this kind popular
And Alternate Activations are definitely not something new to Wargaming while "Alternating Player Turns consisting of different Phases" is the hundred years old system everyone uses

Again, reference please. Tabletop wargaming really isn't that old when compared to Chess and Go, but it is still older than Risk and Monopoly. It pretty much started as a way for officers to get a handle on moving men around a battlefield around the napoleonic times. This started spreading out so much that people started selling the models to civilians instead of hording them for the military. As civilians got a hold of it, they started making rules for them and publishing them. One of the first ones was actually H.G. Wells of a certain fame in a specific fiction genre. A quick synopsis can be found here.

So are we looking at something like Kriegsville or Little Wars as the initial standard when Warhammer came out, or something in between?

 kodos wrote:
even looking at Battletech that was released around the same time as the first Warhammer Editions, there you have a Movement Phases were the players alternately move a unit, fire phase were they alternately declare fire and damage resolve phase no alternating player turns

I am very well aware of Battletech, as it was my first tabletop game. But Battletech wasn't trying to make a napoleonic game with monsters. They were trying to create a war game for mech enthusiasts and there is a far cry between 4 heavily armored units per side and the battle of Waterloo.

problem here is, Chess is Alternating Activation = IGoUGo

there are no movement or combat phases or player turns in any of the old games
I have not found the old Airfix magazin yet (guess it is at my parents attic if it still exists) but the random/alternating activation per unit/formation I mentioned above (with the cards) is from that Napoleonic game and it is from the 70ies

yet your argument is that Alternating Activation is something very new to Wargaming and is that IGoUGo refers to the Warhamer style Turn Sequence (Phases inside Player Turns) which was used by Napoleonic Games before

just tell me which Napo-Rules Warhammer is based on (there are many)

 Charistoph wrote:

Okay, that's papercraft ww2 games, not the Napoleonic games that Warhammer is notedly based on. Not to mention, are they just remembering it this way or do they have the rules they can present to you? You mentioned that they were "heavily modified", so could those be their modifications?

no, as I don't have the original rules and just seen the typewritten modified one as they also translated it

 Charistoph wrote:

Again, reference please. Tabletop wargaming really isn't that old when compared to Chess and Go, but it is still older than Risk and Monopoly. It pretty much started as a way for officers to get a handle on moving men around a battlefield around the napoleonic times. This started spreading out so much that people started selling the models to civilians instead of hording them for the military. As civilians got a hold of it, they started making rules for them and publishing them. One of the first ones was actually H.G. Wells of a certain fame in a specific fiction genre.

now this is a tricky thing as the one you are referring to is "Kriegsspiel" aka Wargame (were the term comes from) from 1811 which became popular as foreign countries thought the high success rate of Prussia is because all higher officers were playing it.
the game had 2 parts, a strategic game from what the modern strategy games evolved and a tactical/siege game from were modern tabletops come from

yet the Romans had a game which was based on a Greece game (Ludus Latrunculorum/Latrunculi, Petteia/Polis) which is seen as modern type strategy game as well (though the rules were reconstructed in detail in 2001) same as Wei-Hai, a pre-version of Go is considered as Wargame as it is related to Sun Tzu

the oldest Wargame that also has simulation aspect was developed in the mid 18th century (by Johann Hellwig) based on a modified version of Courier Chess which was designed 17th century (Konigspiel) with the main difference from Chess was that there were 30 pieces per side of different military types each type with a fixed movement rate

hence the first Wargames used Alteranting Activations (each player activates one piece/unit/formation than the other player does) of some kind and not fixed Phases+Turns which came later

I have seen or found nothing yet that proofs that Alternating Activations are something very new to Wargaming but the opposite

 kodos wrote:
problem here is, Chess is Alternating Activation = IGoUGo

Not in the way that is being used to describe games like Bolt Action. In Chess, you only get to move one piece per turn (unless castling), and that piece can move again before any of the others. It's not like you have to deny 15 pieces their activation in order to move the same piece again in Chess. In this way, Chess is far more board game than tabletop game. Being a different genre, format definitions may not always apply the same way.

 kodos wrote:
I have not found the old Airfix magazin yet (guess it is at my parents attic if it still exists) but the random/alternating activation per unit/formation I mentioned above (with the cards) is from that Napoleonic game and it is from the 70ies

Okay, at least we're dealing with personal experience in this case instead of 2nd hand information.

 kodos wrote:
yet your argument is that Alternating Activation is something very new to Wargaming and is that IGoUGo refers to the Warhamer style Turn Sequence (Phases inside Player Turns) which was used by Napoleonic Games before

just tell me which Napo-Rules Warhammer is based on (there are many)

Now you make a very good point. I have just heard it described as such. No one ever was specific on which Napoleon-styled game it was based on. Which makes me wonder how that concept was promulgated, if not from the beginning. At this point, I would have to assume it was one that was most popular of the day, late 70's early 80's.

 kodos wrote:
now this is a tricky thing as the one you are referring to is "Kriegsspiel" aka Wargame (were the term comes from) from 1811 which became popular as foreign countries thought the high success rate of Prussia is because all higher officers were playing it.
the game had 2 parts, a strategic game from what the modern strategy games evolved and a tactical/siege game from were modern tabletops come from

Ah, thank you for the spelling, I have only heard the name, never seen it written out, and my German is far below minimal.

Interestingly enough, Reisswitz Jr's version didn't have individual players moving units and rolling the dice, but the umpire who received "orders" for their units from the players. A very interesting way to have a "fog of war" that is missing from most tabletop games today (but would make tournaments horrible). This wasn't an "alternating activation" method at all.

 kodos wrote:
yet the Romans had a game which was based on a Greece game (Ludus Latrunculorum/Latrunculi, Petteia/Polis) which is seen as modern type strategy game as well (though the rules were reconstructed in detail in 2001) same as Wei-Hai, a pre-version of Go is considered as Wargame as it is related to Sun Tzu

Sadly, none of them had the continued presence that Chess and Go have had.

 kodos wrote:
the oldest Wargame that also has simulation aspect was developed in the mid 18th century (by Johann Hellwig) based on a modified version of Courier Chess which was designed 17th century (Konigspiel) with the main difference from Chess was that there were 30 pieces per side of different military types each type with a fixed movement rate

hence the first Wargames used Alteranting Activations (each player activates one piece/unit/formation than the other player does) of some kind and not fixed Phases+Turns which came later

I have seen or found nothing yet that proofs that Alternating Activations are something very new to Wargaming but the opposite

Well, in order to do that one would need to identify when that turn aspect that Warhammer uses was first introduced and first used. Can you present any documentation as to the surprise of Warhammer using this turn model and how unusual it was?

Risk follows the same turn model as Warhammer does, but it's been around since 1957 (though a board game and grand strategy instead of the more tactical aspects that Warhammer concentrates on), so Games Workshop definitely wasn't the first to use it (though, may have been the first to use it for miniature wargaming).

Looking at the Little Wars rules, it doesn't quite seem to be matching the same activation style as Bolt Action uses, requiring all units to be moved before a full turn is complete, but more in the Chess style, but that could just be because the concept of "turn" and "round" were more loosely described and not as nailed down as more systems came out.

Cronch wrote:
Well original Kriegspiele were ran by umpires, with players just giving orders, so they were more RTS than turn-based really.

But yes, most traditional games are far closer to alternate activation than the weird "I move everything on the board while you can take a coffee break" thing that 70's-90's wargames introduced.

Didn't they have commanders kind of a represented on the field, and umpires could decide that an order was way laid or understood in the wrong way, or even the underling straight up refused to follow a suicidial order, while others would?

 Charistoph wrote:

Looking at the Little Wars rules, it doesn't quite seem to be matching the same activation style as Bolt Action uses, requiring all units to be moved before a full turn is complete, but more in the Chess style, but that could just be because the concept of "turn" and "round" were more loosely described and not as nailed down as more systems came out.

I think this here is the main point as the concept that everything must be activated that you associate with alternating activation is kind of new
there is one game from the late 70ies early 80ies (don't remember the name) which had this Bold Action like system but with D6 activations per player per turn, no matter how many units you had

Interestingly enough, Reisswitz Jr's version didn't have individual players moving units and rolling the dice, but the umpire who received "orders" for their units from the players. A very interesting way to have a "fog of war" that is missing from most tabletop games today (but would make tournaments horrible). This wasn't an "alternating activation" method at all.

well in modern standards you would call it RTS
same as other games had things like players write down the orders for each unit at the same time, alternating resolve the orders one a time (and if the opponent moved a unit out of LOS/range before you activated the one which was ordered to shoot it, the order simply failed), remove casualties is nothing that fits into what we are used to play today (although Full Thrust or X-Wing use something similar as a base)

Well, in order to do that one would need to identify when that turn aspect that Warhammer uses was first introduced and first used. Can you present any documentation as to the surprise of Warhammer using this turn model and how unusual it was?

Risk follows the same turn model as Warhammer does, but it's been around since 1957

I disagree here as Risk has turn but still "per unit activation" as an attack with one formation is resolved before you move the next formation while Warhammer is very clear here with all movement, all shooting, all fighting.

the thing I am talking here that is the combination of player turns with phases were units are "activated" several times per turn to make one action and you cannot make the second action until all units made their first
while a lot of games have turns, usually you resolve one unit/formation completely before you go to the next one and this is what made Warhammer standing out in its early days and which worked better for larger armies as a game and less like a simulation

and sadly, no I don't have one of the reviews of the older editions from warhammer at hand

 kodos wrote:

Interestingly enough, Reisswitz Jr's version didn't have individual players moving units and rolling the dice, but the umpire who received "orders" for their units from the players. A very interesting way to have a "fog of war" that is missing from most tabletop games today (but would make tournaments horrible). This wasn't an "alternating activation" method at all.

well in modern standards you would call it RTS
same as other games had things like players write down the orders for each unit at the same time, alternating resolve the orders one a time (and if the opponent moved a unit out of LOS/range before you activated the one which was ordered to shoot it, the order simply failed), remove casualties is nothing that fits into what we are used to play today (although Full Thrust or X-Wing use something similar as a base)

Not quite, but probably could be as close as one could get without a computer (which technically acts as umpire in those circles these days). What I have read doesn't indicate whether they sent the orders as the idea came to them or if they delivered their orders "together", as in umpire waits until he gets both players orders before executing the orders.

 kodos wrote:

Well, in order to do that one would need to identify when that turn aspect that Warhammer uses was first introduced and first used. Can you present any documentation as to the surprise of Warhammer using this turn model and how unusual it was?

Risk follows the same turn model as Warhammer does, but it's been around since 1957

I disagree here as Risk has turn but still "per unit activation" as an attack with one formation is resolved before you move the next formation while Warhammer is very clear here with all movement, all shooting, all fighting.

the thing I am talking here that is the combination of player turns with phases were units are "activated" several times per turn to make one action and you cannot make the second action until all units made their first
while a lot of games have turns, usually you resolve one unit/formation completely before you go to the next one and this is what made Warhammer standing out in its early days and which worked better for larger armies as a game and less like a simulation

and sadly, no I don't have one of the reviews of the older editions from warhammer at hand

I meant the Risk model as in single player does all their moves over the course of a turn. And aside from transitioning forces at the end of the turn, units considered movement and attack to be one and the same thing. In that, Warmachine is closer to all of Risk's concepts (aside from its counter- abilities).

I started playing in the 70s, I was too young to really take much notice of what rulesets we had, but WRG would be the main one. As far as I can remember that was IGOUGO, as were others.

I also played a lot of avalon hill/spi games etc, all the way from squad based to grand stratgey, and they were at the time all IGOUGO.

Warhammer I got when it came out and I don't remember anything particularly novel about it, apart from it was specifically fantasy, somewhat RPG based and (I think) my first mini wargame where you removed figures for each casualty. Other games I remember either just tracked some form of cohesion or remove a figure infrequently (I think WRG had removal after so many casualties). The other obvious innovation of warhammer was the need for buckets of dice, I had never come across a game where you might throw dozens of dice for 1 attack (I seem to remember 1st ed heroes with several levels and magic items could have stupid, for times, number of dice).

The first alternating activation I can remember playing (my memory may be hazy) was the late 80's or early 90's and a GMT game of ancient warfare, where you could activate 'lines' of troops or something. There seemed to be slew of games sometime around the late 80s where it become popular.

There are games that blend the 2 nowadays - e.g. I'd say Mustafa's Blucher is more IGOUGO, but with an unknown amount of stuff you can do, you can maybe move all of your army on a good turn, or maybe only a bit which creates a nice dynamic. I seem to remember a modern warfare game from the 80s where there was random chit draw and you moved someone if it was your chit (so you could get a lot of turns before the other person), a mechanism that is used in more modern games like Gates of Antares or Stronty Dog nowdays.

NB alternate activation is obviously just a form of IGOUGO with the difference being how much you can do and what people mean by aa vs igougo may be different to what I think of.