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.

 Jidmah wrote:
It's so horribly balanced, almost every single game is an automatic win for the attacker.

Across 100 games you'll have a 50% win rate, perfectly balanced according to narrative players.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'm sorry but are you saying the survey is wrong? How many people took the survey?

That is a good question. also how were the questions phrased? how widely was it advertised? was it only for their site members?

Often times i hear about these types of surveys because the results are getting posted after they are done.

experiences vary from place to place. strong gaming communities exist in some places and in others they do not. it tends to be a very regional thing as to how game groups play.

I have been gaming (apparently much more than average for most people) in the same locality since late 3rd edition primarily at 2 different stores and at the current one for over 10 years. my experiences are completely different than what the survey says the majority of responders experience.

Being in an area with high turnover in gamers (we have 2 military bases right down the road that tend to bring in service members who are gamers) i have heard about all sorts of different gaming behavior from different states.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's so horribly balanced, almost every single game is an automatic win for the attacker.

Across 100 games you'll have a 50% win rate, perfectly balanced according to narrative players.

If your campaign is focused on single planet (like GW's campaign system they advice to use in concert with planet fall is) one faction will always be the attacker.

edit: I just realized that you were claiming that a single narrative player cares about a 50% win rate. Are you being sarcastic?

He was being sarcastic.

Or... I hope he was...

 aphyon wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'm sorry but are you saying the survey is wrong? How many people took the survey?

That is a good question. also how were the questions phrased? how widely was it advertised? was it only for their site members?

Often times i hear about these types of surveys because the results are getting posted after they are done.

experiences vary from place to place. strong gaming communities exist in some places and in others they do not. it tends to be a very regional thing as to how game groups play.

I have been gaming (apparently much more than average for most people) in the same locality since late 3rd edition primarily at 2 different stores and at the current one for over 10 years. my experiences are completely different than what the survey says the majority of responders experience.

Being in an area with high turnover in gamers (we have 2 military bases right down the road that tend to bring in service members who are gamers) i have heard about all sorts of different gaming behavior from different states.

Goonhammer's numbers match similar polls done here on dakka and in other communities. While they obviously vary depending on the audience, crusade absolutely is the second most popular game mode across people playing 9th, with GT/Matched Play clearly being more popular. It's probably safe to assume that for every two or three players playing ITC-style missions you have one player playing crusade in some way.

"But this doesn't match my personal experience!" - you aren't wrong, but that's how statistics work. A small enough sample size is very likely to vary massively from the average numbers, plus you have the bubble effect where a group that has always run highly competitive ITC games is unlikely to suddenly attract a bunch of narrative players and start playing crusade.

Crusade also clearly doesn't work well for pick-up games (though one might argue that narrative rarely ever does), so you are not that likely to walk into a store and see a crusade going on there. It also does get a lot less coverage from new media, as crusade games aren't comparable to each other, there aren't any organized events and no battle reports. So if you are in a competitive bubble, it's absolutely possible to get the impression that no one is playing crusade. However, despite all that, 20-30% of the people claim to be playing crusade in polls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
He was being sarcastic.

Or... I hope he was...

Maybe he meant "competitive players"? At least that would make sense as a snark.

 Jidmah wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I think that's why they tried to make it work for pick up games by giving rules for playing versus matched play armies.

You clearly have never seen a wannabe-competitive player lose their gak when a snazzwagon that rolled +1 to damage on their upgrade table started to shoot

A player freely picking their battle honors can easily ruin the game, and no amount of CP will compensate for that. Despite loving crusade, I have full sympathy for a matched player not wanting to play that.

I didn't say it did well, I said that was why they "tried" to make it work.

And yeah, Crusade has issues with how it can be power gamed.

 Jidmah wrote:

It also does get a lot less coverage from new media, as crusade games aren't comparable to each other, there aren't any organized events and no battle reports.

Yeah, this drives me crazy!

The past year of White Dwarf, Tale of Four Gamers was supposed to be Crusade, but due to Covid, there weren't enough games happening. And even if there had been, a lot of folks have a hard time making a crusade batrep work. They don't talk as much about story and campaign goals as the could, often focusing specifically on the battle, rather than the units that fight it or the war as a whole.

Scaredcast has a Crusade series, and it isn't bad... but it's only a few games, and it isn't organized in a way that makes it easy to find all the episodes and put them in the right order. I have a guy from B&C I was following, and he was doing a pretty decent job, but it's been a while since I checked in and I'm not sure he's posted in some time.

I was hoping that WH+ Batrep would follow a Crusade campaign from 25PL - 150PL, but they don't broadcast frequently enough that they can dive that deep down that rabbit hole- they need to keep diversity in the show to attract numbers. The only way they could follow a Crusade is if they broadcast 2 batreps/ week every week... And while that doesn't seem unrealistic to me given the resources at their disposal, they are clearly unable or unwilling to make it happen.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

nou wrote:
You're making a mistake thinking about this as a boost to particular units in the game. This is so fundamental change of the game space, that it simply creates a completely different system all around. Does some rebalance is in order after such change? Of course. Is it "nuts and completely wrong"? No, not at all. It is simply a design paradigm, good as any other when you are writing an in-depth rewrite of the game and not a simple patch. And it does result in way better feel of the game.

It is an exceedingly uneven boost that strongly benefits MEQs and esp. TEQs without any significant boost to GEQs. As above, it's a huge change that would absolutely require a massive rebalance (ie. major cost increase) of any unit with Sv4+ or better.

As above, within the context of a game that purports to be based on 5E, it's definitely nuts and wrong because the change goes against the very precepts that underlie the 3E-5E system of removing die rolls (and models) to rapidly accelerate the game. It is not as good as any other, when it's basically a sop to MEQs who play poorly against enemies who take AP3 weapons.

Feel is entirely subjective. If I'm not watching SM players remove entire units when I'm shooting, the game feels bad.

And yet, playing more than a 100 games with a halving version of this system felt ways better and more in lore than „the original intent of 3rd”.

Also, it is flawed reasoning to apply 3rd ed design intent directly to 7th ed, because a lot of elements of 7th ed mission design simply did not work as intended due to increase of lethality. I have mentioned it earlier, but it got ignored - lethality above 20% breaks IGOUGO game.

Another thing you are ommiting in your reasoning - this 17% increase in survavibility of 4+/5+ save does not only result in game being longer, but also means, that those MEQs have to endure that much more of whatever firepower those 4+/5+ wield, offsetting this „huge increase of MEQ durability” which… doesn’t even apply in most of those cases - Marines have exactly same save pre- and post-change against anything with AP less than 3.

Really, it seems that I have the most experience with this kind of AP vs Sv among people in this thread, and based on what Erjak wrote, I might even have more experience with both original and modified AP vs Sv systems in practice and you are clearly mathhammering things in the void.

But again, I must stress, that my experience is with -2 system, not -1, which your original complain addressed, and I agree with you on the part, that -1 is not the best choice here as it produces a curve that requires more tweaking of the rest of the moving parts.

One more thing though, about „resolving saves that shouldn’t be there”. Late 7th saw a huge proliferation of secondary Inv saves (which are exactly the same mechanism) and FNP. This modification, when done thoroughly, that is in a full spinoff of 40k instead of a crude patch, lets you get rid of FNP entirely, simplifies and unifies the profiles and generally improves the game all around. Again, spoken from experience of more than a 100 games played with it.

^^^^ Building off what Nou said...

We used versions of this AP = Sv adjustment way back when playing 3rd and 4th. And we've been using it for 2+ years in our many games of ProHammer. It's not an issue - it works well, and it's a case where the "math" doesn't really translate directly into the lived experience of playing - there are too many other factors at play, use of cover, etc.

What it does do, is increase the survivability of units across the board - which is exactly what we want to achieve. We don't like that most armies with masses of troops get no save against most standard guns. They get that now, and it's a difference maker. And we also (explicitly via ProHammer) are doing a great many things to tip the scales towards the defender. We WANT to keep models on the board (to hell with game length) because more models on the board later in the turn means more avenues for play and counter-player to emerge.

FWIW, regular tac marines and especially terminators in older editions (3rd and 4th) routinely felt over-costed and this rule change helps them out quite a bit. It hasn't required any major reworkig of codexes or whatever.

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

One potential way to tweak this more is to say this:

* If AP = Sv, it's a -1 to your saving throw.
* If the Strength vs. wounds causes a wound on a 2+, then it's another -1 to your save (e.g. high impact).

Stuff like star cannons would drop marines down to a 5+ save (-1 for equaling the armor, and another -1 for being S6 vs. T4). This would ALSO mean that something like autocannons, while not penetrating 3+ armor natively, would reduce the save by 1 since they are S7 vs T4 attacks, which is nothing to scoff at.

But honestly - it feels fine with just the -1. The above would screw Sv 4+ units over more, as heavy bolters vs. T3 would push the models to a 6+ save instead of 5+. Maybe you could make the high impact trigger if strength is double the toughness.

EDIT: covered

 Mezmorki wrote:
And we also (explicitly via ProHammer) are doing a great many things to tip the scales towards the defender. We WANT to keep models on the board (to hell with game length) because more models on the board later in the turn means more avenues for play and counter-player to emerge.

I've always had the impression that prohammer is somewhat beholden to its core principle of having all 3e-7e books playable against each other, and so doesn't have the luxury of tweaking the individual faction/codex balance to work better with the original AP system.

 Mezmorki wrote:

What it does do, is increase the survivability of units across the board - which is exactly what we want to achieve. We don't like that most armies with masses of troops get no save against most standard guns. They get that now, and it's a difference maker. And we also (explicitly via ProHammer) are doing a great many things to tip the scales towards the defender. We WANT to keep models on the board (to hell with game length) because more models on the board later in the turn means more avenues for play and counter-player to emerge.

This.

I think that people don't really appreciate enough just how much of a problem lethality is in a IGOUGO system is, and just how much it has to be kept in check. The player, who inflicts damage first, be it alpha, beta or any greek letter strike, has an advantage throughout the rest of the game. A few numbers. Assuming for a moment ideal conditions throughout the entire game (not really that abstract assumption given how 40k terrain looks and has looked historically, but the numbers work the same if both players can use terrain equally to mitigate raw power, just correct it for how much the terrain influences the output), equal damage output per point of both sides and 2000pts game, points remaining on the table at the end of fifth round depending on the total damage output look like this:

50% - tabling in turn 3, with nearly 1400 pts still on the table
40% - tabling in turn 4, with ~1250 pts still on the table
30% - tabling in turn 5, with ~1100 pts still on the table, but at least theoretically there is a 5th turn at all
28% - a first time we have a single loosing side model surviving the 5th turn
25% - ~ 1000 vs 200pts still left after 5th turn, the loosing side has the barest chance of scoring a VP in the last turn
24% - ~ 980 vs 265 pts and a slight chance for a seventh turn
23% - ~ 975 vs 330 pts and more than a squad of the loosing side makes it to the seventh round
22% - approaching 2:1 ratio of remaining forces and a chance for the game not ending in tabling in seven turns
...
15% - only now the game approaches a draw at the end of fifth turn.
10% - the game is typically close to a kill point draw after seven turns.

As you can see IGOUGO is very sensitive to damage output and this is why historically most of the time mission parameters were completely ignored in favour of raw power. And optimal conditions power output in 40K can be as ridiculous as 90% in the famous Orks vs Drukhari example.

Anything and everything that improves durability is good for the game. Period.

So fix the outdated IGOUGO system

nou wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:

What it does do, is increase the survivability of units across the board - which is exactly what we want to achieve. We don't like that most armies with masses of troops get no save against most standard guns. They get that now, and it's a difference maker. And we also (explicitly via ProHammer) are doing a great many things to tip the scales towards the defender. We WANT to keep models on the board (to hell with game length) because more models on the board later in the turn means more avenues for play and counter-player to emerge.

This.

I think that people don't really appreciate enough just how much of a problem lethality is in a IGOUGO system is, and just how much it has to be kept in check. The player, who inflicts damage first, be it alpha, beta or any greek letter strike, has an advantage throughout the rest of the game. A few numbers. Assuming for a moment ideal conditions throughout the entire game (not really that abstract assumption given how 40k terrain looks and has looked historically, but the numbers work the same if both players can use terrain equally to mitigate raw power, just correct it for how much the terrain influences the output), equal damage output per point of both sides and 2000pts game, points remaining on the table at the end of fifth round depending on the total damage output look like this:

50% - tabling in turn 3, with nearly 1400 pts still on the table
40% - tabling in turn 4, with ~1250 pts still on the table
30% - tabling in turn 5, with ~1100 pts still on the table, but at least theoretically there is a 5th turn at all
28% - a first time we have a single loosing side model surviving the 5th turn
25% - ~ 1000 vs 200pts still left after 5th turn, the loosing side has the barest chance of scoring a VP in the last turn
24% - ~ 980 vs 265 pts and a slight chance for a seventh turn
23% - ~ 975 vs 330 pts and more than a squad of the loosing side makes it to the seventh round
22% - approaching 2:1 ratio of remaining forces and a chance for the game not ending in tabling in seven turns
...
15% - only now the game approaches a draw at the end of fifth turn.
10% - the game is typically close to a kill point draw after seven turns.

As you can see IGOUGO is very sensitive to damage output and this is why historically most of the time mission parameters were completely ignored in favour of raw power. And optimal conditions power output in 40K can be as ridiculous as 90% in the famous Orks vs Drukhari example.

Anything and everything that improves durability is good for the game. Period.

The alpha strike was the bane of 7th ed. A lot of people just outright suggest removing IGOUGO, but i dont really see that as fixing anything.
However most of the alpha strike issue is resolved when you actually use a proper table, and cover correctly. It was horrible in 7th because people were basically blasting each other across the table, if you just make all terrain LOS blocking unless you are in it, that alpha strike problem drops like a rock.

There is nothing inherently wrong with IGOUGO, its just taht first and second turn that it can be super decisive and even then, thats mitigated via terrain most of the time.

This is why I will largely only play alternate activation systems.

40k and AOS both showed me how awful IGOUGO are. Alpha striking in and of itself is not a fun experience.

There is no enjoyment sitting down to a game and then having it basically end after turn 1 because you or your opponent magically appeared where they wanted or charged across the table and wiped out half or more of your opponent's army before they could do anything.

Not even getting into AOS and its double turn mechanic.

The only way IGOUGO is in any form acceptable to me is if the lethality of the game is toned down quite significantly.

One thing i have always been interested in, is trying out bolt hammer system. Where you basically just use the bolt action alternating actions and dice pick method to pick a unit, then activate all of its phases in that turn then draw another die.

Becasue iirc early warhammer rules and bolt action were authored by the same guy, or at least one of the editions of warhammer was i want to remember, i might be thinking of another game.

As someone that started playing Warhammer Fantasy in the 90's. Played 3rd Warhammer 40K and pretty much every other GW game, here are my thoughts. (Note, I haven't even tried 9th yet but I plan to).

My Overall Impression of 40K: The game itself looks cooler than it plays. However it has the potential to also play well if you have people that want it to play well. What do I mean by that? It means you have players that want to enjoy playing the game (and telling a story) and not just have the "best" army that wins all the time.

Contrast that with the many side games, like BFG, Epic, even Aeronautica which I recently played one time (where the diversity of models is much less) and you don't have to make nearly as much of an effort for it to play well. But let's face it, they're cool looking, but NOT QUITE as cool looking as 40 K

 Backspacehacker wrote:
One thing i have always been interested in, is trying out bolt hammer system. Where you basically just use the bolt action alternating actions and dice pick method to pick a unit, then activate all of its phases in that turn then draw another die.

Becasue iirc early warhammer rules and bolt action were authored by the same guy, or at least one of the editions of warhammer was i want to remember, i might be thinking of another game.

Rick Priestley. And yes - I've done this with AOS (warlords of erehwon is the fantasy version of bolt action) and it was a lot of fun. Much more interactive. Thats a key fundamental I require. Interactivity. Not just standing there removing models wholesale.

GW managed to kill Alternate Player Turns
they managed to kill USRs
they managed to kill Strategic Orders
and they managed to kill the concept of easy to learn, hard to master rules

why do you think it will be different with alternating unit activation?

 auticus wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
One thing i have always been interested in, is trying out bolt hammer system. Where you basically just use the bolt action alternating actions and dice pick method to pick a unit, then activate all of its phases in that turn then draw another die.

Becasue iirc early warhammer rules and bolt action were authored by the same guy, or at least one of the editions of warhammer was i want to remember, i might be thinking of another game.

Rick Priestley. And yes - I've done this with AOS (warlords of erehwon is the fantasy version of bolt action) and it was a lot of fun. Much more interactive. Thats a key fundamental I require. Interactivity. Not just standing there removing models wholesale.

The only thing i know that can get wishy washy is buffs in terms of "In the shooting phase" and or things like that.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
One thing i have always been interested in, is trying out bolt hammer system. Where you basically just use the bolt action alternating actions and dice pick method to pick a unit, then activate all of its phases in that turn then draw another die.

Becasue iirc early warhammer rules and bolt action were authored by the same guy, or at least one of the editions of warhammer was i want to remember, i might be thinking of another game.

Rick Priestley. And yes - I've done this with AOS (warlords of erehwon is the fantasy version of bolt action) and it was a lot of fun. Much more interactive. Thats a key fundamental I require. Interactivity. Not just standing there removing models wholesale.

The only thing i know that can get wishy washy is buffs in terms of "In the shooting phase" and or things like that.

Less ability to overbuff the better

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
One thing i have always been interested in, is trying out bolt hammer system. Where you basically just use the bolt action alternating actions and dice pick method to pick a unit, then activate all of its phases in that turn then draw another die.

Becasue iirc early warhammer rules and bolt action were authored by the same guy, or at least one of the editions of warhammer was i want to remember, i might be thinking of another game.

Rick Priestley. And yes - I've done this with AOS (warlords of erehwon is the fantasy version of bolt action) and it was a lot of fun. Much more interactive. Thats a key fundamental I require. Interactivity. Not just standing there removing models wholesale.

The only thing i know that can get wishy washy is buffs in terms of "In the shooting phase" and or things like that.

Less ability to overbuff the better

Im more meaning along the lines like, an ability is designed to be active through out a whole phase, so how is that treated? is it just that units phase? or the phase of any unit that goes within its effect during that phase?

The other big ones are "During the enemies x phase." how does that get address?

The other really big problem is in 8th and 9th, how do you deal with characters? Normally that are attached to a squad.

I know bolt hammer can work in 7th/HH but with 8 and 9 kinda needs some monkeying around with.

ProHammer to the rescue again (I think)

Some of the most fundamental changes in ProHammer are the ways that it's retained the overall IGOUGO structure but, essentially, has built in a reaction system that starts to break down the structure where it matters. Specifically:

* Units can forgo moving + shooting to enter classic-style overwatch, which allows shooting at the start of your opponents shooting phase. It has some restrictions (you actually pick a forward arc to shoot into, so enemy forces have some counter-play, limited to 24" range, won't incur morale penalties).

* As a reaction to being shot, units can go to ground (ala 5th edition) or choose to take a Return Fire! reaction, shooting back simultaneously with your opponent. Return fire uses a mode of shooting called "Limited Fire" that applies some penalties to their shooting and subsequent effects (lose CC benefits for being in cover, subject to limited fire the following turn, etc.). Units can also take reactive fire when charged.

* Declared shooting and declared charging (all before measure ranges). This, while not strictly a turn order thing, does majorly break down the ability to optimize and squeeze out maximal damage output. Under shooting and overshooting targets is a thing that happens now, and results in lowered damage potential across the board.

* Suppression & Pinning. Also not strictly turn order related, but suppression system we're trial testing often results in extra temporary morale modifiers being in effect, which causes units to fail morale tests more often. Often, this has the effect of units falling back out of range and/or out of being a priority target for a turn or two -which ends up meaning they have a chance to stick around on the board a little longer (assuming they regroup).

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

We tested a few alternating activation systems during ProHammer's earlier development stage. While the results were interesting, it does, for better or worse, shift the focus of the game from bigger movements and army-wide maneuvers towards smaller tactical exchanges.

AA can certainly make for a deeper game, but it often ends up feeling like your spending more mental energy trying to work the turn order and sequence of activations to your advantage, than you are in thinking about what the actual moves should be. It makes the gameplay very procedural feeling, with a lot of micro "if, then" discussions. It doesn't feel as cinematic and ultimately doesn't feel like 40k anymore. This is one reason why we ended up moving towards a more robust reaction / overwatch system.

There is yet one other alternative to AA that gets rid of Alpha Strike problem, and it has been implemented in Apocalypse - end of round, simultaneous damage resolution. It creates a couple of problems itself (glass cannons make no sense in such system and there is a lot of book keeping involved if you want to preserve current 40k level of weapon vs armour interaction detail), but it also has the fast play aspect JohnHwangDD expects.

 kodos wrote:
GW managed to kill Alternate Player Turns
they managed to kill USRs
they managed to kill Strategic Orders
and they managed to kill the concept of easy to learn, hard to master rules

why do you think it will be different with alternating unit activation?

I don't expect GW to do anything positive for gameplay that I enjoy because that doesn't make them money.

However I would in a heartbeat pick 40k and sigmar / warhammer back up if there was an alt activation mechanic put in officially and not something I had to houserule and fight to the bitter end to get people to use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
One thing i have always been interested in, is trying out bolt hammer system. Where you basically just use the bolt action alternating actions and dice pick method to pick a unit, then activate all of its phases in that turn then draw another die.

Becasue iirc early warhammer rules and bolt action were authored by the same guy, or at least one of the editions of warhammer was i want to remember, i might be thinking of another game.

Rick Priestley. And yes - I've done this with AOS (warlords of erehwon is the fantasy version of bolt action) and it was a lot of fun. Much more interactive. Thats a key fundamental I require. Interactivity. Not just standing there removing models wholesale.

The only thing i know that can get wishy washy is buffs in terms of "In the shooting phase" and or things like that.

Less ability to overbuff the better

Im more meaning along the lines like, an ability is designed to be active through out a whole phase, so how is that treated? is it just that units phase? or the phase of any unit that goes within its effect during that phase?

The other big ones are "During the enemies x phase." how does that get address?

The other really big problem is in 8th and 9th, how do you deal with characters? Normally that are attached to a squad.

I know bolt hammer can work in 7th/HH but with 8 and 9 kinda needs some monkeying around with.

Anything that buffs a unit would take place on that unit's activation. Makes it important to also time when you buff them and activate the right buffer in the right time which I find desirable because it now gives a meaningful choice in the game.

During enemy x phase to me is just simply "During enemy x's activation".

Characters attached to a squad - you can do what conquest (the fantasy game does). The character activates with his unit. Oathmark does a similar thing where units near a COMMANDER type character (as opposed to a beatface character) can make another unit trigger activation.

nou wrote:
There is yet one other alternative to AA that gets rid of Alpha Strike problem, and it has been implemented in Apocalypse - end of round, simultaneous damage resolution. It creates a couple of problems itself (glass cannons make no sense in such system and there is a lot of book keeping involved if you want to preserve current 40k level of weapon vs armour interaction detail), but it also has the fast play aspect JohnHwangDD expects.

The old battle tech model

It can work in 40K for sure, and the shooting side is pretty straightforward. It gets more complex with melee, but melee is already a quasi-AA / simultaneous resolution system - so really were just focused on shooting.

 Mezmorki wrote:


We tested a few alternating activation systems during ProHammer's earlier development stage. While the results were interesting, it does, for better or worse, shift the focus of the game from bigger movements and army-wide maneuvers towards smaller tactical exchanges.

AA can certainly make for a deeper game, but it often ends up feeling like your spending more mental energy trying to work the turn order and sequence of activations to your advantage, than you are in thinking about what the actual moves should be. It makes the gameplay very procedural feeling, with a lot of micro "if, then" discussions. It doesn't feel as cinematic and ultimately doesn't feel like 40k anymore. This is one reason why we ended up moving towards a more robust reaction / overwatch system.

There is a middle ground - alternative detachment activation - and it's how we play the game. Basically, each player has 3-5 "large chunk" activations to start with. The division of the army into detachments is mandatory, with rather tight brackets on the min/max size of each detachment, depending on the game size. It allows for both orchestrated plans and mid-round reactive decision making. On top of that, activation order is created via queue bidding on top of the turn, so you have to anticipate a lot of how the game will unfold and plan ahead. There is a lot of head scratching involved, so down time never feels like unproductive waiting.

 auticus wrote:
The only way IGOUGO is in any form acceptable to me is if the lethality of the game is toned down quite significantly.

It's speed and range that are often the problem.
You have to be a lot more durable when the whole table is able to pick and choose their targets, as compared to earlier editions of the game where getting stuck out of place combined with heavier penalties for moving and shooting greatly lessened firepower.

In early editions it wasn't out of the ordinary for the player going 2nd to have more of a shooting phase than the player going 1st, as the ranges had closed and the units had better positioning. Unless you were facing something like 5e guard anyway.

A.T. wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The only way IGOUGO is in any form acceptable to me is if the lethality of the game is toned down quite significantly.

It's speed and range that are often the problem.
You have to be a lot more durable when the whole table is able to pick and choose their targets, as compared to earlier editions of the game where getting stuck out of place combined with heavier penalties for moving and shooting greatly lessened firepower.

In early editions it wasn't out of the ordinary for the player going 2nd to have more of a shooting phase than the player going 1st, as the ranges had closed and the units had better positioning. Unless you were facing something like 5e guard anyway.

huh.....i wonder if something as simple as. "Turn 1 all models have counted as moving onto the battlefield this turn, even if they did not move in the movement phase of turn 1" would help a lot.

I'd agree with that as a whole but things like terrain being an after thought also contribute to the lethality - especially when it comes to the cover rules and blocking line of sight.