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.

 Overread wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
You could also have more activations with elite units. But, people are acting like the difference is huge, and that it would be worse than current 40k.

Current 40k, the horde player gets just as many activations. The elite player has to wait their turn to even do anything.

I do not see how AA makes this worse in any way. Especially since I've played 40k with AA, modifying nothing but turn structure.

I think the issue is with how its spread out. With alternating turns you each take your full turn at once. With alternating activations it alternates, but whoever has the most units will tend to "end" each activation sequence with a block of just them going over and over again until the limit point. So it can feel more unfair and be harder to balance because they do get a block of units at the end which take a single series of actions all in one go. It means that they can more easily gang up on a target in the latter part of the turn without the opponent being able to manoeuvre, counter, protect that ganged up target.

Now granted you can make elite armies stronger and swarm armies weaker so that can somewhat balance things out. However it might be that with such a system GW might have to lower the relative power of some things so that you don't have hero characters that can take up the best part of 1K points (ergo half an army); because that starts to introduce some really powerful swings in number of activations and relative powers.


Of course no system is perfect and the biggest barrier we have isn't the activation sequence structure, but rather the attitude, focus, skills, direction, budget and all of the balance team

I do agree that GW would have a hard time making it fun and balanced, but I disagree that it's easier to gang up on than the current system, but it would feel that way, which is more important. I think I just get annoyed when people talk about AA like it's impossible to do right, and it will always be worse than IGOUGO.

 Overread wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
You could also have more activations with elite units. But, people are acting like the difference is huge, and that it would be worse than current 40k.

Current 40k, the horde player gets just as many activations. The elite player has to wait their turn to even do anything.

I do not see how AA makes this worse in any way. Especially since I've played 40k with AA, modifying nothing but turn structure.

I think the issue is with how its spread out. With alternating turns you each take your full turn at once. With alternating activations it alternates, but whoever has the most units will tend to "end" each activation sequence with a block of just them going over and over again until the limit point. So it can feel more unfair and be harder to balance because they do get a block of units at the end which take a single series of actions all in one go. It means that they can more easily gang up on a target in the latter part of the turn without the opponent being able to manoeuvre, counter, protect that ganged up target.

Now granted you can make elite armies stronger and swarm armies weaker so that can somewhat balance things out. However it might be that with such a system GW might have to lower the relative power of some things so that you don't have hero characters that can take up the best part of 1K points (ergo half an army); because that starts to introduce some really powerful swings in number of activations and relative powers.


Of course no system is perfect and the biggest barrier we have isn't the activation sequence structure, but rather the attitude, focus, skills, direction, budget and all of the balance team

That tbh doesn't seem like an issue. The "horde" player might get a block of activations, but the "elite" player alternatively can have a single activation which has a lot of power. Both players ought to be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of either build.

Having just dipped into AA40k using One Page Rules, I'm starting to get hands-on with the potential gaming of the system. But so far it's not clear to me where it could be abused. The lethality is high enough that little units can be killed pretty easily, so any advantage from spamming activations seems like it could be short lived. I could also dump resources into making one powerful unit, but then it would be prone to being outmaneuvered.

It also just feels natural that a much more numerically superior force would be able to just "do more stuff".

There's also things like Maelstrom's Edge's ability to hold an activation.

If you're the non-priority player (so you activate second) you can choose to hold an activation until the very end-so even if you have 3 units to your opponent's 9, you can always get the last one.

 Overread wrote:
With alternating activations it alternates, but whoever has the most units will tend to "end" each activation sequence with a block of just them going over and over again until the limit point.

If it's pure 'I pick a unit, you pick a unit, keep going until only one player has units left' AA, then sure. It isn't necessarily an advantage, since at that point your opponent has already activated their whole army and you're playing catch-up.

If it's (functionally) chit-draw like Bolt Action or Fireball Forward, then the chances of each player getting the next activation is directly proportional to how many unactivated units they have remaining.

If it's based on a formation system like Apocalypse, then if a horde army and an elite army each have three formations, both have the same number of activations independent of actual model count.

If it's a command system like Epic or Warmaster, your ability to activate is impacted by troop quality and friction, and a horde army can easily become unwieldy.

Again. Not uncharted territory. Not like there's only one way to do it.

I still believe there is a solution that splits the margin and gets the best of both worlds; alternate by phase. Your move phase, my move, your shooting, my shooting, etc. I have abundant experience doing that for AoS and it has worked very well (though subjective, obviously).

At any rate, making a note in regards to the poll here, I feel that when nearly 70% of the votes are for a reset that says quite a lot about the state of the game. This is a 40k forum, so there is a bias towards people who are playing and/or care about 40k, but two thirds of them want a complete rehash rather than adjustments to the existing system. That's pretty damming.

I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I still believe there is a solution that splits the margin and gets the best of both worlds; alternate by phase. Your move phase, my move, your shooting, my shooting, etc. I have abundant experience doing that for AoS and it has worked very well (though subjective, obviously).

My first impression of that method is that you'll still wind up with a major alpha-strike advantage as one army fires before the other. I don't have experience with AoS, but I'd guess shooting there is overall less lethal than 40k, and therefore the effect is mitigated?

 alextroy wrote:
I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.

I suspect that most of the skepticism, as usual, comes from people who aren't familiar with games other than 40k/AoS and aren't aware of the ways that other games have already addressed the supposed "fatal flaws" they keep claiming.

 alextroy wrote:
I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.

I was thinking about bringing Kill Team up, but they tend to treat specialist games differently to 40k itself.

I feel like if there's a reset GW will only do a point reset and streamline the core rules even more.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I still believe there is a solution that splits the margin and gets the best of both worlds; alternate by phase. Your move phase, my move, your shooting, my shooting, etc. I have abundant experience doing that for AoS and it has worked very well (though subjective, obviously).

Eh, kinda, sorta. It works great for games less shooting-dominated than 40K, such as GW's own LotR. I certainly wouldn't call it a 'best of both worlds'; it's a different approach with its own quirks. It changes the dynamic to be very positioning-heavy; either putting your troops where your opponent can't break range/LOS if you're moving first, or minimizing exposure while maximizing your own shot opportunities if you're moving second.

It can still result in alpha strike blowouts, but at least it gives you a chance to reposition to weather the storm.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.

I suspect that most of the skepticism, as usual, comes from people who aren't familiar with games other than 40k/AoS and aren't aware of the ways that other games have already addressed the supposed "fatal flaws" they keep claiming.

I have often gotten this impression when people insist AA wouldn't work for 40K, yeah.

Even Grimdark Future's incredibly basic, simplistic AA- far from my favorite approach- works fine, makes for a more interactive experience, and adds a lot of depth to the gameplay.

 alextroy wrote:
I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.

You think it's weird that we don't have faith in GW's ability to write rules?

I think it's weird that you do, especially given we've seen them write good rules - as you just pointed out - and yet we still have the mess that is modern 40k.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.

I suspect that most of the skepticism, as usual, comes from people who aren't familiar with games other than 40k/AoS and aren't aware of the ways that other games have already addressed the supposed "fatal flaws" they keep claiming.

Even the turn structure of Apocalypse (removing units at the end of both players turns that died, avtivate by detachment, etc.) would be more reasonable than what we have now.

Simultaneous damage is something I really like in BTech.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.

I suspect that most of the skepticism, as usual, comes from people who aren't familiar with games other than 40k/AoS and aren't aware of the ways that other games have already addressed the supposed "fatal flaws" they keep claiming.

and I guess those that think AA would do wonders for 40k never played a game other than 40k/AoS and just hear when other people talk how good other games are

other games manage to get alternating turns to work well, other games get alternating phases/activations or even an interrupt based system to work without having issues on the basic level

so if GW does not manage to the get the basic system done, which they are doing for 9 Editions now, what makes you think that it will work better with any other system?
just because other games got it done? well, other games work no matter what the basic system is

the same reason why they cannot handle a turn based game for 40k apply to alternate activation for 40k as well and don't magically disappear

 kodos wrote:
so if GW does not manage to the get the basic system done, which they are doing for 9 Editions now, what makes you think that it will work better with any other system?

If the premise you insist on is that GW is incompetent (which I'll grant is a true statement) then there is no point in any discussion of making the game better. If GW keeps it the same the game will suck. If GW adds alternating activation the game will suck. If GW does literally any other change you can name it will still suck. There is no path to any conclusion other than "and then 40k sucks". So why bother trying to talk about it if you are going to insist that the entire topic is pointless?

The only way this discussion has any purpose is if you assume that whatever changes are made will be handled at least reasonably competently, and under that assumption what matters is that IGOUGO is an inherently bad system and some form of alternating activation would be vastly superior.

 alextroy wrote:
I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.

I find it funny that people think GW wouldn't screw up AA just as hard as they screw up igougo

 kodos wrote:

and I guess those that think AA would do wonders for 40k never played a game other than 40k/AoS and just hear when other people talk how good other games are

This!

Played Infinity, Bolt Action and all the other crap for years. 40K, even it it's worst in 7th or whatver, is just an infinitely better game.

I'd prefer Infinity-style background/visuals, but rules-wise, 40K is just leagues ahead (despite it's flaws).

AA is a dead end with no actual game-play virtues or advantages. It's mostly just a projection of people unhappy with 40K that turn it into some magical fugazi panacea, which it is not.

There's a reason 3D printing is so popular, seeing how it helps people enjoy the 40K rules without being dragged down by 40K lore or aesthetics, if they don't enjoy those.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
AA is a dead end with no actual game-play virtues or advantages.

Well... that's objectively incorrect.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 kodos wrote:

and I guess those that think AA would do wonders for 40k never played a game other than 40k/AoS and just hear when other people talk how good other games are

This!

Played Infinity, Bolt Action and all the other crap for years. 40K, even it it's worst in 7th or whatver, is just an infinitely better game.

I'd prefer Infinity-style background/visuals, but rules-wise, 40K is just leagues ahead (despite it's flaws).

AA is a dead end with no actual game-play virtues or advantages. It's mostly just a projection of people unhappy with 40K that turn it into some magical fugazi panacea, which it is not.

There's a reason 3D printing is so popular, seeing how it helps people enjoy the 40K rules without being dragged down by 40K lore or aesthetics, if they don't enjoy those.

Of all the bad takes I've seen, that was one of them...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
AA is a dead end with no actual game-play virtues or advantages.

Well... that's objectively incorrect.

Well, then go vote with your wallet. I know I did when I moved over from Infinity and such to 40K.

I think it depends on what you want from a game.

I get the feeling people want some complex game of manoeuvre. You move a piece left, I move a piece to counter. You move a piece right, I move a piece to counter. Now I've left a gap in the middle, you move through and win the game. As opposed to 40k's "I hide behind L-shaped ruins, then I jump out and either kill you or bounce and die."

But in practice I'm not sure they play out that way.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

This!

Played Infinity, Bolt Action and all the other crap for years. 40K, even it it's worst in 7th or whatver, is just an infinitely better game.

infinity isnt AA tho.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

AA is a dead end with no actual game-play virtues or advantages. It's mostly just a projection of people unhappy with 40K that turn it into some magical fugazi panacea, which it is not.

what? tell me this is a shitpost/bait lmao

Sunny Side Up wrote:

There's a reason 3D printing is so popular, seeing how it helps people enjoy the 40K rules without being dragged down by 40K lore or aesthetics, if they don't enjoy those.

nah, 3d printing isnt about the rules, it's about GW models being too expensive. 40k is the biggest game because of its inertia, not because its the best game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
I think it depends on what you want from a game.

I get the feeling people want some complex game of manoeuvre. You move a piece left, I move a piece to counter. You move a piece right, I move a piece to counter. Now I've left a gap in the middle, you move through and win the game. As opposed to 40k's "I hide behind L-shaped ruins, then I jump out and either kill you or bounce and die."

But in practice I'm not sure they play out that way.

Thats.... exactly how Grimdark Future plays... and thats exactly what makes it interesting. This kind of gameplay actually bring real depth to the choices, unlike current 40k where you just spray and pray

I just want a decent core ruleset, usr that take up a few pages to individually explain if neccesary, more creative but less common unique special rules.

But i am happy playing older or alt games if they cannot provide that.

Edited due to fat fingers

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
The only way this discussion has any purpose is if you assume that whatever changes are made will be handled at least reasonably competently, and under that assumption what matters is that IGOUGO is an inherently bad system and some form of alternating activation would be vastly superior.

and this is wrong, as other games show that alternating player turns work very well, if your goal is to design a good game

the statement that alternating player turns are a bad system is based on "40k is a bad game", but 40k is not a bad game because of the turn system but because GW sucks at writing rules
Starship Troopers uses alternating player turns and is a superior game to 40k

so saying GW sucks at writing rules, taking the simplest of all systems that was used in many games and were GW alone has massive information of what works well and what does not, and it still comes out as bad game
how could they possible handle a more complex system that is even harder to balance and make a better game system?

like if you say some sucks at driving a VW Beetle, it does not help that a Ferrari F4 is the superior car and therefore expect the same person to become a good driver if they buy one

the discussion always is going around the point which racing car is better, while the problem the actual problem is that they never learned to drive in the first place
so the point should be to force them to learn to drive and not suggesting them different cars

Jarms48 wrote:I feel like if there's a reset GW will only do a point reset and streamline the core rules even more.

Probably, if the current 40k rules team sticks around. They do seem to be oddly proud of the current mess......

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.

You think it's weird that we don't have faith in GW's ability to write rules?

I think it's weird that you do, especially given we've seen them write good rules - as you just pointed out - and yet we still have the mess that is modern 40k.

We've seen "GW" write good rules. But not the current 9th edition 40k team. And they don't seem to take notes from the other rules writing teams, or don't seem to understand the ones that they do take. They need to change the teams. Or, alternatively, just hire the OPR guys.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 kodos wrote:

and I guess those that think AA would do wonders for 40k never played a game other than 40k/AoS and just hear when other people talk how good other games are

This!

Played Infinity, Bolt Action and all the other crap for years. 40K, even it it's worst in 7th or whatver, is just an infinitely better game.

I'd prefer Infinity-style background/visuals, but rules-wise, 40K is just leagues ahead (despite it's flaws).

AA is a dead end with no actual game-play virtues or advantages. It's mostly just a projection of people unhappy with 40K that turn it into some magical fugazi panacea, which it is not.

There's a reason 3D printing is so popular, seeing how it helps people enjoy the 40K rules without being dragged down by 40K lore or aesthetics, if they don't enjoy those.

This is one of the posts of all time.

Also people 3D print 40k aesthetics because they don't want to pay $60 for 5 models. AoS doesn't have that problem.

Playing Conquest a bit recently has really opened my eyes to Action Economy based systems.

Every unit has a set of actions it can take, and it can only perform 2 actions per activation, other than move, it cannot perform the same action twice.

If 40k were to go to an AA system, then it needs to completely scrap the "phase" structure in favor of action economy based system.

For those that have played it, the 8th edition Apocalypse rules did this as well, and was a great game.

As for a method to get rid of Alpha strike. Wound counters and resolve all damage in the end of a turn.

Tyel wrote:
I think it depends on what you want from a game.

I get the feeling people want some complex game of manoeuvre. You move a piece left, I move a piece to counter. You move a piece right, I move a piece to counter. Now I've left a gap in the middle, you move through and win the game. As opposed to 40k's "I hide behind L-shaped ruins, then I jump out and either kill you or bounce and die."

But in practice I'm not sure they play out that way.

In practice the decision points are things like, do I activate:
1. The infantry unit on my right flank to move up to the objective that I suspect my opponent's infantry are going to grab if I don't,
2. The anti-tank unit on my right flank to shoot the infantry, which even though it's suboptimal might suppress them enough to keep them from getting the objective,
3. The melee unit on my left flank to charge the enemy's star shooting unit before it has a chance to shoot, so it can't hurt my infantry by the objective, or
4. My aura-buffing commander to move up so that all of the above will be more effective, even though it'll give my opponent the opportunity to grab the objective or shoot me before I get to use it?

This adds a whole tactical layer that just doesn't exist in IGOUGO. It keeps both players engaged, looking for the next opening, sometimes making decisions that are mathematically suboptimal because suboptimal now is better than optimal later, and the same board setup can play out totally differently depending on what order units are activated in.

I've said before that I don't think IGOUGO is necessarily awful, or that pure I-pick-you-pick AA is ideal, but even the most bare-bones implementations of AA add a level of purely-player-driven depth that I miss when I go back to IGOUGO games. It's an elegant way to add those elements of friction and simulated simultaneity that pure IGOUGO completely lacks.

I'm not a fan of AA in wargames, because it no longer feels like I am playing an army. Armies do things simultaneously; moving in formation, firing lines, etc. I see it as the height of stupidity when I can move a front unit forward then have them be charged in the flank simply because the unit next to them has not yet activated to move up. Of course that unit can now charge the flanker, which results in these flank-chains of death that aren't much fun and don't feel like a wargame.

That said I still enjoy Conquest. There are fun dynamics to be exploited in an AA structure and coming from Warhammer the sheer novelty has value to me. Conquest is also built from its very fundamentals to accommodate AA, they have done a great job with that and that is very much why it works well.

So to restate--when AA works well it is because the writers put a lot of time, effort, and skill in to MAKE it work well. The same is true of igougo.