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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I started out using color-coded index cards to assist with ad hoc army generation.

I've never used an army builder, but I do use spreadsheets because as long as you use an innocuous file name, no one at work will trouble you while you're fiddling with them.

Noted and nicked ,:-)

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

ccs wrote:
Fortunately the shop got a mix of table heights & I can almost always claim one where we can sit while playing/between turns.

One of the oft-overlooked virtues of the IGO-UGO turn sequence is that the non-moving player has ample time to sit down, sip a beverage, use the restroom, get another beer, etc.

Indeed, that's part of why I disdain this silly "alternating activation" fetish that all the kids claim is "the bomb" or something. I need a pause to refresh between my moves, and letting the other guy squint at the measuring stick, dig out his roster for reference and check a datafax allows me to visit the loo without any loss of vital gaming time.

Alternating activation is not new. It has been introduced in the Epic game during the 90s. IGYG is an inferior way of playing any tabletop game as the passive player has no way of preventing his army getting obliterated during his opponent´s turn.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Alternating activation is not new. It has been introduced in the Epic game during the 90s. IGYG is an inferior way of playing any tabletop game as the passive player has no way of preventing his army getting obliterated during his opponent´s turn.

Oh, well excuuuuse me, Mr. "The 90s Were a Long Time Ago."

I thought this was a thread for true Grognards, people who grew up with drab, monochrome maps and mimeographed rules.

Us old folks know that IGO-UGO works for lots of games, GW just did a really bad job of it.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

ccs wrote:
Fortunately the shop got a mix of table heights & I can almost always claim one where we can sit while playing/between turns.

One of the oft-overlooked virtues of the IGO-UGO turn sequence is that the non-moving player has ample time to sit down, sip a beverage, use the restroom, get another beer, etc.

Indeed, that's part of why I disdain this silly "alternating activation" fetish that all the kids claim is "the bomb" or something. I need a pause to refresh between my moves, and letting the other guy squint at the measuring stick, dig out his roster for reference and check a datafax allows me to visit the loo without any loss of vital gaming time.

Alternating activation is not new. It has been introduced in the Epic game during the 90s. IGYG is an inferior way of playing any tabletop game as the passive player has no way of preventing his army getting obliterated during his opponent´s turn.

Battletech & some other games wave hello from the '80s.

He meant HG Wells' wargame from the *1890s*, which apparently introduced alternating activations *

* (This may be a lie)

I only like Alternating Activation when, like 2nd Ed Epic and X-Wing, I’m locked into a set of actions beforehand.

Otherwise your opponent is handed opportunities to pull back from a blunder, which such things should be punishable with a good kicking. And pre-selected orders/options don’t necessarily prevent baiting me into overextending my line etc.

There is also phased simultaneous action, like SFB or Car Wars. It’s not a binary choice between IGOYGO and Alt-A.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I only like Alternating Activation when, like 2nd Ed Epic and X-Wing, I’m locked into a set of actions beforehand.

Otherwise your opponent is handed opportunities to pull back from a blunder, which such things should be punishable with a good kicking. And pre-selected orders/options don’t necessarily prevent baiting me into overextending my line etc.

Another problem is that one cannot maintain continuous front, and so liner combat devolves into a series of flanking maneuvers, when in reality the lines would be advancing in unison until broke up.

Similarly, if you want to mount a concentric attack (even pre-planned!) it can't happen. It's impossible to set a "everyone goes at 0600" because you move, they move, you move, they move.

The tl;dr version is: not all games are space fantasy skirmishes.

some games allow the concept or ordering multiple units to act together, so long as they are all doing the same thing

I mean thats how games in the golden era before kids with their fancy books on this new-fangled "paper" came along

Oh boy, I love a good activation methods conversation.

That said, I-GO-U-GO worked fine when 40K was about 30 dudes of 2-4 units, with some "units" being 1 guy. When it ballooned up to 6-10 units per side with multiple figures is when things got a bit strained.

However, you have to recall that old Warhammer had a GameMaster as well. They could arbitrate certain things including changing up the activation methods, random encounters to balance, hidden objectives, LOS disputes, etc. I actually think the game has gotten much worse without these 3rd party scenario designers and fellow players leading games at the table.

So much of the original architecture of the game relied on them, and in way the game is still struggling in how to deal with the legacy mechanics without the GM to paper over a lot stuff.

I have a counter grump to that. And it’s by no means a fair one.

40K has been IGOUGO since inception. That’s 36 years or so. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

This causes me (not fairly I’ll admit) to write off “I only lost because IGOUGO” as a poor excuse, because it’s not as if it should be a surprise to anyone at this stage.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I have a counter grump to that. And it’s by no means a fair one.

40K has been IGOUGO since inception. That’s 36 years or so. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

This causes me (not fairly I’ll admit) to write off “I only lost because IGOUGO” as a poor excuse, because it’s not as if it should be a surprise to anyone at this stage.

Yes, we're very deep into "You bought your ticket, you knew what you were getting into" territory.

To put it another way, Rhino rushes and first-turn sweeps have been the norm for 24 years.

Got to agree with the anti alternative activation crowd. Taking a minute to think your turn through and watch it all go to pot and have to adapt on the fly is more fun to me than one unit over and over. I want that few minutes to decide what to do. To enjoy my turn as a turn and not just moving and shooting with 1 unit hoping to wittle my opponents activations down until I can dominate the game. Yea turn 1 bum rushes suck but that's a flaw in the games design outside of activations. If you allow that level of movement and fire power you broke it intentionally.

These days no one has the patients to take the wee break. Think things through then do it. Your opponent taking his turn doesn't remove you from the game. It puts you in the medative state where you're plotting you're turn and thinking things through. I think that's not only enjoyable but also an essential part of the game. It's a tea break and that is essential as any English man will tell you. Sit back, sip your tea, eat a bickie and remove your units as needed. Gentlemanly, dare I say even hobbitly. Its not down time, its etiquette and soulful.

My favourite use of IGOUGO in a GW game is Battlefleet Gothic. It's all down to the Brace for Impact rule.

When it's your opponent's turn to shoot at your precious floating cathedrals, you can choose to put any ship or squadron taking fire on Brace orders. This gives it a 4+ save against all damage inflicted until the order wears off ... but also halves the fighting effectiveness of your ship in your next turn and means it can't go on any other orders.

To brace or not to brace? That is the question. It keeps you invested and attentive and biting your nails throughout your opponent's turn. Much more involving than just rolling saves.

Unless you're Orks. In that case, bracing for impact automatically incurs the wrath of the dice gods (aka Gork and Mork), and you will fail every single save to punish you for your unorky cowardice. I know this from experience.

The old d100(?) scenario generation table in the RT book was good fun!

It didn't tell you how to play the scenario, just a bit of flavor text on what was happening and the GM was suppose to do the rest from there.

I do miss the days of having an informal 3rd Party for rules disputes. And indeed to set up the terrain.

Such were the joys of playing mostly in-store, always someone on hand to help out.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I do miss the days of having an informal 3rd Party for rules disputes. And indeed to set up the terrain.

Such were the joys of playing mostly in-store, always someone on hand to help out.

The classic rule there was one player sets up the terrain, the other player picks sides.

Yes, this did lead to an amusing episode where an Imperial Guard treadhead placed a single tree and said "Done."

So the other player set things up.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I do miss the days of having an informal 3rd Party for rules disputes. And indeed to set up the terrain.

Such were the joys of playing mostly in-store, always someone on hand to help out.

The classic rule there was one player sets up the terrain, the other player picks sides.

Yes, this did lead to an amusing episode where an Imperial Guard treadhead placed a single tree and said "Done."

So the other player set things up.

That's another thing the current everything has to be competitive mindset has ruined. Now every table has to be a mirror image or as near as with terrain available. It's either filled to the gills or it's as bland as possible with no real in between. It feels like terrain has lost its purpose for painting a picture and now it's purely gameplay and often trying to fix balance problems in the rules. But maybe I'm too deep into tinfoil when I say its likely to see more terrain and double up sales in some cases.

Yeah, terrain set-up use to go with the scenario.

If you were attacking a spaceport, with some imagination it had to look like a spaceport. A temple? You needed a temple! A jungle planet needs some jungle.

Now, it is all mirror match ruins on a mat.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I only like Alternating Activation when, like 2nd Ed Epic and X-Wing, I’m locked into a set of actions beforehand.

Otherwise your opponent is handed opportunities to pull back from a blunder, which such things should be punishable with a good kicking. And pre-selected orders/options don’t necessarily prevent baiting me into overextending my line etc.

Being the terminal hipster I am I have been playing AA games for the last decade, the mostly dead Xwing and utterly dead G|uildball, cant even be bothered with WMH and that usually a far lower model count that 40k and cant see me going back, horse's for courses I guess

 Easy E wrote:
Yeah, terrain set-up use to go with the scenario.

If you were attacking a spaceport, with some imagination it had to look like a spaceport. A temple? You needed a temple! A jungle planet needs some jungle.

Now, it is all mirror match ruins on a mat.

Absolutely! One of the big things that made me interested in 40k was the unique terrain setups. Even the old cardstock buildings with elevated walkways were fun and interesting.

One of the many crimes of 3rd ed. was creating "standard" boards to go with missions, and everything became a sterile, homogeneous, mass-produced tournament arena.

I'm old enough to GW encouraging to make our own terrain and rules to cover it. Do any of the young pups today know what its like to play with molten lava on the map? Acid rivers? Carnivorous plants that will attack troops that get too close?

Imagine the whining if players today had to contend with a board that was also trying to kill their troops!

 Easy E wrote:
Yeah, terrain set-up use to go with the scenario.

If you were attacking a spaceport, with some imagination it had to look like a spaceport. A temple? You needed a temple! A jungle planet needs some jungle.

Now, it is all mirror match ruins on a mat.

Thank the brainless masses for turning the wargame hobby into an e-sport.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Yeah, terrain set-up use to go with the scenario.

If you were attacking a spaceport, with some imagination it had to look like a spaceport. A temple? You needed a temple! A jungle planet needs some jungle.

Now, it is all mirror match ruins on a mat.

Absolutely! One of the big things that made me interested in 40k was the unique terrain setups. Even the old cardstock buildings with elevated walkways were fun and interesting.

One of the many crimes of 3rd ed. was creating "standard" boards to go with missions, and everything became a sterile, homogeneous, mass-produced tournament arena.

I'm old enough to GW encouraging to make our own terrain and rules to cover it. Do any of the young pups today know what its like to play with molten lava on the map? Acid rivers? Carnivorous plants that will attack troops that get too close?

Imagine the whining if players today had to contend with a board that was also trying to kill their troops!

I'd love to hear the sobbing!

One of my favorite terrain features was the carnivous plants. We had a game one time that took place on a "swamp board". It was almost completely covered in those plastic aquarium plants. Big ones, small ones, those ones that come on 4x4 grids for tiny feeder fish to hide in.... and some trees. All on individual bases & all removable (say if a vehicle moved over/through them) all plant types had an effect listed on a reference sheet.
Anyways, those 4x4 plants? Most are greens. SOME are redish.
We discovered the hard way that the guy who set the board up made the reddish ones carnivorus.
Both teams took more casualties to the plants than the enemies!
Much fun.

ccs wrote:
One of my favorite terrain features was the carnivous plants. We had a game one time that took place on a "swamp board". It was almost completely covered in those plastic aquarium plants. Big ones, small ones, those ones that come on 4x4 grids for tiny feeder fish to hide in.... and some trees. All on individual bases & all removable (say if a vehicle moved over/through them) all plant types had an effect listed on a reference sheet.
Anyways, those 4x4 plants? Most are greens. SOME are redish.
We discovered the hard way that the guy who set the board up made the reddish ones carnivorus.
Both teams took more casualties to the plants than the enemies!
Much fun.

This is awesome.

I'm making a mental note that our next campaign needs to be set on a Deathworld, and we'll amuse ourselves by coming up with rules for the many ways it will be more dangerous than our enemy.

That's what the younger generation utterly misses - this isn't a chess tournament, it's supposed to be a chaotic war in a hostile universe. Pausing the combat so that the ground is leveled and white elevation lines range-marker posts can be inserted is the antithesis of what 40k was meant to be.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

That's what the younger generation utterly misses - this isn't a chess tournament, it's supposed to be a chaotic war in a hostile universe. Pausing the combat so that the ground is leveled and white elevation lines range-marker posts can be inserted is the antithesis of what 40k was meant to be.

Bit long winded there.. Why not just say... it's supposed to be fun?

Reading this thread I deems we all agree there's no longer any fun elements left. It's all number crunching now. And official colour schemes only or you can't have jibjib the almighty 500 quid of plastic in your army!

Yo7 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

That's what the younger generation utterly misses - this isn't a chess tournament, it's supposed to be a chaotic war in a hostile universe. Pausing the combat so that the ground is leveled and white elevation lines range-marker posts can be inserted is the antithesis of what 40k was meant to be.

Bit long winded there.. Why not just say... it's supposed to be fun?

Reading this thread I deems we all agree there's no longer any fun elements left. It's all number crunching now. And official colour schemes only or you can't have jibjib the almighty 500 quid of plastic in your army!

Fun is a subjective term, and a lot of player today think that min-maxing is the apogee of 40k game play.

That's why us old Grognards provide that extra level detail. I bet there's a huge chunk of the current player base who had no idea that the terrain could be more dangerous than the enemy.

It's just another service we provide.

What CvT said.

40K has evolved beyond its roots, considerably so. But not only do the old books still exist, but we can still do pretty much what we want with it.

Sure, we’ll likely have a smaller pool of willing opponents, but GM’d narrative campaign is still incredibly doable, and a lot of fun. It just needs everyone participating to be on the same page.

Sadly that can lead to asking the odd player to drop out if they’re not entering into the spirit of the thing.

Which isn’t to say anyone is Hobbying Wrong, just that some approaches don’t suit some players. On the flip side? I’d be a nightmare in a tournament, because I don’t find the heavily competitive side that much fun.

This also leads me to another Grumpy Grognard. As someone who’s been around a long time, I’m pretty accepting of shoddy rules, because, well, that’s all I’ve ever known. And so house rules, patch ups have always been something I’ve not just done, but enjoyed.

That of course doesn’t mean shoddy rules should be acceptable. Just that…I’ll work round them.

Not only were you encouraged to make your own terrain, in RT you were encouraged to make your own vehicles out of whatever was handy, and the book even featured said homemade vehicles!

Well, you had to in them days!

And maybe that was part of the early success story. Putting conversion articles and nets into WD (such as the Vindicator, Whirlwind and Claymore), GW relieved itself of the need to produce add-on bits or Sprues for the chassis, whilst also expanding the scope of the game and people’s collections.

Likewise terrain. Terrain is the 3rd Player, and I usually find a board with variety more fun to play on. So putting in articles on how to make different terrain again ensured more interesting games.

And it’s at that point a simple miniatures game became a hobby of many aspects.

Of course time marched on, and as GW grew they were able to put out more vehicles, more units, terrain and even boards. But that only removed the need, not the desire, to convert away.

Baneblades also started out as templates in WD for you to make yourself.

However, I was think more about the Orgus Flyers and such.