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.

Honestly 9th edition hardly got played - over half of its lifespan was lockdown madness. Whilst a lot of people got into building stuff, I'd wager it was one of the least played editions in a very long while. In a way I was a little surprised GW kept going with their 3 year cycle because of how little time 9th got on the actual table.

 catbarf wrote:
Designers should not be looking for suggestions from the peanut gallery and then directly implementing them. They should be collecting feedback to figure out where the perceived problems are, and then designing a holistic solution to address them.

Yes, and what makes this all more bizarre is the fact that for the first time in human history, GW can practically sit at the table with gamers and see their problems in real time. It's not like they have to get letters in the mail, or grainy photographs of board setups that require magnification to figure out.

They can see how the game is actually being played, both in tournaments and online.

Other companies have used this to build out FAQs (which GW has generated for decades) to head these problems off. GW can do it, when it wants to. The rules churn is a deliberate choice and I suspect they think it essential to sustaining sales.

 vict0988 wrote:
How so? It's not very invigorating to print a new edition that includes errata from the last 3 years, super conservative changes to the three most hated things and nothing else.

Have you noticed that BattleTech has had a meteoric rise in the past 5 or so years, mostly on the back of two huge Kickstarters. The rules are still the same as they were 20 years ago.

GW are a miniatures company. The biggest thing they do is release new miniatures. A new edition that furthers the setting and introduces a swathe of new miniatures would be the kind of thing that generates interest. They don't need to re-write the rules to obtain that.

IMO the answer to the necessity of new rules as a sales mechanism depends on the skill level of the authors.

If they're talented designers they don't need to resort to new edition hype as a marketing gimmick. Selling a strong product that people enjoy playing is enough and new editions can be limited to the minor tweaks required to get a game into its final state, with editions happening less and less frequently as the game gets closer. People will keep buying because the product is great and they want more of it.

If they're a bunch of minimal-talent hacks hired because the company wants to save a bit on salaries then yeah, you do need major changes for a new edition and you need those new editions to happen frequently. If your product sucks and most people are grudgingly putting up with bad rules because they love the lore or their friends all play the game or whatever then engagement will continue to decline and you need major changes to create hype and hope for the future. Minor tweaks don't stop the engagement decline because they're too easily ignored as more of the same thing you're already getting tired of. And yeah, you're going to lose people because they get tired of new editions but you're losing most of them anyway so you might as well try to cash in on new edition sales before they go.

I suspect the answer here is that GW's writers are really bad at their jobs and the management clowns don't know any better and/or don't care. Cleaning out the dead weight and replacing everyone with competent game designers would be better for the company but if GW won't do that they're stuck in the second case, where they need constant reboots to make up for their inability to make a good game. They're almost certainly making less money than they could be if they moved to the first scenario but until GW actually loses money for a while there won't be any pressure on the clowns and they'll continue business as usual.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Spoiler:

How so? It's not very invigorating to print a new edition that includes errata from the last 3 years, super conservative changes to the three most hated things and nothing else.

Have you noticed that BattleTech has had a meteoric rise in the past 5 or so years, mostly on the back of two huge Kickstarters. The rules are still the same as they were 20 years ago.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
How so? It's not very invigorating to print a new edition that includes errata from the last 3 years, super conservative changes to the three most hated things and nothing else.

Have you noticed that BattleTech has had a meteoric rise in the past 5 or so years, mostly on the back of two huge Kickstarters. The rules are still the same as they were 20 years ago.

GW are a miniatures company. The biggest thing they do is release new miniatures. A new edition that furthers the setting and introduces a swathe of new miniatures would be the kind of thing that generates interest. They don't need to re-write the rules to obtain that.

Its also conveniently 5 years since battletech released on PC after a huge gap since the last game in that franchise hit the market, so I'd be questioning if that drove the uptick more than anything.

PenitentJake wrote:
Working within those limitation is part of the fun for us, because it's an an external force that contributes to the shape the story takes. It's like writing a sonnet with all its imposed stucture in both rhyme and meter, rather than writing everything in free verse. It is part of the art form.

A narrative system for 40k should be capable of telling the full range of stories the game can represent, not only the small subset that the Crusade rules are appropriate for. Crusade is like having a new version of MS Word that can only write sonnets, if you try to write a haiku it crashes and you lose your work. That's not a case of "restrictions breed creativity" it's a tool that is inadequate for the job.

And TBH are you really surprised? This is textbook edition churn. Launch Crusade as a new matched play mission pack, sell new content for it through all of 9th, and then when 10th arrives invalidate everything and start the cycle over. I'm sure at some point GW will dump Crusade entirely and hype up the next narrative system. And just like Crusade ignored all narrative content that preceded it GW will learn nothing from the failures of Crusade, whatever system replaces it will be starting from zero with a whole new set of flaws.

But you ignore all the place where Crusade contributes to lore accuracy- like the structure it provides for shadow wars in Commorragh, or the growth of a Cult, or the rites of Penance and Sainthood. Compared to that enhancement, any lore violations of lore that you might see feel relatively minor to our play group- and those that do exist (limited load outs) are products of the datacard, which is not an exclusively Crusade issue- it's one that exists in all three ways to play. So for us, Crusade is a way to bring the game CLOSER to the lore, not further from it.

This is an excellent example of how Crusade sacrifices narrative elements for the sake of matched play needs! Matched play requires balance so all the various faction-specific Crusade content happens largely outside the game. You total up your points scored and increment your progress meter but very little of it has any effect on the game with your opponent, where it could create balance issues. Matched play requires standard missions so none of the off-table stuff has any direct effect on what you're playing. You may be one victory point short of filling your progress meter and winning a new territory for your DE but you're still going to play one of the stock missions instead of, say, a raid on that territory's current owner to assassinate him. Matched play requires the ability to play pickup games against random opponents so none of the off-table stuff can be interacted with directly by any other player. Your Tau army can happily fill the progress meter on taking over an Imperial planet by fighting orks and there's nothing any Imperial player in the group can do to interfere. Over and over again the story takes second priority at best behind the needs of matched play pickup games.

TBH it's kind of sad that you're so impressed by the pitiful scraps of narrative elements GW gave us with Crusade. You should be holding them to higher standards and demanding more than a matched play mission pack with an upgrade table and a progress meter!

The Chapter Master isn't a green Marine; he's a green CHAPTER MASTER. In the fist battle you fight with him, he has very little experience with the responsibilities that only a Chapter Master has- he's never been the guy who decides which companies fight where for example. He's never been the guy that other Imperial forces talk to when they want the chapter to support their war effort. And if you want to reflect him learning about how to do those things, then yes, you leave room for him to grow.

This is an excellent example of how Crusade fails as a narrative system. A proper 40k narrative system would be able to handle something as basic as an experienced chapter master starting the current story well established in that role. Crusade can't. Even using your rationalization for the rank system it requires you to assume that every character in the story starts as a complete newbie in their role, the whole force has all been newly promoted into a dozen different ranks all at the same time and the whole package has been sent out together. Maybe that's the one story you want to tell over and over again but a system should be capable of more than that.

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
How so? It's not very invigorating to print a new edition that includes errata from the last 3 years, super conservative changes to the three most hated things and nothing else.

Have you noticed that BattleTech has had a meteoric rise in the past 5 or so years, mostly on the back of two huge Kickstarters. The rules are still the same as they were 20 years ago.

GW are a miniatures company. The biggest thing they do is release new miniatures. A new edition that furthers the setting and introduces a swathe of new miniatures would be the kind of thing that generates interest. They don't need to re-write the rules to obtain that.

Its also conveniently 5 years since battletech released on PC after a huge gap since the last game in that franchise hit the market, so I'd be questioning if that drove the uptick more than anything.

I don't know about overall, but at the local shop it's directly because of a handful of vet players. Just playing the game they love & being seen having a good time over the past 2.5 years.....

That's infectious & draws interest.

After that initial "Ooh, what game is this?" Response from new people?
Our selling points to you are:
●The rules are pretty simple - we can teach you to play in 20 minutes.
●The rules are stable. And clearly written.
●The game is AFFORDABLE.
Here's the book or boxed starter set you need. Here's a selection of all ready assembled very nicely sculpted plastic mechs, 4 - 5 per box, at a very reasonable price tag.

Give us a few minutes & we'll print you a sheet for each of your new mechs.
Welcome to the game.


Most of the new players we've attracted? Have no experience with the BT PC games other than knowing they exist. And the next one that has any experience with the BT Kickstarters will be the first.

Dudeface wrote:
Its also conveniently 5 years since battletech released on PC after a huge gap since the last game in that franchise hit the market, so I'd be questioning if that drove the uptick more than anything.

Those games don't have the reach you think they do. These aren't AAA games being put out by mega publishers.

Most people would respond with "Oh, is that still going?" if you asked them about MWO.
Most people would respond with "There's a Mechwarrior 5?" if you told them about MW5.

But again, that doesn't really put a dent in the point I'm making: You don't need new rules to drum up interest for your game, or even for a new edition.

Hell, just today I was out to lunch for my Birthday, and one of the owners of the restaurant noticed that I was wearing my Jade Falcon T-shirt. It's the third time someone has stopped me in public because of my BTech shirt. Rules haven't changed since I started playing the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Its also conveniently 5 years since battletech released on PC after a huge gap since the last game in that franchise hit the market, so I'd be questioning if that drove the uptick more than anything.

Those games don't have the reach you think they do. These aren't AAA games being put out by mega publishers.

Most people would respond with "Oh, is that still going?" if you asked them about MWO.
Most people would respond with "There's a Mechwarrior 5?" if you told them about MW5.

But again, that doesn't really put a dent in the point I'm making: You don't need new rules to drum up interest for your game, or even for a new edition.

Hell, just today I was out to lunch for my Birthday, and one of the owners of the restaurant noticed that I was wearing my Jade Falcon T-shirt. It's the third time someone has stopped me in public because of my BTech shirt. Rules haven't changed since I started playing the game.

Yes there are very much "pockets" of very active players but in other areas it is almost unknown. CGLs plastics have changed that quite a bit for the better but you will find loads of nostalgia because the game has been around so long. At least the buy in for the game with CGL plastics is the lowest of any game out there. $25 will get you a lance of inner sphere mechs which is effectively an entire "army" for the classic game. stopping yourself from buying all the other mechs/vehicle/aerospace/infantry etc... is the hard part.

video game wise the mech warrior series (and mech commander to a lesser degree) are the most well known because they were from larger publishers over 10+ years from 89-2002. MWO started out with all sorts of promise and then turned into a dumpster fire COD mech skin game. while HBS's battle tech and MW5 are improvements over MWO the only current FPS game that accurately captures all of classic battle tech is mech warrior living legends because it was made by fans for fans, but it is on what is now a very old version of the crysis engine as a mod to the original crysis game. still great fun to play, but you are not going to see it advertised anywhere outside the battle tech communities.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
If they're talented designers they don't need to resort to new edition hype as a marketing gimmick. Selling a strong product that people enjoy playing is enough and new editions can be limited to the minor tweaks required to get a game into its final state, with editions happening less and less frequently as the game gets closer. People will keep buying because the product is great and they want more of it.

They had talented designers. They quit on account of the churn and now are able to work on stable designs elsewhere.

It's a deliberate decision, part of Tom Kirby's zombie business model.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
If they're talented designers they don't need to resort to new edition hype as a marketing gimmick. Selling a strong product that people enjoy playing is enough and new editions can be limited to the minor tweaks required to get a game into its final state, with editions happening less and less frequently as the game gets closer. People will keep buying because the product is great and they want more of it.

They had talented designers. They quit on account of the churn and now are able to work on stable designs elsewhere.

It's a deliberate decision, part of Tom Kirby's zombie business model.

Do you know what a zombie business is? They never had talented designers, they have always been a dartboard studio, with badly designed mechanics.

 vict0988 wrote:

Do you know what a zombie business is? They never had talented designers, they have always been a dartboard studio, with badly designed mechanics.

I don't mean the business is a zombie, I mean the business model is. It was Kirby's brainchild and while he's gone, the churn lives on.

As for the designs, I think that's open for debate. Some of their games are great. It's just that the flagship product isn't all that.

 vict0988 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
If they're talented designers they don't need to resort to new edition hype as a marketing gimmick. Selling a strong product that people enjoy playing is enough and new editions can be limited to the minor tweaks required to get a game into its final state, with editions happening less and less frequently as the game gets closer. People will keep buying because the product is great and they want more of it.

They had talented designers. They quit on account of the churn and now are able to work on stable designs elsewhere.

It's a deliberate decision, part of Tom Kirby's zombie business model.

Do you know what a zombie business is? They never had talented designers, they have always been a dartboard studio, with badly designed mechanics.

I'd argue that GW did, at one point, have a solid (not world class, but solid) stable of passionate designers with clear goals. I'd also argue that this is only really visible in 3rd and 4th edition, with maybe a bit of 5th. After that it all went in the bin.

I'd also point out that we have fairly concrete proof of even older iterations of WH being hamstrung at the corporate management level rather than the design level. Andy Chambers (at least IIRC, but I know it was one of the OG names) is quoted as a majority of the design team wanting to switch to an AA game model for 3rd or 4th edition, but the high-level studio management basically stepped in and nixed it because the You Go I Go turn rotation was definitinal of product identity, and they feared it would alienate players.

Ergo there was a time when GW had sufficiently skilled design staff, that actually gave a flying feth, who were focused on the goal of refining such a sprawling mass of a game into a solid and enjoyable ruleset. But suits who saw nothing but dollar signs systematically stopped any attempts and in turn drove those designers away.

I love when GW explains something with "We did X, because we were worried Y would be too strong" or "In our testing Z was fun, even powerful". They nerf some armies for no reasons, like DG in end 9th and 10th, to a point where it becomes a meme sometimes. Some armies always get a slap on the wrist, get supposed fixes and nerfs for months, if not years, and then they get a codex or a supplement and we are back to the same position we were before.

All I would want is for GW to at least pretend they are doing the same kind of work for most, if not all factions. I don't know sometimes I think that index or transition rules for certain factions are the way they are, because of storing space being limited and GW just counts what they want to have and sell aka be good, and then have stuff they just leave bad, with a hope that no one will ask for it or buy it. But I guess telling people that X is not going to be updated or is scheduled for removal would not be good for books/rules/store sales. So GW has absolutly no problem to do something like first give scouts and assault space marines nice rules, then put them in to legends and later on remove them with the codex, after people went out and bought the untis, which GW combines with making the prior edition stuff being bad. Put axes on your units of custodes, because we made them mathematicly superior to everything else? Well now enjoy them being inferior to everything else. Now if you want to play, you have to break your models or buy more stuff.

Another problem is mechanical rules problems that are being fixed with "points drops". Points drops sometimes are needed, but sometimes the points aren't the core problem with a faction being too good or too bad. Yet GW has this strange policy, where they will make people wait, sometimes for years for a change.

And the final problem with the churn of editions and GW rules writing is them writing books for future editions with problems, tactics and mechanics in mind that are either no longer a problem or don't even exist in the next edition. So GW takes the "problem" of intercessors being "too good" in end of 8th, and then nerfs them to a point where in 9th and 10th, they are just not worth running. But the rules set and the meta that made intercessors good no longer exist. But people at the DT still give them bad rules. And vice versa if they decide something should be OP, they will make it OP over and over again, no matter how many and how often it creates problems or breaks the game. It is as if a dude or two just wrote certain armies just for themselfs. Which is a stupid idea that doesn't make sense, but it sure does look like it.

Karol wrote:
GW has absolutly no problem to do something like first give scouts and assault space marines nice rules, then put them in to legends and later on remove them with the codex, after people went out and bought the untis, which GW combines with making the prior edition stuff being bad. Put axes on your units of custodes, because we made them mathematicly superior to everything else? Well now enjoy them being inferior to everything else. Now if you want to play, you have to break your models or buy more stuff.

I totally agree with this. Fortunately (as I said previously about retiring my firstborn Ultramarines anyway) I wasn't affected by the former, but the latter has resulted in me proxying a few loadouts for my Chaos Knights (when previously I was fully WYSIWYG).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly 9th edition hardly got played - over half of its lifespan was lockdown madness. Whilst a lot of people got into building stuff, I'd wager it was one of the least played editions in a very long while. In a way I was a little surprised GW kept going with their 3 year cycle because of how little time 9th got on the actual table.

I was surprised too, although I did manage to play 34 games, so I do feel like I probably got good use out of the edition.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
As for the designs, I think that's open for debate. Some of their games are great. It's just that the flagship product isn't all that.

Yep. The LOTR games, Aeronautica Imperialis 1.0, etc, prove that GW has had people who are capable of making better games. And it's important to not apply too much hindsight to our judgement of GW's early work. GW needs to be compared to their peers of the era, not to modern games built on the lessons of that era. For example, it's a lot more understandable that someone would make an IGOUGO game in 1990 because we didn't have nearly as much understanding of why IGOUGO is a bad system or how to make more engaging alternatives. And making an IGOUGO game in 1990 is much less of a black mark on a designer's record than continuing to publish an IGOUGO game in 2023.

IGOUGO is not a bad system, I really wish this bs would stop being peddled.

You may not like it, but that is an entirely subjective opinion. Not a statement of fact.

Racerguy180 wrote:
IGOUGO is not a bad system, I really wish this bs would stop being peddled.

You may not like it, but that is an entirely subjective opinion. Not a statement of fact.

It's a non-interactive system that poorly represents the fluid nature of real combat and creates massive opportunities for balance problems. It's a bad system and no amount of pro-GW apologism will change this fact.

I think its a fine system in its place and likely did work well for GW at one stage. I think that in a game with a large number of models intended to be on the table per side for the majority of factions; and for a game where currently the balance ethos is for very high lethality - then its a very bad system.

Because its weaknesses are amplified. More models per side means more time spent unable to do more than respond to your opponents attacks and actions with defensive armour rolls.
It means a high chance of the player who gets the alpha strike taking a major step forward in gaining the chance of winning over their opponent. In excess of the tactics and gameplay skill to get into the position for that alpha strike.

The system itself can likely work, but when added to GW's overall style of balancing its not. Honestly GW could get even more lethal and have even more dice rolling and big effects in an alternate unit activation game because both players would at least be able to respond in kind during the same turn with their models.


The other option is alternate turns, but where damage is only assigned and models removed after both players have had their turn - though honestly whilst that can work I think it might prove overly complicated to put into practice. I think it works in Apoc because its slightly less serious a format for most people and the vast number of models means its more of a "two gunlines face off" with less tactical moving etc... But suffice it to say it would be one way to bring additional balance to an alternate turn game where it would allow both players a chance to use their models each turn at least.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
It's a non-interactive system that poorly represents the fluid nature of real combat and creates massive opportunities for balance problems. It's a bad system and no amount of pro-GW apologism will change this fact.

In GW's hands all systems can be broken. We get it, you don't like it. It doesn't matter, because GW will never leave it.

you're all arguing from different premises, weighting different aspects of game play and verisimilitude differently.

The 'standard definition' of igougo from what i've seen is, 'my whole army go, your whole army go'.

You can argue semantics over the fact that the phrase 'i go you go' describes every type of game that exists (alternating activation is still i go, then you go), bu that's not what the commonly accepted usage of the phrase igougo is. At least, in my anecdotal experience over the last 25 years in the hobby.

If modeling real combat is weighted highly, then igougo is terrible. All combat is simultaneous and units may kill each other simultaneously.

If weighting accessibility and speed of pick up, it isn't bad.


In my opinion, there are limitations to igougo. The solutions to those tend to work around the inherent limitation of whole army go, so that you end up with a game that's igougo in name only.


If you've added exceptions and work arounds to avoid the limits of igougo but you're still calling it that, you've made the stone soup equivalent of an igougo game.

 morganfreeman wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
If they're talented designers they don't need to resort to new edition hype as a marketing gimmick. Selling a strong product that people enjoy playing is enough and new editions can be limited to the minor tweaks required to get a game into its final state, with editions happening less and less frequently as the game gets closer. People will keep buying because the product is great and they want more of it.

They had talented designers. They quit on account of the churn and now are able to work on stable designs elsewhere.

It's a deliberate decision, part of Tom Kirby's zombie business model.

Do you know what a zombie business is? They never had talented designers, they have always been a dartboard studio, with badly designed mechanics.

I'd argue that GW did, at one point, have a solid (not world class, but solid) stable of passionate designers with clear goals. I'd also argue that this is only really visible in 3rd and 4th edition, with maybe a bit of 5th. After that it all went in the bin.

I'd also point out that we have fairly concrete proof of even older iterations of WH being hamstrung at the corporate management level rather than the design level. Andy Chambers (at least IIRC, but I know it was one of the OG names) is quoted as a majority of the design team wanting to switch to an AA game model for 3rd or 4th edition, but the high-level studio management basically stepped in and nixed it because the You Go I Go turn rotation was definitinal of product identity, and they feared it would alienate players.

Ergo there was a time when GW had sufficiently skilled design staff, that actually gave a flying feth, who were focused on the goal of refining such a sprawling mass of a game into a solid and enjoyable ruleset. But suits who saw nothing but dollar signs systematically stopped any attempts and in turn drove those designers away.

You couldn't give me a slew of badly designed rules for 3rd? I know RT had several at least. 5th had wound juggling, that's bad design and ended up being impactful because the designers and playtesters as far as I know never anticipated it being weaponized in lists because the GW studio is bad at game design and always have been. The MTG team needs to ban things once in a while, but usually because of combos with one of a thousand other cards or trying to release an almost OP card to sell more packs or to help a struggling deck archetype but that card ends up being over the top.

Karol wrote:
Another problem is mechanical rules problems that are being fixed with "points drops". Points drops sometimes are needed, but sometimes the points aren't the core problem with a faction being too good or too bad. Yet GW has this strange policy, where they will make people wait, sometimes for years for a change.

Points isn't sometimes the core problem, it's always the only problem when it comes to imbalance. The Eldar automatic bazillion mortals isn't a balance problem, it's a fun mechanics problem or not a problem at all. Space Marines not packing a punch or dying to a stiff breeze isn't a balance problem, it's a fluff problem or not a problem at all. Points fixes all balance problems and when you try to leverage rules to change balance you are hurting either the fun or the fluff of the game because by definition you are no longer allowing fluff and fun to be the only two things you care about when writing the rules which is silly since rules changes have a lesser chance of perfectly balancing things than points do because rules changes are broader, like when giving Space Marines bolter discipline, either Land Raider Crusaders benefit or they don't, there's no middle ground, but there is a middle ground between 180 and 200 pts, 190 pts.

40K doesn't make good use of the IgoUgo system but it doesn't mean it doesn't have its place.

For instance, a lot of fun and satisfaction in Warmachine comes from devising a multi-layered, complex, Rube-Goldberg machine of a plan and executing it. It would be impossible with the twitchy instant-reward reactionism of alternating activations.

The problem with 40k's first turn isn't (only) the turn system, but the ability of units to instantly attack the opponent's units due to very long ranges and limited LOS blocking. That's why the game feels like two huge guys standing still and alternating hitting each other on the head with sledgehammers.

All the games I've played where positioning and maneuver mattered a lot had either very short ranges for weapons (Warmachine) or punishing LOS rules/terrain guidelines (Kill Team) In these games you don't really attack the opponent before they had a chance to move (unless they make a serious deployment mistake) and to attack them at all you need to put in some work. The result is these games much more often feel like a duel of expert fencers.

Racerguy180 wrote:
IGOUGO is not a bad system, I really wish this bs would stop being peddled.

You may not like it, but that is an entirely subjective opinion. Not a statement of fact.

It worked, and worked well, when you had 1st edition, and specifically 1st edition sized forces - a character or two, a couple of infantry squads and maybe a vehicle, half a dozen "things" and both sized likely had similar numbers of units

it worked because there was only so much going on, only so much the enemy could do before your turn came around again, alternating activations would have worked too but were not really needed then so for simplicity IGOYGO worked.

it started to fail when the size of armies grew, and grew to the point an army could delete a decent part of the enemy in a single round and do so reasonably reliably by focussing on it - something that was harder to do in the earlier editions with typically smaller forces.

a pure alternating activation system wouldn't work well either, partly because not all units are equal but also because these days the sizes of armies can vary significantly.

something like the Battletech system where the number of activations is decided by the size of the smallest force and the larger force uses multiple units each activation could work, but without a lot of other structural changes you cause problems and end up with a very different game

to the point GW would alienate a lot of players if they did it.

the Apocalypse system GW did worked well, IGOYGO but no one knows how effective an attack is until after both sides have gone works, also the way Middle Earth SBG does it with the phases alternating, "I move, You move, I shoot, You shoot" etc is good and could be brought into 40k a lot more easily

as you note its not that IGOYGO is bad, nor is it that alternating is better, they are different, do different things and work well in different scale of games

Keep in mind there is a lot that could be done to improve 40k, not everyone here will agree on what but there are a lot of concepts, GW seem to want however to keep the basic game very simple and quick to pick up, and to then try, with variable success, to add complexity over the top of that frame work. resulting in a quick to pick up game at the basic level and a bit of a mess later. Other games go for a slightly more balances approach with a more complex core but less changes later.

both can work, depends who your primary audience is, GW were at one point aiming at school kids, hoping that for every starter sold a percentage would by more and the focus being on new players not existing ones. It seems to be shifting gradually to more of a nostalgia market as schoolkids cannot afford the game now


Also from local group, and yes one data point does not equal evidence, but it has been a lot easier to get people playing other games by having vastly smaller armies, a much lower buy in point (even if you can spend way more later) just to get you going, and do so through "oh that looks good" - e.g. I kick started Flame of War (Version 2..) at a local club by having a few units for each side over and above the starter set painted up with a bit of terrain, someone else did ot for Antares (though that fizzled), and various historical games or semi historical - e.g. a current club is seeing a shift of some 40k players over to Bolt Action, partly because with a decent table of terrain and painted models it looks better than the typical "few MDF buildings on a mat" 40k

not that 40k cannot look jaw dropping

"realistic" is a bad term for games in general, because nothing is realistic unless you go for a full simulation

and then we start from a simple point that eliminating full units was never the target and hardly achieved but breaking moral and routing the opposition was what happened in combat
and the difference between an overwhelming victory and a minor one was if the opponent could orderly retreat or not


"my army goes and than your army", is realistic for grand tactical/strategic games, much more and alternate unit activations
simply because you move armies/divisions around there was no real interactive combat on that level but a reactive one, if all forces moved, the other armie countered (if there was something left)


the main advantage for a "I do everything, you do everything" is that it is faster and much clearer, as the one thing that slows things down should be decision making and dice rolling.
Both are on the active player so that the opponent cannot slow your turn down by taking his time in planning a reaction or searching for the dice to roll


To slow that design down for people thinking that any other system is faster, it takes some special skill
and why GW games are so slow is simply because GW tries to add as much interactions as possible to make the turn less boring for the passive player which achieves the opposite as the turn takes much longer because of that
at the same time balance is way off as the units are not designed for that type of game but just as "what looks cool".

GW tried to break with IGoUGo and the result was double turn AoS that is as devastating as is the alternating of 40k

yet Bolt Action uses a random activation and now one is winning or losing games just because he gets triple activations, nor are people calling it boring because they have nothing to do during those 3 activations

and if someone wants a realistic and dynamic type of game, they should look into Blücher or LaSalle as those are systems that break with the IGoUGo to be more realistic and still are fast games to play

Cyel wrote:
40K doesn't make good use of the IgoUgo system but it doesn't mean it doesn't have its place.

For instance, a lot of fun and satisfaction in Warmachine comes from devising a multi-layered, complex, Rube-Goldberg machine of a plan and executing it. It would be impossible with the twitchy instant-reward reactionism of alternating activations.

The problem with 40k's first turn isn't (only) the turn system, but the ability of units to instantly attack the opponent's units due to very long ranges and limited LOS blocking. That's why the game feels like two huge guys standing still and alternating hitting each other on the head with sledgehammers.

This is correct. Other games limit the range/LOS of units upon deployment, providing an "advance to contact" experience. If you start in close range in clear LOS (and cover doesn't do much) it's a gunfight in a parking lot.

Changing to activations would not solve or even mitigate this problem, especially in GW's hands. It is very easy to foresee players up-loading a single unit with all available firepower and taking disposable spam units to fill out the roster. Turn one, the Death Star activates, wipes out the other force, wasn't that fun. It will also be another thing for GW to play with, so armies will get bonus activations, re-activations, etc. Give GW more design space, they will find more things to screw up.

IGOUGO is intuitive and easy. Activations are harder to work properly, which some people like, but that is in direct conflict with GW's longstanding policy of making 40k accessible to the kiddos. The churn is permanent, and so is IGOUGO.

Its notting to do with rules annymore its a way to sell you new miniatures. If you have an army you like and play the rules they can sell you no more mini's so they rewrite some rule so models not selling well will be good and models that sold well be toned down a bit for model that sold not enough its a miniature manufacture. Some times i ask my self if the dont make more money selling rules and codexes.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Cyel wrote:
40K doesn't make good use of the IgoUgo system but it doesn't mean it doesn't have its place.

For instance, a lot of fun and satisfaction in Warmachine comes from devising a multi-layered, complex, Rube-Goldberg machine of a plan and executing it. It would be impossible with the twitchy instant-reward reactionism of alternating activations.

The problem with 40k's first turn isn't (only) the turn system, but the ability of units to instantly attack the opponent's units due to very long ranges and limited LOS blocking. That's why the game feels like two huge guys standing still and alternating hitting each other on the head with sledgehammers.

This is correct. Other games limit the range/LOS of units upon deployment, providing an "advance to contact" experience. If you start in close range in clear LOS (and cover doesn't do much) it's a gunfight in a parking lot.

Changing to activations would not solve or even mitigate this problem, especially in GW's hands. It is very easy to foresee players up-loading a single unit with all available firepower and taking disposable spam units to fill out the roster. Turn one, the Death Star activates, wipes out the other force, wasn't that fun. It will also be another thing for GW to play with, so armies will get bonus activations, re-activations, etc. Give GW more design space, they will find more things to screw up.

IGOUGO is intuitive and easy. Activations are harder to work properly, which some people like, but that is in direct conflict with GW's longstanding policy of making 40k accessible to the kiddos. The churn is permanent, and so is IGOUGO.

Quite true. there are only 2 systems i have seen that do alt activations in a good way. one is infinity where it is actually a IGOUGO system that simulates AA through the non active player getting a reaction to anything his models can see activate. but even they have screwed that up with the newest edition (N4) dumbing it down in the same manner that GW has-simplifying rules, shrinking table size, reducing game length etc... with a strong lerch towards satisfying the tournament crowd. the best edition they ever made is still N2 (second edition).

The other is DUST tactics/1947 both of which use 3d terrain rules crafted by none other than Andy Chambers. it doesn't suffer the weird/random activation rules of bolt action or SW legion. the core rules flow smoothly and when a unit activates it gets 2 actions that can be combined any way you like. because it doesn't have the absurd lethality that 40K became known for especially in 9th. there is no unit in the game that can death star most or all of an enemy force in a single activation. and they toss in a reaction mechanic at a certain range to boot. making it a nice mix of something close to crossing index 8th edition 40K and infinity with 4th ed 40K terrain rules.

What makes 40K what it is, partly is due to it being an IGOUGO system. in previous edition there were mitigating factors to prevent much of what is being discussed. tables were larger, you were never allowed to have a deployment zone closer than 24" from your opponent. there was hard cover and limited ranges aside from less volume of fire. aside from a few gimicks like scout/infiltration(that still had a deployment range restriction) or drop pods. there was almost no way to pull of a turn 1 assault. for most armies. This of course helps when both players have a similar goal with the game. using decent amounts of varying types of terrain. playing with the same mind sets etc...

What made 40K work was the fact it was simple (compared to 2nd) and fast game play. it is most certainly not that now. even though 10th has toned it down a few notches i still watch players spending large amounts of time spending command points cycling through stratagems etc.. aside from actually "playing" the game IE the moving, shooting and stabbing part.

I have no doubt the current inheritors that are steering the GW core 40K game right now would screw it up if they were given the go ahead for an AA system. i think the closest they came would be that last iteration of apocalypse where both sides do everything simultaneously and then casualties are removed at the end.

Warmachine also had the limitations on what you can do for each action on each model. Since there werent any phases each time you wanted to use a model you kinda had 2 "actions" for each model/unit. You could do 2 out of move, attack, do model specific action (some could shoot once for each action left or cast a spell) or forgo both actions to do a larger special action like charge (a better move with restrictions that also allowed you to fight) or with jacks/beasts do stuff like trample, hurl or slam models.

Add into that effects that had models give up one action on their next activation. Lots of spells, feats and special attacks that when a unit were hit they got such a debuff on them. Didn't completely take them out of the game for the next turn but heavily reduced their actions. Can't charge if you aren't allowed to both move and attacks and even though you might be able to shoot you aren't getting a good shot off without moving and you cant do both.

You also did an entire model's activation at once and didn't spread it out over 3+ phases like in 40k. Not only can you move, shoot, charge, fight and then move again for a lot of models in 40k you also split it up in multiple parts. It is one of the reasons it can take so much time. You aren't measuring and moving once for a unit but you measure move, pick up model and put it down. Then 10min later you get back to that model and measure its shooting range. Then 10 min later you go back to that model and measure distance, pick it up and down before going to the next and then 5 min later you are fighting and then brining out your tape and start measuring piling in and consolidation moves etc.

Measuring and moving 4 times for a single model is pretty insane when you think about it. Even more when you aren't doing it in a row but have a lot of small wasted time going through your entire army each phase in between each time you are handling that model. You could shave off a lot of time if you did all of a models actions at once before going over to the next model. Might only be 5-10s lost for each unit in each phase when doing them phase by phase rather than all at once but if you have 10 units and there are 4 phases you use the model in but that easily adds up to an additional 5min your opponent is just standing there waiting for their turn.

MESBG does it a lot better in this regard. You alternate the phases so you don't have to wait the entire turn until you get to do something. Models also only get 1 move per turn in most situations and they can in most circumstances only do 1 out of shooting or fighting in each turn. Models that have been charged are locked into combat for that turn as well. This massively reduces the time each turn takes and allows the game to be played for many many turns.

Lethality is also pretty low when compared to 40k. The best archers (Rivendell archers that stand still) in the game vs the easiest to kill models in the game (Goblin town goblins) needs slightly more than 2 turns to kill a goblin on average if open ground with shooting. On average an archer won't be able to kill their points back even after 6 turns of shooting (24" range and most models move 6" so not easy to get more than 4 rounds off). Not even the Balrog for 350pts (6-800pts is standard game size) kills more than 2-4 5pt orcs or goblins a turn. So you can have lots of rapid turns right after each other and even a lucky turn or two is unlikely to decide a game since even if you spike your lethality for a turn it is unlikely to be high enough that it can snowball the game before the luck of the dice goes the other direction.