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.

Alternating by initiative (not the stat, rather a unit category) is an interesting option. I mention this because I saw it in this game's first impressions video yesterday https://youtu.be/U64ty_5faPc?si=RTmPHWL_1ssaTdc3 explained at 4 minutes mark.

Simply, players activate categories of units, maybe Fast attack first, then Elite, then Troops, then Heavy Support (I am using 40k unit categories, but really units can be varied further within categories, also it's a simplified outline of a concept, not a rules proposal). So there's a level of coordination within one category, but also some alternating moves for less downtime for each player.

 PenitentJake wrote:
You're a smart guy. Read my posts before you reply please.

I did, I just quoted the bit that's most relevant. I apologize if I gave the impression of cherry-picking.

My point was that 40K's game structure doesn't do a great job of permitting (or promoting) army-wide coordination to begin with, because it wasn't designed to. In order to carry out any sort of cooperative activity that requires temporal sequencing you need to string it out over multiple turns, and that gives the opponent the opportunity for counterplay, which is the biggest thing you are complaining about with AA. In practice, I don't think you would find army-wide coordination any harder under an AA structure of some sort than under the current IGOUGO; it would just be more incremental. It would also solve coordination problems like your entire army getting hung up for a turn because a conga-lining unit of Termagants is blocking your movement.

Also, depending on the implementation, AA can often discourage directly reacting to what the opponent has already done. It's a common newbie trap in straight AA systems to shoot at whatever unit just activated, where it's often better to instead engage a unit that has yet to activate, reducing its strength before it has a chance to act this turn. You get a game flow where things are happening across the table, sometimes in direct response to what the opponent just did, but more often to take initiative and apply pressure elsewhere.

In any case, AA doesn't increase the amount of counterplay, it just shifts it more granular. Whether you prefer that is very much YMMV, but I personally consider getting away from I'll-go-make-a-sandwich levels of inactivity, and dramatically increasing the number of decision points that shape the outcome, to be a feature rather than a bug. The general industry (and GW themselves, in everything besides 40K) seems to agree. I know the bare-bones nature of OPR isn't your jam but it's a pretty good showcase of how AA lends itself to gameplay and narrative potential in a 40K-like game.

Fair enough- as I said, there probably is a version of AA that could still give me coordinated action or Big Turn feel. I don't have a lot of experience with other table-top miniature games, because I prefer role-playing games. If it wasn't for the RP elements offered by Crusade, narrative escalation/ roster based play, I'd have quit 40k in 8th.

I'd be okay with an AA system that made room for inter-unit coordination, or allowed me to maintain some sense of "Big Turn" feel... I just don't want to be bouncing back and forth between your unit/ my unit like a tennis match, because that wouldn't feel like 40k. I don't think you're advocating for that type of system, and probably most of the folks who want AA aren't either.

To be clear, I heavily play AA games. They are generally my preferred systems, but they feel very different and I have not really enjoyed them in games styled like 40k like ASoIaF, Legion, The Other Side or even Sigmar's pseudo AA. AA has a ton of strengths, but its drawbacks I really feel as the scale of the game expands. There hits a point where I start to feel like the game is more about manipulating the turn order than playing with the toys in my mind.

I guess I just don't hate IGUG the way I used to. It's got its flaws, but the time when I felt like a massive Alpha Strike decided the game hasn't held true for me in more recent editions. There's more of a back and forth grind that I enjoy. 40k is far from my favorite game system but I actually kind of appreciate what they've made out of it. They've made a good IGUG system to the point where I don't think AA would actually result in something better, even if I have a bunch of AA games I think ARE better.

We play a home brew version mashup of 3rd thru 5th with a little 6th and 7th sprinkled in, I suppose. But we also developed a robust Reaction Phase to mitigate that single player turn domination.

However, I wonder about the viability of simply combining aspects of AA with IGOUGO, whereas a player only does a 'partial' turn and then the next player does the same.

For example, what if Player A could either move OR shoot with each unit, performing a single action. Then Player B would do the same, and so on? Essentially playing twice as many 'half' turns? Possible exceptions for assault weapons or similar types or other situations, being able to do both? Or reduce movement/firepower by half for other exceptions.

Something to think about, maybe.

I wouldn't mind's an AA, I pick a unit, then I move and shoot with that unit. Then you select a unitnto move and shoot.

When it's all over we go to the assault phase and AA actions based on unit initiative.

I can say that even doing a full turn of moving, shooting, melee (and possible casting at some point) per unit is working just fine with 40k.

We actually used to do all melee in a separate phase but found out that resolving it immediately is even better for the flow.

 LunarSol wrote:
AA has a ton of strengths, but its drawbacks I really feel as the scale of the game expands. There hits a point where I start to feel like the game is more about manipulating the turn order than playing with the toys in my mind.

I think what you're observing is how overtly 'gamey' any sort of activation mechanic becomes when it's applied at larger scale without any greater structure, and I tend to agree.

I consider Epic's formation-based activation to be a standout example of AA as applied to a large-scale wargame. It's simple to play, it keeps your army to a manageable 3-8 activations, it effectively models C&C but does so by leveraging your army's organizational structure rather than needing to fuss around with commander units, it provides natural-feeling differentiation between armies (both in terms of force organization and the command ratings that dictate how easy they are to coordinate), and it provides an additional tactical layer of deciding when to try retaining the initiative and when to pass.

amanita wrote:However, I wonder about the viability of simply combining aspects of AA with IGOUGO, whereas a player only does a 'partial' turn and then the next player does the same.

For example, what if Player A could either move OR shoot with each unit, performing a single action. Then Player B would do the same, and so on? Essentially playing twice as many 'half' turns? Possible exceptions for assault weapons or similar types or other situations, being able to do both? Or reduce movement/firepower by half for other exceptions.

Dust: Warfare is sort of like this. You roll off to see which player has the initiative for the turn- say Player A wins. Player A takes two actions with each of their units, but Player B can perform reactions as this happens, with each unit able to perform a single action as a reaction. Then Player B takes two actions with each of their units, except the units that reacted only get one action apiece. Any of Player A's units can still react, effectively giving them a third action. It's still IGOUGO, but the organic reactions keep both players engaged, and the initiative structure creates a particular 'flow' to the turn.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I wouldn't mind's an AA, I pick a unit, then I move and shoot with that unit. Then you select a unitnto move and shoot.

When it's all over we go to the assault phase and AA actions based on unit initiative.

That's the kind of AA I'd hate.

"Great, so my plan is to fly-by attack with the jetbikes, move the shooty infantry up to shoot, and the leaders in behind them for the buff"

"Naw, once you move your jetbikes, the drive- by survivors will charge them, nullifying your shooting and leaving the HQ with no one to buff"

So much for planning and coordination.

The group activations that CB was talking about earlier are way better than "Your unit/ My unit/ repeat"

Heck, IMHO, what we currently have is better than "Your unit/ My unit/ repeat"

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I wouldn't mind's an AA, I pick a unit, then I move and shoot with that unit. Then you select a unitnto move and shoot.

When it's all over we go to the assault phase and AA actions based on unit initiative.

That's the kind of AA I'd hate.

"Great, so my plan is to fly-by attack with the jetbikes, move the shooty infantry up to shoot, and the leaders in behind them for the buff"

"Naw, once you move your jetbikes, the drive- by survivors will charge them, nullifying your shooting and leaving the HQ with no one to buff"

So much for planning and coordination.

The group activations that CB was talking about earlier are way better than "Your unit/ My unit/ repeat"

Heck, IMHO, what we currently have is better than "Your unit/ My unit/ repeat"

My original ideas were squashed, so I thought I would try a different approach. Looks like this idea failed too.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I wouldn't mind's an AA, I pick a unit, then I move and shoot with that unit. Then you select a unitnto move and shoot.

When it's all over we go to the assault phase and AA actions based on unit initiative.

That's the kind of AA I'd hate.

"Great, so my plan is to fly-by attack with the jetbikes, move the shooty infantry up to shoot, and the leaders in behind them for the buff"

"Naw, once you move your jetbikes, the drive- by survivors will charge them, nullifying your shooting and leaving the HQ with no one to buff"

So much for planning and coordination.

The group activations that CB was talking about earlier are way better than "Your unit/ My unit/ repeat"

Heck, IMHO, what we currently have is better than "Your unit/ My unit/ repeat"

This "big turn" argument is exactly what I've been feeling when playing AA games. I feel my grand strategy quickly gets lost in micro action->reaction sequences (could be a me issue though). I still favor AA, but I do miss that feeling.

Maybe a battletech-style "damage is only applied at the end of the game turn" applied to igougo would help you?

In theory AA still has big-grand strategy. If you purely react to the micro in AA you've a higher chance of losing to a player also looking at the big picture.

Because at that point you're surrendering control over the board to your opponent be always being reactive to their plan, their choices and their change of the game state.


Effective AA playing is both reacting to the micro; but also having a grand plan on top. To put pressure on your opponent and to make them have to answer your questions from your choices.



Yes its different to alternate army turns, but at the same time AA has a greater chance that both players can have and work with an adapting grand strategy of their own. Meanwhile in typical GW games only one player gets their grand strategy - whilst the other has to be reactive to it.

 Eilif wrote:

Kagetora wrote:

I focused on Fantasy after that, which had it's own unique problems depending on edition (Heroes are Gods! Heroes suck and units rule in the next edition! Magic is Godly! Magic sucks in the next edition! then, 8th, where if you didn't bring a L4 mage you didn't win), but at least the game wasn't over before it began based on a single die rolled.

I've played everything GW, Confrontation, Wargods of Aegyptus, SFB, and many other games. The best of them are still earlier editions of Mordheim, Necromunda (because of the concepts of carrying over gangs from one game to another with experience, wounds, better gear, etc.), and Epic, because of the activation sequence/trying to retain initiative concept of the games. Or Wargods, with face-down activations, and similar games.

I agree with most of what you've said. However, a few threads I'd like to pull on, mostly about WHFB, Mordheim and Necromunda.

In my opinion WHFB and Mordheim are probably less-bad options for IGOUGO because you don't have the majority of an army being able to shoot, charge on turn one. Fantasy and KoW (My preferred mass fantasy battle rank and flank game) just don't have the same "Alpha Strike" advantage that going first gives you in 40k.

As for Necromunda 1995, if played properly, with heavy multi-level terrain (Ideally Mordheim would be similarly dense), each player is usually going to get at least a turn to move around, spread-out, etc before being in the direct line-of sight of the majority of the opponent's force.

Which leads me back to 40k and other IGOUGO games in general, I left 40k well over a decade ago and I will never defend IGOUGO as the best option, but....

Is IGOUGO significantly "less-bad" on tables where a higher amount of cover, and/or minimal interaction on turn 1 is the norm?

Apologies, haven't been here for a bit, but since you quoted part of my post, I'll answer the question.

Yes, terrain/cover is critical Not just terrain that gives you a bonus or something, but terrain that completely blocks LOS. The main reason I quit playing 40K so many years ago and focused solely on Fantasy (and other, non-GW games) was simple. At the RT's and GT's I was attending, most games were decided by the roll to go first. I can't even count the number of times I lost that roll, and picked up 1/3rd of my army before I moved a miniature.

Why? Because good terrain was expensive, and a hobby store putting together a dozen tables worth for an RT was cost prohibitive. Add in 50+ tables for a GT, and terrain was downright SPARSE. A couple of ruins, a forest or two, some crates and such. Scattered over 24 sqft of table. It was disheartening to say the lest to spend a year collecting and painting an army only to realize the game sucked and would be decided by a single die roll.

WHFB didn't have that problem. You weren't putting lascannon shots four feet across the board and popping your opponent's expensive transport/squad before they got to move it. Necromunda and Mordheim were better games for the reason you described, the terrain prevented such nonsense.

Most of the group I played with gave up on 40k around the same time, and never went back. They all became WHFB players, and delved into non-GW games. Except for Epic Armageddon. That's where we got our sci-fi jam on. The alternative activations with a chance to Retain the Initiative was a vastly superior system when dealing with board-spanning heavy weapons.

Lately I've really wanted to go back to painting and playing (it's been a while), and I've been watching a lot of YouTube battle reports for 40k. It doesn't really seem like the game has improved any since I was playing it two decades ago. Now, they seem to have decided that WAY more terrain on a tournament board is the correct way to go, which is great...at the same time, they've:

--Reduced the number of turns to 5, and the time limit to 1.5 hours. Some tournaments use chess clocks. WTF? Aren't we here to actually have some fun? Enjoy the company of fellow gamers? Do we suddenly enjoy games were I get 9 minutes per turn, period, and if I run out of time I essentially get to watch myself lose? How does anyone use an army with a large number of models? Orks and Gretchin, multiple 'Gaunt squads, etc? You'd use the 9 minutes just on your movement phase if you brought multiple such units. Monsters and tanks it is, I guess.
--Increased the number of dice you're rolling by a ridiculous amount. If the Harlequin squad I'm modelling rolls into a unit, uses the 6" pile-in from the Troupe Master so everyone is in engagement range, I need to pick up 55-60-freaking-dice for their attacks, roll them, sort them into hits and misses, re-roll the 1's to hit (maybe), then pick them all up and roll 40+ dice to wound, again possibly with re-rolls, then sort out the Troupe Master's attacks, then watch my opponent make a couple dozen saves, also possibly with re-rolls. WT Actual F? This is insanity, and looking through the various Codex units, there are units everywhere that do this.
--Increased the number of special rules to try and remember and use, to the point where darn near every separate unit in a Codex has it's own special rule that applies to it. When did that get to be a good idea?

Most of the battle reports I watch/read break down like this: Both players hide all the units they can in their Deployment Zone, maybe putting a few in Reserves. Someone goes first, and rushes the center-table objectives, trying to pick apart whatever they can get LOS on. The next player goes, and rushes the center of the board, hoping to obliterate as much of the now-exposed enemy as possible. If they succeed, they are ahead. If they fail, the same thing happens to them on their opponent's second turn. Rinse and repeat. The really cagey players might hold off on their rush to try and make the opponent expose themselves first. Yay.

Basically, the additional terrain just delays the inevitable "pick up 1/3rd of your army" stage for a round. That's great. An improvement, albeit a small one. But IGOUGO does, and always will suck in a game with devastating weapons reaching across the entire table and units rolling 40-60 dice for their attack phase. Every game turns into a slaughter-fest with the only goal to hold some objectives or achieve a secondary or two.

AA, on the other hand, fully engages both players for the entirety of the game, as you use your activations to respond to your opponent's latest move, or try and set them up for something, or see what they're up to and try to prevent it or protect something you don't want to lose. Instead of just watching someone move their entire army, roll fistful after fistful of dice, then do so yourself and pick up tons of models.

Sorry. /Rant off. I was trying to express an opinion about the amount of cover being important, and got carried away. These are just my opinions, obviously. Nothing more.

shortymcnostrill wrote:

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I wouldn't mind's an AA, I pick a unit, then I move and shoot with that unit. Then you select a unitnto move and shoot.

When it's all over we go to the assault phase and AA actions based on unit initiative.

That's the kind of AA I'd hate.

"Great, so my plan is to fly-by attack with the jetbikes, move the shooty infantry up to shoot, and the leaders in behind them for the buff"

"Naw, once you move your jetbikes, the drive- by survivors will charge them, nullifying your shooting and leaving the HQ with no one to buff"

So much for planning and coordination.

The group activations that CB was talking about earlier are way better than "Your unit/ My unit/ repeat"

Heck, IMHO, what we currently have is better than "Your unit/ My unit/ repeat"

This "big turn" argument is exactly what I've been feeling when playing AA games. I feel my grand strategy quickly gets lost in micro action->reaction sequences (could be a me issue though). I still favor AA, but I do miss that feeling.

This kind of thing is why I like legion. Unless the game has turned into a melee mosh-pit, no one unit is so destructive or powerful that you can't pull off a grand strategy, and with how legion's token system works it helps give a feel of setting up a plan. You have to coordinate lots of units at once to fully destroy a unit. I.e. A unit of CIS aqua droids marching up the board to cover Count Dooku so he can burst in with his command card so he can charge and saber/lightning something. That's a big play and can kill at most 2 units. I can dump 6 squads of B1s into a squad of clones and maybe kill it. It requires high-level commands and handing out tokens from abilities and commands to really make a difference.

 Overread wrote:
In theory AA still has big-grand strategy. If you purely react to the micro in AA you've a higher chance of losing to a player also looking at the big picture.

Because at that point you're surrendering control over the board to your opponent be always being reactive to their plan, their choices and their change of the game state.


Effective AA playing is both reacting to the micro; but also having a grand plan on top. To put pressure on your opponent and to make them have to answer your questions from your choices.



Yes its different to alternate army turns, but at the same time AA has a greater chance that both players can have and work with an adapting grand strategy of their own. Meanwhile in typical GW games only one player gets their grand strategy - whilst the other has to be reactive to it.

This. If you're playing an AA game, and all you do is react to each thing in sequence, you probably aren't going to win, or enjoy it much. IGOUGO "grand" strategy can barely be called strategy at all. Strategy in 40k is basically what your army list is, what you choose to bring to the table. That's really where the strategy ends. After that you might decide on an overall game "strategy" for that particular game by looking at the scenario and battle objectives and rules, but you really know that you're going to use the same units to do the same things as you do in every other game because that's how you built the list, and you get to do it uninterrupted by the opponent for the most part.

Unit A will be behind Unit B supporting it, Unit C will be sitting on the home objective shooting, Unit D is your sacrificial lamb to launch at the opposing deployment zone as a distraction, etc. And that's exactly what you'll do with them. Every time. Because you get to every time, and the only thing that can throw a wrench in the works is a Stratagem or two, which are extremely limited in number, circumstances for deployment, and effect. It'll be a rare day when your gameplan has any significant changes in it.

AA, OTOH, requires a second layer of thinking. You have to do everything you normally have to do in an IGOUGO game, but you don't get to do it without interruption. You have to implement a smaller portion of your plan at a time, and try to anticipate how your opponent is going to screw it up. In the example that was given, instead of that order of things happening, maybe you bring the buffing Hero forward to the shooting unit first, then shoot, and finally do the drive-by with the jetbikes. Because you know if you do it in the order you described, you'll get the result you mention.

But also notice that in this case, you're anticipating what will happen, not reacting to what did happen. That's the key to AA games. IGOUGO is checkers; AA is chess. Or perhaps more accurately, IGOUGO is chess where you get to move all your pieces at once. And that's not bashing on IGOUGO games OR anyone who plays them. Far from it. I've played them for decades. Both can be immense fun, and everyone will have their preference on which they like better. The key is knowing which one you're playing, and adapting to it.

40K is IGOUGO with minor interruptions, and isn't likely to change in any significant fashion. Could it be better as an AA game? Maybe. Maybe not. Go play Epic Armageddon for a while and decide if you like that sort of game. You could even just proxy in your current minis. Instead of a little stand with 5 small Marines on it hiding behind a 1/2" wall, just use your regular board terrain and a single Marine representing that squad. Your Dreadnaught is now a Titan, etc. Try it out, make your own decision about whether you think 40K would be a better or worse game with AA. I know what I think, and I also know no one's mind is likely to be changed by this thread.

That sounds more like an AoS unit tbh

Alternating activations might be more engaging, but I think a casualty phase would fix the game’s alpha strike problem.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Alternating activations might be more engaging, but I think a casualty phase would fix the game’s alpha strike problem.

Three issues I see.

One is balance-my Nurgle Daemons have two guns past 12" in range. A gunline vs. a more melee force won't be affected by a casualty phase until later turns, meaning the Alpha Strike still happens.
Two is that if you have two Alpha Strike armies, this just means that EVERYTHING gets blown to bits instead of just one side. Better for balance, but not so much for gameplay.
Three is tracking it all. A Repulsor can have an AP-3 Dd6, AP-3 Dd6+1, AP0 D1 and some AP-1 D2 shots. That's four separate profiles to track from one unit. Imagine expanding that to a whole army.

Depends on how such a casualty phase operates - is that when saves are rolled, or just when the dead are removed?

It might be simpler to roll saves as part of resolving the attack, but all the dead remain (and still function normally) until the end of the round. Not sure how that'd work with any degrading profiles, though - if not dead, the wounds kick in during the casualty phase?

 Dysartes wrote:
Depends on how such a casualty phase operates - is that when saves are rolled, or just when the dead are removed?

It might be simpler to roll saves as part of resolving the attack, but all the dead remain (and still function normally) until the end of the round. Not sure how that'd work with any degrading profiles, though - if not dead, the wounds kick in during the casualty phase?

You would need some sort of tracking sheets Ala BattleTech or Adeptus Titanicus to easily track damage... and with smaller tables, there is plenty of room.

That's the big risk with having wounds issued in a casualty phase. Yes it means that every model gets to act during a single game turn; but it also means more data-tracking has to take place.

Games have to be careful with data tracking - too little and the game feels simplistic; too much and it can feel overwhelming or messy to play.



For GW games I always err toward less because GW are GW and their style of writing rules is (these days) messy. You've got codex, rulebook, upgrade book; expansion book; index; and for each of those FAQ and Errata documents. Even within a book information on things can be scattershot about.

I'm also cautious about apps - they can be great, BUT, you don't want your physical game to feel like you're just spending the evening head bent over a phone/tablet constantly plugging in info and pulling it out to play. Not only does it set a barrier of entry (having a good enough phone/tablet to play); but it also is something many specifically don't want as part of their physical gaming experience. They are physical gaming to get away from the digital for a bit.

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Alternating activations might be more engaging, but I think a casualty phase would fix the game’s alpha strike problem.

Three issues I see.

One is balance-my Nurgle Daemons have two guns past 12" in range. A gunline vs. a more melee force won't be affected by a casualty phase until later turns, meaning the Alpha Strike still happens.
Two is that if you have two Alpha Strike armies, this just means that EVERYTHING gets blown to bits instead of just one side. Better for balance, but not so much for gameplay.
Three is tracking it all. A Repulsor can have an AP-3 Dd6, AP-3 Dd6+1, AP0 D1 and some AP-1 D2 shots. That's four separate profiles to track from one unit. Imagine expanding that to a whole army.

Does don't seem to be an issue though. Or are fixed with stuff like, don't play with armies, which aren't ment to be played under a specific editions rule set. Or adapt eg. play an artilery DG gun park with demons. Two Alpha stirke armies isn't that bad either. So the game ends fast. How is that different from now, we have armies right now which only work on UK/GW tables, or only on US tables, or only on mainland euro lay outs. Those games, if you bring the wrong army for the them, end before the deployment stage. And that is pre match up affecting this too. The tracking part is probably the only real problem, but we already have to have marks and tokens near units to check who used which ability. For armis with long set up/movment phase, like GK, you already do a lot of checking and rechecking, so it is not like adding that much.
Plus the tracking can be simplified, there is no way an AA system can keep the skirmish system of weapons and rules w40k has now. Give each weapon a anti tank/monster profile and an anti infantry profile. X shots, causes Y save rolls per succesful hit. It would both help make weapons different from each other and dodge the "and this edition the weapon of choice is.... [pick random weapon type]". A rocket launcher would be no melta or lascanon, but it wouldn't be frying one infantry per turn. etc
Rare weapons could have some extra rules (like those of special characters, AA rules, sniper weapons etc), but that would be it. Units would be accumultating "save tokens" over phase and then at the end of it each player would roll them on a unit by unit basis.