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.
2017/08/01 14:30:59
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
40k has been on the market for awhile, and in that time, there have been tons of competitors. Some (such as WMH and X-Wing) have become more mainstream and heavy competitors, while others such as VOID or Stargrunt II faded away into obscurity for assorted reasons (IKOR's accounting cooking the books, Jon Tuffley not using "Point Values" for his systems, etc), but a general constant is they've all used a different turn order.
Warmachine and Hordes are still pure IGOUGO, barring any special "out of turn" abilities (Countercharge, Arcane Vortex, Bullet Dodger, etc), but those are generally not integral to the core rules. In that regard, it's not too different from 40k. Its main difference is that rather than separate "move", "magic", "shoot" and "melee" phases, it uses activations. This is a partial improvement to 40k, because rather than having to go over each unit one-by-one to move, then one-by-one to shoot, then one-by-one to assault, you do everything you need to do with a unit, then move onto the next.
Some games use "I Phase you Phase", which partially eliminated downtime between players but brings up the issue of artificially dividing the game into phases, rather than the game flowing more fluidly.
Then there are the "alternating activation" systems. Some (Stargrunt 2) are "activate one unit", some (Epic) are "one unit + one additional unit", while others (Bolt Action) use a "die bag" mechanic to determine who activates next. Generally, the issues with Activation systems happen when one side has *more* units than the other, getting the option to "pass" their turn by moving junk units around. Furthermore, when combined with certain options (Officers allowing units around them to immediately activate), and the game can easily converge towards becoming IGOUGO with window dressing anyway! However, they have the potential to solve both issues with GW's phase-based IGOUGO: Excessive downtime between both players, and having to "activate" (as in do anything with) a unit multiple times.
Given the numerous competitors out there, how come GW has stuck with its same turn structure for 40k, and AOS (with the comedic aspect of allowing "Double Turns" on top!)? I'm actually curious how much of it is designer inertia, versus executive meddling.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/01 14:32:02
2017/08/01 14:33:14
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
MagicJuggler wrote: Intent: With 8th using Age of Sigmar rules for the Fight Sub-Phase, 40k has become a game of "I-go-you-go" with an alternating activation game-within-a-game, and so I've been in at least several other discussions about how to just make 40k Alternate altogether. So I figured I would join in and go for an Alternating Activation system that had relatively minimal bookkeeping, had a relatively streamlined set of actions you could do, and would most importantly keep the game fast-paced and fun, rewarding clever tactical play over everything else! The rules as written are fairly edition-agnostic, though the removal of Initiative makes it easier to use this system for 8th. As usual, comments and criticisms are appreciated.
What I'm looking for: Folks to help playtest, give counter-suggestions, look for potential problems in the system, etc. Also, ways to help "Flesh Out" the "army-specific" special rules. I've had a fair bit of time to "hammer out" (ha!) the rules due to sickness but I'm sure there are assorted editorial gaffes in the system too. Originally the rules were that "Retaining the Initiative" let you only activate a "second" unit (as opposed to having a larger activation with gradually increasing CP costs), and it didn't allow for Interrupting an Interrupt. These were adjusted to add even more "risk management"/generalship to the game, as you must decide when to feint, when to do an all-out attack, how to keep units supporting each other, etc.
Alternating Activationhammer 40k:
In Alternating Activationhammer, you have 3 Phases: The Strategy Phase, the Action Phase, and the Resolution Phase.
The Strategy Phase
Spoiler:
In the Strategy Phase, both players must do the following:
-Determine how many Command Points they have for the turn.
A key note on Command Points:CP are not used for die rerolls, autopassing Morale, etc. Rather than being a fixed resource for the entire game, they replenish at the start of the turn. Currently, I'm imagining you get 1 CP per turn, plus 1 for every 500 points of game, though this may be adjusted based on your army. They're used less for "Fate manipulation", and for "coordinating your army." Depending on what new Stratagems the Codexes add, some CP options may make it into this rewrite too.
-Resolve any Maintenance effects (this is a catchall, for whether you want to add "damage over time", warp charge, etc).
-Take Morale checks: A morale check is done on 2d6, subject to Leadership modifiers (-1 for each round of attacks the unit has suffered). If the unit fails its Leadership check, you must place an Action token on it as it is "shaken." If it fails by twice its Leadership value, it is *broken*, meaning it must use 2 actions each turn to retreat towards "safety" (usually defined as your deployment edge), until it regroups successfully in the Resolution Phase
-Each player should roll-off to determine the "Initiative", meaning the order in which players activate their units. The winner select s the order in which all players activate their units.
The Action Phase:
Spoiler:
In the Action Phase, each player alternates between Activating their units until no player is left with any units that may be Activated.
A key note on Movement and close combat: This system does not have the 1" rule. This is intentional. Rather, different melee weapons have different ranges on them (which does default to 1" for most cases, but can be made longer for certain items such as Hunting Lances, Lash Whips or Warscythes). You *can* move within this melee range, but doing so provokes a "Free Strike", where the model makes a single auto-hitting melee attack against the model in question. If in melee range of your opponent, you are Engaged.
Engaged: While Engaged with one or more enemy units, you may only direct attacks against those units. An Engaged unit may not shoot, with the exception of Assault or Pistol weapons.
Activating a Unit: When it is a player's turn to activate one of their units, they nominate one unit, which must perform either 1 or 2 actions (to a maximum of 2). It costs 1 CP to Activate a unit that has already taken a single Action.
Actions: Every unit may perform up to two Actions per turn. Of those actions, only one of them may be used for Shooting. It is generally recommended to place tokens next to units to determine which units have "acted", with Shooting being a different color than actions that did not involve Shooting. (Note: This can be subject to change.) The Actions include:
-Defend: You add a Defense Token to your unit. "Defense" is a catchall for Smoke Launchers, Jink, Go to Ground, Ion Shields, or many other assorted defensive maneuvers. A unit may have up to *one* Defense Token on it; when shooting at a unit that has a Defense Token, cut the number of successful hits you land on that unit in half. Should you have a "remainder" leftover, roll a separate 4+ to see if it rounds up or down.
-Advance: The unit discards a Defense Token if it has one, and may move up to its Move stat; if the unit is Engaged with an enemy unit, it must move in a manner to avoid being Engaged by that unit. At the start of the Advance, you may *declare* a target enemy unit (or units). At the end of your move, you may either attack with an Assault Weapon, or two melee weapons (divide attacks among them) or pistols in any combination; if attacking with melee weapons/pistols, you can make a 3" step which does not trigger Free Strike.
--Note: An Advance that ends in at least one melee or pistol attack is defined as a Charge. An advance where a unit starts off Engaged with another enemy, but is no longer in melee at the end is defined as Disengaging. Although you cannot Disengage then Charge the same enemy unit, you can Disengage one enemy unit in order to charge another.
-Combat: You make declare a target enemy unit (or units), then make an attack against said unit. A unit may attack with any combination of melee, psychic, or shooting attacks in a Combat action (though remember that only one Action per turn may allow Shooting). If this is a melee or pistol attack, you can make a 3" step as well, ignoring Free Strikes; if no enemies are around after a melee attack, you may follow up with a 3" Consolidate. Unlike Advance, you do not discard a Defense Token. Shooting with a Heavy Weapon is a single action that requires 2 Action Points for Infantry/Cavalry/Jump Infantry. (Alternately, a BS Penalty for only using one Action?)
Interrupts: After your opponent declares a target as part of an action, you may attempt an Interrupt, either before your opponent moves or before your opponent attacks (but not both). With an Interrupt, the select a single unit to perform one (and only one) Action; Interrupting costs 1 CP if the unit that was Interrupting had already performed a prior Action that turn, cumulative with any other CP costs.
Interrupting an Interrupt: You may Interrupt an Interrupt that Declared a Target, by spending a CP (in addition to any other CP costs); these Interrupts can be Interrupted in turn, but the CP cost increments by 1 for each subsequent Interrupt. Interrupts are placed in a ‘stack’ and resolved from the most recent Interrupt. A unit may not Interrupt if it is being Interrupted by any other unit in the stack (Designer Note: From testing, I find the best way to keep track of an Interrupt stack is to place a die next to each unit in the stack. Once all Interrupts are declared, resolve them one at a time; remove a die and replace it with an action token, until all actions are resolved).
What Happens if I can't attack my declared target? If a unit cannot attack its originally declared target (because it moved out of range/line of sight, your opponent moved another unit in the way blocking LOS, a barrage scattered, a Warp Spider jump went awry, etc), one of two things happen. If the unit was Interrupting, the attack is "wasted". However, if it was the original activating unit, it may optionally declare a new target (On the fence as to whether this should cost a CP), potentially triggering another Interrupt Stack.
Retaining the Initiative: Once you have finished performing an Activation, the next opponent gets to Activate a second unit. However, you may choose to Activate a second unit by spending 1 CP. You may activate a third unit by spending 2 CP, a fourth unit by spending 3 CP, etc. These costs *are* cumulative, and are in addition to any other costs (bringing in units from Reserve, activating units that previously took only one action, etc). This means activating 5 units at once will cost 10 CP (1+2+3+4).
Bringing in units from Reserves: There is no cap on how many units in your army may come in from Reserves. However, Activating a unit in Reserves costs 1 CP in addition to any other CP cost. (Note: Certain items, such as Teleport Homers, could bring in "some" units per turn without this CP cost). This represents the additional logistical and command overhead needed to coordinate reinforcements.
Priority Target: You may subtract 1 from the CP cost of any Activation or Interrupt if the end result is to attack an enemy Superheavy with the Interrupting/Activated unit that turn.
The Resolution Phase:
Spoiler:
In the Resolution Phase, you must do the following:
-Tally VP for objectives.
-Roll for any units that are retreating to Regroup. This is a single unmodified Leadership test.
Misc Notes:
Spoiler:
General: These rules were intentionally made very loose to enable some pretty open-ended stuff: Advance was written in a very loose way, to either allow for "Run & Gun" shenanigans, "Hit and Run" melee (Be it Shining Spears or Death Cult Assassins), and to promote a more "fluid" melee as a whole. Defend is meant to be useful for "Digging in", but the actual implementation of Defense Tokens is currently up in the air; I may just settle for "+1 Toughness versus Shooting per Defense Token" or something simple like that if it comes to that.
Unit Types: Individual unit types might have a few restrictions or permutations on the Actions. As an example, Flyers need to perform at least one Advance Action per turn, but ignore the CP cost for being activated a second time if their second action is a move.
Disruption: Another thing that may be worth considering is the ability for certain weapons to place "junk" Action Points on enemy units, effectively giving them one less Action to work with that turn. As an example: If you hit an enemy vehicle with a variable number of Haywire attacks, roll a D6, adding +1 for each "Hit" you scored with that unit's Haywire attacks. If you exceed the Toughness of that vehicle, it gains an extra "Action Point". "Sniper" weapons can do something similar to enemy Infantry.
Army-Specific Notes:
Spoiler:
Ad-mech: Transonic Weapons use their primary profile during a Combat action, and the secondary profile in an Advance. Servitors have Mind-Lock: It costs 1 additional CP to Activate or Interrupt with a unit of Servitors that does not have a friendly Adeptus Mechanicus unit within 3" of them (or embarked on the same transport).
Chaos Daemons: Beasts of Nurgle subtract 1 from the CP cost to Charge as an Interrupt Action. A Daemon Icon may bring in one Daemon unit of the same Alignment from Reserve for no CP.
Dark Angels: Dark Angels may only be Shaken. They subtract 1 CP from the cost to Interrupt an Activated unit that is attempting to Charge.
Eldar: Laser Lances/Star Lances/Zephyrdale use their main profile during an Advance, and the secondary profile otherwise. I imagine Ynnari would get a mechanism where they replenish CP in-game (or remove single actions) as they lose units, but recommendations are always appreciated.
Genestealer Cults: TBD.
Imperial Guard: Need time to think about this, but I imagine Orders would be rather useful for "working around" the system as a whole. Hunting Lances may only be used for a Charge.
Orks: When an Ork unit successfully pulls off a Melee attack, you may reduce the cost cost of Retaining the Initiative by 1 CP. Waaaagh!
Tau: Supporting Fire means the Tau subtract 1 CP from the cost to Interrupt for Engage attacks that involve shooting.
Tyranids: Tyranids outside Synapse range must spend at least 1 Action on their Instinctual Behavior action. IB: Feed units must move towards the closest enemy unit, IB: Lurk units must Defend, and IB: Hunt units must shoot the closest enemy unit.
That is a lot of work that you have put in.
I share your concerns and wish that GW would hire people with the intellect to produce good game systems.
Three ways to play should include a sort of plug and play advanced system that people can choose from.
Why not?
And alternate activations should be one choice.
I like orders assigned also with chits face down like overwatch and so on.
Maybe a command point mechanic to get to change orders when a unit is activated.
But it seems from reading this and other sites that many people don't really want a strategy war game anymore.
Seems the vocal masses want a collectible card game with 3d cards.
So I play my cards then you play yours and repeat.
That said there is nothing stopping a different activation mechanic even for a card game.
And no reason not to offer one besides lack of interest, lack of intellect and ability, and as you suggest expected lack of profitability for doing the requisite work.
Gonna have to pay smart people a lot of hours to fix the mess they have made even now after the numarines Girlyman Reboot.
Or let dedicated volunteers like you do it for them.
My suspicion is that this is where GW is at.
Past management offloaded game design to hobbyists with the guts to stick it out.
The Model Workshop era.
Now they are back to being a game company but the game and perhaps more crucially their target demographic has changed.
If they want to retain the interest of serious people then they will eventually have to advance into something, well, more advanced.
Given the rapid expanse of interest in games in general these past few years especially RPGs and mini games like star wars the growing market is becoming more sophisticated. More saavy. People want to play good games. As plastics get cheaper and easier to design and produce, the systems will likely become a topic for more in depth comparative analysis.
I expect that eventually your voice will be heard or at least your interests in a better turn mechanic recognized.
I hope so anyways.
As for how to do it best, well you have given this much more thought and I will have to think about what you have offered already before I will be able to judge.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/08/01 14:57:43
.
2017/08/01 14:43:15
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
MagicJuggler wrote: I do However, it is still a curious thing that there are 3 other threads on 40k turn structure on the front of the Proposed Rules section.
Yeah. I agree. I should have noted those as well.
Please note my amended initial post...
Noting a similar explosion in cover and terrain threads and comments,
I collected terrain and cover ideas into a broad poll to gauge opinion.
Maybe try something like that with activations?
I play Dropzone Commander, which uses activations. Units are, however, activated by their detachment, and an army has 3 to 5 detachments in it to activate. I pick my UCM Armored Detachment, and it has a couple of tank squads in it, my tank squads go one by one, then my picks his unit.
IGOUGO is pretty nice, all things considered. It's straighforward and easy to understand, and makes it much easier to plot things like unit buffs and such.
I would recommend keeping the IGOUGO nature, and shifting the movement phase to the end of the turn.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/01 17:15:31
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
2017/08/01 17:17:53
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
It's definitely on the archaic side, but I think there is such a large portion of the gaming populace for 40K who don't care that I don't see it changing any time soon.
I play 2nd ed. with unique activation rules and that particular game group will be playing 8th ed. in a similar fashion at some point. It simply makes the game 10x more interesting.
A lot of the meta/net/supercomp guys will be against it because it removes the planned alpha-strikes, etc. from the game. It thoroughly undoes a ton of Mathhammer.
2017/08/01 18:33:02
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
Elbows wrote: It's definitely on the archaic side, but I think there is such a large portion of the gaming populace for 40K who don't care that I don't see it changing any time soon.
I play 2nd ed. with unique activation rules and that particular game group will be playing 8th ed. in a similar fashion at some point. It simply makes the game 10x more interesting.
A lot of the meta/net/supercomp guys will be against it because it removes the planned alpha-strikes, etc. from the game. It thoroughly undoes a ton of Mathhammer.
Removing "pre-planned" alphastrikes where once you commit to a plan, it can more-or-less go on autopilot barring the odd disruption seems like it would improve the game as a whole. I dunno about you, but that mindset of "my netlist isn't able to alphastrike" seems a bit...off.
2017/08/01 18:44:08
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
I don't think a large part of the gaming population prefers 40k as IGOUGO. I think a large part of the gaming population prefers official rules.
Right now the vast majority of the people who play 40k want an official rule book that tells them how the game works and they want to follow those rules and learn how to play within the rules. If a year down the line GW released a "New way to play" supplement that rebuilt the game as alternating phases and/or alternating activations I think players would experiment and we would find more and more people shifting towards the more tactical version of the game (if the mechanics of those systems are all otherwise considered equal).
I think GW hasn't changed yet because despite all the progress of 8th they still have people dedicated to the outdated systems in place. Consider.... JRPG video games. Random battles because you are walking. Slow as dirt turn based combat. Up until very recently JRPGs have been in a rut of 30 years developing games off the same mechanics that were developed in the 80s. They were stagnant in their innovation and stalwartly refused to move into the modern era of game play. GW is still in that boat even though it looks like SquareEnix has actually managed to start to move on.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2017/08/01 18:52:27
Subject: Re:Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
I guess DZC's detachment-activation system can be a reasonable way to handle the main weakness of alternating activation, which is "what happens if one player has a lot more units to activate?"
As long as each player has the same number of detachments (plus or minus one, maybe) they still basically take the same number of turns.
I guess one could argue that there's no difference between getting more single unit turns, or having more units that act within an equal number of turns. But I think the first scenario feels more "off" because it causes the game to suddenly shift gears: you were responding to each other one unit at a time until one of you ran out of units, and suddenly the other player just got to go on a rampage unopposed.
Where as, say, three large detachments alternating with three smaller detachments at least still get the same number of opportunities to react (three), and the only difference is what they're reacting with.
2017/08/01 19:06:59
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
"Pre-planned" anything in "Eternal War 40K" is what desperately needs changing if this game is to be played in an actually tactical way. And there are a lot of different ways to achieve this goal. But unfortunately that is not what majority of this community wants, so people like us are "stuck" to our small, like minded local groups...
As to OP question, I think this is mostly for practicality of large model count game as a comercial endavour. You need to remember, that GW can't just cut off those potential customers, who would have troubles with added book-keeping, complication or tactical depth. "Grand alphastrike plans" are appealing mostly because they are very easy to prepare in a cosy armchair and perform automaticaly on the tabletop, giving people false sense of strategic proficiency. I remember my first WTF moment after returning to 40K, when I saw how perfectly winnable matchup of 7th ed has been conceded after not drawing a "pre-planned around" psychic power because this "general" had no ability to improvise on the fly...
2017/08/01 19:18:01
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
ross-128 wrote: I guess DZC's detachment-activation system can be a reasonable way to handle the main weakness of alternating activation, which is "what happens if one player has a lot more units to activate?"
As long as each player has the same number of detachments (plus or minus one, maybe) they still basically take the same number of turns.
I guess one could argue that there's no difference between getting more single unit turns, or having more units that act within an equal number of turns. But I think the first scenario feels more "off" because it causes the game to suddenly shift gears: you were responding to each other one unit at a time until one of you ran out of units, and suddenly the other player just got to go on a rampage unopposed.
Where as, say, three large detachments alternating with three smaller detachments at least still get the same number of opportunities to react (three), and the only difference is what they're reacting with.
It might be an idea worth experimenting with, to divide armies not into rigid detachments, but establishing the best common denominator for both armies at the start of the game and then activate such small batches of units at once. The idea behind it is that both players activate roughly even point values at once, so there is a rough ballance between advantage of MSU and concentrated firepower approaches to list building, which is the biggest issue with alternating activations in a game with both grots and IKs... (To expand on this example, Orks vs IKs would be like three knights vs three subdivisions of an Ork force).
2017/08/01 19:25:49
Subject: Re:Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I play Dropzone Commander, which uses activations. Units are, however, activated by their detachment, and an army has 3 to 5 detachments in it to activate. I pick my UCM Armored Detachment, and it has a couple of tank squads in it, my tank squads go one by one, then my picks his unit.
IGOUGO is pretty nice, all things considered. It's straighforward and easy to understand, and makes it much easier to plot things like unit buffs and such.
I would recommend keeping the IGOUGO nature, and shifting the movement phase to the end of the turn.
It think if you are going for alternating for a 40k game scale by "detachment" would be the way to go. The problem is it would to some extent require a re-design of the game. As big expensive units essentially break this system (things like 10 paladins). I think if your were trying to do this from current you would need to say "break your army into ~500 point chunks (as close as possible) each of these is a detachment." Even then super heavies break this somewhat as they might be 2 detachments worth of points. It is also possible for people to stack detachments etc.
Any other method essentially is a huge buff to MSU, and you end up with people taking cheap "pass" activations to force the opponent to expose themselves first, then striking when the opponent has no response left with their heavy hitters.
ross-128 wrote: I guess DZC's detachment-activation system can be a reasonable way to handle the main weakness of alternating activation, which is "what happens if one player has a lot more units to activate?"
As long as each player has the same number of detachments (plus or minus one, maybe) they still basically take the same number of turns.
I guess one could argue that there's no difference between getting more single unit turns, or having more units that act within an equal number of turns. But I think the first scenario feels more "off" because it causes the game to suddenly shift gears: you were responding to each other one unit at a time until one of you ran out of units, and suddenly the other player just got to go on a rampage unopposed.
Where as, say, three large detachments alternating with three smaller detachments at least still get the same number of opportunities to react (three), and the only difference is what they're reacting with.
It might be an idea worth experimenting with, to divide armies not into rigid detachments, but establishing the best common denominator for both armies at the start of the game and then activate such small batches of units at once. The idea behind it is that both players activate roughly even point values at once, so there is a rough ballance between advantage of MSU and concentrated firepower approaches to list building, which is the biggest issue with alternating activations in a game with both grots and IKs... (To expand on this example, Orks vs IKs would be like three knights vs three subdivisions of an Ork force).
Yup more or less, other wise you get those 3 knights against an imperial army that takes 10 acolytes (80 points) and passes activations until a knights have all gone, then moves in all its firepower to take them out.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/01 19:29:29
2017/08/01 20:24:42
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
What I was aiming for in my system was a "two actions" one, where a mix of actions, half-actions, interrupts and counter-interrupts could mitigate alphastrikes by making MSU consecutive activations artithmetically expensive, while putting more emphasis on melee over shooting. I do have a fair bit of tweaking to do, especially regarding "how many command points" units should have, but for the time being it is a fairly simple system.
Isn't "detachment activation" what Apocalypse tried doing, out of curiosity?
2017/08/01 22:41:47
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
Bolt Action is a bit random, although you do get to choose who activates if your token/die is pulled. I know there's already a Gates of 40k rules version pretty far along on the proposed rules.
Something which a little more control would better suite 40k, but there has to be a cost or risk.
Say, maybe like Warmaster? Except if you fail to activate a unit, it doesn't lose its actions?
Either way, as much as I like this new edition, you feel now strained the game is with My-Army-Your-Army systems, especially now that terrain is less effective, and there's no incoming fire mitigation like go to ground.
Vertrucio wrote: Bolt Action is a bit random, although you do get to choose who activates if your token/die is pulled. I know there's already a Gates of 40k rules version pretty far along on the proposed rules.
Something which a little more control would better suite 40k, but there has to be a cost or risk.
Say, maybe like Warmaster? Except if you fail to activate a unit, it doesn't lose its actions?
Either way, as much as I like this new edition, you feel now strained the game is with My-Army-Your-Army systems, especially now that terrain is less effective, and there's no incoming fire mitigation like go to ground.
The issue I find with Bolt Action or Gates or Konflict is twofold: First, the randomness doesn't scale, and the more units per side, the more possiblility of larger activations. Second, you can combo random turns with officers or double-activating units for larger activations, making the game more akin to IgoUgo.
With Epic, failing to activate or retain the initiative is uncommon enough yet consequential enough that randomly getting bad rolls *hurts*.
When 8th announced Command Points, I was intrigued. However, I then found it annoying that it was less about "coordinating" your army, and more about activating assorted MOBA action bombs. Neff white quoted my rewrite, but I reworked Command Points as a "resource mechanic" (akin to WMH) to eliminate the randomness of activation systems. Having said resource mechanic be shared for "half activations", counter-Interrupts, consecutive actions, or bringing units from reserves. Naturally, this means while you *can* do something like a 101st Airborne drop, the results will be far less coordinated than normal. Incremental costs make massive turns excessively impractical, except if you want to gamble on an all-out attack.
After that, I figured a two-action system lets me reduce the total number of types of actions (no need for shoot vs sustained fire, vs march & shoot, vs triple march, or so), while being vaguely XCOM-esque. It also means that besides Reaction Fire, you still have access to Reaction moves and Reaction defense. The "2 actions for activation, 1 for interrupt" penalizes overwatch-camping as it means less actions and command points over your turn.
Adding the ability to interrupt interrupts also lets you model the fact units don't act in isolation, but work as mutually supporting cogs in a greater war-machine. Adding a "resolution stack" . The beauty of this system is I found rather than slowing the game to a crawl, it *sped* things up immensely, since interrupts eat into your army's overall actions and command points per turn. When I playtested it, one general "maneuver" worth doing was "leapfrogging". Squad A would advance under the support of B, and "hold" an area. If the enemy attempted to shoot, they could reposition into cover, or let a Heavy team support.
It still needs tweaking of course. I will add "eligible to attack" as an interrupt requirement, and I need to decide on a more concrete CP mechanism rather than "point levels." I might add optional rules for allowing you to spend CP to activate two or more units as though they were the same unit, though I imagine that would only be for smaller Disgaea-esque skirmish games, dood.
2017/08/02 06:56:53
Subject: Re:Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
I think we could achieve the best of both worlds as it were by simply changing the phase order, since moving the movement phase to be the last phase would make predictive and tactical position far more important than it is, and allow the enemy to react before being decimated by fire.
Alternating activations negatively affect the scalability of the game and a flexibility of army consist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/02 06:57:35
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
2017/08/02 08:31:19
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
1st and 2nd edition Epic were I go, you go within phases (I move all my Charging detachments, then you do all yours. I move all my Advancing units, then you. I fire with all my Fist Fire units, then you do yours, etc), and Epic Armageddon is alternate activation with a leadership test to activate and a chance to retain the initiative and activate two detachments one after the other to mix things up a bit.
I go, you go lets you carry out a coordinated plan with multiple units - that's why War Machine and Infinity (and Malifaux?) do it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/03 11:27:24
2017/08/02 14:07:30
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
Personally - my favorite turn structure was in babylon 5.
Each unit had an initiative value and you rolled a d20 and added that to it for each unit. Once initiative was determined for all units - the highest initiative unit went first and proceeded down.
It made a lot of sense - fast ships had high inititive values. Battleships values were very low. Stuff in the middle came down to a dice roll. Obviosuly this would add another step. So for 40k - maybe just skip the dice roll. Units go based on their initiative value. It would be a lot better than Igougo.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/08/02 14:17:10
Subject: Re:Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Alternating activations negatively affect the scalability of the game and a flexibility of army consist.
The same argument is made for IGOUGO simply because of "I move my entire army and alphastrike you, you move what's left of your army." Alternation is potentially more scalable if you add a proper interruption system and non-randomize the turn order.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AndrewGPaul wrote: I go, you go lets you carry out a coordinated plan with multiple units - that's why War Machine and Infinity (and Malifaux?) do it.
This isn't exclusive to IGOUGO, unless you mean it makes mass alphastrikes easier.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: "Grand alphastrike plans" are appealing mostly because they are very easy to prepare in a cosy armchair and perform automaticaly on the tabletop, giving people false sense of strategic proficiency.
But what do you mean my strategy only works if my opponent sits there and does nothing? Nonsense, I am a better strategist and I only lose when you bring cheese!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/02 14:22:17
2017/08/02 14:52:44
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
IGOUGO makes it simple and straightforward. Activations complicate the game, regardless of if it's more balanced. This results in longer games, and over-complication costs players. At most I'd do concurrent assault and shooting phases, simply meaning that both sides attack at the same time. A unit that dies thus cans till do damage the turn it dies.
4500
2017/08/02 14:55:01
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
AndrewGPaul wrote: 1st and 2nd edition Epic were I go, you go within phases (I move all my Charging detachments, then you do all yours. I move all my Advancing units, then you. I fire with all my Fist Fire units, then you do yours, etc), and Epic Armageddon is alternate activation with a leadership test to activate and a chance to retain the initiative and activate two detachments one after the other to mix things up a bit.
I go, you go lets you carry out a coordinated plan with multiple units - that's why War Machine and Infinity (and Malifaux?) do it.
Malifaux is not IGOUGO, it is alternating model activations. Which largely works due to small number of models, but it has had some issues with certain builds being able to out activate opponents and force them into the open then kill them. This is less of an issue in 40k due to weapon ranges, but still would matter to an extent. It is why I would opt for a groups of units style activation if you wanted to break from the IGOUGO. A system where units were broken into detachments of as close as possible to 500 points, and each of those activated at the same time would cut down on alpha strike. It could be gamed to some extent with super large and powerful units (a 1000 point unit would allow for basically taking 2 activations at once, but those units are few and far between, and typically not very good, the biggest issue here would be things like terminators in land raiders)
2017/08/02 15:04:20
Subject: Re:Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
Alternating activations negatively affect the scalability of the game and a flexibility of army consist.
These things can be fixed with creative rules writing. For lots of folks who have played alternating activation games - the possibility of 'more units on one side' or whatever is heavily outweighed by 'I don't have to spend an hour on Tinder while you're moving and shooting and assaulting with your entire army'.
2017/08/02 15:04:27
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
I like a combined alternating activation in phases, the number of units in play determines who goes first in each phase.
Movement Phase: Player with more units goes first.
Psychic Phase: Player with fewer units goes first.
Shooting Phase: Player with fewer units goes first.
Assault Phase: Player with fewer units goes first.
If you have the same number of units then roll off.
2017/08/02 15:47:19
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
Drager wrote: I like a combined alternating activation in phases, the number of units in play determines who goes first in each phase.
Movement Phase: Player with more units goes first.
Psychic Phase: Player with fewer units goes first.
Shooting Phase: Player with fewer units goes first.
Assault Phase: Player with fewer units goes first.
If you have the same number of units then roll off.
Doing any activations like this in 40k tends to be bad because people can run 3 giant things and go first most of the time.
It's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately.
2017/08/02 15:55:01
Subject: Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
Drager wrote: I like a combined alternating activation in phases, the number of units in play determines who goes first in each phase.
Movement Phase: Player with more units goes first.
Psychic Phase: Player with fewer units goes first.
Shooting Phase: Player with fewer units goes first.
Assault Phase: Player with fewer units goes first.
If you have the same number of units then roll off.
Doing any activations like this in 40k tends to be bad because people can run 3 giant things and go first most of the time.
They only get to use one giant thing first though and they have to let their opponent move after seeing their positioning, it's far less extreme than the same thing in IGOUGO. This iwll often lead to them doing a lot of damage with one giant thing, then losing another one.
2017/08/02 16:31:35
Subject: Re:Why is 40k still IGOUGO with phases anyway? And what is the ideal replacement?
I have to wonder if it's a "grass is greener" thing.
I've played both with varying phase order. I can say I find IGOUGO much more fun, faster, and less arcane.
Of all the games I played, I felt the best set up was PanzerBlitz. It was IGoUGo, and the phase order went Shoot, Air, Move, CAT.
Really, the key to limiting the value of first move and preventing devastating alpha-strikes is to ensure the enemy gets to react to your movement before you shoot them. Just shifting the movement phase means that units that shoot won't be in optimal positions unless your opponent was willing to let you have that optimal position, which weakens alpha-strikes and shooting in general a whole lot.
OTOH, I think the alpha-strike problem is actually indicative of another problem with 40k: namely that troops are too fast, the battlefield is too small, and our weapons are too powerful. Unit speed needs to be reduced, and general offensive output, especially CQC output, needs to be massively reduced.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/08/02 16:49:25
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
However, it is still a curious thing that there are 3 other threads on 
4500 
