PDA

View Full Version : Is 40k moving backwards?



archont
31-03-2009, 11:12
Okay, I just flipped through my 3rd edition rulebook, since I found it in the attic.

What striked me as really interesting: What we have as a new trend (i.e. no armorys but instead every option for every character written out with individual points-costs) is actually something they already did in 3rd ed. brb.

Actually funny, that they're moving backwards / taking inspiration from the past, to do modern codici, don't you think?

Solar_Eclipse
31-03-2009, 11:17
Yes they are, i noticed that too.

Its good, 4th edition was abit too much of a departure from the game and they are trying to regress it back rules and backgroundwise to its 3rd/2nd edition past.

Stuff like the Conversion beamer returning and things like that is evidence for this, really.

Chaos and Evil
31-03-2009, 11:28
New model releases too are more often than not meant to evoke past versions.

Born Again
31-03-2009, 11:47
Not that this is a particularly bad thing. The character's options being in their list entry makes the list much more condensed and easier to use without endless page flipping. There was a whole thread on that a little while ago, as well as one on the re-introduction of old weapons.

As far as models having an older aesthetic, I again don't think that's a bad thing as long as the sculpts are quality: a lot of the old models had a lot of character, which looks great when mixed with elements of the newer style.

Poseidal
31-03-2009, 11:57
It's not moving backwards, it's advancing in reverse!

I for one welcomed the new 'old aesthetic' Aspect Warriors when they arrived in 4th.

Goq Gar
31-03-2009, 11:59
It's not that it's really going backwards, more that they're starting to bring back some old ideas that worked, and incorporating them alongside new ideas.

backslide
31-03-2009, 12:51
backwards is the wrong word I think, old school is cool!

as long as we don't go back to:

'to hit modifers'
everyong having access to vortex grenades
viris grenades
'the physic phase'
sustaned fire dice
overwatch...

Coasty
31-03-2009, 14:29
Ooh, overwatch! Yay!

Can we have dismountable bikers and vehicle crews, too?

Captain Micha
31-03-2009, 14:56
Overwatch would be the -only- thing I would want from older editions.

Either bring back overwatch or remove Run.

Wound Allocation rules are also stupid.... it's better to not shoot your other guns when firing your plasma gun... Yes, since -more- bullets flying into your enemy's face will make it -more - likely to survive. WA was one of those rules that probably sounded great at the coffee table and on paper, and probably works if people played -exactly- as the designers intended. But people don't. People don't willingly play on Nerf Mode when it comes to the Rules Themselves. Sure I'll just allocate those two plas shots onto one mini, and take the bolter shots to the face (or lasgun, or what have you). It and Run have gimped shooting armies so badly.

The Clairvoyant
31-03-2009, 14:57
The rule that should come back is "Its Gonna Blow!"

Radium
31-03-2009, 15:06
It's great they're finally coming around to seeing some stuff they did before was actually pretty good, and doing that again.
Now just make psychic powers better again for the races that need/deserve it (but PLEASE no psychic phase), bring back 4th ed's terrain rules, remove run and we're done! Perfect 40k!

Carlos
31-03-2009, 17:00
It's great they're finally coming around to seeing some stuff they did before was actually pretty good, and doing that again.
Now just make psychic powers better again for the races that need/deserve it (but PLEASE no psychic powers), bring back 4th ed's terrain rules, remove run and we're done! Perfect 40k!

Can you elebprate how run has destroyed shooty armies? Im not bemoaning, its just I havent played much in the last few months and am kinda out of sync. Obviously it makes close combat armies faster but surely them getting to rapid fire range quicker is a good thing?

4th editions terrain rules can stay locked away in some dark vault beneath Lenton. I like (and have always played) LOS rules. If you see it. you can shoot it.

Hakkapelli
31-03-2009, 19:07
They're not moving backwards, they're advancing in a different direction.

Some of the old stuff that have returned lately is really fun, like the shock attack gun, but the old style models arent that good. The old deamonnetes looked so much better then the current plastics.

And I like the "run" rule. Despite playing guard. And true LOS is better then the 4th ed rules. At least unless you play against some rules lawyer on terrain built for 3rd/ 4th ed.

Steel Legion for Life
31-03-2009, 19:08
I do feel 40k is moving backward in terms of game design. If you want to know what a modern game looks like, play the (excellent) new version of epic. The whole turn/whole turn thing is a real throwback to the 1980s era of wargaming. Still fun, but very old school.

I had to dust off my periscope I used to use for clunky historical gaming for TLOS, but it's not THAT bad. I've yet to have the truly apocalyptic argument about LOS I used to associate with TLOS in games like Necromunda, but whether that's because I haven't played in a 5th ed tournament or I'm not 12 anymore is a matter of debate.

I did prefer the abstract system, where all terrain blocked line of sight across the base, I think the main thing "into or out of but not through" terrain rules did is prevent arguments, but apparently some people hate them.

Kill points is a real throwback. It's simple to the point of being ill-thought out, in that it invalidates certain units (e.g. death cult assassins), encourages silly units and army selection (e.g. 500 pt Nobz biker units) and even makes some armies very frustrating to use (e.g. Imperial Guard; if my background book encourages me to have expendable units and play in a certain way, it makes for a confusing experience when the game punishes me for that).

Someone is yet to tell me why twenty conscripts are worth the same as ten terminators in a way that makes sense. The killpoints rule is amateurish; the sort of victory condition I remember laughing at kids coming up with in 4th ed, pointing out that invalidated poinst costs.

Wound allocation is also backward; it's a clunky skirmish game mechanic at best. I prefer a battle game that is fast and fluid to play.

Sure, wound allocation is relatively quick when you get used to it, but in complex squads and with complex incoming fire, there's always a moment of pause when you work out the optimum way to cheat, and a feeling of intense bitterness that comes when firing lasguns at a target makes you kill less.

Equally, there's a sense of bitterness when people abuse the hell out of wound allocation to make uber units. There have always been problem units before (Seer Council spring to mind), but the wound allocation rules feel like a clunky problem in the game, rather than a problem with that list. You can abuse them almost as much with Chaos terminators, Tyranid Warriors or Imperial Terminators.

No game is perfect; epic for example suffers from daisy chain objective abuse, by none other than... nobz bikers (yay, another game spoiled by Eldar players using orks) and impossible to shoot down ultra precision Fighta-Bombers. Ultimately, it's a game I like; TLOS is old school but ok. Turn about turn is old school but ok.

Still, I think there's a weird badge of honour worn by people in game design when they say "we wanted to go back to the old days". The old days of overcomplex rules? Of plain clunky rules that acted as a prophylactic to fun?The old days of ludicrous abuse killing people's passion of the hobby?

So, yeah, I'm still playing 40k, still loving 40k, but I definitely don't like KPs or Wound allocation, as I'm sure there are better way to achieve the aims of those rules without being so amateur in design.

Steel Legion for Life
31-03-2009, 19:10
PS:- Run isn't that bad; I think it's compensated for by the inability of assault armies to consolidate into extra combats.

That's a massive nerf for assault tbh:)

Captain Micha
31-03-2009, 19:24
PS:- Run isn't that bad; I think it's compensated for by the inability of assault armies to consolidate into extra combats.

That's a massive nerf for assault tbh:)

Until you realize that -yes- you do need to spend multiple turns shooting a unit to bring it down. (sometimes with multiple units at that! Damn Orks)

When they destroy your squad, they get shot at for -one turn- if you don't try and move the rest of your army out of Charge Range. And then the cycle of death starts over again.

You see when you have a gunline, it's only powerful at a distance. The second you are in RF or less range you are in big trouble. Old Consolidate rules were just -more- broken because you had to get there in the first place. There was about a 50 percent chance of that happening before Run. Now with it, it -will- happen and it's -better- to Run than to hop into vehicles to get there. (Gunlines destroy vehicles really well after all)

Steel Legion for Life
31-03-2009, 19:33
Tbh, Micha, I'd rather shoot at an assault unit that can charge six times in a game than one that can charge 12 times.

As I said, run compensates for the lack of consolidate.

If you have problems, get some countercharge units, some tarpit units to engage them mid table, or some short range firepower. I find flamers work a treat on Orks. Or be willing to charge survivors with your gunline units - assuming they've taken some damage this isn't as dumb as you'd think, and it's MUCH better than being charged.

Captain Micha
31-03-2009, 19:39
Tbh, Micha, I'd rather shoot at an assault unit that can charge six times in a game than one that can charge 12 times.

As I said, run compensates for the lack of consolidate.

If you have problems, get some countercharge units, some tarpit units to engage them mid table, or some short range firepower. I find flamers work a treat on Orks. Or be willing to charge survivors with your gunline units - assuming they've taken some damage this isn't as dumb as you'd think, and it's MUCH better than being charged.

I have yet to inflict a single wound upon an Ork in CC. So charging them is hardly a good idea. (I apparently only can win Assaults with my Wraith, and Scarabs for my crons. shame I play Guard and Tau too)

It doesn't compensate, it makes CC armies -better- than the old Consolidate rules. After all you can also consolidate into cover anyway. Assault armies pre 5e had one of two ways to get there. 1 vehicles, 2 be Jump Infantry. Both of those were more easily counter able in my experience. God forbid they got Waagh too.

Gaargh-Gor
31-03-2009, 21:43
I play Tau, and I LIKE the run rule. It makes sense, which a fair number of rules don't. Plus with the rhino rush well and truly dead assault armies need a hand. In any case you could just play on a bigger table.:p

Steel Legion for Life
31-03-2009, 22:35
I found a pretty effective assault army in 3rd/4th ed was a horde of tough infantry (e.g. Slaanesh terminators, Space wolves on foot) that advanced to the centre of the board and dominated it, and used your troops like spring boards to bounce around the board with sweeping advances.

And, seriously. never a single wound in CC? You know if you charge, bashing with the lasgun does as much as shooting it? And you strike at the same time? I'm not saying do it all the time, but it's worth considering as at least an option.

Get your guardsmen to man up and learn where the bayonets go. :)

waiyuren
31-03-2009, 23:21
I noticed that some of the fluff has regressed a little (Relictors no longer being excommunicate for example), but as for the rules themselves, i've been out of the game for too long.
Although rapid fire is horrible... Its like getting penalised weither you move or not. Sure it's more "realistic" to carefully aim at range and then spray wildly at close quarters, but game wise it's harder to use effectively simply because there is no benefit to aiming! (better AP would be nice...)

I geuss they are all using paintball guns.

Get in close! Unload your clip at him! The bruising will will be terrible!

Moriarty
31-03-2009, 23:29
Assault makes sense, game wise. You get two opportunities to kill the other guy (your turn _and_his turn) as opposed to one if shooting (your turn).

Legionary
31-03-2009, 23:37
Run needs an equivalent. It helps melee armies. Where's the equivalent rule for shooty armies? My suggestion would be 'Covering Fire' that, if used, prevents any unit from running that had models wounded by that fire.

In many ways, I worry about the game. The disparities between the armies are currently huge, and the trend seems to be towards making armies good at both shooting and melee. Take Orks - they're as good as Guard at shooting, way better than Guard at assault.

Needs to be some measure of rock, paper scissors.

Voracioustigger
31-03-2009, 23:38
Okay, I just flipped through my 3rd edition rulebook, since I found it in the attic.

What striked me as really interesting: What we have as a new trend (i.e. no armorys but instead every option for every character written out with individual points-costs) is actually something they already did in 3rd ed. brb.

Actually funny, that they're moving backwards / taking inspiration from the past, to do modern codici, don't you think?

Ya, Close combat is DEFINITELY swinging back. In 3rd ed, CC was absurd with the 2D6" sweeping advance (3D6" for bikes/jump). Basically, if you won combat, you could jump to any nearby squad and assault them and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it! Now, you have to sit in the open, but you can maul squads in a flash.

Also, in early 3rd ed. IIRC you could pick out enemy models in CC (I have bad memories of my Blood Claws with power fists always being picked off before they struck). In 5th ed., you can't pick out models, but at least with wound allocation, you have a shot at killing the squad leader first!

So, ya, looks like we're back to a CC edition... guess we'll have to wait until 6th ed for some shooty power!

borithan
31-03-2009, 23:49
4th editions terrain rules can stay locked away in some dark vault beneath Lenton. I like (and have always played) LOS rules. If you see it. you can shoot it.I think the 4th edition rules were main a problem because people misinterpreted them, rather than because they were flawed themselves. I don't like TLoS myself, as it forgets that a wargame is an abstraction of something else, not a simulation. A couple of trees in 40k can easily represent a whole wood, and figures cannot hide properly in buildings.


I noticed that some of the fluff has regressed a little (Relictors no longer being excommunicate for example)the rulebook fluff comes to an end just as the Eye of Terror campaign is about to start. I think it was during the Eye of Terror campaign that the Relictors were excommunicated.



Run needs an equivalent. It helps melee armies. Where's the equivalent rule for shooty armies? My suggestion would be 'Covering Fire' that, if used, prevents any unit from running that had models wounded by that fire.Well, soldiers used to be able to shoot guys that were charging at them, ala "stand and shoot" in warhammer. True, not as effective as normal shooting, but is does seem daft that no one takes a pot shot at guys charging at them. Also, the effective ranges of weapons was such that a unit would suffer more than one turn of shooting unless it was really clever. Now a unit can pretty much always charge a unit that has shot them with their basic weapons.

I really think they should find a way to limit assaults to one phase per turn for each unit, like shooting, but then I guess that would probably need a far greater restructuring of the rules than GW would like.

Lord Dan
01-04-2009, 00:08
"Okay, I'm rolling to wound."
"You haven't rolled to hit yet, why are you rolling to wound?"
"Haven't you heard? 40K moves backwards now."

freddieyu
01-04-2009, 01:05
I've been playing 40k since 1999, and I find the current edition the best and very enjoyable. It is NOT perfect, but then again which ruleset is? I find the balance among armies quite good (necrons need an update though, but DE are actually quite competitive!) and locally here at least non MEQ armies are getting more prominent.

So, it is how well you adapt to changes, keeps your brain cells active...

Hellebore
01-04-2009, 01:37
4th editions terrain rules can stay locked away in some dark vault beneath Lenton. I like (and have always played) LOS rules. If you see it. you can shoot it.

Is there a reason for this? Is it the purported 'realism' of being able to shoot something the model can see?

Because there are more parts to the realism of a game than literal line of sight. It ignores at least two other things I can think of:

1: Terrain can NEVER be as detailed as the real world, thus you can draw LOS to a model on a board but couldn't to a person in a real situation
2: Models are generally posed in a heroic or cool manner yet in 'reality' a warrior would be hugging cover and making a small target of themselves.

So in order to use the 'realistic' true line of sight, you have to ignore the 'realistic' lack of detail on terrain and the lack of taking cover by static models.

In 5th ed, the realism is expounded, it's much more 'cinematic' and yet you are allowed to put wounds on models you CAN'T see, making a mockery of the whole rules system in the first place.

You also have LOS arguments. It's in your best interests to disagree with the opponent as it automatically reduces their cover save to a 5+.

The 5th ed rules are also very punishing towards converters and modellers who like having their assault marines on flying bases. The argument of 'well we are reasonable and don't do that' does not excuse the rules from being inferior. It is then a house rule to cover a flaw in the rules.

So in my opinion the 4th ed rules were more 'realistic' than the 5th ed ones, because they covered far more realisms than the 5th ed ones do - which is to say the 5th ed rules consider drawing LOS to a model to be THE only realism that is important.

Hellebore

Lord Dan
01-04-2009, 03:58
2: Models are generally posed in a heroic or cool manner yet in 'reality' a warrior would be hugging cover and making a small target of themselves.


This is the main reason I was upset about the LOS change. You know all those epic leaping-from-a-boulder space marines clad in oversized power armor with their weapon raised high above their head? Shafted.

Ronin_eX
01-04-2009, 06:22
"Okay, I'm rolling to wound."
"You haven't rolled to hit yet, why are you rolling to wound?"
"Haven't you heard? 40K moves backwards now."

Well seeing as armour only protects you after you are wounded it does make a certain kind of sense. :p


It is NOT perfect, but then again which ruleset is?

Try some other wargames and find out how not perfect it is. No rule set is perfect but some are closer than others and for the most part rules writing is not GW's strong point. Personally I'd rather settle for good rather than good enough.

Hellebore
02-04-2009, 00:09
The IGOUGO has er got to go. :p

It's such an old and tired mechanic, one that is easily modified without becoming too complicated, as evinced by LotR.

Hellebore

Steel Legion for Life
02-04-2009, 00:23
I've found almost every wargame which subverts IGOUGO has problems of it's own; just to pull an example from the air, in unit activation games, the tactic become to kill the thing which hasn't acted yet.

In reaction games, the key thing is to "react" your most expensive units last. I don't think IGOUGO is inherently flawed; it's just old. Change for changes sake leads to things like the Star Wars prequels.

Lord Malorne
02-04-2009, 00:23
Its ok, though I do miss the old CSM wargear section, I don't even play CSM!

IGOUGO is fine, i've only been playing for 10 years which is certainly not as long as many people here, put I like how it is.

Hellebore
02-04-2009, 00:28
Well in the rules I've developed (unit activation) both sides get a single 'steal the initiative' roll once per round so that the enemy has to be careful his 'kill the unit that hasn't done anything yet' tactic doesn't blow up in his face. Obviously you can't steal a stolen initiative.

If you also use rules like 'must shoot nearest unit' or similar (as in Mordheim et al) then it makes it harder for the opponent to do that, unless your unused units are the closest, in which case you deserve it.

Hellebore

Lord Malorne
02-04-2009, 00:42
Aye, but that would be another system and not 40k IMO which is synonymous with IGOUGO (for now).

Is there any futuristic wargames that use that system Hellebore? Epic does IIRC.

Hellebore
02-04-2009, 00:46
Well having played 40k with this method it still feels like 40k, I think too much emphasis is placed on the game mechanics as 'being' a setting, rather than representing the setting.

I don't play many other games tbh, although I've seen a few fantasy games with unit activation.

Hellebore

Lord Malorne
02-04-2009, 01:02
What kind of problems have you run into using that kind of system then?

Is the steal initiative for that whole phase for the whole army?

Hellebore
02-04-2009, 02:15
No it's for a single unit within the army. As it's on a unit by unit activation, your opponent can attempt to steal the initiative from one unit before it does anything with one of their own.

The only massive problem I found was attacks. If you didn't roll them sequentially then you ended up with single units getting charged by multiple units and expending their attacks on the first one. However as the game does not grant additional attacks for charging (something I never liked in 40k anyway) I've changed attacks to being rolled as many or as few as wanted during combat.

So if unit A is charged by B and has 10 attacks, it can choose to expend 5 on that unit and retain 5 for any further charges if it wants, although it's optional.

Hellebore

Lord Raneus
02-04-2009, 02:38
Run needs an equivalent. It helps melee armies. Where's the equivalent rule for shooty armies? My suggestion would be 'Covering Fire' that, if used, prevents any unit from running that had models wounded by that fire.

In many ways, I worry about the game. The disparities between the armies are currently huge, and the trend seems to be towards making armies good at both shooting and melee. Take Orks - they're as good as Guard at shooting, way better than Guard at assault.

Needs to be some measure of rock, paper scissors.

Pretty sure here that once the new Guard book comes out Guard are going to run roughshod all over Orks when it comes to shooting...:D

spaint2k
02-04-2009, 03:44
In my personal quest to make 40K a better game, I also removed IGOUGO in favour of an interleaved turn system whereby I move you move, I shoot you shoot, I declare charges you declare charges, I charge you charge, we fight one round of combat.

Basically, I nerfed shooting and close combat, while placing the emphasis on maneuvering and taking real advantage of cover. I'm probably going to post my 40K mod in the Rules Development forum soon.

Steve

Skyrir
02-04-2009, 05:25
Well maybe so but I like 5e. I just wish they would re issue the really old space marines from 1st or 2nd e.... Ah lurves them.

spaint2k
02-04-2009, 06:45
Well, I've just posted my modified rules in the rules development forum if anyone would care to look at them:
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191273

Ronin_eX
02-04-2009, 08:25
I've found almost every wargame which subverts IGOUGO has problems of it's own; just to pull an example from the air, in unit activation games, the tactic become to kill the thing which hasn't acted yet.

In reaction games, the key thing is to "react" your most expensive units last. I don't think IGOUGO is inherently flawed; it's just old. Change for changes sake leads to things like the Star Wars prequels.

What about games with unit activation that allows unactivated units to react? Heavy Gear Blitz uses this system and Infinity uses an IGOUGO system with free reaction to almost everything.

In the prior case attacking unactivated units has little advantage. Instead attacking units based on the combat effectiveness is the order of the day because even if they haven't activated they can attack you at any time via command points use (counterable using ECM) or using the unused action to make a reaction shot (does not benefit from cross fire bonuses as it is too sporadic).

In Infinity active use is still better than reaction but the fact that reaction can occur in response to any and all actions witnessed by defending models makes every additional action taken in view of the enemy a gamble. Fire fights are almost always two sided and the good player will usually have multiple reacting models against an acting one which can certainly complicate their intended actions.

IGOUGO's flaws are that it is inherently better to get the first turn (even in well balanced games like Chess the white player will win 51% of the time with equal players). It is also fairly unintuitive and non-interactive in many cases. One player performs all his actions then hands off to the others. In large games this is tedious and boring and keeps half or more of the players unengaged for long periods of time. What is worse is that GW tacks on a clunky and inflexible phase system that makes many logical actions impossible. Why does shooting always come before assault? Why do you move then shoot? Why can't a unit shoot/suppress and enemy squad covering an area before its partner squad moves into the zone they just cleared? The IGOUGO system (unengaging, boring and too advantageous on the first turn) paired with an inflexible phase system that limits player choice severely is the big problem.

Neither makes play inherently faster or easier to follow (personally I find alternating activation systems with an "action point" or order system much better). Take a look at Epic if you want an idea of how it can be done well (by GW no less!) though Warzone has a great system for it as well using action points and alternating activation along with a great reaction system that doesn't always reward players for choosing to react instead of act if both options are available.

Have a look at a few of the following if you are interested in looking at other systems that use more fluid turn systems:

- Infinity (free online, basic IGOUGO system, order based activation, unlimited reaction)
- Warzone (alternating activation, flexible action system and individual unit activation, reaction system that makes the choice between action and reaction important)
- Full Thrust (simultaneous movement with pre-written orders and alternating shooting)
- Starmada AE (simultaneous movement with pre-written and shooting)
- AT-43 (alternating activation with order determined at the start of the turn, order system based around refreshing command pool allows modified actions to be taken by squads, has a basic reaction system)
- Heavy Gear Blitz (alternating activation with an action system that allows actions to be spent before activation at the cost of a couple of advantages compared to saving the action for use during activation)
- Warmachine/Hordes (IGOUGO with units activated in a specific order in order to set up sympathetic effects, models can move and perform a single action)
- Epic: Armageddon (alternating activation, reaction system and the ability to retain the initiative and take a second consecutive activation, order based unit activation allows flexible options with units)

Those are a few off the top of my head and the only one that uses IGOUGO without reaction successfully is WM/H (mainly because timing and sympathetic unit activations is central to the strategy, in other words it is a feature, not a bug). So while IGOUGO is not, by itself, a problem it becomes a problem when it has nothing added to it to engage both players (usually a reaction system or some other way of breaking things up). What's more is that an inflexible phase system tacked onto a system without any mechanics for engaging players not only limits player options but it also makes things intensely uninteresting. The inclusion of something to break up the pendulum of play and engage players in a more fluid manner (alternating activation, reaction, or even LotR-style phases) is something 40k has needed since 2nd bloody edition (which did have a reaction system and still managed to be pretty clunky).

Vaktathi
02-04-2009, 08:32
In terms of aesthetics, I'm glad many of the more recent models are emulating past versions.

late 80's/early 90's stuff had so much character, even if the models were very cartoony, they just oozed coolness and had the perfect comic/gamestore atmosphere about them. Many of the newer ones are excellent sculpts, but lack the artistic flair of many of the older models. I'm glad GW is returning to many of it's older designs.

In terms of rules, I have no idea. GW is all over the place and inconsistent with everything that I don't think even they have any idea of what is going on. Cool and better rules are put in while other rules regress backwards or are simply oversimplified to the point of ridiculousness. With respect to Armories, this was a 3rd ed/early-mid 4th ed thing that began with the 3rd ed Space Marine codex and the last book to have one was I think either the Black Templars or Tau codex, which ever came out last.

AndrewGPaul
02-04-2009, 08:35
Another option is alternatring activation, while ensuring the side with the most models doesn't have a huge 'reserve'.

Confrontation allowed the player with fewer units a number of "byes" equal to the difference. Classic Battletech's movement phase makes a player with x times as many unactivated models as his opponent activate x models at once, so the winner of the initiative roll always moves the last model.

There are games (such as Wargames Foundry's Rules With No Name) or Confrontation v1,2 and 3 which use cards drawn from a deck, so the activation sequence is entirely random.

Wargods of Aegyptus/Olympus/Hyperborea uses an unusual system. the winner of the initiative roll gets to immediately activate a number of units depending on how much he wins by - it's possible to activate 3 units first, if you're lucky. After that, it's alternate. However, a player can activate a unit in his opponent's army (but not control it; you just say "I'm activating your Basti archers" and the opponent does with them as he wishes). Combined with the pre-plotted orders, this can screw up their plans, if for instance you make the opponent move the unit of infantry at the back, before he's had a chance to get the blocking skirmishers out the way first.

Another one I liked was from Song of Blades and Heroes. This doesn't have turns as such; each time you try to activate a model, you roll 1, 2 or 3 dice. Each success (based on the model's stats) gets an action. If you get 2 or 3 failures, however, your opponent gets to activate. You just keep swapping back and forth.

borithan
02-04-2009, 11:33
I've found almost every wargame which subverts IGOUGO has problems of it's own; just to pull an example from the air, in unit activation games, the tactic become to kill the thing which hasn't acted yet.In Stargrunt units have to fire at the units which pose the greatest threat to themselves (true, that is subjective, but then it is designed for a more friendly game rather than tournament style), and in that grading units that have activated (drawn attention to themselves) are higher priority than those that haven't.



In my personal quest to make 40K a better game, I also removed IGOUGO in favour of an interleaved turn system whereby I move you move, I shoot you shoot, I declare charges you declare charges, I charge you charge, we fight one round of combat.So... like the Lord of the Rings game then?



Basically, I nerfed shooting and close combat,Well, you nerfed combat far more, as each side still gets one turn of shooting, but now only gets one turn of close combat, rather than the two previously.

spaint2k
02-04-2009, 11:57
So... like the Lord of the Rings game then?


I don't know. I've never played LotR.



Well, you nerfed combat far more, as each side still gets one turn of shooting, but now only gets one turn of close combat, rather than the two previously.

It actually works out that both have been nerfed by about the same amount. Shooting is much more difficult when a unit is sitting in cover, whereas the different CC table means that good assault troops will hit more often than poor ones.

Give it a try if you've got the time. It plays quite well and means you spend more time maneuvering. By the end of the game I've found there's still plenty of carnage. It's just more interesting carnage.

Steve

Col. Dash
02-04-2009, 12:51
If they brought out the run rule, right on its heels should have been the overwatch rules to compensate for shooty armies. Current edition is too slanted towards hand to hand instead of futuristic warfare. I know I dont speak for everyone, but combat in the future should be alot more shooty and alot less hand to handy and they went the other way around.
The one thing they should definately have gotten rid of though is the AP system and brought back the armor save modifier system. Not like its hard to figure out or slow.

IJW
02-04-2009, 13:09
If they brought out the run rule, right on its heels should have been the overwatch rules to compensate for shooty armies.
No consolidation into combat, area terrain no longer blocks LoS. Shooting v. combat has a very similar balance in 5th to what it was in 4th.

Bunnahabhain
02-04-2009, 14:03
I go, you go, can be fine, if a few conditions are met.

1. Out of phase actions- overwatch, assaulted units getting to stand and shoot, move, fire, move orders. etc, etc

2. A decent sized board, with sufficient cover. If you don't start with the enemy in small arms/charge range, then first turn advantage is negligible.

3. Flexible game length. Playing to a conclusion, or to a time, is far better than a set number of turns, so making a suicidal objective grabbing/contesting unit a good way to sacrifice a unit, rather than to win the game.

An alternating unit activation system is great, but I feel it can bog down somewhat with large unit counts.

Vaktathi
02-04-2009, 14:09
Personally, in regards to IgoUgo, I much preferred Battletech's turn system.

If 40k had a similar system, each player would alternate moving one unit at a time, then declaring shooting one at a time, then resolved shooting one at a time. Everything that declared shooting would get to shoot, and after fire was resolved then all damage would take effect. After that charges would be declared, if units would intend to charge each other this would be declared and both could get charging bonuses. Combat would take place as normal.

It effectively removes many of the first turn/last turn advantages as everything is resolved and takes effect at the same time.

AmBlam
02-04-2009, 14:14
Progression is a process of moving forwards and backwards.