I'm going to put another vote on the pile against IgoUgo. Plenty of systems have both streamlined methods of unit activation but also some little tricks to activate more than one unit or units out of turn and it can keep both players engaged through the entire game. I disagree on the "two roll" system, I think it eliminates some granularity. If a model has certain equipment like an anti-tank gun then it really is a disservice to some players if all it does is adding a few dice to an attack roll. This is not to say that we should be singing "roll, roll, roll your dice" (shoutout to HansGrabber in the chat for that), but I feel four rolls is plenty. Two for the attacker, two for defender. Agree on random movement. Basic movement should be clear. For movements like difficult/dangerous terrain movements I had been homebrewing the option to take a flat, reduced movement, OR to roll and attempt to move further with added risk. One thing I would like to never see again are specific measurement templates. I don't want to have to remember what stick is for what movement or what bit of plastic is supposed to emulate what kind of explosion, especially if the things are both fragile and expensive. The maneuvering sticks for X-Wing were particularly ridiculous. We can just measure however many inches and make 45 and 90 degree turns as needed, like in Battlefleet Gothic.
Thanks for the input. Gamification often compromises simulation, as in the loss of granularity you describe. For me the call falls on the side of game flow and pace but it's totally reasonable to want things on the crunchier side for personal taste.
Agree with random movement of player-controlled models. Random movement of fanatics in TOW is funny. Random movement of squigs and manglers is broken in TOW and needs to be corrected soon. It is the most unfun interaction in the game.
I'm going to put another vote on the pile against IgoUgo. Plenty of systems have both streamlined methods of unit activation but also some little tricks to activate more than one unit or units out of turn and it can keep both players engaged through the entire game.
I disagree on the "two roll" system, I think it eliminates some granularity. If a model has certain equipment like an anti-tank gun then it really is a disservice to some players if all it does is adding a few dice to an attack roll. This is not to say that we should be singing "roll, roll, roll your dice" (shoutout to HansGrabber in the chat for that), but I feel four rolls is plenty. Two for the attacker, two for defender.
Agree on random movement. Basic movement should be clear. For movements like difficult/dangerous terrain movements I had been homebrewing the option to take a flat, reduced movement, OR to roll and attempt to move further with added risk.
One thing I would like to never see again are specific measurement templates. I don't want to have to remember what stick is for what movement or what bit of plastic is supposed to emulate what kind of explosion, especially if the things are both fragile and expensive. The maneuvering sticks for X-Wing were particularly ridiculous. We can just measure however many inches and make 45 and 90 degree turns as needed, like in Battlefleet Gothic.
Thanks for the input. Gamification often compromises simulation, as in the loss of granularity you describe. For me the call falls on the side of game flow and pace but it's totally reasonable to want things on the crunchier side for personal taste.
I would say with the 'i go you go' with out it if i got it, the likes of maulifax and frostgrave not doing it that way i think wouldnt be a good thing
Great vid guys 👍
Thanks for the feedback. Glad you enjoyed it
Agree with random movement of player-controlled models. Random movement of fanatics in TOW is funny. Random movement of squigs and manglers is broken in TOW and needs to be corrected soon. It is the most unfun interaction in the game.
Great shout on Fanatics. I guess this is the use of random movement as a 'nerf' or balancing mechanic. It is a valid use of it.