Confusion over wargaming terms

[vodkafan]

Been reading the GW thread and got a bit confused over some terms being used...isn't "alternate activation" and Ugo-Igo the same thing?
If there is a difference can someone explain it for me?

[Cubs]

I think 'alternate activation' means Player1 activates a single unit, then Player2 activates a single unit, and so on until all units have had their go.

IGO-UGO would be Player1 completes their turn, then Player2 completes their turn.

[Major_Gilbear]

Yes, exactly Cubs.

Alternate Activation = Each player activates one unit, then passes to his opponent who does the same, repeat until all units on both sides are activated, which then triggers the end of the turn.

IGOUGO = One player activates their complete army (IGO, or "I go"), then passes to their opponent who then activates their whole army (UGO, or "you go"). After the second player has activated, the turn ends.

[Elbows]

Don't worry, it doesn't help that a ton of people use the terms interchangeably so the real intent has been lost on the interwebs.  Generally my understanding is the same as the above:

Alternating Activations: Some manner of activating less than your entire army, then your opponent does so (either by random draw, or one unit at a time, or command points of some type).  I do prefer to really call this randomized activation (as I prefer this being an randomly determined system vs. one unit at a time).

IGOUGO: I go with the entirety of my collected force, then you go with the entirety of your collected force.

Could be wrong, but that's how I've seen it.

[Argonor]

I mostly agree, but random activation can - for some systems - mean that one side may activate more than one unit/model in a row, which is often the case with card-activation.

I find it best to simply offer a short description of the way activation works when explaining a rules system to someone. Doesn't take much time, and prevents misunderstandings. 

[Norm]

IGO-UGO has generally been used to described those games in which player A works through the sequence of play and then B player B does likewise and then a new turn starts. Boardgames have used it from the classics onwards, where-as figure gaming came to it as the tustle between simultaneous movement / attack through order writing and the friendlier IGO-UGO type systems fought for dominance. 

It seems that anything that sits outside of that strict application gets called 'inter-active' and that could be as simple as WWII tactical in which the only inter-action is when player A interrupts Player B's Movement-Phase to conduct opportunity fire, through to something more activation based such as formation chits being drawn from a bag to activate one of the players formations (such as Bolt Action does) or rules that are card driven.

Alternating Activations is much more suggestive of impulse type play in which both Players share the same space on the Sequence of play by each conducting one or more Actions alternately in what might conveniently be called the Action Phase.

It seems fair to say that the more modern systems do proactively try to reduce the ' player downtime' by making things more inter-active, if only through opposed die rolls in combat. 

[JamesValentine]

I wonder if the guy who invented I go You go has been shot?
or in 40k as it was always known
I destroy half your army you go next loser 

[Major_Gilbear]

I wonder if the guy who invented I go You go has been shot?
or in 40k as it was always known
I destroy half your army you go next loser 

Nothing really wrong with IGOUGO really.

I feel it works best where there is plenty of terrain, and where the emphasis is on manoeuvre; however, 40k has never really been particularly well-known for either of these aspects of the game, which is why I feel IGOUGO systems get an unfair reputation.

Games like Warmachine and Infinity are pretty well balanced and both use IGOUGO activation systems. Indeed, the games are designed and balanced specifically around it, and each has different methods for achieving this.

In any case, I feel vodkafan's question has been well-answered already, and that these further speculations on the worthiness of such are veering sharply off-topic. I'll therefore leave my thoughts there.

[vodkafan]

Thanks all  for your informative replies chaps.

[JamesValentine]

Games like Warmachine and Infinity are pretty well balanced

...are you being sarcastic?