Looking for your honest opinion on a true to tabletop warhammer 40k video game.

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.

**Orock**

Please read the question and comment if you have a minute on what you think.

IF GW was to source out 40k for someone to make a true to tabletop version, complete with all the units and rules in the game, and then charge a reasonable monthly fee to play said game, say along 10 dollars a month, do you think it would be a good thing for GW as a company, or would it kill the tabletop community seeing as you could stay at home, not paint models and make em, have to travel to find a game ect...

Personally I would love a 40k online that I could sit down any time and play without arangements with others, and sometimes I dont want to spend 45 minutes setting up 120 orks on the table. So say someone pretty much made a far superior version of vassel, complete with the same turn based combat and able to watch the pieces fight in zoom in like battlechess, do you think this would be bad.

Why has GW not done this yet, the only reason I can think of is they think it will literally end up costing them more money then its worth in the end.

**Griever**

Sounds like they'd be creating a product that competes against the very thing they've built.

**Saldiven**

I believe that GW wouldn't be too keen on this idea. Their primary income stream comes from the sale of miniatures, not the rules or books associated with those miniatures. Anything that might be perceived as something that could decrease miniature sales would not be something attractive to GW.

The question is: Would something like this actually affect miniature sales or not?

**VikingScott**

Vassal 40K.

And it was shut down by GW

**Amaya**

It depends on how many people would play it. A tabletop wargame MMO such as 40k might be able to get 250,000 subscribers or perhaps even more.

**nkelsch**

People don't want to play a board game... they want a RTS. GW has a fairly good RTS game out there for 40k.

250,000 subscribers is a failure for MMO standards. War Online proved that with way more subscribers.

**evolvingeye**

This is something I've wanted for quite a while, simply because most of my friends live completely across the country, so it would be amazing to be able to play 'real' 40k with them.

However, I don't see it ever happening, at least not any time soon. I think if it did happen it wouldn't be a subscription based model, but a "virtual models" set up, almost identical to Magic the Gathering Online. Pay the same price for the virtual model as the real one and have at it. I think something where when you buy the actual model and get the virtual one along with it would be awesome, even if the price was raised slightly.

As hard as it is for GW to keep the current game up to date in a timely manner, I don't see them trying this any time soon. Plus, I'm not really even sure how many players would be into it, a lot of the 40k experience for people is the actual hobby side, which you most likely wouldnt get with the virtual game, besides maybe an army painter function.

Anyway, just my thoughts!

**augustus5**

I would absolutely love to play such a game. I actually don't really enjoy RTS's because of the constant frantic pointing and clicking going on. Having a good true representation of 40k in video game form would be great, and I'd pay a subscription to play.

With that being said, I'm sure it would hurt sales of regular 40k, and also that most gamers prefer a frantic RTS style game to a classic turn based game when it comes to video games, so I don't see it happening any time soon.

I'd love to play Vassal 40k if I could ever get it to work properly on my Mac.

**Ghidorah**

I work Monday nights, which is when my friends all go to my FLGS for 40k night. I don't get to go. If G-Dubb's would make a true-to-life port of 40k to PC, ala Blood Bowl from Cyanide, I would buy it in a HEARTBEAT. They could release the core game, army CDs, terrain packs, and so on. This would be flipping AMAZING. Especially so with today's technology. A 3-D, moveable, zoomable battlefiled?

Some terrain packs could actually come with special mechanics on the CD. They could release an "Army Painter" disc that you could customise your army sprites with. How about those ambiguous rules and contradictions that G-Dubbs is known for? Gone. The list goes on. This could be so ungodly kick-ass...

King Ghidorah

**WARBOSS TZOO**

nkelsch wrote:People don't want to play a board game... they want a RTS.

That explains the success of the Civ series.

No, really.

**Gearhead**

I personally don't want another RTS. I would love a straight translation from the tabletop to the PC. It's hard to say what effect it would have; some might abandon the table for the computer version, but I bet the PC version would bring more people to the tabletop as a gateway drug; it'd be cheaper and much more accessible. I got started in the entire hobby by playing Heavy Gear 2 on the PC; before then, I'd never even so much as glanced at miniature wargaming!

**thehod**

Supreme Commander 2 is fun.

Also Dawn of War you can play as well.

**Orock**

evolvingeye wrote:This is something I've wanted for quite a while, simply because most of my friends live completely across the country, so it would be amazing to be able to play 'real' 40k with them.

However, I don't see it ever happening, at least not any time soon. I think if it did happen it wouldn't be a subscription based model, but a "virtual models" set up, almost identical to Magic the Gathering Online. Pay the same price for the virtual model as the real one and have at it. I think something where when you buy the actual model and get the virtual one along with it would be awesome, even if the price was raised slightly.

As hard as it is for GW to keep the current game up to date in a timely manner, I don't see them trying this any time soon. Plus, I'm not really even sure how many players would be into it, a lot of the 40k experience for people is the actual hobby side, which you most likely wouldnt get with the virtual game, besides maybe an army painter function.

Anyway, just my thoughts!

see I disagree. Magic makes its money by having people constantly buy new cards, and purpously set an experation date on the current cards to be out of "standard rotation" to keep the buying going. If you bought all your models online, eventually your collection would be complete. Also for a newer player whats more attractive to jump into. An online game where you have to buy an army ranging for 100 dollars plus, or a simple 10 dollar a month fee that they can cut off anytime.

With a monthly fee they could do things like update rules constantly when new books and pdf s are released, make new fancy terrains, and even run tourneys/contests for say an entry fee. I really feel there sitting on a goldmine there afraid to tap, thinking it will wash out their platinum mine-which hasent exactly been going up up up! the last few years anyway.

**biccat**

What's the longest running computer game that's still making money? World of Warcraft probably. And it has only been around for 7 years. Look at the infrastructure that is set up around the game, it all takes a huge playerbase to sustain (12 million or so).

Warhammer 40k has been around since 1987 when Rogue Trader was released. People can still play GW with miniatures they purchased then. Would you still be playing a computer game made in 1987? Would you still pay $10 a month for it?

Computer games have a much shorter shelf life, and require a much larger playerbase to support the game.

Compared to all of the new computer games out there, 40k wouldn't stand a chance as a tabletop game (especially in a turn-by-turn format). There are a lot more companies that do video games better.

**Orock**

biccat wrote:What's the longest running computer game that's still making money? World of Warcraft probably. And it has only been around for 7 years. Look at the infrastructure that is set up around the game, it all takes a huge playerbase to sustain (12 million or so).

Warhammer 40k has been around since 1987 when Rogue Trader was released. People can still play GW with miniatures they purchased then. Would you still be playing a computer game made in 1987? Would you still pay $10 a month for it?

Computer games have a much shorter shelf life, and require a much larger playerbase to support the game.

Compared to all of the new computer games out there, 40k wouldn't stand a chance as a tabletop game (especially in a turn-by-turn format). There are a lot more companies that do video games better.

People want innovation and gameplay, take a look at games like minecraft. So much you can do. Graphics can be updated, as well as rules. People play chess online all the time, in fact thanks to the internet its more popular than ever. And while most mmos have wained, this is not an mmo. They could easily make there investment back, as its not nearly as involved as an mmo. If it tanks they pull the plug, no problems. Heck even ultima online and everquest still have players.

**nkelsch**

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
nkelsch wrote:People don't want to play a board game... they want a RTS.

That explains the success of the Civ series.

No, really.

Simulators are not board games. War hammer 40k is not a simulator.

There is a reason DoW exists.

**candy.man**

Personally I think such concept is possible. I remember a game on the PSP called D&D Tactics which describes the exact concept the original poster is talking about. In D&D Tactics, players are able to roll a party of characters and play a decent story campaign using D&D 3.5 mechanics. Personally, the game did a pretty good job of migrating D&D3.5 tabletop mechanics to a console format and the game was pretty fun. I think D&D 3.5 is a good example of how turn based tabletop game can be migrated to PC/console without altering tabletop mechanics to a pre-existing videogame format. Sure the game wasn’t widely popular but it was pretty cool for D&D 3.5 fans.

In regards to the point where such a videogame would cannibalise sales, this would not occur as the products are not competing directly with each other. A PC/console format of the game would at best offer a localised taste of 40k, most likely in the form of a small story based campaign consisting of skirmish level battles with the choice of races probably limited. The depth in terms of unit and mission choice as well as player competition being generally superior to AI simulations will always result in the tabletop game superseding a 40k tabletop sim. If anything, the existence of both products would only complement each other as players would be able to play 40k on the go when they are away from 40k tabletop gaming location. Sales of the game would entice model sales and vice versa.

Personally I love the idea of playing an adequate 40k skirmish campaign on my PSP.

Note: 40k Squad command on the hand held doesn’t count as a) it didn’t follow 40k rules and b) it sucked.

**evolvingeye**

@Orock True, without the constant Need to buy new pieces it would be a lot harder for them to make money.

**Corrode**

nkelsch wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
nkelsch wrote:People don't want to play a board game... they want a RTS.

That explains the success of the Civ series.

No, really.
Simulators are not board games. War hammer 40k is not a simulator.

There is a reason DoW exists.

By what definition is Civ a simulator?

**nkelsch**

Corrode wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
nkelsch wrote:People don't want to play a board game... they want a RTS.

That explains the success of the Civ series.

No, really.
Simulators are not board games. War hammer 40k is not a simulator.

There is a reason DoW exists.

By what definition is Civ a simulator?

Ok, turn-based strategy... Which many simulators are. 40k is a tabletop game and fails hard when boiled down to raw mechanics because it simply isn't a deep or well-designed game.

40k is barley playable as it is now. And video games expect some level of balance and fairness that 40k hasn't reached. In a video game it is easy enough to patch... Almost impossible for 40k unless they do living rule books.

This is another case of people expectIng gw to do Internet fantasies, usually at great financial loss to please Internet whiners.

DoW exists for a reason, because there was a market and a business model for it.

**MikeMcSomething**

I read nkelsch's post up there but all I got from it was "Making a game people would pay for would be a loss for GW because I wanted to type some posts wherein I look down my nose at wishlisters instead of really adding anything"

**augustus5**

biccat wrote:What's the longest running computer game that's still making money? World of Warcraft probably. And it has only been around for 7 years. Look at the infrastructure that is set up around the game, it all takes a huge playerbase to sustain (12 million or so).

Warhammer 40k has been around since 1987 when Rogue Trader was released. People can still play GW with miniatures they purchased then. Would you still be playing a computer game made in 1987? Would you still pay $10 a month for it?

Computer games have a much shorter shelf life, and require a much larger playerbase to support the game.

Compared to all of the new computer games out there, 40k wouldn't stand a chance as a tabletop game (especially in a turn-by-turn format). There are a lot more companies that do video games better.

Ultima Online has been around since 1997 and still has a strong subscriber player base. It's nowhere near the 12 million that pay for WoW, but it's a good example of a game surviving for many years with a devoted player base. Something that I think a 40k turn based computer game would emulate. The only problem though is that Ultima isn't competing with a physical board game version of itself. GW would have to contend with the possibility of losing some of their table-top players to their online game.

@nkelsch: Civilization is by no means a simulator. It's one of the finest examples of turn based strategy games around. It has been around since 1991 and has continually innovated itself and built upon it's fan base.

**nkelsch**

augustus5 wrote:

@nkelsch: Civilization is by no means a simulator. It's one of the finest examples of turn based strategy games around. It has been around since 1991 and has continually innovated itself and built upon it's fan base.

and 40k is an unbalanced tabletop game with loads of rules that can't work in a video game format, we have rules that can't even work in the tabletop game for which they were designed! The nature of ther codex rulebook model actually stifles balance and innovation because if they stuck to the rules they would have massive imbalance which would kill the game.

Games with poor balance or exploits in multiplayer die a horribly fast death.nothing kills Online multiplyer game faster. The only thing gw has going for it is their fluff and art design which sells fine as a RTS. There is no way a true port of the tabletop game could ever keep up or survive against well-designed games on the market.

There is no market, the business model is fueled on unicorn farts and leprechaun poop and there is a reason DoW exists.

**Dashofpepper**

VikingScott wrote:Vassal 40K.

And it was shut down by GW

Not quite. =p

GW sent a C&D letter, which forced the 40k Vassal team to operate outside of a place that enforces applicable IP law.

Vassal has had a thriving community for the last couple of years. Vassal40k.info will get you the 40k module and www.vassalengine.org will get you Vassal.

OP: Vassal 40k *IS* a computer version of the tabletop game. Play on it.

If you don't have one, I'd advise you to acquire a headset and download Skype - most Vassal players use Skype for voicechat during Vassal games.

**MikeMcSomething**

The newest Blood Bowl game is also a far better comparison to make for the tabletop to computer conversion than whatever DOW: We Made a 40K Game Because Balancing our WWII Game Was Too Hard edition is out right now

Really, how did the thread go more than 5 seconds without someone pointing out the blood bowl games?

**Orock**

candy.man wrote:Personally I think such concept is possible. I remember a game on the PSP called D&D Tactics which describes the exact concept the original poster is talking about. In D&D Tactics, players are able to roll a party of characters and play a decent story campaign using D&D 3.5 mechanics. Personally, the game did a pretty good job of migrating D&D3.5 tabletop mechanics to a console format and the game was pretty fun. I think D&D 3.5 is a good example of how turn based tabletop game can be migrated to PC/console without altering tabletop mechanics to a pre-existing videogame format. Sure the game wasn’t widely popular but it was pretty cool for D&D 3.5 fans.

In regards to the point where such a videogame would cannibalise sales, this would not occur as the products are not competing directly with each other. A PC/console format of the game would at best offer a localised taste of 40k, most likely in the form of a small story based campaign consisting of skirmish level battles with the choice of races probably limited. The depth in terms of unit and mission choice as well as player competition being generally superior to AI simulations will always result in the tabletop game superseding a 40k tabletop sim. If anything, the existence of both products would only complement each other as players would be able to play 40k on the go when they are away from 40k tabletop gaming location. Sales of the game would entice model sales and vice versa.

Personally I love the idea of playing an adequate 40k skirmish campaign on my PSP.

Note: 40k Squad command on the hand held doesn’t count as a) it didn’t follow 40k rules and b) it sucked.

I think you misunderstood my proposal. The monthly fee would be so you could play others, online, at warhammer 40k. A true tabletop port to the pc playable with others. And people, dawn of war is a RTS, that is in no way "good nuff"

**happydude**

Friends and I discussed this some time ago and the solution is this:

When you buy a box of whatever ( Lets say 16 Highelf Spearelves ) you get a code. That code in turn will grant access to 16 High elf spearmen in the game. Your virtual army is a clone of your true army except now you can play over the net and face a slew of people that would have required a plane ticket otherwise. They still make money on the models, people will still paint their models and glue em, and now you have an online service to play those you normally could not. This would draw in MANY newer players and they could charge a small fee to play per month or it is free if you are a Warhammer Online or 40k online player ( drawing those mmo'ers as well and vice versa ). All this = Profit for GW and would satisfy all involved. The enthusiasts get to paint, the gamers get to play and GW gets to profit from it all, just now it's online as well and would not affect anything outside of the game aside from gaining new friends over the web and perhaps providing meetups for said new friends. GW should call it Facetome... or Warbook... something like that. But yeah that is how it should be done. Also Tournaments could be held far more frequently and let us not forget the main reason for all this, avoiding those silly cheating neckbeard "that guy"'s who seem to linger around decent locations mainly.

**mwnciboo**

No i think this could be done in another manner. With a basis on basic AI (with a Human modifier for targeting etc).

1. It should be a simultaneous action game. In a similar vain to the UFO aftermath series (although less buggy) each turn lasts 2 mins whilst you plan your actions and then at the end o f 2mins both players turns play out simultaneously. (If you were slow to move your units, tough luck) This would keep the game pacy and dynamic as you react in true LOS not knowing where the enemy is in the fog of war etc.
2. XP would be gained and you would attain a LVL, and you can only fight people for competive games. The game would handicap in friendly games but no XP would be earned.
3. In Competitive mode you would give XP upgrades for your units based on LVL and therefore in COMP mode you could only play players withs +/- 10 levels to give a more even playing field.
4. Games would be 500pts to 2000pts (Skirmish to Full Battle).
5. There would be a massive 6 player APOCALYPSE mode where PT's could be taken upto 10,000pts per team.

**happydude**

mwnciboo wrote:No i think this could be done in another manner. With a basis on basic AI (with a Human modifier for targeting etc).

1. It should be a simultaneous action game. In a similar vain to the UFO aftermath series (although less buggy) each turn lasts 2 mins whilst you plan your actions and then at the end o f 2mins both players turns play out simultaneously. (If you were slow to move your units, tough luck) This would keep the game pacy and dynamic as you react in true LOS not knowing where the enemy is in the fog of war etc.
2. XP would be gained and you would attain a LVL, and you can only fight people for competive games. The game would handicap in friendly games but no XP would be earned.
3. In Competitive mode you would give XP upgrades for your units based on LVL and therefore in COMP mode you could only play players withs +/- 10 levels to give a more even playing field.
4. Games would be 500pts to 2000pts (Skirmish to Full Battle).
5. There would be a massive 6 player APOCALYPSE mode where PT's could be taken upto 10,000pts per team.

Yeah... no. People want a TRUE to tabletop game. We have all had enough of the "variants" of Warhammer and really this seems like a mix between Mark of Chaos and DoW II. Not saying it's a stupid idea ad I see it working as a decent game, it's just not what everyone has been craving all these years.

**ChocolateGork**

happydude wrote:Friends and I discussed this some time ago and the solution is this:

When you buy a box of whatever ( Lets say 16 Highelf Spearelves ) you get a code. That code in turn will grant access to 16 High elf spearmen in the game. Your virtual army is a clone of your true army except now you can play over the net and face a slew of people that would have required a plane ticket otherwise. They still make money on the models, people will still paint their models and glue em, and now you have an online service to play those you normally could not. This would draw in MANY newer players and they could charge a small fee to play per month or it is free if you are a Warhammer Online or 40k online player ( drawing those mmo'ers as well and vice versa ). All this = Profit for GW and would satisfy all involved. The enthusiasts get to paint, the gamers get to play and GW gets to profit from it all, just now it's online as well and would not affect anything outside of the game aside from gaining new friends over the web and perhaps providing meetups for said new friends. GW should call it Facetome... or Warbook... something like that. But yeah that is how it should be done.

Very interesting.....