I am curious to know if there was a perfect 1:1 version of whatever your favorite TT games are...would you still play the TT version? Some kind of top down 3d rotatable camera perspective, with mouse select to issue orders and such keeping everything turn based as it would play out on a table. There is quite a few advantages if this was actually something that could be played right now... and made by a talented team of developers who understand the game well.

- Can play online vs anyone in the world at whatever time suits you from the comfort of your home.
- No setup times or storage requirements needed for the TT game
- Cheaper than buying all the models and terrain and everything else...
-The game can enforce correct rulings and give good demonstration tutorials to beginners.
- If you are not into the painting and modelling aspect of the game and just enjoy the mechanics of the game and the world they are set in then the devs take care of all 'hassle' of that side of the game. Personally i love that aspect and often buy some models to paint from games i don't intend on even playing. E.g kingdom death
- Balance changes can be applied by the devs via downloadable patches to the game instead of a re-release of all the rules/stats in book form and lots of data could be collected/analyzed through online tournament play so they have a good idea of exactly what tweaks are needed.
- The models come to life with animations and sounds etc
- Mods that the community could produce to add to the game

I'm probably missing some other pro's but off the top of my head that list is pretty appealing to me.


I sometimes think to myself the reason why this hasnt been done already by games workshop and other company's, when the tech is clearly there to do so, is due to the fear it would destroy their TT sales? And perhaps it would eat into those profits some but IMO they would recoup those loses and then some if they did invest heavily into a digital representation of the game and this was available through a popular gaming service like steam.

This is all well and good for people who purely wargame for the actual gaming experience. And for those people, I suspect the answer to your question would be 'No' - they wouldn't play the TT version if there was a perfect digital recreation. But bear in mind there are just as many people, if not more, who wargame because they enjoy collecting, painting, modelling etc not to mention the sheer tactile experience of owning miniatures. You might as well ask why, if there are perfect digital books, people still buy physical printed media; the advent of digital books hasn't killed real books off - the two can co-exist in the same space as they appeal to difference groups. I suspect the same can be said for wargaming. Personally, I would love to see a modern and up to date recreation of Epic, a la Final Liberation, but owning and playing it would in no way make me stop wanting to play the 'real' thing.

I'd play it in the same way I play most video games; for entertainment and a challenge. But in no way would that stop me from playing the real game, as it could never replace the social experience of having a game and a laugh with good friends, it could never match the variety of armies/models/conversions/paintjobs, and I also think it would be all but impossible to play non-tournament style games. If people can expolit imbalance against real people with physical books, then they're certainly going to do so once it's all in code, and they don't have to have any remorse for annoying the opponent.

It would suffer from one huge flaw: in a game like 40k, you'd be stuck with the dev's interpretation of the rules.

Personally, I like the minis, and hate online video games, so it's a pass for me.

No. Primarily because I don't own a computer (posting from a shared laptop) and have no intention of buying one. No matter how fancy they can be computer games just don't interest or impress me nowadays.

Secondly because I enjouy making my models and painting them as much as playing the game not to mention I like being around my friends. The whole point of tabletop games IMO is being around your friends.

The thing to bear in mind is that there have been computerised representations of 'war' which involve strategy for pretty much as long as computer games have existed.

There must have been dozens of games about the war on mainland Europe during WW2. Has this stopped people playing tabletop games to represent the same thing? Absolutely not.

I don't think there is any difference regardless of the setting - be it science fiction or fantasy. As described ably above, the TT experience offers a lot of things that computer gaming can't: the tactile experience, the community, the art & creativity, the imagination.

I agree there is certainly some cross over - it's possible that computer gaming has stolen potential fans, but then that is true for every other pastime, be it hobby-related or not.

But, if anything I think we might start to see more and more crossover in the future - online campaign maps and living stories that develop as people play games, up-datable player bases, rule-writer feedback forums - there is massive potential there, it just needs a company with the will (and the financial and manpower resources) to try pull off one or more of those elements.

anab0lic wrote:
I am curious to know if there was a perfect 1:1 version of whatever your favorite TT games are...would you still play the TT version? Some kind of top down 3d rotatable camera perspective, with mouse select to issue orders and such keeping everything turn based as it would play out on a table. There is quite a few advantages if this was actually something that could be played right now... and made by a talented team of developers who understand the game well.

- Can play online vs anyone in the world at whatever time suits you from the comfort of your home.
- No setup times or storage requirements needed for the TT game
- Cheaper than buying all the models and terrain and everything else...
-The game can enforce correct rulings and give good demonstration tutorials to beginners.
- If you are not into the painting and modelling aspect of the game and just enjoy the mechanics of the game and the world they are set in then the devs take care of all 'hassle' of that side of the game. Personally i love that aspect and often buy some models to paint from games i don't intend on even playing. E.g kingdom death
- Balance changes can be applied by the devs via downloadable patches to the game instead of a re-release of all the rules/stats in book form and lots of data could be collected/analyzed through online tournament play so they have a good idea of exactly what tweaks are needed.
- The models come to life with animations and sounds etc
- Mods that the community could produce to add to the game

I'm sorry, I'm having difficulty interpreting what you're asking. Are you describing a basic computer game, or something more akin to Star Wars Holochess? Because if it's just a TT game that takes place on a computer, you're describing one of gajillions of computer games. If it's more holochess, then the setup and projector would have to be incredibly cheap before I'd look at it.

Yea, absolutely, 100%.

I do miniatures games because I like miniatures. I would probably play the video game too.

I have direct experience with this in the form of BloodBowl.

The Cyanide games are literally directly in line with the TT rules. Yet I still built several teams out of heavily converted models, built a giant, fully modeled stadium, made several portable roll out pitches, started a league, and printed up my own Mordheim Comets jersey.

I'd be yelling at the computer too much blaming the programming for the dice rolls

I'd probably play the digital version quite a bit, but I'd still play the tabletop game.

While I'm primarily in this for the gaming and have never bought a model I didn't intend to play a game with, I still like building and painting those models, I like playing games with people face to face, and there's something satisfying about physically moving models around and rolling dice.

40k: hell no. The models are the only thing that make the game even remotely worth playing. The rules suck, and if someone made a perfect video game clone of those rules I'd wonder why they wasted obscene amounts of money on making a terrible game instead of making a good game in the 40k IP. It would be like making a movie out of a self-published novel and praising the movie's accuracy because it includes every typo from the original book.

X-Wing. Probably not, based on experience. A pretty good copy of X-Wing already exists and I have no interest in playing it, so improving the graphics a bit probably won't change my mind.

I would not play the computer game to be entirely honest.

A computer game simulating 100% the tabletop experience fails dramatically to take into advantage the reason why you would make a computer game in the first place, adding on top of that cumbersome controls to give the fast intuitive feeling a human been has around a physical tabletop the game will be a disaster to play with.

This is by setting aside the collecting, customizing and creating "oddball" one off scenarios which would add even more problems to the program.

A computer game is to take advantage of the different medium to bring forward a more "live" interpretation of the world it describes, or to make difficult calculations fast, or both, a good example would indeed be 40k and Dawn of War, especially 2, where, in my opinion, the computer game conveys the "fluff" better than the actual tabletop, if the game (same graphics, same animations) was a 100% faithful representation of the tabletop game it would be a terrible game, instead it takes advantage of the medium it has (and its limitations) and creates a fluent game that is both entertaining and challenging.

Physical wargaming and digital are two different realms that can coexist as each brings into the table different things and occupy different niches, but one stepping into the territory of the other is usually disastrous for the attempt.

Yes, I game because I like miniatures and want something to play with them and enjoy the social aspect.

I already play computer games and they generally have a better game than a lot of miniatures games I've played. However they lack in the other aspects so there is room for both.

Most of us are in it for the miniatures(painting and converting) as much as the "playing aspect"... so No I would not stop playing the TT version.. Would I also play the digital computer game? Yes I would.. But there are many aspects of he TT game that the computer game could not do, The hobbiest side, the face to face interaction etc..

Living card games on the other hand I personaly think work as good in a digital format, and we have seen that market grow alot the last few years... Playing the same cards(that you cant change) on a computer screen or in IRL makes little diffrence to most people I think...

Yeah it would be perfect for me if this was the case because I could still paint and play with miniatures but also arrange and learn games online.

I'd definitely still play the TT. Painting and modelling aside, I think Space Hulk is a perfect example of this. The most recent computer release is pretty much an exact digital copy of the real thing, but I'd still much rather sit and play with friends than sit in front of a computer screen.

My computer would never be good enough to play the software you describe.

I would still play on TT ... it is more about getting together with friends and talking smack than it is about the game.

Computer games are awesome, but they cannot replace the social aspect, and it's hard to add your own conversions and home armies/rules to a computer game.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Computer games are awesome, but they cannot replace the social aspect

This.

Gaming for us is less about the actual game and more about getting together with people we don't see often enough to do something fun and shoot the gak for a few hours.

While gaming has headsets and the ability to speak to each other, it's really not the same thing.

If the thing also allowed solo play (so you could scale challenge, army lists, scenarios, etc.) then my minis might wind up on the Dakka Swap Shop.

Anyone who's ever played Brand X games, worked super long hours/other busy schedules or tried to get games in an insular playing community, being able to get a game in playing what you want, when you want becomes really valuable.

privateer4hire wrote:
Anyone who's ever played Brand X games, worked super long hours/other busy schedules or tried to get games in an insular playing community, being able to get a game in playing what you want, when you want becomes really valuable.

The error here is assuming that everyone that meets those criteria is exactly like you.

I have a busy schedule, work long hours, and my gaming group takes forever to get in the mood to try a new game. Yet I wouldn't trade physically playing a tabletop game for a computer game at all, for the above mentioned reason - social interaction.

Not everyone is in this hobby for the simple act of playing a game. The hobby has broader appeal than that for a lot of people.

Not an error. I agree that the hobby has broader appeal than playing a game to a lot of people.

I said being able to do that (play what/when you wanted) would be valuable to people in those situations.

Didn't say everybody would quit playing their tt versions but that I personally would be tempted to sell off my stuff if such an option were available.

 Jimsolo wrote:
It would suffer from one huge flaw: in a game like 40k, you'd be stuck with the dev's interpretation of the rules.

On the upside we'd actually learn what the dev's interpretation would be

But I tend to think most TT wargames make pretty bad games when viewed in isolation. What makes them fun is assembling an army and playing them with other people in the flesh more than the games themselves.

Just look at Space Hulk, the video game was a perfect recreation of the table top game, but the video game is pretty awful and the table top game is fun.

privateer4hire wrote:
Not an error. I agree that the hobby has broader appeal than playing a game to a lot of people.

I said being able to do that (play what/when you wanted) would be valuable to people in those situations.

Your error was attributing it to anybody in that situation. Again, not true at all and completely subjective.

 -Loki- wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:
Not an error. I agree that the hobby has broader appeal than playing a game to a lot of people.

I said being able to do that (play what/when you wanted) would be valuable to people in those situations.

Your error was attributing it to anybody in that situation. Again, not true at all and completely subjective.

I would think anyone in that situation could see the value of being able to get a game of what you want when you want... doesn't mean anyone would prefer to play a video game to a TT game, but I would think anyone could see the value in it.

Either way I think we're wasting vastly too much reading too deeply in to a sentence that probably only had minimum consideration when it was written

Fair enough.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:
Not an error. I agree that the hobby has broader appeal than playing a game to a lot of people.

I said being able to do that (play what/when you wanted) would be valuable to people in those situations.

Your error was attributing it to anybody in that situation. Again, not true at all and completely subjective.

I would think anyone in that situation could see the value of being able to get a game of what you want when you want...

Again, no. For the same reason I don't play pick up games with random people at the store. I play with my group, because they're all people I know well. Family, and friends I've known for nearly 20 years. The value of the game comes from spending time with those people. Getting a game at 8pm on a worknight with some random person halfway across the world who I don't know and my only form of communication is a headset? I'll save that for Counter Strike where I can put a virtual bullet between their eyes and I don't need conversation.

I would play both. It's why I play and enjoy games like X-Com. I don't see it happening any time soon, though.

 -Loki- wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:
Not an error. I agree that the hobby has broader appeal than playing a game to a lot of people.

I said being able to do that (play what/when you wanted) would be valuable to people in those situations.

Your error was attributing it to anybody in that situation. Again, not true at all and completely subjective.

I would think anyone in that situation could see the value of being able to get a game of what you want when you want...

Again, no. For the same reason I don't play pick up games with random people at the store. I play with my group, because they're all people I know well. Family, and friends I've known for nearly 20 years. The value of the game comes from spending time with those people. Getting a game at 8pm on a worknight with some random person halfway across the world who I don't know and my only form of communication is a headset? I'll save that for Counter Strike where I can put a virtual bullet between their eyes and I don't need conversation.

Wait so you can't see the value in something while not necessarily it being your thing personally? Sounds a bit short sighted to me. I can see the value in a lot of things I myself am not necessarily interested in or care about

And to quote what I said earlier...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Either way I think we're wasting vastly too much reading too deeply in to a sentence that probably only had minimum consideration when it was written

I don't think a computer game would give the same kind of emotional connection that you have with an army and terrain set up you chose and built yourself. There is also the satisfaction of using your craft skills and so on.

As well as that, there are no bragging rights in buying a computer game.

I'm not against computer games. I just think it is a different kind of experience.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:
Not an error. I agree that the hobby has broader appeal than playing a game to a lot of people.

I said being able to do that (play what/when you wanted) would be valuable to people in those situations.

Your error was attributing it to anybody in that situation. Again, not true at all and completely subjective.

I would think anyone in that situation could see the value of being able to get a game of what you want when you want...

Again, no. For the same reason I don't play pick up games with random people at the store. I play with my group, because they're all people I know well. Family, and friends I've known for nearly 20 years. The value of the game comes from spending time with those people. Getting a game at 8pm on a worknight with some random person halfway across the world who I don't know and my only form of communication is a headset? I'll save that for Counter Strike where I can put a virtual bullet between their eyes and I don't need conversation.

Wait so you can't see the value in something while not necessarily it being your thing personally? Sounds a bit short sighted to me. I can see the value in a lot of things I myself am not necessarily interested in or care about

And to quote what I said earlier...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Either way I think we're wasting vastly too much reading too deeply in to a sentence that probably only had minimum consideration when it was written

Poor thought out doesn't mean it wasn't posted. I can see the value but I don't myself see it as a worthwhile alternative, but it's not for everyone even if they're busy people, which was inferred by statement that anyone who is busy would find it valuable.

I would still countinue playing TT. IMO there is nothing like the reward you get when you finish an army or a long time goal, sitting back and seeing how your painting skills have improved. Not only finishing an army, also watching it build up ever so slightly every time you finish a model. Not to mention the whole social side of TT, meeting up with your friends and battling it out while having a laugh (and the odd rule related argument...).
Would a computer game give me all of this? No.

 -Loki- wrote:
Poor thought out doesn't mean it wasn't posted. I can see the value but I don't myself see it as a worthwhile alternative, but it's not for everyone even if they're busy people, which was inferred by statement that anyone who is busy would find it valuable.

The statement implies, you are the one who infers Maybe we should spend less time inferring things that aren't actually written. He said anyone who is busy would find it valuable to be able to play when they wanted, not anyone who is busy would find it more valuable to play a video game than play a TT game which is what you seem to have inferred.

Being able to play whenever you want is valuable to people who are busy. I think that's a pretty true statement. Do you disagree? It doesn't have to mean it's more valuable than other things you might value in TT gaming.

More than anything I think it's stupid to waste so much time picking apart a simple statement with what we might infer from it.

 RivenSkull wrote:
I'd be yelling at the computer too much blaming the programming for the dice rolls

Of course, for anyone who has played the computerised version of Blood Bowl, they would have plenty of reason to do that!

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The statement implies, you are the one who infers Maybe we should spend less time inferring things that aren't actually written. He said anyone who is busy would find it valuable to be able to play when they wanted, not anyone who is busy would find it more valuable to play a video game than play a TT game which is what you seem to have inferred.

I never inferred that he meant it would be more valuable to everyone, just that everyone who is busy would find it valuable. I can easily see the value that it would offer, but it simply doesn't offer it to me. I have a whole group that would disagree with it due to the social limitations of playing a video game, even online, versus playing it on a table with your opponent right in front of you.

Which is what I was arguing - his broad statement that anyone who is busy would find value in it. It's not true. You are the one that jumped on stating I said something that I didn't.

Let's just agree to disagree because this conversation is so incredibly pointless and I have no desire to pick apart this discussion any further.

I don't agree to that.

I was actually being sarcastic there.

 filbert wrote:
You might as well ask why, if there are perfect digital books, people still buy physical printed media; the advent of digital books hasn't killed real books off - the two can co-exist in the same space as they appeal to difference groups.

People do ask that question, though. And when you try to explain why you prefer printed media over digital they just dismiss you entirely as some kind of backwards caveman who simply refuses to "get with the times".

So, I suppose the same could be said then for people who prefer miniature tabletop gaming instead of digital. It's possible to recreate 1:1 the exact experience of playing a tabletop game in a digital format, probably even better as the rules could be more strictly enforced by the devs, and you get added cinematic effects like actual gunfire, music, atmospheric sounds or terrain, etc. It's easier to find opponents as you can be matched up with anyone in the world at any time, it's far, far cheaper, requires much less time and storage space, eliminates a lot of the problems of tabletop gaming (like unpainted models, cheating, unpleasant opponents could simply be muted and blocked and you wouldn't have awkward situations sparking countless threads about "How do I deal with Ass McDouche at my local store?", etc.), timely updates, better tournament/competitive scene and an environment that would allow both competitive and "casual" types to co-exist...

People who cling to tabletop gaming and insist that it's somehow superior to electronic gaming because you have a physical product in your hands, or because of the "artistry" or the outdated concept of "socializing" (which was already replaced years ago by Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, YouTube, etc.), just need to wake up and get with the times. Stop living in denial and accept the clearly superior format already, because you're holding the rest of us back.



In all seriousness though, the tabletop game couldn't ever really be "replaced" by a computer game. There are obviously things you get from one that you can't get from the other (like building and painting models). I don't think the existence of a computer game would really be a bad thing though, might even help GW make a little bit of royalty money from people who are interested in the game and universe but can't afford their insane prices for the actual models, or lack the skill, time, or interest in learning how to model and paint anyway.

 Jimsolo wrote:
It would suffer from one huge flaw: in a game like 40k, you'd be stuck with the dev's interpretation of the rules.

Better than having to have the same argument with everyone you meet about how the game is "supposed" to work or what GW "intended", and either being forced to accept someone else's interpretation anyway by losing a dice roll or just not being able to play the game period.

That's exactly what 40k needs, honestly; someone to take charge and exert a little bit of authority over the rule set, and force everyone to play by the same rules. No more "On a 4+ I get to cheat.", or "Where I come from we played it like this...", or "But that makes no sense, it should work like this instead!", etc.

I could play MtG online if I wanted, I'm told it's very close to the real thing in terms of game play, but I like sitting down in person to do so and physically owning the cards. Similarly, I prefer playing miniature games with miniatures because of the flexibility. We can decide how certain things should be done on the spot, use house rules, etc. I doubt any computer game would be that flexible, also it would just be on a screen like every other computer game. Unless you only enjoy playing the game itself, you are missing the appeal of painting miniatures and playing them on a table.

Yes.

I think that the people drawn to these games play these games BECAUSE of the social and physical aspects of the game. Even if a player doesn't paint much (or at all), there is still something about being at the table that gets people interested... people don't play 40k because it has awesome rules, so a VG would defeat the purpose.

 Pacific wrote:

 RivenSkull wrote:
I'd be yelling at the computer too much blaming the programming for the dice rolls

Of course, for anyone who has played the computerised version of Blood Bowl, they would have plenty of reason to do that!

Yea, I don't think the dice roller in those games is actually random. If the code says it is, mine must have some kind of gremlin.

How would you be able to make a 1:1 experience with a tabletop game without allowing for actual customization?

As far as Space Hulk is concerned, I'd be more inclined, if I had a mate round, to play the tabletop version (despite it being almost entirely unpainted), than for both of us to get our computers together and play Space Hulk there.

It's weird, but, even though it rationally takes longer to set up a tabletop game, I'd get the feeling of, "well, if we're going to the effort to set up a pc game of Space Hulk, we might as well just play Sins of a Solar Empire or Company of Heroes instead."

Whereas, getting the tabletop game up wouldn't have longer than a thought or two about the time.

I imagine that it'd be a case of, you'd be more inclined to play online, if you're separate by any real distance, however if a mate is over at your house anyway, you'd might as well be inclined to play the tabletop game

The issue is the lack of social experience. Sure you could be in vent talking or typing in chat but that is a much different experience then being in the local game store, hanging out at a friends house playing or playing at a club. A lot of miniatures games don't have simultaneous moves, which means I'd be bored out of my mind waiting for my opponent to make their moves. It isn't longer than a normal person makes a move, but because you aren't there socializing in person it feels a lot longer. I've dealt with this back when I played Magic and World of Warcraft TCG, there were online versions which were great to practice deck builds but the games were so boring. Sometimes you would get that opponent that would take 5-10 minutes to make a 1 minute move, when they only have one card in their hand (there are so many options a person can do). Let alone trying to run a tournament online is such a pain.

I understand there are gamers who don't like to paint but the gaming category is pretty broad. There are a lot of gamers who like to paint, collect and kitbash. Yes the miniatures can be expensive but honestly if you aren't playing competitively, you are just playing to have fun (which is what it sounds like when you talk about digial games) then you don't have to buy every miniature or every latest version.

I'd play both,

probably eating into my 'wasting times on forums' time to do so

the computer game could not provide a way to satisfy my modeling/converting/painting urges,

and is far less likely to provide decent social interaction

on the other hand it would probably let me do loads more actual gaming, as opposed to thinking about and planning to game that seems to be my mainstay now

I suppose the closest I've come to this is when Rome Total War came out about 10 years ago. I played the hell out of it and yet I still played tabletop miniature games, because as much as I loved the game it didn't scratch the itch of playing with a real life person in the same room.

 LuciusAR wrote:
I suppose the closest I've come to this is when Rome Total War came out about 10 years ago. I played the hell out of it and yet I still played tabletop miniature games, because as much as I loved the game it didn't scratch the itch of playing with a real life person in the same room.

This for me, but it was Shogun: Total War.

I love miniatures.

-

If there was a perfect 1:1 version of Necromunda, I'd play that. That's about it.

Granted, Blood Bowl is pretty much a 1:1 translation of the tabletop game, frustrations and all.

When I was playing XCOM, all I could think about was how perfectly it could replicate Necromunda. Plus, I'd get to play it on my ipad while pooping, double bonus!

 Ozymandias wrote:
When I was playing XCOM, all I could think about was how perfectly it could replicate Necromunda. Plus, I'd get to play it on my ipad while pooping, double bonus!

We could totally play Necromunda in your bathroom if you're interested...

No question, for me it's a YES.

-A computer game will never give the same interpersonal experience as a tabletop wargame enjoyed in-person with friends, which is one of the main reasons I wargame.

-A Computer game offers me no chance to engage in terrain building, which is tied with the above for my favorite part of the hobby.

-A computer game gives me no chance to collect and paint miniatures, my other close-third favorite part of the hobby.

Even the perfect computer game version would still only elicit a medium amount of interest because nothing that the computer game offers me are the reasons I became engaged in TT wargaming. It's alot like my brief foray into RPG's in middle school. They were interesting, but in the end, I was left thinking "Where are the fun toys?"

The only way I'd even be considerably excited about a TT-copy computer game would be if for some reason I was forced to move away from my gaming friends and the game allowed me to keep some contact with them. However, it wouldn't have to be a TT-copy game for that to happen anyway.

Well... happily played Dawn of War and the ipad version of Space Hulk and Warhammer Quest, but if anything this just increases my interest in getting the models.

As others have said, modelling and painting is the big draw that computer games can't compete with (assuming of course that you're into modelling and painting which a LOT of people aren't).

 Ozymandias wrote:
When I was playing XCOM, all I could think about was how perfectly it could replicate Necromunda.

I'm sure a lot of us thought that as well. Increase the squad-size to, say, 12, change base-management to territory management, and add in multiple Gang types (with unique skill trees + generic skills), and you'd have an amazing game.

Obviously you wouldn't need to shoot down UFO's. That might be a bit strange in the context of Necromunda.

Would I still play the TT?

Yes. I'm not a videogamer.

I don't play videogames. I play TT because of the 3d models - the assembly and hands-on part of it is the greater part for me.

I find videogames tedious for the most part.

I would play a 100% perfect digital version of KD:M.
To try tactics, mess with Settlement ideas, etc
Any game/app that could be played, updated and saved on the go, without the hassle of set-up and the ability to just go on a really random tangent and save on the fly would be amazing (child + dog + cat = no permanently safe table top area in my house).

But, that would be a disservice to the sculptors, concept artists and the game designer(s) that created the beautiful miniatures.
The corporeal, physical, mini-in-hand feeling cannot be replaced by a video game.
There's something lacking in our current technology-addicted societies--so many screens fighting for time with our eyes--and there's a complete appeal for me to get further from the back-lit screens.
Handling the minis when you're moving them, watching them die, pulling them from the board, etc. You can't replicate that with a video game.

You can emulate it. You can "copy" it. But you can't recreate that experience.


Yes, I'd play a video game version of TT's -- Just to try out random stuff on the fly! It would be a welcome tool to teach others, play away from home, game with others the world over, etc...
But breaking out the minis would be necessary. Playing on the tabletop, rolling the dice, moving the models… It's vital to the experience, IMHO.

Yeah, the miniatures are what make miniatures games different to other types of games. So until the days of solid holograms arrive, there is never going to be a 'perfect 1:1' version of any miniatures game on a computer.

There are various popular boardgames such as Settlers of Catan that have been issued as digital versions that work really nicely on tablets and so on. These are nearly as close as you can get to the hypothetical 1:1 digital wargame, because those kind of boardgames use mostly flat maps, counters and cards, not painted 3D models and terrain.

The effect of the digital versions has been to lift sales of the original games, because people get interested by playing the digital version, and then realise they can have a better social experience playing around a table with friends instead of over a network.

There is also a dimension of collecting and owning a shelf of nice games rather than an invisible string of 1s and 0s.

 malfred wrote:

 Ozymandias wrote:
When I was playing XCOM, all I could think about was how perfectly it could replicate Necromunda. Plus, I'd get to play it on my ipad while pooping, double bonus!

We could totally play Necromunda in your bathroom if you're interested...

Don't tease me malf!

 Ozymandias wrote:

 malfred wrote:

 Ozymandias wrote:
When I was playing XCOM, all I could think about was how perfectly it could replicate Necromunda. Plus, I'd get to play it on my ipad while pooping, double bonus!

We could totally play Necromunda in your bathroom if you're interested...

Don't tease me malf!

Who's teasing? The only issue is you live so far away...

I would support the computer game over the table top. With the way GW changes editions and codex often destroying armies people built by making their units over costed in order to sell new models that are powerful and under costed.

I hate the table top, I hate most of the people who play, I hate the judges, I hate the army I wasted my money on. I hate the cheese armies I had to fight. Above all, I hate GW. The only people I hate more are the douche bags who try to low ball me when I sell my army to quit this very un-balanced game. Offer me $20 for a $100 lot that I already discounted to 60% from retail. You cant even shoot flamers at invisible units! You can charge through walls! You can do all sorts of shenanigans that make absolutely no sense. On top of that is the whole, modeling for an advantage. The models are so poorly designed that people have to modify it to make it work and the rules are so poorly written that the model limitations are absurd.

I think I would, I fething love strategy games and DOW and the like, so I suspect, as much as I love minis and playing the regular game, that if there was an awesome digital version with great graphics and sound, and the ability to make a superb table with loads of great terrain, then I would indeed wind up playing it almost exclusively.

Esepcially if you could play with mates online, the ease of it would make it probably far more preferable than gearing up and fething off to a friends to play.

Sad, but true I reckon.

Chess has had more attention from computer programmers over the years than any other board game (perhaps more than all the others combined). If perfect emulation were possible then I think we would see it with chess first.

I play chess often online and on my phone, it is very convenient, but for me games are social: they are a way to spend time with people and have fun. I would rather play one real game with a friend on a proper wooden board than play a hundred computer games over the internet. There is something nice about being with a person and the atmosphere of the wooden pieces.

However, there are some games that work better on computer. I never really understood how anyone has the patience to play Reversi on a real board (too much flipping). I also recently played monopoly against a friend on her iPad and was surprised to find that the game only takes about 30 mins when you have a computer to do all the moving and banking for you. But I still enjoy the ceremony of getting the board out and playing properly.

In conclusion I would say that no matter how good computer games got, I would likely still play the real versions as much as possible, and play the computer versions too. I'd be more tempted, perhaps, by some kind of hybrid game that has real pieces, but is played on an interactive board using digital cards and markers. Shuffling cards, cocked dice, and packing away are all things I could happily live without. It would be fantastic to have a some kind of interactive table that could generate Space Hulk maps for you, or display blast templates and ranges for 40k.

Wh40k is not an easy game to set up like a game of chess. You need 6x2 feet of gaming space. You need terrain pieces like trees and ruins.You need armies. The amount of time needed to move units in coheshion is time consuming. The amount of time for d!psh!t players who like to roll each dice 1 at a time on a huge dice so they can manipulate it is like watching paint dry. If wh40k was translated into a digital pc turn based game then expensive scenry and models are eliminated and so will the need to release new over powered units to sell and nerf existing one. Also also moving large mobs will be easier as the pc keeps them 2" coheshion. There would be no los issues as fireing angles can be computed and checked like xcom. The need to manipulate and roll many dice will be crunched and computed faster than a pc Risk game.

To hell with the table top wh40k. 4 gw stores closed down around me leaving the nearest one 2 hours away. Forget the social aspect when you try to play local tournaments where the judges rule in favor of the locals.

I much prefer computer games, but I would still need resin and plastic crack and get the urge to make models.

Absolutely. The face to face human interaction is always preferable. The banter and camaraderie of friends and family.
Also a computer AI can always be beat once you know what the AI does. Human imagination and creativity can lead to some wonderful surprises and lesson.

 Filch wrote:
Wh40k is not an easy game to set up like a game of chess.

The thread to my understanding was generic and the original poster was theorizing in no game in particular, why are you centering everything on 40k, this game or GW are not everything there is.

Now boardgames are as said before more easily adaptable to a digital form, mostly because they do not involve the intricacies of wargames having a 3rd dimension been a particularly intriguing part of many especially modern sci fi wargames, I still feel a simulation of the real wargame would be too cumbersome to be worth it, but an adaption to a game would work, but would neither be a simulation nor the same game.

 Filch wrote:
I would support the computer game over the table top. With the way GW changes editions and codex often destroying armies people built by making their units over costed in order to sell new models that are powerful and under costed.

I hate the table top, I hate most of the people who play, I hate the judges, I hate the army I wasted my money on. I hate the cheese armies I had to fight. Above all, I hate GW. The only people I hate more are the douche bags who try to low ball me when I sell my army to quit this very un-balanced game. Offer me $20 for a $100 lot that I already discounted to 60% from retail. You cant even shoot flamers at invisible units! You can charge through walls! You can do all sorts of shenanigans that make absolutely no sense. On top of that is the whole, modeling for an advantage. The models are so poorly designed that people have to modify it to make it work and the rules are so poorly written that the model limitations are absurd.

These are all valid arguments against 40k, but why would you support a PC version of the game that will have all of the same things you hate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Now boardgames are as said before more easily adaptable to a digital form, mostly because they do not involve the intricacies of wargames having a 3rd dimension been a particularly intriguing part of many especially modern sci fi wargames, I still feel a simulation of the real wargame would be too cumbersome to be worth it, but an adaption to a game would work, but would neither be a simulation nor the same game.

I don't think the 3d aspect is really a problem, plenty of video games manage to do 3d worlds without any problems. The real adaptation issue is that a big part of miniatures games is getting to see the actual miniatures and terrain. On the other hand a board game is just a bunch of plastic/cardboard tokens, so you don't really lose anything when you convert that into digital tokens.

Its not an issue of creating a 3D world, but implementing the game mechanics in the world, particularly in the 1:1 translation of a wargame system to a digital game as the thread is about, the game mechanics are based on physically examining the interactions than having a program checking it, it is more chaotic and I would assume to program heavy to implement such interactions, likewise the volume checking and collision detection would be intriguing to see.

 Filch wrote:
Wh40k is not an easy game to set up like a game of chess. You need 6x2 feet of gaming space. You need terrain pieces like trees and ruins.You need... [etc]

The hardest part of setting up any game is finding an opponent. With people working/studying during the week, and wanting to go out at the weekends, it can sometimes take weeks for me to organize a gaming night (and even then none my friends like chess). If I want to play real chess OTB, I need to take a bus to a chess club, which only runs one night a week. The few mins difference in setup time between games is completely negligible compared to the days/weeks it can take to organize an opponent. Therefore, I have no choice but to play most of my chess games digitally over the internet. The fact that chess is an easy game to set up, doesn't even enter into it.

The OP's question was: would you still play the TT?, and my answers is: Yes! not only would I, but I already do. Even though I can play perfectly good games of chess without even getting out of bed -- I still sometimes brave the cold, catch a bus across town, and pay club fees, to have real games against real people.

The advent of digital chess hasn't reduced the number of real games I play. Rather, it has allowed me to play chess at times when I wouldn't otherwise be able to (such as 3:am). I still play real chess as much as I can (which isn't enough). If there were a digital version of a game like 40k, I imagine I would play that a lot too, and it would be great being able to find opponents and have a game on a whim. But I don't think it would reduce the number of real games I play, I'd still be up for a real game whenever I can arrange one, I might even be encouraged to seek out more real games.

Aside from maybe something to play on a laptop during travel time, I wouldn't play the computer game at all. I play miniature wargames because I like modeling, painting and playing a physical game. If I wanted to play a computer game then I would do just that. You cannot recreate the tabletop experience on a computer.

PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Filch wrote:
Wh40k is not an easy game to set up like a game of chess.

The thread to my understanding was generic and the original poster was theorizing in no game in particular, why are you centering everything on 40k, this game or GW are not everything there is.

Now boardgames are as said before more easily adaptable to a digital form, mostly because they do not involve the intricacies of wargames having a 3rd dimension been a particularly intriguing part of many especially modern sci fi wargames, I still feel a simulation of the real wargame would be too cumbersome to be worth it, but an adaption to a game would work, but would neither be a simulation nor the same game.

You are right I misunderstood what the op and this thread was about. This should have been a poll question in my opinion. Of course a majority of people would prefer real life social interaction because humans are social creatures. But many people have stated that they would play both the digital and the table top but prefer the table top. You get a few who swear off the PC. So this should have been a poll question not so much a discussion.

Peregrine wrote:

 Filch wrote:
I would support the computer game over the table top. With the way GW changes editions and codex often destroying armies people built by making their units over costed in order to sell new models that are powerful and under costed.

I hate the table top, I hate most of the people who play, I hate the judges, I hate the army I wasted my money on. I hate the cheese armies I had to fight. Above all, I hate GW. The only people I hate more are the douche bags who try to low ball me when I sell my army to quit this very un-balanced game. Offer me $20 for a $100 lot that I already discounted to 60% from retail. You cant even shoot flamers at invisible units! You can charge through walls! You can do all sorts of shenanigans that make absolutely no sense. On top of that is the whole, modeling for an advantage. The models are so poorly designed that people have to modify it to make it work and the rules are so poorly written that the model limitations are absurd.

These are all valid arguments against 40k, but why would you support a PC version of the game that will have all of the same things you hate?

Because I first started off playing Dawn of War on the pc. I really like the atmosphere, mythos, art style, VOICE ACTING, nearly everything about wh40k. I was excited to find out that college students like me meet up to play with toy soldiers at an establishment. I made friends with many other young adults like me but I started to realize there where menacing boy hungry pedophiles and other unpleasant people I did not want to associate with. I invested heavily into the hobby trying to support the store stay afloat. It closed down shortly within half a year. I tried to keep in touch with the players i met but we just drifted apart. I tried to go to another GW work shop nearby. This time I keep people distant and for good reason, the shop closed down with in months. I made minimal purchases. Once again I had to drive further out to another GW and meet even more random people. Same thing happens, but I made only a few small purchases. The next closest GW is at a mall with only 1 table. I really tried to meet players there and play games a their place but I was just not that comfortable, it was like meeting crack heads in a dark ally for a quick hit of warp dust. The nearest GW is nearly 2 hours drive away and its just not worth the effort for a 4 hour trip to play a 1-2 hour game.

At first I was oblivious to the short coming of GW publishing rules and the whole power creep thing, and imbalances. After they released a few armies and 1 edition later it became fully clear that GW is in the business to sell plastic toy models for exorbitant prices by re-writing their existing units in the codex to suck or be over priced in order to replace it with a new model that does the same job but better or cheaper but the cycle will continue as those new units would be replaced again in the next iteration. FineCast? more like CrapCast! I have seen the Chinese make better quality knock offs even cheaper!

The rules that GW publish are so poorly written that they need to have another company called Forge World step in and publish better rules often over powered and under costed for slightly better looking models at even higher prices! So that means I need to buy Forge World books and models to have a fighting chance.

Then they released flyers and Imperial Knights and I am done with this game.

Also, GW only stays afloat because they sue their competition. There are other better table top games with great minis and better written rules I have yet to play. The amount of resource to fight these legal battles could have been spent on better writers to publish better rules and balance the game better.

Smacks wrote:

 Filch wrote:
Wh40k is not an easy game to set up like a game of chess. You need 6x2 feet of gaming space. You need terrain pieces like trees and ruins.You need... [etc]

The hardest part of setting up any game is finding an opponent. With people working/studying during the week, and wanting to go out at the weekends, it can sometimes take weeks for me to organize a gaming night (and even then none my friends like chess). If I want to play real chess OTB, I need to take a bus to a chess club, which only runs one night a week. The few mins difference in setup time between games is completely negligible compared to the days/weeks it can take to organize an opponent. Therefore, I have no choice but to play most of my chess games digitally over the internet. The fact that chess is an easy game to set up, doesn't even enter into it.

The OP's question was: would you still play the TT?, and my answers is: Yes! not only would I, but I already do. Even though I can play perfectly good games of chess without even getting out of bed -- I still sometimes brave the cold, catch a bus across town, and pay club fees, to have real games against real people.

The advent of digital chess hasn't reduced the number of real games I play. Rather, it has allowed me to play chess at times when I wouldn't otherwise be able to (such as 3:am). I still play real chess as much as I can (which isn't enough). If there were a digital version of a game like 40k, I imagine I would play that a lot too, and it would be great being able to find opponents and have a game on a whim. But I don't think it would reduce the number of real games I play, I'd still be up for a real game whenever I can arrange one, I might even be encouraged to seek out more real games.

You say you would prefer the real life experience. Let me ask you, would you like to drive nearly 2 hours away to the GW and then take the time set up and carefully bring out your models and then you see on the other side of the table, 6 to 9 wave serpents or night scythes or riptides or even 3 imperial knights or 5 daemon prince, or what ever shenanigans you know that you will get tabled when even when he sets up one unit and deepstrike the remaining 6 drop pods turn 2. Oh that was a fun hour or 30 minutes. Now the 2 hours to drive back. You might be lucky and the nearest GW or Local Friendly Gaming Store or friends house is less than an hour or half away. It is not for me.

Now lets compare that to facing a Chess Master at that place you take a bus to who wins tournaments. You can ask him to go easy the first game, but you came there for a challenge right? If you win or lose the first game at least you have time to play several games. You can play several timed games at 5-10 minute per game in the time it takes to even set up a game of wh40k and the first or second turn.

You say you would prefer the real life experience. Let me ask you, would you like to drive nearly 2 hours away to the GW and then take the time set up and carefully bring out your models and then you see on the other side of the table, 6 to 9 wave serpents or night scythes or riptides or even 3 imperial knights or 5 daemon prince, or what ever shenanigans you know that you will get tabled when even when he sets up one unit and deepstrike the remaining 6 drop pods turn 2. Oh that was a fun hour or 30 minutes. Now the 2 hours to drive back. You might be lucky and the nearest GW or Local Friendly Gaming Store or friends house is less than an hour or half away. It is not for me.

I get your point of travelling, I too live about the same distance to my local GW but luckily I know people nearby who play and there is a club only 20 minutes from me. In your situation a computer game would be great.

 Filch wrote:
You say you would prefer the real life experience. Let me ask you, would you like to drive nearly 2 hours away to the GW and then take the time set up and carefully bring out your models and then you see on the other side of the table, 6 to 9 wave serpents or night scythes or riptides or even 3 imperial knights or 5 daemon prince, or what ever shenanigans you know that you will get tabled when even when he sets up one unit and deepstrike the remaining 6 drop pods turn 2. Oh that was a fun hour or 30 minutes. Now the 2 hours to drive back. You might be lucky and the nearest GW or Local Friendly Gaming Store or friends house is less than an hour or half away. It is not for me.

Now lets compare that to facing a Chess Master at that place you take a bus to who wins tournaments. You can ask him to go easy the first game, but you came there for a challenge right? If you win or lose the first game at least you have time to play several games. You can play several timed games at 5-10 minute per game in the time it takes to even set up a game of wh40k and the first or second turn.

Well it sounds like you just don't want to play 40k full stop. But I don't see what else you are getting at with this? 40k doesn't take that much longer to set up than other games. I have a whole bunch of games (dungeon crawlers) that take far longer. Try setting up a game of Mansions of madness (~45 mins) while everyone else in the room slowly regrets ever agreeing to play one of your games. See if that doesn't make you feel like a jack-ass.

The fact is, all games can be inconvenient to play, even chess. But if you are already with a group of people then board games tend to be much better and easier than hooking up lots of laptops or passing phones around. If you are on your own then computer games are more convenient. I think it would be quite unusual for table top games and computer games to really compete for the same time. One existing isn't likely to eat into the other time.

Of course if you don't want to play 40k at all because it sucks then fair enough. But you can't then say that it was the computer game that killed your interest.

 Filch wrote:

There are other better table top games with great minis and better written rules I have yet to play. The amount of resource to fight these legal battles could have been spent on better writers to publish better rules and balance the game better.

I guess the only question is "are you interested in any of those games?"

If so,
I highly recommend making the switch. It left 40k in favor of other games 5 years ago and I'll tell you, it's great out here. I'm playing more games , more often, and buying and painting more figures for lots less money. Most importantly, I'm loving the hobby more than ever.

If not,
Then 40k and the whole TT hobby is probably not for you. That's ok, it sounds like video games were your first love anyway and there's no shame in that.

Its game over for me. I am a bad player, I make bad lists, I made a bad army. If they release another edition soon I wont bother to read up on the changes.

Who knows, I might quit and come back a decade later surprised that wh40k survived even a year.

I do not actually having anything better to do than come here on this site and check if anyone private messaged me wanting to buy my army.

Please go back to discussing why you would never play a digital or physical version of a table top game. But I tell you, if GW made a 1:1 perfect copy of 40k and market it as a training coach to play the game, many people will learn to play and experiment with army wide options before buying and building and painting models fast. Experienced players can test out what to add to their list or create a new list and test it out easily in a computer simulation that enforces correct rules.

 Filch wrote:

You say you would prefer the real life experience. Let me ask you, would you like to drive nearly 2 hours away to the GW and then take the time set up and carefully bring out your models and then you see on the other side of the table, 6 to 9 wave serpents or night scythes or riptides or even 3 imperial knights or 5 daemon prince, or what ever shenanigans you know that you will get tabled when even when he sets up one unit and deepstrike the remaining 6 drop pods turn 2. Oh that was a fun hour or 30 minutes. Now the 2 hours to drive back. You might be lucky and the nearest GW or Local Friendly Gaming Store or friends house is less than an hour or half away. It is not for me.

I'd be smart about the type of game I'd want to play, first and foremost. Pugs (pick up games) with net lists and a random opponent? This isn't what 40k is about. Yeah, sorry bud - 40k is terrible for this. Absolutely terrible. In order to work, 40k requires (a) like minded players and (b) a co-operative approach.

But here's the thing. I know my opponents. I know them as friends. We're on the same wavelength. Were we to do 40k*, We won't do unbound, or battle forged. Heck, we probably won't even use points values or even the current edition of the rules. What we will do is create a very interesting mission story, figure out who is fighting who, and what will 'fit' the story in terms of what we think should hit the rtable top, and set up a huge board at my mates house, bring some friends over with beer/pizza, bring it to life and roll lots of dice and blow stuff up over a weekend/several nights.

Your shenanigans that you face? Yeah, we'd just share our head at it, that crap don't fly. I'm sorry that that was your experience of 40k. I really am. 40k requires a tremendous investment of effort, and the right people to get anything out of. It can be great.

*to be fair! most of what we'd play is infinity or flames of war home brews, same principles would apply to 40k games however.

I started again with this hobby to get me off the computer.
The modelling needs a reason, so I'd still play at the club.

I'm playing on Vassal right now and I want to gouge my eyes out.

There is no way I would stop playing TT.

Atleast you understand how to use vassal. I do not understand how to use it.

No. I would play it, but ultimately I will be playing TT.

For instance I play Mega Mek, which is a PC version Battletech. But I prefer TT Battletech, with the models. I like painting them and making the terrain. This is something that I enjoy and that a computer will never be able to emulate.

I would still play TT, just to put hand painted models on the board.

Considering I hardly play the TT anymore, I would get a whole lot more 40k gaming done.

 filbert wrote:
Personally, I would love to see a modern and up to date recreation of Epic, a la Final Liberation, but owning and playing it would in no way make me stop wanting to play the 'real' thing.

Ah, me too!

I'd love to be able to actually play Epic 40K, but I foolishly sold all my stuff long ago, and now?

Forget about trying to buy any of it again! Have you seen the prices stuff goes for on eBay?

Having said that, I think I tracked down a way to play Final Liberation again on my PC, so at least there's that...

I would probably buy a lot less models, but I would never abandon TT.

 Smacks wrote:
Try setting up a game of Mansions of madness (~45 mins) while everyone else in the room slowly regrets ever agreeing to play one of your games. See if that doesn't make you feel like a jack-ass.
.........
But you can't then say that it was the computer game that killed your interest.

Computer games kill my interest in living tbh. Also, whenever I want to play a FF game, I spend the night before reading the rules and setting it up.

I also love my Chess and Risk apps, but they will never compare.

This already exists in a couple places and I'd do both. Examples I can think of is Megamek for Battletech. It's an exact replica of the game.

Also, Magic has a couple computer versions that are pretty accurate.

I'd still play the tabletop game. Video games and tabletop games are very different things and a 1:1 equivalent game doesn't actually work, for one thing, and you can't actually replicate the labour-intensive/skill-oriented process of painting the models (half the reason I play 40k/WMH in the first place) or the community that gets built up around the tabletop game.

You may as well ask, "If someone came out with more flavors of ice cream, would you stop eating the original flavors?"

On the other hand, a "perfect one-to-one computer computer game of your favorite table top game" would involve:
1. Fully editable terrain
2. Fully editable units
3. Custom scripting features to add custom scenario rules
4. Digital sculpting features for customizing models

Give me heaven and I'll still want to carve my models by hand.