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.

Hi all.
After playing a few games of 5th ed 40k.
Fun games , yes , but 40k seems to be different to most of the other GW games I play-have played.

After quite a bit of annalasis , it appears there is a difference!

WH, LoTR and all the Specialist -OOP GW games I have played all have one thing in common.They all started out as simulation type games with game play as the primary focus ,determining appropriate game mechanics ,and the asthetics were added and expanded upon over time .(Minatures and background.)
And the basic game play remains largley unchanged.

40k started off as a small collection of Sci -fi (esque) minatures needing a rule set to boost sales.
So GW simply used WH 3red ed rule set for a RPG -skirmish game , set in the fledgling 40k universe.( Rogue Trader. )

Over a period of time the model count has risen dramaticaly, which dramaticaly impacts on the resulting game play.
And over this period GW have altered the rules to fit the everchanging asthetics,( models & background.)Rather than change the game mechanics to better fit the new game play requirements, perhaps?

So 40k has ' narrative style developent ' resulting in 'gamey' type game play.(Not related to any real world actions -concepts in any way.)

Other GW games appear to follow more 'simulationist style development ' where basic game play IS based on real world actions-concepts , so tend to be more intuative than 40k in some players opinions.

A quick look through any 40k rules development forum, will often have gamers wanting to inject more simuation of real world events-effects into the game of 40k.

Do you think a new seperate 40k rule set ,employing a simulationist style of development, would be welcomed by those that want more of a 'wargamey' version of 40k than the current 'gamey' game ?

I may have invented some new words?sorry.

I hope this post makes sense , and we can discuss the effects that alternative methods of development might bring to the current 40k game?(In theory only ,obviously , as GW will not alter current policy.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

I dunno. 40k seems reasonably simulationist to me. Compare it to Warmachine/Hordes, which are 100% gamist.

There is something in what you say.

40K is significantly more gamey than simulation, by the standards of typical historical rules.

GW didn't set out with a definite goal in mind, they just adapted an existing set of rules (WHFB) to let everyone have a fun ruck. More adaptation has gone on through the following editions.

I can't see them changing the fundamental basis of the rules, though. Entirely too much hassle for them and the players. If people want a 'realistic' SF game there are plenty of competing rulebooks.

WH, LoTR and all the Specialist -OOP GW games I have played all have one thing in common.They all started out as simulation type games with game play as the primary focus ,determining appropriate game mechanics ,and the asthetics were added and expanded upon over time .(Minatures and background.)

This is incorrect. GW has said it themselves; They are a miniatures company. The games and rules are there to sell the miniatures, first and foremost.

Granted, however, that they've developed the rules with a desire to make them easier to play over the years (note, I didn't claim they succeeded... just that they DESIRED it), but the games have always been meant to drive mini sales. For example, look at the rules for flamer, blast & ord. templates now. Even partials are hit... This means that sales of models using these rules will rise (and have).
Same for transports, which are more important in this incarnation of 40K than the previous edition.

Eric

the gameyness only came in with 3rd edition, if you look at rogue trader, and to a lesser extent 2nd edition, it's basically a sci-fi simulation game, I mean there was even a table to roll on for which hallucination the victims of your hallucinogen grenades had. (this was dependent on the table for checking to see if the cloud had dissipaited, and in RT the table to see what grenades your army was equipped with)

the best was "jones is acting strangely"

3rd edition ripped the heart out of 40k to turn it into a squad based combat game, before that it was a scifi skirmish simulation.

saying that, I like the way 5th is going, and I'm glad 3rd fethed me off enough to quit as It meant I encountered alcohol and women.

Fantasy, at its heart, is a medieval wargame with some fantasy elements grafted on. That's why despite having all these exotic races they all end up as infantry with the same general weapons.

40k, barring the IG, is using ideas and concepts that have never existed. What is a 'realistic' simulation of 7' bioengineered warriors in power armor firing .75 cal explosive rounds? Or 10' tall insect warriors with living guns that fire flesh-eating worms?

Which is why 40k has always had more balance issues than fantasy, there's just more stuff and its more divorced from any historical model we might draw on.

I think 'Gamey' is best replaced with 'Abstractions'. 40K is in no way a simulation. It is a massive set of abstractions.

BYE

All tabletop rules, simulation or 'gamey' are abstractions. 40K is far more abstracted than most.

There is no pretence at a realistic relationship between range, movement speed and time. The values are set to make it work as a game involving H2H.

HI all.

MagickalMemories .
GW PLC only said they were a 'minatures company first an foremost' after GWs finacial dept set the shedules for the game developers to follow. (Late 1990s?)And to be fair as 40k is the most popular game , finacial conciderations have tended to adverly affect 40ks game development to the point GW PLC pretends it dont realy matter anymore.

Kid Kyoto.
I agree 40k has a wide range of creatures and equipment , and covers far more variety than many other games.However the core WH rules are ill equiped to cover the vastness of the 40k universe.Especialy as the devs decided to strip back the core rules to VERY limited range of stats,chuck out modifiers and use YES/NO , rather than gradual comparative results.Patching up the game with lots of special rules is NOT good game development!

The thing with simulation type development , you use 'simalies?' to mantain ballance -continuity- inuative results.
So you use real world counterpart where possible or real world physics/ common sense to extrapolate the fantastical.

Get the frame work of effects and interaction right first , then lay the fantastical covering over the top.
Rather than work blind by putting the asthetic screen up first and trying to guess what happens behind the screen when you tweek this or that.

Kilkrazy.
Current 40k focuses on HtH because without restriction on range weapons they NEED to artificialy encorage units moving towards each other, and artificialy boost moral to keep units moving forward.(Static gun line with super accurate fire is not much fun.)
40k has just had 'knee jerk quick fixes' for so long , I dont think there is much room for current game development left.
They just keep adding more special rules ,and fiddle with the meta game to help sell more models.

IF the current 40k game size and game play requirement had a simulationist overhaul, I think the resulting rules could be made far more straight forward and give a lot more variety.


TTFN
Lanrak.

Check around... GW still abides by that mantra.

Eric

Lanrak wrote:Current 40k focuses on HtH because without restriction on range weapons they NEED to artificialy encorage units moving towards each other, and artificialy boost moral to keep units moving forward.(Static gun line with super accurate fire is not much fun.)

This is where scenarios and things like seizing objectives should come into play. If the enemy is on an objective (which should have copious amounts of cover) you pretty much *have* to close with and assault him. If that's not the case, then suppressing the position with fire should be sufficient, and there should be no incentive to run over and stick a bayonet in him.

I haven't read much RT-era fluff, but how prevalent were H2H weapons back then? I know they were abundant in 2nd edition. I guess I just have problems with the whole "Braveheart in space = cool" aspect. In my mind, pretty much no one but Tyranids, Orks, and *maybe* some SM/CSM should be solving problems with big axes. A bolter or grenade launcher(mostly for marking targets) and a good radio should get an officer or NCO far farther in life than a power weapon.

It'd be interesting to see a "harder" SF re-imagining of 40k, not just in terms of game mechanics but visuals and background as well.

Hi Lanrak.
Different day same thread
Are you going to start a new thread for your own rule set?
I've been working on mine, it's coming along. Currently trying to figure a way to have miniatures hide well, sort of like space hulks blips.

I loved halucogen grenades. Always wanted it to come out with whatever would be most entertaining rather than useful at the time!

I don't mind the 'Braveheart in Space' aspect of 40K except that if they make assault a major part of the game, they need to ensure that a deliberately non-assault, shooting army gets shooting advantages of some kind to make it work in the game.

Lanrak wrote:
40k started off as a small collection of Sci -fi (esque) minatures needing a rule set to boost sales.
So GW simply used WH 3red ed rule set for a RPG -skirmish game , set in the fledgling 40k universe.( Rogue Trader. )

Eh? Isn't this exactly how fantasy started off?

They were producing mini's for role playing games, saw an opportunity to boost sales, made a rule set that required lots of figs. BINGO.

They more just made a unifying rules set you could apply to any miniature collection.

Then it sort of span off on a random tangent to where we today

40k and many other GW games seem to be unintentionaly 'gamey' which is probably what leads to the 'cheese' and 'beard' notions in their respetive communities. Other games fo not seem to have these concepts, Warmachine which is very gamey, deliberately so and FoW which is a little gamey but less so than 40k do not seem to have these concepts (cheese and beard) in their communities.

I think part of the issues 40k have is a result of the scale. Modern, and by extension future, wargames seem to me to be best played in 15mm or smaller due to the long range of most heavy weapons. If your tank can reasonably put a shell into another tank at 1000 yards, you need to be able to put it on a table that is 1000 yards long in scale, otherwise the range is just "Yes".
Now, this is sometimes ok, if you have a board with so much terrain density that the range becomes less important, such as a dense city fight. Which is why the only WW2 and later wargames I really enjoy in 25mm are city fights with house to house fighting. Battles in the country side just don't give the sense of scale as well.

So perhaps the most realistic 40k is Epic for tanks, and 40k for small units? Or, one could double the ranges of weapons, get a 5'x10' table, and run 10 turn games of 3000 points (which I really would like...)

As far as infantry are concerned, nearly all fighting is done at ranges under 300 yards/metres. It becomes surprisingly hard to see people 300 yards away as useful targets for point fire weapons, even without them wearing camouflage and hiding wherever they can, and shooting back at you.

Most infantry weapons in 40K have a range of 24 inches, which we can assume is 240 yards or perhaps 300 yards, which gives us a ground scale of either 10 or 12.5 yards per inch.

This causes a problem with the time scale. It now becomes possible for an assaulting force to cover 120 to 150 yards in a few seconds, moving so quickly that the defenders do not have time to shoot at them.

This totally confirms 40K as a game.

If "modern" SciFi "wargaming" were to develop along real world lines, then the logical conclusion would be ranged war-fare or biological chemical warfare.....the need to drop troops at ground level would be eliminated.

Ground troops cost alot of resources, both financial and otherwise.

The battles fought by the Imperium and the Eldar (especially in their situation) are ridiculous, especially when you consider that they have access to world destroying technology.

The only reason to land an infantry based force would be to infiltrate a compromised "location".....but you'd be talking about a very small inflitration unit, not a Battle company etc.......even Chaos doesn't need to "claim" a world.....especially as they only intend to destroy it anyway....why not virus bomb the place and then make it "home".

Not really, there will always be a need for infantry (even if they're robots or whatever). The only reason its silly in 40k is it's so grimdark - that yes everyone would just nuke each other.

Delephont wrote:If "modern" SciFi "wargaming" were to develop along real world lines, then the logical conclusion would be ranged war-fare or biological chemical warfare.....the need to drop troops at ground level would be eliminated.

Ground troops cost alot of resources, both financial and otherwise.

The battles fought by the Imperium and the Eldar (especially in their situation) are ridiculous, especially when you consider that they have access to world destroying technology.

The only reason to land an infantry based force would be to infiltrate a compromised "location".....but you'd be talking about a very small inflitration unit, not a Battle company etc.......even Chaos doesn't need to "claim" a world.....especially as they only intend to destroy it anyway....why not virus bomb the place and then make it "home".

Every so often theres a military technological revolution and afterwards it turns out that the basics didn't really change.

Example: British government of the 1950s cancels all our aeroplane development because "air warfare will be carried out by guided missiles."

Example: Tanks are made obsolete by the anti-tank guided missile in the 1970s.

Example: Infantry can be replaced by helicopter gunships and troops -- Vietnam 1970s.

Example: British ships wrecked not by guided missiles but by iron bombs, Falklands 1980s.

Example: Infantry can be replaced by unmanned drones, fighter bombers and armoured vehicles -- Iraq and Afghanistain 2000s.

In the real world time and again it is shown we need infantry and all kinds of things that have been declared obsolete.

In fact the US and UK governments are crying out for more infantry.

HI all.

Magical Memories.
Yes, for the last 10 years or so GW PLC have been a 'minatures company' ,(but GW were a 'proper games company' up to the mid 1990s. )

I must say I do like M.D.Gs exelent description of 40ks development from 1998 onwards, it truely did 'spin off at a tangent' with little reguard to game play issues.

I totaly agree with Kilkrazy, troops (infantry and vehicles )on the ground will be use full for alot longer than most 'experts' think.

I dont have a problem with the size or content on a current 40k games table.
Just the 'stubborn flagelation of a necrotic equine' of a rules set.

Other rule sets are simpler and use mechanics that allow for straight forward use of simple tactical desicions, that bulid into a rich tapestry of player interaction.


Do you agree that a 'simulationist overhaul' of the current 40k game, could result in a more straight forward but tacticaly deeper rule set?

If every event on the games table followed the gamers perceptions , and things just made sense.Wouldnt this be a better 'introduction game' than the current counterintuitve clumbersome rules?

I dont think for one minute GW would write a new rule set for 40k.It is 'adequate for the prime demoghraphic, and current marketing requirments'.

But in theory ,do you think there may be some benefits from a simulationist development of 40k?

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:Do you think a new seperate 40k rule set ,employing a simulationist style of development, would be welcomed by those that want more of a 'wargamey' version of 40k than the current 'gamey' game ?

Not particularly, but if you're really motivated, you would be free to start your own variant under Proposed Rules. Just be aware that it's a long, contentious process that needs to address of a lot of preconceived notions and playstyle preferences.

Every simulation selects some elements to codify as rules, and leaves others as abstraction. The question is what you mean by "simulationist", and what aspects you intend to simulate. Also, to clarify what kind of scale you intend upon.

40k is designed as a game that can be played on a 4'x6' board within a couple hours, with the ability to fight and shoot, as opposed to only fighting. In this regard, 40k does a fair job, when you work from the basic premise that 38,000 years from now, people will still choose giant chainsaws as preferred basic weapons.

HI JohnHwangDD.

I was refering to keping the current game size and practicaly the same sort of game play.
But looking at alternative game mechanics and methods to achive similar results without all the counterintuative complication found in the current game.(The result of lots of 'quick fixes' and marketing driven rules.)

If ALL other GW games start with game play requirments /basis of simulation , I thought the current game of 40k could benifit from a similar process.
(Andy Chambers wanted to use new game mechanics for 40k ,but was not allowed by GW corperate, allegedly.)

I sympathise with the GW studio staff,
Its hard to remember you supposed to be draining the swamp, when you are up to you ass in aligators....
They have to market minatures first and formost, and 'not waste time on game play issues' , (unless it helps sell more minatures... )

Current 40k is a fun minature collecting - dice rolling game for ages 8 and up.
And MANY people enjoy this.

There are plenty of exellent Skirmish/ Brigade (and higher) , rule sets FREE to down load.

However AFAIK, there are NO great wargames at the same scale as current 40k 5th ed.

If you esablish a real world event as the basis for the game , (Like ALL other GW games,)THEN layer the fatastical ashtetics over the top. Its easier to ACTUALY develop the game and game play.

And if you replaced the 'rolling dice at your opponent ' with more tactical choices , it may appeal to those gamers wanting more of a wargame game , than a 'gamey' game.

There is nothing wrong with current 40k , if you want a fun dice rolling game.
If you want a tacticaly rich wargame , 40k 5th ed is not realy for you.

In short, same minatures, same game tables , similar game play, but rules that are elegant and intuitive.

Eg one weapon -armour system, that covers ALL units, not AP, AS, Inv, cover ,AV , and a few special rules for good measure...

I hope that helps clarify ...

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote: ... ...

However AFAIK, there are NO great wargames at the same scale as current 40k 5th ed.

... ...

Do you count 40K as great?

It's fairly similar in scale (of forces) to Laserburn, which is still available.

http://www.15mm.co.uk/Laserburn_15mm_Sci-fi.htm

Lanrak wrote:I was refering to keping the current game size and practicaly the same sort of game play.
But looking at alternative game mechanics and methods to achive similar results without all the counterintuative complication found in the current game.

If ALL other GW games start with game play requirments /basis of simulation , I thought the current game of 40k could benifit from a similar process.

If you esablish a real world event as the basis for the game , THEN layer the fatastical ashtetics over the top. Its easier to ACTUALY develop the game and game play.

And if you replaced the 'rolling dice at your opponent ' with more tactical choices , it may appeal to those gamers wanting more of a wargame game , than a 'gamey' game.

If you want a tacticaly rich wargame , 40k 5th ed is not realy for you.

In short, same minatures, same game tables , similar game play, but rules that are elegant and intuitive.

Eg one weapon -armour system, that covers ALL units, not AP, AS, Inv, cover ,AV , and a few special rules for good measure...

I hope that helps clarify ...

Heya Lanrak, actually, that helps a lot, thanks!

I think the big question is how 40k-ish you want the game to be. For example, would you want to move the rules to something more like Flames of War or Epic: Armageddon? Or would you want to port the Codices into something like dB40k?

If you look at the early 40k (RT & 2E), they had more of a simulation feel, with actual notes on scale and so forth. As GW grew 2E into a larger game, it ended up as a pretty decent WW1 simulation, with all of the "excitement" that one could imagine would be inherent for trench warfare.

Using the 40k5 ruleset, I think all you need to make it "realistic" for WW1 is:
- all terrain is Difficult & Dangerous, unless otherwise noted
- minimum automatic cover saves of 6+ in the open, 3+ entrenched, before GtG
- added Overwatch phase at the end of the enemy Assault Phase, prior to engaging in HTH...
Setup is always board edges, and the objective is to push the other guys line back:
< 6" back? Stalemate (over 80% of games end this way)
> 6" back? Minor Victory (~10% should end this way)
> 12" back? Major Victory (~5% should end this way)
> 24" back? BREAKTHROUGH!!! (<5% should end this way)

This is why you never see WW1 games at a games convention...


For 3E and 5E, GW wanted to move 40k to a more dynamic environment, and I think in many ways that they succeeded by having different armies represent different styles of warfare.

I completely agree that 40k should involve more decision-making in lieu of simply rolling dice to kill stuff. That's why I *like* how KPs don't score until the last model dies, along with Defensive Weapons being S4 to force a decision between movement and shooting. Run is similarly a good tradeoff. And of course, I'm delighted to see Objectives being the primary focus of the game, with VPs being relegated to the back. Same with USRs and colsolidation of Hull Down and Vehicle Damage tables.

40k still has a ways to go, and GW has to transition the game from edition to edition. Building a more tactical game of 40k is precisely where I think GW is headed. It's just going to take them another edition or two to get there.

Warhammer Historical does a WW1 rulebook.

I think 5th ed is on the right path for easy of play in a reasonable amount of time, but I think if 40K was more like FOW it would be a much better game.

I miss some things from the earlier editions of 40K, but the games just took way too long.

HI all.
Why do most people think of WWI as a good basis for 40k?
Just because the current 40k rules were converted to make a decent WWI wargame ?
This is what happens when Napoleonic Mind set meets machineguns and high explosives....a war of attrition.
Warhammer 3rd ed rules +lots of big gunz, in space!

To be fair earlier versions of 40k had brilliant ideas poorly implemented.
BUT rather than implement them better , GW just dumped them!

I wonder if WWII based simulation might give more dynamic gameplay required for 40k?

Eg heavy weapons supressing enemy units , so assault units can out flank them, and finish them off?

The current 40k rule set is unecissarily over complicated.
Other rule sets seem to achive far greater depth of game play with FEWER rules.

TTFN
Lanrak.