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.

I think it could be an interesting idea - you would have real-world weaponry and troops, Special Forces, ability to call in airstrikes, etc

It throws up questions like 'what factions would you have?' I'm thinking along the lines of: USA, Britain, China, Russia, generic Terrorists/Narco Terrorists - any others?

Also would there be problems with political correctness? I have a feeling that most parents wouldn't be too pleased about their kids collecting a 'Terrorist Army'...


Just throwing it out there - would it be a good idea?, would you play it ?

Well FoW aims to be a 'modern' war table top game so I would presume it would play something like that? Maybe a bit more pared down to emphasise the skirmish/Spec Ops side of things. I think it's a pretty good idea. Would be interesting to see the transition.

Albatross wrote:I think it could be an interesting idea - you would have real-world weaponry and troops, Special Forces, ability to call in airstrikes, etc

It throws up questions like 'what factions would you have?' I'm thinking along the lines of: USA, Britain, China, Russia, generic Terrorists/Narco Terrorists - any others?

Also would there be problems with political correctness? I have a feeling that most parents wouldn't be too pleased about their kids collecting a 'Terrorist Army'...


Just throwing it out there - would it be a good idea?, would you play it ?

Hell yes I would play it. Would play the hell out of it. You could use 1/72 scale models and you'd have a huge existing model line to draw from. No subject except the most very obscure would be unavailable, from tanks to aircraft to soldiers.

I think you should have separate Islamo Fascists and Narco Terrorists. The former would have little regard for their own safety and in many cases would resort to traps and suicide bombings where the latter are motivated by greed and as such would have a healthy interest in self preservation and generally be better equipped.

Also don't forget the UN. They'll make great targets.

Screw PC, that's what I say.

Isn't that what Battlefield Evolution: Modern Combat is supposed to be? I've heard that it is a pretty good system.

I definately wouldn't want to saddle a new game system with the same old tired GW mechanics though. I think i n order to make a modern game more fluid, you'd have to go back to Necromunda and 2nd edition.

Having played 'Firefight' the WW2/Modern mod for Warhammer Historical it can certainly work well.

I ran several modern Afghan games.

Warhammer Historical are currently developing a WW2 ruleset for 20mm (1/72) with Gav Thorpe writing the rules I believe.

That said I would rather play 'Ambush Alley' as the rules are specifically designed for Modern anti-insuregency and dont suffer from the awful warhammer system.

If it ws based off of Warhammer historical or a whole new ruleset it could work.

It would have to be a very different game though. 40k rules depict a very sci-fantasy environment. A modern ruleset would be rediculously limited by the mechanics of the 40k ruleset which has incredibly short ranges for most weapons, and leans very much toward hand-to-hand combat. I don't think there's any edition of 40k that would be a good match for modern combat.

I would say as long as there is a ruleset then models already exist from major brands like tamiya.

It's definitely a cool idea, and depending on the rules and style of the game then I would likely try it out.

I don't think you're going to get much modern wargaming out of tamiya, who produces mostly 1/48 and 1/35 scale stuff. However, if you went down to 1/72 (very non-heroic 25mm), there's dozens of brands (Revell, ESCI, etc) that produce in that scale.

If this were going to be done in 28mm (1/56) then you're choices would be more limited, but there's still quite a few companies like The Assault Group, and others that are making figures and vehicles in this scale.

The Infinity rules are perfect for these kinda of things. They were designed for small forces of mixed specialists going against each other with assault rifles and machine guns. Pick some fitting models, rename the weapons and go.

Ah, I wasn't aware of anything similar - I knew there was WWII stuff, though. I just thought it would be cool.

I also like the idea of a 'Steampunk' setting - set in the WFB mythos.

The reason I would want a major model brand working on it is that they go for realism in their designs. I didn't mean that Tamiya should write rules, but that models from them and other non gaming model companies could be used with a 3rd party ruleset.

I'm ok with "heroic" scaling for fantasy and sci fi. If I am playing modern or historic then I want true scale and accuracy.

If you want a modern warfare game there are plenty of modern/ultra-modern rules around already.

Check out the FREE selection here...

http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk/index.php?page=modern

Perhaps another interesting point would be, "would it sell and succeed?" GW has an amazing infrastructure and promotional machine already in place. Who knows what might happen if they put their marketing machine behind bringing the warhammer ancient's series of games to the 40k/WFB crowd?

That said, I don't think it would work though for two reasons.
1) I don't think that the wider range GW players (myself included) are looking for gritty realisic rulesets and that style of play.
2) The GW business model thrives on selling models that, while sometimes similar to others, are produced exclusivly by GW and whose designs are carefully legally protected. GW couldn't have the same type of market control over historical/modern combat products when all the designs are public domain, and already made for wargaming by so many other companies.

GW has marketing and promotions? I"m not sure "word of mouth" constitutes a sound marketing technique. GW exists because we refuse to let it die.

Would be very good modern theatre warfare it could be set from the early eighties to now you could have several 1980's scenarios and modern scenarios released as source books such as

Yom Kippur
The Falklands
Northern Ireland (Small squad skirmish games)
South African intervention in Angola
American Invasion of Panama
Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
Operation Desert Shield
Operation Desert Storm
Russian War in Chechenya
Sierra Leone
Operation Enduring Freedom
Operation Iraqi Freedom
The Palestinian troubles
Rcent Lebanon crisis

And a couple of future world scenarios

Chinese Invasion of Taiwan
American Invasion of Iran or brutal expansion of Iran so that it threatens its Arab neighbours you could have rules sets and lists for Iranian and Syrian army groups Israeli and American allies.

Scenario and Campaign generators (For some really good America Vs Soviet combat missions ala 1980's Cold War gone hot.

It would be a damn good idea imho and I for one would buy it if it was ever made (which it wont be lol)

Too much emphasis on Assault in 40k. Yes, CQB does happen but far and away the most dominant factor in modern warfare is firepower. For beer and pretzels fun it could work, but I think Modern requires a bit more realism than GW games provide.

2 tau armies, no kroot, no battlesuits, make the tanks tracked.

That'll give an interesting game, perhaps double the range of all guns and quadruple the tabletop.

Why does GW have to make it?? I know the thread is titled "Would a Warhammer: Modern Warfare game work" but GW has monopoly on so much

Warhammer
Warhammer 40k
Epic
BFG
Mordheim
Blood Bowl
Warmaster
Space Hulk
Warhammer Ancient Battles
Warhammer The Great War
Warhammer the wild west

Dont get me wrong they would most proberly do either A: a great job
B: Overpower everything and make a horrible bloody mess out of it.

So I reckon it should be handed to a new games company and not have the label of "Warhammer"

I hardly consider Specialist Games a monopoly on those styles.

Mordheim is easily translated into other skirmish based fantasy games.

Also consider that GW no longer supports most of those systems, so their plate is not as full as it looks.

If anything I want a non GW company to do it out of principle.

In all honesty, you could make it and it would be very cool in a sense, but modern combat would be very difficult to recreate in any sort of realistic way while making it fun to play on a tabletop, and clearly you would need a totally different style than 40K to even consider it. But yeah, it could be awesome and the conversion possibilities are mind boggling.

Accurate modern warfare would require a rule that no matter who wins, no one wins, and if by turn 3 you don't raise enough taxes then 40% of your troops are recalled.

That would be a fun implementation to MW2, sorry no AC-130, tax cuts, here's a few MRE's to hold you over.

BOSS_PIMPALOTZ wrote:Why does GW have to make it?? I know the thread is titled "Would a Warhammer: Modern Warfare game work" but GW has monopoly on so much

Because it is the title of the threa... well then I refer you to the answer given by my right honourable colleague...

Cruentus wrote:Isn't that what Battlefield Evolution: Modern Combat is supposed to be? I've heard that it is a pretty good system.

I've got a copy of the rules here now, it's very good from what my mates tell me.

aerethan wrote:If anything I want a non GW company to do it out of principle.

It's already been done. Over at TMP, you can find information about many modern rulesets of varying levels of complixity.
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/boards.mv?period=mod

Right on about the taxes though. I don't think many rulesets take that into account. ;-)

Skarboy wrote:In all honesty, you could make it and it would be very cool in a sense, but modern combat would be very difficult to recreate in any sort of realistic way while making it fun to play on a tabletop, and clearly you would need a totally different style than 40K to even consider it. But yeah, it could be awesome and the conversion possibilities are mind boggling.

See above. I'm not a modern/historical gamer, so my opinon is to be taken with a grain of salt but...
While current rulesets are likely to tend to be a bit more complex than 40k, afaik, there are alot of folks out there who think that they are plenty fun and realistic for tabletop gaming. Whether you're interested in true skirmish at the squad level, or large scale battlefield stuff, the rules and miniatures are already out there in a variety of complexities and scales.

I'm also thinking along the lines of 'could GW make a decent job of miniatures for such a range?'.

Mechanically, 40k is already close to Moderns. All it would take would be Codices and minis.

Ah, but John - would you play it? Or would it just be another set of unsupported races to get pissed about?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Mechanically, 40k is already close to Moderns. All it would take would be Codices and minis.

I couldn't disagree more. Sure you can use the ruleset to "play" moderns, but most everything about 40k, from CC emphasis to use of supporting fire, to weapon ranges, etc. is drastically different from modern warfare. It would be a fun game, and I admit that I'd probably enjoy it, but it wouldn't be even a vague aproximation of modern warfare, it'd be 40k with modern figures.

I think they would definately have to support it more if they wanted to do it. Also the level of detail on the modles would probably go down, at least on the infantry ones, as a lot of modern guns aren't as bulky as their 40k equivalents are.

Albatross wrote:Ah, but John - would you play it?

I own a large Guard army, so sure. It's easy.
____

@Eilif: WRT ranges, I think you confuse model scale with ground scale - if ground scale were model scale, then range would be effectively unlimited, and you'd just look at to-hit modifiers based on range. Think about it - a M16 has an effective range over a half-click, and a sniper rifle is good over a click. If you assume model scale holds at 70:1, then a M16 model could shoot up to 25 feet, and the sniper model would be 50 feet. That would set the minimum table size to be around 12' x 16'. On a board that big, CC becomes a non-issue.

For Warhammer Moderns, assume a basic statlines kinda like this:
- US Soldier - WS3 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I3 A1 Ld8 Sv4+ w/ M16 R24" S5 AP6 RF
- 3W Military - WS3 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I4 A1 Ld7 Sv5+
- "Terrorist" - WS3 BS2 S3 T3 W1 I4 A1 Ld6 Sv- w/ AK47 R24" S6 AP5 RF
- "Civilian" - WS2 BS1 S2 T2 W1 I3 A1 Ld5 Sv-
A major point of Moderns is that you would need to rescale everything so it made sense.

Why would the terrorist have AP5? Has an AK got better armour-piercing capability?