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.

@Lanrak: The thing is, many GW players *like* crunchy special rules.

Personally, I like the 40k3 Rulebook type lists best.

HI JohnHwangDD.

I am aware loads of people like the current 40k game and rules.

I do NOT wish to replace- upsurp- deny -remove-impimge on GW current 40k development path, rules ,or gamers enjoyment of this one little bit!

Just want to discuss the reception a totaly seperate rules development exercise would recive, if it was developed in a more simualationist style.

IF the focus of the game was firmly placed on the unit and unit interaction,(rather than indivudual models to aid marketing. )
We could use detailed unit rules , and as the interaction is at the unit level we would be able to reduce levels of imbalance.
(Allocating PV to individual models in a unit, then adjusting PV at the army level, is so inacurate IMO.)

Having played DoW and CoH , I belive WWII might be a good real world event to base game play on .(If professional developers at Relic and THQ thinks so , I am quite happy to give it some thought.)

Do you thinks there is a demand (no matter how small) for a more ' wargame' version of 40k?
Do you think WWII based simualtion, would be better than current WWI abstraction?
Do you think focused unit rules might allow more tactics and less dice rolling?

TTFN
Lanrak.

WW2 is an interesting basis for simulation because it is transitional, so you do have a wider variety of things that happen, but my sense is that 40k transcends that. If you look at Eldar / Dark Eldar, they are very different from anything one has in WW2, being based on maneuver warfare.

I'm sure that there is a plenty of demand for a WW2-like 40k, at least if Flames of War (40k-like WW2) is anything of an indicator. The problem is, who's going to write the rules?

I don't really think 40k is WW1 anymore, and I'm pretty happy with that.

As above, I think better overall rules could be used to emphasize tactics over dice, but the problem is that GW has trained everybody to roll dice as the easiest victory condition has always been to simply kill stuff.

Not ww2. Too static.
Black hawk down, is a good basis, imo. Hiding, moving, attrition, confusion. On the other side a rather meat grinder like willingness to die.

Um, what? "Static" is definitely not a word I would use to describe most of WWII. And really, as far as rules and gameplay go, 40k is probably closer to WWII than WWI anyway (not that that's saying much, necessarily).

"Black Hawk Down" (or modern warfare, basically) would probably be a good basis for a skirmish type game, but probably not for the larger unit-based battles that people tend to play in 40k.

HI again.
JohnHwangDD.
As reguard to DE/Eldar, how about L.R.D.G/ S.A.S. or Royal Marine Commandoes as a WWII basis to model them on?
5th ed has put more emphisis on objective based play , but the basic 'war of attrition ' in 40k, still gives it more WWI than WWII feel IMO.

namegoeshere,
I think WWII is a beter basis for 40k game play , as WWII covers such a wide range of theatres of war , fighting styles and levels of technoogy...and 'static' is not realy a good decriptor of WWII.(Did you mean WWI, maybe?)
If modern skirmish game is what you are after, there are loads of great ones available.(Some are free to down load.)

Anyhow , thanks for the input so far.

TTFN
Lanrak.

MagickalMemories wrote:GW has said it themselves; They are a miniatures company. The games and rules are there to sell the miniatures, first and foremost.

Could you cite that? I've heard people say this before, but just random people, nothing canonical.