Switch Theme:

Tabletop Wargames: a Designers' & Writers' Handbook, by Rick Priestley  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Widowmaker




Somewhere in the Ginnungagap

I plan on picking up the book as I am in school for game design and getting insight from other designers especially successful ones is great. I do not think that Rick Priestley has run out of ideas though. I think there tends to be this misnomer that innovation means creating new mechanics but really to me innovation is what you do with the mechanics you use. For instance a lot of people claim Bolt Action is similar to 40k. In my opinion this is only on a superficial level. I'm going to use some definitions I learned in school to articulate my point so I'll go ahead and define them as I have learned them since there are of course varying definitions for things even in design theory.

Mechanics - the elements of the game themselves. These are generally defined as the “rules of the game.” These may be formal rules, such as “A player cannot move his king into check,” or rules about the features of the game, such as “The properties in Monopoly have the names of places in Atlantic City.” From the mechanics alone, someone should be able to reconstruct the game.

Dynamics - the “runtime behavior(s)” of the game. When the players interact with the rules, what happens? In Chess, you know to sacrifice relatively worthless pawns to capture the powerful opponent’s queen, yet nowhere in the rules does it say that a player should do that. This behavior emerges from the rules.

Aesthetics - the emotional results generated by the game. When a player says that a game is “fun,” that is a generic, emotional response. Players can often be more specific, using terms such as exhilarating, challenging, frightening, tiring, or eye-opening. These are more specific, emotional responses. LeBlanc lists eight kinds of fun that he sees most often but claims it’s an incomplete taxonomy: sensation, fantasy, narrative, challenge, fellowship, discovery, expression, and submission. For instance, a game such as Farmville may be fun to some because it’s an act of submission to a set of systems. League of Legends might be fun to some because it’s like solving a particularly intense real-time math problem that provides a feeling of accomplishment. To others, it may be fun because it involves playing with friends and the fellowship that comes with team sports. Different features of games generate different aesthetic responses.

All definitions have been taken from Players Making Decisions: Game Design Essentials and the Art of Understanding Your Players by Zack Hiwiller.

I'm not really going to get to into the aesthetics that are produced by 40k and BA but I have included it as to better understand how a player experiences a game vs how a designer designs it. A player experiences a game in this order, aesthetics -------> dynamics -----> mechanics. By contrast a designer does so in this order, mechanics -----> dynamics -----> aesthetics. So all a designer can really do is turn the mechanics nob trying to produce a desired dynamic that will than produce a desired aesthetic. Pretty hard to account for, so you better play test am I right? Mostly I will talk about dynamics and mechanics.

With our 40k vs BA example let's examine some of the similar things that occur in both games. A to hit roll followed by a to wound roll. A series of mechanics that facilitate close combat. They have some of the same game states, I.E. shooting, close combat. They both have mechanics for dealing with armored vehicles. They both use a d6 vs a target number to resolve similar task. I could probably go on for eternity tbh. But what do any of these statements say about the game? Can we talk meaningful about what dynamics are produced by these similarities? Well no you can't really they are all pretty vague. I'm going to narrow this example down to just shooting. How is that game state facilitated by each games mechanics. Alright well first off let's look at how the games handle changing states, in 40k it's a linear progression through states, once you arrive at the shooting phase you execute that state of the game, fairly simple really nice and straight forward. In Bolt Action the game state changes through the order dice mechanics, a die is drawn and then that corresponding player chooses an order. It's very clever in my opinion, it literally gives the player agency over what game state he/she wishes to enter. That is interesting and meaningful choice that can effect dynamics, 40k has no meaningful choices when changing game states, it's simply something you do. Now I'm not going to get into picking targets and LOS as that's beyond the scope of what I'm explaining and most games don't really differ there to awful much. However the to hit mechanics are great to examine, both games utilize gathering a number of d6s based on a preset value and then are rolled against a target number. However what will cause player dynamics to diverge are how we answer some of the more interesting design questions. Those questions could include but are not limited to, how do I arrive at that target number (this one creates more questions of it's own), do I roll under or over the target, does getting the target number exactly count as a success, is there an auto hit or auto miss, is there a way to get a reroll, is there a way to get extra dice or hits (think exploding 6s), and I'm sure you guys can think of lots more. These are all questions that I think as players we take a bit for granted as we experience mechanics last, but as designers these are questions we have to ask ourselves. Then we have to try and predict how those answers will effect player dynamics and ultimately aesthetics. Mostly 40k and BA answers these questions completely differently (especially how to arrive at the target number) which in turn produces different dynamics imo. Which then would mean they are not so similar beneath the surface.

I'm going to stop there as I'm not trying to write up an entire MDA analysis of the two games but I hope that I have been able to explain the gist of what I mean and maybe have even given some fellow designers some insights.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 DrNo172000 wrote:
For instance a lot of people claim Bolt Action is similar to 40k.


Dice bag activation is different, but BA is still a 40k clone: 28mm scale, LAUGHABLE ground scale compression (6" move / 24" shoot), move / shoot / fight; to-hit / to-wound / save. I see BA as a 40k clone, unlike X-wing or Infinity or Malifaux or Warmahordes.

   
Made in us
Haughty Harad Serpent Rider





Richmond, VA

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Dice bag activation is different, but BA is still a 40k clone: 28mm scale, LAUGHABLE ground scale compression (6" move / 24" shoot), move / shoot / fight; to-hit / to-wound / save. I see BA as a 40k clone, unlike X-wing or Infinity or Malifaux or Warmahordes.


I guess you could save face and say it's an opinion, but you are entirely factually wrong. I assume you are unfamiliar with Bolt Action, as the game mechanics are not only different but produce entirely different player dynamics. This is illustrated by example in the post you quoted from but clearly did not actually read.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/14 18:05:27


"...and special thanks to Judgedoug!" - Alessio Cavatore "Now you've gone too far Doug! ... Too far... " - Rick Priestley "I've decided that I'd rather not have you as a member of TMP." - Editor, The Miniatures Page "I'd rather put my testicles through a mangle than spend any time gaming with you." - Richard, TooFatLardies "We need a Doug Craig in every store." - Warlord Games "Thank you for being here, Judge Doug!" - Adam Troke 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

No, I read the post. I just don't place as much weight on Dice Bag as he does.

Also, you're disputing this: "28mm scale, LAUGHABLE ground scale compression (6" move / 24" shoot)"

Really? Seems like you don't know anything at all about BA.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/11 07:19:29


   
Made in us
Haughty Harad Serpent Rider





Richmond, VA

 DrNo172000 wrote:
However the to hit mechanics are great to examine, both games utilize gathering a number of d6s based on a preset value and then are rolled against a target number. However what will cause player dynamics to diverge are how we answer some of the more interesting design questions. Those questions could include but are not limited to, how do I arrive at that target number (this one creates more questions of it's own), do I roll under or over the target, does getting the target number exactly count as a success, is there an auto hit or auto miss, is there a way to get a reroll, is there a way to get extra dice or hits (think exploding 6s), and I'm sure you guys can think of lots more. These are all questions that I think as players we take a bit for granted as we experience mechanics last, but as designers these are questions we have to ask ourselves. Then we have to try and predict how those answers will effect player dynamics and ultimately aesthetics. Mostly 40k and BA answers these questions completely differently (especially how to arrive at the target number) which in turn produces different dynamics imo. Which then would mean they are not so similar beneath the surface.


If you wouldn't mind expanding upon what I've quoted above, I am very interesting in hearing the actual definitions for those "feelings", we, as players, experience, that designers intend for us to feel, based on how we use the mechanics to product an intended or unintended dynamic. I'm specifically interested in the 40k and BA examples as it is often mistakenly claimed that they are clones because they both utilize six sided dice or other facile statements (measuring in inches, etc, or a miniatures scale that is in itself independent of the rules)

So, despite them sharing a similar core mechanic (in this case, "Shooting", a d6 roll to meet a target number), how are the _mechanics_ of this reached and responded to, and how does that influence the consequence of the dynamic itself?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/14 18:44:22


"...and special thanks to Judgedoug!" - Alessio Cavatore "Now you've gone too far Doug! ... Too far... " - Rick Priestley "I've decided that I'd rather not have you as a member of TMP." - Editor, The Miniatures Page "I'd rather put my testicles through a mangle than spend any time gaming with you." - Richard, TooFatLardies "We need a Doug Craig in every store." - Warlord Games "Thank you for being here, Judge Doug!" - Adam Troke 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 DrNo172000 wrote:
it literally gives the player agency over what game state he/she wishes to enter
Can you talk more about what you mean by linear and non-linear game state progression? Especially regarding player agency.

One of the first things I look at in any miniatures rule set is the activation mechanic. IGOUGO seems entirely outdated, especially for games with smaller model counts. I think this is one reason 40k feels so creaky. Lots of games have come out and are coming out that bill themselves as "skirmish games" and they mostly seem to use alternating activation. This obviously produced a completely different dynamic from IGOUGO games like 40k; I think the success of alternating activation is mostly a result of how much it increases player interaction (to the point where "downtime" is almost a dirty word). IMO the resulting aesthetic is also very different, producing games that feel more tactical and exciting.

Obviously BA uses a variant, randomized unit-by-unit activation. Randomization limits player agency - you will be able to make a choice but the you don't know when. Where a mechanic creates risk, you would expect the resulting dynamic to be caution - and maybe the resulting aesthetic would be tension. That's been my experience of Bolt Action, at least. Now with Second Edition, players can curb the randomization somewhat by paying for higher ranked officers who can draw more order dice out of the bag. Using the same analysis, I would expect this mechanic to make players feel capable of taking bold initiatives, even if their strategies remained cautious.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/14 19:22:10


   
Made in us
Widowmaker




Somewhere in the Ginnungagap

@JudgeDoug Sure, but let me start of saying that I think both games are designed towards bringing about similar aesthetics with a few minor exceptions. For example BA seems specifically designed to feel easy to play and learn, after all I actually learned and memorized the rules long before I read the rule book. Now I don't presume to know what the designers were going for but like I said I suspect it was similar aesthetics. However how they turned the mechanics knob was completely different which leads to different dynamics, assuming that both players are trying to win which is the general rule of thumb.

Let's talk about the rules a little, I won't post them verbatim here but I'll go over them a bit. NOTE: I will not be getting into vehicles here

40k: The first thing to understand about 40k is that the stat line is the most integral part of the game. If you were to remove a model's stat line how many actions could you then execute, mostly none right? So everything is sort of designed off of that stat line. I'll examine shooting more closely since that is the one I talked about before. In 40k due in part to the stat line the target number is derived mostly from factors intrinsic to the model. Ballistic Skill in this case, the formula being 7-BS=target number. There are extrinsic factors due to equipment but they are few, for instance twin-linked allows a reroll. However things such as cover don't make it harder to hit a target, it can however make it harder to kill a target by giving them a better than normal save. Then we move onto rolling to wound, this is again based on the stats. In shooting though it is in part based on the stat line of the weapon, because in order to wound in 40k you must compare str vs toughness than index the chart to arrive at a target number. Interestingly enough if toughness is ever higher than str by 4 points than it is impossible to wound. The other thing to note about 40k is that all shooting happens at a very distinct time, you'll see why this is important later.

So what dynamics does this produce? Well it will vary based on the stat line of your own units and your opponents. For instance let's imagine we have Imperial Guard vs Tyranids. Would the guard player based on his stats and abilities want to maneuver towards the Tyranids or would he want to do what is called turtling (a dynamic where a player sits in one spot like he's in a turtle shell!). Would the Tyranids want to turtle or maneuver? Let's throw Space Marines in the mix, if there are no AP weapons in sight that can get through their save and the only cover available is worse than their natural save is there any real point for them to move into cover? Not really there's just no benefit to it (maybe if they think they are gonna be charged), especially if that cover requires crossing difficult terrain. Why slow your advance for no benefit? But going back to aesthetics aren't Space Marines supposed to make you feel like you have a force of implacable warriors marching forward under fire they don't care about while laying absolute waste to your opponent?

BA: In Bolt Action it's very different how we arrive at these target numbers, there is no stat line like in the sense of 40k. We always start at 3+ and then with mostly extrinsic factors we adjust the die roll up or down. Of particular note is that soft cover gives a -1 and hard cover gives a -2. This is very different than 40k, because there is no save in Bolt Action (I suppose one could count the medic but it's only a 6+ and you aren't getting it often). This means that cover will always help the target survive, this is not true in 40k for reasons mentioned above. Once we get to the to wound roll the target number is based on the 'training' of the unit. The only thing that modifies this really is if it is a heavy weapon then you can get a bonus to the die roll. Units of guys can always kill units of guys, there is no such thing in Bolt Action as being to tough to wound. After that you remove casualties because again there is NO save. Lastly the order dice system only partially determines when you will shoot, which is an important distinction to simply moving into the shooting phase.

So we end up with very different dynamics. If I am a German player and my unit is at long rang to the target and the target is in hard cover I suddenly need a 6+ to hit that is a lot harder than a 3+. So I've got some options based on the order dice system. Do I take a fire order and just try my luck at getting 6s, do I move and fire which (advance order) which would still be 6s do to the movement penalty but put me at close range for the next activation? What if advancing leaves me in the open but a run would put me in cover, do I risk being in the open and still advance?

I'll further illustrate this by asking in 40k if I have a unit that is in range of another unit that I can harm based on str vs toughness during the shooting phase but that is not in charge range (assume no other units in charge range either) is there any reason not to shoot? Not really, it is in fact no longer a meaningful action at this point as there is a dominant answer to the question. You'll shoot because it would be foolish not to, the only choice that might occur is if there are multiple targets to select that can be damaged. We can take a similar situation in Bolt Action, you have just gotten an order die from the bag, the unit you wish to activate has a target in range that it can damage but cannot reach with a charge is there any reason to not take a fire order? Well that depends on your position and the enemies position now doesn't it? Because of how Bolt Action arrives at the target number combined with the order dice system which causes uncertainty and requires you to make a choice between moving, shooting, shooting and moving, going down, running, and going on ambush compared to how 40k arrives at it's target numbers combined with it's linear progression of movement ---> shooting ---> etc the two games diverge greatly in how a player will behave in game based on the frame work of the rules (dynamics).

Hope that answers your question

@Mancu I did a bit of a messy job explaining that (I'm still just a student after all!) that includes failing to state the importance of the random draw, but I did touch a little more on it an my answer to Judgedoug. Also your statement about dynamics and aesthetics is spot on so really nothing for me to add on that.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/09/16 03:23:08


 
   
Made in us
Haughty Harad Serpent Rider





Richmond, VA

Dude that is an excellent overview of how different mechanics produce very very different player dynamics, especially when you compare the actual turn sequence and the fact that actions are limited each turn versus 40k where all actions are always done each turn. Because of that linear progression of turns in 40k, it seems to limit your meaningful choices as a player, because you can be assured each turn of having these phases, one after another. Meanwhile your agency, as Manchu suggests, is interesingly limited in BA by the unknown of the dice draw (and you pay points for officers to give you certainty of dice draws in BA2) but you are given more freedom with what actions occur.

And of course the very fact that the games both have "to hit" rolls, while similarly titled, are executed very differently, and the game design itself presents or limits meaningful choices. How very very interesting!

This is probably the best argument I've seen against BA being a 40k clone, because you've broken it down into fairly fundamental design reasons as to how they are most definitely not, and it's not even an argument, it's just fact. I'm very interested now in comparing and contrasting a few different games.. I take it you can almost learn the designer's intentions based on how the written mechanics actually make unwritten player dynamics become apparent...

"...and special thanks to Judgedoug!" - Alessio Cavatore "Now you've gone too far Doug! ... Too far... " - Rick Priestley "I've decided that I'd rather not have you as a member of TMP." - Editor, The Miniatures Page "I'd rather put my testicles through a mangle than spend any time gaming with you." - Richard, TooFatLardies "We need a Doug Craig in every store." - Warlord Games "Thank you for being here, Judge Doug!" - Adam Troke 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran



South Portsmouth, KY USA

 Easy E wrote:
I hate to say this, because I like Rick's rules and what he has done for the hobby; but I think he is out of ideas. He's just been re-hashing old rules for years, which I don't really blame him for.

I think I will pass on this book.


I agree, even though I think I might like reading this book and having it on my shelf next to Morschauer and Featherstone as game design theory; I wholeheartedly agree that RP hasn't had an original and different take on his rules since ever. Bolt Action has so many things that are so similar to 40k and WHFB that when we play BA and have a rules issue we just say "ah, Rick Priestley, should have known". And with Alessio writing, I mean tweaking 2nd ed. BA it still won't be any different other than, "Oh look, first turn player gets all the advantages; Alessio again!"

Priestley hasn't written anything other than he always writes and Cavatore comes along afterward and adds some punctuation and a little lipstick and still everyone thinks it's the greatest thing ever. It's not, but it is familiar and that's what the draw is with those designers, it is like putting on a favorite pair of trousers only this week they are black instead of blue, and next week they will be tan.

Don't misunderstand me, these guys have made very accessible games as they use many similar rules and design concepts, however when playing their rules you know what to expect and understand the limits of what they (the rules) can do.

Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.

Check out my friends over at Sea Dog Game Studios, they always have something cooking: http://www.sailpowergame.com. Or if age of sail isn't your thing check out the rapid fire sci-fi action of Techcommander http://www.techcommandergame.com
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

The only reason these games are considered accessible is because we've all played a lot of 40k and 40k derivatives like Flames, etc. over years and years.

   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego





Canterbury

http://wargamesillustrated.net/tabletop-wargames/


review :

Spoiler:

Reviewed by Neil Smith

As wargamers, we take so much for granted. We gather round in good company to play games, whiling away the hours rolling dice, accumulating tokens, and shuffling little figures around aesthetically pleasing terrain. Rarely do we think about how those games are designed, the sweat and tears shed, or the sheer hard work that goes into them. That is the way things should be. Nevertheless, sometimes it would be interesting to get under the hood and see the inner workings, to find out how the magic glitters. If that sounds like you, then you are in luck with the publication of Tabletop Wargames by two of the world’s top wargames designers Rick Priestley and John Lambshead. The result is something of a victory in the grand tradition of gaming, but it is not all plain sailing.

Tabletop Wargames sets out smoothly enough, laying out broad definitions of wargaming and rules production. The authors move quickly along to discuss the perennial problem of scale before constructing the basic scaffolding of rules design and the terminology employed. Rolling dice with the consequent spectacular array of results is discussed next and in some detail. Then, as if the authors had caught themselves becoming too dry and dusty, they move on to presentation, which both seem to agree “trumps every other aspect of tabletop wargames design”. The resurgence of skirmish gaming and its unique problems for designers comes next followed by a lengthy chapter on writing with its three guiding principles; clarity, brevity, and respect for the reader. Once the basic rules are laid down, it is time to put together the sundry elements such as army lists, including points values, and scenarios. The authors conclude with a chapter on creating campaigns that give meaning to sometimes spurious battles, and a useful bibliography.

To this crusty old wargamer, some of the arguments advanced in Tabletop Wargames rankled to varying degrees. This begins with a false dichotomy between games designed as simulation and those written for entertainment: the counterargument places them on the same spectrum. There are also some straw man arguments set up against old-school gamers, “chaps in cardigans with pipes and slippers,” who might see the emphasis on presentation as putting style over substance, or who appreciate more than a skeleton historical background to inspire them to play a set of rules. As far as rules mechanics goes, resources and logistics are surely worth more than a cursory dismissal, and a similar side-lining of naval and air wargames smacks of avoidance.

Nevertheless, there is much to like about Tabletop Wargames. Rick Priestley’s rules in particular are such models of elegant design that it is almost redundant to point out the crispness of his book on how to write them. Nowhere is that more evident than in the technical chapters on scale and dice-rolling where potentially tedious material is turned into deftly handled exposition. In addition, at no time do the authors abandon their own rules on writing with clarity and brevity, although sometimes their points are too brief. Tabletop Wargames most importantly achieves its objectives. The authors describe it as a handbook for designing rules, and by following their guidelines prospective rules writers will, I suspect, not go too far wrong.



The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego





Canterbury

https://www.tabletopgaming.co.uk/board-games/reviews/tabletop-wargames-a-designers-and-writers-handbook-book-review


It is arguable that over the last three decades no other individual has exerted as much influence over the shape of war games as Rick Priestley, whose pedigree can be traced back to Games Workshop’s original Warhammer Fantasy Battle game. If he
has something to say about game design, one should most certainly listen. And it turns out he does, teaming up with John Lambshead (himself rather prolific in the wargames world, if not as high profile) to produce Tabletop Wargames: A Designers’ and Writers’ Handbook.

Intended as much to provide insight and increased enjoyment to avid wargamers as a ‘how-to guide’ for bugging designers, here we have 157 pages chock-full of fascinating insight and advice. Avoiding the trap of letting it become a mere technical manual, the authors have endeavoured to focus on describing different approaches to the craft and the reasoning behind them. That said, there are plenty of solid, interesting examples that would-be designers can certainly learn from. For example, would you like to know exactly why a Guardsman (an average solider in Warhammer 40,000) has just a 6% chance of killing a Space Marine (super-soldier) wearing Power Armour?

The book is arranged into themed chapters that can be read sequentially or dipped into individually. Scale, randomness and even the language of rules-writing are covered in an approachable and readable style. The book is nicely laid out on the whole, but is a little text-heavy at times and the section headers do look they were lifted straight out of an early ‘90s PowerPoint presentation – so this is no coffee table stunner. But, it’s the content that counts – and this is an essential read for anyone seeking wisdom and inspiration in their design career.


The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
 
   
Made in us
Mutating Changebringer





New Hampshire, USA

For example, would you like to know exactly why a Guardsman (an average solider in Warhammer 40,000) has just a 6% chance of killing a Space Marine (super-soldier) wearing Power Armour?


Umm... because mere mortals aren't a match for giant genetically enhance super soldiers who wear tanks?

It seems like this book is little more than a few WD articles thrown together with some minor insights from the guy who helped make it like... what?... 30 years ago?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/11 10:30:36


Khorne Daemons 4000+pts
 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Well, he has made a few games since then.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

 DeffDred wrote:
For example, would you like to know exactly why a Guardsman (an average solider in Warhammer 40,000) has just a 6% chance of killing a Space Marine (super-soldier) wearing Power Armour?


Umm... because mere mortals aren't a match for giant genetically enhance super soldiers who wear tanks?

It seems like this book is little more than a few WD articles thrown together with some minor insights from the guy who helped make it like... what?... 30 years ago?



Personally I would like to know why guardmen and whatever else are fielded in such huge numbers that 5% is enouph to wipe out a squad (yes it is GW marketing team wanting to sell more models but...) the huge difference between fluff and tabletop representation always dissatisfied me on 40k 2ed+
   
Made in us
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch




 DeffDred wrote:
For example, would you like to know exactly why a Guardsman (an average solider in Warhammer 40,000) has just a 6% chance of killing a Space Marine (super-soldier) wearing Power Armour?


Umm... because mere mortals aren't a match for giant genetically enhance super soldiers who wear tanks?

It seems like this book is little more than a few WD articles thrown together with some minor insights from the guy who helped make it like... what?... 30 years ago?



It actually barely mentions 40k in the first half of the book, and mostly talks about the reason for doing things in certain ways, then uses various game systems as examples. And keep in mind I say "the first half of the book" because that's as far as I've read so far, not because it turns discussion on 40k up to 11 after that

It's much different than "a few WD articles," at least any that I've ever read.
   
Made in ie
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





Dublin

Has anyone got their hands on this yet? Am considering ordering it myself -what's the verdict?

I let the dogs out 
   
Made in ie
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





Dublin

Read through the whole book for research purposes there. It's well worth the read. Though as someone else pointed out, Priestley tends towards a particular type of game design, he does analyse and address a lot of other systems in the course of the chapters. It's not as lengthy a read as I hoped for, but recommend for any aspiring designers all the same.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/15 23:05:57


I let the dogs out 
   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: