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.

It's not the range of units that is the problem, it's the insistence that they all have to be slightly different.

Lanrak wrote:
I agree with streamlining.
NOT with over simplification that got the 40k rules into its current bloated mess in the first place.

EG removing movement rates 'simplified' the core rules, but did not streamline the rules for movement.(In fact it made then 6 times more complicated. )

Direct resolution methods used in those games simply can not support the wide range of variety in the units found in the current 40k game.

Unless you want to cull/homogenize huge amounts if units/model types?

Restoring the Move stat of 1-10 is going to address the difference between a Flyer and a Swarm?

Direct resolution absolutely can - it's just a mechanic.

And yes, the vast majority of units and models and items should be culled, homogenized and/or made "not special".

@Kilkrazy.
If you are referring to ' GW sales department believe every slight difference needs a special rule' syndrome.
Then yes that does need to be addressed.

However, if you have a range of units with very different in game functions, then surely the game rules need to support these functions ?

If you over simplify the core rules, this means they can not represent the depth of game play the players want.
So you then have to add on separate systems and rules to put back these differences the over simplified core rules can not provide.


Just to be clear , Bloody Mc Blood Of the Blood Clans, super special Bloody sword of Bloodyness, is not needed.

But the ability to represent the FULL range of unit abilities and how they interact is.

What role do scouts and recon units have in a game where all players and units have complete battle field awareness?
What role do close combat units have when ranged firepower is far more effective in the restricted tactical options of just killing stuff?

When we talk about "the depth of gameplay the players want", I'd like to talk about Morale as an example of depth, within the context of competitive play as what players want.

It seems to me that 40k is designed to have very detailed Morale effects based on Ancients play.

It also seems to me that the players want absolutely none of it. They all play Space Marines and Fearless units that completely ignore the overwhelming majority of those Morale rules.

When we talk about streamlining 40k, the first step would be to remove the Morale section entirely, along with the hairsplitting concepts of No Fear, Fearless, Stubborn, etc. No actual player of 40k would miss it, and all of the energy associated with avoiding Morale effects can move to something more interesting and enjoyable.

Now, sure, we could have IG-specific rules for Morale, just as Orks would also have their own Morale rules. And that would be fine, as it only really affects 2 armies, each in their own unique ways. And wholly self-contained within their own Codices.

The resulting, streamlined core 40k experience for the overwhelming numbers of other armies would be far superior.

Lets be honest here 40k has a huge issue of scale vs rules, it has the model count to be a company size game or more and the rules of a skirmish game that has at best 30 models per side.

Simplifying it to be easy to play with a huge number of models would help a lot the marketing direction they aim for at this moment.

Except, "good" company-scale games aren't individual soldiers on individual bases.

1/100 scale Flames is more of a platoon-scale game, where the smallest unit corresponds to a 3-6 person fire team / vehicle crew, and all infantry are multi-based or part of the vehicle. With comparable individual soldier quantities of 50+, 100+/side , that is where 40k should be.

If the minimum unit is a 10-person squad, or larger, then we're probably looking at hex counters for realism.

Well 40k at the model count it is could be a nice 15mm game, but GW is hellbent to sell 32mm models for that level engagement.

And I see it more likely for them to change the rules and streamline it to play the game faster and easier with squads behaving as one entity ectr than making 40k a prorer skirmish game and creating a new 15mm line for a company level wargame.

And that brings us back to the whole GW is a figure company, not a rules company and only produces rules to move the figs. Hence the special snowflake problem. Why would you buy more heavy infantry if you already had heavy infantry? Oh, because these heavy infantry get new special rules....

@JohnHwangDD.
Using the rule set for ancient warfare (WHFB) for modern units found in 40k made no sense at all on any level, from a game design/game play point of view.(It is not just limited to the out of place morale system. )

ONLY from the marketing point of view WHFB was huge in the late 1980s when GW wanted a new rule set to help sell the sci-fi minature ranges.So a WHFB 3rd ed conversion would let lots of existing player cross over to the new rule set.

Nearly 30 years later the rules are still written to be backward compatible to the quarter of a century worth of 'bodging and patching ' ancient battle rules to try to make them fit modern unit type interaction.

Most players want small units of skirmishing infantry armed with automatic rifle type weapons to behave like they think they should.They want armoured personnel carriers to behave like APCs, and tanks to behave like tanks. They do not expect them to behave like ranked up archers, heavy cavalry and charriots!

I agree to chuck out the ancient morale rules from WHFB.
But replace them with simple and elegant rules that cover the morale of all units found in the game of 40k.
Eg more modern based morale rules fit better with the modern unit types found in 40k.

Writing exclusive rules , for separate races is just seeding the ground for imbalance later.In fact exclusive rules writing is responsible for most of the rules bloat in 40k.

Just to be clear this is streamlined rules.

This is how players interact, (the game turn.)
This is how units move.
This is how units resolve range attacks
This is how units resolve close combat attacks.
This is how morale and command factors work.
Here are the dozen special rules for the special abilities not covered by the above.

This is simplified rules .
Roll a D6, on a 4+ I win.
Here are the 238 exceptions and 7 sub systems resulting in over 600 pages of poorly worded rules.
(Slight exaggeration but I hope you get the point. )

Just simplifying the rules to rolling D6 on a X+= success, is fine if that covers all the units types and unit interaction you want in the game.

But the variety of unit types in 40k , (ignoring the special snowflake rules ,) is just to wide for this simple direct representation type resolution.

@PsychoticStorm/lmurph.
I agree that the game scale suits smaller minatures on unit bases.(
Epic series of rules was written specifically for larger battles with sensible minature scale. )
The minature scale of 40k really suits skirmish sized games.

As there is loads of great skirmish rule sets people can port their 40k minatures over too, (Beyond the Gates Of Antaries to Warzone.)
I really can not see why GW would even bother trying to write a separate skirmish rule set for 40k.

But as GW sales department has ignored game development and just focused on 'selling toy soldiers to children' .We have the current mess that is the 40k battle game with 'over sized minatures.'
We can not use generic unit focused rules like Epic does, as players want the models in the unit to be represented individualy.(Because they are larger more impressive inspiring models than the blob squads used in 15mm to 6mm games.)

So detailed unit interaction is the sweet spot between detailed model interaction of the skirmish game, and the generic unit interaction of the larger battle games.IMO

So to actualy streamline the rules effectively , you have to define the scale and scope of the game.
Define the game play you want to arrive at.
Then use the game mechanics and resolution methods to arrive at the game play in the most straight forward and intuitive way possible.

@jmurph.
''And that brings us back to the whole GW is a figure company, not a rules company and only produces rules to move the figs. Hence the special snowflake problem. Why would you buy more heavy infantry if you already had heavy infantry? Oh, because these heavy infantry get new special rules....''

This highlights a very serious problem with the way GW plc look at their product line.
T.K. famously stated GW ..'are in the business of selling toy soldiers to children..'

This sort of mind set precludes intelligent tactical bias in game development .

Rick Priestly said in interviews, that the GW studio was more like a promotions department for a toy company than a creative game development studio.
And that they were told to get rid of tactical complexity in the game and replace it with lots of strategic elements because the target demographic, (teenage boys, ) can not cope with over arching tactical decision making, but they can remember a lot of data.
Eg more 'top trumps than chess'.

So to address the problem of special 'snowflake rules', you have to open up the tactical options in the game play.

If we look at infantry in the game of 40k.
Light infantry, medium infantry and heavy infantry.

Because the tactical focus is just on 'killing stuff', it limits variation to a simple gradient of quality or quantity.

Where as if we bring in a tactical element of 'fog of war',then mobility,and intelligence gathering become important .

The faster light infantry can be used for scouting/recon units,or used to as a skirmish screen to hide more valuable units.

Heavy units can be used to anchor the defensive line, but need support from faster moving lighter unit to stop them from being out flanked.

Units can still be kitted out for specific roles, but these are now focused on a wider tactical function .So the slight difference in performance special rules to boost sales are no longer needed.

I may need to explain that better?

Quite frankly, I like my giant toy soldiers so much.

Dreadnought? Awesome!
Wraithlord? Awesome!
Knight Warden? Awesome!
Baneblade? Awesome!
Wraithknight? Super awesome!
Leviathan Crusader? Super-duper awesome!

If you're not playing with the big toys, you're really missing out. Current edition 40k is only playable or enjoyable when at least 50% of the points are sunk into giant models, and alcoholic beverages are present. The very notion of trying to play 40k stone cold sober without giant models is anathema at this point.

Which gets back to the design process. If one imagines that the 40k rules and Codices are based on drunken ramblings thought up on the spot mid-game, then considering that the mental capacity of a typical drunkard is comparable to that of a small child, everything makes a lot more sense.

Oddly enough when I want to play massive battle games with the 'big toys', I use Mobs of Great Gargants and Imparator Titans, to lead my 'little toys' , (Bane blades,Battlefortresses Reavers , Warhounds, Stompas etc,) on my 6 x 4 games table, with rules and minatures appropriately scaled.

I am sure there are people who are happy to spend £100s on 'GW toys' and make up their own rules when GWs rules in expensive books fail to work..

But I believe there are far more who want a well defined game that delivers intuitive and straightforward game play.(As these seems to be the customers all the other companies write rules for. )

As long as you know you need different rules for detailed model focused resolution skirmish game .(Like 2nd ed 40k .)
Compared to the detailed unit focused rules used in battle games.(3rd to 5th ed 40k.)
And generic unit rules massive battle games like Epic and Apoc should have.

You can clearly define scale and scope of the games and develop appropriate rules for each.

(Chucking cool sounding rules for cool looking models in to a big book of stuff, and hoping for the best is not game development IMO.Just a short sighted sales pitch.)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Recently, Battlefront released a 15mm tank skirmish ruleset for WW2 tanks, aptly named "TANKS!":
http://tanks.gf9games.com/

And the Bell reviews TANKS!
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/06/tanks-this-game-looks-amazing.html
... with much enthusiasm.

I like the one guy proposing to adapt it to Heavy Gear.

That would actually be a great decision, making HG more like the market-leading X-Wing small skrimish game... Naturally, the Pod won't do any such thing.

As I understand it, Heavy Gear is a kind of wannabe Battletech. I think there's a place for an X-Wing style giant mechs game. If it was done with good models they could sell a lot of units, not only for the official rules but also for other giant robot fighting games.

There definitely is room for such a game, although the upcoming models are a tad overly-simplified.

The TANKS! engine would naturally lend itself to things like Robotech and it's named Character pilots very nicely.

Within a HG context, the TANKS! engine lends itself to alternate weapons swaps for each arm, head and back. The whole thing could be very elegant.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As I understand it, Heavy Gear is a kind of wannabe Battletech. I think there's a place for an X-Wing style giant mechs game. If it was done with good models they could sell a lot of units, not only for the official rules but also for other giant robot fighting games.

Heavy Gear is a kind of wannabe Battletech like Epic: Armageddon is a kind of wannabe Chainmail. It's a considerably more modern take on the real-robots genre. Instead of being walking targets, "kings of the battlefield,' and fugly, Gears are agile, IFVs, and part of a combined arms force. It's also an advance in game-play, although I notice that Warmachine is still chugging along with hit-boxes, so maybe that's an American affectation.

Huh? HG is a 80s 90s ruleset, not a "modern" 10s ruleset a la X-Wing. I'm not sure what sort of "advance" you're talking about, as the gameplay is leaden and clunky pseudo-simulationist crap.

For all intents, Gears are really no different from 40ks Space Marines. As for combined arms, you actually take appreciable HG infantry? Why?

Speaking of Warmachine, it's is a far better combined arms robot battle than HG is, assuming we're treating Jacks as Gears. Of course, WM/H relegates Jacks as second-tier choices compared to infantry and Beasts.

I don't think it matters when a rulebook was written. Little Wars is still a fun, playable game of toy soldiers 100 years after publication.

There has been a trend towards slimmer, "easier" rules since DBA in the early 1990s. This type of rules definitely has a place in the line-up, though it doesn't cover all the complexities of a more in-depth rulebook like WRG 7th.

New ideas and mechanisms have been invented and these remain available for use in any new rules. There may be new ideas still to invent and use -- I think there is a role for using tablets as some kind of digital aid to game playing.

The problem with 40K is that it was a clunky old-fashioned system in the early 1980s and it has only got a lot worse since 6th edition.

@KK - it's the style of the rules. HG Blitz has an 80's RPG feel to it, because that's what it was derived from. It's very old-fashioned.

40k3 is actually far more streamlined than HGB.

Yes, and 'stream-lined' isn't what GW's audience wanted or wants. Epic 40k, for example, sunk on contact through a combination of radically changing the Epic miniatures (making them so much worse) and radically steam-lining game-play. Epic Armageddon, by contract, is basically the same game with a layer of 'grit' added in and it's generally regarded as one of GW's best games. Being stream-lined of features is no benefit to anyone.

The modern living rule book rules aren't something I would characterize as being like an '80's RPG, or even particularly simulationist. Earlier versions, and particularly off-shoots like Gear Krieg, on the other hand, yes, they're virtually impossible to use as modern wargaming rules because they're just a collection of ideas hung together with the notion of Weird War II.

What does "streamlined" mean in terms of game design and 40K?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@KK - it's the style of the rules. HG Blitz has an 80's RPG feel to it, because that's what it was derived from. It's very old-fashioned.

40k3 is actually far more streamlined than HGB.

HG actually has a very 90s feel. HG rpg ( and the later Blitz wargaming variant) were streamlined and most notably very cohesive for their time. You have to remember that most top pre1990 rpgs and even minis games that weren't razor narrow focused had an everything including the kitchen sink feel in terms of game mechanics. Think anything palladium (to this day!), d&d 2e, 40k RT (effectively an rpg), the mess of 2e 40k, and the prototypical clunkers like Battletech and Star Fleet Battles.

The HG rpg was only the second game that I encountered that wasn't a multiyear duct taped together hodgepodge of different mechanics added at different times (the first in my experience being Shadowrun an to a lesser extend WEG starwars). I'm sure there were others though but it was a nascent trend at the time in the 1990s. It's just that tastes have changed even further and what was relatively streamlined in 1995 isn't anymore.

Hi folks.
Simplified is not what gamers want.
This was the problem of Epic 40k, it simplified the game so most of the 'character of the units' was removed, Compared to Epic Space Marine.
(And the minatures did take a turn for the worse too IMO.)

Where as Epic Armageddon , streamlined the rules while keeping a lot of the character in the units.

This is the difference in my definition.
Simplified just means reduce some thing to its basic elements/function.

Streamline means to remove unnecessary complication, while maintaining function/character/proportion.

That depends on type of game, genre, scale, setting and other factors though.

40K universe for example needs character in units because of the fiction despite them been 6mm in epic, I doubt such detail would be expected in a modern or ancient warfare 6mm game.

Something has to be complex to be simplified.
Something has to be complicated to be streamlined.

Generally gamers want to remove complication in the rules while maintaining complexity on the game play.

I agree than some games are designed to be simple, for their intended target audience.
But most simple games do not reduce the complexity of the intended game play to achieve their simplicity. They actually streamline the rules to reduce unnecessary complication.

Well that is at least the best solution.

I will agree with the complex but not complicated design direction though.