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 was going to write my thoughts in the Warpaht thread, but I guess that this subject could have its own thread.

Let me put it this way:

You have a Miniature company, ok, it is not Games Workshop, not BIG, you are planning and investing your budget in releasing a Sci Fi Wargame.
When designing the rules ¿What do you choose?

A. Rules very simple and similar to the most popular games there, for example, WH40K.
B. A completely new and original set of rules. Completely different from WH40K and other games.

Now, both wargames are out there, lets say that the design, art and sculpting level of the miniatures is OK.

Which one would be more succesfull?

The 40K style one because it will be much easier learn to play, and people would jump into, or the original and different one because it will be an alternative to stablished games?

Given the extent of other rules systems out there (http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk/) it would be difficult to make something completely different to anything ever made. And, most likely, those games all share something in common for a reason: because it has been proven to work, and/or because that is what players are used to, to reduce the learning curve.

I would definitely advise against *anyone* copying 40k's mechanics - they are getting quite cumbersome and tactically boring.

It honestly depends on what kind of game you are releasing on how the rules are made. The biggest thing is the number of models on the board - as this decreases, realism and complexity can increase. The importance of the individual changes how an individuals stats are represented, which changes how many dice you are required to roll and what statistical probabilities will be required. The intended time taken to play a game will also define the rules - is it 15 mins or 2 hours?

If I was building a 40k scale game, I think I would keep the level of complexity for large models/characters the same, but significantly reduce the role of individual models within a large squad - having to account for the actions individually of 100 models on the board is overly cumbersome IMO.

I think assuming 40k style rules are "easier to learn" is based off your own personal tunnel vision and limited experience with other games. I know plenty of people who avoid anything that even remotely resembles 40k just because it's so badly written.

So I'd definitely vote for something original, or if copying is going to be done at least copying a solid, well thought out system.

Warhammer is a weird mixture of simplicity where complexity would be more elegant and workable, and overlapping complexities and ramifying details which ache to be simplified.

The issues people have with wound allocation and line of sight prove this.

I think assuming 40k style rules are "easier to learn" is based off your own personal tunnel vision and limited experience with other games.

Please, be polite.

I am not judging WH40K as game system.

The true fact here is... if your rules are very similar to the more popular game of the miniature industry, then, it will be easier to people to jump into your game.

But, if you create a brand new original game system, or based in some other not-popular game, it will be harder to people to get into it, to understand it, to sincerely enjoy it with no questioning or doubt.

Because (this is my point here and you can reply and convince me that I am wrong) I truly believe that people are not interested in Game Systems. Rules does not sell a game, miniatures do. People does not have interest in reading a new book full of rules and waste their precious time in learning how to play. Specially when they've been playing the same game for years.

Lets create tomorrow a great original game with ugly miniatures and no one would play it. Lets create a simple-as-farting game with awesome miniatures and people will play it.
I am pretty sure that there are rules game system out there in the Internet for free that are much beter than WH40K, I also believe that it does not matter when it comes to sell a game. To make money with a miniature company and its products.
If rules were so important, then, any geek who creates a game system could potentially become rich every week.

What do you think?

This is not a thread about if WH40K is cool or not. Is a Thread about what do you think.

BobbaFett wrote:Because (this is my point here and you can reply and convince me that I am wrong) I truly believe that people are not interested in Game Systems. Rules does not sell a game, miniatures do.

I so, so incredibly disagree with this, and again I think it comes from your lack of exposure to non-GW games (making an assumption here, correct me [violently] if I'm wrong). Many people play games with cardboard chits that are ugly as sin, but they love them purely for the mechanics. I'm sure that some hobbyists care about miniatures first and look to games as a way to use those miniatures on the table. I'm of the opposite camp where I care about mechanics, and whatever figures or counters I have onhand are good enough.

BobbaFett wrote:Lets create tomorrow a great original game with ugly miniatures and no one would play it. Lets create a simple-as-farting game with awesome miniatures and people will play it.

Okay so like Full Thrust with the ability to use ANY spaceship figure, or Advanced Squad Leader with it's cardboard chits, Battletech with it's paper hex maps and cardboard standups, or heck even OGRE. Are you saying that none of those games are classic or popular? Sure 14 year olds don't flock to them as much, and you might not have been exposed to them, but they all have solid mechanics and that matters a ton to people that play a lot of games or play games for a long time. Miniatures may draw in people who like eye candy, but if a game sucks to play (40k imho) then it doesn't matter how good it looks, it still isn't fun.

BobbaFett wrote:This is not a thread about if WH40K is cool or not. Is a Thread about what do you think.

Unfortunately posting a thread doesn't mean you have any ability to control where the posters take it. Sorry, tangents happen.

bosky wrote:I so, so incredibly disagree with this, and again I think it comes from your lack of exposure to non-GW games (making an assumption here, correct me [violently] if I'm wrong).

Ok, here comes my awesome kung fu kick:



-"Yahh!" Btwomp! (lying on the floor for two minutes... then recover conciousness, then keep writing this message).

For example... I've been playing INFINITY since they released the Human Sphere book past year. It is a great game, non-GW-related. And it is also a good example of a good game with extremely awesome miniatures.



But... it is not very very popular, at leats in my LGS. And it has all the elements to become very popular IMHO.
So, what is wrong with this game? again, IMHO the rules are way too far from the most popular game that people are confused and not attracted by it. It is just my point here, maybe I´m wrong.
I really think that with those miniatures and a much more simplistic and "WH40Kish" set of rules more people would get into it. I even sadly think that a dense and original game system could even be a bad point to a miniature range in economic terms.

I think that the Warpath guys are much clever here and that is why they release a very WH40Kish game, with easy-to-learn rules and, probably, space marines, Eldars, Orks...

I think I understand the OPs point, but I tend to agree with the counter argument, and I would like to offer a thrid factor in the game design, that will either make or break a new game........fluff!

I disagree that GREAT miniatures will always sell a game, especially if the rules are tripe.....however, if the FLUFF is crap, no amount of great rules or miniatures will help get that game onto the streets.....a case in point (IMHO) is Anima Tactics!....Great miniatures, ok rules....absolutely dire Fluff = can't get my group to buy into it.

I think this is the problem with the free online rules a player can pick up, rules with no background fluff, are just machanics....but there's no emotional incentive to apply them. Look at it this way, do I want to spend months painting miniatures just to push them around a gaming table going "pew pew you're dead"?....or do I want to spend months painting figures that fit into a faction, and this war I'm fighting will deliver honuor and kudos to my army for upholidng the traditions of my faction?

In wargames, factors like this are important, it's what seperates this type of game from chess and monopoly!

If games sold on rules alone, 40k would be dead in the water by now. Although they seem simpl, it is the endless need to buy the next patch sorry codex that adds layer after needless contradiction. After so many editions how hard is it to right a tightly written set of rules. Yes if 40k is the market leader it must be discussed

Their saving grace lovely minis but there are better, so what else, of course it is their high street stores, and their semi monopoly of the gaming high street

The window display catches the newbies imagination and draws him in and then like an addict, GW is the drug of choice, any others out there are given the thumbs down by your "gaming" mates and anyway how do you get them and who plays them.

It is only as you get older you find the joys of other systems, Infinity, Urban War, Warmachine, but then you are your mates all play 40k and have invested so much it hard to start on something new.

This is where Mantic have a chance, their pricing makes two fair size forces economic, their ruleset is hardly complex and does not have to change every three months (albeit the rules are not my cup of tea).

So I will probably buy the figures and look at using Warzone, Stargrunt or perhaps even Chain Reaction to use with my toys. All of which are solid rulesets with plenty of original ideas. So yes rules do matter, but the little figures put the icing on the cake.

BobbaFett wrote:Ok, here comes my awesome kung fu kick:

Haha thanks for the correction.

I do agree that Infinity has some very solid mechanics, and think it's done pretty well for itself. The rules are pretty heavy to get into, so that might turn some people off. For all it's flaws I think it'll take a lot before 40k is dethroned as one of the more common tabletop games, but that's more due to inertia than the spectacularness of it's elements.

The point above about fluff being important is a good one. So maybe a solid games comes down to rules, fluff, and miniatures. The importance of each factor varies from person to person, it seems.

I found the Infinity rules easier than 40K.

40K is weighed down with unnecessary complexity on various areas such as wound allocation, TLoS and the every proliferating Special Rules.

At the same time, major areas of tactics are practically ignored, such as command and control and morale

I was thinking about the "Originality Vs. Popularity" question.

Popularity is a consequence of correct marketing and promotion. Good offers, good advertisement...

GW are the true masters of marketing here I guess. Many people got into 40K becasue "is what everybody is playing", many people don´t get out of 40K because "nobody plays any other thing."

Originality vs. Popularity is probably the wrong way to frame the problem.

20 years ago, no one getting into Battletech cared about how their rules compared to GW's rules. And I don't think DP9 is concerned about people comparing their various Heavy Gear rules to anyone else's games.

Your marketing and player recruitment people are going to end up dealing with Originality vs. Popularity when explaining to new players how everything works. "Have you played games by that other company? This mechanic works much like their X mechanic." Or, "Have you played X? We thought their Y was poorly done, and wanted to use something better, so we're doing Z."

When Warmachine came out, the disaffected 40k players were quite vocal about the differences, but I don't honestly remember whether Privateer Press marketing addressed it. But I assume they simply avoided the comparisons, or at best discussed it as, "Some other game companies might have ..., but we're going to be doing this instead."

The answer to the question in the original post, though, is
C: The game with subjectively better rules.

solkan wrote:Your marketing and player recruitment people are going to end up dealing with Originality vs. Popularity when explaining to new players how everything works. "Have you played games by that other company? This mechanic works much like their X mechanic." Or, "Have you played X? We thought their Y was poorly done, and wanted to use something better, so we're doing Z."

I find this is a super common approach to Eurogames, especially with veteran boardgamers who know a lot of different mechanics. To them you basically draw comparisons or differences to explain the rules instead of having to work from the ground up.

BobbaFett wrote:

Because (this is my point here and you can reply and convince me that I am wrong) I truly believe that people are not interested in Game Systems. Rules does not sell a game, miniatures do. People does not have interest in reading a new book full of rules and waste their precious time in learning how to play. Specially when they've been playing the same game for years.

Lets create tomorrow a great original game with ugly miniatures and no one would play it. Lets create a simple-as-farting game with awesome miniatures and people will play it.

For one I hate minitures for games , I love them for there modelling purposes , and the painting of them but I play Infinity , DT7 , Warmachine for the games , not the minitures.

For 2 of them I use there minis as they are designed for the game , but its the game that gets me going , not the model.
For the other , I can print out and use any picture on the internet for a model , its about the design of a force , the design of a scenario , the conflict....which is something I think 40k is lacking

I'm not as demanding of originality in rules (I acknowledge there are "common places" in miniature wargames that are hard to work around in an original and effective way) as I am of design, setting and aesthetics.

So, sorry Mantic, quasi-eldar, quasi-orks and quasi-squats means no Warpath for me. I was really hoping for more.

Delephont wrote:however, if the FLUFF is crap, no amount of great rules or miniatures will help get that game onto the streets....

Shockforce/Warengine is another great example. The rules are great, simple, yet deep enough to allow good tactical play. There are creation rules, allowing any miniature to be used.

However, the fluff was terrible. Just horribly, terribly, bad. If it was encountered before seeing the rules (as is typical for most games) the reaction is "gah, I dont want to play that". The factions were mostly junk, only a couple even slightly interesting. The fluff/back story holding them together is shaky at best.


That being said, I advise anyone who already has armies for systems like 40k, or wants to make one but has no place to use it, to look at the system. When used in a good fluff setting its one of the best systems out there.

BobbaFett wrote:
You have a Miniature company, ok, it is not Games Workshop, not BIG, you are planning and investing your budget in releasing a Sci Fi Wargame.
When designing the rules ¿What do you choose?

A. Rules very simple and similar to the most popular games there, for example, WH40K.
B. A completely new and original set of rules. Completely different from WH40K and other games.

I think it would depend entirely upon what audience you were seeking and how well 40k'ish rules would fit the game you are making.

Two examples where copying existing rulesets is a good idea, or at least not a bad idea.

1) Warpath. It's a game that's clearly targeting 40k players, with 40k'ish models, so a 40k-lite rules system is not a bad idea.

2)Blitzkrieg commander, Cold War Commander and Future War commander. These series of games copied much of their game mechanic from GW"s "Warmaster". Even though the games are in a vastly different period/genre, the Warmaster mechanic works very well for these style of play that these games cultivate so copying is a good idea.

Two examples where copying existing rulesets is a bad idea.
1) Inifinity. A very different style of miniatures, and a very different and more tactical style of play. There's no way that Inifinity could have achieve this with 40k style rules, so basing them on 40k is a bad idea.

2) Song of Blades and Heroes. A skirmish scale fantasy game. They could have copied Mordhiem or other aspects of the GW game engines, but their goal was to make a really fast playing game with a unique activation mechanic. It's not yet a household name among gamers, but from the number of games they've produced and the following they have, it seems like it was wise to steer clear of any rule copying.

To sum up, the decision of whether or not to "copy" aspects of a ruleset should depend on how those rules serve the game, not how much they pander to the status quo. Lastly, it's worth noting that folks who venture outside of GW are usually free-thinking enough that they're not looking for another 40k clone.

Kilkrazy wrote:I found the Infinity rules easier than 40K.

40K is weighed down with unnecessary complexity on various areas such as wound allocation, TLoS and the every proliferating Special Rules.

At the same time, major areas of tactics are practically ignored, such as command and control and morale

I actually find 40k to be more difficult for other reasons; the sheer number of factions makes it hard for someone like me who doesn't have the time/money to read and re-read every codex to familiarize themselves with all the different units. Granted all units have a stat line that is formatted the same way, but there are so many unit special rules and army special rules that often units "break" the basic mechanics of the game in some way. As a result, even after playing 40k for a couple of years, I still get surprised in games by what certain units can do. Also, I find the essentially 3 different rules sets (shooting (infantry), shooting (vehicles) and assault) contained in 40k to be confusing at times, especially the assault rules for some reason.

That being said, I think if I were doing a game to compete with 40k, I would make the game I want to make, and then streamline/optimize it the best I could, not worry so much about how similar or different it is to its competitors.

We are agreeing with each other. It is the special rules that are the bane of 40k as they are used to make all the different units in the different codexes "special".

My Tyranid Tervigon uses as many as 15 different special rules spread between eight or nine pages in two different books.

The number of successful games out there that don't play anything like 40k (ie all of them except 40k itself) makes the answer pretty clear.

Kilkrazy wrote:It is the special rules that are the bane of 40k as they are used to make all the different units in the different codexes "special".

My Tyranid Tervigon uses as many as 15 different special rules spread between eight or nine pages in two different books.

That is one of my biggest complaints. Worse yet is special rules that could be eliminated with just a stat change. Say something (like Plague Marines) are extra tough, so they get a toughness bump. Just give them the bump without having to make a special rule to explain why, the fluff explains it. if its a stat change that only applies under certain conditions I can see it, but something permanent doesnt need a special rule.

Then theres movement. In this edition we deleted the M stat, and everything moves 6 inches...except for the huge amount of units that move more or less, based on their special rule. Just give them the fething M stat back, and eliminate all the special rules.

IMO they went crazy with the special rules because it makes players feel special. Its a competition...who has the most special rules.

Mad4Minis wrote: Worse yet is special rules that could be eliminated with just a stat change. Say something (like Plague Marines) are extra tough, so they get a toughness bump...If it's a stat change that only applies under certain conditions I can see it, but something permanent doesnt need a special rule.

Yes,

Mad4Minis wrote: Then theres movement. In this edition we deleted the M stat, and everything moves 6 inches...except for the huge amount of units that move more or less, based on their special rule. Just give them the fething M stat back, and eliminate all the special rules.

And yes!

It was rediculous of GW to get rid of the Movement stat. A movement allowance is really simple way to create more variation among units and keep a bit of tactics in movement aspect of the game. It may have seemed like a good idea at first, but two editions later it's become a silly omission that has resulted in a slew of additional rules that don't operate as effectively as a M stat and just clutter up the game.

I like your answers and your well argumented points.
By the way, I guess you are making those points from the perspective of a veteran wargaming player.

What should we do with teenagers in order to make them buy our hipotetical product? Our brand new wargame "DakkaDakka Wars"?
Because teens and tweens are not interested in original games, they are attracted by GW like flyes to a flame. They want it BIG and simple.
A game you can learn to play simply by watching a video tutorial and not even reading a single page of a boring rulebook. That would be a totally accessible game, probably simple as breathing but... who cares?! they just want awesome miniatures and be part of a huge community of players.

Who instead of GW can offer that?

Prove that I´m wrong.

No reason to prove you wrong. You're right!

Unless you've got a huge amount of cash to support a new game system and good advertising, you haven't much chance of getting new teen gamers to flock to your game. Even with a ton of $, GW and PP have got the newbie, saw-it-at-the-mall demographic pretty well sewn up.

Rather, your best bet is to release a product that will draw in gamers from the massive pool of teens that enter the GW/PP hobby every year, disenchanged GW/PP veterans, and players from other gaming segments like board gamers or RPG'ers.

My current gaming group (we play indie miniatures games) is made up of players from other gaming gateways. Most of us have played a GW game at sometime in the past though we have folks who came from Magic, WM, RPG'ing, heroclix, historicals and others. Not one of us was compltely new to gaming before joining up.

These are the kind of players a new game (without major financial/brand backing) needs to target.

Hi all.
GW plc has perfected selling toy soldiers to children.(40k.)

So making a copy of this system to try to appeal to gamers is not the best option.

There are lots of great skrmish sci fi games out there.

How many great 28mm sci fi battle games are there?(Remember 40k is mainly for selling toy soldiers to children.)

NONE.

So a fast paced well defined straight forward modern wargame rule set , AND great minatures at reasonable prices , would be the best option.IMO.