Multiple saves

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.

**Sam__theRelentless**

Lanrak wrote:Hi Sam-theRelentless.
Rules should be written with the end game play in mind.(With clarity brevity and wit.)
And of course the target demoghraphic can vary from company to company.

Privateer Press have a detailed skirmish game , which has completley different rules to Mantic Games Massed Battle game KoW.

However , unlike 'narrative and art', which is completley subjective.(You like it or you dont , no right or wrong.)
Rule sets are written instructions on how to play the game.
And therfore can be objectivley assesed, on how effectively the perform the function of informing the reader how to play the game.

Most gamers look at the amount of rules and compare it to the amount of game play.
If there are 14 pages of rules to cover ONE simple emlement of the game , that other rule set cover in 2 pages of rules .
It is obvious something has gone horribly wrong somewhere....

ALL the most popular games with gamers fall into 2 catagories.

Abstract games with simple rules that deliver maximum gameply. (Pass the pigs to Chess.)Because the abstract rules have NO relationship to real world events , clarity and brevity are of paramount importance.

Or simulations , that use the gamers real world knowledge of events to base the game on, requiring less explanation in the rules making them intuitive.
(Kreigspiel 1860(ish) to Dust Tactics.2011)

The ONLY game produced by GW plc that is NOT a simulation is 40k.
Thats why its rules are so overly complicated,(useing lots of systems to cover one interaction, ) compared the the very simple gameplay.

Have a look on 'freewargamerules ' for some examples of alternative rule sets if you like.

The current mess that is 40k current damage resolution mechanic, is completley unsuiatble for the gameplay of 40k.
It worked fine in WHFB , using simple weapons and armour mainly defiuned by user strenght.

Dev 1'Hey guys I have had abrilliant idea for WHFB. Every unit gets at least one artillerypiece/ wizzard/ monster with a breath weapon.All units can skirmish. and we let most armies have steam tank variants!'

Studio Staff .'That would just totaly F"^& up the game entirely , what are you thinking...'

Dev 1'Sorry its 40k I was thinking of...'

Studio Staff .'Oh yeah go for it , the kiddies will love it!'

You're right, I'm not saying you're wrong. I just think it's a bit of an aggressive take. I'm still all for the F-B ruleset, remember?

Us fanbase are all actually on the same side

it's just that we like to make small distinctions

**Warboss Gutrip**

As someone who plays Dark Eldar, Tyranids and Orks, I think this is the worst proposed rule ever, and hope it never happens.

I mean honestly, do MEQs need any more of a boost?

**Sam__theRelentless**

Warboss Gutrip wrote:As someone who plays Dark Eldar, Tyranids and Orks, I think this is the worst proposed rule ever, and hope it never happens.

I mean honestly, do MEQs need any more of a boost?

Exactly. Stackable saves would cost far more in gameplay than they would gain in realism.