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.

Hello everyone!

Recent discussions among friends has sparked a thought in my mind, and after giving it a few night's sleep and a couple days of consideration, I wanted to run the idea by you.

Warhammer 40,000 started life as a wargame, but now has become a game that's vaguely military related. It's also gotten more and more popular since then. I suppose I should define exactly what I mean:

A wargame is, to some degree, about simulating war. It's not exactly a simulation altogether (we don't have the computing power for that at our tables) but generally things operate according to some "reality" (in our case, I'll be putting reality in air quotes, since it's an artificially constructed reality - the fictional 41st or 42nd millenium). For example, in any wargame it is generally the case that units maneuver on a battlefield and interact with each other in ways that approximate (or abstract, if you will) the way they would be expected to in "reality". It also inherently includes being a game, in that it is a state of structured play to facilitate fun and fooling around. (Some people argue wargames must necessarily be adversarial, though I personally think you could play one solo against yourself, and anyway that particular facet of the definition is irrelevant to the OP).

A game is really just a structured mode of play, with no necessary anchor to anything save the imaginations of the players and imaginations of the designers.

To take it one step further and explain my title: a war(game) is a game that seeks to downplay 'gameyness' (I'm sure we all know the definition but I am prepared to answer if we don't) in favor of "realism" while a (war)game seeks to be fun to play first and "realistic" second.

Now, to 40k more properly. The original draw for 40k, at least for me (and for many others based on the "reasons you play" conversations I've had) was the lore. Why not play a better wargame? Because their "realities" weren't as cool as 40k's "reality". This is typically the reason that's thrown out when other games are brought forwards as candidates for community play but don't grow as popular. However, it is my opinion that the actual draw for 40k, and I've seen this admitted much much more lately, is its own momentum. So many people play it simply because it's easy to find a game.

Plus, "gamey" is actually desired. 8th edition was the most popular edition so far (or at least so I have been informed). The public is disinterested in a war(game), they like (war)games. "Funness" is more important than "realism." And I don't begrudge anyone that; in fact, I'd say that's quite sensible. But it does starkly divide the narrative players (or at least me, and I self-identify as one) from the casual players - the less "realism" the game possesses, the harder it is to picture the happenings going on in the mind. Originally, in early 8th, I was a defender of GW's chosen abstractions. I could perceive what they were thinking about in "reality" when they wrote the rules, but I realize now that I was mistaken. Their rules justifications seem to be ex post facto, as in "It's just simpler to draw LOS from anywhere on the tank..." "alright, um, do that, and - oh I know, we'll make a big deal about how it's a mobile battlefield and minis aren't static, etc." I was mistaken; GW was designing a game, not a wargame, from Day 1, and their justifications had no anchor in "reality" at all.

Not to say that earlier editions of 40k were terribly "realistic" mind. There's always been some idiosyncrasies (I still don't understand why twin-linked gives you a RR to hit instead of two hits from one roll), but I think it was better than it is. The narrative was easier to construct. It is easier to justify "the twin linked weapons hit more betterer" than it is to justify "the Land Raider could see the Malcador, but the smaller Malcador could not see the Land Raider" (9th edition obscuring terrain!). Or, perhaps I mean, it was easier to overlook. My immersion was preserved, and the theater of the mind could picture the events as they unfolded. I'm happy to have a discussion about how people feel about older editions of 40k and how well they conformed to 40k's "reality" as well.

Lastly, I want to emphasize this isn't a critique (though it may come off that way due to my personal biases) but rather an attempt to spark discussion on the nature of 40k, and if you agree that it's moved (somewhat abruptly with 8th edition) from a war(game) to a (war)game. Furthermore, I'd like to hear if you think if that's good or not. I know it's popular, and that's awesome, so I suspect a lot of answers will be YES!. But my disillusionment requires validation () so if anyone thinks no out there other than me, sound off.

Meanwhile I'll go be a grumpy old grognard in the corner, talking about how things were "better back in my day".

EDIT: legibility changes.

Yes, and......


In all seriousness, it was questions like these that eventually led me down the path of starting to create games for myself, and play the type of games I wanted to play.

Where they fit on the simulation vs game spectrum is not set, but at least I knew I would want to play it wherever it landed.

Cheers.

 Easy E wrote:
Yes, and......

Haha, well, sometimes I think it's useful to have a discussion about the 'identity of a thing' when long-term fans are involved, and discuss what might be best for it.

For a "game", I'll play 8th edition. For more crunch and detail in the 40k stables, I'm going with HH for 30k and 5th ed (with house rules). But even the latter are still "games", they just feel less "gamey". When I played 8th in the later stages, it was like playing MTG and WM/H, not 40k.

When I want to play a war(game), I play Piquet, Battlegroup, or any of a host of games that fall differently along the "simulationist" spectrum. Nothing is obviously going to be a pure simulation, I'll leave that to something like Harpoon on my computer, but it feels more "realistic" than nu-40k.

I want a game where I don't actually have full control over my models, where there is friction on the battlefield, and where I'm in command of forces as they "might have appeared", not the cherry picked best stuff in my list o' options. I've played historical games where I've managed to maneuver my army into the optimum position, had the optimum formations, all the commands fell into place, had flanking cavalry get in to the rear of the enemy, and.... betrayed by a die roll. My entire front collapsed. It was one of those moments that sticks with me in a good way. Clearly the enemy got the volley of fire to our front first, disrupted our lines, and the troops panicked. If I was playing 40k, I would have been rolling 132 dice, re-rolling all misses. Instead, I was rolling one d12 against my opponents defense of d4. He rolled a 4, me a 1. C'est la Guerre.

I love Battlegroup because its so hard to kill enemy soldiers. You have to pin them, and use the combination of troops and equipment you have to achieve the scenario, since you can't just "kill em all". And in order to shoot them, you need to see them first. Which isn't always a given. And the way the game records VPs is amazing. I've never had a blow out game, they've all come down to the last couple of chit pulls.

I continue to play 40k because it is easier to pick up (or should I say its easier to teach my son how to play - he still can't make heads or tails of the actual rules), we have the models, we both like sci-fi, but we pick and choose how we play it - small scenarios, hand picked models with whatever wargear, and we roll dice to see what happens. Its almost Combat Patrol or Kill Team, but even less structured. Plus we throw in trench lines and bunkers, and play in and around them. Its much easier than actually playing the actual rules nowadays - not a buff or strategem to be seen.

40k in 3rd edition, playing a 1500 point list from the base lists that came out with the edition, on a 6x4 table with 6 games turns felt like an open expanse of maneuver, enemies were just as dangerous as you, you could pick up and move your heavy weapons to better firing position (because you had 6 turns! It felt like forever), and there was room to move around the battlefield. Now, armies take up 30% of each side of the board, and many just sit or maybe move a little, and drop 60 shots with rerolls of everything and the kitchen sink. Very little maneuver, removing handfuls of models each shooting phase, huge models with huge footprints, etc. Meh.

At the same time, I do realize I'm a grognard now, and have been playing GW games for far too long, and I'm not the target audience. So I look elsewhere, don't buy GW much anymore, other than the more war(game) offerings like Adeptus Titanicus. I'll still play Mordheim, Gothic, old Necro, etc., but not AoS, nor nu-40k.

I'm going back to my rocker on my porch so I can yell at the youngsters running on my lawn.

So, Cruentus, I don't disagree, obviously. But why do you think the "games" are more popular? Do you think what you remember (a dice roll betraying you in the fog of war!) is a mechanic most people wouldn't like?

Similarly, do you think recovering the feel of 3rd edition with the new rules is do-able? You mention size, but surely you could play smaller games with older units... is there something more fundamental that's different or?

I disagree with the assessment and I like 8th much more than 6th and 7th. I'd say the abstractions from 8th account for the increased scale of todays 40K and stratagems, which surely are pretty "gamey" are a result of the crap that happened in 7th. GW wanted to preserve all the fluffy special rules but realized when you clump more and more onto the game it breaks at some point, so they made them based on a limited Ressource.
Concerning the scale it's similar to Lotr and war of the Ring, where the latter was a larger rank and File system and because of that used a lot of abstractions and seemingly "gamey" aspects. I remember one game where Dain killed 48 Goblins in one go, which... nearly broke my immersion but was also pretty funny.
Also, since you brought Lotr up as a wargame - Lotr had stratagems before it was cool, they are called might over there. I'd say 8th edition actually came closer to Lotr than prior editions, which I don't mind as Lotr is still GWs best system.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I disagree with the assessment and I like 8th much more than 6th and 7th. I'd say the abstractions from 8th account for the increased scale of todays 40K and stratagems, which surely are pretty "gamey" are a result of the crap that happened in 7th. GW wanted to preserve all the fluffy special rules but realized when you clump more and more onto the game it breaks at some point, so they made them based on a limited Ressource.
Concerning the scale it's similar to Lotr and war of the Ring, where the latter was a larger rank and File system and because of that used a lot of abstractions and seemingly "gamey" aspects. I remember one game where Dain killed 48 Goblins in one go, which... nearly broke my immersion but was also pretty funny.
Also, since you brought Lotr up as a wargame - Lotr had stratagems before it was cool, they are called might over there. I'd say 8th edition actually came closer to Lotr than prior editions, which I don't mind as Lotr is still GWs best system.

So you believe 8th edition is more "realistic" and less "gamey"? Or do you mean 8th edition is more fun, while also being more gamey? Only the first disagrees with my assessment, and if you think 8th edition 40k is more realistic than say, 3rd or 5th or 7th, that's something I disagree with but I can understand.

And LOTR's "realism" comes from the way armies interact. The rules encourage things to operate the way they "should" without forcing them to. For example, Warhammer Fantasy simply forced units to be in ranks. LOTR, on the other hand, gives pikes and spears the ability to poke other models, and allows bowmen to fire over one model in front of them - and this purely model-based interaction leads to the creation of units like pike or spear blocks that rank up and move in squares as an emergent property of the rules, rather than simply being forced to. 40k doesn't have anything that causes 'emergent realistic behavior' if you will like that, nor does AOS. Other examples from LOTR include the way cover works, the way siege engines work, the way models interact with each other and terrain... basically everything. War of the Ring I haven't played, so I won't comment.

8th made some big steps forward when it comes to armies feeling like armies, but took some steps backwards in a few rule interactions, abstracting them to the point that they feel gamey. Reroll auras surely qualify in that.

Also, stratagems were nice for the "war" part, but only some of them. Those are mostly the stratagems which expand the army horizontally, and allow models to cover alternative roles. There are instead the stratagems which just make "x" into "x+1" like for example Veterans of the long war, which instead are fully on the "game" side. They don't feel like "Stratagems".

and if you agree that it's moved (somewhat abruptly with 8th edition) from a war(game) to a (war)game.

I definitely don't agree its abrupt. They've been peeling layers off since the transition from 1st to 2nd. Elminating stats, successive knocks to morale (before kicking it out completely), the various horrible redesigns to vehicle systems (not that I miss acceleration and deceleration, or the wacky grid charts).

I don't think its a good simulation of war, but I don't think it ever was. That doesn't make it any less a wargame though.

The 'pinnacle' of simulation wargames are the old Avalon Hill style games with hex maps, chits with NATO unit symbols, and piles and piles of look-up charts for cross-reference resolution. Those scratch an itch, but its always been a different one than the Warhammers. Especially 40k, which is Fantasy in Space! ridonkulus skirmishes.

Spoletta wrote:
8th made some big steps forward when it comes to armies feeling like armies, but took some steps backwards in a few rule interactions, abstracting them to the point that they feel gamey. Reroll auras surely qualify in that.

Also, stratagems were nice for the "war" part, but only some of them. Those are mostly the stratagems which expand the army horizontally, and allow models to cover alternative roles. There are instead the stratagems which just make "x" into "x+1" like for example Veterans of the long war, which instead are fully on the "game" side. They don't feel like "Stratagems".

Stratagems aren't even something I considered when I wrote the OP, but you're right, they're not altogether a terrible idea, I suppose, though as always with GW I disagree with their overall implementation.

Voss wrote:

and if you agree that it's moved (somewhat abruptly with 8th edition) from a war(game) to a (war)game.

I definitely don't agree its abrupt. They've been peeling layers off since the transition from 1st to 2nd. Elminating stats, successive knocks to morale (before kicking it out completely), the various horrible redesigns to vehicle systems (not that I miss acceleration and deceleration, or the wacky grid charts).

I don't think its a good simulation of war, but I don't think it ever was. That doesn't make it any less a wargame though.

The 'pinnacle' of simulation wargames are the old Avalon Hill style games with hex maps, chits with NATO unit symbols, and piles and piles of look-up charts for cross-reference resolution. Those scratch an itch, but its always been a different one than the Warhammers. Especially 40k, which is Fantasy in Space! ridonkulus skirmishes.

I think it's abrupt in the sense that they've transition from (badly) simulating war in the 41st millennium to not even trying - in other words, I think the game is no longer tied to the reality which it once sought to replicate, however well. It's gone from "we suck at emulating 'reality'" to "we don't even try to emulate reality." Or do you think they are still trying / never tried in the first place? Keep in mind when I say reality I mean "the fictional universe of 40k" not literal Real Life™.

I disagree with your assertion about the "pinnacle" of simulation wargames; DOD is doing some great work now (though they typically involve computers). But even that aside, I think those games are in a whole different domain from 40k. 40k is a 'miniatures' game, which investigates a level of war far below the old Avalon Hill operational-level hex games. I think it is still possible for miniatures games to at least attempt to reflect 'reality', no?

I think it's abrupt in the sense that they've transition from (badly) simulating war in the 41st millennium to not even trying - in other words, I think the game is no longer tied to the reality which it once sought to replicate, however well. It's gone from "we suck at emulating 'reality'" to "we don't even try to emulate reality." Or do you think they are still trying / never tried in the first place? Keep in mind when I say reality I mean "the fictional universe of 40k" not literal Real Life™.

I assumed you meant that.
I don't see much difference, to be honest with you. 'We suck/we don't even try' is a motive you're assigning them, I don't think it reflects actual design decisions.

I disagree with your assertion about the "pinnacle" of simulation wargames; DOD is doing some great work now (though they typically involve computers). But even that aside, I think those games are in a whole different domain from 40k. 40k is a 'miniatures' game, which investigates a level of war far below the old Avalon Hill operational-level hex games.

Eh. Fair. It was more about comparing types of games, but its wandering far enough off the main thrust that it doesn't matter.

I think it is still possible for miniatures games to at least attempt to reflect 'reality', no?

No.
Seriously no. All movement/positioning/line of sight rules are abstractions, you can't get around that. They're not reflective of how people actually behave and interact with their environments or the enemy. (or their friends, given there's no blue on blue possible). And that doesn't even touch things like logistics, without which you can't even pretend to be simulating warfare, and 40k has never really touched on that in a meaningful way.

The issue seems to be what level of abstraction you're willing to accept, and if 8th/9th is 'too far' there really isn't anything to be done about that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
8th made some big steps forward when it comes to armies feeling like armies, but took some steps backwards in a few rule interactions, abstracting them to the point that they feel gamey. Reroll auras surely qualify in that.

Also, stratagems were nice for the "war" part, but only some of them. Those are mostly the stratagems which expand the army horizontally, and allow models to cover alternative roles. There are instead the stratagems which just make "x" into "x+1" like for example Veterans of the long war, which instead are fully on the "game" side. They don't feel like "Stratagems".

Stratagems aren't even something I considered when I wrote the OP, but you're right, they're not altogether a terrible idea, I suppose, though as always with GW I disagree with their overall implementation.

Voss wrote:

and if you agree that it's moved (somewhat abruptly with 8th edition) from a war(game) to a (war)game.

I definitely don't agree its abrupt. They've been peeling layers off since the transition from 1st to 2nd. Elminating stats, successive knocks to morale (before kicking it out completely), the various horrible redesigns to vehicle systems (not that I miss acceleration and deceleration, or the wacky grid charts).

I don't think its a good simulation of war, but I don't think it ever was. That doesn't make it any less a wargame though.

The 'pinnacle' of simulation wargames are the old Avalon Hill style games with hex maps, chits with NATO unit symbols, and piles and piles of look-up charts for cross-reference resolution. Those scratch an itch, but its always been a different one than the Warhammers. Especially 40k, which is Fantasy in Space! ridonkulus skirmishes.

I think it's abrupt in the sense that they've transition from (badly) simulating war in the 41st millennium to not even trying - in other words, I think the game is no longer tied to the reality which it once sought to replicate, however well. It's gone from "we suck at emulating 'reality'" to "we don't even try to emulate reality." Or do you think they are still trying / never tried in the first place? Keep in mind when I say reality I mean "the fictional universe of 40k" not literal Real Life™.

I disagree with your assertion about the "pinnacle" of simulation wargames; DOD is doing some great work now (though they typically involve computers). But even that aside, I think those games are in a whole different domain from 40k. 40k is a 'miniatures' game, which investigates a level of war far below the old Avalon Hill operational-level hex games. I think it is still possible for miniatures games to at least attempt to reflect 'reality', no?

40k was never about simulating war in the 41st millenium. Even in the older editions. Maybe rogue trader might of been but certainly not 3rd through 7th.

Back then 40k was trying (somewhat) to simulate modern convential warfare but with everything having a goofy name.

Honestly, no offence intended, but if you thought ANY edition was actually even a little bit representative of the frankly insane scale of warfare in the 41st millenia, I put that down to you transposing modern warfare film/books/experience onto what you were reading to better contextualize the raw insanity that battles in 40k are on.

And in that vein, I honestly think the more 'gamey' nature of 8th and 9th does a far better job of giving the player a window into what warfare would be like in the 41st millenium. Complete and utter nonsensical insanity. Crazy space vikings on somehow bullet proof wolves charging impossible eldritch abominations underneath the legs of city sized monstrosities duking it out with both incredibly sophisticated futuristic weapons that rend the fabric of space time through oscillating flux waves in concordance with natural resonance frequencies and also a giant fething chainsaw hand. Crazy nonsense happening out of nowhere that defies convential understanding is sort of the hallmark of the 40k universe. Why shouldn't a building somehow block a small tank from seeing a huge tank, but not the other way around?

Worrying about whether or not that bush will get caught in my tank treads, or any of the other stuff that seems like 'simulationism' to a lot of the so called 'war(game)rs, always felt stupid and, for lack of a better term, 'unrealistic' to 40k for me.

40k is and has always been a crazy Heavy Metal album cover, and the prior rulesets always put themselves at odds with that fact by pretending they were trying to 'simulate' warfare in the 41st millenium, when really it was just a(n admittedly very slipshod) rehash of rommel's north africa campaign with a sci-fi veneer.

Voss wrote:

I think it's abrupt in the sense that they've transition from (badly) simulating war in the 41st millennium to not even trying - in other words, I think the game is no longer tied to the reality which it once sought to replicate, however well. It's gone from "we suck at emulating 'reality'" to "we don't even try to emulate reality." Or do you think they are still trying / never tried in the first place? Keep in mind when I say reality I mean "the fictional universe of 40k" not literal Real Life™.

I assumed you meant that.
I don't see much difference, to be honest with you. 'We suck/we don't even try' is a motive you're assigning them, I don't think it reflects actual design decisions.

Fair enough. It is a motive, but if you think they're honest-to-god trying their best with 8th and small arms in the 41st millenium really do have a solid chance of hurting a main battle tank (for example) then I suppose that's fine. They didn't before, so someone wasn't trying somewhere.

Voss wrote:

I disagree with your assertion about the "pinnacle" of simulation wargames; DOD is doing some great work now (though they typically involve computers). But even that aside, I think those games are in a whole different domain from 40k. 40k is a 'miniatures' game, which investigates a level of war far below the old Avalon Hill operational-level hex games.

Eh. Fair. It was more about comparing types of games, but its wandering far enough off the main thrust that it doesn't matter.

True.

Voss wrote:

I think it is still possible for miniatures games to at least attempt to reflect 'reality', no?

No.
Seriously no. All movement/positioning/line of sight rules are abstractions, you can't get around that. They're not reflective of how people actually behave and interact with their environments or the enemy. (or their friends, given there's no blue on blue possible). And that doesn't even touch things like logistics, without which you can't even pretend to be simulating warfare, and 40k has never really touched on that in a meaningful way.

I think you're confusing my points. They are abstract, and always will be. Even in a computer simulation, they're 'unrealistic' in many ways. I think you're not giving enough credit to the abstractions.

In DOD modeling and sim (and wargaming for that matter) there's several levels of war (engineering level, engagement level, mission level, etc. all the way up to campaign and theater level modeling) and if you went to someone trying to model, say, a single engagement between 2 aircraft and said "this can't be real, you're not simulating logistics!" then they'd be very confused, because that's not relevant at the level of war that is being modeled. If the aircraft runs out of missiles, then it runs out of missiles. There's no modeling of how it is resupplied, no modeling of where it should land - there's not expected to be, because that's an entirely different question from the analysis of the singular A2A engagement.

Similarly, saying a "mini's game doesn't model logistics" isn't convincing, because logistics is outside the scope that a typical minis game is concerned with (beyond a few token things, like for example if you are tracking special, exquisite munitions that a model may only have one of).

As for abstractions, you're correct that everything is an abstraction, but I don't think that invalidates the attempt. You're essentially arguing that it is impossible to do accurate small-scale modeling of war, despite it being a useful training tool for commanders since long before computers existed. I think there is a degree of abstraction that is necessary, but that doesn't mean you can throw the baby out with the bathwater and abstract badly. (Or, as I think happened with 8th, give up on abstraction entirely and just make a game utterly disconnected from any reality at all.) Curious to hear your thoughts, though, on this. It's certainly eye-opening to see some people believe this way.

Voss wrote:
The issue seems to be what level of abstraction you're willing to accept, and if 8th/9th is 'too far' there really isn't anything to be done about that.

No, that's why I mentioned what I did. It's not the level of abstraction I'm terribly concerned with, but rather the abstraction itself. To pull from the same example above, 40k used to have rules that made tanks immune to small arms. 8th edition threw away those rules. What level of abstraction changed that suddenly made tanks vulnerable to small arms? What scale shift is that? What is being abstracted there?

ERJAK wrote:

Spoiler:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
8th made some big steps forward when it comes to armies feeling like armies, but took some steps backwards in a few rule interactions, abstracting them to the point that they feel gamey. Reroll auras surely qualify in that.

Also, stratagems were nice for the "war" part, but only some of them. Those are mostly the stratagems which expand the army horizontally, and allow models to cover alternative roles. There are instead the stratagems which just make "x" into "x+1" like for example Veterans of the long war, which instead are fully on the "game" side. They don't feel like "Stratagems".

Stratagems aren't even something I considered when I wrote the OP, but you're right, they're not altogether a terrible idea, I suppose, though as always with GW I disagree with their overall implementation.

Voss wrote:

and if you agree that it's moved (somewhat abruptly with 8th edition) from a war(game) to a (war)game.

I definitely don't agree its abrupt. They've been peeling layers off since the transition from 1st to 2nd. Elminating stats, successive knocks to morale (before kicking it out completely), the various horrible redesigns to vehicle systems (not that I miss acceleration and deceleration, or the wacky grid charts).

I don't think its a good simulation of war, but I don't think it ever was. That doesn't make it any less a wargame though.

The 'pinnacle' of simulation wargames are the old Avalon Hill style games with hex maps, chits with NATO unit symbols, and piles and piles of look-up charts for cross-reference resolution. Those scratch an itch, but its always been a different one than the Warhammers. Especially 40k, which is Fantasy in Space! ridonkulus skirmishes.

I think it's abrupt in the sense that they've transition from (badly) simulating war in the 41st millennium to not even trying - in other words, I think the game is no longer tied to the reality which it once sought to replicate, however well. It's gone from "we suck at emulating 'reality'" to "we don't even try to emulate reality." Or do you think they are still trying / never tried in the first place? Keep in mind when I say reality I mean "the fictional universe of 40k" not literal Real Life™.

I disagree with your assertion about the "pinnacle" of simulation wargames; DOD is doing some great work now (though they typically involve computers). But even that aside, I think those games are in a whole different domain from 40k. 40k is a 'miniatures' game, which investigates a level of war far below the old Avalon Hill operational-level hex games. I think it is still possible for miniatures games to at least attempt to reflect 'reality', no?

40k was never about simulating war in the 41st millenium. Even in the older editions. Maybe rogue trader might of been but certainly not 3rd through 7th.

Back then 40k was trying (somewhat) to simulate modern convential warfare but with everything having a goofy name.

Honestly, no offence intended, but if you thought ANY edition was actually even a little bit representative of the frankly insane scale of warfare in the 41st millenia, I put that down to you transposing modern warfare film/books/experience onto what you were reading to better contextualize the raw insanity that battles in 40k are on.

And in that vein, I honestly think the more 'gamey' nature of 8th and 9th does a far better job of giving the player a window into what warfare would be like in the 41st millenium. Complete and utter nonsensical insanity. Crazy space vikings on somehow bullet proof wolves charging impossible eldritch abominations underneath the legs of city sized monstrosities duking it out with both incredibly sophisticated futuristic weapons that rend the fabric of space time through oscillating flux waves in concordance with natural resonance frequencies and also a giant fething chainsaw hand. Crazy nonsense happening out of nowhere that defies convential understanding is sort of the hallmark of the 40k universe. Why shouldn't a building somehow block a small tank from seeing a huge tank, but not the other way around?

Worrying about whether or not that bush will get caught in my tank treads, or any of the other stuff that seems like 'simulationism' to a lot of the so called 'war(game)rs, always felt stupid and, for lack of a better term, 'unrealistic' to 40k for me.

40k is and has always been a crazy Heavy Metal album cover, and the prior rulesets always put themselves at odds with that fact by pretending they were trying to 'simulate' warfare in the 41st millenium, when really it was just a(n admittedly very slipshod) rehash of rommel's north africa campaign with a sci-fi veneer.

So essentially you're saying that the older games had the "reality" they were trying to abstract wrong, and the newer games have a different, more believable (for you) "reality"? That's a fundamental shift in the underlying setting.

If you're saying the setting was originally a place things operated like they do in 8th, and the earlier editions simply got it wrong, then that's certainly not how I took the setting; it at least had some basis in intuitive reality (i.e. tanks can bog down in difficult terrain, humans have a heart and two lungs, wolves aren't bulletproof). I recognize I could be wrong.

EDIT: Oh no, it didn't append the posts like it usually does D:

As for abstractions, you're correct that everything is an abstraction, but I don't think that invalidates the attempt. You're essentially arguing that it is impossible to do accurate small-scale modeling of war, despite it being a useful training tool for commanders since long before computers existed. I think there is a degree of abstraction that is necessary, but that doesn't mean you can throw the baby out with the bathwater and abstract badly. Curious to hear your thoughts, though, on this. It's certainly eye-opening to see some people believe this way.

Wow, you're inferring a LOT. I'm not entirely certain where to start.

'Abstract badly' is a weird judgement call. I kinda see how you want to get there, but you've pretty much taken it as an 'a priori' given without establishing, well, anything, and its overwhelming everything else.

I don't think abstraction makes a wargames training tool invalid (or why computers would be relevant here). But awareness of the abstractions and how they relate (or fail to relate) to the real world is super-important if you to use a wargame as a training tool. I mean, people have been exalting chess for over a thousand years, but its about the mode of thinking, not actually leading troops.

But in any case, 40k isn't a training tool. If it was, it'd be a really bad one, no matter which edition you hold as superior. It would get people killed unnecessarily. 'Drive me forward, I want to hit them with my sword' isn't a recent meme.

---

As for logistics... No. The starting point of 40k is the army list, with various limitations and theoretical logistical elements. It isn't realistic to real world army composition, but its a fundamental aspect of the starting point of the game.

To pull from the same example above, 40k used to have rules that made tanks immune to small arms. 8th edition threw away those rules. What level of abstraction changed that suddenly made tanks vulnerable to small arms? What scale shift is that? What is being abstracted there?

Most tanks weren't immune in older editions, land raiders, monoliths and other exceptions aside. You just had to get behind them and attack the weak rear armor (or get in melee, in which case you were always attacking the weakest armor).

The abstraction just shifted from 'rear' to 'weak points,' partly for game purposes, partly for the 'models aren't really sitting still' abstraction.

Voss wrote:

As for abstractions, you're correct that everything is an abstraction, but I don't think that invalidates the attempt. You're essentially arguing that it is impossible to do accurate small-scale modeling of war, despite it being a useful training tool for commanders since long before computers existed. I think there is a degree of abstraction that is necessary, but that doesn't mean you can throw the baby out with the bathwater and abstract badly. Curious to hear your thoughts, though, on this. It's certainly eye-opening to see some people believe this way.

Wow, you're inferring a LOT. I'm not entirely certain where to start.

'Abstract badly' is a weird judgement call. I kinda see how you want to get there, but you've pretty much taken it as an 'a priori' given without establishing, well, anything, and its overwhelming everything else.

I don't think abstraction makes a wargames training tool invalid (or why computers would be relevant here). But awareness of the abstractions and how they relate (or fail to relate) to the real world is super-important if you to use a wargame as a training tool. I mean, people have been exalting chess for over a thousand years, but its about the mode of thinking, not actually leading troops.

But in any case, 40k isn't a training tool. If it was, it'd be a really bad one, no matter which edition you hold as superior. It would get people killed unnecessarily. 'Drive me forward, I want to hit them with my sword' isn't a recent meme.

I agree, it's for entertainment, not training. I only brought that up to disprove the notion that sand-table exercises / miniatures games in general couldn't abstract "reality". With that notion disproven, then I seek to emphasize that 40k could abstract its "reality" if the designers wished, since we've successfully proven that it's possible to do so. However, the designers have decided not to - and this is distinct from doing so badly. In other words, I believe the designers no longer have a picture of the reality they seek to abstract in their mind - or that the picture has changed.

Voss wrote:
As for logistics... No. The starting point of 40k is the army list, with various limitations and theoretical logistical elements. It isn't realistic to real world army composition, but its a fundamental aspect of the starting point of the game.

I never took the army list to be related to logistics; I took it to be based more on army structure, i.e. what the "reality" of an army might look like in the 41st millennium. Having logistics be the reason you have limitations (as it would be today) rather than, say, religious adherence to some sort of book or the like is certainly a good idea, though - it'd be cool if army building reflected that. As it stands, I think balance concerns impact points cost more than logistical concerns - again going back to the war(game) vs (war)game. Balance is a game term, not a military term. I recognize it is important, but there has to be some semblance of balance written into the background or one faction would just win all the time. Therefore, the tabletop could reflect the "reality" of the setting but seems not to (or the reality of the setting is broken, which is possible but weakens the "reason to play 40k is for the lore" argument).

Voss wrote:

To pull from the same example above, 40k used to have rules that made tanks immune to small arms. 8th edition threw away those rules. What level of abstraction changed that suddenly made tanks vulnerable to small arms? What scale shift is that? What is being abstracted there?

Most tanks weren't immune in older editions, land raiders, monoliths and other exceptions aside. You just had to get behind them and attack the weak rear armor (or get in melee, in which case you were always attacking the weakest armor).

The abstraction just shifted from 'rear' to 'weak points,' partly for game purposes, partly for the 'models aren't really sitting still' abstraction.

Well, it depends on how you view small arms (which is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about). Strength 2 or 3 weapons couldn't hurt any tanks in the game, and these were analogous to small pistols (needle weapons / flechette blasters for example) and modern assault rifles (lasguns/autoguns/stub carbines for example). And some tanks were immune to larger, anti-material weapons like HMGs (bolter/heavy stubbers/etc) from any facing, while being vulnerable to autocannons (e.g. Leman Russ Demolishers, Malcadors, Baneblades etc). while still more armored vehicles were immune even to autocannons and grenade launchers, requiring even the heaviest weapons to destroy (monoliths and land raiders, etc).

That sort of abstraction is just gone. Shooting at a Rhino with a lasgun, shooting at a Baneblade with a lasgun, and shooting at a Monolith with a lasgun all has exactly the same percent chance of damaging it. Shooting at a Leman Russ, a Monolith, and an Imperial Knight with a Boltgun all have exactly the same percent chance of damaging it. Conversely, shooting at a Rhino with a lascannon, shooting at a Baneblade with a lascannon, and shooting at a Monolith with a lascannon all has exactly the same percent chance of destroying it (that is, 0%).

If you think 8th edition has done a better job of abstracting this than the earlier editions did, then I accept that point of view and respectfully disagree; but it's a subjective thing. My thread is more about the designer's intent - or, at least, was intended to be. I just don't think they put as much thought into abstracting the "reality" of 40k as they used to, and that's because they fundamentally see it now as a (war)game, rather than a war(game). (And then to address the apparent success of that model, where the public seems to want a game and not a wargame - or at least, a more "gamey" wargame).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So, Cruentus, I don't disagree, obviously. But why do you think the "games" are more popular? Do you think what you remember (a dice roll betraying you in the fog of war!) is a mechanic most people wouldn't like?

Similarly, do you think recovering the feel of 3rd edition with the new rules is do-able? You mention size, but surely you could play smaller games with older units... is there something more fundamental that's different or?

I realize the conversation has moved on from these points, but I just wanted to respond.

I think "games" are more popular, because when you dig into the older rulesets - Avalon Hill was brought up - they had pages and pages and pages of sometimes dense rules, basic, intermediate, advanced rules, plus optional rules, intended to simulate warfare based on ratios and chart lookups. I was raised on the Avalon Hill games, and contrasted those with playing green army men and using rubber bands to shoot at the other side (I had rules for machine guns, mortars, firing AT weapons at tanks), all using a rubber band, with nothing written down. To me, one was a game - AH - the other was play.

There has been a change in rules development to make things abstract, elegant, "simpler" for people to pick up, and I think GW jumped on that train with AoS, and 40k. Everything is there on the card - What do I need to hit with a ranged weapon = 3+, written right on the card. Simples. Even the 8th edition "core rules" were 4 pages. Doesn't get much simpler.

Now, that is not to confuse long or wordy with better. I've read some rules tomes that didn't make sense, or were super dense, and hence wouldn't make for an interesting game (to me). But other enjoy them.

All of that is to say I think "games" are more popular because they're easier to pick up, have familiar mechanics to other games. and get you from point A to point B, and a conclusion to the game (i.e. winner and loser).

Re: Fog of War and similar mechanics: I do believe that there are people who don't like those. They don't like the vagaries of dice rolls or morale preventing them from having complete control over their force, and being able to do whatever they want to. For me, having that complete control takes some of the interest out of the game, because as long as my troops are on the table, I can have them do something, and can plan accordingly, and many times its going through the motions where the only decision is which target to prioritize. In games I've played with that Fog of War and similar friction, there is no guarantee when or if those reinforcements will appear, no guarantee that unit I want to advance on the flank will do so, and with actual morale, no guarantee that that unit I just threw into the meatgrinder will stay there long enough...

A lot of that is all stuff that has been removed from 40k. Its a math exercise. This unit will survive x long against y unless z, in which case I use this unit over here to just act as a speedbump, etc.

The 8th games that I played early on with the Indexes were another fresh breath for the rules, as they tend to be every edition change - 40k used to be a new edition every 4 or 5 years, at by the end of that period, usually after half the codexes had been updated to the new edition, a "new" edition came out, and gameplay was interesting again. Until the new codexes started dropping. Its the same with 8th/9th for me. Once the codexes started dropping, the games took longer, there were more and bigger "buffs", the points changed regularly, stuff was scattered across multiple publications, etc. (not that its new, there has always been WD and Annuals from GW), but after my 7th edition change (starting 2nd to now), its requires more energy than I'm willing to put toward it to keep current or even remember "was that a 7th edition, 8th edition, or 9th edition rule?"

You can recreate the feeling of 3rd by keeping things basic within the existing framework, but this goes against all the "officialdom" that gets thrown around. I could easily play 8th with Index, and add in some of the newer terrain rules from 9th , or even go back to 4th/5th for terrain, or whatever approach I wanted to. But that's only going to get me games against like minded folks, or my son. We play 8th with Index when we play (for now), we play Warhammer Skirmish with the Ravening Hordes lists as our baseline, and then we add in castles, sieges, bunkers, etc. on the fly. I guess one could argue that we're playing a (war)game by going that route, but the results and the immersion feel the opposite.

LOTR has been mentioned also in this thread. LOTR, I find, has a great mix of heroism (albeit limited - with Might, Fate, etc.), and interactivity to keep both players interested. It does a great job in recreating the movies, and scenarios based on them. It also doesn't have the sheer bloat or faction rules and overarching "strategems" or re-producing CPs, instead you might have one model who regains 1 Might each round, but you're never getting them all back. In 8th, CP farms with the ability to recoup your CPs wasn't used by accident.

Still, everyone can have their fun how they want, and everyone wants something different from the games they play. The important thing is to know what that is, and to go for that. I'm too old to play a game I don't enjoy, particularly when the game can take 2-3 hours for a "normal" game.

Saying that, if you got me on a 12x6 table playing as part of an 'apocalypse style' campaign game with multiple forces per side, no lords of war or titans, I'd happily play that for an entire weekend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

If you think 8th edition has done a better job of abstracting this than the earlier editions did, then I accept that point of view and respectfully disagree; but it's a subjective thing. My thread is more about the designer's intent - or, at least, was intended to be. I just don't think they put as much thought into abstracting the "reality" of 40k as they used to, and that's because they fundamentally see it now as a (war)game, rather than a war(game). (And then to address the apparent success of that model, where the public seems to want a game and not a wargame - or at least, a more "gamey" wargame).

To jump into this, I don't really think they think in terms of "abstracting the reality" of 40k. Remember, it was an exercise for them to have a structure for them to push around models - (war)game - with friends. They genuinely seemed surprised with some of the things that the community would do with lists, or rules interactions. They're responses would be GW: "Why would you do that?" Player: "Because its in the rules and says I can do it." GW: "But why would you do that?" They have a fundamentally different approach to how the game translates from rulebook (or guideline) to the table. And there probably isn't going to be a time when that meshes - hence all the codified stuff - rule of 3, for ex.

Their name is "GAMES" Workshop. Their model works because they have a product (the rules), plus the support (models, magazine, paints, supplements) so that someone can come in and "one stop shop" for the total experience. There are very few successful (or successful on this scale) comparisons in mini wargaming. Maybe Battlefront, but there is huge competition in the 15mm historicals market. For GW, the rules just need to be "fun enough" and "good enough" and "easy enough" to keep people coming in the door, and the one stop shop nature of their offerings keep folks there.

When I branched off into historicals a number of years ago, you can be absolutely drowned in the number of rulesets, mini manufacturers, supplementary stuff, but its all "DIY". You have to find the rules you want to use, then track down the models to represent your armies, then find opponents who want to use those rules, find the spears to outfit your models, etc. Much harder. The only upside is that the Historical minis can be used in ANY ruleset.

Games are easier, people don't want to get bogged down in arcs, facings, etc. Most just want to slam their models together in the center of the board. Warhammer is not a simulation it's a cinematic representation of the setting, it just gives you something to do with your miniatures. The ones who prioritize realism are playing other games. Imo it has swung way too far in the game direction and would be improved by finding a middle ground between the two.

If being gamey means that some factions end up with not working books, then I say thank you. It is better to have a crunch game, with all its limitations, then suddenly wake up one days with a new codex that GW wrote for fun, but it isn't very fun to play with or worse GW designs it with some core rule interactions in mind, only to abandon them later or even make them illegal.

To be honest I don't really care if they do the game one way or the other, as long as the army model count doesn't go up, people aren't forced to buy faction buildings and models for their spells, and GW keeps the same design paradigma all edition.

I've just bought a 30K army pretty much for the reasons described in the OP: It has more of that oldschool wargame feel.

I'm not sure that complexity is really the defining difference. One of my favorite modern wargames is the World At War/Nations At War series, where all the stats you need are printed on the counters. No big lookup tables, no charts, and the rules aren't very complicated at all, but it delivers a reasonably realistic experience that feels 'right'. Meanwhile the glut of stratagems and faction traits and special rules in 8th/9th are anything but simple.

I would say it's more a matter of whether the game is attempting to model the realities of warfare, or whether it's using warfare as a backdrop for a set of game mechanics. Things like stratagems in 8th/9th are not a natural result of attempting to simulate warfare; they're a game mechanic that adds narrative flavor but exists for gameplay rather than simulationist reasons.

You can see the differences in approach down in the little details. For example, earlier editions of 40K had random appearance and random scatter on deep strike, which was realistic but made it unreliable. Conversely, in 8th/9th deep striking units appear exactly when and where you want them, subject to a 9" restriction. This rewards proper screening and facilitates strategies that rely on that precision (eg melta drop). Another good example is vehicles. Real AFVs tend to be alive until very suddenly they are not, and the damage tables in older editions reflected this. The 8th/9th system is more streamlined and more predictable, being less representative of real warfare but providing a more 'game-like' experience.

A lot of the YMMV factor comes down to whether you enjoy simulation for its own sake. I can completely understand someone being frustrated with a game where their star unit either shows up too late to be useful or gets wiped out by a bad scatter roll, or being frustrated when their Land Raider gets cored by a lascannon on the first turn. Conversely, I find it frustrating that basic warfare concepts like flanking don't exist in 8th/9th, and how the game is heavily focused on stratagem and ability combos.

Odd as it may sound, I find the recent Apocalypse system gives modern 40K a lot of that old-school wargame flavor. No stratagems, minimal special abilities, strong emphasis on command and control, and an alternating activation and orders system that forces you to think in advance about what your opponent is likely to do.

I think Catbarf understands what I mean, especially with this sentence:
"I would say it's more a matter of whether the game is attempting to model the realities of warfare, or whether it's using warfare as a backdrop for a set of game mechanics."

Still, other minis games are simple (e.g. KoW), and yet they don't have the following that 8th edition 40k does. Furthermore, 8th edition increased in popularity. Do you think this is solely a result of 40k's momentum (as in the ability to always find a game)? Or is there some other essence of 40k that makes it popular, and made the less-realistic-more-gamey system grow in popularity?

Conversely, Cruentus, do you think it is impossible for a more realistic ruleset (such as the historicals you mention, which are indeed somewhat difficult to get groups into) to be as popular as 40k?
EDIT:
Also everyone be warned, I'm taking notes on other games to try, so don't think those comments go unnoticed.

Warhammer 40,000 started life as a wargame, but now has become a game that's vaguely military related. It's also gotten more and more popular since then. I suppose I should define exactly what I mean:

Interesting topic! Honestly though - you're starting from a false premise. It has never been anything but "vaguely military related". Listening to any of the original people involved talk about creating it illustrates that. They originally set it up as more of a role playing game (and indeed Rogue Trader was unplayable without a GM) where you could use the models to fight out the combat scenes. Early versions of the game had everything from atomic bombs to laughing gas (with detailed "effects" tables but nothing mentioned in the rules on how to actually deploy them), and was always silly and off the wall.

I can't remember if it was Gav or Andy C, but someone asked them about "realism" at some point during 2nd ed and the response was telling. It went something along the lines of "What? No. No this is intended as nothing but a fun time with sci-fi style soldiers. Realism went out the window the second we had a 6.6" long tank sitting next to a man with a 6" ranged pistol".

The differences become even more stark if you do actually play a war game with more realistic rules that stress the WAR part of the game. Honestly though, that's probably for the best. The GW design team seems very fixated on a certain point in time and tends to design rules with that older (Napoleanic) style of warfare in mind, which can often lead to baffling results that I don't think would mesh well with a more proper "simulator".

As far as immersion goes - I had the same issue going from 2nd ed to 3rd ed. 3rd streamlined so much that it no longer felt as tactical or interesting to me and I lost interest for quite a long time. The game needed that streamlining but they went too far IMO (Gav Thorpe himself has also said this several times), but for me, 8th hit the nerve just right for what I was personally looking for. A game that was fun, with just enough depth that I'm interested, but not so much that it feels like milsim game and I'm now tracking how far each squad can move based off of the wieght of their gear and whether or not they're under fire. 40k was never really much of a simulator like that, and I'm totally good with that.

 Cruentus wrote:


Their name is "GAMES" Workshop.

Just to address this point, their name is Games Workshop because they were a company which published and sold boxed boardgames.

They then brought out a company called Citadel Minitures, but kept the GW brand name because it was stronger. They then slowly reduced and ultimately abandoned the boardgames part of their business and focused on the minitures and painting side of the business.

If anything the orginal 'Games Workshop' was much more at home selling Avalon Hill boxed games, of which I am a proud customer, rather than the nonsense modern GW vomits out.

Tycho, don't confuse "realism" with realism.

The reason that I put reality in quotes in the OP is that I recognize that 40k isn't "realistic." It's hilarious, off-the-wall, it's derpy, it's grim, it's depressing, but it's forty millennia away from now in a fictional universe.

What I mean by "reality" in that context is the reality of that universe, not the reality of our universe. For example, our universe doesn't have daemons spilling from the Immaterium who want to eat our souls. But 40k does, and presumably those daemons have certain capabilities and interact with reality in a certain way.

I don't care that the rules are fun and off-the-wall, just like I don't care that the rules for daemons exist despite them being unrealistic.

I'm talking about the reality of the background of the setting - when daemons go to fight, say, Eldar, there's a battle that occurs in the setting - wave serpents attack Bloodthirsters, bloodletters stab at Dire Avengers, etc.

In the tabletop game, you could recreate this battle.

I am suggesting that the way the battle plays out in the narrative (e.g. what happens when a Wave Serpent attacks a Bloodthirster) should be consistent in at least some degree with what happens on the tabletop game (when a wave serpent attacks a bloodthirster). I don't believe in 8th edition that this is as tight as it has been in the past, and I believe this is because it is now being seen as a "game" rather than a genuine attempt to fight battles in the 41st millennium, abstracted using minis.

EDIT: followup example
I can accept the 6" range pistol next to a 6.6" long tank. That just tells me that the pistols of the 41st millennium have pathetic range or that the physics of the 41st millennium is fundamentally different than ours, or, as in the case of Inferno Pistols, the technology simply is short ranged by nature of its operation. What I think is different now is that when the designers design a new pistol, they don't say "Well, infernus pistols have a shorter range than most tank lengths because the mechanism by which a melta weapon functions is short ranged, and this is only the pistol version, so shorter still" or whatever. The background doesn't even seem to go into their thinking.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think Catbarf understands what I mean, especially with this sentence:
"I would say it's more a matter of whether the game is attempting to model the realities of warfare, or whether it's using warfare as a backdrop for a set of game mechanics."

Still, other minis games are simple (e.g. KoW), and yet they don't have the following that 8th edition 40k does. Furthermore, 8th edition increased in popularity. Do you think this is solely a result of 40k's momentum (as in the ability to always find a game)? Or is there some other essence of 40k that makes it popular, and made the less-realistic-more-gamey system grow in popularity?

Conversely, Cruentus, do you think it is impossible for a more realistic ruleset (such as the historicals you mention, which are indeed somewhat difficult to get groups into) to be as popular as 40k?
EDIT:
Also everyone be warned, I'm taking notes on other games to try, so don't think those comments go unnoticed.

Kings of War looks simple but it ends up being so deterministic that it's easy to find the perfect play by analysis, so you need a thorough understanding of the math and the geometry or you'll get eaten by a slightly more experienced player. Warmachine is great but the design space is so huge and the playerbase so competitive that the new player experience tends to involve a lot of getting crushed by stuff you weren't ready for before you start to figure out how the game works. Infinity has so many rules and so many interactions between rules that the learning curve is more of a cliff.

The thing Warhammer's always done really well is that the learning curve is quite shallow. The game contains (either accidentally or deliberately, I've never been sure) armies that are straightforward to give new players a gentle introduction, as well as convoluted and difficult armies to challenge people who are looking for it. The basic rules are short, there aren't that many interactions, and it's pretty easy to evaluate which option you want to be using most of the time. Warhammer's success is definitely at least somewhat to do with market presence/ease of finding players, and definitely at least somewhat to do with its broad exposure in video games and general culture, but I think if you saw a more simulationist game that had the kind of learning curve 40k does you'd see people playing it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I can accept the 6" range pistol next to a 6.6" long tank. That just tells me that the pistols of the 41st millennium have pathetic range or that the physics of the 41st millennium is fundamentally different than ours, or, as in the case of Inferno Pistols, the technology simply is short ranged by nature of its operation.

It tells me that the gameplay scale isn't meant to be taken literally- just as I assume that a turn is longer than 2-3 seconds and that highly trained soldiers don't panic and flee when they no longer have a buddy within six feet of them. In fact, if you play the 40K ruleset with 4-6mm miniatures, those ranges and speeds actually start to become reasonably realistic.

Epic explicitly stated that it used an elastic time and distance scale, with the assumption that distances and times compress as the forces approach each other. It's not a 1:1 simulation, but it feels 'right' in the sense of appropriately modeling the feel of two forces closing to contact. Epic was also much more of a traditional wargame than 40K, actually modeling command and control and glossing over a lot of the chrome in weapons and equipment.

Tangentially related to the inferno pistol question, one of the examples of 40K's changing design philosophy is the basic statline. Originally it was pretty straightforward- just taking defensive profile, if you were humanoid and not a heroic, larger-than-life character, you were W1. Then your Toughness represented how hard you are to kill, and your armor save represented the effectiveness of your armor.

Now if you're humanoid you're W1, unless if you're a big humanoid (Primaris) you might be W2, but you also might not be (Immortal). Then Toughness represents how hard you are to kill, unless it doesn't, because that might be instead represented as a FNP save (Plague Marines), an invulnerable save (Haemonculi), or a stratagem that makes you tougher (Transhuman Physiology). Then your armor save represents the effectiveness of your armor, but it also might not, because if it's Gravis then it increases your T and W instead.

The old approach is a simulationist model, a formula where each characteristic has a corresponding stat, and that core statline drives the game. The new approach is a more abstract design where there are numerous ways to represent a particular characteristic, often through bespoke special rules, without being constrained to a consistent formula. The interplay between the different special rules is what provides depth, rather than the core mechanics as facilitated by comparatively simple statlines.

A game can be wildly fantastic in its subject matter and still take a simulationist approach to design- it's just a different design philosophy.

AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think Catbarf understands what I mean, especially with this sentence:
"I would say it's more a matter of whether the game is attempting to model the realities of warfare, or whether it's using warfare as a backdrop for a set of game mechanics."

Still, other minis games are simple (e.g. KoW), and yet they don't have the following that 8th edition 40k does. Furthermore, 8th edition increased in popularity. Do you think this is solely a result of 40k's momentum (as in the ability to always find a game)? Or is there some other essence of 40k that makes it popular, and made the less-realistic-more-gamey system grow in popularity?

Conversely, Cruentus, do you think it is impossible for a more realistic ruleset (such as the historicals you mention, which are indeed somewhat difficult to get groups into) to be as popular as 40k?
EDIT:
Also everyone be warned, I'm taking notes on other games to try, so don't think those comments go unnoticed.

Kings of War looks simple but it ends up being so deterministic that it's easy to find the perfect play by analysis, so you need a thorough understanding of the math and the geometry or you'll get eaten by a slightly more experienced player. Warmachine is great but the design space is so huge and the playerbase so competitive that the new player experience tends to involve a lot of getting crushed by stuff you weren't ready for before you start to figure out how the game works. Infinity has so many rules and so many interactions between rules that the learning curve is more of a cliff.

The thing Warhammer's always done really well is that the learning curve is quite shallow. The game contains (either accidentally or deliberately, I've never been sure) armies that are straightforward to give new players a gentle introduction, as well as convoluted and difficult armies to challenge people who are looking for it. The basic rules are short, there aren't that many interactions, and it's pretty easy to evaluate which option you want to be using most of the time. Warhammer's success is definitely at least somewhat to do with market presence/ease of finding players, and definitely at least somewhat to do with its broad exposure in video games and general culture, but I think if you saw a more simulationist game that had the kind of learning curve 40k does you'd see people playing it.

The question then is what game is that, lol. I want to get my group into it; otherwise, I'm interested in designing one (possibly) or at least giving it an evening of thought. You think the learning curve is it? Some armies are easy to parse and understand, while other ones are difficult? That could be it, I can see your point.

catbarf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I can accept the 6" range pistol next to a 6.6" long tank. That just tells me that the pistols of the 41st millennium have pathetic range or that the physics of the 41st millennium is fundamentally different than ours, or, as in the case of Inferno Pistols, the technology simply is short ranged by nature of its operation.

It tells me that the gameplay scale isn't meant to be taken literally- just as I assume that a turn is longer than 2-3 seconds and that highly trained soldiers don't panic and flee when they no longer have a buddy within six feet of them. In fact, if you play the 40K ruleset with 4-6mm miniatures, those ranges and speeds actually start to become reasonably realistic.

Epic explicitly stated that it used an elastic time and distance scale, with the assumption that distances and times compress as the forces approach each other. It's not a 1:1 simulation, but it feels 'right' in the sense of appropriately modeling the feel of two forces closing to contact. Epic was also much more of a traditional wargame than 40K, actually modeling command and control and glossing over a lot of the chrome in weapons and equipment.

Tangentially related to the inferno pistol question, one of the examples of 40K's changing design philosophy is the basic statline. Originally it was pretty straightforward- just taking defensive profile, if you were humanoid and not a heroic, larger-than-life character, you were W1. Then your Toughness represented how hard you are to kill, and your armor save represented the effectiveness of your armor.

Now if you're humanoid you're W1, unless if you're a big humanoid (Primaris) you might be W2, but you also might not be (Immortal). Then Toughness represents how hard you are to kill, unless it doesn't, because that might be instead represented as a FNP save (Plague Marines), an invulnerable save (Haemonculi), or a stratagem that makes you tougher (Transhuman Physiology). Then your armor save represents the effectiveness of your armor, but it also might not, because if it's Gravis then it increases your T and W instead.

The old approach is a simulationist model, a formula where each characteristic has a corresponding stat, and that core statline drives the game. The new approach is a more abstract design where there are numerous ways to represent a particular characteristic, often through bespoke special rules, without being constrained to a consistent formula. The interplay between the different special rules is what provides depth, rather than the core mechanics as facilitated by comparatively simple statlines.

A game can be wildly fantastic in its subject matter and still take a simulationist approach to design- it's just a different design philosophy.

Right, right right. Good points, especially about the sliding scale; that's a common one in other games too and I completely forgot it! The comment about design philosophy is exactly where I am trying to go with this thread. What's GW's design philosophy now? At the beginning of 8th, I swallowed the tale that it was "simplification" but 9th complicates things again (and 8th turned out not to be all that simple anyways). Can you identify why they'd be so much less simulationist than before? Because I agree, obviously, that they were. What changed, philosophically, and what are they doing now?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
...I am suggesting that the way the battle plays out in the narrative (e.g. what happens when a Wave Serpent attacks a Bloodthirster) should be consistent in at least some degree with what happens on the tabletop game (when a wave serpent attacks a bloodthirster). I don't believe in 8th edition that this is as tight as it has been in the past, and I believe this is because it is now being seen as a "game" rather than a genuine attempt to fight battles in the 41st millennium, abstracted using minis...

I don't know how much the fluff of the game matters here; you can always rejigger the fluff to match the game. The problem is "verisimilitude" (the quality of seeming real) rather than realism.

To explain the difference I'm going to talk about Legolas for a moment: Consider the Lord of the Rings versus the Hobbit movies. One of the silliest stunts in LotR is the scene at Helm's Deep where Legolas surfs an Uruk shield down a staircase while shooting peopel. We sort of accept that one because we could easily accept someone surfing the shield down the stairs (we could probably do that), and we could accept Legolas shooting people quickly at close range since we see him do that all the time, so to us that doesn't really break our understanding of the scene, it's just some great multi-tasking. Fast forward to the Battle of Five Armies, though, and Legolas is gaining altitude by jumping off falling bricks, which our intuitive understanding of physics tells us isn't possible. He goes from "superhuman elvish reflexes" to "mystical powers over gravity" there; it isn't foreshadowed or explained, and doesn't make sense to us. Legolas is magical, unrealistic, and physics-breaking in both movies, but in Two Towers the writers succeed in tricking us into accepting the physics-breaking as reasonable while in Five Armies the writers failed to do so.

The problem I have with Warhammer as abstract "game" in 8e/9e is that it has started doing things that break that verisimilitude. Plasma that overheats more at night in 8e. My tank's antenna shooting your tank's antenna. Area terrain that blocks line of sight to one Land Raider but not another Land Raider despite the fact that they're the exact same size. Flamers as anti-aircraft weapons. Killing a Titan by shooting it with enough riflemen. The writers could easily go through and rejigger the fluff to make all of these make sense, but then the story would just follow the game in being unbelievable because it'd challenge our intuitive understanding more.

I am suggesting that the way the battle plays out in the narrative (e.g. what happens when a Wave Serpent attacks a Bloodthirster) should be consistent in at least some degree with what happens on the tabletop game (when a wave serpent attacks a bloodthirster). I don't believe in 8th edition that this is as tight as it has been in the past, and I believe this is because it is now being seen as a "game" rather than a genuine attempt to fight battles in the 41st millennium, abstracted using minis.

I gotcha. This makes sense. I definitely misunderstood your original point. Thank you for the follow up. I'd agree that in a lot of cases 8th doesn't capture it quite right, but I'm ok with that too. For me, I just want to see that I can play my army "to the fluff" and have them be competitive. Take 7th edition's Gladius formation for Space Marines for example. Admittedly, it was too strong, and I'm NOT advocating for that, but it did represent how Marines have traditionally been portrayed in the fluff. It was a really good example of a rule that rewarded you for playing a "fluffy" list. BUT, once that army hits the table top, I'm fine if some things don't quite pan out like in the fluff. That's too hard to manage imo.

I think part of the issue is that the tournament scene is huge now and they need to decide how best to support that. I think you're right in that the game has moved far beyond its roots as a system that allowed you to recreate battles in a certain setting, and is now more game oriented, but I don't how to manage that effectively. I've found that, players who prefer that approach are happy to tinker with rules on their own, and since that tends to happen in a small social group, everyone is typically ok with the results, whereas you haveto try as best you can to make sure the tournament rules are balanced (even if it means an outcome unlikely to happen in the fluff). I'm ok with this too. Since I play tournaments and narrative, I can see both sides. I could go on all day as I do find this a really interesting topic.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
...The question then is what game is that, lol. I want to get my group into it; otherwise, I'm interested in designing one (possibly) or at least giving it an evening of thought. You think the learning curve is it? Some armies are easy to parse and understand, while other ones are difficult? That could be it, I can see your point...

Games I could pick out that are comparable to 40k in learning curve tend to have less nice minis, and the question of scale/theme does come up as well. The closest thing to Warhammer that isn't Warhammer is probably Bolt Action; it's a purely historical WWII game written by ex-Warhammer designers, and has a weird-WWII sci-fi mod (Konflikt '47) and a sci-fi version (Beyond the Gates of Antares) as well.