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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Nomeny wrote:
40k is a bunch of things above and beyond the wargaming part. That it retains the wargaming part is because of why it originally existed, to give people something to do with their collections. You see army-building happening in hobbies like Transformers collectibles and such. It's like complaining that platypuses still lay eggs.

That's a different category though. If you collect models for the purpose of collecting them, that's not a game.

While I disagree with much of the video's premises, I think I can safely say that as a game design, Warhammer is pretty bad.

As I've gotten older, I've developed less patience with "special rules," particularly detailed ones that break core mechanics. I think the system should operate seamlessly and intuitively, and the stat lines should speak for themselves. If the stat lines don't, then change the system.

For example, in WHFB, elves were supposedly much better fighters than goblins, but the stats didn't reflect this. Take away the special rules, and elves were only marginally better. The special rules were a cheat, a crutch to force the system to be consistent with the fluff. So why not change the core rules? That's what I did in my game, allowing me to eliminate mithral armor, goblins fear elves, spears in three ranks, and so on.

I think GW is still stuck in an 80s mentality that says special rules are cool and add realism and flavor. No, they don't, they're just one more thing for rules lawyers to manipulate.

I mean that's what a lot of complexity really comes down to - not superior tactical ability, simply a way to juggle processes.

Just to bootstrap somewhere, as this post is aimed at the entire thread, not solely at you.

The evolution of game design stems mostly from the desire to broaden the playerbase beyond "nerds" and onto "normal" population and an absurd level of competition for user attention. This is why modern games are so streamlined. In case of 40k this is one of the most important reasons for all sorts of discontent amongst the playerbase and hate towards GW. And I don't mean this in an "old times were better times" discontent of veteran players, but in a "40k tries to be all sorts of different games for different people all at once and fails miserably". Just two major focus points of this problem - you have players, who play a game or two a year, and at the same time you have players, who play multiple games a week. You also have players, who play in a small, even only single friend large "groups", against a known opponent(s), with limited collection of a single faction, so need "bloat" within each faction and mission set to achieve enough replayability. On the other end you have sworn tournament players, who expect and are expected to know the entire game, with all faction rules by heart, so the same amount of "bloat" should be evenly distributed amongst all 30 factions. Those are so wildly different play experiences, that trying to create a single game for both ends of this spectrum is insane. Life example - I have played 200+ games of 7th. I also played only a handful games of 2nd and 3rd back in those times, despite a similar year count in those editions and a similar time spent on the hobby, just with different focus and gaming opportunities. And I played those 200+ games of 7th in a small group, so I have welcomed the very same mission generation randomness and additional missions/campaign rules tournament players disregarded/hated so much. Index era of 3rd, often praised by tournament/pick-up players, was intolerably bland and limited for my taste. The result of all this is that there will always be a vocal minority, from one side or the other, that will try to bully the other end of the spectrum into "the only true way" of playing 40k.

Now about "special rules" vs "statlines and core rules only". I'm a fan of a careful mix of both, that is where special rules are actually special. Not by rarity, but by adding expanded interactions to the game, that could not otherwise be represented by the core rules. So no "+1/-1/reroll" not-so-special rules, which are the mainstay of modern 40k, but things like displacement field or d-cannon rules of 2nd ed, Instintive Behaviour/Synapse or some of the more interesting 10th ed detachment/faction rules. For me personally, pure core+statline games, focussed on being games first and foremost, have very generic feel to them, with limited lore representation and immersion possible.

And the last point - 40k was never a wargame really, or in a very limited sense. Last three editions are way closer to miniatures equivalent of a combo-driven CCG. The main problem is that pre-built "synnergies" and combo stacking have bigger impact on probability of success, than board interactions. Terrain being reduced to binary can-can't see and no real positioning bonusses other than being within range can be perfectly represented by a line-based card game. Neuroshima Hex has more (all of them really) traditional wargame elements than 40k has, albeit in a very abstracted form.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

nou wrote:
And the last point - 40k was never a wargame really, or in a very limited sense. Last three editions are way closer to miniatures equivalent of a combo-driven CCG. The main problem is that pre-built "synnergies" and combo stacking have bigger impact on probability of success, than board interactions. Terrain being reduced to binary can-can't see and no real positioning bonusses other than being within range can be perfectly represented by a line-based card game. Neuroshima Hex has more (all of them really) traditional wargame elements than 40k has, albeit in a very abstracted form.

It was a wargame, it just had poor design choices.

There are ways to design a mass combat system that emphasizes quality over quantity. GW did not do that, and so added special rules to ensure that the fluff imperative of elves > goblins was sustained.

The problem was that they had to resort to this on such a widespread scale as to render the core system almost irrelevant.

To give a counter-example, consider Stratego. This venerable "two-handed strategy game" is very straightforward on how it works: lower rating wins. Ties result in mutual destruction.

But there are some special rules. Bombs blow up everyone but miners (sappers), who neutralize them.

Scouts can move two squares instead of one.

The spy loses to every unit but the field marshal if it attacks first. If it attacks first, it is the only one who can take the highest-ranked piece without loss. Successfully using the spy was always a source of pride.

Wow, that's a really short list. Obviously only two armies, fixed board, fixed setup, but there you are.

But if every single rating has a special rule, and you have 20 armies rather than two, the design bloat becomes very obvious. I believe the stats should be determinative, and that special rules should merely provide decorative edging. If they overrule the core mechanics, they aren't really special rules, they are a one-off core rule that is as out of place as a reinforcing bar run horizontally through a grocery store.

Oh, but I agree, that the most weight of the system should rest on the core rules. Basically the whole "this is a proper wargame" engine. But going beyond historicals, I find that games where factions are differentiated only by differing access to various unit types and their stats, are uninspiring. The game may be great mechanically speaking, but will feel detached from the story it was created for. And this is where special rules come into play. There might only be one significant per faction, but should not be just a mere nudge of some core mechanic. Again, an example form Neuroshima Hex. This game has four core factions and many more expansions. Core factions are differentiated by the focus on one fundamental mechanic each - one melee, one ranged, one initiative, and one "double tap". Then there are secondary traits like durability or mobility also distributed univenly, and of course all factions have different composition. And this core part of the game is already very good. But I don't see how you could build more than perhaps two more interesting factions out of core rules. Merely shifting unit composition around would be repetitive. Where Neuroshima Hex shines the most, are expansions. Each new army has some unique focus, many unique units that go beyond core mechanics, or even faction that works in an entirely different way. And the resulting game is still mechanically very coherent.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

nou wrote:
Oh, but I agree, that the most weight of the system should rest on the core rules. Basically the whole "this is a proper wargame" engine. But going beyond historicals, I find that games where factions are differentiated only by differing access to various unit types and their stats, are uninspiring. The game may be great mechanically speaking, but will feel detached from the story it was created for. And this is where special rules come into play. There might only be one significant per faction, but should not be just a mere nudge of some core mechanic. Again, an example form Neuroshima Hex. This game has four core factions and many more expansions. Core factions are differentiated by the focus on one fundamental mechanic each - one melee, one ranged, one initiative, and one "double tap". Then there are secondary traits like durability or mobility also distributed univenly, and of course all factions have different composition. And this core part of the game is already very good. But I don't see how you could build more than perhaps two more interesting factions out of core rules. Merely shifting unit composition around would be repetitive. Where Neuroshima Hex shines the most, are expansions. Each new army has some unique focus, many unique units that go beyond core mechanics, or even faction that works in an entirely different way. And the resulting game is still mechanically very coherent.

What you are talking about used to be called "chrome," a little bit of flair to keep the game interesting. The thing is, if your game is entirely made of it, it doesn't have a real structure.

The thing is, you can use stats to build chrome. In Conqueror, dwarf units have a bonus on their save stat, which represents their great toughness and peerless armor. No special rule needed there.

But human units do need them, because they can reflect unique doctrines or cultural element. Otherworldly things like undead also need special rules, but these need not be complex and can generally be simply ignoring morale and/or forcing units fighting them to have lower morale.

There are in fact board games that get just as lost in the special rules forest as GW.

Agreed. I think when it comes to actual specific games and specific implementations we might not be that far apart from eachother. It’s just that we’re approaching the „perfect equilibrium” from two different ends - yours is „how many special rules are strictly necessary”, mine „how many are just enough”.

From what I gather Infinty is a special rules mess, and Dystopian Wars spinoffs as well. The thing is, I think this is kind of inevitable consequence of „living” games. You can’t futureproof a closed, stat+core system enough for it to handle years of expansions. So, from the dev standpoint it is understandable to go the other way: bare minimum core rules, gradually expanded by ‚plugins’ and when the system becomes unwieldy just do a hard reset. Nobody outside of independent historicals authors aims at a „good game” anymore. Instead, they aim at a „good service”, where good means addictive and sustainable.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

nou wrote:
Nobody outside of independent historicals authors aims at a „good game” anymore. Instead, they aim at a „good service”, where good means addictive and sustainable.

In many ways I am the ideal game designer/self-publisher. I just like playing and groove to people using my system. I don't expect to get rich, I just like playing.

If I did find more success, I would do the Old School approach to game design, which is create more products, not just milk the one to death.

That's how it used to be: companies didn't just back a single RPG or rule set, they had a menu of offerings over a variety of topics. I'm old enough to remember GW getting into strategy board games. These were in their settings, but that was an obvious attempt to appeal to people who for whatever reason didn't get into miniatures.

Now the goal seeks to be to turn your game into a subscription service, with renewals every three years or so. I'm not interested in that, either as a designer or player.

Exactly why neither of us will get rich At least not by writing wargames.