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.
2014/01/13 12:32:49
Subject: Re:If poorly written rules are the problem, why don't we just remove GW from the equation?
I see your point and it is perhaps a matter of interpretation. Regardless of that, I am curious about how this translate into rules.
What do you suggest? How do you translate your concepts into rules regarding units, assaults or shooting?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/13 13:05:15
‘Your warriors will stand down and withdraw, Curze. That is an order, not a request. (…) When this campaign is won, you and I will have words’
Rogal Dorn, just before taking the beating of his life.
from The Dark King, by Graham McNeill.
2014/01/13 12:39:53
Subject: If poorly written rules are the problem, why don't we just remove GW from the equation?
I know I might be going completely off the rails here but would it suffice to have Fantasy Flight have a take on this and let Games Workshop just wither away like manufacturers of the past?
Only way to learn humility with such a hubris is to fall flat on your ass and watch someone do the franchise better than you.
There are two things infinitely abundant in the universe: helium and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former.
2014/01/14 11:57:00
Subject: Re:If poorly written rules are the problem, why don't we just remove GW from the equation?
@Heavy Metal.
I do wish some one would write a rule set specifically for 40k, because GW plc just are not interested. FFG have written some good rule sets and would at least put more focus on actual game play IMO.
@da0001.
40k has based its 'visual style and basic narrative ' on WHFB. And transposed the basic motives of the old world races into a space faring setting.so 40k has a WHFB 'flavor to it'
However, HOW you wage war with high velocity , mass area effect / high energy weapons , is completely different to how you wage war with low tech hand weapons and bows and arrows.
I would treat units as units and focus on DETAILED UNIT STATS.
These stats cover ALL the unit inter action directly.And would be on a HANDY UNIT CARD to use in game .(No looking up charts and special rules etc in rule /codex books.)
The units mobility and survivability would be covered first.
Mobility, Stealth ,*Armour value ,Resilience,** Hit points, Assault value , Morale , Command.
(Vehicles and MCs have F/S/R armour values.**Structure for mechanical units, wounds for biological units.)
The the UNITS WEAPON EFFECTS would be listed underneath.Close combat AND ranged weapons(The net effect of the model(s) and weapons).
Name , Effective range, Attacks ,Armour penetration , Damage .
These cover single model units , (Vehicles, Characters, and Monstrous Creatures.) that record damage separately on the unit card .AND multiple model units that remove models to show damage to the unit.NO SEPARATE RULES FOR DIFFERENT UNITS!
This does NOT put any artificial loading or priority on a particular type of combat.(Eg 40k uses 4 stats for assault and only one for shooting. )
Roll to hit the target is based on the targets Stealth value for ranged attacks and target Assault value for close combat.
If successful the weapons hit AP is compared to the Targets AV to determine the save roll required.(If a model fails its save it becomes Suppressed.)
If the target fails its save the attacker rolls to damage the target.
lots of GOOD battle game use simple rules to deliver INTUITIVE complex game play.Are you familiar with any other rule sets I could use as reference?
I can explain this in more detail if you want?
2014/01/14 12:21:17
Subject: If poorly written rules are the problem, why don't we just remove GW from the equation?
If you would like to keep a dynamic and changing gaming environment, with many variables and lots of choice, you will never archive true 'balance'. Best way is to strip everything down, and make sure everything equates to a formula. Then you end up with a very boring game.
The problem is, something is always going to be statistically better than something else, unless everything is essentailly the same
Best way is to keep different armies happy is to shaking up the meta from time to time.
If you don't like the game, don't play it. There are hundreds of other miniature games to choose from. Community rules already exist, they are never going to be used in any large tourns or whatever.
Only after 6 pages people already have different ideas on what constitues balance, what the problem actually is and lots of their own differing rules.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/14 12:23:58
It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.
Tactical objectives are fantastic
2014/01/14 13:16:54
Subject: Re:If poorly written rules are the problem, why don't we just remove GW from the equation?
@Nem.
No one is asking for perfect balance.(Because it is impossible!.)
We are striving for 'perfect imbalance' that naturally generates slow MULTIPLE shifts in the meta that keep the game interesting.
SLIGHT power differences that lead to creative solutions to combat the SLIGHT dis advantages , that create new power differences and new solutions to find.
Which is the complete opposite of GWs heavy handed power manipulation.
GW plc sell 40k as suitable for pick up and play games.The current balance level in 40k is NO WHERE near good enough for this.
There are lots of ways to write a rule set that is easier to balance than current 40k. There are HARDLY any ways which are worse!
And there are many people putting forward suggestions because the perceived problems with 40k are so wide spread.
As far as I am concerned this is a forum for discussing 40k, including its rules.So the 'play the rules GW sell , or play a different game ' seems a bit negative and out of place to me.
ESPECIALLY as GW tell you to make up your own rules if you want to in the 40k rule book!
People who actually care about the game play want to improve the rules.And this is a POSITIVE social interaction that is the cornerstone of the wider war gaming hobby.IMO.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/14 13:17:54
2014/01/14 13:24:51
Subject: If poorly written rules are the problem, why don't we just remove GW from the equation?
Nem wrote: Community rules already exist, they are never going to be used in any large tourns or whatever.
While the rest of your argument is worthless and doesn't make sense, this part is factually wrong.
Tournaments make and follow community rules all the time. Even the large ones. In 5th there was the INATFAQ that was basically the go to FAQ for every large tournament. I don't think 6th has had enough time to simmer for one to be made yet.
2014/01/14 14:54:30
Subject: If poorly written rules are the problem, why don't we just remove GW from the equation?
The concept I was toying with was different. I was thinking of slowly going over every single rule from both 5th and 6th edition rulebooks, painstakingly defining and taking notes, to make sure that everything fix. I would make significant changes in the game turn, but I wouldn´t change the attributes. Your idea is far bigger in scope.
Vehicles and Infantry (not vehicles, actually) are clearly separated in the rulebook, since they need a different approach, and I was ok with that. I am not sure how a system that do not use separate rules for different types of units will work. Good luck with that and if you put something on Proposed Rules I will give you feedback.
‘Your warriors will stand down and withdraw, Curze. That is an order, not a request. (…) When this campaign is won, you and I will have words’
Rogal Dorn, just before taking the beating of his life.
from The Dark King, by Graham McNeill.
2014/01/15 12:12:49
Subject: Re:If poorly written rules are the problem, why don't we just remove GW from the equation?
Hi da001.
Rather than look at different versions of a '..basically flawed battle game rule set.. ' 40k 3rd ed to 6th ed, trying to put right 15 years of cumulative errors from 'compromised' game design.
(Because I went through that stage mid 4th edition. )
I have been looking at GOOD modern battle game rule sets, that deliver fast fun game play in an intuitive and concise way.And seeing what alternatives COULD be used for a new battle game rule set for 40k.
The only reason 40k has separate rules for vehicles and non vehicles, is because there are no modern armoured vehicles in WHFB !And 40k is still using WHFB rules so HAS to bolt on extra rules.Other rule sets simply pick game mechanics and resolution methods that cover ALL units in a straight forward way.
(Epic Armageddon, Drop Ship Commander, Dirtside, etc Eg 90% of the interaction is covered with core rules, and a FEW special rules 10% appx to add flavour )
Are you aware of the mechanics-effect- senses, relationship in game design?
The developers pick game mechanics to deliver the in game effects , and the in game effects deliver the sensory experience the players get.
Game designers, (even amateur ones like me,) look at the 'game mechanics end' to see what can be done to change the end results.And players often look at the sensory experience , to try to determine what the end problems are.
So often we are looking at the problems from the opposite ends of the game design process, and suggest different solutions to similar problems.
The fact changing a single game mechanic can have MASSIVE effect on in game interaction and the sensory experience. EG Increasing the level of player/unit interaction by using a different game turn mechanic.
Means I prefer to get the basic frame work of the rules (game mechanics and resolution methods )'right' first.As just a few slight tweeks /changes to the game mechanics and resolution methods can put right lots of problems AND simplify the instructions to play the game!
(All my current discussions/WIP on a 40k re write are in 'Sister Sydneys thread How would you re boot 40k..I look forward to your input! )
2014/01/15 18:19:42
Subject: Re:If poorly written rules are the problem, why don't we just remove GW from the equation?
So then 40k is WHFB in space? And the units march to war shoulder to shoulder mainly using close combat weapons in blocks representing 100 of actual troops arranged in regiments?
Ranged weapons are few and far between, a few units of bows/muskets and a couple of catapults/ cannons.
And the only units that move faster than infantry are cavalry and beast drawn?
What sort of war film is CLOSEST to the action in 40k?WWII or Napoleonic?
Yup deamons can materialize out of the warp and attack your artillery.The same way as airborne units dropped in and took out artillery in WWII.
40k used fantastic looking minatures , but the BASIC way they wage war has not changed much since WWII.
(DoW40k, and CoH WWII used the same game engine .No one said DoW felt wrong or counter intuitive like they do about GWs40k rules.)
The ONLY reason 40k is SO confused and over blown with complication is the core mechanics are from ancient massed battle games and INTUITIVE unit representation requires a analogy to modern warfare.
40k is NOT EXACTLY modern warfare, but is is close enough to BE BASED on modern warfare interaction.
And would be more intuitive if it has modern rules rather than 40 year old Napoleonic rules.(WHFB can be traced back to WGRG Napoleonic rules RP worked on the 1970s.)
Remember MODERN WARFARE IS AN EQUAL MIX OF MOBILITY FIREPOWER AND ASSAULT.
So ALL are equally important and valid to use in game .(Allowing for massive tactical variety.)Modern warfare does not mean just shooting stuff.(Thats JUST FPS!)Assault is equally important!
Perhaps this is why WHFB based rules can not cope with 40k BATTLE size game play.There are simply too many ranged weapons in the system, it can not cope! So there are assault favored editions OR shooting favored editions .NO edition managed to balance shooting and assault effectively .
ALSO IF 40k is supposed to be WHFB in space , why do ALL OTHER UNITS than STANDARD INFANTRY NEED SPECIAL RULES?
Because they do not fit the game mechanics and resolution methods to the limited ancient warfare of WHFB, that is why!
A game based on modern warfare CAN include all the wackiness of 40k.(Epic Space marine did!And even Epic Armageddon does a better job than 40k own rules IMO.)
And 'magic' is just technology we do not understand yet!
I would rather use a rule set where multiple levels of technology are represented ,(modern warfare).Than one where any thing more advanced than a sword or bow need special rules to cover it!
Just because WHRB rules worked better at the skirmish level, does not mean its the ONLY way to make 40k work.
If you want a 40k skirmish game there are loads of free rule to down load GOOD SKIRMISH rule sets you can easily convert.
If you want to keep to counter intuitive WHFB in space, I am sure GW will keep re hashing that for several editions.
However, IF you want a fast paced well defined concise rule set , that is elegant and intuitive for 40k.Then a modern rule set focused on the intended game play of the 40k narrative is the best way to go .(IMO)
Because all the good 'futuristic battle games' I know of are based on 'modern warfare interaction'.(Epic Armageddon, Drop Zone Commander, Dust Warfare,Tomorrows War, etc.)
And the cool thing about detailed UNIT interaction, is it can be transposed to single model 'units' to cover detailed model interaction in a skirmish version of the game!
So the skirmish game and battle game use the same rules, just up scale the level of interaction.
Just so ya know, caps lock tends to be used for shouting in Dakka, rather than emphasis. I ended up reading the whole thing in an angry ranting tone, rather than the reasoned argument that it is.
Generally, we use Bold, Italics and/or Underlining for emphasis.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/15 18:19:52
2014/01/15 18:46:07
Subject: If poorly written rules are the problem, why don't we just remove GW from the equation?
Heavy Metal wrote: I know I might be going completely off the rails here but would it suffice to have Fantasy Flight have a take on this and let Games Workshop just wither away like manufacturers of the past?
Only way to learn humility with such a hubris is to fall flat on your ass and watch someone do the franchise better than you.
Fantasy Flight Games would not know "game balance" if it kicked them in the pants.
You think GW is bad with poorly-playtested, poorly-designed rules? Hahahaha.
You haven't seen the abominations that FFG puts into their books.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
2014/01/16 09:50:03
Subject: Re:If poorly written rules are the problem, why don't we just remove GW from the equation?
@Selym.
Ooops I forgot sorry. I will use bold now for emphasis.
If it was possible to get a concise elegant intuitive rule set using WHFB rules as a basis , dont you think the team of professional game developers at GW towers would have managed it in 15 years?
And game developers leaving GW towers would not abandon WHFB game mechanics when they write their own modern rule sets away from GW corporate influence.
I will try to explain .
Most players see the symptoms of a poor choice in game mechanics and resolution methods.
Lack of interaction , bloated rules set, counter intuitive results, etc.However, they will try to find direct solutions to their own list of perceived problems. Eg add or change specific rules.
However, this usually just adds to the bloat of the rules.(Thats all the team of GW game developers have managed to do in 15 years, so why should we be able to do any better?)
I believe the best way forward is a re write using more appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods.This does not mean it will not be 40k any more!
Eg.
Rather than do everything with all your units before your opponent gets chance to respond.
You perform one action with all your units, then your opponent performs one action with all their units.
So you still take turns , but players and units can interact at a more intuitive level.(No need for additional reaction rules, like over watch , as reaction is built into the game turn mechanic. )
And the damage resolution could be ...
Roll to see and hit .
Roll armour saves.
Roll to damage .
Same processes as 40k but in a more intuitive order for modern warfare.And because we could use direct representation stats (with limited modifiers, ) we can get a wider range proportional results without having to use special rules , USRs and charts ! Which makes the game faster to learn and play!
@psienesis.
FFGdo know about professional proof reading and editing though, which would be a massive imporovement on GW !
)
