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.

Do you think if GW made a super version of a Vassal like program (3rd graphic, random number generators, real-time on line play, the works) and made a virtual 40k table top and sold it commercially would it hurt model sales or adversely affect the 40k community? Or would it be a good thing?

I know that there is a virtual Magic the Gathering game out there now. I don't know how it has impacted the card game as I have not played it in over a decade.

I don't know. It could get more people into the hobby, or possibly give less enthusiastic players a way to play their games without buying models.

I'd say it would probably be positive. Most of us like the social aspect of 40k or the hobby part so the video game would probably just be a back up for when you can't make it out to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't know. It could get more people into the hobby, or possibly give less enthusiastic players a way to play their games without buying models.

I'd say it would probably be positive. Most of us like the social aspect of 40k or the hobby part so the video game would probably just be a back up for when you can't make it out to play.

I think it would do more harm than good.
There would likely be people saying: "Now I can play 40k on the computer, why would I still buy all those expensive models?"
While there would be very little people saying: "Look how awesome this game is! Now I am going to buy all those really extremely expensive models just so I can play this game on the tabletop as well!"

Why would it harm it? Dawn of war didn't harm 40K so why would a GW version of vessel do It?

You play 40K to play with toy soldiers not because it is a good set of rules.

Davor wrote:
Why would it harm it? Dawn of war didn't harm 40K so why would a GW version of vessel do It?

You play 40K to play with toy soldiers not because it is a good set of rules.

Dawn of War is nothing like the tabletop game.

I don't think it will hurt it. But it really depends on how this vessal computer game is built?

Here's some thought on this computer game.
Is it even fun to start with? does it give an accurate representation of the tabletop game to make an comparision?
What't the cost of this game? Straight price of a PC game? DLC fractions / Dataslates / rules / mission pack like the tabletop game? or even you need to purchase the actual model with game code inside to register your army in the PC game?
Will it be turned based like Space Hulk (PC game). There were a lot of complaints about being an async turn based game.

I personally feel a true vessal like 40K game will do more good then harm. It will entire new blood into the game. Verteran honestly have purchased enough of 40K and nothing will make them buy $98CAD landraiders. Knowing GW they will charge enough for the PC game to make it worthwhile.

Priveteer Press is just about to release their vessal version of Warmachine. I jumped on the Kickstarter becuase I would like to 'try out' Warmachine and understand the rules before I start commiting to buying models, $40 is a good entry point for a PC game. and I know the PC only has the main units from each fraction, if you want the special units its commitment to the tabletop game.

Darth Bob wrote:Dawn of War is nothing like the tabletop game.

And neither would be the Vassal copy.

Video games and tabletop games aren't the same, even if they have the same rules. It's like saying that sex and porn are the same because they both include... umm... It's like saying that running over a cop in real life is like running one over in Grand Theft Auto because... uhh... It's like saying that burning down an orphanage in real life is like... you know what, analogies are hard.

They're not the same thing. One won't cannibalize from the other. If anything, they might help each other out, like how DoW made more people aware of real 40k, or like how reading about the summoning of the Elder Gods by breaking the sign of the...

you know, I'm just going to stop.

I play 40k because I enjoy the pretty models.

I would play this game to keep me in the hobby by playing the buddies I moved away from, but I'd still continue to buy and paint my stuff. I enjoy it.

For me it would likely spark more sales. I would play certain units, fall in love, and then buy a model

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I think it would do more harm than good.
There would likely be people saying: "Now I can play 40k on the computer, why would I still buy all those expensive models?"
While there would be very little people saying: "Look how awesome this game is! Now I am going to buy all those really extremely expensive models just so I can play this game on the tabletop as well!"

But... you already can play 40k on the computer.

No, of course not. People buy 40k for other reasons than the excellent rules.

It wouldn't be affected at all it in fact would be good. I stated elsewhere that GW could promote it's miniatures as well as background books through the video game. They could also do a free to play but have to purchase certain armies and give "points" for miniatures purchases for in game purchases of specialty units.

It'd be a great " free to play"

There's no doubt that Dawn of War brought a lot of new blood into the tabletop game. The "Emprah", "Metal Baawkses" and "Tau victory == Genocide" memes all arose from the game.

It's true that the "rules" are different, however as several people have mentioned, we like the social aspect and playing with the little models.

If they did it, they would just need to be smart with it.

A subscription fee perhaps to play would be one option.

They don't want to invalidate their huge running costs for models, so when new models are released, make those models DLC perhaps? And to keep the models ticking over, they could provide the DLC for free with the model.

Personally, I don't really play the model game any more, I don't have the time so much to put into the hobby at the standard I set myself (painting and modelling wise) and also finds the costs pricing me out of it now.

If I could play from my house though, that required little extra time put into the hobby other than playing and list building, maybe putting a nice colour scheme together for my army, I would possibly - depending on cost - start investing in the hobby again.

I think it would be great, and would playtest my lists on the GW online game for my IRL armies.

Keep in mind that not only is MTG already doing this, but you have to pay for digital cards as well on MTGO, and the paper game is still more popular than the online one. It's because people like to have something in their hands, whether it be cards or models. The main appeal of 40k for me (and many if not most people I think) is the models, if you just want to play a strategic game there are plenty of better choices out there. It's the toys and fluff that get me excited.

Also I play both MTGO and paper MTG myself.

Yes it would. I seem to recall reading that GW intentionally made sure that Dawn of War did not play like the tabletop game for exactly this reason.

Let's look at it from the other side. I play Command & Conquer - now even assuming I buy it at release price rather than on a sale through the likes of Steam, a complete game will cost me maybe $60/£40. Now calculate how much it would cost to replicate the C&C experience on the tabletop - not only in terms of the units themselves, but the buildings, scenery, paints (unless your game monitor runs in greyscale...)

Sure it would stir up some interest in the tabletop game but new/casual players are far less likely to spend the money on the models if they can get exactly the same gaming experience at a tiny fraction of the cost.

A GW run vassal? it could hurt the sales of the model kits, however, one thing that they could do is have a bit of a TCG element to it.

This would have to be done right. make it so there is a worldwide campaign, and to add units you need to upload codes that you get from the model kits. In each kit there is a scratch off card that has a code for that individual unit. If the unit is destroyed in the "vassal world" it's destroyed permanently- go buy another kit, sucker.

With this, they could use the players (and therefore sales) to drive the 40k storyline past the m41.3 or whatever it is now.

Be serious. Much as I'd love a game like this, it just wouldn't work with games workshop writing the basic rules premise.

Honestly though I think GW will only allow such a thing to happen when the game 'ends' because then they can't extort any more

 Ailaros wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:Dawn of War is nothing like the tabletop game.

And neither would be the Vassal copy.

Video games and tabletop games aren't the same, even if they have the same rules. It's like saying that sex and porn are the same because they both include... umm... It's like saying that running over a cop in real life is like running one over in Grand Theft Auto because... uhh... It's like saying that burning down an orphanage in real life is like... you know what, analogies are hard.

They're not the same thing. One won't cannibalize from the other. If anything, they might help each other out, like how DoW made more people aware of real 40k, or like how reading about the summoning of the Elder Gods by breaking the sign of the...

you know, I'm just going to stop.

Dunno about that. They might not be "the same thing", but they're *already* close enough with vassal and roll20 that many people, myself included, are willing to forgive the "porn artificiality" aspect of it in order to save, you know, hundreds to thousands of dollars. And dozens to hundreds of hours painting.

I play 40K every day, have been for about a year. Have yet to spend a single dollar on models or a rulebook. I would probably buy a 60 dollar virtual tabletop game though if one was released.

Having played 40k on vassel I gotta say if GW was inclined to release something it'd have to be a LOT better then vassal, which is incrediably simple.
it'd have to supply units, rolling, automate a lot of the rules etc.
doing that and it'd be great...

but proably kill mini sales.

that said, while it's not 40k, there's a program out there to play battletech online that is pretty impressive, called megamek. if someone did a 40k version it'd be AWESOME.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:Dawn of War is nothing like the tabletop game.

And neither would be the Vassal copy.

Video games and tabletop games aren't the same, even if they have the same rules. It's like saying that sex and porn are the same because they both include... umm... It's like saying that running over a cop in real life is like running one over in Grand Theft Auto because... uhh... It's like saying that burning down an orphanage in real life is like... you know what, analogies are hard.

They're not the same thing. One won't cannibalize from the other. If anything, they might help each other out, like how DoW made more people aware of real 40k, or like how reading about the summoning of the Elder Gods by breaking the sign of the...

you know, I'm just going to stop.

Dunno about that. They might not be "the same thing", but they're *already* close enough with vassal and roll20 that many people, myself included, are willing to forgive the "porn artificiality" aspect of it in order to save, you know, hundreds to thousands of dollars. And dozens to hundreds of hours painting.

I play 40K every day, have been for about a year. Have yet to spend a single dollar on models or a rulebook. I would probably buy a 60 dollar virtual tabletop game though if one was released.

Conversely, I play 40K not because I like the game or the fluff as such, but because I like making and painting the models and scenery.

I could play Vassal but I'm not interested.

Indeed. That kind of goes to my point. The "real experience" of 40K appeals to people in different ways. For some people, the sole appeal of 40K is the hobbying aspect; kit-bashing, painting, etc, and so for those people nothing beats the table-top experience. But for people like myself, and I don't think I'm exactly in the minority here, the idea of buying all these expensive, ugly (imo) models and then having to paint each and every one, just so that I can spend hours playing a single match isn't very appealing. The appeal of 40K to me has always been the fluff, and the strategic wargaming aspect of it (for better or for worse), and to that end, having a nice program that allows me to instantly paint my army any scheme I want with a few clicks and move 50 man blobs of infantry with perfect 2'' coherency with a single click would allow me to enjoy the aspects of the "40K experience" that actually matters to me.

I would definitely enjoy a good 40k simulator game. The somewhat recent XCOM vs mode is similar, on a very tiny scale. IE you can spend a lot to get one amazing plasma rifle sniper in armor that lets him hover in the air and an ability where he can shoot anything any of his teammates can see from across the map...

...or you could go with an actual balanced team of medium guys, or tons of different mixes.

I'm also of the opinion that if it did anything to sales of models, it would drive them upwards, just because most console/computer gamers I know HAVE NO IDEA WHAT 40k IS. Occasionally one of them is like "wait...wasn't there some super...marine game or something like that?"

Honestly a game that followed the rules exactly over the computer would probably not be popular, 40k is kind of a long game to play especially at high levels. I don't think it would be enjoyable except for a very small demographic would enjoy it because its a slow paced game.


Also, I'd like to point out that in BLood Bowl you can I believe play the game old style.

I think it could do damage. On the other hand, I might actually get me to play online with peoples.

I hate Vassal with a passion, I play to see pretty models, and a top down view just doesn't confer that feeling of seeing well painted models. It also makes terrain a hole lot more difficult to use. Ruins often are low walls you guys can shoot over. Top down, it just makes it super tough.

I remember, when I used to play heroscape, that a guy created a program with 3D tiles, (Heroscape uses stackable hexagon tiles to creat a battlefield) a few full 3D models, but mostly bases with a hex picture of the model floating over it. I liked that quite a bit. If GW was to do something like that I'd play it!

Hollismason wrote:
Honestly a game that followed the rules exactly over the computer would probably not be popular, 40k is kind of a long game to play especially at high levels. I don't think it would be enjoyable except for a very small demographic would enjoy it because its a slow paced game.


Also, I'd like to point out that in BLood Bowl you can I believe play the game old style.

In a computer simulation, a lot of the drudgery would be removed. I assume the computer would move all your pieces for you, and calculate combat results instantly, which would save a lot of time.

 ashcroft wrote:
Yes it would. I seem to recall reading that GW intentionally made sure that Dawn of War did not play like the tabletop game for exactly this reason.

Let's look at it from the other side. I play Command & Conquer - now even assuming I buy it at release price rather than on a sale through the likes of Steam, a complete game will cost me maybe $60/£40. Now calculate how much it would cost to replicate the C&C experience on the tabletop - not only in terms of the units themselves, but the buildings, scenery, paints (unless your game monitor runs in greyscale...)

Sure it would stir up some interest in the tabletop game but new/casual players are far less likely to spend the money on the models if they can get exactly the same gaming experience at a tiny fraction of the cost.

No not really, when Blood Bowl the video game can out, we ended up starting a new TT Blood Bowl league. Of couse most got the teams from Impact Miniatures as GW model are dated (except for the Flesh Golem ) and cost to much. But, that doesn't change the fact the video game got poeple into the TT game.

Kilkrazy wrote:I could play Vassal but I'm not interested.

And this is the important part. People can already play 40k as it is on-line through vassal. A vast majority of people who play 40k also (or exclusively) play the table-top version of the game as well.

The problem with 40k as-is as a video game is that it doesn't make that good of a video game. DoW was successful because people already like playing RTSs, so they just grafted 40k onto what they already knew was a winner, not because they were afraid that it would cannibalize sales of the minis. If GW were really that afraid, they'd be sending their winged legion of lawyers out to stop Vassal.

But given that they have time to try and shut down spot the space marine, but can't be bothered with vassal is rather an indicator of just how little GW thinks vassal will affect their bottom line.

How much of Vassal's popularity is attributed to Vassal just having a completely terrible user-interface and crap graphics though, rather than it being a problem of 40K being "a bad video game"?

The problem is that it's a slow, turn-based game. Slow, turn-based games aren't very popular. Yes, I know that there's someone out there playing a hot-seat game of Civ V and pines for the good old days of Master of Orion, but those games really aren't that popular, and very few people even play them multiplayer at all.

But that format, which leads to a bad video game, leads to a nice tabletop game. Lots of tabletop games are turn-based, and are relatively slow, even faster games like MTG, or Settlers.

The format fits some media better than others.