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.

[Edited - removed text for the sake of brevity. Changed title to make point clearer ]

The issues I'm seeing within wargaming, warhammer particularly, is:

1 Lore wise, we are getting Michael Bay extravagance that leaves nothing really too open for the imagination to run with. Its more a rail road than a sandbox.

2 Mechanic wise - Its all the consumer heat of convenience over fun = value. Things are angled more and more for the simpleton - making things to be more like rock, paper, scissors; this is all done under the guise of 'easy to play, difficult to master'. Any sort of granularity is always perceived with the notion that it takes too long for everyone. Board game kickstarter mechanics are unfortunately becoming the new model for wargames.

So my gripes in a nutshell regarding current mainstream stuff:

Board game simplicity does not always equal Wargaming fun
Michael Bay style of writing ≠ an open story.
Bubble islands in WFB 9th edition are dumb.

This should be in Dakka Discussions not the Off-Topic Forum.

Indeed, general wargaming chat is better off up there

I disagree.

I'm also not sure this is a decent enough thread to continue since it's going to boil down to the basic level of, "I prefer X, you prefer Y." Or the real reality, which is just play as many games you like.

However, what's really going to happen is people are going to get annoyed and angry that someone else doesn't agree with their clearly enlightened viewpoint. When such viewpoints are actually truly, subjective not objective. Dakka is loaded with enough X vs. Y preference threads that devolve on for hundreds of pages.

Sounds like more grognardy grumbling and moaning than a decent discussion. Trying to coach it in some high minded objectivism instead of your subjective opinion is like leaving yourself a little retreat path in case people plug holes in your argument.

The most hilarious idea in this thread is that Boardgames aren't wargames, when some of the original, most detailed wargames are very much considered to be boardgames by those that play them. And that wargames of that type often use mechanics closer to boardgames, such as grids and tokens, than anything else.

 Vertrucio wrote:
I disagree.

I'm also not sure this is a decent enough thread to continue since it's going to boil down to the basic level of, "I prefer X, you prefer Y." Or the real reality, which is just play as many games you like.

However, what's really going to happen is people are going to get annoyed and angry that someone else doesn't agree with their clearly enlightened viewpoint. When such viewpoints are actually truly, subjective not objective. Dakka is loaded with enough X vs. Y preference threads that devolve on for hundreds of pages.

Sounds like more grognardy grumbling and moaning than a decent discussion. Trying to coach it in some high minded objectivism instead of your subjective opinion is like leaving yourself a little retreat path in case people plug holes in your argument.

The most hilarious idea in this thread is that Boardgames aren't wargames, when some of the original, most detailed wargames are very much considered to be boardgames by those that play them. And that wargames of that type often use mechanics closer to boardgames, such as grids and tokens, than anything else.

[ FYI I've edited a lot of the thread to make it a bit more clear. However, the below rebuttals still stand]


There are board games that go into the realm of 'wargame' or vice versa. I'm not disagreeing. Does that make the two the same since one instance blurs the lines? No, that is the exceptional, not the general understanding. They each are of their own kind, and they each have their own fundamental qualities going on - before they lose their meaning.

'High minded objectivity'..... wow, so whatever I say is null because somehow, gaming is all subjective? Uhuh... that sounds more like an objective statement than something subjective. That's sort of contradicting eh?

Hey I'm all for people doing whatever to have 'fun', but if I come over to play a game of 40k, I hope our 'objective' as to how to play the game is somewhat close..... Gaming may be a novelty but it is not wholly subjective; it first must be absolutely understood as a novelty to the related collective - which nullifies it from it being entirely subjective. Within these parameters one can, must, discern between consistent things within the definition (wargame in this instance) mutually. These cannot be entirely relative, but are based upon static concepts otherwise there is no meaning in anything and thus no real reason to play, or anything. I digress though....

I'm guessing you're of the opinion there is no such thing as bad art - only art you don't like? You can only run on that train before you realize the train is leaving the island with no tracks ahead - empirically and logically. I'm not trying to be an absolutist, just saying some ideas obviously forget about the rails it needs to be on before it becomes contrived, convoluted. Truth exist without our prerogative and any to claim otherwise is selling you something that's a lie.

Warhammer is one of those gone off the rails lately - with WFB 9th looming (bubble universe, collector skirmish oriented, etc). That's just one example of the trend I'm seeing and I think it comes from a lack of understanding on some fundamentals.

In before:

COHERENT ROOLZ!

SQUATS!

SISTERS!

1. clear and straight rules
2. viable options
3. price matches the quality of the product
4. interaction with the consumers
5. flexible fluff lore

Over all I think table top wargaming is in a better shape than it's ever been. There are so many amazing games out there that I can't buy them all. Its only GW that's slumping.

For the past several years we've been in basically what amounts to a Golden Age of wargaming. If you can think of something, there is probably a company that makes a miniature of it. There are more games, companies, and miniatures than ever, and more keep popping up.

I agree with MWHistorian. The issues that you are talking about are pretty much confined to GW, something which has also been an on-going trend for the past several years.

Edit-oops, posted in wrong thread.

For this one, golden age, yadda yadda, you can get what you want to play these days regardless of genre, era, scale or complexity. Its a good time to be a wargamer.

I think one of the big issues with wargaming today is the desire for 'balance'

the one thing that in real life warfare any commander worth his or her pay would avoid like the plague.

there's also the desire for all factions to have access to comparable tech and options, again all in the name of balance

Where are the games where 'victory' is only measured in how long you can avoid being wiped out? An attack with overwhelming forces trying sweep through the board as fast as possible etc

I understand a balanced force approach makes pick up games with strangers easier, but why is this the desired approach to cater for, why not focus more on gaming within groups who can communicate more and set up more complex scenarios and games

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I think one of the big issues with wargaming today is the desire for 'balance'

the one thing that in real life warfare any commander worth his or her pay would avoid like the plague.

Yes, but this is a game, not real war. In a game players should have an expectation of a fair fight. Not carpet bombed while they hide in holes. You want to know what else war is? Fething boring. You don't want that in your game either.

there's also the desire for all factions to have access to comparable tech and options, again all in the name of balance

No, there's a desire for all factions to be viable against each other. By all means have glass cannons, slow heavy armies, low tech savage, etc etc, but they all need to be able to defeat each other on an even playing field.

Where are the games where 'victory' is only measured in how long you can avoid being wiped out? An attack with overwhelming forces trying sweep through the board as fast as possible etc

Start with a balanced game and if you want an asymmetrical battle, give someone more points or whatnot. Done. But by all means have the standard battle an even playing field.

I understand a balanced force approach makes pick up games with strangers easier, but why is this the desired approach to cater for, why not focus more on gaming within groups who can communicate more and set up more complex scenarios and games

Because balance is necessary for pick up games and groups that already have like minded members that communicate well can change up the game as they desire anyway.

 Hordini wrote:
For the past several years we've been in basically what amounts to a Golden Age of wargaming. If you can think of something, there is probably a company that makes a miniature of it. There are more games, companies, and miniatures than ever, and more keep popping up.

I agree with MWHistorian. The issues that you are talking about are pretty much confined to GW, something which has also been an on-going trend for the past several years.

Just because the miniatures look great doesn't mean the gaming aspect is taking a turn for the better. In general I see more people liking the idea of playing games than the hobby. Lots of people seem to hop around so much between board game x and wargame y, that its like they enjoy the hunt for 'that new flavor' more than anything.

It seems companies are pushing for change in certain things that is probably better being left alone. Warhammer doesn't sound like the only one being affected by this trend.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I think one of the big issues with wargaming today is the desire for 'balance'

the one thing that in real life warfare any commander worth his or her pay would avoid like the plague.

there's also the desire for all factions to have access to comparable tech and options, again all in the name of balance

Where are the games where 'victory' is only measured in how long you can avoid being wiped out? An attack with overwhelming forces trying sweep through the board as fast as possible etc

I understand a balanced force approach makes pick up games with strangers easier, but why is this the desired approach to cater for, why not focus more on gaming within groups who can communicate more and set up more complex scenarios and games

Because it is infinitely easier to unbalance a balanced game for a scenario like the one you mention than it is to put balance into a game for all the occasions when you just want to play a fair game to see who comes out on top.

Wargames aren't simulations of war, they are games and as such are at their most fun when the two players can really pit themselves against one another and not have inequalities in the rules influence, or even determine, victory before a die is rolled or a shot fired.

I'll second/third/whatever the notion that this is really a golden age for a gamer with an open mind.

- Variety is huge at the moment. With rulesets for pretty much any kind of game or setting, and minis to go with most from multiple manufactuerers, there are few things you can't play these days. Similarly, unless it's super-niche, you can find pretty much any kind or style of mini these days.

- The cost of entry is lower than ever. Yes, GW keep putting their prices up, but for so many others that offer free rules or need lower model counts, you can buy in very without breaking the bank. £30 gets you into Infinity or Malifaux with some of the best minis out there, £50 could get you into KoW withn100+ models on the board and free rules. Even 40k and WFB are cheaper than they were a few years ago, once you open up to the idea of using non-GW minis that cost half as much or even less.

- Kickstarter, for all its knock-on effects, has made it so much easier for games to get out there and get expanded. How long would Dreadball, which I believe is Mantic's best-selling range, have sat in conceptual limbo without the thousands it raised on KS? How much slower would Dreamforge have been in getting their Eisenkern range plasticised? While you can argue this can have negative effects in places, it's hard to deny that the deluge of games, minis and ideas being funded now is a real great thing!


The trick, as I mentioned before, it to keep an open mind regarding minis and rules.

 kveldulf wrote:

Just because the miniatures look great doesn't mean the gaming aspect is taking a turn for the better. In general I see more people liking the idea of playing games than the hobby. Lots of people seem to hop around so much between board game x and wargame y, that its like they enjoy the hunt for 'that new flavor' more than anything.

It seems companies are pushing for change in certain things that is probably better being left alone. Warhammer doesn't sound like the only one being affected by this trend.

Still not sure what exactly you're bemoaning here? You're attempting to use complex language, but your meaning is anything but clear - either here or in the OP.

 kveldulf wrote:
It seems companies are pushing for change in certain things that is probably better being left alone. Warhammer doesn't sound like the only one being affected by this trend.

Could you please make another attempt at explaing exactly what it is you're trying to talk about?

 kveldulf wrote:
[Edited - removed text for the sake of brevity. Changed title to make point clearer ]

The issues I'm seeing within wargaming, warhammer particularly, is:

1 Lore wise, we are getting Michael Bay extravagance that leaves nothing really too open for the imagination to run with. Its more a rail road than a sandbox.

2 Mechanic wise - Its all the consumer heat of convenience over fun = value. Things are angled more and more for the simpleton - making things to be more like rock, paper, scissors; this is all done under the guise of 'easy to play, difficult to master'. Any sort of granularity is always perceived with the notion that it takes too long for everyone. Board game kickstarter mechanics are unfortunately becoming the new model for wargames.

So my gripes in a nutshell regarding current mainstream stuff:

Board game simplicity does not always equal Wargaming fun
Michael Bay style of writing ≠ an open story.
Bubble islands in WFB 9th edition are dumb.

Simplistic rules equals bigger appeal.
I think other companies are learning from the successes, and mistakes, of GW and it shows in this way. Want to get more people interested in your game? Make it easy to pick up and play. Also, a rule set that is simplistic is more capable to being adapted to a more advanced ruleset. So you have your entry level rules and then you have your veteran rules.

Like others have said, we live in a golden age of TTWG. You are not stuck to one particular game if you don't like that game. If you want the rules to be more complex, then make them more complex. Just make sure the people you play with are cool with what you propose.

Agreed that GW is the main culprit of the gripes in this topic. However, I do see some other companies trying to copy their model in ways, offering games intended to be little ring-fenced islands, with offishul fluff shackled to offishul models shackled to offishul rules. Even offishul dice, though that might be linked more to my other gripe: enticing players with some gimmicky mechanic that ends up being a speedbump subgame by itself. But anyways.

 kveldulf wrote:

2 Mechanic wise - Its all the consumer heat of convenience over fun = value. Things are angled more and more for the simpleton - making things to be more like rock, paper, scissors; this is all done under the guise of 'easy to play, difficult to master'. Any sort of granularity is always perceived with the notion that it takes too long for everyone. Board game kickstarter mechanics are unfortunately becoming the new model for wargames.

Disagreed. Some games might be like that, I dunno. But reining in granularity, especially in mass battle games where you're better off dealing with broad strokes rather than more speedbumps in the form of micromanagement. Anyways, 'easy to play, difficult to master' and deceptive simplicity is a thing. I heard a guy elsewhere describe it as 'complexity vs. complication'. Warhammer might look deep with it's long stat lines and reams and reams of special rules, but at it's heart it's a simplistic IGOUGO 'move, shoot, attack' game, and the heaps of resolutions and unique rules complicate the game. 'It takes too long' is a valid complaint, especially with GW's core two.
Epic: Armageddon, the game that introduced me to the alternative type of game*, is relatively simple on the face of it. The base rules take up twenty pages. Additional universal special rules, titan and superheavy rules, and aircraft and spacecraft rules take up an additional twenty. The army specific special rules are purposely kept to a bare minimum, and the thing that initially shocked me was that you couldn't load up your characters with a few dozen different bits of weapons, armour, psychic powers, spells, magic items etc. etc. But that didn't matter. It was easy to play right off the bat, and that short forty pages of simple rules gave me a lot of possible choices, depth and complexity in-game - advance, engage, march, overwatch, crossfire, supporting fire, retaining the initiative to interrupt the alternate activations and press an attack, when to insert aircraft and whether your supporting spacecraft is in orbit at the correct time etc. etc. - so that it was difficult to master. It's a game where Space Marines field some of the toughest units, as in 40K, but are much less sure of an easy win if that's what you rely on. Altogether, it made you think more about your at-the-moment tactical decisions and army coordination, and beyond whether or not you were right to mathammer that super mega killy gun or dread talisman of wind-up-and-go into your list. In a word, it was elegant.
Many other games are like that, going a bit further than whether you have cavalry in your flank, either four or five minis in your back rank, or how much listbuilding you did; but are more simple and less cluttered in their application, resolutions, and even the manipulation of minis. So much so that GW's core two, despite their market share and ubiquity, look like bizarre, clunky abberations in comparison. It's at this point I like to trot out an anecdote by one of my gaming buddies, where he set up a game of Epic:A in a club, beside a table where a game of Apocalypse was being set up. The game of Epic was done before the game of Apocalypse had finished turn one.

*I could imagine that another tiny reason that GW dumped specialist games was because they showed up what a load of gak their core two were. That's what happened to me, anyway.

 Azazelx wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

Just because the miniatures look great doesn't mean the gaming aspect is taking a turn for the better. In general I see more people liking the idea of playing games than the hobby. Lots of people seem to hop around so much between board game x and wargame y, that its like they enjoy the hunt for 'that new flavor' more than anything.

It seems companies are pushing for change in certain things that is probably better being left alone. Warhammer doesn't sound like the only one being affected by this trend.

Still not sure what exactly you're bemoaning here? You're attempting to use complex language, but your meaning is anything but clear - either here or in the OP.

This thread, in all honesty, is probably motivated from gw taking a good concept and crapping on it ( referring to WFB 9th rumors.)

Regarding losing you about the main purpose of this thread... i thought it was a touch indirect myself, but i didnt realize it was that complex to understand - between the lines at least.

I think there is a lot silly crap being progressively injected in rules, art design, and lore. The real sad thing is, the majority like 'outlandish' more and more. Question then really becomes what truly is outlandish (convoluted) and what isn't - universally. What fundamentals truly make for a an appealing wargame?

I could extrapolate but I think my fingers got ahead of me before considering the nature of the topic I was about to write on. I dont want to digress in this anymore as it would require a lot of time to do in earnest. Therefore, I apologize for wasting everyone's time. If there was a thread delete button I would have used it awhile ago. Sorry.

 kveldulf wrote:
Simply put, I think there is a lot silly crap being progressively injected in rules, art design, and lore. The real sad thing is, the majority like 'outlandish' more and more.

Now that I do agree with. Malifaux springs to mind as an exemplar of all three. (I have a gaming buddy who's a Wyrd henchman; I'm well acquainted with the game.) I'm also thinking of starting up my own wee minis business, partly so I can have a few more relatively mundane, non-spiky, non-bathtub-pauldrons, non-chainmail-bikini, non-anime, non-Rob-Liefeld minis to choose from.

 Hordini wrote:
For the past several years we've been in basically what amounts to a Golden Age of wargaming. If you can think of something, there is probably a company that makes a miniature of it. There are more games, companies, and miniatures than ever, and more keep popping up.

I agree with MWHistorian. The issues that you are talking about are pretty much confined to GW, something which has also been an on-going trend for the past several years.

I couldn't agree with this more. There are just so many awesome games out there at the moment. I dont mean to beat the GW horse but once I left 40k I've gotten into more games than I can even keep up with.

 Paradigm wrote:
I'll second/third/whatever the notion that this is really a golden age for a gamer with an open mind.

- Variety is huge at the moment. With rulesets for pretty much any kind of game or setting, and minis to go with most from multiple manufactuerers, there are few things you can't play these days. Similarly, unless it's super-niche, you can find pretty much any kind or style of mini these days.

- The cost of entry is lower than ever. Yes, GW keep putting their prices up, but for so many others that offer free rules or need lower model counts, you can buy in very without breaking the bank. £30 gets you into Infinity or Malifaux with some of the best minis out there, £50 could get you into KoW withn100+ models on the board and free rules. Even 40k and WFB are cheaper than they were a few years ago, once you open up to the idea of using non-GW minis that cost half as much or even less.

- Kickstarter, for all its knock-on effects, has made it so much easier for games to get out there and get expanded. How long would Dreadball, which I believe is Mantic's best-selling range, have sat in conceptual limbo without the thousands it raised on KS? How much slower would Dreamforge have been in getting their Eisenkern range plasticised? While you can argue this can have negative effects in places, it's hard to deny that the deluge of games, minis and ideas being funded now is a real great thing!

The trick, as I mentioned before, it to keep an open mind regarding minis and rules.

Agree with all of this.

If you don't think now is a golden age for the wargamer, you either weren't a wargamer ten years ago and are new to the hobby, or you've had blinkers on.

Video games may have had a harmful impact in some respects, may represent a threat, but the internet has absolutely revolutionised the breadth and depth of options out there now. Every part of it, it's a wonderful time.

 kveldulf wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
For the past several years we've been in basically what amounts to a Golden Age of wargaming. If you can think of something, there is probably a company that makes a miniature of it. There are more games, companies, and miniatures than ever, and more keep popping up.

I agree with MWHistorian. The issues that you are talking about are pretty much confined to GW, something which has also been an on-going trend for the past several years.

Just because the miniatures look great doesn't mean the gaming aspect is taking a turn for the better. In general I see more people liking the idea of playing games than the hobby. Lots of people seem to hop around so much between board game x and wargame y, that its like they enjoy the hunt for 'that new flavor' more than anything.

It seems companies are pushing for change in certain things that is probably better being left alone. Warhammer doesn't sound like the only one being affected by this trend.

People jump around because there's so many flavours, not because they're trying to find one.

Back 10-20 years ago, you had one option - Games Workshop. You either played their games, or you had real difficulty finding others to play against. Sure, Battletechs always been around, and some others started and failed like Confrontation, but GW was the company, and likely 40k was the game. Maybe you had friends that played a specialist game, but if you went to a store for a game, t was going to be 40k or on the outside, Fantasy.

These days there's so many options which are going to stick around, that it's hard to not be like a kid in a candy store. There's so much to try. If you want to limit yourself to one game, that's fine, but now people have a huge wealth of options, and after 20 years of 40k, it's hard to begrudge them jumping around looking at all the games that are now out there.

 kveldulf wrote:

This thread, in all honesty, is probably motivated from gw taking a good concept and crapping on it ( referring to WFB 9th rumors.)

Regarding losing you about the main purpose of this thread... i thought it was a touch indirect myself, but i didnt realize it was that complex to understand - between the lines at least.

I think there is a lot silly crap being progressively injected in rules, art design, and lore. The real sad thing is, the majority like 'outlandish' more and more. Question then really becomes what truly is outlandish (convoluted) and what isn't - universally. What fundamentals truly make for a an appealing wargame?

I could extrapolate but I think my fingers got ahead of me before considering the nature of the topic I was about to write on. I dont want to digress in this anymore as it would require a lot of time to do in earnest. Therefore, I apologize for wasting everyone's time. If there was a thread delete button I would have used it awhile ago. Sorry.

I walked away from WHFB years ago. And while I understand that it's become fashionable again today, what with "Oldhammer" and so forth, I never had as much fun in WHFB as in 3rd edition, which, despite not being perfect, had just the right mix of complexity (anyone could use a cavalry wedge or testudo) and straightforwardness to me - as well as (importantly) not being "HeroHammer". Despite this, I agree that whet they're apparently doing to the game with the 9th rumours is a travesty. My game of choice now is Kings of War, one of the "easy to learn, simple to master" rulesets that also allows a high degree of flexibility.

I do agree with others that despite GW's failings - or perhaps largely because of them - and of course the internet, e-commerce and even crowdfunding - we're in a golden age of gaming now, with more choices and variety readily available to all of us than ever before.

What trend there are so many boardgames and wargames out there from simple to extremely complex games. Don't see an issue except the size of my wallet and the size of my house.

Oh and the over abundance of zombie board games!

kveldulf wrote:[Edited - removed text for the sake of brevity. Changed title to make point clearer ]

2 Mechanic wise - Its all the consumer heat of convenience over fun = value. Things are angled more and more for the simpleton - making things to be more like rock, paper, scissors; this is all done under the guise of 'easy to play, difficult to master'. Any sort of granularity is always perceived with the notion that it takes too long for everyone. Board game kickstarter mechanics are unfortunately becoming the new model for wargames.

I'm actually a big fan of this trend, and it's not limited to WHFB or other "big games" either. Since the mid 00's, there's been a subset of the indie wargame world aimed at engaging those folks who feel that a fun tactical game doesn't need nearly as much granularity to be successful. These are often folks who have become disillusioned with GW and the codex phenomenon. In a way 40k and WHFB are fairly unique in that the core rules themselves aren't particularly granular, but the rules are overlayed with so many layers of modifications, special rules, unit rules, etc that they become extremely complex.

I also disagree that it's an overall trend. There are plenty of games with more "crunchy" mechanics that have been released during the same amount of time.

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:I think one of the big issues with wargaming today is the desire for 'balance'...
...Where are the games where 'victory' is only measured in how long you can avoid being wiped out? An attack with overwhelming forces trying sweep through the board as fast as possible etc...
…. but why is this the desired approach to cater for, why not focus more on gaming within groups who can communicate more and set up more complex scenarios and games

This kind of gaming is embraced by our club, but I'm not sure that such a model is easy to achieve within the framework of WHFB and 40k. These games by their nature push players towards collecting huge and optimized armies designed for competitive play. Also, in general, GW players seem to want to have everything spelled out for them in the rules. The collaborative nature of games with more unique objectives is hard to shoehorn into the GW way of doing things. Even GW's attempt at such things -the "Battle Missions" book- mostly relied on balanced forces standard force organization and fairly standard mission objectives though it did modify deployment and some other factors.

ProtoClone wrote:
Like others have said, we live in a golden age of TTWG. You are not stuck to one particular game if you don't like that game. If you want the rules to be more complex, then make them more complex. Just make sure the people you play with are cool with what you propose.

Definitely a golden age! There have never been more well-done gaming options at every level of budget, complexity, scope and genre as there are today.