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.

It's been mentioned disparagingly, but lately the game has become such a dumpster fire, I wonder if I'd be better off putting my models on plinths and using them for chess pieces. But, really what elements from chess - or really, any other game - do you think 40K could incorporate or learn from?

IMHO,

1 - Diversity, but not too much. Nobody in their right mind would play chess with 15 pawns and a king. Nobody would ever play someone with 15 queens and a king. Likewise, Unbound in 40K needs to go away. There has to be something to reign players for the standard game from bringing nothing but their "cool" toys.

2 - Pawn takes Queen. Pawns suck - but a crafty opponent can put them to good use. Even the lowliest 40K units should have a chance against other units; no enemy unit should be utterly unassailable.

3 - Not the whole army at once Can you imagine how horrible Chess would be if on every turn you got to move *every* figure before the other player moved every one of his figures? Why does 40K still allow this instead of alternating activations?

4 - Knight to Queen 4 Tactical movement, force splitting and envelopment, blocking and generally moving *should* be important, rather than running at each other shooting (and whacking each other with swords when the two forces collide).

5 - The King isn't the most powerful piece - 40K's characters shouldn't be the most powerful things on the battlefield. We've seen the resulting deathstars. The game could really do with toning down the herohammer aspect of characters.

 Stormonu wrote:
It's been mentioned disparagingly, but lately the game has become such a dumpster fire, I wonder if I'd be better off putting my models on plinths and using them for chess pieces. But, really what elements from chess - or really, any other game - do you think 40K could incorporate or learn from?

Very little. They are two entirely different genres and styles of games that have almost no business being compared. Would you compare chess to football? Or water polo?

1 - Diversity, but not too much. Nobody in their right mind would play chess with 15 pawns and a king. Nobody would ever play someone with 15 queens and a king. Likewise, Unbound in 40K needs to go away. There has to be something to reign players for the standard game from bringing nothing but their "cool" toys.

Nobody in their right mind would play Chess like that, sure, but that's because you only get 16 models in chess, period. If you could bring thirty two pawns? Yeah, I could see that, overwhelming the other player's strategies by overwhelming him with pieces. Or if you could swap out your bishops for knights? Also yeah. That's a reasonable tactic. I would be very interested to play a game of chess where you could organize your army roster based off of the value of your pieces. Maybe just three or four pawns, and then spamming Queens? That could be really cool, actually.
And there are ways that reign in players from bringing nothing but their cool toys - You notice how most deathstars and OP units don't rely on just good models, but rely on formations and detachments giving extra bonuses? Yeah, there's a reason for that.

2 - Pawn takes Queen. Pawns suck - but a crafty opponent can put them to good use. Even the lowliest 40K units should have a chance against other units; no enemy unit should be utterly unassailable.

That's not really true, though. Comparing a pawn taking a queen to a cultist killing a Warlord is not the same thing. You notice how chess also doesn't have units that counter each other? No builds that are strong or weak against each other? I mean, sure, some models are *stronger*, but models that are stronger are pretty much going to be stronger across the board.
So it's not a good comparison. Since there's no randomization or resistance to damage in Chess, every model has to be a one-hit kill - The way to win is to avoid damage entirely with maneuvering. In 40k, though, it's about applying units with the right abilities against other units that they are strong against. As I said at the beginning, they are two entirely different classifications of game.

3 - Not the whole army at once Can you imagine how horrible Chess would be if on every turn you got to move *every* figure before the other player moved every one of his figures? Why does 40K still allow this instead of alternating activations?

BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT GENRE OF GAME. In Chess you can win without moving more than two or three pieces all game. Your entire army is allowed to sit dormant. Since the goal is to carefully move pieces into positions so that your opponent can't hurt you - Or, at least, can't hurt you without taking more damage himself (While you also try and move so that you can hurt him,) having to move piece by piece is an important part of the game. With 40k, though, that's not the case - You really can't move in such a way so that your opponent can't hit you, unless he's playing Chaos Daemons with no psykers. It's not a game of avoiding damage, it's a game of preventing damage on your turn, then moving in to punish weak areas when you get the chance to hit back.
Can you imagine how frustrating 40k would be if, every time you moved a melee squad towards a target, it was allowed to move away before you got a chance to attack?

4 - Knight to Queen 4 Tactical movement, force splitting and envelopment, blocking and generally moving *should* be important, rather than running at each other shooting (and whacking each other with swords when the two forces collide).

They ARE important. You know how tarpits work? Screening units? Buff items that have a bubble radius and are therefore put in key locations? Heck, Rhinos are used as LOS blockers more than they're used as transports at my meta.

5 - The King isn't the most powerful piece - 40K's characters shouldn't be the most powerful things on the battlefield. We've seen the resulting deathstars. The game could really do with toning down the herohammer aspect of characters.

That's not a fair comparison, though, because the Queen is also a chess-equivalent for a Character, and she IS the most powerful piece, by far. The King isn't really a piece like a piece in 40k is, because you aren't supposed to use him to do anything, you're just supposed to protect him. He's more like an objective marker, really - Something very valuable that you don't want your opponent to get, but that is otherwise kind of useless.



I think if you really think that 40k should have all of these rules incorporated, you probably shouldn't be playing 40k, because most of these rules run explicitly opposite to the design, philosophy, and style of 40k, right down to its core. These aren't superficial changes you're proposing, they're mostly the deepest bonus and oldest stylings of 40k, right down to its start as a rogue-trader era game.

/thread

I agree that the current turn system is an integral part of the game and should not be changed, but a reaction mechanic would be nice.
Overwatch was a step in the right direction, but I don't like how it was implemented. Rather than a free action against charging, it should have been a state - during the shooting phase, you may put an infantry squad on overwatch, and declare a 45° degree zone that extends from one model to the other. This ends the unit's turn.

The first time an enemy unit enters this zone of fire, the overwatching squad takes an initiative test. If successful, the squad immediately fires at the enemy unit. If failed, nothing happens. In either case the squad leaves overwatch.

The same sort of mechanic could be applied to other reactions - if a squad is fired upon or charged, they may take a initiative test. If successful, they may return fire (may only react this way against a charging enemy if the charging unit is more than 3" away), go to ground (in the case of being shot upon), move to the nearest piece of cover (in the case of being shot upon), or fall back 2d6 (in the case of being charged). If failed they do not do anything. In either case, they may make no actions in the controlling player's following turn, unless they pass another initiative test (or a leadership test. A Ld test might be better, otherwise it may become too initiative heavy. Also, one could introduce a rule that allows a squad to use an HQ's LD value, like in whfb)

Likewise, the idea of warlord traits was a good one, but the execution was sloppy. Rather than being 36 randomly chosen permutations (assuming I'm not thinking of 6th again) there should have been only about 3 per table, one of which you may select.

The problem with random generation is that you have to base the results on the die. This means you can quickly ran out of different ideas, which can result in some pretty dodgy choices.
By having few choices, you can create some more interesting effects that have more of an impact. Less is more, in other words.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
It's been mentioned disparagingly, but lately the game has become such a dumpster fire, I wonder if I'd be better off putting my models on plinths and using them for chess pieces. But, really what elements from chess - or really, any other game - do you think 40K could incorporate or learn from?

Very little. They are two entirely different genres and styles of games that have almost no business being compared. Would you compare chess to football? Or water polo?

1 - Diversity, but not too much. Nobody in their right mind would play chess with 15 pawns and a king. Nobody would ever play someone with 15 queens and a king. Likewise, Unbound in 40K needs to go away. There has to be something to reign players for the standard game from bringing nothing but their "cool" toys.

Nobody in their right mind would play Chess like that, sure, but that's because you only get 16 models in chess, period. If you could bring thirty two pawns? Yeah, I could see that, overwhelming the other player's strategies by overwhelming him with pieces. Or if you could swap out your bishops for knights? Also yeah. That's a reasonable tactic. I would be very interested to play a game of chess where you could organize your army roster based off of the value of your pieces. Maybe just three or four pawns, and then spamming Queens? That could be really cool, actually.
And there are ways that reign in players from bringing nothing but their cool toys - You notice how most deathstars and OP units don't rely on just good models, but rely on formations and detachments giving extra bonuses? Yeah, there's a reason for that.

2 - Pawn takes Queen. Pawns suck - but a crafty opponent can put them to good use. Even the lowliest 40K units should have a chance against other units; no enemy unit should be utterly unassailable.

That's not really true, though. Comparing a pawn taking a queen to a cultist killing a Warlord is not the same thing. You notice how chess also doesn't have units that counter each other? No builds that are strong or weak against each other? I mean, sure, some models are *stronger*, but models that are stronger are pretty much going to be stronger across the board.
So it's not a good comparison. Since there's no randomization or resistance to damage in Chess, every model has to be a one-hit kill - The way to win is to avoid damage entirely with maneuvering. In 40k, though, it's about applying units with the right abilities against other units that they are strong against. As I said at the beginning, they are two entirely different classifications of game.

3 - Not the whole army at once Can you imagine how horrible Chess would be if on every turn you got to move *every* figure before the other player moved every one of his figures? Why does 40K still allow this instead of alternating activations?

BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT GENRE OF GAME. In Chess you can win without moving more than two or three pieces all game. Your entire army is allowed to sit dormant. Since the goal is to carefully move pieces into positions so that your opponent can't hurt you - Or, at least, can't hurt you without taking more damage himself (While you also try and move so that you can hurt him,) having to move piece by piece is an important part of the game. With 40k, though, that's not the case - You really can't move in such a way so that your opponent can't hit you, unless he's playing Chaos Daemons with no psykers. It's not a game of avoiding damage, it's a game of preventing damage on your turn, then moving in to punish weak areas when you get the chance to hit back.
Can you imagine how frustrating 40k would be if, every time you moved a melee squad towards a target, it was allowed to move away before you got a chance to attack?

4 - Knight to Queen 4 Tactical movement, force splitting and envelopment, blocking and generally moving *should* be important, rather than running at each other shooting (and whacking each other with swords when the two forces collide).

They ARE important. You know how tarpits work? Screening units? Buff items that have a bubble radius and are therefore put in key locations? Heck, Rhinos are used as LOS blockers more than they're used as transports at my meta.

5 - The King isn't the most powerful piece - 40K's characters shouldn't be the most powerful things on the battlefield. We've seen the resulting deathstars. The game could really do with toning down the herohammer aspect of characters.

That's not a fair comparison, though, because the Queen is also a chess-equivalent for a Character, and she IS the most powerful piece, by far. The King isn't really a piece like a piece in 40k is, because you aren't supposed to use him to do anything, you're just supposed to protect him. He's more like an objective marker, really - Something very valuable that you don't want your opponent to get, but that is otherwise kind of useless.



I think if you really think that 40k should have all of these rules incorporated, you probably shouldn't be playing 40k, because most of these rules run explicitly opposite to the design, philosophy, and style of 40k, right down to its core. These aren't superficial changes you're proposing, they're mostly the deepest bonus and oldest stylings of 40k, right down to its start as a rogue-trader era game.

You Sir are the VOICE.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The first time an enemy unit enters this zone of fire, the overwatching squad takes an initiative test. If successful, the squad immediately fires at the enemy unit. If failed, nothing happens. In either case the squad leaves overwatch.

The same sort of mechanic could be applied to other reactions - if a squad is fired upon or charged, they may take a initiative test. If successful, they may return fire (may only react this way against a charging enemy if the charging unit is more than 3" away), go to ground (in the case of being shot upon), move to the nearest piece of cover (in the case of being shot upon), or fall back 2d6 (in the case of being charged). If failed they do not do anything. In either case, they may make no actions in the controlling player's following turn, unless they pass another initiative test.

This is not the worst idea ever, but it would require a change to have initiative be a general leadership-type stat instead of a pure melee value. For example, Tau defending a fortified position should be really good at overwatch, but requiring an initiative test makes them terrible at it and you'd never be willing to give up a unit's normal shooting for a 1/3 chance to attempt to shoot.

In Chess, you play against the other player. In 40k, you play against the rules.

40k's rules need to be redesigned so that the focus is towards player against player interactions. Reward players for thinking ahead of their opponents and properly predicting their plans.

In Chess the person with the most chance of winning is the person who memorises all possible strategies, recognises them as or before they're played and responds with the appropriate play.
Chess strategy is finite.
Warhammer is an evolving and sometimes devolving game. The person with the best memory can still struggle against the person with imagination. The guy with money can have an advantage, the guy with money can also suck so bad they can buy whatever they want and still suck.
Then there's the matter of list building.
Games are won and lost before the first model even hits the board.

Restrict the movement of your pieces to set squares on the table. That way you remove a lot of the games stochasticity and can tighten your ruleset up. At the cost of making the game exceedingly dull, perhaps, but that's the price you pay for comeptitive merit.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The first time an enemy unit enters this zone of fire, the overwatching squad takes an initiative test. If successful, the squad immediately fires at the enemy unit. If failed, nothing happens. In either case the squad leaves overwatch.

The same sort of mechanic could be applied to other reactions - if a squad is fired upon or charged, they may take a initiative test. If successful, they may return fire (may only react this way against a charging enemy if the charging unit is more than 3" away), go to ground (in the case of being shot upon), move to the nearest piece of cover (in the case of being shot upon), or fall back 2d6 (in the case of being charged). If failed they do not do anything. In either case, they may make no actions in the controlling player's following turn, unless they pass another initiative test.

This is not the worst idea ever, but it would require a change to have initiative be a general leadership-type stat instead of a pure melee value. For example, Tau defending a fortified position should be really good at overwatch, but requiring an initiative test makes them terrible at it and you'd never be willing to give up a unit's normal shooting for a 1/3 chance to attempt to shoot.

Indeed, inserting such a mechanic without the appropriate changes would have a negative impact on some factions.
I had considered that, which is why ideally different factions would have ways of approaching it.

To use your Tau example, in my system the supporting fire rule would give a +1 bonus to shooting based reaction rolls for every Tau unit within 6", and in addition if there's a firewarrior squad within 6" it may reaction fire as well.

Orks would have a special reaction where they can charge into the enemy, with no test required. Because Waagh

Necrons get no racial special rules, but they would get equipment that screws up the enemy's reaction.

Guardsmen would get some sort of reaction shenanigan based on their platoon. I haven't quite worked it out it, but it would involve units of the same platoon to assist one another during a reaction if they are within 12" of the command squad, sort of like that Empire rule in WHFB.

Tyranids use the initiative stat of a synapse creature that's in range. Or something. Synapse creatures tend to high initiative, right? I think Tyrants have something like I6. If not may need a better idea.

Space Marines, Dark Eldar and Eldar don't need anything, imo. They have good initiative stats already.

Maybe Fear can be changed to affect reaction tests. Like, a unit charged or firing overwatch against a unit with Fear suffers a -1 modifier or something, instead of that ld test.

Also note that I didn't mention anything about snap shots

Chess has a lot of different variants, from fairy-piece chess, to rifle chess to atomic chess, each variant being less intended to be an actual game as much as it is a theoretical exercise. Even a simple change (Pawns move diagonal but capture straight) can have dramatic implications for how the game actually plays out. Plus games like Shogi exist, showing how "summoning" can lead to an unstable equilibrium where the person in the lead rapidly gains a lead over their opponent.

I'm also surprised nobody has mentioned Knightmare Chess yet. Aka Chess where both players build a deck of cards, each card having variable point values assigned to them. You could play a Card instead of moving a piece, with ones ranging from "Inquisition" (move an enemy Bishop, and it can capture pieces on its own side), to "Prisoner Exchange" (both players return a captured piece). A system like that could be almost worth looking into, if GW wants to ever make Stratagems a more integral part of the game rather than something you "Bolt on" via supplements nobody wants to play anyway!

@Stormonu
1 - Diversity, but not too much.
I agree. One Codex should be enough to deploy an army. But the concept of Unbound drives sales and therefore it is doubtful that it will be removed in future editions of the game.

[b]2 - Pawn takes Queen.
You can certainly implement this in computer games (e.g.: Dawn of War, Age of Wonders, etc.) in which units have health bars. In these even a guardsman would be able able to damage a Land Raider with his lasgun.
In 40K tabletop? Not so much. The whole vehicle chart damage table would have to be reworked in such a way that even low STR weapons could affect/damage a vehicle. Vehicles would have a very large amount of hull points or whatever other catchy phrase you might use to decribe a vehicle´s durability. The result would be an increase of bookkeeping for these units which could work for small games. Well, we all know GW is pushing 40K in the opposite direction with the use of big models like the Imperial Knight in standard games.

[b]3 - Not the whole army at once
You are right. Alternate unit activation would benefit the overall gameplay.

4 - Knight to Queen
That´s a tough one. Most armies consist of slow-moving infantry units which are not capable to practice such tactical ploys apart from tarpitting. You would have to use rules like deep strike and flanking to acchieve your goal. If these two rules are actually worth the try is an entirely different matter because they are prone to change when another edition of the game comes around.

5 - The King isn't the most powerful piece
Strong close combat characters were always present in 40K regardless of edition. It´s a hallmark of the game and I doubt GW will get rid of it.