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.

Hecaton wrote:
The problem is that there's a lot of people who think it's unfun when their opponent uses superior listbuilding and gameplay skills to beat them.

(Translation: "Superior listbuilding" = "buying newer stuff", "superior gameplay skills" = "rendered irrelevant by buying newer stuff")

Anomander beat me to it Although I would also add "Superior listbuilding"="copying tournament winning lists from the internet".

Just to add on what AndromaderRake and Cyel wrote above, „superior listbuilding” and „superior game skills” rarely occur at the same time and more often than not „superior listbuilding” is a crutch that makes up for poor game skills.

Regarding The Most Important Rule, what is missing from the new version the most is not only mentioning open framework and house ruling, but also calling WAAC by name as a wrong approach to the game.

I also frequently mention an old article from White Dwarf by Rick Priestly about why the company was called "Games Workshop."

The article very explicitly states that the founding philosophy of the company was always providing a toolset so that players could create the game they wanted, rather than producing a slick, play it straight out--of-the-box or book experience. They always wanted their players to feel like co-creators.

I wish I still had the Dwarf that contained the article- I think it would have been somewhere in the 1995-1998 span.

To me, this article expressed a lot of concepts similar to those Zion saw in the text he quoted.

PenitentJake wrote:
I also frequently mention an old article from White Dwarf by Rick Priestly about why the company was called "Games Workshop."

The article very explicitly states that the founding philosophy of the company was always providing a toolset so that players could create the game they wanted, rather than producing a slick, play it straight out--of-the-box or book experience. They always wanted their players to feel like co-creators.

I wish I still had the Dwarf that contained the article- I think it would have been somewhere in the 1995-1998 span.

To me, this article expressed a lot of concepts similar to those Zion saw in the text he quoted.

As much as I love/nostalgiawank over the older ways of GW thats not really what people want out of a game anymore. People WANT and expect games to be playable straight out the box. Its very much an attitude from a time when wargames were played with a few nerds in a garage, not in a community of thousands.

 Sim-Life wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
I also frequently mention an old article from White Dwarf by Rick Priestly about why the company was called "Games Workshop."

The article very explicitly states that the founding philosophy of the company was always providing a toolset so that players could create the game they wanted, rather than producing a slick, play it straight out--of-the-box or book experience. They always wanted their players to feel like co-creators.

I wish I still had the Dwarf that contained the article- I think it would have been somewhere in the 1995-1998 span.

To me, this article expressed a lot of concepts similar to those Zion saw in the text he quoted.

As much as I love/nostalgiawank over the older ways of GW thats not really what people want out of a game anymore. People WANT and expect games to be playable straight out the box. Its very much an attitude from a time when wargames were played with a few nerds in a garage, not in a community of thousands.

I think it can be both. Like a Lego set. Sure it's supposed to make X, but it's individual parts (or by adding parts) lets you make the rest of the alphabet.

Except, to extend the metaphor, the Lego set's instructions are wrong, and you don't have all the pieces to build what's on the front of the box, even though you can use those pieces to build other things.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
The problem is that there's a lot of people who think it's unfun when their opponent uses superior listbuilding and gameplay skills to beat them.

(Translation: "Superior listbuilding" = "buying newer stuff", "superior gameplay skills" = "rendered irrelevant by buying newer stuff")

Ah yes, the age old "new stuff is op" argument that doesnt actually have any basis.

Doomstalkers
Ophydians
Primaris speeders
Sororitas predator
etc. etc.

sooo many newly released models are gak

Primaris were largely mediocre for a good while after their release too, weren't they? Initial release, and the new stuff from the Indomitus and onwards release.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
The problem is that there's a lot of people who think it's unfun when their opponent uses superior listbuilding and gameplay skills to beat them.

(Translation: "Superior listbuilding" = "buying newer stuff", "superior gameplay skills" = "rendered irrelevant by buying newer stuff")

Ah yes, the age old "new stuff is op" argument that doesnt actually have any basis.

Doomstalkers
Ophydians
Primaris speeders
Sororitas predator
etc. etc.

sooo many newly released models are gak

Replace "newer" with "recently buffed" and you're there. Although I think it was in reference to newer rules which does fit.

Well that's a completely different message, isn't it? It helps to be accurate with wording. A solid chunk of new models coming out tend to be mediocre. New rules for some old things seem to hit randomly and buff things rather obscenely. To my wholly unprofessional eye, it looks like GW incompetence rather than malicious writing to sell specific things.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Except, to extend the metaphor, the Lego set's instructions are wrong, and you don't have all the pieces to build what's on the front of the box, even though you can use those pieces to build other things.

People don't need the permission of Lego to do what they want with it. 40K is the same. It's just that most people don't want to and they have less reason to do so now.

Given all the printed materials GW produces there is a valid expectation bias that GW products are complete within themselves, in the same way that Apple produces a complete and insolated product.

Yeah, I use Apple stuff and have for a long time for a few reasons, one of them is what you say Tokhuah, that it works straight out of the box and is basically idiot proof. Another is that my Apple hardware works for a VERY long time, at least the stuff that I have has. I am using a Macbook pro from 2011, added some memory, exchanged the HDD for an SDD, blew out the dust, even lost a screw... Thing does what needs done with the occasional headache for a no longer supported platform with an older OS.

If this is what people want from "Games Workshop" (considering Sim's emphasis on the "workshop" aspect) then I guess they get neither.

Wargames can't be a "build your own" ruleset unless you play with a very close and insular group. Because it's a multi-person experience.

When I play 40k, it's a rare moment I'll play the same person twice in six months, my community is rather large.
In this situation the only possibility is we play the game straight out the book.

Lego is easy to customise because no one but you is involved.
Playing wargames doesn't work like that.

I wanted to share some more of my own thoughts on the topic of 40k evolution and how that dovetails with what ProHammer is striving to accomplish. This is a bit of a long read, and so I apologize in advance!

First off all, I think what’s happening with 40K is also happening in other game mediums. I’m a published board game designer, and keep a close ear to the board game community. What’s been a driving paradigm behind many highly regarded modern euro-games (i.e. BGG top ranked games) is a push towards optimization-based decision making, multiplayer solitaire, and reduced interactivity or reduced “chaos” in the game system as a whole.

Behind this paradigm is the sentiment among players of “I want to win or lose due to my own decision-making prowess”. It is a reasonable enough statement to make and it’s one that ultimately comes from a competitive mindset. Putting that sentiment into practice means making certain design choices. It means cutting down on the lines of interactions between players (to minimize cases where the player to your right “messes up” your perfect plans/moves) and also strives to eliminate randomness on the backside of decisions (e.g. rolling dice to determine successes or not). The result are games where players are increasingly playing “against the system” as opposed to playing against the other players at the table. It may be more strategic and computationally heavy from a planning and look-ahead standpoint, but it orients the skill of the game around optimization and logistical modes of thinking, as opposed to more spatial or psychological modes.

I think the above philosophy has influenced the design of 40K, specifically in 8th and 9th edition. While 40k still remains a wargame, the competitive mindset and sentiment of wanting “to win or lose purely on my own good/bad decision-making” is clearly influencing the design. What’s the evidence for this? (1) Symmetrical ITC style mission designs and players starting to want/expect more symmetrical terrain setups These shifts eliminate a huge source of uncertainty in the game space and diminishes the role of spatial planning and reading novel board arrangements. (2) Mitigation of randomness through using a plethora of stratagems, auras, traits, doctrines, and more to reduce the variance in randomness felt over the course of the game and make outputs closer to expected values..

From a competitive player's perspective, the above things are seen as a good evolution for the game. Matches are structured symmetrically and more fairly. Randomness is curtailed and outcomes are less swingy, etc.. The effect of these, however, is that it makes the underlying math of the game more open to be programmed onto the table and army output/performance easier to optimize and predict. When there are fewer X-factors affecting the relative value of a unit, you can more reliably calculate its value and optimize the whole army around a narrow set of battle parameters. This shifts the game even more into list building, especially with the more simplified core in 8th/9th rules providing less avenues for counter play or unusual/unexpected situations to arise.

And this is where army points come into the equation. Ironically, by diminishing other aspects of the game system, even more of the burden for balancing the game falls onto the point values. If the game is 90% about list building, then points are going to have an outsized importance. Unfortunately, if we’ve seen anything over the years, it’s that chasing balance through point adjustments is like chasing unicorns. One can change point values, but then something else will just emerge as the new optimal relative to the rigid competitive context you’re playing in. And this assumes the best intentions from GW (surely they wouldn’t be manipulating points to drive sales, right?).

All said, from a purely competitive, ITC-style matched play perspective points can, in theory, make headway towards leveling the playing field, but that honestly only gets you so far. Moreover, the integrity of a point-based system breaks down quickly when you have missions with asymmetric objectives and setups, uneven and varied terrain, when playing larger or smaller games than what army size the points were based around, and/or where opposing armies happen to counter their opponent particularly well (or not). Points are a rough guide at best, even under ideal circumstances.

--------------------------------------------------

What does this all have to do with ProHammer?

ProHammer is designed under a different paradigm than the trajectory 40k is currently on. It is NOT intended to provide a tight, balanced, competitive play experience. The name is a bit of a misnomer (or tongue-in-cheek reference), as there is nothing “Pro” about it in terms of a competitive “pro” player or supporting “pro” play (whatever that may be).

What ProHammer sets out to accomplish is providing a ruleset more aligned with 40k being a wargame simulation and narrative-based game. There’s a number of design objectives for the project that feed into this:

(1) Celebrate the epic drama of Warhammer 40k and its emphasis on gritty infantry battles.
(2) Give players more interesting and tough tactical choices, rewarding clever play over list building.
(3) Balance fairness with excitement. Keep gameplay surprising but not randomly or overly punitive.
(4) Emphasize intuitive rules. Simple is good, but shouldn’t be at the expense of gameplay or rule logic.
(5) Restore the importance of position, maneuver, and terrain which is at the heart of miniature wargaming!

The above list is what we check rule changes against. Obviously many of these are a balancing act to achieve as they can pull against each other. But I think more broadly these objectives provide a compelling case for the way that classic 40K editions did things (which we’re building onto) and which go against the current 40K design paradigm.

Morale, for example, is a big one. As a simulation game trying to maintain some level of fidelity, having a morale failure cause units to fall back has more fidelity (is less abstract) than how it works in 8th/9th with just losing more models. Moreover, there are ripple effects that result from this greater fidelity. That units can fall back creates opportunities for trapping units that fall back, or pushing units out of position (and out of range for shooting or objectives, etc.), forcing their owner to adjust their tactical plans. The fidelity creates more potential dynamics in the system where unanticipated or emergent things can happen.

We have an eye on streamlining and making the game intuitive and logical to play. Whether this translates into a shorter or longer playtime isn’t really a metric we’re tracking. That said, I’ve found that many of ProHammer’s adjustments do streamline and speed up play. Declared shooting and declared charging, with neither allowing pre-measuring, is an example that DOES go towards speeding up the game. There is far less re-evaluation going on (aka “let me see how this unit’s shooting attacks go… okay…. not as good as expected, let me re-assess what second unit should now shoot at that target…” and so on). With declared shooting you have to make some big gut level decisions and then work with whatever transpires. The attack resolution process is much the same as the entire system is designed to always be batch/fast rolling all shots. You’re not even allowed to roll shots one at a time to try and game the way the wound allocation system works.

In regards to unit point values and the ramification of rule changes, there are a few crucial things to bear in mind.

First, a specific operational goal of ProHammer is to let any classic era (3rd-7th edition) codex / army list play against any other. Home-brew rulesets have a much more difficult hill to climb when you ask players to not only accept your rule changes, but also to disregard their library of old codexes. So making a system that works, well-enough, with any classic codex is important.

Second, is the realization that both within an edition cycle, and between edition cycles, there has always been (and continues to be), significant swings in power from one army to another. Or codex’s that were horribly out-of-date with respect to the current core rules. You had the 4th edition Ork codex lasting through 4th, 5th and 6th edition of the game (for example). There is nothing that’s changed rule wise, IMHO, that swings things any worse than has already swung before within all of the official content.

Third is to realize that ProHammer seeks to CHANGE the core mechanics and have those changes actually result in different gameplay outcomes and incentives. Let’s say that with the “AP = Sv, then take save at a -1” change we went through and “rebalanced” everything perfectly to account for that. Would be the effect? Okay - now I have X-fewer marines or your cheaper plasma guns mean you can take a few more. Great. So I’ve made a change, rebalanced everything, and then I’m right back at where I started in relative terms. The point of making a change is to have that change actually cause an effect - not to rebalance the system to mitigate the reason for making the change in the first place.

When you couple the desire the make a change with the objective of having broad-codex compatibility, and the realization that balance is always all over the place anyway, AND the desire for ProHammer to cater more towards a simulationist and narrative style of play, then all of the concern and obsessing about points and balance is rendered largely moot.

--------------------------------------------------

To bring this all back to the current topic - the above highlights for me different directions that 40K could’ve gone. Even down to “the most important rule” and how its wording has shifted the intent of the play experience. 40K today is a game that strives to maximize “control” for players in order to satiate a competitive-mindset. Players want a fair and level playing field to properly test their mettle - but they are are really just testing their list building capabilities. Classic 40K, and by extension ProHammer, is rooted more in trying to simulate battlefield dynamics, using the rules and the resulting effects to put players in unexpected situations. For us, the latter is where the game thrives.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Almost as if two people with different expectations for the game should be able to communicate their expectations and then draw up ideas how to have a fun game that doesn't involve the most hyper-tooled lists in existance...

Sure, but the bad-faith casual at all costs scrub isn't going to come to that negotiation trying to make sure their opponent has a fun time too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
The problem is that there's a lot of people who think it's unfun when their opponent uses superior listbuilding and gameplay skills to beat them.

(Translation: "Superior listbuilding" = "buying newer stuff", "superior gameplay skills" = "rendered irrelevant by buying newer stuff")

I'm talking about more games than just 40k here. Scrubby players exist in all game systems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Just to add on what AndromaderRake and Cyel wrote above, „superior listbuilding” and „superior game skills” rarely occur at the same time and more often than not „superior listbuilding” is a crutch that makes up for poor game skills.

Nah, good gameplay skills and good listbuilding usually go hand in hand.

From a competitive player's perspective, the above things are seen as a good evolution for the game. Matches are structured symmetrically and more fairly. Randomness is curtailed and outcomes are less swingy, etc.. The effect of these, however, is that it makes the underlying math of the game more open to be programmed onto the table and army output/performance easier to optimize and predict. When there are fewer X-factors affecting the relative value of a unit, you can more reliably calculate its value and optimize the whole army around a narrow set of battle parameters. This shifts the game even more into list building, especially with the more simplified core in 8th/9th rules providing less avenues for counter play or unusual/unexpected situations to arise.

1000%. This was a thing competitive players were pushing for as early as 4th edition. Random table setups and random terrain layouts caused a lot of drama for me for that exact reason.

The more as you say X factors exist, the harder it is to optimize, and while thats closer to a real war situation - from a person that wants a game to be more like a sporting event as opposed to a 'wargame' (the war-themed game if you will) - that is a huge cancer to them.

I design games based off of the experience of feeling like you are commanding real armies - more classic wargame.

Classic 40K, and by extension ProHammer, is rooted more in trying to simulate battlefield dynamics, using the rules and the resulting effects to put players in unexpected situations. For us, the latter is where the game thrives.

For players like us - 1000%. For competitive players - they do not like this.

I enjoy it though and appreciate your post and the direction you come from because it is exactly how I do my design and what type of games that I enjoy and what I want 40k to be.

However - the next step to look at is marketing. From my own design space (mostly PC related and xbox/playstation but also tabletop ports) - the competitive player in almost every marketing research I have seen is the vast majority of commercial buyers of these games.

Which also shows why 40k is what it is today.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Except, to extend the metaphor, the Lego set's instructions are wrong, and you don't have all the pieces to build what's on the front of the box, even though you can use those pieces to build other things.

People don't need the permission of Lego to do what they want with it. 40K is the same. It's just that most people don't want to and they have less reason to do so now.

So why are you buying Lego instead of a cheaper brand that gets you all the pieces you need? I have a newsflash: Mega Blox/Constructs pieces are just as durable.

Nah, good gameplay skills and good listbuilding usually go hand in hand.

I'd say out of 10 "pro tournament players" - maybe 1 or 2 of them designs their own list.

The other 8 or 9 copy an ITC list that placed well and might minorly tweak here or there, but the list is mostly not theirs. Its just the tank that they are wielding that they bought off of the lot to use.

So while listbuilding is a skill, it is not a skill that I see used very often. I see parroting and copy paste the majority skill.

And I've absolutely seen poor to mid players stomp mid to good players using weaker lists with their copy paste ITC power list for me to not agree that good players are ace list makers.

I placed top 10 in the old GT system several times because I knew how to copy good lists. That didn't make me a good player, though at the time I thought it did.

Given a moderate list, I struggle 50/50. The list drives so much in these games and you don't need to be good at listbuilding to grab a good list, especially with how easy the internet is and how there are players that literally charge a few hundred bucks to make your list for you.

I think part of the empthasis on list building is because it's more accessible to people.

Throughout my wargaming life, starting as a child and through into my adult life, I find myself list building and theory crafting more than actually gaming.
I can build lists sitting on the toilet, whilst trying to fall asleep, etc. I can discuss combos with friends easily.
But gaming is much harder. Two people need to find the time simultaneously, and it's more difficult to chat about cool moments because for a lot of them you really need to be there, and there's not much of a conversation beyond "yeah that sounds cool".

So... an empthasis on list building really helps to keep people engaging with your game at all times. And of course, it helps to sell models and books.
If the solution to your problem is "use it differently" you won't buy anything. If the solution is "pair it with this character" well now you're going to buy that character.

I don't think it's an accident that the most popular RPG, DnD, also has a very build-centric focus.

Hecaton wrote:


Nah, good gameplay skills and good listbuilding usually go hand in hand.

There is a very important distinction to be made here.

Good listbuilding arises from good gameplay skills.

Good gaming skills do not automatically arise from good listbuilding.

What auticus wrote is very, very true, especially since the internet became a thing and building a list off the combined knowledge of the community became a thing. In most cases "good listbuilding skill" is pretty much a synonym of a good google-fu.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I wanted to share some more of my own thoughts on the topic of 40k evolution and how that dovetails with what ProHammer is striving to accomplish. This is a bit of a long read, and so I apologize in advance!
...
...
...

Your entire post explains the situation pretty well. I'd also like to add, that, funnily, for a euro-style boadgame fan, WH40K in its current form is a laughing stock when it comes to comparing it to sharp, state-of-the-art design philosophies of modern era board games. For all these failed attempts at making the game all the things at once it is surprisingly popular. Availability bias and cool models I guess? Sprinkled with excellent marketing

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think part of the empthasis on list building is because it's more accessible to people.

Throughout my wargaming life, starting as a child and through into my adult life, I find myself list building and theory crafting more than actually gaming.
I can build lists sitting on the toilet, whilst trying to fall asleep, etc. I can discuss combos with friends easily.
But gaming is much harder. Two people need to find the time simultaneously, and it's more difficult to chat about cool moments because for a lot of them you really need to be there, and there's not much of a conversation beyond "yeah that sounds cool".

So... an empthasis on list building really helps to keep people engaging with your game at all times. And of course, it helps to sell models and books.
If the solution to your problem is "use it differently" you won't buy anything. If the solution is "pair it with this character" well now you're going to buy that character.

I don't think it's an accident that the most popular RPG, DnD, also has a very build-centric focus.

This is especially true since most people play really small number of games throughout their entire hobby "career". In my first 40k period in 2nd and 3rd I've played around a dozen games total. That was a couple of years worth of actual gaming as opposed to list building, painting, reading etc.. My perspective on what I actually want from the game changed when I had the time and capacity to play several games a week.

Availability bias for 40k is definitely the factor keeping it's success going imo.

For many people 40k is the only wargame available, I know many people that are interested in wargames but either won't try them or won't continue with them because the playerbase isn't there.
40k has a vice-grip on the playerbase, it's the only game I ever see consistently played anywhere. In my city there's at least 4 local clubs focusing on 40k, I'm lucky to get 4 people for any non-GW system (and all of those 4 will consider 40k their main game).

Cyel wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I wanted to share some more of my own thoughts on the topic of 40k evolution and how that dovetails with what ProHammer is striving to accomplish. This is a bit of a long read, and so I apologize in advance!
...
...
...

Your entire post explains the situation pretty well. I'd also like to add, that, funnily, for a euro-style boadgame fan, WH40K in its current form is a laughing stock when it comes to comparing it to sharp, state-of-the-art design philosophies of modern era board games. For all these failed attempts at making the game all the things at once it is surprisingly popular. Availability bias and cool models I guess? Sprinkled with excellent marketing

I have "pet comparison game" I often use in this context, which you may be familiar with given your flag. Neuroshima Hex is so much better war themed game, with all possible wargame concepts and mechanics distilled into the most abstract form, resulting in so much deeper gameplay that it is not even funny.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
The problem is that there's a lot of people who think it's unfun when their opponent uses superior listbuilding and gameplay skills to beat them.

(Translation: "Superior listbuilding" = "buying newer stuff", "superior gameplay skills" = "rendered irrelevant by buying newer stuff")

Ah yes, the age old "new stuff is op" argument that doesnt actually have any basis.

Doomstalkers
Ophydians
Primaris speeders
Sororitas predator
etc. etc.

sooo many newly released models are gak

On competitive tables, sure. Most of my collection of models is 30k stuff/models with rules dating back to 3rd, if you think some new models are gak you clearly haven't plumbed the depths of gak you'll find if you try running mech-foot CSM.

nou wrote:

Cyel wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I wanted to share some more of my own thoughts on the topic of 40k evolution and how that dovetails with what ProHammer is striving to accomplish. This is a bit of a long read, and so I apologize in advance!
...
...
...

Your entire post explains the situation pretty well. I'd also like to add, that, funnily, for a euro-style boadgame fan, WH40K in its current form is a laughing stock when it comes to comparing it to sharp, state-of-the-art design philosophies of modern era board games. For all these failed attempts at making the game all the things at once it is surprisingly popular. Availability bias and cool models I guess? Sprinkled with excellent marketing

I have "pet comparison game" I often use in this context, which you may be familiar with given your flag. Neuroshima Hex is so much better war themed game, with all possible wargame concepts and mechanics distilled into the most abstract form, resulting in so much deeper gameplay that it is not even funny.

Its probably best not to go down the "compare 40k to a board game" rabbit hole because its too easy to say it's like comparing apples to oranges. I have to resist using War Of The Ring as an example of a simple system with deep mechanics and decision making all the time but it's too easily countered as an argument.

That said the worst board game I own is better designed than 40k. I wonder if the reason FFG lost the 40k license is because Forbidden Stars was the best 40k based game ever made?

nou wrote:

Cyel wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I wanted to share some more of my own thoughts on the topic of 40k evolution and how that dovetails with what ProHammer is striving to accomplish. This is a bit of a long read, and so I apologize in advance!
...
...
...

Your entire post explains the situation pretty well. I'd also like to add, that, funnily, for a euro-style boadgame fan, WH40K in its current form is a laughing stock when it comes to comparing it to sharp, state-of-the-art design philosophies of modern era board games. For all these failed attempts at making the game all the things at once it is surprisingly popular. Availability bias and cool models I guess? Sprinkled with excellent marketing

I have "pet comparison game" I often use in this context, which you may be familiar with given your flag. Neuroshima Hex is so much better war themed game, with all possible wargame concepts and mechanics distilled into the most abstract form, resulting in so much deeper gameplay that it is not even funny.

Totally agreed with both of the above posts as well.

I've been playing the Undaunted series of board games, and the density of tough decisions is way above a typical 40k game. We've joked about porting the undaunted system to the 40k context for the fun of it.

Regarding 40k dominance - on one hand yes it remains popular because for many its the only game in town and has momentum. But also, 40K lore is becoming, slowly, more of a cultural identifiable item. It's a far cry from Star Wars or Star Trek, but I have to imagine that it's up there. So many people are roped into the game, or remain playing the game, because of the IP and setting. I've said for a while now the most valuable thing GW has is their IP. The value of their rules and even models is going to decline I feel, but the value of the IP remains.

 Sim-Life wrote:

nou wrote:

Cyel wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I wanted to share some more of my own thoughts on the topic of 40k evolution and how that dovetails with what ProHammer is striving to accomplish. This is a bit of a long read, and so I apologize in advance!
...
...
...

Your entire post explains the situation pretty well. I'd also like to add, that, funnily, for a euro-style boadgame fan, WH40K in its current form is a laughing stock when it comes to comparing it to sharp, state-of-the-art design philosophies of modern era board games. For all these failed attempts at making the game all the things at once it is surprisingly popular. Availability bias and cool models I guess? Sprinkled with excellent marketing

I have "pet comparison game" I often use in this context, which you may be familiar with given your flag. Neuroshima Hex is so much better war themed game, with all possible wargame concepts and mechanics distilled into the most abstract form, resulting in so much deeper gameplay that it is not even funny.

Its probably best not to go down the "compare 40k to a board game" rabbit hole because its too easy to say it's like comparing apples to oranges. I have to resist using War Of The Ring as an example of a simple system with deep mechanics and decision making all the time but it's too easily countered as an argument.

That said the worst board game I own is better designed than 40k. I wonder if the reason FFG lost the 40k license is because Forbidden Stars was the best 40k based game ever made?

I agree with the ease of countering and invoke Neuroshima only in abstract contexts of game design, but that being said, with the direction 8th and 9th went, the comparison to board games is now arguably a more valid one than a comparison to a proper, historical context of wargames like original Kriegspiel.