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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
though I think some of it might simply be a result of Legion obviously being someone's 40k homebrew.

You lost me here. I don't play legion and think "yeah, someone was trying to rework 40k when they designed this".

It's just the impression I get out of it. When it came out it just felt like it had a lot of the "how to fix 40k" ideas built into it that were popular at the time. Alternating activations, D8s, stuff like that. The core engine has a lot of similarities; similar saving throws and unit compositions (4-5 guys and a heavy weapon) and army organization. My first impression was just that I could easily see playing a 40k army with the ruleset if someone took the time to make unit profiles.

In truth though, I don't like the way I worded that sentence. It sounds very dismissive of Legion which is not my intent. What I really mean to say is that Legion feels like a game that comes from someone who's played enough 40k to use it as a baseline and built the game around how they'd like to see it modernized. Since its release, the game has definitely leaned more and more into the things that make it unique.

I guess I understand what you're trying to say, though I take some umbrage at it not because I'm a legion fanboi (I'm really not, I enjoy it but I don't spend nearly as much time or money on it as I do 40k), but because its kind of... reductive?

Like, mechanically 40k and Legion are basically night and day. They both use miniatures and you measure distances between them and roll dice to kill eachother. Thats about the extent of the real similarities between them. In truth they have very little similarity "under the hood" and the core game engines are very radically different. That they both model vaguely similar subject matter and use some similar processes (which otherwise behave very differently) to do what they need to in order to produce outcomes is more because theres really only so many ways you can do so than because one inspired the other.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that by referring to Legion in such a manner, youre almost by default implying that most games out there would fall into the same category - and theres certainly some games thats true of, but many are just trying to be their own thing.

That's fair. It's definitely more of a vibe thing and I agree reductive is a valid criticism. I just play a lot of different game systems and for whatever reason I find the experience of Legion very similar to 40k, even if they accomplish it in a number of different ways.

So again, what would be Old School for Wargames?

1. More charts to determine outcomes, not dice. Add up combat power and compare to total defense rating and cross-reference on a chart for degradation of targeted unit.

2. Written orders that have a complicated process to change. Figures are not always in the total control of the player.

3. GameMasters writing scenarios, Orbats, and making judgement calls during the games.

4. Strict time, ground, and figure scales. 1 inch = 50 feet, 1 model = 50 men, and 1 turn = 10 minutes, etc.

5. Blind set-up and inaccurate starting information to the players on enemy forces/intent.

Anything else you can think of?

 Easy E wrote:
So again, what would be Old School for Wargames?

1. More charts to determine outcomes, not dice. Add up combat power and compare to total defense rating and cross-reference on a chart for degradation of targeted unit.

2. Written orders that have a complicated process to change. Figures are not always in the total control of the player.

3. GameMasters writing scenarios, Orbats, and making judgement calls during the games.

4. Strict time, ground, and figure scales. 1 inch = 50 feet, 1 model = 50 men, and 1 turn = 10 minutes, etc.

5. Blind set-up and inaccurate starting information to the players on enemy forces/intent.

Anything else you can think of?

Mimeographed monochrome rule book with plastic binding. Low-resolution illustrations. Weird Army-style organization ("Case 1.1.3.45"

No index.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So again, what would be Old School for Wargames?

1. More charts to determine outcomes, not dice. Add up combat power and compare to total defense rating and cross-reference on a chart for degradation of targeted unit.

2. Written orders that have a complicated process to change. Figures are not always in the total control of the player.

3. GameMasters writing scenarios, Orbats, and making judgement calls during the games.

4. Strict time, ground, and figure scales. 1 inch = 50 feet, 1 model = 50 men, and 1 turn = 10 minutes, etc.

5. Blind set-up and inaccurate starting information to the players on enemy forces/intent.

Anything else you can think of?

Mimeographed monochrome rule book with plastic binding. Low-resolution illustrations. Weird Army-style organization ("Case 1.1.3.45"

No index.

I can also imagine random tables. Endless, endless random tables. But that might be slightly less old school.

Well, I'll describe what is old school for Sci Fi and Fantasy wargames to me...
- In rules, simulationism over gamism. Rules should try to represent the capabilities of units in a fictional setting, and not be designed as games first, with abstractions disassociated mechanics. Rules for meaningful interaction with terrain are essential, as are morale rules of some sort.
- In background, not having an advancing comic book style plot is the only thing I'm really set on. If I wanted to get more personal to myself, I'd like a setting that is relatively deep and which is designed to encourage a "your dudes" approach to gaming, with few if any important named characters.
- In miniatures, modularity in plastic kits, metal for stuff that doesn't work as a plastic kit, encouragement for creativity and modelling to represent "your dudes", and model agnostic. Scale is not a dealbreaker, because of course games can have any scale, but if we're going 28mm then I like 25mm to be the max base size for a normal human sized miniature, and then 40mm or 50mm for Ogre sized stuff, and then whatever is appropriate for bigger stuff. Square or rounded doesn't bother me, but scale creep does.
- Community - interest in campaign and scenario play, "casual" in terms of playing for fun and being relaxed about winning or losing, and creative in modelling, homebrew rules and fiction creation.

Clearly, games ticking one or even all of these boxes exist!

I think we'd get along!

I must be an ood duckling then. I dont mind OPR approach in the rules & background department, but absolutely love and prefer the modern GW miniatures over anything else out there. Hell, I'm even collecting modern 40K/30K minis for using with Rogue Trader & 2nd edition 40K

On the other hand, I absolutely love KillTeam21, and I'm assuming its not an OPR style ruleset by any means..?

 tauist wrote:
On the other hand, I absolutely love KillTeam21, and I'm assuming its not an OPR style ruleset by any means..?

Interesting question. I'd say the core rules are not particularly offensive (they're pretty different to classic GW rules but they have an internal consistency), it's just the stratagems, objectives and such. Basically the weird gak that comes on cards and causes "gotcha" moments if you don't know what your opponent's faction has access to.

 tauist wrote:
I must be an ood duckling then. I dont mind OPR approach in the rules & background department, but absolutely love and prefer the modern GW miniatures over anything else out there. Hell, I'm even collecting modern 40K/30K minis for using with Rogue Trader & 2nd edition 40K

For me the old look is part of the experience. I mean, I use a ton of non-GW figures, but ones I do have are vintage.

On the other hand, I absolutely love KillTeam21, and I'm assuming its not an OPR style ruleset by any means..?

Every time I see "OPR" I immediately wonder why you all are bringing of Officer Performance Reviews.

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, I'll describe what is old school for Sci Fi and Fantasy wargames to me...
- In rules, simulationism over gamism. Rules should try to represent the capabilities of units in a fictional setting, and not be designed as games first, with abstractions disassociated mechanics. Rules for meaningful interaction with terrain are essential, as are morale rules of some sort.
- In background, not having an advancing comic book style plot is the only thing I'm really set on. If I wanted to get more personal to myself, I'd like a setting that is relatively deep and which is designed to encourage a "your dudes" approach to gaming, with few if any important named characters.
- In miniatures, modularity in plastic kits, metal for stuff that doesn't work as a plastic kit, encouragement for creativity and modelling to represent "your dudes", and model agnostic. Scale is not a dealbreaker, because of course games can have any scale, but if we're going 28mm then I like 25mm to be the max base size for a normal human sized miniature, and then 40mm or 50mm for Ogre sized stuff, and then whatever is appropriate for bigger stuff. Square or rounded doesn't bother me, but scale creep does.
- Community - interest in campaign and scenario play, "casual" in terms of playing for fun and being relaxed about winning or losing, and creative in modelling, homebrew rules and fiction creation.

Clearly, games ticking one or even all of these boxes exist!

Stargrunt still exists! Tomorrow's War still exists! People play them to this day.