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.

So folks, a little background first.
I quit playing 40k not too long after 5th ed. dropped. I did this for various reasons, not the least of which was because I felt it was too much of a time investment, and I was pretty heavy into Warmachine. Not enough time and money for both, and the tactical nature of WM appealed to me more.
Fast forward 8 years, and we have 8th edition. Very different pacing, more focus on board control, and I'm actually seeing 2nd turn wins as more of a mainstream reality, rather than a corner-case novelty.
For those of you who have experience in both: do you feel that the relative newcomers to Wargaming (in this case Privateer Press) have dictated this sea change for GW? Turn 1 and 2 wins and almost breakneck speed were one of the hallmarks of Warmahordes. Even the slightest misstep in deployment resulted in a brutal lesson from a skilled opponent. It seems like 40k has moved more towards this ethos. The change in deep strike has made screening and positioning a thing, and the increase in terrain quantity has closed the range of engagement and now seems to favor the aggressor (also a defining trait of Warmahordes).
What do you think?

If your looking for tactical gameplay then 8th imo isn't really the best edition for it. Only thing tactical about 8th is stacking auras and stratagems to do more damage or be more durable. A lot of the terrain, unit type, and other core rules have been dramatically gutted to a very bare bones state.

I think GW's rules changes are more of a result of them continuing to be unskilled at game design/balance and opting to simplify the game so it is both simpler to learn and less difficult for the developers to figure out. Unintended result of this simplification of the rules and layering of bonuses results in 8th being very much a blood bath of a game that is won or lost moreso by who goes first, quality of your power combo, how optimized your list is, and deployment. I really don't see many games playing out to max game length so objectives rarely matter. Tends to be victory by tabling or surrender when the results are a foregone conclusion (turn 2 or 3 usually).

 CATACLYSMUS wrote:
I'm actually seeing 2nd turn wins as more of a mainstream reality, rather than a corner-case novelty.

In reality that's not the case. Not everyone IRL plays Ynarri/Knight spam with a smattering of loyal 32. This is another thing that the internet has blown out of proportion somewhat.


As to the OT-

Since 5th, a lot of WMH's influence has crept into 40k; especially with the 5th ed. GK codex (which had certain things akin to Feats) and the IK's appearing with their versions of power attacks, one of which is still a stratagem for them (oddly the power attack it was kinda based on is gone from WMH, go figure...). Then GW went and chucked the baby out with the bathwater with 6th and 7th. This was the biggest time for WMH with a perfect storm of 40k at its lowest points and WHFB dying (plus what came next) and they capitalised on this, but they seem to have fumbled on the end as GW have come back with both 40k and AoS.

Both games influence one another. You can see this at the core of 40k in them turning their huge (and very strong) setting into a story involving only a relatively small cast of characters. The writing on the wall with this was when AoS debuted but what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. The story aspect of WMH (and AoS to an extent) works because, for one; that is what it has been from the beginning so therefore didn't have to do a complete 180 on prose to fit the new regime. Secondly, it works as it is confined to a single planet (or even continent more or less in WMH). 40k, with its galaxy spanning empires and trillion upon trillions of life feels small when you focus on a few individuals and Primarchs trying to turn it into HH 2.0

40k 8th might have a lot of combo things going on, but it has a long way to go to be in the same league as WMH with this (I noticed they've finally clarified "within" and "wholly within" today, so they are taking direct influence from WMH there) as you can correct your positioning relatively easily in 40k if something is out of aura range, but is less easy in WMH simply due to the whole activation thing.

It's just one of those trends of the industry you'll pick up on. It has happened in the past with other games and will happen again.

 CATACLYSMUS wrote:
Fast forward 8 years, and we have 8th edition. Very different pacing, more focus on board control, and I'm actually seeing 2nd turn wins as more of a mainstream reality, rather than a corner-case novelty.
For those of you who have experience in both: do you feel that the relative newcomers to Wargaming (in this case Privateer Press) have dictated this sea change for GW? Turn 1 and 2 wins and almost breakneck speed were one of the hallmarks of Warmahordes

Not really
40k always had its problem of Alpha Strike and GW never really was able to solve it but made it less important during a single Edition (5th).

WM/H is designed to get that one combo off and win. I did not play many tournaments but only few were done in turn 2 and none was done long before the time run out.

The main issue is that a game that is designed to favour ranged combat with big armies on a small table and uses alternating game turns is designed to end like that.
Different Szenarios that make it able to win the game with only a single model left and different kind of deployment help to get around it and make Alpha Strike less important and strong

WM/H as a combo game did intentionally, 40k did it by accident as tables have not enough terrain and are to small to handle the gun ranges and damage.

While the rules fit the style of game WM/H wants to be, while the rules for 40k are written for something else but not the large scale armies Skirmish games that is sold.

Maybe there was an influence, but nothing intentional to be like the other game but worse (more like they tried to copy rules from other games but did not understand why those rules were used that way in the first place and by trying hard to get something unique, failed with it)

I also believe that the current rule set caters to a shorter attention span. I'm of the opinion that realizing this about the customer base, combined with losing a good deal of market share to other companies, has taught GW a couple of valuable lessons. The 'adapt or die' cannon has been shown to them, and they have had no choice but to change. Im still idealist enough to believe that these are conscious attempts to improve.
The 'bloodbath' nature (well put, btw) of the game is, I believe, the dramatic reversal of the bloated rules of the past. The 'play like you've got a pair' ethos of Warmahordes (and which has apparently left warmahordes... ) had a nice bite to it. It takes a certain bit of imagination to immerse yourself in a mini game, and huge dramatic actions help a great deal towards that immersion.
Personally, and I think you are right about a certain level of homogeneity between all of these games, it has led PP astray. In trying to be 'bigger' like GW games they have lost some of what made them special in the first place.

Sometimes i wonder, Since some times it feals like they are at least aware of how systems in other games are. But I still think 40k is really clunky, and even just copying some design choices would have been better than what we have end up with.

Sort of like they play another game once, and went to go and and did something in there own game without any understanding off it.
Not just from Warmahordes, but a few other games as well.
It sorta makes me think of the big execs that turn up on set to show a trailer for a good movie and asks if you can start making that.

Since that will be exciting and easy to market.

Its chicken or egg, if you think a lot of what's new is being borrowed from WarMaHordes, then I'm going to say a lot of WarMaHordes was borrowed from earlier GW/40K. I see a lot of returning things from 2nd ed, and so on.

Apple fox wrote:
Sometimes i wonder, Since some times it feals like they are at least aware of how systems in other games are.

Of course they are. It's nonsensical to think otherwise, especially when so much of their competition works five minutes away. "ignoring" the competition is simply marketing; McDonalds never talks about Burger King or KFC, after all.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Sometimes i wonder, Since some times it feals like they are at least aware of how systems in other games are.

Of course they are. It's nonsensical to think otherwise, especially when so much of their competition works five minutes away. "ignoring" the competition is simply marketing; McDonalds never talks about Burger King or KFC, after all.

There was suposed to be much more to that quote, but i not really in the right state of mind for thinking.

Was supposed to continue and say they do not seem to really play or understand it i feel. Ignoring it internally, and ignoring it externally are two different things. Which is why i bring up the movie quote.
Similar to the leeks for anthem from devs that said they could not even mention destiny 2, There game was supposed to be its own special thing.

I think GW are very conservative with their game design, they have an enormously popular product so like to tweak things rather than make sweeping changes. However, yea I'm sure they did take some inspiration from other successful systems, XWing being the obvious choice but Warmachine is in the mix as well!

You can see it when big guns like Rick Priestly and Alessio Cavatore leave to do something a bit different, they were probably itching to revamp 40k but the bigwigs wouldn't let them.

I forget where I heard it - I think it was one of the voxcast podcasts, (Maybe the Robin Cruddace one?) where they were talking about people in the studio and "playing other games" was definitely mentioned as a positive when looking at applicants for design studio roles - more than just being a fanatic for GW's systems. One studio member was mentioned as playing lots of board games and that was considered great for getting ideas from another perspective outside the GW bubble.

There are certain things about 40k that are clearly considered sacrosanct and will never be changed (D6, IGOUGO) for fear of it not feeling like 40k any more.

In realiity, you can't stop people in creative fields having interests outside work that are similar and those interests influencing the work they do. Yes, you may get senior people trying to stop a big-beast thing being an overwhelming influence, but people aren't stupid.

In a way yes but they implemented the combos of Warmahordes very poorly. The bigger issue is the current generation of gamers want crazy combos and not detailed tactical play. Even Warmahordes was inspired by Magic's wombo combo deck building.

Wayniac wrote:
In a way yes but they implemented the combos of Warmahordes very poorly. The bigger issue is the current generation of gamers want crazy combos and not detailed tactical play. Even Warmahordes was inspired by Magic's wombo combo deck building.

Bingo.

All games feed off of each other. It's not just gw copying the successful features from WMH. One could argue certain core features of WMH mechanics, such as cover being a hit modifier rather than a unique save popped up earlier in 2nd ed. 40k and therefore could argue WMH fed off of 40k first.

I've seen terminology in the necromunda rulebook that was quite similar in scope and in intention to what you see in infinity (actions). I've seen things from infinity, such as models occupying a 'volume' and having a 'silhouette' that clearly came earlier in warmachine.

And it's not just 8th ed. 40k. You can see aspects of the WMH game appearing far earlier, even back to fifth ed, where the character-centric nature of the game started to come to the fore - in 40k's case back then, if you wanted to play some more specialist amies (deathwing, for example) you had to field a special character, and special characters often gave army wide buffs too.

Now did this come from WMH or is it fair to say that a lot of these things have appeared in various shapes and guises across a wide variety of games over the last twenty odd years?

Oh absolutely they did. I think that PP is (or at least for a while was) the 2nd biggest guy in the room. That would lend it to be at the top of the 'mimic' pole, if there is one.
I would say that nearly all modern mini wargame systems are, at least in some part, informed by GW. It is the Granddaddy of them all, with the possible exception of Battletech. Nothing happens in a vacuum, so as you say, everyone is inspired by everyone else.
I would also say that GW is drawing heavily on the current boom in board games, and even collectible card games. Witness Warhammer Underworlds and Blackstone fortress.
However, the boom in 'tactical' boardgame probably draws influence from Space Hulk and Blood Bowl.
Necromunda led to games like Malifaux, Infinity, and Mercs, which probably in turn inspired the resurgence of Necromunda again.
WHF led to Kings of War led to AoS.
Ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

Ahhh you missed out. 5th was the most tactical it's been in awhile. PP disappeared from most of my local stores but 8th has revived 40k here