Switch Theme:

What could 40k learn from GW's other games?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Poisonous Kroot Headhunter





So, GW has a lot of different games, and there's no shortage of people that think 40k could certainly use some improvements. It would make sense that one of the big places GW could pull inpiration from would be their other properties, so what other GW games could 40k benefit with inspiration from.

Kill Team: Hidden Secondary Objectives. I didn't realize how impactful this would be until I got to actual play it myself. Even if the objectives get revealed turn 1, not knowing it in deployment could make a huge difference. For example, say your opponent has a few Deep Strikers, do you screen them because you think they'll drop them in the backfield and go for something like Linebreaker or Repair Teliport Homer? Or do you push up more to try and screen out the main objectives? There are obviously plenty of other examples, but I think this could add a lot to players deployment tactics and scrambling to counter your opponent once you realize what they are up to.

Kill Team / Necromunda: Alternating activations. Seems like we're seeing this more and more in GW's games, and I think it would be a great way to mitigate things like "the first turn advantage". Also keeps players engaged in the game more than just using the occasional defensive strat on your opponent's turn.

Apoc: Damage at the end of the turn? May not be necessary if they go with alternating activations, but another route they could go is the apoc one of recording the damage on the models as they take it and rolling for saves at the end. This means that you never know exactly how much damage a model has taken and if you've killed it or not. You'd still get to use all your models even if they are "dead" which could help combat the feel bads from how lethal the game has turned out to be. The tricky bit with this would be balancing it against all the different weapon profiles with different AP and such, would have worked better in the old versions where it was all or nothing. Even so, I don't think that something along these lines is outside the realm of possibility.

There are plenty of GW games I haven't played yet. AoS, Blood Bowl, Titanicus, Aeronotica Imperialis (though I'll be trying that one soon), so I'd love to hear what other ideas could come in to make 40k more dynamic and tactical.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/05 17:50:45


17210 4965 3235 5350 2936 2273 1176 2675
1614 1342 1010 2000 960 1330 1040  
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Blood Bowl has universal rules, if you need someone to be a better kicker or a better lineman then Greenskins and Lizardmen do not need unique rules to do the same job in slightly different ways or unique names to describe whether they use Slippery Scales, Mushroom Oil, Jiu Orktsu or Lizard Karate to do the job, that sort of stuff can be fun but it should be in sidebars or a lore section. Not only does this make the game simpler to play as both players will be using many of the same rules, it also means you don't get as many bad/forced lore names because GW has to come up with 50 different names for Deep Strike.
 Tawnis wrote:
Hidden Secondary Objectives.

How would you even know what secondaries your opponent can take? I think the idea is silly for what 40k is today.

   
Made in ca
Poisonous Kroot Headhunter





 vict0988 wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
Hidden Secondary Objectives.

How would you even know what secondaries your opponent can take? I think the idea is silly for what 40k is today.



I don't understand the question, the same way that you do now. There are the universal ones in the book and the army specific ones in the codices. Instead of revealing your secondaries before the game begins, say you took Assassinate, you'd only reveal it once you killed a character, thus scoring for that objective.

17210 4965 3235 5350 2936 2273 1176 2675
1614 1342 1010 2000 960 1330 1040  
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






 Tawnis wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
Hidden Secondary Objectives.

How would you even know what secondaries your opponent can take? I think the idea is silly for what 40k is today.



I don't understand the question, the same way that you do now. There are the universal ones in the book and the army specific ones in the codices. Instead of revealing your secondaries before the game begins, say you took Assassinate, you'd only reveal it once you killed a character, thus scoring for that objective.

You don't see the unfairness in objectives you never knew existed getting revealed after you deploy? How can you know how to deploy or what to reserve? Do you want to learn every faction objective by heart? Why not learn a language or study a famous painter?
   
Made in ca
Poisonous Kroot Headhunter





 vict0988 wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
Hidden Secondary Objectives.

How would you even know what secondaries your opponent can take? I think the idea is silly for what 40k is today.



I don't understand the question, the same way that you do now. There are the universal ones in the book and the army specific ones in the codices. Instead of revealing your secondaries before the game begins, say you took Assassinate, you'd only reveal it once you killed a character, thus scoring for that objective.

You don't see the unfairness in objectives you never knew existed getting revealed after you deploy? How can you know how to deploy or what to reserve? Do you want to learn every faction objective by heart? Why not learn a language or study a famous painter?


You don't have to. You're supposed to have a rulebook on hand that has 90% of them, and each codex has 3 specific ones I believe, it's pretty easy to open up the page and have your opponent take one literal minute to read the options. The options aren't hidden, just the final choices.

Now that you mention it though, in a broader campaign level for something like Crusade, I do think it would be conceptually cool to do some kind of system where there was some kind of objective that was totally hidden and didn't have any effect on the current match; where even if a player lost there could achieve something broader that their opponent is unaware of. That could come into play in a future game or something.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/05 21:10:26


17210 4965 3235 5350 2936 2273 1176 2675
1614 1342 1010 2000 960 1330 1040  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





AA has a lot of potential, especially for lower point game modes. The thing is that...
A.) You kind of have to overhaul the game to make it work.
B.) It's a little tedious in 2,000 point games where you have more units to keep track of.
C.) You have to solve the problems that arise from having way more/less units to activate.

Feels like we'll switch to AA some day, but GW probably sees it as more of a headache than it's worth for now. I hope it creeps up from Kill Team into some sort of Combat Patrol game variant. Might be good Chapter Approved material.

I don't like the Apoc approach to damage. My non-marine armies depend on me selecting targets and focusing fire in a way that minimizes my opponent's ability to attack back. So currently, I might use careful positioning of my drukhari to shoot one of my opponent's heavy hitters to death and hide from retaliation. Or I might use my greater speed to get the charge off and stab his melee unit to death before it can hit me back. Simultaneous damage means that I can't do that. It risks turning every game into a face-to-face slug fest, and that's probably going to favor power armored armies over squishy ones like my eldar.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






 Tawnis wrote:
each codex has 3 specific ones I believe, it's pretty easy to open up the page and have your opponent take one literal minute to read the options.

If I am playing against Blood Angels and have not done my hobby homework and memorised any of their or the SM objectives, then it's 7 objectives, that's on top of my opponent explaining relics, WL traits, chapter tactics and super doctrines, let's assume I at least know how combat doctrines and Chief Apothecaries work. After I've spent 2 minutes reading the objectives I now need to consider which one my opponent is going to pick and I might have to go back and read one or more of them in the middle of deployment or the first turn to make sure I don't take any huge risks depending on what my opponent might have picked. Knowing the SM and BA objectives while picking mine is nice, but it's not really super important for which objectives I currently want to pick, but it becomes a lot more important when it comes to deployment, movement and shooting.

On top of that you have the unfairness angle, because the Blood Angels player playing against Craftworlds doesn't have to worry about any Craftworld objectives. Finally there are the rules that let you pick one or more new objectives after you find out what objectives your opponent has, those would not work with the changes.
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 vict0988 wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
Hidden Secondary Objectives.

How would you even know what secondaries your opponent can take? I think the idea is silly for what 40k is today.



I don't understand the question, the same way that you do now. There are the universal ones in the book and the army specific ones in the codices. Instead of revealing your secondaries before the game begins, say you took Assassinate, you'd only reveal it once you killed a character, thus scoring for that objective.

You don't see the unfairness in objectives you never knew existed getting revealed after you deploy? How can you know how to deploy or what to reserve? Do you want to learn every faction objective by heart? Why not learn a language or study a famous painter?


Same way you learn nasty surprises of unknown tricks midgame by unit/stratagem...Talk to your opponent!

Ask to see the secondary page from book for example.

Gamers these days are funny. Mere idea of talking with opponent fills them unassailable fear.

If not knowing secondaries in advance is bad...well here's bad news for you. There's going to be lot worse surprises if you don't know rules of opponent inside out. Thus you either are going to get surprised(and secondaries are least of the worries there) or you...you know...talk with your opponent. Ask to see relevant pages. Ask what comboes he can pull up on.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/06 06:07:52


2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

Yeah I can't see alternate activation working in 40k. Works fine in Titanicus when you have *at the most* 5 units, but not for a 2000pt 40k game.

Bringing back USRs would work IMO, perhaps with some variation, so Deep Strike would become Deep Strike (x), with the (x) in the unit entry replaced by distance a unit has to arrive within.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Doesn't 9th edition 40k (and 8th) have alternating actions in the Fight Phase?
   
Made in ca
Poisonous Kroot Headhunter





Wyldhunt wrote:
AA has a lot of potential, especially for lower point game modes. The thing is that...
A.) You kind of have to overhaul the game to make it work.
B.) It's a little tedious in 2,000 point games where you have more units to keep track of.
C.) You have to solve the problems that arise from having way more/less units to activate.

Feels like we'll switch to AA some day, but GW probably sees it as more of a headache than it's worth for now. I hope it creeps up from Kill Team into some sort of Combat Patrol game variant. Might be good Chapter Approved material.

I don't like the Apoc approach to damage. My non-marine armies depend on me selecting targets and focusing fire in a way that minimizes my opponent's ability to attack back. So currently, I might use careful positioning of my drukhari to shoot one of my opponent's heavy hitters to death and hide from retaliation. Or I might use my greater speed to get the charge off and stab his melee unit to death before it can hit me back. Simultaneous damage means that I can't do that. It risks turning every game into a face-to-face slug fest, and that's probably going to favor power armored armies over squishy ones like my eldar.


Great points. Especially the Apoc one, that makes a lot of sense. I guess I was thinking too large scale about it, and that's already what Apoc is for anyway. XD


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vict0988 wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
each codex has 3 specific ones I believe, it's pretty easy to open up the page and have your opponent take one literal minute to read the options.

If I am playing against Blood Angels and have not done my hobby homework and memorised any of their or the SM objectives, then it's 7 objectives, that's on top of my opponent explaining relics, WL traits, chapter tactics and super doctrines, let's assume I at least know how combat doctrines and Chief Apothecaries work. After I've spent 2 minutes reading the objectives I now need to consider which one my opponent is going to pick and I might have to go back and read one or more of them in the middle of deployment or the first turn to make sure I don't take any huge risks depending on what my opponent might have picked. Knowing the SM and BA objectives while picking mine is nice, but it's not really super important for which objectives I currently want to pick, but it becomes a lot more important when it comes to deployment, movement and shooting.

On top of that you have the unfairness angle, because the Blood Angels player playing against Craftworlds doesn't have to worry about any Craftworld objectives. Finally there are the rules that let you pick one or more new objectives after you find out what objectives your opponent has, those would not work with the changes.


To your first point, I think this may boil down to more of a different mindset of enjoyment of a wargame that any actual rules. See, regardless of the valid points that you've made, you and your opponent are in the same boat. For casual play, you've both likely not memorized all your opponents stuff and if you're a hardcore tournament grinder, you probably have. Either way, you're on the same playing field, and have to adapt to what your opponent is doing on the fly. I like this change because it makes the game feel less solvable. You don't start the game turn one knowing exactly what your opponent is doing and just have to try and execute your plan as best as possible, it's about adapting on the fly to unexpected circumstance, for both players which adds another tactical dimension to the game.

To your second point, that's very true, but it's already the case of some factions having them vs not, so it would be imbalanced either way.

To your last, I did not know that their was an ability like that. Conceptually though, it could still work, you would just change an unrevealed objective later in the game after your opponent has revealed one or more of theirs. That would have to be tested for balance though as I imagine that could have the potential to be broken somehow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Doesn't 9th edition 40k (and 8th) have alternating actions in the Fight Phase?


Yes it does. When I read that for the first time, I figured we were already part of the way there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Valkyrie wrote:
Yeah I can't see alternate activation working in 40k. Works fine in Titanicus when you have *at the most* 5 units, but not for a 2000pt 40k game.

Bringing back USRs would work IMO, perhaps with some variation, so Deep Strike would become Deep Strike (x), with the (x) in the unit entry replaced by distance a unit has to arrive within.


What do you think is the biggest issue with AA? Say you've each got a dozen or so units, is that really so much that it breaks the AA system? Even if it's not super sleek in it's first iteration, wouldn't balancing first turn alpha strikes and hiding everyone behind cover at the start of every game be a worthwhile trade off? We do already have a small scale version of this for the fight phase.

Yeah, totally agree on the USR's. The amount of different ways they've come up with to say the exact same thing just makes my head spin.



This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/06 15:04:06


17210 4965 3235 5350 2936 2273 1176 2675
1614 1342 1010 2000 960 1330 1040  
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

I think it'd slow the game down far too much in an edition where there's been a huge emphasis on speeding up the game.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





How fast is the average 2000pt game these days? A local league posted a report from a game that lasted more than four hours... I recall 1850pts back in 8ths being about 2.5 hours turn-around in tournaments.
   
Made in ca
Poisonous Kroot Headhunter





 Valkyrie wrote:
I think it'd slow the game down far too much in an edition where there's been a huge emphasis on speeding up the game.


Using Kill Team as an example though, you've got anywhere between 4-14 activations each per turn depending on your list, and those games go super fast. Yeah it's only 4 turns over 5, and there are a few less things to do, but you can knock out a game in 30-45 minutes once you've got the hang of it. Account for the much higher volume of dice rolling and models to move in 40k, and that doesn't seem that off the scale to me.

I suppose there is no real way to know without trying it, but for now I have to disagree, I don't think it would slow the game down very much at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Nurglitch wrote:
How fast is the average 2000pt game these days? A local league posted a report from a game that lasted more than four hours... I recall 1850pts back in 8ths being about 2.5 hours turn-around in tournaments.


Really depends on who's playing / how experienced they are / if you're trying to play fast or just hanging out with friends. I've had games of 1k points range from 1-3 hours and 2k points from 2-5 hours with similar lists.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/06 15:20:50


17210 4965 3235 5350 2936 2273 1176 2675
1614 1342 1010 2000 960 1330 1040  
   
Made in us
Buttons Should Be Brass, Not Gold!






restraint
   
Made in ca
Poisonous Kroot Headhunter





 tauist wrote:
restraint


LoL, yeah, you got me there.

17210 4965 3235 5350 2936 2273 1176 2675
1614 1342 1010 2000 960 1330 1040  
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




Not to flirt around with the glorification and trivialization/fetishization, of Fascist tropes, slavery, and religious honor killing?

I don't think that Middle earth or AoS has any of that?
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




AoS turn order.
It is a subtle difference, but I like the way it affects the first-turn advantage. Of course AoS typically have less alpha striking, so it needs other tweaks to 40k as well.

I also like the idea of secret secondary objectives. May not balance the game much, but it seems artificial that they are known. The way the game mechanics work it is nearly impossible to make any "fog of war". Yet hiding the secondary objectives is a way they can make some obfuscating without making it too complicated. Obviously they would need to tweak/prune some objectives. They need to be "game" related and not "turn" related.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Valkyrie wrote:
Yeah I can't see alternate activation working in 40k. Works fine in Titanicus when you have *at the most* 5 units, but not for a 2000pt 40k game.

Bringing back USRs would work IMO, perhaps with some variation, so Deep Strike would become Deep Strike (x), with the (x) in the unit entry replaced by distance a unit has to arrive within.


LOL! I have been using aa for maybe fifteen years now. When I told noobs after a 40K intro game that aa wasn't naturally a thing in the game they just shook their heads in disbelief.
   
Made in ca
Fresh-Faced New User




Here's my albeit limited list of ideas.

Alternate activation.
Moving on.

Put the damn rules on the cards/sheet/book/whatever.
Something that I feel works for Warmachine is that "most of" the rules are right there in front of you. While there are some things late go back to the rule book (like magic weapon and damage types), everything else is right there. And if you use USRs, you can still just put them in front of the player so they don't stop the game dead by looking through 14 different books.

Everyone should fit on a card.
I think GW is moving in this direction, but it's another aspect I like from Warmachine. Maybe I just like gamification and playaids, but if you can't present all of the rules for something on a small card of maybe quarter page, you have too many rules.

Reactions.
I haven't played Infinity yet, but I understand this is a thing. Even with alternating activation, you still have this idea of "you go I go." Reacting to player actions and having this happening simultaneously (both game rules and game world) makes it important to actually have tactics while also not gaming things like terrain.

Pushbacks after close combat.
I'm reading through Five Parsecs from Home right now and really like this, but Blood Bowl did the same as well. You do a close combat fight, the losing unit is pushed back 1", and the fight is over. No multi-turn bookkeeping, no gaming the rules and locking units in combat, no 14 extra moves in close combat. Fight. Done. Next unit.

Alternative mission objectives to "we run at each other and fight, but over here instead."
This could really curb the aggressiveness and competitiveness of the game. Having missions that focus on the bigger picture would be good. For example, have more timed missions, where one player's goal is to draw the fight out while reinforcements or whatever happen elsewhere. That way, you can still win the game even if you get stomped. I'm thinking of the Space Hulk Suicide Mission here, where losing can still kind of mean winning.

One roll resolves all.
This is an idea floating around in some roleplaying games. The idea is that instead of going back and forth with a whole bunch of rolls, you make one roll that resolves that task and move on. For example, in FFG Star Wars, instead of having an opposed roll, I (as GM) can just set the difficulty of your roll as the NPC's stat and have you roll and resolve it all at once. I think in Numenera, you roll against a single difficulty number to do things. No rolling to hit, rolling to penetrate, rolling to wound, and rolling to save when you could maybe resolve all of that at once.

Apply fail-forward logic when resolving things like morale.
Another roleplaying game concept. Leadership rolls have always felt like the most demeaning thing ever. You've already lost, and now have to make a test (which might be at penalties) to not lose even more. Instead of just rolling not to fail more, maybe Leadership rolls can be something else. When you fail the roll, maybe you get to choose to fall back or stand your ground but with penalties. Or maybe you can choose to stay in exchange for a few extra hits. That way, bad rolls aren't triggering more bad rolls and letting RNG completely control the game.

Don't force a roll unless both success and failure are interesting.
Another roleplay idea, but this goes back to 1st edition. I'm not sure how this can work without a GM, but the rules should be setup in such a way that logic comes first. here is sooooooo much RNG in 40k, and so much of it doesn't matter. You roll to run, I think you roll to charge now. You roll to see if you're allowed to do this. You roll to see if this happens. These rolls are not interesting. Neither success nor failure should mean nothing happens. Whether you succeed or fail at a roll, something should always happen. Failing a BS roll shouldn't just mean you don't shoot, and passing a Leadership roll should mean more than you don't flee.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: