PDA

View Full Version : Model or Unit based rule set 40K?



lanrak
06-12-2007, 16:25
Hi all.
With the rumours of GW releasing 40k 5th ed soon?
I was pondering if 40k should continue to have the 'model centric rules' of the original Rogue Trader skirmish game?
Because the in game model count is rapidly approaching 'Company level.'(Eg appx 100 troops if a 40k 1500 pt force is all foot slogging.)

And I thought 'detailed unit rules' may suit the current games of 40k better.

What do you think?


TTFN
Lanrak.

Wyatt
06-12-2007, 17:29
(Is a rouge trader an avon salesperson? :p)

I think it should stay as it is. We have apocalypse for large battles, and to a lesser extent Epic 40k. 40k should be kept for the now "medium" battles, and the other for smaller. (What is it, combat patrol?) Unit based battles would better suit bigger games, i.e. apocalypse.

ChaosMaster
06-12-2007, 17:36
What we need is more playtesting and more effort by the UK design studio to "break" the rules before release, so that they catch the loopholes, omissions, etc. that cause so much wasted time and even unpleasantness and grief.

A wider range of playtesters would likely help, like beta-testing done by computer game companies or the wider customer playtesting that Avalon Hill used to do on their historic simulation strategy games. Having the same few people at GW test the rulebooks and Codex books over and over seems to result in the same kind of oversights time and again. GW needs some fresh eyes to look at the books and try them out before they go to print. I'm tired of seeing blatant ambiguities and other problems spotted by sharp-eyed customers on the day a book is released. GW needs to spot those obvious errors before release.

lanrak
06-12-2007, 18:52
ChaosMaster.
I agree that 40k rules/codexii fail to meet the the most basic requirments of technical writing.And are released proir to any real scrutiny/proof reading.

And if GW improved the technical quality of thier publications,and resolved gamplay issues with some sense of urgency ,this would improve consumer relations with GW .

However ,Epic covers 'regimental /brigade 'size battles.
With rules based around formations of units, and unit data.

Necromundia,Inquisitor,(and Mordhiem), are squad level size battles ,and use detailed rules for individual models .As these are Skirmish level games.

40k and Apocalypse 40k ,have too high a model count, to accomodate detailed model rules that are found in Necromundia.(1st and 2nd ed 40k.)

Current 40k and Apocalypse are closer to company/battalion size battles.

But require more detail than Epic rules.
So I just thought detailed unit rules would lead to a intuative fast paced detailed tactical wargame.

Eg rather than roll dice per model,( a bit of a pain for larger unit sizes.), we roll dice for a unit.Rather like we currently do for leadership tests.

So I was proposing a reduction in the amount of dice rolling, leaving more room for tactical development.

A rules sets focus should be determined by the number of elements bieng controled, not the size and detail of the playing pieces.IMO.

I hope this makes my question a bit clearer.
TTFN
Lanrak.

Egaeus
06-12-2007, 20:29
Hmm...a very interesting question.

I know that in such discussions before I've complained about the fact that GW tries to do a bit of both. At times there feels like a tad too much micro-management for the game size they want (close combat is a big culprit here), but at the same time I think that since the basic playing piece is still the individual model that allowing them to have individual characteristics can be a good thing.

Perhaps a better discussion would be on the pros and cons of each type system? I would go into more depth on this idea, but unfortunately I don't have the time right now. I will try to get back to this as it looks like it could make for a quite interesting discussion.

Aaron
06-12-2007, 21:05
40K models are scaled and based for skirmish games. The models are big enough that anything above 50-60 models per side on a 6'x4' table limits you're ability to manoeuvre and out-flank.

There's pros and cons to both methods at the 50-60 models per side range.

lanrak
06-12-2007, 21:40
Hi Egaeus.
Well the main reason for me starting this thread is Pg 8 of the BGB, declares the 40k game to be about unit interaction.
A unit in the game of 40k can be a single model or a group of models.

If a unit consists of a large vehicle , and rules were writen for each individual gun mount , crew member, and main mechanical system.(A bit like in 2nd ed).

Then we might say the rules were micro managing the vehicle function.And we could write a much more concise and simple description if we write stats and rules for the vehicle as a whole.
This has been done for vehicles in 3-4th ed.

So why not treat groups of infantry in a similar manner?

So each unit member contributes to the effects the unit has ,but is not treated as a seperate entity in game terms.

In this way a rule set could be written that covers all units in 40k using the same stat line.

So an individual trooper is very important to the unit they are in.But do we as gamers have to treat the 'facless grunts' like characters?
Wow , IG trooper number 3, of second squad blue platoon killed 2 grots and an ork before dying in that game.
Not realy worth mentioning is it?
Where as the IG Platoon under the heroic direction of Lt Faber drove back the 'Green Tide' on the left flank, is.

40k has always had a strong narative.But with the increase in the model count ,perhaps the stories focus has shifted to the heroic actions of UNITS directed by heroic leaders,not the comparative 'mundane' actions of individuals within the units...
(Which I think is good, I was not fond of Herohammer BTW.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

The Song of Spears
06-12-2007, 22:06
I think what you are asking for is not really different rules, but a campaign scenario booklet.

Battletech did this a lot. They would have a "Luthien" book you would buy and in it was all the units each side could use, the map layouts, and the fluff on all the individuals involved. It usually involved 5 or more battles to play through.

Then you just play through the scenario and see if you can change the story out come or not.

The rules for 40k, while simplified from what they were in rogue trader, they are actually the same model level of interaction rules. The advent of more models has not really changed the fact that you can play a 500 point game and just focus on a single, all named, fluff built unit and their actions in a given scenario. Movement stats, multiple armour modifiers, and special rules for every model is not that needed, nor it is entirely done away with in the current edition. With small units, you can usually give many of the models the gear needed to make a characterful unit for scenario games.

Donnie Darko
06-12-2007, 22:13
I would actually like to see the rule set be more modular, rather than the bolt together monstrosity that it is right now.

Start with a basic move, shoot, move rule set that actually works. The core mechanics of 'fighting' should work at any level. Allow games to work on any size board and provide a realistic balance between CC and shooting armies.

From the core (relatively easy to learn) one could play a game, wouldn't handle anything interesting, but for kids starting out (or adults) they could just crash their forces into each other and have some fun.

Then have two branches. Each should be a separate book.

One is 40K 'skirmish' Using the basic move shoot move rules, allow individual squads to be split up, have detailed modifiers for shooting in different situations. Weapons become more detailed, with things like cover, armour and severity of wounds being covered. Blast weapons could be accurately modeled ect...

Close combat would remove some abstractions, allow weapons to be fired ect... To hit modifiers and weapon modifiers would be implemented. Bayonets, Chain Swords and a Rock would become distinct.

Ld would be crucial for commands to be implemented. (ie models would need to pass Ld checks) to do stupid or terrifying things, like charge that HB crew... Pinning could be expanded.


The other Book would cover detailed unit behavior.
Individuals in a squad would be removed and replaced with a squad dynamic... An individuals firepower would be replaced by more tactical consideration, such as cross fire, covering fire, overwatch.

I envision more of a fire power rating for the unit, much like Epic, but each unit could still be tailored to a battle feild roll durring the list building.
This would allow different builds to do different things on the battle field, without over complicating the move shoot move of the core rule set, while people could realistically command a company (4 platoons) or two with support units and not be overloaded.
I see this being a good balancing mechanism for larger battles, where a rule set designed for a 4x8 table tends to break down rapidly.

IE: using guard as the baseline, each squad gets a Fire Power (FP) rating, an Anti Armour (AA) rating and CC rating. Upgrades would modify this. Each squad would get a number of dice equal to their appropriate attack rating and have to roll under their targets armour value.

IE: Guard squad of 10 men get a basic FP rating of 2, Range = 24" (ie 20 las gun shots can kill on avg ~2 guardsmen) and an AA rating of 0, and CC rating of 1.
The squads armour value would be 5+
Upgrades
Multi Melta: +2 FP rating for range <12", +1/+3 AA rating Range < 12/6"
Grenade Launcher: +1 FP, +1 AA Range 24"
Plasma Gun: +2 FP Range 24", +1 AA Range 24" Gets hot (ie roll to 1 to hit with bonus FP/AA dice removes PG bonus from squad)
Flamer: +1 FP rating. If Flamer kills enemy, may attack again (ie another +1 FP dice) ad infinitum... (yes a rediculously lucky person could wipe out a squad with a flamer... but very unlikely). Range 8"

Heavy Bolter: +2 FP. Range 24" May not move during first move sequence and fire. If remains stationary, Squads range becomes 36" (ie may not move in second move sequence).
Missile Launcher: +1 FP +1AA Range 48" May not move during first move sequence and fire.
Las Cannon: +2 AA Range 48". May not move and shoot.

A SM squad (10 Men) would be bare bones FP 9, Range 24", Ar Sv 3+

Then all one would have to do is modify the FP/AA/CC number for a given situation. Ie -2 FP for long range, -2 FP for moving before shooting, -x FP for cover of type x ect...

I think this would allow players to then simply pick the appropriate module that they want to use with the core rules that will provide them a fun game...
If a couple of people wanted to take a week and play 10 000 pts a side with hyper detailed skirmish rules, have at. Someone wants to have a tactical duel, then they can do that to. If time is limited and people just want a quick game, they can use the plain core rules.

While some may point out that this can be approximated using the current games out (40K, Necro, Apoc et al) I find the rules don't scale well, nor are particularly cohesive even taken alone. Right now it seems like each rule system, and codex is like an ork truck, different scrap bolted together, and run ok most of the time if you don't hit it too hard....

By re examining the core move shoot move rules, and make them work for all armies, and play styles, they could then make a meaningful attempt at expanding the game types into detailed tactical or strategy...

Chaos and Evil
06-12-2007, 22:28
Leave it as-is (model-centric)... if you want a unit-based wargame system there's Epic; The charm of 40k is when you see your Chaplain step forwards and deliver the killing blow himself with his own special abilities, not when you see your 'chaplain unit' deliver a bunch of non-specific attacks.

lanrak
06-12-2007, 22:59
Hi all.
We already have detailed skirmish games , Inquisitor,Necromundia,Kill team etc.

But if the rules for larger games ,(1500 to 10,000 pts of 40k,)were re-done so gamers only delt with UNIT interaction , this could speed up play while retaining lots of detail in unit interaction.

So rather treating each individual model as a seperate element, we just treat UNITs as individual elements.

EG Orks V IG ,turn 3, 86 orks roll to hit ,then 58 orks roll to wound and then 28 IG roll to save.
Result 16 IG troopers are removed from the table.
OR
4 Ork UNITS attack 3 IG UNITS.
One IG unit routs (suffers 8 casualties),the other units become supressed.(suffers 4 casualties each,)(Shaken)

If you love rolling dice current 40k is great!

I agree with most of what Donnie Darko posted.
In that in a new version of 40k is required.IMO.
A more interactive turn sequence ,scalable in game effects and far more attension to moral ,is whats needed IMO.

So I do want a new rule set.A rule set that focuses on units abilities and stats.
Not 'model centric' rules developed to aid marketing at the expence of game play.

A Zethid armed with a Zlot gun made from Jizztcrah melded organic alloys, blessed by Moohutl, on the 9th cycle of Bantharum.
HAS to have the 'blessed by Moohutl' special rule ,so 'munchkins 'will hopfully buy more of them.
(BTW,how many 'special rules' has 40k got now?)

Fluff and artwork inspires folk to collect and paint thier armies.
Rules should be ONLY about maximising the gameplay experiance.IMHO.

TTFN
Lanrak.

lanrak
06-12-2007, 23:15
Hi Chaos And Evil.
Erm I thought IC ,MCs and most vehicles were ONE model UNITS.
Im just proposing units with 'x' grunts + special weapon(s) +leader.
Could be veiwed as 'organic vehicles' with 'x' small arm weapons, special weapon , very light armour but lots of structure points/wounds.

IC 'joining ' other units just improve the moral /LD of the units they join.

SO we could use ...

Movement .
Dammage capacity.
Assault dammage values.
Ranged dammage values.
Armour /resistance to dammage.
Moral value.
Command value.

As universal stats.

Armour and weapon interaction could be much more detailed.

TTFN
Lanrak.

ChaosMaster
07-12-2007, 01:49
So I was proposing a reduction in the amount of dice rolling, leaving more room for tactical development.

A rules sets focus should be determined by the number of elements bieng controled, not the size and detail of the playing pieces.IMO.

I hope this makes my question a bit clearer.
TTFN
Lanrak.
I would like to see less dice rolling too. I've been into 40K since Rogue Trader and while it's come a long way since then toward simplifying combat resolution, there is still a terrible lot of dice rolling, especially with close combat and turns can take forever once there are lots of assaults to resolve. Of course, super-realistic strategy games like Advanced Squad Leader also have extremely lengthy turns and lots of dice rolling, but I've always felt 40K should lean more toward playability and swift action, especially once it became an army game rather than a skirmish/roleplaying game.

zeep
07-12-2007, 02:17
I would like to see less dice rolling too. I've been into 40K since Rogue Trader and while it's come a long way since then toward simplifying combat resolution, there is still a terrible lot of dice rolling, especially with close combat and turns can take forever once there are lots of assaults to resolve. Of course, super-realistic strategy games like Advanced Squad Leader also have extremely lengthy turns and lots of dice rolling, but I've always felt 40K should lean more toward playability and swift action, especially once it became an army game rather than a skirmish/roleplaying game.

If it gets much simpler, we'll be flipping a quarter and telling each other "Good Game."

Sister_Sin
07-12-2007, 02:45
I'm happy with it as is, probably because I loved Rogue Trader and I am rather sentimental on it.

Sister Sin

themandudeperson
07-12-2007, 03:10
My thought is that it should remain model based. As in real war, the guy carrying the m-249 will be more important than the dozen guys carrying m-16s. Granted, this is a game, not real war, but the premise remains that the guy with the plasma gun will be a valued asset to the squad he's a member of and a high priority target to any squad that may be threatened by his fire.
I would like to see a rule that lets you target individual models when shooting instead of having to punch holes in half a dozen marines in a 10 man devastator squad before ever eliminating any heavy weapons and having an actual effect on their firepower. Maybe if you announce that you wish to target a specific model in a unit you have to re-roll all your to-hit rolls to represent your squad's concerted effort to hit that model alone and all attacks that hit and wound he must attempt his saves against.
Also, I'd like to see cover provide negatives to those shooting at you instead of having a beam from a lascannon that would surely maim your space marine get stopped by a shrub's 5+ invulnerability save..

Egaeus
07-12-2007, 14:30
My thought is that it should remain model based. As in real war, the guy carrying the m-249 will be more important than the dozen guys carrying m-16s. Granted, this is a game, not real war, but the premise remains that the guy with the plasma gun will be a valued asset to the squad he's a member of and a high priority target to any squad that may be threatened by his fire.
I would like to see a rule that lets you target individual models when shooting instead of having to punch holes in half a dozen marines in a 10 man devastator squad before ever eliminating any heavy weapons and having an actual effect on their firepower. Maybe if you announce that you wish to target a specific model in a unit you have to re-roll all your to-hit rolls to represent your squad's concerted effort to hit that model alone and all attacks that hit and wound he must attempt his saves against.
Also, I'd like to see cover provide negatives to those shooting at you instead of having a beam from a lascannon that would surely maim your space marine get stopped by a shrub's 5+ invulnerability save..

This is the sort of mixed-unit issues that I was talking about. Basically what you are asking for is even more detailed model-oriented rules but I feel that takes the game in the wrong direction. As mentioned, there are games such as Inquisitor and Necromunda (and to a slightly lesser extent Kill Team) that use this level of detail.

For a unit-based game you wouldn't care which individual model had the Plasmagun or the Lascannon, just that the unit was equipped with those weapons. The main issue from this point would be to determine how damage to that unit would affect these weapons (if it does at all).

I suppose my fundamental issue still remains that the use of individual models makes me want to use individual stats, otherwise they just become fancy expensive wound markers.

I think one of the big problems is that when we start to talk about recreating the system in such a fundamental manner that it would almost be better to simply discuss constructing your own system. You could still use 40K as your conceptual framework and then "genericize" things in the end so you aren't stepping on any IP issues, especially if the game system is far enough removed from the 40K system. Heck, there are literally dozens (more likely hundreds) of different rulesets for wargames out there, so there may already be an existing ruleset that just needs to be molded to the 40K background.

Personally, I don't necessarily want such a radical departure from the familiar current rules, I would just like to see some cleanup of some of the more schizophrenic rules were GW can't seem to decide whether they want it to be model-based or unit-based.

A few of the specific issues to me:
Shooting -- units shoot as an entity, but can have different weapons with different purposes. While on one hand it can be argued that this adds dynamic to the game as you have to decide the best use for any particular unit in a situation, it also creates some of the min-maxing issues. Also, we still go from unit-centric to model-centric as we decide who in the unit is actuallly in range and which models from the enemy unit can actually be killed.

Close combat -- as I mentioned before, one of the biggest problems in the mixed-system. I greatly dislike some of the micromanagement that must be done during combat despite it's description as a "swirling melee". While I understand that a number of issues are gameplay balance related some of the BtB and "Engaged" issues get annoying. At least it's an improvement over 3rd Edition.

Well that got a bit rambling there and I touched on a few different things...but that is going to do it for me for now.

Codsticker
07-12-2007, 15:30
I voted "No Idea..." since I'm not sure what you mean. Shouldn't the options be 'Abstracted Unit-based' or 'Detailed Skirmish'?

Mort
07-12-2007, 15:44
Leave it as it is,for christs sake!!!!!

I remember the day 3rd ed came out,and most of my squads went south that day because their equipment was too detailed.
Furthermore,it more detailed battles take more time,like back in the old days,when every model had personal equipment and so on. and it takes not only more time,but also more rules,and more rules allow more loopholes and more cheese(also like back in the early nineties).

I think the game is more balanced since 3rd ed,anyone who doesnt believe me and hasnt played 2nd ed should take guards and give his enemy a virus bomb.

The way the game is now is fine, i really hope that GW wont change the whole system all over again.

Democratus
07-12-2007, 16:12
Anything less complicated than Advanced Squad Leader or Star Fleet Battles is already too simple. :)

The_Patriot
07-12-2007, 16:14
Anything less complicated than Advanced Squad Leader or Star Fleet Battles is already too simple. :)

It depends on if you're using the Commander's or the Captain's edition of Star Fleet Squabbles. ;)

lanrak
07-12-2007, 16:16
Hi Codsticker.
Thankyou for asking for a justification of my descriptions.

Ok, if we look at a skirmish level rule set , each model moves and acts independantly.So all actions of a model are criticaly important to the game.
Usualy there are only few models , so a player may control 1 to about a dozen for detailed skirmish games.
And maybe less detailed skirmish rules for slightly larger battles.(Up to about 30 a side?)

Now as the model count in 40k has increased , the dev team have 'streamlined ' the skirmish level rules to speed up game play.
(Removed racial movment , removed to hit mods ,r emoved initiative modifiers ,etc).
So where as a unit in cover used to get a bonus for being hard to see, in the form of an attacker had a minus applied to its to hit roll.(Harder to see, makes the unit harder to hit with ranged weapons.)
Now the unit gets an 5+ invunerable save.
So 'hiding behind a hedge' is the same as having a 'conversion field' in some cases now.
And most 40k gamers ,developers agree the game has become abstracted to facilitate faster game play.

So 40k currently uses 'abstracted' skirmish rules.

If we take the rule set used for bigger battles than current 40k.(Epic Space Marine ,Epic Armageddon, etc.)
Not to mention ,plenty of historical, Regimental -Brigade level games.

These use rules for units. So if we were to add MORE detail to these rules , we would arrive at 'detailed unit rules'.

So the choice is to continiue to 'streamline , skirmish rules so 40k becomes more abstract ,and less and less intuative.

Or if we take the rules used for bigger games and add MORE detail ,MORE clarifications etc, we only improve the understanding of the rules and get a more intuative game as time progresses.

This is why I called them 'abstracted skirmish level rules' ,and 'detailed unit level rules.'

Egeaus.
ATM most bog standard grunts in units ARE just expensive wound markers.

'Ohhh, I have to take 3 models from that unit, so I'll remove the heavy weapon trooper ,special weapon trooper , and the leader....NOT!'

Standard troopers ARE treated as ablative wounds by most players, arnt they?

So as most of the las gun armed IG grunts , 'just make up the numbers', why not reflect this in the rules?

Thats all I am proposing.

TTFN
Lanrak.

themandudeperson
07-12-2007, 20:32
eh, I'd like to see slightly more model-based play but not broken down to micro-management to the point that Bob, First Squad's second in command has a -2 to initiative due to dysentery from a bad MRE..

The_Patriot
07-12-2007, 20:46
@lanrak: Well, the problem is that you're thinking that 40k is a skirmish level game. It isn't. It is the lower middle rank on battle scale which is tactical.

Skirmish: Mordheim and Necromunda
Tactical: Warhammer 40k
Operational: Epic and Warhammer Fantasy Battles
Strategic: Warhammer Fantasy Battles with the Mighty Empires Supplement

40k's rules as it stands are now are pretty good for representing a tactical scale battle. In a tactical scale battle individual soldiers can sway the battle, but nowhere nearly as much as a soldier in a skirmish level game. They should be able to have their rolls counted and not abstracted. There are some adjustments that should be made to represent the scale better such as removing the I Go You Go system, improved vehicle rules, increasing default terrain from 25% to 50%, and increasing the table size. It is based upon the amount of terrain and the size of the table where 40k gets confused with itself. 25% terrain and a 6'x4' table is perfect for skirmish size games, but are utterly ridicules for tactical scale.

lanrak
08-12-2007, 17:18
Hi Patriot.
I belive 40k IS NOT A SKIRMISH Level game ANYMORE.
Rogue Trader (1st ed 40k ) WAS!
Model count increased in 2nd ed.The games became a bit unwieldly/unpredictable.

EVERYONE wanted 40k 2nd ed to be 'tided up a bit'.
3rd ed was the result of a ' last minuite hatchet job,' IMO.

4th ed was just an exercise in paching up the botch of 3rd ed.IMO.

In the 'scale' of wargames, we have;-

Individual combat,model vs model, skirmish level games.

Squad/Platoon level units, vs units, company level games.

Company/ squadron level units, vs units,battalion/ regimental level games.

Battalion/Regiment level units, vs units,Army level games.

So applied to GW games...

Inqusitor/Necromundia =Skirmish.

40k =company level.

Apocalypse=battalion level.

Epic = regimental level.

I agree every model should be able to make a contribution to the battle, but do we need to roll to hit, to wound and to save, for each and every model?

I just want the rules of 40k to be more in synergy with the background and the scale of the current game.
And moving the focus of the game squarely onto unit interaction is pivotal to acomplishing this.IMO.

TTFN
Lanrak.

The_Patriot
08-12-2007, 18:04
Hi Patriot.
I belive 40k IS NOT A SKIRMISH Level game ANYMORE.
Rogue Trader (1st ed 40k ) WAS!
Model count increased in 2nd ed.The games became a bit unwieldly/unpredictable.

My comment is based upon how 40k is now. Thanks for the history lesson, but my point still remains that 40k is a tactical level game.


EVERYONE wanted 40k 2nd ed to be 'tided up a bit'.
3rd ed was the result of a ' last minuite hatchet job,' IMO.

4th ed was just an exercise in paching up the botch of 3rd ed.IMO.

Your opinion is not a fact and is unneeded in this discussion.


In the 'scale' of wargames, we have;-

Individual combat,model vs model, skirmish level games.

Squad/Platoon level units, vs units, company level games.

Company/ squadron level units, vs units,battalion/ regimental level games.

Battalion/Regiment level units, vs units,Army level games.

Close, but completely incorrect. The scale of wargames has always been skirmish, tactical, operational, and strategic. Skirmish engagements use up to 20-30 models. Tactical engagements use 31-100 models*. Operational engagements use 20-50 models** representing companies/platoons. Strategic engagements represent 51+ models representing companies/regiments.

*: Models are ranked upon a power curve. In 40k Imperial Guard are the standard baseline so other armies are equal to power level to IG or they are multiples of power of IG. For example, a Marine is roughly 1.5 times more powerful then an IG, so Marines require less models in their organizational structure. Sisters of Battle are 1.25 times more powerful then IG, so they too require less models in their organizational structure. It is important to remember the power levels involved for each army due to every army uses a different organizational structure. Marines use companies as the highest tactical engagement force while IG use a battalion.

**: Models are abstracted to represent multiples of a certain type of unit like 3 rough riders on a single base represents 10-20 rough riders. Due to the abstraction the power curve is adjusted upwards to the largest formation that can be used in a tactical engagement.


So applied to GW games...

Inqusitor/Necromundia =Skirmish.

40k =company level.

Apocalypse=battalion level.

Epic = regimental level.

As applied to GW's the scale is precisely what I said it was.

Skirmish: Mordheim and Necromunda
Tactical: Warhammer 40k
Operational: Epic and Warhammer Fantasy Battles
Strategic: Warhammer Fantasy Battles with the Mighty Empires Supplement

Apocalypse is still a tactical level game, but there are more models on the table for each army. It lacks the required abstraction as I detailed above concerning operational and strategic games.


I agree every model should be able to make a contribution to the battle, but do we need to roll to hit, to wound and to save, for each and every model?

I just want the rules of 40k to be more in synergy with the background and the scale of the current game.
And moving the focus of the game squarely onto unit interaction is pivotal to acomplishing this.IMO.

TTFN
Lanrak.

For skirmish and tactical levels yes, each model should have their own rolls. Due to the larger scale of tactical engagements a single model has a lower impact due to the number of models involved. In operational and strategic games, each model represents multiple models of a certain type. Thus, you are not rolling for each individual trooper, but rather the entire unit on a single die roll. It is not important to note those details such as losses in an operational and higher game. Due to the abstraction a company that sustains losses does not mean the unit is destroyed, but rather it is rendered to be combat ineffective. In a skirmish and tactical level engagement units can be annihilated due to the loss of every model in the unit.

As 40k stands now, it does have the perfect synergy between individual model and whole units. It's up to you to use them based upon terrain and table size. Too little terrain means that you lose out on unit tactics since there is nothing to hide behind. Too small of a table means that you lose out on half of the tactics required which is simply Fire and Maneuver. Too little terrain means that firepower will dominate and maneuver is useless. Heavily terrained large tables are the perfect mix for Fire and Maneuver.

lanrak
08-12-2007, 19:59
Hi.
Perhaps I labored my point too strongly,( sorry.)
Nomeclature aside,(perhaps the anglo american useage is different?All my friends who have been playing wargames over tha last 20 years use the skirmish ,company regimental , army type classification.)

If you honestly belive that the current game of 40k is an efficient and well developed rule set,then I will not be able to change your mind.

But any game with 23 universal special rules ,(:wtf:),and over 50 other special rules , isnt going to get any design awards from me.

My preference would be to focus the 40k rule set on UNIT interaction.(Units may be represented by ONE or multiple models.)

Retain the level of detail of 2nd ed.By simply reducing the number of elements to be concidered in the current game.(By counting units rather than models.)

But for now I will use the GW minis I have with alternative 'company level/ tactical wargame rules 'available.(Where logic, and the laws of physics are considered more important , than the 'rule of cool'.)
Because gameplay,clarity and intuitiveness of the rule set is of paramount importance to other games manufacturers.

As human biengs our life experiance leads us to have certain expectations .If game play follows these expectations we find the game easier to learn, and therfore intuative.

The current 40k rules are abstract , not intuative.

This is why the rules development forum is full of gamers wanting the rules to be more 'detailed/ realistic'.(Apart from those developing new ,or revising old codexii.)

I agree that the level of terrain on the games table is important.

But the restrictive game turn mechanic, doesnt do the game of 40k any real favors.

Some may say that WH has a similar model count to 40k so why shouldnt they use the same game mechanics?
Well in WH most units fight in set formations ,so a orc regiment represented by 30 models in only roll for the rank fighting.(Usualy 6 models).
And units armed with ranged weapons, (quite limited in number in most WH armies,)usualy only fire the front rank also.
So usualy in WH only a percentage of any unit actualty gets to roll dice in combat.(And manouvering into the best combat matchups is what most WH tactics revolve around.)

I belive 40k would benift from a totaly new rule set.
(The GW game devs can produce exelent intuative and efficient rule sets when they are allowed to.)

TTFN
lanrak.

Egaeus
10-12-2007, 14:41
If you honestly belive that the current game of 40k is an efficient and well developed rule set,then I will not be able to change your mind.

But any game with 23 universal special rules ,(:wtf:),and over 50 other special rules , isnt going to get any design awards from me.


I don't think the rules are bad...I do believe they could still use some polishing. The issue in many cases is that there are a variety of ways to build the mechanics, and the designer's chosen method doesn't always mesh with the player's.

I think almost all of the "Special Rules" could easily be rolled into their respective sections, where they would still be "Special Rules" but not seem so excessive. Consider that there are already a number of "Special Rules" in many sections (Instant Death, No Retreat!, Torrent of Fire/Blows) because they are simply permuations of the core system.

I suppose I can use this as a springboard for replying to the rest of your post:

I think one of the fundamental issues that makes the game appear anti-intuitive is their choice of presentation. GW appears to try to make it "simple case, then add the complexities" when the rules could benefit hugely from simply presenting the system in a cohesive manner. It's the whole "this is how it normally should work, but oh, it really doesn't most of the time" that does make it more cumbersome than it should be.

I can fully understand the desire for a more complicated system, but that simply isn't GW's intent. It's sort of like the comparison of saying that Monopoly isn't a simulation of dealing in real estate or Risk isn't a good primer for leading armies to world domination. It's a beer (or soda, if you prefer, as I do) & pretzels game. You put down some nicely painted miniatures, throw some dice and have a laugh.

I've looked at the Rules Development board. On the old GW forums it was one of my favorite places as I greatly enjoyed discussing how one thinks things "should be". And that's the fundamental thing to notice: with all the people making suggestions, you get a lot of suggestions, none of which are particularly "right" or "wrong". As I mentioned previously, if you think you can create a better system, why not give it a shot? Even if you don't get into the nitty gritty of specific rules, do you have a broad idea of how you would incorporate a more unit-centric model?

ChaosMaster
10-12-2007, 17:33
I don't think the rules are bad...
I really wish I could agree with that as I've loved 40K since the Rogue Trader days because of the models and imagery, but one look at the threads in the Rules section of this forum regarding "Can Skimmer Tanks Shock In Terrain", "Who Can I Assault" or "Can Chaos Marines Avoid Fire Frenzy By Firing Smoke On Their Chaos Dreadnoughts" and then try not to hate, just try. Sadly, even after 20 years, the rules to 40K have a lot of perceived holes in them as well as some real ones. Of course, sometimes it's not the rules that are bad, it's the behaviour of the players in "interpreting" them. I hope the coming 5th edition is much better polished regarding this issue than all previous editions.

lanrak
10-12-2007, 18:06
Hi Egaeus.
I would like to point out that GW have made exelent (IMO,)intuative rule sets for relaxed fun gaming.
(Blood Bowl, is a prime example.)

It is more of GW deciding to use 'inaprorpiate assumptions' when 'developing ' 40k that leads to the umpteen special rules 'clogging up' the current rules.

All games have some level of 'streamlining for game play reasons.'And during this process the developers decide to 'assume X,Y and Z '.

Some simplification/assumptions do not interfere that much with gamer perceptions /game play.This results in intuative game play.

BFG assumes that the positions of the space ships in 2 dimentions is adequate , for the game.(Forward/ backward left /right.) Vertical positions are deemed an unessicary complication.
And I also belive they would add extra complication to the game with very little benifit.

So with '2 dimentional engagments' the BFG rules can be based on Naval/Maritime warfare rules.
This means that the gamer can relate this game of space ship warfare to a type of actual warfare.

If we assume that a infantry unit in 40k armed with bolters,lasguns,shurieken catapults,etc.
Are most similar to modern infantry units armed with assault rifles , sub machine guns, etc.

So rather than assume that a bolter works like a bow, and fires one projectile at one target.(As in WH).
We assume that bolters, etc, fire a spray of projectiles in the general area of the target.(Especialy Orks!:D).
So a unit fires a 'hail of lead' at an enemy unit.No need to track individual bullets:rolleyes:, just define the amount of potential dammage/ threat , and compare it to the targets current defence/ armour.

We could use more detailed weapon armour interactions , as found in historical wargames(WWII to present day ), perhaps?
Because most of these are based on VERY simple concepts they can be very detailed but still easy to learn.
(Potential dammage of attacker ,minus any target protection equals actual dammage taken.As da Orkies says;-Hittyness take aways Protectiness ekwals Urtiness.)

I have started a new thread called 'Advancing the game of 40k.'In the rules development forum.
I have just out lined some basic theories, game turn mechanic/moral reaction ideas.
Please feel free to comment.

TTFN
Lanrak.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Leonidas300
10-12-2007, 22:48
lanrak, 40k is becoming more unit vs unit type of game, but the benifit of rolling dice for individual models in the unit is to limit the use of charts. If you want to boil the dice rolls to one or two rolls you inevitably have to use charts to represent the sliding scale of what could happen as a result of one roll, would you agree?

Egaeus
11-12-2007, 12:59
I really wish I could agree with that as I've loved 40K since the Rogue Trader days because of the models and imagery, but one look at the threads in the Rules section of this forum regarding "Can Skimmer Tanks Shock In Terrain", "Who Can I Assault" or "Can Chaos Marines Avoid Fire Frenzy By Firing Smoke On Their Chaos Dreadnoughts" and then try not to hate, just try. Sadly, even after 20 years, the rules to 40K have a lot of perceived holes in them as well as some real ones. Of course, sometimes it's not the rules that are bad, it's the behaviour of the players in "interpreting" them. I hope the coming 5th edition is much better polished regarding this issue than all previous editions.


I thought that in context I had made myself clear...it's not strictly the rules that are the problem in this case but rather their presentation. It has always irked me that GW won't (as I can't possibly fathom any reason why they couldn't) release FAQs in a timely manner, especially on issues where it is their poor choice of wording that allows some of these supposed loopholes to exist. I can't possibly see how some of these issues couldn't have come up at some point in a test game, and if they truly haven't then I would start to have strong suspicions about the validity of those games (which I do, but that's a whole other issue for another time).



Hi Egaeus.
I would like to point out that GW have made exelent (IMO,)intuative rule sets for relaxed fun gaming.
(Blood Bowl, is a prime example.)

It is more of GW deciding to use 'inaprorpiate assumptions' when 'developing ' 40k that leads to the umpteen special rules 'clogging up' the current rules.

All games have some level of 'streamlining for game play reasons.'And during this process the developers decide to 'assume X,Y and Z '.

<snip>

If we assume that a infantry unit in 40k armed with bolters,lasguns,shurieken catapults,etc.
Are most similar to modern infantry units armed with assault rifles , sub machine guns, etc.

<snip>

Perhaps it's not so much an issue of making "inappropriate assumptions" as not always explaining them to the players. Personally, I'm a huge fan of designer notes since they often give you a glimpse of "what the heck were they thinking when they made that rule?". I often see people making proposals about how the system "should work" when they don't understand why the designers made some of the choices they did (not saying your suggestions are like these, just trying to re-emphasize the point that assumptions do play such a huge role in how rules "work").

To go with you example, I have always assumed that one "shot" is really one "firing action" and could represent a single well-aimed shot or a hail of bullts with the net effect that it can potentially kill one enemy model. More dice just means that much more firepower directed at the enemy. Of course GW chose to use the nomenclature of "shot" for simplicity.

I will check out your other thread, but again I just want to state that for what it is the current 40K rules system isn't bad. Yes, the presentation could use some cleaning up and there are still a few glitches here and there, but I don't think there's any rules system that could be said to be perfect (after all, if there were, we'd all be using it, wouldn't we? ;))

lanrak
11-12-2007, 17:10
Hi all.
Thanks for the feed back.

Leonidas.300.

Yes I am proposing to use charts to determine the result of unit interaction.
Currently 40k has 2 charts for infantry dammage ,(To hit and to wound.) and 3 charts for vehicles.(glancing hits , penetrating hits,and ordnance penetrating hit.)
So this 'simple' game has 5 charts in total.
(Not to mention lots of special rules to boot.)

In the basic wargame I have been tinkering with there is just 2 dammage tables.

'Area fire' is modifierd by dice rolls for the attacker and defender.
Area fire is most effective vs multiple light armoured troops
(infantry.)

'Point contact fire' is modified by a dice roll for the attacker(same as current armour penetration.)
And the resulting penetration value is refereced to another dice throw.
Point contact fire is most effective vs large heavily armoured targets.(most vehicles and MCs.)


Egaeus.
I totaly agree with you comments on GW lack luster presentation and lack of game support.
Also designer notes are great for understanding the intensions and assumptions the developers had during development.(Most of the wargames I play have designer notes.)

There is not a 'perfect game' or 'perfect rule set'.
But if the rule set gives the expected level and type of game play ,in the simplest way .
Then we could call the rule set efficient.
The current rule set for 40k is far from efficient.

What would the 40k designers notes be...(IMO.)

Rouge Trader.
Well there Warhammer fans , our best game(WH) has been converted to an amazing sci fi ,adventure /RPG/skirmish game.
Grab the rule book and some citadel minatures and explore the fantastic universe of the 41st millenium..(A GM may be required.)
(Yes the WH game mechanic works fine for skirmish level; games ,a few model far apart, gives more room for manouvering/tactical play...)

40k 2nd ed.
Hi guys, we here at the studio have been expanding the rule set and minature range,(as corperate want us to shift more models?) , and the resulting game is bigger and better.(Thanks to all the fans contibuting thier great ideas.)


40k 3rd ed.
Hi guys.Corperate want us to expand the appeal of 40k to let younger kids play.And increase the model count,and make it different to WH.
So we just assume everthing moves the same speed and dumped the M stat.
And we REMOVED practicaly all maths(modifiers) from the game.Because KIDS (and 'artists') hate maths.
Just roll a D6(s) to see what happens, for any event.
Sorted, only took 3 weeks, arent we fantastic?

40k 4th ed.
What were we thinking???!!!!, 40k is now just a list building dice throwing fest!!!
We had better add lots of special rules, to try to make the game play a bit better....

40k 5th ed....more of the same ?

Just so I am clear any 'streamlining 'that needs more rules (special rules) to get game play right, than the original rule it replaces, is NOT efficient.

The current ed of 40k is a fun game for ages 8 and up.

Maybe some gamers would like 40k to be more of a tactical war game?
If so, then focusing on unit interaction could keep the rule set quite simple ,while increasing the tactical depth.

Just a suggestion from me ,for what its worth...

TTFN
Lanrak.

Leonidas300
11-12-2007, 17:37
Yeah but the "to hit" and "to wound" charts are so simple they might as well not be charts at all. And that is part of what I mean, once you play a few games the charts disappear and all you have are the dice rolls. If they reduce the vehicle damage charts to one chart in 5th ed then there is a possibility that the whole game can be played without referencing any charts at all, which is what I think they are trying to get to.

The overall strategy for the game designers since 2nd ed have been to create a game that uses a lot of models in as short a time as possible. Well good for them, if they can make a decent game and make money, all the better for everybody.

Right now the thing that slows the game down is the frequency you have to check the rules. But if you can get the rules down and all the charts are simple and intuitive and modifiers are kept simple and to a minimum then all you would really need is the models and the table. Everything else can stay on the shelves or in the backpack. The best games are the ones where after a few games the rule book can dissapear.

The_Patriot
11-12-2007, 19:09
@lanrak: Yes, because tactics=super long and confusing rules+5 hundred million charts.

lanrak
11-12-2007, 19:34
Hi Leonidas300.
I totaly agree with you assessment of what an 'intuiative' game should be.

And all the 'special rules' in 40k DO make it harder to get into the game.(Oh! hang on, my special invunerable save may be vunerable to your codex specific special rule, lets look it up and double check.etc.)

Even the most detailed historical wargames we play, we only need the 'Reference tables/play sheet' on the table.

The Patriot.
I have to assume you are bieng sarcastic?
Or you are bieng serious, and just very miss-informed?

Quite a lot of current wargames are far more tacticaly rewarding than 40k,and alot easier to learn!(No 'fething' special rules ,just efficient game mechanics and intuative gameplay.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

Egaeus
11-12-2007, 20:30
40k 3rd ed.
Hi guys.Corperate want us to expand the appeal of 40k to let younger kids play.And increase the model count,and make it different to WH.
So we just assume everthing moves the same speed and dumped the M stat.
And we REMOVED practicaly all maths(modifiers) from the game.Because KIDS (and 'artists') hate maths.
Just roll a D6(s) to see what happens, for any event.
Sorted, only took 3 weeks, arent we fantastic?

40k 4th ed.
What were we thinking???!!!!, 40k is now just a list building dice throwing fest!!!
We had better add lots of special rules, to try to make the game play a bit better....

40k 5th ed....more of the same ?


Sure, if we want to be cynical about it. :p

I started with 3rd Edition and have never played fantasy, but dropping the M stat doesn't seem like such a big deal because of the abstractions in the system. I can say that it would be nice to have different movement rates but how much distinction can we really make before we start having to mess with other elements of the system such as weapon range?

All the "special rules" were just a compilation of the rules they introduced in the Codexes. Initially it seemed they wanted to differentiate each race by its special rules...essentially what that race could do that others really couldn't. Unfortunately, there are limitations of the system as there's only so much you can do with d6s, and then it feels like the designers just got lazy and it was the Chaos Codex Redux that really messed things up because it just robbed all the special rules from the other Codexes and lumped them together. Not to mention re-using the same rule in various locations with slightly different wording (True Grit). As I said before at this point you could just as well roll them into the core rules since they really aren't all that "special" anymore. Then they just become "case" rules, and I don't think any game can escape from having exceptions to its "normal" rules.

It actually seems to me of late that they are actually stepping away from adding all kinds of crazy rules and going back to very basic lists. Whether this will work out for them remains to be seen. But I always say that if it doesn't, then they have the next edition to add everything back in. :evilgrin:

scratchbuilt
11-12-2007, 20:37
Hey Lanrak, long time no see, check out my sig - it's been updated a little. I also reccomend you read the epic rules. If GW just kept the same methodology for warhammer 40k I'd be happy.

But yeah, it's one of many issues with the current rules. Some games have had beautiful rules that where a joy to play - Adeptus Titanicus, Space Hulk etc. Current 40k is merely made to describe the models, essentially it is just an accompaniment to the models. Which isn't bad -but it would be nice if it was a good game on its own.

Brandoren
11-12-2007, 21:17
I don't think the rules are bad...I do believe they could still use some polishing. The issue in many cases is that there are a variety of ways to build the mechanics, and the designer's chosen method doesn't always mesh with the player's.

I think almost all of the "Special Rules" could easily be rolled into their respective sections, where they would still be "Special Rules" but not seem so excessive. Consider that there are already a number of "Special Rules" in many sections (Instant Death, No Retreat!, Torrent of Fire/Blows) because they are simply permuations of the core system.

I suppose I can use this as a springboard for replying to the rest of your post:

I think one of the fundamental issues that makes the game appear anti-intuitive is their choice of presentation. GW appears to try to make it "simple case, then add the complexities" when the rules could benefit hugely from simply presenting the system in a cohesive manner. It's the whole "this is how it normally should work, but oh, it really doesn't most of the time" that does make it more cumbersome than it should be.

I can fully understand the desire for a more complicated system, but that simply isn't GW's intent. It's sort of like the comparison of saying that Monopoly isn't a simulation of dealing in real estate or Risk isn't a good primer for leading armies to world domination. It's a beer (or soda, if you prefer, as I do) & pretzels game. You put down some nicely painted miniatures, throw some dice and have a laugh.

I've looked at the Rules Development board. On the old GW forums it was one of my favorite places as I greatly enjoyed discussing how one thinks things "should be". And that's the fundamental thing to notice: with all the people making suggestions, you get a lot of suggestions, none of which are particularly "right" or "wrong". As I mentioned previously, if you think you can create a better system, why not give it a shot? Even if you don't get into the nitty gritty of specific rules, do you have a broad idea of how you would incorporate a more unit-centric model?







i dont know what he said but it sounds important

vogelfrei
11-12-2007, 21:41
I love rolling a lot of dice. <3

It is a fun part of the game...sometimes overcomes tactics a bit too much, but I field an army, where everything is determined by rolling lots and lots of dice!

I like the unit-model-system as it is at the moment. I agree, that there should be more maths and less randomness in the game.

Things I would love to have in the 5th ed. book:
* one vehicle damage chart, modified by glancing/penetrating
* better hth rules - maybe the assaulted unit being able to shoot back, instead of being forced to use their fists...

For me it actually is "intuitive gaming" most of the time...There are a lot of special rules...but there also are a lot of different units one can field!
And by now you only came up with what? - Yes! More speacial rules!

I think they did a decent job with 3rd ed. giving 40k a base to be build on...now it's time to bring the building,to put ontop...as the one they did build with 4th ed. wasn't the most stable one...

lanrak
11-12-2007, 22:23
Hi again.

Egeaus.
It is possible to get a good intuative efficeint rule set for a game similar to the current 40k.
But where you put the detail and how you set the level of interaction is of paramount importance.Also how you apply the random elements (dice rolls.), determines how much 'luck' decides the outcome.

I mentioned the M stat simply because it is an exelent example of inefficient game development patched up by lots of special rules and exeptions.

2nd ed 40k .And most other (war) games other than current 40k HAVE movment rates,'M stat'.(Well apart from games that dont need measurment at all, like Crossfire, etc.)
.................................................. ....................................
A model may move up to its 'Movment value' 'M' stat in inches.
(I belive the values used to be 3,4,5,6 8 and 12 inches.)

Marching /Charging allowed a player to double move, but not shoot in a game turn.(Marching just moved the models into weapons range faster, charging initiated an assault.)

Difficult terrain halved movment rate, and very difficult terrain quatered movment rate.(Rounding up.)
.................................................. ....................................
I know this is 'so complicated' that GW replaced this with ...

GW'Everything moves up to 6''.'

Me 'Ok.'

GW'But ,vehicles move 12'' , and of course 'Fast' vehicles move up to 24''

Me 'Right, so everthing moves up to 6'', or 12'' or 24''.'

GW 'Well, yes ,apart from ...the things that move more than 6'' but less than 12'', and the things that move less than 6''.'

Me 'Eh? '.

GW 'Well we introduced some special rules...'

Me 'Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! '

Oh, troops that used to be quicker than others, they can get the Fleet of ...special rule to move an extra D6 ''in the SHOOTING??? phase if they dont shoot.(:wtf:)

Oh, and difficult terrain you just move D6 ''inches , unless you have the 'move through COVER???' special rule then you roll an extra dice and pick the highest.:eyebrows:

Oh ,and things that used to be slower than others can have the 'slow and purpousful 'special rule.
Oh and slow and purposeful ignore the effects of difficult terrain.
Exept if its an Ork in Mega armour and they are using the Grots underfoot(?) special rule to.....:cries:
Do I need to go on ?


40k is a fun game.It could be a fun tactical wargame, that had clearly defined and intuative rules set. (PLEASE)

Scratch built.
Nice to hear from you mate.
Epic is a good wargame, IMO.
And a much more suitable basis for 40k rule set than WH rules.IMO.


But there are lots of other methods and concepts to use other than those currently used by 'GW studio'.

I woudlnt alter the art or narrative of 40k, this THE reason we endure GW poor game suport isnt it?

But simple simulation IS better than complicated abstraction.


Vogelfrie.
I have not posted any special rule of my own devising?
The game system I am developing HAS NO special rules.(But thats on the rules development forum..)
(2 'special weapon effects' area saturation/ fixed area effect, but no fething special rules.)

Kindest reguards to all.

TTFN
Lanrak.

WallyTWest
11-12-2007, 22:27
What catagory does Void 1.1 fall into?

(EG, Altering unit activations, mod combat exct?)

Sekhmet
11-12-2007, 22:31
Here's a thought:

Taking aside all fluff, model scale and all model appearances (thus assuming all models in the game are little cubes that represent nothing but different types of little cubes), the only major difference is the jump between Mordheim/necromunda and 40k. 40k and Epic use almost the same number of models, depending on lists of course.

Look at BFG for example, you'd probably have no more than 10 ships on the table. If we abstract that out, it seems like a minor skirmish. If we add meaning to the ships such that each ship is a battleship (or bigger!), it could become a massive engagement. Or you could take it further and assume each ship is actually a fleet and suddenly BFG changes from a skirmish into a system-wide battle.

Does it really matter if you're commanding an army or commanding a platoon when you have the same number of models on the table with basically the same rules?

Redd Wolf
11-12-2007, 22:47
So I just thought detailed unit rules would lead to a intuative fast paced detailed tactical wargame.

Eg rather than roll dice per model,( a bit of a pain for larger unit sizes.), we roll dice for a unit.Rather like we currently do for leadership tests.

So I was proposing a reduction in the amount of dice rolling, leaving more room for tactical development.



Eff that! I love rolling 50 dice in an assault phase and seeing my opponent say "WTF". Go play "Dawn of War" if you want a battle to go quickly. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it but I want to be able to put my H2H (I.E. powerfist/power weapon) guys in the front of my units so that they can be there when the time comes or be owned if I didn't think about it.

Thats tactical.

I've played through 3 editions of the game I remember when you had dice to roll for grenades and had different weapon damages and accuracies for different ranges! After all of the stuff they have changed if they take away my dice i'm gonna be pissed.

shame on you for suggesting it. lol

scratchbuilt
12-12-2007, 08:38
Yeah, I suggested epic though because it's a smaller leap for most people, thus more likely to be accepted. And it doesn't have ap values, thankfully.

Egaeus
12-12-2007, 13:06
Does it really matter if you're commanding an army or commanding a platoon when you have the same number of models on the table with basically the same rules?

A very good point and one that sort of emphasizes the concept that the rules aren't really "basically the same". The Devil, as they say, is in the details. I have seen game systems that are designed to be generic and the only difference in scale is how many soldiers each model represents, the ground scale used and the amount of time each turn represents. The issue I see with 40K is that you're going to have different expectations for the rules at different scales and are going to expect smaller-scale (e.g. individual models versus squads or formations) to have more detail about each individual model.



Eff that! I love rolling 50 dice in an assault phase and seeing my opponent say "WTF". Go play "Dawn of War" if you want a battle to go quickly. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it but I want to be able to put my H2H (I.E. powerfist/power weapon) guys in the front of my units so that they can be there when the time comes or be owned if I didn't think about it.

Thats tactical.


That's one of those things I consider "game tactical" versus "realistic tactical" and it happens in a lot of games. Because of the way the game is structured certain options are better than others not because they would be sound actions, but because the game rules make them a good choice. Close combat in 40K is an excellent example of this, as in many cases some models are actually safer in close combat than not simply because close combat doesn't use AP values. This doesn't make a lot of sense, especially considering that close combat in 40K is supposed to represent close-range shooting as well as actual hand-to-hand combat.

Consider that in 3rd Edition you had to be in BtB to use special close combat attacks. This had the advantage of "encouraging" characters (who were typically the ones with special CC weaponry) to lead from the front. In 4th, so long as you aren't an IC you merely have to be engaged (but note that all engaged models fight normally instead of those not in BtB "throwing rocks"). I'm not going to say either method is "better" or "more realistic" as both methods are simply choices in applying game mechanics to determine a resolution. Fundamentally it's all a matter of perspective.

lanrak
13-12-2007, 15:52
Hi all.
I agree with Sekhemets point (partialy.).
The rule set should have the level of detial set by the number of elements under player control.

So a game where a player controls a few elements, the rules for those elements can be quite detailed.

Single elements can be represented by a single model.
It doesnt matter what form the element takes , large space ships,(BFG), armoured walking vehicles,(Battle Tec), or single trooper.(Inquisitor.)
The rules have smilar levels of detail but are model/context specific.

However in some games where the elements can be groups of models ,(40k, WH.)We can make the rules for detailed unit inter action.
So we could have 7 to 16(?) units a side.(This is in the realms of skirmish level detail , if we treat units as elements.)

Or we can have 40 to 200(?) models as individiaul elements .
At this level, the rules for individual models have to be dumbed down/streamlined/abstracted to speed up game play.

Its a choice of simple simulation, or abstract gameplay.

In the games where 'real world tactics' are reflected by 'in game tactics'.
We call these intuative wargames.:D

TTFN
Lanrak.