PDA

View Full Version : My spin on 40k



ellbrick
09-12-2009, 16:11
There are several reoccurring thread types on Warseer, some more common than others. Threads such as “army x is overpowered,” “when will codex y be redone,” “the timeline of 40k never moves on” and “how would you fix 5th edition?” I suppose this thread is mainly my suggestion as to answer to the later question, but with the aim to try and 'fix' the other 'problems' too. I use quotation marks as this isn't to state I think everything about 40k is broken - it works pretty well. Simply some thoughts to discuss.

I would begin by redoing the 40k ruleset. Try and make it tactical and dynamic. Replace the 'I go, you go' system with 3 phases and introduce things like alternative unit activation, variable movement rates, suppression etc. It's important that this is done really well. We don't want to replace it for a while. This is then released as just a rules book.

Obviously we now have the problem that all our army books are invalid. However instead of going through each army and making an army book, there is a range of campaign books instead. As an example we'll take the battle of armageddon. Main protagonists being Orks, Marines, Guard. Each campaign book will list troop types available to those armies. However there will be no points cost associated with them. Instead the campaign book has several scenarios...

Each scenario will list the forces each side will used - marines vs orks and you'll use x vs y. The scenarios are then play tested to death to try and make them balanced. With fewer variables this should hopefully be a simpler task. We then have the next scenario that includes a variation on troops taken, different army, different objectives, some or all of the previous etc. You could play the scenarios as one off's or have campaign rules to link them up.

The campaign book would have stories and background info about the campaign and the individual scenarios, but also an outcome to make the timeline move on. There would be modelling articles and terrain building ones.

The next campaign book in the series can then introduce new races and/or new units for existing races and new scenarios for them to contest. We could have one centred round an inquisition war. Have rules for using inquisitors, demons etc.

Another benefit of the system would be that none of the books would go out of date. Campaign book 1 would be as valid as campaign book 17. If the books could be churned out with some degree of consistency no collector should be without new models, rules or scenarios for too long. You may also be tempted to collect other armies to fight out different campaigns.

Obviously its not a system that would suit all and it would never actually happen, but I thought I'd just throw it out there.

Vedar
09-12-2009, 17:02
I would not like that change for two reasons.

1. It would make turns even longer and they are long enough already.

2. People would play more defensive and you would see less "All in" type assaults which I like.

If anything they need to find out ways to speed up the game. Not slow it down with by making it more complicated.

TheShadowCow
09-12-2009, 17:24
What you're suggesting would essentially kill the player input element of WH40k. Now, you might think that's a good thing, but I for one believe that this particular game has soldiered on (despite the things weighing against it) at least partially because of how players can essentially make it their own game.

Now, if you then say "of course you can adapt the rules and scenarios, and use the units in your own scenarios etc" then all of the vaunted 'balance', which was largely the point behind this hypothetical re-write, flies out of the window.

I can see what you're getting at, but honestly trying to bring WH40k closer to Chess is a step towards disaster/the Gates of Varl/the Eye of Terror etc ^^

druchii
09-12-2009, 18:05
There are several reoccurring thread types on Warseer, some more common than others. Threads such as “army x is overpowered,” “when will codex y be redone,” “the timeline of 40k never moves on” and “how would you fix 5th edition?” I suppose this thread is mainly my suggestion as to answer to the later question, but with the aim to try and 'fix' the other 'problems' too. I use quotation marks as this isn't to state I think everything about 40k is broken - it works pretty well. Simply some thoughts to discuss.

I would begin by redoing the 40k ruleset. Try and make it tactical and dynamic. Replace the 'I go, you go' system with 3 phases and introduce things like alternative unit activation, variable movement rates, suppression etc. It's important that this is done really well. We don't want to replace it for a while. This is then released as just a rules book.

Obviously we now have the problem that all our army books are invalid. However instead of going through each army and making an army book, there is a range of campaign books instead. As an example we'll take the battle of armageddon. Main protagonists being Orks, Marines, Guard. Each campaign book will list troop types available to those armies. However there will be no points cost associated with them. Instead the campaign book has several scenarios...

Each scenario will list the forces each side will used - marines vs orks and you'll use x vs y. The scenarios are then play tested to death to try and make them balanced. With fewer variables this should hopefully be a simpler task. We then have the next scenario that includes a variation on troops taken, different army, different objectives, some or all of the previous etc. You could play the scenarios as one off's or have campaign rules to link them up.

The campaign book would have stories and background info about the campaign and the individual scenarios, but also an outcome to make the timeline move on. There would be modelling articles and terrain building ones.

The next campaign book in the series can then introduce new races and/or new units for existing races and new scenarios for them to contest. We could have one centred round an inquisition war. Have rules for using inquisitors, demons etc.

Another benefit of the system would be that none of the books would go out of date. Campaign book 1 would be as valid as campaign book 17. If the books could be churned out with some degree of consistency no collector should be without new models, rules or scenarios for too long. You may also be tempted to collect other armies to fight out different campaigns.

Obviously its not a system that would suit all and it would never actually happen, but I thought I'd just throw it out there.

No.

"I need 10 characters"

d

Netfreakk
09-12-2009, 18:12
This looks like what they're trying to do, but in a smaller scale.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233885

The battle missions from what I'm reading are scenario based which is what I'm thinking you had in mind.


"Each of the thirty-something scenarios detailed in Battle Missions has been designed to allow you to fight the sort of battles normally the subject of Black Library novels. From daring raids and assassinations, to breakthroughs and last stands, Battle Missions will allow your army to play in a way that reflects its background."

ellbrick
09-12-2009, 18:38
What you're suggesting would essentially kill the player input element of WH40k. Now, you might think that's a good thing, but I for one believe that this particular game has soldiered on (despite the things weighing against it) at least partially because of how players can essentially make it their own game.

Now, if you then say "of course you can adapt the rules and scenarios, and use the units in your own scenarios etc" then all of the vaunted 'balance', which was largely the point behind this hypothetical re-write, flies out of the window.

I can see what you're getting at, but honestly trying to bring WH40k closer to Chess is a step towards disaster/the Gates of Varl/the Eye of Terror etc ^^

I can't argue with that. Something about the game has allowed it to endure above others. People really do love making army lists. I can't see it being popular with tournament players either.

Balance wasn't the only thing on the agenda. The constant cycle of army books seems to be a waste. Some of the 2nd, 4th/5th edition army books have been excellent in background and presentation. I think it's a shame that they become somewhat redundant when the next version comes out.


This looks like what they're trying to do, but in a smaller scale.

The battle missions from what I'm reading are scenario based which is what I'm thinking you had in mind.



Similar. It's certainly not a 100% original idea. A combination of scenario books, lotr journey book, flames of war theatre books. Just more so.

ogretyrant
09-12-2009, 19:01
I would prefer it to go something along the lines of orders (similar to Urban War if anyone has played that, I found it to run quite smothly and having to constantly think on your feet and try to anticipate your enemys move with eachof your own). I would love to have a timeline akin to how it is done in Warmachine/Hordes. I would not mind missions where the units are picked for you, but would tottaly disagre if there were no missions where I could not pick my own force.

Bloodknight
09-12-2009, 19:05
Obviously we now have the problem that all our army books are invalid. However instead of going through each army and making an army book, there is a range of campaign books instead. As an example we'll take the battle of armageddon. Main protagonists being Orks, Marines, Guard. Each campaign book will list troop types available to those armies. However there will be no points cost associated with them. Instead the campaign book has several scenarios...

Each scenario will list the forces each side will used - marines vs orks and you'll use x vs y. The scenarios are then play tested to death to try and make them balanced. With fewer variables this should hopefully be a simpler task. We then have the next scenario that includes a variation on troops taken, different army, different objectives, some or all of the previous etc. You could play the scenarios as one off's or have campaign rules to link them up.

The campaign book would have stories and background info about the campaign and the individual scenarios, but also an outcome to make the timeline move on. There would be modelling articles and terrain building ones.

This get's a "Hell, no!" from me. I enjoy building army lists, and for some reason the idea that somebody else completely decides what I should collect/need to own to play a game goes against the grain for me.

unheilig
09-12-2009, 19:13
So you'd like to turn 40k into Warmachine?

no thanks.


40k works. and it works fine. and gives me a great excuse to collect hundreds of toy soldiers.

lanrak
09-12-2009, 19:59
Hi all.
I sort of see where the OP is going.
IF the rule set was re-written with game play as priority , rather than marketing, it would be possible to get a tacticaly rich, fast and fun game play.
(The current 40k rule set IS awfully abstract and complicated , concidering the simplest level of game complexity it delivers.)

IF the rules were well defined and intuitive , it would be much easier to assign PV more accuratley , as the development team might ACTUALY UNDERSTAND how the game works....:eek:

Other companies put beta rules out for the comunity to give feed back on, and so get far more playtesting done. And as a result the PV are not based on limited playstyles -preferences , but open to the wide and varied use of the community!

As Thane Games managed to write a game system comparable to WHFB, in less than HALF the time, with nearly TWICE the number of armies, with provable levels of ballance.
(Thier free sci-fi beta rules Xenocide Firefight is coming along nicely IMO.)

GW PLC has no excuse,they want 40k to be 'just' good enough for people to buy GW product.

Most game companies want to make the best games possible.

This makes a huge difference in game play.:evilgrin:

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lord-Caerolion
10-12-2009, 08:04
While I can see where you're going, this sort of thing can only work when it's implemented from creation.
WH40k already has too much character and individualisation for players to suddenly be told "I don't care what models you have, this is what's in your army, nothing else!" Sure, once they have enough campaign books out, you can use your full collection, the problem being that it will take a long time for enough campaign books to be released to be viable, and at which point someone new to the game can only play against certain other races (he only has the models to match the beginning games of certain campaign books) until much, much later in the design process (Oh, you play Marines, and have some Assault Marines and a Tactical Squad? Well, that means you can play against the Orks over there, or the Tau player there, but you can't fight the Eldar or the Tyranids, you need some Bikes for that. However, you can't fight that Ork player, he has Nobz instead of some Burna Boyz, and that Tau player bought some Stealth Suits instead of some Kroot.)

With the time required to make the campaign book system as viable as the current Codex/army list system, they could have just balanced all the existing codices. Plus, if you want a campaign book, there's always Imperial Armour. It's basically exactly what you're describing, except used in addition to the existing army list system.

Put simply, I want my army to be my army, and not have what models I buy and when dictated to me if I want to play a game. I don't want a system where who a beginner can play against is limited by what models they bought, (because Possessed can't be used against Imperial Guard until the current equivalent of 1000 pts, or whatever the campaign books available will decide). I don't want to have to lug around 50 different books, to account for every possibility of what models I and my opponent own (well, I see you have some Fire Dragons... damn! I have 3 Necron Warrior, we can't use this book).
Sure, this system might work great once many, many campaign books have been released, and once a player owns enough models of a race to form all of the possible armies, but until then it's needlessly limiting the possibilities for a game, all for the vain hope of balance.

Spider-pope
10-12-2009, 10:48
Each scenario will list the forces each side will used - marines vs orks and you'll use x vs y. The scenarios are then play tested to death to try and make them balanced. With fewer variables this should hopefully be a simpler task. We then have the next scenario that includes a variation on troops taken, different army, different objectives, some or all of the previous etc. You could play the scenarios as one off's or have campaign rules to link them up.

The campaign book would have stories and background info about the campaign and the individual scenarios, but also an outcome to make the timeline move on. There would be modelling articles and terrain building ones.

The next campaign book in the series can then introduce new races and/or new units for existing races and new scenarios for them to contest. We could have one centred round an inquisition war. Have rules for using inquisitors, demons etc.



A re-do of the core rules wouldnt bother me, but the idea above would pretty much result in me leaving the hobby. The main appeal of the GW games for me is the freedom to collect and theme my own armies, to develop their background and character. With the system you propose, this entire aspect of the hobby would be annihilated.

Sure it would make the game more balanced, since the scenario lists could be tailored so that the forces are more or less equal, but at the cost of removing all creativity and freedom from the game and frankly making it incredibly dull. Would anyone really want to fight the same battles over and over, with the exact same forces each time? With no room for variation?

enygma7
10-12-2009, 12:18
The game the OP is talking about sounds very like Stargrunt II from Ground Zero Games. Sadly, I think it may well be out of production by now but you might be able to pick up a copy off ebay or something.

Whilst 40k is a "cinematic" system, stargrunt takes a more realistic view of sci-fi combat with rules for suppression, morale and electronic warfare. It also uses alternative activation. It doesn't have any kind of a points sytem, with the intention that you balance the armies manually for scenario/campaign based play. There aren't any army books - its a generic system you can adapt to any universe (similar to the more popular full thrust by the same publisher).

Might save you some time/give you some ideas if you can track down a copy but good luck with that.

Rick Blaine
10-12-2009, 13:34
So you'd like to turn 40k into Warmachine?

no thanks.


40k works. and it works fine. and gives me a great excuse to collect hundreds of toy soldiers.

No, Warmachine isn't anything like that. Actually it's exactly like 40k in regards to army selection, except that every army gets a new model every month or two instead of every 6 years.

I think what the OP was thinking more along the lines of historical re-enactment games.

IronNerd
10-12-2009, 13:37
No.


I'm pretty sure druchii sums up my opinion quite well.

Egaeus
10-12-2009, 17:30
One of my pet peeves has been that GW doesn't seem to care whether or not it's a good GAME as long as it sells models. And I think it's a real shame when a good, solid, supported system would really help them in the long run. I would love 40K to be a system that you'd want to use for its rules alone.

As for Campaign books, it's an interesting concept. But along with the problem that other people have of fixed lists, I would question GW's ability to "churn out" such books "consistently", especially if they are meant to be truly balanced scenarios. Although it does occur to me that there is some potential for selections so they possibly wouldn't have to be absolutely fixed lists (for example "pick one of these" types of options).

And then there's the issue of production and marketing of new figures. While it might be nice if they did a more staggered release of a wider range of figures it would be somewhat frustrating to have to wait potentially a few years to be able to potentially finish an army. [Don't get me wrong here, I completely empathize with people who have been waiting years to get a whole army update as well.] Although I suppose if they did the campaign book supplement it would most likely feature a few units from each side which would be the releases for that time frame.

As I mentioned, overall it might be an interesting concept. Heck, if GW wanted to do something like that to make the game more interesting it might be a nice addition to the game. They have produced campaign books before, but the ones I'm thinking of (Armageddon, Eye of Terror) were mainly to create new army lists for people to use.

MegaPope
10-12-2009, 18:11
Interestingly, on the subject of WM, PP seems to being going somewhat with the GW grain, as factional 'codecies' will shorty be appearing, and the model count of games seems to be edging a little higher than it was...

However...I don't think basing a universe as well-established as 40K on a system of campaign books for gaming purposes would be appropriate now. As others have said, it really is an idea that needs implementing at the point of conception (and 40K was originally conceived almost as a tabletop RPG rather than a wargame).

That said, a reworking of the core rules wouldn't be a bad thing. I don't think the mass of abstracts is actually doing anyone any favours. All the same, the rules obviously do work on some level, and unlike some, I don't think they're totally beyond redemption.

A level of familiarity is a good thing. I personally don't really like alternated unit activation, because you either lose track of things halfway through a turn, and then have to perform a CSI style analysis to determine who did what, or the table quickly becomes covered with large amounts of counters - I'm not totally against the idea of counters denoting actions etc, but I remember 2ed battlefileds getting choked with them, and it was actually quite bad for the immersive aspect of the game IMO.