PDA

View Full Version : GW change in direction?



lanrak
21-04-2007, 00:16
Hi all.
I was inspired to write this ,after reminicing with my friends over the games we played back in the early 1990s.
None of us could remember who won or lost any game.But we did remember the amasing stories about all the fantastic things that happened during the games.The general concencus was the focus back then was telling stories as we played the games.All the wierdness and wackyness that was part of the games back then,made the games that much ore fun.Who got the most VPs at the end of a game didnt seem to matter to us at all.
GW were great at making '3D RPGs'.The brilliant models simply enhanced and re-enforced the narrative aspects of gameplay.
Now it seem that GW want to try to ballance the 40k game system.But it seems the only way they think they can do this is reduce the variety of options available to players ,and reduce the random aspects within the game.

Heck if I want to play a wargame 'suitable for ballanced competative play' there are lots to choose from.Some have been around and fully develped for 25 years or more...
However if GW try to compete with this type of game, then there is a whole lot of developing of the 40k game mechanics and rule sets to do IMO.

So why dont they just stick to making thier games narrative driven fun fests of old, rather than trying to make a hybrid system that will be niether fully balanced nor fully representative of thier brilliant narrative ?

Just the biased oppinoin of one old gamer?
TTFN
Lanrak.

esk34
21-04-2007, 02:47
I kind of voted for fun. Well that is why I play.
However GW can do both.
Leave the current ruleset as it is. Write all the codexes with balance in mind, as torney lists and the like. Then re-introduce Chapter Approved into White Dwarf. Now instead of these being official rules, they just have to make them fun ones that are an add on for the game, but ae not necessarily going to be balanced so are only to be used for friendlys.
They don't even have to call it chapter approved or anything. Call it whatever you like, but give us ffluff and creative types new rules, armies to sink our teeth into, while the balence players can get the nice simple rules using the standard rule system. Pretty simple way of solving both camps problems.

RavenMorpheus
21-04-2007, 05:43
GW change direction every time someone farts in the wind these days, so who knows what they're going to be doing next?!

Aundae
21-04-2007, 11:26
Isn’t it obvious…they are going to raise prices next. :p

generulpoleaxe
21-04-2007, 11:53
gw's changes within it's games come from tournament stats and sales.
the gameplay is speeded up so that people can fit the games in a lot easier within a tournament.
miniatures which sell less and don't seem to be being used at tournaments get revamped the most (so that they are a more attractive option for people to buy)

that's the basics behind why the rules and changes within armies happen.
the future will be the same pattern.
why you ask, because it makes more money than having a nice set of rules that don't realy get overhauled along with balanced armies where anything in them is a viable option against any oponent.

it's business folkes, not an adventure :D

sigur
21-04-2007, 12:03
The sad fact is that people are crazy about tournaments. Must be a mix of how teenage males are (arses) and the performance-oriented society.

Franco
21-04-2007, 12:15
I voted for fun because that is why i play the hobby. It's meant to be fun, and i know some people go abit OTT but in all the game is for fun!!!

JT-Y
21-04-2007, 12:57
The sad fact is that people are crazy about tournaments. Must be a mix of how teenage males are (arses) and the performance-oriented society.

Or, and this is more likely, because older and more mature gamers, mostly over 30, with wife and kids at home, love nothing more than to get away for a weekend and play 4 or 5 games against new and interesting people and have a decent evening or two out in the company of others who share their hobby.

Been to many tournaments have you?

GW does not really consider tournaments when writing rules. Tournaments are a result of wargaming, not its cause. Although its probably true to say that those held in Lenton are a great way to get a load of feedback and market research done quickly and easily, I suppose.
No, GW considers the market first and foremost, so simplified rules, sadly, represent making wargames more accessible to new players.

And I voted for fun, because thats why I play and why I go to tournaments.

clovis
21-04-2007, 13:50
Or, and this is more likely, because older and more mature gamers, mostly over 30, with wife and kids at home, love nothing more than to get away for a weekend and play 4 or 5 games against new and interesting people and have a decent evening or two out in the company of others who share their hobby.

Been to many tournaments have you?

GW does not really consider tournaments when writing rules. Tournaments are a result of wargaming, not its cause. Although its probably true to say that those held in Lenton are a great way to get a load of feedback and market research done quickly and easily, I suppose.
No, GW considers the market first and foremost, so simplified rules, sadly, represent making wargames more accessible to new players.

And I voted for fun, because thats why I play and why I go to tournaments.


Right on spot JT!

The reason why i play is to have fun with other people who share the same passion as me. I started Rogue Trader at ayoung age and now with a family it's not always easy to find time to play as often as i wish;)

RobC
21-04-2007, 14:54
Get rid of special characters and other points-hungry monstrosities like steam tanks. The kiddies wouldn't like all their shiny toys being taken away, but perhaps it would encourage them to learn wargame tactics rather than Magic: the Warhammering.

generulpoleaxe
21-04-2007, 16:24
Get rid of special characters and other points-hungry monstrosities like steam tanks. The kiddies wouldn't like all their shiny toys being taken away, but perhaps it would encourage them to learn wargame tactics rather than Magic: the Warhammering.


to true mate, but that's what gamers would do.
and share holders don't like plans that give little short term profit, (which you already know)

i think this is why historical gaming is picking up again, as those who want tactics over rule manipulation are finding it provides what they are after.
whilst warhammer brings people into wargaming as it looks more exciting and "plays" faster.

(i still enjoyed all day games of rogue trader)

NakedFisherman
21-04-2007, 17:15
Streamlined rules and fun are mutually exclusive. I never knew that. :rolleyes:

generulpoleaxe
21-04-2007, 17:58
Streamlined rules and fun are mutually exclusive. I never knew that. :rolleyes:

didn't say that mate.
didn't say warhammer or 40k wasn't fun at all.

Coasty
21-04-2007, 18:08
didn't say that mate.
didn't say warhammer or 40k wasn't fun at all.

Just not as fun as it could be...

HeraldOfTheFree
21-04-2007, 18:28
I want the game to be more realistic, open to less abuse by the players and have decent, updated armies. What other company lets ranges be ignored for as long as Orks or Dark Eldar? I dont want the game to be wackier... realistic and equal can be fun.

Gaebriel
21-04-2007, 18:42
Serious ballanced wargames are fun in some people eyes...

But seeing you obviously meant the GW-style of playing back then vs. the GW playing nowadays : I like a serious (war)game better than a game where people get wet eyes laughing. So naturally, my vote went towards the first category.

Coasty
21-04-2007, 18:52
I have a 1/72 Second World War British infantry company with support elements if I want to be serious. Hell's teeth, I have a right knee that still hurts from the serious side of things.
With 40K I'm after a nice Sci-fi splatfest. That's why I'm not keen on the gradual increase in the use of imagery in the background that reminds me of Metallica on a bad hair day.

RavenMorpheus
21-04-2007, 19:54
Isn’t it obvious…they are going to raise prices next. :p

That is obvious but that's not a change in direction, they've been going on that same line for 30 years.

Chaos and Evil
21-04-2007, 20:39
If ya'll want a serious wargame set in the 40k universe, try Epic.

If ya'll want to continue rolling fifty dice to resolve a close combat and laugh at the result, continue to play 40k.

Me, I do both...

revford
21-04-2007, 20:48
I've kinda given up on 40K being the game it used to be, if this is the current way then I'd rather it's simple and fast playing than cluttered, confusing and unbalanced. The new style codex books and expansions are right for the game.

Hopefully GW will fill the gap left by Rogue Trader/Necromunda, for a small scale, narrative driven, scenarios game with something new, so 40K can be a fast action, big battles shoot-em-up.

Something scifi but using the Legends of the Old West/Lord of The Rings system would be nice.

Hercco
21-04-2007, 21:37
I'm in favour of a system that is fast and fun to play, but I really hate "this is idiotic!" moments. I'm all for limitations in the army lists so that you can't build completely unrealistic and dumb lists. And when you want to do something special and exotic you can always agree with your opponent and ignore the limitations.



Something scifi but using the Legends of the Old West/Lord of The Rings system would be nice.
Yes indeed. LotR system is way better for small skirmishes.

NakedFisherman
21-04-2007, 22:20
didn't say that mate.
didn't say warhammer or 40k wasn't fun at all.

I wasn't responding to your post. I was just mentioning how terrible the poll is.

generulpoleaxe
21-04-2007, 22:22
I wasn't responding to your post. I was just mentioning how terrible the poll is.

i do apologise mate, it's just that you had the eyes thing looking up and mine was the post above yours.