PDA

View Full Version : Do GW try to make 40 do too much?



lanrak
30-04-2007, 00:14
Hi all.
I was having a think about how GW want 40k to be all things to all its customers.
In the old days GW made a wide range of games to appeal to a wide range of customers of all age ranges/levels of experiance and gaming preferance.

ATM 40k is a 'fun hobby game'(narrative driven) trying to be a 'wargame ballanced for competative play'.(Stricter force composition restrictions, and PV allocation.)

It is not a 'collectable minatures game',but if you dont collect a large amount of minatures you cannot play some of the races in 40k.

The game is all about unit interaction(Pg 8 BBB), but the game mechanics and rules focus on individual models weapons and equipment .

Most units are equipped with ranged attacks,but the rules focus on close combat.(WS/S/I/A. 5 stats.Ranged attacks only get BS.one stat.)

Rather than each race having a 'defined playing style' , (As they used to have,) all armies have been given customisable lists to make most playing styles possible, with all the armies.

The rule set is easy to get into,untill you concider all the special rules that have to be learned when playing other races.(Race specific special rules can come as a nasty shock BTW.Esecialy if you havnt read through all the codexes.)

40k is fast becoming a jack of all trades and master of none.IMO.

But perhaps its just me?

TTFN
Lanrak.

starlight
30-04-2007, 00:20
Actually I agree and I'll take it one step further and advance the theory that GW is trying to make *Marines* all things to all people, but that's another Thread.

The problem I see is that armies that had a certain style attracted people because of that style. Now those armies aren't unique and some have actually *lost* the original style that made them attractive in the first place.

Mikhaila
30-04-2007, 00:56
You have some ideas, but then you went overboard and lost me.

Yes, HTH combat uses S, I, A, and WS. However, Shooting uses BS, Range, S, AP, and rate of fire. I'm totally missing the point you're trying to make.

It is not a 'collectable minatures game',but if you dont collect a large amount of minatures you cannot play some of the races in 40k.

err, yeah, I have to agree with this. If I want to play Eldar, I need Eldar and if I want to play Orks, I need OrKs. But how is this different from WFB, Manowar, Mordheim, Epic, Warmaster or Bloodbowl? Or Warmachine or Flames of War? "I don't collect Germans but I want to play them"

Rather than each race having a 'defined playing style' , (As they used to have,) all armies have been given customisable lists to make most playing styles possible, with all the armies.

I see some examples of this, but it certainly isn't everywhere. How many close combat Tau or IG armies do you see? Shooty orks? There are huge differences in the playstyles of a lot of armies. I personally am glad that some armies are versitile. It's nice to have the option to go more HTH or less shooting, it makes collecting a larger army more fun to play, rather than just duplicating the same units over and over.

I'll agree with your main point, that 40k is trying to be a fun game with friends, a competitive tournament game, or game that's easy for beginners to play, all at the same time. I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing, most games out there are trying to fill multiple roles.

grickherder
30-04-2007, 01:13
You have some ideas, but then you went overboard and lost me.

Yes, HTH combat uses S, I, A, and WS. However, Shooting uses BS, Range, S, AP, and rate of fire. I'm totally missing the point you're trying to make.

I think it's a reference to the fact that hand to hand combat plays such a huge part in a sci-fi game. It can actually be better to bring a knife to a gun fight when it comes to 40k. You are correct, however, it pointing out the other stats related to the weaponry that comes into play.

As for the collectible part, I think he's trying to point out that while 40k is not sold as a "collectible" miniatures game like Starwars, D&D miniatures, Pirates and others, it does still involve a large amount of collecting. I would agree though, that the point is a bit irrelevant. In every game you are going to need the pieces you need to play if you want to play it. I guess 40k can require a lot more miniatures that some other games? I don't know if that's what he was getting at or not.

Rather than each race having a 'defined playing style' , (As they used to have,) all armies have been given customisable lists to make most playing styles possible, with all the armies.


I see some examples of this, but it certainly isn't everywhere. How many close combat Tau or IG armies do you see?

Tau I obviously agree with, but a hand to hand oriented Guard army can be one of the most powerful armies you can face. And one can also add in daemon or witch hunters. So one can blend play styles as desired. I think the original poster's point was that the ability to make a really shooty army out of most lists or a hand to hand oriented army out of most lists, muddle it all together with some daemon/witch hunters and the like and less armies have their pre-defined style as a given. I think it's a strength myself, but I can see how it can get a little bland or how it can dilute the character of armies.


Shooty orks?

Roll enough dice and you'll get enough hits. Shooty orks work if you know how to use them.


I'll agree with your main point, that 40k is trying to be a fun game with friends, a competitive tournament game, or game that's easy for beginners to play, all at the same time. I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing, most games out there are trying to fill multiple roles.

I'm going to have to partially agree with you and partially agree with the original poster. I think GW has done a pretty good job making 40k work for a large variety of possible armies and situations. I also think that it's a bit stretched. That there's a bit too many options, shooting plays a bit too small of a role, that army styles get bled into one another, and things like that.

As for the collectible side of things, I happen to think the way the codecies present army collection as being a great strength. You get what you need for a legal army (HQ+2xTroops), play, add something, play, add something, etc., until you have a cool army with some options. I've always like that approach and have incorporated it into even my historical gaming.

Galdur Hrafnsson
30-04-2007, 01:26
Shooting only has one statistic because you can't really shoot with your body (and don't say "tyranids", or I'll be forced to slap you... they use symbiotic weaponry). You can shoot better or worse than other people, but you have to have a gun or equivalent to do it. Ergo, the important statistics for shooting are in weapon lists. Most units can shoot, and every non-vehicle unit can fight in close combat (whether they're good at it or not). If you were on a battleground and you had a knife and a gun, and someone with a knife came running at you, unless you could easily get a shot or two off, you'd fend the guy off with your knife. You'd be crazy not to. Ergo, even shooty units can fight back.

Pokpoko
30-04-2007, 13:53
If you were on a battleground and you had a knife and a gun, and someone with a knife came running at you, unless you could easily get a shot or two off, you'd fend the guy off with your knife. You'd be crazy not to.
sure.but in 40k, it's better to actually be armed with two knives then with a gun. you get twice the number of attacks this way, and usually with better chance of killing something. also morale rules tend to favour Hth-you always test for morale after close combat, but you need to cause enough wounds to trigger it in shooting phase. not to mention that it's almost impossible to stop enemy from advbancing with shooting without killing the entire unit. the sheer amount of fearless units or wargear/abilities allowing re-rolls or Ld bonuses is making pinning totally useless, and it's the only "shooting-only" ld test in the game. the whole problem, however, derives from the fact that most people have the wrong idea that 40k is actually SF game. it's not, it's fantasy in spaaace.

Mikhaila
30-04-2007, 14:13
Heh, no, I'd say that 40k is definitely a sci fi game.

But...most sci fi is fantasy in space, westerns in space, mystery in space........

Hlokk
30-04-2007, 19:33
Most units are equipped with ranged attacks,but the rules focus on close combat.(WS/S/I/A. 5 stats.Ranged attacks only get BS.one stat.)

But to balance that out, ranged weapons have stats, close combat ones don't. CC weapons get the od rule like "ignores saves" or whatever, Ranged weapons have range, strength and AP. It works out at 4 stats a peice, so whats the problem there?

lanrak
30-04-2007, 21:36
Hi all.
I suppose I was trying to say that the 'design brief' of 40k has become a bit ambiguios.It has been streached to breaking point and beyond IMO.
It is now so confused that even the people who develop it can not define what it is exactly.
(Go on I try asking them see what they say..:evilgrin: .)

Hlokk.
Its just gamers tend to expect the game play to focus on the most prevalent type of weapons in the game.
If the majority of troops are armed with close combat weapons ,and ranged weapons are limited to a support role,like in WH.
Then gamers tend to expect the game play to revolve around close combat fighting.
WH follows this perception quite well.Tactics in WH are mainly about manouvering to get the most advantageos close combat match ups ,with ranged attacks used as valuable support to this.

As the majority of units in 40k have ranged weapons,then gamers tend to expect the game to focus revolve around ranged combat ,and close combat assaults to be used in a valuable supporting role.
But as 40k uses the same game mechanics as WH,it just doesnt happen like this......

SO.
Some gamers say 40k is a si-fantasy game.
Some gamers say 40k is a sci-fi game
Some gamers say 40k is a hobby game.
Some gamers say 40k is a war game.
Some gamers say 40k is a large skirmish game.
Some gamers say 40k is a small army level game.
Some gamers belive 40k is narrative driven(and make 'fluffy lists'.)
Some gamers belive 40k is ballanced for competative play:eyebrows: (and make 'cost effective lists'.)

If GW actualy defines 40k , and has a more focused design breif,then it will alienate some of its customers.
So rather than risk this and improve the game play no end for a particular set of gamers, GW keep the level of abiguity high,and the game play 'watered down' and full of contradictions.

So 40k can appear to be everthing gamers think they want,but fails to be what individual gamers actualy want to any great degree.
(Most 40k players bail out after an average of 2 years)

A fun game to use your GW models in if you want to ,is all it realy 40k is, and all it is capable of becoming , unless GW refine the focus of the 40k game.

Where as other games manufacturers are producing more focused games ,and in tayloring games to specific types of gamer,they are effectivly beating GW at what they used to exell at.
(Making a wide range of games suitable for a wide range of gamers.)
PS Before you mention the GW 'specialist games'.All the specialist games are suported by just one GW staff member part time!!Not the ideal level of support IMO.

Just my thoughts ...
TTFN
Lanrak.

The game is afoot
30-04-2007, 22:25
GW is trying to make *Marines* all things to all people.

Hardly surprising when you consider how much Space Marines vastly out sell anything else by GW among the 12-15 year old age range. i.e. GW's target Intro demographic.
Marines are the key reason the emphasis is on 40K learner intros in the retail stores.

Hlokk
01-05-2007, 19:54
As the majority of units in 40k have ranged weapons,then gamers tend to expect the game to focus revolve around ranged combat ,and close combat assaults to be used in a valuable supporting role.
But as 40k uses the same game mechanics as WH,it just doesnt happen like this......


But what stats beside BS do you actually need to shoot a gun? Is it necessary to have any other sort of stat to represent it or to over complicate things?

I appreciate what your saying, and have seen loads of 40k games end up in a massive ruck on the middle of the table, but you have to bear in mind that it not only depends on the game mechanics but also on army selection and tactics.

lanrak
01-05-2007, 19:56
Hi all.
The game is a foot ,is spot on with his reason for SMs being promoted by GW above all other forces in 40k.
So this means that the 40k game development is more influenced by supporting marketing requirments than adressing game play issues.
So the 40k game HAS become a shallow tacticaly vapid version of what it could actualy be...

Ho hum ,as long as enough 'noobs ' buy GWs Space marines ,I dont think GW will do anything radical in the near future.
So gamers will continue to find alternative games that suit them better.

Shame realy ,40k has the potential to have game play as exellent as the background and models.But GW PLC does not seem to be concerned about this.

After all as Mr Jevis Johnson stated in a recent interview '..the games are just the icing on the cake..'

TTFN
Lanrak.