The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread

[Major_Gilbear]

Games like AoS and 40k... I see lots of special rules, and some buff/de-buff abilities too, but I don't see much synergy as I've outlined it above. I don't know if it's because of the number of models in a typical game, the limitations of the rules, or the nature of the scenarios/scoring system. Whatever the reason, it is pretty clear that the special rules are there to distinguish units/models, and not to provide a game experience.

Untrue in respect to AoS. All scenarios have special rules designed explicitly to enhance the gaming experience... kind of like that Frostgave game.

So, AoS scenario special rules add in that synergy between models or level of tactical play that's otherwise missing from the game? Any scenario rules in particular? I don't seem to have ever seen any that I would class that way, but it's always possible I've missed them.

I therefore think another reason that skirmish-scale games seem to be very popular now is in part because their size acts as a limit in terms of pay-to-win, as giant expensive models and seas of troops are basically excluded by game constraints. In other words, it's a reaction against games like Apocalypse and the latest versions of 40k/WHFB/AoS!

Huh? AoS is a skirmish-scale game the last time I checked.

Yes, game with eyewateringly-priced giant models that are highly-specific and which have lots of special rules to make them feel worth their high price in game. Together almost no formal limits on what players can choose to put on the table, it's why it got added to the example.

But no worry, I am sure in no time GW will be filling for bankruptcy. 

 

Keep it up boys, you're doing a great job!

 

Not sure how we got into this subject. No one (at least in the more recent discussions in this thread) has been either predicting nor vocally wishing for GW to go bust.

Because some people cannot follow a line of argument without getting overly defensive about their favourite thing and missing the point.

@ Hobgoblin:

You make some good points, and I agree with much of your post. I'd like to ruminate a bit before I give you a fuller reply though.

[Cubs]

That seems to have ebbed away in subsequent editions, along with the facility to create your own profiles, which was a notable feature of second-edition Warhammer and (if memory serves) first-edition WH40K (I don't recall anyone calling it "Rogue Trader" at the time - the current vogue for doing so seems somewhat revisionist to me!).

It's the subtitle. From memory at our club we kind of switched between calling it 40k and Rogue Trader. Perhaps it's because none of the other editions were called Rogue Trader, just the first one?

[Vermis]

Major Gilbear: agreed about the possibility of special rules chain reactions locking players into a certain way of doing things. If GW's core 2 don't have the same kind of combo synergy, I feel it's a similar kind of focus on listbuilding, even mathammer. (Mathmachine? Mathifaux?)

On Infinity: I guess I was too harsh and misunderstanding about that, then. I've heard a bit about how tactical it is, but also a couple of complaints about the sheer mass of rules. (Having a glimpse of the enormous current edition rulebook didn't help. I'm tempted, but it's fairly intimidating.)

Ninja'd by Hobgoblin's post, which nicely elaborates how I feel too. Although I also agree with you about being able to switch models around. I've an old Inquisitor cyber-mastiff standing in as a Malifaux guild hunter, as one wee example - but overall my experience is like Hobgoblin's: a lot of people won't go for it, at least not in meaningful numbers.
I think it's still got something to do with the close ties of special rules to characters or units in the big, popular games. If you want to play in one setting and it's accompanying wargame rules are rubbish or nonexistant, I think the transition might be mechanically and psychologically easier with a setting-free ruleset, than with a game highly tailored to another setting.
To use my own Malifaux crew as an example again: the character C. Hoffman has a lot of rules on his 1st ed card, with reference to a lot of bits and pieces of his model and backstory - his disability, his powered exoskeleton, his magical affinity with machines, etc. It might be possible to replace the model with another VSF inventor type in the game, but IMO difficult to substitute in any other, or characters from a fairly different setting or theme. (I think it might have to be a very specific jedi...) Much easier to take the Hoffman mini out of the rules and whip up some suitable stats in another, inclusive game, like IHMN.
But most players won't feel like bothering. They'll see that Wyrd provide Hoffman's Malifaux backstory and Hoffman's Malifaux rules, and sell a Hoffman mini for you to use in Malifaux. Might as well just go with that...

I'm surprised at the assertion that generic rules are inherently unbalanced, too. Particularly compared to the power creep and rules churn of some of the setting-oriented games. (Poster boy, 40K) Did you have any set of rules in mind?

(How did we get onto this from GW games, again?   )

Ray:

AoS is a skirmish-scale game the last time I checked.

Does it have game constraints in the way the Major described, though? A maximum limit of model numbers and size? The former (or lack of it) is one of the complaints that's regularly levelled against it, and I hear a few folk talking about the 'scalability' of the game. And I figure people need something to do with all those end times Nagashes, vermin lords, plastic bloodthirsters and whatnot.

[Ray Rivers]

So, AoS scenario special rules add in that synergy between models or level of tactical play that's otherwise missing from the game? Any scenario rules in particular? I don't seem to have ever seen any that I would class that way, but it's always possible I've missed them.

You need to approach the game for what it is, not for what you want it to be.. as in Warhammer. It is a totally different game. Folks who want AoS to be somehow Warhammer in disguise always seem to believe there are no tactics to the game (because they play AoS as if it was Warhammer) but that is based on ignorance and not in fact.

And of course, there are special rules for each scenario which are scenario specific as it is an objective oriented skirmish game capable of being played with asymmetrical forces.

It should be noted that historically most of the greatest battles ever fought were between asymmetrical forces (Cannae, for example) and though my memory sometimes fails me, I cannot think of a single circumstance in history when 2 opposing generals meet first and decided on what forces they could bring to the battlefield.

Yes, game with eyewateringly-priced giant models that are highly-specific and which have lots of special rules to make them feel worth their high price in game. Together almost no formal limits on what players can choose to put on the table, it's why it got added to the example.

A non sequitur argument. (Which means you evaded the argument by talking trash.)

You attempted to lump AoS with Warhammer and WH 40K as "army games" which is a misrepresentation which calls into question your ability to speak with any authority concerning the game.

If you all want any credibility you at least have to base your argument on facts and not fantasy... however, it would appear that lots of folks around here prefer fantasy to fact.

[Major_Gilbear]

@ Vermis:

On infinity... Well!  

I have the original early pdf rules and all three subsequently-printed editions. All three editions are characterised by an astonishing number of skills, weapons, actions, and exceptions to learn. It is a good game, and it is surprisingly well balanced - but it's a big learning curve, and the game rewards calculated risk-taking, careful planning, and a good eye/memory for detail. I know it's not for everybody, but I really think that the "help" most people seem to receive in learning the game often strips people of that learning curve, and you need that learning experience for the game to click with you properly. Aspects like the order declaration sequence are a specific area that's never 100% been clarified, and I suspect that it's because CB don't want to alienate a big vocal (mostly American) chunk of their player base by telling them they're playing it wrong.



Moving onto using specific rules for other things...

You cite Malifaux and Hoffman in your examples.

I use plenty of proxies in regular games, but I try to ensure that they fit visually. For example, I use the Black Scorpion Mexicans with pistols as Latigo Pistoleros, I use different dogs for Guild Hounds in my Guild and Arcanist factions, I have a third party Flesh Golem, I use a converted Iron Kingdoms model as Hans the sniper, and so on. But I do make sure that the models and such are as suitable as I can - it's about carrying the approriate theme for me, and I don't like models that break that for me. (This is the same for all the games I play BTW - I always manage to include non-official models in everything from Necromunda to Infinity, from WHFB to Warmachine).

With regards to mapping a specific game to a different specific theme, I see where you're coming from. However, rather than saying "my character has x, y, and z", you could say that that he or she is an older intellectual type with a knack for mechanical devices. You could then look at Ramos, Hoffman and Leviticus, and decide which one your character fits best; you then adapt the context of the chosen rules to suit your background. You could still use Malifaux as a Star Wars game if you wanted to - Jedi and Sith could be characters like Lilith, Viktorias, Rasputina, Misaki, Lady Justice, and even Perdita (if you count her pistols as thrown  sabres). Smuggler characters would map well to the likes of Lucas, Ironsides, or Colette. a Fett-like bounty hunter maps to Kaeris, and so on. It's only if you want a specific pre-determined character that it causes problems with this. Also, I admit, some games don't map too well to some specific themes. Then again, you could play Inquisitor with the Malifaux rules for example, and I think it would work really well.

Major Gilbear: agreed about the possibility of special rules chain reactions locking players into a certain way of doing things. If GW's core 2 don't have the same kind of combo synergy, I feel it's a similar kind of focus on listbuilding, even mathammer. (Mathmachine? Mathifaux?)

I feel it's a bit different though. Those Space Marines with combi-flamers and special ammunition may be great for their points statistically, but in the end they don't have much direct interaction with the rest of your force. In Malifaux or Warmachine, if you don't include certain models, and keep them positioned in a cetain way, and use thier specific abilities in a specific way, then the army just simply falls flat on its face and that's that. Yes, all games with lists have some level of pre-game-game that is list-building, but it's more... Important (?) with some games than others to have a specific selection of models/units if you want a reasonable chance of a closely-fought game becuase of the higly specific way they interact with each other.

I'm surprised at the assertion that generic rules are inherently unbalanced, too. Particularly compared to the power creep and rules churn of some of the setting-oriented games. (Poster boy, 40K) Did you have any set of rules in mind?

I wasn't really considering power creep as much as thinking that by letting players have total freedom in building units (because, as a generic ruleset you have to allow for everything - that's sort of the point, no?), you either lose the ability to have suitable representation because it's too generic (which makes the ruleset a bit pointless to begin with) or risk having things be unbalanced because you cannot cater to every possible combination of skills/equipment/weapons/etc and make them all equally fair in some way.

I didn't really have a specific ruleset in mind, but you can see this to some extent with games like AE: Bounty (which is a generic space opera ruleset). Some combinations of skills and traits and equipment are just far too good compared to others, yet individually none of those things is particualrly unfair. So you say "okay, well just self-police and don't use those combinations"? Well, yes, but then that limits what you can represent - using the rules to portray an Imperial Guardsmen or Ork is okay, but a Space Marine assault trooper or an Eldar Harlequin? Not so much because they combine key rules that you're trying to avoid combining. This limitation in turn makes using them not very different to my earlier Malifaux example afterall, but also has a less interesting game mechanic as well.

I have the same issues with games like Future War Commander, Tomorrow's War, and a fair few other rulesets that I have. Really generic rulesets that are not even sci-fi/fantasy/historically-themed I haven't tried, I admit.

(How did we get onto this from GW games, again?   )

Becuase GW makes miniatures - however they don't make games apparently, which is why we're discussing rulesets that you can plug other miniatures into presumably!  

[Hobgoblin]

It's the subtitle. From memory at our club we kind of switched between calling it 40k and Rogue Trader. Perhaps it's because none of the other editions were called Rogue Trader, just the first one?

Yes, I remember that the full title was a mouthful - I think this was even joked about around the time of the release. But everyone I played with called it "Warhammer 40,000" or "40K". The impression that we had at the time was that Rogue Trader was the game that they had been going to release for ages, but that it had been usurped by Warhammer 40,000, and so the subtitle was just a nod to the abandoned/mutated original project.

[Major_Gilbear]

I think "40k" is just used colloquially to refer to whatever edition of the game was/is current. And whilst "Rogue Trader" was used in the day too, in later years, "Rogue Trader" was easier to say than "40k first edition" and so I guess it stuck.

BTW, there is an interesting interview with Rick Priestly about the very early RT here which might be interesting to anyone who's not seen it yet. I remembered it because he explains how the game got such a relatively long-winded name:

[...]The original game called Rogue Trader was a spaceship role-playing and combat game that I’d written before I joined GW – I also designed a range of spaceships for it some of which ended up in the Spacefleet range.

I brought all that to GW when I joined. The term Rogue Trader didn’t have any connotations of crooked City dealers at the time – and wouldn’t for quite a long while to come.

The original RT universe was a proto-version of the 40K background. So, some of the major spacefaring races were already worked out Eldar (elves), Orks (Orcs), as was the idea of the Imperium as this sprawling medieval realm spread precariously throughout warp space.
 
Hence the Rogue Traders –captains plying the boundaries of space ‘boldly going’ in Star Trek style. Some of the background to that game ended up in the back of the final Rogue Trader book, and some was used in Battlefleet Gothic. But the actual RT book was really a development of the Warhammer fantasy game for SF – and we’d started to do some of the groundwork for that in the Citadel Journals. So ultimately – the two games were different.
 
Because we’d actually said we were doing this game called Rogue Trader we had to use the title for the new game. But by then we had the 2000AD licence for Rogue Trooper and it was felt that this would be confusing – so we had to call RT both Rogue Trader AND Warhammer ‘something’ to avoid confusion. And the something ended up being 40,000. It looked like an awful mouthful at the time.

I remember Bryan said we’d call it Warhammer 3000 or some such – which wasn’t unlike any number of SF games in style – and I said, ‘well – it’s set 40,000 years in the future so we can’t really call it Warhammer 3000’. So it ended up being Warhammer 40,000 – though it settled down to 40K fairly quickly.

[richstrach]

Yes, I remember that the full title was a mouthful - I think this was even joked about around the time of the release. But everyone I played with called it "Warhammer 40,000" or "40K". The impression that we had at the time was that Rogue Trader was the game that they had been going to release for ages, but that it had been usurped by Warhammer 40,000, and so the subtitle was just a nod to the abandoned/mutated original project.

Sam here, I can't remember ever calling it 'Rogue Trader' at the time; it was always just 40K. But seeing that cover really takes me back ...

[Elbows]

Now going to interrupt this thread with...a silly question.

I gave in and purchased my first GW product in ages (excluding some Skaven I picked up for a dungeon game) - the Betrayal at Calth box.  I've no interest in the game itself or even 40K (played that for 14 years before dumping it).  I just like the models and think it's a decent value.  I may sell it on, but who knows.

So, for the marine know-it-alls (haven't owned any marines since 1996) how can I find a set of 30+ MkVI beakies (heads only), official or otherwise.  I only see complete MkVI marines and some Raven Guard(?) heads on Forgeworld.  While this will be a slow "paint as I'm bored" process, I'd like to go for MkVI as the bodies don't look too terribly different.

Any aftermarket companies make "look like" heads etc?  I don't know how many marines are included in the box, but I'd like to pick up enough to convert them if possible.

[Major_Gilbear]

I don't think anybody sells just Mk6 heads on their own in the quantities you want Elbows... I think you could convert them from Mk4 with some putty though, or gradually buy them from various bits-sellers a few at a time (most Marine kits have one or two Mk6 heads if you are willing to file down a bit of iconography).

Edit:
I think that for the price, these from FW are your best bet - just shave the raven icons off them. I doubt you will find 30 of them anywhere else for less, or for less hassle.  

[Hauptgefreiter]

Well, there are dedicated webshops selling components. You might be lucky to find a greater amount of helmets there.
You might want to check this link

[grant]

Edit:
I think that for the price, these from FW are your best bet - just shave the raven icons off them. I doubt you will find 30 of them anywhere else for less, or for less hassle.  

That's exactly what I would do. So much easier. Half hour tops of sanding off, and done.

[Elbows]

Yeah I was leaning that direction...but now the MkVI vibe has me looking for proper shoulder pads...and I don't do putty work (I suck) but I think people can skip the wrong leg-armour etc.  I do find it odd that FW doesn't sell standard MkVI helmets though, while googling there were dozens of threads/forum posts asking the same question...loads of people wanting Beakies. 

[nic-e]

So GW is having a black Friday sale, take a friend into the store, and if you buy one of the starter kits you both get a £10 voucher. (so if you take a friend who doesn't care, you get a £20 voucher... )

Apparently they're going to be having exclusive one day only offers and deals in store.

They've also put up job listings for game and product designers for their new specialist games department.

Whoever the new CEO is, he seems to basically have gone through everyones internet comments and called all of their bluffs.
"You wanna know about our plans ahead of time? OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS!
You want sales? DONE!
You want it to be cheaper to star the game? FREE VOUCHERS!
You think you can design these games? APPLY NOW!"


Honestly, it seems like a good (and fast!) change.


(oh, and also there's going to be a deathwatch boxed game some time soon...)

[Nord]

Mmmmm, is this the same guy selling plastic assassins at £19 each?