The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread

[Modhail]

Sorry for that, but... ain't helped 40K so far!

That's true... I think the best way to help 40K at this point in time is to take it out behind the shed...

[Diakon]

The one main area of 40k that I really like still is the "home front". I really like some of the Black Library books about Inquisitors (Eisenhorn, Ravenor) and Arbites (Enforcer: Shira Calpurnia), not to mention the Confrontation/Necromunda fluff, and think they could make a beautiful new skirmish setting. It would be an ideal setting to bring back Genestealer Cults too. I think they're shooting themselves in the foot by not even considering it. They could sell tons of Arbites, Genestealer Hybrids and gangers if they'd only release them and a strong rule set to support them. It'd only be a matter of time until fan-made codexes for Arbites and Genestealer Cults drove sales through the roof.

[Argonor]

I think one thing GW has not really clued onto well is rules have a shelf life and ALL their rules are sadly out of date. UGOIGO, buckets of dice, huge stat trees for the figs, complicated hit penetrate would rules, lots n lots a tables and matrixes etc etc.

Not good.

In fact I think these days the most popular games actually being played (as opposed to just being in the collection) are the slick fast ones.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I play skirmish games like Strange Aeons/VuK, SBH, and LotR:SBG, and battle games like SAGA and God of Battles. I own quite a few editions of Warhamster and 40K, but have played the first 1 time, and the latter maybe 3 times over the years. The rules just never really were able to motivate me for collecting and painting an army, but having owned SAGA less than a year, and GoB a few months, I already am working seriously on creating 3-4 armies to use with the systems. Proxy armies in most cases, but the rules actually compel me to carve huge chunks out of the lead/plastic Alps, and get them ready for the table!

Which again accentuates the fact that good rules are 95% of the motivation for me - the minis 4%, and the fluff maybe about 1% (I'm foremost a gamer, not a miniatures painter).

[beefcake]

yes, the GW games, even the skirmish games like Necromunda required at least an entire afternoon to play, not really good for those that just want to have a quick game. Simple rules that have depth and strategy are really the way to go.

[nic-e]

I wholeheartedly agree.

I play skirmish games like Strange Aeons/VuK, SBH, and LotR:SBG, and battle games like SAGA and God of Battles. I own quite a few editions of Warhamster and 40K, but have played the first 1 time, and the latter maybe 3 times over the years. The rules just never really were able to motivate me for collecting and painting an army, but having owned SAGA less than a year, and GoB a few months, I already am working seriously on creating 3-4 armies to use with the systems. Proxy armies in most cases, but the rules actually compel me to carve huge chunks out of the lead/plastic Alps, and get them ready for the table!

Which again accentuates the fact that good rules are 95% of the motivation for me - the minis 4%, and the fluff maybe about 1% (I'm foremost a gamer, not a miniatures painter).

i really like the way 40k actually works (maybe it's cus it's what i started with) i just think its' a ball ache at such a big scale , so i'm in the middle of writing up a way of playing 40k at a 8 to 10 figure skirmish game.same core system, but expanding it a bit aswell and shrinking it down.

[Argonor]

I think it was our own great old one, Matakishi, who pointed out that the mechanics of the W-family are constructed to give the impression that a lot of things are happening, while, in fact, only little does; the many dice-rolls level out the results, which in fact could be obtained in a much simpler way.

[beefcake]

agreed, hit wound armour could actually be combined into 1 roll and I'm sure you could also include attack amounts in their as well. Never understood why a lumbering troll could attack more than a regular elf (maybe 1 big swipe is enough to cleave through a few models but definitely not attack 1 model numerous times)

[nic-e]

I think it was our own great old one, Matakishi, who pointed out that the mechanics of the W-family are constructed to give the impression that a lot of things are happening, while, in fact, only little does; the many dice-rolls level out the results, which in fact could be obtained in a much simpler way.

So go for a more d&d style of doing things?
Roll against Armour, then roll damage (or in this case, make a save).

[Ajsalium]

I agree with the last comments.

A gaming system in which you have to check a table while playing is completely obsolete by now.
Personally I think that it was WotC's third edition of D&D (year 2000) that established the new standard, unlike the previous AD&D system (which belongs to the same "rules generation" as GW products).

The new WFB may be a step in that direction. Those mounted lieutenants of Nagash have only one line of stats, instead of one for the character and one for the mounts. We'll need to wait and see.

[nic-e]

I agree with the last comments.

A gaming system in which you have to check a table while playing is completely obsolete by now.
Personally I think that it was WotC's third edition of D&D (year 2000) that established the new standard, unlike the previous AD&D system (which belongs to the same "rules generation" as GW products).

You should try 5th ed, it's one of the less math-y systems i've played .

[eilif]

As to lots of dice for it's own sake I very much agree.  Isn't there a quote somewhere where a GW developer says that the armor save was added just to give the other player something to roll?

I would disagree about necro though. I've only played it a couple of times, but it seems to crackle right along.  I think that's because it's the size of game where mechanics as crunchy as 40k really belong.  I.E. small-in-scope skirmishes.  I went back and tried 2nd edition 40k a couple years ago.  I didn't like it, but I did find myself thinking at several points that this would make a very good small skirmish game...

[Argonor]

So go for a more d&d style of doing things?
Roll against Armour, then roll damage (or in this case, make a save).

Kind of, but without the save (radical change, I know); determine the roll needed to wound on only 2 stats, a combination of weapon/balistic skill and weapon strength, and a combination of armour and toughness. If you succeed, you wound, and some weapons may cause more than one wound (or rolling more than one dice to attack, and/or beating your target number with a certain amount, and/or using exploding sixes, whatever).

The existing stat-lines could still be used, and the combat stats be calculated up front if there was a fixed formula for it, but I really would like the stat-line to be simplified, too.

As to lots of dice for it's own sake I very much agree.  Isn't there a quote somewhere where a GW developer says that the armor save was added just to give the other player something to roll?

I would disagree about necro though. I've only played it a couple of times, but it seems to crackle right along.  I think that's because it's the size of game where mechanics as crunchy as 40k really belong.  I.E. small-in-scope skirmishes.  I went back and tried 2nd edition 40k a couple years ago.  I didn't like it, but I did find myself thinking at several points that this would make a very good small skirmish game...

I have actually never played Necromunda, allthough I have the game, but to some extent, more details (and thus slower gameplay) are acceptable in games with only a handful of models on each team.

I think it's the whole concept of (by now) very old-fashioned, cumbersome rules, combined with the need to paint droves of rank-and-file that are really just there to allow you to field your powerful characters/monsters, that never appealed to me.

I prefer games where it matters, how you move your actual troops, and not what special weapons/magic items/whatever I combined on my leader model.

[Major_Gilbear]

@ Argonor & Scurv:

I think you might like the Warmachine / Hordes mechanics more if you haven't already tried them.

They way that core mechanic works is that you roll to beat the target's defence (skill + modifiers + dice roll), and if successful you then roll to beat their armour (damage + modifiers + dice roll) with the difference between your score and their armour value being the wounds the target model takes. Most troops have one wound, but some characters and all big monsters and army generals have multiple wounds.

The only downside is that Warmachine is based around lots of modifiers to modify a 2D6 dice roll (although sometimes you roll more than 2D6). This creates a weighted result for most dice rolls, and also makes it unsuitable for bigger scale combat.

That said, you could still use the same form, and just roll a D12 instead of a 2D6 so that you can roll a whole unit all at once instead of model-by-model. Some modifiers and dice roll concepts would need to be adjusted to work, but it's possible. The thing is though, rolling for ten guys at once rather than one-by-one does speed things up at the cost of losing the feeling of individual models making a contribution on the table. This to me is the real folly of mass-combat games at 28mm scale - most of the models that you spent time and money and effort on are basically just there as wound tokens and to denote the "footprint" of the unit as a whole.

Going the other way, you have games like Infinity, which are really fairly complicated in terms of rules explanation (poor translation notwithstanding), and which many folks find too dense to get through a game with. Mechanically however, the game is very simple (roll to hit = skill + modifiers + dice roll, opponent rolls to save = armour + modifiers + dice roll has to beat weapon damage, with one such roll for each wound suffered) - the depth comes from using positioning, range bands and cover modifiers to stack the odds in your favour. Detail comes from all the skills available to different models. The main problems arise from some actions being too poor a return on the effort/complexity demanded (hacking and close combat - as Scurv says, they become a chore), and the very poor handling of critical determinations like line of sight and action timings.

I feel that ultimately though, the main issues with GW's rules is not that that they are bad, but that they are simply not appropriate for the application that they are intended. GW needs to be less shy about what size games they envision players having, and what level of scalability they are intended for. Instead though, their rules try to start from a modest force, scale up to huge games and then try to wedge in things that just don't work at the the chosen scale (like fliers, titans, etc). That leaves games like 40k a complete mess, because by trying to encompass too much, they fail at every scale.

I think the outdated part is the thinking behind the rules and the size of games envisioned, and not the rules mechanics themselves. However, if GW draw a line in the sand and say "games are intended to be this size and should include at least one flier and/or superheavy", then they scare off most customers right at square one of their "hobby".

[Col. Aubrey Bagshot]

I think the outdated part is the thinking behind the rules and the size of games envisioned, and not the rules mechanics themselves. However, if GW draw a line in the sand and say "games are intended to be this size and should include at least one flier and/or superheavy", then they scare off most customers right at square one of their "hobby".

Its all about the scale. RT & then 40K was a skirmish game... But it just isnt any more.
Wether driven by sales targets or bigger shinny shinny syndrome, somewhere between the 4th and 6th incarnation, its lost its way and its roots.
Perhaps a split is needed. A small scale set of skirmish rules ( inquismunda? ), and the huge 'throw everything on the table' set that it now seems to have become.

[Major_Gilbear]

Its all about the scale. RT & then 40K was a skirmish game... But it just isnt any more.

Even then, there was a drive to try and cram in more and bigger right from day one. Vehicles, particularly things like tanks, have never really worked well. Also, scaling from a Gretchin to a Bloodthirster is always going to strain a game designed for models around the size and power of humans.

Wether driven by sales targets or bigger shinny shinny syndrome, somewhere between the 4th and 6th incarnation, its lost its way and its roots.

I think 3rd was a start in the right direction, but then the list-building game-lawyers starting kicking up too much fuss and the game was bogged down again over successive editions. Whilst 3rd was a bit too stripped back, it should really have swapped to D10 or D12 over the D6 in order to prevent too much "bling-creep" and to avoid the need to roll forty dice for ten models swinging a sword. Apparently though, moving away from the D6 = world-ending calamity. 

Perhaps a split is needed. A small scale set of skirmish rules ( inquismunda? ), and the huge 'throw everything on the table' set that it now seems to have become.

I'd like split. One would scale from 10-30 models a side, the other would be 40+ models a side with lots of tanks, fliers and titans.

There was a time when that existed though - they were called WH40k2E and Epic Titan Legions. And even then, the rules were clunky for both games.