40k re-design, basic concepts and outline design requirements.

[Lanrak]

To be honest with you ,I am not that good at the detail.
I only have limited access to a few codexes,so there are going to be some issues with current units,that I am not aware of.

But you have to 'warp' logic to fit existing elements in a contrived and abstract game ,it is defeating the object IMO.(A statment of oppinion with no reference to anything you have written.)

BTW I honestly belive Andy Chambers wanted to develop 40k core rules ,but GW corperation would not let him.Thats why he moved to help develop SST.IMO.

At the games club we used to run ,we encouraged playing as many games systems as possible.
A lot of the gamers who only played 40k ,were astounded how other wargames manufacturers concentrated on rules development,with little or no minature tie ins.

If the rules were well written, we got so involved with the game ,the actual visual representation,(minatures/terrain) became unimportant to us.

Using some exellent maritime conflict rules we re-enacted the battle of Trafalgar,with very crude home made ships.(Bits of shaped balsa wood and cocktail sticks.)
It must have looked ridiculous,10 blokes shoving bits of balsa wood round a table ,shouting 'hard to port' ,'half sail' ,'fire broad side' etc.But it was exelent engrosing fun me hearties.:yes:

The true mark of a good wargame IMO is the ability to transport you into the battles and suspend reality for a while.Any thing in the game that jolts you back to reality,things that dont 'feel right',or poorly written rules that need debating as to how to interprit them ,(GW specialise in this,)are detremental to the enjoyment of the gaming hobby.

And we had the huge bonus of a brilliant guy 'Chiefy', who could break any war game down into easy to understand 'chunks' so you could play to the level of complexity you were comfortable with.

Oops I am rambeling and reminising again.(Sorry.)

So I think it is important to explian what we are doing and why.(Somthing the GW devs dont feel obliged to do any more.)
So other gamers can objectivly debate our ideas and concepts.

So in undertaking this important task of re working 40k rules,I feel it is important to widen the scope of what the core rules encompass,while keeping them a straight forward as possible.

As 40k is a company scale game ,streamlining skirmish level rules ,causes them to lose some of the meaning and logic of the original rules.

So perhaps adding some detail to 'battle group' rules sets may be the way to go.Adding detail improves the definition of the original rules.

I also think the rules set and game mechanic should encompass all units in the game.
No adding extra rules as we go along.(makes the game more complex/confusing)

Other gamers on the GW forums have tried out a more interactive game turn and reported an improvment in the gameplay.(Robotninja,Munin and others.)

I do feel this is the way to go.And re-introducing the M stat.(helps define the character of the different races,)and cuts out lots of the 'add ons' in the current rules set,would be a positive move IMO.

Sorry about the rambling,but I think 1000 times faster than I type.

Any comment/ misgivings on concepts posted so far are most welcome.So we can develop/change them as required.Or discuss any alternative concepts.

To emphasis,my concepts are not 'finished game,' just a starting point,for discussion.



The more input the better the development will be!!:yes:

ATB
Lanrak.

[Lanrak]

Hi all.
I suppose the biggest bugbear is the general perception of conflict in the 40k universe,is that it resembles modern(WWII onwards,)conflict.
The exelent Dawn of War (trailer and game,) portrays this percived conception very well IMO.

When you actualy play the current version of 40k,its more like WWI.(A war of atrition?I cannot spell..)

Several gamers on the GW website,(Robot ninja ,Munin,et all) have tried out more interactive game turns,and reported a great improvment in gameplay.

In my own limited experience ,the game 'feels right' when played using a more interactive game turn.

Using initiative based activation may be percived as a bit overcompliated, so I have not included this method in my outline concepts.
And alternating phases ,still feels a bit overpowering at company level.
A whole force gets to shoot/assault in one go!

Historical wargames have a defined point of reference.A huge bonus for the designers/developers.

However wargames in fictional settings can be based on the most similar/suitable real world counterparts.
Epic and other Specialist games do this with exelent results.(Jervis Johnson , is a brilliant games developer, allowed to utalise the full potential of his tallent.IMO.)

This results in a basic understanding and identification with, the combatants/units and gameplay,crucial to a good wargame.

Macmosses confusion rules got the basic concept right.
But I would prefer the magnitude of the negative effects to be a linear progression and accumilation of dire circumstances on the affected unit.

Eg not roll 2D6,but a fixed reations table and modifiers.

This means the severity of the situation has more direct effect on the outcome, rather than the luck of the player throwing the dice.

GW seem to favor this method,turning 40k into just a game.
All about dice rolls rather than tactics,IMO.

Somthing I was trying to avoid in my basic outline of concepts.

Things I belive would improve the 40k ,are a more interactive game turn.
Re-introducing the M stat.
Replace the AP as system with a simpler comparison mechanic with a linear progression.

AS 4 to AS 3 gives a 73% increase in survivability.(Not my calculation,I borrowed it from another forum,but it is representative of the huge efficeincy jumps in the AP system.)

Another ramble through the erratic thoughts,( and bad spellings,) of an old gamer.


TTFN
Lanrak