Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Exellent idea.'Advanced' 40k is achivable.
Good idea,may lead to good results.
Undecided.Ill watch developments.
Poor idea,unlikely to achive anything.
Complete waste of time.
Just to make the intension of this post absolutely clear.
Lots of gamers are happy with the current version of 40K.It is a fun game.:yes: .
Some gamers like to 'customise' 40k ,by using house rules,and/or designing new armies etc.this is great.:yes: .
However there may be some other gamers who would like a more tacticaly challenging game set in the 40k universe,using the exellent 28mm minatures and models.
(A 40k wargame ,rather than a 40k Hobbygame.GWs distinsion NOT mine.)
That is what this thread is for.
Developing an advanced version of 40k for gamers to move to, if/when they want to.
So as this is hopefully going to be a thread for developing something important for some gamers.
I would suggest that we follow basic development protocol.
Determine the design /development brief.(What we are trying to achive.)
Determine best practices/benchmarks.(Find out the best way of doing things.)
So in my limited experience of development:-
Declare and ,justify.
(Suggest ideas/concepts,with explanation of why/how you think this is a good idea.)
Discuss and ratify.
(Discuss the merits of ideas/concepts and compare them to available options and decide which ideas/concepts work best.)
So ill start with trying to outline the design brief.
To develop a wargame that is tacticaly challenging ,but based on simple concepts that are easy to understand .(Therfore easy to expand on if required.)
To encompass all current forces and minatures currently used in the GW game of 40k.
The gameplay should relate to the 'narative' of the 40k universe.
Just my concept of what we should try to achive .
Please suggest alternatives ,and/or comment on by initial design brief.(If you like it say so.If you dont please say so!)
So thats a starting point.
We hopfully establish a clear design/development brief ,to keep us on track.
Then look at all ellements of the new game one at a time.
(Thanks for the tip Macmoss.poll duely added.)
As GW has one an exelent job of defining the 40K universe and the races involved in the conflict.(And other gamers do an exelent job of designing new/adapting codexes.)
Then I would like to suggest we concentrate on determining the game mechanic,to get the gamplay we would like in our advanced wargame set in the 40k universe.
There are a huge amount of alternatives open to us.So to narrow these options down a bit,It might be a good idea to establish what sort of game/game play we belive is most suitable.
'Imagination is more important than knowledge'.(Albert Einstien.)
So unless there are experienced professional wargame designers/developers on hand with the knowledge required to do this on thier own....
As we may not have suffcient knowledge of game design/development,lets see if we could use our imaginations to help out.
'Size and scale' of the game?
In your imagination ,'Zoom out' ,untill you can see all the 40k universe,entire galaxies,and the Eye of Terror is a small speck.
'Zoom in' untill you can define individual planets,and then futher still untill you can see the gigantic spaceships as small but well defined shapes.
We have arrived at the 'strategic interplanetery' level.(Battle Fleet Gothic.)
(Tactical operations carried out by individual/groups of space ships.)
Follow the invasion force from one of these space ships down to the planet surface.
'Zoom in' untill you can just define the individual warmachines on the surface of the planet,infantry appears as just definable large masses of troops.
We have arrived at the 'strategic army' level.(Epic)
(Tactical operations carried out at the company /squadron level.)
Yep you gessed it! 'Zoom in' again, and follow a small group of vehicles quadrons,infantry companies as they move to engage enemy forces.
As they get closer to the enemy these big formations start to break up and mix together under the direction of the company/squadron commanders,so the formations that actualy engage the enemy forces are mutualy supportive.
Eg a mix of reconassance/armour/transport vehicles, infantry platoons/squads, artillery batteries etc.
The 'mix' is determined by the' mission' assigned. ('Company' strategy.)
We have arrived at the 'company strategic' level.(40K?)
(Tactical operations/actions carried out at the 'squad' level.)
If we 'Zoom in' further so we can clearly identify and distinguish the actions of individual troopers,kneeling ,laying down,reloading ,aiming weapons,etc we arrive at the' skirmish' level?
(kill team,Inquisitor type detail.)
I appologise if that was longwinded,but if we have a clear immage in our heads of what the game scale/size is ,it will help us focus on the most appropriate game mechanic.
Because the 40k models and minatures are so good it is easy to slip into over detailed skirmish level rules ,(focusing on individual models),which could make the game overcomplex,and slow it down unnecicarily.
And because there are a large amount of minatures on the table,it is easy to slip into army level game mechanics,where the lack of detail can lead to fast but abstracted game play.
I belive the '40K advanced wargame' is a company level game.
So if we get the game mechanic and rules set to 'mesh' at comany level,we can get a fast paced 'tactical simulation,' thats still fun and rewarding to play!(Hopefully.)
If we can agree on this Ill post some basic game mechanic that may be suitable for discussion.
I appologise if this thread is progressing slowly,but I belive its important to get your input so we dont keep back tracking over the same issues,when a new perspective/idea causes us to re-evaluate.
Last edited by Lanrak; November 15th, 2006 at 00:07.
I was first to vote and until now everyone voted ofr the first one:shifty:
Anyways I completely support your idea.
But ithink we should do something like 3 40ks like one where u decide where each models does *kneel/run/sprint/jogg* and the one we have now...
Thanks for the positive responce.
If battles in 40K universe on a grand scale (army level+)is your thing,BFG and EPIC are exelent games.
If you want to focus more on individual models, in detail,(skirmish level),kill Team is a great (40k adapation )fun game,and Inquisitor has all the detail most gamers could want.
(Jervis Johnson and the Specialist games team produce exellent games IMO.)
40K is a great introduction to gaming.(It is developed with new gamers in mind.)
Its a lot of fun.
I get the impression some gamers that play 40k , like the 'scale' of the 40k game but would like an increase in the tactical challenge in the game itself?
Thats what I am hoping to achive ,with the help of other gamers.An advanced version of 40k.
So gamers dont have to change thier favorite 'scale' of battles in the 40k universe, to find a more tactical challenge.
Going back to using our imagination.
When you imagine the 'battles' being fought in a 40k game.
What does this most remind you of...
...films about WWII ,or more recent wars?Like Saving Private Ryan,We Were Soldiers,etc.
Or Ancient battles like in the films Troy, Kingdom of Heaven..(Or the big battles in LOTR.)
Or some where in between, Napoleonic Crimean war, WWI.Films like War and Peace,All Quiet on the Western front,etc.
Because if you think the game should play similar to one of the above real world counter parts.And it doesent ,(they are all quite different,)it can hinder you getting into the game.
If a game plays like you expect it to,it enhances your enjoyment of the game.IMO.
This also helps narrow down the options of game mechanics.(Ulterior motive,sorry.)
I imagine 40k battles to be most like the WWII to 'modern' war films.
Infantry is not in 'fixed' formations,but 'free moving',armed with submachine guns ,heavy machine guns ,missile launchers,flame throwers,etc,supported by tanks and armoured cars,artillery and air strikes.etc.
But that maybe just me!
If you think differently to me please,let me know.I may be way off!
Last edited by Lanrak; November 15th, 2006 at 00:45.
Your discription describes the Imperial Armies very well
- A culture stuck in the midst of time with its outlook on how battles should be fought -
The difference comes with the alien cultures humanity meets and in most cases the far superior tactics and technology that they have developed
- so how can humanity cope - well on three fronts really
- one is a never ending supply of human life IG,
second, the Imperial Navy who have planet levelling weapons
and three, space marines which shows a seperate 'advanced' level of tech and tactics. But SM are rare and few - indeed in the campaign I have been playing for the last four years between chaos and Imp. CSM and SM play very limited roles.
Anyway back to the game - I feel 40K should offer very different tactics for the different races even on a small scale 'company ' game. It could be argued that most of the alien cultures are 'human' in form but I feel they offer I wider scope of tactics.
A bit like DOW and the latest inclusion of Ncrons - a new, radically different tactic has been created by marching your initial wave of troops into the enemies base getting them all killed - generating more troops and as you attack again regenerate the first wave so the enemy becomes over whelmed - this is so 'different' to the other races that it has made the game far more interesting.
So the game mechanics are going to have to be broad enough to include a diverse alien tech and tactics.
Each Alien culture will have an 'ethos' about how to fight with its own different tactics within that ethos.
Just some thoughts
Two points, first the description of many of the WH40K weapons really emphasises how powerful they are as well as how powerful certain aliens are (genestealers are capable of ripping through steel orks are two or three times as strong as a man). In reality though this doesn't always come through. I believe a system that readdresses this balance is important and Macmoss's 'lethal' Wh40K did a good job in this respect.
The other aspect is chain of command and characters, I think characters should actually perform their duties in this regard with a beter distinction, a Chaplin or commisar may have immense personal bravery but this does not equate with tactical astuteness, this should be reflected in the rules.
It will mean that uber fighter characters are still awsome in combat but may not add anything tactically, the opposite is true as well. Inaddition it would mean that certain special characters like Commisar Yarrick who can do both become Special.
Note that characters shouldn't be relegated to merely squad leaders or arm chair generals but the distinction should be made between the leaders and the hereos so to speak (some may be both of course).
Using lethal wh40k as a basis (obviously this could change) this would be easily achieved by classing characters as one of three things
Inspirational-(Admiration or Fear) of the character means troops may use his Ld for moral based checks (break tests and pinning).
Officer- The characters Ld may be used for tactical based test (Confusion, command checks)
Heroic- The characters Ld may be used for all tests.
Last edited by Visitor Q; November 16th, 2006 at 20:34.
"God is dead" Nietzsche- 1886
"Nietzsche is dead" God- 1900
Why are there scams? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q71FLDIMBc8
i like the idea of having characters that dont do very much tactics wise. More moral orriented. Napolean was a good example of this, he was abvle to whip troops in a frenzy to do what he said at all cost.The problem i have currently with the game is, if you have space fleets that can eradicate all life from planets with deadly orbital bombardments, whats the point of having ground troops? Shouldnt they all be like specialized boarding parties or something? It also might be cool if you could have weapons with greater certainty of killing. When a heavy bolter is fired at enemy ranks, how can most survive? that bugs me when you pump so many shots in a uint, and kill 2. Funny, but annoying
Edit* just noticed the what 40k reminds you of. I have a weird picture of saving private ryan, mixed in with medieval war movies, with 10's of thousands of troops in a epic struggle with guns...
Last edited by _Toast_; November 15th, 2006 at 20:37.
"This sure ain't no pansy Eldar Armor, Son"
185th Cadian Armored Div.
"One Shot, One Kill"
Western Border Patrol of Athel Loren
Thanks for all the feed back.
'The longest journey starts with one step..'(Confusious?).
As the development of an advanced 40k wargame may be a 'long journey',it is quite important we all move in the same direction ,and know roughly where we are going!:yes:
So its important to establish the scale and scope of the proposed (war)game,and have a point of reference for game play we can all relate to.
ATM 40k has a 'standard army level IGO/UGO turn sequence.'
(Similar to WH.and other pre '20th century' wargames.Where the tactics are about manuvering large blocks of troops in a restricted way, to achive favorable close combat match ups.ranged attacks play a supporting role.)
This limits the tactical options within the 40k game ,as there are very few restrictions on moving and shooting.
SO the tactics tend to be more about force composition ,rather than than how the force is used in the game!
Also as one player moves ALL of his units Shoots with ALL of his units AND gets to Assault(if in range)with ALL of his units ,While his opponent does nothing but roll saves and remove casualties.
It makes the gameplay unballanced in sooo many ways!:cry:
For more tactical options we require a more interactive game turn!!!:yes:
Even some army level wargames (Firefly,Cambri to Sieni ,etc,)use the 'alternating phases' method of game turn.
Player A moves.
Player B shoots.
Player A moves.
Player B shoots.
This increases the tactical considerations and interaction between players.
On a thread on the GW board, Munin developed this idea to give an improved more interactive game turn which could be used with the current 40k rules sets codexes.
(with very minor adjustments.)
But not all units can capitalise on 'fixed' action phases.
'Shooty units' may not want to, or may be unwise to 'assault' in assault phases.
And 'killer close combat units', gain very little from shooting phases.
So it makes more tactical sense to allow units tactical options/actions that are more useful to them.
Other modern /scifi (war)games use limited tactical options based on the 2 proirities of modern /scifi warfare.Mobility and firepower.(SST,warmachine,Epic (old version),search and destroy ,platoon.etc.)
As most 40k gamers are familiar with the limited tactical options of the vehicles rules.
1/Concentrate on firing to full effect but remain stationary.
2/Move and shoot in a (restricted way).
3/Concentrate on moving ,but unable to shoot at all.
Perhaps if we expanded this concept to all units. And activated units one at a time alternating between players.
EG player A 'activates' a unit.
Player B 'activates' a unit.
Then this increases the tactical challenge greatly.
Now a player has to decide what unit to activate,what action to take with that unit,concider the reation of the opposing player,how will the units support each other across the battle field,etc.
So we have 3 simple to understand 'actions' and a totaly interactive game turn.
I think this concept would give us all the options to get a more tacticaly challenging game, without getting over complex.
I dont think we need to go into initiative proirity of unit activation,we can just assume units contact thier 'company commander' and he/she /it, (The player )decides when and what actions units take to best achive his/her /its,tactical objective.(Mission type.)
The side effect is forces that have fewer larger units have greater survivability,but less tactical flexibility.
But more numerous smaller units are more tacticaly flexible ,but more fragile.
Sounds OK to me.
What do you think of this basic concept for alternative interactive game turn, (unit activation), and limited tactical actions?
The game turn mechanic is important to get right, as it determines the 'flow' of the (war)game.
Thoughts and comments most welcome.
I blame John Blanch (may his paint brush never dry up) for the above image:yes:
Your point about about fleets is a very good one - but it must be remebered how utterly 'rare' a habital planet really is even in the far flung future of 40K, certainly in comparison to all the other planets out there -
Some races are about wiping a planet out - tyranids for starters - and that is one reason they are abhored so much - eldar are about reclaiming planets as there own as are imperial forces - necrons are about 'harvesting' as are tyranids - orks want a damn good fight! - chaos will certainly level planets and are a 'serious' threat - but will equally want to enslave it as well as fight out ground battles to tie up nemy forces from other areas - khorne wants a good fight - like orks - nurgle wants to spread disease - slannesh wants .....well we all know what slaanes wants - tzeentch weaves his unfathomnable web - and tau wants to spread the greater good .....which isn't really blowing up planets:wacko: .
This is not to say there aren't xenos and humies out there who don't want to blow up planets - the history fluff is littered with backround as well as a few of the books produced - it is just rare for a 'race' to survive or expand for ling if that is the ethos of their culture
In the campoaign I have been playing - over 13 systems with BFG Epic and 40K there has been many a temptation to 'level' a planet - but generally fighting for control has far more long term benefits (resources etc)
Just some thoughts