Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
40k Alternate Rules Options?; A Question of alternate rules and options that may exist
Topic Started: 12 Feb 2016, 07:09 AM (444 Views)
TicToc556

Ladies and Gentlemen. I have a question and it seems to be a question that generally inspires a stream of vitriol and generally butt hurt feelings. With that said and with all due respect I understand if you love the rule systems that you use and I can respect that but I am addressing those of us who do not enjoy the current design or at least wish for something different.

I have bought my first 40k mini in 1992 and now I have a room that is lined with shelve nearly to the ceiling and almost 3/4 of those shelves are dedicated to 40k Minis, 40k Figure Conversions, GW rule sets, and 40k RPG materials. There is no doubt that I am an active financial backer of GW. Sadly with all of that support I can just about count of the remaining fingers and toes that I possess the number of games that I have played. I do not know that I can truly express the depth of my dislike for the GW rule Structure. I suppose I can only say that my displeasure for the rules is only rivaled by my adoration of the Universe that those rules seek to govern. I have looked for years for a suitable alternative. So far INQ28, Inquisimunda, and Death Squads have come the closest and those respective systems have made incredible headway on improving the muscle and sinew of the games defining construct. However, with all the appreciation I have for those systems my frustrations lay deeper and more in the skeleton of the rules construct. I will give two of my most prevalent examples to illustrate my meaning.

Before I do please allow me to caveat a few things. I am far more interested in a Narrative game and appreciate a reasonable level of Simulationist perspective. I am not overly concerned with "long games" and I do not at all enjoy tournament style play. That is play that is designed for speed and end result rather then story and enjoyment of play while getting to the end. I would rather be disappointed when the game comes to an end becasue I was having so much fun playing it than I would be happy that the game is over and I can chalk up another win. My comments are based on the best knowledge I have of the standard 40k rules rather than the Specialist/Fan games mentioned above. This is based on the idea that I ultimately would like to play a larger scale game than most of the previously mentioned games typically allow for but generally a smaller scale game than the typical 40k Battle. The Specialist games have in many cases solutions to some of the issues that I have but in the end they are still fixes to a core system that I don't personally enjoy (see below)

The most game altering issue is that I do not believe a D6 possesses an adequate breadth of variation to cover the span of power levels found in the 40k Universe (ie: IG BS=3 while SM BS=4) this slight difference does not equate statistically in a way that even remotely reflects the fluff. That is a single example of course but the end result is that I personally would prefer a D10 at a minimum to reflect chance. The issue is that the stats would of course have to be altered in a commensurate way and that is made difficult by the stats as they are being established on a base of 6 rather than 5 or 10. Summary; I would like a wider variety of chance and stats which would reflect more accurately the variety of the universe. The first argument that I have already heard in the past was that this would increase time to the game takes to play. My rebuttal was 1. I don't personally care as time was not a factor for me and 2. I do not see how rolling a single D10 and comparing to a Target Number is any slower that rolling a single D6 and comparing to a Target Number.

Range, Range dives me absolutely batty. The simulationist in me is driven absolutely crazy by the idea that the equivalent of an Infantryman's Primary Weapons system cannot be accurately fired farther than the scaled equivalent of 48 yards (I think I did the math there correctly, regardless it is unfathomably shorter than reality would indicate). Along with Range comes issues of deviation that are again unrealistic. These ranged rules on top of being frustrating alone drive the Mechanic of Close Combat to be more common and powerful than I believe it should be. The best example I had when discussing this with a friend was the following "....but if ranged combat was realistic my Ork army would be useless." My response was basically "well ya that's what happens when dudes with Choppas charge a hill full of dudes with guns. The solution isn't to make Close Combat overpowered by underpowering Ranged Combat. The Solution is to make Orks more capable of reaching Close Combat through a Mechanic either specific to them or specific to CC based armies. The first thing that would come to mind would be making them tougher (just as an off the top of my head example and that's not backed by any play testing.)

Anyhow those are my musings and questions. Id love to get some feedback, though I will say that I would prefer not to be ranted at about how I am an asshat for loving the Universe but disliking the system (as that seems to happen anywhere else I've broached this topic) but feel free to express yourself as you see fit.
Offline
 
smug
Corporal
As someone like minded on the game & the Universe I'll reply, how this is most likely going to make for a few angry bee's but here goes, lots of people claim the love the fluff & give it as the main reason for playing the game & then do stuff like putting 10 guard in a drop-pod when from a fluff perspective all that would happen is the pod would land with 10 dead guards inside it & that's putting it nicely.

Now this is do able because GW moved away from trying to make the game some what like the fluff in order to sell more models, anyone remember the days when a DP was a 0-1 choice ?

I agree with you on the D6 & would even go as far as a D20 to try & fully show how different a guard would be from a blood thruster & your right rolling a bigger numbered dice would in no way slow down the game other then from players getting use to the new system.

Another thing I think is a big problem with the game now days is that a 6x4 table is not longer big enough for playing it on, but as I pointed out to a mate of mine not so long ago GW no longer say's to play on a 6x4 table, but lucky are those that can play on 8x6 tables or bigger all the time.

Balance is I think at the end of the day the biggest problem, how is something like a chaos spacemarine army meant to fight a spacemarine army that at 1850pts might have 500pts worth of free stuff & what hope would they ever have against an 1850pts Eldar army that could blow the marine army off the table with ease.
Offline
 
TicToc556

smug
12 Feb 2016, 09:37 PM
Balance is I think at the end of the day the biggest problem, how is something like a chaos spacemarine army meant to fight a spacemarine army that at 1850pts might have 500pts worth of free stuff & what hope would they ever have against an 1850pts Eldar army that could blow the marine army off the table with ease.
And that is why I hate the Math Hammer aspect of the game. Tactics should be more important than points. Special abilities play an all too pertinent role.

In regards to the rest of your comment. Generally speaking I could not agree more and appreciate the opinion of a like minded individual. I will point out that while I do not agree that IG would fair well in a Drop Pod landing; I do like that that GW has opened up the doors a bit on Army composition and structure. I don't like that they have done it for commercial reasons but I personally like it because I believe that it more accurately characterizes the nearly limitless combinations and variation in troops and composition that can/would be seen in a empire that spans MILLIONS of works with Hundreds of trillions of citizens. I am not saying that you should be running into Ratling Psykers wearing Terminator Armor and have a pet Warhound Titan all the time BUT if we take a look at the IG as an example (probably the most pertinant example) the quality of the IG should span everything from poorly trained Men and Women who were conscripted from a Low G world where they suffered from malnutrition, given no training, handed a lasgun, and placed into combat to the pinnacle of Homo Sapien ability and the height of technological advancement. Both ends of the spectrum should be rare but they should be recognized as existing. Just as there should be Space Marine Chapters that are relatively weak. Still more adept than anything but the best of the best of the best that humanity would have to offer but by SM standards a bit on the Mongoloid side.

For me personally I have served a good deal of my life in the Armed Forces and so of course I wanted to develop and IG force that resembled the Military in which I served. To that end I didn't just break out a codex and start spending point. I read and read and read, and came up with a back story that fit into cannon and justified the reason that my IG were the way they were. I wrote up planetary backgrounds, personality backgrounds, campaign backgrounds, famous regiments from their world. I even incorporated them into the RPG that I run. All told I probably have more than 30 pages of background materials on them. Are they standard Guard.... Hell no but everything they have can be purchased legally in the Codex and they have a colorful backstory that fits al of those eccentricities. But I digress; thank you for the support.
Offline
 
TicToc556

Here are a few options that I am looking at. Im not hugely familiar with the details of any of them but they all look like they have promise. I've listed them in order of suitability (to the best of my limited knowledge)

Only War (Not technically a wargame but the only work that would need to be done is to sift thorugh what rule to NOT include since there is so much available. This is also the easiest direct port since it uses the same fluff and all of the weapons, armor, vehicles, and wargear are already represented)
https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/only-war/

Warzone Universe Under Siege
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/13553/warzone-universe-under-siege

Secrets of the Third Reich
http://www.westwindproductions.co.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=59_83

Warzone Resurrection
http://prodosgames.com/

Dystopian Legions
http://www.spartangames.co.uk/products/dystopian-world/dystopian-legions

I own the core rules for all of them and am just trying to find the time to work through them all. The larger issue that I am working on now is that if I am not to go with a 40k derivative (be it d12 or Only War) I am left with what may be a great system with amazing potential but it would require that I write in every single piece of equipment and ability. Though that is do able it seems a daunting task especially if there is an easier alternative.

Thoughts?
Offline
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Warhammer 40,000 · Next Topic »