|
Esser-Z posted:Bad game design, however, is bad regardless of the fluff! Random movement just doesn't have a place in the game, as it prevents you from attempting your tactics, while random accuracy determines how effective your tactics are! Random movement is problematic in 40K, and it really should be changed to fixed distances with modifiers for terrain and special rules, but your edit about tactics is wrong. Movement is tactics. Random movement doesn't nullify your tactics, it just forces in another point where your tactics can fail. The problem for many people is that another point of failure is another point too many. It's not even really a skill v randomness thing. Skill in a random game inherently involves factoring for that randomness. It's an agency v randomness problem. People want, for many self evident reasons, to have a great deal of control over their army, and random movement removes yet another point of control. koreban posted:In the grim darkness of the 41st millennium there is only 21st century skirmish warfare problems. Ha. But seriously, maneuver and positioning are how battles have been won throughout time. That's part of the reason why random movement irks so many. But a game where your units' combat effectiveness is a set value, but their ability to get into combat is dependent on a number of factors in and out of your control could be really neat. It'd be like Hams meets worker placement meets Backgammon.
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Warlord traits and psychic powers seem too important/useful to be randomized. It's not like we roll for Wargear. I would love to see the option to pay points to "lock in" a power or trait, but that would require either testing each power/trait to see what their individual points costs should be, or making them all balanced to begin with. Also, I don't think I could ever play a historical. Just something about fighting actual battles that real people fought and died in doesn't sit well with me. I mean, who cares if I send Brother Chaplain Captain Master Blood-Fistius to an early grave?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Random movement is problematic in 40K, and it really should be changed to fixed distances with modifiers for terrain and special rules, but your edit about tactics is wrong. Movement is tactics. Random movement doesn't nullify your tactics, it just forces in another point where your tactics can fail. The problem for many people is that another point of failure is another point too many. It's not even really a skill v randomness thing. Skill in a random game inherently involves factoring for that randomness. It's an agency v randomness problem. People want, for many self evident reasons, to have a great deal of control over their army, and random movement removes yet another point of control. I think I can agree with you here. I was just trying to explain the emotional perception, mind. Saying "Nope you don't get to go as far as you need because dice" makes me feel like I'm not allowed to actually decide what I'm doing. It has its place in some games, though! Your idea sounds nifty, for example! quote:I would love to see the option to pay points to "lock in" a power or trait, but that would require either testing each power/trait to see what their individual points costs should be, or making them all balanced to begin with. I really wish 40k had rules I wanted to play, because I love the aesthetics. Alas.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Random movement is problematic in 40K, and it really should be changed to fixed distances with modifiers for terrain and special rules, but your edit about tactics is wrong. Movement is tactics. Random movement doesn't nullify your tactics, it just forces in another point where your tactics can fail. The problem for many people is that another point of failure is another point too many. It's not even really a skill v randomness thing. Skill in a random game inherently involves factoring for that randomness. It's an agency v randomness problem. People want, for many self evident reasons, to have a great deal of control over their army, and random movement removes yet another point of control. Randomness like that is fine, but the game needs to be short to accomodate that. DBA, for example, is random as hell and games will dice one player or another, but the game takes only half an hour so you can just go and do another game right afterward. 40k games hit the 2-3 hour range and you can't have a long game like that be decided by that much luck.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Ha. But seriously, maneuver and positioning are how battles have been won throughout time. That's part of the reason why random movement irks so many. But a game where your units' combat effectiveness is a set value, but their ability to get into combat is dependent on a number of factors in and out of your control could be really neat. It'd be like Hams meets worker placement meets Backgammon. This would be really cool, and it would be neat to see a game based around this. I've decided that the only time I like randomness in 40k is when models are dying in horrible ways (deep striking into a rock and getting instantly gibbed, whiffing all your attacks then getting murdered by guardsmen with bayonettes, etc.) Making regular movement random in 40k would be more slow and irksome than anything. I agree with you about the modifiers system being a superior way of introducing tactics to the movement phase. e: Also, gently caress random psychic powers (except weirdboyz).
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I think this is where you confusion is. You seem to equate casual players as people who 'Don't know what they're doing, and when told otherwise their ego stops them from listening to me and thus being a better player.' You also seem to think that 'casual' players seem to think they deserve to win because they've spent money on the models they have. This is where you're going wrong. It also depends on what it is you're after winning. The irony about winning sportsmanship awards (and the accompanying prizes) is that you're not allowed to brag about winning sportsmanship awards (and the accompanying prizes) despite getting the same amount of recognition (and prizes) as the best general.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Modifiers are definitely the better way to make terrain have effects, and believe me, I WANT terrain to have effects. It's part of how the game becomes interesting, especially since you can set it up differently between games! I am okay with deep striking being randomized. It feels appropriate to not be certain where the giant hunk of metal is going to land, y'know? As long as I'm allowed to drop it on my enemy (or accidentally my own guys!) Maaaan I wish the 40k rules were less lovely. I love the game in theory, but I just can't bring myself to dedicate the amount of time it takes to play given how much I have to struggle with it to have the proper fun. :< And yeah, Weirdboyz can get random powers because it's their gimmick, and very orky. I am pretty casual, but I'd like a solid, balanced core to facilitate awesome fun happening in that environment--and so other people can play it differently!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Fix posted:It also depends on what it is you're after winning. The irony about winning sportsmanship awards (and the accompanying prizes) is that you're not allowed to brag about winning sportsmanship awards (and the accompanying prizes) despite getting the same amount of recognition (and prizes) as the best general. I always found it funny that only in a 40k tournament will you see "sportsmanship awards", like they need some special incentive to get people not to be dickwads. I mean, it's there in Flames of War too, but it strikes me as really odd.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Esser-Z posted:I really wish 40k had rules I wanted to play, because I love the aesthetics. Alas. If Dakka, Warseer and Reddit werent so scared of litigation that they could discuss the rules, I would love to see the community at large crowdsource and playtest a completely alternate set of rules. poo poo... We could do it here. Appoint a committee of Fluff/'Ard players as the final say and spitball until we had something balanced and fun... Then we could all get a second mortgage on our homes to pay for the impending legal fees...
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
ThNextGreenLantern posted:It's not like we roll for Wargear. We used to  And I agree with you about historicals. It's why I can't get into FoW despite being a total nerd for WW2 stuff. Esser-Z posted:I think I can agree with you here. I was just trying to explain the emotional perception, mind. Saying "Nope you don't get to go as far as you need because dice" makes me feel like I'm not allowed to actually decide what I'm doing. Yeah, I generally feel the same way. I am used to it in 40K, but I agree fixed distances would be better. And thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Esser-Z posted:Modifiers are definitely the better way to make terrain have effects, and believe me, I WANT terrain to have effects. It's part of how the game becomes interesting, especially since you can set it up differently between games! The funniest thing about the effects of the most recent edition of Fantasy at my store was watching the players dutifully roll out all the cool Bleeding Forests and Secret Caves and stuff, get corresponding pieces from the racks, and then methodically arrange it along the short edges so that it would never impact gameplay. The fantasy players at my store are total grogbeasts to a man.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Random assault distances only make sense in a game with random shooting ranges, I think it's pretty simple. For every "maybe they tripped running in" you can say "maybe their gun jammed or ran out of ammo or there was some dust and they couldn't see". There's an explanation for whatever you want but the balance impact is part of the larger weakness of assault in Playing my first 7th game tonight, pretty excited to try out the new card system with my terrible Khorne foot list.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:If Dakka, Warseer and Reddit werent so scared of litigation that they could discuss the rules, I would love to see the community at large crowdsource and playtest a completely alternate set of rules. How does the Necromunda Community Edition continue to exist without litigation? I know it's a "dead" system, but GW still owns the IP and everything associated with it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:If Dakka, Warseer and Reddit werent so scared of litigation that they could discuss the rules, I would love to see the community at large crowdsource and playtest a completely alternate set of rules. The thing is, so many people want so many different things out of the game. I mean, do you keep the same scale(in terms of figure counts, a significant change from 2nd to 3rd ed), the bucket of dice mechanics? Do you have alternating activations, individual unit activations, or do you keep the sequential phase system? Or do you do something different. There's a lot of cool mechanics out there, but they would require substantial changes to the 40k rule framework.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:How does the Necromunda Community Edition continue to exist without litigation? I know it's a "dead" system, but GW still owns the IP and everything associated with it. I guess as long as youre not charging for it, they technically give you permission to "house rule" stuff in WD... Warhammer 40k: House Rules Edition
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The thing is, so many people want so many different things out of the game. I mean, do you keep the same scale(in terms of figure counts, a significant change from 2nd to 3rd ed), the bucket of dice mechanics? Do you have alternating activations, individual unit activations, or do you keep the sequential phase system? Or do you do something different. It's mob rule, in my theory. You vote in 5-6 guys from the community. They hash out the outline, and send the rest to be voted on piece by piece. The community tests it, gives feedback, a decision is made. Edit: double post sorry
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
I would totally be into doing a House Rules Compendium, personally. But it would be a goon project, and we all know how those go. But I'd still be up for it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:It's mob rule, in my theory. You vote in 5-6 guys from the community. They hash out the outline, and send the rest to be voted on piece by piece. The community tests it, gives feedback, a decision is made. I'm not sure this is going to result in a game that's at all interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Having a bunch of people who want different things from the game is a serious impediment to that sort of project. You're never going to please everyone, but as a community project you feel obligated to try.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I always found it funny that only in a 40k tournament will you see "sportsmanship awards", like they need some special incentive to get people not to be dickwads. I mean, it's there in Flames of War too, but it strikes me as really odd. Sure, but you don't win Sportsman awards just by not being a dick. You do so by making fun games for your opponent, whether they be someone who is not necessarily good at the game, brought a sub-optimal list, or is a genuine facecrusher who got beat by other facecrushers in the first two rounds and is having a bad day because they're out of the running. Because if it's all about the winners then the majority of games played in a tournament are immaterial if you can't have a good time.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I'm not sure this is going to result in a game that's at all interesting. To me, fleshing this out and helping playtest would be more fun than sweating through 7th... If we get mod approval, would anyone be interested in a thread for a 40k House Rules Edition?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Wait, Goonhammer might actually become a project now? I am both excited and terrified.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Yeah, a lot of 40K's problems stem from it being an ancient system with a bunch of poo poo bolted on to it. It's basically late 2E AD&D at this point, so to really fix it, you'd need to rebuild it from the ground up. Thankfully, just changing random movement to fixed values wouldn't require that. Stick with 6" base move. Have run be a 3" base move. Make assault a 6" base move. Difficult terrain would halve that distance. MTC would ignore that penalty. Make Fleet work like 5E: you can run and assault in the same turn. Horms and Banshees would still get their bonus to Fleet. E: or make Fleet a flat +1 modifier that follows the normal order of operation for modifiers, so you halve for difficult terrain then add +1 for fleet. This would shrink the threat radius for stuff like Horms (who would get a nasty 18" threat radius based on the other idea) and make fleet more useful for non-assault troops. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 20:43 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Have an actual move stat, so different races are intrinsically faster or slower, without the need to bolt on extra rules. Turn fleet back to assault after running, and take it off most stuff. etc.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Move stat is definitely the way to go. Variange in move speeds between units makes sense. Like, an Eldar melee guy is going to sprint faster than a Spehss Mehreen in heavy armor.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Uh you guy? Hello? You are all forgetting that GW "playtested" this edition of 40k before release. So all the rules are EXACTLY how they should be. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Lungboy posted:Have an actual move stat, so different races are intrinsically faster or slower, without the need to bolt on extra rules. Turn fleet back to assault after running, and take it off most stuff. etc. Ironically, adding a move stat would be bolting on extra rules. Difficult terrain and MTC are gonna be things with or without a move stat, and you'd keep fleet.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Ironically, adding a move stat would be bolting on extra rules. Difficult terrain and MTC are gonna be things with or without a move stat, and you'd keep fleet. Extra rules, but VALUBLE extra rules that don't add cruft, but instead differentiate units better! Or something like that. I just want to go home and play dinner.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
You would have to keep something core, otherwise GW gets you for competition even though the rules are free. It must "require" the 40k books for some stuff. Period. Otherwise you're setting yourself up for failure.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The thing is, so many people want so many different things out of the game. I mean, do you keep the same scale(in terms of figure counts, a significant change from 2nd to 3rd ed), the bucket of dice mechanics? Do you have alternating activations, individual unit activations, or do you keep the sequential phase system? Or do you do something different. At that point we may as well just make a whole new ruleset from the ground up. Lungboy posted:Have an actual move stat, so different races are intrinsically faster or slower, without the need to bolt on extra rules. Turn fleet back to assault after running, and take it off most stuff. etc. They ditched the move stat in the transition to 3rd to help streamline things. I'm not sure bringing it back would be the hottest idea (we already sorta have it with infantry moving 6" and bikes moving 12"). I'd be fine with army-wide rules altering things a little though, like said Eldar adding +1" to move, or just the ability to Run faster.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:You would have to keep something core, otherwise GW gets you for competition even though the rules are free. It must "require" the 40k books for some stuff. Period. Otherwise you're setting yourself up for failure. My understanding is that you can't copyright rules, just presentation. So we just gotta change names, like Fleet to Swift and Weapon Skill to Melee Ability, and avoid fluff and use generic names like Evil Space Elf Monster Trainer, and we'd be untouchable.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
I'm choosing to believe that the last couple of pages of "you know who I'm better at writing rules than? Jervis Johnson, gently caress that guy" have been quotes from other forums.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:My understanding is that you can't copyright rules, just presentation. So we just gotta change names, like fleet to swift and Weapon Skill to Melee Ability, and avoid fluff and use generic names like Evil Space Elf Monster Trainer, and we'd be untouchable. If its a new game, yes. If we're house ruling 40k, and its free, then we can use their USRs and just say "X is no longer applicable, Unit Y gets Z" We have to appoint a committee. If people start theorycrafting on their own, the effort splinters and then its exactly what we have now, different groups running different rules. We elect 5 goons, and 2 each from Warseer, Dakka, B&C, etc. Itll be a large group and there will be disagreements, but everything is mob rule and goes to a vote. Its the only way to get a true representative cross section of the player base. It could work, and it wouldnt be that hard. A few google docs, a dedicated thread and the community willing to playtest. It could work, if we dont splinter.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
It's actually remarkable, once you start designing games and sit down to think about things, how good and tight design serves everyone's interests. You know those units you like but never bring? Tight design would give them a role on the table. This makes the unit more attractive to the tactical player, more attractive to a competitive player looking to tweak things, more attractive to the player who plays to theme (because a theme that works is more interesting than one that doesn't) and more fun and interesting for people who take whatever is cool (because it looks cool and then it also does cool things). It's a mistake to think that you have to design for theme first to make people take thematic armies. The original reason Force Organization Charts were put in the game weren't balance related, but theme related: they were intended to make people take armies that looked like armies, not just a Dreadnaught Conga Line or Predator Parade, and thus reinforce the intended feel of the game on the table directly. The limitation opened up what people felt they could and should bring, whereas ~pick whatever works for your forged narrative~ will just encourage monolisting and cheese. Strong competitive-oriented design that lets more units function and which limits choices can serve pretty much everyone well. Going the opposite route isn't a design choice. It's lazy. The same applies when a game becomes too random and thus starts to remove player agency from actions in the game; it's not enhancing play, but what it does do is obscure that the underlying play is unbalanced. And trying to justify a game that doesn't play fair by saying "you should have fun even if you lose" loses sight of some fundamental reasons for why people play and make games at all. And if someone says that it obviously can't be done, well, that's quitter talk. It's hard. It can't be done to absolute perfection. Neither of those are reasons to just quit trying forever like GW seems to have.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
This would own so hard.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:I'm choosing to believe that the last couple of pages of "you know who I'm better at writing rules than? Jervis Johnson, gently caress that guy" have been quotes from other forums. You are precious.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:I'm choosing to believe that the last couple of pages of "you know who I'm better at writing rules than? Jervis Johnson, gently caress that guy" have been quotes from other forums. You know this forum has and has had actual successful game designers who have made good games post on it, right? Also, GW sucks at rules. Great post, RBH!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
There are objectively quite a number of other people in the industry who are better at writing/proofreading rules than whoever is currently doing it for 40K, so it's not like it's some rare savant quality.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Anyone doing this needs to read through the Epic: Armageddon rules first. That's a great example of tight design that gradually scales up in complexity to larger games. The game was intended for competitive play, so the emphasis is more on what you do rather than what units you pick. That way everything has a role.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
People on the internet often say "Could you do better? Stop complaining!" We are saying "Yes, we could do better. Let's do it!" People on the internet are upset that we think we could do better. Humans are great. But seriously, I'd be all over trying to make better rules for 40k minis to be used with!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:15
|
|