News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?  (Read 4169 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« on: June 25, 2016, 08:54:16 AM »
And if it could, would you support it?

By Sigmarised, what I mean is reducing the core rules down to a basic 4-6 page source, with the rules of individual units being covered in a warscroll like source.  I've been playing AoS lately and...I really like it.  It's easy, fast, simple, tactical and above else, fun!  It's got an easy entry level for new players, unlike 40k.  And you can take what you want, not what you have to.

Two obstacles I can see are; points, and wounding.  I know that a points system for AoS is on the way so we can wait to see how that looks and imagine the same for this, but the second?  In AoS, every weapon has fixed to hit and to wound stats.  And for a fantasy setting that's ok. 

But in the sci if setting of 40k, that seems wrong.  The whole point of an APC, never mind an MBT, is that it's supposed to be impervious to small arms fire.  I have a solution (use a strength + d6 versus defense system like we currently have for vehicles for all models) but it probably isn't the ideal solution.

Could GW do it?  Should GW do it?

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2016, 02:30:42 PM »
Have you forgotten the M113 that was routinely shot *through* by small arms?  ;)

Yes, they could somewhat easily make a new simplified rule set for 40K along AoS. I'm not sure it'd be quite that streamlined but still possible. I'd imagine it was a standalone game rather than 8th Edition kind of thing but as AoS showed, such assumptions can be dangerous.
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2016, 02:37:17 PM »
GW could definitely simplify and streamline 40K.  I would be all in favour.  Whether they could achieve that and include rules for all these massive super heavies, titans, and flyers though is open to debate.  It was easier to steamline Fantasy into AoS, because the biggest units there are dragons or monsters, neither of which can be compared to some of the massive constructions in 40K these days.

Of course, they could just remove such complex units from 40K altogether, but I appreciate that people who have invested money in them wouldn't be very happy about this.  An alternative might be to have the division between regular 40K (a simplified version) and an Apocalypse type 40K once again.
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2016, 04:31:50 PM »
Have you forgotten the M113 that was routinely shot *through* by small arms?  ;)

Yes, they could somewhat easily make a new simplified rule set for 40K along AoS. I'm not sure it'd be quite that streamlined but still possible. I'd imagine it was a standalone game rather than 8th Edition kind of thing but as AoS showed, such assumptions can be dangerous.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.  :P

I really want to see the battle for vedros system to see what a simplified system might look like.  But that one is probably too simplified.

GW could definitely simplify and streamline 40K.  I would be all in favour.  Whether they could achieve that and include rules for all these massive super heavies, titans, and flyers though is open to debate.  It was easier to steamline Fantasy into AoS, because the biggest units there are dragons or monsters, neither of which can be compared to some of the massive constructions in 40K these days.

Of course, they could just remove such complex units from 40K altogether, but I appreciate that people who have invested money in them wouldn't be very happy about this.  An alternative might be to have the division between regular 40K (a simplified version) and an Apocalypse type 40K once again.

That is a great idea.  Apocalypse was best suited for veteran players anyway.  So they could create a simplified new gamer system for 40k that is limited to smallish stuff; then in comes apocalypse for the big games wth big stuff.  Also, I think fliers need a game of their own.  A game within a game, but I think GW is doing that already.

I'd definitely back a simplified system.  The rules as they are now are all over the place.  I'm tempted to do it myself.

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2016, 04:47:08 PM »
I'd definitely back a simplified system.  The rules as they are now are all over the place.  I'm tempted to do it myself.

Do it. You lose nothing by trying. You're never going to be able to please everyone so see what you can do to please yourself first.
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2016, 05:22:05 PM »
Do it. You lose nothing by trying. You're never going to be able to please everyone so see what you can do to please yourself first.

Could be a good stepping stone to a career in games design.  :D

For fliers, do you think they would be best served by having a game to themselves that can be crossed over with 40k?  I feel like they should exist in a world of their own because they're supposed to be flying fast and high.

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2016, 05:41:06 PM »
GW just did release a new dogfighting game that's separate from 40K.
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2016, 05:42:44 PM »
Ah, so they thought so too.  Good.  8)

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2016, 07:23:21 PM »
Ah, so they thought so too.  Good.  8)

Well, not exactly.  They released another board game that contains 40k models where it is a ridiculously good deal to buy the game to get the models at a discount price ala Betrayal at Calth or Renegade Knights.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2016, 10:23:04 PM »
So, take infantry vs infantry. Make some bare basic rules. Nothing fancy and nothing complicated. When you're good, try adding vehicle rules. Then edit. Make them fit, what doesn't fit gets either rewritten or thrown out. Serve and profit.
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2016, 05:36:47 AM »
That would be a very good way to approach it.  I'd certainly be all for playing a game like that, especially since I own so few vehicles (by contemporary standards) anyway.  It would also make balancing the rules somewhat easier.

You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline Lonewolf

  • Cthulhu cultist, The Final Solution | Swarmlord | Staff Soap Spotter
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4558
  • Country: de
  • Murdering armies since 2003 - retired since 2012
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2016, 07:06:01 AM »
Sure it could be done, why not?

But all i want to say is, that AOS killed the very much alive German Warhammer Fantasy tourny scene. Like completly. I know a good number of WHFB players, some of them invested 1000s of € into their armies. None of them that i know of is still playing. We had a warhammer club with around 10-15 regular WHFB players. They all moved on to other table tops with the arrival of AOS. I have played it myself a couple of times and fully understand them. If i want to play a skirmish game, i can think of cheaper and better alternatives, where i dont have to heavily modify the rules to get something close to a fair game. Not to mention that they threw great, over decades developed fluff out of the window.

I can see it know, Warhammer, age of the Emperorer! After a gigantic war, the whole universe gets sucked into a giant Warphole, races xyz get squadified, but despair not! There will always be Space Marines! Only that they are now called UltraWolfBlood Metall Warriors, because of Trademark reaons!

Ok i admit it, i might be a little bit non objective on this topic  ::)


No problem, I'll give you a 100% increase in pay effective immediately and retroactive to 1999.

Offline Lord of Winter and War

  • The Cause of Diabetes -Captain- Necrontyr Immortal - KoN Veteran - Master of All Diplomacy | Wi-Fi Nomad |
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8901
  • Country: ca
  • Armies: Harlequins, Spiderfang, Bonereapers, Space Wolves
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2016, 08:06:03 AM »
As someone who never played Warhammer Fantasy Battles, I really like AoS as an alternative game to 40k. I can also see how if 40k had the same treatment, it would really shadow my impression of the game.

I do really like where the core 40k rules are right now. I don't see how a radical change would be healthy for the game.
Harlequin Army Blog

That's not blatant, this is blatant: I'm super happy that I'm playing Austria, the greatest nation in all of Diplomacy!

Azore of Austria

Offline Radec

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 188
  • Country: 00
  • Armies: Chaos Daemons, Genestealer Cults (soon, yess soon)
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2016, 08:34:37 AM »
As someone who never played Warhammer Fantasy Battles, I really like AoS as an alternative game to 40k. I can also see how if 40k had the same treatment, it would really shadow my impression of the game.

I do really like where the core 40k rules are right now. I don't see how a radical change would be healthy for the game.

Since my initial rage (largely wrong founded) went down I've switched my GW purchases and gaming time from 40k to AoS and I can tell you that it plays and feels like a much better version of 40k. It is fast, fluid and characterful. 40k would very much benefit from a similar, more open, rule set. The main problem would be the implementation of the variety of weapons and weapon options, which are a huge part of both the lore and gameplay. If it was me I would probably list all the faction weapons in different listings and go with either "every model can get a weapon from the list" or "every fifth model..." and then release the book describing the canonical weapon loads outs (1 flamer per tac squad etc.) so everyone can decide what type of force to build and collect.

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2016, 10:14:22 AM »
Yeah that's another major issue for doing such a thing.  Fantasy gets away with it because a unit is typically limited to one weapon set.  But in 40k there's usually around 5 optional special and/or heavy weapons on top of the characters weapons etc.  Then there's the grenades.  So many different grenades.  :P


Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #15 on: June 26, 2016, 10:24:40 AM »
Weapons and grenades can be streamlined too.  There's no need to keep them all.  Remember, many grenades, missile types, and weapons were removed between second and third edition.  A similar thing could be achieved again.
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #16 on: June 26, 2016, 01:11:56 PM »
Weapons and grenades can be streamlined too.  There's no need to keep them all.  Remember, many grenades, missile types, and weapons were removed between second and third edition.  A similar thing could be achieved again.

That's true.  :)

Grenades could be all streamlined into one entry if I'm honest.  Meltabomb like charges can be separate.  And any special abilities can be covered by the warscrolls (we need a 40k style name for those).

One thing I'd like to do too; eliminate templates.  They slow the whole game down, and we don't need them.  Flame template weapons can fire a fixed number of shots that hit automatically while blast weapons can multiply hits into d6 hits and so on.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 01:15:08 PM by Captain Calamity »

Offline Radec

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 188
  • Country: 00
  • Armies: Chaos Daemons, Genestealer Cults (soon, yess soon)
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #17 on: June 26, 2016, 01:22:09 PM »
And any special abilities can be covered by the warscrolls (we need a 40k style name for those).
Data-slates?

One thing I'd like to do too; eliminate templates.  They slow the whole game down, and we don't need them.  Flame template weapons can fire a fixed number of shots that hit automatically while blast weapons can multiply hits into d6 hits and so on.
Fully agree and AoS handles blast and templates in a very quick manner - templates auto-hit and cause variable wounds and blasts cause hits/wounds/combination of both in a sometimes variable radius from a point chosen by the player. No clunky templates and number-of-models-under-the-template-quarrels required

Offline magenb

  • Aspect Warrior
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2162
  • Country: au
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #18 on: June 26, 2016, 05:02:40 PM »
Yeah 40k can be streamlined alot, too many rules with too many special exemption rules, that are constantly expanded and changing thanks to supplements and formation BS. The only problem I would have is that GW would stuff it up lol.


Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: Could 40k be 'Sigmarised'?
« Reply #19 on: June 26, 2016, 05:26:49 PM »
I honestly don't think 40k needs to be "streamlined" or cut down in any way, and it definitely doesn't need the sigmar treatment.

What I would love to get from GW that will never happen is a set of rules that have no ambiguity.  I'd love to not have to reference any FAQs to make sure my army is working the way it is supposed to.

Mostly, this edition has been better than others.  There are only a few issues in my mind that needed to be addressed (primarily super heavies and gargantuan creatures), but other than that the rules were usually pretty clear.  All of the amphetamine parrot that GW has been releasing in their draft FAQ is just stupid questions that people are reading too much into, or GW going out of their way to make things more complicated *coughdroppodscough*
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

 


Powered by EzPortal