[X40K] Why? Part 2
Doug Arnott
words about wanting a sci-fi wargame using WH40K miniatures.
In the simplification of reality into a model, some WH40K rules
are simplistic, but are too restrictive, for example as follows
from the 4th edition rules:
page 18 "... The whole unit has to fire all of its weaponry at a
single opposing unit of your choice - you may not split fire be-
tween two or more target units. ..."
Imagine a squad of 10 marines being attacked by a 5-Ork squad on
each flank. The logical targeting solution is for the marines to
split their shooting against each of the two Ork squads.
page 26 "... The owning player can choose to remove any models
from the unit, providing they are within the line of fire and
range of the attacker's weaponry. He can even remove models at
the rear of the unit if he wishes ..."
Imagine a stream of creatures in a squad charging towards a squad
of marines. The logical approach to model reality in a wargame is
for the marines to kill the closest creatures to stop them from
getting into hand-to-hand combat.
page 65 "... When a unit fires at a vehicle it must direct all of
its shooting at it. Often this means that some of their weapons
can't damage it, ..."
Imagine a 5-man marine squad, 4 with bolters and 1 with a missile
launcher, and two targets of a Predator alongside of a squad of 3
Orks. The logical targeting solution is the missile launcher
against the Predator, and the 4 bolters against the Orks.
For me, the above WH40K rules are for a game rather than a wargame.
Doug
My alternative rules of "not 40K", or "X40K" for short, are at ...
http://www.dougarnott.ca/tmw/index.htm for on-line reading.
http://www.dougarnott.ca/tmw/rulesX40K_v0_1.zip for downloading.
FunkyD
I don't think you'll find a lot of support here Doug. You made a long,
complaining post about 40K rules, and when people took the time to try
to help you through some of your misconceptions, you didn't even reply.
Get a 2nd edition rulebook, and then complain about that for a while.
At least it'll be closer to what you want.
Please, find somewhere else to post this stuff. Further posting here
is likely to get you flamed, or possibly even killfiled.
D
ADR
> Snip
>
> page 18 "... The whole unit has to fire all of its weaponry at a
> single opposing unit of your choice - you may not split fire be-
> tween two or more target units. ..."
>
> Imagine a squad of 10 marines being attacked by a 5-Ork squad on
> each flank. The logical targeting solution is for the marines to
> split their shooting against each of the two Ork squads.
>
will be dead. So these are no longer flanking units at that point.
Also the genral rule if modified would make ballistic armies dominant.
Which is not 100% real unless they are fighting in certain terrain
situations.
> page 26 "... The owning player can choose to remove any models
> from the unit, providing they are within the line of fire and
> range of the attacker's weaponry. He can even remove models at
> the rear of the unit if he wishes ..."
>
> Imagine a stream of creatures in a squad charging towards a squad
> of marines. The logical approach to model reality in a wargame is
> for the marines to kill the closest creatures to stop them from
> getting into hand-to-hand combat.
Another good rule, saves tons of time. Think about it, how do the game
designers know or even the other player, if the unit is trying to
assault. It may be trying to flank, find special cover, etc. You
would end up with five differnet rules if you tried to mandate what
model was removed from a unit. Or add to much time mandating 2nd
edition fire rules. You could actually loose realism tweaking this
rule.
> page 65 "... When a unit fires at a vehicle it must direct all of
> its shooting at it. Often this means that some of their weapons
> can't damage it, ..."
>
> Imagine a 5-man marine squad, 4 with bolters and 1 with a missile
> launcher, and two targets of a Predator alongside of a squad of 3
> Orks. The logical targeting solution is the missile launcher
> against the Predator, and the 4 bolters against the Orks.
>
U'm technically a bolter is a missle launcher too, bolter is the slang
term of the future. ;). Again in real combat this would happen, lay
down a supression fire, (so no one would stick their head out or no
infantry would try and jump out) then target your heavy weapon and
kaboom. Again if you break this you add more time to the game.
>
> For me, the above WH40K rules are for a game rather than a wargame.
For me, the 4th edition WH40K rules represent a fast paced wargame.
If buisness is war, Monopoly is a fine economic wargame simulator.
Doctor Rock
"Doug Arnott" <darno...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:44f2e612$0$7409$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> page 18 "... The whole unit has to fire all of its weaponry at a
> single opposing unit of your choice - you may not split fire be-
> tween two or more target units. ..."
>
> Imagine a squad of 10 marines being attacked by a 5-Ork squad on
> each flank. The logical targeting solution is for the marines to
> split their shooting against each of the two Ork squads.
possibly, but when one is trying to destroy a target (rather than suppress
it) it's generally recommended that one concentrates one's fire against it
until it is destroyed, before selecting a new target. obviously this is
only a recommendation and is subject to an officer's discretion re:
distance, terrain, nature of the target and so on, but it does have SOME
basis in reality.
as far as the game is concerned, rules like this were introduced to
encourage the use of more squads, rather than min-maxing with heavy support
choices and characters.
> page 26 "... The owning player can choose to remove any models
> from the unit, providing they are within the line of fire and
> range of the attacker's weaponry. He can even remove models at
> the rear of the unit if he wishes ..."
>
> Imagine a stream of creatures in a squad charging towards a squad
> of marines. The logical approach to model reality in a wargame is
> for the marines to kill the closest creatures to stop them from
> getting into hand-to-hand combat.
... and the stream of creatures will continue moving forward for the moment,
even if they're subsequently forced to fall back. units aren't frozen in
place when the movement phase is over; it's assumed that they keep moving
all the time unless they're in cover. if a squad suffers casualties from
members who are actively engaged, others can (or should, anyway) be expected
to move up and take their places unless or until they're ordered otherwise.
in terms of gameplay, this rule is indeed mostly just to simplify things by
allowing units to generally maintain the same position they were in before
coming under fire.
> page 65 "... When a unit fires at a vehicle it must direct all of
> its shooting at it. Often this means that some of their weapons
> can't damage it, ..."
>
> Imagine a 5-man marine squad, 4 with bolters and 1 with a missile
> launcher, and two targets of a Predator alongside of a squad of 3
> Orks. The logical targeting solution is the missile launcher
> against the Predator, and the 4 bolters against the Orks.
yep, you're right on this one. i don't understand it either - again, it may
well be a deliberate attempt to encourage the use of more squads as opposed
to support units, but if so it's obviously counterproductive.
Puggins
Doug Arnott wrote:
> page 18 "... The whole unit has to fire all of its weaponry at a
> single opposing unit of your choice - you may not split fire be-
> tween two or more target units. ..."
> Imagine a squad of 10 marines being attacked by a 5-Ork squad on
> each flank. The logical targeting solution is for the marines to
> split their shooting against each of the two Ork squads.
Speaking as an amateur WW2 student/gamer, I'll tell you right off the
bat that the "simplifications" you're complaing about are far mroe
realistic than the typical wargame that lets a unit pick any target it
wishes. Infantry units in WW2 were notoriously unable to divert their
attention from their nearest target, and certainly didn't split fire
effectively.
The more "realistic" result given the situation above would be the
marines very quickly giving ground or getting mowed down in an
untenable position. I would recommend watching the second episode of
"Band of Brothers", in which Easy Company's capture of several German
guns near the beaches was very accurately portrayed. What they didn't
mention (or maybe they did- I'm getting forgetful in my old age) was
that easy company was outnumbered by a good margin AND the enemy was
dug in. A well-executed flank attack wiped out the superior defending
force.
So not only is the rule you mention much, much easier to use, it's also
quite "realistic," if that's what you're going for.
> page 26 "... The owning player can choose to remove any models
> from the unit, providing they are within the line of fire and
> range of the attacker's weaponry. He can even remove models at
> the rear of the unit if he wishes ..."
>
> Imagine a stream of creatures in a squad charging towards a squad
> of marines. The logical approach to model reality in a wargame is
> for the marines to kill the closest creatures to stop them from
> getting into hand-to-hand combat.
Again, there are numerous cases where this doesn't hold water. What if
the marines didn't start firing until after the first wave came in?
What if those rear guys represent the ones they mowed down that were
actually in front at the time? You're taking the skirmish game much
too literally, especially since this skirmish game uses a very
stylistic IGO-UGO system.
> page 65 "... When a unit fires at a vehicle it must direct all of
> its shooting at it. Often this means that some of their weapons
> can't damage it, ..."
>
> Imagine a 5-man marine squad, 4 with bolters and 1 with a missile
> launcher, and two targets of a Predator alongside of a squad of 3
> Orks. The logical targeting solution is the missile launcher
> against the Predator, and the 4 bolters against the Orks.
Once again, this not only streamlines the game, it mirrors reality.
The infantryman will be far too concerned with the 85-ton hunk of metal
roaring towards him to consider that infantry platoon advancing behind
it. This splitting of fire just doesn't happen in practice, and is one
of the reasons why combined arms assaults work so well.
estarriol
squad moves the heavy weapon can't fire, whereas inR/L the heavy weapon can
stay put and fire while the squad moves to attack.
--
estarriol
Frankus Macimus
ADR wrote:
> Doug Arnott wrote:
> > Snippage
>
> > page 26 "... The owning player can choose to remove any models
> > from the unit, providing they are within the line of fire and
> > range of the attacker's weaponry. He can even remove models at
> > the rear of the unit if he wishes ..."
> >
> > Imagine a stream of creatures in a squad charging towards a squad
> > of marines. The logical approach to model reality in a wargame is
> > for the marines to kill the closest creatures to stop them from
> > getting into hand-to-hand combat.
>
> Another good rule, saves tons of time. Think about it, how do the game
> designers know or even the other player, if the unit is trying to
> assault. It may be trying to flank, find special cover, etc. You
> would end up with five differnet rules if you tried to mandate what
> model was removed from a unit. Or add to much time mandating 2nd
> edition fire rules. You could actually loose realism tweaking this
> rule.
>
in the front...
MOMENTUM as they run forward, their mass keeps them moving....
And agreed, it is a good rule to allow ease of play and to keep shooty
armies from completely denying HtH combat or allowing the enemy
position.
--Frank
Frankus Macimus
weapons are multiwound tanks. It keeps these squads from being
overpowering because if they could move and shoot you wouldn't need
tanks or anything else heavy. I mean imagine a tank you needed to hit
10 times to destroy....
--Frank
Doug Arnott
> I don't think you'll find a lot of support here Doug. You made a long,
> complaining post about 40K rules, and when people took the time to try
> to help you through some of your misconceptions,
I dislike the WH40K 4th edition rules. No misconception there. If
anyone thinks that they can argue to change my mind, then they have
a misconception.
> you didn't even reply.
As I look at my previous post of '[X40K] Why? Part 1' through Google,
I see 26 messages and 16 authors including the first post from myself.
The gist from the replies of my post was that WH40K 4th edition is the
way it is, like or lump it. And, I have no intent to get dragged into
a quibble war.
> Please, find somewhere else to post this stuff.
Here's fine.
> Further posting here is likely to get you flamed,
The flaming has already started.
> or possibly even killfiled.
If you do not like my posts, then please killfile me. I know that
there are others out in cyberland that have a distaste for WH40K 4th
edition. They may not like exactly what I'm advocating, but there is
a common goal.
It may seem like I'm bashing those who play WH40K 4th edition, but
I'm not. If you enjoy playing WH40K 4th edition, then go ahead. I'm
envious that you have a game that you enjoy and that there's many
others available as opponents. I'm bashing GW for creating WH40K
4th edition in the first place, and, since they created it, they
have not created an alternative to appease those who dislike WH40K
4th edition.
This is what I find strange. There's plenty of room for an alterna-
tive set of rules which use WH40K miniatures. One would think that
this would translate into more consumers of GW products.
Doug
FunkyD
Doug Arnott wrote:
> As I look at my previous post of '[X40K] Why? Part 1' through Google,
> I see 26 messages and 16 authors including the first post from myself.
> The gist from the replies of my post was that WH40K 4th edition is the
> way it is, like or lump it. And, I have no intent to get dragged into
> a quibble war.
25 other messages, 15 other authors, and not a SINGLE one agreed with
any of your viewpoints.
As has been said in the other thread..... you just don't get it.
Perhaps it's your grasp of the rules, perhaps it's your comprehension
of what people are trying to tell you.
D
Quirthanon
on HtH and making the players buy more models. I've played 40K since
2nd edition and I have to say that the 4th edition rules are horrible.
Any alternate rules system is a welcome addition to this group if you
ask me. I am eager to start testing alternate rules and would like to
see what others think is wrong with this system. It gives me better
ideas to suggest to our gaming group for house rules.
I also don't understand the hostility towards alternate rules in this
group. I would think after being played so many times by Games
workshop that many of you would be glad to use an alternate system, one
with a logical system and not so many damn special rules. I am really
beginning to dislike all of the special rules crap that comes out with
each new codex. A person can not purchase the basic rule book and
understand the game because of the special rules. We have a new gamer
in our group that's trying to learn 40K 4th edition and I completely
understand his frustration with the rules. It seems like every time he
plays he gets to play a different army and all of the rules change on
him.
I bet with a little effort one of you experts could even tell us of a
rules contradiction in the main rule book, but maybe not. I seem to
remember one involving vehicles, but that might have been a special
rule interfering instead of a rule in the main book.
I would also be upset about the current rules if I was playing one of
the races that have not had a codex update yet. How long has 4th
edition been out? Why the hell is it taking so long to make their
codexes?
Anyway, my point is the 40K 4th edition rules are messed up and if
someone offers an alternate system it's good for business, selling
models. However, If you personally don't like alternate rules stop
reading the posts about them. Some of use want new rules.
Frankus Macimus
Quirthanon wrote:
> I have to agree with Doug, the rules for 4th edition seem to be focused
> on HtH and making the players buy more models. I've played 40K since
> 2nd edition and I have to say that the 4th edition rules are horrible.
> Any alternate rules system is a welcome addition to this group if you
> ask me. I am eager to start testing alternate rules and would like to
> see what others think is wrong with this system. It gives me better
> ideas to suggest to our gaming group for house rules.
>
> I also don't understand the hostility towards alternate rules in this
> group. I would think after being played so many times by Games
> workshop that many of you would be glad to use an alternate system, one
> with a logical system and not so many damn special rules. I am really
> beginning to dislike all of the special rules crap that comes out with
> each new codex. A person can not purchase the basic rule book and
> understand the game because of the special rules. We have a new gamer
> in our group that's trying to learn 40K 4th edition and I completely
> understand his frustration with the rules. It seems like every time he
> plays he gets to play a different army and all of the rules change on
> him.
>
I don't believe it's hostility to alternate rules, it's hostility to
how these rules are being presented. These aren't alternate rules,
they are basically a rewrite and not a very good one at that. The
problem is that Doug's taking rules meant to simplify and speed the
game and adding a level of complexity that doesn't improve the game.
The complaint about realism is weak and he argues basically for
complexity for complexity's sake. It's already bad enough I need to
spend 3 hours for one game, I don't want to spend 4 hours arguing about
which model is hit or how far a model moved or if I need a d10, d12, or
d20.
It does suck that you need to have knowledge of each army to understand
the how it plays but then again you want variety, not cookie cutter
versions of the same army. I would consider sheltering new players to
a degree so they can understand their army and the rules then they can
start worrying about special rules. I think any game of this sort can
be a bit overwhelming at first but with time and experience it becomes
a lot less daunting. I guess you could call it an escalation of the
game as the "newbie" become experienced adding more units and
complexity as he/she/it progresses.
> I bet with a little effort one of you experts could even tell us of a
> rules contradiction in the main rule book, but maybe not. I seem to
> remember one involving vehicles, but that might have been a special
> rule interfering instead of a rule in the main book.
>
The rules aren't perfect, we all know that. One rule that bugs my
group, is the fact that you need to pass a leadership test to avoid
shooting a vehicle if it's the closest model, even if you don't have
any weapons that can glance or penetrate it. I'm sure there are
others, but I believe that's the situation where you add a house rule
to fit your preferences.
> I would also be upset about the current rules if I was playing one of
> the races that have not had a codex update yet. How long has 4th
> edition been out? Why the hell is it taking so long to make their
> codexes?
>
I think it's called the sales/product cycle. You keep introducing
product to make sure you have constant sales. Plus, we all know that
despite GWs infinite wisdom, they don't have all of the answers to how
to adapt every codex to the new rules and they don't have the new
models to support the release of every race. Sure they have FAQs but
honestly they aren't the best. For example, the SW Codex (my army and
frame of reference) refers to Storm Caller's ability to give first
attach, however, this rule was rewritten who knows when, maybe sometime
in 3rd edition. The Roolz Boys I chatted with didn't know there was a
rewritten codex and didn't have it handy 'nuff said
.
> Anyway, my point is the 40K 4th edition rules are messed up and if
> someone offers an alternate system it's good for business, selling
> models. However, If you personally don't like alternate rules stop
> reading the posts about them. Some of use want new rules.
Give us some examples of which rules are "messed up." I'm sure there
are people who will discuss rules with you. I personally enjoy a good
discussion. However, when you attack the game and the people who offer
insight, don't expect much help or sympathy.
--Frank
donovan...@yahoo.com
That's basically true, the "squad" is a life support system for the
heavy weapon (no sarcasm). It's been that way since the man portable MG
came along. If you want movement/assault elements and fire support
elements, take "battle squads" to represent split up squads for fire
and maneuver. If you want more tactical level of control where you can
split off individuals etc. 40K isn't going to do it for you. A 40K
skirmish game or necromunda knock off would be more like it.
Jim M
darno...@rogers.com says...
> This article continues with myself trying to put my thoughts into
> words about wanting a sci-fi wargame using WH40K miniatures.
>
I'll address these pointsa one at a time...
>
> In the simplification of reality into a model, some WH40K rules
> are simplistic, but are too restrictive, for example as follows
> from the 4th edition rules:
>
> page 18 "... The whole unit has to fire all of its weaponry at a
> single opposing unit of your choice - you may not split fire be-
> tween two or more target units. ..."
>
> Imagine a squad of 10 marines being attacked by a 5-Ork squad on
> each flank. The logical targeting solution is for the marines to
> split their shooting against each of the two Ork squads.
>
I can well imagine this, the logical solution is to concentrate fire on
and eliminate one squad and to engage the other in hand to hand, 5 Orks
vs 10 marines is pretty much an automatic win for the Marines.
Splitting fire as you suggest here does nothing but reduce your total
number of kills and improve the Orks chance of making a morale check.
> page 26 "... The owning player can choose to remove any models
> from the unit, providing they are within the line of fire and
> range of the attacker's weaponry. He can even remove models at
> the rear of the unit if he wishes ..."
>
> Imagine a stream of creatures in a squad charging towards a squad
> of marines. The logical approach to model reality in a wargame is
> for the marines to kill the closest creatures to stop them from
> getting into hand-to-hand combat.
>
You forget that squad level games are more often then not skirmish
games. THis is particularly true of 40K. Since it is a skirmish style
game the formations are open and it when massing fire on a unit it is
perfectly reasonable that some of the units in the rear will take a hit.
In the event that the casualties are in the front of the unit, it is
easy to imagine that the figure to the rear are filling in the front.
They are anxious to get into combat with you, so that is why removing
figures from the rear makes sense.
> page 65 "... When a unit fires at a vehicle it must direct all of
> its shooting at it. Often this means that some of their weapons
> can't damage it, ..."
>
> Imagine a 5-man marine squad, 4 with bolters and 1 with a missile
> launcher, and two targets of a Predator alongside of a squad of 3
> Orks. The logical targeting solution is the missile launcher
> against the Predator, and the 4 bolters against the Orks.
>
Obviously you have no inkling of what happens in an armour ambush, as a
former Infantry Squad Leader I do. When you set up an ambush for a tank,
in real life ALL WEAPONS (including those that cannot hurt the tank)
open fire as soon as the AT weapon is fired. Generally it will be a mad
minute where all weapons are emptied of ammo and then the entire squad
hauls ass out of there. This is why I have never had a problem with that
particular rule.
>
> For me, the above WH40K rules are for a game rather than a wargame.
>
This is one time that I have to say that you are just flat wrong, the
above sited rules are some of the few rules that actually MAKE 40K a
wargame!
Next time you post this kind of crap try to find a place that sells
clues and buy one first.
--
Jim M
In the grim darkness of the present, there is only September...
smithdoerr
"Quirthanon" <quirt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156796033.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I have to agree with Doug, the rules for 4th edition seem to be focused
> on HtH and making the players buy more models.
People in this NG have been complaining about the emphasis on HtH combat in
40k ever since 3rd edition was released. 4th edition has fortunetely moved
a step away from the mass transport rush + HtH charge of 3rd, so it's moving
in the right direction as far as I'm concerned, but still not as far as I
would like. Although I'm not sure how you "agree with Doug" on this point
since he didn't mention it in either of his "Why?" threads.
As to selling lots of models, <shrug> GW is a model company, everything they
do is designed to sell more models. But to be fair, the change to rules for
larger scale battles in 3rd edition was in part in response to people trying
to use the 2nd edition to fight larger battles.
> I've played 40K since
> 2nd edition and I have to say that the 4th edition rules are horrible.
Anything in particular?
<snip>
> I also don't understand the hostility towards alternate rules in this
> group.
The hostility is mostly toward Doug rather than toward alternate rules. His
knowledge of "realism" is spotty at best and he clearly doesn't understand
the intent of certain rules in 40k and what their overall affect on the game
is. If a person doesn't understand what they're criticizing how can they
improve on it?
To make things worse Doug hasn't bothered responded to any posts where
people have tried to enlighten him which means he isn't interested in any
real discussion. He's essentially treating the NG as if it were his
personal blog space to post one-sided self-aggrandizing masturbatory rants
about whatever is irritating him that particular day. I suspect his next
rant will be on the rules abstracting the use of frag grenades, which are in
fact flawed, but not for the reasons he'll likely think.
Treat the NG with disrespect and it will treat you the same.
> I would think after being played so many times by Games
> workshop that many of you would be glad to use an alternate system, one
> with a logical system and not so many damn special rules. I am really
> beginning to dislike all of the special rules crap that comes out with
> each new codex. A person can not purchase the basic rule book and
> understand the game because of the special rules.
Yes this is irritating. At least 4th addition has consolidated a lot of the
special rules in the main rulebook.
> I bet with a little effort one of you experts could even tell us of a
> rules contradiction in the main rule book, but maybe not.
Another common topic here. There was a recent thread complaining about GW's
shoddy FAQs, which wouldn't even be needed at all if they wrote their rules
more clearly and playtested them more thoroughly to begin with.
> I would also be upset about the current rules if I was playing one of
> the races that have not had a codex update yet. How long has 4th
> edition been out? Why the hell is it taking so long to make their
> codexes?
Unfortunately all game companies have to have something new to release every
month or so in order to keep people interested in their products or they go
out of business. Releasing a shiny new codex to go with the latest batch of
models helps those models sell better. Sometimes capitalism sucks.
> Anyway, my point is the 40K 4th edition rules are messed up and if
> someone offers an alternate system it's good for business, selling
> models. However, If you personally don't like alternate rules stop
> reading the posts about them. Some of use want new rules.
Ok. Here's a fun game that uses WH40k models:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/rgmw-genbus/files/Damnatus/
The game is called Damnatus and was written by some long time RGMW posters
(see, we don't hate alternate rules!). It's based on Necromunda and
Mordheim. I personally refer to it as Mordheim 40k. Unlike Doug's rules
it's quite good.
--
-smithdoerr
Myrmidon
Funky...@gmail.com says...
What? September right around the corner already? Why yes it is...
Myr
--
September is forever, how could you have missed it?
- Jim M 'Ancient Gamer'
RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org
Or...
donovan...@yahoo.com
Doug Arnott wrote:
> FunkyD wrote:
>
> > I don't think you'll find a lot of support here Doug. You made a long,
> > complaining post about 40K rules, and when people took the time to try
> > to help you through some of your misconceptions,
>
> I dislike the WH40K 4th edition rules. No misconception there. If
> anyone thinks that they can argue to change my mind, then they have
> a misconception.
Doug, it's not so much people trying to get you to change your mind
that 40Kv4 is the "awesomest most realistic game EVAR", it's that while
it does have faults many of the mechanics are there for a reason. Think
of it like this, you don't have to love your enemy but you have to
respect it. As I said to Ty in regard to his FFoB, if you're going to
make your own rules changes because you don't like a mechanic, at least
understand why the mechanic is there. I remember when I was younger,
and thought a lot the new non-carb car's engines were overcomplicated
crap, but there's more to it than meets the eye (emissions, fuel
consumption, etc). Also, keep in mind the *scale* of the game we're
talking about here. Quick company+ level engagements are what v3/v4 are
about. You start throwing in squad detachments, vehicle
momentum/turning arcs, etc. and you're going to do at least two things:
A) make a poor game that takes much longer than normal, and B) tweak
the beards of people who have a better understanding of the more
abstract mechanics and who'll disagree with your houserules.
My main gripe is you're gunning for your own completely different game,
game setting, etc. based on GW's minis (I guess because that's all
you've been exposed to, or like) and what appears to be very little
experience. The fact that you post it here doesn't bother me in the
least, except for the fact that you act like a fanatic for X40K and
against V4. There's not a day goes by that my senior engineer comes up
to me after I've worked hours on a design, and shows me a completely
different way of doing it. It pisses me the hell off (as I've wasted
time), but I've learned more that way than either just doing it on my
own, or having him hold my hand and show me everything. If you're not
willing to go through the feedback process (i.e. change), I think you'd
be much more satisfied by finding an established ruleset (Stargrunt?)
you jibe with more, and tweak it to your idea of perfection. But I also
think that if you went to that game's forum/newsgroup and went on like
you've done here you'd get the same reaction.
Myrmidon
> words about wanting a sci-fi wargame using WH40K miniatures.
>
>
> In the simplification of reality into a model, some WH40K rules
> are simplistic, but are too restrictive, for example as follows
> from the 4th edition rules:
<snip>
> page 26 "... The owning player can choose to remove any models
> from the unit, providing they are within the line of fire and
> range of the attacker's weaponry. He can even remove models at
> the rear of the unit if he wishes ..."
>
> Imagine a stream of creatures in a squad charging towards a squad
> of marines. The logical approach to model reality in a wargame is
> for the marines to kill the closest creatures to stop them from
> getting into hand-to-hand combat.
Sorry, but real world combat experience tells us differently. Your
above comment simply shows off your ignorance of behavior psychology and
historically documented real world battlefield conditions. If you're
not familiar with the story of Sgt. Alvin York (who won the Medal of
Honor among other awards during World War I) and his marksmenship - then
look him up damnit! For a guy who's complaints are 'over
simplification' and 'too restrictive' - your suggestion simply comes off
as an even less appealing version of 'more of the same'.
>
> page 65 "... When a unit fires at a vehicle it must direct all of
> its shooting at it. Often this means that some of their weapons
> can't damage it, ..."
>
> Imagine a 5-man marine squad, 4 with bolters and 1 with a missile
> launcher, and two targets of a Predator alongside of a squad of 3
> Orks. The logical targeting solution is the missile launcher
> against the Predator, and the 4 bolters against the Orks.
>
>
> For me, the above WH40K rules are for a game rather than a wargame.
In practice if not definition - war is conflict *WITHOUT* rules. I
find two very large problems with the alternatives you've offered up.
1. You're apparently attempting to replace a rules set you don't like
with something else (which is just fine). But you're attempting to
justify what amounts to little more than your own personal 'idealized'
version of 'how warefare *ought to be*' by wrapping unsupported
arguments in terms like 'realism' and 'logic'. Multiple people here
have pointed out that your 'realism' doesn't match up with real world
happenings, and that 'logic' often is NOT part of the battlefield at the
level 40K deals with. Historically, a number of battles have been won
by inferior forces with 'superior' behavior psychology in spite of all
logic to the contrary.
2. Realism does NOT by default equate to fun. Your complaints in some
cases are valid up to a point, but you've simply replaced poor mechanics
with something else that's worse / more time consuming / or just plain
unenjoyable. Which is counter-intuitive to the whole point to gaming in
the first place. And you've then ignored feedback that pointed this
out. And this makes your rules alternative superior to 40K how again?
Myr
--
"I'm already impoverished from buying wargames minis,
and I'm too knackered for riotous living..."
-- Moramarth
John Hwang
> This article continues with myself trying to put my thoughts into
> words about wanting a sci-fi wargame using WH40K miniatures.
MMkay... I wonder if it's any better than part 1...
> In the simplification of reality into a model, some WH40K rules
> are simplistic, but are too restrictive, for example as follows
> from the 4th edition rules:
>
> page 18 "... The whole unit has to fire all of its weaponry at a
> single opposing unit of your choice - you may not split fire be-
> tween two or more target units. ..."
>
> Imagine a squad of 10 marines being attacked by a 5-Ork squad on
> each flank. The logical targeting solution is for the marines to
> split their shooting against each of the two Ork squads.
No, it isn't.
1. 10-Marine squads are a waste of points with too many non-active
wounds.
2. 5-Ork squads are even stupider (no Waagh chance).
3. It's better to ensure to kill a unit entirely with a little overkill,
than to allow the Nobs / Special Weapons / Heavy Weapons to remain alive.
Once again, Doug Arnett creates a non-realistic contrived situation to
illustrate a non-sensical point.
But getting back to the rules involved, this is not at all unreasonable.
Models don't have God's eye view and full situational awareness like
the player does. It is a very reasonable simplification to force the
entire unit to fire at a single target.
If the player wants more tactical flexibility, he should take more
units, with their attendant drawbacks. I suck it up with Marines built
on 6s, and I'm not alone in taking sub-max squads.
> page 26 "... The owning player can choose to remove any models
> from the unit, providing they are within the line of fire and
> range of the attacker's weaponry. He can even remove models at
> the rear of the unit if he wishes ..."
>
> Imagine a stream of creatures in a squad charging towards a squad
> of marines. The logical approach to model reality in a wargame is
> for the marines to kill the closest creatures to stop them from
> getting into hand-to-hand combat.
Why do you care about this? You want to create a rule that mandates
which specific models are removed? Is your game so full of time that
you need to add a new rule here?
Doing this simply helps push the fighty troops back by effectively
reducing their movement by the opponent's shootiness.
Should the fighty models reach HtH, the loss of the model simply means
they hit with less impact. Isn't that enough penalty?
Once again, Doug Arnott demonstrates his clear and excessive bias
towards making an all-shooting, no-moving, no-fighting game. IMO, it
would be easier and better if you were to simply do away with assault
entirely.
By leaving the choice of which models to remove, the player losing the
model is penalized somewhat less above and beyond the loss of a model.
> page 65 "... When a unit fires at a vehicle it must direct all of
> its shooting at it. Often this means that some of their weapons
> can't damage it, ..."
>
> Imagine a 5-man marine squad, 4 with bolters and 1 with a missile
> launcher, and two targets of a Predator alongside of a squad of 3
> Orks. The logical targeting solution is the missile launcher
> against the Predator, and the 4 bolters against the Orks.
If they have perfect situational awareness, that *might* be the case.
If the Orks are a Warboss & 2 Nobs all kitted for HtH within 12", while
the Predator is an Autocannon / HB type, it may be better to drop a Frag
template *and* grease them, just to be sure.
In any case, the ML in the Tac squad was discounted relative to its Dev
cost precisely because of the tactical rule that all fire at one target.
> For me, the above WH40K rules are for a game rather than a wargame.
Yeah, right. Pity that they make a lot of sense.
> Doug
> My alternative rules of "not 40K", or "X40K" for short, are at ...
IMO, you should rename your game for "XXX" -- shorthand for "Xplayable,
Xintelligent, Xfun"...
Quite simply, your game has all the earmarks of rules for the sake of
rules, without any thought of reasonableness.
--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
John Hwang
> Doug Arnott wrote:
[who cares?]
> As has been said in the other thread..... you just don't get it.
> Perhaps it's your grasp of the rules, perhaps it's your comprehension
> of what people are trying to tell you.
Perhaps it's just that he's stupid.
John Hwang
> I have to agree with Doug, the rules for 4th edition seem to be focused
> on HtH and making the players buy more models.
Actually, they're focused on making the players play armies that depend
on mutual support of units rather than mindless Herohammer, while giving
players more flexibility in army design.
> I've played 40K since
> 2nd edition and I have to say that the 4th edition rules are horrible.
In general, 40k4 is a far superior game than 40k2 due to the increased
tactical play and army flexibility.
But hey, whatever floats your boat...
> I also don't understand the hostility towards alternate rules in this
> group.
We're OK with alternate rules. We're just hostile to badly-thought-out
rules and groundless objections. We're also hostile towards 'tards who
aren't willing to consider intelligent debate.
> I would think after being played so many times by Games
> workshop that many of you would be glad to use an alternate system, one
> with a logical system and not so many damn special rules.
Except, that's not what he's doing. He's adding a lot of detail rules
that don't even make sense because he's modeling the wrong things.
A perfect example is his insistence on modeling vehicle momentum for a
tank that is moving perhaps 20-30 mph.
> I am really beginning to dislike all of the special rules crap
> that comes out with each new codex.
In that case, play using the 40k3 rulebook lists.
Tho I will admit that I think the greater differentiation between armies
is a good thing. It sucked when all armies were armed with the same
weapons.
> A person can not purchase the basic rule book and
> understand the game because of the special rules.
OK, this is a legitimate gripe. But noobs learn over time, so it's not
so bad.
> We have a new gamer in our group that's trying to learn 40K 4th
> edition and I completely understand his frustration with the rules.
> It seems like every time he plays he gets to play a different army
> and all of the rules change on him.
I would wager that more half of the problem is YOU veteran gamers not
dumbing down your games with him.
What you should do is focus on smaller, simpler games until he learns
more of the rules.
> I would also be upset about the current rules if I was playing one of
> the races that have not had a codex update yet. How long has 4th
> edition been out? Why the hell is it taking so long to make their
> codexes?
This is a minor problem. But considering that most Codices of the
armies that are actually played competitively are OK, it's not a big deal.
> If you personally don't like alternate rules stop
> reading the posts about them. Some of use want new rules.
If Doug doesn't want commentary, he can STFU at any time.
John Hwang
> One rule that bugs my
> group, is the fact that you need to pass a leadership test to avoid
> shooting a vehicle if it's the closest model, even if you don't have
> any weapons that can glance or penetrate it.
IMO, this is one of the *BEST* rules in 40k4, as it actually is an
effort to model the much-vaunted "Fog of War" of Troops not having the
God's eye view and complete information on enemy units.
Robert Singers
> I dislike the WH40K 4th edition rules. No misconception there. If
> anyone thinks that they can argue to change my mind, then they have
> a misconception.
Vanity. No one cares what you think and if you do then you're a fool. No
one here thinks that any version of 40K is perfect. Andy O'Neill thinks
people should play Star Grunt 2. Matt Sprange thinks that Star Ship
Troopers is a better game.
The point is this isn't your personal soap box or vanity group. And if you
aren't prepared for *discussion* write a blog.
--
Rob Singers
RGMW FAQ Maintainer. See it @ http://www.rgmw.org
Foemina Erit Ruina Tua
Andy O'Neill
news:44f2e612$0$7409$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
<<>>
> single opposing unit of your choice - you may not split fire be-
> tween two or more target units. ..."
Doug.
I keep on trying to help you.
You seem to have lumped me in with everyone else as liking 40k and therefore
being anti x40k.
This is not the case.
It's not even the case that I'm anti x40k because I already have some other
favourite.
I don't like your stated design criteria.
Your logic is flawed.
In real modern armies, a squad fires at another squad.
There is no need to split a squad's fire because they operate as part of a
platoon.
Rather than a single squad being attacked on two sides, a platoon ought to
be deployed so that a squad is on each flank with a squad in reserve and any
platoon support eapons deployed to cover all the platoon.
There are exceptions to squad v squad. Support weapons might fire at one
thing whilst the rest of the squad at another.
I really think you should reconsider your plans.
You already have a friend who likes stargrunt 2.
Go ask him.
Does he honestly think that your design criteria can produce a better
system?
I think it's obvious what his answer ought to be.
--
Regards,
Andy O'Neill
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.htm
or, for no javascript and a faster load...
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sitemap.htm
Andy O'Neill
news:3DQIg.4873$pX3.108@trnddc07...
> Frankus Macimus wrote:
>> One rule that bugs my
>> group, is the fact that you need to pass a leadership test to avoid
>> shooting a vehicle if it's the closest model, even if you don't have
>> any weapons that can glance or penetrate it.
>
> IMO, this is one of the *BEST* rules in 40k4, as it actually is an effort
> to model the much-vaunted "Fog of War" of Troops not having the God's eye
> view and complete information on enemy units.
>
Shooting at the nearest most obvious appropriate target is the sort of
wording I would have preferred.
It would be standard practice since ww2 for infantry to target infantry
accompanying tanks rather than tanks.
Infantry can see enemy much easier in tanks with their restricted vision and
once the infantry are stripped away the tanks become vulnerable to the
various infantry weapons.
Chobham has rather pushed the balance in favour of tanks but just molotiv
cocktails are still very dangerous.
So I don't think forcing infantry with no AT weaponry to shoot at tanks when
other targets are available is at all realistic.
In real life there is actually some point to infantry shooting at tanks.
This forces the commanders to "button up" and greatly restricts their
vision.
Maybe you can even kill the tank commander which is likely to reduce the
effectiveness of a tank greatly.
In the bocage, ww2, there wasa sherman encountered german infantry.
They shot at it with mg42 machine guns for a while and drove it off.
The weight of fire had destroyed the gunners optics, made all the forward
facing vision blocks unusable and stripped off the aerial.
The tank was therefore blinded and unable to call for any support.
On fog of war otherwise.
I recommend map deployment for an attack defence game.
The defender marks his forces on a map of the table rather than placing
them.
Should they become visible to enemy he then places them on table.
Much more interesting than a standard encounter game.
You do, however, need a player you trust or a referee.
I also don't recall any actual spotting rules in 40k.
Infanatry stationery in cover should be very difficult to spot until they
open fire or you get very close.
FunkyD
Amen. It looks to me like he's trying to bring back 2nd ed. Don't get
me wrong, I have a lotta love for all the rules back then, but game of
2nd ed = 6 hours, and so many rules that it wasn't fun. 4th ed = 2
hrs, and considerably more fun.
D
FunkyD
Robert Singers wrote:
> The point is this isn't your personal soap box or vanity group. And if you
> aren't prepared for *discussion* write a blog.
His points and methods have been shown to be so inept, I don't think he
could possibly handle a *discussion*. Looking at his last post, I
think this is his blog, and a poor one at that.
I detect the faint odor of an 11-year old poster, just looking for some
attention. Good lord, let this thread die. :)
Doug Arnott
net etiquette by not replying to people's comments. I am read-
ing the comments and considering them. In many cases, a person
makes a point worth discussing, but also includes rude or crass
statements. I have no desire to reply to such a person. That
aside, let's look at some points that keep occuring:
Expert
I am not a military expert. I am not a wargame expert. I am
just following my feelings of what I like and dislike in a war-
game. Playtesting often proves whether an idea works or not.
And, I will change a rule if playtesting proves the rule does
not work.
Fog of War
Technology changes war. If I understand correctly, the current
military technological goal is to achieve full battlefield sur-
veillance, and real-time dissemination of information about
the tactical situation to the applicable units. If an unit
knows whats coming, then an unit can prepare rather than react.
Getting the precise tactical information lifts the Fog of War.
WH40K is supposed to be about war 10's of thousands of years
into the future. I haven't got a clue what war would be like
that far into the future. But in the next 50 years, I can be
confident in a prediction that the (U.S.) military achieves
the goal of getting the tactical situation in real-time to the
applicable units. In context with how I want to wargame (in
X40K, for example), the player is the tactical co-ordinator
for the piece of the battlefield on the tabletop. The player
alerts, advises and/or instructs all of the units as to their
tasks. If this means a direct feed to one soldier for specific
orders, then so be it.
WH40K 4th Enlightenment
I played WH40K 2nd and 3rd editions. There were flaws in the
rules requiring house rules. After one playtest of WH40K 4th
many years ago, I did not want to play WH40K 4th. No matter how
much someone advises or berates me to learn the 4th edition
rules to discover their inner beauty before stating my opinion,
I am not interested in the intimate details of the 4th edition
rules. From what I know, I dislike.
Why
My 'Why' series starts with comments why I dislike the WH40K 4th
edition rules with an eventual transition to why I constructed
X40K in its current incarnation. So, some topics from my reading
of comments for eventual discussion are:
- pace and duration of play
- warfare lethality in wargaming
- hand-to-hand combat
- subtle versus radical differences in armies
I enjoy the WH40K armies and the WH40K models, but I do not enjoy
the WH40K 4th edition rules. If you dislike or hate me or my way
of communication to express my dislike and to develop an alterna-
tive, then there is nothing I can do to ease your pain.
Doug
Stephen Weir
> In many cases, a person makes a point worth discussing, but also includes rude or crass statements. I have no desire
> to reply to such a person.
You are *so* in the wrong newsgroup.
--
Stephen Weir
List of Games for Sale - http://www.glipe.free-online.co.uk/index.htm
Midgard UK PBM - http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/midgard_uk_pbm/
Current eBay Auctions - http://makeashorterlink.com/?F1F521555
ICQ # 11472386
John Hwang
> "John Hwang" <JohnHw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>> Frankus Macimus wrote:
>>> One rule that bugs my
>>> group, is the fact that you need to pass a leadership test to avoid
>>> shooting a vehicle if it's the closest model,
>>
>> to model the much-vaunted "Fog of War" of Troops not having the God's eye
>> view and complete information on enemy units.
>
> Shooting at the nearest most obvious appropriate target is the sort of
> wording I would have preferred.
That's the heart of the rule, shooting at the closest (i.e. most obvious
available) target.
> So I don't think forcing infantry with no AT weaponry to shoot at tanks when
> other targets are available is at all realistic.
It should be standard practice for Infantry to be armed with Anti-Tank
weapons in an environment with lots of Tanks... ;)
> On fog of war otherwise.
> I recommend map deployment for an attack defence game.
Oh, I've played refereed dual-map double-blind games, and they're
immensely satisfying, even considering the increased time (3rd player to
referee) and space (double maps).
But in a tabletop game like 40k, dicing against Ld isn't unreasonable as
a proxy to determine what information is available to the unit.
> I also don't recall any actual spotting rules in 40k.
IIRC, if the Guess weapon cannot see the impact point, the scatter
distance is doubled.
IOW, rather than inventing a cumbersome detail mechanic, it's rolled up
in the rules.
> Infanatry stationery in cover should be very difficult to spot
> until they open fire or you get very close.
In the Fluff, Marines have auto-senses and Nids have Hive Mind so they
can locate enemy infantry. As Marines are largely invulnerable, Nids
and Orks aren't subtle, so they don't care about hiding. And so on.
John Hwang
> This reply is a response to statements that I am showing poor
> net etiquette by not replying to people's comments. I am read-
> ing the comments and considering them. In many cases, a person
> makes a point worth discussing, but also includes rude or crass
> statements. I have no desire to reply to such a person.
Aww, poor baby...
If you can't stand swimming in the RGMW shark pit, get the fuck out of here.
> Expert
> I am not a military expert. I am not a wargame expert.
No shit.
> I am just following my feelings of what I like and
> dislike in a war-game. Playtesting often proves whether
> an idea works or not.
And yet, you totally discount the multi-edition world-wide playtesting
that went into 40k4, attacking rules that actually make some kind of sense?
> Fog of War
> Technology changes war. If I understand correctly, the current
> military technological goal is to achieve full battlefield sur-
> veillance, and real-time dissemination of information about
> the tactical situation to the applicable units. If an unit
> knows whats coming, then an unit can prepare rather than react.
> Getting the precise tactical information lifts the Fog of War.
Information is asymmetrical. Usually, only one side will be able to
have an information advantage, and that advantage is transitory.
40k models the "moment of contact", thus such information is NOT
appropriate.
> WH40K is supposed to be about war 10's of thousands of years
> into the future.
The idea that all armies in 40k are (or should) operate with perfect
information is nonsensical.
> I haven't got a clue what war would be like
> that far into the future. But in the next 50 years, I can be
> confident in a prediction that the (U.S.) military achieves
> the goal of getting the tactical situation in real-time to the
> applicable units.
That would be "Dark Age of Technology" type stuff, technology which is
no longer available to 40k.
> In context with how I want to wargame (in
> X40K, for example), the player is the tactical co-ordinator
> for the piece of the battlefield on the tabletop. The player
> alerts, advises and/or instructs all of the units as to their
> tasks. If this means a direct feed to one soldier for specific
> orders, then so be it.
As expected, you have no clue with respect to ECM / ECCM, jamming and
such. In hypermodern combat, if you know your opponent depends on RF
comms, you will have RF seeker weapons that obliterate RF users, along
with auto-Jammers to counter the actual message.
By analogy, future warfare will be like fighting in a dark room. Every
communication is shouting. It's not hard to sit quietly in cover,
listen for someone to shout, squeeze a bullet at the sound, and scuttle
off to the next fire point.
To get around this, you can use delayed relays or other techniques to
get the message out. But these techniques reduce the value of
information timeliness. Once Hiroshima is a parking lot, it's too late.
Thus, the advantage dissipates.
> WH40K 4th Enlightenment
> I played WH40K 2nd and 3rd editions. There were flaws in the
> rules requiring house rules. After one playtest of WH40K 4th
> many years ago, I did not want to play WH40K 4th. No matter how
> much someone advises or berates me to learn the 4th edition
> rules to discover their inner beauty before stating my opinion,
So you're basing all of this crap on one lousy playtest, which may not
have been done properly?
> I am not interested in the intimate details of the 4th edition
> rules. From what I know, I dislike.
40k4 is unquestionably the best incarnation of 40k to date. If you're
not even going to bother understanding what you criticise, you ought to
be the poster boy for the word "Ignorant".
> Why
> My 'Why' series starts with comments why I dislike the WH40K 4th
> edition rules with an eventual transition to why I constructed
> X40K in its current incarnation. So, some topics from my reading
> of comments for eventual discussion are:
>
> - pace and duration of play
> - warfare lethality in wargaming
> - hand-to-hand combat
> - subtle versus radical differences in armies
Save your breath. You're just too proudly ignorant to discuss any of
these topics intelligently.
> I enjoy the WH40K armies and the WH40K models, but I do not enjoy
> the WH40K 4th edition rules.
That is because you are too lazy to give them a proper trial.
> If you dislike or hate me or my way
> of communication to express my dislike and to develop an alterna-
> tive, then there is nothing I can do to ease your pain.
Sure there is. You can start playing your games of 40k on a busy
highway during rush hour.
Alternately, you can just STFU and go to RGMM where you belong.
Robert Singers
> I detect the faint odor of an 11-year old poster, just looking for some
> attention. Good lord, let this thread die. :)
That sort generally sulk if you mock them.
smithdoerr
>> Infanatry stationery in cover should be very difficult to spot until they
>> open fire or you get very close.
>
> In the Fluff, Marines have auto-senses and Nids have Hive Mind so they can
> locate enemy infantry. As Marines are largely invulnerable, Nids and Orks
> aren't subtle, so they don't care about hiding. And so on.
Except for infiltrators, which the rules assume are breaking cover at the
start of the battle.
--
-smithdoerr
Berto
> Doug Arnott wrote:
>> This reply is a response to statements that I am showing poor
>> net etiquette by not replying to people's comments. I am read-
>> ing the comments and considering them. In many cases, a person
>> makes a point worth discussing, but also includes rude or crass
>> statements. I have no desire to reply to such a person.
>
> Aww, poor baby...
>
> If you can't stand swimming in the RGMW shark pit, get the fuck out of
> here.
I did not feel I was giving rude or crass statements. I was actually trying
to stay even handed. Why don't you take your football home. this field will
eat you up.
>
>> Expert
>> I am not a military expert. I am not a wargame expert.
>
> No shit.
ditto...
berto
Ty
news:3m8Jg.3092$XD1.1721@trnddc01...
> And yet, you totally discount the multi-edition world-wide playtesting
> that went into 40k4, attacking rules that actually make some kind of
> sense?
<blink>
WH40K was playtested? Really? Where can we find evidence of such a thing? I
mean, it's hard to infer that from the rules themselves.
> The idea that all armies in 40k are (or should) operate with perfect
> information is nonsensical.
Uh, except that they do. You can see the entire table. You can read the
codexes and know the complete capabilities of enemy forces. Of course, this
is easy to rationalize in a Sci-Fi game -- simply chalk it up to "sensors".
In a skirmish game, though, the "information battle" has been fought and
won/lost before the scenario begins.
>> I haven't got a clue what war would be like
>> that far into the future. But in the next 50 years, I can be
>> confident in a prediction that the (U.S.) military achieves
>> the goal of getting the tactical situation in real-time to the
>> applicable units.
> That would be "Dark Age of Technology" type stuff, technology which is no
> longer available to 40k.
A jarringly bald handwave. If I have a gun that shoots bursts of
projectiles, then the tactics used for that gun won't change a lot, whether
it's an M-16 or a Boltgun. If an enemy crosses a street within range, I can
blast him -- even if it isn't my "turn". WH40K ignores this and many other
basic tactical realities. While I can accept that high tech systems may
alter the battlefield, I think that it is incumbent on the game designer --
or his ever loyal high priests -- to explain why reasonable real-world
tactics don't translate to the 40K battlefield. Your bald and conclusory
"because they don't" answer doesn't really get us very far, does it?
--Ty
Ty
news:3m8Jg.3092$XD1.1721@trnddc01...
>> In context with how I want to wargame (in
>> X40K, for example), the player is the tactical co-ordinator
>> for the piece of the battlefield on the tabletop. The player
>> alerts, advises and/or instructs all of the units as to their
>> tasks. If this means a direct feed to one soldier for specific
>> orders, then so be it.
> As expected, you have no clue with respect to ECM / ECCM, jamming and
> such. In hypermodern combat, <snip> ... By analogy, future warfare will
> be like fighting in a dark room.
If so, then 40K does a bad job of simulating such warfare, since as noted
previously, all forces are visible on the board at all times and all
capabilities are known.
Of course, it's nearly impossible to effectively do hidden movement in a
miniature wargame, with the exception of gamemastered scenarios. "Double
blind" games are mechanically very challenging. One compromise is the
"single blind" game, in which the defender is hidden but the attacker is
visible. Until spotted, defending units remain hidden. This radically alters
the typical wargame, btw. I've played the attacker lots of times and it can
be very disconcerting to face an empty battlefield where every bit of cover
or hill can hide bad guys. Suddenly, recon becomes *very* important. These
games have generally been far more intense than normal games.
Of course, such a game would be much harder to do in a clumsy system like
WH40K. With no provision for overwatch and unlimited sighting ranges, a
hidden movement game would be hardly worth the effort.
But in a system with a decent spotting system and overwatch/hold fire rules,
these kinds of games can be a real treat.
An example of a decent spotting system is (IMHO) the FFT system. Works like
this:
To fire at a target, you must "spot" it. You have to trace a valid,
unblocked line of sight to the target *and* the target must be within
"detection range".
Detection ranges vary, depending on stand type, stand quality and target
type. For instance, Veterans have a longer detection range than Green
troops. Tanks are easier to see than infantry. Shooting stands are easier to
spot than non-shooting stands. Moving stands are easier to spot than
stationary stands.
The result is that even if the *player* knows where an enemy stand is, his
stands can't engage them. Of course, the player *can* exploit his knowledge
by moving towards the undetected enemy stands. <shrug> I guess that can be
rationalized as "there are signs that the enemy may be in those trees, sir".
In a hidden movement game, the system really adds an edge to the experience.
Here's how such a system changes the complexion of a game. Let's say that
you have stationary infantry hidden on the edge of a tree line 18" away from
my squad (just outside long range for my bolters). I am the attacker and
it's my turn. I moved from behind an obstacle on my last turn and you did
not fire in your turn.
In 40K, the result is absurd -- I move forward 6" and open fire at 12". Even
though your guys are stationary and in cover, I see them and can fire at
them even at long range (assuming I stop first). Worse, your guys have to
endure my fire before they can shoot back, despite the fact that your guys
were lying in wait for me! Indeed, the only way for you to have engaged me
first would have been to shoot in your turn at long range, or worse, MOVE
OUT OF COVER to get full rate of fire at 12". Whatever happened to holding
your fire until you see the whites (reds?) of their eyes?
In FFT -- or FFB -- the result is a bit more sane. In both games, stationary
infantry in cover is very hard to see. So most stands have a 2" detection
range when spotting stationary infantry in cover. Now, when they open fire,
I can detect them at maximum detection range (72"). So, even though I know
that your troops are there, I can't shoot them until I get close to them. So
my squad advances towards them, weapons at the ready. They remain still
until I get to effective range (12") and then open fire (since they didn't
move or fire last turn, they have an overwatch marker). At that point, I see
them. But their ambush worked -- they got the first shot off.
Note that once spotted, a stand is considered spotted by all enemy stands
that can trace a valid line of sight to it. "All units, they're in the tree
line!" The stand becomes unspotted at the end of any phase in which the
stand is outside the detection range and outside the line of sight of all
enemy stands. As a practical matter, once shooting and moving starts,
spotting isn't much of an issue.
> Every communication is shouting. It's not hard to sit quietly in cover,
> listen for someone to shout, squeeze a bullet at the sound, and scuttle
> off to the next fire point.
Of course, WH40K lacks any mechanism for this as well.
In FFT (and FFB), there's a special attack called the "shoot 'n scoot". A
stand with an overwatch marker may make a "shoot 'n scoot" attack in lieu of
a normal attack. The shoot 'n scoot attack is at 1/2 rate of fire (round
down; weapons with normal ROF of 1 are at -1 to hit). After making the
attack, the firing stand makes an *immediate* move away from the target of
up to 1/2 the firing stand's movement rate.
Despite the fact that WH40K fails to model any of these factors that *you*
claim to exist on the imaginary battlefield, you still defend it with a
nearly religious fervor. Ironic, really. I wonder if there's a "battered
gamer's syndrome" to describe gamers who cling tenaciously to awful systems?
>> I am not interested in the intimate details of the 4th edition
>> rules. From what I know, I dislike.
> 40k4 is unquestionably the best incarnation of 40k to date. If you're not
> even going to bother understanding what you criticise, you ought to be the
> poster boy for the word "Ignorant".
Of course the "best incarnation to date" of a crappy game is faint praise
indeed. Best incarnation or not, it is a lousy skirmish wargame.
> Alternately, you can just STFU and go to RGMM where you belong.
Still trying to play the Newsgroup Hall Monitor, eh? I refer you (again) to
the charter:
'Rec.games.miniatures.warhammer shall be an unmoderated
recreational newsgroup devoted to the discussion of various
fantasy and science-fiction miniatures games set in the
"Warhammer" universe, including BUT NOT LIMITED TO
such games as Warhammer Fantasy Battles (WFB),
Warhammer 40000 (40K) and Man o' War (MOW).'
[emphasis mine]
<shrug>
Wouldn't any game that is set in the 40K universe be within the scope of
this group?
--Ty
ADR
Ty wrote:
> "John Hwang" <JohnHw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
> news:3m8Jg.3092$XD1.1721@trnddc01...
>
> > And yet, you totally discount the multi-edition world-wide playtesting
> > that went into 40k4, attacking rules that actually make some kind of
> > sense?
>
> <blink>
>
> WH40K was playtested? Really? Where can we find evidence of such a thing? I
> mean, it's hard to infer that from the rules themselves.
>
John stands correct here, these were known and widely available as the
"Trial Assault Rules". They were also in Chapter Approved 2003 page
48. GW was asking for feedback and fine tuning ideas at that time, I
imagine they will do the same near the next 40K rulebook release.
> Snipped the rest.
Ty
>> > And yet, you totally discount the multi-edition world-wide playtesting
>> > that went into 40k4, attacking rules that actually make some kind of
>> > sense?
>> <blink>
>> WH40K was playtested? Really? Where can we find evidence of such a thing?
>> I
>> mean, it's hard to infer that from the rules themselves.
> John stands correct here, these were known and widely available as the
> "Trial Assault Rules". They were also in Chapter Approved 2003 page
> 48. GW was asking for feedback and fine tuning ideas at that time, I
> imagine they will do the same near the next 40K rulebook release.
<shakes head in disbelief>
I find it stunning that such a mediocre set of rules could survive even the
most cursory playtesting...
--Ty
Myrmidon
tybear...@sbcglobal.net says...
GW lets Gav Thorpe design rules. "The 'new' Cold Ones miniatures
look slow, so I've reduced the speed of the Dark Elf cavalry."
Need *ANYONE* say more?
Myrmidon
Myrmidon
tybear...@sbcglobal.net says...
> Still trying to play the Newsgroup Hall Monitor, eh? I refer you (again) to
> the charter:
>
> 'Rec.games.miniatures.warhammer shall be an unmoderated
> recreational newsgroup devoted to the discussion of various
> fantasy and science-fiction miniatures games set in the
> "Warhammer" universe, including BUT NOT LIMITED TO
> such games as Warhammer Fantasy Battles (WFB),
> Warhammer 40000 (40K) and Man o' War (MOW).'
> [emphasis mine]
>
> <shrug>
>
> Wouldn't any game that is set in the 40K universe be within the scope of
> this group?
Ty, I don't think anyone would care, *IF* he were producing
something even vaguely coherent. But so far, we're up to 'article 5' on
what is a 2 or 3 sentence issue at most...
> This article continues with myself trying to put my thoughts into
> words about wanting a sci-fi wargame using WH40K miniatures.
Ok, he wants a "sci-fi wargame using WH40K miniatures". No problem!
Try the "Warhammer 40K" rules set. It's a sci-fi wargame using WH40K
miniatures. Oh wait, Doug doesn't like those rules. What he really
wants is 'a sci-fi wargame with 40K miniatures using something *other
than* the 40K rules set.' See how easy it is to answer that simple
problem. Yet Doug can't even manage to articulate that very well (hence
5 articles to date).
At this point we should have moved on to the next phase, which
would be to define exactly what he's looking for in a Sci-fi miniatures
wargame. Followed by checking to see if there's an already existing
sci-fi miniatures wargame rules set that would meet some, most, or all
of his criteria. The problem here (which is why everyone is already
sick of seeing 4 more pointless posts after the first one) is that Doug
can't even succinctly define what he's looking for, which pretty much
means he's got zero chance of success when it comes to creating a rules
set. To date, Doug has communicated the following...
He wants 'a wargame that is a realistic simulation of fictional weapons
and combat utilizing a ruleset that ignores real world combat simulation
to enhance realism'. Hello Schizophrenia!
He's then followed this lack of success at defining the problem with
multiple posts about how he doesn't like GW's rules (which is ok) -
while at the same time admitting that he hasn't read them or can't
comprehend them - and attempted to purpose a slew of 'fixes' that work
at cross purposes. Meanwhile multiple people here offered input and
feedback - which Doug has kindly dismissed or ignored. And you're
bitching about GW and play testing? Good Lord! To date, Doug's attempts
at game design make Derek Smart look like a positively stellar game
designer by comparison.
At this point, Doug's posts have become little more than verbal
masturbation, and could be accomplished by simply posting this crap on
his web site with his rules allowing those interested to access it,
without subjecting a great many of us to it here that are utterly
uninterested. No one would care if he posted the link to his site from
time to time. Nor would anyone likely particularly object to his
current topic if he had managed to offer something that gave even the
slightest glimmer of hope that it would yield something worth while. If
he can't even state a goal or intent when it comes to his purposed rules
set, how the hell does anyone imagine he'll randomly create an
interesting, or fun, or balanced sci-fi miniatures wargame by making
long, rambling, disjointed, and often contradictory posts about 40K
rules (that he admits he hasn't read or comprehended)?
5 posts of this is about 4 to many...
Ty
news:MPG.1f6dfae14...@news-server.woh.rr.com...
>> Still trying to play the Newsgroup Hall Monitor, eh? I refer you (again)
>> to
>> the charter:
>> 'Rec.games.miniatures.warhammer shall be an unmoderated
>> recreational newsgroup devoted to the discussion of various
>> fantasy and science-fiction miniatures games set in the
>> "Warhammer" universe, including BUT NOT LIMITED TO
>> such games as Warhammer Fantasy Battles (WFB),
>> Warhammer 40000 (40K) and Man o' War (MOW).'
>> [emphasis mine]
>> <shrug>
>> Wouldn't any game that is set in the 40K universe be within the scope of
>> this group?
> Ty, I don't think anyone would care, *IF* he were producing
> something even vaguely coherent. But so far, we're up to 'article 5' on
> what is a 2 or 3 sentence issue at most...
Yes, I can see your point. However, there's a significant difference between
"boring" and "off-topic", though the mental energy lost may be the same.
>> This article continues with myself trying to put my thoughts into
>> words about wanting a sci-fi wargame using WH40K miniatures.
> Ok, he wants a "sci-fi wargame using WH40K miniatures". No problem!
> Try the "Warhammer 40K" rules set. It's a sci-fi wargame using WH40K
> miniatures. Oh wait, Doug doesn't like those rules. What he really
> wants is 'a sci-fi wargame with 40K miniatures using something *other
> than* the 40K rules set.' See how easy it is to answer that simple
> problem. Yet Doug can't even manage to articulate that very well (hence
> 5 articles to date).
<chuckle>
Well, it *is* a fairly simple concept, now that you mention it.
> At this point we should have moved on to the next phase, which
> would be to define exactly what he's looking for in a Sci-fi miniatures
> wargame. Followed by checking to see if there's an already existing
> sci-fi miniatures wargame rules set that would meet some, most, or all
> of his criteria. The problem here (which is why everyone is already
> sick of seeing 4 more pointless posts after the first one) is that Doug
> can't even succinctly define what he's looking for, which pretty much
> means he's got zero chance of success when it comes to creating a rules
> set. To date, Doug has communicated the following...
> He wants 'a wargame that is a realistic simulation of fictional weapons
> and combat utilizing a ruleset that ignores real world combat simulation
> to enhance realism'. Hello Schizophrenia!
Gee, I hope that's not what he said, because it makes no sense.
Well, I don't want to speak for Doug, but *I* want a ruleset that produces
reasonable situations, given the defined fictional universe. And the defined
fictional universe isn't really much different than 20th-21st century
infantry combat. Substitute "Bolter" for "M-16", "LasCannon" for "ATGM",
etc. The differences are mostly detail; they don't materially alter what
tactics should work.
I also want a ruleset that is fun to play and that doesn't require me to
waste time and energy on idiotic, obtuse mechanics.
<snip of critique of Doug's posts>
I did not come to praise Doug, but to bury...er, wrong script. Anyhow, I
offer no defense of him. His arguments are his own and stand on their own
merit (or lack thereof). Honestly, I'm not terribly interested in them; I
have sufficiently defined my critiques of 40K and the solutions that I think
will work.
My purpose in pointing out the RGMW charter is to rebut John's continual
attempts to a priori exclude discussions that he doesn't like.
--Ty
Andy O'Neill
> masturbation, and could be accomplished by simply posting this crap on
> his web site with his rules allowing those interested to access it,
> without subjecting a great many of us to it here that are utterly
> uninterested. No one would care if he posted the link to his site from
> time to time. Nor would anyone likely particularly object to his
> current topic if he had managed to offer something that gave even the
> slightest glimmer of hope that it would yield something worth while. If
> he can't even state a goal or intent when it comes to his purposed rules
> set, how the hell does anyone imagine he'll randomly create an
> interesting, or fun, or balanced sci-fi miniatures wargame by making
> long, rambling, disjointed, and often contradictory posts about 40K
> rules (that he admits he hasn't read or comprehended)?
>
> 5 posts of this is about 4 to many...
>
> Myrmidon
Oh I dunno.
To play devil's advocate for a moment.
The posts provoked some small discussion of rules design and your actual 40k
rules.
So not entirely unproductive.
I think Doug's project will come to a halt as he finds nobody wants to play
his rules.
Pity I/we couldn't dissuade him from wasting his energies and the ultimate
disappointment.
Andy O'Neill
news:95DMg.9847$yO7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> "John Hwang" <JohnHw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
> news:3m8Jg.3092$XD1.1721@trnddc01...
>
>>> In context with how I want to wargame (in
>>> X40K, for example), the player is the tactical co-ordinator
>>> for the piece of the battlefield on the tabletop. The player
>>> alerts, advises and/or instructs all of the units as to their
>>> tasks. If this means a direct feed to one soldier for specific
>>> orders, then so be it.
>
>> As expected, you have no clue with respect to ECM / ECCM, jamming and
>> such. In hypermodern combat, <snip> ... By analogy, future warfare will
>> be like fighting in a dark room.
>
> If so, then 40K does a bad job of simulating such warfare, since as noted
> previously, all forces are visible on the board at all times and all
> capabilities are known.
>
> Of course, it's nearly impossible to effectively do hidden movement in a
> miniature wargame, with the exception of gamemastered scenarios. "Double
> blind" games are mechanically very challenging. One compromise is the
> "single blind" game, in which the defender is hidden but the attacker is
> visible. Until spotted, defending units remain hidden. This radically
> alters the typical wargame, btw. I've played the attacker lots of times
> and it can be very disconcerting to face an empty battlefield where every
> bit of cover or hill can hide bad guys. Suddenly, recon becomes *very*
> important. These games have generally been far more intense than normal
> games.
We play double blind ww2. It is hard work setting it up and fairly hard
work refereeing. It is, however, by far the most interesting gaming I play.
You need a lot of terrain though. We always play in built up areas. If you
belong to a group can produce or buy a lot of duplicated buildings then I
strongly recommend that type of game.
Failing that.
Map deployed defenders and an attack defence game are standard fare.
Not knowing what the defender has or where it is greatly adds to the game.
It's also a significant force multiplier as I was reminded when one player
was too lazy to bother map deploying.
Andy O'Neill
<<>>
> My purpose in pointing out the RGMW charter is to rebut John's continual
> attempts to a priori exclude discussions that he doesn't like.
>
> --Ty
I think at this point, anything actually increases posting and might
stimulate interestin in this newsgroup can only be a good thing.
Perhaps that's worth thinking about before disouraging posts.
Andy O'Neill
>> <shakes head in disbelief>
>>
>> I find it stunning that such a mediocre set of rules could survive even
>> the
>> most cursory playtesting...
Yep.
Me too.
WFB is barely acceptable ( IMO) and I play it because that's what almost
everyone uses for fantasy.
40k I tried several times. Just couldn't stomach it.
>
> GW lets Gav Thorpe design rules. "The 'new' Cold Ones miniatures
> look slow, so I've reduced the speed of the Dark Elf cavalry."
>
> Need *ANYONE* say more?
>
> Myrmidon
>
No experience with other rulesets.
No experience designing rulesets.
No basic logic facilities ( a unit does x in list a should pretty obviously
cost pretty much the same in list b ).
Inability to manage play testing.
And probably more.
Robert Singers
> My purpose in pointing out the RGMW charter is to rebut John's continual
> attempts to a priori exclude discussions that he doesn't like.
The problem with the OPs posts aren't the fact that they're a negative
commentary on 40K. That's a frequent topic here. The problem is that
they're boring and uninformed and that the OP seems completely incapable of
discussion. In the end discussion is what we're here for.
Case in point, RGMH is now dead because it was peopled by tools who
couldn't talk to others.
Ty
news:Xns983BE6494B58Brsingers@IP-Hidden...
> Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Ty said
>> My purpose in pointing out the RGMW charter is to rebut John's continual
>> attempts to a priori exclude discussions that he doesn't like.
> The problem with the OPs posts aren't the fact that they're a negative
> commentary on 40K. That's a frequent topic here. The problem is that
> they're boring and uninformed and that the OP seems completely incapable
> of
> discussion. In the end discussion is what we're here for.
Oh I agree. And I have no problem with someone saying "shut up, you're an
unintelligible, garrulous moron."
But I *do* have a problem with idiots who dishonestly whine "off-topic" to
exclude discussions they don't like. That's what I was responding to.
--Ty
Doug Arnott
> The problem with the OPs posts aren't the fact that they're a negative
> commentary on 40K. That's a frequent topic here. The problem is that
> they're boring
Why do you read them if they are boring? Why do you reply to
them if they bore you? (Rhetorical questions)
> and uninformed
I played WH40K 2nd and 3rd editions, but balked with WH40K 4th.
Ah, er, do I have to be a member of mensa to play with tabletop
miniatures? And, to consider rules that satisfy my taste? (More
rhetorical questions)
> and that the OP seems completely incapable of
> discussion. In the end discussion is what we're here for.
I am quite capable of participating in a discussion, but if a
discussion degenerates into an argument, then I have no desire
to take part. Furthermore, if I post an article to start the
discussion, isn't this part of the discussion? We have to start
somewhere if we are going to have a discussion. And, if many
people are participating in the discussion, then I do not see
my involvment as necessary. In fact, instead of participating
in the current discussion, I'm usually thinking of what to
write about for the next one.
Doug
Doug Arnott
> I think Doug's project will come to a halt as he finds nobody wants to play
> his rules.
I understood this possibility when I started.
> Pity I/we couldn't dissuade him from wasting his energies and the ultimate
> disappointment.
You don't understand. I had to do this. And, I'll keep saying this
over and over. I had to do this.
Maybe someday, you will want to step outside the box because you do
not like what is inside the box. And, to do so, you will spend a lot
of time and effort. And, you know that no one may join you. Such is
life.
Sure I will be disappointed if I cannot get anyone to join me to com-
plete the playtesting. But, I can live with that disappointment. I
cannot live with not trying.
Doug
Doug Arnott
> Oh I agree. And I have no problem with someone saying "shut up, you're an
> unintelligible, garrulous moron."
I feel that there is no need for naming calling. What may sound like
a friendly jab when written, often reads like an abusive insult. For
us to enjoy the comraderie of the hobby, we need to stop a feud
before it starts. Please, no more name calling.
> But I *do* have a problem with idiots who dishonestly whine "off-topic" to
> exclude discussions they don't like. That's what I was responding to.
I can only ask that people use common courtesy. If someone dislikes
the topic of a thread, then the courteous thing to do is to not par-
ticipate.
Doug
Doug Arnott
> "Myrmidon" <Im...@home.com> wrote
>
>>He wants 'a wargame that is a realistic simulation of fictional weapons
>>and combat utilizing a ruleset that ignores real world combat simulation
>>to enhance realism'. Hello Schizophrenia!
>
>
> Gee, I hope that's not what he said, because it makes no sense.
I made no such statement.
> I also want a ruleset that is fun to play and that doesn't require me to
> waste time and energy on idiotic, obtuse mechanics.
Same here, but one that caters to my taste.
> I did not come to praise Doug, but to bury...er, wrong script.
You can bury me under a hail of bullets. Roll those dice and let's
see what you got ...
> Anyhow, I
> offer no defense of him. His arguments are his own and stand on their own
> merit (or lack thereof). Honestly, I'm not terribly interested in them;
That's OK by me. We are both exploring different tastes, and it's
not a matter of right or wrong.
> I
> have sufficiently defined my critiques of 40K and the solutions that I think
> will work.
I have read some of your comments on WH40K, and some of your con-
cepts of what direction that you want your rules to take. Some
concepts did not suit my taste when expressed individually, but
they may gel together into an enjoyable game, thus I await the
release.
> My purpose in pointing out the RGMW charter is to rebut John's continual
> attempts to a priori exclude discussions that he doesn't like.
I support you in this mission.
Doug
Berto
"Doug Arnott" <darno...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:4505bd39$0$16328$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Ty wrote:
>
> > "Myrmidon" <Im...@home.com> wrote
> >
> >>He wants 'a wargame that is a realistic simulation of fictional weapons
> >>and combat utilizing a ruleset that ignores real world combat simulation
> >>to enhance realism'. Hello Schizophrenia!
> >
> >
> > Gee, I hope that's not what he said, because it makes no sense.
>
> I made no such statement.
Actually, the statement above was about the closest statement that was
gleemed from repeating someone else's idea of rulesets, i.e. What you tried
to state in your ramblings.
>
> > I also want a ruleset that is fun to play and that doesn't require me to
> > waste time and energy on idiotic, obtuse mechanics.
>
> Same here, but one that caters to my taste.
My problem is that I never saw your taste. If you have rulesets in a
coherent form, or any form please let's see them. And BTW, my interpretation
of those idiotic obtuse mechanics seem to play well for a lot of players as
well. I have difficulties with some rules, but they either get changed later
and agreed by all players, or house rules come in. Not obtuse, just common
sense.
>
> > I did not come to praise Doug, but to bury...er, wrong script.
:)
>
> You can bury me under a hail of bullets. Roll those dice and let's
> see what you got ...
k. What rules will we use?
>
> > Anyhow, I
> > offer no defense of him. His arguments are his own and stand on their
> > own
> > merit (or lack thereof). Honestly, I'm not terribly interested in them;
I know that. It is FFT2 or none.
>
> That's OK by me. We are both exploring different tastes, and it's
> not a matter of right or wrong.
Actually, this is where I differ. At least I saw Ty's rules, or a version of
them. I saw nothing in your ruleset except looking at a certain page in the
WH40K rules and your dislike of them. He placed his out to an extent, while
you placed a "5 article" articles on copying rules you did not like. It is
"wrong".
> > I have sufficiently defined my critiques of 40K and the solutions that
> > I think
> > will work.
It is a different game Ty. Not WH40K. But I see what your trying to do with
your ruleset.
>
> I have read some of your comments on WH40K, and some of your con-
> cepts of what direction that you want your rules to take. Some
> concepts did not suit my taste when expressed individually, but
> they may gel together into an enjoyable game, thus I await the
> release.
k. And then we will be playing Stargrunt (fine game), FFT2, but not WH40K.
>
> > My purpose in pointing out the RGMW charter is to rebut John's continual
> > attempts to a priori exclude discussions that he doesn't like.
>
> I support you in this mission.
I disagree with the first premise of his attempts to exclude discussions
rule changing or using diffrent rules but with the basic rules in place.
What I believe he was trying to exclude is creating a ruleset that has
nothing to do with the concept of WH40K or resembles the rulesets already
established. Having minis and using fluff but not the mechanics ain't the
game. I don't support either one of you if that is the mission.
BTW, Ty, is there a commercialization, or ruleset for FFT2 that you pay for
to get? I saw the free version. Is there another one? If there is, wouldn't
alt.games.fft2 be a better newsgroup so that you can sell your product?
Stargrunt did it. Starship Troopers did it...Is that what is called sniping?
As for Doug, good luck in finding opponents. Have not seen your rules to
even venture to want to play. Where do I have to go to see your rules? I am
not getting older to play a different game. I just don't want to bother to
change the rules of one game for the sake of gamebashing from the "articles"
that were written. Chess ain't chess if my queen jumps over pawns. I think
it is called checkers.
Berto
Ty
news:eikNg.11674$JR5.8835@dukeread11...
> BTW, Ty, is there a commercialization, or ruleset for FFT2 that you pay
> for to get? I saw the free version. Is there another one? If there is,
> wouldn't alt.games.fft2 be a better newsgroup so that you can sell your
> product? Stargrunt did it. Starship Troopers did it...Is that what is
> called sniping?
Yes, Fistful of TOWs 2 has been out commercially since 2002. FFB, however,
is a completely different system (although I do use some mechanics from FFT,
primarily in turn sequencing). And of course, FFB is/will be free.
--Ty
Ty
> Ty wrote:
> > Oh I agree. And I have no problem with someone saying "shut up, you're
> > an
> > unintelligible, garrulous moron."
>
> I feel that there is no need for naming calling. What may sound like
> a friendly jab when written, often reads like an abusive insult. For
> us to enjoy the comraderie of the hobby, we need to stop a feud
> before it starts. Please, no more name calling.
Let's be clear -- I never called you a name. I was merely making the point
that I have no problem with folks who choose not to read posts.
> > But I *do* have a problem with idiots who dishonestly whine "off-topic"
> > to
> > exclude discussions they don't like. That's what I was responding to.
> I can only ask that people use common courtesy. If someone dislikes
> the topic of a thread, then the courteous thing to do is to not par-
> ticipate.
Well, there's probably some value in trying to stay pretty close to the
topic. But as long as the discussion is appropriate for the forum, then I
agree.
--Ty
Berto
We have been bringing up the issue of the charter on this thread. I am
wondering whether this section on the FAQ is appropo:
2.7) I want to sell or advertise something on the newsgroup.
The newsgroup is not a commercial notice board. People don't read it with
the aim of purchasing items. For selling your best option is to use Ebay or
a national auction site, as most people who buy second hand miniatures and
rules don't take notice of ads on RGMW. If you must make posts about buying,
selling, or trading items then use the appropriate commercial tags (see
Appendix One: Tags - Commercial Posts).
Engaging in rules to maximize, improve, to try some experimentation would be
appropiate. Ty, I cannot read your mind regarding your ultimate reason for
TOW, Tow2 ruleset somehow in the NG. Are you selling an item? If so,
Appropriate commercial tag is in order. My issue is this. Can you maintain
the basic ruleset in WH40K in some semblance and add your rules as need be,
or drop a frag grenade in the hootch because yours are better? And if part
of that reason is to maintain capitalism alive(no problem there, but say
so).
BTW, in the meatime, I have read the bulk of your rulesset, so I am not
speaking without knowledge to some extent (not have played a game with an
opponent) and find YOUR game to be well thought out and can be played in a
variety of WWI, WWII, future wars. I see some difficulty in the rules but
this may be my interpretation and brief reading of them.
Berto
Stephen Weir
> I feel that there is no need for naming calling. What may sound like a friendly jab when written, often reads like an abusive insult. For
> us to enjoy the comraderie of the hobby, we need to stop a feud before it starts. Please, no more name calling.
I can assure you that anything that reads like an abusive insult in RGMW,
*is* an abusive insult. Usenet is unmoderated for the most part, and if you
continue to post in RGMW I suggest you get a thicker skin. The alternative
is to fuck off to a moderated forum.
--
Stephen Weir
List of Games for Sale - http://www.glipe.free-online.co.uk/index.htm
Midgard UK PBM - http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/midgard_uk_pbm/
Current eBay Auctions - http://makeashorterlink.com/?F1F521555
ICQ # 11472386
Ty
> "Ty" <tybear...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:nomNg.635$IA....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> "Berto" <Albert...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:eikNg.11674$JR5.8835@dukeread11...
>>> BTW, Ty, is there a commercialization, or ruleset for FFT2 that you pay
>>> for to get? I saw the free version. Is there another one? If there is,
>>> wouldn't alt.games.fft2 be a better newsgroup so that you can sell your
>>> product? Stargrunt did it. Starship Troopers did it...Is that what is
>>> called sniping?
>> Yes, Fistful of TOWs 2 has been out commercially since 2002. FFB,
>> however, is a completely different system (although I do use some
>> mechanics from FFT, primarily in turn sequencing). And of course, FFB
>> is/will be free.
> We have been bringing up the issue of the charter on this thread. I am
> wondering whether this section on the FAQ is appropo:
> 2.7) I want to sell or advertise something on the newsgroup.
> The newsgroup is not a commercial notice board. People don't read it with
> the aim of purchasing items. For selling your best option is to use Ebay
> or a national auction site, as most people who buy second hand miniatures
> and rules don't take notice of ads on RGMW. If you must make posts about
> buying, selling, or trading items then use the appropriate commercial tags
> (see Appendix One: Tags - Commercial Posts).
Even assuming that the FAQ are binding on newsgroup members, I see no
problem here. I am not "advertising" in any meaningful definition of the
word. I occasionally refer to FFT when discussing mechanics, but only for
that reason. It's hard for me to understand how that could be "advertising"
for FFT. I've also referred to other rules -- Crossfire, Firepower and
Stargrunt, to name a few. I doubt that such mention could be reasonably
construed as "advertising".
> Engaging in rules to maximize, improve, to try some experimentation would
> be appropiate. Ty, I cannot read your mind regarding your ultimate reason
> for TOW, Tow2 ruleset somehow in the NG. Are you selling an item?
I think that I've been unclear, so I'll try to clarify things.
1. "A Fistful of TOWs" is a modern miniatures wargame that I designed. There
are 2 free versions available and a far more extensive commercial version
("A Fistful of TOWs 2"). This game is set firmly on Earth, 1946-2010. There
is a free sci-fi variant called "Railgun: 2100", but it (and FFT) are more
similar to Epic rather than WH40K. FFT and its children are *not* set in the
WH40K universe and so any discussion of them alone would ordinarily be
off-topic. The exception, however, would be when I refer to FFT to
illustrate some game mechanic or design philosophy, in a discussion about a
game set/to be set in the WH40K universe. Or, if I suggested a way to adapt
those games to the 40K universe. Something that will probably happen after
FFT3 comes out, by the way.
2. I have also designed other games, and I might well refer to them in a
discussion about game design -- "Orc's Drift", "A Fistful of Sardaukars",
"Where Panzers Dare", etc. Again, none of these games are set in the WH40K
universe, so references to them should be in the context of a discussion
about WH40K game design issues.
3. I am in the process of designing and playtesting a "replacement" rules
set for WH40K, called "A Fistful of Bolters". This game uses some mechanics
originally developed for a modern skirmish wargame tentatively called "A
Fistful of Dragons". In addition, many game mechanics are similar to those
in my other games, especially "A Fistful of TOWs". There's nothing sinister
or particularly surprising in that. Game mechanics are tools, and I prefer
to use tools that I know work. A Fistful of Bolters will *not* be a
commercial ruleset. Indeed, ownership of the WH40K army books will be
necessary to play FFB. And since FFB should allow far bigger battles, it
might actually benefit GW in some small way. At least, that's why I decided
to do this -- I want my local hobby store to survive. Since people are
losing enthusiasm for WH40K rules, this seems a reasonable solution.
Hopefully, this clarifies my intentions.
> If so, Appropriate commercial tag is in order. My issue is this. Can you
> maintain the basic ruleset in WH40K in some semblance and add your rules
> as need be, or drop a frag grenade in the hootch because yours are better?
I've addressed this in other posts, but I'll re-state it here. In my
opinion, the WH40K rules are fundamentally broken and unfixable. Like a man
with a shower curtain that's too short, when you pull the curtain to close
one gap, another gap opens up. IOW, when you fix a current problem, you
create another. This, I think, explains why GW keeps releasing new versions
of the game. They haven't figured out that the system sucks and cannot be
fixed without introducing new problems.
I suppose that you could rip out entire sections of the rules and replace
them with something better, but at the end of the trail, you'll have an
entirely new game. And a great deal of wasted energy trying to shoehorn the
new stuff into the old framework.
Therefore, I see no reason to waste time trying to fix this game. In far
less time -- and with much greater success -- I can design my own rules that
will play exactly like I want them to play. And to the extent that our
tastes in games are similar, you'll like the game as well. That's what I'm
doing here.
> And if part of that reason is to maintain capitalism alive(no problem
> there, but say so).
<chuckle>
Since "A Fistful of Bolters" is not for sale, and since I've never found a
way to make money giving stuff away, I'm pretty sure that capitalism isn't
involved here.
> BTW, in the meatime, I have read the bulk of your rulesset, so I am not
> speaking without knowledge to some extent (not have played a game with an
> opponent) and find YOUR game to be well thought out and can be played in a
> variety of WWI, WWII, future wars. I see some difficulty in the rules but
> this may be my interpretation and brief reading of them.
Thanks for the kind words.
--Ty
Doug Arnott
> Let's be clear -- I never called you a name.
Yes, that's correct. I believe that we have a friendly rapport.
Both of us are on a similiar quest. Both of us can co-exist on
RGMW without conflict. Both of us can critique the material from
each other in a calm and civil manner.
My general request for no more name calling was to ease the ten-
sion, however, if people want to roll up the shirt sleeves and
duke it out using name calling, then I'm not going to intercede.
But, I do prefer that they start their own thread for this pur-
pose rather than fouling someone else's thread.
Doug
Doug Arnott
> My problem is that I never saw your taste. If you have rulesets in a
> coherent form, or any form please let's see them.
Here's my rules for X40K play:
http://www.dougarnott.ca/tmw/rulesPlay.htm
I have an introduction for X40K as follows:
http://www.dougarnott.ca/tmw/rulesIntro.htm
The purpose of this introduction is to provide an overview of
the rules under the other topics as follows:
- armor
- weapons
- vehicles
- forces
- play
Be advised, this is a playtest version and more work is left to
do. The core rules have gone through playtesting, but I have ad-
ded a few tweaks since the last game which need another test.
> And BTW, my interpretation
> of those idiotic obtuse mechanics seem to play well for a lot of players as
> well. I have difficulties with some rules, but they either get changed later
> and agreed by all players, or house rules come in. Not obtuse, just common
> sense.
I have played WH40K 2nd and 3rd editions. House rules were made
to fix those rules that did not work or were absent. However,
with the arrival of WH40K 4th edition, the passion to play WH40K
collapsed in the gaming group. WH40K 4th edition had a direction
in play which we did not want to go.
Only GW knows what is on the agenda for WH40K 5th edition. Only
time will tell if the disciples of WH40K 4th edition embrace or
rebel against WH40K 5th. If WH40K 5th edition appeals to me,
then I will play it.
> Actually, this is where I differ. At least I saw Ty's rules, or a version of
> them. I saw nothing in your ruleset except looking at a certain page in the
> WH40K rules and your dislike of them.
Huh? Please provide the link if possible.
> He placed his out to an extent, while
> you placed a "5 article" articles on copying rules you did not like.
Once again ...
http://www.dougarnott.ca/tmw/rulesPlay.htm
http://www.dougarnott.ca/tmw/rulesIntro.htm
> It is
> "wrong".
No, I call it consumer reactionism.
> It is a different game Ty. Not WH40K. But I see what your trying to do with
> your ruleset.
What is WH40K? GW defines what WH40K is. Currently, WH40K is the
4th edition rules. If GW issues a rules update, then WH40K has
changed. If you create a house rule, then, technically, you are
not playing WH40K.
> I disagree with the first premise of his attempts to exclude discussions
> rule changing or using diffrent rules but with the basic rules in place.
OK.
> What I believe he was trying to exclude is creating a ruleset that has
> nothing to do with the concept of WH40K or resembles the rulesets already
> established. Having minis and using fluff but not the mechanics ain't the
> game.
I can agree with someone being against a set of rules which are
different than WH40K, but are claimed to be WH40K. So, hypothe-
tically, if we got together to play WH40K and you whip out a set
of house rules, then I am within my rights to say no, that's not
WH40K because only GW can release WH40K rules.
I do not want to play WH40K 4th. For lack of a name, I call my
rules "not 40K" or X40K for short. When people saw the WH40K
miniatures on the tabletop during initial playtesting, I would
have to correct observers to state that we were not playing
WH40K, but using WH40K miniatures with different rules.
To some people, one can only use WH40K miniatures if and only if
when playing WH40K. If one uses WH40K miniatures under non-WH40K
rules, then one is commiting an offense to humanity or something.
Likewise, if one uses RGMW to explore alternative rules or sets
of rules, then one is commiting another offense. I disagree on
both counts.
As a consumer of GW products, I use their products as I see fit.
If the miniatures are cool but the WH40K 4th edition rules do not
suit my taste, then I'm throwing out those rules and wanting other
ones.
> I don't support either one of you if that is the mission.
That's OK. Amiable dissent causes no conflict. But beware, in the
churn for alternative rules, some rules may surface which promote
a more enjoyable game, even for WH40K.
> As for Doug, good luck in finding opponents.
Thankyou.
> Have not seen your rules to
> even venture to want to play. Where do I have to go to see your rules?
And again ...
http://www.dougarnott.ca/tmw/rulesPlay.htm
http://www.dougarnott.ca/tmw/rulesIntro.htm
> I am
> not getting older to play a different game.
Interpreting my attitude onto others, I dislike the learning curve
needed to play a game, especially if I have to meticulously read
the rules in isolation. I like reading (or skimming) the rules first
to get an initial understanding, and then have a sample game with
someone knowledgeable.
> I just don't want to bother to
> change the rules of one game for the sake of gamebashing from the "articles"
> that were written.
I don't fully understand this sentence. I think what you are trying
to say is that, through the postings that you have read to date,
you are not convinced that WH40K is significantly flawed, and not
convinced that there is a better alternative to WH40K.
Doug
Robert Singers
> Robert Singers wrote:
>
> > The problem with the OPs posts aren't the fact that they're a
> > negative commentary on 40K. That's a frequent topic here. The
> > problem is that they're boring
>
> Why do you read them if they are boring? Why do you reply to
> them if they bore you? (Rhetorical questions)
Hmmm yes Rhetorical questions are a good indication that you know how to
discuss a topic, aren't they now.
> > and uninformed
>
> I played WH40K 2nd and 3rd editions, but balked with WH40K 4th.
> Ah, er, do I have to be a member of mensa to play with tabletop
> miniatures? And, to consider rules that satisfy my taste? (More
> rhetorical questions)
You may also have driven a car but that doesn't mean you know anything
about building one.
> > and that the OP seems completely incapable of discussion. In the
> > end discussion is what we're here for.
>
> I am quite capable of participating in a discussion, but if a
> discussion degenerates into an argument, then I have no desire
> to take part. Furthermore, if I post an article to start the
> discussion, isn't this part of the discussion? We have to start
> somewhere if we are going to have a discussion. And, if many
> people are participating in the discussion, then I do not see
> my involvment as necessary. In fact, instead of participating
> in the current discussion, I'm usually thinking of what to
> write about for the next one.
So what you're saying is you're too vain to enjoy people disagreeing
with you. You're too stupid to be able to respond when they do. And
you're far to oblivious to tell whether you should continue once you've
started.
Robert Singers
> Even assuming that the FAQ are binding on newsgroup members, I see no
> problem here. I am not "advertising" in any meaningful definition of
> the word. I occasionally refer to FFT when discussing mechanics, but
> only for that reason. It's hard for me to understand how that could be
> "advertising" for FFT. I've also referred to other rules -- Crossfire,
> Firepower and Stargrunt, to name a few. I doubt that such mention
> could be reasonably construed as "advertising".
Usenet is the closest thing we have to anarchy. In the end the only
power are the maintainers of the individual news servers. So in the end
the FAQ is just my FAQ but it's still one of the foundation for a
community. A community that's persevered for many years.
As for the issue of advertising; it would be unfair to tar you with that
brush and not Matt Sprange. Personally I think it’s all good that you
guys discuss your systems here. It’s a pity that GW aren’t man enough
to. Hell we’re quite happy for Eric Hotz to pimp away all he likes
because we all like his work and he has one of the most likable online
personas you’ll come across.
The key point is discuss tho’. It’s something you do and Doug doesn’t.
Even when you rub people up the wrong way it’s from pushing the
discussion not abusing people or being disingenuous.
Berto
> Berto wrote:
>
> > My problem is that I never saw your taste. If you have rulesets in a
> > coherent form, or any form please let's see them.
>
> Here's my rules for X40K play:
>
> http://www.dougarnott.ca/tmw/rulesPlay.htm
>
> I have an introduction for X40K as follows:
>
> http://www.dougarnott.ca/tmw/rulesIntro.htm
>
> The purpose of this introduction is to provide an overview of
> the rules under the other topics as follows:
>
> - armor
> - weapons
> - vehicles
> - forces
> - play
>
> Be advised, this is a playtest version and more work is left to
> do. The core rules have gone through playtesting, but I have ad-
> ded a few tweaks since the last game which need another test.
Now, if you would have used your rules in the areas that you felt the GW
rules were bad, hence all of the pages you cited, I could have a
conversation with you, that is what the NG is about. I do not need to agree
with you but now, sending me to a site and I try to discern from your pages
your rules is a little lazy. Point the way. show me your rules as THEY fit
in the pages you mentioned. And BTW, I did go to your website and read. Show
me how your rules are better or at least different from what you pointed
out.
>
> > And BTW, my interpretation
> > of those idiotic obtuse mechanics seem to play well for a lot of players
> > as
> > well. I have difficulties with some rules, but they either get changed
> > later
> > and agreed by all players, or house rules come in. Not obtuse, just
> > common
> > sense.
>
> I have played WH40K 2nd and 3rd editions. House rules were made
> to fix those rules that did not work or were absent. However,
> with the arrival of WH40K 4th edition, the passion to play WH40K
> collapsed in the gaming group. WH40K 4th edition had a direction
> in play which we did not want to go.
fine.
>
> Only GW knows what is on the agenda for WH40K 5th edition. Only
> time will tell if the disciples of WH40K 4th edition embrace or
> rebel against WH40K 5th. If WH40K 5th edition appeals to me,
> then I will play it.
no problem. I agree with that statement. In fact many of us may drift to v4
rather embrace v5 if it is that bad, but I doubt it. There will still be
rules people will grouse over, rules that have corrected problems, and rules
that are flawed but work anyway.
>
> > Actually, this is where I differ. At least I saw Ty's rules, or a
> > version of
> > them. I saw nothing in your ruleset except looking at a certain page in
> > the
> > WH40K rules and your dislike of them.
>
> Huh? Please provide the link if possible.
I am sorry but did you not start the "Why" articles. Links are there.
>
> > He placed his out to an extent, while
> > you placed a "5 article" articles on copying rules you did not like.
>
> Once again ...
>
> http://www.dougarnott.ca/tmw/rulesPlay.htm
> http://www.dougarnott.ca/tmw/rulesIntro.htm
>
He clarified, explained, and defended. I did not see you defend
rulesIntro.htm, etc. Just show me what you don't like in the WH40K rulebook.
And again, I did go to your website. What I meant was is that I did not see
your rules explain HERE with reference to the rules YOU stated were wrong or
confusing.
> > It is
> > "wrong".
>
> No, I call it consumer reactionism.
and...
>
> > It is a different game Ty. Not WH40K. But I see what your trying to do
> > with
> > your ruleset.
>
> What is WH40K? GW defines what WH40K is. Currently, WH40K is the
> 4th edition rules. If GW issues a rules update, then WH40K has
> changed. If you create a house rule, then, technically, you are
> not playing WH40K.
I see your logic, but do not agree with it. Technically.
>
> > I disagree with the first premise of his attempts to exclude discussions
> > rule changing or using diffrent rules but with the basic rules in place.
>
> OK.
>
> > What I believe he was trying to exclude is creating a ruleset that has
> > nothing to do with the concept of WH40K or resembles the rulesets
> > already
> > established. Having minis and using fluff but not the mechanics ain't
> > the
> > game.
>
> I can agree with someone being against a set of rules which are
> different than WH40K, but are claimed to be WH40K. So, hypothe-
> tically, if we got together to play WH40K and you whip out a set
> of house rules, then I am within my rights to say no, that's not
> WH40K because only GW can release WH40K rules.
>
> I do not want to play WH40K 4th. For lack of a name, I call my
> rules "not 40K" or X40K for short. When people saw the WH40K
> miniatures on the tabletop during initial playtesting, I would
> have to correct observers to state that we were not playing
> WH40K, but using WH40K miniatures with different rules.
k. fine.
>
> To some people, one can only use WH40K miniatures if and only if
> when playing WH40K. If one uses WH40K miniatures under non-WH40K
> rules, then one is commiting an offense to humanity or something.
Let us not get too mawdling with this. The idea is the use of the fluff and
the minis with different rules. And the only offense your creating is that
you are not including the Orks and Nids. (joke). My issue is that there is a
lot of stuff that belongs to GW. Using that and maybe creating a commercial
game from it, IMO, is wrong. Creating a noncommercial game tells me a lazy
person did not want to create the "other stuff", regardless of the time
spent on the rules.
> Likewise, if one uses RGMW to explore alternative rules or sets
> of rules, then one is commiting another offense. I disagree on
> both counts.
>
> As a consumer of GW products, I use their products as I see fit.
> If the miniatures are cool but the WH40K 4th edition rules do not
> suit my taste, then I'm throwing out those rules and wanting other
> ones.
If there is any money changing hands, you cannot do as you see fit. In fact,
GW is scouring webpages to tell people to remove things they feel are not
to GW standards or harm them or take money from them. Do I like it? no. But
it is their football. Allowing house rules in one thing. Allowing a complete
removal of the Game Rule Set is Anarchy. I would believe that whether you
made any profit or not, if you pulled people from their site, you would be
in deep kimchi.I would not poke that bear too much.
>
> > I don't support either one of you if that is the mission.
>
> That's OK. Amiable dissent causes no conflict. But beware, in the
> churn for alternative rules, some rules may surface which promote
> a more enjoyable game, even for WH40K.
No problems there. In fact I enjoy the rules of using drunk tank drivers,
bad eyesight, etc. (If you haven't seen some of these rules, you should).
BTW, it provides a slightly different approach in how you place your troops,
firing, tactics, etc.
>
> > As for Doug, good luck in finding opponents.
>
> Thankyou.
Your welcome.
>
> > Have not seen your rules to
> > even venture to want to play. Where do I have to go to see your rules?
>
> And again ...
>
> http://www.dougarnott.ca/tmw/rulesPlay.htm
> http://www.dougarnott.ca/tmw/rulesIntro.htm
>
I am sorry. I had read your rules, but what I was trying to say is, how do
they compare with what you have said the GW rules you have identified that
are bad to yours.
> > I am
> > not getting older to play a different game.
>
> Interpreting my attitude onto others, I dislike the learning curve
> needed to play a game, especially if I have to meticulously read
> the rules in isolation. I like reading (or skimming) the rules first
> to get an initial understanding, and then have a sample game with
> someone knowledgeable.
Your rules are really no different there than GW's. You are trying to create
a universe. Sounds like GW's idea too. They just got more people to do it
with and have had more time.
>
> > I just don't want to bother to
> > change the rules of one game for the sake of gamebashing from the
> > "articles"
> > that were written.
>
> I don't fully understand this sentence. I think what you are trying
> to say is that, through the postings that you have read to date,
> you are not convinced that WH40K is significantly flawed, and not
> convinced that there is a better alternative to WH40K.
No, I have not seen your interpretations of the rules you mentioned in your
article with the rules you have in website.
http://www.dougarnott.ca/tmw/rulesIntro.htm
http://www.dougarnott.ca/tmw/rulesPlay.htm
Lively discussion is the order of the day here. Doug, you may not like this,
but you really need a tougher skin than what you have shown. If you cannot
defend your game even when someone is flaming you and/or not answering some
of the questions raised, albeit, harshly, you should think carefully in
expressing your opinions.
And I apologized for my diction. My second language is English, and
sometimes some of the old timers here don't understand what I am trying to
say as well. WH40k rules are what they are, rules. I choose to play this
game with these rules. When house rules come up, it is mutually agreed upon
and does not provide anything but a fun, different approach to set rules
(the drunken tank driver would be a great example, or a tank that needs to
get fixed but has to go to war, etc.). The spirit remains.
Berto
Berto
> "Berto" <Albert...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:oxnNg.11947$JR5.10415@dukeread11...
>
>> "Ty" <tybear...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:nomNg.635$IA....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>> "Berto" <Albert...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eikNg.11674$JR5.8835@dukeread11...
>
>>>> BTW, Ty, is there a commercialization, or ruleset for FFT2 that you pay
>>>> for to get? I saw the free version. Is there another one? If there is,
>>>> wouldn't alt.games.fft2 be a better newsgroup so that you can sell your
>>>> product? Stargrunt did it. Starship Troopers did it...Is that what is
>>>> called sniping?
>
>>> Yes, Fistful of TOWs 2 has been out commercially since 2002. FFB,
>>> however, is a completely different system (although I do use some
>>> mechanics from FFT, primarily in turn sequencing). And of course, FFB
>>> is/will be free.
And you know, it should bring some people to the commercial part of your
game. I again, have no problem in making money. It may be me, but many
companies put the free version up so that people will buy the bells and
whistle software later. As to what you say that it is a completely different
system except for the turn sequencing, I would have to buy the rules to see,
wouldn't I?
>
>> We have been bringing up the issue of the charter on this thread. I am
>> wondering whether this section on the FAQ is appropo:
>
>> 2.7) I want to sell or advertise something on the newsgroup.
>
>> The newsgroup is not a commercial notice board. People don't read it with
>> the aim of purchasing items. For selling your best option is to use Ebay
>> or a national auction site, as most people who buy second hand miniatures
>> and rules don't take notice of ads on RGMW. If you must make posts about
>> buying, selling, or trading items then use the appropriate commercial
>> tags (see Appendix One: Tags - Commercial Posts).
>
> Even assuming that the FAQ are binding on newsgroup members, I see no
> problem here. I am not "advertising" in any meaningful definition of the
> word. I occasionally refer to FFT when discussing mechanics, but only for
> that reason. It's hard for me to understand how that could be
> "advertising" for FFT. I've also referred to other rules -- Crossfire,
> Firepower and Stargrunt, to name a few. I doubt that such mention could be
> reasonably construed as "advertising".
Actually, just adding the tag would suffice. But Ty, just the conversations
and the salting of the words FFT, is advertising, to me. Some of the shows
we see, an actor comes on and plugs one movie directly and indirectly talks
of other things that may provide further profit for him as well. Just this
conversation alone has at least gotten a number of individuals (and they
have)interested in your FFT2. You are an intelligent man. I would venture to
say that the "soft" advertising may be paying off. I cannot but think that
with such a mind as yours creating and game designing that this did not come
up in your head at one time or another.
Let me clarify. You have clarified in the past. my bad in allowing you to
assume that you haven't.
>
>> If so, Appropriate commercial tag is in order. My issue is this. Can you
>> maintain the basic ruleset in WH40K in some semblance and add your rules
>> as need be, or drop a frag grenade in the hootch because yours are
>> better?
>
> I've addressed this in other posts, but I'll re-state it here. In my
> opinion, the WH40K rules are fundamentally broken and unfixable. Like a
> man with a shower curtain that's too short, when you pull the curtain to
> close one gap, another gap opens up. IOW, when you fix a current problem,
> you create another. This, I think, explains why GW keeps releasing new
> versions of the game. They haven't figured out that the system sucks and
> cannot be fixed without introducing new problems.
You have. You have stated that the whole of WH40K ruleset is crap.
>
> I suppose that you could rip out entire sections of the rules and replace
> them with something better, but at the end of the trail, you'll have an
> entirely new game. And a great deal of wasted energy trying to shoehorn
> the new stuff into the old framework.
But why are you spending all of this energy for exactly that. Trying to
shoehorn new stuff in an old framework. When you say Fistful of Bolters, my
mind goes straight to WH40K(Bolters). Why not Fistful of Lasers? Because it
won't bring in the group of people that are disenchanted with the game. Not
to swell your head but many dictators got their foothold by "shoehorning"
themselves in and then declaring there is a better way and not too different
and come this way and.....
>
> Therefore, I see no reason to waste time trying to fix this game. In far
> less time -- and with much greater success -- I can design my own rules
> that will play exactly like I want them to play. And to the extent that
> our tastes in games are similar, you'll like the game as well. That's what
> I'm doing here.
Ty, no problem in that statement. I believe that is why you are spending
much time in addressing misconceptions, and complaints. the love of games,
game design and maybe you are expressing your feeling of GW letting you down
in the way they have established their ruleset, etc.
>
>> And if part of that reason is to maintain capitalism alive(no problem
>> there, but say so).
>
> <chuckle>
>
> Since "A Fistful of Bolters" is not for sale, and since I've never found a
> way to make money giving stuff away, I'm pretty sure that capitalism isn't
> involved here.
You did say you have a commercial product and for me to compare this product
with GW, I need to pay...what?...
>
>> BTW, in the meatime, I have read the bulk of your rulesset, so I am not
>> speaking without knowledge to some extent (not have played a game with an
>> opponent) and find YOUR game to be well thought out and can be played in
>> a variety of WWI, WWII, future wars. I see some difficulty in the rules
>> but this may be my interpretation and brief reading of them.
>
> Thanks for the kind words.
Your welcome, sir.
Berto
Ty
>> Since "A Fistful of Bolters" is not for sale, and since I've never found
>> a way to make money giving stuff away, I'm pretty sure that capitalism
>> isn't involved here.
> You did say you have a commercial product and for me to compare this
> product with GW, I need to pay...what?...
I have a commercial wargame rules set available, "A Fistful of TOWs 2", and
it costs $25 + S&H. But it is not set in the GW universe. It's set on Earth
from 1945-2010.
--Ty