Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think you're reading in a narrative there that doesn't really exist.

In one of the Oldhammer threads there's a Youtube of Rick Priestly talking about how management short-circuited some of the design work. He was talking explicitly about WHFB, but the same would apply to other designs.

As I read through the Bolt Action rule book it seemed obvious to me that this was very much how 40k would have gone. For one thing it felt complete, a fully finished design. There were also design features that were elegant in their simplicity. A great example is eliminating the need for M1 Garand and M1 Carbine rules by simply allowing Americans to fire without penalty while under Advance orders. Brilliant - actual game effect, but it saves on making new weapon rules.

Basically, the designers were able to say "Right, we can do it the way it should be done," and did it.

Rick has gone on interview and stated that when he worked out the agreement to write Rogue Trader, he did so only under the condition that he would have more (if not total) control so as to prevent the issues he had writing WHFB. Rogue Trader *is* the finished game he wanted to make, whatever happened after that is a different story.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Rick has gone on interview and stated that when he worked out the agreement to write Rogue Trader, he did so only under the condition that he would have more (if not total) control so as to prevent the issues he had writing WHFB. Rogue Trader *is* the finished game he wanted to make, whatever happened after that is a different story.

I don't dispute that, I'm just noting what I saw on the interview and what I can discern from the rules. It's a better, more finished and functional design.

I hear there's an Andy Chambers video out about how he wanted to make 40k IGO-UGO and was overruled. Chambers wrote the Soviet Army book for BA, and with decades of collaboration, I'd expect them to use the best concepts they came up with.

BFG also uses order dice (I think it also alternates ships, but it's been 15 years since I played a game, too lazy to look it up).

My point is that certain designers have a feel to their work. They find a concept they like, and that's the frame they use. Richard Berg got into d36 combat resolution and pushed it in a bunch of different formats.

The GW alumni seem to share a similar sensibility, which is great. It's nice that they still get together and collaborate.

If you want to see what Andy Chambers wanted 4th edition 40k to be, find a copy of the rules for Starship Troopers by Mongoose Publishing.

chaos0xomega wrote:
If you want to see what Andy Chambers wanted 4th edition 40k to be, find a copy of the rules for Starship Troopers by Mongoose Publishing.

I think we're veering into the design thread area, but my point was that the the GW "engine" started with WHFB, and then was modified into Rogue Trader and then into 40k. The core DNA is Rick Priestly's and that shows up in Bolt Action as well.

Obviously, there are profound differences between 40k and Bolt Action, such as the lack of profiles with differentiated movement, etc.

My point was that the feel is very similar and BA has a degree of finish beyond what GW's management would tolerate because the churn must churn.

The multi-pose models are something I haven't dealt with much before and it's taking me time to get a rhythm and feel for assembly. I'm probably a minority here in preferring single-pose for faster assembly/painting.

Bouncing back on topic, BA is a very stable game. They add stuff, but it is stable and doesn't change every other two 2 years. Although to be fair, even if it did, I don't think there are nearly enough big events or tournaments that would make it count and you'd probably end up with people playing with the version they've got.

I would have liked to attend a BA tournament, but now I haven't got enough time on my hands. There were cool ones in Germany when I used to watch the YouTube channel Tabletop gorillas. Those guys where neat! Sad they quitted.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


I hear there's an Andy Chambers video out about how he wanted to make 40k IGO-UGO and was overruled.

You mean alternate activation (as 40k is IGO UGO)?

I assumed thats what he meant, not worth pointing it out and possibly starting an argument over it as theres a small minority of folks who are convinced that the terms IGO-UGO and Alternate Activation mean the opposite of how pretty much the entire rest of the world understands them.

Not saying Commissar is one of those people, but I've had my fair share of arguments with people like that and find them to be amongst the most infuriating I've ever had on dakka or anywhere else.

Igougo is one of this apples of discord. If you want a thread to derail, just ask "why does GW stick to IGOUGO" and you should get instant results

chaos0xomega wrote:
I assumed thats what he meant, not worth pointing it out and possibly starting an argument over it as theres a small minority of folks who are convinced that the terms IGO-UGO and Alternate Activation mean the opposite of how pretty much the entire rest of the world understands them.

Not saying Commissar is one of those people, but I've had my fair share of arguments with people like that and find them to be amongst the most infuriating I've ever had on dakka or anywhere else.

I'm one of those weird dudes who think there is no "one true" mechanic suitable for all applications.

If I didn't like the activation system in Bolt Action, I wouldn't have gotten into it.

However, I will say that in a "linear warfare era" context, it has issues because alignment is crucial, so it's important to be able to move all your units at once to preserve the integrity of the front. Otherwise you get weird piecemeal flanking.

My fantasy/historical system splits the difference, IGO-UGO but with an integrated turn sequence and reactions taken during the opponent's turn.

The end result is more interactivity, but there remains a sense of the initiative passing back and forth.

Now that I'm on vacation, at some point I'll get around to watching the video and ending the mystery.

I'm also hoping to play some Bolt Action as well. My new Soviet infantry are behind schedule, but with more spare time, I'm hoping to get them ready for battle.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


My fantasy/historical system splits the difference, IGO-UGO but with an integrated turn sequence and reactions taken during the opponent's turn.

The end result is more interactivity, but there remains a sense of the initiative passing back and forth.

The Napoleonic game that I played, Napoleon's Battles, did this. A player had the opportunity to move all of his forces during his turn. But there were many contested die rolls, and either mechanics that required the involvement of the inactive player. This kept both players focused on the game all the time, as opposed to having one player completely idle while the active player moved a massive army.

Eumerin wrote:
The Napoleonic game that I played, Napoleon's Battles, did this. A player had the opportunity to move all of his forces during his turn. But there were many contested die rolls, and either mechanics that required the involvement of the inactive player. This kept both players focused on the game all the time, as opposed to having one player completely idle while the active player moved a massive army.

Games set in eras where army alignment is crucial have to allow the whole force to move. I've played AA systems and the game becomes an incoherent mess of random clashes over flanks. I've seen some that try to split the difference by allowing multiple activations of adjacent units, in theory rewarding good placement but really just forcing the player to jump through a bunch of procedural hoops to get IGO-UGO in practice.

Having finally watched the Andy Chambers video, I agree with much of his thinking on 40k but not his design solutions. In particular, the "embiggening" the dice pool is just obnoxious and slows game play through the sheer amount of physical activity required to roll, count, re-roll, etc. the dice. Fewer dice seeking variable hit numbers just takes less time.

Thus my sense that Bolt Action is the "final form" of 40k is validated, but only insofar as it was Rick Priestly's concept, not Andy Chambers'.