The Why
As much as I love playing Warhammer I hated the rules. I started off playing fun armies with a ton of diversity and gradually gravitated towards armies that were far more focused on specific units. It wasn’t that I hated the units I used to play with it was actually quite the opposite. I loved playing with my old units that were interesting from a fluff standpoint or that had really cool models. The problem was that they were not effective in most games.
Now I am not saying that winning is all that matters but as both my gaming group and I got better at the game our armies started to change. We all got better at choosing our units as well as making our lists to combat the every evolving skills of our group. We eventually thought we were good enough to attend tournaments and try to win some prizes and play new players.
So we had been playing for a while and started to feel we had consistent lists that worked the majority of the time. These lists of course had weeded out a few of the units we enjoyed playing for fun but got even more refined with tournament play. What I noticed that all the lists started looking the same because all the other players we were running into had figured out the same things we had about our given armies.
There was a good way to build your list or a bad way to build your list. While some armies had maybe 2 different builds they could use to be competitive, they largely consisted of the same units in the same quantities. This created a feeling that I either had to bring a comparable list or I simply could not win some games. Many of these lists dished out so much damage you simply could not win with a list full of subpar (although very cool) units. The numbers simply didn’t add up. Even then that was not all that made it challenging as the rules were often vague to make matters worse.
While I was heavily into the tournament scene I still enjoyed playing interesting lists that had interesting combos or dynamics people would not expect. While most of the people I played were great sports there were many others that always fought the battle of RAW (Rules as written) vs RAI (Rules as intended), especially when a rule they had not played came up.
Because Games Workshop was so terrible about updating rules and making them available in a timely fashion this lead to the self-titled “Argument Phase”. It’s not that any gamer likes to argue but at the same time nobody likes to be taken advantage of when they firmly believe the rules to be correct as they know them. Sometimes these debates make a huge difference and it’s not fair to determine your fate based on the roll of a d6. Especially when you could quite possible be right and the only reason the die is being rolled is because there is an argument over a vague rule.
In addition to the above, units should not scale in such a way that they are either weak or unstoppable. There will always be the gamers who say there is an answer for everything (“pro” MtG players come to mind here). Those of us who think long and hard about the tactics of the games we play know that is not the case, as the answer needs to be there when you need it which is hardly the case. This leads to building against specific units in hopes the answer is always there leaving you wide open to everything else that you may be susceptible to.
Even so that type of dynamic allows for abusive use of rules and stacking of units which takes tactics out of the games. The game rapidly becomes a game building units that statistically will not lose more often than not. This leaves even great players at a loss as you cannot outsmart hard numbers regardless of how you play in many cases. At some point those units have to be dealt with and if you don’t have anything to deal with it you simply lose.
The reason I am talking about the above four paragraphs is because I feel strongly that they are some of, if not the most impactful reasons why gamers hate tournaments and why people leave games entirely. This doesn’t only apply to Warhammer. While I feel Warhammer and Warhammer 40k suffer these flaws the most, they are not exclusive.
People who are casual gamers want to win a game on occasion just like anybody else, and I imagine many of them would love to attend tournaments as well to test their skills against like-minded players. I would go as far as to say they would even go out of their way to attend tournaments if the issues I mentioned above are resolved. People want to play with the units they like, the factions that resonate well with their personality and personal interests, and they want to be able to do it on a fair assumption they have a chance of winning each game. Nobody wants to go to a tournament (or play any games for that matter) to see the same list from each faction played by every player.
Nobody wants there to be a single viable build for each race forcing them to play that or lose. If you invest your time and money in a game you should be able to make several options work. You should be able to make it your own! There will always be a finite number of ways to build an effective army for each game, but the finite number should not be one or two. This sort of game design makes the game monotonous and makes people sick of the games as they are tired of seeing the same busted list every time they play. They have a choice to either play something equally OTT (over the top) or play something fun and diverse only to get curb stomped.
I am not discrediting the folks who relish in breaking busted lists with mediocre ones, but we all know there are few of us that can do that regularly and with confidence.
Lastly nobody wants to go to a tournament or gaming event to have a great time only to be berated by jerks and power gamers. The argument phase is responsible for more ruined tournaments and game days than I can recall. I have had a few in my day where I could not let something go, but I largely don’t remember those. What I do remember from many of my tournament days is overhearing conversations from other players who were talking about a poor experience they had playing another player. Those are the same folks I don’t really see any more at local or national events, presumably they hate going out to have fun only to get yelled at and crushed.
While there will always be those people out there that will go to events regardless of who or what they face, the majority of gamers would like to have fun without dealing with those elements. What’s important to note here is that many potential gamers are being scared away from the hobby by these behaviors.
While not all of the above mentioned items can be fixed at a game design level, there are many that can be mitigated a fair amount. Through intelligent game design we can create factions that have multiple viable units that are not only good in their own right, but change based on the positioning and composition of your opponents army. Creating units that are not all powerful all the time through specialized game mechanics ensures there are no units capable of sweeping the table unmolested.
By using those same mechanics we discourage players from taking too many of the same unit for fear that a large chunk of an army may end up ineffective. This idealism will allow for players to take what they want while still maintaining a playable faction regardless of who they fight. Again there will always be stronger builds than others, but the goal is to create a gaming system where no unit becomes inferior. The units value simply changes based on where it is placed and what it is fighting.
Not only that, much of the arguments can be stopped before they start with intelligent game design as well. Much of the arguments as I mentioned before are over misunderstandings based on interpretation of rules as they are written in the books. In my quest to design a game I have found it is a daunting task to write rules and to cover every little detail. There will always be something that was overlooked or that could be interpreted differently by another player. Which is why you can’t just write a ruleset, have it edited, then print, and leave it as is. Like anything else in life follow up and follow through are so important.
I cannot speak for these large companies or their process for developing rules, but in my experience it should not take half a year to amend an already existing rule set. The rules have been debated, played, and revised countless times so it should not be hard for them to decide on what the rules were intended to say. On top of that it should not take that long to have a few pages of questions about said rules to be answered so players can understand how the rules were meant to be played. This may sound simple but this little bit of effort on the game companies’ behalf would probably eliminate a number of arguments by itself and probably retain more of its player base. Now let’s take that even further….
In my time developing a game of my own and working towards a miniature line of my own I have received advice from a number of folks. One of the things I have been told by a number of them is that if I want to have a successful miniature line, I need to have a game to go along with it. That game will drive people to play with the games miniatures instead of just using whatever and will also drive them to own a given number of them instead of just one of each. Now applying that same piece of advice to all games you would think they would want a game with balanced rules people would want to play. Not only that, they would want people to want all of their miniatures and not just the powerful ones.
I feel it would not be hard to have a couple guys working for one of these large companies to have podcasts or a YouTube channel that would outline how each rule was intended to be played. With measures like these it would be easy for a game to be clear on its rules and expectation of what outcome should result from following the rules. This same team could also be responsible for making sure errata’s and updates are applied in a timely fashion so there is never a question as to how a rule should work or play out. Then with the assistance of the community it would be easy to know what rules are vague and which ones need to be clarified.
Now that I have gotten that off my chest and laid the foundation of where I come from in regards to my train of thought on gaming now and what it should look like. I am going to share with you why I am designing my tabletop wargame Feyalis.
In my life I have found there are a few serious complaints people have about playing tabletop wargames and regardless of what gaming group you belong to these never really seem to change. What people hate about games are unbalanced rules/factions, poor community involvement, and expensive models.
In the time I have played tabletops wargames I have seen more people leave a game because of abusive rules than any other reason as I outlined above. I am pretty sure we all know somebody who bought the faction they though was the coolest only to find out during play that it was almost unplayable against other factions. Not to say that winning is everything, but in all fairness two people of equal skill level should each have a fair shake at winning.
I was personally a tournament player for a long time and loved attending tournaments. It always broke my heart to see so many people who just hated tournaments because they thought they had no chance of winning just because they picked the wrong faction or brought a list they liked. I saw that as one less person I would potentially get to play against in future tournaments. I always thought it was a blast going to a tournament and not really knowing who I was going to play or how good they were going to be.
In either case much of these problems came from shaky rules that were ambiguous for a long time, then when they were corrected ended up being poor judgement calls. Nobody wants to wait years for their faction to be fixed, so they just stop playing.
Rules are not the only issue games run into, and having a strong community presence is really important. If the voices of the gamers themselves were listened to, much of the complaints about games could be resolved quickly and frequently to keep things balanced. A simple rules document should not take 6-12 months to modify nor should gamers have to play rules that contradict each other in tournaments. Some rulebooks cost almost $100 (I won’t say any names) and still have vague rules.
There are forums all over the internet that have very intelligent people making strong points about the lore, rules, unit ideas, and the community itself that should be taken more seriously. If game companies listened to them and acted on their advice wisely many existing games would do much better. Without the community driving the ideas and interest the games will die out.
Lastly the cost of entering the hobby of tabletop wargaming can be ridiculous. I remember being a poor college student who wanted to play so badly, but could not afford to get enough minis to be able to play a big game. Granted there is not a great way to lower the cost of the miniatures as I am now figuring out, there should be a more compelling reason to play smaller games that people enjoy. There are a number of games that do a good job of this such as Hordes, Infinity, and Malifaux but none of them capture the massive army combat. Why can’t there be a system that works for all sizes of games, and not just sizes but styles of gameplay. Why can’t a Wargame have a system that works equally well for skirmish play?
All of the above is why I started Battlegeddon Games. My mission is to create a community driven game that evolves within the framework of my original design. I aim to make a flexible game system that works well for all game sizes and is still engaging regardless of how many minis you own. By taking the time to have a dedicated team of people who are committed to communicating with the forums and social media we will learn what people are struggling with and what people want. I want to have monthly rules updates that allow the game to stay as tight as possible. Not only that, having the community involved in the creative process allows us to learn what factions need what types of units to keep them competitive so nobody will ever have an inferior army.
In addition we have a system that discourages cheesy tactics like unit stacking, Deathstars, or just putting all your eggs in one basket. Those tactics will not work effectively and you will be forced to play using diverse armies, good decisions, and interesting list builds if you want to win. Nobody likes getting rolled by the unstoppable Deathstar and that’s the type of gameplay we are working against. We want to see gamers having fun playing the units they like and less of the units they are forced to take.
With the system I have built there will be a wide variety of effective builds in each faction that will make each game interesting regardless of how you choose to play. You may be a casual player or a power gamer, but the end result is the same. People who want to play a game that encourages you to think for yourself instead of getting your list off the internet will love Feyalis. The amount of customization within lists, the combos between skills, and the overall fairness of each build will be our calling card.
If this sounds like fun, or if you support my ideas, or even if you just want to know more then please join my website by clicking the image on the side of my page.
I need your support to make this work because without a community Feyalis will be just another game run by a lone group of gamers. A community driven game cannot exist without a community.
Please like and share with everybody you know. It is only with your support that Feyalis can exist.
