Hello. 2021, and ‘tis the season for hobby blogs apparently. So here’s mine.
I think its fair to say our group runs the gamut of the hobbyist. Be it the hobby butterfly, the collector, the casual gamer, the competitive gamer (with a small “c”) and golden demon level painter etc
I flit between a few of these (well maybe not advanced painter!), but ultimately I find myself landing at the label “wargamer”.
To me this is a balance of wanting a game to be strategic, involved and well thought-out (read: not just making pew pew noises and spending hours chit chatting about non game stuff!)…. but I want it to be flavourful, be exciting and engaging and most importantly, be representative of what the source material describes. Rules are important, but they should support the narrative of the game we are playing, not dictate the game itself.
For a historical wargamer, you recreate battles or enact “what if” scenarios. Modern competitive wargaming is a slightly different kettle of fish, instead seeking to apply a balance whereby both sides begin the game “equal”, subject to the vagaries of meta, list-building and codex creep, and in theory the best player should then win.
Long time players of 40K, and in general any GW game, know that seeking perfect competitive balance in the ever changing and expanding rulesets and model ranges is probably a fool’s errand.
Do I want to enjoy my game knowing I have a chance of winning or losing? Yes of course. Do I want constant evolution of rules to nudge points up and down because x gun is now deemed a little bit better than y gun? … that depends. But to me it’s missing the point.
Good rules should be a vehicle only for telling stories on the table-top. Chess is as close to a perfectly balanced game (ignoring first turn (dis)advantage!), because it’s essentially a mirror match. But do people tell stories about the time the black knight put the evil white King in check? Well they might, but I don’t think Netflix will buy the television rights (except they kinda already did). The pursuit of perfect balance is not the be-all and end-all for narrative gaming.
To illustrate my point and avoid continued ramble, I have a few rules in mind I want to consider:
Example 1: 5th edition mindshackle scarabs: me and my local group (except a certain someone and his insidious necrons) are all having a little shiver right now at the mention of these heinous beasts. An option to take on your Necron HQ, these required your opponent (usually their hardest beatstick HQ choice) to take a leadership check (on 3d6), and if failed… basically hit themselves or their mates rather than your smug Necron character.
This was not a balanced rule. It had Mephiston, Typhus, Belial et al frequently clubbing themselves over the head. It WAS iconic, and flavourful, but I feel suffered from the flaw of not fitting the games narrative, would these heroes of the universe really be hitting themselves over the head at the hands of a (relatively) minor Necron lord?
Verdict: iconic rules, but does it really fit the narrative we are trying to create and how much fun is for your opponent?
Example 2: the Imperial Knight Atrapos (40K). One of my favourite forge world knights, this giant Martian machine is the perfectly designed Titan-killing knight. With powerful shooting and a super deadly short ranged laser/melee weapon, this fearsome machine should inspire fear and trepidation by dint of its exotic weaponry and unusual rules, but does it?
Sort of. In 30k, it has a weapon that has a 1/6 chance of creating an inter-dimensional rift in space and time that persists on the battlefield and can rip friend and foe alike apart. In 40K, it now does a random number of shots for 3 dmg each.
Is the 40k ruleset more balanced? Probably. Random vortices in the middle of the tournament top table doesn’t really fly in competitive 40K…. is it iconic and flavourful? No.
Verdict: the pursuit of balance makes for a less-fun game for the normal gamer.
Example 3: the legion glaive (30k). Perhaps a controversial one, and I’m undoubtedly biased (because chooooom), but this fearsome super heavy battle tank has a giant death ray that rips across the battlefield, destroys unshielded troops like a hot red death-knife through gooey marine butter and laughs at those cowering in their measly ruins or bunkers.
Is it over powered? Well it’s strong for sure, it forces your opponent to counter it, or at least deploy and move differently as a result. But it sits on an expensive platform, is hard-countered by things like sicaran venators…. and doesn’t do all that much against tanks. What it is though, is iconic. I defy anyone not to grin ear to ear when shooting it, and I’ve never known an opponent cry foul (to my face anyway), mostly people are just in awe at what this thing does!!!
Verdict: how rules should be written! Terrifying and potent, but not all-powerful, the glaive shapes the game it features in but feels appropriate for the setting and narrative.
So I reach the conclusion of this brain dump. Thank you for journeying through my scattered thoughts on rules writing and what I enjoy on the table top. I’m already dreaming up a sequel piece to this which I have tentatively titled “the dream”, which will be a deep dive into my dream wargame and how it would be run. Hopefully you’ll stick around for the read!
Happy chooming.