| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
(Blarg D Impaler @ Dec. 22 2007,07:20)
QUOTE Wow, and the horse I rode in on, huh? No, not at all. My post was intended to express exasperation, not to be nasty.
You're just interested in something that a lot of people aren't. That's not personal. It's not a comment that your ideas are not valid or won't work. It's just different tastes.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with being divergent. Go. Anyone who criticizes you for playing the way you want should be roundly ignored. It's just a game. Like L4's mantra, DWWFY. Have fun.
That said, your stated goal was to sell your list as the basis for future development. In that case, you're definitely not allowed to just do what you want. You're stuck with following certain strictures, one of which is popular acceptance.
If you can sell you concept and gain that acceptance, fine, but there are substantial factors working against you.
Any "real" development (by which I mean anything with even a vague, longshot hope of every gaining wide acceptance, let alone official blessing from SG) is stuck with the decisions of the 40K design shop. While we all complain about the shifting winds of background fiction and the poor choices of certain revisions, it is the driving force of the 40K-verse canon. Besides, a lot of the changes are good and make perfect sense.
Regarding the complexity, pretty much anyone who takes the time to post on the boards can handle your system. The question is whether anyone wants to. In order for people to want to do it, there has to be a reward for their effort. For most people, the same quality of game experience can be had with a fraction of that detail, so unless the players have an affinity for minutia, the extra granularity adds little.
Basically, the detail adds "on paper" feel. On paper feel may impact the game experience that but it is a minor consideration compared to the actual game play. It's only worth so much effort and the system requires more effort than most people think is worth it.
The play is the thing.
===
If you really want specific suggestions on how to make the list more appealing to a broad audience, there are many suggesions in the last thread. Just off the top of my head:
Cut the weapon categories (3 sizes, auxiliary systems, "double" weapons)
Cut the weapon variety (too much duplication of similar roles)
Cut the Knights down (0-1 cascading requirements means huge variety in the list produces minimal variety in fielded armies)
Cut the variety of tanks, SHT, and infantry (again, many duplications of similar roles)
_________________
Neal
|
|
). It's an interesting list, but suffers I think from a lack of real focus. While it certainly has a 'titan core', the sheer volume of possible other options in the list makes designing one a bit daunting IMHO.