Tabletop vs pc game

[Oakwolf]

I wonder how close the game is to tabletop numbers when it goes for hitting, wounding etc. One of the good sides of the tabletop game was that it was simple and the old, rugged (if imperfect) warhammer system was easy and quick to use. Mordheim wasn't exactly balanced, sure, some house ruling was often required, but there was something simple and clear about it that made it real fun. Why not use that?

I understand the urge to make something new and shiny...but in this case I feel there's a whole lot more attributes"system" stuff added, for little effect and a loss of simplicity and identity. Why so much wounds? Watching things hacking themselves back and forth ain't Mordheim: the game was much deadlier once melee started. The game looks like mordheim, but the system doesn't feel like it so far (to me, of course).

Now i understand we're neck deep in early access, but just that in my opinion, the system is too different from the original game, especially since it had almost nailed it.

[BarbFish]

Think Mordhiem Verson 2 this is an evolution of the original game. It is close enough in play to have old stratiges still work but transparent enough to make changes..

[Oakwolf]

Indeed some of the changes i could live with, but the wound system and random damage stuff...looks more like Dungeons and dragons than warhammer. One can evolve without thrashing the original. Too late for this game, but someday, perhaps. Blood Bowl and Space Hulk got a great treatment so far.

[Pterodactyl]

Too bad you cant live with them. The rest of us think its great.

[Oddities]

" Blood Bowl and Space Hulk got a great treatment so far."

is that the space hulk sitting at 58% on metacritic? or another better one :P

[Nice]

How was the wound system in the tabletop?

[Chiron]

Originally posted by Walken on sunshine:

How was the wound system in the tabletop?

Short summary.

1 wound per guy, standard WFB rolling to hit.

So in close combat WS vs WS so you'd have about 50% chance to hit and do damage most rounds. In close combat you'd be taken out automatically once you lost a wound.]

Against ranged combat you'd lose a wound then have to roll to see if Knocked Down > Stunned > Out of Action (Knocked over for 1 round, knocked over for 2 rounds, out of the battle, respectively)

[Oakwolf]

Originally posted by Oddities:

" Blood Bowl and Space Hulk got a great treatment so far."

is that the space hulk sitting at 58% on metacritic? or another better one :P

I said "great treatment" as far as porting the game. Perhaps the fan base of blood bowl is indeed smaller or that pc players don't really dig the system. For a tabletop game it's awesome for sure.

Originally posted by Chiron:

Originally posted by Walken on sunshine:

How was the wound system in the tabletop?

Short summary.

1 wound per guy, standard WFB rolling to hit.

So in close combat WS vs WS so you'd have about 50% chance to hit and do damage most rounds. In close combat you'd be taken out automatically once you lost a wound.]

Against ranged combat you'd lose a wound then have to roll to see if Knocked Down > Stunned > Out of Action (Knocked over for 1 round, knocked over for 2 rounds, out of the battle, respectively)

Well, not exactly. When you lost your last wound (most folks had 1) you rolled. 1-2: Knocked Down, 3-4: Stunned (iirc) 5-6: Out of action .

This occured in melee and shooting as well. If you were knocked down you could get up and move a small distance on your turn. The enemy would have to roll to wound you if they engaged you while down. If you were stunned, any enemy in melee would automatically take you out of action. If you survived, on your turn you could crawl a 2" and get better.

Ranged shots would roll the same but still had to wound no matter what state you were and still roll the wound chart even if you were already stunned.

[Stymie Jackson]

That kind of gameplay mechanics isn't very popular outside of table top. It's not very fun to have random one-shots happening all the time. Getting taken out automatically with one hit is not very fun.

It's cool when you are hanging out with a friend, drinking some beers, and enjoying the gameplay in person. It's a totally different story when you are doing that on the internet, against someone you don't know, and you haven't spent hours and hours painting your minis and making awesome terrain. It's less about winning and losing and more about having fun with friends.

You're comparing a hobby to a video game. It's a bad comparison. Frankly, although I have my differences with some design choices, what they are doing with this game is over-all very smart for internet gaming, and the heavy min-maxing it presents. Winning>Fun (or winning IS fun in this situation).

There's less luck and randomness and more room for tactics in this rendition. There's not a lot of tactics going on with one-hit kills. It's fine when your half drunk and losing to a good friend. It's not fun with some jerk on the internet trolls you in chat while abusing one-hit kill mechanics and riding luck streaks.

Did you never play Plood Bowl by Cyanide online? I'm so tired of people crying about luck in that game. It seems every other game is ruined by whining, crying, complaining, or straight up disconnects. It would be the same here with a straight port.

[Oakwolf]

There's not alot of one-hit kills from shooting on tabletop, unless we're talking seriously experienced snipers. Frankly, shooting is not that easy in Mordheim, base hits are 50% minus penalties for range, movement, target cover...quickly drops to 16% then you need to wound it (50% for a normal human). If it has 1 wound, then there's 33% chance of putting it out of action, and 66% chance of it being stunned or knocked down. So your odds of taking out someone with a single arrow is...very slim to say the least.

I'm not saying shootin isn't deadly, however, as a group of 3 henchmen with crossbows or decent weapons will be a high threat to go at.

[Oakwolf]

I play Blood Bowl every week, the community is going very well in private leagues. The open leagues are rubbish due to internet players not getting it. And yes, Blood Bowl is a cruel game for those who can't take it, but it's still an incredibly awesome game...hell i play since 20something years :O

[Drahazar]

And people trust metacritic that site is crap

[Gramalian]

Yes they should of kept the TT combat system it just worked so well for this game. Balance dual weildng and armor and the combat system is mainly done for them. The game seems to have lost a lot of its deadly feel where anything can happen. The tactics in TT came from buildin gyour uint to how you used them and trying to put the odds in your favor BEFORE you rolled any dice. Now their is a lot less potential for that as it seemt o be extremely streamlined.

It also greatly decreased turn around comebacks seeing as in TT you are at 100% till your last wound. Here if you get hit a few times or fall down you might get taken out by 1 hit from anyone.

[Nice]

Originally posted by Stymie Jackson:

That kind of gameplay mechanics isn't very popular outside of table top. It's not very fun to have random one-shots happening all the time. Getting taken out automatically with one hit is not very fun.

I agree - BUT - not on this case.

One thing are games where you have one character (mostly but not only rpgs), but in context having a unit takend down 'one shot' ain't bad by that alone. I mean, it can be depending on design but in this case seens more then acceptable, even in the digital version.

Your phrasing alone gives away where your comment comes from... i play way more games where i 'am'/control one persona so its natural to see by that frame. Skirmishes aren't as detached as large scale war games but in a game where half of the charm is the very nature of evolving and having to replace said units...

[Oakwolf]

I'm afraid this game will fail because they will alienate tabletop players over time (who are, in any case, the main target market for this game, i guess). Internet players will wander off as soon as the novelty goes away. Same goes for Blood Bowl, the random internet crowd vanished...but the game itself keeps a huge tabletop following for private leagues.

In this case, the studio made the choice of not porting the game as is (with a couple of fix, sure, we all know the dual wielding and armor issues), and instead went for a mmo/rpg approach to it...i only come here to watch this discussion (subscribed somehow), but other than this i am not playing the EA, nor following what's coming.

[the.grognard]

If you stick to the tabletop rules, which are SUPERB for tabletop miniature play, you will alienate a lot of video gamers that want more of a video game experience. Virtual rules offer so much more opportunity for gameplay dynamics. The "I move everything"...."you move everything." format of the tabletop game is kinda dull if you're playing someone and have to sit there and watch him move all his units. I like the initiative system better for the computer game.

I think tabletop players will only be upset if the game loses a lot of it's flavor and feel. I don't think it has. You're going to have to learn new ways to do things, but that shouldn't be a burden. It's a game. Suck it up.

However, the devs should not take this as a free pass to lose sight of TT Mordheim. For example get SoS steel whips and slings into the game ASAP. It's all cool as long as the game's fun to play, and so far the early release is a lot of fun to play. It should only get better.