Well, here's what happened. I chanced upon this while researching paper models for RPG purposes. Grimdark Future is a freely available, Patreon-funded, and exceptionally rules-light version of Warhammer 40k. It bemuses me that this game exists. The creators, One Page Rules seem to specialise in this projects like this, offering minimalist answers to Games Workshop's big games. Yes, skirmish miniature rules are 10 a penny, as are 3rd party models, but seeing this felt somehow transgressive. The name alone feels like an act of non-copyrightable trolling, and I wonder why GW has ignored it. However, my tastes changed over the years, and I find myself more accepting of simple rules, and unlikely to play actual 40k. So, here's some surface-level critique of the rules.
Grimdark Future features some substantial abstractions when compared to recent 40k. While a statblock in a Games Workshop system might have 8 or so characteristics before special rules, this system has only two, Quality and Defence. Defence is fairly self-explanatory, whereas Quality is a catch-all stat for causing harm and morale tests. You might think this isn't quite enough, and you'd have a point. Movement is standardised in much the same way as 3rd edition 40k, while keywords do a lot of the heavy lifting. The basic idea of a model being able to withstand multiple injuries for example is tied to a keyword, which probably made more sense before 9th ed happened. These key-worded rules tend to be only a sentence or so, which makes them easy to absorb, and allows this game its aggressively compressed army-lists. The result is that matters of attacking are usually just a matter of a two step dice roll, while movement is just as elegant. There is no rules bloat as such. What may throw players off however is that this game features alternating unit activation, something not especially common in GW games which go as big as this one. This minimises the first turn advantage, but is the most tangible difference from what Grimdark Future is emulating, with subtle effects on both shooty and choppy factions. To boil it down, its much harder for a shooty force to muller its opposition on turn 1, which is boring for the victim, but charging headlong at someone does not necessarily work out either. Units can fight in multiple hand-to-hand combats, but if they do, they start to hit on a 6+, and as units don't get locked in combat, return fire is a thing. So, already we've got a more interesting gameplay loop to compensate for lost detail, but having counters to track activations is probably a good idea. I regret that I cannot comment on competitive balance, but the game does seem to be supported and have an active-if-small community.
There's even rules for solo play. If that's a thing you want.
Of course, actual dice rolling is not the entire experience of such a game. List building, the preparations to field an army is a fairly big part of 40k, and this is where Grimdark Future perhaps falters. The loss of detail that benefits actual play makes for a rudimentary list building experience. Again, I feel myself drawn to making a comparison to the 3rd edition of 40k, where things were drastically cut-down versus 2nd edition. Each off-brand faction has a lot packed into its 2ish pages of units, however, its just laid out in a counter-intuitive manner. Match letters to units and you are halfway there. The other half is figuring out which units are under what name; a thesaurus may be needed. Also, if the Orc Marauders are anything to go by, it's not necessarily a direct adaption either, with a few weapons and abilities not lining up exactly with the 40k equivalent. Which is good, as it suggests its more than a copy. In fact looking at the wiki, not-squats? Ratmen? Zombie cults? Intriguing.
Conclusion
While having more depth than the first impressions suggest, Grimdark Future prompts a single question "why?". Is there a statistically significant number of people whom like the 40k setting and models, but dislike the rules? It can happen, fandoms can split to favour specific iterations of a game, that's why things like Pathfinder and Kings of War exist. Alternatively, is this just a reflection of economics? People being priced out? GW does insist on charging money for almost everything, and you may very well need two hardback books before you play your first game. At time of writing, that's 70 odd quid if you don't shop around. Or is this just a matter of trend chasing? History repeating? A small enterprise has made a generic setting based on what was, 30 odd years ago, a generic setting made by a small enterprise. I mean, think for a second. If "Battle Brothers" or "Orc Marauders" sound a bit bland and non-specific, might I introduce you to Space Marines and Space Orks? There's a reason why Games Workshop tries harder with names these days. All of the above could be true. This is getting a bit too existential. One thing I can say however? Only that Grimdark Future probably worth a try. It will only cost some printer paper and an afternoon.
No comments:
Post a Comment