Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 zlayer77 wrote:
Well instead of being hostile all the time you might ask yourself is it a good thing that alot of people do not play the game you like just because they dont like the miniatures?

I mean come on now, All of you who have defended Corvus belli in this thread are spread all over the globe: US, UK, Australia, Philippines, Germany, Canada and many other nationalities.. If your way of thinking was the mainstream mindset towards Corvus Belli Miniatures we would never have had this discussion

Why do you assume you're the majority when it comes to the tastes of Infinity, when literally everyone else in this thread disagrees with you, to the point of stating they'd drop the game if it contained the features you want?

The fact that the people across the globe are disagreeing with you just highlights that; we're not a small pocket of rabid fanboys, but a wide group of people who like the game.

Some of the mini's are a bit sameish, in that they are all human/humanoid in a game revolving around small groups of human special forces having conflicts. But in 40K almost all of the mini's are the same, because they are all Space Marines (that at 8ft tall are still shorter than most Catachan guardsmen), only differentiated by caricature details like battle wolves and wolf chariots. We like infinity because it's hard sci-fi (in that, it's concievable) with great models and not because it's the best not-40K game out there.

It really just sounds like you want to play 40K with better rules. In which case, use 40K models and some other ruleset. But please just leave Infinity alone.

Why can't you grasp that just because you dislike Infinity miniatures, doesn't mean you're in the majority. Bear in mind that CB had to delay the launch of their starter set because they had so many pre-orders they had to commission a 2nd print run to satisfy them. That's not something that happens with a game that isn't in demand.

 zlayer77 wrote:

Well you all look to be hooked on the messy Faction design and bland Miniatures... I guess diffrent games pull in diffrent people..

Except its neither “messy” faction design nor “bland” miniatures. But feel free to disagree and keep believing that silliness like one-dimensional single-idea charicatures can be factions, and wolf riders, giant wolves and snake riders in a sci-fi setting are somehow clever.

 zlayer77 wrote:

I still say that you dudes who like only bland human faction that mostly look kinda the same are in a miniority.

First its “all the same”. Now its “kinda” the same? Are you still trying to argue that Yu-Jing power armour is identical to the Pan-O knights? Are you still trying to argue that a Caledonian looks the same as a Fusilier?

 zlayer77 wrote:

But you do show alot of passion in the defence of Corvus Bellis design on their miniatures..

Well, they are awesome.

 zlayer77 wrote:

Sadly that also means many of us will never try Infinity. That is OFC okey with you but if I was the owner of Infinity I would think twice before dissmissing a large portion of the potential customers of my game.. I would probably "sell out" for the greater good of my commpany...

Indeed, with silly things like snake riders and wolf riders and mistaking “spam a single idea until it’s a joke” for a “theme”. I’m glad you’re not running the company.

Secondly, assuming they’re dismissing a large portion of potential customers – you’ve an over inflated sense of the importance, or the need to embrace the faction that likes silliness like snake riders and wolf riders. CB are more sophisticated, and grown up. Think less Pokemon, and more Ghost in the Shell. CB have been expanding rapidly over the last few years. More and more people are playing their games. It seems that despite your insistence on the matter, more and more “potential” customers are in fact embracing them than walking away.

It seems very much to me that you and your group wants to play a 'not-40k' type of game instead of sonething different. Well, that's all well and good, but infinity is it's own beast.

 zlayer77 wrote:

Corvus Belli has in the latest months started to design alot of WOLFs, and more flashed out Miniatures so we will see who is right in the end... But I would not be surprised if we will see more monsters and larger miniatures in the future and a much clearer Faction design. It is just simply good Buissniss for Corvus Belli... And lets face it most of you will still play even if they start designing stuff that appeals to more people...

to be fair, its less that they’re designing more wolves, and more they’re re-doing their older sculpts. Dog Soldiers and Antipode packs are part of this.

Regarding larger miniatures, I think there was talk of CB bringing in transports but I cant be sure of that. But I cant see them doing snake riders or wolf riders.

 zlayer77 wrote:

Well instead of being hostile all the time you might ask yourself is it a good thing that alot of people do not play the game you like just because they dont like the miniatures?

Its neither good, nor bad. It’s a “thing”. I don’t like the 40k miniatures. Therefore I don’t play. A lot of other people don’t like 40k miniatures and don’t play either. So we play other games. Is that good? Is that bad? Or is it merely a preference that people may have?

 zlayer77 wrote:

I mean come on now, All of you who have defended Corvus belli in this thread are spread all over the globe: US, UK, Australia, Philippines, Germany, Canada and many other nationalities.. If your way of thinking was the mainstream mindset towards Corvus Belli Miniatures we would never have had this discussion, I would have been playing now instead of complaining that I want to try the game but everyone around my area think the miniature Faction design looks crapy, the modells are in metal bla bla...

Hmm, If our way of thinking was the mainstream, then CB would be reporting year-on-year growth, backed up by a steadily increasing player base, a steadily expanding range of awesome miniatures and factions, a third edition of the game, and a lot of enthusiasm. Oh wait… That’s what’s actually happening.

And whats wrong with metal? Metal is awesome.

 zlayer77 wrote:

I mean I have allready faced a horde of people In IRL, but then it was the opposite.. Me trying to find reasons for people to try the game and me getting hit with "NO WE DON'T WANT TO because the Factions look messy", " "the figures are so "small and look bland". If most table top gamers were into Infinitys design it would not be so hard to find games..

Then explain why the Infinity community is continually growing if so many people apparently don’t like it? And I thought you were in a group of a dozen people. Now it’s a “horde”?

If people don’t like the game, and don’t want to play, then fair enough. You can’t make them. Its not necessarily a failure on the part of the company producing the game – you cant appeal to everyone, and the fact remains, their game and their style does appeal to a sizeable, and more importantly, growing customer base. Its not a reason for them to sell out, and change everything about the game they enjoy making to make some kiddies cartoon of a game.

 zlayer77 wrote:

So I asked a few questions, and there are some that think they are messy and dont want to try it..

You are one of the two people saying they’re messy. And quite a few more saying they’re great. And I think I did a good job of demolishing the other guy’s points earlier. That leaves you. With your head in the sand, repeating the same old mantra.

 zlayer77 wrote:

And it is sad that you are so stuck in your ways, and probably cheer on Corvus belli to not make any changes... When they are needed if the company wants to grow into a more diverse table top game, that attracts more people

“stuck in your ways”? Cheap shot is cheap. And its as inaccurate as it is cheap. In any case, speaking of myself, I have far less interest in a company “changing” what they do, and far more interest in a company “improving” what they do. Your suggestions are changes, not improvements. The new third edition rules seem like a huge ”improvement”. Therefore I support it. CB re-doing their older sculpts (eg Pan-O fusiliers) is an “improvement”. Therefore I support it. CB doing an about turn on everything that currently works in order to have Wolf Riders and Snake Riders to appeal to a Swede with no knowledge of, or appreciation of their game isn’t an “improvement”. It’s something else.

Why do CB need to make changes in order to grow, when they’re already growing by leaps and bounds just by doing what they’re already doing? Why do they need to sell out and turn Infinity into the Not-Infinity Saturday Morning Kids TV show with Snake Riders with Snake Attacks and Wolf Riders with wolfguns and fangblades, when so many folks like what they do already, and so many more are either constantly buying in, or maintaining a healthy interest? They’re a small company. Less than 30 people on the books. They don’t need to be the next 1800 employee across the world wargaming behemoth, and deal with all the baggage that entails. Fact is, whether you care to admit to it or not, its already a diverse game with some great factions, great fluff (working my way through Paradiso at the moment, and boy, its fun!) and what a lot of people regard as some of the best models in the industry? They’re constantly punching above their weight in the industry.

I really don't understand this particular kind of stubbornness. It's like me insisting that Warhammer Fantasy Battles is terrible, because it doesn't have power armor and light sabers. One of the great realizations in life is that sometimes your opinion may not be aligned with the truth as much as you think, especially when you are presented with evidence that you might be wrong. Thankfully ,the wargaming hobby is diverse enough and has something for everyone. If you are looking for a scifi game with good rules, large battles and armies with coherent themes, you should look no further than Dropzone Commander. Comparing 40K to Infinity is futile, because the only thing those games have in common is that both have miniatures and some futuristic tech( No, I refuse to call 40K a scifi).

Herzlos wrote:It really just sounds like you want to play 40K with better rules. In which case, use 40K models and some other ruleset.

Deadnight wrote:And I thought you were in a group of a dozen people. Now it’s a “horde”?

to appeal to a Swede

Herzlos wrote:

 zlayer77 wrote:
Well instead of being hostile all the time you might ask yourself is it a good thing that alot of people do not play the game you like just because they dont like the miniatures?

I mean come on now, All of you who have defended Corvus belli in this thread are spread all over the globe: US, UK, Australia, Philippines, Germany, Canada and many other nationalities.. If your way of thinking was the mainstream mindset towards Corvus Belli Miniatures we would never have had this discussion

Why do you assume you're the majority when it comes to the tastes of Infinity, when literally everyone else in this thread disagrees with you, .

I'm not going to keep forcing this issue.. But there are atleast 5-6 people that have stated with me in this thread they dont like the minis(they have just stopped posting, because the main point has derailed).. then there are about 8-10 of you who are very activly defending it. So No not litterally everyone in this thread disagress with me...

In IRL I have personaly faced the opposite 2-3 people like it and about 20 don't. Now this can just be bad luck or me asking the worng people etc..

But Facts are not everyone likes the Faction design of Corvus belli..

Now let's just leave this subject. The end result will be the same I will not play infinity because nobody in my local Area is into the game (and you all think that is fantastic i get that)... The funny thing is if I heard the same about Warmachine/hordes (I would not think that was Fantastic, I would get concerned as a fan of the game).

But the posts you keep making is "just move along nothing to see here".. and I'm moving along i really dont have a choise now do I hehe..

 zlayer77 wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 zlayer77 wrote:
Well instead of being hostile all the time you might ask yourself is it a good thing that alot of people do not play the game you like just because they dont like the miniatures?

I mean come on now, All of you who have defended Corvus belli in this thread are spread all over the globe: US, UK, Australia, Philippines, Germany, Canada and many other nationalities.. If your way of thinking was the mainstream mindset towards Corvus Belli Miniatures we would never have had this discussion

Why do you assume you're the majority when it comes to the tastes of Infinity, when literally everyone else in this thread disagrees with you, .

I'm not going to keep forcing this issue.. But there are atleast 5-6 people that have stated with me in this thread they dont like the minis(they have just stopped posting, because the main point has derailed).. then there are about 8-10 of you who are very activly defending it. So No not litterally everyone in this thread disagress with me...

In IRL have personaly faced the opposite 2-3 people like it and about 20 don't. Now this can just be bad luck or me asking the worng people etc..

But Facts are not everyone likes the Faction design of Corvus belli..

Now lest just leave this subject. The end result will be the same I will not play infinity because nobody in my local Area is into the game (and you all think that is fantastic i get that)... The funny thing is if I heard the same about Warmachine/hordes (I would not think that was Fantastic, I would get concerned as a fan of the game).

But the posts you keep making is "just move along nothing the see here".. and I'm moving along i really dont have a choise now do I hehe..

We could continue the conversation if you go, learn up about the game and the factions and then come back with a more educated/supported opinion.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 zlayer77 wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 zlayer77 wrote:
Well instead of being hostile all the time you might ask yourself is it a good thing that alot of people do not play the game you like just because they dont like the miniatures?

I mean come on now, All of you who have defended Corvus belli in this thread are spread all over the globe: US, UK, Australia, Philippines, Germany, Canada and many other nationalities.. If your way of thinking was the mainstream mindset towards Corvus Belli Miniatures we would never have had this discussion

Why do you assume you're the majority when it comes to the tastes of Infinity, when literally everyone else in this thread disagrees with you, .

I'm not going to keep forcing this issue.. But there are atleast 5-6 people that have stated with me in this thread they dont like the minis(they have just stopped posting, because the main point has derailed).. then there are about 8-10 of you who are very activly defending it. So No not litterally everyone in this thread disagress with me...

In IRL have personaly faced the opposite 2-3 people like it and about 20 don't. Now this can just be bad luck or me asking the worng people etc..

But Facts are not everyone likes the Faction design of Corvus belli..

Now lest just leave this subject. The end result will be the same I will not play infinity because nobody in my local Area is into the game (and you all think that is fantastic i get that)... The funny thing is if I heard the same about Warmachine/hordes (I would not think that was Fantastic, I would get concerned as a fan of the game).

But the posts you keep making is "just move along nothing the see here".. and I'm moving along i really dont have a choise now do I hehe..

We could continue the conversation if you go, learn up about the game and the factions and then come back with a more educated/supported opinion.

But my point has not been about anything other then that "people who know absolutely nothing about the game", do not get interested enough (because of the miniatures and faction design), to even bother looking twice at the game...

And the Fact that Infinity is the only Table Top game I have encountered where people could not find a single Miniature or faction they could get exited about...

My whole argument has been that people do not get exited enough about the game "that they even bother to learn up about the game" :( that is just sad... And I have looked into the game and would try it but I cant get anyone interested in it.. And I have been "told too move along", so that is what I will do hehe... Still got Warmachine/Hordes to play and that is probably one of the best rulesets on the market right now...

 zlayer77 wrote:

In IRL I have personaly faced the opposite 2-3 people like it and about 20 don't. Now this can just be bad luck or me asking the worng people etc..

But Facts are not everyone likes the Faction design of Corvus belli..

Now let's just leave this subject. The end result will be the same I will not play infinity because nobody in my local Area is into the game (and you all think that is fantastic i get that)... The funny thing is if I heard the same about Warmachine/hordes (I would not think that was Fantastic, I would get concerned as a fan of the game).

Agreed. We're getting nowhere like this, but I think we can all agree to disagree here. Except where it comes to 40K as a ruleset (see how I'm trying to nudge it towards topic )

You're always going to get clusters of people who like or dislike something, but at least we're all aware it's still personal preference.

Herzlos wrote:

 zlayer77 wrote:

In IRL I have personaly faced the opposite 2-3 people like it and about 20 don't. Now this can just be bad luck or me asking the worng people etc..

But Facts are not everyone likes the Faction design of Corvus belli..

Now let's just leave this subject. The end result will be the same I will not play infinity because nobody in my local Area is into the game (and you all think that is fantastic i get that)... The funny thing is if I heard the same about Warmachine/hordes (I would not think that was Fantastic, I would get concerned as a fan of the game).

Agreed. We're getting nowhere like this, but I think we can all agree to disagree here. Except where it comes to 40K as a ruleset (see how I'm trying to nudge it towards topic )

You're always going to get clusters of people who like or dislike something, but at least we're all aware it's still personal preference.

We are all in agreement that 40k Rules Suck yes hehe. Or are less optimal for "fun" and "rewarding gamplay" because of serious balance issues, and too many random dice rolls..

 zlayer77 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 zlayer77 wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 zlayer77 wrote:
Well instead of being hostile all the time you might ask yourself is it a good thing that alot of people do not play the game you like just because they dont like the miniatures?

I mean come on now, All of you who have defended Corvus belli in this thread are spread all over the globe: US, UK, Australia, Philippines, Germany, Canada and many other nationalities.. If your way of thinking was the mainstream mindset towards Corvus Belli Miniatures we would never have had this discussion

Why do you assume you're the majority when it comes to the tastes of Infinity, when literally everyone else in this thread disagrees with you, .

I'm not going to keep forcing this issue.. But there are atleast 5-6 people that have stated with me in this thread they dont like the minis(they have just stopped posting, because the main point has derailed).. then there are about 8-10 of you who are very activly defending it. So No not litterally everyone in this thread disagress with me...

In IRL have personaly faced the opposite 2-3 people like it and about 20 don't. Now this can just be bad luck or me asking the worng people etc..

But Facts are not everyone likes the Faction design of Corvus belli..

Now lest just leave this subject. The end result will be the same I will not play infinity because nobody in my local Area is into the game (and you all think that is fantastic i get that)... The funny thing is if I heard the same about Warmachine/hordes (I would not think that was Fantastic, I would get concerned as a fan of the game).

But the posts you keep making is "just move along nothing the see here".. and I'm moving along i really dont have a choise now do I hehe..

We could continue the conversation if you go, learn up about the game and the factions and then come back with a more educated/supported opinion.

But my point has not been about anything other then that "people who know absolutely nothing about the game", do not get interested enough (because of the miniatures and faction design), to even bother looking twice at the game...

And the Fact that Infinity is the only Table Top game I have encountered where people could not find a single Miniature or faction they could get exited about...

My whole argument has been that people do not get exited enough about the game "that they even bother to learn up about the game" :( that is just sad... And I have looked into the game and would try it but I cant get anyone interested in it.. And I have been "told too move along", so that is what I will do hehe... Still got Warmachine/Hordes to play and that is probably one of the best rulesets on the market right now...

And are point is CB doesn't need you, to keep being a great game with great sells. Their not 40K who are losing player by the boat load, dispite 40K large ass models. So they should sell out and become GW and start a downward sprial. Do you even read what you post.

Herzlos wrote:
We're getting nowhere like this, but I think we can all agree to disagree here.

Indeed. Especially, as the topic was starting a GW game, not how some people aren't into Infinity. Personally, I would have liked to be into Infinity, but I have enough on my plate as it is.

Agreed. Reading the 3+ pages of the forum stomp Zlayer77 flat was fun but totally off topic. I'm surprised a Mod hasn't hijacked or locked this thread by now.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
We're getting nowhere like this, but I think we can all agree to disagree here.

Indeed. Especially, as the topic was starting a GW game, not how some people aren't into Infinity. Personally, I would have liked to be into Infinity, but I have enough on my plate as it is.

We dont want any threads about starting GW games... the less we talk about them the better .. and if it takes a bit off effort to spend the last 4+ pages not talking about GW games, and having a bunch of people advocationg the greatness of Infinity, I say objective achieved . Would have been fun to have a few more people explain more about how awsome the lore goes with the minis of Infintiy but hey, you cant have it all now can you muahaha

I want a lot of talk about GW´s games, as they are fun to play, have great models and the games have a great universe.

Rules could always use some filing but I have had nothing but fun with 40K. . I learned the rules back when I was 14 years old, anyone with a normal IQ will learn them just the same, especially if you can get someone to demo for you.

If using more money than say for Warmachine/Infinity isn´t a problem, by all means play 40K for example.

Warhammer 4ever0,000.

 RunicFIN wrote:

If using more money than say for Warmachine/Infinity isn´t a problem, by all means play 40K for example.
.

Unless you wan't a game that requires actual input on the part of the player to win.

There are far, far more reasons to play Infinity/WMH/practically any other game on the market instead of picking up the bloated mess that is 40k other than initial cost.

The main problem that 40k, rules wise, has is that the ruleset is being used for something it was never intended to be used for.

Essentially, it's a 30 year old ruleset for ranks of fantasy troops that's been modded into its current incarnation. Add layer upon layer of extra rules and exclusions and it's going to get muddled.

This was a game for orks and dwarves to pile into each other whilst pansy elves fired arrows all over the place.

Stupid pansy elves...

I have revised my standing on advising a beginner to start a GW game...

I would quietly say:
"Run! it is too late for me, but as long as you spend no money on them you are safe!"
"Please, come sit down with me and play some X-wing, you will forget that madness."
"If you must build and paint models, come see Privateer Press..."
"OK, desperate now, buy "Space Hulk" but get nothing else, OK??!!"
"What you WANT to throw away your money? I have a cult for you to join I just created... GAH!! <Jazz-hands!!!>"

Was I too understated in my views?

When reading this thread, prefix every one of the stronger statements (including my own) with "in my opinion..." Because really unless your post enjoys a majority consensus, that's all it it -your opinion! I like debating these things the same as any of you, but I'm still surprised with how absolutely convinced some folks are that the majority of other hobbyists and/or gamers will agree (or should agree) with their appreciation of aesthetics and what are considered good and enjoyable rules.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
I like debating these things the same as any of you, but I'm still surprised with how absolutely convinced some folks are that the majority of other hobbyists and/or gamers will agree (or should agree) with their appreciation of aesthetics and what are considered good and enjoyable rules.

I think the true intent here is that the 40k GW hobby is not to be entered lightly.
It requires a fair bit of money and effort to get something playable.
My suggestion is to try-out other systems and see if 40k still works for you.
I feel "my opinion" is suspect because I am fine with the rules because I am used to them and seen them change over time.
I just cannot imagine starting over as a new player facing all this uninformed of what has passed, it seems rather insane for a relaxing hobby pastime.

@thegreatchimp.
The point many try to make is that rule sets are functional.
As as such can be objectively assessed.

The preferred game play is subject to personal opinion though.
And as most other games focus on a particular scale and scope of game and defined game play.
Which makes it much easier for players of a similar mind set find the game they want to play together.


This is why 40k is called a poor rule set, as it has no clearly defined game play, scale or scope.
And fails to deliver the very limited game play it has ,in a well defined way.

This is not subjective opinion but objective assessment of primary function.

@ Lanrak I would say overall opinion on the rules is still going to be subjective. e.g. From previous discussions I remember we're largely in agreement about where the rules fail. as players seeking a more realistic ruleset, we think 40k is a poor ruleset. But someone seeking more of a shoot-em up might say its excellent. And that's fine. I just think its pointless when (some) people are jumping down eachother's throats over why they think a game should or shouldn't be played.

Lanrak wrote:
@thegreatchimp.
The point many try to make is that rule sets are functional.
As as such can be objectively assessed.

The preferred game play is subject to personal opinion though.
And as most other games focus on a particular scale and scope of game and defined game play.
Which makes it much easier for players of a similar mind set find the game they want to play together.

This is why 40k is called a poor rule set, as it has no clearly defined game play, scale or scope.
And fails to deliver the very limited game play it has ,in a well defined way.

This is not subjective opinion but objective assessment of primary function.

Have you confused 40k for something that the rest of us aren't playing?

At its core, 40k is a functional rule set, although the recent move to create exhaustive lists of things to look up and cross reference has gotten completely out of control. If you dial things back a bit before the recent push to make units more "special", 40k was probably the most functional game out there - the 40k workflow is very straighforward.

I have played a wide variety of games using the 40k rules framework - it is highly adaptable and flexible to a variety of scenarios for themed games scaled from larger skirmishes up to mass battles. The game state was always pretty clear, and the most recent rules demonstrate a legalist approach that removes ambiguity and/or duplication.

It seems to me that you don't know what "objective", "subjective" or "functional" mean, nor do you understand the concept of "scale" or "scope"; my recommendation is that you not use words you don't completely understand.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It seems to me that you don't know what "objective", "subjective" or "functional" mean, nor do you understand the concept of "scale" or "scope"; my recommendation is that you not use words you don't completely understand.

I would say from my experience that the rule-set has a "sweet-spot" where playing above a certain level of points entails a major commitment of time and models to play.
I have found creating scenarios or some "historical" battle with this system is flexible enough to do pretty much what you want but you do need to build-in some balance to get a close game.

The vastly different power levels of lists (despite same points values) does not lend this game well to "pick-up" games.
If this person wants to meet other gamers I would suggest playing something else.

I wouldn't give a beginner 40k at this point. Because formations and super heavies dominate the meta, and it's to much money to ask them to spent on a army they could find ends up being kinda gacky.

Fantasy maby.... not as bad as 40k but can still happen with some army books.


I would feel better giving them infinity in all honest, or bushfire....

If you are playing "for fun", like they do at GW HQ, 40k is fine.

That means it's about having a few beers and shooting the gak with your buddies as the first priority, versus actually "competing" for a "win". After all, anybody can take some sort of "I win" list at this point, so why bother?

Size-wise, if you're playing 500-1500 pts per player, the game is great. I don't much like 1750 or more, as it's just more stuff.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
@thegreatchimp.
The point many try to make is that rule sets are functional.
As as such can be objectively assessed.

The preferred game play is subject to personal opinion though.
And as most other games focus on a particular scale and scope of game and defined game play.
Which makes it much easier for players of a similar mind set find the game they want to play together.

This is why 40k is called a poor rule set, as it has no clearly defined game play, scale or scope.
And fails to deliver the very limited game play it has ,in a well defined way.

This is not subjective opinion but objective assessment of primary function.

Have you confused 40k for something that the rest of us aren't playing?

At its core, 40k is a functional rule set, although the recent move to create exhaustive lists of things to look up and cross reference has gotten completely out of control. If you dial things back a bit before the recent push to make units more "special", 40k was probably the most functional game out there - the 40k workflow is very straighforward.

I have played a wide variety of games using the 40k rules framework - it is highly adaptable and flexible to a variety of scenarios for themed games scaled from larger skirmishes up to mass battles. The game state was always pretty clear, and the most recent rules demonstrate a legalist approach that removes ambiguity and/or duplication.

It seems to me that you don't know what "objective", "subjective" or "functional" mean, nor do you understand the concept of "scale" or "scope"; my recommendation is that you not use words you don't completely understand.

No Warhammer has a good core framework and works OK for a fantasy setting and historical (sadly all the extra rules the add for army means it is not good for playing Warhammer), it has never really been a good 40K rule set. It was a good fantasy rule set used for sci-fantasy, but the move to large games destoryed even the OK fit it had with a small scale battle game called 40K.

thegreatchimp wrote:When reading this thread, prefix every one of the stronger statements (including my own) with "in my opinion..." Because really unless your post enjoys a majority consensus, that's all it it -your opinion!

Umm... all a majority consensus means is that it's the opinion of more than half of the people. That's a horrible way to determine how things should be evaluated.

Even if the majority of people think 40k's rules are horrible, that's their opinion.

Now when they point to particular things about 40k and talk about their implications, they're moving beyond opinion. For example, as you push up the model count and have to move each model, the time to play obviously increases. There's no opinion involved in stating that 40k can take longer to play than games with smaller model counts. It's also not an opinion that you'll need multiple volumes to have all the rules for the game and the models you can take in your army, including digital only releases. It's also not an opinion that each point of a given unit choice has a cost in real money per point and different armies and unit choices can result in drastically different costs to get into the game.

And then all these factors can be compared to other games and you can evaluate them without resorting to opinion. The opinion can come back in when it is time to evaluate which of those factors are more important to each individual. But even then, if price is a non issue for someone but speed of play is, then a faster playing game actually is a better option for them even if they can afford the higher model count of a GW game. It's not an opinion that a faster game meets their goals better than a longer game.

I like debating these things the same as any of you, but I'm still surprised with how absolutely convinced some folks are that the majority of other hobbyists and/or gamers will agree (or should agree) with their appreciation of aesthetics and what are considered good and enjoyable rules.

The reason I wouldn't recommend GW games to beginners has nothing to do with that. It has to do with WFB and 40k not measuring up on actual measurable and calculable factors. For me the factor that lead to me no longer playing 40k was the model movement time adding up to produce a long period of time where my opponent didn't do anything but wait and watch. It was a tyranid army with about 80 models and on the turn they attacked, I moved them, fleeted with some and then moved them again into combat. My opponent literally stood there while I did 150+ model movements.

I don't think it's right to do that to another hobbyist, so I stopped playing. And my nid army wasn't even a true horde. Hopefully they corrected this issue with future nid codexes, but I doubt it. Didn't they add in more time taken up with random charge distances? So you end up making the model movements and have to stop and consult a die roll between each unit?

The only opinion in there is that I don't think it's right to make an opponent wait like that. But the actual wait times and rules about moving models and the turn structure? None of that is opinion.

---

 frozenwastes wrote:
Umm... all a majority consensus means is that it's the opinion of more than half of the people. That's a horrible way to determine how things should be evaluated.
Even if the majority of people think 40k's rules are horrible, that's their opinion.

Ok, that wasn't what I was trying to convey at all. However to answer as best I can -if 95% of people believe something, it can be said to be a consensus. (Def: a general agreement) So not neccessarily an absolute truth, but a broadly accepted view.

Now when they point to particular things about 40k and talk about their implications, they're moving beyond opinion. For example, as you push up the model count and have to move each model, the time to play obviously increases. There's no opinion involved in stating that 40k can take longer to play than games with smaller model counts. It's also not an opinion that you'll need multiple volumes to have all the rules for the game and the models you can take in your army, including digital only releases. It's also not an opinion that each point of a given unit choice has a cost in real money per point and different armies and unit choices can result in drastically different costs to get into the game.

And then all these factors can be compared to other games and you can evaluate them without resorting to opinion. The opinion can come back in when it is time to evaluate which of those factors are more important to each individual. But even then, if price is a non issue for someone but speed of play is, then a faster playing game actually is a better option for them even if they can afford the higher model count of a GW game. It's not an opinion that a faster game meets their goals better than a longer game.

I wasn't referring to analysis of individual, factual, elements of the rules, but to overall appreciation (or lack thereof) of the collective ruleset and aesthetics, which clearly varies from person to person and therefore is utterly subjective, wouldn't you say? Also I don't believe games can be accurately evaluated by being that analytical. How do you put a value on the myriad of factors that contribure to enjoyment, like aesthetics, setting and atmosphere or tension? I don't believe you can. I'm more of the approach of "see if you enjoy the feel of it."

But the actual wait times and rules about moving models and the turn structure? None of that is opinion.

But on the subject of individual rules. In replying that the current rules for moving models and turn structure are indeed opinionable, I'm referring to the fact that some people like them and others dislike them, just as some people like unbound armies and others think its a disaster. I don't think that's what you're getting at though, is it? Has there been some confusion here on either of our parts, as I'm unclear as to what exactly we're in disagreement about

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you are playing "for fun", like they do at GW HQ, 40k is fine.

That means it's about having a few beers and shooting the gak with your buddies as the first priority, versus actually "competing" for a "win". After all, anybody can take some sort of "I win" list at this point, so why bother?

Size-wise, if you're playing 500-1500 pts per player, the game is great. I don't much like 1750 or more, as it's just more stuff.

I watched a game in a gw store were two fairly new players were playing the game. They types that take the models they like following rules in the books.

So one player took a unbound c'tan necron list to play agiest a dark angles army with a knight. This was a 1000 point game. They said their lists were fun.

Didn't look fun to me.

=/

People starting 40k new right now, all play unbound armies with lords of war. Then get confused why vet players don't want to play them.

Reason I gave up on 40k... playing for "fun" is to subjective.

I would only suggest that you start a game that you enjoy/like the look of and that you can enjoy locally. No use starting Infinity if there are no other players around, no use starting Warhammer if the same applies. If you want to start up a system with others, make sure they're on board with the idea before starting, because there's nothing worse than models sitting on the shelf gathering dust rather than seeing use (unless of course they're just looking pieces) or having to start up a new system just after you've spent all that time building/painting models.