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.

What I mean, is to someone totally new to wargaming and has never played any system before, are the 2 GW systems worth playing in and of themselves? There are alot of competitive rule-sets out there these days. Kings of War, Dust Tactics, Bolt Action, Dropzone Commander, Flames of War, etc. What makes the GW systems better or worse?

Disregard costs associated with them. Assume all rulebooks and models are free. Ignore any extra-curricular activities by the company.

Further assume the person will never have to find a game (they have a constant supply of players), and does not care about tournaments.

So, are the 2 GW systems good enough to stand on their own?

I'd say not. At the very best you'll have army books designed for different rules than the current ones alongside new army books designed with the current rules in mind. And by the time the army books are revised so they'll all be caught up to the new edition rules, a new edition will be released with changes for change sake starting the process all over again.

Do you want to find people to play with easily? Or are you going to be playing with one person in a basement?

 cincydooley wrote:
Do you want to find people to play with easily? Or are you going to be playing with one person in a basement?

Did you not read the OP?

"Further assume the person will never have to find a game (they have a constant supply of players), and does not care about tournaments."

Depends on the priorities of the involved parties.

As a way to spend a few hours with friends, or make new ones, and also as a springboard into one of the richest fictional universes outside of Tolkien, Martin et al, they are absolutely worthwhile.

As a means of testing your skill against your opponent, or a strategic or tactical exercise, there are better.

I believe that other than some rare instances of purely hardcore gamers, playing games of 40K or Fantasy has more to do with enjoying the background than with the rules. If you enjoy the background and the hobby associated with the models, you can supplant nearly any ruleset in place of the one provided by GW, which after 30 years, is actually pretty old-fashioned rather than new and fresh, no matter the fresh coat of paint.

I have heard of people playing games of "Warhammer 40K" with other rulesets like Gruntz, Tomorrows War, In the Emperor's Name, and previous editions of 40K itself (most especially 2nd edition as it's the most different from the current incarnation), and even the sci-fi version of Song of Blades and Heroes.

Same goes for Warhammer.

I actually think that the current 40K manages to stay afloat though sheer inertia, rather than innovation. Even discounting the differences that exist between 6th edition and 2nd, there are vast similarities that have been carrying the game for 25+ years, through all versions of the rules for each game.

 azreal13 wrote:

As a way to spend a few hours with friends, or make new ones, and also as a springboard into one of the richest fictional universes outside of Tolkien, Martin et al, they are absolutely worthwhile.

Is there anything about the 40k or WFB rules that specifically support this? Or is it an incidental side effect that results because the rules fail in other areas, so it's what's left over? In other words, wouldn't the best and worst crafted games both accomplish the above equally? As in "if you want things from your gaming that have nothing to do with the rules of the game, but other factors, go ahead and play 40k"?

 frozenwastes wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

As a way to spend a few hours with friends, or make new ones, and also as a springboard into one of the richest fictional universes outside of Tolkien, Martin et al, they are absolutely worthwhile.

Is there anything about the 40k or WFB rules that specifically support this? Or is it an incidental side effect that results because the rules fail in other areas, so it's what's left over? In other words, wouldn't the best and worst crafted games both accomplish the above equally? As in "if you want things from your gaming that have nothing to do with the rules of the game, but other factors, go ahead and play 40k"?

You might want to sit differently mate, your prejudice is showing from clear across the room.

If you're looking for a game with deep tactical choices and a good sense of balance between different forces, look elsewhere. I'm really surprised people go to 40k tournaments anymore, it just hurts my head to watch.

If you like the idea of the background, the models, and aren't concerned with making the ultimate list, it's pretty fun. Tactics aren't huge (make sure you shoot the right things in the right order, remember your buffing abilities, keep in cover, etc.) but it's not as bad as some games. I can still enjoy a game of 40k every now and then, but the latest rules edition rubbed me the wrong way, and it gimped both of my armies pretty badly, which didn't help.

It can still be fun, but if I were to go back and pick one game system to go with, it definitely wouldn't have been 40k.

What specifically do you want to get out of a game system OP? And what kind of setting do you want, if at all? There's great Sci Fi and Fantasy rulesets out there, and if we're ignoring established playerbases and what not, 40k's inertia is irrelevant, and you could pick any system you wanted.

 frozenwastes wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Do you want to find people to play with easily? Or are you going to be playing with one person in a basement?

Did you not read the OP?

"Further assume the person will never have to find a game (they have a constant supply of players), and does not care about tournaments."

Reported for being antagonistic and not adding anything to the thread.

Remember rule #1

To the OP: sorry about that. That's literally the one line I missed.

If you're not concerned about finding players or local availability of product, there are definitely better rules out there than 40k. War machine, infinity, and for the most part Malifaux come to mind. They all have a bit steeper learning curves imo, with Warmahordes being the highest, but they're all very fun and have cleaner, less ambiguous rule sets. With that being said, I sometimes enjoy that 40k is a simpler game where I can have a few beers while I'm playing. We actually like using a lot of the supplements when we play (battle missions, FW campaigns) and like that a lot. I think 40k does "narrative" better than both Infinity and Warmahordes.

Now, I happen to really like the WHfB rules, so I think they stand very well on their own. I've not played Kings of War or any of the historical rule sets, so I don't have a ton to compare it to, but I enjoy them.

You have my apologies if you took that as antagonistic. Given your recent rudeness, I thought you intentionally ignored the OP's request and were trolling. Glad I was wrong and you honestly just made a reading error. I think your assessment of WM/H and Malifaux is spot on. There's a much higher learning curve as it's possible to make better and worse decisions during the game and have that matter much more than a more simplistic game.

How much does an individual gamer want player skill to matter? That's another question to answer when assessing various games. It matters more in Malifaux, Kings of War and WM/H than in 40k or WFB. This is good for what some people are looking for and bad for others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

azreal13 wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

As a way to spend a few hours with friends, or make new ones, and also as a springboard into one of the richest fictional universes outside of Tolkien, Martin et al, they are absolutely worthwhile.

Is there anything about the 40k or WFB rules that specifically support this? Or is it an incidental side effect that results because the rules fail in other areas, so it's what's left over? In other words, wouldn't the best and worst crafted games both accomplish the above equally? As in "if you want things from your gaming that have nothing to do with the rules of the game, but other factors, go ahead and play 40k"?

You might want to sit differently mate, your prejudice is showing from clear across the room.

So even if I am biased* and don't like 40k or WFB, does that invalidate my question?

What is it about the 40k or WFB rules that supports that priority in play? Just the fact that the rules happen to represent units from the 40k/WFB universe? Or is there more? What makes 40k or WFB good at giving that experience?

* Full discolsure: I see both the 40k & WFB rules as not being honest games, but being marketing tools to get people to buy as much as possible before they discover beer & girls and quit the hobby. I think they are passable if you don't take them seriously and are just looking for a good time with some friends, but they utterly fail if you are looking for a well crafted game experience.

 frozenwastes wrote:
?

I see both the 40k & WFB rules as not being honest games, but being marketing tools to get people to buy as much as possible before they discover beer & girls and quit the hobby. I think they are passable if you don't take them seriously and are just looking for a good time with some friends, but they utterly fail if you are looking for a well crafted game experience.
?

Happily married up. Enjoy beer pretty much every time I play 40k. Typically have a good time. Not always looking for the Go of war gaming.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

What specifically do you want to get out of a game system OP? And what kind of setting do you want, if at all? There's great Sci Fi and Fantasy rulesets out there, and if we're ignoring established playerbases and what not, 40k's inertia is irrelevant, and you could pick any system you wanted.

The question isn't really about my preferences. I am just curious to know if the rules underlying these games are in and of themselves, good. From reading here and elsewhere, it seems that what carries these games is their inertia and being the most popular because "everyone plays it". Thats why I put the parameters I did in the OP.

Personally I've never played a game of either outside of a Gamesday event. I've always just liked the lore and models. Though somehow, I do have current rule books for both.....

I think the lore factor make a HUUUUUUUGE deal.

I'm in the process or reading thru the PP novellas, and thusfar they're "okay". But not bad. I think they're going to help the system quite a bit


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, not HH help, but they'll help.

 frozenwastes wrote:

azreal13 wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

As a way to spend a few hours with friends, or make new ones, and also as a springboard into one of the richest fictional universes outside of Tolkien, Martin et al, they are absolutely worthwhile.

Is there anything about the 40k or WFB rules that specifically support this? Or is it an incidental side effect that results because the rules fail in other areas, so it's what's left over? In other words, wouldn't the best and worst crafted games both accomplish the above equally? As in "if you want things from your gaming that have nothing to do with the rules of the game, but other factors, go ahead and play 40k"?

You might want to sit differently mate, your prejudice is showing from clear across the room.

So even if I am biased* and don't like 40k or WFB, does that invalidate my question?

What is it about the 40k or WFB rules that supports that priority in play? Just the fact that the rules happen to represent units from the 40k/WFB universe? Or is there more? What makes 40k or WFB good at giving that experience?

I'm not sure what you're getting at? 40K the game is attached to 40K the universe, the two are inextricably linked. Many people criticise the mechanics or the company, few criticise the setting. If you want to access the richness of that setting in a tabletop capacity, you play 40K. Sure, if 40K were a better game mechanically, it wouldn't invalidate the setting, but we aren't dealing in what ifs. For a range of factions, a depth of units within those factions and as a social experience, 40K (and I guess WHFB, but I'd don't play) still has something to recommend it.

EDIT I think I see on reflection what argument you're making. Ironically, I think what makes 40K a better social experience is what it attracts the most criticism for, which is the random factor. Its no good in a competitive setting, of course, but you just don't get the "then he blew up my Heldrake, but it scattered right into his Terminators and took out most of the squad!" Type stories from Warmachine players, not in my experience anyway.

* Full discolsure: I see both the 40k & WFB rules as not being honest games, but being marketing tools to get people to buy as much as possible before they discover beer & girls and quit the hobby. I think they are passable if you don't take them seriously and are just looking for a good time with some friends, but they utterly fail if you are looking for a well crafted game experience.

News flash, for all my criticism of GW, and belief that they could do things differently and still be successful, games that are run purely as games and not as a means to generate income from the player base are the reason there are so many games we used to play. What GW do is necessary for their continued existence and that of the game, they could just be more subtle about it.

 cincydooley wrote:
Happily married up. Enjoy beer pretty much every time I play 40k. Typically have a good time. Not always looking for the Go of war gaming.

I think you and I are lifers that are not typical of GW's customers.

You do raise a very good point though-- how mentally taxing does a given player want their game to be? I don't play in Warmachine/Hordes tournaments as after my second WM/H game in a day, I've had my fill of that approach.

So this is a point that I'm going to admit is an advantage for 40k and WFB. It's easier to play for long periods of time and can be a far more relaxing experience than a game that demands a constant watch of rules interactions, threat ranges, etc., in order to play competently.

 frozenwastes wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Happily married up. Enjoy beer pretty much every time I play 40k. Typically have a good time. Not always looking for the Go of war gaming.

I think you and I are lifers that are not typical of GW's customers.

You do raise a very good point though-- how mentally taxing does a given player want their game to be? I don't play in Warmachine/Hordes tournaments as after my second WM/H game in a day, I've had my fill of that approach.

So this is a point that I'm going to admit is an advantage for 40k and WFB. It's easier to play for long periods of time and can be a far more relaxing experience than a game that demands a constant watch of rules interactions, threat ranges, etc., in order to play competently.

It's the same fault of Infinity, a game system I very much like. Again, sometimes you just want a cheeseburger. Other times you want some Osso Bucco.

 cincydooley wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Happily married up. Enjoy beer pretty much every time I play 40k. Typically have a good time. Not always looking for the Go of war gaming.

I think you and I are lifers that are not typical of GW's customers.

You do raise a very good point though-- how mentally taxing does a given player want their game to be? I don't play in Warmachine/Hordes tournaments as after my second WM/H game in a day, I've had my fill of that approach.

So this is a point that I'm going to admit is an advantage for 40k and WFB. It's easier to play for long periods of time and can be a far more relaxing experience than a game that demands a constant watch of rules interactions, threat ranges, etc., in order to play competently.

It's the same fault of Infinity, a game system I very much like. Again, sometimes you just want a cheeseburger. Other times you want some Osso Bucco.

I've observed a lot of Warmachine games, played a handful, and it always seems to boil down to "run into the middle and punch each other"

I'm sure, as a barely-player, there are nuances happening I'm not seeing, but every game seems to result in a big cluster of models in the middle of the table.

Infinity and 40K seem to have a lot more variety going on in terms of how the models interact with, and arrive on, the table, as well as opposing forces.

I'm content with one game of anything though, which is why I'm not big into tourneys, heck, a couple of turns of Infinity and I'm done, but that's down to noobishness and having to think really hard all the time!

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm not sure what you're getting at? 40K the game is attached to 40K the universe, the two are inextricably linked.

Are they? Then how do you have new editions without changing the universe? Or use different rules like ITEN, Aetherverse FAD4, No Limits, etc., to represent games in the 40k universe? If I can run games in the 40k universe using other rules, what intrinsic link can there be?

Many people criticise the mechanics or the company, few criticise the setting. If you want to access the richness of that setting in a tabletop capacity, you play 40K. Sure, if 40K were a better game mechanically, it wouldn't invalidate the setting, but we aren't dealing in what ifs. For a range of factions, a depth of units within those factions and as a social experience, 40K (and I guess WHFB, but I'd don't play) still has something to recommend it.

So is the only thing supporting the link between the fictional universe and the game the fact that the codexes and army books have rules for things from the 40k universe? Is there anything about the game itself other than the army lists that accomplishes this? For example, in Epic:Armageddon, you could have space marines rapidly relocate and deploy to accomplish specific objectives that went beyond deep strike rules. Drop pods, landers and thunderhawks could be deployed reliably to where you wanted them rather than with a potentially high deep strike scatter that makes precise deepstriking in 40k a lot less well represented than it is in Epic. Sorry if that doesn't explain it well enough (and it could be that I'm not remembering just how much things scattered in Epic:A).

News flash, for all my criticism of GW, and belief that they could do things differently and still be successful, games that are run purely as games and not as a means to generate income from the player base are the reason there are so many games we used to play. What GW do is necessary for their continued existence and that of the game, they could just be more subtle about it.

Are you saying that in the past, when GW produced a wide variety of games, they were designing games for games sake rather than to drive sales of miniatures? I see 3rd edition 40k and 6th edition fantasy as the beginning of GW's game design as vectors for model sales rather than for their merits as games. Tuomos Perinen and Andy Chambers did their best to keep the games good as games, but in the end, I think commercial interests won out and both the head of 40k and the head of WFB ended up moving on to the video game industry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
I've observed a lot of Warmachine games, played a handful, and it always seems to boil down to "run into the middle and punch each other"

I'm sure, as a barely-player, there are nuances happening I'm not seeing, but every game seems to result in a big cluster of models in the middle of the table.

So this is another plus for 40k. It's easier to represent variety in terms of model arrival and interaction for new players. WM/H, is far less accessible in terms of the nuances of what's going on, whereas 40k is quite transparent and accessible.

 frozenwastes wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm not sure what you're getting at? 40K the game is attached to 40K the universe, the two are inextricably linked.

Are they? Then how do you have new editions without changing the universe? Or use different rules like ITEN, Aetherverse FAD4, No Limits, etc., to represent games in the 40k universe? If I can run games in the 40k universe using other rules, what intrinsic link can there be?

Many people criticise the mechanics or the company, few criticise the setting. If you want to access the richness of that setting in a tabletop capacity, you play 40K. Sure, if 40K were a better game mechanically, it wouldn't invalidate the setting, but we aren't dealing in what ifs. For a range of factions, a depth of units within those factions and as a social experience, 40K (and I guess WHFB, but I'd don't play) still has something to recommend it.

So is the only thing supporting the link between the fictional universe and the game the fact that the codexes and army books have rules for things from the 40k universe? Is there anything about the game itself other than the army lists that accomplishes this? For example, in Epic:Armageddon, you could have space marines rapidly relocate and deploy to accomplish specific objectives that went beyond deep strike rules. Drop pods, landers and thunderhawks could be deployed reliably to where you wanted them rather than with a potentially high deep strike scatter that makes precise deepstriking in 40k a lot less well represented than it is in Epic. Sorry if that doesn't explain it well enough (and it could be that I'm not remembering just how much things scattered in Epic:A).

News flash, for all my criticism of GW, and belief that they could do things differently and still be successful, games that are run purely as games and not as a means to generate income from the player base are the reason there are so many games we used to play. What GW do is necessary for their continued existence and that of the game, they could just be more subtle about it.

Are you saying that in the past, when GW produced a wide variety of games, they were designing games for games sake rather than to drive sales of miniatures? I see 3rd edition 40k and 6th edition fantasy as the beginning of GW's game design as vectors for model sales rather than for their merits as games. Tuomos Perinen and Andy Chambers did their best to keep the games good as games, but in the end, I think commercial interests won out and both the head of 40k and the head of WFB ended up moving on to the video game industry.

Too late, too many rhetorical questions for one tired brain to handle.
Are you actually asking if there is a link between the game and the universe, other than all the things that link the game to the universe?

I will address the marketing aspect though. GW nearly died on its ass, so the change, as unpleasant a thing as it has evolved into, was needed to turn the company around from being just another TSR.

I'd also cite second ed 40K and whichever equivalent Fantasy edition was contemporary, as the genesis of the games to sell models plan, if not perfectly refined at that point. Buying a separate army book to play a faction, with an accompanying wave of models for that books release, was the blueprint laid down in the 90s, and built on since.

 Phobos wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

What specifically do you want to get out of a game system OP? And what kind of setting do you want, if at all? There's great Sci Fi and Fantasy rulesets out there, and if we're ignoring established playerbases and what not, 40k's inertia is irrelevant, and you could pick any system you wanted.

The question isn't really about my preferences. I am just curious to know if the rules underlying these games are in and of themselves, good. From reading here and elsewhere, it seems that what carries these games is their inertia and being the most popular because "everyone plays it". Thats why I put the parameters I did in the OP.

Personally I've never played a game of either outside of a Gamesday event. I've always just liked the lore and models. Though somehow, I do have current rule books for both.....

Fair enough. Here's about as simple as I can break it down, and this is usually the sentiment I see from most players who have played the game

PROS:
*The ruleset definitely encourages "epic" battles. I have more stories from 40k than all other wargames I've played combined
*The ruleset encourages "heroes" that kick ass. You very much can have that beatstick of a Marine captain just walk through a crowd of mooks.
*The ruleset encourages big battles. It's not uncommon to see a table covered in models, which I will fully admit is my main draw to playing Orks and IG.

CONS:
*The ruleset encourages "epic" battles. This can come at the expense of strategy. As in, your squad is trying to cross the river to attack his objective when suddenly "LOL magma flow", that somehow your men were completely unaware of
*The ruleset encourages special characters that kick ass. Some people really hate seeing the same named guy over and over again. Certain codexes have this problem worse than others. IG and Orks hardly have this problem at all for example.
*The ruleset encourages big battles. As in, if you play anything but marines, your wallet is going to cry tears of horror the moment it sees how much regular infantry you'll need. It's a big pain when playing Orks and IG. One of the main Ork builds for a long time involved fielding over 200 orks on the table and just crushing your opponent in models.

My other big piece of advice, and I know you didn't ask for this in the OP, is CHECK OUT YOUR LOCAL GAMING COMMUNITY. Be it a store, a private club, or your friend's house, check it out before you get invested in the game. The people you play with will make or break this game for you. Too many TFG's or Great Unclean ones will destroy any hope you have of enjoying this game, while a community of cool guys who can paint well and field cool armies will greatly help you to overlook the game's flaws and have fun with it.

I think they are. In fact, being completely fresh to it may actually make you like it more as you won't be resentful about changes or pining for the way things used to be.

Now, that being said, are they the 2 systems most would recommend anymore? Not sure. They are certainly no longer regarded as well balanced or the most tactical games anymore, list building maybe plays too big a role in the outcome.

But, definitely not unplayable or unenjoyable either. My 2 cents...

 Phobos wrote:

The question isn't really about my preferences. I am just curious to know if the rules underlying these games are in and of themselves, good. From reading here and elsewhere, it seems that what carries these games is their inertia and being the most popular because "everyone plays it". Thats why I put the parameters I did in the OP.

Personally I've never played a game of either outside of a Gamesday event. I've always just liked the lore and models. Though somehow, I do have current rule books for both.....

The rules of the games are intentionally simplistic, and deliberately 'overly random'. This has some good consequences, and some bad ones.

The game is intentionally simplistic, so it's fairly easy to learn how to play, and reasonably quick for someone to become conversant with the rules. It doesn't require, or reward, system mastery nearly as much as more complex games. That is all for the good. On the other hand, that enforced simplicity means that a lot of detail is simply lost, either through the very rough granularity of the rules (based on d6 and 1-10 stats) or through sheer abstraction. That enforced simplicity also means that a lot of results are very 'swingy'. Either a weapon does nothing to you, or it kills you. There's very little to represent disabling a vehicle, much less a model.

The game is also overly random. By 'overly random' I mean that things that, in any reasonable sense, would happen very infrequently, happen with terrifying regularity. That's partially a consequence of the very simple, granular system, but it's also a deliberate design choice by the rules writers. Within the background, for instance, infantry laser weapons are almost laughably ineffective against power armored marines, allowing them to advance into blazing torrents of such fire. Within the game, 1 out of every 9 shots that hit will incapacitate a normal Space Marine. Plasma weapons incapacitate or kill their users at a horrific rate far outside what would be acceptable for 'real world' use in the game world. Horrible psychic mishaps which a trained psychic spends decades, if not centuries, training to avoid occur in normal battles. While this does make the game 'cinematic', and means that the players have to prepare for rare events that, statistically, should probably actually only occur in one out of every thousand games, it does make the game play less predictable (for better or worse) and mitigates the advantages of a skilled player (again, for better or worse).

Finally, and most frustratingly to me, the game design does not evolve. Each edition is a new iteration of the game rules, rather than a steady, slow improvement on the basic game rules. Rather than starting with a basic rules set and using the editions to improve and balance those rules, it really seems as if the designers insist on 'reinventing' the assumptions of the game with each edition, which means that, while glaring balance problems are often solved in a new edition, they are replaced by other glaring balance problems. Entire styles of play and army lists are invalidated as fundamental assumptions about the game are changed as often as minor points costs.

Having said all of that, it's not a unremittingly bad rule set, particularly depending on what experience you want out of a game.

I only played Warmachine/Hordes briefly, but compared to Warhammer 40K, Warmahordes requires a higher level of game mastery. It rewards a higher level of game mastery, and it requires a higher commitment to list building and planned combinations. Warmahordes is structured more towards competitive tournament play, and successful tactics are divorced more thoroughly from "real world" (or even "game world") tactics. In my experience, whether you like a model or not is almost irrelevant to Warmahordes. If you face certain armies, you will NEED to take certain units, or lose consistently. You can only choose to play a 'fluffy' list composed of stuff you like to model and paint if you are prepared to lose consistently and early. List construction appears that important. In Warhammer, there are some incredibly good units which show up, and which need to be planned for in a competitive environment, but it's not a bedrock, baseline assumption like it seems to be in Warmahordes. That's neither good nor bad. It's just a different design philosophy.

Warhammer 40K is also less rewarding to the careful, deliberate, list builder. If you play an army and take a unit or two of most things available in your codex, your army will NOT be terribly competitive, but it will also not vary too much in power from edition to edition. If you, on the other hand, take strongly themed (or carefully structured) armies, with an emphasis on the most effective, competitive units (or an emphasis on a particular play style, like Deep Striking, etc), your army may be MUCH more competitive, but can drop dramatically in effectiveness (or even legality) with a change in rules from edition to edition.

The game isn't successful just because of inertia and popularity. The background is amazingly deep and very well developed. The background (to a greater or lesser extent) is important to the rule set. The imagery is distinctive and well-developed. The game rewards, for the most part, the long term collector and the creative hobbyist. While there are quite a few old models which have been abandoned by the company (the entire Squat army, for instance), you will find fewer games with a broader range of models which are still usable in active play. Space Marines from 2 decades ago or more are still perfectly usable in the modern game.

If you don't care at all about the background, aesthetics, or 'creative' hobby aspects of the game, there's not much to recommend it as a ruleset divorced from all of that, simply because the ruleset has, all along, been developed in conjunction with that background, aesthetics, and hobby in mind.

From a purely rule-set/balance/gameplay perspective as requested, I'd go with a hard and fast no.

There are so many game systems that are significantly more balanced that also lack large rule holes.

Beyond the balance and rules issues, I've always found 40k to feel rather flat in real tactical choices. I've personally found most historical games to be a greater exercise in tactical thinking, same with almost every naval/spaceship combat game. The lack of true movement/maneuverability on a small game board for the amount of 28mm models a 2000pts game really restricts things like true flanking or envelopment. The ranges of weapons exacerbates this, as many armies can comfortably sit in a corner of the board and reach most of the way across.

But part of all that stems from 40ks distance from any sort of realism or logic, unlike many others that at least try and give you a semblance of appropriate scaling.

Basically, 40k is a solid game due to its background, expansive range of mostly great models, its universality for finding games, and its still fun with a few friends and a couple of pints.

If I had to do it all over again, I'd have stuck 100% with spaceship gaming, but my old area had a large 40k following, and the Mordian Iron Guard are pretty badass. Maybe I'd buy my own historicals too.

I see both the 40k & WFB rules as not being honest games, but being marketing tools to get people to buy as much as possible before they discover beer & girls and quit the hobby.

 frozenwastes wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Happily married up. Enjoy beer pretty much every time I play 40k. Typically have a good time. Not always looking for the Go of war gaming.

I think you and I are lifers that are not typical of GW's customers.

You do raise a very good point though-- how mentally taxing does a given player want their game to be? I don't play in Warmachine/Hordes tournaments as after my second WM/H game in a day, I've had my fill of that approach.

So this is a point that I'm going to admit is an advantage for 40k and WFB. It's easier to play for long periods of time and can be a far more relaxing experience than a game that demands a constant watch of rules interactions, threat ranges, etc., in order to play competently.

It's ok, I am completely in that same boat, too. I'm 31 and happily married and trying for a kid, but still just finished priming some Orks DA Green in the back room. I "discovered girls" and then "discovered how much fun they have when they trounce me at a wargame". Or maybe that's just my wife, because we LARP together, too.

If it wasn't for the awesome background, I would never likely have played 40K, especially in the current form. I am a 15+ year fan, and have played about a dozen games, unless you count secondary systems like Necromunda.

 azreal13 wrote:

Too late, too many rhetorical questions for one tired brain to handle.

My apologies. They were intended as asking for clarification rather than being rhetorical, but I can see where I messed up in my writing and put too many of them in.

I'd also cite second ed 40K and whichever equivalent Fantasy edition was contemporary, as the genesis of the games to sell models plan, if not perfectly refined at that point. Buying a separate army book to play a faction, with an accompanying wave of models for that books release, was the blueprint laid down in the 90s, and built on since.

I think you're right. It also mirrors the arrival of supplement treadmills in the RPG industry that were so prevalent in the 1990s.

No, 40k is not worth playing on their own merits. Considered in isolation the rules are utter garbage. You have the core mechanics of a fantasy game from 30 years ago with a bunch of "updates" bolted on without ever reconsidering the basic structure of the game, so the whole thing is a clumsy mess. And these updates lack any clear vision of what the game is supposed to be, so you have the same 6th edition update adding detailed RPG-style rules about shooting casualties/challenges/specific types of power weapons/etc while simultaneously adding things like flyers that only belong in a much larger-scale game. Then once they assemble this awkward mess GW does not playtest professionally, so game balance is nonexistent (either within each army or army vs. army) and the "rules" require constant FAQing and arguments. The fact that they think they deserve $50-75 for such awful tree-wasting idiocy is just insult to injury.

There are only three reasons you would ever want to play 40k:

1) It's the most popular game in your area, and you'd rather play a bad game than have a great game collecting dust on your shelf with nobody to play it against.

2) You enjoy the fluff and/or models enough to buy them no matter what, and you just want some rules to occasionally push your cool models around a table and imagine a battle.

3) You're a masochist and whips and chains aren't giving you enough pain these days.


I don't play WHFB so I'm not entirely sure how much of that criticism applies, but I suspect there's a good reason it's so lacking in popularity compared to 40k.

Da Butcha wrote:
The game is intentionally simplistic, so it's fairly easy to learn how to play, and reasonably quick for someone to become conversant with the rules.

Simple compared to what, Star Fleet Battles? GW games* aren't even close to simple and easy to learn. Individual rules might be dumbed down past any point of sanity, but the whole awkward mess is a nightmare to learn. I mean, maybe you could play tactical squad (with no heavy weapons) vs. tactical squad pretty easily, but if you want to play even a casual 1500 point game you're going to spend weeks/months learning the game and even then you're probably going to constantly get rules wrong. Outside of the tiny minority that visits forums I'd say the vast majority of players are playing an approximation of a GW game at best.

If you want to see a simple game go look at X-wing. Simple enough that even non-gamers can learn the quickstart rules within 15 minutes, and the full rules are less than 30 small and picture-filled pages.


*GW core games, at least. Aeronautica Imperialis was a beautifully elegant game that generated complex strategy and decisions from very simple rules, but sadly it was abandoned to the same fate as the other specialist games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
News flash, for all my criticism of GW, and belief that they could do things differently and still be successful, games that are run purely as games and not as a means to generate income from the player base are the reason there are so many games we used to play. What GW do is necessary for their continued existence and that of the game, they could just be more subtle about it.

Sure, game companies need to remember that they are for-profit businesses or die, but that doesn't excuse GW's decisions. MTG is a much better game than 40k (clear rules, vastly superior balance, etc) that is enjoyed as a game by everyone from casual "kitchen table" players to professionals playing for $50,000 cash prizes, and somehow WOTC is still making huge amounts of money off it.

 frozenwastes wrote:


So this is a point that I'm going to admit is an advantage for 40k and WFB. It's easier to play for long periods of time and can be a far more relaxing experience than a game that demands a constant watch of rules interactions, threat ranges, etc., in order to play competently.

I'd disagree with this for 40K as it seems to be so flooded with special rules and instances that I no longer keep up with it. With a game like Infinity, theres also too many special rules but at least its across 10 models per side rather than massed 40K armies now in play + vehicles/walkers/flyers and all that.

I'd be all for a reset and wipe ala 6th edition WFB and 3rd edition 40K.

From purely a game play perspective, there are a few problems.

The scale the game is trying to be now - mass battles with huge units in 28mm, mean there's either insufficient space for manoeuvring on a standard sized table (6x4'), so you're largely committed to lining up and shooting. The game seems to work better on huge tables (I played a couple of games on 8x6' and 12x6' tables at WHW a few weeks ago and it was great) but that introduces all sorts of new issues (like struggling to reach units in the centre).

Now you can mitigate it by playing cut-down games, but we'll assume home-brew versions are out for this comparison, and if you do that you're pretty restricted in what you can use (500pts gives you a basic HQ and a unit or 2of troops in many cases).

Onto the rules, I get the feeling it's using overly complex rules to try and provide depth, which means it can be difficult to keep track of if you're new, and pretty dull to play or watch at times. In particular I'm talking about the dearth of special rules that all interact with each other in strange ways, either enhancing other rules or cancelling them out.
So you end up with 4 different types of saving throw (armour, cover, invuln, FNP) without even worrying about the ressurection ones (Eternal Warrior, Reanimation?), and dozens of rules that affect saving rolls by voiding them or forcing re-rolls, as well as rules to modify/re-roll any other dice. As a fairly casual player I spend a lot of time scanning through the book to find out how X works with Y, and spend a lot of time guessing.

I like the random stuff though, it adds an extra level of challenge to it (you need to hedge against your plan being foiled), but other games do so just as well.

For the 'Beer + Pretzels' gamer there are easier to play options; like Bolt Action & Hail Caesar (written by the same designers), which are aimed as such and have much simpler rules and mechanics, whilst providing at least the same level of tactical depth. Then you've got something like Kings Of War, where the entire core rules for the origional version was under 15 pages long. Not to mention X-Wing; it's brilliant. Very quick to pick up (we were playing unaided after the first demo round), with lots of tactical depth.

For the strategy gamers, there are plenty in smaller scales (6/10/15mm) that allow reasonable manoeuvring (in that you've got space to sent units to flank whilst being out of range, and positioning is more important as your weapons can't reach across the board).

40K does have some benefits, but they are generally outwith the scope of the conversation (inertia, ease of getting games, background), but being honest I'd be playing other games instead given the choice.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

I'd be all for a reset and wipe ala 6th edition WFB and 3rd edition 40K.

Hummm, 6th edition WFB.... drooool!

As for the question in the OP, no, both current editions of WHFB and 40K are terrible rule sets. You'll have a more rewarding tactical experience playing Yahtzee!

Sure it can be enjoyable if all you wan't is to hang around with your friends having a few beers and talking the breeze without paying too much attention to the game itself, but at that point, why are you even playing?