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.

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

Tell me the coordinates to the alternate dimension you live in, since obviously it´s not the one the rest of us exist in. I´ll come visit some time.

In any case, Warhammer 40,000 is a fun game ( to most, not to all ) with great miniatures and decent gameplay, and can be played competitively with ease, usually just requires a rules package from the TO if you want to make it a bit more sensible.

Does it make you mad that to the majority of wargamers this is probably the case, as still the naysayers on this and other forums are but a tiny fraction of the entire wargaming community on the planet?

Good. I love to watch you squirm and swim against the tide.

 RunicFIN wrote:

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

Tell me the coordinates to the alternate dimension you live in, since obviously it´s not the one the rest of us exist in. I´ll come visit some time.

In any case, Warhammer 40,000 is a fun game ( to most, not to all ) with great miniatures and decent gameplay, and can be played competitively with ease, usually just requires a rules package from the TO if you want to make it a bit more sensible.

Does it make you mad that to the majority of wargamers this is probably the case, as still the naysayers on this and other forums are but a tiny fraction of the entire wargaming community on the planet?

Good. I love to watch you squirm and swim against the tide.

No I think it makes him mad and more likely sad, that poeple think needing to rewrite the rules on day 1 to play with their friends is a sign of a good rule set.

Even rats know to flee a sinking ship. But, I do enjoy watching you go down with the ship.

Noir wrote:


No I think it makes him mad and more likely sad, that poeple think needing to rewrite the rules on day 1 to play with their friends is a sign of a good rule set.

Even rats know to flee a sinking ship. But, I do enjoy watching you go down with the ship.

Huh, another alternate dimension dweller. Most of the wargamers in existence can play the game just fine and have fun without rewriting any rules, a fact which just doesn´t change no matter what you say. And GW nor 40K are nowhere near sinking as they are once again eclipsing 99% of other wargames when it comes to sales and playercounts.

But hey, enjoy your imaginary reality. You fellas are fighting a battle you won´t win, as once again you are the fraction minority.

Keep on squirming.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Noir wrote:


No I think it makes him mad and more likely sad, that poeple think needing to rewrite the rules on day 1 to play with their friends is a sign of a good rule set.

Even rats know to flee a sinking ship. But, I do enjoy watching you go down with the ship.

Huh, another alternate dimension dweller. Most of the wargamers in existence can play the game just fine and have fun without rewriting any rules, a fact which just doesn´t change no matter what you say. And GW nor 40K are nowhere near sinking as they are once again eclipsing 99% of other wargames when it comes to sales and playercounts.

But hey, enjoy your imaginary reality. You fellas are fighting a battle you won´t win, as once again you are the fraction minority.

Keep on squirming.

Ahhhh..... your cute.

But, yes your right thats why you have to dismiss others with insults. The sign of someone sure of themselfs. The fact you seem to have no idea GW is losing more player then bring in, is funny as their own sells prove this, but what ever. No need to belive facts GW on figures must be in a alternate dimension as thats the only why they show a drop in sells. But I got popcorn and love t o see your response, likely will be along the lines "but they made more profit" without understanding why the made more.

text removed.

Reds8n

 RunicFIN wrote:
Declined sales in actuality don´t translate into declining playerbases. Make sure your arguments are valid before putting them out in the open.

....

Warhammer 40,000 currently has a larger global playerbase than ever before in history.

I like how you attack someone else for making an unprovable statement in your first paragraph and then go on to make your own unprovable statement in your last paragraph

 Daba wrote:
Rising prices, but flat revenue means fewer players are buying less for more.

Actually it just means players are buying less for more. You can't say fewer players are buying less for more without more information.

I should probably split the statement:

Either fewer players are buying or players are buying less - or a combination of the two.

 RunicFIN wrote:

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

Tell me the coordinates to the alternate dimension you live in, since obviously it´s not the one the rest of us exist in. I´ll come visit some time.

In any case, Warhammer 40,000 is a fun game ( to most, not to all ) with great miniatures and decent gameplay, and can be played competitively with ease, usually just requires a rules package from the TO if you want to make it a bit more sensible.

Underlined a key part. By your own admission it needs house-ruled in order to be played competitively, which is a sign of it being poor.

No-one is saying it isn't fun, doesn't have good miniatures or can produce a good game. But there are so many compromises, and often the feeling that the end result is known before a figure is placed on the table. Most people are saying they can't recommend GW games to new players because of the cost, and because there are so many better games out there.

In any case, you can use your 40K mini's and different rules (since you're modifying them anyway) to play much better games in the 40K universe.


I'd really love to see how you think GW sales/players are on the increase though. Since it contradicts all the anecdotal evidence from pretty much everywhere, including their own annual reports.

Herzlos wrote:
Underlined a key part. By your own admission it needs house-ruled in order to be played competitively, which is a sign of it being poor.

It has been many years since I've played 40k competitively. That GW basically gave the finger to the competitive crowd is a major plus in my book.

40K players make up a fraction of the world's gamers, once you take the vast array of historicals into account.

 Riquende wrote:
40K players make up a fraction of the world's gamers, once you take the vast array of historicals into account.

Historical players are quiet, elusive and seldom seen in public, but if you told one that 40k is the most popular or most played game in history I imagine they would fall over laughing. I think it was this years Salute I was looking at on Beasts of War with literally hundreds of people lined up on the day to get in, and those where only the ones who hadn't pre bought their tickets. Meanwhile GW have downsized Games Day year on year until it's turned into Warhammer Fest with what, maybe 200 people?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Underlined a key part. By your own admission it needs house-ruled in order to be played competitively, which is a sign of it being poor.

It has been many years since I've played 40k competitively. That GW basically gave the finger to the competitive crowd is a major plus in my book.

How so?

All of the things they make a good competitive game also make a good casual game. Namely balance and clarity. You can play a competitive game casually, but to make a game deliberately anti-competitive doesn't make for a good casual game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Underlined a key part. By your own admission it needs house-ruled in order to be played competitively, which is a sign of it being poor.

It has been many years since I've played 40k competitively. That GW basically gave the finger to the competitive crowd is a major plus in my book.

Why is that? I'll guess it's one of two things:

--The notion that competitive players are more dickish than casual ones because detailed rules give them scope to be annoying legalists, and that vaguer rules encourage a more chilled and casual attitude. Honestly, I think if you go to the 40K YMDC forum and look at any thread over three pages long, that should show that isn't the case. And when I played 40K, it was a rare game that didn't skid to a halt with a debate over just what a certain rule meant. IME again, but games with precisely written rules avoid that aggravation or room for exploitation don't have this problem, since I can simply check what the rule says, and apply that, with no interpretation needed. Of course there are twerps in these games--but fewer, because vague rules don't provide a point of contention. There's no figuring out "Do I press my point about this rule, and risk becoming That Guy, or potentially let him cheat?", and no unsatisfactory "cheat on a 4+" rules.

In 40K, there seems to be this taboo against "trying too hard" to win, since the exploitable nature of the rules means that if you're going all out to win, you're relying on lists that are no fun to play against or abusing obvious loopholes in the rules, or that you're being a rude and aggressive player who, when rules debates inevitably happen, forces their rules interpretations on meeker players. Those things don't happen anywhere near as much in better written games.


--The idea that games that can be played competitively must exclude players who don't take them hyper-seriously. IME, that's not the case. Well-written rules provide more scope to become skilled at the game (beyond "figure out the underpriced unit or gamebreaker combo, then spam it"), but that doesn't translate to ignoring the just-show-up-and-have-a-bash players. After all, it's easier to intentionally unbalance a balanced rules set than the other way around.


I guess I don't see what a game system actually loses through having balanced rules. The casual gamers keep doing what they've always done, and have more fun because they're not getting hung up by the rules, and it's less likely that they have a "decided in list building" battle, when one of them decides that they like the fluff of 'a number of Wave Serpents backed up by Wraithknights.

Chillreaper wrote: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.

And barely any ranks, at that. Take a look at the 3rd ed WFB batreps on the Realm of Chaos 80's blog, and how few models are involved compared to the modern game. It's my understanding that 3rd ed WFB grew the model count from the first two editions, too. It's practically a 30 year old ruleset for fantasy skirmish, with models and rules heaped onto only a few core tweaks over several editions. 'Real' mass battle games work differently. See my reply to Noir below...

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! 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 suspect (is that good enough?) that an awful lot of gamers have a high opinion of 40K and have it as their wargame of choice because that's all they've played. GW stores are regularly seen as a blessing, as a gateway to the wargaming world, but I see it as the curse of GW stores too, when too many people stop there and never move on. I'd be interested to see some poll results, here and on other forums.

There can also be a decent argument made that GW's core two are increasingly geared towards selling more and bigger models. Can that be at least partially determined by a poll, too (how many more flyers do you buy?) and would any results from those help convince you of the objectivity of disgruntled arguments?

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?

I remain utterly unconvinced by this reasoning. If all you want is to hang around with your buddies and chug a few beers, and use the random movement of playing pieces as a secondary excuse for that, then why the H-E-dubble-hokkee-sticks do you need to spend so much money and time getting 40K armies put together? Snakes 'n' Ladders or Ludo would serve you just as well.

Not to mention all the players eschewing your postmodern ponderings and playing the thing competitively (as is, 'y'know, the point of most games with a winner and a loser; though just to be clear, competitive =/= aggressive), as 'til recently supported by GW themselves in the form of tournaments. I doubt the motto in those was "Everyone's a winner! No neckbeard left behind!"

Noir wrote: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.

I joined a historical gaming club a couple of years ago, partly to get away from 40K/WFB. They played WAB. A couple of small games of that convinced me that no, it wasn't just the irritating idiosyncracies of later WFB and 40K editions that made the Warhammer 'engine' a rubbish wargame. Fortunately the club was thinking the same about that point, and my brand-spanking new copy of Hail Caesar waved about, not to mention WAB's crash-and-burn, helped us all move on.
At the very least, in my opinion (okay Greatchimp?) no wargame that dresses itself up as an infantry-block mass battle has any business mucking about with nitpicky combat res (including daft rank bonuses), different stats in the front of the unit, single casualty removal, or otherwise faffing about with single grunts in a way described elsewhere, elsewhen: obsessing about the handkerchief on the sixth model of the fourth rank of your fifth unit. 40K maybe bypasses some of that, but it has plenty of its own fine-crunch-large-battle problems.

Ehsteve wrote: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.

Inertia is an awful reason for sticking with a bad game. (and part of that GW store curse, IMO) If a new game is a good game and you're convinced by it, it won't be so hard to convince others. I know a guy so wowed by Malifaux that he became a Wyrd Henchman and turned at least three clubs onto it.
Now a handful of freebies from the parent company helps, but I don't think they're necessary to set up a wee demo game or two for a game that you think could catch on. I've seen a few stories along those lines too. You just need to step outside the spoonfed Stockholm syndrome of GW and put a wee bit of effort into it, as ye olde gamers of yore did. (What also helps is that you generally need less expense and effort to set up small demo forces for other games; and heck, as I keep banging on about, if it's an alternate fantasy battle or sci-fi platoon/company ruleset for your WFB/40K models, you don't even have to go that far. )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I think it was this years Salute I was looking at on Beasts of War with literally hundreds of people lined up on the day to get in, and those where only the ones who hadn't pre bought their tickets.

I was there in that queue. Couldn't believe it almost went round the entire hall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:

--The notion that competitive players are more dickish than casual ones because detailed rules give them scope to be annoying legalists, and that vaguer rules encourage a more chilled and casual attitude.

I don't think it helps 40K that it's both detailed and vague: so many gratuitous rules that it's almost inevitable that some (many?) are confusing or collide against eachother. The lack of 'crunch' in other games frightens GW gamers in ways (I know I felt that way looking at Epic: A) but the elegance and often the tactical depth usually outweighs that concern, if it's given half a chance.

@JohnhwangDD.

Lets try actually reading what I wrote In my post shall we?

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

This is fact.
Any thing that has a defined function can be objectively compared and assessed.
Or are you going to ignore 1000s of years of language, maths and physics?


''The preferred game play is subject to personal opinion though. ''

This is fact as people prefer to play different types of game.(Snakes and ladders to Chess, skirmish to massed battle war games, narrative based campaigns to PV and F.O.C balanced for random pick up games.etc.)

Or are you arguing that every one wants to play the same type of game?

''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 most people playing other games seem to collect around a game they all can just get on with and enjoy.(Compared to 40k)
The most popular well written games can be learned as you play within 1/2 an hour.(And YMDC threads show how poorly defined 40k actually is,)

''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. ''

If 40k has clearly defined game play , why do so many people seem to argue everyone else is playing the game 'wrong'?
Please point out where in the 7th edition 40k rules 'intended game play scale and scope' is defined .

If players have to agree how to interpret/fix the rules before they can get an enjoyable game , surely this means the core function of the rules 'to clearly define game play' is not well defined?

I never said you can not arrive at a fun game using the 40k rules as a base to work from.
(Quoting ancient game mechanics from the 1970's is a very low bar standard for game development IMO though.)

But that objective comparison to other rule sets means that 40k is comparatively poorly worded,edited and implemented.
Eg you can arrive at a fun game much quicker and with much less effort, using other rule sets, than you can with 40k.

@ Lanrak

Rather than attempt to reply to that detailed post allow me me to rephrase my message, because I may have caused some confusion:
-People shouldn't get heated at eachother over whether one appreciates a)The collective ruleset b) The aesthetics of a game. Because those things vary from person to person.
Furthermore, while you can compare games on factual things like duration, and cost there are as many things that contribute to like or dislike of a game that are unquantifiable...and you can't tell poeple they are right or wrong about them.

If you contest the above, then by all means explain why and I'll answer as best I can. If not, then there is no disagreement here because that's all I'm trying to convey

Herzlos wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Underlined a key part. By your own admission it needs house-ruled in order to be played competitively, which is a sign of it being poor.

It has been many years since I've played 40k competitively. That GW basically gave the finger to the competitive crowd is a major plus in my book.

How so?

All of the things they make a good competitive game also make a good casual game. Namely balance and clarity. You can play a competitive game casually, but to make a game deliberately anti-competitive doesn't make for a good casual game.

I hate the player, not the game. The competitive crowd attracts a bunch of over-entitled whiners that suck the fun out of 40k. Especially on the Internet. You have guys like Stelek becoming Internet-famous over how hardass he plays the game. In GW's case, the best thing they have done was to tell the competitive crowd that they wouldn't waste time supporting them helped "encourage" them to switch to different games, and the overall playing environment is healthier for it.

There are a lot of games that we can play casually that don't require perfect balance, especially when we know that the opponent may not be of equal skill and experience. Sometimes, the joy of playing is about the playing itself, not necessarily the result. Sometimes, it's OK to just enjoy the ride.

Furthermore, GW has pushed harder for "clarity" in the last couple editions. The whole "refer to section 12.1, sub-reference paragraph 3, cross-reference sub-section 8.7" is GW's effort to make 40k as precise and clear as possible. No more questions about what "Ordnance" means across various Codices - there is only one definition, and it's right there in the rulebook, decomposed into each of it's sub-components with their sub-rules fully-defined. From a technical standpoint, 40k has never been clearer from a definitional standpoint. Same thing with the new "closest first" rule. These rules create a level of clarity and precision that was never present before. There is no longer a question about "better" Storm Shields, or any of that stuff.

No, the real issue is that the competitive crowd is unsatisfiable, and that they only want a sort of "balance" that allows them to continue to win as they won before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It has been many years since I've played 40k competitively. That GW basically gave the finger to the competitive crowd is a major plus in my book.

--The notion that competitive players are more dickish than casual ones

There's no figuring out "Do I press my point about this rule, and risk becoming That Guy, or potentially let him cheat?", and no unsatisfactory "cheat on a 4+" rules.

--The idea that games that can be played competitively must exclude players who don't take them hyper-seriously.

I guess I don't see what a game system actually loses through having balanced rules.

The competitive players *are* more dickish. Go play them, you'll see.

The issue about cheating isn't about rules "balance". Cheaters outright lie about what the rules say. I've played against notorious cheaters in my time, and the fact that the rules say a model may move no more than 6" doesn't mean they won't fudge them to move 7" or 8". Or fast-roll the dice to pick up "successes" that can't be verified. The rules could be perfectly balanced, but if someone is cheating, then that isn't a rules or balance issue.

One may play seriously, without being a WAAC-hole about it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
@JohnhwangDD.

Lets try actually reading what I wrote In my post shall we?

''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. ''

If 40k has clearly defined game play , why do so many people seem to argue everyone else is playing the game 'wrong'?

If players have to agree how to interpret/fix the rules before they can get an enjoyable game , surely this means the core function of the rules 'to clearly define game play' is not well defined?

Eg you can arrive at a fun game much quicker and with much less effort, using other rule sets, than you can with 40k.

Oh, I read it, and you just make no sense.

People like to argue. In many cases, people are arguing over manufactured nonsense. That is not a question of the rules being unclear. It is an issue of people being toolbags, and trying to twist wording to say things that it doesn't say due to a deliberate misunderstanding of the rules, in order to gain some perceived advantage.

In my case, I don't really have an issue with playing by the current version of 40k's rules. I don't see any real issues with clarity or that come up from a "plain reading" of the rules. I do have issues with many 40k7 rules, because they result in a slower game which requires a lot more work for no real improvement in gameplay. Disliking a rule is different from not understanding it, or pretending that it isn't clear enough to play correctly. Perhaps the real issue is that your, and other's, mental acuity is insufficient to play a correct game of 40k? Or perhaps the issue is that you continue to play with toolbags who cheat and deliberately try to twist the rules around, saying that 6' for you is 8" for them.

Learning something completely new, and having to collect and prepare an all-new army is much slower and far more effort compared to playing a slightly different version of what I already know how to play. To say nothing of continuing to play the game I already own and know how to play. If I roll back the clock to 40k3 or 40k4, it's even simpler.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Noir wrote:
No I think it makes him mad and more likely sad, that poeple think needing to rewrite the rules on day 1 to play with their friends is a sign of a good rule set.
Even rats know to flee a sinking ship. But, I do enjoy watching you go down with the ship.

Huh, another alternate dimension dweller. Most of the wargamers in existence can play the game just fine and have fun without rewriting any rules, a fact which just doesn´t change no matter what you say.Keep on squirming.

Well that was a wee tad "trolltastic".
Yes, the game with it's rules we can play it just fine... but would we want to?
The game has such differing power levels of lists even if they are the same points that you must play at the full competitive level of the meta or be "disappointed".
Those who wish to play more balanced lists just cannot: they do not come close to the netlists out there so it requires an "agreement" between players.

And GW nor 40K are nowhere near sinking as they are once again eclipsing 99% of other wargames when it comes to sales and playercounts.

Yeah, this has been discussed in other forums, most of the other competition is privately owned so there is no good way to compare sales figures but it has been proven that GW gross sales have dropped markedly (all product has gone through substantial cost increases so only decreased volume of sales can do this, overhead keeps being slashed).

But hey, enjoy your imaginary reality. You fellas are fighting a battle you won´t win, as once again you are the fraction minority.

Not sure what minority or majority you are talking to.
I had been in with GW since second edition.
It is only in the last two years I am getting into X-wing, Warmachine and dusted off my Battletech.
This is the most "fun" competition I have seen against GW product and they are not stepping up their game.
I see more future in all these new trendy games with a smaller money outlay for the beginner and the relative "fun" I see is greater than my 40k experience presently.

Well, we all have our opinions but when I start seeing my local stores shifting shelf space away from GW for new product, it appears store commerce and consumer voice has spoken!

Somehow, an argument that bad rules are a good thing because the dickish players avoid them... fails to move me.

In general crappy rules with bad balance attracts dickish behavior - because it is easier to build an exploitative list.

I play Kings of War, against some very competitive players - and only one of them would qualify, in my estimation, as a dick - and he is by no means the best player - he ranks something like eighth out of twelve.

Mind you, in WARMACHINE I have seen some players that definitely deserve the title - even with a well balanced game.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Somehow, an argument that bad rules are a good thing because the dickish players avoid them... fails to move me.
In general crappy rules with bad balance attracts dickish behavior - because it is easier to build an exploitative list.

I too have found the more loose language or imprecise language used in rules do tend to attract an exploitive personality: I have seen entire army lists made in 40k to leverage a poorly worded rule many times.

I play Kings of War, against some very competitive players - and only one of them would qualify, in my estimation, as a dick - and he is by no means the best player - he ranks something like eighth out of twelve.

I too have found that personality type can be found anywhere, just more often with exploitable rule-sets.

Mind you, in WARMACHINE I have seen some players that definitely deserve the title - even with a well balanced game.

They are drawn to it like a moth to the flame since the confirmed more "competitive" games make a win all the more sweet.
They tend to move-on when a WAAC can not claim the top spot from "proper competitive" players.

@ Lanrak Sorry man just noticed your somwhat fiery comment wasn't actuaally directed at me! Ah damn, well shame is what I get for not reading properly!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There are a lot of games that we can play casually that don't require perfect balance, especially when we know that the opponent may not be of equal skill and experience. Sometimes, the joy of playing is about the playing itself, not necessarily the result. Sometimes, it's OK to just enjoy the ride.

Just on this, it's an association that I've only ever seen made with regard to 40K--that trying to win is somehow taboo. If I'm playing a game, then, erm, yes....I'm going to try to win. As will my opponent. That doesn't mean we sit there in the grimly hostile and unforgiving battle of wills that you seem to be imagining. Had a game of Warmachine today where me and my opponent were trying to use our tactical skill to win the game to the very best of our ability, destroy the enemy army, and dominate the battlefield....while we the players were chatting, joking and have a laugh. I pointed out some things that benefited him ("Don't forget to attack with that guy there."), and afterwards we thanked each other and had a chat about how the match went, and what we could have done differently. It was about the experience and the result and I never for one moment felt the need to choose between them.

 Vermis wrote:
s.

Ehsteve wrote: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.

Inertia is an awful reason for sticking with a bad game. (and part of that GW store curse, IMO) If a new game is a good game and you're convinced by it, it won't be so hard to convince others. I know a guy so wowed by Malifaux that he became a Wyrd Henchman and turned at least three clubs onto it.
Now a handful of freebies from the parent company helps, but I don't think they're necessary to set up a wee demo game or two for a game that you think could catch on. I've seen a few stories along those lines too. You just need to step outside the spoonfed Stockholm syndrome of GW and put a wee bit of effort into it, as ye olde gamers of yore did. (What also helps is that you generally need less expense and effort to set up small demo forces for other games; and heck, as I keep banging on about, if it's an alternate fantasy battle or sci-fi platoon/company ruleset for your WFB/40K models, you don't even have to go that far. )

That's very much irrelevant. All I'm saying is that regardless of the system you choose, choose something you like, and something that you can play, how you go about those has been very much left open. No use playing a GW game if you don't like the models, same goes for Infiinty, Malifaux, Warmachine or any other tabletop. Same goes for having to travel more than say, an hour or two each way to find a game on a regular basis or worse yet, only being able to find any play at tournaments every blue moon by travelling out of state. It requires a lot of internal drive to maintain a hobby in those sorts of conditions.

 Talizvar wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

Noir wrote:
No I think it makes him mad and more likely sad, that poeple think needing to rewrite the rules on day 1 to play with their friends is a sign of a good rule set.
Even rats know to flee a sinking ship. But, I do enjoy watching you go down with the ship.

Huh, another alternate dimension dweller. Most of the wargamers in existence can play the game just fine and have fun without rewriting any rules, a fact which just doesn´t change no matter what you say.Keep on squirming.

Well that was a wee tad "trolltastic".

It's RunicFIN. He has a habit of bursting into threads he deems anti-40K and antagonising & raising the heat level until they get locked. Perhaps that's his intent, who can say?

 Elemental wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There are a lot of games that we can play casually that don't require perfect balance, especially when we know that the opponent may not be of equal skill and experience. Sometimes, the joy of playing is about the playing itself, not necessarily the result. Sometimes, it's OK to just enjoy the ride.

Just on this, it's an association that I've only ever seen made with regard to 40K--that trying to win is somehow taboo.

There is a difference between PLAYING to win, and playing TO WIN.

I'm now more of the former than the latter. I no longer choose to make "winning" the only thing.

Anyone ever try Heroscape? It's a hex tile battlegame that comes with pre-painted minis and stackable terrain. I wouldn't recommend it to serious wargamers, but for those who like the idea of wargaming and don't want to invest the mountain of time in modelling and painting, it's a pretty good alternative. The modular terrain is a particularely good feature. I played it for a few years while I wasn't bothered with 40k, and got great enjoyment out of it. Easy to apply a more complex realistic rulset with the terrain and figures too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:

It's RunicFIN. He has a habit of bursting into threads he deems anti-40K and antagonising & raising the heat level until they get locked. Perhaps that's his intent, who can say?

Am I alone in finding that somewhat hilarious?!

Yes, you are.

On topic: between the atrocious balance, ridiculous prices, and awful behavior of the parent company, I could never in good conscience recommend any GW game to a beginner.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

I hate the player, not the game. The competitive crowd attracts a bunch of over-entitled whiners that suck the fun out of 40k. Especially on the Internet. You have guys like Stelek becoming Internet-famous over how hardass he plays the game. In GW's case, the best thing they have done was to tell the competitive crowd that they wouldn't waste time supporting them helped "encourage" them to switch to different games, and the overall playing environment is healthier for it.

I find the competitive 40K crowd attracts these 'WAAC' players, because of the leeway for rules abuse (the rules are open to so much interpretation) and balance abuse (balance is frankly awful).

There are a lot of games that we can play casually that don't require perfect balance, especially when we know that the opponent may not be of equal skill and experience. Sometimes, the joy of playing is about the playing itself, not necessarily the result. Sometimes, it's OK to just enjoy the ride.

None of that really has anything to do with the quality of the ruleset; you can play clear rules casually. Just because a game is clear and balanced and tournament ready, doesn't mean the only goal is to win. It really is only GW games where this mentality is that there's something wrong with trying to win, because it's just too easy to abuse it. I play other games that are a lot better than 40K and I play them to win. I almost always lose, and I still have great fun at it. Sure occasionally you'll be up against a fairly difficult line-up, and there's games where I've struggled to maintain ground, but never to the level of 40K where you know you genuinely don't stand a chance.

Furthermore, GW has pushed harder for "clarity" in the last couple editions. The whole "refer to section 12.1, sub-reference paragraph 3, cross-reference sub-section 8.7" is GW's effort to make 40k as precise and clear as possible. No more questions about what "Ordnance" means across various Codices - there is only one definition, and it's right there in the rulebook, decomposed into each of it's sub-components with their sub-rules fully-defined. From a technical standpoint, 40k has never been clearer from a definitional standpoint. Same thing with the new "closest first" rule. These rules create a level of clarity and precision that was never present before. There is no longer a question about "better" Storm Shields, or any of that stuff.

Oh they are getting better at consistent language across the books and some contradictions, but there is still a lot of interactions that aren't intuitive and the rulebook is still a clunky mess. I can cope with complicated documents (I work with ISO standards, tomes that are 600+ pages of rules) and still find the 40K rules incredibly hard to follow.

Compared to all the other rule systems I've read (Bolt Action, Flames Of War, X-Wing, Malifaux, Hail Caesar, Spearhead) the GW books are awful.

No, the real issue is that the competitive crowd is unsatisfiable, and that they only want a sort of "balance" that allows them to continue to win as they won before.

The competitive crowd is pretty easy to satisfy, and most aren't as interested in winning as in feeling like they have a chance with winning. I play Malifaux competitively and there's nothing like the hassle as playing 40K competitively.

The problem with competitive 40K is that the TO's have to make huge changes to the rules and lots of restrictions, which causes fractions and discontent because people find lists invalidated, or find that people react poorly to their spam-lists. I've never encountered another game that has any restrictions, so that's a problem that's unique to GW.


The only time I've seen restrictions in other games is in Flames Of War escalation campaigns, where it's usually "no armour above 7 and no air support" because with the smaller 500pt games it's very hard to counter those things.

The problem isn't that the competitive crowd is hard to satisfy, it's that 40k is way too open to abuse because there's barely any semblance of balance in the name of "forging a narrative" which is ironic because a well-balanced set of rules benefits *EVERYBODY*, especially the non-competitive people and the "collectors" who are more likely to buy and field whatever instead of caring about how well they perform. GW's current approach hurts those people most of all because they are the least likely to research how good something is before buying and less likely to care how good something is if they like how it looks. It really amazes me how people can say that it's good that 40k's rules don't cater to the competitive crowd (often citing nonsense like "lack of options" as though having a balanced game with balanced options is an oxymoron), when catering to the competitive crowd benefits both competitive and casual players by providing clear rules that are easy to learn and hard to master and where player skill will win the day, while the current rules cater to nobody at all: Competitive gamers dislike the random elements and lack of balance, while casual gamers who might not dislike those things still get screwed by them, and nobody benefits from unbalanced rules where you can win a game before a single die is rolled based solely on what you took if your army is just way better than your opponents.

Sure, there are jerks who play solely to win at the expense of fun, but they exist everywhere. In other games though, it's not as easy to just crush someone with a netlist. In Warmahordes for example there are more powerful and less powerful choices, but the order of magnitude is a lot less and the "bad" and "good" units are often within a few percentages of each other, not at the other ends of the spectrum like with 40k. You don't always see spam/netlists at Warmahordes tournaments, even if you do tend to see variations of the same thing or the same crop of casters (which is just as much a result of the two-list pairing as anything else, since you need to account for all possibilities with one of your two lists to avoid having a bad matchup). Arguably 40k has spam lists for the same reasons; because you only have a single list so you need to bring something to deal with virtually anything. Just the difference between units is often too great to where picking the wrong unit because it fits your army or you like it better is going to cost you a lot more in a game of 40k.

I would never recommend someone start playing GW games right now. It's too much of a cost investment to start playing at a decent level (I do not count Kill Team or 500 point nonsense demo games to be a decent level), and for a new player especially there are a lot of "fool's gold" choices that can and will trip them up unless they know how to research things first, assuming they even want to do that, and it's very easy for a newbie to come up with a cool army in their head and have it contain all the garbage choices so they always lose and get frustrated as a result, because let's face it nobody wants to spend hundreds of dollars and always lose because the units you like are bad since the company who makes the rules doesn't care about the rules.

Part of the biggest issue with 40k is that it tries to be everything to everyone, and fails miserably at all. The rules are too detailed to be a large-scale combat game, but the lack of any sort of balance makes it ill-suited to smaller scales like it used to be in 2nd edition. The price is insane for a large-scale game; if the model count was like it used to be in 2nd edition (a 1,500 point army of Space Marines being three characters, a Tactical Squad, a Terminator Squad and a Bike Squad - this was the "Imperial Fists Strike Force" boxed army circa August 1998) then the current prices would be acceptable, but at the current army sizes it grows to near-ridiculous levels. Either the price should not have changed, or the number of figures you got should have increased over the years to where it would be comparable to other "miniatures companies" like Perry or Victrix who give you lots of guys because you need lots of guys. GW gives you a few guys when you need lots of guys to get you to buy more.

This boils down to the similar GW rage threads.
Wayne has been very patient laying this all out in detail.
It really does boil down to that there are so many factors of rule-sets, cost outlay and company support that is superior to a GW product.
Since the title is "any" GW game, SpaceHulk is still an excellent choice!