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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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.
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: 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Absolutely. In my experience, people who defend 40k and WFB as being "easy to play" haven't tried other games.
40k and WFB are both clunky messes with FAQs stacked on top of special rules stacked on top of special rules stacked on top of hodge-podge fixes stacked on top of a 30 year old ruleset. The rules are overly complicated and poorly written. They often use "forging a narrative" to make up for poor rule writing. The games themselves offer little tactical depth beyond choosing to buy the most expensive models in the range from GW.
GW is perfectly capable of creating awesome and modern rulesets, such as Epic:Armageddon, but have binned them in favour of their clunky and outdated core games.
X-Wing is a pick up and play, beer and pretzels game that is so easy to learn that even non-nerds pick it up within 2 turns. It's still incredibly strategic. Kings of War has a grand total of 20 pages of rules, including special rules and scenarios yet offers far more tactical options than WFB. There is no reason why you can't play KoW or Warpath using GW miniatures, lores and settings and have a much better game on all counts.
The only reason to play 40k and WFB is because a lot of other people play them.
Knowing what I know now, having played all the different tabletop and board games, I definitely would not have picked up Warhammer 40K. It's appealing models and backstory are killed by the primitive and clunky, although simplistic, ruleset.
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.
They all do it as a means to drive miniatures sales. if you read any of the many of the "History of Warhammer/Oldhammer" articles being published on the net lately - many on or linked from http://realmofchaos80s.blogspot.com - then you'll know that from the get-go, Warhammer was conceived by Bryan Ansell as a way to sell more miniatures. Every Kickstarter and up-and-coming company seems to want to produce their own game to go with their line of figures - Dreamforge, McVey, Raging Heroes, Red Box... and so forth.
40k and WFB are both clunky messes with FAQs stacked on top of special rules stacked on top of special rules stacked on top of hodge-podge fixes stacked on top of a 30 year old ruleset. The rules are overly complicated and poorly written. They often use "forging a narrative" to make up for poor rule writing. The games themselves offer little tactical depth beyond choosing to buy the most expensive models in the range from GW.
40k in it's current iteration is 15 years old, not 30. The point should be strong enough without doubling it via hyperbole. I haven't played WHFB for many years, but if 6th ed was a reset button for that system as 3rd was for 40k, then it's 13 years old.
X-Wing is a pick up and play, beer and pretzels game that is so easy to learn that even non-nerds pick it up within 2 turns. It's still incredibly strategic. Kings of War has a grand total of 20 pages of rules, including special rules and scenarios yet offers far more tactical options than WFB. There is no reason why you can't play KoW or Warpath using GW miniatures, lores and settings and have a much better game on all counts.
The only reason to play 40k and WFB is because a lot of other people play them.
How about fun? I tend to find fun is a good reason to play a game. I'm not interested in the tournament scene, or playing arseholes - so I'm sure I skip most of the worst of the hyper-competitive win-at-all-costs playerbase, but as a game between friends, any edition of 40k certainly delivers fun, just as X-Wing or any number of other games and systems will also do for you...
Fun is in the eye of the beholder. In my last 5 of tournament play, I have met exactly one unpleasant win-at-all-costs player.
All miniatures games make their money off miniatures, but as far as I've been able to understand, the protests against the current editions is more about forcing larger and larger armies to drive sales rather than having to have miniatures to play a miniatures game.
The "reset buttons" for WHFB and 40k were hardly system-changers. The basic mechanisms stayed in, so 40k is around 25 and WHFB is 30.
Vote: No. The rules are poorly worded and unbalanced, both internally within armies, and externally between armies. A company that istaking great efforts to monopolize its product (Try to think about the last time that was good for the customers), No online support, designed obsolescence of materials.
That being said, people that play many games tend to be nicer and more open-minded in my experience, so perhaps get a small skirmish force just for the experience. Dont take the advice of any single system propagandist!
How about fun? I tend to find fun is a good reason to play a game. I'm not interested in the tournament scene, or playing arseholes - so I'm sure I skip most of the worst of the hyper-competitive win-at-all-costs playerbase...
The tournament scene here (from what I can tell) is more about organised gaming; the opportunity to get a 4/5 games in against new players, and isn't necessarily about competing. There will be some WAAC'ers but they are generally in the minority.
...but as a game between friends, any edition of 40k certainly delivers fun, just as X-Wing or any number of other games and systems will also do for you...
What makes 40K, in your eyes?
I have to say, if I was introducing a new gamer I'd be suggesting X-Wing before 40K, because on an immersion, mechanics and learning curve basis X-Wing is in a whole new league.
In a short answer, no not at all. Both games are horribly imbalanced and it grinds Casual play to a halt a bit unless you make some house rules or do a bit of hand-waving. And these editions is what actually made me go into Warmahordes and Infinity.
Now, I do not mind the possible free aspect of the rules, but if they re-written it (which is highly unlikely) or if someone else like Fantasy Flight games wrote it, then I might possibly think of playing it again.
Tanakosyke22 wrote: In a short answer, no not at all. Both games are horribly imbalanced and it grinds Casual play to a halt a bit unless you make some house rules or do a bit of hand-waving. And these editions is what actually made me go into Warmahordes and Infinity.
Now, I do not mind the possible free aspect of the rules, but if they re-written it (which is highly unlikely) or if someone else like Fantasy Flight games wrote it, then I might possibly think of playing it again.
What "grinds casual play to a halt" exactly? I haven't experienced this and my group is hardly make up of rules experts.
I don't know about fantasy, but I believe 40k could stand on its own. So much crazy stuff can happen when both players(or 4 or more players even) are just out for a fun game. Its a ton of fun when everyone keeps it casual, and is just hanging out for a good time with friends.
Tanakosyke22 wrote: In a short answer, no not at all. Both games are horribly imbalanced and it grinds Casual play to a halt a bit unless you make some house rules or do a bit of hand-waving. And these editions is what actually made me go into Warmahordes and Infinity.
Now, I do not mind the possible free aspect of the rules, but if they re-written it (which is highly unlikely) or if someone else like Fantasy Flight games wrote it, then I might possibly think of playing it again.
What "grinds casual play to a halt" exactly? I haven't experienced this and my group is hardly make up of rules experts.
Might be the group I used to play with, since we would have to look up the rulebook about 3-4 times a game. It does not help that the rules are written ambiguously and kind of started arguments over it, and no one was kind of willing to hand-wave a bit or make a bit of house/ club rules to do this (I brought up the idea a bit). Although this is what I and I alone experienced, and there may or may not be other people who experienced it, so it anecdotal and possibly subjective at best. Probably should have put that in the first post I made so I apologize about that :/ ...
If you want to use the Warhammer background with a set of rules that actually have depth, there's always Warmaster: certainly one of the best three rulesets GW has ever published.
Tanakosyke22 wrote: In a short answer, no not at all. Both games are horribly imbalanced and it grinds Casual play to a halt a bit unless you make some house rules or do a bit of hand-waving. And these editions is what actually made me go into Warmahordes and Infinity.
Now, I do not mind the possible free aspect of the rules, but if they re-written it (which is highly unlikely) or if someone else like Fantasy Flight games wrote it, then I might possibly think of playing it again.
What "grinds casual play to a halt" exactly? I haven't experienced this and my group is hardly make up of rules experts.
Might be the group I used to play with, since we would have to look up the rulebook about 3-4 times a game. It does not help that the rules are written ambiguously and kind of started arguments over it, and no one was kind of willing to hand-wave a bit or make a bit of house/ club rules to do this (I brought up the idea a bit). Although this is what I and I alone experienced, and there may or may not be other people who experienced it, so it anecdotal and possibly subjective at best. Probably should have put that in the first post I made so I apologize about that :/ ...
No worries; I was really just curious. We have to look at the rulebook sometimes, but we're also much more likely to hand wave. I can't say I've ever been in a 40k rules related argument. I mean, we did call out a guy for being a bit of a douche at Adepticon regarding one of Mephistons powers, but that's about it. He was technically right, so we dropped it, but he knew he was being a douche and so did we. We just kept drinking and let it go.
On a rules basis, 40K is a terrible game. Too much emphasis is put on getting the first turn, and the ancient I Go You Go system needs to die yesterday (no matter which game uses it). There's no reason for one player to sit around for 15 minutes a go watching the other do everything. The army construction system is too limiting, too unbalanced (though as that is largely related to selling models it might not actually occur in this utopia), and there is far too much randomness for the sake of randomness.
To be honest, 40K has too much of its legacy as an RPG Offshoot left to be a good quality wargame. It comes from an era when the vast majority of players were simply playing with friends and just wanting to toss some dice around. Today, though, not only has the players' focus become more competitive (even if ignoring tournaments) and/or incorporating more strangers (the Internet has allowed for far better organization of small clubs and local tournaments), but there are other rules sets giving a far more rewarding experience in terms of gameplay. There has never been a full, ground-up rewrite of the system like there has been for other games* over the years, and it desperately needs to have all the ancient bullcrappe culled from the system.
*: D&D is a good and bad example of this. The 3rd Edition was a massively successful overhaul where they ditched such legacy items as THAC0, unintuitive armor classes, weird skill systems, and the like while keeping the core of the system intact and modernized. On the other hand, the 4th edition removed everything that was actually D&D about D&D.
Kaptajn Congoboy wrote: Fun is in the eye of the beholder. In my last 5 of tournament play, I have met exactly one unpleasant win-at-all-costs player.
All miniatures games make their money off miniatures, but as far as I've been able to understand, the protests against the current editions is more about forcing larger and larger armies to drive sales rather than having to have miniatures to play a miniatures game.
The "reset buttons" for WHFB and 40k were hardly system-changers. The basic mechanisms stayed in, so 40k is around 25 and WHFB is 30.
As I said, I don't do tourneys, so I just skip that aspect completely. If you're finding cool, fun people to play at tourneys, then it's great that you're having even more fun with the system!
The 40k changes between 2nd-3rd ed were very much about a lot of substantial fundamental system changes. Armour, cover, movement.. I could go on, but it was very much a different game - as was RT to 2nd Edition (Herohammer). Since then, they've been playing the iteration game again, but 3rd was a hugely fun, nice, clean, streamlined game when it came out.
How about fun? I tend to find fun is a good reason to play a game. I'm not interested in the tournament scene, or playing arseholes - so I'm sure I skip most of the worst of the hyper-competitive win-at-all-costs playerbase...
The tournament scene here (from what I can tell) is more about organised gaming; the opportunity to get a 4/5 games in against new players, and isn't necessarily about competing. There will be some WAAC'ers but they are generally in the minority.
...but as a game between friends, any edition of 40k certainly delivers fun, just as X-Wing or any number of other games and systems will also do for you...
What makes 40K, in your eyes?
I have to say, if I was introducing a new gamer I'd be suggesting X-Wing before 40K, because on an immersion, mechanics and learning curve basis X-Wing is in a whole new league.
In all honesty, I've advised interested teenagers away from 40k and GW products a number of times. I've suggested games with miniatures like the WoW prepaint game, the D&D boardgames (Ravenloft, etc), because I can't in good faith recommend them to teenagers and their parents who'd have to cough up for it (with a huge chance they will lose interest). I essentially say "try these other games and if you're still interested in this sort of thing after awhile, I'll point you to some more advanced games, with painting and model construction and so on". X-Wing is a more recent release, but still a bit expensive to recommend for teens to start with - $50 startup, $20 per ship, $44 for the Falcon or Slave 1 - sure you only need a few, but you're over $150-200 without blinking - you can buy an XBox 360/PS3 for that much.
Talking to a new adult gamer, or someone coming in from RPGs or some such, I'd lay it all down straight up for them. In the same way we do here. Positives and negatives right on the table. Rules wouldn't be in the forefront of either side, frankly. Price, aesthetics, getting a game all come before the ruleset to me.
What makes 40k for me, personally? 25 years of investment, a lot of fun, great miniatures through the years, painted figures en masse, the background, all that kind of gak. I'm also not too fussed about winning - I'm just after low-stress fun with my mates, so I'm less stressed about "broken codexes" and since my close mates don't collect minis, it's an opportunity for me to paint my various armies into pre-made lists for us to do battle with.
Phobos wrote: 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?
They are playable for sure, and not 'bad' games, per se. They are not incredibly old or out-dated, they are relatively simple to learn, they are supported well for sure, and it can be fairly easy to find someone to play with.
That said, compared to many other systems out in the world today, both flagship GW games are bloated and problematic. There is little that is "elegant" about 40K and Fantasy. They are not terribly well set up for competitive play, nor are they simple and quick enough for real beer and pretzels play.
All in all, I'd say that there is no strong reason to not play WH40K and WHFB, but there are plenty of objectively better games out there and a wide enough selection of well-designed games that you can find pretty much whatever you are looking for in a table-top wargame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AegisGrimm wrote: 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.
Exactly. 40K and Fantasy power through largely because of market presence. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but GW seems to have stopped innovating when it comes to game design.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote: Many people criticise the mechanics or the company, few criticise the setting.
Oh, I criticize the setting plenty, or at least what GW has done with it in the past 10 years or so. GW has whitewashed 40K far too much to the point that it is actually very disturbing from a societal point of view (as in real world society, not 40K society). 40K is a dystopian sci-fi setting born of the 1980's British punk backlash. It is a rather stark commentary on the Thatcher years, deliberate or not. Mixed in was a really interesting vein of tongue-in-cheek humor, that seemed to have a sort of nostalgic and gallows air to it given the horrifying nature of the 40K setting.
Space Marines were brutal, merciless enforcers of a bloody dictatorship bent on achieving some shred of stability by any, literally any, means necessary, heedless of the cost to individuals. Human beings would survive, even if it meant being eternally miserable and degraded. The Imperium of Man is a wrecked, wretched, forlorn shadow of mankind's glory; a perpetual mausoleum immortalizing the hubris of a people who believed the power of their intellect could allow them to live as hedonistic gods.
The core of 40K has never changed, but GW has whitewashed the surface, glorifying the heroism and purity of the Space Marines, for example. Rather than questioning the merits of Imperium society, rather than holding it out as a coarse commentray on the state modern society, GW glorifies the Empire of Mankind, implicitly legitimizing its dystopian nature. Every 40K novel describes the Imperium as the most bloody regime imaginable, but the fluff far too often glorifies the cruelty, racism, xenophobia, bigotry, violence, exploitation, and rank injustice of that society. I find it to be disturbing and off-putting.
FFG has a much better handle on the nature of 40K, strangely enough, and games like Dark Heresy reflect critically on the Empire of Mankind; a galaxy in which an incomparably wealthy religious institution will steal a person's baby and turn it into a mindless, mutilated, cybernetic zombie for no purpose other than to serve the whims of an individual enjoying a level of wealth and comfort denied to trillions, and call it a blessing.
40k has such a huge history and body of work that those who like some more story with their war-game it is hard to argue against. (Books, video games, codexes, WD).
Ease of rules, I cannot say it is easy, not as hard as 'Starfleet Battles" but "Starfleet Commander" is easier (Or should I compare this to "Blackpowder" which is easier?).
Armies seem to have more of an expiry date on them or wax and wane which may not sit well for some.
Battletech had many great stories and battles with it since it too had a huge body of work, "codexes" and many video games so it is a worthwhile comparison.
It too had easier rules but was more a skirmish game but big battles could be done. I still have better stories from Battletech than 40k.
I have found time and time again that a very carefully balanced game is.... boring.
The over the top charcters, mechs, any difficult to overcome opponent piece makes for an exciting game.
Fighting against the odds and succeeding is talked about more than the grinder games where only a couple models survived (other than how long and drawn out it was).
Summary: It is worth playing on it's merits but it takes more work and money so it is not a quick "pick up and play". 40k has so much going for it, if the rules were cleaned up a bit (tiny bit more intuitive please?) and fine, keep some of odd powerful characters or specific units that give flavor to an army and have at it.
If you take out the "fluff" factor and the other things the OP mentions than the actual ruleset for Warhammer 40k is not a great game.
It is burdened by outdated mechanics, mountains of special rules that would be better served by stats (i.e. a MV stat instead of fleet of _____ and it's variants), and the constant modification of those rules by codicies is silly.
Yet, despite having a massive rulebook, 40k completely disregards tactical options offered by things like overwatch (the 40k mechanic bearing this name is NOT), reactive actions, etc.
All that is not to say that 40k is a bad game. It's just compared to other current games not a "great" or even a "very-good" game. It's an ok game that survives by virtue of ubiquity, market share, an extensive-and-growing miniatures line, and a stunningly deep background.
40k has such a huge history and body of work that those who like some more story with their war-game it is hard to argue against. (Books, video games, codexes, WD).
I agree, but I scratch that itch more through the RPG's these days. Codexes feel like they've really gone as far as they can, as once you've got stuff like Draigo, where can you really go from there?
40k has such a huge history and body of work that those who like some more story with their war-game it is hard to argue against. (Books, video games, codexes, WD).
I agree, but I scratch that itch more through the RPG's these days. Codexes feel like they've really gone as far as they can, as once you've got stuff like Draigo, where can you really go from there?
love the game, pure and simple. For someone just getting into it it can be fun and there are a lot of people who can help in regards to learning, painting and playing.
True there are other systems that are easier, or more tactical, but I found that 40k gave me an excellent base for my skills and made other games easy to understand.
While the system itself is "stale" ie. just the same thing over and over again really, they really do offer a lot of variety in terms of models and armies.
Assuming money is of no concern the only problem I've ever had is sometimes there's just so much to paint when you're first starting. If you got into something like Warmachine you can begin playing with less than 10 models total, most 40k armies 10 models is one squad.
The only real problem I have with 40k is the rulebook and the changes, but it's also a problem I feel every system sooner or later encounters, and with 40k being as old as it is there is a LOT of stuff. After 6 editions they've kept things and gotten rid of things, some to make money, some to make players happy, and some that are just weird. But most games as they age will reach a point where it's just ridiculous, I'm sincerely hoping when they get around to 7th edition they can streamline more, but I think that would require a lot of community involvement to make sure that they know we want that.
LOL @ the people managing to turn this into personal attacks within 1 page. You know who you are, really, hang your heads in shame..
MajorTom11 wrote: 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. .
Agree with this. After being something of a gaming whore and having played probably dozens of systems, and therefore able to draw comparisons, there are some bits I like about the games, other bits I don't. Certainly, they are a perfectly viable way to have a fun evening. But, YMMV, these things are ultimately subjective.
I played both games for many years, hundreds of games across multiple editions, and for the most part had a great deal of fun doing so. They've helped me meet some interesting people. The fact I don't play the games now is more to do with how many times I have played it, rather than any negative comment about the games themselves (the rules being cyclical in terms of how they change between editions - come back in a later edition, chances are the rules are now similar to an earlier, preferred edition), and that I must have disgorged at 18,000 marines from Rhinos over the years. Oh, and that I resented the army I had spent hundreds of hours converting and painting getting carpet-bombed by some of the Tonka-toy style fliers of the new edition
I think though, like a favoured old album or computer game, you can always come back to a wargame you enjoyed, even if you have since moved on to other things.
I have been playing warhammer since I was 10, it has a great background, and although others dont like the rules I enjoy them. I wish things were a little tighter, but most of the rules debates I see are easily resolved and I can usually see how it was intended but the wording is a bit off.
I have tried warmachine and did not like the game play style.
I looked at the other systems but really could not really get into them.
But then again Warhammer is mainly about the fluff for me, I love it. I just use the rules to live it out on the tabletop as well as a slight competitive outlet. So for that reason it works for me better than other things.
To say, I have never ever been impressed with the 40k and Warhammer rules, never really got into the games because of that. Even by fluff standards I defiantly feel more so 40k is quite outdated compared to many current age settings.
That being said, I am a gamer who either wants to play very strategy based wargames or games that truly stick too their fluff which 40k does neither of. However one game GW did produce that I have to say I still think is ( was as its not supported anymore though it really never was to begin with :/) was Epic. That game gave a really nice feel and scale and is by far the only GW game I have ever played that I thought was really well done and worth the money ( even though my army was all alternative miniatures ).
Yes 40k and warhammer have a larger fan base in most areas ( though averagely I feel defiantly those two games along with the GW line are dying out in many areas, being replaced by other games) but that is really I think the only reason they are still so prevalent is due to the ease of getting a game in at any FLGS.
I do enjoy good fluff based games, and either play very stratagem based style wargames like DBA. For fluff games I really want to play ones that more have a feel of a story unfolding as you play the game and tends to be less about completive play and more a mix of RPG managing your force and watching them develop their own traits ect. However you could also have a very fluffy strategic style wargame with each force having its own unique feel and style fitting with their fluff ( Epic comes to mind in this area again).
So to be fair on many game rules I have read, I always come across many things that make a game more complex than it needs to be. DBA is a very good example of keeping things streamlined for the most part and yet the game plays very well, Epic like wise as well and I am sure Dropzone Commander feels very similar. In the end, I don't think at all 40k and Warhammer are even close to worth their value compared to many games on the market. I don't tend to like line them up and march forward style games that are way to much out of scale ( 40k and Warhammer) in the larger scales of 28mm - 32mm I would look for either skirmish games, or one I am working on myself which will more or less be multi based units representing a platoon or so, which then allows you to play that scale or any scale, and play a larger scale game with using a 4 by 4, or 3 by 3, even a small game on a 2 by 2, instead of using a 4 by 8 which is just too large for me personally.
Anyhow no hate on anyone, I just would just personally pick up a less known game and try pushing that at your local clubs, I have seen more than one X - wing group form that way ( which is also I can say a brilliant game in itself ).
If you play GW and games from other designers you'll see just how rubbish these rules are.
The most striking contrast is Warhammer Fantasy and Kings of War. KoW has similar gameplay, much better balance and no auto-win stuff like 6-spells, yet fits the rules into 15-20 pages that can easily be learned in a game or two. Fantasy has a fething novel that achieves less with a far higher word count. Interestingly, the KoW rules are written by the same guy who did previous editions of Warhammer Fantasy, so you know it's completely the influence of GW that caused this.
How about fun? I tend to find fun is a good reason to play a game. I'm not interested in the tournament scene, or playing arseholes - so I'm sure I skip most of the worst of the hyper-competitive win-at-all-costs playerbase, but as a game between friends, any edition of 40k certainly delivers fun, just as X-Wing or any number of other games and systems will also do for you...
You may have fun with the game, but we're talking about a new player who won't have the experience with the rules and such that you do. For new players, while they may enjoy 40k if they get into it, they're also very likely to get the same amount of fun from other games for far less money and far simpler, easier, and deeper rulesets.
But then again Warhammer is mainly about the fluff for me, I love it. I just use the rules to live it out on the tabletop as well as a slight competitive outlet. So for that reason it works for me better than other things.
The fluff is great, but the biggest problem here is that, as Sir Biscuit on 3++ put it, the rules simply don't match that fluff.
Just think about it, and you'll see they really don't. To be honest, I've had more fluffy battles using In the Emperor's Name. Epic 40k and to a lesser extent Zone Mortalis do a better job of it as well.
Sinful Hero wrote: I don't know about fantasy, but I believe 40k could stand on its own. So much crazy stuff can happen when both players(or 4 or more players even) are just out for a fun game. Its a ton of fun when everyone keeps it casual, and is just hanging out for a good time with friends.
So what? ANY game can do this with the right people. 40k is nothing special here, the only reason you have fun with 40k and not some other game is that you're already playing 40k for other reasons (models, it's what your friends all play, etc).
Azazelx wrote: The 40k changes between 2nd-3rd ed were very much about a lot of substantial fundamental system changes. Armour, cover, movement.. I could go on, but it was very much a different game - as was RT to 2nd Edition (Herohammer). Since then, they've been playing the iteration game again, but 3rd was a hugely fun, nice, clean, streamlined game when it came out.
It's not just an issue of complexity, it's also about bad design decisions. Why is 40k stuck with such an unrealistic and anti-fun turn structure? Because that's what WHFB used 30 years ago. Why does 40k still use a D6 system where the only part of the theoretical 1-10 attribute range that ever gets used is 3-4 (and occasionally 5 in really special cases)? Because 30 years ago they declared that marines were all 4s. Why does 40k spend half of its stat line on melee attributes and only one on shooting in a game that should be based around shooting fluff-wise? Because it's a re-skinning of a 30-year-old fantasy game where melee combat was the most important thing. Etc. Many of the problems with modern 40k are the direct result of GW's refusal to abandon design decisions from 30 years ago and properly update their games.
Talizvar wrote: I have found time and time again that a very carefully balanced game is.... boring.
The over the top charcters, mechs, any difficult to overcome opponent piece makes for an exciting game.
Fighting against the odds and succeeding is talked about more than the grinder games where only a couple models survived (other than how long and drawn out it was).
Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Balanced games are more fun and exciting because the outcome depends on player decisions and not the fact that one player spammed an unbalanced design mistake.
And yes, powerful units have a place, but that's why there's a point-based system. If you want a powerful unit you should have to pay for it. The problem is GW doesn't understand how to balance point costs so you get cheap units that are also more powerful than expensive units.
I find 40k to be a pretty enjoyable game. It's fairly easy to get into with the basic rules and you can add in or leave things out as you want - like mysterious terrain / objectives etc.
Of course, like most things, the deeper you go down the rabbit hole the more issues you are likely to come across.
For example, take a very simple game like chess. For the vast majority of people they'll try to problem solve each move and come up with strategies for how to beat their opponent; and they will have fun. However if you stick with it, working towards becoming a grand master, then you will reach a point where the vast majority of games boil down to how good your memory is. Instead of thinking through each step, you are just following a preplanned script based on where pieces are currently on the board while hoping your opponent has forgotten the appropriate defense / offense. At that point Chess wouldn't be enjoyable to me anymore.
Now, back to 40k: The game itself has a lot to offer. It's fairly easy to through some models together (DV box) and get started shooting/punching your opponent. This alone is worth it's weight in gold to GW for enticing new players. It also has a fairly deep "discovery" phase. This is the part where you explore the other rules and start working out more of the details; people, being curious entities by default, generally love that. If they didn't, they wouldn't even be looking at wargames to begin with.
Can you get to the point where everything is prescripted? Maybe. It's certainly MUCH harder when you have a decent base of players to go against; and nearly impossible if those players regularly change their lists. You can certainly get to the point where a number of things (like deployment based on mission and certain units your opponent may have) should have been thought out ahead of time; but with the randomness thrown in there is certainly room for making tactical decisions.
Does it offer that new/casual player more than another system like Warmachine or Infinity?
From a value perspective: absolutely. For $100 US you get the full rulebook and 48 miniatures. With Warmachine that same $100 will buy you 8 models ( 2 starter kits which include free rules). For Infinity it looks like $100 with get you 12 starter models. For someone on the outside it sure looks like the GW box is a MUCH better deal. Of course, I like miniatures in general. For someone that isn't crazy about having a lot of models then this might not matter.
From an ongoing playability perspective: I think so as well. There are far more expansions to 40k between Apoc, planetstrike, etc than there are for the other game systems. This provides a tremendous amount of material to cover just about any type of battle you'd want to do, including campaigns.
Currently, the 40k universe is much deeper than any other system. This provides a lot of material that can translate into a more enjoyable table top experience.
frozenwastes wrote: 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.
This is a very good point.
As an example, my friends and I can easily play a couple of games of 40k in one day. For all of its special rules and at times obtuse mechanics, it's still not a complicated game to play. 'Pushing plastic soldiers around the table' is an apt description.
Compare that to the game of Infinity my friend and I recently had. Holy gak what an effort. I love the game dearly, and it's quickly becoming my favorite system overall, but that game was literally a headache. After keeping track of unit and weapon profiles, reading up on rules I hadn't used yet - speculative parabolic fire, jumping, climbing, falling (at the same time), hacking, etc I actually needed a painkiller afterwards because I really did have a headache. Afterwards, neither of us had the energy for a second game.
Different games scratch different itches. If you have a more relaxed group who aren't going to nitpick rules oddities and want a more laid back game with a great universe to draw inspiration from, 40k and Fantasy are good games.
How about fun? I tend to find fun is a good reason to play a game. I'm not interested in the tournament scene, or playing arseholes - so I'm sure I skip most of the worst of the hyper-competitive win-at-all-costs playerbase, but as a game between friends, any edition of 40k certainly delivers fun, just as X-Wing or any number of other games and systems will also do for you...
You may have fun with the game, but we're talking about a new player who won't have the experience with the rules and such that you do. For new players, while they may enjoy 40k if they get into it, they're also very likely to get the same amount of fun from other games for far less money and far simpler, easier, and deeper rulesets.
While I won't dispute the points you're making here, I was replying to:
The only reason to play 40k and WFB is because a lot of other people play them.
Azazelx wrote: The 40k changes between 2nd-3rd ed were very much about a lot of substantial fundamental system changes. Armour, cover, movement.. I could go on, but it was very much a different game - as was RT to 2nd Edition (Herohammer). Since then, they've been playing the iteration game again, but 3rd was a hugely fun, nice, clean, streamlined game when it came out.
It's not just an issue of complexity, it's also about bad design decisions. Why is 40k stuck with such an unrealistic and anti-fun turn structure? Because that's what WHFB used 30 years ago. Why does 40k still use a D6 system where the only part of the theoretical 1-10 attribute range that ever gets used is 3-4 (and occasionally 5 in really special cases)? Because 30 years ago they declared that marines were all 4s. Why does 40k spend half of its stat line on melee attributes and only one on shooting in a game that should be based around shooting fluff-wise? Because it's a re-skinning of a 30-year-old fantasy game where melee combat was the most important thing. Etc. Many of the problems with modern 40k are the direct result of GW's refusal to abandon design decisions from 30 years ago and properly update their games.
Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you here. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with IGOUGO. If you don't like it, you can simply play other games that don't use it. Similarly with D6s. Rogue Trader used all kinds of dice (even used percentile tables), and so did second edition. It was in 3rd when everything got streamlined to D6s, so you're completely wrong on that one. Again, going to posit that while the stats may have initially been reskinned from WFB, they work fine for a game that's not based around shooting, fluff-wise, but around space fantasy/space-LotR where people use swords, axes, claws and shields almost as much as they do pistols and rifles. It's sci-fi D&D, not sci-fi WW2. (though it has elements of everything, due to "inspiration".
I'd suggest the problems with modern 40k are things like the basic fundamentals, but things like Codex Creep, inconsistent writing, too many cooks pulling the game in too many directions (ie directives from marketing) - and the problem that relates to all of those of "we need to remake the books, with new, more betterrer units with more special rules" which is driven by marketing and also the playerbase that always wants something newer and more powerful and bitches like a bunch of whiny schoolchildren when something new isn't percirved as powerful enough..
Which is why I sigh when I see threads bitching that Space Hulk isn't "supported" with new models and new rules, or in the October-Inquisition rumour thread where people were going on about how a new release needs to be constantly be supported with new releases. There's something to be said about closed systems - or at the very least ones where new options are very limited and balanced in scope.
Azazelx wrote: Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you here. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with IGOUGO. If you don't like it, you can simply play other games that don't use it.
IGOUGO is the single biggest problem with the game. It is absolutely a fundamental problem with a wargame when there is a single die roll affects the game to such a high degree, and just saying "go play something else" isn't really an appropriate answer for this discussion as we're talking about a single pair of systems.
What about IGOUGO is *good*? The bad points are easy to see: having the first turn gives one player a disproportionate advantage, requiring one player to sit around leads to player disengagement, and as stated, it makes the game revolve around a single, predictable die roll that neither player generally has any power to affect in any meaningful way. The only good point that I can think of regarding the system is that it's simple. Simple has its own quality at times, but given how simple-minded the rest of the system is, there's room for a little bit of complexity there.
IGOUGO is tolerable up to a certain model count. As you increase the wait time for the opponent while you move your models, the worse of an issue it becomes. At lower model counts, it may also be possible to mitigate the first turn advantage by the merit of less force being brought to bear. So yeah, it is terrible in that you have to work around it to preserve good game player rather than it just being what produces good game play.
As for pre-3rd edition using multiple dice, that in no way counters the point about d6s and 4s for space marines. Even though RT & 2nd Ed used other dice size, the core mechanics were all d6 based. The extra dice were used at odd times to determine extraneous things rather than regularly to determine core things. For the vast majority of rules interactions, 40k has always been about three six sided dice rolls-- hit, wound and save. Occasionally you'd hit a multi-wound target or a vehicle and have to pull out another dice, but their use was never integrated into the core of the system.
It's "good" because it works just fine. And "play another game" really is a valid answer and option. I don't play 40k as my one-and-only by any means either, so it's not like I'm white-knighting GW. I think different games with different systems as different options are a really good thing. - Though I also get a bit sick and tired of too many new rulesets. I'm too old and disinterested to learn a new sci-fi skirmish ruleset each month.
I also tend to favour smaller games, and more "narrative" ones as well, so while I can see issues with the alternating system getting more severe as you get to bigger and bigger games through to Apocalype - which is where they're pushing 40k it's simply never been an issue in games I've played.
Simply put, if you hate the alternating player turn system, then the Warhammers probably aren't for you (along with other games that use the same system), and there's little point complaining about it because they're not going to change. You're obviously better off playing other games.
In the context of this discussion "is it worth playing on it's own merits" you're quite welcome to have your opinion that it's a fundamental, gamebreaking flaw. On the other hand, my opinion that it works well enough and has basically been fun is also a legitimate opinion. - And "go play something else" is obviously the best option.
clively wrote: It's fairly easy to through some models together (DV box) and get started shooting/punching your opponent. This alone is worth it's weight in gold to GW for enticing new players.
Only if you don't mind ruining your models by assembling them badly. If you want to do them right you're going to spend lots of time carefully removing them from the sprues, removing mold lines, etc. And then that just gets you the basic starter game, if you want to play the real game you're spending hundreds of dollars and a lot of reading/learning time.
Compare that to X-wing where the models are literally "take out of the box and play", the quickstart rules are a page or two and can be learned in a few minutes by even non-gamers, and the full rulebook is under 30 (small, picture-filled) pages. That is a real case of low barriers to entry.
Does it offer that new/casual player more than another system like Warmachine or Infinity?
Of course it doesn't. 40k only seems to offer more if you don't have any real experience with other games. Things like "random dice = unexpected outcomes = have to adapt your tactics" are not even close to unique to 40k.
From a value perspective: absolutely. For $100 US you get the full rulebook and 48 miniatures. With Warmachine that same $100 will buy you 8 models ( 2 starter kits which include free rules). For Infinity it looks like $100 with get you 12 starter models. For someone on the outside it sure looks like the GW box is a MUCH better deal. Of course, I like miniatures in general. For someone that isn't crazy about having a lot of models then this might not matter.
The difference here is that those other games give you a complete army for $100, while 40k gives you a small part of two armies. If you want to play 40k even casually you need to spend hundreds of dollars buying more models just to reach the bare minimum. If you want to play Infinity casually you can use your starter box indefinitely and only buy new models if you think something is cool. IOW, the 40k starter set is only a good deal if you want the cheapest possible models, if you want the best deal on a complete game you go elsewhere.
From an ongoing playability perspective: I think so as well. There are far more expansions to 40k between Apoc, planetstrike, etc than there are for the other game systems. This provides a tremendous amount of material to cover just about any type of battle you'd want to do, including campaigns.
And nobody ever plays them. I can't remember ever seeing a game of Planetstrike. And of course the rules for those expansions are even worse than the core game. Apocalypse is an unbalanced mess that pretty much consists of "put models on the table, then take models off the table while making shooting noises", while Planetstrike is literally impossible for the attacker to win unless the defender decides to be nice and cripple their own defenses.
Azazelx wrote: There's nothing fundamentally wrong with IGOUGO.
There really is. IGOUGO in 40k is an utterly stupid game mechanic for two reasons:
1) It kills realism. Why are my troops standing there doing nothing while an enemy unit drives up, gets out of their transport, and shoots them to death? Why aren't they returning fire and trying to pin down the enemy unit and disrupt its attack? The IGOUGO system asks you to believe that nobody ever responds to actions, they just sit there and wait while the enemy completes their move-shoot-assault sequence without interference. Even games with a fundamental IGOUGO structure (Infinity, for example) have realized that IGOUGO alone is stupid and you need to make out-of-sequence reactions an important part of the game.
2) It's boring as hell. Sitting there for half an hour doing nothing but rolling saves is not fun. Instead of playing the game I'm watching the game, and the only reason I don't wander off and talk to my friends/go eat dinner/etc is because I have to make sure my opponent isn't cheating. Compare that to, say, X-wing where you have alternating moves/actions and you're never waiting for more than a minute or two between making your own meaningful actions and decisions.
Similarly with D6s. Rogue Trader used all kinds of dice (even used percentile tables), and so did second edition. It was in 3rd when everything got streamlined to D6s, so you're completely wrong on that one.
I'm talking about the basic stat line, where you have things like IG veterans, tactical marines, and sternguard veterans (the elite of the elite) at BS 4 even though fluff-wise they represent a range of shooting ability from "above average" to "superhuman". Why? Because a D6 only has six sides, and GW has decided that BS 1 and BS 6-10 don't exist. So all you can do to adjust the stat line of shooting units is decide between BS 3 or BS 4. GW could fix this by moving to a D10 or even D20 system to allow finer control over stats, but they're stuck with the D6 system from 30 years ago.
Again, going to posit that while the stats may have initially been reskinned from WFB, they work fine for a game that's not based around shooting, fluff-wise, but around space fantasy/space-LotR where people use swords, axes, claws and shields almost as much as they do pistols and rifles. It's sci-fi D&D, not sci-fi WW2. (though it has elements of everything, due to "inspiration".
You're confusing cause and effect here. Fluff-wise 40k is primarily a shooting universe. The hero with a sword is important, but the defining iconic character in 40k is the tactical marine with a bolter. A sensible design would add detail to shooting (instead of having just one shooting stat) and consolidate all the melee stats into a simpler version, with gameplay focusing on shooting and assaults being the final decisive attack to finish off the enemy. Instead we're stuck with re-skinned WHFB where most of the stats and half the units/armies are all about melee combat even though the fluff and core game design favors shooting. Unfortunately instead of fixing the problem GW continues to pretend that melee combat is the focus of the game, and we get crippled melee army/unit after crippled melee army/unit.
Easy E wrote:Th eOP has to put a LOT of caveats in.
I think that speaks volumes.
To be fair though, it could have been stated shorter and said the exact same thing. All the OP had to say was
"Considering only the rules and codicies, is 40k worth playing".
I just think the OP chose a more verbose way to state this.
frozenwastes wrote:IGOUGO is tolerable up to a certain model count. As you increase the wait time for the opponent while you move your models, the worse of an issue it becomes.
I have no problem with IGOUGO if it serves the purposes of the game. If you're going for a more streamlined game, then IGOUGO can, and does, work very well for some games. The warband skirmish ruleset "Song of Blades and Heroes" uses IGOUGO (abeit with some interesting additions) as it's base activation mechanic. Even a mass battle game can use IGOUGO. King of War moves so swiftly even with huge armies that IGOUGO doesn't place a burden on the opposing player.
For a game like 40k, however, IGOUGO will seem to many to bog down the rules as it can result in longer periods of player downtime. This can be somewhat alleviated by saving throws and such, but if a player is spending too long a time as the "passive" player, then perhaps IGOUGO is not the ideal mechanic to be using. If 40k was written today and was as involved and complicated as it presently is, I think the designers would most likely have used a different activation mechanic.
Despite people saying how the latter editions were dumb-ed down, 2nd edition 40K is far and above easier to learn than the convoluted mess of updates, rules, and FAQ's that is 6th edition. Yes, characters had the large possibility to become too powerful, and close combat was a bear to learn.
There were easy ways to mitigate this, especially when playing friendly games. So you limit the character count on the board, drop some of the OP wargear, and emphasize troops. Yeah, close combat is a bear, but there were ways to get around it, unless you specifically went for a melee army. It was definitely the biggest evil of the system. At least all the abilities of a weapon were in a single statline, rather than having to reference other special rules for each gun with Rending, etc.
IGOUGO was also perfectly fine back then. The game was geared towards smaller armies, so it was hard to get bored during the other players turn when he only had a couple of squads with maybe a character attached, some bikes, and a vehicle. Overwatch fire also gave you something that was both tactical and engaging to do during the other player's turn. It wasn't the same as modern versions of alternate activation, but it was still an entire phase of the game you could perform during your opponent's turn.
The game is geared towards armies of at least twice the size nowadays, even at the exact same points values.
Hell, I recently got a hold of one of the "Battle Bibles" available online for 2nd edition, and I can say that I could easily and enjoyably dedicate some time this weekend to teaching my spouse to play, while at the same time I would not touch 6th edition with a ten foot pole even to play exclusively with my buddy that was a big gamer during 4th-5th editions. Even just the size that the section of special keyword abilities has grown is off-putting. I feel like I would be constantly referencing the book, instead of playing.
Hmm... leaving aside expenses and esthetics... I am not fond of the current edition of either WHFB or WH40K.
My problem has nothing to do with IGYG - it does not bother me in the slightest.
My problem is simply that the game mechanics become increasing random with each iteration - with random charge distances being added in the most recent version of each game.
Random chance is forgiving to an inexperienced player, or a poor tactician - good luck can win out over many obstacles.
I liked WH40K 3e - leaving out the spotty nature of the codecii. I liked that blast weapons only deviated if you missed.
Then they decided to put back in the damned deviation rules from 2e.
These days I play Kings of War - the rules are consistent, and in general luck is less of a factor.
But then I came into miniatures gaming after years of wargames from companies such as the late, and long lamented, Avalon Hill. Then I went into historical wargaming, with games such as System 7 Napoleonics.
It was not until I first played Dungeons & Dragons back in 1976 that I had any real urge to play fantasy miniatures games.
The Auld Grump - I was introduced to both wargaming and to RPGs by a Catholic priest.
Sinful Hero wrote: I don't know about fantasy, but I believe 40k could stand on its own. So much crazy stuff can happen when both players(or 4 or more players even) are just out for a fun game. Its a ton of fun when everyone keeps it casual, and is just hanging out for a good time with friends.
So what? ANY game can do this with the right people. 40k is nothing special here, the only reason you have fun with 40k and not some other game is that you're already playing 40k for other reasons (models, it's what your friends all play, etc).
I find that I tend to have less problems with the rules, and more problems with other people going overly literal on me(like the people who claim that you cant attach an infiltrating character to a unit, or that vehicles dont benefit from invul saves)
Other than that I think they are fine. Tactics are not something that is fixed, they are:
a : the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat
b : the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end
So under that definition warhammer is just as tactical as anything else, it just means that there are more factors that you have to account for in your planning. Some people might not like that but that is what it is.
Then again people like consistency but at the same time that can really make a game very boring if there is too much of it. (for me personally)
Regarding IGOUGO: There are few enough activation mechanics across all wargames that I don't think IGOUGO is that bad. Warmachine has it.
Regarding D6 vs other mechanics: GW is locked in to D6's now due to the model count involved. Other games with lower model count can use different dice mechanics (D10, 2D6) because they involve only one model acting at a time. You only need a few dice - Warmachine for instance, I most commonly you are rolling 2 or 3 dice at once, and the maximum you can possibly get is 8 iirc. In 40k rolling 20 dice for a single unit's shooting is not that uncommon. The simple logistics of being able to acquire and handle bulk dice means that D6's will always be preferable once you need more than 3 or 4. IMO this is ok for 40k when you're rolling bundles of dice, because you'll end up with a normal distribution: but when the dice roll is only 1 at a time, it really sucks.
Regarding list building? GW 'list building' is more of a checklist exercise. Because of generally terrible internal imbalance in many codices, you can ignore half the units when building a list. Then just spam the great units and fill any tactical holes in your list with the ok ones. With few exceptions, 40k armies lack inter-unit synergy and so the best results are gained by taking as many of the best thing that you can. See 3 helldrakes, 3 vendettas, flying mechrons....
WMH list building revolves so much around synergy between different units. Because the units themselves are pretty well balanced internally, and because there are so many 'buffing' units, it does require extra care to build a good list. IMO this is a great thing - not only do you need to be smart when list building, but on the tabletop it also makes order of activation very important (compared to 40k where there is pretty much no harm in activating in whatever order you want.
As for the original question? I don't like the 40k rules that much any more, and I have been increasingly disenchanted with them since I've started playing Hordes and Dust Warfare. When the new Tau Codex came out for me, I've started winning a lot of games. I don't need to try hard, its quite boring, and most opponents I effectively table on turn 3.
Warmachine has a very well structured rule set, which allows for more interesting and exciting rules without making the game unnecessarily complex. Being well so well structured also makes things a lot more tactical IMO - many of the abilities in WMH have analogies to those in 40k, but have a much greater effect on the game.
There are some things I like about 40k more than WMH - primarily the look on the board as everything is further spread out rather than fighting over the same 12" objective zone. But I get that same feel from Dust Warfare games which takes pretty much everything good about 40k and puts it in a far simpler and better rule set.
IGOUGO is terrible when IGO = I get to shoot the gak out of your army before you even get a move.
In games that are primarily shorter ranged (Fantasy, Warmachine) or where there is huge amounts of cover (Infinity) or shooting over long distances is rubbish (Flames of War) it doesn't matter. But 40k has shooting that is extremely powerful, doesn't become any worse at long distance, and has no way to hide from it.
Dakkamite wrote: IGOUGO is terrible when IGO = I get to shoot the gak out of your army before you even get a move.
To be fair - this is part of risk management when deploying. If you deploy with your forces in the open and/or not in cover, then you need to expect some casualties. This can happen in any game. I noticed you're looking into Infinity - it is IGOUGO as well and a bad deployment phase can be just as devastating even with its ARO system. A fast moving model with serious firepower, particularly a template weapon, rambo'd into a deployment zone will completely ruin your day if you didn't deploy well. Hassassin Fidays are designed to do exactly this - particularly the boarding shotgun variant.
40k is a B action movie with a cult following. You play it cause most of the models are cool, you can sit at home and drink beer and most likely you know a guy who plays so you now do as well.
That being said unless everyone drops 40k and switch's games I will proably always play as long as i can find a game one a month at least.
Most games have a cult following (ie dedicated fans). It also doesn't fit 40k, as 40k is pretty mainstream in the wargaming hobby, and something that is 'mainstream' doesn't really qualify for a cult following anymore. It's just broadly popular.
These days, 40k is popular because it's popular, not because it is doing something to be popular, and a lot of people that claim to hate it still play it simply because it's popular. It's like the Kardashians of wargaming.
Azazelx wrote: X-Wing is a more recent release, but still a bit expensive to recommend for teens to start with - $50 startup, $20 per ship, $44 for the Falcon or Slave 1 - sure you only need a few, but you're over $150-200 without blinking - you can buy an XBox 360/PS3 for that much.
The indivual ships are a bit pricey, but the reality is that you don't actually need many of them. We've played plenty of games with just 2 starter sets split, as we found X-Wing against 2 Tie Fighters a bit small. There are plenty of card combos you can use to add variety. Admittedly if you want bigger games or 1 or 2 of everything, then you'll spend a lot money, but my point is that you don't need to in order to get a good game.
Looking at the rules for 40k and WHFB in comparison to other rule sets.
They are over complicated , when compared to the amount of game play they deliver.
This is particularly true of 40k.
Rather than use rules written for the current intended game play of 40k.
Current 40k uses a terrible mutation of WHFB rules.
It tries to tell you everything is easy, by saying 'everything works like this'.
Then lists all the exceptions that fall out of the over simplified statement.
EG everything moves 6", and D6" in difficult terrain.
Then lists MULTIPLE exceptions that do not fit in this simple statement.
People play and enjoy 40k because of the background, and the game play.
The awful instructions to play the game only have a negative impact, that some choose to ignore,(fluff bunnies) other chose to take advantage of.(WAACs)
In short the rules sets for 40k and WHFB are written as sales promotion pamphlets , rather than well defined instructions to play the game.
So NO the rules are not worth playing , compared to other rule sets.
(If you want well defined straightforward intuitive rules .)
Lanrak wrote: Looking at the rules for 40k and WHFB in comparison to other rule sets.
They are over complicated , when compared to the amount of game play they deliver.
This is particularly true of 40k.
Rather than use rules written for the current intended game play of 40k.
Current 40k uses a terrible mutation of WHFB rules.
It tries to tell you everything is easy, by saying 'everything works like this'.
Then lists all the exceptions that fall out of the over simplified statement.
EG everything moves 6", and D6" in difficult terrain.
Then lists MULTIPLE exceptions that do not fit in this simple statement.
People play and enjoy 40k because of the background, and the game play.
The awful instructions to play the game only have a negative impact, that some choose to ignore,(fluff bunnies) other chose to take advantage of.(WAACs)
In short the rules sets for 40k and WHFB are written as sales promotion pamphlets , rather than well defined instructions to play the game.
So NO the rules are not worth playing , compared to other rule sets.
(If you want well defined straightforward intuitive rules .)
I love how you complain about 40k giving you simple rules then exceptions to said rules, then give us a simple, broad statement and then an exception to your simple statement. You've obviously learned a thing or two from GW!
-Loki- wrote: To be fair - this is part of risk management when deploying. If you deploy with your forces in the open and/or not in cover, then you need to expect some casualties.
I expect there to be casualties. I expect that if I deploy aggressively instead of using cover that it's going to be a slaughter on both sides. I do NOT expect that my army will just sit around and die without bothering to return fire just because it's not my turn yet. This is purely a problem with 40k's idiotic turn structure, if it had some kind of sensible action/reaction or alternating unit activation system my opponent and I would exchange fire and my suicide units would go down shooting.
And of course the typical lack of terrain in 40k makes this problem even worse, since there often isn't enough terrain to protect your deployment properly even if you wanted to deploy defensively. Granted, this isn't strictly a problem with the rules of the game, but GW certainly doesn't do very much to inspire sufficient terrain use. Their example battlefields and deployments are always absurdly light on terrain with models standing out in the open waiting to die.
Wrote this short battle-report ages ago - it's a bit of a joke write-up, but I think contains some of the good and bad points of the game and comments of the 40k community
no, it's not worth it.
they shift power to sell the new stuff. the speed at which they do it appears to be increasing drastically. and i thought blood angels got invalidated quickly. with this new rapid fire release schedule gw is wanting you to shelve your stuff and buy new stuff constantly. from what ive been reading the grav centurions will be cutting through monstrous creatures like butter.
i cant really support any company that doesnt try to improve their game but rather only thinks up ways to give people the middle finger while telling them "buy the new stuff". a little power creep i could live with but massive shifts really is just flipping the bird.
AegisGrimm wrote: Despite people saying how the latter editions were dumb-ed down, 2nd edition 40K is far and above easier to learn than the convoluted mess of updates, rules, and FAQ's that is 6th edition. Yes, characters had the large possibility to become too powerful, and close combat was a bear to learn.
Spoiler:
There were easy ways to mitigate this, especially when playing friendly games. So you limit the character count on the board, drop some of the OP wargear, and emphasize troops. Yeah, close combat is a bear, but there were ways to get around it, unless you specifically went for a melee army. It was definitely the biggest evil of the system. At least all the abilities of a weapon were in a single statline, rather than having to reference other special rules for each gun with Rending, etc.
IGOUGO was also perfectly fine back then. The game was geared towards smaller armies, so it was hard to get bored during the other players turn when he only had a couple of squads with maybe a character attached, some bikes, and a vehicle. Overwatch fire also gave you something that was both tactical and engaging to do during the other player's turn. It wasn't the same as modern versions of alternate activation, but it was still an entire phase of the game you could perform during your opponent's turn.
The game is geared towards armies of at least twice the size nowadays, even at the exact same points values.
Hell, I recently got a hold of one of the "Battle Bibles" available online for 2nd edition, and I can say that I could easily and enjoyably dedicate some time this weekend to teaching my spouse to play, while at the same time I would not touch 6th edition with a ten foot pole even to play exclusively with my buddy that was a big gamer during 4th-5th editions. Even just the size that the section of special keyword abilities has grown is off-putting. I feel like I would be constantly referencing the book, instead of playing.
Interesting observation. My experience was quite different. I had a very nostalgic view of 2nd edition also, as it was the first edition I played. So I dug out my books and picked up the codicies that were missing from my collection, and setup a game with a friend on a club night.
It was kind of a flop. even with the following restrictions...
750 point armies
Max 25% characters (from your list or allies)
No vehicles
No wargear cards
No using the Dark Millenium supplement.
No special characters -WYSIWYG (except for grenades of course)
Half-squads were allowed for units where the required number of minis is 10+
.... the game took too long, and I couldn't see much about it that was better than my preferred rulest for this size of Sci-Fantasy game "WarEngine/Shockforce".
I played 6th edition 40k a few months later and found it, IMHO, to be a better-playing ruleset that moved more quickly. Still not a great game, but better for medium-to-large battles than 2nd edition.
Leth wrote: I find that I tend to have less problems with the rules, and more problems with other people going overly literal on me(like the people who claim that you cant attach an infiltrating character to a unit, or that vehicles dont benefit from invul saves)
That statement seems to contradict itself a little. If people can get "overly literal" with the rules, surely that indicates a problem with the rules? Either that they're allowing absurd things to be technically legal, or that they're vague enough that a player can argue that they're legal and not be proved wrong with a page reference.
I always hesitate to bring up Warmachine, as I don't want to be the PP fanboy, but one of the big appeals is that once I thoroughly understood the rules, I never had a problem or rules debate that couldn't be resolved through checking what the rulebook or model text actually said. When I played 40K (albeit 5th edition), every game seemed to have at least one grind-to-a-halt debate over different interpretations of the same rule.
Leth wrote: I find that I tend to have less problems with the rules, and more problems with other people going overly literal on me(like the people who claim that you cant attach an infiltrating character to a unit, or that vehicles dont benefit from invul saves)
And this is why 40k's rules are garbage: you can take them "too literally" and cause problems, because GW didn't bother to write them clearly and unambiguously. Yes, you can "fix" the problem by doing what "makes sense", but if you think that the rules as GW has published them are high quality then you have really low standards. Contrast this situation with MTG where every single rule question can be answered by reading the relevant part of the rules, and you will never get a situation where RAW is obviously absurd.
So under that definition warhammer is just as tactical as anything else, it just means that there are more factors that you have to account for in your planning.
That's because it's a bad definition. "Tactical" isn't a black and white thing, there are degrees of tactical depth. And 40k is on the very shallow end. Player decisions are often overwhelmed by poor balance and game-swinging randomness, and even when that doesn't happen most of the decisions are pretty straightforward.
Speaking about 40K, 6th is better than 5th, and offers more tactical interest. However there is no command and control and not much psychology. Some of the core system -- UGOIGO and combat resolution -- is brute force simplistic, which slows the game. A lot of the system in over-complicated by layers of special rules that interfere with each other and cause all sorts of problems.
Kilkrazy wrote: Speaking about 40K, 6th is better than 5th, and offers more tactical interest.
I disagree. What you gain in tactical depth with the new (and better), wound allocation rules and "snap fire" in 6th ed, you loose with the additional randomization added to the game and the added min-maxing of lists afforded by "allies"...
@loki.
Sorry mate , I can NOT see any exceptions in my post.
I started off with a broad statement of why 40k/WHFB are not worth playing ,Then went in to more detail of why 40k is not worth playing in more detail.
Peregrine wrote: Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Balanced games are more fun and exciting because the outcome depends on player decisions and not the fact that one player spammed an unbalanced design mistake.
And yes, powerful units have a place, but that's why there's a point-based system. If you want a powerful unit you should have to pay for it. The problem is GW doesn't understand how to balance point costs so you get cheap units that are also more powerful than expensive units.
Why have defend games or a "remember the Alamo" type scenarios?
The differing models and scenarios add "flavor" that is why they keep pushing for a story to the fight, a reason for it.
It is a little hasty to say an "imbalanced" game is "ridiculous".
You want true balance and full accountability for decisions, play chess. I did for a long time. Planning for uncertainty I find exciting.
I think the knee-jerk to "imbalanced" is "unfair", it tends to be remedied when the scenario acknowledges a degree of disadvantage so sets the conditions of victory differently.
We had taken tactical games and tried to make them as balanced as possible and it usually ended in it being "pabulum".
Historical gaming is rife with spamming things or a "rock-paper-scissors" like infantry vs. cavalry but they tend to play to see if they could change a historical outcome.
It is the "good for all things" units and not paying the points for them that "break" games as you are pointing to (no planned right place, right time, right tool needed).
I agree that GW does have a problem with balance for cost (or an army's special rules), from that standpoint you have a valid point just do not paint with broad strokes.
Close games can be good at the time because it sure beats being tabled but they tend not to be remembered unless it is a "pulling it out of the fire" moment which is still a situational "disadvantaged/imbalanced/unfair" event being turned into a victory, luck or brilliance tend to be debatable due to dice rolls.
Talizvar wrote: Why have defend games or a "remember the Alamo" type scenarios?
That's entirely different. A "last stand" game deliberately favors one side, it isn't just accidentally making some units/armies better than others. And if you're doing it right a "last stand" game still has a 50/50 chance of winning because you define "winning" for the doomed side based on how long they survive before dying/how many enemy units they kill/etc.
It is a little hasty to say an "imbalanced" game is "ridiculous".
You're confusing "balanced" with "all sides are identical". A game can have diverse forces, strategic depth, and even random events and still be balanced. GW just doesn't want to invest the effort required to do it.
One of the most realistic games I have ever played is the GHQ Microarmor game. My problem with it is that it just lacks richness and depth. All the best rules in the world can lead to a extremely realistic experience like the old 'Squad Leader' historical game, but anything with so much detail that it takes you fourteen hours to play one freaking engagment is aggravating. I remember WH40Kv.2 driving me up the wall because a typical 4000 point game would take all weekend. ARGH! I prefer the fun sociable less realistic game to the hyper detailed exercise of tactical warmongering. Don't forget the one realistic aspect of 40K is that the side who can spend their resources the best wins, it's not SPAM or Cheese, we call it logistics. The hyper realistic historical games use logistic tables to keep your task force moving, and it is a pain in the ass. The Task Force Games Starfleet Battles used huge rulebooks and tons of supplements to manage starship power systems, it was all based on conserving and spending power, and it was a pain in the ass. Pacing and speed is important and makes for more entertaining games... which is why I do it, not for realism.
If you want a realistic 40K game have a scenario where one side gets 2000 points and the other side gets 200 points. The whole table is urban terrain. The 200 point force does not need to observe squad coherancy and can set up anywhere, in hiding. The 2000 point force enters one tableside. Every turn the 2000 point force rolls a D6 for every squad, on a one the squad suffers a casulty due to injury, lack of supply, running out of ammo or negligence. For the 200 point force to win the scenario they must inflict one casualty on the 2000 point force and escape the board with 50% of their personnel. For the 2000 point force to win they must capture every OPFOR model (capture represented by H2H fighting). If they kill any models by shooting them it is considered a tactical draw and moral defeat for both sides. Does that sound like fun? Nah.
BTW - I like the idea of simultaineous turns or phases that allow for reactions based on initiative. This is something I enjoyed about SFB and the "impulses."
necrondog99 wrote: I prefer the fun sociable less realistic game to the hyper detailed exercise of tactical warmongering.
Then this is why you shouldn't play 40k: it has way too much pointless complexity, way too much tedious dice rolling, and way too many rule debates. And the general trend of bigger and bigger games certainly doesn't help.
Don't forget the one realistic aspect of 40K is that the side who can spend their resources the best wins, it's not SPAM or Cheese, we call it logistics.
Which is a great idea in theory. Too bad GW completely destroys that theory by making the game so unbalanced that even the 10 year olds can figure out that some units are overpowered and you can win if you spam them. That's not a game of complex decisions in how to spend your resources effectively, it's an exercise in buying the right models.
If you want a realistic 40K game have a scenario where one side gets 2000 points and the other side gets 200 points. The whole table is urban terrain. The 200 point force does not need to observe squad coherancy and can set up anywhere, in hiding. The 2000 point force enters one tableside. Every turn the 2000 point force rolls a D6 for every squad, on a one the squad suffers a casulty due to injury, lack of supply, running out of ammo or negligence. For the 200 point force to win the scenario they must inflict one casualty on the 2000 point force and escape the board with 50% of their personnel. For the 2000 point force to win they must capture every OPFOR model (capture represented by H2H fighting). If they kill any models by shooting them it is considered a tactical draw and moral defeat for both sides. Does that sound like fun? Nah.
Of course it doesn't sound like fun. It also doesn't make any sense, it's just a bunch of pointless rule ideas that have nothing to do with 40k (whether rules-wise or fluff-wise). It sounds like all you're doing is making up a ridiculous strawman of a "game" and using it to "prove" that 40k works.
Peregrine wrote: Then this is why you shouldn't play 40k: it has way too much pointless complexity, way too much tedious dice rolling, and way too many rule debates. And the general trend of bigger and bigger games certainly doesn't help.
I disagree, the chaps I play with are fairly sporting, we don't debate rules hotly but discuss them. Bigger and bigger battles are fun.
Which is a great idea in theory. Too bad GW completely destroys that theory by making the game so unbalanced that even the 10 year olds can figure out that some units are overpowered and you can win if you spam them. That's not a game of complex decisions in how to spend your resources effectively, it's an exercise in buying the right models.
Yes, buying and building the right models is exactly how it works. You get what I am talking about. This is the essence of government procurement. This is why I own one obligitory Necron Monolith even though I really dislike the model. It's the only Necron model I dislike, in fact I secretly hate it.
Of course it doesn't sound like fun. It also doesn't make any sense, it's just a bunch of pointless rule ideas that have nothing to do with 40k (whether rules-wise or fluff-wise). It sounds like all you're doing is making up a ridiculous strawman of a "game" and using it to "prove" that 40k works.
Actually no I was describing a realistic tactical situation that could get ruined by logistics, politics and poor leadership. I am glad I don't have to put up with that crap when playing WH40K. Thanks for letting me clarify.
Peregrine wrote: You're confusing "balanced" with "all sides are identical". A game can have diverse forces, strategic depth, and even random events and still be balanced. GW just doesn't want to invest the effort required to do it.
Not really identical either, I remember playing as Tau, shooting dark eldar down to one man, him getting into melee and destroying the squad.
This seemed balanced in that each had a good chance of wiping out the other, but yes, is just a single example/moment in the game not big picture.
Taking into account all conditions and having a point or value system to evaluate the degree of advantage: that would be an ideal goal, I agree for a competitive game.
GW as discussed in other threads, want more story and are less concerned with reducing the number of variables to allow proper measurement: they do not want to restrict their "narrative".
It is a different viewpoint: do you want a rule of thumb to "forge the narrative" (GWtm?) and make some scenario from their books or do you need a reliably balanced strategy game? (which you will not get from GW)
Peregrine, you bring up good points and I think we could agree this is not a true strategy game, it is more like role-playing with miniatures on a bigger scale.
I have found the Warpath 2.0 Rules far simpler and easier to play than Warhammer 40k rules ..(low learning curve more playing less arguments due to poorly written rules)..for a Grimdark Backdrop ..at a 28mm scale..
...................................................................................
Flames of War is similar ..on a 15mm scale for a WWII back drop ..
Infinity/Warmahordes/Malifaux I have zero experience in so have zero opinion on..
................................................
Fun Level ..My gaming group finds the Mantic rules more fun than the 40k rules ..easier, faster play for bigger armies..
.................................................
Same with KoW vs WHFB..easier faster simpler rules..
models are pretty much interchangable ..
.............................................
Conversion, moddling and painting ..you can go to town with KoW , Warpath, 40K , WHFB..
Is this thread to help the OP pick a game or does he/she want to better understand it? I read page one and skippe over the rest. to me a simple wargamer who loves to paint and model more then playing this is how i see things.
40K: To me is a great hobby to have if you like to paint and convert the models, GW really allow you to go nuts.
40k Gaming: I have only played a few games of 6th. Forgeting a rule or doing something wrong can really bit you in the but. The armys can be unbalanced as new codex comes out the older ones dim out. And who knows when your dimmed out codex will get revamped The game also favours buyers over thinkers.
40k Gamers: They can be a tough nut to crack the more tourny type players will hang out at the local gamming shop. As the more kicked back all about good time players play at home. This is how i see it. Ive had a hard time getting in with the FLGS locals as they where all about beating face and less about fun.
40k Fluff: The fluff is great and draws you in. Its great and there is plunty of it. I do enjoy reading what i can and it helps me enjoy my models more. The fluff and converting are what keep me into it. I do like playing the game to, but the time per game can be 2-3 hours long.
Now i play warmachine and i can share what i have noticed.
Players: Im lucky my local FLGS has a good group of players. I was taken care of by the game champion there who runs demos and intros for free. He spent an hour going over the game with me and answering my 1,000 questions. The players where glad to have another player and welcomed me in.
Game: Is very balanced there is almost a rule for everything. The game favours thinkers not buyers, you can play any model you like as they all play a role.
Converting: Not a whole lot you can do compared to 40k.
Price: Very very cheap to get into and be able to play right offf the bat!
Fluff: I really have yet to pick a book up and look into it. The artwork and the fluff i have came across was ok. Nothing outside of the game and models draw me into it, like fluff artwork.
Im a simple guy who likes to role dice and think about what im doing. Im not a hardcore gamer who plays three or more times a week. Im all about fun and fluff.
GW as discussed in other threads, want more story and are less concerned with reducing the number of variables to allow proper measurement: they do not want to restrict their "narrative".
It is a different viewpoint: do you want a rule of thumb to "forge the narrative" (GWtm?) and make some scenario from their books or do you need a reliably balanced strategy game? (which you will not get from GW)
Peregrine, you bring up good points and I think we could agree this is not a true strategy game, it is more like role-playing with miniatures on a bigger scale.
I really wish that people stopped throwing this "40k is a narrative game" nonsense around, it simply isn't true! If you really wan't to play a game that forges a narrative as you go along, you play 1st ed. Malifaux, or Infinity or even GW's own Inquisitor. THOSE are games that have a distinct RPGesque "vibe" to them and that really tell a story as you go along. Same thing with Mordheim and Necromunda when using the campaign rules.
40K's and WHFB's flavour of "randomize everything" has nothing to do with forging a narrative, that is just the latest marketing spiel that GW has decided to tack on their latest editions!
The fluff, it's all about the fluff. What initially brought me into the game was the idea of overrunning the enemy with IG ChiCom style. Guns blazing, sweat dropping, blood spilling! For the Emperor! Now you can try to make the game as technical as you want. Most adults I know don't have the time to acquire, assemble, paint an army that's of a good size and quality before another edition comes out! It's a game about dedication, that's for sure.
Dakkamite wrote: IGOUGO is terrible when IGO = I get to shoot the gak out of your army before you even get a move.
To be fair - this is part of risk management when deploying. If you deploy with your forces in the open and/or not in cover, then you need to expect some casualties. This can happen in any game. I noticed you're looking into Infinity - it is IGOUGO as well and a bad deployment phase can be just as devastating even with its ARO system. A fast moving model with serious firepower, particularly a template weapon, rambo'd into a deployment zone will completely ruin your day if you didn't deploy well. Hassassin Fidays are designed to do exactly this - particularly the boarding shotgun variant.
There are now things in the game that help mitigate this - I mean defensive Link teams. The will not save you if you have deployed incorrectly, but they do make a difference if the active models faces even 2 of your Linked dudes.
PhantomViper wrote: 40K's and WHFB's flavour of "randomize everything" has nothing to do with forging a narrative, that is just the latest marketing spiel that GW has decided to tack on their latest editions!
There are many games that make use of "randomize everything" but to varying degrees of controlled probability, so is not all that shocking a statement.
If I was to exclude the RPG'ish back story of every model and the variety of customization allowing you to play any character you want, then it really boils down to negligence; poor control of rules and model options preventing balanced game play.
I would say many things about GW but not that they are stupid about this.
This is an intentional choice and easier to manage, do not claim "perfecting" game balance and say it is all up to you the player to make it work: go "forge" the right scenario.
I really cannot take a game seriously anymore in 40k and it really seems to be the right attitude: play your best, make it entertaining and never get hung up on a given rule, there may be 3 ways to interpret it so "who cares".
If I am stressed about this stuff it will no longer be a hobby.
Talizvar wrote: GW as discussed in other threads, want more story and are less concerned with reducing the number of variables to allow proper measurement: they do not want to restrict their "narrative".
And this is the problem: you've bought GW's idea that story and balance are mutually exclusive. This is what GW wants you to believe because it means that they don't have to invest the effort required to make a game that has both, they can just throw some rules together on their lunch break and say "4+ it if you have a problem" and you will continue to buy it.
It is a different viewpoint: do you want a rule of thumb to "forge the narrative" (GWtm?) and make some scenario from their books or do you need a reliably balanced strategy game? (which you will not get from GW)
I want both, just like how MTG is both a balanced competitive game and an awesome casual game full of stories. The miracle of GW's business plan is that they've sold you half a game and convinced you that you're getting the best game in the world.
Peregrine, you bring up good points and I think we could agree this is not a true strategy game, it is more like role-playing with miniatures on a bigger scale.
Dakkamite wrote: IGOUGO is terrible when IGO = I get to shoot the gak out of your army before you even get a move.
In games that are primarily shorter ranged (Fantasy, Warmachine) or where there is huge amounts of cover (Infinity) or shooting over long distances is rubbish (Flames of War) it doesn't matter. But 40k has shooting that is extremely powerful, doesn't become any worse at long distance, and has no way to hide from it.
Ever play Soldier's Companion, for the Space:1889 series of games?
Players roll initiative, adding Coolness Under Fire - player that wins moves and shoots. Players roll initiative....
It is possible for a Veteran force (with high Coolness Under Fire) to roll over a much larger Green force, without the Green force getting a single turn....
Strange as it may sound, I like the game, but I generally play the British, who have lots of Veteran units....
Most games have a cult following (ie dedicated fans). It also doesn't fit 40k, as 40k is pretty mainstream in the wargaming hobby, and something that is 'mainstream' doesn't really qualify for a cult following anymore. It's just broadly popular.
These days, 40k is popular because it's popular, not because it is doing something to be popular, and a lot of people that claim to hate it still play it simply because it's popular. It's like the Kardashians of wargaming.
WH40Kdoesn't have a cult following?
Greetings, and welcome to Earth - you obviously are not from around this part of the galaxy....
WH40K has the biggest cult following of any wargame that I have ever seen. (And I know folks that have managed to finish an entire game of The Longest Day.)
There is nothing wrong with the game having a cult, other than the way GW treats their worshipers, but saying that WH40K does not have a cult following... it very much does.
And some of us are now apostates....
Say something bad about WH40K and White Knights show up to defend the Emperor!
Say something that the Apostates see as false praise, and they shall storm the barricades.
In general, I see the Apostates as having more sense, but that may be because I am one. But I have seen raving Apostates as well - which does not make WH40K less of a cult, merely a cult that has suffered a schism.
The Auld Grump, but then again, what do I know? I also claimed that 4e wasn't the future of D&D....
I ask this out of genuine desire to know the answer, but try as I might, can't phrase it in a way that doesn't sound confrontational when written down, but please don't take it that way.
You have been heavily critical of 40K in this thread, yet almost 60% of your post history is either 40K tactics or discussion.
If you dislike the game as strongly as your posts here suggest, why not move on and find a new game?
azreal13 wrote: If you dislike the game as strongly as your posts here suggest, why not move on and find a new game?
Because of those factors outside the rules of the game: the fluff, cool models, and the fact that it's the only game (other than X-wing, which I'm committing to more now) you can pick if you want to have anyone to play it with. 40k's rules are a clumsy unprofessional mess, but they're still the rules we're stuck with.
Though TBH now that X-wing is finally getting over its stock problems and the X-wing league is on the same day as 40k my interest in anything GW produces has been declining significantly.
Ever play Soldier's Companion, for the Space:1889 series of games?
Players roll initiative, adding Coolness Under Fire - player that wins moves and shoots. Players roll initiative....
It is possible for a Veteran force (with high Coolness Under Fire) to roll over a much larger Green force, without the Green force getting a single turn....
Strange as it may sound, I like the game, but I generally play the British, who have lots of Veteran units....
Awww mannnnn this brings up so many good memories dealing with GDW and Frank Chadwick is a top notch person.
Back on topic. The short answer is no, just because the lack of quality control and technical support in creation of the rules and codexes.
It has become, "he who has the most money to buy the most models and the special models that unlock unique abilities for that army in question, so you can throw more dice than your opponent". Magic the gathering on plastic as well as Robo Hammer with Giant monsters/aliens/robots crushing Tokyo and the JDF (Japanese Defence Forces and if it was in the 21st century genre). Place that concept in 40000 years in the future and you got the epic fail.
The game mechanics of 6th Ed is utter crap. 8th Ed is even worse. Takes too long to set up. Takes too long to play the game because of the game mechanics and the lack of clarity of the game as people argue about the rules and its meanings. Takes too damned long throwing massive amount of dice. Takes too long packing up...
And finally takes too much money for people to start from scratch to have a half way decent army so you will not get curb stomped and beaten to death like a baby seal by some WAAC (they call themselves competitive players mind you) job whose only thrill in twisted his little life is pushing man dollies across the board.
I have 13 different 40K Armies and 6 Different WFB armies. All of my Fantasy models in storage. 12 out of 13 40K armies are on display or in storage as well.
I'm now only playing with a generic, non hell turkey Chaos Army with no Allies.
But even though I am having fun with this army because I'm playing this in a casual fluff manner where I could care less if I win,
I am running out of options as the players are leaving 40K in my region and going to something else and the reasons are what I have posted. And soon I'll be following them completely if I run out of decent players to game with. You have to go what the meta is if you wish to continue the hobby as a whole, which generally now for me is to sit with people and paint and game whatever the trend types of game is being currently played.
If you can find decent players to game in your local area and can ignore the blatant flaws of the game and can get some casual games in then you are blessed.
I definitely think that it is a game worth playing on its own merits, if it is a fun game you are after, I would not say that it is a good competitive, strategic game though, if I wanted to play a serious game I would prefer something more tactical. I still really enjoy it though having said that, Balance does not really worry me at all as long as I can have fun, I have enjoyed sooo many games where I dont really stand that much of a chance and for me "being the underdog" is really enjoyable, I have played over 100 games of BB with halflings and gobbos so I am used to coming off second best !
I do think the fluff is a major factor too, although I guess if you are a new player you might find the fluff from other games just as appealing, I myself find it hard to get into any other games systems after so long in the 40k universe, I dont know what it is but they seem to lack the appeal for me that 40k has.
Dakkamite wrote: IGOUGO is terrible when IGO = I get to shoot the gak out of your army before you even get a move.
To be fair - this is part of risk management when deploying. If you deploy with your forces in the open and/or not in cover, then you need to expect some casualties. This can happen in any game. I noticed you're looking into Infinity - it is IGOUGO as well and a bad deployment phase can be just as devastating even with its ARO system. A fast moving model with serious firepower, particularly a template weapon, rambo'd into a deployment zone will completely ruin your day if you didn't deploy well. Hassassin Fidays are designed to do exactly this - particularly the boarding shotgun variant.
There are now things in the game that help mitigate this - I mean defensive Link teams. The will not save you if you have deployed incorrectly, but they do make a difference if the active models faces even 2 of your Linked dudes.
So what link team can my vanilla Haqqislam take?
Bad deployment being exploited is part of the game, as is mitigating it with things like link teams, units with total reaction or sixth sense and other methods. You can still deploy badly even with all of that, and even when not deployed badly a shrewd player can sometimes find weaknesses to exploit and KO half your army in turn one. It's just part of IGOUGO gameplay.
Dakkamite wrote: IGOUGO is terrible when IGO = I get to shoot the gak out of your army before you even get a move.
To be fair - this is part of risk management when deploying. If you deploy with your forces in the open and/or not in cover, then you need to expect some casualties. This can happen in any game. I noticed you're looking into Infinity - it is IGOUGO as well and a bad deployment phase can be just as devastating even with its ARO system. A fast moving model with serious firepower, particularly a template weapon, rambo'd into a deployment zone will completely ruin your day if you didn't deploy well. Hassassin Fidays are designed to do exactly this - particularly the boarding shotgun variant.
There are now things in the game that help mitigate this - I mean defensive Link teams. The will not save you if you have deployed incorrectly, but they do make a difference if the active models faces even 2 of your Linked dudes.
So what link team can my vanilla Haqqislam take?
Bad deployment being exploited is part of the game, as is mitigating it with things like link teams, units with total reaction or sixth sense and other methods. You can still deploy badly even with all of that, and even when not deployed badly a shrewd player can sometimes find weaknesses to exploit and KO half your army in turn one. It's just part of IGOUGO gameplay.
Agreed.
For your Vanilla army it's only Total Reaction HMG remotes, good deployment and a bit of luck.
I think the biggest indictment in terms of 40k and WFB failing to offer good gameplay for those looking for a "narrative" game is the constant refrain you hear over and over again when discussing the rules and the fictional universe of the game.
Fluff isn't rules.
It takes other forms as well, but the basic idea behind it is that any expectation that the rules will produce something like the fiction isn't valid. Even to the point that when people question why a given rule doesn't represent the fiction or that a rule doesn't make sense from a narrative perspective, very quickly it will be pointed out that expecting the rules to produce results like those in related fiction isn't reasonable.
I would absolutely love a game where the designer's took a 40k novel and asked "what sort of things happen in this story?" and wrote a rules set from the ground up to produce those sorts of results. 40k (or WFB) is not an example of such a rules set. The closest you'll come is authors using a crowbar to force in nods to the game in the various novels.
I would absolutely love a game where the designer's took a 40k novel and asked "what sort of things happen in this story?" and wrote a rules set from the ground up to produce those sorts of results. 40k (or WFB) is not an example of such a rules set. The closest you'll come is authors using a crowbar to force in nods to the game in the various novels.
Funny that you mentioned that. This is doable. The game I have is called "The Forever War", Made by MayFair games in 1983, with help from the Author John Haldeman. Overall all it is a good little game that on based on the book.
Your concept is very doable but we both know that this will not happen in any near future with the company's current line of thought.
My problem is that modern 40K is such a weighty set of rules. random rolls for everything, pages and pages of universal special rules, gobs of special rules that modify other special rules, etc.
Simply too much to keep track of while playing a game. Every new army has tons of stuff to make it cool and unique, and you end up with more reference materials on the table than models to play a game. It seems to be becoming far too increasingly overwhelming and cumbersome to me over the 15+ years I have been with the hobby.
@AegisGrimm.
I agree that the actual instructions to play the game have become needlessly over complicated.
And that NO ONE has actually objectively defended the rule set on its own merits ,(eg as instructions on how to play the game.)Is very conclusive evidence on how awful the current 40k rules truly are.
Saying you like the background/art, and having a fun time with your friends , does NOT excuse the awful rules writing found in 40k.
When generic sci fi rules deliver a better game experience than GW plc OWN rules for its OWN game , its a very poor state of affairs!(IMO.)
The problem for me is that I find it very hard to get into other games after being in 40k for so long. I just cant seen to get hooked on another system and they just seem so unappealing to me for some reason.
There are guys at my club that have been playing the same opponents in WFB for as far back as I can remember.. probably 15 years or so, and while happily picking up each new edition have never displayed any inclination to try another game. To me it seems like playing only a single computer game for years, although I realise a lot of people do this too so I guess it must be a personal thing!
I will say though that prices from scratch for both 40k/WFB make people less likely to try other games. If I'd just spent $400-500 on a load of new stuff for an army, 6 months painting it etc, no way on earth I would be looking at other stuff to try!
Which is a great idea in theory. Too bad GW completely destroys that theory by making the game so unbalanced that even the 10 year olds can figure out that some units are overpowered and you can win if you spam them. That's not a game of complex decisions in how to spend your resources effectively, it's an exercise in buying the right models.
Yes, buying and building the right models is exactly how it works. You get what I am talking about. This is the essence of government procurement. This is why I own one obligitory Necron Monolith even though I really dislike the model. It's the only Necron model I dislike, in fact I secretly hate it.
40k 'list building' is a joke compared to other games. Representing the 'essence of government procurement' is not what anyone wants in a game. A choice between a terrible unit and a great unit really isn't a choice at all. Why not just have two decent, balanced units and make all choices a decent choice? Make it so people don't have to sacrifice being competitive for fluff - let them have both!
It also leads to horribly boring lists where the competitive build is 3 each of the best units in the codex and ignoring the other 15 'choices'.
Warmachine does this very well. Pretty much every unit in each army is a decent choice. Building a WMH list, Kriel Warriors (the oldest trollblood unit) or Warders (the newest trollblood unit) are equally needed (depending on caster) and even work fantastically side-by-side. And due to inter-unit synergy, there are very few instances even when you have a fantastically good unit that you want to take more than 2 squads of it.
There is no excuse for internal imbalance. There is nothing that imbalance 'achieves' that is not performed better by proper balance.
Kilkrazy wrote: Speaking about 40K, 6th is better than 5th, and offers more tactical interest.
I disagree. What you gain in tactical depth with the new (and better), wound allocation rules and "snap fire" in 6th ed, you loose with the additional randomization added to the game and the added min-maxing of lists afforded by "allies"...
I don't like allies either, because of that exact reason. We can ignore the Allies rule, though, while we can't "ignore in" something like opportunity fire into 5th. Just my opinion, of course.
Pacific wrote: There are guys at my club that have been playing the same opponents in WFB for as far back as I can remember.. probably 15 years or so, and while happily picking up each new edition have never displayed any inclination to try another game. To me it seems like playing only a single computer game for years, although I realise a lot of people do this too so I guess it must be a personal thing!
My friends and I are like this. We've played 40k since 2nd editions launch. We've tried to break into other games - Epic, Battlefleet Gothic, Warhammer Fantasy (about 5 times), Inquisitor, Necromunda, Mordheim, even outside of GW with Warzone. The end result was always the same - we played the game for about 2-3 months and went back to 40k. We don't play pickup games with anyone outside of our group for the most part (one of us did because for a while he lived in a house with about 4 other 40k gamers). This leads to a lot of internal politics and bickering and a certain amount of list tailoring. However, it has also led to our group developing our own attitude to the game and house rules to get games moving better, and even our own metagame.
The good thing is recently due to the rising cost of 40k, I've successfully managed to get Infinity seriously look ed at and have no intention of letting it die after a few months. I've also gotten some of them interested in Dropzone Commander, though we've yet to start that. I doubt we'll drop 40k - like I said, as a group we've been playing since the early 90's. 20 years of history isn't easily given up, and we all have decent sized armies to carry on without needing to splurge huge amounts of money on new armies. But finally managing to get some new games some serious table time has been great.
Haight wrote: Both are worthwhile to play. I play both with a group of friends and both games provide ample fun, laughs, artistic creativity, modeling creativity.
So how do 40k's rules contribute to this "fun" more than other games you could play? The question here is whether or not 40k is worth playing instead of other games purely on its own merits (instead of factors like "it's the only game anyone plays around here"), not whether anyone has ever had fun playing it.
Phobos wrote: I am just curious to know if the rules underlying these games are in and of themselves, good.
No, I don't think so. If you deducted the background and the models, leaving only the rules played with generic counters (like "infantry", "jump infantry", "tank", etc.), I doubt more than a handful of people would play it. I did have fun with some historical wargames while trying them out using printed out counters only showing flags and a unit symbol, though.
In the end, the GW systems feel more like a way to have your toy soldiers beat each other up in a moderated fashion than a game first with model support for eye candy second. Which has always been GW's view as well AFAIK.
Pacific wrote: Well, whatever makes you happy mate ultimately.
There are guys at my club that have been playing the same opponents in WFB for as far back as I can remember.. probably 15 years or so, and while happily picking up each new edition have never displayed any inclination to try another game. To me it seems like playing only a single computer game for years, although I realise a lot of people do this too so I guess it must be a personal thing!
I will say though that prices from scratch for both 40k/WFB make people less likely to try other games. If I'd just spent $400-500 on a load of new stuff for an army, 6 months painting it etc, no way on earth I would be looking at other stuff to try!
I've noticed this too, we've been playing on and off since 2nd Ed. But what's possibly most telling is that my main gaming buddy refuses to consider other systems because he's already spent so much on 40K (probably 6000pts of Blood Angels) that he doesn't want to sink money elsewhere and is concerned about how much it'll cost him.
@Herzlos.
I am aware of the misconception that lots of 40k player have about other game systems.
Tell your friend to take heart and try out other rule sets with his 40k minatures.
No limits , Stargrunt II are both free to download.(And are fun for narrative skirmish games IMO.)
Lots of folk like using Tomorrow War and Warpath rules with 40k minatures.
Pacific wrote: Well, whatever makes you happy mate ultimately.
There are guys at my club that have been playing the same opponents in WFB for as far back as I can remember.. probably 15 years or so, and while happily picking up each new edition have never displayed any inclination to try another game. To me it seems like playing only a single computer game for years, although I realise a lot of people do this too so I guess it must be a personal thing!
I will say though that prices from scratch for both 40k/WFB make people less likely to try other games. If I'd just spent $400-500 on a load of new stuff for an army, 6 months painting it etc, no way on earth I would be looking at other stuff to try!
I've noticed this too, we've been playing on and off since 2nd Ed. But what's possibly most telling is that my main gaming buddy refuses to consider other systems because he's already spent so much on 40K (probably 6000pts of Blood Angels) that he doesn't want to sink money elsewhere and is concerned about how much it'll cost him.
That's called the "Sunken Cost fallacy". Basically, because he invested so much time and money into 40K, he thinks that even considering a different game would mean that the money and time spent on Warhammer, as well as the fun he had, would all be invalidated somehow.
Yup I agree, I managed to get him into X-Wing recently, but he's cited the cost when starting other games (he's worried he'll spent 40K money on other games too even though I've shown otherwise).
But then, he's pretty stubborn about new things, and the kind of person that'd only eat the cheese pizza from a buffet.
Herzlos wrote: Yup I agree, I managed to get him into X-Wing recently, but he's cited the cost when starting other games (he's worried he'll spent 40K money on other games too even though I've shown otherwise).
But then, he's pretty stubborn about new things, and the kind of person that'd only eat the cheese pizza from a buffet.
One way I've found to get around this - if, of course, it's in your gaming budget - is to buy a two player starter pack yourself and give him a demo game. If he enjoys it, offer to just give him the starter force from the set. Having a starter force for free is a good motivator to get into a game.
And that NO ONE has actually objectively defended the rule set on its own merits ,(eg as instructions on how to play the game.)Is very conclusive evidence on how awful the current 40k rules truly are.
)
I noticed this as well. Every defender of the GW ruleset has posted some variation of the fluff, I've been doing it so long, or everyone else does it as their primary argument, whereas the detractors are able to cite specific examples of the rules supporting the argument.
If player base and cost are kept out, the only thing fantasy really has going for it is the fluff. Most other games have better rules (like KoW), and DUST warfare has tighter rules than 40k. You'll likely be drawn to warhammer fluff, as it surpasses all other game fluff (had a lot more time to build it up). But if you ignore the fluff, and the only other thing fantasy has going for it is OP magic and finding that PERFECT unit that is a nightmare to wipe out (7th Ed Chosen star, Bloodknights with Drakenholc banner, Daemons->everything, etc). If you want a game of skills, jump onto Kings of War with The Auld Grump, ScarletSquig, Porkuslime and me. We don't bite...
No lizards, sadly. Magic is VERY toned down: you have healing spells, electric bolts (called Zap!) and fireballs. Undead have a movement spell as well. Magic is a supplement to your army, it doesn't control it. Mantic has the rulebook available for download (free) on their website, I'd recommend checking it out.
Answering the precise wording in the OP, I'd say "No". I might even say "Heck no". 40k is and always has been a mess of a ruleset. Fluff is a big draw to people, as is the sunk cost of having $700+ invested in an army, or the fear of learning something new, or the momentum of having played the game for years, or friends who don't want to play anything else, etc.
I don't think the 40k rules can stand on their own. Not one bit. If it was some free indie game people would choke on their Khorneflakes at how badly the game plays.
Just actually stop and think about a standard shooting attack, which should be one of the most basic, repeatable, fun, and innovative aspects of the game. And yet, as a new player, I imagine it sounds something like this long, drawn out narrative:
Okay I'm going to shoot my unit at your unit. Range looks good, my BS is *checks statline* 4 so I need a 7-4=3+ to hit, let me gather up 14 D6s and roll them. Oh and I'll use red dice for my special weapons to differentiate them. *rolls 14 dice*
I rolled 9 3+s *separates hits*, what's your Toughness?
*opponent checks statline* Um, 3.
At Strength 4 I need *checks chart on the quicksheet* 3+ to wound. *rolls another 9 dice*
So that's 5 wounds, one of which is my special weapon.
Hmm I think I'm in cover so I should get a cover save here.
I don't know about that, let me hunch down to look. I can sort of see the whole model.
Here let me come around to your side of the table. No way man his lower legs are totally covered.
Fine whatever, roll your saves.
Okay you had 4 normal wounds and 1 special right? *gathers up 5 dice* My saving throw is *checks statline* 4+, what's the AP though?
AP, um, *checks weapon quicksheet* 4, so you don't get a save.
What I thought if AP is equal I get a save still?
No way, it has to be above!
Let me just check the rulebook real quick. *checks the disorganized mess of a rulebook for six torturous minutes*
Fine you're right. Okay so just my cover save right? *rolls 5 dice* Okay I only made 1 save, so I'll take these 4 guys away.
Wait I think that guy is closer than the other guy.
*yawns and walks away*
That's forgetting the fact that melee works completely differently, and is reliant on four stats that are basically used for nothing but hitting a guy with a sword (WS, S, I, A...but the game is totally sci-fi!). Oh and then vehicles work differently from that. As do flyers. And movement for different unit types (because the 2nd edition approach of having a Movement stat was "too confusing".
Try looking at the game with new eyes. Really think about it. Do you honestly think a new player would remember who shoots what at Combat Speed is fun? Or twiddling your thumbs for 45 minutes while your equally new opponent stumbles through their turn?
40k feels a lot like kids on a playground going "Well my guy has a raygun!" and the other kid going "So what my guy has six arms and super duper sharp claws!".
I've felt for years and years that GW needs to divorce the rules creation from their miniatures line. Just totally have the rules written by a different company. I also think it's a complete joke that one of the biggest game companies in the industry cannot produce up to date codexes in time for a new release. Why are people okay with that? Beyond the need for more sales and money, why aren't the useful 5 pages of stats in each codex just rolled into the core rulebook? Why not a "rules only" rulebook with all the stats for every army (that would be professionally and openly playtested for once), then have a "fluff book" of all the stories from the core rulebook and codexes.
It'd be great if points costs were mathematically calculated instead of just off-the-cuff ideas based on what the designers "felt" was fair.
The core rules don't cover siege or all the magic items (most are just buffs to heroes or units; and units/heroes can only ever have one such item anyway).
The rules are very good, play quickly and you can use WHFB models or anybody's brand that you want.
The downside is KoW just doesn't have the presence that established GW games do.
It can be harder to find opponents----but since you have a wife that games...
bosky wrote: Answering the precise wording in the OP, I'd say "No". I might even say "Heck no". 40k is and always has been a mess of a ruleset. Fluff is a big draw to people, as is the sunk cost of having $700+ invested in an army, or the fear of learning something new, or the momentum of having played the game for years, or friends who don't want to play anything else, etc.
I don't think the 40k rules can stand on their own. Not one bit. If it was some free indie game people would choke on their Khorneflakes at how badly the game plays.
Spoiler:
Just actually stop and think about a standard shooting attack, which should be one of the most basic, repeatable, fun, and innovative aspects of the game. And yet, as a new player, I imagine it sounds something like this long, drawn out narrative:
Okay I'm going to shoot my unit at your unit. Range looks good, my BS is *checks statline* 4 so I need a 7-4=3+ to hit, let me gather up 14 D6s and roll them. Oh and I'll use red dice for my special weapons to differentiate them. *rolls 14 dice*
I rolled 9 3+s *separates hits*, what's your Toughness?
*opponent checks statline* Um, 3.
At Strength 4 I need *checks chart on the quicksheet* 3+ to wound. *rolls another 9 dice*
So that's 5 wounds, one of which is my special weapon.
Hmm I think I'm in cover so I should get a cover save here.
I don't know about that, let me hunch down to look. I can sort of see the whole model.
Here let me come around to your side of the table. No way man his lower legs are totally covered.
Fine whatever, roll your saves.
Okay you had 4 normal wounds and 1 special right? *gathers up 5 dice* My saving throw is *checks statline* 4+, what's the AP though?
AP, um, *checks weapon quicksheet* 4, so you don't get a save.
What I thought if AP is equal I get a save still?
No way, it has to be above!
Let me just check the rulebook real quick. *checks the disorganized mess of a rulebook for six torturous minutes*
Fine you're right. Okay so just my cover save right? *rolls 5 dice* Okay I only made 1 save, so I'll take these 4 guys away.
Wait I think that guy is closer than the other guy.
*yawns and walks away*
That's forgetting the fact that melee works completely differently, and is reliant on four stats that are basically used for nothing but hitting a guy with a sword (WS, S, I, A...but the game is totally sci-fi!). Oh and then vehicles work differently from that. As do flyers. And movement for different unit types (because the 2nd edition approach of having a Movement stat was "too confusing".
Try looking at the game with new eyes. Really think about it. Do you honestly think a new player would remember who shoots what at Combat Speed is fun? Or twiddling your thumbs for 45 minutes while your equally new opponent stumbles through their turn?
40k feels a lot like kids on a playground going "Well my guy has a raygun!" and the other kid going "So what my guy has six arms and super duper sharp claws!".
I've felt for years and years that GW needs to divorce the rules creation from their miniatures line. Just totally have the rules written by a different company. I also think it's a complete joke that one of the biggest game companies in the industry cannot produce up to date codexes in time for a new release. Why are people okay with that? Beyond the need for more sales and money, why aren't the useful 5 pages of stats in each codex just rolled into the core rulebook? Why not a "rules only" rulebook with all the stats for every army (that would be professionally and openly playtested for once), then have a "fluff book" of all the stories from the core rulebook and codexes.
It'd be great if points costs were mathematically calculated instead of just off-the-cuff ideas based on what the designers "felt" was fair.
I could rant forever and ever though
Your wall of text is bigger than my usual, read it all, I agree.
For some of elitist nerds, hard rules are sometimes wanted to keep the riff-raff out They tend to make models based on art, then rules based on the models so it is then leads to some interesting rules creation.
My rant and soapbox as well is that they claim to focus more on story and fulff and "cool models" rather than "restrictive" rules that may lead to game balance.
I honestly think this will never change since they pretty much claims it is up to us as the players to agree to everything or be forced to dice-off on everything rules written down or not.
So, I feel like a fluff bunny, make what I think is a cool army and somewhat "competitive" and try not to care to much how the outcome goes (will still do my best but not sweat it too much).
I do three other things:
Play Battletech and blow the heck out of my enemy and laugh at the carnage!!!! I love the game...
Play X-wing and blow the heck out of my enemy and laugh at the carnage!!! I love that game too...
Carefully make a scenario for my friends, play some games against myself to get a feel for balance, add some random elements so I do not "know" the true final result and usually have a good time.
40k is more work to make it fun and not get your head caved in by strangers (or the other way around for me lately, getting tired of playing "balanced" armies).
Talizvar wrote: Your wall of text is bigger than my usual, read it all, I agree.
For some of elitist nerds, hard rules are sometimes wanted to keep the riff-raff out They tend to make models based on art, then rules based on the models so it is then leads to some interesting rules creation.
My rant and soapbox as well is that they claim to focus more on story and fulff and "cool models" rather than "restrictive" rules that may lead to game balance.
I honestly think this will never change since they pretty much claims it is up to us as the players to agree to everything or be forced to dice-off on everything rules written down or not.
Glad you took the time to read my lengthy rant I just wish that GW would realize(and help their fanbase realize) there can be simple rules that provide tactical depth, instead of complex rules that are shallow. I also think it's more than possible to make rules around cool models without it being "unfun" or something.
And yeah nothing like a roll-off because everyone is too exhausted to argue over fiddly rules any longer. Then again the game itself sometimes comes down to a roll off of trying to seize the initiative.
bosky wrote: I also think it's a complete joke that one of the biggest game companies in the industry cannot produce up to date codexes in time for a new release. Why are people okay with that?
Customers put up with a lot from GW, which never ceases to amaze me. If the prices are going to be high, if your annual reports are going to talk about being the best, the product better darn well be the best, down to cleaning the books of typos. Forget game design for a minute. GW does not even give its customers worthwhile editing.
What GW communicates to me is laziness, which would be acceptable at a bargain rate. It is indicative of an inherent, deeply ingrained lack of respect for the customers. Those folks at GW don't care about anybody (by which I mean upper management), and least of all their customers or their product.
In a sharply competitive environment, that doesn't fly. GW's games are fun enough, as I have said, they're just the sort of half-baked stuff you can easily get in an amateur rule set for the cost to print a .pdf at home. There's not much value there when you look at the quality of the product.
The OP's question is like asking about the comparative quality of Transformers and The Avengers from a purely cinematic perspective. Transformers may be fun to watch for plenty of people, but strictly speaking it is not a "good" film from an objective standpoint. This isn't much of a problem if the only investment is two hours of my time, but tell me that I can only watch one movie every month and you won't find Transformers on my list, nor will I pay to watch something similar in the theater.
Lots of folks who play GW games have the GW DVD special edition boxed set with the full two-season cartoon series spin off on their shelf and nothing else. So when the time comes to sit down and watch something, something GW is your only option.
But, as the OP has indicated, if your buddy has never seen an action movie, should you hand him the Transformers movies straight away, or should you start him off with something better?
For me personally, no. I play 40k because I enjoy the universe thematically and because its generally the lowest common denominator in scifi games. I have plenty of legacy armies that cost me nothing to maintain except for a codex every few years and I can usually find someone looking for a game of it on weekends at the FLGS. I've never personally seen someone converting an existing active universe into 40k because they like the rules, only converting an army from a failed game into 40k to get some/any use out of those other figs. I bring a 40k army with me to the games store in case I can't wrangle up a game of either xwing or heavy gear and for that it suits my needs. Playing randomhammer 40k 6e is still preferable to driving home and wasting time/gas on the long monthly trek to the store.
If you take cost and access to players out of the question then no they arnt in my oppinion there are plenty of other better balenced and more fun to play out there. Some of the models are very good quality but you could always use them for other rule sets.
warboss wrote: . I bring a 40k army with me to the games store in case I can't wrangle up a game of either xwing or heavy gear and for that it suits my needs. Playing randomhammer 40k 6e is still preferable to driving home and wasting time/gas on the long monthly trek to the store.
This hits on one of the strongest advantages of 40k, and one that is not given enough credit. It's ubiquity.
Though, IMHO, a very weak ruleset, 40k can still be fun ( I enjoy a couple games of 40k a year), and in many places it's still THE game in town. WM is making strides, but whether WM isn't to taste or 40k is the only popular game, a game of 40k sure beats not wargaming.
As someone who has helped organize a club centered around indie wargames, I know that finding or building a group of people that will play games that aren't "the popular ones" takes effort, patience and -if I am honest- a bit of luck. I feel it's more than worth the effort, but I don't begrudge anyone who says 40k is fun enough for that they'd rather just pay the upcharge than have to mess with trying to wrangle up a group to play something else.
It's almost like asking someone in the American Midwest, "Should I join the local Softball league or try and teach the locals Cricket?"
(note: I know nothing about Cricket, the metaphor is about ubiquity, not quality)
Ubiquity, plus great fluff, plus good (and a wide variety of) models, plus a ruleset that is still playable (if not great), adds up to a pretty strong argument for a choice of 40k, even though you're going to pay a significant upcharge for it.
IMO, the "Ruleset" ( a term I prefer to "game") is not worth playing on it's own merits, but gamers considering other games have to ask:
"What is it worth to me to be able to find a game almost whenever I want?"
warboss wrote: . I bring a 40k army with me to the games store in case I can't wrangle up a game of either xwing or heavy gear and for that it suits my needs. Playing randomhammer 40k 6e is still preferable to driving home and wasting time/gas on the long monthly trek to the store.
This hits on one of the strongest advantages of 40k, and one that is not given enough credit. It's ubiquity.
Odd, I'd say it get given more than enough credit. Most of the time when I see a thread about why someone still plays or has just started 40k the main reason is 'because it's the easiest to find a game of'. 40k's ubituity is very well known and very often cited as the reason to play the game.
The problem is, the popularity is riding on the success of 3rd-mid 5th edition before they started trying as hard as possible to kill the hobby side while driving up prices of their models. Unless they stop making boneheaded decisions, that popularity will drop as more and more veterans simply get tired of it, dropping its popularity as a pickup game.
The idea that you can get games of 40k at the drop of a hat is probably over emphasized. To the point where the original poster asked about game considerations not factoring that in.
And for many people in many places, it's not the go to game. I don't know where or how I'd find a game of 40k around here. It's all WM:H and Flames of War. I'm sure if I went on Facebook and searched for my city or something, there might be a 40k group. But no store I know of has regular gaming days for 40k where I could just show up and expect to get a game in.
I think the current 'Marmite' state of 40k game play area by area is quite telling.
Where 40k remains popular due to the players putting lots of effort int to try to make playing 40k as enjoyable as possible, (with NO help from GW rule set.)
40K is the go to game for popularity.
Where the poor rules writing and support for the game play, and hobby to an extent, has lost critical mass for 40k .
it is simply not played .
The real problem is IF the current trend keeps going, 40k will loose critical mass in so many areas, it will simply become an unsustainable game system.
As there will be a severe lack of interest from the former fan base.
The problem is, the popularity is riding on the success of 3rd-mid 5th edition before they started trying as hard as possible to kill the hobby side while driving up prices of their models. Unless they stop making boneheaded decisions, that popularity will drop as more and more veterans simply get tired of it, dropping its popularity as a pickup game.
I'm not sure if I buy that rosy view of 3rd to 5th edition.
The fact is that GW has pretty much always been the expensive miniature gaming company. I started gaming at the beginning of 2nd edition and they were already just about the most expensive option at the FLGS.
As for the hobby side, I don't see a time when GW wasn't trying to bring more and more of the hobby under their roof and into their product line. It's all part of a long term trend stretching back at least to 2nd edition, and maybe further.
It's only now when we look back and see how much of the hobby they've managed to swallow that we look back and try to find a "better" time. IMO, many people that look back to the better times are just looking at a particular time when GW gotten around to taking over another DIY aspect of the hobby. Surely by now it's clear that GW only endorses DIY until they have a product to fill that niche. It's just that now they've filled alot of niches, so they have alot less DIY to write about.
Pacific wrote: Well, whatever makes you happy mate ultimately.
There are guys at my club that have been playing the same opponents in WFB for as far back as I can remember.. probably 15 years or so, and while happily picking up each new edition have never displayed any inclination to try another game. To me it seems like playing only a single computer game for years, although I realise a lot of people do this too so I guess it must be a personal thing!
I will say though that prices from scratch for both 40k/WFB make people less likely to try other games. If I'd just spent $400-500 on a load of new stuff for an army, 6 months painting it etc, no way on earth I would be looking at other stuff to try!
I've noticed this too, we've been playing on and off since 2nd Ed. But what's possibly most telling is that my main gaming buddy refuses to consider other systems because he's already spent so much on 40K (probably 6000pts of Blood Angels) that he doesn't want to sink money elsewhere and is concerned about how much it'll cost him.
You should check out the cost of historicals. Practically everything is at the most 1/2th to 1/3rd the cost of equivalent GW models.
Pacific wrote: Well, whatever makes you happy mate ultimately.
There are guys at my club that have been playing the same opponents in WFB for as far back as I can remember.. probably 15 years or so, and while happily picking up each new edition have never displayed any inclination to try another game. To me it seems like playing only a single computer game for years, although I realise a lot of people do this too so I guess it must be a personal thing!
I will say though that prices from scratch for both 40k/WFB make people less likely to try other games. If I'd just spent $400-500 on a load of new stuff for an army, 6 months painting it etc, no way on earth I would be looking at other stuff to try!
I've noticed this too, we've been playing on and off since 2nd Ed. But what's possibly most telling is that my main gaming buddy refuses to consider other systems because he's already spent so much on 40K (probably 6000pts of Blood Angels) that he doesn't want to sink money elsewhere and is concerned about how much it'll cost him.
You should check out the cost of historicals. Practically everything is at the most 1/2th to 1/3rd the cost of equivalent GW models.
And that's for line infantry. For command and specialist models, the cost is more like 1/4th to 1/6th. There is no logical justification (beyond "people will pay it", the only one GW needs) for a commander to cost $20-$30
Pacific wrote: Well, whatever makes you happy mate ultimately.
There are guys at my club that have been playing the same opponents in WFB for as far back as I can remember.. probably 15 years or so, and while happily picking up each new edition have never displayed any inclination to try another game. To me it seems like playing only a single computer game for years, although I realise a lot of people do this too so I guess it must be a personal thing!
I will say though that prices from scratch for both 40k/WFB make people less likely to try other games. If I'd just spent $400-500 on a load of new stuff for an army, 6 months painting it etc, no way on earth I would be looking at other stuff to try!
I've noticed this too, we've been playing on and off since 2nd Ed. But what's possibly most telling is that my main gaming buddy refuses to consider other systems because he's already spent so much on 40K (probably 6000pts of Blood Angels) that he doesn't want to sink money elsewhere and is concerned about how much it'll cost him.
You should check out the cost of historicals. Practically everything is at the most 1/2th to 1/3rd the cost of equivalent GW models.
I've got tonnes of historicals*, and he watched me buy an Empire Of The Dead (Victorian Sci-fi skirmish game) starter (Rules, any 2 faction sets, 2 cases) for less than he spent on GW stuff at a convention, but he's still reluctant. Partially because he isn't keen on new things, and partially because he's worried it'll end up costing as much as GW stuff. He may have a point, I've spent more on EOTD stuff than GW stuff in the last year, but they tend to cost about £5-7 a character figure, or £3-4 a line figure (all in metal).
*In progress I've got: 15mm US Airborne & German Grenadiers, 28mm WW2 Soviets, 28mm Romans and 28mm Celts, all costing much less on a per-figure basis than I can get from GW. But that's largely irrelevant as we're talking about rules and not cost
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.....
You can't separate the rules from the fluff. What is here being described as inertia essentially comes down to the fact that GW Space Marines are iconic. Yes, there are many similar ideas out there, and the 40k universe draws on lots of sources, but they have succeeded in building up a fantasy universe, so their concept has achieved a kind of critical mass. Also, of course, there's the sheer diversity of models. And there's actually a sense of humour to 40k that many of its competitors lack.
If you judge it on rules alone, I don't doubt there are other games that are superior. But 40k games are played for fun, they're not an olympic sport - it's the way they stimulate the imagination that makes them fun, and in that respect 40k is superior.
Of course you can separate the rules from the fluff, especially when the rules are in no way representative of the fiction for the game.
Case in point: Space Marines are supposed to be super-humans bio-engineered to be perfect killing machines superior in every way to regular humans.
In the rules: they shoot exactly the same as a normal human that has spent more than 5 years in the IG...
What is here being described as inertia essentially comes down to the fact that GW Space Marines are iconic. Yes, there are many similar ideas out there, and the 40k universe draws on lots of sources, but they have succeeded in building up a fantasy universe, so their concept has achieved a kind of critical mass. Also, of course, there's the sheer diversity of models. And there's actually a sense of humour to 40k that many of its competitors lack.
No, 40K HAD a sense of humour, now its only grim darkness in the far darkness of the grim future... with skulls... Or are you somehow able to find the hidden humour in Space Marines killing women and bathing in their blood to protect themselves from corruption?
If you judge it on rules alone, I don't doubt there are other games that are superior. But 40k games are played for fun, they're not an olympic sport - it's the way they stimulate the imagination that makes them fun, and in that respect 40k is superior.
Bullcrap!
Every miniature game is played for fun! The fact that GW's rule sets are convoluted, unbalanced and randomized messes doesn't magically make them "more fun" than all the better balanced and cleaner games out there.
Endless rules discussions doesn't somehow "stimulate the imagination" better than just knowing how a rule works. Unless you mean imagining what you will do to your opponent if he tries to pull the Wolf Lord with TA infiltrating with Wolf Scouts and claim that its legal again!
If you judge it on rules alone, I don't doubt there are other games that are superior. But 40k games are played for fun, they're not an olympic sport - it's the way they stimulate the imagination that makes them fun, and in that respect 40k is superior.
Bullcrap!
Haha, well you sound like a fun guy! How people will enjoy debating rules interpretations with you!
If you judge it on rules alone, I don't doubt there are other games that are superior. But 40k games are played for fun, they're not an olympic sport - it's the way they stimulate the imagination that makes them fun, and in that respect 40k is superior.
Bullcrap!
Haha, well you sound like a fun guy! How people will enjoy debating rules interpretations with you!
What? Did I offend your tender sensitivities with my made up swear words?
Also I don't debate rules interpretations any more since I stopped playing WHFB and 40K when 8th and 6th came out respectivelly.
Hahaha, I was more amused by how in your ruleset, a made up swearword automatically trumps a reasoned argument. Is that like your own, made-up, ID weapon with no saves allowed?
My amusement is increased by the fact your vehemence is matched by your ignorance, given that you don't play 6th edition.
As for tricky rules... my 12 year old son has no problem with them. Maybe you should ask a teenager to explain them?
If you judge it on rules alone, I don't doubt there are other games that are superior. But 40k games are played for fun, they're not an olympic sport - it's the way they stimulate the imagination that makes them fun, and in that respect 40k is superior.
Bullcrap!
Haha, well you sound like a fun guy! How people will enjoy debating rules interpretations with you!
What? He's right. 40k's rules are a pure exercise in frustration. This especially becomes more apparent when you've checked out other games rules. You wonder how they can be so hippy-dippy and sloppy with their rules writing. The "fun" that you get from a game of 40k comes to a screeching halt when you come into contact with one of it's many rules inconsistencies, utterly taking you out of the moment. These kinds of things simply do not happen with other games with tighter rulesets.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Hahaha, I was more amused by how in your ruleset, a made up swearword automatically trumps a reasoned argument. Is that like your own, made-up, ID weapon with no saves allowed?
Reasoned argument? You are claiming that inaccurate, confusing and unbalanced rules somehow make the game "more fun" and claim that that is a reasoned argument?
I thought you were just making that stuff up as you went along since it makes absolutely no sense, therefore my choice of also making up a swear word to counter it.
My amusement is increased by the fact your vehemence is matched by your ignorance, given that you don't play 6th edition.
I don't play 6th edition ANY MORE, doesn't mean that I never played it. In fact, it would have been quite stupid of me to give up the game because of an edition that I had never played considering that when I gave up the game I had several 10's of thousands of points worth of models divided over several different armies...
Also, how many different non-GW systems have you played before proclaiming GW to be more fun than every other system? Can I accuse you of ignorance in that aspect?
As for tricky rules... my 12 year old son has no problem with them. Maybe you should ask a teenager to explain them?
There is a 581 page sub-forum in this very site, that is dedicated to try and clear the mess that are the 40K rules.
Either you are lying that your son has absolutely no problem understanding them all, or you are calling all the posters in that sub-forum dumb... You make the choice...
To be honest its each to his own, Some people care more about fun than balance and some prefer to be competitive, i am pretty sure that there are many in between too.
No one will ever persuade me that its not worth playing because I enjoy it, no matter how badly some people think the rules are written, some of us just don't care as long as we can play a good game with our mates. Although I think it has gone downhill a bit while the prices have gone up, I would still consider it a good game, as I enjoy playing it.
Rayvon wrote: To be honest its each to his own, Some people care more about fun than balance and some prefer to be competitive, i am pretty sure that there are many in between too.
No one will ever persuade me that its not worth playing because I enjoy it, no matter how badly some people think the rules are written, some of us just don't care as long as we can play a good game with our mates. Although I think it has gone downhill a bit while the prices have gone up, I would still consider it a good game, as I enjoy playing it.
Not trying to persuade you not to play it or anything but there is NO reason balanced rules would not be as fun as any other rule set.
Reasoned argument? You are claiming that inaccurate, confusing and unbalanced rules somehow make the game "more fun" and claim that that is a reasoned argument?
Oh, thanks for highlighting that your logical skills not only extend to making up swear words, they also include making up imaginary arguments. Neither I, nor anyone else that I noticed, has claimed that "inaccurate [sic] confusing and unbalanced rules make the game "more fun."
In case it's too hard to follow, like the rules, I'm suggesting that many people are attracted to the models, and the universe, and this outweighs issues with confusing rules - which do indeed exist, but which many people seem to be able to surmount without losing their temper and making up swearwords.
Reasoned argument? You are claiming that inaccurate, confusing and unbalanced rules somehow make the game "more fun" and claim that that is a reasoned argument?
Oh, thanks for highlighting that your logical skills not only extend to making up swear words, they also include making up imaginary arguments. Neither I, nor anyone else that I noticed, has claimed that "inaccurate [sic] confusing and unbalanced rules make the game "more fun."
In case it's too hard to follow, like the rules, I'm suggesting that many people are attracted to the models, and the universe, and this outweighs issues with confusing rules - which do indeed exist, but which many people seem to be able to surmount without losing their temper and making up swearwords.
Nice backtracking you did there, so now there are issues with confusing rules? I thought your 12 year old son had absolutely no problems understanding them in their entirety?
Its ok, I understand how admitting that you are wrong must be painful for a white knight like yourself, so I'll forgive you for your condescending tone and posts that are entirely empty of content.
This thread is about games which are supposed to be fun.
You seem so emotional and bound up in hatred, presumably of GW, that even the statement that GW has good models, and an immersive universe, make you angry and start resorting to tired claims, like the fact that people who disagree are 'white knights.'
You seem so emotional and bound up in hatred, presumably of GW, that even the statement that GW has good models, and an immersive universe, make you angry and start resorting to tired claims, like the fact that people who disagree are 'white knights.'
And 40k is not fun because it has turned into cinematicrandomhammer with an archaic hippy-dippy ruleset that makes playing many games a chore. Seriously, go look at other rules out there. Many of them are free and only serve to highlight how GW looks like complete and utter amateur hour when it comes to writing rules.
The "Oh look on a 4+ I get to cheat" solution is just silly. Many of these things should not make it through playtesting (but we know GW does not do much of that). These glaring errors serve to take a lot of fun out of the game. It takes you out of the moment. If GW want to make their game "Cinematic" and be able to "Forge a narrative" then they should make tighter rules to not take you out of the moment.
If you cannot see this then I really don't know what to say...
warboss wrote: . I bring a 40k army with me to the games store in case I can't wrangle up a game of either xwing or heavy gear and for that it suits my needs. Playing randomhammer 40k 6e is still preferable to driving home and wasting time/gas on the long monthly trek to the store.
This hits on one of the strongest advantages of 40k, and one that is not given enough credit. It's ubiquity.
Odd, I'd say it get given more than enough credit. Most of the time when I see a thread about why someone still plays or has just started 40k the main reason is 'because it's the easiest to find a game of'. 40k's ubituity is very well known and very often cited as the reason to play the game.
The problem is, the popularity is riding on the success of 3rd-mid 5th edition before they started trying as hard as possible to kill the hobby side while driving up prices of their models. Unless they stop making boneheaded decisions, that popularity will drop as more and more veterans simply get tired of it, dropping its popularity as a pickup game.
Well, and to be honest, one of the main reasons that I don't play 40K or WHFB anymore is because I don't want to pack up all the models just in case I can't get in a game of what I really want to play. It is too much of a hassle for something that does not rate very high on the satisfaction scale.
Now, in one bag I can bring enough models to cover two players for Mordheim, Freebooter's Fate, Blood Bowl, Quar (SOA), Malifaux, Tomorrow's War, Song of Blades and Heroes, and more besides. If the FLGS had sufficient terrain available I would simply head down and work out a game of whatever. The principle reason why I like to be darn sure what game I am going to be playing before I head out is that I also usually bring a couple of tubs of terrain.
Lugging my 40K stuff around means a whole bag all on its own. It just aint worth the effort.
Phobos wrote: Okay you two kiss and make-up because I don't want this thread locked.
To the fellow who posted the 40k example thank you that was very eye opening. I got the rules for KoW. It looks clear on a first read.
I concur with Phobos.
As to KOW, I have always found it interesting, and a guy at the shop is always talking about playing it, so maybe I will give it a whirl sometime. It seems to me that Cavatore sort of ruthlessly cut down and streamlined WHFB to make KOW. It has a similar feel in terms of fundamental concepts, but is much cleaner.
The only thing that really threw me off was using wound counters instead of removing models. It makes good sense, of course, but the thought of doing up all of those models just to put a glorified rectangle on the table saddened me. Now, that said, it probably does mean that I could do up about half of the models and insert filler bases, which would have the added benefit of allowing for more dynamic poses. As a sci-fi/skirmish player primarily, I have oft run afoul of bad posing when building models for troop blocks.
My Mantic zombies are the worst. They look great individually, but MAN will they not sit flush in a movement tray! I had 30 all assembled and looking good sitting in front of me and I was very satisfied. Then I tried to mush them together and I was like, "Noooooooo! Fail! What have I done!"
Grimtuff wrote:And 40k is not fun because it has turned into cinematicrandomhammer with an archaic hippy-dippy ruleset that makes playing many games a chore. Seriously, go look at other rules out there. Many of them are free and only serve to highlight how GW looks like complete and utter amateur hour when it comes to writing rules.
The "Oh look on a 4+ I get to cheat" solution is just silly. Many of these things should not make it through playtesting (but we know GW does not do much of that). These glaring errors serve to take a lot of fun out of the game. It takes you out of the moment. If GW want to make their game "Cinematic" and be able to "Forge a narrative" then they should make tighter rules to not take you out of the moment.
If you cannot see this then I really don't know what to say...
I agree with everything you said, but I also wanted to say "Oh look on a 4+ I get to cheat" is a hilariously true way to look at rolling off for a rule.
weeble1000 wrote: The only thing that really threw me off was using wound counters instead of removing models. It makes good sense, of course, but the thought of doing up all of those models just to put a glorified rectangle on the table saddened me.
Which is quite the norm in many (most?) historical rulesets. One of the usual side-effects is that the model count only represents the units' sizes in relation to each other. Fielding a Tercio in a Thirty Years War battle with GW's scale philosophy would be a nightmare, for example.
I do think that this is a very good illustration of what we're talking about: KOW was arguably designed as a "game on its own merits", which benefits from the "glorified rectangle" approach, while Warhammer was always meant to give your individual models maximum representation on the table at the expense of the actual game flow.
Kilkrazy wrote: Wound counters can be replaced with off table notes or on table casualty figures.
We just use dice. Also, I'd rather keep my nicely painted minis on the table, instead of using them as useless wounds to be tossed off the table before they see play.
As you may tell from my signature, I play 4 games - the three GW games plus WM/H.
Personally, of all those games that I've played, I'd rank it it in the following order:
1 - LOTR 2 - WHFB 3 - Warmachine
4 - 40k
I love the Lord of the Rings game, but that's not the original poster's question. But I'll briefly explain why: you can use real-life tactics (I did a Cannae plan on a small scale, my opponent was so embarrassed that he used an Imperial Swedish deployment in the next game which he then went on to win), it's simple but it makes sense, the armies are pretty balanced, and the miniatures are pretty (generally). The issue, of course, is players, but you said to ignore that. Another thing going for the game is the fact that most models are simple two or three part snap-fit things if they're plastic, making modelling easy for a beginner. As far as a GW game goes, this is probably the best, and definitely can be played on its own merits.
I place WHFB over Warmachine for several rather silly reasons. First of all, I like the look of the miniatures, both individually and the way the army looks on the tabletop. It is, for me at least, very satisfying to see a large army on the table ranked up instead of a smallish army in a loose formation. I know this can be done with other games, so that's a stupid reason to play it over another game. I actually quite like the randomness in the game because it makes more sense here than it does in 40k. The randomness promotes banter between the players - "I need a 4 to charge these Wild Riders into the rear of your skink unit, oh no, I rolled a double 1!" etc. I think that this makes it a bit more amusing than other games which are a lot more boring regarding charge rules, and other less random aspects. I'm probably one of the few who actually like this change. The new books seem to be getting more and more balanced, and I'm beginning to understand how to play my Wood Elves, and to be honest, they're not that bad an army, they just require a lot of getting used to. The big problem is the IGO-UGO system, which was improved upon in the Lord of the Rings game. Can this game be played on its own merits? Yes, I think. It's a very fun game, in my eyes, and at the end of the day that's what we look for.
Warmachine is over 40k because the game is tightly written, the game is probably the most balanced of the four games I've mentioned. In addition, the concept of the game is probably the most fun, and who doesn't think giant Werewolves wrestling with steam powered robots armed with spears and shields is awesome?
40k is last, because the randomness here makes little sense. In fantasy, you're the commander of an army that's probably unruly and mostly conscripted or made up of levy warriors. Even without that, the communications in an army are a lot mroe difficult to handle, which is why perhaps the Wild Riders didn't charge into the flank of the Skinks. It makes no sense in 40k. The armies are professional, well-trained on the most part and equipped with highly advanced armour and weaponry. If the opening cinematic of Dark Crusade is indeed canon, then Space Marines can talk to each other through their helmets. There's no excuse for failing that charge, or missing every single one of your bloody shots. But anyway - the thing with 40k is that you have to suspend your disbelief a lot more with this game than the others, to a stupid level. Plus the rules writing for the armies and things is generally more shoddy than the other three games, even fantasy. It's fun, but not that fun. So 40k is less of a game I'd play based on its own merits.
Haven't tried many other games apart from those four though.
Rayvon wrote: To be honest its each to his own, Some people care more about fun than balance and some prefer to be competitive, i am pretty sure that there are many in between too.
No one will ever persuade me that its not worth playing because I enjoy it, no matter how badly some people think the rules are written, some of us just don't care as long as we can play a good game with our mates. Although I think it has gone downhill a bit while the prices have gone up, I would still consider it a good game, as I enjoy playing it.
Not trying to persuade you not to play it or anything but there is NO reason balanced rules would not be as fun as any other rule set.
Oh I totally agree, I was not saying one equals the other or not, just hinting that different people want different things.
There is also no reason for me that a balanced one would be any more fun either really, but then we go back to my initial point, each to his own !
weeble1000 wrote: The only thing that really threw me off was using wound counters instead of removing models. It makes good sense, of course, but the thought of doing up all of those models just to put a glorified rectangle on the table saddened me.
Which is quite the norm in many (most?) historical rulesets. One of the usual side-effects is that the model count only represents the units' sizes in relation to each other. Fielding a Tercio in a Thirty Years War battle with GW's scale philosophy would be a nightmare, for example.
I do think that this is a very good illustration of what we're talking about: KOW was arguably designed as a "game on its own merits", which benefits from the "glorified rectangle" approach, while Warhammer was always meant to give your individual models maximum representation on the table at the expense of the actual game flow.
A lot of historical ranges I've seen use a slightly smaller 'scale', like 25mm or more true to scale proportions, which means the models physically take up less space, and are consequently somewhat easier to arrange. Heroic 'scale' models are really pushing the limits of 25mm bases these days. I use a lot of Perry Historicals for a variety of projects (none historical, lol), and I find them much, much easier to work with and just better-looking.
The Mantic undead look great, but a lot of them are just bursting off of the base, which looks great singly, and looks great if you assemble them such that you can get them together nicely, but mistakes are pretty easy to make.
In terms of game play, philosophically I have nothing against a glorified rectangle, but my thought is: why bust my butt to put X actual models in the rectangle when the size of the rectangle itself conveys all of the requisite information. I expect KOW would say: go nuts! This is a charming thought.
In terms of game play, philosophically I have nothing against a glorified rectangle, but my thought is: why bust my butt to put X actual models in the rectangle when the size of the rectangle itself conveys all of the requisite information. I expect KOW would say: go nuts! This is a charming thought.
Well, would you rather have a well painted unit of models in the game around for the whole time the unit is there, or immeadiately begin to pull those miniatures off the table as that unit takes casualties?
weeble1000 wrote: Now, in one bag I can bring enough models to cover two players for Mordheim, Freebooter's Fate, Blood Bowl, Quar (SOA), Malifaux, Tomorrow's War, Song of Blades and Heroes, and more besides. If the FLGS had sufficient terrain available I would simply head down and work out a game of whatever. The principle reason why I like to be darn sure what game I am going to be playing before I head out is that I also usually bring a couple of tubs of terrain.
Lugging my 40K stuff around means a whole bag all on its own. It just ain't worth the effort.
I thought that I was the only one that carted around two armies, just to make sure I had something to play against!
I have a big double layered case that was designed to carry four pistols - I typically cart around two of the *cough*six eight Mordheim warbands that I have painted*cough*. Most often either Reiklandser or Ostlanders and either Undead, Orcs, or Dwarf Treasure Hunters.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Haha, well you sound like a fun guy! How people will enjoy debating rules interpretations with you!
If it was a clear ruleset there wouldn't need to be any debate on rules interpretations
Bazinga! Ouch...did I just make a Big Bang Theory reference...I'm going to Hell.
Why this is Hell, nor am I out of it.
weeble1000 wrote: As to KOW, I have always found it interesting, and a guy at the shop is always talking about playing it, so maybe I will give it a whirl sometime. It seems to me that Cavatore sort of ruthlessly cut down and streamlined WHFB to make KOW. It has a similar feel in terms of fundamental concepts, but is much cleaner.
The only thing that really threw me off was using wound counters instead of removing models. It makes good sense, of course, but the thought of doing up all of those models just to put a glorified rectangle on the table saddened me. Now, that said, it probably does mean that I could do up about half of the models and insert filler bases, which would have the added benefit of allowing for more dynamic poses. As a sci-fi/skirmish player primarily, I have oft run afoul of bad posing when building models for troop blocks.
I felt kind of the same way when I first tried KoW - but it grew on me quickly. One of the niftier things about those big block bases is that you can make each movement tray into a small diorama if you like. Looks better on the shelf that way, but can look kind of odd on the table. On the other hand, it is fun having the ghouls chomping away on a poor lone Imperial halberdier. So I use a mix of regular and dioramic bases.
My Mantic zombies are the worst. They look great individually, but MAN will they not sit flush in a movement tray! I had 30 all assembled and looking good sitting in front of me and I was very satisfied. Then I tried to mush them together and I was like, "Noooooooo! Fail! What have I done!"
There is a pretty easy fix, if it is not too late - get another box of the zeds, and build zombies that can be used to space out the ones that take up too much room. Those legless zombies are good for that, as is the one that is just a pair of legs and a bit of spine.
If you feel like it you can also scam even more, fill a base with greenstuff, then stick in a head and one or two arms, so that it looks like a zombie is just emerging from the grave.
Spacer zombies that aren't really spacers. Yea, that will probably work.
And I didn't say Bazinga! was Hell, just that I was going there...Although I am sure Bazinga! is said repeatedly and with much enthusiasm in the depths of the fiery abyss (though if it is fiery it must be failing at being a proper abyss).
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:This thread is about games which are supposed to be fun.
You seem so emotional and bound up in hatred, presumably of GW, that even the statement that GW has good models, and an immersive universe, make you angry and start resorting to tired claims, like the fact that people who disagree are 'white knights.'
I get that it sucks to be called a white knight. You want people to see your positions as fair and well thought out and not as part of some devotion on your part. You want them to treat you the exact opposite way you treat others-- you want them to not make assumptions about you being motivated by emotion. They see you as being motivated by unreasonable devotion and you see them as being motivated by unreasonable hatred.
Emotions aside, I think the idea of "cheat on a 4+" is a pretty good descriptor of how GW's rules fail and then rely on a random roll to fix them. If the rules were good and covered what goes on in play, you wouldn't need fixes like that.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:This thread is about games which are supposed to be fun.
You seem so emotional and bound up in hatred, presumably of GW, that even the statement that GW has good models, and an immersive universe, make you angry and start resorting to tired claims, like the fact that people who disagree are 'white knights.'
I get that it sucks to be called a white knight. You want people to see your positions as fair and well thought out and not as part of some devotion on your part. You want them to treat you the exact opposite way you treat others-- you want them to not make assumptions about you being motivated by emotion. They see you as being motivated by unreasonable devotion and you see them as being motivated by unreasonable hatred.
Emotions aside, I think the idea of "cheat on a 4+" is a pretty good descriptor of how GW's rules fail and then rely on a random roll to fix them. If the rules were good and covered what goes on in play, you wouldn't need fixes like that.
There was a standard bearer in the.. Lizardmen release issue of White Dwarf I think where Jervis out and out said (rather aggressively) the rules don't need to be written well, that's what the 4+ rule is for, and anyone who thinks differently is wrong. Personally I think that if the people developing the game have that attitude then there is no hope for the game to be worth playing purely on it's own merits.
jonolikespie wrote: There was a standard bearer in the.. Lizardmen release issue of White Dwarf I think where Jervis out and out said (rather aggressively) the rules don't need to be written well, that's what the 4+ rule is for, and anyone who thinks differently is wrong. Personally I think that if the people developing the game have that attitude then there is no hope for the game to be worth playing purely on it's own merits.
BEER AND PRETZELS FORGE THE NARRATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But seriously, the fact that GW can openly brag about how they publish unprofessional garbage and have their customers defend it is one of GW's greatest accomplishments as a business.
jonolikespie wrote: There was a standard bearer in the.. Lizardmen release issue of White Dwarf I think where Jervis out and out said (rather aggressively) the rules don't need to be written well, that's what the 4+ rule is for, and anyone who thinks differently is wrong. Personally I think that if the people developing the game have that attitude then there is no hope for the game to be worth playing purely on it's own merits.
BEER AND PRETZELS FORGE THE NARRATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But seriously, the fact that GW can openly brag about how they publish unprofessional garbage and have their customers defend it is one of GW's greatest accomplishments as a business.
Yup, they exist despite themselves. Quite remarkable really.
I would argue they (I can only speak for 40k) can stand on their own but it's all about what the player wants out of the game.
As a rule set for a competitive game then no. The slow release of updated codex books compared to the rule set eliminate that, not matter how hard GW try.
As complete game, including the universe that surrounds the game, for casual, fun play then yes. I have had many narrative driven games that just blow anything else I play out of the water. Hell just the story people create around their army is just so much fun. Everyone has a slightly different story which supports their unit choices, paint choices, war gear choices, everything. The world around the game for me is what makes it fun.
I've played against armies that start with just a scout biker with a homing beacon on him, to armies that take 30 minuets just to move all the miniatures, each one has a story, a purpose and a person behind it. I have played other games where there isn't a person behind the army, there is an internet list that can be seen being played 1000 times over. That is actually what turns me off really competitive games. The idea of one single list to rule them all. I like fluff. I like fielding 9 Land Speeders even if they are kinda sucky.
Which 'other games' are you talking about? It was my understanding that 40K suffered 'internet list' syndrome, not so much other games which are better balanced and therefore prone to less abuse in that regard.
Riquende wrote: Which 'other games' are you talking about? It was my understanding that 40K suffered 'internet list' syndrome, not so much other games which are better balanced and therefore prone to less abuse in that regard.
Go to any of the sub forums on this site for other games and ask what you should buy for X faction. Most of the responses will be 'what do you like?' or 'I like this but it's totally up to you'.
Riquende wrote: Which 'other games' are you talking about? It was my understanding that 40K suffered 'internet list' syndrome, not so much other games which are better balanced and therefore prone to less abuse in that regard.
I think that he is talking about his different experiences with 40K and not with other game systems.
Riquende wrote: Which 'other games' are you talking about? It was my understanding that 40K suffered 'internet list' syndrome, not so much other games which are better balanced and therefore prone to less abuse in that regard.
I think that he is talking about his different experiences with 40K and not with other game systems.
Now that I read that again, your interpretation does make more sense.
Riquende wrote: Which 'other games' are you talking about? It was my understanding that 40K suffered 'internet list' syndrome, not so much other games which are better balanced and therefore prone to less abuse in that regard.
Yeah I'm kind of wondering that as well because from what I have seen 40k seems to be very internet list heavy.
Take Chaos Space Marines for example. No competitive list will field thousand sons because there are better choices.
Bad rule set and even worse balance issues. Great models and awesome background. If you can find friends who enjoy the latter then 40k can be one of the most rewarding games out there. Unfortunately you are very likely to run into people that take advantage of the former.
As complete game, including the universe that surrounds the game, for casual, fun play then yes. I have had many narrative driven games that just blow anything else I play out of the water. Hell just the story people create around their army is just so much fun. Everyone has a slightly different story which supports their unit choices, paint choices, war gear choices, everything. The world around the game for me is what makes it fun.
Except that has nothing to do with the game being played. That is all the player doing it themself, creative doesn't stop just becouse it is not a GW game. Well atleast for most poeple, I met a few were it does.
I'm not exactly a GW fanboi, but GW games do have a great sandbox universe where you can fit just about anything you want in. Even a Generic game like Tomorrow's War can't pull this off as well. GW has just enough of a guideline to give you a distinct flavor, but not too much.
I have played a lot of games, and none of them quite hit that sweet spot of sandboxiness as GW manages; especially in 40K.
However, a lot of competitors are striving to find the mark. Now more than ever.
Easy E wrote: I'm not exactly a GW fanboi, but GW games do have a great sandbox universe where you can fit just about anything you want in.
Except Tau, apparently, because I've heard people bitch for years about how they don't "fit in" this sandbox universe where supposedly everything fits in because they aren't dark enough.
Easy E wrote: I'm not exactly a GW fanboi, but GW games do have a great sandbox universe where you can fit just about anything you want in. Even a Generic game like Tomorrow's War can't pull this off as well. GW has just enough of a guideline to give you a distinct flavor, but not too much.
I have played a lot of games, and none of them quite hit that sweet spot of sandboxiness as GW manages; especially in 40K.
However, a lot of competitors are striving to find the mark. Now more than ever.
Ummm...but you can play the 40k setting in Tomorrow's war with some abstraction...and you can play anything else as well. How can that be less sandbox than playing a game that only works with 40k?
If anything, I'd argue Tomorrow's War is much more of a sandbox then 40k is, as the game actively require you to create your own forces in both fluff and in-game stats. This has increased with the release of By Dagger and Talon, which has rules for Special Forces and aliens.
I get that it sucks to be called a white knight. You want people to see your positions as fair and well thought out and not as part of some devotion on your part. You want them to treat you the exact opposite way you treat others-- you want them to not make assumptions about you being motivated by emotion. They see you as being motivated by unreasonable devotion and you see them as being motivated by unreasonable hatred.
Emotions aside, I think the idea of "cheat on a 4+" is a pretty good descriptor of how GW's rules fail and then rely on a random roll to fix them. If the rules were good and covered what goes on in play, you wouldn't need fixes like that.
Doesn't suck, but doesn't add to the argument. I really don't mind people holding other opinions to me, there's a lot of evidence to support that case after all, due to GW's complacency. But if you deny that 40k is a pretty interesting universe, with a lot of great models, you've got to acknowledge your opinion is entirely subjective.
Again, agreed there are more than a few annoying rules issues, like the one about gravity weapons and cover saves for vehicles. But most people don't find them game-breakers, they resolve them amicably.
Easy E wrote: I'm not exactly a GW fanboi, but GW games do have a great sandbox universe where you can fit just about anything you want in. Even a Generic game like Tomorrow's War can't pull this off as well. GW has just enough of a guideline to give you a distinct flavor, but not too much.
I have played a lot of games, and none of them quite hit that sweet spot of sandboxiness as GW manages; especially in 40K.
However, a lot of competitors are striving to find the mark. Now more than ever.
Ummm...but you can play the 40k setting in Tomorrow's war with some abstraction...and you can play anything else as well. How can that be less sandbox than playing a game that only works with 40k?
Of course you can, but you are still using the sandboxiness of 40K, not Tomorrow's War.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
infinite_array wrote: If anything, I'd argue Tomorrow's War is much more of a sandbox then 40k is, as the game actively require you to create your own forces in both fluff and in-game stats. This has increased with the release of By Dagger and Talon, which has rules for Special Forces and aliens.
Yes, you would think that wouldn't you. However, the very lack of ANY guidelines means that it can be too wide open. The 40K universe gives you some guide rails to work with, but still add all the detail you want.
Don;t get me wrong. I LOVE Tomorrow's War and would rather play that to 40K any day.
I stick with GW mainly for the fluff and miniatures that follow. The only reason I play the game system at all is to see my army on the table using my semi-competitive/fluff lists.
I haven't dabbled in other systems too much over the last few years, but I was looking into infinity a few months ago (still debating on picking it up) and the rules just seemed so much more fluid and somehow simplified (while retaining a degree of complexity). GW's rules are dated, but it would take a massive overhaul to bring it up to speed - something that would invalidate many codices (probably take a year or 2 of steady releases to get things back into order).
gossipmeng wrote:GW's rules are dated, but it would take a massive overhaul to bring it up to speed - something that would invalidate many codices (probably take a year or 2 of steady releases to get things back into order).
But doesn't that seem strange that one of the biggest game companies in the industry can't overhaul their rules and release codexes in a reasonable timeline? Whenever I really sit down to think about it I get sort of embarrassed for GW.
gossipmeng wrote:GW's rules are dated, but it would take a massive overhaul to bring it up to speed - something that would invalidate many codices (probably take a year or 2 of steady releases to get things back into order).
But doesn't that seem strange that one of the biggest game companies in the industry can't overhaul their rules and release codexes in a reasonable timeline? Whenever I really sit down to think about it I get sort of embarrassed for GW.
And they did just that for WHFB 6th Edition with Ravening Hordes. Arguably the best rules edition for WHFB ever made.
gossipmeng wrote:GW's rules are dated, but it would take a massive overhaul to bring it up to speed - something that would invalidate many codices (probably take a year or 2 of steady releases to get things back into order).
But doesn't that seem strange that one of the biggest game companies in the industry can't overhaul their rules and release codexes in a reasonable timeline? Whenever I really sit down to think about it I get sort of embarrassed for GW.
And they did just that for WHFB 6th Edition with Ravening Hordes. Arguably the best rules edition for WHFB ever made.
I don't follow WHFB too closely but that sounds interesting. However how much of a re-write was it really? Does it still use WS, BS, S, etc.? Does it use full army you-go-I-go for turn structure? Is it still D6s? Are all the armies point based but no math is used in determining those values? Was it a large incremental update or a full grounds up rewrite?
Easy E wrote: I'm not exactly a GW fanboi, but GW games do have a great sandbox universe where you can fit just about anything you want in. Even a Generic game like Tomorrow's War can't pull this off as well. GW has just enough of a guideline to give you a distinct flavor, but not too much.
I have played a lot of games, and none of them quite hit that sweet spot of sandboxiness as GW manages; especially in 40K.
However, a lot of competitors are striving to find the mark. Now more than ever.
Ummm...but you can play the 40k setting in Tomorrow's war with some abstraction...and you can play anything else as well. How can that be less sandbox than playing a game that only works with 40k?
Of course you can, but you are still using the sandboxiness of 40K, not Tomorrow's War.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
infinite_array wrote: If anything, I'd argue Tomorrow's War is much more of a sandbox then 40k is, as the game actively require you to create your own forces in both fluff and in-game stats. This has increased with the release of By Dagger and Talon, which has rules for Special Forces and aliens.
Yes, you would think that wouldn't you. However, the very lack of ANY guidelines means that it can be too wide open. The 40K universe gives you some guide rails to work with, but still add all the detail you want.
Don;t get me wrong. I LOVE Tomorrow's War and would rather play that to 40K any day.
Seems like you guys are arguing from the mistaken assumption that rules and fluff are inextricably linked. I don't buy that.
I see rules, fluff (background, universe, etc) and miniatures as separate entities to be used together, mixed with others or modified at will.
If someone likes the 40k universe, but not 40k rules, they could always play using the "In The Emporer's Name" or "WarEngine" rules.
Further, if they want to add somethign to the 40k universe or use a different company's models, they could do that as well.
Though some are to various degrees "closed", most fantasy or sci-fi universes are as "sandbox" as players want them to be.
I realize that there are reasons to play rules, minis and background from the same company/universe (Continuity, design asthetic, fanbase) but I still don't think they have to be irrevocably tied to each other.
Seems like you guys are arguing from the mistaken assumption that rules and fluff are inextricably linked. I don't buy that.
I see rules, fluff (background, universe, etc) and miniatures as separate entities to be used together, mixed with others or modified at will.
.
I personally believe that there is a link between the fluff and the rules - such is the case in Infinity, for example. However, GWs fluff is too ridiculous to work well on the tabletop. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy the Horus Heresy books, for example. I do, but I understand that the game cannot support such a scale of things.
Other games can support their fluff. I believe that they are better games because of that.
gossipmeng wrote:GW's rules are dated, but it would take a massive overhaul to bring it up to speed - something that would invalidate many codices (probably take a year or 2 of steady releases to get things back into order).
But doesn't that seem strange that one of the biggest game companies in the industry can't overhaul their rules and release codexes in a reasonable timeline? Whenever I really sit down to think about it I get sort of embarrassed for GW.
And they did just that for WHFB 6th Edition with Ravening Hordes. Arguably the best rules edition for WHFB ever made.
Mmmm, arguably, I suppose - I prefer 3rd, but 6th was the last edition that I was at all happy with. If you don't date back to those first, early editions... then, yeah - it was pretty good.
And, yes, Ravening Hordes was a big part of that - it was the last time that folks could actually pull out their old army and play the day that the new edition came out.
Ravening Hordes is something that they really need to start doing again - sure, come out with full codecii as they are produced, but give folks something to work with in the interim.
And I think that it is something that they can do, even now - it is too late to make it for the grand unveiling of the current Warhammer - but with the internet... make it a PDF, and it will go a long way.
Seems like you guys are arguing from the mistaken assumption that rules and fluff are inextricably linked. I don't buy that.
I see rules, fluff (background, universe, etc) and miniatures as separate entities to be used together, mixed with others or modified at will.
.
I personally believe that there is a link between the fluff and the rules - such is the case in Infinity, for example. However, GWs fluff is too ridiculous to work well on the tabletop. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy the Horus Heresy books, for example. I do, but I understand that the game cannot support such a scale of things.
Other games can support their fluff. I believe that they are better games because of that.
Hmm, Infinity is a good example for your assertion. What Little I've read about Infinity does support the idea that it's fluff and technology is very well synched with it's rules. However, I think that it wouldn't be too hard to use another ruleset to play battles that accurately reflect the Infinity universe. It wouldn't play like inifinity of course. It might be more abstract, or larger, or faster, or more detailed, but if you wanted it to play like Infinity, then you'd use the Infinity ruleset. In most cases, though I don't think that the connection is always necessary. There's several rulesets that can do a 40k style game quite well (Warpath, No Limits, Warengine).
The Rules-Fluff-Figures connection perception really only exists in scifi and fantasy games where it's easier to discourage (via copyright and trademarking) others from writing rules that work well with your universe. In the Historical realm nearly every setting (genre and scale) has myriad rulesets, often with new ones appearing every few years. Folks will argue endlessly about which ruleset is best for a given scale/genre/playstyle/realism/etc, but almost no one says the ____ war in ____ theater in the year of _____ is only playable with ______ ruleset.
gossipmeng wrote:GW's rules are dated, but it would take a massive overhaul to bring it up to speed - something that would invalidate many codices (probably take a year or 2 of steady releases to get things back into order).
But doesn't that seem strange that one of the biggest game companies in the industry can't overhaul their rules and release codexes in a reasonable timeline? Whenever I really sit down to think about it I get sort of embarrassed for GW.
And they did just that for WHFB 6th Edition with Ravening Hordes. Arguably the best rules edition for WHFB ever made.
I don't follow WHFB too closely but that sounds interesting. However how much of a re-write was it really? Does it still use WS, BS, S, etc.? Does it use full army you-go-I-go for turn structure? Is it still D6s? Are all the armies point based but no math is used in determining those values? Was it a large incremental update or a full grounds up rewrite?
They still kept the same basic mechanics, but the gap from 5th to 6th was so big that GW decided that the old army books just wouldn't cut it, so they released Ravening Hordes that was a booklet with all the stats for all the armies updated for 6th edition and it was even FREE! (well, it came with WD, so you had to pay for that)
So, once upon a time, GW did have the capability to update all armies AND develop a new edition at the same time.
Of course you can, but you are still using the sandboxiness of 40K, not Tomorrow's War.
You're using the 40k setting ("sandbox"?) within Tomorrow's war. Which also has the option to include any other sci-fi setting. Sure strikes me as considerably more flexible than just playing in the 40k setting with 40k alone...
xruslanx wrote: 40k is and has never been a competative ruleset. You may as well critisise your new car because it's gak at driving underwater.
That is a very strange statement to make considering that up until very recently GW actively promoted and patronized a relatively large amount of competitive events for both 40K and WHFB.
In fact, and I might be misremembering here, that particular flavour of corporate spiel only started to be stated when WHFB 8th edition was released (mid-5th edition when translating to a 40K calendar).
40k is worth playing "on its own merits" or I would not have so many darn models.
The crux of the frustration is that it is a "fluff" game and not a truly competitive game system.
It is falsely advertised as such and many people would be happy to lock horns with me and argue otherwise.
It is a FANTASTIC game for rules exploits and some people just love when rules are not clear and that is what fuels claims of "competitive play".
WAAC players are drawn to this game like moths to a flame because there is such "gray zone" and at the very least you can "roll off" if there is a rule you do not like (rather than have to live with what the rule says).
As a more scenario based, campaign game with an epic story; few systems can compete for scope and depth.
Cost can be argued but it all boils down to perceived value of the game and the models.
I have seen time and time again that as soon as a highly competitive (looking at rules ONLY) play is done, there is a ton of butthurt.
Yes, play to win but do not try to force them to play your latest net army list; they may just walk away.
IMO, if 40k was worth playing on its own merits it would not need so many pretty pictures of painted minatures/artwork. and pages of back ground stories to inspire people to buy in to it.
Lots of GOOD rule sets provide engaging and fun game play even if you use bits of paper to represent units.
xruslanx wrote: 40k is and has never been a competative ruleset. You may as well critisise your new car because it's gak at driving underwater.
This statement is full of Titanic level fail. Buying a car and expecting it to drive under water is ridiculous and no sane person would do so. Buying a game and expecting its rule set to work properly however is a completely different matter. And up until fairly recently Games Workshop did in fact encourage and endorse tourneys.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Doesn't suck, but doesn't add to the argument. I really don't mind people holding other opinions to me, there's a lot of evidence to support that case after all, due to GW's complacency. But if you deny that 40k is a pretty interesting universe, with a lot of great models, you've got to acknowledge your opinion is entirely subjective.
Interesting universe. Check. Lot of great models. Check. If you need to consider these things in order to overlook problems with the rules, then there's obviously problems with the rules. The fact that people need to derive their enjoyment from the fiction and the models because the game isn't providing it isn't exactly a vote of confidence in the rules themselves.
Again, agreed there are more than a few annoying rules issues, like the one about gravity weapons and cover saves for vehicles. But most people don't find them game-breakers, they resolve them amicably.
Any system that you have to fix in order to make it work doesn't work. It's the people doing the fixing and resolving issues that are actually the source of the fun having their enjoyment despite the rules rather than because of them.
xruslanx wrote: 40k is and has never been a competative ruleset. You may as well critisise your new car because it's gak at driving underwater.
A more apt analogy would be:
"You may as well criticize your car for having comparatively bad gas mileage, comparatively poor trunk space, and a series of irritating manufacturing defects."
But hey, I like how it looks, so what does it matter how it drives? And even if I have to get it serviced more often, getting parts is very easy.
Only, well, this thread is about what is "under the hood," so to speak.
I'm sure that is frustrating for some folks, especially if you don't know how an engine works. If all you know is a trusted brand name, it can be hard to participate in the discussion. But if you really like the brand name, you might have a strong desire to defend it from what appears to be criticism of the quality of its products. I think I get it. All the same, if you've never driven any brand of car besides a Hyundai, and you've never taken much time to consider what factors into the vehicle's performance characteristics, there's not much to say in a discussion about relative merits of timing belts, on board computers, bearings, fuel injection manifolds, and so forth.
xruslanx wrote: 40k is and has never been a competative ruleset. You may as well critisise your new car because it's gak at driving underwater.
A more apt analogy would be:
"You may as well criticize your car for having comparatively bad gas mileage, comparatively poor trunk space, and a series of irritating manufacturing defects."
But hey, I like how it looks, so what does it matter how it drives? And even if I have to get it serviced more often, getting parts is very easy.
Only, well, this thread is about what is "under the hood," so to speak.
I'm sure that is frustrating for some folks, especially if you don't know how an engine works. If all you know is a trusted brand name, it can be hard to participate in the discussion. But if you really like the brand name, you might have a strong desire to defend it from what appears to be criticism of the quality of its products. I think I get it. All the same, if you've never driven any brand of car besides a Hyundai, and you've never taken much time to consider what factors into the vehicle's performance characteristics, there's not much to say in a discussion about relative merits of timing belts, on board computers, bearings, fuel injection manifolds, and so forth.
Wow, very well said. I guess my question is; what is a viable solution?
Wow, very well said. I guess my question is; what is a viable solution?
- J
An open mind helps. Plus, there's ways to discuss it from a higher level perspective, which most of this discussion has been in anyway. I don't know about car engines, but I know about consumer stats like gas mileage, trunk space, and so forth. I suppose the corollary would be things like typical game length, accessibility of the rules (in terms of learning curve and such), the frequency of rules disputes, the "depth" of a game (although that is subjective), etc. But if you don't know about that first hand, you have to take peoples' word for it because the wargaming industry doesn't track stats like that.
More in the weeds issues would, I think, be things like comparing the relative merits of core game mechanics like I-go-you-go, dice mechanics, rules interactions, writing and layout of rulebooks, and so forth. You may know one game to a tee, but if that's all you know, it is tough to compare apples to apples. Like, why would one say that the dice and attribute mechanics of Warmahordes are superior? Some might make an argument about statistical probabilities, but one could approach that feature from a broader perspective such as not having to roll more than a few dice at one time. Does that make the game go faster or slower? Is it simpler, cleaner, or more cumbersome? I love In Nomine, a RPG from SJ Games, and I think the rules are pretty good, but the layout of the rulebook is absolutely terrible, like incredibly bad. If all I ever played was In Nomine, I might not appreciate how much more effectively a rulebook could be written.
Ultimately, if you haven't played a lot of different rule sets, you just have to sort of take people at their word. I can say from experience that Warmahordes runs smoother than 40K or Fantasy, but if you've never played Warmahordes, well you have to take my word for it. Otherwise we've got to dig way into details, but to get into that discussion it really helps to be familiar with the bones of how a game system works in general, and that usually comes with broad experience with different rule sets, so you're back at square one.
Wow, there's a lot here. To start, I'd echo a few things being said.
Firstly, 40k does have a simple rules set. This may seem odd given the size of the rulebook, but it's about the rules you use and how often that's important. 40k is simple because if I said "this is a tac marine squad with a missile launcher", you know that it's 8 models with the same weapons and statline, one model that's the same except he's got a close combat weapon and bolt pistol and +1Ld, and another guy that's exactly the same, except he uses a missile launcher - a well-known weapon upgrade.
For example, I've played 1 on 1 games of 40k before with over 200 minis on the table between the two of us, and knocked it out in just a few hours. Imagine playing battletech with 200 mechs? Imagine playing Malifaux with 200 minis! You would literally die of old age before that game ended. Your children and their children would, by blood oath, be required to keep playing it until the game finally resolved itself at the prophesized end times of "The Great Game".
Secondly, I know that the OP wants to screen that out, and the kardashian comparison was hilarious, but the popularity of the game is something substantial, for two reasons. Firstly, as mentioned, what does it matter if you have a "better" game if you can't actually play it with anyone? The game you play is automatically better than the one you can't.
More importantly, the popularity is telling about the game itself. Yes, GW has better marketing, and has video games, etc., but still... I've been actively playing 40k for 6 years now. Six years ago I started a 40k guard army, and can walk into my local store on 40k night next monday and play it again. For however much people whine about how bad 40k's rules are, the simple fact is that 40k would have long ago disappeared if its rules weren't good enough.
During those 6 years, I've seen many games with "better" rules sets come by. Whether their rules sets were better or not, I can't say, but the simple fact is that everyone around here still plays 40k, and they don't play heroclix or At43 or battletech anymore. If the market decides what's good and what's bad, then the popularity of 40k compared to the death of virtually everything else (except warmahordes and to a lesser extend FoW), then, empirically, 40k is a better game. If it weren't, people would have moved on to something else, like they moved on from all those other games.
To get to 40k's rules more specifically (I can't say abything about WHFB), no, it's nowhere near a serious strategy game. Any game that relies so heavily on a random element can't be a serious strategy game. If you want that, play chess or Go. I'd note, though, that this applies to most games that you'd seriously be looking at, though. Malifaux still uses cards to see what happens, and there are a lot of other dice games out there.
And 40k itself has been slowly becoming less of a strategy game over time. In 5th ed, for example, you had set charge distances and no pre-measuring. This meant that if you had the player skill of distance estimation, you got into close combat, every time, and if you didn't have those skills, then maybe you did, but maybe you didn't. In 6th ed, you don't need estimation skills because you can pre-measure. Then they added in random charge range which means that it's lucky players that make it into close combat and unlucky ones who don't, regardless of player skill.
40k has always had terrible balance, but that hasn't really ever bugged me... until now. In earlier versions of 40k, if you brought a long-range shooting army, it was a real gamble. A short-range-shooty army would take more casualties than you early on, but then they'd do more damage than you when they arrived. Likewise, close combat armies would spend half the game doing no damage whatsoever, but did twice as much damage when you got there.
What makes a game interesting is when a player is offered lots of chances to make meaningful choices. In the case of gunlines, they throw most of those choices out for themselves. They don't really use the movement phase much (and then, only if they really have to), which causes you to lose out on choices made in the movement phase. Same about assault and close combat, etc.
And that might be annoying but fine, except for the way they've set things up, especially in 6th ed. Gunline armies are so imbalanced on the overpowered side that if you're wanting to play an interesting army in an interesting way where you get to/have to make a bunch of meaningful decisions, it doesn't matter, because you're just going to get tabled by a gunline. People playing the game in boring mode on a brain-dead difficulty mode winning isn't necessarily a problem (though it sort of is), but when people playing that game can comprehensively prevent you from being able to play the game in a more interesting way... that's a serious problem.
Then, to add the annoying insult to injury, as others mentioned, new rulebooks (or, to a slightly lesser extent, codices) and will completely change your army out from underneath you. Just ask all those players who played a trukk rush, or slugga tide, or kan swarm in 5th ed, only to find their armies unusable when 6th came out.
I can't say much on this kind of an issue with other games, but my guess is that they probably have this problem sooner or later, and that's why they collapse in on themselves. Once players figure out "the" way to win, then the challenge is gone, and people move on to something else. At least 40k's asymmetric codex and rulebook releases does keep that "discovery" phase in there a little bit.
And perhaps that kind of explains it. 40k may not have the best rules set, but, over time, it's the best you're going to get. Everything else may or may not be better, and once you figure it out, then there's not much more left to do but to move on to something else. Much less so with 40k.
Also, a couple of other things about 40k. Firstly, as others have mentioned, it's really important who you play against. In a game where you have basically no options (like chess, for example, where you don't get to pick which pieces you field), then it doesn't really matter what options your opponents pick. With 40k, though, it's strength of being so open-ended is also one of its potential deepest flaws. If you're playing against people who have taken certain units in certain combinations so that you're not really going to get to PLAY when you play a game of 40k, then, in a way, it's the other players' fault, not the game itself. As such, while you have a lot more potential people to play with, you've got to actually be choosy with who you play against.
The other main problem, I think, is that 40k games are too big. Yes, you CAN play 2000 point games. The game scales up to that level. That doesn't mean you SHOULD though. The game starts to become much more line-up-and-shoot with the more minis per square area you have. Apocalypse is 100% this way, but It's also true for 1850 point games as well. 40k may be able to scale up to huge games thanks to its simplicity, but the best games are at the skirmish level (which 40k actually does pretty well - other games are more complex, but 40k, being simple, can be played in a half hour or less at a 500 point level). Once you are restricted in points, you have to start making meaningful choices in list building, and you have to make meaningful choices in deployment and movement if you can't just spam HS slots and cover the table in gunfire. You have to make meaningful choices if you don't have the ability to both table your opponent and run for objectives at the same time.
With lower point games, you have more meaningful choices, which, as mentioned above, is what makes a game good. Huge battles of 40k look cool, but I don't think the game is as good at that level. And it didn't used to be so bad either. When I started playing guard in 4th ed, I think I literally only ever played 1000 point games. Or less. Back a scant few years ago, a 1250 point was considered a big game, and an 1850 point game was considered just silly.
Since then, there has been a lot of up-pressure to play larger and larger point games. In the meantime, codices have been coming out and making the models cheaper and cheaper (pointswise). I think players have been suckered into playing 40k the wrong way just so that they can put more minis on the table.
Oh good, another Ailaros rant full of inconsistent arguments and complaining about how everyone else is WAAC and ruining the game.
Ailaros wrote: Firstly, 40k does have a simple rules set. This may seem odd given the size of the rulebook, but it's about the rules you use and how often that's important. 40k is simple because if I said "this is a tac marine squad with a missile launcher", you know that it's 8 models with the same weapons and statline, one model that's the same except he's got a close combat weapon and bolt pistol and +1Ld, and another guy that's exactly the same, except he uses a missile launcher - a well-known weapon upgrade.
That doesn't mean 40k has a simple rule set, it just means that there are certain units that are common enough that most people know what they are. You can do this with ANY game, there will always be "standard" units that you can describe in very simple terms. Consider EVE Online, a game with hundreds of upgrade options that can be combined into a staggering number of potential ship configurations (a number in the same general range as the number of possible 40k armies). And yet despite this complexity if I tell you I'm flying a "Nanocane" you know exactly what ship I'm flying, what strategy I'm using, and you can probably tell me the exact modules I have fitted (with 2-3 minor variations). Why? Because people figured out the optimal ship and modules for that role, and that single configuration became a standard one.
For example, I've played 1 on 1 games of 40k before with over 200 minis on the table between the two of us, and knocked it out in just a few hours. Imagine playing battletech with 200 mechs? Imagine playing Malifaux with 200 minis! You would literally die of old age before that game ended. Your children and their children would, by blood oath, be required to keep playing it until the game finally resolved itself at the prophesized end times of "The Great Game".
That's only because 40k uses tons of models which have no purpose besides occupying space on the table. It would be like if you had a game of X-wing, but instead of a TIE fighter having 3 HP you put three 1 HP TIE models on the table. The only thing it would accomplish would be increasing the number of models on the table, which isn't a very relevant goal.
Secondly, I know that the OP wants to screen that out, and the kardashian comparison was hilarious, but the popularity of the game is something substantial, for two reasons. Firstly, as mentioned, what does it matter if you have a "better" game if you can't actually play it with anyone? The game you play is automatically better than the one you can't.
The point is to consider just the game itself, not the position it inherited from previous editions where GW had a near-monopoly, or GW's use of questionable tactics to drive independent stores (which might sell competing games) out of business in favor of their own GW-only stores.
For however much people whine about how bad 40k's rules are, the simple fact is that 40k would have long ago disappeared if its rules weren't good enough.
This is not true at all. First of all you're going to have people buying the game because of the fluff/models/etc, and those people aren't going to stop just because the rules suck. Second, you're missing the effect of popularity. 40k's rules can suck, but if it's the only game anyone plays then it's going to stick around for a long time.
If the market decides what's good and what's bad, then the popularity of 40k compared to the death of virtually everything else (except warmahordes and to a lesser extend FoW), then, empirically, 40k is a better game. If it weren't, people would have moved on to something else, like they moved on from all those other games.
You're ignoring the issue of barriers to entry in a market, where even a superior product can fail to sell (and even die completely) because the market gives a significant advantage to established products regardless of their quality.
And perhaps that kind of explains it. 40k may not have the best rules set, but, over time, it's the best you're going to get. Everything else may or may not be better, and once you figure it out, then there's not much more left to do but to move on to something else. Much less so with 40k.
I seriously doubt it. I see no reason to set such a low standard for "best possible", especially when there are much more likely arguments for why other games fail.
If you're playing against people who have taken certain units in certain combinations so that you're not really going to get to PLAY when you play a game of 40k, then, in a way, it's the other players' fault, not the game itself.
How the hell is this not the game's fault? A properly balanced game wouldn't have this problem because those units either wouldn't exist, or would have limits imposed on them that keep them from dominating the game. And you even conceded this when you said how 6th made things so much worse. Nothing about the players changed from 5th to 6th, so that pretty clearly puts the blame on the rules.
Since then, there has been a lot of up-pressure to play larger and larger point games. In the meantime, codices have been coming out and making the models cheaper and cheaper (pointswise). I think players have been suckered into playing 40k the wrong way just so that they can put more minis on the table.
Didn't you start off this post by claiming that one of 40k's virtues is how you can play a game with lots of models on the table?
xruslanx wrote: 40k is and has never been a competative ruleset. You may as well critisise your new car because it's gak at driving underwater.
This statement is full of Titanic level fail. Buying a car and expecting it to drive under water is ridiculous and no sane person would do so. Buying a game and expecting its rule set to work properly however is a completely different matter. And up until fairly recently Games Workshop did in fact encourage and endorse tourneys.
define 'properly'.
Then tell me which edition of 40k was specifically balanced for tourny play.
Here's a good definition for this context: if the problems with competitive balance are because of choices that actually improve "casual" play, not the incompetent idiots GW hired to write their rules.
And judged by that standard 40k fails. It isn't a bad competitive game because it has design goals that conflict with being a good competitive game. 40k could easily be a better competitive game without sacrificing "casual" gaming. In fact, the changes that would make 40k a better competitive game would probably make it a better game for everyone else as well. The only reason we don't have a good competitive game is because GW has convinced people like you that it's somehow a good thing if they publish low-quality rules that only work if you have a "beer and pretzels" attitude.
Unfortunately, bad spelling does not prevent his post from being valid.
GW is not interested in balancing the rules, they are interested in selling product.
Balanced rules do not mean that the background has to suffer - but when your mission statement is: 'You need to sell X amount of product, oh, and come up with rules for these figures that we just made at the last minute - but we need the codex by Friday....' Then the rules are going to suffer.
neonshock wrote: I would argue they (I can only speak for 40k) can stand on their own but it's all about what the player wants out of the game.
As a rule set for a competitive game then no. The slow release of updated codex books compared to the rule set eliminate that, not matter how hard GW try.
As complete game, including the universe that surrounds the game, for casual, fun play then yes. I have had many narrative driven games that just blow anything else I play out of the water. Hell just the story people create around their army is just so much fun. Everyone has a slightly different story which supports their unit choices, paint choices, war gear choices, everything. The world around the game for me is what makes it fun.
I've played against armies that start with just a scout biker with a homing beacon on him, to armies that take 30 minuets just to move all the miniatures, each one has a story, a purpose and a person behind it. I have played other games where there isn't a person behind the army, there is an internet list that can be seen being played 1000 times over. That is actually what turns me off really competitive games. The idea of one single list to rule them all. I like fluff. I like fielding 9 Land Speeders even if they are kinda sucky.
Easy E wrote: I'm not exactly a GW fanboi, but GW games do have a great sandbox universe where you can fit just about anything you want in. Even a Generic game like Tomorrow's War can't pull this off as well. GW has just enough of a guideline to give you a distinct flavor, but not too much.
I have played a lot of games, and none of them quite hit that sweet spot of sandboxiness as GW manages; especially in 40K.
However, a lot of competitors are striving to find the mark. Now more than ever.
This just about sums it up perfectly. If it weren't so bulky it'd go in my sig
Here's a good definition for this context: if the problems with competitive balance are because of choices that actually improve "casual" play, not the incompetent idiots GW hired to write their rules.
And judged by that standard 40k fails. It isn't a bad competitive game because it has design goals that conflict with being a good competitive game. 40k could easily be a better competitive game without sacrificing "casual" gaming. In fact, the changes that would make 40k a better competitive game would probably make it a better game for everyone else as well. The only reason we don't have a good competitive game is because GW has convinced people like you that it's somehow a good thing if they publish low-quality rules that only work if you have a "beer and pretzels" attitude.
What I am not hearing is a solution. We could invent our own rules, which would go nowhere because we are not GW. We could stop playing the game, but just like leaving the Republicrats and Democrins by going to a third party we would just shut ourselves from our gaming communities. People would still buy 40K. Or we could contact the company and request politely something you see in the computer industry... joint application design, where users work with developers to make a more palatable product. I use a DOD system regularly that has a "suggestion link" where users are invited to spam the developer with the changes they would like to see. The more they see the same suggestion from multiple sources the more they are likely to consider making the change. A group of enthusiasts could be invited by GW to sit on a panel for future product releases. This would benefit the company as their specially tooled customer driven product would drive sales and market share even higher.
Ailaros wrote: Wow, there's a lot here. To start, I'd echo a few things being said.
Firstly, 40k does have a simple rules set. This may seem odd given the size of the rulebook, but it's about the rules you use and how often that's important. 40k is simple because if I said "this is a tac marine squad with a missile launcher", you know that it's 8 models with the same weapons and statline, one model that's the same except he's got a close combat weapon and bolt pistol and +1Ld, and another guy that's exactly the same, except he uses a missile launcher - a well-known weapon upgrade.
For example, I've played 1 on 1 games of 40k before with over 200 minis on the table between the two of us, and knocked it out in just a few hours. Imagine playing battletech with 200 mechs? Imagine playing Malifaux with 200 minis! You would literally die of old age before that game ended. Your children and their children would, by blood oath, be required to keep playing it until the game finally resolved itself at the prophesized end times of "The Great Game".
Secondly, I know that the OP wants to screen that out, and the kardashian comparison was hilarious, but the popularity of the game is something substantial, for two reasons. Firstly, as mentioned, what does it matter if you have a "better" game if you can't actually play it with anyone? The game you play is automatically better than the one you can't.
More importantly, the popularity is telling about the game itself. Yes, GW has better marketing, and has video games, etc., but still... I've been actively playing 40k for 6 years now. Six years ago I started a 40k guard army, and can walk into my local store on 40k night next monday and play it again. For however much people whine about how bad 40k's rules are, the simple fact is that 40k would have long ago disappeared if its rules weren't good enough.
During those 6 years, I've seen many games with "better" rules sets come by. Whether their rules sets were better or not, I can't say, but the simple fact is that everyone around here still plays 40k, and they don't play heroclix or At43 or battletech anymore. If the market decides what's good and what's bad, then the popularity of 40k compared to the death of virtually everything else (except warmahordes and to a lesser extend FoW), then, empirically, 40k is a better game. If it weren't, people would have moved on to something else, like they moved on from all those other games.
To get to 40k's rules more specifically (I can't say abything about WHFB), no, it's nowhere near a serious strategy game. Any game that relies so heavily on a random element can't be a serious strategy game. If you want that, play chess or Go. I'd note, though, that this applies to most games that you'd seriously be looking at, though. Malifaux still uses cards to see what happens, and there are a lot of other dice games out there.
And 40k itself has been slowly becoming less of a strategy game over time. In 5th ed, for example, you had set charge distances and no pre-measuring. This meant that if you had the player skill of distance estimation, you got into close combat, every time, and if you didn't have those skills, then maybe you did, but maybe you didn't. In 6th ed, you don't need estimation skills because you can pre-measure. Then they added in random charge range which means that it's lucky players that make it into close combat and unlucky ones who don't, regardless of player skill.
40k has always had terrible balance, but that hasn't really ever bugged me... until now. In earlier versions of 40k, if you brought a long-range shooting army, it was a real gamble. A short-range-shooty army would take more casualties than you early on, but then they'd do more damage than you when they arrived. Likewise, close combat armies would spend half the game doing no damage whatsoever, but did twice as much damage when you got there.
What makes a game interesting is when a player is offered lots of chances to make meaningful choices. In the case of gunlines, they throw most of those choices out for themselves. They don't really use the movement phase much (and then, only if they really have to), which causes you to lose out on choices made in the movement phase. Same about assault and close combat, etc.
And that might be annoying but fine, except for the way they've set things up, especially in 6th ed. Gunline armies are so imbalanced on the overpowered side that if you're wanting to play an interesting army in an interesting way where you get to/have to make a bunch of meaningful decisions, it doesn't matter, because you're just going to get tabled by a gunline. People playing the game in boring mode on a brain-dead difficulty mode winning isn't necessarily a problem (though it sort of is), but when people playing that game can comprehensively prevent you from being able to play the game in a more interesting way... that's a serious problem.
Then, to add the annoying insult to injury, as others mentioned, new rulebooks (or, to a slightly lesser extent, codices) and will completely change your army out from underneath you. Just ask all those players who played a trukk rush, or slugga tide, or kan swarm in 5th ed, only to find their armies unusable when 6th came out.
I can't say much on this kind of an issue with other games, but my guess is that they probably have this problem sooner or later, and that's why they collapse in on themselves. Once players figure out "the" way to win, then the challenge is gone, and people move on to something else. At least 40k's asymmetric codex and rulebook releases does keep that "discovery" phase in there a little bit.
And perhaps that kind of explains it. 40k may not have the best rules set, but, over time, it's the best you're going to get. Everything else may or may not be better, and once you figure it out, then there's not much more left to do but to move on to something else. Much less so with 40k.
Also, a couple of other things about 40k. Firstly, as others have mentioned, it's really important who you play against. In a game where you have basically no options (like chess, for example, where you don't get to pick which pieces you field), then it doesn't really matter what options your opponents pick. With 40k, though, it's strength of being so open-ended is also one of its potential deepest flaws. If you're playing against people who have taken certain units in certain combinations so that you're not really going to get to PLAY when you play a game of 40k, then, in a way, it's the other players' fault, not the game itself. As such, while you have a lot more potential people to play with, you've got to actually be choosy with who you play against.
The other main problem, I think, is that 40k games are too big. Yes, you CAN play 2000 point games. The game scales up to that level. That doesn't mean you SHOULD though. The game starts to become much more line-up-and-shoot with the more minis per square area you have. Apocalypse is 100% this way, but It's also true for 1850 point games as well. 40k may be able to scale up to huge games thanks to its simplicity, but the best games are at the skirmish level (which 40k actually does pretty well - other games are more complex, but 40k, being simple, can be played in a half hour or less at a 500 point level). Once you are restricted in points, you have to start making meaningful choices in list building, and you have to make meaningful choices in deployment and movement if you can't just spam HS slots and cover the table in gunfire. You have to make meaningful choices if you don't have the ability to both table your opponent and run for objectives at the same time.
With lower point games, you have more meaningful choices, which, as mentioned above, is what makes a game good. Huge battles of 40k look cool, but I don't think the game is as good at that level. And it didn't used to be so bad either. When I started playing guard in 4th ed, I think I literally only ever played 1000 point games. Or less. Back a scant few years ago, a 1250 point was considered a big game, and an 1850 point game was considered just silly.
Since then, there has been a lot of up-pressure to play larger and larger point games. In the meantime, codices have been coming out and making the models cheaper and cheaper (pointswise). I think players have been suckered into playing 40k the wrong way just so that they can put more minis on the table.
So... Are you saying 40k rules are good or gak?
You seem to be trying to say they are the best but have listed a ton of reasons why they're utterly rubbish.
Here's a good definition for this context: if the problems with competitive balance are because of choices that actually improve "casual" play, not the incompetent idiots GW hired to write their rules.
And judged by that standard 40k fails. It isn't a bad competitive game because it has design goals that conflict with being a good competitive game. 40k could easily be a better competitive game without sacrificing "casual" gaming. In fact, the changes that would make 40k a better competitive game would probably make it a better game for everyone else as well. The only reason we don't have a good competitive game is because GW has convinced people like you that it's somehow a good thing if they publish low-quality rules that only work if you have a "beer and pretzels" attitude.
What I am not hearing is a solution. We could invent our own rules, which would go nowhere because we are not GW. We could stop playing the game, but just like leaving the Republicrats and Democrins by going to a third party we would just shut ourselves from our gaming communities. People would still buy 40K. Or we could contact the company and request politely something you see in the computer industry... joint application design, where users work with developers to make a more palatable product. I use a DOD system regularly that has a "suggestion link" where users are invited to spam the developer with the changes they would like to see. The more they see the same suggestion from multiple sources the more they are likely to consider making the change. A group of enthusiasts could be invited by GW to sit on a panel for future product releases. This would benefit the company as their specially tooled customer driven product would drive sales and market share even higher.
Just saying...
- J
They have done this it was called BBRC. They spent years of there time for free creating the BBCRP, then GW laid a hot one on there chest.
jonolikespie wrote:So... Are you saying 40k rules are good or gak?.
Both, and it's that strange paradox that's causing people championing only one side or the other to sort of only see half of what's going on.
40k has a ton of soft stuff going for it (hobbying, backstory, etc.), but even if you disclude that for the moment, you're still left with, once you've done some reading, a very playable game. A playable game where lots of interesting things can happen. I just read the kings of war rulebook and while the rules are lightweight and simple... it seems like it would get boring kind of fast. There just isn't very much flesh on those bones. Not as many rules or options interacting with each other. 40k's complexity in this case is a huge strength, as it adds a lot of variability and depth.
And, at the same time, that same complexity in an open-ended system means that it's going to be pretty much impossible to balance or to make it all that serious of a game. It also means you have to rely on the players a LOT more to use, but not abuse that complexity. To be able to take anything you want and use it for the purpose of preventing people from playing what they want. From using complexity to shut down complexity.
40k is good because it has options. Lots and lots of options. Kings of War (at first glance, at least) seems to be those couple of units from one army against those couple of units from another army played over and over. When the players themselves use choices that reduce a 40k-deep-and-complex game to a kings of war level of depth, then there's no reason to have that extra complexity, if you're not going to use it. Not a point to having choices if you can only sort of make one decision.
But the thing is, 40k rules are good because they have that depth and complexity, but are bad because there's nothing in the rules to stop players from using that complexity to destroy what makes 40k good.
You have to do that on your own, in awkward "nah, I'm not going to play you" conversations, and doing things like trying to find people who play the game in the way you want it to be played.
Could 40k's rules be written in such a way that they give the complexity, but the rules prevent people from ruining it? Perhaps. That's not, for me at least, a reason to go find a game that doesn't have that kind of complexity in the first place. That doesn't even aspire, even if the end result is the pain of pretension.
If you break down the human population into three groups:
1. people who put up with it
2. people that bitch about it
3. people that act on it.
Then it is very obvious that the majority of these conversations take place between the first two types of people, because inherently the third type has already removed themself from the situation.
I cant help but see a whole forum of young brides, sold off before they fully understood their decision, all getting together to complain about their communal abusive husband.
Some are happy, cause its better than nothing; Some are saying he will get better, either by reminiscing of the good ol days, or by pointing out obvious areas for improvement; Some have endured past the stage of positive thinking and are threatening to leave; Some already have; and some on the outside are trying to help liberate others who are going through what they have already experienced.
They say a sucker is born every minute; At the end of the day, That is why GW continues to be successful: Moreso than any other mini-company they pander to the weak, ignorant, follower personality type. Its the reason the target audience is outcast preteen/teenagers who have no knowledge of other systems: "Hey little kid, i know in the real world you have no authority, get no respect, and have to borrow money from your parents to make purchases, but in our world you are a badass leader of this ultimate army!!..."
which sounds great to the beginner, but then the cruel reality sets in
"...The only catch is that the rules are so bad that they drive anyone but the fluff nuts away. However, there are TONS of socially awkward cultists who always seem to be trying to form a new gaming group, so you can try to fumble through a game with intentionally obtuse verbiage and little or no official rulings: That basically means the most stubborn person wins! Doesnt that sound like fun?"
Which brings us back to the beginning, where the gamer again considers their options:
1. put up with it
2. bitch about it
3. act on it.
Are we still talking about 40k, the game where if you changed "roll to save" to be "roll to beat defense" (mathematically the same) you could just go do something else for half an hour while your opponent takes their turn?
And, at the same time, that same complexity in an open-ended system means that it's going to be pretty much impossible to balance or to make it all that serious of a game.
No it doesn't. It means that you have to have professional playtesting and game developers who take pride in their work. The only reason GW doesn't is because you're a typical customer with typical low standards.
40k is good because it has options. Lots and lots of options.
This is not true, because 40k doesn't provide meaningful options. It's like offering you three dinner choices: pizza, hamburger, or week-old roadkill. You really only have two options there, plus a waste of text. 40k is the same, the designers add tons of "options" that don't really exist because they don't bother to balance the game properly.
You have to do that on your own, in awkward "nah, I'm not going to play you" conversations, and doing things like trying to find people who play the game in the way you want it to be played.
So how exactly is having to have a "I won't play you if you take more than two Riptides" conversation better than simply making Riptides a 0-2 choice in the Tau army because any more is unbalanced and not fun? 40k's rules are garbage because they don't even try to do this, and leave it all up to the players.
Also, a game where you have theoretical "choices" that you can't use because of unwritten rules about what you're allowed to use if you want anyone to play with you is no better than a game where those choices don't exist at all.
WFB I think is the better game in terms of the experience it offers - certainly seems more balanced than it has been in the past, despite the introduction of far too many random elements which hamper the game.
As for 40k, I'll probably find myself playing a game every 6 months or so. Usually I'll have been drawn back into trying from reading a few BL books or delving into a box of minis and getting an army out. Halfway through the game, inbetween eye-rolls at the ludicrous amount of dice you have to roll and ridiculously abstracted, nonsensical rules (with different codecies sparring with each other, re-rolls against your re-rolls!), I'm thinking about other games to play - trying to avoid the temptation to sit there on my phone, which I always think as slightly rude despite the fact I've got to wait half an hour for my opponents turn to finish..
I understand it's very much a personal thing, and I've arrived at this point from playing the game so much over the years - you become less enamoured with the imagery involved (which would certainly hook in new players - I mean, how cool is a bunch of marines jumping out of a rhino to start machine-gunning stuff?) and more focused on the glaring abstractions in the rules, imbalances, and (perhaps again this is a personal thing) new miniatures that are making the tabletop start to look like something from the early learning centre with all of the big, chunky plastic (frequently unpainted) toys.
40k is good because it has options. Lots and lots of options.
This is not true, because 40k doesn't provide meaningful options. It's like offering you three dinner choices: pizza, hamburger, or week-old roadkill. You really only have two options there, plus a waste of text. 40k is the same, the designers add tons of "options" that don't really exist because they don't bother to balance the game properly.
Phobos wrote: 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 YES, I've been around gaming since the 80's and GW is tried and true while so many others come and go and fail. Plus there are so many GW players out there it easy to have games. So many other companies look good, sound good, but then as you collect they go out of business.
This company has books novels, game books, miniatures that just get better and better, Games Days, Tournaments, painting competitions, GW Hobby Centers, Hotlines to ask any questions from rules to customer service to replace missing bits in kits. A company called Forge World makes some of the most beautiful kits that can be used in the games such as Titans, Drop Ships, beasties... it just goes on and on, pick your flavor and run with it!
Kelly502 wrote: This company has books novels, game books, miniatures that just get better and better
Which is a matter of opinion. IMO the miniatures get worse and worse (centurions, apocalypse, etc), and the rulebooks are just garbage. Meanwhile competing companies put out much better work for equal or less money.
Games Days
1) That's missing the point of this thread, which is about the game itself, not the stuff associated with it.
2) GW is doing their best to kill Games Day. Fewer of them, fewer interesting events at them, etc. Meanwhile countless general gaming/hobby conventions are a much more appealing option.
Tournaments
Again, killed off by GW*. All tournaments these days are run by third-party groups, which can run tournaments for other games just as well.
*Unless you live near GWHQ, in which case you can have the "privilege" of playing in some mediocre-at-best "tournaments".
GW Hobby Centers
Which are just independent game stores but with a much smaller range of products available and a ban on using anything in the store that isn't a GW game/model. If every single GW store disappeared overnight the miniatures hobby as a whole would benefit significantly.
Hotlines to ask any questions from rules to customer service
You mean the rule hotline that is notorious for having people who don't understand how the rules work and give you a different answer each time you ask?
to replace missing bits in kits.
Also known as "providing the minimum customer service as required by law". Fixing a defective product isn't something to be praised, it's just the bare minimum to avoid filing a fraud report and getting your credit card company to reverse the charge.
During those 6 years, I've seen many games with "better" rules sets come by. Whether their rules sets were better or not, I can't say, but the simple fact is that everyone around here still plays 40k, and they don't play heroclix or At43 or battletech anymore. If the market decides what's good and what's bad, then the popularity of 40k compared to the death of virtually everything else (except warmahordes and to a lesser extend FoW), then, empirically, 40k is a better game. If it weren't, people would have moved on to something else, like they moved on from all those other games.
I strongly disagree with this.
Survival does not mean that the GW games are superior to the ones that did not survive. What it means is that this company is better at exploiting the market than the companies running the other games.
For instance, BT, Heroclix etc are targeting the wargamer community for their sales. But 40k is targeting the vastly larger group known as "tweens", churning and burning through the money of rich parents who don't know any better.
So while a bunch of good games are splitting a tiny market between them and collapsing, GW isn't necessarily targetting that market at all, or is only doing so to support its main sales to children.
Not saying this is good or bad, just that its really not indicative of the quality of the respective games.
Kelly502 wrote: This company has books novels, game books, miniatures that just get better and better
Which is a matter of opinion. IMO the miniatures get worse and worse (centurions, apocalypse, etc), and the rulebooks are just garbage. Meanwhile competing companies put out much better work for equal or less money.
Games Days
1) That's missing the point of this thread, which is about the game itself, not the stuff associated with it.
2) GW is doing their best to kill Games Day. Fewer of them, fewer interesting events at them, etc. Meanwhile countless general gaming/hobby conventions are a much more appealing option.
Tournaments
Again, killed off by GW*. All tournaments these days are run by third-party groups, which can run tournaments for other games just as well.
*Unless you live near GWHQ, in which case you can have the "privilege" of playing in some mediocre-at-best "tournaments".
GW Hobby Centers
Which are just independent game stores but with a much smaller range of products available and a ban on using anything in the store that isn't a GW game/model. If every single GW store disappeared overnight the miniatures hobby as a whole would benefit significantly.
Hotlines to ask any questions from rules to customer service
You mean the rule hotline that is notorious for having people who don't understand how the rules work and give you a different answer each time you ask?
to replace missing bits in kits.
Also known as "providing the minimum customer service as required by law". Fixing a defective product isn't something to be praised, it's just the bare minimum to avoid filing a fraud report and getting your credit card company to reverse the charge.
So do you even play then? You seem seriously negative about them.
My personal experience with tech support ie getting bits replaced has never been a problem.
Or are you just trolling,
Yes, Games Days are part of the GW gaming experience and the experience is part of the game, and something I look forward to.
Kelly502 wrote: So do you even play then? You seem seriously negative about them.
I still play occasionally because I love my DKoK fluff/models, not because the rules are worth playing. And the more I play X-wing (a well designed game, btw) the more I wonder why I bother playing 40k at all instead of just painting.
My personal experience with tech support ie getting bits replaced has never been a problem.
Yes, but the point is that's the bare minimum that GW is required to do by law. If GW sells you a kit with missing pieces they have sold you a defective product and are obligated to fix it. This isn't something to congratulate GW for, it's just what you expect when you buy something.
Yes, Games Days are part of the GW gaming experience and the experience is part of the game, and something I look forward to.
Read the OP again: the point of this thread is the game itself, with things like Games Day specifically excluded.
Also, have you ever been to a non-GW gaming convention?
Kelly502 wrote: So do you even play then? You seem seriously negative about them.
I still play occasionally because I love my DKoK fluff/models, not because the rules are worth playing. And the more I play X-wing (a well designed game, btw) the more I wonder why I bother playing 40k at all instead of just painting.
My personal experience with tech support ie getting bits replaced has never been a problem.
Yes, but the point is that's the bare minimum that GW is required to do by law. If GW sells you a kit with missing pieces they have sold you a defective product and are obligated to fix it. This isn't something to congratulate GW for, it's just what you expect when you buy something.
Yes, Games Days are part of the GW gaming experience and the experience is part of the game, and something I look forward to.
Read the OP again: the point of this thread is the game itself, with things like Games Day specifically excluded.
Also, have you ever been to a non-GW gaming convention?
Sure have, quite a few as a matter of fact, about half were drunk-acons and the others 1/2 were historical wargames. Drunk-a-cons had about every system going on and I can't say I'd go to another. Got invited to most to run games, demos, tournaments. I enjoy meeting the tallented gamers, painters, and new bloods. Ran demos at the release of second ed. and out of 75 boxes ordered, 6 were left by day two.
I enjoy Games Days, organized and perpared, met loads of tallent, and enjoyed every single one.
There are some things I don't like but I get over it, and I don't whine. Over the years I've learned to be grateful. I try to see the bright side, I'll let slip my dislike of the Blood Angels last set of models and such. But I made due. I also don't care for the "growing" pains with new rules and new Codice, but when it boils down to it I'm so enthused when I get my mitts on the new stuff I forget to be disgruntled.
I love it, I'll demo it and promote it where ever and when ever I can.
I have to say that having attended one GW games day I'll never attend another. They were apparently great at one point but now it's just a giant Forgeworld stand in a convention hall with screaming kids everywhere. Nothing new or exciting to see, no opportunities to do any new hobby, just an hour+ queue to save the postage cost of FW stuff.
I still go to all the local indie shows though; where I can see new stuff on show, play new games, spend far more money than I'd ever planned.
Ailaros wrote: Wow, there's a lot here. To start, I'd echo a few things being said.
Firstly, 40k does have a simple rules set. This may seem odd given the size of the rulebook, but it's about the rules you use and how often that's important. 40k is simple because if I said "this is a tac marine squad with a missile launcher", you know that it's 8 models with the same weapons and statline, one model that's the same except he's got a close combat weapon and bolt pistol and +1Ld, and another guy that's exactly the same, except he uses a missile launcher - a well-known weapon upgrade.
That sounds pretty complicated by wargames standards; you've got a unit of 10 men that has 2 different morale attributes, 3 different weapon ranges, 2 different weapon types (direct firing and blast template), 2 different close combat attacks. That's before even considering if you've split them into combat squads.
Compare it to any historical army, you've generally got homogeneous units which may have a different command character, but is generally rolled into the unit stats. Like a formation of pikemen or a platoon of Grenadiers.
It's not too complex compared to RPG style skirmish games where a character can have lots of unique wargear, but in that case the 1 figure is equivalent to at least the whole tactical squad.
You seem to be arguing that because GW still has the momentum and market share, it's definitively the best game. But in my opinion, at least, it's still got the moment and market share despite the poor, overpriced rule set. Beyond some early 90's garage brew rules I've got for Napoleonic naval battles (typewritten and photocopied on card!), Warhammer 40K is the worst ruleset I own.
This question, for me, is answered rather simply- if I play 40K with alternate rules, is it a better experience? A while back, when I was unemployed for a bit I did a 40K to Warmachine conversion (link in sig) and it wasn't at all bad. It feels far more like younger versions of 40k but hey, I'm still moving around space marines and what not. I get to have the fluff I like and despite a wholesale creation of 100+ units *not one single rules issue*.
Kelly502 wrote: So do you even play then? You seem seriously negative about them.
...
Or are you just trolling,
This is a little off topic but this comes up waaaay too often in these threads so I'd just like to chime in here.
The idea that if you don't play you can't state your opinion, or that if you complain about the game you should just stop playing, or that anyone who plays but says negative things about the game is trolling are all stupid.
Back on topic I honestly think the best thing for 40k at this point would be to scrap it and create 40k V2.0 1st edition.
- Scrap everything so it can be rebuilt WITH BALANCE. There is literally no reason they shouldn't, it doesn't make the game any less sandboxy, or creative, and it doesn't harm 'fun' lists in any way (in fact it makes them better since you can play them with a chance of winning).
- Do away with the 'I do my whole turn then you do yours' mentality. I can't count the number of times in larger games where I nearly fell asleep in my opponents turns (not an exaggeration, playing till 1am is hard). The Lords of the Rings strategy game wasn't bad with it's 'I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot' approach and games like Dystopian wars are quite engaging with the 'I activate this unit, you activate that unit, repeat until all units are done'.
- Either ditch the measuring for each model and taking casualties from the front of ditch artillery and fliers. The game doesn't know what scale it is, it has skirmish game elements in it but it also has thing that absolutely shouldn't be in a skirmish game, as well as a model count well above skirmish scale.
- Get rid of the 3 rolls required to kill something, 3+ then 4+ then hope your opponent fails his 4+ is unnecessary. You could easily turn that into 2 rolls, one to hit with modifiers for things like cover and one to kill with modifiers for things like armour. If you wanted to branch into things other than d6s you could do it in 1 roll with a lot of modifiers but that might be unnecessary. 3 rolls is too many though.
- Cover. Cover saves as they are suck. Marines standing in knee high rubble shouldn't get a 4+ against a demolisher cannon and being able to deploy your entire guard army in cover so a 5+ save army turns into a 3+ save army is just stupid. I don't know if it's still a thing in 6th but in 5th (in my area at least) it was accepted that hills are area terrain and you get a cover save for standing on them, that was .
This reminds me of conversations with my friend about the girl he was dating:
Me: So is she cute?
Friend: She's really nice.
Me: Nice is nice! But how attractive is she?
Friend: She's really into the music I like.
Me: That's not what I asked.
Friend: And she's a musician! How cool is that?
Granted, I don't think that attraction should be solely based on physical beauty, but the point is if someone is asking you if someone is attractive and they're not answering the question, it's like asking if 40/WHFB rules have merit and answering "the fluff is nice, and it's very sandbox-y! And oh, everyone is playing it, so it must be good!" Which means the answer is no.
jonolikespie wrote:Back on topic I honestly think the best thing for 40k at this point would be to scrap it and create 40k V2.0 1st edition.
- Scrap everything so it can be rebuilt WITH BALANCE. There is literally no reason they shouldn't, it doesn't make the game any less sandboxy, or creative, and it doesn't harm 'fun' lists in any way (in fact it makes them better since you can play them with a chance of winning).
- Do away with the 'I do my whole turn then you do yours' mentality. I can't count the number of times in larger games where I nearly fell asleep in my opponents turns (not an exaggeration, playing till 1am is hard). The Lords of the Rings strategy game wasn't bad with it's 'I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot' approach and games like Dystopian wars are quite engaging with the 'I activate this unit, you activate that unit, repeat until all units are done'.
- Either ditch the measuring for each model and taking casualties from the front of ditch artillery and fliers. The game doesn't know what scale it is, it has skirmish game elements in it but it also has thing that absolutely shouldn't be in a skirmish game, as well as a model count well above skirmish scale.
- Get rid of the 3 rolls required to kill something, 3+ then 4+ then hope your opponent fails his 4+ is unnecessary. You could easily turn that into 2 rolls, one to hit with modifiers for things like cover and one to kill with modifiers for things like armour. If you wanted to branch into things other than d6s you could do it in 1 roll with a lot of modifiers but that might be unnecessary. 3 rolls is too many though.
- Cover. Cover saves as they are suck. Marines standing in knee high rubble shouldn't get a 4+ against a demolisher cannon and being able to deploy your entire guard army in cover so a 5+ save army turns into a 3+ save army is just stupid. I don't know if it's still a thing in 6th but in 5th (in my area at least) it was accepted that hills are area terrain and you get a cover save for standing on them, that was .
Quoted because this is the only viable solution to make 40k a playable game. Full ground up rewrite, perhaps even by a different company unassociated with making money from miniatures, to prevent any temptation to make pricey units better. Alas I don't think this will ever happen, especially at the rate GW releases Codexes and updates.
10 and 20 years from now it'll still be the same basic fantasy-melee-kludged-into-sci-fi stat line (WS, S, I, A...uh but we use guns sometimes!), the same tedious UGO-IGO snorefest, rolling hundreds of dice per game and dozens per single attack (which is the most common action in the game, and one of the worst), and the mess of contradictory Codex specific rules. Hopefully more people will have figured out how bad 40k is from a pure playability standpoint and moved onto something else.
heartserenade wrote: This reminds me of conversations with my friend about the girl he was dating:
Me: So is she cute?
Friend: She's really nice.
Me: Nice is nice! But how attractive is she?
Friend: She's really into the music I like.
Me: That's not what I asked.
Friend: And she's a musician! How cool is that?
Granted, I don't think that attraction should be solely based on physical beauty, but the point is if someone is asking you if someone is attractive and they're not answering the question, it's like asking if 40/WHFB rules have merit and answering "the fluff is nice, and it's very sandbox-y! And oh, everyone is playing it, so it must be good!" Which means the answer is no.
I'm with your friend on this one - physical attractiveness is the least important thing on the list.
My girlfriend is nice - I like her a lot, we hang out together.
She's (mostly) into the music that I like.
And she's a musician! How cool is that?! (She even dragged me into a short lived punk band... not an easy thing to do.)
The Auld Grump, plus, she's really freakin' cute!
*EDIT* More importantly - she games! (And is really cute! )
heartserenade wrote: This reminds me of conversations with my friend about the girl he was dating:
Me: So is she cute?
Friend: She's really nice.
Me: Nice is nice! But how attractive is she?
Friend: She's really into the music I like.
Me: That's not what I asked.
Friend: And she's a musician! How cool is that?
Granted, I don't think that attraction should be solely based on physical beauty, but the point is if someone is asking you if someone is attractive and they're not answering the question, it's like asking if 40/WHFB rules have merit and answering "the fluff is nice, and it's very sandbox-y! And oh, everyone is playing it, so it must be good!" Which means the answer is no.
I'm with your friend on this one - physical attractiveness is the least important thing on the list.
My girlfriend is nice - I like her a lot, we hang out together.
She's (mostly) into the music that I like.
And she's a musician! How cool is that?! (She even dragged me into a short lived punk band... not an easy thing to do.)
The Auld Grump, plus, she's really freakin' cute!
*EDIT* More importantly - she games! (And is really cute! )
In his defense, Grump, I think it's more along the lines of him asking his friend if he's attracted to his significant other. Instead, he responds in every way BUT his feeling of attraction. I've dated girls in HS who went on to have small time modeling careers, as well as girls who wouldn't win a beauty pageant if their lives depended on it, but I was always attracted to at least something physical about them. While I agree that physical attraction is not the most important part in a relationship, it should at least be included.
Looking only at the rules for 40k:They are garbage.
Game mechanics are meant to be used, not create a whole series of rules so you can override them at every turn:
Leadership check - unless you are Fearless or ATSKNF or shoot a guy in the squad or have 30 models in the squad or....
To Wound - unless you use Poison.
# of Wounds - unless it doubles your toughness or force weapon or ...
Armor Save - unless AP is used.
Cover Save - unless a template is used or the multitude of things that ignore it.
Add an extra die roll - Feel no pain!
Add re-rolls - TL, various spells, master craft....
Difficult/Dangerous Terrain - Skilled Rider, Monsterous Creature...
....
Yes, I left MANY things out.
There are so many if, but, or, freaking SPECIAL RULES.
I have played SO many games in my lifetime that have few gray zones, good rules (Battletech, X-wing, BlackPowder, Star-Commander) and yes they may be inflexible for those wild and wooly epic massive battles you want but some games like Risk can give you counters by the handful.
It is utter garbage for competitive play and I laugh when people win and claim to be the master general because it really boils down to just playing the most broken army and allies with the right units and a plan of attack.
Yes, being great at analyzing the combinations to the best effect is still a good exercise but those four choices initially give a huge leg up.
I play 40k because I can make a scenario I think has a good story or reason for the battle, control points level, goals and deployment and then test it many times.
The games are usually fun, things go wrong (sometimes hilariously so) and oddly enough my friends "the players" see the scenario, play in character, and it is usually a fantastic bloodbath with many surprises.
The game is good because it has enough bones to it we create the balance needed GW cannot be bothered to do and we are lazy and have played GW for decades so it is very familiar.
It may be garbage, but it is garbage I am used to along with many other people so I can make it work even if I should not have to.
heartserenade wrote: This reminds me of conversations with my friend about the girl he was dating:
Me: So is she cute?
Friend: She's really nice.
Me: Nice is nice! But how attractive is she?
Friend: She's really into the music I like.
Me: That's not what I asked.
Friend: And she's a musician! How cool is that?
Granted, I don't think that attraction should be solely based on physical beauty, but the point is if someone is asking you if someone is attractive and they're not answering the question, it's like asking if 40/WHFB rules have merit and answering "the fluff is nice, and it's very sandbox-y! And oh, everyone is playing it, so it must be good!" Which means the answer is no.
I'm with your friend on this one - physical attractiveness is the least important thing on the list.
My girlfriend is nice - I like her a lot, we hang out together.
She's (mostly) into the music that I like.
And she's a musician! How cool is that?! (She even dragged me into a short lived punk band... not an easy thing to do.)
The Auld Grump, plus, she's really freakin' cute!
*EDIT* More importantly - she games! (And is really cute! )
In his defense, Grump, I think it's more along the lines of him asking his friend if he's attracted to his significant other. Instead, he responds in every way BUT his feeling of attraction. I've dated girls in HS who went on to have small time modeling careers, as well as girls who wouldn't win a beauty pageant if their lives depended on it, but I was always attracted to at least something physical about them. While I agree that physical attraction is not the most important part in a relationship, it should at least be included.
And just like miniatures, you should be attracted to the look of the miniatures at least and not just the game world and the rules (but they're important as well!).
And just like miniatures, you should be attracted to the look of the miniatures at least and not just the game world and the rules (but they're important as well!).
Yes, I just compared relationships to miniatures.
I actually agree with this. Here's a similar analogy.
I once took a "year off" from college and worked at Guitar Center. I would tell parents that it's a good idea to buy the best guitar they can reasonably afford, but that's it's still ok if your kid's first guitar purchase is based largely on looks. Most anything in the store can be setup to play reasonably well, but if looking at it doesn't inspire your kid to pick it up and play then they're probably not going to play guitar for very long.
For most folks, it's the same with miniatures, both the game you play and the faction you choose. It's got to look cool to you. I rarely play 40k anymore, but it was definitely the cool minis that made it my first (and for 10 years "only") wargame.
When someone posts "40k's rules are simple!" I really have to ask if they've ever stood back and looked at the rules with fresh eyes? The rules might be easy to someone who's played continuously for years but they are not in the least bit simple. Let's start with some very basics.
Ballistic Skill.
All this stat does is determine what score you need to hit something. You take a models BS and look it up in a flat table which gives you the score you need to hit something. You learn the numbers pretty quickly - BS3 means you need a 4+ to hit. BS2 you need a 5+ to hit. Except, why on EARTH do you need to look BS up in a table? This isn't even a strength/toughness 2D table - it's a 1 dimensional LIST of BS and score needed to hit! Instead of writing BS3, you could just write the score you need to hit. There is absolutely and undeniably no way that the BS table is needed. It's an extra unnecessary step which adds absolutely nothing to the game and only complicates it. Yes, easy to learn but a needless complication.
Movement.
All models move at the same speed. Great. That's easy to remember. Except for the huge numbers of models with special rules that dictate different (and often random movement speeds). Not having a movement speed would make sense for a human v human game (Bolt Action makes great use of standardising stats) but a game where every alien race moves at a different speed? It is much, much simpler to have a movement stat which tells you how fast a model moves. Movement for things like assault ranges, difficult terrain etc stay the same and it's only the movement stat which changes. Again, unnecessary and needless complications that only serve to complicate. And don't give me the "but they'd have to change all the codex's!" excuse - they added a HP stat to vehicles and they could have damn well added a movement stat for everything else too.
These are just two examples, but trust me when you stand back from the 40k rules and look at them with fresh eyes they are not "simple". They are bloated, overcomplicated for no good reason and terribly written.
gossipmeng wrote: I stick with GW mainly for the fluff and miniatures that follow. The only reason I play the game system at all is to see my army on the table using my semi-competitive/fluff lists.
I haven't dabbled in other systems too much over the last few years, but I was looking into infinity a few months ago (still debating on picking it up) and the rules just seemed so much more fluid and somehow simplified (while retaining a degree of complexity). GW's rules are dated, but it would take a massive overhaul to bring it up to speed - something that would invalidate many codices (probably take a year or 2 of steady releases to get things back into order).
What's interesting with Infinity is that the core rules of the game are actually fairly simple. Go and take a look at the rulebook, the pages for the core rules really aren't that log nor very complex. It's all the special skills and weapons that are more difficult to keep track of rather than "how do I move" or "how do I shoot."
40k feels like the opposite for me. There are so many little things that are core parts of the game (like wound allocation for example) that can and have caused huge debates for players. For me this is the biggest negative I would consider when recommending the game to someone. The fact GW has no real foundation for each edition (except for unit stats) makes the game not only difficult to play, but pretty much guarantees there are no improvements made from edition to edition.
To the topic of this thread I'd say no, GW games are not worth playing purely from a rules perspective.
To be fair, those aren't actually good examples of bad complexity.
Daedleh wrote: Ballistic Skill.All this stat does is determine what score you need to hit something. You take a models BS and look it up in a flat table which gives you the score you need to hit something. You learn the numbers pretty quickly - BS3 means you need a 4+ to hit. BS2 you need a 5+ to hit. Except, why on EARTH do you need to look BS up in a table? This isn't even a strength/toughness 2D table - it's a 1 dimensional LIST of BS and score needed to hit! Instead of writing BS3, you could just write the score you need to hit. There is absolutely and undeniably no way that the BS table is needed. It's an extra unnecessary step which adds absolutely nothing to the game and only complicates it. Yes, easy to learn but a needless complication.
It works like that because the alternative is worse. With stats you expect that higher is better, and that's how 40k does it. But if you change BS to be a direct value then you're making it inconsistent. Now you have most of your stats from 0-10 with higher being better, except BS which is 2+ to 6+ with lower being better. And even more counter-intuitively you have weapon skill and ballistic skill working completely differently. WS is a standard higher is better stat where you look up the required roll on a table, while BS is a lower is better stat where you get the required roll directly from your stat line. So you technically have a "simpler" rule, but at the cost of making it less intuitive for someone trying to learn the rules.
Movement.
All models move at the same speed. Great. That's easy to remember. Except for the huge numbers of models with special rules that dictate different (and often random movement speeds). Not having a movement speed would make sense for a human v human game (Bolt Action makes great use of standardising stats) but a game where every alien race moves at a different speed? It is much, much simpler to have a movement stat which tells you how fast a model moves. Movement for things like assault ranges, difficult terrain etc stay the same and it's only the movement stat which changes. Again, unnecessary and needless complications that only serve to complicate. And don't give me the "but they'd have to change all the codex's!" excuse - they added a HP stat to vehicles and they could have damn well added a movement stat for everything else too.
But that's not the same thing. Having a maximum movement distance of 7" (with a 6" default) and moving 6" but rolling 3D6 for difficult terrain are two very, very different abilities. One gives you a higher maximum move at all times, while the other lets you average closer to your usual speed even in circumstances that slow you down. Same with assault distance. Fleet vs. 7" move may end up the same if you're talking about one move/shoot/charge sequence, but they're very different if we're talking about an Eldar shooting unit that wants to spend the whole game moving out of charge distance.
The only way to simplify it is to remove difficult terrain and similar effects entirely and just standardize movement at 6" no matter what. That's a valid approximation to make when you're talking about a company-scale wargame vs. a RPG/skirmish game, but if you're going to have those varying movement distances then there are good reasons to have situational effects and abilities instead of (or in addition to) different base movement speeds.
Peregrine wrote: To be fair, those aren't actually good examples of bad complexity.
Daedleh wrote: Ballistic Skill.All this stat does is determine what score you need to hit something. You take a models BS and look it up in a flat table which gives you the score you need to hit something. You learn the numbers pretty quickly - BS3 means you need a 4+ to hit. BS2 you need a 5+ to hit. Except, why on EARTH do you need to look BS up in a table? This isn't even a strength/toughness 2D table - it's a 1 dimensional LIST of BS and score needed to hit! Instead of writing BS3, you could just write the score you need to hit. There is absolutely and undeniably no way that the BS table is needed. It's an extra unnecessary step which adds absolutely nothing to the game and only complicates it. Yes, easy to learn but a needless complication.
...
...
...
There are plenty of rulesets that use different methods of deciding to hit chances and movement rates. It is often done with a look-up table, which saves memorisation, though of course frequent players usually end up remembering the important stuff anyway.
I think what GW wanted to avoid in WHF/40K was players needing to do calculations. A common method (in the 1970s) of To Hit determination was to have a percentage and modify it according to tactical situations. For example, your unit would be on a base 60% to hit, the target in light cover would halve this and you would have to calculate half of 60%. Similarly, your movement rate would change according to the terrain moved through.
It was useful to calculate the variations in advance and lay them out in a look-up table; some games did this for you. Ironically, GW have laid out the To Hit chance in a look-up table, but hardly anyone uses it because it is easy to remember.
The point of the To Hit, To Wound, To Save sequence is that it allows a wider range of probabilities to be generated from a D6.
Peregrine wrote: To be fair, those aren't actually good examples of bad complexity.
Daedleh wrote: Ballistic Skill.All this stat does is determine what score you need to hit something. You take a models BS and look it up in a flat table which gives you the score you need to hit something. You learn the numbers pretty quickly - BS3 means you need a 4+ to hit. BS2 you need a 5+ to hit. Except, why on EARTH do you need to look BS up in a table? This isn't even a strength/toughness 2D table - it's a 1 dimensional LIST of BS and score needed to hit! Instead of writing BS3, you could just write the score you need to hit. There is absolutely and undeniably no way that the BS table is needed. It's an extra unnecessary step which adds absolutely nothing to the game and only complicates it. Yes, easy to learn but a needless complication.
It works like that because the alternative is worse. With stats you expect that higher is better, and that's how 40k does it. But if you change BS to be a direct value then you're making it inconsistent. Now you have most of your stats from 0-10 with higher being better, except BS which is 2+ to 6+ with lower being better. And even more counter-intuitively you have weapon skill and ballistic skill working completely differently. WS is a standard higher is better stat where you look up the required roll on a table, while BS is a lower is better stat where you get the required roll directly from your stat line. So you technically have a "simpler" rule, but at the cost of making it less intuitive for someone trying to learn the rules.
Except they use the same 2+...6+ mechanic for armour saves, so it's not an alien concept.
The reason the WS needs to be a higher-is-better number is that it's a comparison; the higher your WS is over theirs, the easier it is to hit.
With BS, it's a straight conversion. WS3=4+, WS4=3+. The only times the number is used is to convert to a "to hit" roll, or when subtracting it from a D6 for a scatter, and that could easily be implemented in a better way; roll your "to hit" then if you miss, roll for scatter using 1 or 2 D6.
Then of course, you get this horrible 2+ to hit, or 2/3/4/5/6+ if you miss when you go above BS6 (which doesn't really exist in game anyway).
Herzlos wrote: Except they use the same 2+...6+ mechanic for armour saves, so it's not an alien concept.
But saves represent something conceptually different. A save is something (usually) provided by equipment, WS/BS are inherent attributes. And a new player would reasonably expect that weapon skill and ballistic skill would work in similar ways, just with different attacks. They wouldn't necessarily expect that an armor save would work the same way because it's not a skill.
(Of course you could argue that saves should follow the same "higher is better, look up on table" pattern as WS/BS, but that's an entirely different subject.)
With BS, it's a straight conversion. WS3=4+, WS4=3+. The only times the number is used is to convert to a "to hit" roll, or when subtracting it from a D6 for a scatter, and that could easily be implemented in a better way; roll your "to hit" then if you miss, roll for scatter using 1 or 2 D6.
You're missing the point. Obviously the current method for BS requires an extra step. It's done that way to make it consistent with how the similarly-named WS is handled (higher is better, look up on a table), which means that it's easier for a new player to understand. Complexity involves more than just the number of steps you have to take, a slightly longer but intuitive process is less complex than a shorter process that doesn't follow the expected pattern.
I think that's making an assumption about cognitive perceptions of the game mechanisms that actually differ between individuals.
For instance, it's clear from previous conversations that some players have the concept that when you roll a D6 a higher number indicates a better result, even though this isn't true in all cases in the game (e.g. Leadership rolls).
The Save attribute is included in the unit's stat line so people might well assume it is a characteristic the same as the other ones and should work a similar way.
In fact, BS, S, WS, Ld, and Sv all use different algorithms, and often use add-on special rules as well. A works differently. I uses two different rules depending on circumstances, and can also be affected by special rules.
This is a considerable amount of variation, more detailed and less consistent than some RPGs.
Well I also think that a lot of rules of 40k are really complicated and don't bring anything except complexity for the sake of complexity.
If the "to hit" roll was worded like "to hit, make a BS test.". Same probability, no additionnal table, and you still have the "higher stat is better" design pattern GW love... this could also have been the case for armor save, with marines getting an armor of 4, reversing the 2 stats with the "inverse" pattern, armor save and AP...
WFB is better designed IMHO, even if I dislike the whole "ramdomfest" : when no army have the great idea to scout forests near the battlefield before going in... and with 5 out of 6 forest being magical ones, lumberjacks should wear full plate to survive!
But the movement is better (one move instead of move during movement phase, move during shooting phase, move durinfg assault phase of 40K), cover is logical (avoid being hit instead of getting a save only relevant when yours is worse than the tree...) and I preffer the modifiers to the "binary" nature of 40K. The IGOUGO also feels better in WFB than in 40K. (in WFB, it give a feel of great maneuvers, when in 40K you feel that you guys just wait to be killed... but it's not their turn to shoot!).
Does this mean that every other game is perfect? No. But most of the time, other games don't have such conflicting and bad written rules, and don't need the "Most important rule" to be functionnal...
Kilkrazy wrote: I think that's making an assumption about cognitive perceptions of the game mechanisms that actually differ between individuals.
To a degree, yes. I think that having weapon skill and ballistic skill work the same way (higher is better, look up on a table) makes it more intuitive and offsets the theoretical increase in complexity from having to look up something on a table most people memorize almost immediately.
If you want an example of excessive complexity in the stat line then initiative is the better one. WS and I are very closely linked, there aren't very many units that break the rule of "high I = high WS", and the few that do don't make much difference in a shooting-focused game. So if you changed combat to go in descending order of WS you could eliminate initiative entirely. Really, the only reason initiative exists as a separate stat is that 40k is a re-skinned fantasy game (where melee combat is more important) and GW refuses to make any meaningful changes to the core mechanics.
Dark Phoenix wrote: But the movement is better (one move instead of move during movement phase, move during shooting phase, move durinfg assault phase of 40K)
Which only works because you're simulating blocks of infantry that didn't have much ability to move and shoot. If you combine movement and assault in 40k you either have poor realism with units being unable to shoot as they close in to charge, or awkward shooting rules where you charge but pretend that you haven't charged so you can shoot. And having to commit to a charge before you can soften up the target with shooting (including waiting to see how well you did) would make assault even less relevant than it is now.
cover is logical (avoid being hit instead of getting a save only relevant when yours is worse than the tree...)
This only works because it's a fantasy game where shooting is weak and good armor is rare. It might make more sense to have to-hit modifiers for cover in 40k, but it would be a nightmare for game balance. Fluff-wise 40k's heavy infantry are supposed to be walking tanks that can survive even without cover, so if you represent that ability on the tabletop in a hit-modifier system you're making them almost invulnerable if they're in cover (or making cover so weak that units that depend on it to survive just die). It might be realistic, but it leads to very frustrating gameplay as you dump piles of shooting dice into a unit and fail to accomplish anything.
The lesson here is that sometimes abstraction is good, and in a company-scale game you don't need to represent every detail perfectly. The stupid thing about 40k is that it makes sensible abstractions like that for gameplay reasons, but then obsesses over details like the difference between an axe and a sword in a shooting-focused game.
The IGOUGO also feels better in WFB than in 40K. (in WFB, it give a feel of great maneuvers, when in 40K you feel that you guys just wait to be killed... but it's not their turn to shoot!).
I guess that's a subjective opinion. IGOUGO is just as bad in fantasy games, IMO. You're still dealing with the poor realism of having enemy units acting while your own units sit there waiting for a turn, and you're still dealing with the fun-killing experience of long periods of doing nothing while your opponent plays the game.
Movement.
All models move at the same speed. Great. That's easy to remember. Except for the huge numbers of models with special rules that dictate different (and often random movement speeds). Not having a movement speed would make sense for a human v human game (Bolt Action makes great use of standardising stats) but a game where every alien race moves at a different speed? It is much, much simpler to have a movement stat which tells you how fast a model moves. Movement for things like assault ranges, difficult terrain etc stay the same and it's only the movement stat which changes. Again, unnecessary and needless complications that only serve to complicate. And don't give me the "but they'd have to change all the codex's!" excuse - they added a HP stat to vehicles and they could have damn well added a movement stat for everything else too.
I never thought about it that way, but you're right. I really had problems digesting all the unit types/movement types when I got the 6th edition rulebook.
In Infinity, on the other hand, I had no problem with movement ranges, because it is a Statistic of the model. So you do have similar unit types moving the same speed (like Heavy Infantry usually being [4 inches and 2 inches] and Bikes being [8-6] but since that stat is integrated into the stat list it is very easy to look it up in case you forget.
There are indeed many things that could be improved in Warhammer, but, sadly, the company has no business doing that.
Which only works because you're simulating blocks of infantry that didn't have much ability to move and shoot. If you combine movement and assault in 40k you either have poor realism with units being unable to shoot as they close in to charge, or awkward shooting rules where you charge but pretend that you haven't charged so you can shoot. And having to commit to a charge before you can soften up the target with shooting (including waiting to see how well you did) would make assault even less relevant than it is now.
i agree that "simulating" futuristics battle should be more... dynamic than medieval ones. But why the assult shoot must be fire the same way when you charge (or intend to charge and when you just stand there, waiting for the enemy? why do you move faster when charging? Eldar "Battle focus" should be a basic rule if you can move that far in the assult phase...
I understand the need of balancing the abstraction and the simulation, but I feel that 40K fail at both aspect. (simple example : everyone in the squad shoot at the same target, regarless of weapons... because the squad is the level of abstraction), but when taking casualties, the exact position of each model is relevant (the model is now the reference). And this doesn't prevent strange casualties with bending shots because you mesure between unit and not models...
This only works because it's a fantasy game where shooting is weak and good armor is rare. It might make more sense to have to-hit modifiers for cover in 40k, but it would be a nightmare for game balance. Fluff-wise 40k's heavy infantry are supposed to be walking tanks that can survive even without cover, so if you represent that ability on the tabletop in a hit-modifier system you're making them almost invulnerable if they're in cover (or making cover so weak that units that depend on it to survive just die). It might be realistic, but it leads to very frustrating gameplay as you dump piles of shooting dice into a unit and fail to accomplish anything.
The lesson here is that sometimes abstraction is good, and in a company-scale game you don't need to represent every detail perfectly. The stupid thing about 40k is that it makes sensible abstractions like that for gameplay reasons, but then obsesses over details like the difference between an axe and a sword in a shooting-focused game.
Sure, good armor should be better, and really hard to kill in cover, that's the point! but, there is a really simple thing to balance this... Point cost! instead of having marines becoming cheaper and and gaining wargear each edition (because of their vulnerability), making them more resilient in cover, and uping the point cost seems better to me, and keep the "elite" feel of the army.
I agree with you on the bad abstractions : abstraction is good, and necessary, but should be used to remove complexity instead of adding it.
And modifiers make the game easier to balance, just look at the good old Heavy Bolter : Againt most xenos, it's a terrifing weapon. Wound on 2+, deny your armor save. Againt marines? it's really crappy. Wound on 3+, allowing your 3+ save. so not even woth considering. How much point do you give to such a weapon? give it a save modifier? xenos gets a worst, but still usable armor, when marine starts to think twice before running in front of those... Is it less realistic? Probably. Is it better for gameplay? I let you answer that, but I think it is.
I guess that's a subjective opinion. IGOUGO is just as bad in fantasy games, IMO. You're still dealing with the poor realism of having enemy units acting while your own units sit there waiting for a turn, and you're still dealing with the fun-killing experience of long periods of doing nothing while your opponent plays the game.
Well, depend of the size of the game, and abtraction level (back tho the same problem)... IGOUGO is good if the game is abstracted enough to limit the downtime between player turn, or propose some kind of limited, reactive mecanism. Alternating activation is good, but have other problems, for example, it's always better to kill an unit that have not yet activated than an already activated one, because, well, they won't do anything else this turn!
One of the things in 40K that I also dislike is the "your stats are useless" design :
What is your BS? oh, we don't care, you must fire snapshot!
Better initiative strike first! not with an unwieldy weapon!
High toughness is good, when your opponent don't have poisonned weapons, which are more effective on the most resilient things! (when the oposite should be true...)
This only works because it's a fantasy game where shooting is weak and good armor is rare. It might make more sense to have to-hit modifiers for cover in 40k, but it would be a nightmare for game balance. Fluff-wise 40k's heavy infantry are supposed to be walking tanks that can survive even without cover, so if you represent that ability on the tabletop in a hit-modifier system you're making them almost invulnerable if they're in cover (or making cover so weak that units that depend on it to survive just die). It might be realistic, but it leads to very frustrating gameplay as you dump piles of shooting dice into a unit and fail to accomplish anything.
I've always found the 'I don't need cover' idea to be one of the most ridiculous facets of 40k.. I don't think it has always been there, probably from around 2nd edition when marines started appearing in gaudy colours (again, a rather silly idea in the context of warfare!) The first rule of warfare, and really this goes back to nomadic peoples on the muddy banks 8000 years ago, is that it's far better to avoid being hit in the first place!
Even coming into the modern age, it is well documented that tanks (for all of their protection) use cover features to protect themselves - or else use a 'feature' that allows them to damage the enemy while not presenting the possibility of damage to themselves. While the Tiger tank in WW2 was well protected, it was the advanced Zeiss optics and mechanical precision of its gun, which meant it could hit enemy tanks from 2 miles away, that helped give it its fearsom reputation. Light scouting vehicles rely on speed to stop the enemy from getting a bead on them. So, why if the 'walking down the street, saying "coming at me 'bro'" hasn't worked at any point in history, for any type of warfare, should we expect it to function in the future? The weapons are always one step ahead of the armour, in most cases, and the best defence will always be not to get hit in the first place.
So, conversely, I imagine the Astartes to be the most highly tuned fighters, rather than the crude Neanderthal-type representation they seem to have on the tabletop, running around in groups like a herd of kids chasing a soccer ball round at lunchtime. Using every scrap of cover, using feints and backing up their attacks with overwhelming firepower. The ultimate elite force - they've got armour which can protect them if needed, but it's a back-up that might give them an edge when the fighting ends up at brutal close ranges, not an end in itself. I think rulesets like FoW represent this well, making more 'veteran' troops harder to hit. Infinity allows heavy infantry guys to fight like this - they've got a bit more of a chance of surviving hits against low-calibre weapons, but the chances increase exponentially when you're in cover and through tactical application of force. In this context, the rules for shootouts in 40k, and tactics enacted on the tabletop, seem remarkably primitive.
Anyway! Peregrine, these comments aren't aimed at you in particular, just thought your comment could be used as a springboard to raise my own thoughts of how shallow the tabletop experience for 40k is. The tremendous imagery and miniatures prop up what is really a system that is in need of a fundamental re-design.
Kiwidru wrote: If you break down the human population into three groups:
They say a sucker is born every minute; At the end of the day, That is why GW continues to be successful: Moreso than any other mini-company they pander to the weak, ignorant, follower personality type. .
Thanks for this post. It really made me laugh, it's such a perfect example of the "on the internet, every person who can type is an übermensch" phenomenon.
Perhaps because the game play of 40k became rather shallow after the transition to 3rd ed.
Could it be the GW game developers have been trying to tie the rules to the 'inspiring fluff' directly , which leads to the diffuse and needlessly over complexity in the instructions to play the game?
From a direct short term sales point of view the 40k rules and codex direction seems quite reasonable.
IF you ignore the damage this does to long term sales and growth.
There are several ways to follow the 'high stat is best' mantra in a much more straight forward and intuitive way.
Many games simply show the value needed to succeed directly Eg 5+.
(Eg to successfully hit this model in CC you need to roll a 5+)
Other simply use the stat value as the value you ADD to the D6 roll to arrive at a comparative score.
Eg weapon has a Armour piercing value of 6.
Targets armour value is 2.
Roll a D6 add it to the armour value of 2.
If this is higher than the AP value of the weapon you pass your save.
Using resolution methods because they are EASIER TO EXPLAIN (roll a d6.)Rather than because they deliver clearly defined and brief explanations of how the game is actually played .IS a slippery slope to poor game play.
Abstraction in the game development should reduce the complication in the resolution process.BUT keep the basic interaction true to the original .
(Simple simulation.)
It should NOT abstract the process , AND over complicate the resolution like 40k rules do!
Lanrak wrote: Could it be the GW game developers have been trying to tie the rules to the 'inspiring fluff' directly , which leads to the diffuse and needlessly over complexity in the instructions to play the game?
You hit it on the headI think that "inspiring fluff" is exactly why the rules have become overcomplicated. 40k is a game targeted to teenagers. One thing marketers know is that pre-teens and teenagers have a larger (larger than adults) capacity for minutiae and they are wired for obsession. Ex. How many pokemon can a kid tell you about? 40k exploits this to the max. What adults might see as needless complexity, teens lap up as further emersing themselves in the 40k world.
Lanrak wrote: .Perhaps because the game play of 40k became rather shallow after the transition to 3rd ed.
As for shallow post-2nd edition. That depends on your point of view. 3rd edition was more streamlined than 2nd, but that's largely because as the size of games grew, it became clear that for larger games (though not even close to the # of figs in a 1800 point game today) 2nd edition is a clunky mess. It's basically a ruleset that functions well with a few squads (an outgrowth of Rogue Trader) that boggs down at the level most folks play at. On a nostalgia kick I played a game of 2nd edition last year. It was like playing Necromunda with too many figures.
Lanrak wrote: Could it be the GW game developers have been trying to tie the rules to the 'inspiring fluff' directly , which leads to the diffuse and needlessly over complexity in the instructions to play the game?
You hit it on the headI think that "inspiring fluff" is exactly why the rules have become overcomplicated. 40k is a game targeted to teenagers. One thing marketers know is that pre-teens and teenagers have a larger (larger than adults) capacity for minutiae and they are wired for obsession. Ex. How many pokemon can a kid tell you about? 40k exploits this to the max. What adults might see as needless complexity, teens lap up as further emersing themselves in the 40k world.
Lanrak wrote: .Perhaps because the game play of 40k became rather shallow after the transition to 3rd ed.
As for shallow post-2nd edition. That depends on your point of view. 3rd edition was more streamlined than 2nd, but that's largely because as the size of games grew, it became clear that for larger games (though not even close to the # of figs in a 1800 point game today) 2nd edition is a clunky mess. It's basically a ruleset that functions well with a few squads (an outgrowth of Rogue Trader) that boggs down at the level most folks play at. On a nostalgia kick I played a game of 2nd edition last year. It was like playing Necromunda with too many figures.
Pretty much agree with this, apart from the Adults and teens bit, but only because I think its just different types of people rather than an age thing, the rest of it holds true though for me.
Lanrak wrote: Could it be the GW game developers have been trying to tie the rules to the 'inspiring fluff' directly , which leads to the diffuse and needlessly over complexity in the instructions to play the game?
You hit it on the headI think that "inspiring fluff" is exactly why the rules have become overcomplicated. 40k is a game targeted to teenagers. One thing marketers know is that pre-teens and teenagers have a larger (larger than adults) capacity for minutiae and they are wired for obsession. Ex. How many pokemon can a kid tell you about? 40k exploits this to the max. What adults might see as needless complexity, teens lap up as further emersing themselves in the 40k world.
Lanrak wrote: .Perhaps because the game play of 40k became rather shallow after the transition to 3rd ed.
As for shallow post-2nd edition. That depends on your point of view. 3rd edition was more streamlined than 2nd, but that's largely because as the size of games grew, it became clear that for larger games (though not even close to the # of figs in a 1800 point game today) 2nd edition is a clunky mess. It's basically a ruleset that functions well with a few squads (an outgrowth of Rogue Trader) that boggs down at the level most folks play at. On a nostalgia kick I played a game of 2nd edition last year. It was like playing Necromunda with too many figures.
40k is not aimed at teenagers it's aimed at adults. The ruleset reflects this.
Lanrak wrote: Could it be the GW game developers have been trying to tie the rules to the 'inspiring fluff' directly , which leads to the diffuse and needlessly over complexity in the instructions to play the game?
You hit it on the headI think that "inspiring fluff" is exactly why the rules have become overcomplicated. 40k is a game targeted to teenagers. One thing marketers know is that pre-teens and teenagers have a larger (larger than adults) capacity for minutiae and they are wired for obsession. Ex. How many pokemon can a kid tell you about? 40k exploits this to the max. What adults might see as needless complexity, teens lap up as further emersing themselves in the 40k world.
Lanrak wrote: .Perhaps because the game play of 40k became rather shallow after the transition to 3rd ed.
As for shallow post-2nd edition. That depends on your point of view. 3rd edition was more streamlined than 2nd, but that's largely because as the size of games grew, it became clear that for larger games (though not even close to the # of figs in a 1800 point game today) 2nd edition is a clunky mess. It's basically a ruleset that functions well with a few squads (an outgrowth of Rogue Trader) that boggs down at the level most folks play at. On a nostalgia kick I played a game of 2nd edition last year. It was like playing Necromunda with too many figures.
40k is not aimed at teenagers it's aimed at adults. The ruleset reflects this.
Lanrak wrote: Could it be the GW game developers have been trying to tie the rules to the 'inspiring fluff' directly , which leads to the diffuse and needlessly over complexity in the instructions to play the game?
You hit it on the headI think that "inspiring fluff" is exactly why the rules have become overcomplicated. 40k is a game targeted to teenagers. One thing marketers know is that pre-teens and teenagers have a larger (larger than adults) capacity for minutiae and they are wired for obsession. Ex. How many pokemon can a kid tell you about? 40k exploits this to the max. What adults might see as needless complexity, teens lap up as further emersing themselves in the 40k world.
Lanrak wrote: .Perhaps because the game play of 40k became rather shallow after the transition to 3rd ed.
As for shallow post-2nd edition. That depends on your point of view. 3rd edition was more streamlined than 2nd, but that's largely because as the size of games grew, it became clear that for larger games (though not even close to the # of figs in a 1800 point game today) 2nd edition is a clunky mess. It's basically a ruleset that functions well with a few squads (an outgrowth of Rogue Trader) that boggs down at the level most folks play at. On a nostalgia kick I played a game of 2nd edition last year. It was like playing Necromunda with too many figures.
40k is not aimed at teenagers it's aimed at adults. The ruleset reflects this.
You're funny. That was a cracker of a joke you've just told there!
Seriously? Have you even looked at the other rulesets out there? Many of them are free on their respective companies websites. 40k has this schizophrenic... attitude about it where it is incredibly simplistic but simultaneously manages to be needlessly complex with all the special rules piled on top coupled with hippy-dippy rules writing.
To market this to adults, who will immediately point out the lack of logic and professionalism in some of their rules publications, whereas kids generally won't give a rat's ass.
it's weird how my friends and i are all adults and managed to read the rulebook without 'immediately pointing out the lack of proffessionalism and logic' in it.
If you would prefer a tighter ruleset with fewer special rules then that's great, but don't just lable anyone who thinks that special rules make the game more enjoyable a child.
Personally i think it would be pretty boring to know that my army's rules could all be cut from the same cloth as all others, but k'm prepared to accept that others may disagree without labling them as something derogatory.
xruslanx wrote: it's weird how my friends and i are all adults and managed to read the rulebook without 'immediately pointing out the lack of proffessionalism and logic' in it.
If you would prefer a tighter ruleset with fewer special rules then that's great, but don't just lable anyone who thinks that special rules make the game more enjoyable a child.
Personally i think it would be pretty boring to know that my army's rules could all be cut from the same cloth as all others, but k'm prepared to accept that others may disagree without labling them as something derogatory.
Cool, doesn't change the fact GW games are targeted at kids. Or the fact GW rules are crap, just pretending it isn't doesn't, isn't helping GW.
Lookat the amount of pages in the GW rule section. Look at the number of pages of Warmahordes pages. Which one is more competitive? Is this typical of a more complicated game? GWs games happen to be more complex rules wise and more straight foward tactically. That is typically a bad sign! If you want a B&P game, give it a simple ruleset! GW puts in the worst of both worlds into their games.
xruslanx wrote: it's weird how my friends and i are all adults and managed to read the rulebook without 'immediately pointing out the lack of proffessionalism and logic' in it.
If you would prefer a tighter ruleset with fewer special rules then that's great, but don't just lable anyone who thinks that special rules make the game more enjoyable a child.
Personally i think it would be pretty boring to know that my army's rules could all be cut from the same cloth as all others, but k'm prepared to accept that others may disagree without labling them as something derogatory.
Cool, doesn't change the fact GW games are targeted at kids. Or the fact GW rules are crap, just pretending it isn't doesn't, isn't helping GW.
i don't know about where you live but around here the kids certainly can't afford to get into gw. You think a twelve year old can drop £30 a week on this gak? Maybe if he never bought video games, sweets, booze, phone credit, clothes, shoes etc...but that's still one rich kid.
I think it's clear from gw's prices that it's aimed at adults with a bit of disposable income. For every rich spoilt kid, there are twenty adults who can spend a fair bit on plastic crack every week, unless you live in abu dhabi.
Do you have any reasoning or evidence behind your claim btw?
xruslanx wrote: it's weird how my friends and i are all adults and managed to read the rulebook without 'immediately pointing out the lack of proffessionalism and logic' in it.
If you would prefer a tighter ruleset with fewer special rules then that's great, but don't just lable anyone who thinks that special rules make the game more enjoyable a child.
Personally i think it would be pretty boring to know that my army's rules could all be cut from the same cloth as all others, but k'm prepared to accept that others may disagree without labling them as something derogatory.
Cool, doesn't change the fact GW games are targeted at kids. Or the fact GW rules are crap, just pretending it isn't doesn't, isn't helping GW.
i don't know about where you live but around here the kids certainly can't afford to get into gw. You think a twelve year old can drop £30 a week on this gak? Maybe if he never bought video games, sweets, booze, phone credit, clothes, shoes etc...but that's still one rich kid.
I think it's clear from gw's prices that it's aimed at adults with a bit of disposable income. For every rich spoilt kid, there are twenty adults who can spend a fair bit on plastic crack every week, unless you live in abu dhabi.
Do you have any reasoning or evidence behind your claim btw?
Are you just intentionally being obtuse? There are scores and scores of evidence out there that GW's strategy is to market to children with a good access to the bank of mum and dad. I'm not going to bother repeating it as I believe you're simply trolling and it's not worth my time to write out something that can be found with a simple search due to topics of this nature coming up about once a week on this forum.
xruslanx wrote: it's weird how my friends and i are all adults and managed to read the rulebook without 'immediately pointing out the lack of proffessionalism and logic' in it.
If you would prefer a tighter ruleset with fewer special rules then that's great, but don't just lable anyone who thinks that special rules make the game more enjoyable a child.
Personally i think it would be pretty boring to know that my army's rules could all be cut from the same cloth as all others, but k'm prepared to accept that others may disagree without labling them as something derogatory.
Cool, doesn't change the fact GW games are targeted at kids. Or the fact GW rules are crap, just pretending it isn't doesn't, isn't helping GW.
i don't know about where you live but around here the kids certainly can't afford to get into gw. You think a twelve year old can drop £30 a week on this gak? Maybe if he never bought video games, sweets, booze, phone credit, clothes, shoes etc...but that's still one rich kid.
I think it's clear from gw's prices that it's aimed at adults with a bit of disposable income. For every rich spoilt kid, there are twenty adults who can spend a fair bit on plastic crack every week, unless you live in abu dhabi.
Do you have any reasoning or evidence behind your claim btw?
The internet, GW marketing, people with half a brain, people not blinded by the amount of money they spent on GW stuff, take your pick there all good. But, you know what they say a little make belive is a good thing, so good for you . Still the only hope for GW is people waking up and stop bying the crap there feeding them, before GW get sold off piecemeal to other companies.
Are you just intentionally being obtuse? There are scores and scores of evidence out there that GW's strategy is to market to children with a good access to the bank of mum and dad. I'm not going to bother repeating it as I believe you're simply trolling and it's not worth my time to write out something that can be found with a simple search due to topics of this nature coming up about once a week on this forum.
Whether people like it or not, and whether it's insulting or not, it is indeed true that GW's core markets are teens. ON another thread I did a breakdown of what the kids at my son's school spend on GW, and extrapolated for the teenage boy population it showed them making up around 80 or 90% of UK revenue. Now that's on a sample of 120 kids and the figure might be out by 20 or 30 per cent, but it's obvious that teenage boys make up a huge part of the market, as they do with video games.
I don't necessarily agree with the view that the rules are crap so they must be aimed at teenagers. But the GW financial model is mainly based around teenage boys who have a lot of spending power. If you think kids can't afford their stuff, you haven't been hassled by 13 years olds to buy an XBox One or whatever.
Whether people like it or not, and whether it's insulting or not, it is indeed true that GW's core markets are teens. ON another thread I did a breakdown of what the kids at my son's school spend on GW, and extrapolated for the teenage boy population it showed them making up around 80 or 90% of UK revenue. Now that's on a sample of 120 kids and the figure might be out by 20 or 30 per cent, but it's obvious that teenage boys make up a huge part of the market, as they do with video games.
.
This is your standard for evidence? A sample size of one?
I can totally see how "check out our awesome new releases" on facebook markets exclusively to kids. But then that lumps them in with every single other company in the world. Unless GW do actual marketing that I'm not aware of?
people with half a brain, people not blinded by the amount of money they spent on GW stuff
Ah my apologies. I didn't realise you were on the largest 40k fansite in the world, then call all 40k fans idiots. Or is there some really intelligent hidden meaning behind these words that I missed?
Not sure if your problem is math or comprehension, but read again and you'll see the sample size is 120.
From one school, yes. I could find another school where no one plays 40k.
But if you are honestly going to use that as firm empirical evidence that teenagers make up 70-80% of GW's sales then there you are so far detatched from reality that there is no point argueing with you.
And *please* stop imbuing your replies with insults. Questioning someone's reading comprehension is irrelevant (since we all interpret language differently), and differentiating between numbers has feth all to do with maths. Remember that you are talking to an intelligent human being, not simply adding to your post count.
I'm really surprised some genuinely seem to think the rules are rubbish/crap/<insert expletive>.
If they truly were, you would be unable to play any games at all. Strangely enough I manage enough games without needing the rulebook for more than reading the mission details/warlord traits (which for some reason I still haven't memorised).
The rules are mediocre, have an outdated game model and are convoluted maybe. And suffer from lack of editing/proofreading/testing. Also GW insists on duplicating/separating rules from similar types of units too much.
On the other hand I find it hard to believe these other games have such perfect rules, unless it's a simple game like Chess (the rules of which fit on a scrap of paper).
xruslanx wrote: it's weird how my friends and i are all adults and managed to read the rulebook without 'immediately pointing out the lack of proffessionalism and logic' in it.
If you would prefer a tighter ruleset with fewer special rules then that's great, but don't just lable anyone who thinks that special rules make the game more enjoyable a child.
Personally i think it would be pretty boring to know that my army's rules could all be cut from the same cloth as all others, but k'm prepared to accept that others may disagree without labling them as something derogatory.
Just wanted to clarify that it was not my intention to label anyone a child. I'm simply pointing out what the community has known for a long time, that is, 40k is targeted at teens.
As for the "kids don't have enough $" argument, it's simply not true. GW targets middle, upper-middle and upper class kids who have access to surprisingly high levels of disposable income. Anyone who's worked at a guitar, video game, toy, etc store anywhere even moderately affluent will have similar experience with the incredible spending power that children can wield through their parents.
No one is disputing that 40k is not merely enjoyed by children, I enjoyed it well into my 20's and still play the odd game. That doesn't change the fact that it's a product that is targeted to teens and designed around their developmental state in much the same way as magic, clix games, video games etc. All of which are targeted at teens, but have a sizable adult following too, especially as "kid things" have become steadily more socially acceptable for adults over the last decade.
Shandara wrote: If they truly were, you would be unable to play any games at all.
Not at all true. You can play games with garbage rules, especially if you're willing to 4+ it every time you find a problem with those rules. But "able to play a game successfully" is an absurdly low standard for rule quality. Judged by any reasonable standard GW's rules are garbage.
Strangely enough I manage enough games without needing the rulebook for more than reading the mission details/warlord traits (which for some reason I still haven't memorised).
I'm guessing you've been playing long enough to have encountered most of the common rule problems and figured out a house rule to fix them. Try doing that as a new player who doesn't have all the fixes memorized and see how successful you are.
On the other hand I find it hard to believe these other games have such perfect rules, unless it's a simple game like Chess (the rules of which fit on a scrap of paper).
Again, MTG: simple enough "basic" rules to have a thriving "casual" community, but also a "full" rulebook that answers any possible rule question with "go read the rules".
xruslanx wrote: it's weird how my friends and i are all adults and managed to read the rulebook without 'immediately pointing out the lack of proffessionalism and logic' in it.
If you would prefer a tighter ruleset with fewer special rules then that's great, but don't just lable anyone who thinks that special rules make the game more enjoyable a child.
Personally i think it would be pretty boring to know that my army's rules could all be cut from the same cloth as all others, but k'm prepared to accept that others may disagree without labling them as something derogatory.
Just wanted to clarify that it was not my intention to label anyone a child. I'm simply pointing out what the community has known for a long time, that is, 40k is targeted at teens.
As for the "kids don't have enough $" argument, it's simply not true. GW targets middle, upper-middle and upper class kids who have access to surprisingly high levels of disposable income. Anyone who's worked at a guitar, video game, toy, etc store anywhere even moderately affluent will have similar experience with the incredible spending power that children can wield through their parents.
No one is disputing that 40k is not merely enjoyed by children, I enjoyed it well into my 20's and still play the odd game. That doesn't change the fact that it's a product that is targeted to teens and designed around their developmental state in much the same way as magic, clix games, video games etc. All of which are targeted at teens, but have a sizable adult following too, especially as "kid things" have become steadily more socially acceptable for adults over the last decade.
Most middle class parents can buy their kid a £150 guitar for their 13th birthday, sure, or a £60 box of warhammer at christmas. But on a week by week basis? No way. You'd have to be *very* wealthy to casually spend that on your kids every single week. I have nephews who have property worth in excess of £1m and they don't spend that on their kids every week. Maybe £20 for a DVD or some make-up every couple of weeks but no where near the level you're presuming.
By contrast our single childless 20-something with a full time low-paid job has £100 a week in disposable income. Sure not all of it is going on 40k, but if he sees some awesome new tank that's coming out at a hefty price-tag, he doesn't think "ah damn, going to have to wait for my birthday for that", he thinks "woah i can afford that on pay-day if I live off noodles for a week".
Just look at the new releases. If they released a new plastic Imperial guard range tomorrow, I'd drop £200 on it easily. 4 infantry squads, 6 special weapon sets and a command squad to get me started. Plus the codex obviously. It'd be sweet.
But again, little Timmy has no chance. Really very few parents would blow all that on their kids on a whim, but there's tens of thousands of people who could do so if they wanted to. As long as they're single, obviously
xruslanx wrote: it's weird how my friends and i are all adults and managed to read the rulebook without 'immediately pointing out the lack of proffessionalism and logic' in it.
If you would prefer a tighter ruleset with fewer special rules then that's great, but don't just lable anyone who thinks that special rules make the game more enjoyable a child.
Personally i think it would be pretty boring to know that my army's rules could all be cut from the same cloth as all others, but k'm prepared to accept that others may disagree without labling them as something derogatory.
Cool, doesn't change the fact GW games are targeted at kids. Or the fact GW rules are crap, just pretending it isn't doesn't, isn't helping GW.
i don't know about where you live but around here the kids certainly can't afford to get into gw. You think a twelve year old can drop £30 a week on this gak? Maybe if he never bought video games, sweets, booze, phone credit, clothes, shoes etc...but that's still one rich kid.
I think it's clear from gw's prices that it's aimed at adults with a bit of disposable income. For every rich spoilt kid, there are twenty adults who can spend a fair bit on plastic crack every week, unless you live in abu dhabi.
Do you have any reasoning or evidence behind your claim btw?
Ummm...GW themselves.
Demographic Criteria: At least 500,000 total population within 10 miles with 33,000+ 14- to 24-year-old males. Median household income is at least $50,000.
That is their current site survey requirement for determining where they might locate GW stores.
Since it starts at 14, I would say that that is a good indicator of who they are targeting. I would have to go back and look, but I am pretty sure in one of the 2004 or 2005 FY reports, they stated that their target for new players was 12-18. College age is a harder sell as plastic toys a little fun compared to beer and girls while after 24, they assume you are either locked in or have left them behind in favor of more mature rules.
And your data to support that a majority of GW products are sold in GW stores? We have no solid data to go on but since a huge range of GW products are *only* available online (and even more only available online intermidantly) we can guess that a good chunk of GW's sales are done over the internet. And guess what demographic doesn't have access to a debit/credit card?
And your other data to support the idea that GW's established larger stores have sales data that screws towards youngsters spending the most amount of money? Tesco are currently aggressively expanding supermarkets in areas with heavy footfall. Does that mean they make most of their money from people on foot as opposed to people in the mega-marts?
You're making a lot of assumptions in your argument for no apparent reason other than a desire to paint GW as being for kiddies.
Good reasons for playing 40k, (in my view) give the originally stated conditions.
1) You like the fluff/background. It is a well developed universe and can be quite engrossing.
Counterpoint: You don't need to play the game to enjoy the background, if anything, what few stories there are in the rulebooks end up detracting from the background (EG, Grey Knights codex). There's plenty of people out there who are involved enough with the 40k or fantasy universes just by reading the books off amazon and never stepping into a GW store.
2) You really love the models, looks, style, painting, whatever. They're awesome. You take the 'best quality' miniatures in the world claim at face value.
Counterpoint: Finecast is a massive counterpoint - a mates kroxigors are currently wilting like a dead plant. Games Workshop's design is slowly going haywire, taking for example the high elf flying bolt thrower, Space Marine Centurions and the Lord of Skulls. More and more companies are making better models for painting all the time. Take a look at Infinity for awesome sci fi models, keep an eye out for the Mantic enforcers that are released with deadzone in a few months, they may turn out great. Mantics Corporation soldiers are great for sci fi troops. Admittedly, fantasy wise there's a bit of a struggle finding a wide range of suitable models at the moment...
I could add to the actual rules discussion but put me down in the 'rules are really awful and terrible' camp. I could go more into that and might do in another post but, quite frankly, I need sleep.
xruslanx wrote: And your data to support that a majority of GW products are sold in GW stores? We have no solid data to go on but since a huge range of GW products are *only* available online (and even more only available online intermidantly) we can guess that a good chunk of GW's sales are done over the internet. And guess what demographic doesn't have access to a debit/credit card?
And your other data to support the idea that GW's established larger stores have sales data that screws towards youngsters spending the most amount of money? Tesco are currently aggressively expanding supermarkets in areas with heavy footfall. Does that mean they make most of their money from people on foot as opposed to people in the mega-marts?
You're making a lot of assumptions in your argument for no apparent reason other than a desire to paint GW as being for kiddies.
Please, don't let the overwhelming evidence get in the way of your argument.
Have you seen the commercial I posted? Does it look like it's targeted to adults? I'll post it again because maybe you just chose to ignore it:
Oh, another one.
Too bad GW doesn't make any commercials (or any advertising for that matter) but I would bet their target demographic didn't change much.
An advert for a single games workshop store in the USA, and an advert for a board game using 40k figureines, both made twenty years ago? This is your irrefutable evidence of GW's corporate strategy?
I don't really get the "40k is for kids" thing either. At my FLGS, most people are in their 20's or early 30's. We have more people who are older than 40 than younger than 20, and this has been true for years now. We even had a two year gap in there where more or less the only one who was a teenager was the son of one of the other regular players.
And it's not that surprising. Parents look at children and think "Am I going to shell out a bunch of cash for something they might instantly loose interest in?" People over 20 look at the game and think "Hey, this is way cheaper and interesting than smoking or going to the bar. Good value!" Or, at least, it's no worse value than video gaming.
Young people take money from leery parents who see a fad. Older people see a good value way to do something creative with their money.
And I still defend that games like 40k are relatively simple. Yes, there are a lot of special rules, but there are UNIVERSAL special rules. And the game has complex bits that interact with each other (which makes the game better, not worse), but they generally work the same way every time.
Compare 40k to malifaux. Every model in that game is basically a special character with special rules. You have to spend half an hour before the game just trying to figure out what your opponent's minis are and what they can do, and that's for tiny malifaux games with only a couple of models. Meanwhile, my opponent can say "those guys are special because they have FNP" and I just know what that means. And everyone has bolters and power armor, which I know what those are, rather than "this one has a sword of special +9" and "this one has a special ability that allows him to blah, blah, blah..."
Also, as mentioned, compare 40k to old battletech, or some of the WWII simulator games or, classically, advanced squad leader. In 40k, I roll up a meltagun to the tank. I have BS4. I hit the tank on a die roll of 3+. Everyone knows this. I just roll a single die, and there you have it. In other games, you've got to spend twenty years looking up tables to see how far the unit moved, and over what kind of terrain, in what weather conditions, and how far from their commander they are, and what they had for breakfast that morning, and what their policy is towards allowing women to participate in military service, and what their favorite color is. And then, after all that calculating, then, perhaps, you'll get to roll a die, and see if you hit.
Oh, I'm sorry, it's actually not that easy, because you also have to consider your target, and how far it is away, and how fast it moved in the last turn over what kind of terrain, in what weather conditions from what direction, from how far they are from their ammunition stores, but not from obscuring terrain of type three or better, and... and... and...
An advert for a single games workshop store in the USA, and an advert for a board game using 40k figureines, both made twenty years ago? This is your irrefutable evidence of GW's corporate strategy?
Dude, just give it up.
Not irrefutable evidence, but tons of little evidence pointing in the same direction could lead you to a pretty good conclusion, you know?
This is like saying MLP is targeted to young men because more young men are buying their merchandise. Still doesn't change the fact that it's targeted to little girls first.
You've stated that GW games are targeted at adults, and yet you haven't' provided irrefutable evidence yourself. At least we provided evidence. Perhaps you should try that sometime instead of just claiming something without evidence to back you up.
Please provide evidence to prove your claim, otherwise you're just spewing an opinion based on your perception, not a fact.
what I dislike is both are much too random for my tastes.
I like randomness here and there, but when its everywhere... I know better games, for cheaper (even if they were totally free to me... I still would opt for something else, I just don't like the rulesets very much, random isn't fun when that's all it is)
Well I haven't played WHFB, so I can't comment there. But 3rd edition was the best ruleset for 40K and it's steadily gotten worse, until this new nightmare.
Yes, GW games are worth playing "on [their] own merits." Are there rules challenges? Yes. Is it a trial and error procedure to build an army? Maybe. But what are you looking for, a game to play with others or an existential experience in absolute perfection?
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Yes, GW games are worth playing "on [their] own merits." Are there rules challenges? Yes. Is it a trial and error procedure to build an army? Maybe. But what are you looking for, a game to play with others or an existential experience in absolute perfection?
Ignoring the fact it is easier to get a game in for 40k than (most) anything else, which is the entire point of the thread, you argument loses all merit.
If it were just as easy to get a game of something else as 40k then why would you pick 40k over any other game (ignoring fluff and models as well)?
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Yes, GW games are worth playing "on [their] own merits." Are there rules challenges? Yes. Is it a trial and error procedure to build an army? Maybe. But what are you looking for, a game to play with others or an existential experience in absolute perfection?
Okay I'm going to shoot my unit at your unit. Range looks good, my 
*opponent checks statline* Um, 3.
stupid.
