jonolikespie wrote:
So your response to (what you think is a) biased thread is to make your own biased thread?

 jonolikespie wrote:
Ok I am going to take off my bitter-(not very)old-veteran hat for a minute and ask the people in this thread, what do you actually like about the rules?

 jonolikespie wrote:


I'm genuinely curious because the other thread is up to 12 or so pages with not a single person pointing out WHY they like the rules.

xruslanx wrote:
Speaking for myself here, what I like about the rules is the easy interaction between the fluff and the ruleset. If the designers want to impliment something because they think it's cool, they don't have to use the existing mechanisms in the ruleset, they can just stick it in. I will give some examples of this since that won't much much sense on its own.

The old demon codex was full of special rules that were simply tacked on by the designers with no existing mechanisms used at all. The Changling for example, could simply select an enemy model, make it perform a Ld check, and if it failed then you'd get to shoot it that turn. It could well have been broken or usable, since within the game-rules that that special rule utilises, there is complexity, and there could be problems with the way the Changeling's rule interacts with existing shooting rules. But so what? It's an awesome special rule and it's fluffy as hell.

Or Fateweaver's ability to give anyone with 6" a re-roll to any armour/invul/cover save they could take. Potentially game-breaking but fluffy and cool.

Or GK's Warp Storm. Against the old demon codex it practically broke them, yet still fluffy and cool.

A "tighter" ruleset just sounds boring to me. It would essentially mean that anything actually *new* would be impossible, everything would have to be created from pre-existing methods.

Zweischneid wrote:
I like about the 40K rules that they allow me to push 40K miniatures across the table with other people.

Would the rules be needed for that? Strictly speaking, no.

But a lot of people (the majority of 40K players?) appear to have the need for some kind of rules to justify it to themselves to push 40K miniatures across the table, and the current rules seem to work fine in furnishing people with that justification.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Why on earth do you think this? There is absolutely no reason the things you listed couldn't be implemented, but costed appropriately so they are balanced. WHY does fluffy have to mean unbalanced? Why is different impossible in a balanced system?
This isn't a case of 'everything has to be perfectly balanced therefore it all has to be the same' like chess, this is just a case of 'X is only good at shooting, Y is only good at melee and costs as much as X, Z is good at both but costs more than X or Y'.

xruslanx wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Why on earth do you think this? There is absolutely no reason the things you listed couldn't be implemented, but costed appropriately so they are balanced. WHY does fluffy have to mean unbalanced? Why is different impossible in a balanced system?
This isn't a case of 'everything has to be perfectly balanced therefore it all has to be the same' like chess, this is just a case of 'X is only good at shooting, Y is only good at melee and costs as much as X, Z is good at both but costs more than X or Y'.

Well obviously I think that points should be balanced as best as they can. I don't think anyone is argueing that points should be distributed arbitrarily, if that's what you think the thousands of people who play 40k regularly think, then you are grossly miss-informed.

What is your actual point? Could you demonstrate how you think the 40k ruleset is poor beyond things being under-over costed?

 jonolikespie wrote:
...
I would love to do a pre heresy Iron Warriors army since the HH books are quickly turning them into my favourite legion but every time I look at it all I see is a codex that can't give me an army that plays the way I want and the HH list which isn't exactly designed for play against regular 40k forces. I could play them with the current chaos dex but then I've got to take some guard allies to get access to all the cool siege toys I need, but at that point any list I write would make a lot more sense as guard with chaos allies and all of a sudden I lose interest.

I'd love a Raven Guard army using lots of bits and pieces from anvil since some of them are amazing for giving marines that realistic modern/future soldier look GW seem to ignore but with the latest book that has come out the only way for me to do it is lots of assault marines and I really, really don't want to do that because I think assault marines should not be the focus of a raven guard force, they are an infiltrating force, not a jump pack force. Unfortunately the only way I have seen to do that is to take a chaos marine list with Huron as 'counts as' to get his warlord trait.

Even a guard footslogger list seems like fun since I could do it really cheap with mantic models, but even as I try to tell myself that I can't bring myself to do it because as I write the list people tell me to take X because it's OP and make sure I pick up Y because I'll have to deal with fliers and stay away from Z because it's useless. After exploring other systems I just can't deal with that kind of while list building.


40k is not a game I can enjoy on any level because as much as I love the fluff and models the rules are:
A) Horribly unbalanced compared to every other system I have tried.
B) Overly complicated in that rule A means X happens but unit B has rule C that turns X into Y unless someone has brought Z, and if that is the case we'll have to check the rulebook to see what Z does.
C) Very, very poorly written. So much so that one of the rules writers admitted in White Dwarf that often while playtesting if something came up where they did not know how new rule X interacts with another units rule Y they would 4+ it themselves and make that how it goes. There is no justification for that, the rules writers are admitting to playtesting things without having a very clear idea at all how the rule is supposed to work.
D) Not sure what scale they are at. I said it in the last thread and I'll say it again, there are elements of a skirmish game in a game that involves jets and artillery.
E) Tactically speaking, very shallow. Between weapon ranges and no sort of facings on units it's not hard to sit on an objective in the middle of the board and stay there. If I want to get you off it I run strait at you with a weapon that can dislodge you, there is no benefit to flanking you or outmaneuvering you in any way. Either I have the tools in my list to deal with your unit on the objective or I don't. (This might be a little bit of an oversimplification I'll admit but in general I think it's a very valid point.


Go ask anyone in the infinity sub forum what units you should take in your list, their answer will be 'whatever you like, they are all viable'. Try winning a game of W-wing if your opponent is good enough to stay out of your firing arc all game. Me and my friends are still new enough to Dystopan wars that we certainly don't know all the rules so the other night we had a bit of an issue with wording when it came to ramming. As soon we got home we jumped on the net and looked up the 1.1 rules (we only had 1.0 on us) and all of a sudden it became perfectly clear.

...

xruslanx wrote:
Oh okay. I didn't realise that you wanted every single unit, upgrade and special rule to be equally viable. It's clear that you and I do not see eye to eye on that so we'll agree to disagree

 jonolikespie wrote:


So what you're saying there is that you only like the game because you like the models and fluff, which is exactly what the thread this one splintered off from (and to some extent this one) are trying to disregard.
If it were just as easy to get a game of In the Emperors Name, or some other game using 40k fluff and models, why would you pick 40k over that?

xruslanx wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Ok I am going to take off my bitter-(not very)old-veteran hat for a minute and ask the people in this thread, what do you actually like about the rules?

Speaking for myself here, what I like about the rules is the easy interaction between the fluff and the ruleset. If the designers want to impliment something because they think it's cool, they don't have to use the existing mechanisms in the ruleset, they can just stick it in. I will give some examples of this since that won't much much sense on its own.

The old demon codex was full of special rules that were simply tacked on by the designers with no existing mechanisms used at all. The Changling for example, could simply select an enemy model, make it perform a Ld check, and if it failed then you'd get to shoot it that turn. It could well have been broken or usable, since within the game-rules that that special rule utilises, there is complexity, and there could be problems with the way the Changeling's rule interacts with existing shooting rules. But so what? It's an awesome special rule and it's fluffy as hell.

Or Fateweaver's ability to give anyone with 6" a re-roll to any armour/invul/cover save they could take. Potentially game-breaking but fluffy and cool.

Or GK's Warp Storm. Against the old demon codex it practically broke them, yet still fluffy and cool.

A "tighter" ruleset just sounds boring to me. It would essentially mean that anything actually *new* would be impossible, everything would have to be created from pre-existing methods.

xruslanx wrote:.

What is your actual point? Could you demonstrate how you think the 40k ruleset is poor beyond things being under-over costed?

 jonolikespie wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Oh okay. I didn't realise that you wanted every single unit, upgrade and special rule to be equally viable. It's clear that you and I do not see eye to eye on that so we'll agree to disagree

How is that not a good thing? How can you possibly prefer some units to be auto include and some to be never worth taking? I'm not saying a lascanon needs to be as good at taking out hordes as a flamer but if a heavy flamer does everything a flamer does but better then it needs to cost more (I'm assuming they still do but you should be able to see my point there).

 Paradigm wrote:

The best comparison I have is Mantic's Warpath system (also a ruleset I like), where almost every rule in the game is contained on 2-3 pages of USRs, which are then just added to armies. While this makes the game faster, and more streamlined, it outs more focus on the model characteristics rather than unique abilities. I personally enjoy both systems, as sometimes the fast-paced, more interactive style of Warpath keeps both players involved, but in 40k there is argubly more character to units, where almost everything has a special rule (universal or unique) of some kind or other, making the game more varied.

xruslanx wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

The best comparison I have is Mantic's Warpath system (also a ruleset I like), where almost every rule in the game is contained on 2-3 pages of USRs, which are then just added to armies. While this makes the game faster, and more streamlined, it outs more focus on the model characteristics rather than unique abilities. I personally enjoy both systems, as sometimes the fast-paced, more interactive style of Warpath keeps both players involved, but in 40k there is argubly more character to units, where almost everything has a special rule (universal or unique) of some kind or other, making the game more varied.

This is actually what I was worried about when 6th came out. With so many special rules I was worried every unit in the codex would simply be a list of references to USRs. Thankfully that does not seem to be the case, I suspect as time goes on we will see codexes deviate more and more from 6th edition baseline and into a "6.5 edition".

Deadnight wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Ok I am going to take off my bitter-(not very)old-veteran hat for a minute and ask the people in this thread, what do you actually like about the rules?

Speaking for myself here, what I like about the rules is the easy interaction between the fluff and the ruleset. If the designers want to impliment something because they think it's cool, they don't have to use the existing mechanisms in the ruleset, they can just stick it in. I will give some examples of this since that won't much much sense on its own.

The old demon codex was full of special rules that were simply tacked on by the designers with no existing mechanisms used at all. The Changling for example, could simply select an enemy model, make it perform a Ld check, and if it failed then you'd get to shoot it that turn. It could well have been broken or usable, since within the game-rules that that special rule utilises, there is complexity, and there could be problems with the way the Changeling's rule interacts with existing shooting rules. But so what? It's an awesome special rule and it's fluffy as hell.

Or Fateweaver's ability to give anyone with 6" a re-roll to any armour/invul/cover save they could take. Potentially game-breaking but fluffy and cool.

Or GK's Warp Storm. Against the old demon codex it practically broke them, yet still fluffy and cool.

A "tighter" ruleset just sounds boring to me. It would essentially mean that anything actually *new* would be impossible, everything would have to be created from pre-existing methods.

The fact that thy do this in warmachine/hordes too makes a mockery of this argument. Take epic butcher, Magnus or Caine as examples. In each case, their fluff matches their in game rules. In butchers case, he even has a rule called homicidal maniac, his berzerker nature, ehere he goes into a killing spree, heedless of whether he kills friend or foe is represented perfectly within hid rules, the fact that his rage ebbs and flows, and fuels his sorcery, and his extremely unstable nature is represented by his random focus generation, his rage is literally transferred to the war jacks under his command as thy become more aggressive by default. Even if you look at his feat, where his rage boils over and infects his whole army is excellently done.
Look at Magnus. His crushed leg held together by a brace - low speed and def. look at his special rules - backstabbing, feign death and resourceful - all perfectly within character. Look at his spell list - representing a former cygnar affiliation along with more from being on the run since.
Look at Caine. Look at his feat. Try and tell me it's not cool and flavourful.

And yet this is all in a game famous for its extremely tight rues set and balance. Which puts a mockery to the claim that 40k is somehow better, despite all its faults, because it allows the background to be represented on the table top.

xruslanx wrote:.

What is your actual point? Could you demonstrate how you think the 40k ruleset is poor beyond things being under-over costed?

40k suffers from bloat, and from needless excess layers of rules, excess die rolls and other aspects that essentially add nothing but clutter. clutter is bad. Sure, you can work around it, and still have fun with friends, but ask yourself this - are you having fun because of the rules, or in spite of them.

I'll give you a few examples.

Excess rules. Bloat, essentially. and more crucially, bloat that does not add to the game. Take the simple example of movement. You have the basic movement rules for infantry for example, and then all the exceptions. Jump packs and their jet pack exceptions, bikes, jet bikes, cavalry, vehicles, fliers, monstrous creatures etc. now why does 40k need all these extra classifications to add a pseudo-depth to the the when others pull it off with variable movement values. Rules exist that tell you how to do things, except for everything else that does it some other way how about needless rules - like how 5th ed marines could simply ignore the whole part of the rule book about morale?
Excess die rolls. Roll to hit, wound, armour save, fnp. The latter three essentially deal with the same question (does the shot that hit me kill me?) other games like infinity and warmachine (and even dnd!) use 2. Wmh - roll to hit, roll to damage. Infinity - roll to hit, and roll to save against the power of what hit you. Simple, elegant, and streamlined. 40k is excessive for the sake of it and adds nothing except time, and the mistaken belief that more dice is more depth.
Further excess - vehicles and infantry use different mechanics. One uses wounds the other armour. Historically, vehicles were an add on to a fantasy game, but gw as stuck with this awkward dual system ever since. Other games use a universal inflict damage system, and use universal 'wound' mechanics, with vehicles simply having more, or else having damage effects marked differently - look at warjacks and infantry in warmahordes - same universal system is at the core of both.
Further excess and layers of extra game mechanics - try strength and ap in guns. You use the ap to determine if you get through infantry armour (strength means nothing) and you use strength to determine if you get through vehicle armour. It's pseudo-depth. Why? Surely it keys sense to use the one system? For me it achieves nothing but dissociation from the game when I realise a str10 ap5 gun will in all likelyhood pulp a land rider, predator tank, and most apc's in the game, but will bounce off a grot with power armour.
Cover- terrible mechanic with the alternative save. A marine with power armour in 6+ cover could take a cover save against a lasgun, and fail, and die in the game- somehow he loses his power armour because he ducked behind a tree.ok.... Surely a guy in power armour and cover should gain more of it than this?! But you use one or the other when common sense would tell you it's more than the sum of its parts. Other games with treat cover as increasing the difficulty to hit you (warmachine, hordes, early 40k editions) or offer superior protection via positive armour save mods (starship troopers) . Some like infinity do both. But 40ks system is nonsensical, and poorly taught through.



I'll be honest - I don't enjoy the 40k rules set. It is a thirty year old relic. In evolutionary terms, it's a dinosaur. It simply has not keep with the times. Game design theory is actually something I'm quite interested in, and it has moved on significantly from those days in the early 80s when 40k was ported over from fantasy as their '... But in space' game. I'd like to enjoy 40k again - I really would! I went through my bits box organising things and found a whole bunch of unassembled marines. I'm very tempted to do a marine project, of some kind. The sad fact is whatever the project evolves into, it won't be done using the rues set from 40k.b

xruslanx wrote:
Speaking for myself here, what I like about the rules is the easy interaction between the fluff and the ruleset. If the designers want to impliment something because they think it's cool, they don't have to use the existing mechanisms in the ruleset, they can just stick it in. I will give some examples of this since that won't much much sense on its own.

Or GK's Warp Storm. Against the old demon codex it practically broke them, yet still fluffy and cool.

A "tighter" ruleset just sounds boring to me. It would essentially mean that anything actually *new* would be impossible, everything would have to be created from pre-existing methods.

xruslanx wrote:
There is already a poll in an anti-GW sub-forum. i know the results will be biased but it might at least put an end to the rediculous "only children can play 40k" and "40k is unplayable" nonsense.

 Paradigm wrote:
I like the rules. I don't love them, admit they are far from flawless, but they enable me to use the figures I have bought and spent time painting, and to create a story around them. That said, I have 0 interest in competitive play, so am not really bothered by internal/external balance of the various codexes and the rules themselves.

In the same way as you can enjoy a video game that suffers from glitches, poor graphics and/or sub-par mechanics, I enjoy 40k, purely for fun.

Makumba wrote:
To be honest I don't understand what polls like this are suppose to prove . If some realy doesn't like w40k , then he probably stoped playing it when 6th started. Melee armies or chaos players won't be voting on this . On the other hand people like me who play IG or those who play armies which do ok in 6th , will say that the rule set is totaly ok or even great. Tau/eldar players will probably call 6th the best edition ever made.

Makumba wrote:
Good for you . out of the 73 people that played at the last big tournament here 0 played csm . In the last new player league out of 16people 0 were csm. I can't remember the last time , I saw csm as something else as helldrake ally . And considering this is a few months after two new codex , it seems to be a bad time for csm players. I mean we have more faresight and Iyaden players then csm players counting the veterans that have csm armeis .

daisho wrote:
The rules are "ok", they could be really good if they would only make a core rule book and all army books at once - but GWS always makes new books choices stronger than before just for the sake of selling more stuff thus bringing inbalance _on purpose_, which is really the biggest downside of 40k.

ClockworkZion wrote:

daisho wrote:
The rules are "ok", they could be really good if they would only make a core rule book and all army books at once - but GWS always makes new books choices stronger than before just for the sake of selling more stuff thus bringing inbalance _on purpose_, which is really the biggest downside of 40k.

Extra Credits sums up intentional imbalance as a game design technique well: http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/perfect-imbalance

For thise who didn't spend the 5 minutes watching it, basically the idea is to keep things just a bit off balance to keep the game from ever going stale.

xruslanx wrote:
insaniak what "gray areas" are you referring to? I can't think of rules problems that come up every single game.

PhantomViper wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

daisho wrote:
The rules are "ok", they could be really good if they would only make a core rule book and all army books at once - but GWS always makes new books choices stronger than before just for the sake of selling more stuff thus bringing inbalance _on purpose_, which is really the biggest downside of 40k.

Extra Credits sums up intentional imbalance as a game design technique well: http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/perfect-imbalance

For thise who didn't spend the 5 minutes watching it, basically the idea is to keep things just a bit off balance to keep the game from ever going stale.

Which is perfectly fine in a video game where one day you can play one thing and the next day you can play another without any trouble, but is a pretty big problem when changing faction in a miniature wargame means that you have to spend several hundred euros...

PhantomViper wrote:

Here, help yourself: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/15.page

xruslanx wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Here, help yourself: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/15.page

If I can prove that none of those problems crop up in every single game, will you admit that you're wrong?

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Here, help yourself: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/15.page

If I can prove that none of those problems crop up in every single game, will you admit that you're wrong?

That's not the point he's trying to make.

The point is that in many games (not necessarily all, everyone's experience varies) have at least one, or multiple problems.

There are in fact many problems with even how the codex is written for wargear selection. This is technically an issue in any game where you use anything with access to a part of the armoury with the poor wording.

Many people simply ignore these problems and play their own RAI version, but this can only work among friends on a regular basis. Against random pickups or at tournaments, everyone will have a different view.

The actualy realistic, non hyperbolic point is that many, and I would go for a majority, of games have at least one rules dispute/issue/unclear wording occur due to the rules or codices. And YMDC is an example of how many problems there are and how many of them persist.

xruslanx wrote:
Thing is, it seems strange to me that the people who regard 40k as having so many problems that it's basically unplayable, just happen to be people who also slag off GW over anything and everything they do, and complain about declining quality of GW models,

Whereas people who don't spend all day whinging about GW tend to find 40k very easy to play with genuinely game-breaking glitches few and far between. That's an interesting coincidence, isn't it?

xruslanx wrote:
Thing is, it seems strange to me that the people who regard 40k as having so many problems that it's basically unplayable, just happen to be people who also slag off GW over anything and everything they do, and complain about declining quality of GW models,

Makumba wrote:
Good for you . out of the 73 people that played at the last big tournament here 0 played csm . In the last new player league out of 16people 0 were csm. I can't remember the last time , I saw csm as something else as helldrake ally . And considering this is a few months after two new codex , it seems to be a bad time for csm players.

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Thing is, it seems strange to me that the people who regard 40k as having so many problems that it's basically unplayable, just happen to be people who also slag off GW over anything and everything they do, and complain about declining quality of GW models,

Whereas people who don't spend all day whinging about GW tend to find 40k very easy to play with genuinely game-breaking glitches few and far between. That's an interesting coincidence, isn't it?

Well, it makes sense people who don't complain about GW tend to be the ones who like it. I would expect that to be the norm, for well, just about anything that exists. Don't know what point you're trying to make with that line.

The people who have problems with the rules have repeatedly stated what issues there are and what systems exist that are better rules for their game. One of the underlying issues with 40k is the drive to sell more models, which has constantly tried to push the size of games steadily upwards. Now, 28mm is supposed to be a skirmish level game by its very nature. We're talking at most two dozen units with a vehicle or two. Assuming a standard 4x6 or even 4x8 board, this allows for a lot of movement and freedom, while also being able to implement realistic and reasonable ranges and movement.

40k has shoehorned itself into trying to be a 15mm game played with 28mm figures. If all the models were shrunk down to 15mm, and everything remained identical, the rules would work better and the game would have at least some semblance of true tactical depth.

Now, I want to go back to your first statement. Just like your last line that I commented on, this line actually says nothing. Its a contentless sentence that proves nothing besides the obvious. Of course the people who complain about 40k will have other problems with GW. GW makes a few other games of varying quality, but company policy as a whole tends to show through in all their work. All the criticism levied against them is valid to varying degrees. Disagreeing with it doesn't make you any more right, or the other side any less wrong.

The difference in a discussion is how you present your side.

So now I ask you, instead of throwing around meaningless statements with no content or thought or depth or even a smidgen of real attempt at a proper discussion, why not engage in a proper discussion. Raise counterpoints, acknowledge the other side and refute some of the points. Maybe even consider what the other side is saying instead of plugging your ears. Make a convincing argument and make me believe what you believe.

Because, if 40k was actually a good rule set, and the game was even a little more balanced, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

xruslanx wrote:
First you claim that GW are trying to make players play larger games in order to sell more models. While this was true, there are two problems with this argument - the first is that troops have gotten way better with successful rulesets. You can happily taken bucket loads of Eldar Guardians or Imperial guard squads, as well as existing ranges in general being more effective than the newcomers.

Second, you claim that 40k is basically epic rules to the wrong scale. While I don't doubt this, you haven't supplied any evidence for why this is the case.

 Peregrine wrote:

Evidence has been stated. Let's review:

* Weapon ranges that are way too short for 28mm scale (tank guns at 72" are laughably wrong, for example) so that range actually matters for gameplay purposes.

* Flyer movement speeds that are way too slow (should be off-table air strikes instead, but GW needs to sell models).

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
And how about, ludicrously proportioned marines with big heads... aliens that grow guns on their arms... metal dragons that spew flames out of their ass. None of this is backed up by science. The whole thing is ludicrously unrealistic. Can't understand what anyone would play it, because I demand scientific accuracy in all my games.

ClockworkZion wrote:

daisho wrote:
The rules are "ok", they could be really good if they would only make a core rule book and all army books at once - but GWS always makes new books choices stronger than before just for the sake of selling more stuff thus bringing inbalance _on purpose_, which is really the biggest downside of 40k.

Extra Credits sums up intentional imbalance as a game design technique well: http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/perfect-imbalance

For thise who didn't spend the 5 minutes watching it, basically the idea is to keep things just a bit off balance to keep the game from ever going stale.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
First you claim that GW are trying to make players play larger games in order to sell more models. While this was true, there are two problems with this argument - the first is that troops have gotten way better with successful rulesets. You can happily taken bucket loads of Eldar Guardians or Imperial guard squads, as well as existing ranges in general being more effective than the newcomers.

No, you're just missing the point here. GW promoting bigger games to sell models isn't necessarily about selling new models, selling lots of old models is also good. If you're taking "bucket loads" of troops (probably because GW dropped the per-model point cost) then you're doing exactly what GW wants.

Evidence has been stated. Let's review:

* Weapon ranges that are way too short for 28mm scale (tank guns at 72" are laughably wrong, for example) so that range actually matters for gameplay purposes.

* Flyer movement speeds that are way too slow (should be off-table air strikes instead, but GW needs to sell models).

* Army sizes that get too crowded on a standard 6x4 table and reduce movement options to "move into range and roll dice".

* Entire classes of units that shouldn't be present in a 28mm game (heavy artillery tanks that should be miles away, aircraft that can't plausibly fly in a 6x4 box, etc), with an expansion (Apocalypse) that adds even more classes.

And that's just some obvious easy ones. GW's design process for 40k has been taking the core mechanics of a 28mm skirmish game and bolting on rules to handle all the cool Epic-scale models.

xruslanx wrote:
So how does that relate to the ruleset? If you want to make another thread advocating that GW shouldn't be making money, take it to another thread.

Oh okay. Basically you're annoyed at GW making cinematic or heroic models rather than anything that would actually be on a futuristic battlefield.

But this is simply your personal taste for pragmatism over white is quite obviously a more cinematic experience.

Were you one of those people who hated Star Wars because the stormtroopers are such bad shots, by any chance?

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm also not a fan of a ruleset requiring as many FAQ's and Errata's as 40K. The rules and codexes should probably be out for more than 24 hours before an Errata is posted, hmmmm?

xruslanx wrote:

You seem to have made several apparently unconnected points.

First you claim that GW are trying to make players play larger games in order to sell more models. While this was true, there are two problems with this argument - the first is that troops have gotten way better with successful rulesets. You can happily taken bucket loads of Eldar Guardians or Imperial guard squads, as well as existing ranges in general being more effective than the newcomers. Tau do not need riptides to stomp face, and eldar do not need their MC. Dark Angels don't need any of their new stuff, and any flyer that's not a helldrake or vendetta is useless. Surely all of these new units must be uber powerful in order to justify charging a shed load of money for a pay-to-win system? Instead new codex releases have actually made existing armies, in some cases, way better. Anyone who plays Iron Hands got a laughably powerful free upgrade, and about 200 extra points to boot. Yes games are getting bigger and yes, GW is making money because people need to buy more kits. But so what? Points value is *entirely* down to you, and if you feel like your battles are getting too large then scale down in point value. For this reason, it is an invalid argument against the validity of gw's ruleset.

Second, you claim that 40k is basically epic rules to the wrong scale. While I don't doubt this, you haven't supplied any evidence for why this is the case.

xruslanx wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm also not a fan of a ruleset requiring as many FAQ's and Errata's as 40K. The rules and codexes should probably be out for more than 24 hours before an Errata is posted, hmmmm?

So after a codex has gone to the printer's, they shouldn't even bother looking at it or playtesting it? I get that people don't like the mistakes in rulebooks but complaining about day 1 fixes to some of the worst ones seems hypocritical.

xruslanx wrote:
So after a codex has gone to the printer's, they shouldn't even bother looking at it or playtesting it? I get that people don't like the mistakes in rulebooks but complaining about day 1 fixes to some of the worst ones seems hypocritical.

 Peregrine wrote:
And we're not talking about small issues here. The community found things like Tau missile drones or C:SM command squad special weapons within a few minutes of reading the codex. Everyone who read the book immediately thought "hey, missile drone spam!" or "WTF you killed my plasma spam command squad!!!", so the fact that these issues made it to print suggests that GW never took the basic playtesting step of asking someone who wasn't involved with the design process to read the book and try to build an army.

 insaniak wrote:
Similar issue with the almost immediate errata of Look Out Sir!... It took the gaming community 3 and a half minutes to notice that the rules as published allowed for more or less the same 5th ed wound-spreading shenanigans that the 6th ed mixed-unit wound allocation rules were supposed to have eliminated. That's most definitely something that should have been picked up in playtestting prior to the release of 6th edition.

xruslanx wrote:
So after a codex has gone to the printer's, they shouldn't even bother looking at it or playtesting it? I get that people don't like the mistakes in rulebooks but complaining about day 1 fixes to some of the worst ones seems hypocritical.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

daisho wrote:
The rules are "ok", they could be really good if they would only make a core rule book and all army books at once - but GWS always makes new books choices stronger than before just for the sake of selling more stuff thus bringing inbalance _on purpose_, which is really the biggest downside of 40k.

Extra Credits sums up intentional imbalance as a game design technique well: http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/perfect-imbalance

For thise who didn't spend the 5 minutes watching it, basically the idea is to keep things just a bit off balance to keep the game from ever going stale.

As someone who's loves Extra Credit, I'd like to point out that you've missed a very important part of the video, IE the second half of it. For perfect imbalance to work, It still requires a professional, well made rules set and a mobile, player determined meta. Warhammer has none of these. What's better in each codex or edition is obvious, there are swaths of completely non-viable units, and the meta is very static that only really changes when a new codex or editions comes out (and even then it can be a dud).

I can understand the idea behind it, but the system is no where near it and it's not an excuse for poor game mechanics.

 heartserenade wrote:
Genuinely curious at the OP: have you ever tried playing any other game before? Because playing other games would more often than not make you realize that tight rules and fluffiness/coolness of the rules can coexist in harmony, like rainbows and unicorns.

 darthnatus wrote:
I like the hobby and lore more than the gameplay, because it is extremely unbalanced. If I was in TTGs for gameplay I'd play a different TTG! I think it has a much better story than a lot of other TTGs but gameplay could be much better. Maybe I'm just butthurt because of how much the rules destroy my armies but it still stands.

 heartserenade wrote:
Genuinely curious at the OP: have you ever tried playing any other game before?

 Kain wrote:

 darthnatus wrote:
I like the hobby and lore more than the gameplay, because it is extremely unbalanced. If I was in TTGs for gameplay I'd play a different TTG! I think it has a much better story than a lot of other TTGs but gameplay could be much better. Maybe I'm just butthurt because of how much the rules destroy my armies but it still stands.

Worry not my young apprentice. Soon our vengeance shall be unleashed, terrible and raw. And all who once mocked us shall weep.

 Lobukia wrote:
4th: hated it, very boring, very unbalanced... actually kinda sat out this edition and just collected/painted... worked on War@Sea collection

5th: Good, some wonky rules, a little too mechanized but still fun... necrons and GK at the end was unbalanced and SM had to watch everyone else get Marines +1, but other than that, not too bad

6th: Like it. A lot. But, GW needs to make all walkers MC or all walkers vehicles not this weird some are, some aren't. I would also like to see some of the new restrictions on assaults go away... but that's about it. I do know that at the tournament level the newest codices have dominated (TauDar), but I think this is more a symptom of being in the middle of the update/rebalance process and less of unbalanced armies.

xruslanx wrote:

No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

xruslanx wrote:

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong.

xruslanx wrote:

Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

Deadnight wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

not really. glad to know you're making your arguments from a completely uninformed position though. playing other ttg's equates to sex with non-humans? bizarre, and slightly insulting. and not all that relevant, or accurate either!

xruslanx wrote:

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong.

we're not. we are simply coming from a more informed position where we are saying "there is a lot more to the situation and hobby than you are admitting you, and frankly, you are being willfully ignorant of this".

xruslanx wrote:

Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

stop the melocramatic opera please. it doesnt annoy us that you enjoy 40k (plenty others do to), it annoys us because you are being completetely, and deliberately ignorant of the wider state of the hobby, and are only looking at this whole argument through an incredibly narrow and extremely skewed point of view. and furthermore, you are unwilling to broaden your horizons, or accept that others have a valid point of view that can add to it.

we have no issues with other peole enjoying it. at least they're honest in their appraisals regarding the game though.

xruslanx wrote:
No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong. Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

xruslanx wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm also not a fan of a ruleset requiring as many FAQ's and Errata's as 40K. The rules and codexes should probably be out for more than 24 hours before an Errata is posted, hmmmm?

So after a codex has gone to the printer's, they shouldn't even bother looking at it or playtesting it? I get that people don't like the mistakes in rulebooks but complaining about day 1 fixes to some of the worst ones seems hypocritical.

xruslanx wrote:

No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong. Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

 insaniak wrote:

You're welcome to enjoy whatever you like. But when you insist that GW's rules have no problems worth complaining about, it shouldn't be too susprising to you by this point that some people are going to disagree. If you're happy just ignoring the holes in the rules, that's great for you. Others prefer a more professional product. Neither you nor they are 'wrong'... just different.

xruslanx wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

You're welcome to enjoy whatever you like. But when you insist that GW's rules have no problems worth complaining about, it shouldn't be too susprising to you by this point that some people are going to disagree. If you're happy just ignoring the holes in the rules, that's great for you. Others prefer a more professional product. Neither you nor they are 'wrong'... just different.

True. If other people would prefer 40k be like non-40k, that's fine. But then, that wouldn't be 40k. But if I and a huge number of people enjoy 40k - more than any number of people enjoy any other tabletop game - then to insist that the 40k ruleset is poor, badly written or unprofessional could be said to be untrue. It is simply different to what other people like.

Whether or not this is seperate from "there are too many mistakes in the 40k rules and they don't FAQ them quickly enough", I don't know, I've yet to get a definitive answer on.

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

You're welcome to enjoy whatever you like. But when you insist that GW's rules have no problems worth complaining about, it shouldn't be too susprising to you by this point that some people are going to disagree. If you're happy just ignoring the holes in the rules, that's great for you. Others prefer a more professional product. Neither you nor they are 'wrong'... just different.

True. If other people would prefer 40k be like non-40k, that's fine. But then, that wouldn't be 40k. But if I and a huge number of people enjoy 40k - more than any number of people enjoy any other tabletop game - then to insist that the 40k ruleset is poor, badly written or unprofessional could be said to be untrue. It is simply different to what other people like.

Whether or not this is seperate from "there are too many mistakes in the 40k rules and they don't FAQ them quickly enough", I don't know, I've yet to get a definitive answer on.

What if I told you that you can take an objective look at something without hating it? Further to this, 40k would still be a 40k if it had a better ruleset. You continue to cling to these weird assumptions despite pages of well written and well reasoned responses.

You just don't seem to want to actually discuss 40k as a ruleset. Nothing else, just the rules divorced from every other aspect. Objectively and comparatively to other similar examples.

xruslanx wrote:

I get that you think my enjoyment of 40k is wrong. I also get that you don't see why my enjoying something means I would appraise it positively. Do you not do that? Do you enjoy something, see that people on the internet hate it, and decide that it's crappy?

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
4th: hated it, very boring, very unbalanced... actually kinda sat out this edition and just collected/painted... worked on War@Sea collection

5th: Good, some wonky rules, a little too mechanized but still fun... necrons and GK at the end was unbalanced and SM had to watch everyone else get Marines +1, but other than that, not too bad

6th: Like it. A lot. But, GW needs to make all walkers MC or all walkers vehicles not this weird some are, some aren't. I would also like to see some of the new restrictions on assaults go away... but that's about it. I do know that at the tournament level the newest codices have dominated (TauDar), but I think this is more a symptom of being in the middle of the update/rebalance process and less of unbalanced armies.

My look at it is that all Walkers with pilots should be MCs, ones like Daemon Engines should be vehicles.

xruslanx wrote:
But if I and a huge number of people enjoy 40k - more than any number of people enjoy any other tabletop game - then to insist that the 40k ruleset is poor, badly written or unprofessional could be said to be untrue..

xruslanx wrote:
No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans

 Ouze wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans

This went to a weird place.

 darthnatus wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
4th: hated it, very boring, very unbalanced... actually kinda sat out this edition and just collected/painted... worked on War@Sea collection

5th: Good, some wonky rules, a little too mechanized but still fun... necrons and GK at the end was unbalanced and SM had to watch everyone else get Marines +1, but other than that, not too bad

6th: Like it. A lot. But, GW needs to make all walkers MC or all walkers vehicles not this weird some are, some aren't. I would also like to see some of the new restrictions on assaults go away... but that's about it. I do know that at the tournament level the newest codices have dominated (TauDar), but I think this is more a symptom of being in the middle of the update/rebalance process and less of unbalanced armies.

My look at it is that all Walkers with pilots should be MCs, ones like Daemon Engines should be vehicles.

I would think it would be the other way around, you know because (at least right now) there exists no vehicle and no definition of vehicle (DISREGARD AUTOPILOT) that would include something without a pilot. Monstrous creatures obviously don't need pilots as they are their own beings.

Deadnight wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

not really. glad to know you're making your arguments from a completely uninformed position though. playing other ttg's equates to sex with non-humans? bizarre, and slightly insulting. and not all that relevant, or accurate either!

xruslanx wrote:

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong.

we're not. we are simply coming from a more informed position where we are saying "there is a lot more to the situation and hobby than you are admitting you, and frankly, you are being willfully ignorant of this".

xruslanx wrote:

Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

stop the melocramatic opera please. it doesnt annoy us that you enjoy 40k (plenty others do to), it annoys us because you are being completetely, and deliberately ignorant of the wider state of the hobby, and are only looking at this whole argument through an incredibly narrow and extremely skewed point of view. and furthermore, you are unwilling to broaden your horizons, or accept that others have a valid point of view that can add to it.

we have no issues with other peole enjoying it. at least they're honest in their appraisals regarding the game though.

 insaniak wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
But if I and a huge number of people enjoy 40k - more than any number of people enjoy any other tabletop game - then to insist that the 40k ruleset is poor, badly written or unprofessional could be said to be untrue..

That doesn't make any sense. How popular something is has absolutely no bearing on how professionally made it is, or how well written it is. If 17 million people buy an iPhone, and 17 people buy Crazy-Qwan's-Totally-Not-an-iPhone, and both of those phones fall apart 3 days after purchase, the iPhone isn't any better made just because more people like it.

You also seem to be once again overlooking that fact that being better written wouldn't have to make 40K a different game. The game could work exactly the same as it does now (assuming that through some fluke you've wound up playing all of the various assorted grey areas the way the studio intended you to play them) with more clearly written, better edited rules. The only difference would be that those players who do find that badly written rules impact their enjoyment of the game would have better written rules, and so would enjoy the game more. And more players enjoying the game, and having fewer rules arguments, means everyone wins.

 heartserenade wrote:
I'm in the same position as Deadnight, at the very least. That makes it plural, therefore "us" and "we" is appropriate.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's with him.

xruslanx wrote:
At this point the argument has simply become "I say 40k is bad because I have played more games than you". If you can't critisise the 40k ruleset outside of picking apart a couple of minor rules inconsistencies, then your argument isn't of much you se to the overwealming majority of players who have no interest in other rules systems.

xruslanx wrote:

At this point the argument has simply become "I say 40k is bad because I have played more games than you". If you can't critisise the 40k ruleset outside of picking apart a couple of minor rules inconsistencies, then your argument isn't of much you se to the overwealming majority of players who have no interest in other rules systems.

xruslanx wrote:I can see where this is going to go. You are going to continue "demanding evidence" for something that you know full well I don't have. No, I can't prove that adults are the guys spending huge amounts of money. Top job old fella.

As I say, I also cannot prove that diamond encrusted rings are bought by adults. Also unlike you I accept that *I* do not have hard evidence to back up what I am saying.

 heartserenade wrote:
I don't think arguing with him will bring any fruits of actual discussion, Blacksails.

xruslanx wrote:
At this point the argument has simply become "I say 40k is bad because I have played more games than you". If you can't critisise the 40k ruleset outside of picking apart a couple of minor rules inconsistencies, then your argument isn't of much use to the overwealming majority of players who have no interest in other rules systems.

xruslanx wrote:
True. If other people would prefer 40k be like non-40k, that's fine. But then, that wouldn't be 40k. But if I and a huge number of people enjoy 40k - more than any number of people enjoy any other tabletop game - then to insist that the 40k ruleset is poor, badly written or unprofessional could be said to be untrue. It is simply different to what other people like.

xruslanx wrote:
As someone who has actively followed alt 40k rulesets, I have seen some alternatives. Usually over-hauls are pretty crappy but more often than not there's a few good ideas sprinkled in.

xruslanx wrote:
I can happily discuss the 40k ruleset objectively so long as it isn't simply a list of minor rules problems blown out of all proportions by the internet hate machine, sure.

Deadnight wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Ok I am going to take off my bitter-(not very)old-veteran hat for a minute and ask the people in this thread, what do you actually like about the rules?

Speaking for myself here, what I like about the rules is the easy interaction between the fluff and the ruleset. If the designers want to impliment something because they think it's cool, they don't have to use the existing mechanisms in the ruleset, they can just stick it in. I will give some examples of this since that won't much much sense on its own.
The old demon codex was full of special rules that were simply tacked on by the designers with no existing mechanisms used at all. The Changling for example, could simply select an enemy model, make it perform a Ld check, and if it failed then you'd get to shoot it that turn. It could well have been broken or usable, since within the game-rules that that special rule utilises, there is complexity, and there could be problems with the way the Changeling's rule interacts with existing shooting rules. But so what? It's an awesome special rule and it's fluffy as hell.
Or Fateweaver's ability to give anyone with 6" a re-roll to any armour/invul/cover save they could take. Potentially game-breaking but fluffy and cool.
Or GK's Warp Storm. Against the old demon codex it practically broke them, yet still fluffy and cool.
A "tighter" ruleset just sounds boring to me. It would essentially mean that anything actually *new* would be impossible, everything would have to be created from pre-existing methods.

The fact that thy do this in warmachine/hordes too makes a mockery of this argument. Take epic butcher, Magnus or Caine as examples. In each case, their fluff matches their in game rules. In butchers case, he even has a unique rule called homicidal maniac, his berzerker nature, where he goes into a killing spree, the mechanisms by which he literally kills everything around him, heedless of whether he kills friend or foe is represented perfectly within his rules, the fact that his rage ebbs and flows, and fuels his sorcery, and his extremely unstable nature is represented by his random focus generation, his rage is literally transferred to the war jacks under his command as thy become more aggressive by default. Even if you look at his feat, where his rage literally boils over and infects his whole army is excellently done. Read his fluff. Look at his rules. Play a game with him. Now go back and repear. That is epic Butcher on the table top. Rendered down to a t. he is a perfect table top incarnation of his own fluff.
Look at Magnus. His crushed leg held together by a brace - low speed and def. look at his special rules - backstabbing, feign death and resourceful - all perfectly within character. Look at his spell list - representing a former cygnar affiliation along with more from being on the run since.
Look at Caine. Look at his feat. Try and tell me it's not cool and flavourful.
And yet this is all in a game famous for its extremely tight rues set and balance. Which puts a mockery to the claim that 40k is somehow better, despite all its faults, because it allows the background to be represented on the table top.

xruslanx wrote:. What is your actual point? Could you demonstrate how you think the 40k ruleset is poor beyond things being under-over costed?

40k suffers from bloat, and from needless excess layers of rules, excess die rolls and other aspects that essentially add nothing but clutter. clutter is bad. Sure, you can work around it, and still have fun with friends, but ask yourself this - are you having fun because of the rules, or in spite of them.
I'll give you a few examples.
Excess rules. Bloat, essentially. and more crucially, bloat that does not add to the game. Take the simple example of movement. You have the basic movement rules for infantry for example, and then all the exceptions. Jump packs and their jet pack exceptions, bikes and their jet bikes exceptions, cavalry, vehicles, and their fast vehicle exceptions, fliers, walkers, monstrous creatures etc. now why does 40k need all these extra movement classifications to add a pseudo-depth to the game when others like Warmachine pull it off with a variable movement stat (infantry move 5-7, cavalry move 7-9 etc). Rules exist that tell you how to do things, except for everything else that does it some other way how about needless rules - like how 5th ed marines could simply ignore the whole part of the rule book about morale?
How about we talk about Excess die rolls. Roll to hit, wound, armour save, fnp. The latter three essentially deal with the same question (does the shot that hit me kill me?) other games like infinity and warmachine (and even dnd!) use 2. Wmh - roll to hit, roll to damage. Infinity - roll to hit, and roll to save against the power of what hit you. Simple, elegant, and streamlined. 40k is excessive for the sake of it and adds nothing except time, and the mistaken belief that more dice is more depth.
Further excess - vehicles and infantry use different mechanics. One uses wounds the other armour. Historically, vehicles were an add on to a fantasy game, but GW as stuck with this awkward dual system ever since. Other games use a universal inflict damage system, and use universal 'wound' mechanics, with vehicles simply having more, or else having damage effects marked differently - look at warjacks and infantry in warmahordes - same universal system is at the core of both. Look at Infinity. Its TAGs (mechs) use the same hit, and save mechanics, but have structure points instead of hit points (note: this was before 6th ed 40k’s hull points!) and can take EMP damage.
Further excess and layers of extra game mechanics - try strength and AP in guns. You use the AP to determine if you get through infantry armour (strength doesn’t really get used) and you use strength to determine if you get through vehicle armour (AP doesn’t really get used). Why? Its all armour! One would assume if it can get through inch-thick armour on a tank, it can get through inch-thick armour on a trooper. It's pseudo-depth. Why? What does it add? Surely it makes sense to use the one system? For me it achieves nothing but dissociation from the game when I realise a str10 ap5 gun will in all likelyhood pulp a land rider, predator tank, and most apc's in the game, but will bounce off a grot with power armour.
Cover- terrible mechanic with the alternative save. A marine with power armour in 6+ cover could take a cover save against a lasgun, and fail, and die in the game- somehow he loses his power armour because he ducked behind a tree.ok.... Surely a guy in power armour and cover should gain more of it than this?! Do lasguns ignore cover, somehow? But you use one or the other when common sense would tell you it's more than the sum of its parts (a marine in cover gets combined protection from both his armour, and the cover he’s using – its silly to assume he only gets one or the other) . Other games with cover have various mechanics that treat cover as increasing the difficulty to hit you (warmachine, hordes, early 40k editions) or offer superior protection via positive armour save mods (starship troopers) . Some like infinity do both. But 40ks system is nonsensical, and poorly taught through.
Now on top of this, consider the fact there is no higher direction as to what 40k actually is. This is crucial. Games need direction. Games need a purpose. Infinity is an infantry based small scale sci fi skirmish game with a huge emphasis on guns. Warmachine is a small scale skirmidh game that is character driven, melee centric and designed for competitive play, with a huge dose of hero hammer. There is direction, and purpose and so, a game can be structured around that purpose. But 40k? Is it about shooting? Then why are so many armies and so many rules all about cc? Is it a skirmish game? You can do it that way but... Is it a mass battle game? You can do it but... Is it about infantry? Well, yes except for all the tanks. So it's about armour? No, not quite... Is is about competitive games? No, but it can be. You see, 40k is a mess of design ethos. It can best be described as 'a user defined sandbox' in that it tries to allow itself to be a game open to all, but this clear lack of focus is also a glaring weakness. 40k tries to be a mass battle game in terms of numbers and pieces fielded, and yet it insists on using an individual model based micro management system far more appropriate to a skirmish game. It ends up being messy on all levels.
I'll be honest - I don't enjoy the 40k rules set. It is a thirty year old relic. In evolutionary terms, it's a dinosaur. It simply has not keep with the times. Game design theory is actually something I'm quite interested in, and it has moved on significantly from those days in the early 80s when 40k was ported over from fantasy as their '... But in space' game. I'd like to enjoy 40k again - I really would! I went through my bits box organising things and found a whole bunch of unassembled marines. I'm very tempted to do a marine project, of some kind. The sad fact is whatever the project evolves into, it won't be done using the rues set from 40k.b

xruslanx wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
Genuinely curious at the OP: have you ever tried playing any other game before?

No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong. Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

Deadnight wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
At this point the argument has simply become "I say 40k is bad because I have played more games than you". If you can't critisise the 40k ruleset outside of picking apart a couple of minor rules inconsistencies, then your argument isn't of much use to the overwealming majority of players who have no interest in other rules systems.

its more than a "couple" of "minor rules inconsistencies", my good man. stop trying to magically hand wave things away. face facts instead of this wilful, deliberate ignorance.

xruslanx wrote:
True. If other people would prefer 40k be like non-40k, that's fine. But then, that wouldn't be 40k. But if I and a huge number of people enjoy 40k - more than any number of people enjoy any other tabletop game - then to insist that the 40k ruleset is poor, badly written or unprofessional could be said to be untrue. It is simply different to what other people like.

No, not really. You’re making an extremely poor argument.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
AS it is, it's an undeniable fact that more people play 40k than its competitors, so you'd be better off acknowledging that fact, getting off your pulpit, and reasoning rather than shouting.

jamin484 wrote:
I don't understand what game you guys are playing that has this wonderful ruleset?

Could you tell me which one it is please? I've been trying to play the other table top wargames and I still have not found one that isn't rubbish compared to 40k.

jamin484 wrote:
I don't understand what game you guys are playing that has this wonderful ruleset? Could you tell me which one it is please?

jamin484 wrote:
I've been trying to play the other table top wargames and I still have not found one that isn't rubbish compared to 40k.

Deadnight wrote:

jamin484 wrote:
I don't understand what game you guys are playing that has this wonderful ruleset? Could you tell me which one it is please?

ones. plural. Warmachine/Hordes (Khador and Circle), Infinity (Ariadna, and Yu-Jing), Flames of War (a friend's germans/brits, but i'll be buying into the japs when they're released), Dystopian Wars (prussians), and interested in Firestorm Armada (Dindrenzi, and allied fleets, especially the RSN and Hawker) and Dropzone Commander (shasvatii).

personal favourites are warmachine/hordes, infinity and flames of war.

jamin484 wrote:
I've been trying to play the other table top wargames and I still have not found one that isn't rubbish compared to 40k.

may i ask why you feel this way? What is it that 40k offers that the others fail at? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

 Alfndrate wrote:

jamin484 wrote:
I don't understand what game you guys are playing that has this wonderful ruleset?

Warmachine/Hordes, Malifaux, Infinity, Bolt Action, Brushfire, Flames of War, Endless Fantasy: Tactics, and X-Wing. And those are just the games that I personally play.

Could you tell me which one it is please? I've been trying to play the other table top wargames and I still have not found one that isn't rubbish compared to 40k.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours, what do you believe is so fantastic about the 40k rules that makes it a better game than all of its competitors?

jamin484 wrote:
I like it becasue it is better than all of the other table top games I play. kings of war, infinity warmachine/hoardes all rubbish. Nothing quite provides the variety, fluff, competitive games, tactics and lovely models that 40k does for me. Especially FW 40k.

Grimtuff wrote:From earlier in the thread:

jamin484 wrote:
I like it becasue it is better than all of the other table top games I play. kings of war, infinity warmachine/hoardes all rubbish. Nothing quite provides the variety, fluff, competitive games, tactics and lovely models that 40k does for me. Especially FW 40k.

Guy's made up his mind. No matter how wrong he actually is...

kronk wrote:I enjoy 6th edition 40k very much, actually. I just wish I could get more chances to play it.

daisho wrote:
The rules are "ok", they could be really good if they would only make a core rule book and all army books at once - but GWS always makes new books choices stronger than before just for the sake of selling more stuff thus bringing inbalance _on purpose_, which is really the biggest downside of 40k.

jamin484 wrote:
The characters seemed to define what kind of army you took and if you could kill your enemies character you tended to win from what I saw.

X wing is pretty good, but I'd not class it as a wargame as such.

 insaniak wrote:

jamin484 wrote:
X wing is pretty good, but I'd not class it as a wargame as such.

What would you call it, then?

jamin484 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

jamin484 wrote:
X wing is pretty good, but I'd not class it as a wargame as such.

What would you call it, then?

A board game with models. Kind of like Horus Heresy, Space hulk or dreadfleet.

 Peregrine wrote:

jamin484 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

jamin484 wrote:
X wing is pretty good, but I'd not class it as a wargame as such.

What would you call it, then?

A board game with models. Kind of like Horus Heresy, Space hulk or dreadfleet.

Err, lol? How is X-wing not a wargame? It plays exactly like a game of 40k/Warmachine/etc, except with fewer models.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

jamin484 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

jamin484 wrote:
X wing is pretty good, but I'd not class it as a wargame as such.

What would you call it, then?

A board game with models. Kind of like Horus Heresy, Space hulk or dreadfleet.

Err, lol? How is X-wing not a wargame? It plays exactly like a game of 40k/Warmachine/etc, except with fewer models.

Gotta move the goalposts somehow, otherwise he might have to admit to liking a wargame other than 40k...

jamin484 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

jamin484 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

jamin484 wrote:
X wing is pretty good, but I'd not class it as a wargame as such.

What would you call it, then?

A board game with models. Kind of like Horus Heresy, Space hulk or dreadfleet.

Err, lol? How is X-wing not a wargame? It plays exactly like a game of 40k/Warmachine/etc, except with fewer models.

Gotta move the goalposts somehow, otherwise he might have to admit to liking a wargame other than 40k...

Is Horus Heresy a wargame? or dreadfleet? Perhaps it is a wargame, I've never considered it as such and haven't given it much thought until now. What about space hulk? Is that a wargame? Risk?

jamin484 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

jamin484 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

jamin484 wrote:
X wing is pretty good, but I'd not class it as a wargame as such.

What would you call it, then?

A board game with models. Kind of like Horus Heresy, Space hulk or dreadfleet.

Err, lol? How is X-wing not a wargame? It plays exactly like a game of 40k/Warmachine/etc, except with fewer models.

Gotta move the goalposts somehow, otherwise he might have to admit to liking a wargame other than 40k...

Is Horus Heresy a wargame? or dreadfleet? Perhaps it is a wargame, I've never considered it as such and haven't given it much thought until now. What about space hulk? Is that a wargame? Risk?

jamin484 wrote:
Is Horus Heresy a wargame? or dreadfleet? Perhaps it is a wargame, I've never considered it as such and haven't given it much thought until now. What about space hulk? Is that a wargame? Risk?

 Peregrine wrote:
By that definition of "wargame" X-wing is clearly a wargame. If you disagree then instead of just saying "it isn't" you need to come up with an appropriate definition of "wargame" that includes 40k/Warmachine/WHFB/etc but does not include X-wing.

 Lobukia wrote:
Agreed on the unit cards. That or something like that would help. The other games I'm invested in are Axis and Allies miniatures (both the land and the sea edition), CAV, Hail Caesar, Mechwarrior, Crimson Skies, SFB and I can say that the games with seperate unit cards have much shorter rules questions. 40k rules are so poorly written that debating rules has become an expected social part of the game... During the game, which is hilarious/sad.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm not saying cards can't work, but 40k would need to be redone from the ground up (not like it doesn't need that anyways if it ever wants to actually be as awesome as it setting says it should be).

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm not saying cards can't work, but 40k would need to be redone from the ground up (not like it doesn't need that anyways if it ever wants to actually be as awesome as it setting says it should be).

Or you could use a system like X-Wing where the upgrades are also cards (and each unit card shows how many of each kind of upgrade card it can take.)

 Peregrine wrote:
. IMO a good definition for a wargame:

* The game attempts to simulate a single battle (or skirmish, dogfight, etc) not abstract strategy (chess) or entire large-scale wars (Risk).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm not saying cards can't work, but 40k would need to be redone from the ground up (not like it doesn't need that anyways if it ever wants to actually be as awesome as it setting says it should be).

Or you could use a system like X-Wing where the upgrades are also cards (and each unit card shows how many of each kind of upgrade card it can take.)

The problem with that (for me at least) is that it's mess book keeping where each unit would need a stack of cards for everything in the unit.

Maybe if we used the big 3"x5" index cards it'd have enough space for it all, and for you to check all the boxes for which options you took but then try fitting those in sleeves so you can use a dry erase marker to check boxes on.

jamin484 wrote:
I play a lot of different games and rule sets and some of those mentioned here I have not even heard of. The difficulty is finding other people to play the more obscure tabletop wargames with. I'm not convinced on the argument that their rules are better than 40k anyway. 40K has issues sure but then, so do all of the other table top wargames I've played and I've tried quite a few. I think people are understandably angry at GW and have become a wee bit 'burnt out' playing 40k. Naturally they have migrated to other game systems which is great, and good for the hobby in general. It does lead them to look at different games with rose tinted glasses on however and ignore some of their more obvious flaws.

 Peregrine wrote:
GW has somehow managed to make rules that are a clumsy mess while simultaneously failing to capture the "cinematic" events of the fluff..

xruslanx wrote:Were you one of those people who hated Star Wars because the stormtroopers are such bad shots, by any chance?

Phanixis wrote:
... And when 6e rolled around, GW still refused to go back to 4e wound allocation rules, instead adopting another needlessly complicated system that is thankfully less exploitable than 5e, if only do to a FAQ fixing the way "look out sir" worked.

Warlord Traits - Another stupidly unfair rule. Depending on how you roll, you could receive no benefit at all. Or you could receive army wide stealth and move through cover if you are playing on a ruins table.

Mysterious Terrain/Objectives - So idiotic that my opponent and I always agree not to use these rules, without every having to even verbalize the agreement. These rules might was well not even be there.

Random Assault Range - Just a big middle finger to assault armies. This serves no purpose other than to annoy Ork/BA/DT/DA players.

TLOS - Makes it nearly impossible to conceal sizable units from LOS, ...

Also, getting a "models eye view" to judge LOS is a great way to knock over and break models, especially if using multi-level ruins.

It is also the number one source of rules arguments in almost any game a play. .

That's largely down to the terrain that people choose to use. It's been my experience that people tend to use far too little large, LOS-blocking terrain.

Phanixis wrote:
...lots of salient points!

xruslanx wrote:
Since there's talk in Dakka Discussions along the lines of "literally everyone who likes 40k is a moron or a child", thought I'd ask the community itself. Do you like the ruleset or not?

Just the rules I'm talking about here, not background fluff or models.

 Grimtuff wrote:

jamin484 wrote:
I play a lot of different games and rule sets and some of those mentioned here I have not even heard of. The difficulty is finding other people to play the more obscure tabletop wargames with. I'm not convinced on the argument that their rules are better than 40k anyway. 40K has issues sure but then, so do all of the other table top wargames I've played and I've tried quite a few. I think people are understandably angry at GW and have become a wee bit 'burnt out' playing 40k. Naturally they have migrated to other game systems which is great, and good for the hobby in general. It does lead them to look at different games with rose tinted glasses on however and ignore some of their more obvious flaws.

It's been objectively proven that these other rulesets do not suffer from all of the rules issues that 40k suffers from. Just take 2 seconds to look at the relevant YMDC forums. It's already been gone over in this thread as to how such a statement is factually incorrect.

xruslanx wrote:

Is it factually incorrect that our games are not riddled with disputes? Why should how we play our games be affected by how you play yours?

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

Is it factually incorrect that our games are not riddled with disputes? Why should how we play our games be affected by how you play yours?

Have you ever considered that many other peoples' games are riddled with disputes?

Anecdotal evidence from this thread and the other similar one shows that many people do, in fact, have a lot disputes over the rules on a regular basis.

Your experience =/= others' experiences

xruslanx wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

Is it factually incorrect that our games are not riddled with disputes? Why should how we play our games be affected by how you play yours?

Have you ever considered that many other peoples' games are riddled with disputes?

Anecdotal evidence from this thread and the other similar one shows that many people do, in fact, have a lot disputes over the rules on a regular basis.

Your experience =/= others' experiences

So, why should I base my opinion on something based on other peoples' opinions? Why don't we all just judge something based on what *we* think about it, rather than what random people on the internet think about it?

xruslanx wrote:
Nor do I feel the need to track down a rulebook, memorise a new set of rules, buy some new models, paint them up, then persuade a friend to do all that, then get the free time nessesary to play a new game...

 Blacksails wrote:
Then don't get all uppity when others tell you that 40k isn't a particularly good ruleset.

It works, and its playable. The background and models are great, but the rules could be a lot better.

No one's saying you can't enjoy 40k, but we are saying that the rules aren't as good as you make them out to be, which detracts from what would otherwise be a great game.

You really are missing out though. There's so much more out there than GW, it'd be a shame if you never gave them a shot. You wouldn't be proving anything, don't think of it like that. Stop being defensive. Think of it as trying something new for your own enjoyment. Get the experience, see what else is available. For all you know, your favourite wargame of all time might be right under your nose.

 bosky wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Nor do I feel the need to track down a rulebook, memorise a new set of rules, buy some new models, paint them up, then persuade a friend to do all that, then get the free time nessesary to play a new game...

Haha you don't realize how much 40k has skewed your view on what is required to play a wargame. Memorizing rules like it's a chore, instead of 2 pages of light reading.

xruslanx wrote:
Two pages of light reading? I'm sorry but I have no desire whatsoever to try such a eunuch of a game. If that's what "tight" rules mean to you, you can keep them.

xruslanx wrote:
Right but if other people can only explain *how* the 40k rules are flawed by saying "try other game systems", that makes me loathe to do so. If I enjoy playing 40k as it is, and what flaws I do have with it are unrelated to anyone's critisism, then why should I acknowledge your point of view? Why should *you* getting into arguments with other people affect the way that I see a game system?

And the notion of trying to objectively evaluate it is nonsense. I get that this is the 21st century but, believe it or not, most things cannot be proven using data and facts.

xruslanx wrote:

Right but if other people can only explain *how* the 40k rules are flawed by saying "try other game systems", that makes me loathe to do so.

xruslanx wrote:

If I enjoy playing 40k as it is, and what flaws I do have with it are unrelated to anyone's critisism, then why should I acknowledge your point of view? Why should *you* getting into arguments with other people affect the way that I see a game system?
.

xruslanx wrote:

And the notion of trying to objectively evaluate it is nonsense. I get that this is the 21st century but, believe it or not, most things cannot be proven using data and facts.
.

xruslanx wrote:

Two pages of light reading? I'm sorry but I have no desire whatsoever to try such a eunuch of a game. If that's what "tight" rules mean to you, you can keep them.

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Right but if other people can only explain *how* the 40k rules are flawed by saying "try other game systems", that makes me loathe to do so. If I enjoy playing 40k as it is, and what flaws I do have with it are unrelated to anyone's critisism, then why should I acknowledge your point of view? Why should *you* getting into arguments with other people affect the way that I see a game system?

And the notion of trying to objectively evaluate it is nonsense. I get that this is the 21st century but, believe it or not, most things cannot be proven using data and facts.

Except there have been almost a total of 20 pages plus other threads that have many lengthy and detailed posts explaining why 40k isn't a good rule set. They have used examples, comparisons, anecdotes, and numbers in quantity of rules disputes on this board.

You refute ALL those arguments by repeatedly claiming that you personally don't have any problems and that you enjoy it. Which is fine, but it does nothing to say 40k isn't flawed. You've never made an argument defending 40k's rules in any meaningful way. If you did, we'd be having an actual discussion.

Again, most of are discussing the *quality* of the rules, which can be mostly objectively shown to be sub par, especially when also comparing to other games.

Your last line is another zinger from you, almost as good as your sex with non humans quote. Proof is done using data and facts. That's how things are proven. Data and facts. Indisputable evidence. I honestly have no clue what you even mean by that last line. Congrats.

Out of curiosity, how would you go about proving things? Opinions? Myths? Anecdotes?

xruslanx wrote:
Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not?

xruslanx wrote:
(...) Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not? Certainly when i compare 40k to video game systems, it comes out on top. (..)

 bosky wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not?

Well you certainly wouldn't know the answer since all you've played is 40k.

 bosky wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not?

Well you certainly wouldn't know the answer since all you've played is 40k.

xruslanx wrote:

if you'd like to explain how a special rule involving shooting could operate without interacting with the rules that govern shooting, i'm all ears.

Daedleh wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

if you'd like to explain how a special rule involving shooting could operate without interacting with the rules that govern shooting, i'm all ears.

I don't think that's the part that bosky was responding to. I think it was the part that said it would automatically create bugs and "how could it not"? (It was the bolded bit)

xruslanx wrote:
all i have seen in critisism is whinging about a hyper-literal interpritation of the rules being invalid (which is the fualt of the gamer, not the rules)

Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not?

xruslanx wrote:
Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not? Certainly when i compare 40k to video game systems, it comes out on top.

So, why should I base my opinion on something based on other peoples' opinions? Why don't we all just judge something based on what *we* think about it, rather than what random people on the internet think about it?

xruslanx wrote:
Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not?

xruslanx wrote:

all i have seen in critisism is whinging about a hyper-literal interpritation of the rules being invalid (which is the fualt of the gamer, not the rules), and picking out individual rule inconsistancies.

xruslanx wrote:

Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not? Certainly when i compare 40k to video game systems, it comes out on top.
.

 Zed wrote:


Warmachine and Flames of War have higher-quality rulesets. But you can't blow up swarms of Tyranids or push Space Marines around a table unless you play 40k...

Deadnight wrote:

 Zed wrote:


Warmachine and Flames of War have higher-quality rulesets. But you can't blow up swarms of Tyranids or push Space Marines around a table unless you play 40k...

Technically though, you can! you can play epic, you can 'port' over the rules from another system (marines v tyranids using the starship troopers game mechanics, for example), you can mod a current set of rules, or you can do a home brew.

Nothing says your space marines or tyranid models can only be used with 40k rule, or can only be represented by 40k mechanics.

I get what you're saying though - 40k is the only universe where you have space marines and tyranids, and it's an appealing 'verse. It has it's iconic imagery. But you can inhabit this universe in many different ways.

Phanixis wrote:
If you are not interested in the opinion of random people on the internet regarding the Warhammer 40k ruleset, why in the love of all that is good and holy did you post a topic asking random people on the internet for their opinion of the 40k rules?

rigeld2 wrote:
The rules don't cover the situation.

Deadnight wrote:

Entirely true . Admittedly, I'm too lazy for anything more arduous than a couple of custom missions for a tourney here or there, so that avenue slipped my mind.

xruslanx wrote:
I'm a 40k player, not a tabletop wargames player. One is a sub-set of the other.

 Kojiro wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Entirely true . Admittedly, I'm too lazy for anything more arduous than a couple of custom missions for a tourney here or there, so that avenue slipped my mind.

Allow me to do the work for you.
Free Quick Start Warmachine rules.
Admittedly it's not balanced or complete, nor does it have room for larger vehicles but it's an excellent example of how you can play a wargame, with 40K models that reflects the 40K fluff and have a tight rules set.

Deadnight wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Entirely true . Admittedly, I'm too lazy for anything more arduous than a couple of custom missions for a tourney here or there, so that avenue slipped my mind.

Allow me to do the work for you.
Free Quick Start Warmachine rules.
Admittedly it's not balanced or complete, nor does it have room for larger vehicles but it's an excellent example of how you can play a wargame, with 40K models that reflects the 40K fluff and have a tight rules set.

You quoted the wrong person mate- that quote isn't mine.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
all i have seen in critisism is whinging about a hyper-literal interpritation of the rules being invalid (which is the fualt of the gamer, not the rules)

So you're just going to continue to ignore complaints I've made about things like how the IGOUGO turn structure sucks, or how GW has no consistency in scale (having air strikes/artillery appropriate to a huge game along with nitpicking the details of power weapons like it's a 10-model skirmish game).

Also, hyper-literal interpretations are not the fault of the players. Other games manage to have rules that function exactly as intended no matter how literal you get, GW only fails to do the same because they're incompetent and/or lazy.

Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not?

Nonsense. MTG has at least as much complexity as 40k and absolutely zero bugs. You just keep ignoring every counter-example of games that have complex and interesting rules without 40k's complete lack of clarity.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
all i have seen in critisism is whinging about a hyper-literal interpritation of the rules being invalid (which is the fualt of the gamer, not the rules)

So you're just going to continue to ignore complaints I've made about things like how the IGOUGO turn structure sucks

 Peregrine wrote:
or how GW has no consistency in scale (having air strikes/artillery appropriate to a huge game along with nitpicking the details of power weapons like it's a 10-model skirmish game).

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, hyper-literal interpretations are not the fault of the players. Other games manage to have rules that function exactly as intended no matter how literal you get, GW only fails to do the same because they're incompetent and/or lazy.

 Kojiro wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not? Certainly when i compare 40k to video game systems, it comes out on top.

Just to put this to bed, last I checked (and I'm happy to provide the spreadsheet if you'd like proof), prior to Convergence, Warmachine/Hordes had approximately eight hundred and thirty *unit rules. This does not include USR like Pathfinder, Tough etc. Nor does it include the literally hundreds of Feats or spells. Now I don't know how many special rules 40K has but I'm quite sure it's significantly less.

*Yes, I totally get why people say the game is too complex for their taste but that is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that over a thousand unique game effects interact with barely a handful unresolved issues.