I was wondering what are the games with best current rule sets?
I wanted to make this a 'rule set' question, as asking for 'best games' would mean considering a ton of things like quality of miniatures, depth of fluff, amount of players etc. Instead, I'm hoping to examine just the rules, on the basis of how fun, balanced and well written they are. I suppose if the rules are good, they also allow balanced competitive play, have depth but aren't too complicated, and allow player skill to show through.
Deadzone has to be up there, it's a very fast, very engaging set of rules that is great fun to play and rather balanced. The asymmetrical missions and card mechanics also make it a very interesting system.
I've heard nothing but good things about Malifaux, and from what I've read of it, those claims are founded.
40k (braces himself) is very good, for what it is. As a fun, casual, Saturday afternoon game, it's absolutely fine. It's the Action Blockbuster equivalent of games, good for a laugh and a couple of hours' fun with some friends.
Dark Age has a solid rules set, but some people might be put off by the aesthetic.
A group of us have been playing 5th edition Car Wars recently, and we really love that rule set, though some might find it kind of intensely meticulous.
Star Wars X-Wing and Star Trek Attack Wing both have a huge following around here, and everyone claims to love the rules for their simplicity.
Paradigm wrote: 40k (braces himself) is very good, for what it is. As a fun, casual, Saturday afternoon game, it's absolutely fine. It's the Action Blockbuster equivalent of games, good for a laugh and a couple of hours' fun with some friends.
Just because you personally enjoy playing it doesn't mean that it is an objectively "good" system. Most any rule set on the market could be described in exactly those terms.
Fun, casual, Saturday afternoon game. In other words, don't take it too seriously because the system doesn't really work very well. If you ignore the problems it has and only play with friends it's entertaining.
But what actually makes a game "casual?"
Personally, I don't think 40K is very "casual" at all. The rule set is byzantine and clunky. You would be hard pressed to teach the system to someone over a game and have them walking away from the table proficient in it's use. Many games slow down or grind to a halt because a rules issue comes up, even among die-hard veterans. Most games at the recommended point values take far more than an hour to play. Reference materials for the game are spread across multiple different formats, are difficult to access, and are filled with typos and ambiguous language.
None of that says casual to me.
Dreadball is an example of a casual game. Whether or not one 'likes' the system, it is very simple, easy to learn, doesn't require much, and plays quickly.
If you can walk up to a table with a beer in your hand in the middle of a game you've never played before and jump right into the middle of it, that's a casual game.
Take board games, for example. Eclipse is a great game. But it is the antithesis of casual. On the other hand, Firefly: The Game is very casual. BANG! is very casual. Cards Against Humanity is the epitome of casual. Your eighty year old grandmother can roll up to a game of Cards Against Humanity, get dealt in, and be laughing about Obama eating gak out of a bucket in ten minutes.
That's casual.
It's casual mostly because the rules aren't just simple; they work. There's no confusion. The system functions without a hitch. That isn't any game that GW produces.
In 40K, players mostly have fun despite the rules, not because of them.
Easy and casual are zombicide, Deadzone, Dreadball, and X-Wing for me. The learning curve is very shallow, but getting good at the game, ah, now there's the fun. Each game is simple to pick up, quick to learn the basics, and a lifetime to master. Yes, I know there are two Mantic games on there, and I'll admit I'm a fanboi of their solid rules. I will agree, too, that CAH is the ultimate casual game. There is nothing more casual than that.
Warmachine/Hordes has been the best average to competitive ruleset since 2003, Though I also find Bolt Action to be simple and balanced, so it's better for casual play than the former.
I've also played a little bit of the new 40k Editions. I thinks it looks good so far.
pretre wrote: Jumping in on Deadzone, as well. I love me some Deadzone.
I also lol'd at Firefly being casual.
I'd list 40k as well, just because despite the problems it is really one of the best out there. I will not go hide to avoid the backlash.
Why isn't Firefly casual?
To me the game seems like a very casual game. The rules can be picked up in the midst of playing and consist of the same basic mechanic being repeated over and over and over again. the turn sequence is flexible and overlapping. The system easily handles a missed turn here and there without much adverse impact.
There's lots of cards and things, and the game takes an inordinate amount of table space to play comfortably, but in terms of the rules, it's a pretty casual game.
sing your life wrote: Warmachine/Hordes has been the best average to competitive ruleset since 2003, Though I also find Bolt Action to be simple and balanced, so it's better for casual play than the former.
I've also played a little bit of the new 40k Editions. I thinks it looks good so far.
It would be if everything did not boil down to meeting in the center dishing it out to see who get to kill the enemy "king" first.
pretre wrote: Table space, time and emotional investment. The last game we played took quite some time to complete.
Lol, yea. Ours just kinda go until somebody wonders what the mission was supposed to be and then does it. It's got a Heores of Might and Magic sort of feel to the game play.
Battletech. The rules haven't changed much in the past twenty years, and the only confusing aspects are among old grognards who remember certain things being in the main rulebook that have been split off in the current edition.
Checkers is far more simple than Chess as the pieces all move in the same way. Chess pieces on the other hand move according to their kind.
Sorry I thought you said lightest not tightest.
I really must slow down my reading.
Yeah, checkers can have some odd house rules depending on where you play. Chess doesn't have much variance in the rules until you get to 3D boards and such.
Standard checkers, only. House rules should stay at home.
No jumping over one's own man, no auto-loss of a piece for not jumping it, and no stopping at the back of the board to become a king if you can reverse and jump another piece, take your crown at the end of the turn.
What we call Checkers, Brits call Draughts. There are probably significant differences as there are with cricket and baseball.
xraytango wrote: Standard checkers, only. House rules should stay at home.
No jumping over one's own man, no auto-loss of a piece for not jumping it, and no stopping at the back of the board to become a king if you can reverse and jump another piece, take your crown at the end of the turn.
What we call Checkers, Brits call Draughts. There are probably significant differences as there are with cricket and baseball.
Whoa whoa whoa, I don't know how you play where you're from, but there ain't no reversing around these parts unless you're already a king. There's only moving towards the opponent's board edge, and you don't have to jump a piece if you don't want to. Unless you play at their house of course.
Roughly in that order for me. Disclaimer: I only actively play Dreadball, but I have watched the others. It's worth mentioning they're all really good and I'm very tempted to buy into X-Wing and DZC, and have already bought into Deadzone, just have to get off my ass and paint my stuff. Sadly 40k is still the best setting by far, though Mantics Warpath universe (Deadzone and Dreadball are also set in it) is getting a lot deeper.
Infinity - the game mechanics and balance within the game are outstanding, I would go as far (without getting wrapped up in hyperbole ) as to say it is something beautiful.
X-Wing; incredibly fast to pick up and play, you can have a great laugh with it within 30mins of picking up the rulebook.
Dreadball; not without its faults and frustrating at times, but a fine, fast paced (and very fun) sports board game for the modern age.
I'd list 40k as well, just because despite the problems it is really one of the best out there. I will not go hide to avoid the backlash.
No need to defend yourself! If it's something you enjoy, then it's something you enjoy. Don't think anyone should criticise anyone else for their own choice!
Malifaux 2E is the tightest rule set I've looked at for a while. I managed to pick it up in a turn, and it's taking a while to master. Out of all the games I've played all of the rules questions have been answered based on the rules and not interpretations.
That stat cards makes things a lot easier, and the clear wording avoids any ambiguity about when/if something has an effect.
The only problem I've seen so far is that on some cards the same rule can be written differently but will still be semantically the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pretre wrote: I'd list 40k as well, just because despite the problems it is really one of the best out there. I will not go hide to avoid the backlash.
What makes the 40K rules one of the best out there?
Warmahordes is the tightest and best written rules set that I've ever seen.
X-Wing is very close behind and has a beautiful easy to learn / hard to master simplicity to it.
Infinity and 2nd Ed Malifaux come after those two and if you really wan't to try a truly narrative rules set you simply need to look at the Force on Force / Tomorrow's War rules because they really are a thing of beauty.
Anyone claiming that 40k is the best rules set, at anything, can only make that claim if they've never experienced any other miniature game... ever...
I have to say for simple elegant rules design X-wing.
Both my kids picked it up after 30 mins , and we have been having a blast ever since.
With Dead Zone , Dreadball both coming a close second.(For ease of picking up.)
The other rules sets that are really good at what they do, great involving game play with straightforward rules , are.
Bolt Action
Drop Zone Commander
Force on Force/Tomorrows War
Infinity
Malifaux
Kings O War
Warmahaords
Warpath.
Last week at my LFGS they did a X-wing and 40k 'bring and battle.'
We played through 2 complete games of X-wing before the 40k crowd managed to agree on what books-data slates they were going to use , and if 'unbound lists' were going to be 'allowed' .
pretre wrote: I'd list 40k as well, just because despite the problems it is really one of the best out there. I will not go hide to avoid the backlash.
What makes the 40K rules one of the best out there?
Several things. Firstly, I can't think of another game out there that has even half the variation in armies and lists as 40k, so from that standpoint, it's great. Secondly, while some rules may be clunky, they also cover a huge amount of stuff. The uniqueness in special rules with slight variations allows it to better represent the fluff than something with more limited rules. And finally, 40k is easy to teach. There's no cards or extra tokens or anything like that. The core rules are based on simple mechanics that are fairly intuitive, and can be picked up in a turn or two.
I'm not saying it's the best game ever, but it is still the most widely played game for a reason.
Yes the GW rules have a huge amount of variation (But I don't think there's really any more variation than, say, Flames Of War or Malifaux), but that's done via a huge clunky overlay of similar and interrelated special rules whilst adding little to the game (X gives a unit Y which means Z) and creates huge imbalance.
Most of the rules seem somewhat redundant as well, and could easily be rolled into the unit stats, which are largely identical and using special rules to add character.
Because of the wealth of special rules and lack of cards it's harder to teach.
On top of that it's not very concise or well written, making the rules even harder to understand.
I also feel that despite all of the special rules you end off with a tactically simply game with complex mechanics, instead of a mechanically simply game with complex tactics.
You could vastly improve/simplify the game by creating stat cards and translating the special rules on there, so instead of a codex that says "Unit has the fleet special rule", you put on the card "Ignores terrain". Voila, much easier to play and learn, with nothing lost.
Anyone claiming that 40k is the best rules set, at anything, can only make that claim if they've never experienced any other miniature game... ever...
Same for X-Wing.
The game's balance is so horribly out of whack, it makes 40K look like chess.
But it's popularity proves that "internet-good-will" is more important than actual objective review of the rules.
I really shouldn't enter an argument with you since your GW fanboyism precludes any type of objective discussion from the start, but here it goes anyway:
Game balance has exactly zero bearing on weather a rules set is objectively good or bad. X-Wing's rules are very simple to teach and learn and have almost no grey areas in them while (and this part is IMO), they still manage to convey the "feel" of the movies and hide inside them a surprisingly deep tactical experience. <- This is what makes X-Wing a good rules set.
I would also dispute your ridiculous claim that X-Wing is anywhere near as unbalanced as 40k, simply because unlike 40k, there are no auto-win lists in X-Wing (and whatever strong builds there exist are being actively balanced by FFG's release of specific counters to them). But that would be a topic for a completely different thread.
PhantomViper wrote: Game balance has exactly zero bearing on weather a rules set is objectively good or bad.
Game balance is an aspect of the rules, if balance is bad it therefore part of the rules is bad which is the largest problem I have with 40k rules. I could put up with the rest of it if it was balanced.
Several things. Firstly, I can't think of another game out there that has even half the variation in armies and lists as 40k, so from that standpoint, it's great. Secondly, while some rules may be clunky, they also cover a huge amount of stuff. The uniqueness in special rules with slight variations allows it to better represent the fluff than something with more limited rules. And finally, 40k is easy to teach. There's no cards or extra tokens or anything like that. The core rules are based on simple mechanics that are fairly intuitive, and can be picked up in a turn or two.
I'm not saying it's the best game ever, but it is still the most widely played game for a reason.
I disagree with almost all of that...
First, if you don't know of another game that has that much variation of armies, take a look a FoW or Warmahordes. Both of those games have just as much variation as 40k.
"some rules may be clunky" <- this right here just disqualifies 40k from being the "best" rules set at anything. Also what huge amount of stuff is that that 40k covers but no other system does?
Uniqueness in special rules that have slight variations between them only leads to confusion amongst the players. As an example you have the movement stat where everyone moves the same base distance but then you have a large amount of special rules to differentiate between... Why not just roll most of those rules into varying move distances for each unit in the first place? How would that represent the fluff any worse than the current way?
And to top it all of, 40k is by no means easy to teach! The core mechanics are pretty simple, but teaching just those doesn't allow a new player to play the game and the frightening amount of special rules and exceptions that are on top of those make teaching 40k anything but an easy proposition.
Also the lack of tokens or cards is a minus for the game, not a plus. Cards and tokens allow the players to much easily remember the game state and to have easy access to each units characteristics. Having to reference an army book each time you need to check a particular unit's rules is a waste of time and bogs the game down and I'm sure we've all experienced times where that shaken tank still took shot at something simply because both players forgot that the tank was shaken in the first place.
PhantomViper wrote: Game balance has exactly zero bearing on weather a rules set is objectively good or bad.
Game balance is an aspect of the rules, if balance is bad it therefore part of the rules is bad which is the largest problem I have with 40k rules. I could put up with the rest of it if it was balanced.
We'll have to agree to disagree then.
For me game balance is part of why I would enjoy a game or not (along with aesthetics, fluff, etc), but it certainly isn't part of the rules of that game.
A game can be perfectly balanced and have pretty bad rules (I can't think of any example of that right now ), but it can also be unbalanced and still have pretty good rules (Blood Bowl, Necromunda and Mordheim are examples of this latter type).
I can't speak for Warmahordes as I've never looked at it, but the variety in FOW consists of Men with Guns and Tanks vs Other Men With Guns and Tanks. Compare that with Power Armoured Men Falling From The Sky vs Aliens with Hover Tanks and Battlesuits and you can see what I mean. Every faction in 40k, with the exception of the SM chapters, plays entirely differently, works differently, and 'feels' different. That's the kind of variety I'm on about.
Regarding the clunkyness of the rules, I never said 40k was the best, most perfect and ultimately balanced ruleset. I'm just trying to point out that some slight issues with the rules don't preclude it from being a good game that people can play and enjoy.
As for the huge amount of stuff, I can't think of another 28mm system that can really handle shooting, close combat, vehicles, monstrous creatures, fliers and abilities as well as 40k can. The sheer scope of the game is what puts it ahead of others in that regard.
The variation in special rules helps this as it means that for cases where two things work even slightly differently fluff-wise, that can be represented. If you just had the USRs, some units would lose certain quirks they had before. For example, the SW Long Fangs can just shoot 2 targets in any combination they want, whereas Split Fire only allows 1 guy to target independently.
Regarding teaching, all I can say is that in the last few years, I've taught maybe half a dozen people to play 40k, and all of them, by the end of the second or third turn, understood the core mechanics, which is ultimately what the game needs to work. Of course it is hard if you try and introduce everything at once, but if you break it down, it's fine to teach. As I say, I can only speak for my experience here.
If you want cards and tokens as gaming aids, then that's fine and they are easily makable or even buyable in some cases. The point is, 40k doesn't need those to function, simply the rulebook and codex, and after a few games with an army, you rarely need to refer to those more than once or twice a game.
Paradigm wrote: I can't speak for Warmahordes as I've never looked at it, but the variety in FOW consists of Men with Guns and Tanks vs Other Men With Guns and Tanks. Compare that with Power Armoured Men Falling From The Sky vs Aliens with Hover Tanks and Battlesuits and you can see what I mean. Every faction in 40k, with the exception of the SM chapters, plays entirely differently, works differently, and 'feels' different. That's the kind of variety I'm on about.
FoW consists of different qualities of men (giving different morale/skill levels) with different types of guns (with different ranges/damage/fire rates), paired with different qualities of tanks (giving different morale/skill levels) with different specs (speed/armour/ROF) and weapons (with different ranges/damage/fire rates), and aircraft.
40K consists of different things which are largely equivalent; units with 2+ save and 3+ to hit (TEQ), units with a 3+ save and 3+ to hit (MEQ), units with a 5+ save and 4+ to hit (human equivalent), and so on. They look different and play a bit different, but they tend to have fairly similar stats for all of the special rules thrown at them. Some units move faster, or hover, or whatever, but in game terms they are fairly similar.
And whilst they play differently you need to change a lot of them to change how your army plays. In games like Malifaux you can change a model or 2 for a vastly different play style.
Regarding the clunkyness of the rules, I never said 40k was the best, most perfect and ultimately balanced ruleset. I'm just trying to point out that some slight issues with the rules don't preclude it from being a good game that people can play and enjoy.
Even balance issues aside, I think it barely counts as a competent ruleset. It's trying to do epic things, but it doesn't do them well.
As for the huge amount of stuff, I can't think of another 28mm system that can really handle shooting, close combat, vehicles, monstrous creatures, fliers and abilities as well as 40k can. The sheer scope of the game is what puts it ahead of others in that regard.
I'd assume any game which supports all of those units will do it as well.
If you want cards and tokens as gaming aids, then that's fine and they are easily makable or even buyable in some cases. The point is, 40k doesn't need those to function, simply the rulebook and codex, and after a few games with an army, you rarely need to refer to those more than once or twice a game.
I've been playing 40K on and off for nearly 20 years, through 3 editions (2nd, 5th, 6th) and I don't recall ever playing a game where I've only had to look at one of the books as little as once or twice, usually to check what a special rule means. Whereas after my 3rd game of Malifaux I haven't even opened the rulebook.
Game balance has exactly zero bearing on weather a rules set is objectively good or bad.
Agreed.
But 99% of the criticism of 40K seems to miss that point.
And I love X-Wing. And I don't really play 40K that much anymore these days. My only "GW-fanboyism" is pointing out this exact argument to people wrongly claiming 40K is objectively bad (which it well might be for other reasons) because of it's lack of balance (when no game can objectively be good or bad on the account of balance).
Paradigm wrote: I can't speak for Warmahordes as I've never looked at it, but the variety in FOW consists of Men with Guns and Tanks vs Other Men With Guns and Tanks. Compare that with Power Armoured Men Falling From The Sky vs Aliens with Hover Tanks and Battlesuits and you can see what I mean. Every faction in 40k, with the exception of the SM chapters, plays entirely differently, works differently, and 'feels' different. That's the kind of variety I'm on about.
FoW also has cavalry units, biker units, ambushing units, fortifications, helicopters, trains, para-troopers, glider troops, etc... You are way over-simplifying the unit variance in FoW.
Regarding the clunkyness of the rules, I never said 40k was the best, most perfect and ultimately balanced ruleset. I'm just trying to point out that some slight issues with the rules don't preclude it from being a good game that people can play and enjoy.
But that was not the question asked by the poster that you responded to, the question was: "What makes the 40K rules one of the best out there?"
No one is claiming that you can't enjoy it or play it, people are just disputing that it can be called "one of the best" at anything.
As for the huge amount of stuff, I can't think of another 28mm system that can really handle shooting, close combat, vehicles, monstrous creatures, fliers and abilities as well as 40k can. The sheer scope of the game is what puts it ahead of others in that regard.
Infinity and Warmahordes handle all of those things just fine. In fact I would argue that every single 28mm system I've ever tried handled all of those things just fine (with the probable exception of vehicles if we are talking about some fantasy systems like Mordheim or Malifaux since they just don't have those).
The variation in special rules helps this as it means that for cases where two things work even slightly differently fluff-wise, that can be represented. If you just had the USRs, some units would lose certain quirks they had before. For example, the SW Long Fangs can just shoot 2 targets in any combination they want, whereas Split Fire only allows 1 guy to target independently.
That is exactly the kind of simplification that would only improve game clarity without loosing anything! And besides, when you have such huge fluff-breaking rules in the game like the new Daemonology rules, arguing that the difference between the Long Fangs targeting rule and split fire is somehow significant to the fluff strikes me as somewhat naive.
Regarding teaching, all I can say is that in the last few years, I've taught maybe half a dozen people to play 40k, and all of them, by the end of the second or third turn, understood the core mechanics, which is ultimately what the game needs to work. Of course it is hard if you try and introduce everything at once, but if you break it down, it's fine to teach. As I say, I can only speak for my experience here.
Congratulations, you taught half a dozen people how to play a very minor subset of 40k. On those same 2 turns you could have taught the entirety of X-Wing's rules to a new player. THAT is the mark of an easy to teach game.
Teaching someone how move-shoot-assault works and then sending them home to read the rest of the 200 pages rulebook does not an easy to learn game make.
If you want cards and tokens as gaming aids, then that's fine and they are easily makable or even buyable in some cases. The point is, 40k doesn't need those to function, simply the rulebook and codex, and after a few games with an army, you rarely need to refer to those more than once or twice a game.
No miniatures game needs cards or tokens to function but 40k can be vastly improved in playability with both, that is why GW itself released a token set a few years back and that is why people have printed Army builder style pages with unit stats since the beginning of time.
Paradigm wrote: I can't speak for Warmahordes as I've never looked at it, but the variety in FOW consists of Men with Guns and Tanks vs Other Men With Guns and Tanks. Compare that with Power Armoured Men Falling From The Sky vs Aliens with Hover Tanks and Battlesuits and you can see what I mean. Every faction in 40k, with the exception of the SM chapters, plays entirely differently, works differently, and 'feels' different. That's the kind of variety I'm on about.
FoW consists of different qualities of men (giving different morale/skill levels) with different types of guns (with different ranges/damage/fire rates), paired with different qualities of tanks (giving different morale/skill levels) with different specs (speed/armour/ROF) and weapons (with different ranges/damage/fire rates), and aircraft.
40K consists of different things which are largely equivalent; units with 2+ save and 3+ to hit (TEQ), units with a 3+ save and 3+ to hit (MEQ), units with a 5+ save and 4+ to hit (human equivalent), and so on. They look different and play a bit different, but they tend to have fairly similar stats for all of the special rules thrown at them. Some units move faster, or hover, or whatever, but in game terms they are fairly similar.
And you're telling me FOW isn't the same? I imagine most things still have fairly similar statlines if you want to put them into categories, and they're all limited by virtue of being a historical representation. Do you have units that can teleport? No. Do you have units that can deploy from drop pods? No, of course not. and that's not something that inherently bad, but all I'm saying is that 40k has the ind of variety that few others can match.
And whilst they play differently you need to change a lot of them to change how your army plays. In games like Malifaux you can change a model or 2 for a vastly different play style.
This is simply by dint of being a skirmish ruleset, so the comparison really is invalid. From what I've read, Malifaux has 5-10 minis a side, and changing two therefore represents a 20-40% change in army composition. In 40k, being able to change 30% of an army would just as easily allow me to change the play style of the army.
Regarding the clunkyness of the rules, I never said 40k was the best, most perfect and ultimately balanced ruleset. I'm just trying to point out that some slight issues with the rules don't preclude it from being a good game that people can play and enjoy.
Even balance issues aside, I think it barely counts as a competent ruleset. It's trying to do epic things, but it doesn't do them well.
As for the huge amount of stuff, I can't think of another 28mm system that can really handle shooting, close combat, vehicles, monstrous creatures, fliers and abilities as well as 40k can. The sheer scope of the game is what puts it ahead of others in that regard.
I'd assume any game which supports all of those units will do it as well.
And an example of that would be? In 28mm, I really can't think of one that's readily available.
If you want cards and tokens as gaming aids, then that's fine and they are easily makable or even buyable in some cases. The point is, 40k doesn't need those to function, simply the rulebook and codex, and after a few games with an army, you rarely need to refer to those more than once or twice a game.
I've been playing 40K on and off for nearly 20 years, through 3 editions (2nd, 5th, 6th) and I don't recall ever playing a game where I've only had to look at one of the books as little as once or twice, usually to check what a special rule means. Whereas after my 3rd game of Malifaux I haven't even opened the rulebook.
Well, as I say, all I can speak from is my experience. Maybe I just tend to remember things too well, but the only things we end up checking the rules for are rule interactions that haven't come up before. I've never had a rule slow the game by more than as long as it takes to get a 3rd party opinion or roll off for it.
Regarding teaching, all I can say is that in the last few years, I've taught maybe half a dozen people to play 40k, and all of them, by the end of the second or third turn, understood the core mechanics, which is ultimately what the game needs to work. Of course it is hard if you try and introduce everything at once, but if you break it down, it's fine to teach. As I say, I can only speak for my experience here.
Congratulations, you taught half a dozen people how to play a very minor subset of 40k. On those same 2 turns you could have taught the entirety of X-Wing's rules to a new player. THAT is the mark of an easy to teach game.
Teaching someone how move-shoot-assault works and then sending them home to read the rest of the 200 pages rulebook does not an easy to learn game make.
I tend to assume people playing 40k have the basic intelligence required to read a codex for themselves, and understand how those rules work. It's hardly rocket science.
Regarding teaching, all I can say is that in the last few years, I've taught maybe half a dozen people to play 40k, and all of them, by the end of the second or third turn, understood the core mechanics, which is ultimately what the game needs to work. Of course it is hard if you try and introduce everything at once, but if you break it down, it's fine to teach. As I say, I can only speak for my experience here.
Congratulations, you taught half a dozen people how to play a very minor subset of 40k. On those same 2 turns you could have taught the entirety of X-Wing's rules to a new player. THAT is the mark of an easy to teach game.
Teaching someone how move-shoot-assault works and then sending them home to read the rest of the 200 pages rulebook does not an easy to learn game make.
I tend to assume people playing 40k have the basic intelligence required to read a codex for themselves, and understand how those rules work. It's hardly rocket science.
Are you actually claiming that a brand new player that never played the game before, can simply be taught how to move-shoot-assault and then figure everything out by himself simply from reading the book(s)?
Also answer me this please, is 40k easier or harder to teach than X-Wing?
Regarding teaching, all I can say is that in the last few years, I've taught maybe half a dozen people to play 40k, and all of them, by the end of the second or third turn, understood the core mechanics, which is ultimately what the game needs to work. Of course it is hard if you try and introduce everything at once, but if you break it down, it's fine to teach. As I say, I can only speak for my experience here.
Congratulations, you taught half a dozen people how to play a very minor subset of 40k. On those same 2 turns you could have taught the entirety of X-Wing's rules to a new player. THAT is the mark of an easy to teach game.
Teaching someone how move-shoot-assault works and then sending them home to read the rest of the 200 pages rulebook does not an easy to learn game make.
I tend to assume people playing 40k have the basic intelligence required to read a codex for themselves, and understand how those rules work. It's hardly rocket science.
Are you actually claiming that a brand new player that never played the game before, can simply be taught how to move-shoot-assault and then figure everything out by himself simply from reading the book(s)?
Also answer me this please, is 40k easier or harder to teach than X-Wing?
Actually, yes I am. That's how I learned, just from the books. That's how the guy that introduced me learned. I'm not saying it's the best way, but it's certainly doable so long as you can and will read the rulebook and, if need be, can 'test' it with models. The rulebooks exist for a reason, to tell people the rules.
I've not idea on 40k vs X-wing as I've never looked at X-wing at all.
As for the huge amount of stuff, I can't think of another 28mm system that can really handle shooting, close combat, vehicles, monstrous creatures, fliers and abilities as well as 40k can. The sheer scope of the game is what puts it ahead of others in that regard.
I'd assume any game which supports all of those units will do it as well.
And an example of that would be? In 28mm, I really can't think of one that's readily available.
I've not idea on 40k vs X-wing as I've never looked at X-wing at all.
Thank you for proving my point that any claims that 40k is the best at anything are just the product of someone that actually has no experience on anything other than 40k...
As for the huge amount of stuff, I can't think of another 28mm system that can really handle shooting, close combat, vehicles, monstrous creatures, fliers and abilities as well as 40k can. The sheer scope of the game is what puts it ahead of others in that regard.
I'd assume any game which supports all of those units will do it as well.
And an example of that would be? In 28mm, I really can't think of one that's readily available.
I tend to assume people playing 40k have the basic intelligence required to read a codex for themselves, and understand how those rules work. It's hardly rocket science.
The core rules themselves are fine is a bit badly worded at times. The problems come in with all the exceptions and interactions.
For instance, I've got an I6 character with a powerfist in one hand (so I1) and a power sword in the other (I6). My opponent is I4. Who strikes first?
I've not idea on 40k vs X-wing as I've never looked at X-wing at all.
Thank you for proving my point that any claims that 40k is the best at anything are just the product of someone that actually has no experience on anything other than 40k...
Incorrent, and unfounded. I have never looked at X-wing, but have played 40k, Warhammer Fantasy, Deadzone, Warpath, LOTR, War of the Ring and will soon be starting Malifaux. 40k was not my first game, and is far from my only one. My reasons for not approaching X-wing are purely down to the cost of the ships and their small size. That and the fact they're pre-painted kills any interest I have in it.
As for the huge amount of stuff, I can't think of another 28mm system that can really handle shooting, close combat, vehicles, monstrous creatures, fliers and abilities as well as 40k can. The sheer scope of the game is what puts it ahead of others in that regard.
I'd assume any game which supports all of those units will do it as well.
And an example of that would be? In 28mm, I really can't think of one that's readily available.
Warmahordes, Infinity, Tomorrow's War...
Infinity is a small-scale Skirmish game, I'd like to see someone try a 40k sized battle with it. Warmahordes I don't really know about but from what I've seen is purely about killing one enemy model; and it seems to lack elements from my list such as fliers and vehicles. Tomorrow's War I've barely even heard of, so I can't comment.
I tend to assume people playing 40k have the basic intelligence required to read a codex for themselves, and understand how those rules work. It's hardly rocket science.
The core rules themselves are fine is a bit badly worded at times. The problems come in with all the exceptions and interactions.
For instance, I've got an I6 character with a powerfist in one hand (so I1) and a power sword in the other (I6). My opponent is I4. Who strikes first?
That's simple, and covered in the rule. You pick a weapon to strike with, apply any bonuses or penalties, and then strike in that order. You can't use both, so either you use the sword and hit at I6, or the fist and the opponent hits first. I really can't see how that would cause an issue when it's clearly set out in the rules.
The rest of the games I play are kind of out of date now I think. But id say that those two are the best at the moment. Both have a lot of players, one is more tight and competitive while the other is more loose and free. I would put warhammer up there but im still kinda new to it, but so far its ok too. If King of Kings is still considered new then that goes in place of warhammer.
I've not idea on 40k vs X-wing as I've never looked at X-wing at all.
Thank you for proving my point that any claims that 40k is the best at anything are just the product of someone that actually has no experience on anything other than 40k...
Incorrent, and unfounded. I have never looked at X-wing, but have played 40k, Warhammer Fantasy, Deadzone, Warpath, LOTR, War of the Ring and will soon be starting Malifaux. 40k was not my first game, and is far from my only one. My reasons for not approaching X-wing are purely down to the cost of the ships and their small size. That and the fact they're pre-painted kills any interest I have in it.
Its not. You were claiming that 40k was easy to teach when apparently you've never experienced a system that is actually easy to teach as a comparison.
Infinity is a small-scale Skirmish game, I'd like to see someone try a 40k sized battle with it. Warmahordes I don't really know about but from what I've seen is purely about killing one enemy model; and it seems to lack elements from my list such as fliers and vehicles. Tomorrow's War I've barely even heard of, so I can't comment.
Stop moving the goalposts of the discussion every time that you are proven wrong, please, it gets tiring.
Infinity is a small scale skirmish game but has all the elements that you've mentioned. You never mentioned anything about sizes of battle in your argument.
Warmahordes is not about killing one enemy model, go look at the various mission packs that are issued for it every year (and even if it was, that had absolutely nothing to do with any of the arguments that you used before). Also, Warmahordes has both vehicles and flyers.
Again, all your arguments seem to boil down to 40k is the best because it is all that I know...
I've not idea on 40k vs X-wing as I've never looked at X-wing at all.
Well. The main problem is of course scale and complexity.
40K is a decades-old game with nearly 20 factions, hundreds of different units and miniatures, which with all options amount to close to a billion possible armies and army-matchups.
X-Wing is a not-quite-2-year-old game with 2 factions, currently 8 miniatures per side, each with less upgrade/weapon-variations options than your average Sternguard entry.
Also, there is only 1 type of terrain in X-Wing, no variations to deployment, standardized shooting, no HtH, no movement variations, no "transports" of units-within-units, no psychic phase, etc., etc.., etc...
To "fairly" compare the games, you'd either have to "assume" X-Wing up there with 40K's complexity, or 40K down there with X-Wings simplicity. And even than, you'd not be accounting for the very different style of game these two games want to create, which are - it would be safe to say - almost the exact opposite in the intentions of the game designers.
40K is a glorified skirmish game. Most armies only consist of a handful of units which are discrete elements with discrete rules. Even horde armies typically don't have a wide assortment of units.
Just because there are 100 models on the table doesn't mean the game is massively more complex, or that it gets a pass on clunky rules because it 'does so much more.' A squad of 10 Space Marines is one discrete thing. Functionally not much different from a warjack in Warmahordes, a character in Malifaux, a TAG in infinity, etc.
I tend to assume people playing 40k have the basic intelligence required to read a codex for themselves, and understand how those rules work. It's hardly rocket science.
The core rules themselves are fine is a bit badly worded at times. The problems come in with all the exceptions and interactions.
For instance, I've got an I6 character with a powerfist in one hand (so I1) and a power sword in the other (I6). My opponent is I4. Who strikes first?
That's simple, and covered in the rule. You pick a weapon to strike with, apply any bonuses or penalties, and then strike in that order. You can't use both, so either you use the sword and hit at I6, or the fist and the opponent hits first. I really can't see how that would cause an issue when it's clearly set out in the rules.
That makes sense, thanks. I must have misread something about (paraphrasing) "models with power firsts always strike as if I1". I've only read through 6th Ed twice.
I've not idea on 40k vs X-wing as I've never looked at X-wing at all.
Thank you for proving my point that any claims that 40k is the best at anything are just the product of someone that actually has no experience on anything other than 40k...
Incorrent, and unfounded. I have never looked at X-wing, but have played 40k, Warhammer Fantasy, Deadzone, Warpath, LOTR, War of the Ring and will soon be starting Malifaux. 40k was not my first game, and is far from my only one. My reasons for not approaching X-wing are purely down to the cost of the ships and their small size. That and the fact they're pre-painted kills any interest I have in it.
Its not. You were claiming that 40k was easy to teach when apparently you've never experienced a system that is actually easy to teach as a comparison.
No. I was claiming 40k was easy to teach and learn given my experience of learning and teaching several games; 40k has been no harfer to teach than any of the others.
Please define 'actually easy to teach' and then go through all the games I listed and prove that 40k is harder to teach than all of them, then I'll accept that I'm saying what I am saying 'because I've never experienced anything that is actually easy to teach'.
As for the huge amount of stuff, I can't think of another 28mm system that can really handle shooting, close combat, vehicles, monstrous creatures, fliers and abilities as well as 40k can. The sheer scope of the game is what puts it ahead of others in that regard.
I'd assume any game which supports all of those units will do it as well.
And an example of that would be? In 28mm, I really can't think of one that's readily available.
Warmahordes, Infinity, Tomorrow's War...
Infinity is a small-scale Skirmish game, I'd like to see someone try a 40k sized battle with it. Warmahordes I don't really know about but from what I've seen is purely about killing one enemy model; and it seems to lack elements from my list such as fliers and vehicles. Tomorrow's War I've barely even heard of, so I can't comment.
Stop moving the goalposts of the discussion every time that you are proven wrong, please, it gets tiring.
Infinity is a small scale skirmish game but has all the elements that you've mentioned. You never mentioned anything about sizes of battle in your argument.
Warmahordes is not about killing one enemy model, go look at the various mission packs that are issued for it every year (and even if it was, that had absolutely nothing to do with any of the arguments that you used before). Also, Warmahordes has both vehicles and flyers.
Again, all your arguments seem to boil down to 40k is the best because it is all that I know...
As I have pointed out, my experience is not limited to 40k, so that argument is entirely unfounded.
I may have been unclear previously, and I apologise for that, but let me ask what I meant to be the original question again, for clarity:
'Warhammer 40k is a mass battle 28mm game that supports a huge variety of unit types, including infantry, vehicles, fliers and monstrous creatures, with unique mechanics for each. If there is a 28mm Mass Battle game fitting the parameters above that does what 40k does but better, please show me'.
If you can find something that does exactly that and is objectively better, then please do, but if there isn't one, then it stands to reason that 40k is the best at what it does. Comparing a mass battle to a skirmish is apples and oranges.
sing your life wrote: Warmachine/Hordes has been the best average to competitive ruleset since 2003, Though I also find Bolt Action to be simple and balanced, so it's better for casual play than the former.
I've also played a little bit of the new 40k Editions. I thinks it looks good so far.
It would be if everything did not boil down to meeting in the center dishing it out to see who get to kill the enemy "king" first.
That's pretty much a description for every battle in history before 1800....
Anyone claiming that 40k is the best rules set, at anything, can only make that claim if they've never experienced any other miniature game... ever...
Same for X-Wing.
The game's balance is so horribly out of whack, it makes 40K look like chess.
But it's popularity proves that "internet-good-will" is more important than actual objective review of the rules.
Balance and rules are two totally separate things.
X-wing has incredibly tight and easy to learn rules, but has some issues with balance.
40K has poorly written rules and poor balance.
Edit:
To clarify, one of my biggest problems with GW rules writing for the last 25 years is their insistence on having fluff explanations intermixed in with actual rules written in paragraph form. I hate that.
weeble1000 wrote: 40K is a glorified skirmish game. Most armies only consist of a handful of units which are discrete elements with discrete rules. Even horde armies typically don't have a wide assortment of units.
Just because there are 100 models on the table doesn't mean the game is massively more complex, or that it gets a pass on clunky rules because it 'does so much more.' A squad of 10 Space Marines is one discrete thing. Functionally not much different from a warjack in Warmahordes, a character in Malifaux, a TAG in infinity, etc.
That, once again, is laded with pre-judgement
To bring 40K down to a "comparable" level to X-Wing, you'd need to reduce the complexity a lot.
- Remove all factions save 2 (say, Space Marines and Necrons?)
- Strip those 2 factions down to only single-miniature-units, with only 4 or 5 miniatures per faction (e.g. Tac Marines, Assault Marines, Dreads, Scouts, vs. Warriors, Immortals, Wraiths & Flayed Ones? Each with a handful of equipment options)
- Standardise weapon-ranges for all weapons
- Standardise all weapon-damage-types to 2 dice, 3 dice, 4 dice or 5 dice.
- Standardise all armour, defense, saving throws, cover, jink, etc.. to 2 dice, 3 dice or 4 dice.
- Remove hand-to-hand-combat
- Remove all variant deployment options (e.g. infiltrate, reserve, etc..)
- Remove all terrain types except one.
- Remove all psychic, Willpower, Leadership-related rules
- etc...
- etc..
There's a lot to strip away from 40K to make a valid like-for-like comparison with X-Wing, even if you assume that 40k is an "oversized skirmish game".
Have you ever considered the fact that 40K's attempt to do so many things at the same time is one of the reasons why there are so many issues with the rules?
(And please, do not try to argue there aren't that many serious issues with the rules. I'm certain you've visited YMDC recently.)
Have you ever considered the fact that 40K's attempt to do so many things at the same time is one of the reasons why there are so many issues with the rules?
(And please, do not try to argue there aren't that many serious issues with the rules. I'm certain you've visited YMDC recently.)
Have you ever considered that 40K is simply trying to achieve something very different than ... say ... Warmachine, X-Wing, Infinity, etc.. and that comparing them on the same (usually Warmachine/Infinity-biased)-benchmark is missing the point of what 40K is trying to do?
Whether 40K succeeds or fails at what it tries to do is a topic for a different thread.
But the very fact that 40K does try to create something very different (and, I would argue, unique) from the other run-of-the-mill-miniature-games out there is why it is such an enrichment to the hobby in general.
Ultimately, they offer different experiences. 40K doesn't scratch my "let's-play-chess"-itch (or Dreadball-cravings, or Axis & Allies, or X-Wing), and chess (or any of the others) doesn't fulfill my "let's-play-40K"-needs. Horses for courses. Apples and Oranges. etc...
What is it trying to achieve that is different enough to make it incomparable with any other game?
IMHO it's not a skirmish game, and other skirmish games are better. It's not a mass battle game, and other mass battle games are better.
It's certainly the only one that lets you "forge the narrative" with your collection of minis set in the "40K universe", but you can use other games for that, and other games give better narrative play.
Have you ever considered the fact that 40K's attempt to do so many things at the same time is one of the reasons why there are so many issues with the rules?
(And please, do not try to argue there aren't that many serious issues with the rules. I'm certain you've visited YMDC recently.)
Have you ever considered that 40K is simply trying to achieve something very different than ... say ... Warmachine, X-Wing, Infinity, etc.. and that comparing them on the same (usually Warmachine/Infinity-biased)-benchmark is missing the point of what 40K is trying to do?
Whether 40K succeeds or fails at what it tries to do is a topic for a different thread.
Actually, no, this is exactly the thread for it.
We're discussing games with good rules. People have brought up 40K as having "good rules." If the rules set for 40K does not succeed at "what it tries to do," then obviously the rules are not good.
Herzlos wrote: What is it trying to achieve that is different enough to make it incomparable with any other game?
A hugely open 28mm mass battle game with a strong narrative element and huge amounts of player freedom, combined with a massive degree of variation in and within armies, and that can support small skirmishes to hugely apocalyptic battles.. The reason 40k is the go-to game for most sci fi players is that it offers this on a scale that no one else does.
We're discussing games with good rules. People have brought up 40K as having "good rules." If the rules set for 40K does not succeed at "what it tries to do," then obviously the rules are not good.
Perhaps.
But people have also said that X-Wing or Infinity are "better" rules, even though they aim to achieve very different things.
That is obviously wrong.
I would argue that ... say ... X-Wing is vastly inferior at achieving what Warhammer 40K is trying to achieve (and vice versa).
Herzlos wrote: What is it trying to achieve that is different enough to make it incomparable with any other game?
A hugely open 28mm mass battle game with a strong narrative element and huge amounts of player freedom, combined with a massive degree of variation in and within armies, and that can support small skirmishes to hugely apocalyptic battles.. The reason 40k is the go-to game for most sci fi players is that it offers this on a scale that no one else does.
But it attempts to do it on a battlefield that is, at 28mm scale, roughly 100 meters by 150 meters.
The scale of the battles have gotten way too big for the scale of the models. Their attempts to do so much at this scale is, in my opinion, the direct reason why there are so many issues, inconsistencies, and poor interactions with the rules.
Herzlos wrote: What is it trying to achieve that is different enough to make it incomparable with any other game?
A hugely open 28mm mass battle game with a strong narrative element and huge amounts of player freedom, combined with a massive degree of variation in and within armies, and that can support small skirmishes to hugely apocalyptic battles.. The reason 40k is the go-to game for most sci fi players is that it offers this on a scale that no one else does.
But it attempts to do it on a battlefield that is, at 28mm scale, roughly 100 meters by 150 meters.
The scale of the battles have gotten way too big for the scale of the models. Their attempts to do so much at this scale is, in my opinion, the direct reason why there are so many issues, inconsistencies, and poor interactions with the rules.
It's a game, not a simulation.
Would you say that the space-distances and flight speeds on your average X-Wing table are more "realistic" (in a space-flight-simulation-kind-of-assumption)?
How many square-miles of "space" is your average 3 by 3 X-Wing table "to scale" with that X-Wing miniature?
We're discussing games with good rules. People have brought up 40K as having "good rules." If the rules set for 40K does not succeed at "what it tries to do," then obviously the rules are not good.
Perhaps.
But people have also said that X-Wing or Infinity are "better" rules, even though they aim to achieve very different things.
That is obviously wrong.
I would argue that ... say ... X-Wing is vastly inferior at achieving what Warhammer 40K is trying to achieve (and vice versa).
?????
X-wing achieves its attempted goal better than 40K achieves its attempted goal.
That's why X-wing has better rules.
The only reasonable measuring stick is how well the respective games achieve what that system wishes to achieve. We're discussing relative rule sets, not game genre.
Would you say that the space-distances and flight speeds on your average X-Wing table are more "realistic" (in a space-flight-simulation-kind-of-assumption)?
How many square-miles of "space" is your average 3 by 3 X-Wing table "to scale" with that X-Wing miniature?
In a Star Wars dog fighting game? It's pretty much spot on, and fits perfectly with the ship combat scenes from the movies.
X-wing achieves its attempted goal better than 40K achieves its attempted goal.
That's why X-wing has better rules.
The only reasonable measuring stick is how well the respective games achieve what that system wishes to achieve. We're discussing relative rule sets, not game genre.
Perhaps.
But 40K is still the best (and arguably only) game far and wide at achieving what 40K sets out to do. Until a better game comes along at creating the 40K-style experience, it'll have its place as "the best" in that particular field.
Herzlos wrote: What is it trying to achieve that is different enough to make it incomparable with any other game?
A hugely open 28mm mass battle game with a strong narrative element and huge amounts of player freedom, combined with a massive degree of variation in and within armies, and that can support small skirmishes to hugely apocalyptic battles.. The reason 40k is the go-to game for most sci fi players is that it offers this on a scale that no one else does.
But it attempts to do it on a battlefield that is, at 28mm scale, roughly 100 meters by 150 meters.
The scale of the battles have gotten way too big for the scale of the models. Their attempts to do so much at this scale is, in my opinion, the direct reason why there are so many issues, inconsistencies, and poor interactions with the rules.
It's a game, not a simulation.
Would you say that the space-distances and flight speeds on your average X-Wing table are more "realistic" (in a space-flight-simulation-kind-of-assumption)?
Totally, 100% missing my point.
For the last four editions, 40K has been ever expanding the size of the armies on the battlefield. Back in Rogue Trader, a full sized army might have 20-30 models on the table. Today, it's gotten to the point that they're including aircraft, titans, massive warmachines, huge fortifications, and armies than have 150+ models. They've done this while keeping the overall scale the same. The attempts at keeping the scale the same while increasing the size of the battles is, in my opinion, one of the things that has caused some of the rules issues.
Herzlos wrote: What is it trying to achieve that is different enough to make it incomparable with any other game?
A hugely open 28mm mass battle game with a strong narrative element and huge amounts of player freedom, combined with a massive degree of variation in and within armies, and that can support small skirmishes to hugely apocalyptic battles.. The reason 40k is the go-to game for most sci fi players is that it offers this on a scale that no one else does.
I don't think it does it in a particularly elegant way though. There's not enough detail for small skirmish games yet far too much detail for apocalyptic battles. Because of balance issues there isn't a massive degree of variation of and within armies, unless you're playing "casual" games and ignoring half the rules.
There's a reasonable amount of player freedom, but it comes at the expense of an unwieldy game system, whereas other systems handle it better, including things like unit/stat builders to allow you to field literally anything you want.
Balance and rules are two totally separate things.
X-wing has incredibly tight and easy to learn rules, but has some issues with balance.
40K has poorly written rules and poor balance.
Edit:
To clarify, one of my biggest problems with GW rules writing for the last 25 years is their insistence on having fluff explanations intermixed in with actual rules written in paragraph form. I hate that.
I wouldn't say balance and rules are totally different things. If the rules (core mechanics) are well written, they also make balancing easier. IMO easy balancing is one of the key elements of a good rule set, as a game needs to give roughly equal footing to each participant.
Addressing the question of 'simple vs. complicated' - I think some hallmarks of a good rule system is that the core is streamlined enough to allow easy learning and quick play, but also allows modifiers and further learning that create more tactical depth. These modifiers also should be easy and logical to use, and shouldn't take much extra time or effort. So it's a sort of question of 'complicated enough, but not too much', and ease of use and ease of understanding for all the players is one of the important design features.
One of my key gripes with 40k is that it feels bloated, meaning that it has somewhat complicated core rules, and a lot of extra rules that you need to look for in different books. You also get 'surprise' special rules in opponent's wargear etc. that are difficult to remember, unless you can spend a lot of time learning how the opponents army works. IMO a good system is where you see your opponents army list on the table, have the ability to quickly understand the key strengths and weaknesses of their units, and then adjust your own tactics accordingly 'on the fly'.
X-wing achieves its attempted goal better than 40K achieves its attempted goal.
That's why X-wing has better rules.
The only reasonable measuring stick is how well the respective games achieve what that system wishes to achieve. We're discussing relative rule sets, not game genre.
Perhaps.
But 40K is still the best (and arguably only) game far and wide at achieving what 40K sets out to do. Until a better game comes along at creating the 40K-style experience, it'll have its place as "the best" in that particular field.
Being "the best" in the particular field doesn't mean their even "good" in an absolute sense when, as you assert, they're the only game trying to do what they're trying to do.
If you're the only person in your math class, getting a 35% score on your final exam still makes you the best in your class, despite the fact that you abjectly failed.
Have you ever considered the fact that 40K's attempt to do so many things at the same time is one of the reasons why there are so many issues with the rules?
(And please, do not try to argue there aren't that many serious issues with the rules. I'm certain you've visited YMDC recently.)
Agreed the reason you dont see many other 28mm games try and cover so many types of units is because thats not what 28mm was intended for if you really want a game that works for that size armies and variety of units the you need a smaller scale thats why I play dropzone commander ok not quite the large range of factions but lots of variety between the current ones and its a relatively new game so that will come.
X-wing achieves its attempted goal better than 40K achieves its attempted goal.
That's why X-wing has better rules.
The only reasonable measuring stick is how well the respective games achieve what that system wishes to achieve. We're discussing relative rule sets, not game genre.
Perhaps.
But 40K is still the best (and arguably only) game far and wide at achieving what 40K sets out to do. Until a better game comes along at creating the 40K-style experience, it'll have its place as "the best" in that particular field.
What's a 40K style experience?
So essentially you're saying that 40K is a good rule set because it's the best at 40K? I've heard of people who prefer getting their 40K fix through other systems (Tomorrows War, modified Bolt Action, etc), so people disagree with you even there.
prowla wrote: One of my key gripes with 40k is that it feels bloated, meaning that it has somewhat complicated core rules, and a lot of extra rules that you need to look for in different books. You also get 'surprise' special rules in opponent's wargear etc. that are difficult to remember, unless you can spend a lot of time learning how the opponents army works.
I agree with this completely.
(I'll get flamed for this, but it's also something I feel about the current state of Warmachine/Hordes. They've gotten to the point that there are so many darn different units that have their own rules on the cards that it's tough to keep up with everything. If you don't play a ton, you have to reference your own and your opponents cards all the time just to make sure you're not messing yourself up in your decisions. The PP core rules are good, but the sheer number of units with their own rules and stats has gotten to a point that it's impractical to remember all of them.)
Would you say that the space-distances and flight speeds on your average X-Wing table are more "realistic" (in a space-flight-simulation-kind-of-assumption)?
How many square-miles of "space" is your average 3 by 3 X-Wing table "to scale" with that X-Wing miniature?
In a Star Wars dog fighting game? It's pretty much spot on, and fits perfectly with the ship combat scenes from the movies.
Really? A 3' by 3' X-Wing table corresponds to ~20 ship lengths (on the basis of the 4cm bases), or about 3x the full 30cm range 3 ruler.
An X-Wing is said to be 12 meters long (and the miniature is actually longer than its base in the game).
The would make the recommended X-Wing table a ~ 250 meters by 250 meters (275 yards by 275 yards) patch of space to scale with the miniatures (possibly less).
That is not the kind of dog-fights I've seen in the movies.
Herzlos wrote: What is it trying to achieve that is different enough to make it incomparable with any other game?
A hugely open 28mm mass battle game with a strong narrative element and huge amounts of player freedom, combined with a massive degree of variation in and within armies, and that can support small skirmishes to hugely apocalyptic battles.. The reason 40k is the go-to game for most sci fi players is that it offers this on a scale that no one else does.
I don't think it does it in a particularly elegant way though. There's not enough detail for small skirmish games yet far too much detail for apocalyptic battles. Because of balance issues there isn't a massive degree of variation of and within armies, unless you're playing "casual" games and ignoring half the rules.
There's a reasonable amount of player freedom, but it comes at the expense of an unwieldy game system, whereas other systems handle it better, including things like unit/stat builders to allow you to field literally anything you want.
It may not do it that elegantly (although, the way I see it, it's functional enough as it is). The balance is only a real issue when you look to break it, and that's only the nature of the competitive scene that GW has tried to get away from, because to them it's not the way 40k is meant to be played. It's meant to be casual, and as you point out, the balance is far better there. Hence, variation occurs when you play the game GW want you to play.
I really don't see how the system is that unwieldy (other than the weight of the rulebook ) but I think we'll have to agree to disagree there.
I think FoW works a pretty tight ruleset, it's got a workable tournament scene, some imbalances, but nothing insurmountable. Also the variety available by having a unit who can have the same armament but have variable skill/morale depending on list builds in a lot of variety with relatively few models
Paradigm wrote: The balance is only a real issue when you look to break it, and that's only the nature of the competitive scene that GW has tried to get away from, because to them it's not the way 40k is meant to be played. It's meant to be casual, and as you point out, the balance is far better there. Hence, variation occurs when you play the game GW want you to play.
The balance is only an issue for anyone who expects that points parity will give a vaguely fair game. I.e. a 1500pt force Vs a 1500pt force. You don't need to try to end up with a horribly broken match-up. There's no reason whatsoever that balance would hurt casual play, and the only way it works in casual play is by deliberately handicapping yourself and ignoring large chunks of the rulebooks. If the rules are only balanced when you re-write them, what's the point?
Would you say that the space-distances and flight speeds on your average X-Wing table are more "realistic" (in a space-flight-simulation-kind-of-assumption)?
How many square-miles of "space" is your average 3 by 3 X-Wing table "to scale" with that X-Wing miniature?
In a Star Wars dog fighting game? It's pretty much spot on, and fits perfectly with the ship combat scenes from the movies.
Really? A 3' by 3' X-Wing table corresponds to ~20 ship lengths (on the basis of the 4cm bases), or about 3x the full 30cm range 3 ruler.
An X-Wing is said to be 12 meters long (and the miniature is actually longer than its base in the game).
The would make the recommended X-Wing table a ~ 250 meters by 250 meters (275 yards by 275 yards) patch of space to scale with the miniatures (possibly less).
That is not the kind of dog-fights I've seen in the movies.
As you said earlier, it's a game and not a simulation. It works pretty well for what it does even if the playing area is abstracted a bit. Though I'd say in a dogfight situation with agile craft a 250x250m area isn't ridiculous. Real jet fighters might need a couple of square miles to dogfight but bi-planes did it in much less.
It still jarrs less with immersion than having fortifications without a stones throw of an enemy fortification, or using fighter craft, or city destroying titans in an area the size of a football pitch.
You still haven't explained what the 40K experience is though.
As you said earlier, it's a game and not a simulation. It works pretty well for what it does even if the playing area is abstracted a bit. Though I'd say in a dogfight situation with agile craft a 250x250m area isn't ridiculous. Real jet fighters might need a couple of square miles to dogfight but bi-planes did it in much less.
It still jarrs less with immersion than having fortifications without a stones throw of an enemy fortification, or using fighter craft, or city destroying titans in an area the size of a football pitch.
You still haven't explained what the 40K experience is though.
Well, I have no issue with 40K's scale. Nothing there is "jarring" to me, at least not more so than in X-Wing.
Personal preferences and all.
The 40K experience places heavy emphasis on narrative game-play and next to none on balance (hence why judging it on the criteria of balance misses the point, as you can only "judge" a game on balance if it tries to be balanced in the first place). The 40K experience also emphasizes giving you a lot of options (Flyers, MCs, "space-magic", etc..) in the understanding that you shouldn't "ok" everything all the time and in every game.
Like a good spice rack in the kitchen, 40K works best if you pick your ingredients carefully. All at once will spoil the food.
The 40K experience places heavy emphasis on narrative game-play
What rules does 40k have that emphasize or promote narrative gameplay over, say, X-Wing (to quote another game that you say that you play)?
The "mission-statement" of the designers, as communicated through the books, White Dwarf, etc.., and therefore (among other things) the relative importance "the rules" as such have in the game.
The would make the recommended X-Wing table a ~ 250 meters by 250 meters (275 yards by 275 yards) patch of space to scale with the miniatures (possibly less).
That is not the kind of dog-fights I've seen in the movies.
Its not? It matches the dog-fights that I've seen in the movies pretty closely from what I remember.
We are talking about the same movies where enemy pilots were literally able to look each other in the eye and no craft could hit another unless they were less than 10 meters away from each other, right?
We're discussing games with good rules. People have brought up 40K as having "good rules." If the rules set for 40K does not succeed at "what it tries to do," then obviously the rules are not good.
Perhaps.
But people have also said that X-Wing or Infinity are "better" rules, even though they aim to achieve very different things.
That is obviously wrong.
I would argue that ... say ... X-Wing is vastly inferior at achieving what Warhammer 40K is trying to achieve (and vice versa).
?????
X-wing achieves its attempted goal better than 40K achieves its attempted goal.
That's why X-wing has better rules.
The only reasonable measuring stick is how well the respective games achieve what that system wishes to achieve. We're discussing relative rule sets, not game genre.
The 40K experience places heavy emphasis on narrative game-play
What rules does 40k have that emphasize or promote narrative gameplay over, say, X-Wing (to quote another game that you say that you play)?
The "mission-statement" of the designers, as communicated through the books, White Dwarf, etc.., and therefore (among other things) the relative importance "the rules" as such have in the game.
So the reason the 40K rules are good at what they do, is because the designers tell you the rules aren't important?
The 40K experience places heavy emphasis on narrative game-play
What rules does 40k have that emphasize or promote narrative gameplay over, say, X-Wing (to quote another game that you say that you play)?
The "mission-statement" of the designers, as communicated through the books, White Dwarf, etc.., and therefore (among other things) the relative importance "the rules" as such have in the game.
LOL...LOL...LOL
I'm sorry guy, but this is hilarious. In a thread about which wargaming rule sets on the market are 'the best', you are saying that a set of rules is good because the game designers tell you that the rules of their game aren't important? Really?
So the reason the 40K rules are good at what they do, is because the designers tell you the rules aren't important?
Not in the "written-in-stone" sense they are used in other games.
Of course the 40K rules are important, but trying to communicate that they are trumped by other, more relevant factors to people who aren't used to that kind of mature gaming and have no experience outside of games that hold your hand for every little step is often abbreviated (and best achieved) by initially communicating that people should worry less about the rules and get the important things right first.
Again, Jervis Johnson, etc.., have frequently and repeatedly used the "buffet" or "spice rack" analogy to explain how the rules for 40K offer players a wide selection of things that player chose (economically and selectively) from in the pre-game negotiation. Approached in this manner, the rules are both "important" and work very well.
The 40K experience places heavy emphasis on narrative game-play
What rules does 40k have that emphasize or promote narrative gameplay over, say, X-Wing (to quote another game that you say that you play)?
The "mission-statement" of the designers, as communicated through the books, White Dwarf, etc.., and therefore (among other things) the relative importance "the rules" as such have in the game.
Those aren't rules, those are declarations of intent. They don't do anything to actively promote a gaming narrative.
I'll give you an example of a truly narrative game: in Force on Force the units that you an your opponent use are defined by the story of the mission that you are playing. There are no points costs for units and therefore there aren't any suggestions that both forces will be balanced in relation to each other and as a matter of fact, more often then not, they won't be. But that is perfectly fine, because both forces will have asymmetric goals to accomplish and those goals will reflect their comparative strengths.
See, that is an example of a narrative rules set.
Another one is the campaign mode in Necromunda or Mordheim, for example, where the player is encouraged to weight the value between winning the individual game or preserving its forces for future battles and where the accomplishments or failures of individual models will carry through to the next game, therefore forging a natural narrative.
There is absolutely nothing like any of these examples in 40k, neither is there any other rule designed to encourage any type of narrative gameplay. The only thing that exists is a suggestion from the game developers that you should find ways for your army to be fighting the opposing players army, and that you can do in every single miniature wargame in existence!
So the reason the 40K rules are good at what they do, is because the designers tell you the rules aren't important?
Not in the "written-in-stone" sense they are used in other games.
Of course the 40K rules are important, but trying to communicate that they are trumped by other, more relevant factors to people who aren't used to that kind of mature gaming and have no experience outside of games that hold your hand for every little step is often abbreviated (and best achieved) by initially communicating that people should worry less about the rules and get the important things right first.
Give it up Zwei, you just torpedoed your position and have lost all semblance of credibility.
I'll give you an example of a truly narrative game: in Force on Force the units that you an your opponent use are defined by the story of the mission that you are playing.
A pre-made story chewed for you by someone else isn't what I understand under narrative gaming.
So the reason the 40K rules are good at what they do, is because the designers tell you the rules aren't important?
Not in the "written-in-stone" sense they are used in other games.
Of course the 40K rules are important, but trying to communicate that they are trumped by other, more relevant factors to people who aren't used to that kind of mature gaming and have no experience outside of games that hold your hand for every little step is often abbreviated (and best achieved) by initially communicating that people should worry less about the rules and get the important things right first.
You do realize that it's possible to have a well written, tight, clear and concise rules set while simultaneously having a preface to those rules telling the players they're free to change or modify them for cinematic effect, if they so choose, right? There is nothing mutually exclusive about a strong rules set and a strong narrative experience.
Heck, I'd argue that a strong rules set make it easier for a person to have an outside-the-box rules experience; at least in that case, you don't have to negotiate the basics before deciding what to change for the narrative.
Give it up Zwei, you just torpedoed your position and have lost all semblance of credibility.
I have not torpedoed my position.
I have answered question specific to 40K, all of which are admittedly irrelevant to the original topic... e.g. that different games try to do different things (and the gaming-hobby is richer the more different design goals are out there), irrespective of whether 40K is part of that discussion or not.
We can have the same discussion about Chess and Monopoly, if you prefer (and if me talking about 40K keeps people going on a tangent).
Chess is a piss-poor set of rules for Monopoly and vice versa. They simply ain't the same thing. The gaming-world is richer for having both, rather than only one or the other. Hell, I personally own both, and I see no need to ditch one because the other is "better".
So the reason the 40K rules are good at what they do, is because the designers tell you the rules aren't important?
Not in the "written-in-stone" sense they are used in other games.
Of course the 40K rules are important, but trying to communicate that they are trumped by other, more relevant factors to people who aren't used to that kind of mature gaming and have no experience outside of games that hold your hand for every little step is often abbreviated (and best achieved) by initially communicating that people should worry less about the rules and get the important things right first.
Again, Jervis Johnson, etc.., have frequently and repeatedly used the "buffet" or "spice rack" analogy to explain how the rules for 40K offer players a wide selection of things that player chose (economically and selectively) from in the pre-game negotiation. Approached in this manner, the rules are both "important" and work very well.
None of the other games are "written-in-stone" either, and I've never had to play them as such. The other games though start with a clearer, more balanced playing field where you can modify things if you chose whilst still giving you a good baseline. With 40K you have the opposite approach; where the rules are a barely useable mess requiring you to modify things to get a game to work at all, and this is waved away with the "spice rack analogy". You're essentially saying that the rules aren't fit for purpose, but it's OK because the aim is to discuss which part of the rules you want to ignore before you play. Sorry, but for a £50 rule book I expect better.
There's nothing "mature" about having to spend precious gaming time discussing which parts of the rules you're going to apply tonight, and it makes it an absolute nightmare for pick-up games thus completely countering the reason 40K is so successful; ubiquity.
There are hosts of casual themed games (like Hail Caesar, it's opening pages explain how it's meant to be played with beer and sound effects), yet it's still clearly written and a pretty tight ruleset which allows you to forge all the narrative you want without having to house-rule anything.
I'll give you an example of a truly narrative game: in Force on Force the units that you an your opponent use are defined by the story of the mission that you are playing.
A pre-made story chewed for you by someone else isn't what I understand under narrative gaming.
REALLY? That is all that you took out of my post?
I show you an example of a game actively promoting your beloved force unbalance through active game mechanics that reward both players and all that you take out of it is that I was talking about a "pre-made story chewed for you by someone"?
And I wasn't actually. The game comes with a set of pre-made missions based on actual historic battles, but the meat of the rules is concerned with giving the players the tools so that they can create those types of narrative missions and campaigns on their own.
Again, what rules in 40k actively promote a narrative gameplay that doesn't exist in X-Wing as well?
Give it up Zwei, you just torpedoed your position and have lost all semblance of credibility.
I have not torpedoed my position.
I have answered question specific to 40K, all of which are admittedly irrelevant to the original topic... e.g. that different games try to do different things (and the gaming-hobby is richer the more different design goals are out there), irrespective of whether 40K is part of that discussion or not.
We can have the same discussion about Chess and Monopoly, if you prefer (and if me talking about 40K keeps people going on a tangent).
Chess is a piss-poor set of rules for Monopoly and vice versa. They simply ain't the same thing. The gaming-world is richer for having both, rather than only one or the other. Hell, I personally own both, and I see no need to ditch one because the other is "better".
Of course they have different purposes, but you've essentially said that 40K is good at being 40K because the whole point is that it's gak and the rules don't matter. That doesn't make it good, it's just an excuse for it being gak. The imbalance and fragmentation make it very hard to play a 40K game even amongst friends in a casual setting, because there's so much modification going on. "Want to play 40K tonight?" "sure, what rules?" "No flyers, fortifications, unbound, Escalation, Psykics, and using the usual house rules?" "wuh? Why are were paying for this?"
But as said above, turning this into a "40K-centric" conversation is missing the topic.
Again, different games serve different purposes.
Personally, I know nobody in the hobby who only plays 1 game, because that is the "best" (subjectively or objectively), dispensing with the need for any other game.
Every hobbyist I ever met owned and played multiple, different games, because different games offer different experiences.
That's quite true. I, myself, play multiple games.
However, 40K hasn't been one of them for about 2 years because I haven't liked the last two editions. That's despite having played the game since 1988.
I still play WHFB, though. I actually really like 8th edition, though there are some relatively glaring issues with it, as well, but mostly their balance related, not rules related.
Just started getting into Song of Blades and Heroes and I like it a lot. Easily my favorite fantasy skirmish game I've played.
Ok, I keep hearing about this game and I need to know more about it! I have a bunch of Confrontation Wulfen sitting pretty in my shelf that I wan't to plop on a table for any reason...
Are the rules for this in a physical book or are they PDF only? And is the game really as customizable as people say? Could I, for example, build a gang from my Wulfen to use with these rules?
Just started getting into Song of Blades and Heroes and I like it a lot. Easily my favorite fantasy skirmish game I've played.
Ok, I keep hearing about this game and I need to know more about it! I have a bunch of Confrontation Wulfen sitting pretty in my shelf that I wan't to plop on a table for any reason...
Are the rules for this in a physical book or are they PDF only? And is the game really as customizable as people say? Could I, for example, build a gang from my Wulfen to use with these rules?
Gotta give more props to Malifaux. I managed to learn the game by watching a few people play and a HTP video online by Wargaming Consortium. Never had a question that I couldn't find answered by the BRB I got right when 2e hit.
A GumyBear wrote: Gotta give more props to Malifaux. I managed to learn the game by watching a few people play and a HTP video online by Wargaming Consortium. Never had a question that I couldn't find answered by the BRB I got right when 2e hit.
I wish there were some people in our area that played; some of the models look really awesome. I particularly like the guys in the dusters with the flaming skull heads and old style wooden coffins.
Apparently, the company used to be based here in Atlanta, and the game was popular when their developers were here to promote it. At some point, they relocated the business out west, and the local community kind of dried up.
I wish there were some people in our area that played; some of the models look really awesome. I particularly like the guys in the dusters with the flaming skull heads and old style wooden coffins.
Apparently, the company used to be based here in Atlanta, and the game was popular when their developers were here to promote it. At some point, they relocated the business out west, and the local community kind of dried up.
I agree that many of the figures look awesome, but I will caution you (and anyone else out there), if you haven't bought them yet, keep in mind that they are very spndly, and sometimes "frail".. This is of course, mostly due to the scale used, as it isn't a "heroic" scale.
My girlfriend and I have been playing the Batman miniatures game by Knights Models recently and I have to say its a very solid ruleset and insanely fun to play. certainly my favourite as of right now.
The best rulesets right now for me I would have to say are infinity, warmahordes, malifaux and xwing though. really well done rules all around.
Paradigm wrote: A hugely open 28mm mass battle game with a strong narrative element and huge amounts of player freedom, combined with a massive degree of variation in and within armies, and that can support small skirmishes to hugely apocalyptic battles.. The reason 40k is the go-to game for most sci fi players is that it offers this on a scale that no one else does.
Nope. 40k is not a mass battle game. Epic is.
A game that lacks command mechanisms and keeps track of the casualties is probably not a mass battle game. A game where you have to keep track of each and every individual move, equipement, wound, where one shot can basically remove all the [insert-equipment-here] of an entire unit is definitely not a mass battle game.
In 40k, 1 mini = 1 soldier, just like in Warmachine, Infinity or Malifaux.
So, yes, when your opponent has 30 guardsmen and 3 Vendettas, he's really fielding 3 planes... to provide support fire for 30 grunts of the Imperialus Guardus.
Picked up a copy of Bushido: New Dawn, and while I have only read through the rules, the seem pretty solid. Need to play a few games after I get some minis for final judgement, but I like what I've read.
Look at RULESETS. That's what we're talking about here, not if a game has people with skullguns or laser swords or cyberspace discs or steam powered robots or magic rings.
These games are about moving a token of a given size, according to certain rules, and performing chance-based operations with modifiers based possibly on positioning, synergy with other tokens, and resource expendature to achieve desired results, generally the elimination of other enemy tokens.
In this sense, there's games that are better at this (cleaner ruleset, less ambiguity, less duplicate rules, more meaningful divisions between units, a better field of meaningful decisions to players).
----
Remove thoughts of 'skirmish vs army' from this equation either. Infinity is a game played with 10 Units: You have 10 seperate troops that can climb, shoot guns, jump out windows, toss grenades, lay covering fire, hack planes.
40k is also a game with 10 units. You have blobs that have 10 token-shaped hitpoint counters that shoot guns, hit with swords, etc.
Just saying 'It's an army scale game!' doesn't actually mean anything. Mechanically, both are games with a handful of discrete units.
---
The ignorance by the 40k proponents in this thread in non-40k systems is pretty systemic of gamers who don't have much exposure. Nowadays in the 2010s, we've got such an amazing rennisance of great game design that gives miniatures gaming such a wide range of awesome options. Having a strong opinion founded on ignorance is... well. It's something that doesn't do the speaker credit.
Look at RULESETS. That's what we're talking about here, not if a game has people with skullguns or laser swords or cyberspace discs or steam powered robots or magic rings.
It's gotta be the Privateer set. It's extremely tight and I can't even remember the last time I saw two people unable to resolve an issue, usually in no more time than it takes to read the relevant unit card.
For my money I also think it does 40K (and by 40K I mean the original, skirmish level) far, far better than actual 40k. Excluding transports and the larger vehicles I'd say you can make a better, more fluff accurate and interesting version of just about any 40k unit with it.
I suppose if the rules are good, they also allow balanced competitive play, have depth but aren't too complicated, and allow player skill to show through.
While I think that "allowing balanced competitive play" is by no means a necessary component of all rulesets, I do agree with the other two I'll put forth a few of my own suggestions. Some of these are were not released in 2014, but that's a silly limitation anyway since good rules are good rules.
1) Kings of War. This one actually clicks all of the OP's boxes. It's concise and has a ruleset that really rewards good generalship over list-building (though you have a bit of that also). It embraces tactical movement and takes many of the features that other games divide up into faction-specific special rules and turns them into core special rules and mechanics.
2) Song of Blades and Heroes. This game is continually being updated (most recently in '12 or '13) by it's author who gives free updates away to all those who have bought the game's PDF. By virtue of it's unit creation rules, SBH does not guarantee "Balanced competition". However, the unit creation rules are what make it so flexible, and the core ruleset rewards good player decisions. In fact, the gambling'ish activation means that every decision is an important one and makes this still one of the most engaging and fun rulesets I've ever played.
3) Of Gods and Mortals. This Osprey Published, scaled up, Mythological version of SBH is pure genius. To the streamlined SBH ruleset they added a squad mechanic, a simple reaction system and special rules regarding the relationship between Gods, Mortals and Heroes and yet it doesn't feel much (if any) more complicated. It has the same good qualities of SBH and if you stick with the supplied Warband "Pantheon" lists, the game has the potential to be even more balanced than it's forefather.
4) Full Thrust. This is an older starship gaming system, yet it has a superb balance between strait forwardness of play and an appropriate level of detail (more than I usually use). Games with Full Thrust are fun and engaging and rewards those who plan ahead, ALOT. Again, it has a unit creation mechanic that can be broken, but there are also scores of pre-made ship profiles that offer a more balanced play option.
Lastly, regarding "Balanced competitive play", this is a fair goal of many rulesets, but it is by no means the goal of all. Many folks are less interested in whether both sides have an equal chance of winning than they are in how the ruleset handles a various situations for the furthering of a narrative, and/or creating an effective simulation. Many folks are fine with the idea that war isn't fair, but just want a ruleset that plays that out in a pleasing way.
I really love the Warmachine rules.
They manage to capture a wide variety of units with very few rules questions. It covers essentially everything that is in Warhammer fantasy/40k yet does so in a much simpler fashion.
One of my favourite examples in WMH when people ask me 'why is the WMH ruleset 'tight'?' is target vs chosen. In WMH, 'target' means you must have line of sight; 'chosen' does not need line of sight. Thus a spell might say 'target friendly faction warrior model' which tells you exactly how to cast the spell, whereas in 40k there are *constantly* annoying rules (probably 2-3 per codex) where you sometimes need to ask 'does this ability need line of sight?'. Every word in warmachine rules is chosen carefully to mean specific things; move vs advance, towards vs directly towards, +attack rolls vs +MAT, disabled vs boxed vs removed from play; whereas in other games (Warhammer) these terms are used almost interchangeably. About the only real criticism that I have of the warmachine rules is the variety of the caster's feats meaning that coming up against a new caster can be very difficult, and that the rulebook itself is badly laid out.
As for the common 'kill the king' criticism... yes, that is one way to win Warmachine; it is the auto-win condition like tabling your opponent is in 40k. Can I criticise 40k for being just about killing all the enemy? I probably win Warmachine via assassination less than I win 40k by tabling my opponent. The cumulative objective system, having zones vs flags and having control vs dominate actually adds a wider variety of win conditions to warmachine than 40k, which often just consists of keeping some jetbikes/etc alive until the bottom of 5th to turbo-boost on to objectives.
X-Wing is a very tight and extremely easy to learn rule set (my girlfriend knew the entirety of the rules within 10 minutes) but that also comes from it being a conceptually limited game - only one unit type, attack type, profile type, etc.
40k, is an extremely clunky rule set. Still using To Hit & To Wound tables, seriously? Most players know how those tables are calculated and can get by without referencing them, but they really shouldn't exist anymore.
There are a whole bunch of annoyingly similar yet slightly different rules creating weird exceptions. There are a whole bunch of special rules that do nothing except delegate to other special rules - eg, some of the daemon weapons have rules like "Axe of Khorne: Bloodletting. Bloodletting gives the bearer the Rage USR". And there are a whole bunch of special rules that effectively do the same thing that could be easily accomplished by stat line improvements - eg, basically every single 'this unit is fast, but in a uniquely different way than that other unit is fast'.
I really like the Dust Warfare rules - IMO, that is the game that 40k should be now.
Deadzone rules are decent and easy to pick up, but there is an annoying amount of referencing tables to see when you do/don't get bonus dice.
I wanted to make this a 'rule set' question, as asking for 'best games' would mean considering a ton of things like quality of miniatures, depth of fluff, amount of players etc. Instead, I'm hoping to examine just the rules, on the basis of how fun, balanced and well written they are. I suppose if the rules are good, they also allow balanced competitive play, have depth but aren't too complicated, and allow player skill to show through.
Force-on-Force..... oh wait. That doesn't allow balanced competitive play because it is designed for mission specific games. I question your criteria.
Also, how is this thread different than a "best game" thread?
Also, how is this thread different than a "best game" thread?
I think the thread is supposed to be about the rules, just the rules, and not the whole package, including community, play aids, cost, accessibility, etc. and so forth. Just rules in a vacuum...ostensibly.
The current Hobbit ruleset is pretty tight, and games are great fun...too bad hardly anyone plays except for the hardcore Tolkien fans, cuz its a great system from top to bottom...I'd say I can only think of 1 real complaint.
We've been having alot of fun playing ancient-medieval historicals using Hail Caesar rules, which are worth checking out if you enjoy historical gaming.
We've been having alot of fun playing ancient-medieval historicals using Hail Caesar rules, which are worth checking out if you enjoy historical gaming.
I'd be very interested to hear your impressions of Hail Caesar. I've heard a few good things about it, but don't know much.
Force-on-Force..... oh wait. That doesn't allow balanced competitive play because it is designed for mission specific games. I question your criteria.
That will change in the work in progress second edition of the game. Ambush Alley has decided that they are limiting their market by not including provisions for point based "pick up" games in their products. My own set of 19th Century Colonial rules (look for it later this year) will be the first AAG game with a fuly developed points system. Future products will probably follow it's lead.
AAG's games will never be designed specificly with tourny style play in mind, but they will be more pick up friendly in the future.
(full disclosure, I'm a bit biased as I have written two books for AAG)
I fully agree that Force on Force certainly needs to be on a list of one of the best current systems out there today.
Here are some good rulesets so far in 2014 the way I see it:
If you are looking for a clear, tight, and concise ruleset with good balance and excellent community support from the authors, than Warmachine/Hordes is the one that takes the cake.
Looking for a fluid and dynamic skirmish game with a great amount of depth and simulates a fire fight really well, Infinity is the one for that.
If you want rules that that are easy-to-learn but the hard-to-master and Dogfighting, then X-Wing is great for that!
Force-on-Force..... oh wait. That doesn't allow balanced competitive play because it is designed for mission specific games. I question your criteria.
That will change in the work in progress second edition of the game. Ambush Alley has decided that they are limiting their market by not including provisions for point based "pick up" games in their products. My own set of 19th Century Colonial rules (look for it later this year) will be the first AAG game with a fuly developed points system. Future products will probably follow it's lead.
AAG's games will never be designed specificly with tourny style play in mind, but they will be more pick up friendly in the future.
(full disclosure, I'm a bit biased as I have written two books for AAG)
I fully agree that Force on Force certainly needs to be on a list of one of the best current systems out there today.
TR
Unless you were the author for the Bush Wars book, then let me congratulate you on a job well done! I own almost all of the FoF "companion" books and they are all pretty impressive pieces of work!
And since you seem to be in the know, when will AA release their WWII system? I've been waiting for that close to 3 years now!
So what was the issue with the Bush Wars book? I have heard some criticism of some portions of it, and praise for other bits. In particular the chapters on the Portuguese wars were written by a non-English speaker and were not well edited by Osprey to fix his odd grammer.
As to the WW2 project, I'm not on that develpoment team, so I can't say anything meaningful about it.
There are several games I'm playing at the moment that have good rules, but I think all of them have balance issues.
Dreadball - simple fast mechanics - power creep with each season
Star Trek attack wing - again simple easy to learn rules - but recently started to feel like list building is becoming more important than tactics
Malifaux - lovely rule mechanics - every model seems to have special rules, combo building leads to some very OP crew's and some match up's are very unbalanced.
In general any game that insists on using special rules to differentiate between units instead of stat line changes runs into issues with balance very quickly.
Over games people talk about a lot;
Bolt action - enjoyable enough but very obviously re-vamped 2nd edition 40K mechanics, and showing there age for it. I'm always shocked more people don't see this.
Warmachine - everyone seems to hold it up as the most balanced system, which it might be, but the rules mechanics themselves never felt like anything special and the kill the leader play style gets old fast.
My wild card entry for best ruleset - Epic Armageddon. By far the best ruleset GW ever put out, never played any large scale battle game that matches it.
Trench-Raider wrote: So what was the issue with the Bush Wars book? I have heard some criticism of some portions of it, and praise for other bits. In particular the chapters on the Portuguese wars were written by a non-English speaker and were not well edited by Osprey to fix his odd grammer.
Well, I can only speak for myself, but my criticism regarding the Brush Wars book is exactly in the Portuguese wars part (I might be a bit biased here ), specifically with the battles that the author chose to include in the book.
All of the battles chosen were "gimmicky" and not at all representative of the type of battle fought during the war, there were no convoy ambushes, no outpost sieges, no jungle patrols, no guerilla HQ raids. Also, the Portuguese made the first helicopter combat drops in the continent in some very daring heliborn raids (with Commandos hanging on the skids of Alouette II helicopters) that could also have been chosen but were ignored.
Add to that, the vehicle section was severely lacking, both for the African Guerillas and also for the Portuguese forces! It was only with the release of the motorpool file that I could get the information that I needed for the vehicles on several of the missions that I was designing...
The grammar of it is, frankly, the smallest of my complains.
Malifaux - lovely rule mechanics - every model seems to have special rules, combo building leads to some very OP crew's and some match up's are very unbalanced.
This also depends on your individual game targets. So a crew that is OP for one type of game will completely suck at another game type. Unless you build a crew that's built specifically to wipe the table of any opponent this will always be the case.
Checkers is far more simple than Chess as the pieces all move in the same way. Chess pieces on the other hand move according to their kind.
Sorry I thought you said lightest not tightest.
I really must slow down my reading.
Yeah, checkers can have some odd house rules depending on where you play. Chess doesn't have much variance in the rules until you get to 3D boards and such.
Though some of those variants are pretty old - Byzantine chess (played on a circular board, rooks are powerful), then there was a 13th C. Polish chess game, which introduced random chance (roll two dice - if you get a 1 one either die you can move a pawn, if you get a 2 then you can move a bishop, etc.) - folks mess with the rules, it is in our nature.
Deadzone tops my list for recently released games, Zombicide and Kings of War see a lot of play, I avoid Dreadball, but I think that it is a great game - just for somebody that isn't me. (I am the only one in my group that doesn't play it - I played one game and decided that it was a great game that I didn't like.)
PhantomViper, thanks for the honest opinions. (full disclosure again here...) I was the lead author on the Bush Wars project*, and I'm always interested in feedback. I suppose we did not do TOO bad as it is one of AAG's top selling Force on Force supplements. (I THINK it's number two...)
That being said, the Portuguese Wars section is the source of literally 95%+ of the criticism I see about the book. The problem is that this was a cooperative effort, rather than a one person show. I wrote a large chunk of the text of the book, and did all the coordinating of the workloads, etc. But some sections of the book I had little to no hand in the actual writing of. I wrote the introductory fluff, the entire Congo Crisis section, the entire Rhodesian Bush War section (the best part of the book in my view, but that war is a special passion of mine), the introduction to the South African Border War chapter, all of the uniform and organizational essays aside from that of the Portuguese Wars, and the vehicle section, plus the revamped fog of war card deck.
The co-author who wrote the probematic section was asked to add vehicle stats for his section to the motorpool, but did not do so before the deadline. Thus most of the vehicles in the book are Rhodesian, South African, or Soviet types.
The other probems we ran into on the project came from Osprey. From the start, I wanted to write a book with a narrow scope. Indeed I would have been happy with just a book on Rhodesia, and had enough material on hand to produce a full supplement were I permitted to. Sadly, Osprey insisted on a multi-conflict book and in particular wanted us to shoehorn in that "Operation Certain Death" scenario as a tie in to a recent "Raid Series" release. We were also working under a pretty harsh deadline. Finally, Osprey's editing was shockingly bad.....meaning (and this came as a suprise to me) almost non-existant.
I regret that you found the title lacking.
I hope this does not come across too much like excuse making. It's just the reasons I (as someone very familiar with the details) feel are why Bush Wars is a bit uneven in it's quality. I kick myself for not putting my foot down on a few things and for not taking as much interest in the sections that I was not actually doing the writing on. It certainly taught me a few lessons. The foremost of these is that I will never again enter into a writing project in which I am not the lone author. (indeed this is the case with my upcoming stand-alone set of 19th Century Colonial Rules, "To the Last Cartridge", which should be on the shelf by the Fall)
TR
*-Yes yes... now those "trenchie haters" who have the discipline to do a little research can now put a real world name and face to the object of their distain. But I've never actively tried to hide my identity. What would that acomplish anyway?
Mymearan wrote: Would love to hear some more detailed opinions on
Mercs
Warzone resurrection
DZC Dark Age
Mercs is a system that uses d10 and is a single squad vs single squad skirmish game that each faction has differnt guys a each player just picks an assigned number of them to fight with instead of a points value. Its fast fun and well balenced. Some factions use synergy others dont need to but all are well balenced.
Dropzone commander most missions have specific objectives which makes the game really tactical using an battlegroup activation system keeps the you thinking all the way through a turn and makes 3 and 4 player games actually work really well. The basic system isnt unfamiliar to many wargamers. The game handles small and large games equally well.
Trench-Raider wrote: PhantomViper, thanks for the honest opinions. (full disclosure again here...) I was the lead author on the Bush Wars project*, and I'm always interested in feedback. I suppose we did not do TOO bad as it is one of AAG's top selling Force on Force supplements. (I THINK it's number two...)
That being said, the Portuguese Wars section is the source of literally 95%+ of the criticism I see about the book. The problem is that this was a cooperative effort, rather than a one person show. I wrote a large chunk of the text of the book, and did all the coordinating of the workloads, etc. But some sections of the book I had little to no hand in the actual writing of. I wrote the introductory fluff, the entire Congo Crisis section, the entire Rhodesian Bush War section (the best part of the book in my view, but that war is a special passion of mine), the introduction to the South African Border War chapter, all of the uniform and organizational essays aside from that of the Portuguese Wars, and the vehicle section, plus the revamped fog of war card deck.
The co-author who wrote the probematic section was asked to add vehicle stats for his section to the motorpool, but did not do so before the deadline. Thus most of the vehicles in the book are Rhodesian, South African, or Soviet types.
The other probems we ran into on the project came from Osprey. From the start, I wanted to write a book with a narrow scope. Indeed I would have been happy with just a book on Rhodesia, and had enough material on hand to produce a full supplement were I permitted to. Sadly, Osprey insisted on a multi-conflict book and in particular wanted us to shoehorn in that "Operation Certain Death" scenario as a tie in to a recent "Raid Series" release. We were also working under a pretty harsh deadline. Finally, Osprey's editing was shockingly bad.....meaning (and this came as a suprise to me) almost non-existant.
I regret that you found the title lacking.
I hope this does not come across too much like excuse making. It's just the reasons I (as someone very familiar with the details) feel are why Bush Wars is a bit uneven in it's quality. I kick myself for not putting my foot down on a few things and for not taking as much interest in the sections that I was not actually doing the writing on. It certainly taught me a few lessons. The foremost of these is that I will never again enter into a writing project in which I am not the lone author. (indeed this is the case with my upcoming stand-alone set of 19th Century Colonial Rules, "To the Last Cartridge", which should be on the shelf by the Fall)
TR
*-Yes yes... now those "trenchie haters" who have the discipline to do a little research can now put a real world name and face to the object of their distain. But I've never actively tried to hide my identity. What would that acomplish anyway?
Huh, hoh...
Hope I didn't offend you with my criticisms of the book, but like I said, my only critics are regarding the Portuguese Wars and I probably criticized even that section a bit too harshly because I was really looking forward to it so much and just felt really disappointed after I read it.
Anyways, I really appreciate you taking the time to come here and explain why things were made the way that they were, working with a giant such as Osprey and for such a small company like AA, it must not have been easy to contradict them on editorial decisions such as those.
Best of luck for your new project even if 19th century conflicts really aren't my historical cup of tea.
A shame this thread largely degenerated into 40k fanwank arguments.
Some great rulesets I've played:
Recent:
Kings of War (surprised this one only got Elif mentioning it - reinvigorated my interest in fantasy after years of Herohammer put me off)
X-Wing
Not-so-recent:
Necromunda (core game - not so much with Outlanders added)
Blood Bowl
Other things I hear great things about system-wise but haven't played yet:
WarmaHordes
Saga
Song of Blades and Heroes
Dead Zone
Dread Ball
Hope I didn't offend you with my criticisms of the book, but like I said, my only critics are regarding the Portuguese Wars and I probably criticized even that section a bit too harshly because I was really looking forward to it so much and just felt really disappointed after I read it.
LOL!
Not at all, my friend.
You were fine. Your criticisms were valid, and I fully recognize that Bush Wars is of uneven quality. Likewise, I have seen far harsher criticism in the past. My favorite was something that apeared on another forum soon after our publish date by someone who had a personal axe to grind with the author of the section in question. Apparently he was an accademic rival of Jose and made it a practice of "cyber-stalking" him. It was absolutely rabid in it's intensity!
Again, I apreciate feedback.
In any event, you learn to have a thick skin about such things when you write for public consumption.
working with a giant such as Osprey and for such a small company like AA, it must not have been easy to contradict them on editorial decisions such as those.
Heh.
That is certainly the truth! You almost got the impression that we were a bother to them, rather than a business partner and source of income. But, as I point out above, it did teach me some valuable lessons.
Best of luck for your new project even if 19th century conflicts really aren't my historical cup of tea.
Thanks. We are excited about this project. It includes some very inovative (if I may say so myself!) rules mechanics, is designed to apeal to a broad selection of gamers, and the market is in bad need of a good recently designed set of rules for the genre. If it's a comercial success, we have plans for a whole line of games using the core mechanics. Sorry. Shameless plug there!
Mattlov wrote: I'll still put Battletech up as a fantastic and easy rule set, along with the faster play version known as Alpha Strike.
I'm totally with you on Alpha Strike, it's a great ruleset that captures the BT universe in a fast playing package, even if the points system isn't quite worked out yet.
However, I've never heard anyone call BT an "Easy rule set". Isn't that kind of like calling Tractics or Starfleet Battles a streamlined rule-lite system?
Azazelx wrote: A shame this thread largely degenerated into 40k fanwank arguments.
Some great rulesets I've played:
Recent:
Kings of War (surprised this one only got Elif mentioning it - reinvigorated my interest in fantasy after years of Herohammer put me off)
X-Wing
Not-so-recent:
Necromunda (core game - not so much with Outlanders added)
Blood Bowl
Other things I hear great things about system-wise but haven't played yet:
WarmaHordes
Saga
Song of Blades and Heroes
Dead Zone
Dread Ball
I think that you will like Deadzone - like Necromunda it has rules for an ongoing campaign, though it handles balance in a very different way. (You are limited to X number of points - and experienced characters cost more points than new characters. So, an experienced unit of hardened warriors will be considerably smaller than a unit of fresh green recruits.)
And Elif was not the only one to mention KoW....
Mantic is capturing a goodly amount of my gaming dollars these days....
So you did. In my defence I must have started writing that post before fully reading the last page - I think I started writing it during the fourth page of 40k arguments... perhaps I didn't refresh the thread.
No problem - and the more exposure that KoW gets the better. It is a very solid system, with a lot fewer loopholes and conflicting rules than WH contains.
But, my gods, the rules for Zap! in Basilean Legacy really change the face of the game - if you are willing to risk getting your spellcaster close to the enemy, you can do some damage. (I Fireballed a unit of trolls into oblivion the other day... sadly, my Lich King was killed by a unit of orcs the next round, while he was still doing his happy dance... 6" is a bloody short range.... )
Mymearan wrote: Would love to hear some more detailed opinions on
*snip*
Dark Age
Darkage is a really fun skirmish level game that uses some interesting concepts. The rules are pretty tight too, there is none of this faffing around like you have with 40K
I currently maintain a tournament level army for the Forsaken faction and a pair of introductory level forces, one for Skaard and one for the Brood, both which i wish to expand on.
Darkage works around the action point system where by your troops have a set number of Action Points (AP) that then determines how many actions they can take per activation. Turns are done in a yougoigo style, but instead of one player doing everything before the other the players take it in turn to activate a unit/character and perform their actions.
AP are used to determine the number of actions, with each AP allowing the unit to move or attack or perform a special action. Units of troops have to stay within coherency and any that stray must spend their AP getting back within range of their unit before they can do anything else. Units with special abilities have them noted on the card and the rules can be found in the forces book, although once th new cards come out they will be printed on alla Warmachine style. Unts have a set minimal ans maximum size and some also have a limit on the number you can field per every 500/750/1000pts.
The intro sets are well balanced, the old ones had some issues but these where fixed with the new ones, and they contain a 180pt force long with all the cards for them. Bearing in mind that the tournament level forces are only 750pts these sets get you going pretty nicely. The rules are available free, along with all the unit cards, templates and special rules on the website.
All in all it is a pretty nice game.
I also second PP's rule sets. They are amazingly well written and i have never once had an issue with them unlike GW's rules.
From what I've played, the easiest game to learn is Warmachine. It's rules are fairly straight forward and easy to use, there's nothing super fiddly about any of it. The dice mechanic is a weighted 2d6 system, so it's fairly easy for even a newbie to dice to get down with. The starter boxes are pretty much on the level with some on the high side (Cryx) and some on the low side (Trolls). If you want to be even more introductory to minis wargaming, then Heroclix is where it's at.
Infinity is solid but super fiddly and can be very hard to learn. Malifaux, with it's card mechanics and several layers of objectives, can also be very hard to learn, more so with alternating model activations.
Warhammer stuff uses only d6 but it switches quite a bit within in the confines of its own rules as to if you want high, low, 2d6, etc. There are table to memorize versus just "I have a 6 to hit you and you have a defense 13. I need a 7 on 2d6. Got it." It really is obtuse if you take a step back when looking at the BS and WS mechanic, let alone wounding and saves. And then get the joys of true line of sight. Infinity uses this, but it seems much less an issue there than in 40k for some reason. Can't put my finger on that.
So yea, if the person likes super heroes, give 'em Heroclix as their entry (low cost, no hobby) and if they want something meatier, I'd point them towards Warmachine as it's only a $50 buy in to at least play discounting hobby supplies needed which is the same for almost all wargames.
sing your life wrote: Warmachine/Hordes has been the best average to competitive ruleset since 2003, Though I also find Bolt Action to be simple and balanced, so it's better for casual play than the former.
I've also played a little bit of the new 40k Editions. I thinks it looks good so far.
It would be if everything did not boil down to meeting in the center dishing it out to see who get to kill the enemy "king" first.
That is an incredibly ignorant statement. Steamroller has been around for many years and is the default tournament structure, and they are constantly fiddling with the rules and scenarios.
That is an incredibly ignorant statement. Steamroller has been around for many years and is the default tournament structure, and they are constantly fiddling with the rules and scenarios.
And it's free, unlike other games who would choose to charge you for new missions.
Infinity is solid but super fiddly and can be very hard to learn.
It's not that it's 'fiddly' though. Infinity has a beautiful, sublime and extremely elegant rules system. I find it a joy. Probably my favourite mechanics from a technical standpoint. I think they're simply beautiful.
I'll agree with you though, but with a caveat. What makes it tricky to learn at times isn't fiddly rules. Largely, It's the fact it's a translation of a Spanish rules set. The actual writing of the rules makes it seem a lot more complicated than it actually is, in my mind. And that's down to translation and 'undisciplined' or over flowery writing as well as issues from not being native English speakers. There is a lot 'more' writing than strictly neseccary, along with poor use of diagrams and some questionable layouts.
If it was less flowery and more technical and 'straight to business' , along with better layouts and diagrams. it would be a vast improvement. The issues though are illusory though, if you ask me. Whilst the issues may combine and make the game out to be more complicated than it actually is, once you get past the jargon, and how they write the rules, and get to the tabletop, and actually see the rules in action, I find that the issues tend to disappear.
As I said, from a technical standing, infinity is my favourite rules set.
Deadnight wrote: I'll agree with you though, but with a caveat. What makes it tricky to learn at times isn't fiddly rules. Largely, It's the fact it's a translation of a Spanish rules set. The actual writing of the rules makes it seem a lot more complicated than it actually is, in my mind. And that's down to translation and 'undisciplined' or over flowery writing as well as issues from not being native English speakers. There is a lot 'more' writing than strictly neseccary, along with poor use of diagrams and some questionable layouts.
If it was less flowery and more technical and 'straight to business' , along with better layouts and diagrams. it would be a vast improvement. The issues though are illusory though, if you ask me. Whilst the issues may combine and make the game out to be more complicated than it actually is, once you get past the jargon, and how they write the rules, and get to the tabletop, and actually see the rules in action, I find that the issues tend to disappear.
It's more complicated than that. The English editor (an Australian) has spoken about it. Corvus Belli retain final phrasing of everything, even the English translations. So while he may translate it really well, he sends his translations back to Corvus Belli, who then go and rewrite his translation to what they think it should say in English. So you can imagine, all sorts of problems come from this. Translate from Spanish to English by someone who knows both languages but is a native English speaker, then the English is rephrased by a native Spanish speaker.
Hopefully they've taken the criticism on board and are allowing him to properly translate it for N3.
Malifaux - lovely rule mechanics - every model seems to have special rules, combo building leads to some very OP crew's and some match up's are very unbalanced.
This also depends on your individual game targets. So a crew that is OP for one type of game will completely suck at another game type. Unless you build a crew that's built specifically to wipe the table of any opponent this will always be the case.
The choosing missions things alleviates a bit as well, as you can pick schemes which suit your crew best, and you don't need to choose a crew until you know your scenario and opponents master, allowing you to tweak things a bit on the fly.
That said, even though I'm a fairly new player in the tournament scene I do notice sometimes through games that I've got no counters to some pretty devastating combos but that's just as likely to be with me not knowing enough about my crew or the other crews, since I've been trying new combinations and still discovering tricks (like using Ophelia to pull another gremlin forward 8" to get them to the centre line of the first activation). I do have to say that even in the games where I've been whooped it's still been good fun as it still feels like I can do something (and still get to try for a few scheme points). So I'm losing by 1 or 2 points most of the time.
We've been having alot of fun playing ancient-medieval historicals using Hail Caesar rules, which are worth checking out if you enjoy historical gaming.
I'd be very interested to hear your impressions of Hail Caesar. I've heard a few good things about it, but don't know much.
Its a very good ruleset. Rules seem very well thought out, things like missile fire are suitably powered for the "ancient - medieval" era. Special rules, used or not used at the players' discretion, are useful, realistic, and not over-powered. The system breaks your army down into divisions of 4 units. Each division has a commander, and the commnader issues orders to his units. Each order has a chance of succeeding, partially succeeding, or failing. When units suffer "wounds", you don't remove models individually, but the entire unit takes a check. Warlord Games has issued a couple Army List books, and between the two books, they have every army you could ever wanna play that I know of. Thre are also 2-3 campaign books out.
We've been having alot of fun playing ancient-medieval historicals using Hail Caesar rules, which are worth checking out if you enjoy historical gaming.
I'd be very interested to hear your impressions of Hail Caesar. I've heard a few good things about it, but don't know much.
Its a very good ruleset. Rules seem very well thought out, things like missile fire are suitably powered for the "ancient - medieval" era. Special rules, used or not used at the players' discretion, are useful, realistic, and not over-powered. The system breaks your army down into divisions of 4 units. Each division has a commander, and the commnader issues orders to his units. Each order has a chance of succeeding, partially succeeding, or failing. When units suffer "wounds", you don't remove models individually, but the entire unit takes a check. Warlord Games has issued a couple Army List books, and between the two books, they have every army you could ever wanna play that I know of. Thre are also 2-3 campaign books out.
Oh yeah....there are 2 Army List books: Biblical - Classical, and Late Antiquity - Early Medieval . The second book(Late Antiquity - Early Medieval) has four Byzantine army lists:
Early Byzantine
Thematic Byzantine
Tagmatic Byzantine
Comnenian Byzantine
Oh yeah....there are 2 Army List books: Biblical - Classical, and Late Antiquity - Early Medieval . The second book(Late Antiquity - Early Medieval) has four Byzantine army lists:
Early Byzantine
Thematic Byzantine
Tagmatic Byzantine
Comnenian Byzantine
That's....just beautiful.
I don't even know where I'd begin. Themes....Comnenian dynasty action....(passes out.)
Oh yeah....there are 2 Army List books: Biblical - Classical, and Late Antiquity - Early Medieval . The second book(Late Antiquity - Early Medieval) has four Byzantine army lists:
Early Byzantine
Thematic Byzantine
Tagmatic Byzantine
Comnenian Byzantine
That's....just beautiful.
I don't even know where I'd begin. Themes....Comnenian dynasty action....(passes out.)
Another fan of the Byzantine era? Say it ain't so! I find their empire to be fascinating. Basil the second is the man though, comnenians are wimps
I might have to invest in this book as well. And basically... What you said!
Just so you know, the main Rulebook would be necessary to play the game...the Army List books don't have the core rules at all....pretty much just a crapload of army lists (with a recap of Special Rules from the main Rulebook)
Another fan of the Byzantine era? Say it ain't so! I find their empire to be fascinating. Basil the second is the man though, comnenians are wimps
Count me in that category as well.
My Nikephorian Byzantine army is one of my favorite Field of Glory options......and being much more effective under the latest version of the rules does not hurt!
Another fan of the Byzantine era? Say it ain't so! I find their empire to be fascinating. Basil the second is the man though, comnenians are wimps
Count me in that category as well.
My Nikephorian Byzantine army is one of my favorite Field of Glory options......and being much more effective under the latest version of the rules does not hurt!
I want a thrown together scrappy band led by Alexios Komnenos I!
Of course, Basil was a Bad A__. You don't get the name "Bulgar Slayer" for being super special nice to everyone.
On my history blog my fake co-host is Anna Komnene.
So, it's official. I need to get the rule book and the army book.
I really can't speak too much about Hail Caeser as I'm heavily invested in Field of Glory (my current prefered Ancients rules set of choice) and have never tried it. But I've been involved in the tournament style Ancients scene since the early '90s and Byzantines are among my favorite armies. Nikephorians are probably my favorite flavor of Byzantines, but I've had lots of success with my Komnenian army as well. Western knights, Varangians, and asiatic horse archers is a rock hard combination.
Infinity is solid but super fiddly and can be very hard to learn.
It's not that it's 'fiddly' though. Infinity has a beautiful, sublime and extremely elegant rules system. I find it a joy. Probably my favourite mechanics from a technical standpoint. I think they're simply beautiful.
I'll agree with you though, but with a caveat. What makes it tricky to learn at times isn't fiddly rules. Largely, It's the fact it's a translation of a Spanish rules set. The actual writing of the rules makes it seem a lot more complicated than it actually is, in my mind. And that's down to translation and 'undisciplined' or over flowery writing as well as issues from not being native English speakers. There is a lot 'more' writing than strictly neseccary, along with poor use of diagrams and some questionable layouts.
I played a demo game, and it seemed quite complex, even with the "noob" switch on and more complex rules not used (hacking, stealth, cloaking, etc). It reminded me more of a Tactical RPG game using miniatures more than anything else, but quite complex as well. Perhaps comparable to something like X-Com. Having also glanced at the free rules and thumbed through the printed rulebook, it's not something I'd be willing to really spend the time learning without regular games with someone/others who know the rules well and have the time to teach me... while it seemed good, I wouldn't' call it "elegant" - I'd call Kings of War "elegant."
The main problem with it is you need to unlearn a lot of conventional wargame mechanics while learning it. But I definitely agree it's not for everyone.
I think X-Com as a tabletop game nails it pretty well though.
And, as I said on the last page, this is due to Corvus Belli re-editing the English translations. After they specifically send them to an English translator to translate properly.
Yes, I'm hoping that the new book will be written by someone who has English as a first language. As good as the English is in the 2nd edition book and Paradiso, you can still tell that it was written by someone who isn't a native speaker.
-Loki- wrote:It took me a good 5-6 games to 'get' Infinity.
The main problem with it is you need to unlearn a lot of conventional wargame mechanics while learning it. But I definitely agree it's not for everyone.
I think X-Com as a tabletop game nails it pretty well though.
Definitely agree. I've found it easier to teach the game to someone who has no experience of wargames, in terms of how they pick up the concepts in a game. "I'm hiding my guy behind this wall and crawling along there" "I want both my guys to run round here at the same time etc." People I've shown who have come from a (later edition) 40k background especially have to be told that the miniatures have that extra level of freedom of action, and also seem to be more prone to make the classic mistake of running down the centre of a road blasting with their gun. Those who haven't done that in other games no intuitively that that's a bad idea!
Azazelx wrote:Oh, I'm not saying that it's bad by any means. Just not elegant...
I suppose it depends on the definition of 'elegant'. I was watching two extremely good players at a tournament, both countering with different moves and pulling off some really impressive tactical manoeuvring. It was great just watching the game play, and you could appreciate the skill level involved.
I certainly wouldn't say 'elegant in its simplicity', but you can definitely have an appreciation for how the mechanics of the game function and interact with each other to bring to mind a well-oiled machine... (struggling for metaphors here! )
-Loki- wrote: And, as I said on the last page, this is due to Corvus Belli re-editing the English translations. After they specifically send them to an English translator to translate properly.
Oh yeah, that was very interesting (seriously), and also /facepalm. But not what I personally meant. I meant it seemed way too complicated and detailed to be called "elegant". - Which isn't to say that it's not a very good game, because it seemed very good from my limited trial of it.
Azazelx wrote:Oh, I'm not saying that it's bad by any means. Just not elegant...
I suppose it depends on the definition of 'elegant'. I was watching two extremely good players at a tournament, both countering with different moves and pulling off some really impressive tactical manoeuvring. It was great just watching the game play, and you could appreciate the skill level involved.
I certainly wouldn't say 'elegant in its simplicity', but you can definitely have an appreciation for how the mechanics of the game function and interact with each other to bring to mind a well-oiled machine... (struggling for metaphors here! )
I can absolutely see that - I think we're just disagreeing on definitions - and not on Infinity being one of the better current rulesets out there. I'd be tempted to see how it could work with tactical RPG rules... I could actually see it working amazingly well as a combat system for something like Rogue Trader or Death Watch, if only characters were easily convertible.
-Loki- wrote: And, as I said on the last page, this is due to Corvus Belli re-editing the English translations. After they specifically send them to an English translator to translate properly.
Oh yeah, that was very interesting (seriously), and also /facepalm. But not what I personally meant. I meant it seemed way too complicated and detailed to be called "elegant". - Which isn't to say that it's not a very good game, because it seemed very good from my limited trial of it.
Well the difficulty comes down to the translation and how CB write. They write in a very flowery way, and like to prattle on when it's not needed. This translates into their rules. An example I saw on the official boards is Climbing Plus.
The skill itself lets you move along vertical surface using your full MOV attribute, and perform any actions from any point, and is considered 'hanging' if it stops on a vertical surface, which related back to falling damage i it is knocked unconscious while hanging. The wiki page has 3 FAQ questions.
It could be summed up with 'Climbing Plus: This model treats vertical surfaces the same way as horizontal surfaces. If it is moved to Unconcious while on a vertical surface, it takes falling damage from its current height'.
The game itself isn't too complicated. Once you wade through CB's writing style and spotty translation, it's actually a neat system, and not too complicated.
-Loki- wrote: And, as I said on the last page, this is due to Corvus Belli re-editing the English translations. After they specifically send them to an English translator to translate properly.
Oh yeah, that was very interesting (seriously), and also /facepalm. But not what I personally meant. I meant it seemed way too complicated and detailed to be called "elegant". - Which isn't to say that it's not a very good game, because it seemed very good from my limited trial of it.
Well the difficulty comes down to the translation and how CB write. They write in a very flowery way, and like to prattle on when it's not needed. This translates into their rules. An example I saw on the official boards is Climbing Plus.
The skill itself lets you move along vertical surface using your full MOV attribute, and perform any actions from any point, and is considered 'hanging' if it stops on a vertical surface, which related back to falling damage i it is knocked unconscious while hanging. The wiki page has 3 FAQ questions.
It could be summed up with 'Climbing Plus: This model treats vertical surfaces the same way as horizontal surfaces. If it is moved to Unconcious while on a vertical surface, it takes falling damage from its current height'.
The game itself isn't too complicated. Once you wade through CB's writing style and spotty translation, it's actually a neat system, and not too complicated.
The good thing is that Corvus Belli does recognize this problem as they mention it as a primary focus of the third edition - making a good English translation. It reminds me a lot, actually, of Confrontation. The first couple of editions were spotty French to English translations, but by third edition they had a good english translation.
Personally for me, as to the game itself, Infinity is a great game. It really comes down to how you play versus just random rolling of bucket loads of dice. Multiple strategies can unfold during a battle. Neither player is ever sitting "waiting" a half-hour to an hour for their turn. You are both engaged all the time whether the active (moving) or reactive (non-moving) player. I also enjoy the depth of play - straight out shooting, hacking, sniping, minelaying, camo, etc. - that a typical game offers.
Here is another the great thing about Infinity, it rarely is about your list and you never have the feeling at set up that you are going to be steamrolled. Yes, you may run into tactics that are frustrating when first encountered (I'm looking at you Forward Observer and Guided Missile Launcher), but once encountered, you eventually learn how to deal with it without necessarily having to change your army. However, I have either participated or seen games where it looks certain one player is going to lose and the right smart tactic, played at the right time, can completely tip the scale of the battle.
I also find the fluff enjoyable. Two things I really like. First, Infinity sees warfare the way it most likely is in the future, with large scale warfare conducted from orbit raining death down on planets. However, critical missions - like rescuing a key prisoner or stealing a vital piece of information or technological development, are still best left to elite teams of troops to conduct (and this is what you play in the game). Secondly, the story line is moving along. Yes, we have the forces fighting each other in the Human Sphere (much like they do in the real world today), but then the arrival of the alien Combined Army run by the EI (evolved intelligence) begins to change things. Humanity has realized they are not alone and the CA poses a big threat. So the AI, that controls the Sphere, now builds the Aleph (synthetic cyborgs and robots) to counter the CA. Things seem to be balancing now until the discovery of an advanced alien species, the Tohaa, who also is at war with the CA. Are the Tohaa friends or foes? What is their real motivation? This is great fluff, and it is moving forward as the game grows (rather than remaining almost the exact same as 40k has done for 20 years).
I have been working on building and painting my MRRF at the moment, I will add this from my own personal viewpoint - when GW makes the false claim that they build the "best miniatures in the world", they have apparently never picked up Corvus Belli Infinity sculpt. Just compare either the Métros or Briscards versus any Imperial Guard as a small example. Look at the Space Marine Bikes versus the Kum Motorized Troops.
Heh. Everyone seems to brag about making the "best" miniatures in the world, and it's a subjective claim anyway. Never mind Infinity in 2014, look at Rackham/Confrontation in 2004 or earlier.
But then, how many pizza places can claim to be the "Best in the West?" (answer: All of them, apparently!)
I've read that John Blanche has some Infinity minis in his collection actually.
As a motorbiking fan, I don't think it's terribly subjective...
Spoiler:
OK I'm being disingenuous with this one (although I actually used to think the miniature was quite cool, and always provoked a laugh when used in a game.. !)
Cool, but I wouldn't want to make a turn in the road with one of those..
But, compare them to..
and Penthouse, my favourite mini from last year. Absolute work of art
I do think, of late, CB have been hitting a very high standard with most of their releases. Although, I agree it's horses for courses, they appeal in different ways to a lot of the more recent GW releases.
Oh come on - you're better than that. Taking a, what? 17 year old GW bike design that's 85% ripped off from a Judge Dredd Lawmaster anyway - and comparing it to a figure that's just been released and one that's all of a year old (if that).
I've actually got an unpainted Doomrider somewhere. My plan was to carve him up and his bits would be part of several other, less gak looking chaos marines. I think now, though, I'll find him and just give him a decent paintjob and let him coast on being an old, not-so-cool model...
but, you know, there have been "better" models out there for many years is my point...
Spoiler:
...but GW's stuff still holds our attention better than all of the others apparently, and they do have some real hits, and always have - throughout the years. They also have a huge variety of styles, as opposed to a singular one.
And frankly, despite Dreamforge's success, GW does large models really, really well. You can talk about how amazing the Japanese multi-coloured Gundam kits are, but maybe that's where WGF/DFG and others need to go next, because it seems that GW has no plans at this stage.
I actually think Doomrider probably suits the current miniature releases more now than he did when he was first released, a miniature ahead of its time!
Agree though, the only person that could say categorically that GW makes 'the best' miniatures has obviously had a limited experience within the industry. GW have made some extremely fine miniatures, but they sit in amongst many other wonderful examples of art in this great hobby of ours.
Actually, I'm surprised that GW claim to make 'the best', because that actually implies that there are other companies out there doing the same thing. Treading dangerously!
Lord of the Rings ( ). Simple enough to pick up relatively quickly and not having to pick up the rule book the whole time, yet with enough in depth mechanics and special rules to really engross you in your characters' battles, and with quite small armies, every model is a hero in his own way! Of course there are the odd issues, but depending where you look at it from, every game system has an issue...
I have had many a fun evening waging war across the lands of Middle earth: both a fun and casual system to play.
I also second X-wing, I managed to pick up those rules without having to look at most of the rulebook (with some help from Youtube!)
Pacific wrote:Infinity - the game mechanics and balance within the game are outstanding, I would go as far (without getting wrapped up in hyperbole ) as to say it is something beautiful.
X-Wing; incredibly fast to pick up and play, you can have a great laugh with it within 30mins of picking up the rulebook.
Dreadball; not without its faults and frustrating at times, but a fine, fast paced (and very fun) sports board game for the modern age.
I'd list 40k as well, just because despite the problems it is really one of the best out there. I will not go hide to avoid the backlash.
No need to defend yourself! If it's something you enjoy, then it's something you enjoy. Don't think anyone should criticise anyone else for their own choice!
Tell that to the guy down
weeble1000 wrote:
Paradigm wrote: 40k (braces himself) is very good, for what it is. As a fun, casual, Saturday afternoon game, it's absolutely fine. It's the Action Blockbuster equivalent of games, good for a laugh and a couple of hours' fun with some friends.
Just because you personally enjoy playing it doesn't mean that it is an objectively "good" system. Most any rule set on the market could be described in exactly those terms.
Fun, casual, Saturday afternoon game. In other words, don't take it too seriously because the system doesn't really work very well. If you ignore the problems it has and only play with friends it's entertaining.
But what actually makes a game "casual?"
Personally, I don't think 40K is very "casual" at all. The rule set is byzantine and clunky. You would be hard pressed to teach the system to someone over a game and have them walking away from the table proficient in it's use. Many games slow down or grind to a halt because a rules issue comes up, even among die-hard veterans. Most games at the recommended point values take far more than an hour to play. Reference materials for the game are spread across multiple different formats, are difficult to access, and are filled with typos and ambiguous language.
None of that says casual to me.
Dreadball is an example of a casual game. Whether or not one 'likes' the system, it is very simple, easy to learn, doesn't require much, and plays quickly.
If you can walk up to a table with a beer in your hand in the middle of a game you've never played before and jump right into the middle of it, that's a casual game.
Take board games, for example. Eclipse is a great game. But it is the antithesis of casual. On the other hand, Firefly: The Game is very casual. BANG! is very casual. Cards Against Humanity is the epitome of casual. Your eighty year old grandmother can roll up to a game of Cards Against Humanity, get dealt in, and be laughing about Obama eating gak out of a bucket in ten minutes.
That's casual.
It's casual mostly because the rules aren't just simple; they work. There's no confusion. The system functions without a hitch. That isn't any game that GW produces.
In 40K, players mostly have fun despite the rules, not because of them.
Heroclix use to have some pretty solid ruleset, but with time thing get out of control, well to begin i dont know if heroclix could be considere here
I've been playing Battlegroup Overlord a ton recently. I enjoy it's force org restrictions and think it covers the feel of the period quite well. The Battle Rating system is quite clever as well.
After reading this thread Ive become rather interested in X-Wing and Infinty.
Heroclix use to have some pretty solid ruleset, but with time thing get out of control, well to begin i dont know if heroclix could be considere here
I used to play Heroclix about 10 years ago (when they were doing the judge dredd stuff) and it was great. I thought the whole system was really elegant and intuitive (with the rookie/experienced/veteran models and with the stat wheel so you got weaker as you took damage). I can't remember any rules questions beyond trying to remember what the colours/symbols meant since we played across 4 sets. Has it become overly complex now?
GW does make some fine miniatures, but I can't say they're the best. They have become inconsistent lately. I think CB now makes the most detailed, imaginative, animated and beautiful miniatures out there. (And they can make females look like females.)
Someone said it wasn't fair to compare old (though still used) minis to new ones. Ok.
Here's an Infinity TAG. (And I LOVE that pilot.)
I find GW's strength in miniature making in their Fantasy department and in general their large models.
Their Fantasy ranges over the last few years have crossed that line into absolutely gorgeous territory. It's just a shame they're dead set on making it the biggest money sink they possibly can. I'd play it if I didn't need to buy another 100 skeletons for my army just for Core.
Their big models have always been great, but then they're really the only wargaming company making them. Sure Dreamforges Leviathan is fantastic, but then I look at the rest of the industry and I just don't see the push to large models. Everyone else is happy making yet more infantry. But GW can still do a great large model - the Knight is a good example. When I saw one painted in a display case I wished 40k was a better and more affordable game, because I'd jump on one of those if I had a reason.
-Loki- wrote: I find GW's strength in miniature making in their Fantasy department and in general their large models.
Their Fantasy ranges over the last few years have crossed that line into absolutely gorgeous territory. It's just a shame they're dead set on making it the biggest money sink they possibly can. I'd play it if I didn't need to buy another 100 skeletons for my army just for Core.
Their big models have always been great, but then they're really the only wargaming company making them. Sure Dreamforges Leviathan is fantastic, but then I look at the rest of the industry and I just don't see the push to large models. Everyone else is happy making yet more infantry. But GW can still do a great large model - the Knight is a good example. When I saw one painted in a display case I wished 40k was a better and more affordable game, because I'd jump on one of those if I had a reason.
I wouldn't say the ONLY one....
[/spoiler][spoiler]
I think lord of the rings was the best system GW made recently, it was easy, accessible and made sense. Really good heroic skirmish game.
As far as 28mm goes I also like bolt action, it feels like the 28mm game I wanted to play as a kid but got roped into 40k instead
Finally, (and this might get me some hate because dakka inexplicably hates spartan games) but I think dystopian wars deserves an honourable mention for making naval wargaming accessible. Because every rule set I've read was just so bizarrely complex that it doesn't even bear mentioning.
-Loki- wrote: I find GW's strength in miniature making in their Fantasy department and in general their large models.
Their Fantasy ranges over the last few years have crossed that line into absolutely gorgeous territory. It's just a shame they're dead set on making it the biggest money sink they possibly can. I'd play it if I didn't need to buy another 100 skeletons for my army just for Core.
Their big models have always been great, but then they're really the only wargaming company making them. Sure Dreamforges Leviathan is fantastic, but then I look at the rest of the industry and I just don't see the push to large models. Everyone else is happy making yet more infantry. But GW can still do a great large model - the Knight is a good example. When I saw one painted in a display case I wished 40k was a better and more affordable game, because I'd jump on one of those if I had a reason.
I wouldn't say the ONLY one....
Spoiler:
Right, I forgot about those.
But they're still one per faction. Plus one of the other big ones they did per faction.
GW does multiple very large models per faction these days, through large vehicles, large monsters, large walkers, large aircraft. GW really push those size models. It's what they do, and their plastic technology lets them do it.
Personally I'm glad the rest of the wargaming world aren't taking part in the giant model size creep. I don't mind the occasional centerpiece model but I'd hate to have an army of the things. If I want to play with giant robots I'll drop the scale down to like battletech
-Loki- wrote: I find GW's strength in miniature making in their Fantasy department and in general their large models.
Their Fantasy ranges over the last few years have crossed that line into absolutely gorgeous territory. It's just a shame they're dead set on making it the biggest money sink they possibly can. I'd play it if I didn't need to buy another 100 skeletons for my army just for Core.
Their big models have always been great, but then they're really the only wargaming company making them. Sure Dreamforges Leviathan is fantastic, but then I look at the rest of the industry and I just don't see the push to large models. Everyone else is happy making yet more infantry.
MWHistorian wrote: GW does make some fine miniatures, but I can't say they're the best. They have become inconsistent lately. I think CB now makes the most detailed, imaginative, animated and beautiful miniatures out there. (And they can make females look like females.)
Someone said it wasn't fair to compare old (though still used) minis to new ones. Ok.
Here's an Infinity TAG. (And I LOVE that pilot.)
Here's...well. You know.
It's still cherry-picking, as well you know. Why not try a good large robot suit instead of being silly about it and using centurions as your example?
Spoiler:
And GW have always been inconsistent. Not lately. Since their inception. They have always had a mixture of brilliant, good, decent, passable, mediocre and awful sculpts. I believe it's a by-product of having so many sculptors and such a large and extensive range of models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Loki- wrote: I find GW's strength in miniature making in their Fantasy department and in general their large models.
Their Fantasy ranges over the last few years have crossed that line into absolutely gorgeous territory. It's just a shame they're dead set on making it the biggest money sink they possibly can. I'd play it if I didn't need to buy another 100 skeletons for my army just for Core.
Kings of War. With WHFB models (and anything else that takes your fancy). It's the answer.
I'd recommend Infinity over 40k to anyone looking to get into miniature gaming. They are very different games, but I find the high model count combined with the contained IGOUGO turns means that playing it means I'm asking my opponent to spend a lot of time waiting. I find contained IGOUGO turns start failing at around 20 models a side. I generally don't mind it in Warmachine/Hordes but find it totally unacceptable in 40k, WFB or Flames of War. Of those games though, Flames of War works better than the others at lower points values, though it is just 40k in WW2.
I'd recommend Infinity over 40k to anyone looking to get into miniature gaming. They are very different games, but I find the high model count combined with the contained IGOUGO turns means that playing it means I'm asking my opponent to spend a lot of time waiting. I find contained IGOUGO turns start failing at around 20 models a side. I generally don't mind it in Warmachine/Hordes but find it totally unacceptable in 40k, WFB or Flames of War. Of those games though, Flames of War works better than the others at lower points values, though it is just 40k in WW2.
IGOUGO seems to be a factor in alot of rules decisions these days. I think pure IGOUGO is a rather old mechanic that mostly has it's place in games like Song of Blades and Heroes where it actually adds to the tension rather than being a lag in the action for one player. Mostly this is going to be smaller games, but oddly I think it works very well for KoW, though that is a very fast playing system, so you don't wait too long for your turn.
Ok, I keep hearing about this game and I need to know more about it! I have a bunch of Confrontation Wulfen sitting pretty in my shelf that I wan't to plop on a table for any reason...
Are the rules for this in a physical book or are they PDF only? And is the game really as customizable as people say? Could I, for example, build a gang from my Wulfen to use with these rules?
Sorry for the late reply, I don't find myself browsing Dakka Discussions very much. weeble1000 already answered the PDF question.
You could absolutely play a game with your Wulfen. There are no Werewolf rules in the basic SBH pdf, but you could always make your own. They have a forumula specifically for making your own units. If you don't want to make your own rules...they have Hyenamen, so you could use them also if you want... pretty close I reckon.
Eilif wrote: IGOUGO seems to be a factor in alot of rules decisions these days. I think pure IGOUGO is a rather old mechanic that mostly has it's place in games like Song of Blades and Heroes where it actually adds to the tension rather than being a lag in the action for one player. Mostly this is going to be smaller games, but oddly I think it works very well for KoW, though that is a very fast playing system, so you don't wait too long for your turn.
Kings of War seems to play like a lower model count game. So does WFB, to a lesser extent. It's definitley the movement trays that help cut down on the biggest short comings of IGOUGO-- wait times.
You're right about SoBH though. The tension of a possible end of turn and the gamble to risk that to get more done definitely improves upon the IGOUGO turn structure.
My favorite example of that is probably Company Commander. It's a free WW2 to near future game (you have to join a yahoo group here). It uses a "go until you fail" IGOUGO structure. if you fail to at least pin an enemy with a shooting attack, get pinned by reaction fire or fail to rally your troops, your turn ends. It's not for everyone though as it is punishing to tactical blunders and you need to leave a reserve to reinforce failing positions and most players prefer to try to maximize how many of their own pieces can engage the enemy. If anyone has ever heard of or played Crossfire by Arty Conliffe (which has finally just been reprinted), they'll recognize many common elements in the game.
The main problem with both Crossfire and Company Commander is that if someone is coming from a 40k background, there's so much that needs to be unlearned that I'd say the games will initially be unplayable for that person. Even more so than Infinity.
Eilif wrote: IGOUGO seems to be a factor in alot of rules decisions these days. I think pure IGOUGO is a rather old mechanic that mostly has it's place in games like Song of Blades and Heroes where it actually adds to the tension rather than being a lag in the action for one player. Mostly this is going to be smaller games, but oddly I think it works very well for KoW, though that is a very fast playing system, so you don't wait too long for your turn.
Kings of War seems to play like a lower model count game. So does WFB, to a lesser extent. It's definitley the movement trays that help cut down on the biggest short comings of IGOUGO-- wait times.
KoW effectively is a much lower "model" count game from the perspective of the way the units work. I wrote up a 600pt KoM list for a friend to use in a multiplayer game I'm hosting this weekend, and counting the blocks of troops as single "game tokens" made of a bunch of models each, it's only a 6-token army (despite rather a lot more models being involved). Without removing individual models a la WHFB, or changing formation, frontage, etc, it's even faster in play.
My favorite example of that is probably Company Commander. It's a free WW2 to near future game (you have to join a yahoo group here). It uses a "go until you fail" IGOUGO structure. if you fail to at least pin an enemy with a shooting attack, get pinned by reaction fire or fail to rally your troops, your turn ends. It's not for everyone though as it is punishing to tactical blunders and you need to leave a reserve to reinforce failing positions and most players prefer to try to maximize how many of their own pieces can engage the enemy. If anyone has ever heard of or played Crossfire by Arty Conliffe (which has finally just been reprinted), they'll recognize many common elements in the game.
The main problem with both Crossfire and Company Commander is that if someone is coming from a 40k background, there's so much that needs to be unlearned that I'd say the games will initially be unplayable for that person. Even more so than Infinity.
Not really. I first played a demo of Crossfire when I was 18 or so, and I understood that the way the game played was much more about ebb and flow. SBH on the other hand, seems to have some units that are nigh on pointless due to poor leadership - like trolls. Though I haven't played much SBH, so it's possible I missed something important there..
Ok, I keep hearing about this game and I need to know more about it! I have a bunch of Confrontation Wulfen sitting pretty in my shelf that I wan't to plop on a table for any reason...
Are the rules for this in a physical book or are they PDF only? And is the game really as customizable as people say? Could I, for example, build a gang from my Wulfen to use with these rules?
You could absolutely play a game with your Wulfen. There are no Werewolf rules in the basic SBH pdf, but you could always make your own. They have a forumula specifically for making your own units. If you don't want to make your own rules...they have Hyenamen, so you could use them also if you want... pretty close I reckon.
Song of Blades could definitely handle Werewolfs/Wolfen,etc. The basic SBH has enough special rules to get you there. Check the Ganesha Games Website (scroll down the left side) to find the free online unit creation program. It does all the calculations for you to create custom creatures and tally your warband. Our club uses it alot.
It is notable also that there is a "Were" special rule in the Song of Gold and Darkness supplement, if you wanted to use your Wulfen as this sort of thing. It allows your "normal" character to transform in certain circumstances into a "were" version upon being killed in combat. SGD is also a great supplement if you want to use SBH for dungeon-crawling.
One note about the PDF's. They are almost all B&W, so you don't miss much by printing them yourself if you choose not to buy the hardcopy. All my Ganesha titles are the PDF's and it's nice to have them all in one binder for easy access.
frozenwastes wrote:
Kings of War seems to play like a lower model count game. So does WFB, to a lesser extent. It's definitley the movement trays that help cut down on the biggest short comings of IGOUGO-- wait times.
IMHO, Kings of War is a 6/10/15mm "element" game that has simply been written into 28mm. Almost everything about the game, from the streamlined turn sequence, to the lack of casualty removal (element games usually having multiple figures on the same base) feels like it was made for tiny miniatures. I don't see that that as a bad thing. I think it's a natural acknowledgement of how silly it is to have a Company or Battallion level (I hate the term "Mass Battle") game with a depth of rules that are as detailed and crunchy as most skirmish games.
Imagine how much fun a game of Apocalpyse would be if the rules were as fast moving as Kings of War. (How I miss thee, Warpath 1.0...)
Azazelx wrote: SBH on the other hand, seems to have some units that are nigh on pointless due to poor leadership - like trolls. Though I haven't played much SBH, so it's possible I missed something important there..
SBH requires that you back up your poor "Quality" units like trolls with Leaders or some other way of increasing their chances of getting into combat. Leaders and group moves are the most common way of doing this. Better Quality troops are notably more expensive, so if you can get them into combat, low Quality, High combat troops can swamp your opponent.
MWHistorian wrote: I think CB now makes the most detailed, imaginative, animated and beautiful miniatures out there. (And they can make females look like females.)
Well...Infinity does have a bit of 'Anime Ass' syndrome. Fully dressed women, sure...with round, sexy anime asses and painted on pants.
That's not all female models CB does, but 'women looking like women' is pretty darn relative. I mean, CB doesn't make a single model that looks anything like my mother, or like women in modern battle dress for that matter, under which women look like...well...like a human underneath layers of gear, ballistic fabric, armor plates, and ammo.
Well...Infinity does have a bit of 'Anime Ass' syndrome. Fully dressed women, sure...with round, sexy anime asses and painted on pants.
That's not all female models CB does, but 'women looking like women' is pretty darn relative. I mean, CB doesn't make a single model that looks anything like my mother, or like women in modern battle dress for that matter, under which women look like...well...like a human underneath layers of gear, ballistic fabric, armor plates, and ammo.
You get those bad guys honey! I love it when you walk away to war...
Infinity isn't a terrible offender or anything, but CB aint no stranger to cheesecake, and likes a lady with certain...proportions. CB likes a nice, tight, round anime ass and a tiny waist. Credit them with putting clothes and armor on the ladies, but what I was most interested in was the 'real women' bit.
... if someone is coming from a 40k background, there's so much that needs to be unlearned that I'd say the games will initially be unplayable for that person. Even more so than Infinity.
Oh god, I can attest to this. I'm assuredly a far worse Infinity player than I otherwise would be had I never touched 40k
Rather than trawl through the thread, I figured I'd ask here - what do you guys think of Malifaux and X Wing? I've heard good things about both, but whats more useful to a potential gamer is hearing the bad too
Edit: And Relics too I guess. That "stichpunk" game. Preamble looks good, but... why the hell are all the dudes puppet things?
X-Wing is well worth the punt. The starter set is mega cheap (less than a Leman Russ Battle Tank) and genuinely contains all you need. The rules are concise and you can go from shrink-wrap to full gaming in 20 minutes (skimming the rules and trying out the first turn). Very intuitive.
We split 2 starters between us for a bit bigger games (2x X-Wings Vs 4x Tie Fighters).
To illustrate it; my die-hard GW fan (who skips the convention tables that don't have GW and refuses to consider anything non-GW) fell for it immediately and it's now our go-to game. Try it.
Malifaux is a bit different; slightly more expensive to get started since you need more mini's. It's about £10 for the mini-rules, £6 for the stat cards and about £30 for a starter pack, so you're looking at £50 (inc optional card deck - you can use a standard poker deck) to get started for 1 player Vs £30 for 2 with X-wing.
Starter gives you about 6 models (Master + crew), everything you need to know is on the stat cards, the core rules are pretty concise, and whilst it's simple to get started there's a lot of tactical depth. It's good fun but it's also a very thinky game, I often feel like I've had a mental workout when playing games of it (because there's so many tactical options and synergies). It seems pretty balanced with the stragegies; I've rarely had a game where I've felt like I've had no chance. I'd heavily recommend it too.
Yeah, for X-wing I recommend two starter sets to build a solid start. The rules are very intuitive and easy to learn. However, the mastery is a bit harder. Honestly, I don't think the mechanics are all that innovative, they are mostly rehashes and repackaging of previous air combat games only without being able to change altitude since you are in space.
Now, onto the downsides. The Starters are great price and value but getting new ships is a a bit pricey. Getting a pair of ships is really wasteful since they have all the same cards so as you get multiple ships the value for money goes down a lot. This is a disatisfier for me since I like to field pairs.
There are really only two factions, Imperials and Rebels. You need new scenarios and ships to keep it from getting stale. basic dogfights are kind of boring unless you have some objectives to fight for.
I think the squadron building has fallen into some set "net-list" good/bad patterns. Nothign as bad as 40K but it is still present. Your local Meta may vary.
Finally, it could really use some campaign rules to build up your rookies/Academy pilots into Aces. These may have been added later in some supplement (I really don't know) but right now each game is stand alone.
All that being said, this is a great game to get people into the idea of Miniature wargaming. It is almost more of a boardgame/wargame hybrid product so it is a nice gateway drug. No paitning needed either. Despite what I said above I actually like and play X-wing when I can.
Heroclix use to have some pretty solid ruleset, but with time thing get out of control, well to begin i dont know if heroclix could be considere here
I used to play Heroclix about 10 years ago (when they were doing the judge dredd stuff) and it was great. I thought the whole system was really elegant and intuitive (with the rookie/experienced/veteran models and with the stat wheel so you got weaker as you took damage). I can't remember any rules questions beyond trying to remember what the colours/symbols meant since we played across 4 sets. Has it become overly complex now?
I playe dsince the begining, play until mmm dont remember the expasion, but was whern they begin to use aditional cards as perks and battleground cards, that create some effect all over the map, at the begining it was a fresh way to play but tings get complicated because some perks card make some broken things with the right models, so in a turn a human torch can make a pulsewave attack with a renge of 10 making 4 clisks of damage, so people use like three human torch and others with that perk card, your whole team was whipe out the moment the torchs where close enought.
From then on the ring system disapear, and there was only one model per character o different models with different abilitys of the same character, on the colector side it was a good, no more tons of the same model but with different base, but on the other side everyone wanted and played the mos powerful character, then the ability cards and a new "color" abaility, a colorless square as a unique power for that character only, the power was described on the card.
The game change from an easy and fast game to a complex, slow and messy game, like chess on aesthetic (you alwas see the same models, always the "rarest" superman, batman etc etc etc) nobody venture to try different builds, and the models, sadly they when from right to pretty ugly, some look great, specially the team bases (two characters on the same base) and the rarest models, oh and the giants and colosal figures, they look good but with zero details.
Most of the games I would mention have been mentioned.
I'd also throw in Firestorm Armada. There are some fiddly bits around launching small craft fighters and stuff. But the core mechanic is great (that is rolling a set number of dice at different range bands). The idea of optimal range bands (which are sometimes different between fleets) means maneuvering for position isn't forced or awkward, and instead becomes critical, tactical, and fun. The turning template simplifies arcs and angles and remedies not using hexes. Overall it captures big space ships duking it out very well, with massive broadsides and slow turning capital ships being circled by smaller ships.
The other game would be Star Wars Edge of the Empire from FFG. It's a bit different from a "traditional" (ie: D&D) RPG, but so far has done the best job I've seen of capturing what it'd be like to be a Star Wars character. And as was mentioned early on, I think a ruleset that achieves what it sets out to do is a great ruleset. By having players gain and spend "Advantages" the system really lends itself well to descriptive, thematic combat. Instead of "Oh I get +2 damage because I surprised the enemy" you can instead have the player startle their foe, knocking them off a walkway, where their falling body hits a generator that explodes and takes out some goons down below. The players are eager to add their own descriptive flair as well, so the game naturally bleeds into cooperative story telling, instead of an "us vs GM" mentality.
bosky wrote: Most of the games I would mention have been mentioned.
I'd also throw in Firestorm Armada. There are some fiddly bits around launching small craft fighters and stuff. But the core mechanic is great (that is rolling a set number of dice at different range bands). The idea of optimal range bands (which are sometimes different between fleets) means maneuvering for position isn't forced or awkward, and instead becomes critical, tactical, and fun. The turning template simplifies arcs and angles and remedies not using hexes. Overall it captures big space ships duking it out very well, with massive broadsides and slow turning capital ships being circled by smaller ships.
The other game would be Star Wars Edge of the Empire from FFG. It's a bit different from a "traditional" (ie: D&D) RPG, but so far has done the best job I've seen of capturing what it'd be like to be a Star Wars character. And as was mentioned early on, I think a ruleset that achieves what it sets out to do is a great ruleset. By having players gain and spend "Advantages" the system really lends itself well to descriptive, thematic combat. Instead of "Oh I get +2 damage because I surprised the enemy" you can instead have the player startle their foe, knocking them off a walkway, where their falling body hits a generator that explodes and takes out some goons down below. The players are eager to add their own descriptive flair as well, so the game naturally bleeds into cooperative story telling, instead of an "us vs GM" mentality.
I've been curious about the Edge of the Empire RPG as I've been on a Star Wars kick lately.
MWHistorian wrote: I've been curious about the Edge of the Empire RPG as I've been on a Star Wars kick lately.
Well maybe it'd interest you You could try picking up the beginner box set before taking the plunge into the full core rulebook? Edge of the Empire focuses more on scoundrels / Han Solos / Firefly type characters. FFG is going to release two other rulebooks focusing on the Rebels vs Imperials, and then Jedis and the Force. My understanding is they are all standalone RPGs using the same system, so you can focus on whatever part of the Star Wars universe interests you most. I'm lucky in that I care little for Rebels or Jedi and instead like the idea of a motley crew aboard a rundown ship hopping around a well fleshed out Star Wars galaxy, so Edge of the Empire fit that very well.
In case you wanted a bit more detail on the system itself, it's dice pool based, but with custom dice (think fancier versions of the dice in X-Wing Miniatures). Your character has various skills and stats, and from those you build a dice pool depending on the task at hand. Say you have 3 Agility and 1 rank in Ranged Weapons and want to shoot someone with your pistol. You'd start with the positive dice of 2 green D8s and 1 yellow D12. Then you add in negative dice based on the difficulty of the task at hand, and the situation around you. So let's say 2 purple D8s. And maybe it's stormy weather outside so you get a black D6 setback die too. Then you roll all the dice, check the various symbols, and figure out if the task succeeded. But not only can a task succeed or fail, but it can do so with Advantages or Threats. That's where the real spice comes in, since you can "convert" Advantages into story elements (like your shot hitting their blaster and knocking it out of their hand), likewise Threats could be bad too, like your gun jams or the shot ricochets and you fall over dodging it, etc. Building and reading a dice pool can be daunting at first, but becomes second nature by the end of the session, at least from what I've seen.
There are plenty of other neat aspects to the system.
The character generation and specializations have been varied and interesting enough to let us players create whatever we want so far. In our current party we have a Human pilot on the run after betting his pod racer and losing, a Droid assassin who had a memory wipe and now thinks he's a pilot, another Droid doctor who has a sick fascination with becoming human, and a Rodian melee expert who is obsessed with the hunt.
Each character and party will have Obligations, which are codified debts, vices, or obsessions that can come up in play and help drive story telling.
There are a pool of Light/Dark points generated at the start of each session, basically like Fate Points from other games, that let you influence the story.
From my previous careers of kicking down doors, room clearing and moving in squads, Infinity is by far my favorite rules set. I like it because I can ask myself "what would I do?"...and it's usually a pretty good idea. The rules are tight and balanced and really portray tactics in a realistic manner. Plus I can use US Army Rangers, SAS and Spetznas against cyborgs and aliens....awesome.
) as to say it is something beautiful.
[spoiler]
