Hey guys, thinking about getting into WH40k (probs going Dark Eldar, I love the look, the hedonistic-torture-race fluff, and the fast-but-fragile playstyle appeals to me). I've been lurking the forums a lot and the outlook from a lot of you guys just seems bleak. I know that people in general tend to complain about things more than they praise them, but it almost seems like I'd be better off spending my time and money on other hobbies.
What I mainly want to know is basically is it worth it? Do you guys genuinely enjoy the game and just use the forum to vent about the annoying stuff or do you guys feel like you mostly just play because you've been doing it for a while and that it's not worth spending the dozens of hours and hundreds of dollars that it takes for a new player to get into it?
foureyes69 wrote: Hey guys, thinking about getting into WH40k (probs going Dark Eldar, I love the look, the hedonistic-torture-race fluff, and the fast-but-fragile playstyle appeals to me). I've been lurking the forums a lot and the outlook from a lot of you guys just seems bleak. I know that people in general tend to complain about things more than they praise them, but it almost seems like I'd be better off spending my time and money on other hobbies.
What I mainly want to know is basically is it worth it? Do you guys genuinely enjoy the game and just use the forum to vent about the annoying stuff or do you guys feel like you mostly just play because you've been doing it for a while and that it's not worth spending the dozens of hours and hundreds of dollars that it takes for a new player to get into it?
Your gaming group will make more difference than anything else in all honesty. Online forums like this is also where people come to vent. You can have fun with 40k, but it does have its issues, there's a reason you see the complaints.
Yes!! I wouldn't trade it for any other game (and I've tried a few). Just get used to the idea that it is NOT balanced and can be frustrating to play in a super competitive environment.
A few games of 40K is a great way to kill an afternoon with some friends.
It's not worth it. An occasional game of 40k with the right people can be fun if you've already got all of the models, but I wouldn't even consider investing in it as a new player. Get one of the other games that are much more fun and cost a lot less money.
Okay cool, I'm glad to see positive replies. I really like the idea of WH40k, and I was pretty sure that I was just seeing typical forum venting, just wanted to make sure before I take the plunge and spend ~$120 getting into a new hobby.
It's not a terrible game. I think the frustration stems from the fact that the game could be so much better with a modicum of effort from the company.
Most of the complainers (myself included) love the game, love the models, and love the universe. We just want it to be better, and we can see so clearly how it could be improved/fixed/restored to greatness without any cataclysmic shift in the industry.
A LOT of what gets complained about doesn't show up in actual play, or only shows up in actual play at tournaments, or when playing a douchebag (not that tournament players are douchebags, but brutal lists are expected in competition--and douchey when someone is trying to just play casually). A more responsive company would fix the system so that you wouldn't need to watch out for the occasional ringer with killer combos or broken units, but you can avoid that problem by playing with good blokes who aren't trying to smash you apart with the latest hotness in each match.
An analogy:
If someone makes terrible pizza and burns the hell out of it every time, you don't eat there. That place sucks.
If a pizza joint makes great pizza, but occasionally slaps unrequested anchovies on your pie, you will complain about it. You want to eat there, but WTF?
GW has a lot of greatness, and too many WTF moments.
If you can pull it off for $120, nice. Might be worth it then.
The thing is, 40K works best when you have a bunch of close knit, similar minded friends. If you're just going down to a store, unless they have a bunch of standard house rules and an unusually unified mindset, there will be arguments and character clashes that will spoil a lot of the fun.
If you've got that friend group though, go for it.
foureyes69 wrote: Okay cool, I'm glad to see positive replies. I really like the idea of WH40k, and I was pretty sure that I was just seeing typical forum venting, just wanted to make sure before I take the plunge and spend ~$120 getting into a new hobby.
It's going to be way more than that. $120 barely covers the rulebooks, you can expect to spend $500-1000 or more before you'll have enough models to make a full army.
And no, it isn't just the normal forum venting that every game has. Compared to other games 40k's rules are just shamefully bad, and the negative opinions are way more common than with other games. You can still play the game if you really want to, but just be aware that the rules suck and you really need to love the fluff and models to push through that sucking and find a bit of fun in the game. If you aren't already invested in the 40k IP or care more about on-table gameplay than the background stories you should find a different game that can provide enjoyable fluff and models while also being fun to play.
I like the current state of a game. I absolutely love the fluff of my favorite race (orks) and the new codexes have been a bunch of decent books. I'm really glad they've toned down the power creep of mid 6-th.
The latest stuff is pretty well ballanced and maelstorm missions make a game more dinamic, tactical, enjoyable and somewhat ballanced overall.
Dataslates provide new ways to use the units and run your lists bringing variety and breathe life into units that'd not be used otherwise.
Models are mostly awesome.
If you don't mind buying second-hand stuff, WH40k is a rather popular hobby (for tabletop games ofc) so it won't be hard to find stuff way cheaper than retail.
There's just a ton of background material. With a decent ammount of truly awesome stuff.
All in all, the game is great to play. However, there are not only goods but also bads.
Games Workshop - the company running 40k - has a policy of not FAQ-ing stuff that's not a misprint. So, there is a number of rules that can't be interpreted in one way. You need to decide it with your own gaming group.
Dataslates cost extra, so if you're not pirating, you got to spend money on it.
Books and models are not cheap for tabletop standards. Well, not the most expensive game either but definitely not cheap. And the money required to actually start playing even at low point games - around 500-750 are significant enough to buy you a brand new bike if you buy directly from GW. However, you can just buy a bunch of models for like 30-50 bux and play tiny Killteam games. It's a lot of fun actually.
There are some obviously overpowered and underpowered models. That's not unique and is met in any tabletop and not only tabletop game. But the most negative comes from this direction.
All in all, for me it's a worthy money/time investment. I'd recommend you seeing your local gaming group first, however.
The thing is, 40K works best when you have a bunch of close knit, similar minded friends. If you're just going down to a store, unless they have a bunch of standard house rules and an unusually unified mindset, there will be arguments and character clashes that will spoil a lot of the fun.
If you've got that friend group though, go for it.
$120 is the price of me getting all the modeling supplies I'd want + a couple units to paint, I did some googling and it's about ~$100 more for the rest of the 500 point DE army I wanted to make, plus or minus a few dollars depending on how good the deals I can get on ebay are. So really the total investment I'd have to make to be able to field an army would be about $220; $80 for supplies and ~$140 for the models. I don't have the friend group for it yet, but I live in a decent sized city and I'm fairly easy to get along with haha. $120 is more the cost for me to get supplies + models to see if I enjoy the painting/modeling side of things. I already have the 40k 7th Ed rulebook/DE Codex so that's not factored into the entry price.
The thing is, 40K works best when you have a bunch of close knit, similar minded friends. If you're just going down to a store, unless they have a bunch of standard house rules and an unusually unified mindset, there will be arguments and character clashes that will spoil a lot of the fun.
If you've got that friend group though, go for it.
$120 is the price of me getting all the modeling supplies I'd want + a couple units to paint, I did some googling and it's about ~$100 more for the rest of the 500 point DE army I wanted to make, plus or minus a few dollars depending on how good the deals I can get on ebay are. So really the total investment I'd have to make to be able to field an army would be about $220; $80 for supplies and ~$140 for the models. I don't have the friend group for it yet, but I live in a decent sized city and I'm fairly easy to get along with haha. $120 is more the cost for me to get supplies + models to see if I enjoy the painting/modeling side of things. I already have the 40k 7th Ed rulebook/DE Codex so that's not factored into the entry price.
Than you can discount one drawback of it being expensive
Honestly, your local gaming scene will have the largest effect on how much you play and how much fun you may be able to get out of it. That being said, i love 40k. It's one of the funnest hobbies I've ever had and so creative and unique.
The biggest hurdle to get over is definitely the amount of people who may or may not play in your area and the price point. Luckily, the price point can be mitigated some by eBay and sites like Craigslist, where you can pick up secondhand models and rulebooks cheaper than new.
Also, don't blow all your money on top of the line paints. I've gotten great results with $.77 paint bottles and cheap brushes, building up my skill. Best of luck man!
Oh, don't forget you can make models yourself! Though, it won't be easy to create a dark eldar model, it's not that hard to make the equipment you want. Like a rifle, a sword or something.
foureyes69 wrote: it's about ~$100 more for the rest of the 500 point DE army I wanted to make
Unfortunately people rarely play at 500 points. A normal game of 40k is at least 1000 points, and usually 1500-2000. Few people will have 500 point armies available for you to play against, and they may or may not have any interest in such a tiny game (I wouldn't). So if you think you're only going to spend that much money you're going to be putting yourself in a situation where the only way to get a game is to beg someone to give you a newbie teaching game. If you want to play normal pickup games at your local store you're going to need at least a 1500 point army.
40k rules are pretty terrible. They're poorly written, excessively long, unbalanced and GW don't do a good job of fixing mistakes or clearing up rules so you're left to house rule a bunch of stuff that should be black and white but isn't.
The value of 40k lies in the expansive universe and cool** aesthetic and expansive range of armies and miniatures for those armies.
The other value of 40k lies in whether or not you have a good local group of people who play it. Although I rarely play 40k any more, it's the only game I have consistently maintained over the past 18 or so years because when it comes to other games there's just not the community involved to keep playing it. Of course that's relative to your specific location and friends. The 40k community out this way is a shadow of what it used to be... but it's still stronger than a lot of other games.
Well, the game is not bad. In fact, the 7th ed is quite good.
However, getting into the game requires some money to spend, like 500 to 1000 Euro.
Moreover, it will make no sense if you don't have a gaming group somewhere.
Here's the problem though. Folk come here to have a right old moan; get issues off their chests. The VAST majority don't. Just because one or two say that the rule book is rubbish does not mean that it is. Some folk exist purely to support the little companies whilst, at the same time, bashing the big guys.
GW is a big guy. As a part of that their sales are massive with a huge fanbase which also includes a very large amount of history and stories thrown in. Many of the smaller ones can't even fill one chapter of the codex in terms of pages of race history for their whole range.
Go for it, start with 500 points, you can always get more later. As you've seen ebay is great for such things; buying something that has been painted with a yard brush by a five year old can be bought, stripped and painted new for the price of a coffee. Not a bad way to start at all.
foureyes69 wrote:What I mainly want to know is basically is it worth it? Do you guys genuinely enjoy the game
Yes.
People who don't like the game complain about the game, but people who don't like anything complain about it. Of course, what you're also seeing is people disliking 40k religiously as well - with a firm, emotional attachment to the idea that a game they may or may not even play is unholy and that the apocalypse is nigh where the devil (GW) will finally be destroyed in the final battle of the end times.
You don't have to buy into the cult in order to buy into 40k. In fact, you'll like it a lot more if you limit exposure to people who apparently have a part-time job of bashing GW and its games on internet forums. Thankfully, dakka has this neat little ignore button that helps you do just that.
A lot of the complaining is from the vocal minority. A small number of people yelling the loudest so all you here are the complaints.
But a lot of people still enjoy the game. Even with its balance issues its a lot of fun to build, paint, and play and has a great setting with lots of room for customization.
Elmodiddly wrote: Here's the problem though. Folk come here to have a right old moan; get issues off their chests. The VAST majority don't.
The vast majority just quit when they figure out how bad it is. I don't think I'm wrong in saying...
They're poorly written, excessively long, unbalanced and GW don't do a good job of fixing mistakes or clearing up rules so you're left to house rule a bunch of stuff that should be black and white but isn't.
...that doesn't mean you can't enjoy the game or that it's necessarily a bad game to start, but I think people should be aware of the issues before getting in to it.
If the vast majority really does leave GW why are they still in business and why do I know many, many folk who are almost mid life yet still playing? The latest MK club meet as well as the Derby meet GW players were mainly old fogies like myself. Still happy and still perfectly capable of accepting the changes and the new rules without going over how the good old days were better.
The lists are not as unbalanced as folk think and it is easy to criticise but very hard to justify the claims. GW have been doing this for decades now, I think they know what they're doing.
Sorry I worded that badly, I didn't mean "the vast majority quit", I more meant "the vast majority who start to dislike it quit rather than hanging around to complain about it".
The former can't really be said because we really have no idea of retention numbers for gamers. I can say that I know more people who have played and quit than are still playing, but that's obviously only anecdotal evidence and I have been around for about 18-19 years so it's no surprise I know so many people who have quit.
If I were to have a guess, I'd say 40k has low retention numbers, but obviously that's just a guess. I think most people quit when they realise how fething mind numbing and time consuming painting a whole army can actually be.
My point was more that talking about a "vocal minority" as if most people are happy and only a minority are unhappy is a bit incorrect when you consider most people who get unhappy with 40k just quit and don't hang around the forums to talk about it.
Ailaros wrote: Of course, what you're also seeing is people disliking 40k religiously as well - with a firm, emotional attachment to the idea that a game they may or may not even play is unholy and that the apocalypse is nigh where the devil (GW) will finally be destroyed in the final battle of the end times.
Yeah, it's all just an anti-GW cult. It couldn't possibly be the case that GW publishes a horrible product, and there certainly isn't any rational reason to think that 40k is a shameful mess that no self-respecting game designer would want their name attached to. Just keep wearing that GW™ FineFoil™ tinfoil hat.
In all honesty, the one thing to bear in mind above all else is that 40k is what you make it. If you go looking for an ultra-competitive tactical excercise you won't enjoy it, if you want an excuse to hang out with some like-minded people, throw a few dice and tell a good story with nicely painted models, you'll love it! Communication is the key, but the same could be said for any game or sport involving more than 1 person.
As much as the costs can seem high, there are a few good ways to make it seem far less of a burden:
1) When buying supplies, get only what you need. If you have no intention of having something bright blue in your army, there's no need to get a blue paint. Sounds obvious, but while the savings on 'starter bundles' of paints and brushes may look tempting, consider if you'll actually use everything in there.
2) Learn to mix paint. Again, sounds obvious, but where GW will sell you 2-3 paints to get a colour in various shades, but the same effect can be had just by having a white (or light grey and cream for different tones) and black (or again, a dark brown and dark grey for variety) on hand with your main colours. It might seem complicated at first, and takes a while to get right, but it's as simple as adding white to get a highlight and black to shade. Setting up a wet pallete can also help your paint go further, take a look up in the P&M section for some good tutorials on how to make one.
3) Spread the cost: An army for 40k might seem expensive, but don't make the mistake of thinking you're obliged to build it in one go. You're on the right lines of buying a box at a time, rather than thinking 'I need 1500 points NOW!!', and when you're buying just a box of minis every 3-4 weeks, the cost is far less overwhelming. I'm going to be hypocriticaland suggest you stick to a policy of not buying anything more until you've painted your last purchase; not only will this spread the cost, it will also motivate you to paint!
4) As said, buy second hand, or from online retailers that offer discount, and where possible, go for sets that give some kind of saving. I think there's a bundle at the moment of a Kabalite/Wych Squad and a Raider for significantly cheaper than buying both separately, that might be worth looking into.
5) Convert EVERYTHING! Don't buy an Archon, you can build a good one from the Kabalite parts and any spare weapons you have. Look into Plasicard and Green Stuff modelling when you feel ready to, and you can do all sorts. Build some plasticard Skyboards and turn Wyches into Hellions. Sculpt some capes and turn Warriors into Trueborn. It can be daunting, but it's a good skill to have!
Hope that helps, and that you have a good time getting into 40k!
Give it a try, many people are satisfied with it. And hey, if you don't like it, you can always 'quit' yet remain on 40k messageboards incessantly voicing your malcontent with a game you apparently no longer play!
There is no other miniatures game I enjoyed as much and as often for as long a time.
I've tried many others, X-Wing, Infinity, Malifaux, Bolt Action, Mantic Games, etc..., and they all have their charms, but all of them grew stale after a few months.
40K I keep coming back to again and again, even if I take the occasional hiatus. Looking back over the number of games I played in recent years, I certainly got a hell of a lot more bang for the buck from 40K than I got for my non-GW minis, which tend to be relegated to collecting dust in their boxes a lot quicker.
There's always a lot of whining and griping about "unbalanced this" and "powercreep" there, but in a perverse sort of way, it also ensures that 40K is always a "new game" to discover over and over again, when you've stepped out of it for a few months and then step back in.
I find it fun to write up lists and play out battles using my Blood Angels, which is like playing 40k hard mode at the moment.
Guy 1 that I got into the game loves finding random objects to fit onto his ork models.
Guy 2 that I got into the game has since made his own fandex and actually made his own models for some unique infantry units. One of his hq's has a scratch-made battle-axe, and is resting his other hand on a shaved-down nemesis greatsword sticking out of his base. Awesome looking model.
And so on. Just the section of our group that comes over to play in my game room is 8-9 people. We do custom scenarios, narrative games, teams, free for alls, etc. New models coming out, or our latest purchases or projects, or just the most recent game is enough to give us a good amount of fun conversation at work or on the road.
Long story short, I have fun with the game mainly because I have a group that has fun with the game. I wouldn't have ever picked up models if I didn't think I would get some people to play with.
Ailaros wrote: Of course, what you're also seeing is people disliking 40k religiously as well - with a firm, emotional attachment to the idea that a game they may or may not even play is unholy and that the apocalypse is nigh where the devil (GW) will finally be destroyed in the final battle of the end times.
Yeah, it's all just an anti-GW cult. It couldn't possibly be the case that GW publishes a horrible product, and there certainly isn't any rational reason to think that 40k is a shameful mess that no self-respecting game designer would want their name attached to. Just keep wearing that GW™ FineFoil™ tinfoil hat.
The way you keep loudly shouting and ramming your opinion down our throats with the implication we'd be idiots to disagree with you is why you would be identified as an anti GW "cultist", though honestly its just an analogy.
I just want to also point out the irony and hypocrisy of stereotyping Ailaros as though he's a pro GW "cultist". The rules at the end of the day work and provide enjoyment for Ailaros, myself, others in this thread and other people who play 40k, the cost is acceptable no matter how grudgingly, and we're not ignorant or blind or dumb as your tinfoil hat analogy implies because or in part due to that. We like the game as it is so we're going to tell others we enjoy it and dismiss extreme views to the contrary as you'd expect.
foureyes69 wrote: Okay cool, I'm glad to see positive replies. I really like the idea of WH40k, and I was pretty sure that I was just seeing typical forum venting, just wanted to make sure before I take the plunge and spend ~$120 getting into a new hobby.
So you are not looking for honest opinions you are just looking for those that validate your own?
Go at it then, those 120$ of yours barely cover the cost of the rules let alone get you any playable force, but since you don't even have a group of people to play with the chances of you actually reaching the stage where you are get to play a game are slim to none.
foureyes69 wrote: Okay cool, I'm glad to see positive replies. I really like the idea of WH40k, and I was pretty sure that I was just seeing typical forum venting, just wanted to make sure before I take the plunge and spend ~$120 getting into a new hobby.
120$ . Even a recast 1500 army costs more. The rulebooks and codex alone are over 150$.
I like the current state of a game. I absolutely love the fluff of my favorite race (orks) and the new codexes have been a bunch of decent books. I'm really glad they've toned down the power creep of mid 6-th.
The latest stuff is pretty well ballanced and maelstorm missions make a game more dinamic, tactical, enjoyable and somewhat ballanced overall.
Dataslates provide new ways to use the units and run your lists bringing variety and breathe life into units that'd not be used otherwise.
Models are mostly awesome.
you should add to this: If stuff is house ruled, people play with random model or bad armies and GK and SW are ignored as 7th ed book , AND no body plays necron or eldar AND nid players aren't using skyblight. There is absolutly nothing that can make a w40k game of normal points dynamic with separat rolls on ton of stuff, constant LoS and range checking and ton of random effects to roll on pre , durning and post game.
foureyes69 wrote: Hey guys, thinking about getting into WH40k (probs going Dark Eldar, I love the look, the hedonistic-torture-race fluff, and the fast-but-fragile playstyle appeals to me). I've been lurking the forums a lot and the outlook from a lot of you guys just seems bleak. I know that people in general tend to complain about things more than they praise them, but it almost seems like I'd be better off spending my time and money on other hobbies.
What I mainly want to know is basically is it worth it? Do you guys genuinely enjoy the game and just use the forum to vent about the annoying stuff or do you guys feel like you mostly just play because you've been doing it for a while and that it's not worth spending the dozens of hours and hundreds of dollars that it takes for a new player to get into it?
Before pumping any money into the game, find a local group and ask if you can borrow someone's army for a game. You'll find out if you like the game, and if you get on with the people in the group.
As to if it's as bad as everyone says it is - Does winning games mean anything to you ? If not, then 40k is absolutely fine.
If you do care about winning games, then yes it's terrible.
Bartali wrote: As to if it's as bad as everyone says it is - Does winning games mean anything to you ? If not, then 40k is absolutely fine. If you do care about winning games, then yes it's terrible.
I think the problem with this is that a large pile of people might go in not caring about winning, but after maybe 10 or 20 games, winning or losing does start to matter, especially when you've invested so much time and money. Not saying everyone is like that, but I didn't really care about winning or losing or competitiveness when I started. After playing a few games with the same army I did start to care though.
Also I think a lot of the flaws with 40k might not be apparent until you've had a few games under your belt (the only one that might be obvious is how unnecessarily long the rules are ). Indeed it'll probably take you half a dozen games before you even have a grasp on the rules and maybe a dozen or two more before you start to work out the strengths and weaknesses of different armies and depending on how competitive your meta is you might start learning about the lack of balance. When you get to learning about the lack of balance you will be very disappointed if you'd bought a bunch of Pyrovores
Depends on what you want out of it. If you want a solid set of rules where you can build a force that you want, maybe theme it and do well then yes 40k is as bad as everyone says, because it doesn't really have any of that (although the standard line is that it does). The rules are poorly balanced, unclear and often require you to decide with your specific opponent how to handle a given situation, which means that the next opponent might interpret a different way as there are multiple interpretations. There is little or no thought given to balance so you can easily end up spending a lot on units that are subpar and can sway a game against you simply by being chosen over other, better performing units. While it's often espoused as the right way to play it is IMHO dangerous to simply pick units based on looks alone for precisely that reason. Nobody wants to pay hundreds of dollars on miniatures, spend lots of time painting them up and then find out later that you chose all of the "bad" units and are going to lose nearly every game you play due to no fault of your own because they simply aren't that good with the actual rules for the game because the designers don't care about balance or gave it any thought whatsoever.
If you like the figures, the background and either don't plan to play a lot (e.g. you want to collect a small Dark Eldar force to paint up nicely and bring out once in a while) or have a like-minded group that only plays fluffy campaign games, then you will likely get more mileage out of 40k because you can have group rules to cover the cloudy situations and everyone is going to pick units they like versus units that perform well (although one caveat of this approach is that it's easy to have a unit you like that also performs very well and vice versa, so there is still that gross imbalance even in a casual group playing campaign games).
40k is one of, if not the only, game that actually encourages a close-knit "clique" to play it without frustration instead of encouraging a wide range of opponents and a "play anywhere" type of mentality, because you need to decide what is/isn't acceptable (even if it's otherwise legal to play eg. Forge World, LoW, etc.), how to interpret vague rules, what style of game you want, and on top of that it can change from opponent to opponent as Tom might be fine with LoWs because he fields a Knight, but Bob hates them and won't play you if you field that Baneblade even if you legally can and it's not really "OP", and Jim doesn't care either way because he can only get a game in once a month so it really doesn't matter.
All depends on the group. I've found a group I massively enjoy playing with that gives me a hugely varied play experience and a friendly environment, but when I first moved to boston I was on the verge of quitting out of frustration with my old game store.
Basically, before you invest at all, find a group and go see how they play. If they seem friendly and inviting then go for it.
I'm a casual player, try and get a game every Wednesday night with a friend, and I can honestly say I love it. Whether I win or lose I always have a good time.
Trying my new Ork army for the first time tonight and can't wait.
Go to a Games Workshop if possible and have a quick game with one of the staff or if that isn't to easy for you to do watch a battle report on youtube. I recommend MiniWarGaming as they try to explain as much as they can during the games. This wont be the best way to understand the game but it should help in some way.
As a bunch of people said, it depends on what you want out of the game. There are legitimate issues with rule design and convolution; in conjunction with said cost of the rules, it creates some notable frustration with the game.
However, if you don't have to invest money in the rules and/or don't mind these sorts of issues, and you have a good gaming group, then 40k should be a fun past-time.
1. Find people to play against.
2. Borrow models for a demo game.
3. If/when you're ready to dive in, buy the codex for the army you like.
4. Buy the smallest amount of stuff to play the smallest game they play, and borrow their rules until you can get your own.
5. Expand and enjoy.
The club I play at has around 50 people who come and go. Most move on to other games, but most of them get a game of WH and 40k sometimes anyway. Most weeks there's a game of 40k going. It's been like that for the 4 years I've been going there.
These sort of topics always make me wish GW hadn't axed the Specialist games from their repertoire. It used to be if you were interested in the models and background, you could start with something like Gorkamorka or Necromunda to try the whole thing out. Now you're looking at a minimum of $135 just for a rulebook and codex, and then many hundreds of dollars for a functioning army.
I just feel like it's a huge missed opportunity, as people struggle to make the decision whether to jump in or not with such a hefty investment.
Yes it is worth it. I love the game, I love the fluff, I love painting the models and creating terrain. I love that I spend lot of time at work thinking about how to paint, model or play; this brightens up my workdays a lot.
Those people discontent with 40k are usually from two generic directions:
* Competitive players complaining about armies and games not being 100% fair at a given point value.
* "Casual" players not being imaginative and not setting up games so it is most fun to them and their opponents.
Many people miss that the rulebook asks for you and your opponent to agree on something. So if you don't agree on allowing Lord of Wars or Forgeworld in your game then don't use it. If you would like to include FW, but your opponent doesn't then play against other people with it.
I guess many people expect GW to present something that pleases them and that everyone else has to adhere to. And that's the big mistake. Meet with someone, agree on something you both deem interesting/challenging/fair/whatever and then have a good time. If that doesn't sound like your cup of tea then you will most likely not get happy with any system.
So wait people pay 100+$ for rule sets which to be actualy played have to be modified on a one per person per game ratio? And how big does a community have to be so that both the normal , the casual , the FW , the LoW knight using people get enough opponents to play with. The shop would have to have like 30+people and mulitiple tables for w40k alone for them to get a game in. That is not very realistic.
Murenius wrote: Those people discontent with 40k are usually from two generic directions:
* Competitive players complaining about armies and games not being 100% fair at a given point value.
* "Casual" players not being imaginative and not setting up games so it is most fun to them and their opponents.
I feel like this is a rather disingenuous characterization of those making complaints. There are obviously people who won't ever be happy and do enjoy bashing GW, but that is just one far-edge group...the same goes for the opposite end of the spectrum. But I also don't see what's wrong with competitive gamers wanting some balance being added to the game- they certainly have historically supplied a large amount of GW's revenue, and tournaments have been a huge boon for the community. Plus balance isn't something that only competitive players want to have.
As far the casual players not being imaginative enough, I think you need to need to refrain from speaking down about other groups as if they're "bad" at playing the game.
I guess many people expect GW to present something that pleases them and that everyone else has to adhere to. And that's the big mistake. Meet with someone, agree on something you both deem interesting/challenging/fair/whatever and then have a good time. If that doesn't sound like your cup of tea then you will most likely not get happy with any system.
Again, I feel like you're being very narrow-minded. If you like 40k, its style of player interaction and whatnot, then good on you, I'm glad you're enjoying it. But don't pretend it is the *only* system that a person may enjoy.
Yes, it is worth it. I enjoy my hobby a lot. In many respects, things are actually quite good compared to other periods. Keep in mind that some of the most vocal nay-Sayers in this august forum do not play Warhammer!
Makumba wrote: So wait people pay 100+$ for rule sets which to be actualy played have to be modified on a one per person per game ratio? And how big does a community have to be so that both the normal , the casual , the FW , the LoW knight using people get enough opponents to play with. The shop would have to have like 30+people and mulitiple tables for w40k alone for them to get a game in. That is not very realistic.
Really? We have...let's see...10 tables where I'm at, plus a double sized painting table, maybe 12 regulars and three times as many that show up half to a quarter of the time. There's generally nothing bigger than a WK outside of apoc events, and we've got a couple lander bane blade sized tanks if anyone feels particularly outgunned. And TBH I don't think anyone's had any serious trouble with forgeworld, honestly most of the stuff is quite tame.
....40k is one of, if not the only, game that actually encourages a close-knit "clique" to play it without frustration instead of encouraging a wide range of opponents and a "play anywhere" type of mentality.....
Whether it is as bad as "everyone" says it is can be debated, because different people have different standards, but, what can be said without debate is almost 11K people so far have signed this petition,
Calling for GW to focus less on selling models and more on developing and improving the game (while technically this would apply to WHFB too, it's folly to think that GW and 40K aren't largely synonymous at this point)
....40k is one of, if not the only, game that actually encourages a close-knit "clique" to play it without frustration instead of encouraging a wide range of opponents and a "play anywhere" type of mentality.....
That's Jervis and his 80's D&D obsession for you
Well, D&D and 40k/FB are the only games of its popularity that have contiguously survived since the 80's, so they're probably doing something right.
Paradigm wrote:As much as the costs can seem high, there are a few good ways to make it seem far less of a burden:
I'd agree with all of that. The one thing I'd add is to "have perspective". 40k looks expensive when you're a teenager, where your hobbies are playing pirated video games and watching TV. When you get a little older, though, 40k is a positively cheap activity to get involved in. A $100 buy-in is nothing compared to a hobby that involves an engine of some sort, or mind-altering chemicals, or where you need to buy serious tools instead of just an xacto knife and a paint brush.
One of the things that makes 40k good is precisely that it's so cheap over time. Heck, in the last five years think I've spent more money on netflix than 40k.
Ailaros wrote: Well, D&D and 40k/FB are the only games of its popularity that have contiguously survived since the 80's, so they're probably doing something right.
Oh bullgak. Longevity is not an indication of success or of competence. There have been (and still are) plenty of companies that muddle along without going under, but still do things wrong.
When i started, there was 40k, fantasy, and flames of war. That was about it. Now you have Warmachine, Malifaux, and Star Wars all coming out with new interesting systems. Then you have probably a dozen other game systems that have not caught on around here but are trying to.
Now, 40k has the best fluff hands down. It is more believable and much broader scoped than any other game out there. But for rules? Its getting pretty awful. I started in 4th, and it was decently convoluted then. 5th simplified and expanded the game with more forgiving transport rules and a good balance between assault and shooting. The codexes were a bit problematic with power creep very apparent, but the base rule system was quite solid. Now its become the game of checkboxes. Do you have enough AT to kill a super heavy. Can you kill fliers, what about FMCs? Can you deal with ignores cover weapons? Can you deal with hordes? The number of different types of units has vastly expanded to the detriment of the game (IMO). A TAC list is not likely going to be able to deal with all comers now. You HAVE to specialize in one strength or another. And dont even get started with unbound lists or allies or multiple detachments. Its honestly the worst mess of rules additions i have ever seen to a game.
If i had to start now, i would pick another game. 40k has just become a too bloated ruleset with too few restrictions to limit TFG and too much room for abuse. The ruleset is just too mixed up between large battles, small skirmishes, and rules that dont translate between them. In a 1500 point game FMCs may be a bit more reasonable, but a 500 point game? Not even close. Same with Titans.
Ailaros wrote: Well, D&D and 40k/FB are the only games of its popularity that have contiguously survived since the 80's, so they're probably doing something right.
Oh bullgak. Longevity is not an indication of success or of competence. There have been (and still are) plenty of companies that muddle along without going under, but still do things wrong.
Yes but 40k hasn't "muddled' along, it has been and still is successful. By all means discredit the rules, the models but not the success of the company..
What I mainly want to know is basically is it worth it? Do you guys genuinely enjoy the game and just use the forum to vent about the annoying stuff or do you guys feel like you mostly just play because you've been doing it for a while and that it's not worth spending the dozens of hours and hundreds of dollars that it takes for a new player to get into it?
I greatly enjoy it.
Look at any game forum and 90% of what you see is complaining. Video game forums are a perfect example. People just love to whine bitch and moan about stuff.
Think of this as a hobby first, and game second. I get so much more now that I convert and take my time with modeling and painting.
Ailaros wrote: Well, D&D and 40k/FB are the only games of its popularity that have contiguously survived since the 80's, so they're probably doing something right.
Oh bullgak. Longevity is not an indication of success or of competence. There have been (and still are) plenty of companies that muddle along without going under, but still do things wrong.
Yes but 40k hasn't "muddled' along, it has been and still is successful. By all means discredit the rules, the models but not the success of the company..
You mean the company that has dropped entire ranges of games and let competitors move in, allowed competitors to enter the field by virtue of offering cheaper alternatives and balanced rules, and has experienced reduced revenue and lost customers? That is what passes for success nowadays?
What I mainly want to know is basically is it worth it? Do you guys genuinely enjoy the game and just use the forum to vent about the annoying stuff or do you guys feel like you mostly just play because you've been doing it for a while and that it's not worth spending the dozens of hours and hundreds of dollars that it takes for a new player to get into it?
I greatly enjoy it.
Look at any game forum and 90% of what you see is complaining. Video game forums are a perfect example. People just love to whine bitch and moan about stuff.
Think of this as a hobby first, and game second. I get so much more now that I convert and take my time with modeling and painting.
There you have it, OP: 40k is worth it if you want a hobby and not a game.
foureyes69 wrote: it's about ~$100 more for the rest of the 500 point DE army I wanted to make
Unfortunately people rarely play at 500 points. A normal game of 40k is at least 1000 points, and usually 1500-2000. Few people will have 500 point armies available for you to play against, and they may or may not have any interest in such a tiny game (I wouldn't). So if you think you're only going to spend that much money you're going to be putting yourself in a situation where the only way to get a game is to beg someone to give you a newbie teaching game. If you want to play normal pickup games at your local store you're going to need at least a 1500 point army.
You're kidding right? My FLGS runs Combat Patrol games every Friday Nights, with the limit of 500 points. 500 point games are quite common, you just have to ask your opponent. Most people can easily whip up a 500 point army in 2 seconds.
1) Really look at what your local hobby shop game scene is like. Look for players that you think would be fun to play against and inquire about the games.
2) If 40k still looks like the more interesting game, start looking into what armies best fit your play style and how "competitive" vs. "fluff" you want to play.
3) Get hold of a used 7th edition rulebook and the latest codex(s) of interest.
4) Figure out a force you would like to put together.
5) Look in auctions and inquire with various friends of models for sale, see if any introduction box sets contain some of the force you want.
6) Assemble, prime and start playing as soon as possible.
I have played 40k since the tail end of 2nd edition and I think I would have great difficulty if I was starting out in this edition.
It is so ridiculously open ended you can slip into analysis-paralysis deciding on what to play.
I have so many models now that anything new is not that much of a hardship to update.
It is a great looking game but not as... immediate in feel for tactical play.
I have been playing X-wing a fair bit lately and some Battletech-Alpha-Strike and been very happy with tactical play there.
Look for where the fun is and start with that, 40k is a bit of a long term/haul commitment that should not be entered lightly.
foureyes69 wrote: it's about ~$100 more for the rest of the 500 point DE army I wanted to make
Unfortunately people rarely play at 500 points. A normal game of 40k is at least 1000 points, and usually 1500-2000. Few people will have 500 point armies available for you to play against, and they may or may not have any interest in such a tiny game (I wouldn't). So if you think you're only going to spend that much money you're going to be putting yourself in a situation where the only way to get a game is to beg someone to give you a newbie teaching game. If you want to play normal pickup games at your local store you're going to need at least a 1500 point army.
You're kidding right? My FLGS runs Combat Patrol games every Friday Nights, with the limit of 500 points. 500 point games are quite common, you just have to ask your opponent. Most people can easily whip up a 500 point army in 2 seconds.
You assume your FLGS is indicative of anything other than your FLGS. In my experience across a few game stores (before I stopped playing and when I was considering starting up again) people will very rarely play small point games unless it's a newbie's first couple of games, barring things like escalation leagues or small point campaign and tournament games.
I don't know about that. I see plenety of people wanting to play small, quick games where-ever I go. Tournment or competitve stuff is often different matter, but I guess it just depends on where you are.
Ailaros wrote: Well, D&D and 40k/FB are the only games of its popularity that have contiguously survived since the 80's, so they're probably doing something right.
Oh bullgak. Longevity is not an indication of success or of competence. There have been (and still are) plenty of companies that muddle along without going under, but still do things wrong.
Yes but 40k hasn't "muddled' along, it has been and still is successful. By all means discredit the rules, the models but not the success of the company..
You mean the company that has dropped entire ranges of games and let competitors move in, allowed competitors to enter the field by virtue of offering cheaper alternatives and balanced rules, and has experienced reduced revenue and lost customers? That is what passes for success nowadays?
So for a company to be successful it has to be the best %100 of the time, the entire time its around. Is that what your saying?
Are you actually trying to say Games Workshop isn't a successful company? All your grudges aside, you actually think that?
foureyes69 wrote: I've been lurking the forums a lot and the outlook from a lot of you guys just seems bleak.
It's far far worse than you've been led to believe.
GW will run over your dog, steal your wife and beat your children.
When that's done, GW will take everything you own leaving you homeless and destitute.
Finally, GW will torture and imprison you in the deepest darkest dungeon hidden in the bowels of Warhammer World forcing you to play games with TFG because you aren't allowed to choose your own adventure.
Seriously... Or that could be the recruiting poster for the dark eldar. I get confused sometimes.
-----
Or, it just might be that GW has created a fairly large and deep universe through books, game materials and miniatures which you just might enjoy. While random people you'll never even meet in person, and have absolutely no bearing on your life, will call you names such as White Knight or claim you suffer from Stockholm Syndrome if you even dare to speak about your positive experiences.
The Internet is littered with self-righteous, sarcastic and whiney little self-absorbed who absolutely believe that the only valid opinion is their own. Treat whatever they say with all appropriate respect.
yeah its a fun game, and its a game that inherantly is supposed to be tailored to how you like it should you want to change anything.
personally, I like large games, but i love squad level ones or even hero hammer ones.
nothing stops you from using necromunda rules, making up your own d10 rules for hero hammer and so on.
in the end, the painting and modelling aspect is also lots of, if not the most, fun! after all, there is a reason why we play a game with models in the computer game era
Not to me or the other seven players who have quit since 6th edition.
Much like anything else your group might embrace it and be perfectly happy.
Expect to pay above market to build a typical army. Expect to spend time puzzling out the arcane wording in between the rules, codex, dataslates, and expansions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Is it worth it?
Not to me or the other seven players who have quit since 6th edition.
Much like anything else your group might embrace it and be perfectly happy.
Expect to pay above market to build a typical army. Expect to spend time puzzling out the arcane wording in between the rules, codex, dataslates, and expansions.
foureyes69 wrote: Hey guys, thinking about getting into WH40k (probs going Dark Eldar, I love the look, the hedonistic-torture-race fluff, and the fast-but-fragile playstyle appeals to me). I've been lurking the forums a lot and the outlook from a lot of you guys just seems bleak. I know that people in general tend to complain about things more than they praise them, but it almost seems like I'd be better off spending my time and money on other hobbies.
What I mainly want to know is basically is it worth it? Do you guys genuinely enjoy the game and just use the forum to vent about the annoying stuff or do you guys feel like you mostly just play because you've been doing it for a while and that it's not worth spending the dozens of hours and hundreds of dollars that it takes for a new player to get into it?
YES! The models, building, painting, converting is relaxing and VERY FULL FILLING. It will amaze you how personal and rewarding a completed army is.
It is a good investment. You will get a good return on your collection if you know where and how to sell and army.
Collecting the miniatures is addictive and becomes crack once you start getting the good stuff...Forgeworld kits!
The game itself. With a good natured and fun group, the game is a BLAST!! In a tournament setting...it's like Magic the Gathering. Alot of the same successful lists and builds .
This is a very good hobby to get into. Remember, the satisfied ones are playing and building. So majority of what you see online is people who have complaints, some have the need to hate on it for the sake of hating on it. So don't base you interest solely on what you read online.
Start small. Buy the battle force for the army you want. TAKE YOUR TIME, build it paint it. The slowley build upon that battle force by buying what ya need. Build and paint and move on to the next. The journey is arguably more fun than the destination.
The Internet is littered with self-righteous, sarcastic and whiney little self-absorbed who absolutely believe that the only valid opinion is their own. Treat whatever they say with all appropriate respect.
I'm interested whether this is said with any degree of irony?
foureyes69 wrote: it's about ~$100 more for the rest of the 500 point DE army I wanted to make
Unfortunately people rarely play at 500 points. A normal game of 40k is at least 1000 points, and usually 1500-2000. Few people will have 500 point armies available for you to play against, and they may or may not have any interest in such a tiny game (I wouldn't). So if you think you're only going to spend that much money you're going to be putting yourself in a situation where the only way to get a game is to beg someone to give you a newbie teaching game. If you want to play normal pickup games at your local store you're going to need at least a 1500 point army.
You're kidding right? My FLGS runs Combat Patrol games every Friday Nights, with the limit of 500 points. 500 point games are quite common, you just have to ask your opponent. Most people can easily whip up a 500 point army in 2 seconds.
You assume your FLGS is indicative of anything other than your FLGS. In my experience across a few game stores (before I stopped playing and when I was considering starting up again) people will very rarely play small point games unless it's a newbie's first couple of games, barring things like escalation leagues or small point campaign and tournament games.
My point is that Peregrine acts like 500 point games are impossible to play, and OP will never ever find one. I know not all LGS will run these, but everyone I've met have always been more than happy to play a small game. Also, OP is a newbie, so your last sentence is invalid.
I have to echo the previous sentiments that how much you will enjoy the game will be determined by what you expect from a game and the community you get to play with. Be aware going in that the rules are horribly unbalanced and will require a lot of discussion with your opponents to make sure you are all on the same page with how to interpret ambiguous rules (you can dice off during the game, but I personally feel this is a horrible way to handle rules issues). I play GW's games because I love the fluff, I love my Tyranids, and my playgroup plays 40K and we have a really cool set of people that we play with. My advice if you do decide to start 40k and you want to be semi-competitive (meaning you care at least a little about winning), make sure you do research on the DE army as all armies have units that are ideal and models that might as well not exist in their respective codices and it's good to know which is which going in so you don't find yourself buying very expensive models that you will end up not using at all.
foureyes69 wrote: I was pretty sure that I was just seeing typical forum venting.
It really isn't just 'typical' forum venting. Yes, people moan about every little thing on the internet. I've seen it on all kinds of boards, from PC games to movies. But GW's issues go way beyond that. They probably have the poorest customer satisfaction record of any company that is still managing to do business. They had to close down their own forums because of the constant backlash. A lot of people are confounded that GW even do manage to stay in business. It's probably people like yourself that prop them up. New people, who are still excited about the game, will drop a few hundred dollars on getting started, probably buy a load of paints and supplies too (that they could have got cheaper elsewhere). Then you'll either keep playing and continue to pay the 'rent', or you'll get fed up and complain on the internet.
Even hardcore GW apologists will tell you not to buy their hobby tools or glue. You can get better stuff elsewhere for half what they are charging (this is a reoccurring theme with GW). The same is true for paint, even if you like their paint, it's about double the price of Vallejo and Coat d'arms. Their game rules are really overpriced (considering some systems have free rules). This is one of the things that really annoys people. Every time they bring out a new rulebook or codex, 90% of it will be rehashing stuff you've already read (catalog photos and fluff that hasn't changed for 20 years). But you're still expected to buy it to get the 5 pages of rules you need to keep playing. Or if they do sell the rules separately, they'll put the price up so they'll cost the same anyway.
They do have a lot of nice miniatures. I find the scale a bit cartoony after playing with other stuff, but I can't fault the quality. My only issue with the miniatures is the cost. GW are huge for a wargamming company, with a lot of buying and manufacturing power. And yet they charge more for injection molded plastic than some other smaller companies are charging for metal. That's what really grinds my gears. Why are ten metal IG from the 1990s £21, and yet 10 metal SoB from the 90s are £50? Their prices just have no basis in reality. It's like they just pick a number, double it, add 7+d6, and multiply it by however much their sales dropped this year.
So to answer your question of "is it worth it?". For paints and supplies: no it is not worth it, look elsewhere. For rules and books: It's arguably worth it the first time, but in the long term you'll need to buy the same crap over and over to keep playing, so it's not worth it. The miniatures aren't worth it in any objective sense, but the subjective value you place on them is really up to you.
I think if you have a lot of money, and you don't mind spending it frivolously, then there is no reason you can't enjoy GW. In the long term you should probably be prepared to spend a few thousand on not very much, if you want to keep playing for any amount of time.
40k is an awesome game for people who like to buy, model, and upgrade tons of new, interesting, and cool units with good fluff and a good universe. Each faction has more depth (possible units to choose from) than any other game.
For the same reason, 40k is a horrible game for people who want to just buy a minimal number of models and play a wargame. Each faction has too many units to choose from, with many configurations totally inferior, as compared to any other game. Until you reach a tipping point, to strengthen your army in 40k, or to provide a solution to a type of problem, you must buy more models, rather than adjust strategy with your existing models.
40k hobbyists is divided into people who enjoy just the modelling and fluff, those that play for fun, and those that want to win at any cost.
The WAAC/ultracompetitive players are no fun to play in 40k in my opinion, because while it's possible to have fantastic themetic games between two players who are competitive, the ultracompetitive players min/max armies and abuse the best troops in a fashion that you cannot win unless you also play a very competitive a list, or play an army that is specifically tailored to combat their list. This severely limits the units and tactics to choose from, because essentially you're trying to abuse exploitable features and units of the rules and codices.
The game is also extremely unfair (impossible to play, and frustrating) if one player has a vast collection of exotic units to choose from, like vehicles and flyers, and the other player only has starter box units. There are units that can be deployed where one side has no way of killing that one unit.
For the same reason, the game can be extremely fun, because tailoring an army taking down those gigantic monstrosities can be epic and TONS of fun between friends. As someone else said, the success of it largely depends on the friends you play with -- but frankly, I find this to be the case with any game.
40k doesn't have to be very expensive, if you're a casual player. However, if you really get into it and love your army, it's almost impossible to stop buying cool stuff.
By the way, Dark Eldar are not the most powerful army, but neither are they broken by any means, and they have some of the absolutely coolest models. I think their basic troops are awesome sculpts (much more detailed than Eldar), and their transports are just so unique, and they have very cool looking special units (like Talos).
Ailaros wrote: Well, D&D and 40k/FB are the only games of its popularity that have contiguously survived since the 80's, so they're probably doing something right.
Oh bullgak. Longevity is not an indication of success or of competence. There have been (and still are) plenty of companies that muddle along without going under, but still do things wrong.
Yes but 40k hasn't "muddled' along, it has been and still is successful. By all means discredit the rules, the models but not the success of the company..
You mean the company that has dropped entire ranges of games and let competitors move in, allowed competitors to enter the field by virtue of offering cheaper alternatives and balanced rules, and has experienced reduced revenue and lost customers? That is what passes for success nowadays?
So for a company to be successful it has to be the best %100 of the time, the entire time its around. Is that what your saying?
Are you actually trying to say Games Workshop isn't a successful company? All your grudges aside, you actually think that?
Have you READ their recent financial reports? Or read analyses from smart businesspeople who HAVE read the financials?
jreilly89 wrote: My point is that ... acts like 500 point games are impossible to play, and OP will never ever find one. I know not all LGS will run these, but everyone I've met have always been more than happy to play a small game.
I think 500 points is the perfect level to start learning the game...then gradually up the game by 250, then another 250, rinse and repeat.
40k hobbyists is divided into people who enjoy just the modelling and fluff, those that play for fun, and those that want to win at any cost.
No it isn't, because all players are a blend of some or all of those aspects. Further, that way oversimplifies the issues people have with the game.
Finally, win at any cost does not mean competitive. It means someone who wants to win at the expense of the enjoyment of the other player. Playing/wanting a competitive level game with a strong, optimized list is not WAAC.
Then again, I dislike anyone's attempt to try and partition the community into a series of easily defined categories and try to explain the problems or benefits of being one in one of those categories. Its far more nuanced than that.
The problems surrounding 40k are the cost/prices, the poor rules wording, the disconnect between fluff and crunch, and GW's customer interactions. Regardless of what kind of player you indentify as, one of those issues will likely affect you in some way. The problems either don't exist, or exist in a far less meaningful way in other games. The advantage of 40k is the rather large universe and options for customization. Outside of that, I'd argue nearly any other game is superior to 40k.
I used to regularly chop myself into thirds, back when my flgs supported 40k, there was the third of me that likes to win, the third of me that likes the fluff and the third that enjoys gaming with friends, I thought everyone did that?
Also woo 5 years into dakka and finally over the 400 post mark. I'm doing it team.
No it isn't, because all players are a blend of some or all of those aspects. Further, that way oversimplifies the issues people have with the game.
Finally, win at any cost does not mean competitive. It means someone who wants to win at the expense of the enjoyment of the other player. Playing/wanting a competitive level game with a strong, optimized list is not WAAC.
Then again, I dislike anyone's attempt to try and partition the community into a series of easily defined categories and try to explain the problems or benefits of being one in one of those categories. Its far more nuanced than that.
I disagree. To me, Win At Any Cost means, having the list that will give you the highest win ratio, regardless of (not at the expense of) the other player's fun. What you're describing is a griefer, whereas I am saying that a player who keeps track of their win ratio (for instance, at a gaming group that keeps a scoreboard) and wants it to be as high as possible will field armies that casual players who haven't spent a lot of money in 40k won't be able to win against. They are happy to have a good game or a roflstomp game, as long as they win.
Someone who has spent $300 in 40k can play the game, and they can even have fun against casual players, but they CANNOT compete against someone who has invested $10,000 (or many multiples of that) in 40k and is determined to win, in a typical point value game. Compare with Magic the Gathering. Someone who has spent $300, no matter how brilliant they are and how much they've worked on their cards, will have a horrible win ratio against someone with equal skill who has spent $10,000 (or many multiples of that) on cards. Granted, you can choose what you buy in 40k, as opposed to blindly popping boosters, but you can't buy the tools you need to win against a variety of opponents on a budget, if winning is really important to you. I'll just say it: these are games that reward those with disposable incomes with the possibility of game-winning advantages.
I do concede that the 40k gaming world isn't cut and dry; for instance, I largely like to model (40+ hours a week), and only infrequently play with friends (40+ hours a year). In my youth, it was reversed, as I would play at least 3-4 nights a week.
I was more or less trying to distinguish between people who want to play 40k who are willing to spend lots of money and really, really want to win; and people who just play it casually, for whatever reason. Those two groups do not mix well in 40k, whereas they can mix much better in other games. I am not implying that there is anything wrong with either, or anyone in between.
....40k is one of, if not the only, game that actually encourages a close-knit "clique" to play it without frustration instead of encouraging a wide range of opponents and a "play anywhere" type of mentality.....
That's Jervis and his 80's D&D obsession for you
Well, D&D and 40k/FB are the only games of its popularity that have contiguously survived since the 80's, so they're probably doing something right.
That only proves when GW dies that their IP will be picked up by another company. They aren't doing something right if their company folds, they just created a popular game that they are to dumb to market right.
Talys wrote: To me, Win At Any Cost means, having the list that will give you the highest win ratio, regardless of (not at the expense of) the other player's fun.
There is far more to it than having a strong army list. It's far more about the player's attitude than about what models they are using.
Someone who has spent $300 in 40k can play the game, and they can even have fun against casual players, but they CANNOT compete against someone who has invested $10,000 (or many multiples of that) in 40k and is determined to win, in a typical point value game.
Are you talking about 40K here?
Because the above would only be true if you're ignoring points limits and just putting everything you own on the table. Otherwise, the amount you spend is far less relevant than what you actually spend it on.
A powerful army doesn't necessarily cost any more than a rubbish one.
Compare with Magic the Gathering.
Or don't, because the systems are completely different. In MtG, where most of the more powerful cards are harder to get, yes, you have to spend more to build a more powerful deck.
That's not the case with 40K. The powerful units aren't generally only available in limited quantities through resellers who make their money by trading on card rarity.
The Internet is littered with self-righteous, sarcastic and whiney little self-absorbed who absolutely believe that the only valid opinion is their own. Treat whatever they say with all appropriate respect.
I'm interested whether this is said with any degree of irony?
Speaking personally, I used to enjoy it but it simply has become too expensive and at the same time less enjoyable in various ways, and the balance point has been crossed. My money and time is better spent on other games.
Is it worth it? Only if you have a close knit group of like-minded friends and already have some models. Trying for pick-up-games is a chore at best (if you want any facsimile of balance) and at 500pts that could buy a full size force in many other games.
Go see what your local stores are like. See what's being played and how they play. If you can find that right group you're looking for, then maybe go for it. If not, then you're much better served with a game that can more easily be played by complete strangers and is far easier on the wallet. (every other game)
And please don't dismiss criticisms as just mindless internet complaining. There are serious problems with the game. It does have its upsides and for some its just the right kind of gaming experience. But you do need to be aware of the cons before jumping into such an expensive hobby.
After weighing both pros and cons and checking out the local scene, then make the decision.
jreilly89 wrote: My point is that ... acts like 500 point games are impossible to play, and OP will never ever find one. I know not all LGS will run these, but everyone I've met have always been more than happy to play a small game.
I think 500 points is the perfect level to start learning the game...then gradually up the game by 250, then another 250, rinse and repeat.
Yeah, I'm in agreement with jreilly and jasper in that the best way to get into 40k is in 250-500 point increments. It helps you build up your army in your preferred playstyle and prevents unnecessary investment if you decide 40k isn't your thing.
Talys wrote: To me, Win At Any Cost means, having the list that will give you the highest win ratio, regardless of (not at the expense of) the other player's fun.
There is far more to it than having a strong army list. It's far more about the player's attitude than about what models they are using.
Someone who has spent $300 in 40k can play the game, and they can even have fun against casual players, but they CANNOT compete against someone who has invested $10,000 (or many multiples of that) in 40k and is determined to win, in a typical point value game.
Are you talking about 40K here?
Because the above would only be true if you're ignoring points limits and just putting everything you own on the table. Otherwise, the amount you spend is far less relevant than what you actually spend it on.
A powerful army doesn't necessarily cost any more than a rubbish one.
Compare with Magic the Gathering.
Or don't, because the systems are completely different. In MtG, where most of the more powerful cards are harder to get, yes, you have to spend more to build a more powerful deck.
That's not the case with 40K. The powerful units aren't generally only available in limited quantities through resellers who make their money by trading on card rarity.
1. You're right. It's entirely about the player's attitude. I'm suggesting that someone who's attitude is mostly about winning is less compatible with a casual player in 40k than it would be in many other miniature wargames. The original question was, "is 40k as bad as everyone says it is?".
2. What you say about budget is simply not true. In a 1500-2000 point game, there is plenty of space for exotic units, like a FW titan, multiple wraithknights, or Imperial Knights. Even if you wanted to play wave serpent spam, each 6 Fire Dragon models cost $50 and 6 Wave Serpents will already cost you $300. Each Independent Character is $30+. Each Titan-sized model is $150+. FW stuff is really pricey -- Want a Gargantuan Squiggoth? I think they're $700+.
Let's dumb it down, and just talk about Space Marines. Ask almost anyone experienced, "which chapter do I pick to be the most powerful?" and they'll say, "Salamanders for templates". These are *expensive* -- like $56 for a squad of 5. I mean, way, way, way more expensive than Dark Angels out of DV, or an Ultramarine Battleforce. Want Vulkan? Sure, no problem, pay nearly $100 for one Independent Character.
This is far less of an issue with Warmahoardes. Again, this is to respond to the question, "is 40k really as bad as everyone says it is?" -- these issues of unit disparity and "requirement" to spend leaves some people with a bad taste in their mouth about 40k. If 40k were an online game and every unit were available to every player, much of the feeling of unfairness would disappear.
Furthermore, you get killed by not knowing the rules if you're a casual player, against a highly experienced one, simply because you're unlikely to own (or have read) all the codices and special rules.
3. I know that TCGs are totally different from miniature wargames, but I gave the comparison to MtG because there are those people who will play and pay to win, and those who like the game and play casually (not that they don't like to win). It actually sucks to be the group in between, because you still lose against all the people with vast collections, and have an unfair advantage (or unnecessary investment) against the pure casuals.
Also, in MtG, you can specifically have every card you want without randomness, as long as you're willing to pay the shop price for it. Typically, someone with massive disposable income who gets into the game simply spends $2000 (or whatever) on boosters, and then just picks out any cards they want that they are missing and buys the couple of must-have cards. It's actually no more expensive than 40k to really have "everything" in.
One's enjoyment of 40K is directly related to one's local gaming scene. If there's a lot of people in your area who play, then finding a game at any points level won't be much of a problem. It also offers a chance to try out different armies and playstyles, and learn from people who've been playing more often.
However, 40K is still a really expensive game. While you might start out small, that's only going to last so long, and before you know it, you've sunk half a year's pay into it.
MWHistorian wrote: Is it worth it? Only if you have a close knit group of like-minded friends and already have some models. Trying for pick-up-games is a chore at best (if you want any facsimile of balance) and at 500pts that could buy a full size force in many other games.
Go see what your local stores are like. See what's being played and how they play. If you can find that right group you're looking for, then maybe go for it. If not, then you're much better served with a game that can more easily be played by complete strangers and is far easier on the wallet. (every other game)
And please don't dismiss criticisms as just mindless internet complaining. There are serious problems with the game. It does have its upsides and for some its just the right kind of gaming experience. But you do need to be aware of the cons before jumping into such an expensive hobby.
After weighing both pros and cons and checking out the local scene, then make the decision.
I totally agree with this. It is COMPLETELY about the play group, as 40k is not at all friendly to people who are strangers and where there is a large spending disparity. On the other hand, it's the most awesome game I have every played amongst the friends I play with, with epic battles and such wide varieties of units.
No, 40k is rather unlike MTG in that whoever has the consistently deepest pockets wins.
If you play a 1,000 point game, the person who spent $10,000 won't have a significant advantage over the person who spent $300. As Insaniak said, it's only when you're playing at huge points levels that money starts to matter.
Meanwhile, even though 40k changes over time, it's nowhere near like MTG. A space marine has had the same model for the same unit with the same equipment and statline for a very long time now. Only the points cost has changed, and very slightly at that. If you have a balance marine army, when a new codex or rules edition comes out, you probably won't have to buy a single new thing. Unlike MTG, where you basically have to start all over again every time something changes.
Also, 40k allows proxying, which MTG doesn't at all, and the power curve for 40k isn't nearly as exponential as MTG. Once again, showing up with a balanced space marine list means you're arriving with more or less the same power level as most lists. Showing up with a mid-strength MTG deck just means you lose every single game you play. In 40k, those few broken superpower things are well known and have names because there are so few of them, while MTG has to come out with a new lexicon a few times a year it seems like.
MTG and 40k do have a lot in common, I'd agree, but not on this particular issue. In order for 40k to be like MTG here, then the standard rules for 40k would be all armies are unbound, and you can bring as many models as you want, regardless of points cost. 40k may be moving in a more liberal direction, but it still has much more core structure than MTG likely ever will.
Ailaros wrote: No, 40k is rather unlike MTG in that whoever has the consistently deepest pockets wins.
If you play a 1,000 point game, the person who spent $10,000 won't have a significant advantage over the person who spent $300. As Insaniak said, it's only when you're playing at huge points levels that money starts to matter.
This is not true. Someone with $10,000 and 3 or 4 armies can simply pick an optimized army against the person they're playing against, because after they play once, they'll know what the limits of the $300 player are. The person is playing 1000 points of CSM out of DV? Bring out those Grey Knights. Dark Angels out of DV? Hello, Eldar. There's no answer in the DV box to Wraithknights and Wave Serpents.
At $300, you can't surprise someone, and you're highly limited in what you can field. Now, granted, there are diminishing returns, so someone who spends $2,000 will not necessarily have a problem against someone who has spent $10,000. But $2,000 is a lot of money to a lot of people to toss at a game.
I also bring up MtG, because they are played by a lot of the same people, at a lot of the same places. And, the people who are ultracompetitive at MtG also tend to be ultracompetitive at 40k. While I totally agree with everything you say about 40k and MtG, *many* of the complaints about 40k are the same -- rules change too frequently (or at least, you have to buy rules/codexes too often...), cost is too high to stay competitive, when you see your opponent, you might as well forfeit, and mid-strength force is a an unfair match against ultracompetitive force.
And: both are poor games against total strangers, if you aren't spendy, because feeling totally powerless is not fun, which is possible in either game. There are game alternatives in which this is not so.
If you are smart with money, $300 goes a very, very long way. Buy second hand, convert and magnetize. My Mechron army was under $200 thanks to trading, second hand, LGS discount, and conversions.
The point made is that in MGT you can go buy a black lotus if you have the money. There is no black lotus in 40k.
I also don't know much about MGT aside from the black lotus is very expensive for a good reason.
Strategy is a huge part of 40k as well, the rich might just suck. Buy an optimized list all you want, no target priority means no winning.
If you've seen a few games played already and are still interested, then you will best be served by having a friend start an army with you, or having a friend that already plays. That way you have a built-in opponent, and both of you can learn at the same time playing against each other. Eventually though, you will want to expand, so make sure there is some action at your FLGS.
Other than that, the best advice I can probably give you as a new player would be to delete your DakkaDakka account, BOLS account, or any other online forum accounts, and never look back. Form your own opinion of the rules and your chosen army. You don't need 40K fanboys telling you the 40K rules can do no wrong anymore than you need WarmaHordes/Flames of War/Infinity fanboys telling you the 40K rules can do no right.
ClassicCarraway wrote: If you've seen a few games played already and are still interested, then you will best be served by having a friend start an army with you, or having a friend that already plays. That way you have a built-in opponent, and both of you can learn at the same time playing against each other. Eventually though, you will want to expand, so make sure there is some action at your FLGS.
Other than that, the best advice I can probably give you as a new player would be to delete your DakkaDakka account, BOLS account, or any other online forum accounts, and never look back. Form your own opinion of the rules and your chosen army. You don't need 40K fanboys telling you the 40K rules can do no wrong anymore than you need WarmaHordes/Flames of War/Infinity fanboys telling you the 40K rules can do no right.
Hmm, there's some bizarre self hating coming out in this thread.
I play 40K, I don't play WarmaHordes, FoW or Infinity, yet I'd advise the OP to approach 40K with extreme caution. I'd be curious to discover what interwebox you'd pigeon hole me into?
Yes, 40K is as bad as people say. Doesn't mean it can't be or isn't fun, though. As noted earlier in the thread, having a good gaming group and a love for the fluff/setting can go a long way toward making the game fun.
ClassicCarraway wrote: If you've seen a few games played already and are still interested, then you will best be served by having a friend start an army with you, or having a friend that already plays. That way you have a built-in opponent, and both of you can learn at the same time playing against each other. Eventually though, you will want to expand, so make sure there is some action at your FLGS.
Other than that, the best advice I can probably give you as a new player would be to delete your DakkaDakka account, BOLS account, or any other online forum accounts, and never look back. Form your own opinion of the rules and your chosen army. You don't need 40K fanboys telling you the 40K rules can do no wrong anymore than you need WarmaHordes/Flames of War/Infinity fanboys telling you the 40K rules can do no right.
Hmm, there's some bizarre self hating coming out in this thread.
I play 40K, I don't play WarmaHordes, FoW or Infinity, yet I'd advise the OP to approach 40K with extreme caution. I'd be curious to discover what interwebox you'd pigeon hole me into?
Yeah I don't get it- do people have so little self-confidence that the moment they read something negative about their favorite game that they have to burn all of their models? I would personally rather hear everything about a particular game then make the decision myself.
Talys wrote: Want a Gargantuan Squiggoth? I think they're $700+.
But will they win your games for you?
Want Vulkan? Sure, no problem, pay nearly $100 for one Independent Character.
I thought we were talking about 40k...?
Vulkan is not playable in a 40K army.
3. I know that TCGs are totally different from miniature wargames, but I gave the comparison to MtG because there are those people who will play and pay to win, and those who like the game and play casually (not that they don't like to win).
Yes... and I pointed out that it was a bad comparison because the 'pay to win' idea isn't actually as big a deal for 40K as it is for MtG.
There are plenty of powerful army builds that don't require you to buy $700 Forgeworld models.
Talys wrote: Want a Gargantuan Squiggoth? I think they're $700+.
But will they win your games for you?
Want Vulkan? Sure, no problem, pay nearly $100 for one Independent Character.
I thought we were talking about 40k...?
Vulkan is not playable in a 40K army.
3. I know that TCGs are totally different from miniature wargames, but I gave the comparison to MtG because there are those people who will play and pay to win, and those who like the game and play casually (not that they don't like to win).
Yes... and I pointed out that it was a bad comparison because the 'pay to win' idea isn't actually as big a deal for 40K as it is for MtG.
There are plenty of powerful army builds that don't require you to buy $700 Forgeworld models.
Let's avoid comparisons to MTG. They're two completely different kinds of games.
Also, 40k is expensive enough with throwing in FW stuff. Heck, just add up the cost of a 1500 point army with codecis and that'll be enough for most people.
gwarsh41 wrote: If you are smart with money, $300 goes a very, very long way. Buy second hand, convert and magnetize. My Mechron army was under $200 thanks to trading, second hand, LGS discount, and conversions.
The point made is that in MGT you can go buy a black lotus if you have the money. There is no black lotus in 40k.
I also don't know much about MGT aside from the black lotus is very expensive for a good reason.
Strategy is a huge part of 40k as well, the rich might just suck. Buy an optimized list all you want, no target priority means no winning.
While this could be true, it isn't a great way to get into the game. Buying second hand n eBay is rarely more than 30% off of list, especially if the unit is current and the condition is good (and you can buy new at 25% off list) and availability and wait time to play ranges wildly. Also, the most popular untis are the least discounted.
All of the things you describe are what experienced players do yo save a buck (or to make a big model portable). I don't know any new player that magnetized their first $300 spend.
I was an avid (tournament level) MtG player who popped $500 of blisters at a time, and had enough ultra rare cards to play an entire hand with no land in the original game, so please trust me when I say that MtG is a very strategic game in which timing and execution, beating the meta, unexpected combos and plays are as important as deckbuilding. Anyone who thinks it's all deck has never played in a tournament.
What MtG and 40k have in common is that they're sort if cheap to get into, but for a very long time, you will feel that you can improve your performance of only you had X -- and then you go and blow a bunch of money. I do not know many long-time 40k regulars who only have a couple of boxes of miniatures. I'm not even saying this is a bad thing: Why shouldn't someone spend their disposable income on a hobby that makes them happy?
On the other hand, I think it wise to know what you're getting in to.
gwarsh41 wrote: I also don't know much about MGT aside from the black lotus is very expensive for a good reason.
And that reason is that it's a card from over 20 years ago when MTG was first released, demand was much lower, and a lot fewer cards were printed. Yes, it's a very powerful card, but the primary reason it's worth so much is that there are so few of them. WOTC isn't saying "pay $5k for this if you want to win", it's all the secondary market and tiny supply vs. huge demand. If it was ever reprinted in a modern set with modern print quantities it would be just another $20-50 rare.
Also, one very important thing here is that you can only use that black lotus in a single tournament format ("everything is legal, all the way back to 1993") that is rarely played in major events. And many tournaments that use that format also allow you to use a limited number of proxies. So unless you're a dedicated collector who loves the nostalgia factor of playing with the oldest cards you're probably never going to need to make the choice of spending tons of money vs. losing to people who do. More realistically you're going to be playing one of the "modern cards only" formats, and those have a much lower overall cost as well as a much smaller gap between cheap decks and expensive decks.
Contrast this with 40k where the most expensive stuff is part of the core game, and a lot of it is only "pay to win" because GW figured out how to increase the price of buying an army. Why does it cost $50 for a codex and then even more to buy all of the supplements/dataslates/etc for your army? Because GW realized they can get you to pay another $50 for DLC if they just take that stuff out of the codex. Why is a $1000 titan legal in a standard game? Because GW wants to sell more $1000 titans. This isn't the secondary market settling on a high price for rare OOP models/rulebooks/etc, it's GW making a deliberate decision to make 40k an expensive game that rewards players who have the money to buy the most powerful armies.
I got into the game knowing the rules were a bit wonky, and that the armies were not exactly balanced. I joined at the tail end of 6th, and I chose Orks, despite them being arguably one of the worst armies in the game at the time, because I loved the fluff, and loved the models.
I play because the game IS fun, despite its drawbacks. I also am a master of Ebay, and snagged some RIDICULOUSLY good deals to make a rather large army for huge fractions of the cost. I'm cheap, so I'm willing to wait until something hits the price range I'm willing to bite at.
If you can get second hand, and get it at a great price, the game is well worth the investment. IF you have a group to play with. Unlike X-Wing, or Heroclix, etc 40K isn't a game all your friends can jump into due to the price. Unlike Heroclix, there aren't 15 dollar starter sets that give you a balanced set of figures and materials to play. Unlike X-Wing, you can't buy 1-3 ships with materials and play/get games with relative ease.
I vote that you experiment with proxies and see how you like the game as a whole, then take the plunge if you really like it.
@MWHistorian -- why is Vulkan He'stan not playable on 40k? He's the primarch of the Salamanders and is The Forgefather -- all melta weapons in detachment (including vehicles) become Master Crafted. You can buy him from FW. I don't have him, but I have played against a player with him.
Also, FW is a reality of the game. Most groups, you will run into some FW and most groups don't explicitly forbid it.
Talys wrote: @MWHistorian -- why is Vulkan He'stan not playable on 40k? He's the primarch of the Salamanders and is The Forgefather --
Vulkan He'stan and the Primarch Vulkan are not the same guy.
The former is a regular character in the Space Marine Codex. The latter is a Forgeworld model that currently has no rules for Warhammer 40K, only fo rthe Horus Heresy.
When it became a ruleset that only works with a lot of house ruling it completely became not worth it.
I worked for GW in 2005-6 and it was one of the most fun jobs I've ever done.
I love what 40k used to be,and I still love what the models are, but in the last two years or so my advice has been to run as far and as fast as you can away from 40k. Don't let the aesthetics (which are awesome BTW) fool you the game is a complete and total mess right now. I mean it works, but not fluidly. You basically have to piece a functioning game from a combination of house rules, data slates, white dwarfs, and PDFs. And even then they layer an excessive amount of randomness and vague rules over the top of it all.
By all means borrow some minis and give it a shot, but as a long time player of the game I can honestly say IMO it's not worth the headache.
Talys wrote: @MWHistorian -- why is Vulkan He'stan not playable on 40k? He's the primarch of the Salamanders and is The Forgefather --
Vulkan He'stan and the Primarch Vulkan are not the same guy.
The former is a regular character in the Space Marine Codex. The latter is a Forgeworld model that currently has no rules for Warhammer 40K, only fo rthe Horus Heresy.
Sorry, you are right. Vulkan (He'stan) is a solid IC who is a GW model, not FW. My bad! Primarch Vulkan is the one from FW.
Regarding the Gargantuan Squiggoth -- I was really referencing most super-heavy units. Most starting players don't have them either because they're expensive or they're complex to model. If one player has starter box units, and the other player has a Titan -- say, a baneblade, if you want to pick one that isn't absurdly expensive -- there really isn't much of a point of playing the game. The player with start box stuff will take many turns and most of its army taking down the baneblade/riptide/wk/imperial knight (fill in the blank), without you even touching the rest of your units.
foureyes69 wrote: Hey guys, thinking about getting into WH40k (probs going Dark Eldar, I love the look, the hedonistic-torture-race fluff, and the fast-but-fragile playstyle appeals to me). I've been lurking the forums a lot and the outlook from a lot of you guys just seems bleak. I know that people in general tend to complain about things more than they praise them, but it almost seems like I'd be better off spending my time and money on other hobbies.
What I mainly want to know is basically is it worth it? Do you guys genuinely enjoy the game and just use the forum to vent about the annoying stuff or do you guys feel like you mostly just play because you've been doing it for a while and that it's not worth spending the dozens of hours and hundreds of dollars that it takes for a new player to get into it?
People get bleak for many reasons. My opinion is, the amount you like the price and/or quality of the game will depend upon your exposure to other tabletop miniature games, rpgs, and the like. That you're looking to get into it means that you probably know the pricing and are okay with that, so if you think you'll enjoy it then why not. Think of it like getting drunk: sure, one drink won't kill you and it's cheap enough, but at the end of the night the bill needs to be paid and you'll probably be hungover for a fair time after it. My advice is to never play any other games, don't let people talk you into even watching them play. You'll be happier that way.
foureyes69 wrote: Hey guys, thinking about getting into WH40k (probs going Dark Eldar, I love the look, the hedonistic-torture-race fluff, and the fast-but-fragile playstyle appeals to me). I've been lurking the forums a lot and the outlook from a lot of you guys just seems bleak. I know that people in general tend to complain about things more than they praise them, but it almost seems like I'd be better off spending my time and money on other hobbies.
What I mainly want to know is basically is it worth it? Do you guys genuinely enjoy the game and just use the forum to vent about the annoying stuff or do you guys feel like you mostly just play because you've been doing it for a while and that it's not worth spending the dozens of hours and hundreds of dollars that it takes for a new player to get into it?
People get bleak for many reasons. My opinion is, the amount you like the price and/or quality of the game will depend upon your exposure to other tabletop miniature games, rpgs, and the like. That you're looking to get into it means that you probably know the pricing and are okay with that, so if you think you'll enjoy it then why not. Think of it like getting drunk: sure, one drink won't kill you and it's cheap enough, but at the end of the night the bill needs to be paid and you'll probably be hungover for a fair time after it. My advice is to never play any other games, don't let people talk you into even watching them play. You'll be happier that way.
When I started playing tabletop games, I had no idea I would spend $500-$1000 every month on hobby stuff. Mind you, I've been at this since RT, and my hobby spend grew with my income -- I don't feel guilty at all, because collecting miniatures makes me happy, and it's not like I can take it with me.
However, looking back on it, and the money I have spent, I might have chosen a different hobby lol.
....40k is one of, if not the only, game that actually encourages a close-knit "clique" to play it without frustration instead of encouraging a wide range of opponents and a "play anywhere" type of mentality.....
That's Jervis and his 80's D&D obsession for you
[b]Well, D&D and 40k/FB are the only games of its popularity that have contiguously survived since the 80's, so they're probably doing something right.
Let's not forget TSR went bankrupt, and many draw parallels between the state of GW now and TSR back then.
foureyes69 wrote: Hey guys, thinking about getting into WH40k (probs going Dark Eldar, I love the look, the hedonistic-torture-race fluff, and the fast-but-fragile playstyle appeals to me). I've been lurking the forums a lot and the outlook from a lot of you guys just seems bleak. I know that people in general tend to complain about things more than they praise them, but it almost seems like I'd be better off spending my time and money on other hobbies.
What I mainly want to know is basically is it worth it? Do you guys genuinely enjoy the game and just use the forum to vent about the annoying stuff or do you guys feel like you mostly just play because you've been doing it for a while and that it's not worth spending the dozens of hours and hundreds of dollars that it takes for a new player to get into it?
I think that 40k was the gateway drug for most tabletop gamers. So near-everyone has an army and just sticks around because of the existing investment.
If I were to loose all my models, I'd not go for 40k again. The main reasons are:
- Ballance rather mediocre. Your choices are between auto-include, auto-avoid and filler, reducing almost every codex to one or two playable lists.
- Price. You pay a hell of a lot for GW models. Yeah, you can cut down via ebay, trade and whatnot, but why should I dance around the issue when I can buy say bolt action models for 1/4th the price per model fresh out of the store?
- Ammount of work. Now, if you are a painter more than a player, that might be less of an issue, but 40k armies are rather large as a rule of thumb. Other systems require you to use less models. That's both good from a financial point of view, the time invested painting rather than playing or conversely you can take more time per model, making your army far nicer than if you'd try to get those 90 hormagaunts ready for next week's tourney.
- game system as such: Roll to hit. Roll to wound. Roll to save. Remember the 124 special rules for the units, whatever spells were cast to add or remove further special rules. etc. etc. And you need half a library in dataslates, codices, expansions, supplements, WD articles, campaign books etc. just to have full access to your army.
Honestly, just pick a different game, it's probably better that way.
Kosake wrote: If I were to loose all my models, I'd not go for 40k again.
I think this is basically where I come from as well. It's not that I haven't had fun with 40k in the past.... but if all my models were to go up in a fire, I would not start another 40k army. I'd probably restart an army, it would just be for one of the other systems I collect, not 40k.
Oh, yeah. One more thing. Prepare for inconsistent model ranges. While some of your new models may look totally ace (Ork Flash Gitz & Stormboyz, CSM Raptors and Chosen...) other parts of your army might look like crap (Ork buggies haven't been updated for like 20 years and look the part). And some units or weapons or equipment is only available through upgrade kits, so you have to spend even more money.
While true that games for stuff like Napoleonic warfare do usually have more models (they don't have Tanks or Monstrous Creatures to eat up points), they're also usually a lot cheaper. Victrix sells boxes of fifty-to-sixty 28mm plastic Napoleonic infantry models for about the same price that Games Workshop sells 10 plastic Cadian Imperial Guardsmen.
Historicals in general tend to be cheaper, simply because they're not based on an IP that belongs to a particular company. Competition keeps the prices down.
foureyes69 wrote: Hey guys, thinking about getting into WH40k (probs going Dark Eldar, I love the look, the hedonistic-torture-race fluff, and the fast-but-fragile playstyle appeals to me). I've been lurking the forums a lot and the outlook from a lot of you guys just seems bleak. I know that people in general tend to complain about things more than they praise them, but it almost seems like I'd be better off spending my time and money on other hobbies.
What I mainly want to know is basically is it worth it? Do you guys genuinely enjoy the game and just use the forum to vent about the annoying stuff or do you guys feel like you mostly just play because you've been doing it for a while and that it's not worth spending the dozens of hours and hundreds of dollars that it takes for a new player to get into it?
yes, i play with my close buddys and we have fun, i generally get blown out of the water but theres still fun in loseing
insaniak wrote: Historicals in general tend to be cheaper, simply because they're not based on an IP that belongs to a particular company. Competition keeps the prices down.
insaniak wrote: Historicals in general tend to be cheaper, simply because they're not based on an IP that belongs to a particular company. Competition keeps the prices down.
But if fur, Roman numerals, grenade launchers, skulls and arrows can be trademarked surely French military uniforms and terminology can too, right?
I guess the people who are calling GW a "successful" business haven't been reading the financial reports for the last 10 years, or looking at the amount of stores they closed compared to the amount of new stores they opened, or paid attention to CHS trial where they wasted millions in legal fees suing a company that only made aftermarket bits and models GW had rules for but didn't bother making models for. How about the fact that they had to close both their forums and all their Facebook pages due to the amount of backlash from unhappy customers? I guess the anecdotal evidence that I see FAR more people complain about GW than any other video game, CCG or TWG is meaningless too. Yea, those all sound like hallmarks of a "successful" company. GW is actually a perfect example of how NOT to run a hobby company. If you're just starting out, I strongly recommend trying other games. For the cost of a 500 point 40k army (which I barely ever see 500 point games even played), you could get a 50 point Warmachine army. The models don't look as cool and the quality isn't as good but the game and rules are many times better than GW stuff. Also the company cares about the customers instead of looking at them as wallets with legs.
Every game has problems. The amount and scope of the problems in 40k is just far greater than the problems in any of the competition's games. It has nothing to do with the competitive players that so many people want to lay the blame on. It has everything to do with poorly written, overly complicated rules that sometimes contradict each other and the exorbitant cost of said (poorly written and balanced) rules. I don't care if you play to win GTs or just want to play a beer and pretzels game, it's poor game design.
I'll be honest with you....I've stepped away from 40k.
I think its a fun game, easy to learn, very nice models, fairly low model count (painting wise) and its just a pretty fast game when I want to play a quick fun game.
I would recommend picking it up. Don't play tournaments tho that's where you end up meeting a lot of the D-Bags who just want to win. Not saying everywhere is like this tho my area is pretty friendly and everyone has a fun time.
I'd go fantasy if I were you. (I've got to be the one guy to say it I'm sorry guys)
The game is more balanced in terms of armies, there is not really such thing as winning with a list and its more based on how you play tactically. Plus the magic phase is much to my liking. Although the new 7th ed 40k rules makes the magic stuff much better for 40k which I like (sucks that I play tau tho lol)
Anyways I'd pick it up just don't take it to seriously
Honestly OP I think 40k is a game you can enjoy but there are so many other games out there now with less convoluted rules, better balance, on par or better models, fluff that is just as rich and deep even if there isn't as much of it, and so much cheaper.
I think you'd enjoy these games even more than 40k, and it would be easier to enjoy them because you don't need to find people who's idea of the game matches your own.
We have several dedicated subforums here on dakka you could look through and see if there is anything you like the look of. I'm sure the people there will unanimously invite you to join them too, this kind of reaction to this kind of thread is a uniquely GW problem, which itself is worrying.
Another issue I should point out -- 40k has an awful lot of "special" units that really mess up the very casual player, like vehicles, air units, heavies, monstrous creatures, gargantuans/super-heavies, and fortifications. Even psychic abilities and special abilities like Fear can really mess up another player if they're unprepared, and almost universally the fix isn't just to configure the same list a little differently, or play with a different strategy. Quite often, you need a model that wasn't on your side of the table.
You don't see this as much in other games.
Don't get me wrong: I love all those units, and I think it contributes to the grandness of the game. Plus they just look awesome on the table. However, it can be horrifically unbalancing if one player has access to units that the other player doesn't have a defense against. Yet another reason why a good gaming group is key
Accolade wrote: Yeah, I'm in agreement with jreilly and jasper in that the best way to get into 40k is in 250-500 point increments. It helps you build up your army in your preferred playstyle and prevents unnecessary investment if you decide 40k isn't your thing.
That and the rulebook, codex, and basic minis (say some troops, an HQ, some elites or whatever) are relatively good on the turnaround. Buy some minis 2nd hand, if you hate em, turn around and ebay em for about 70% of the cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chiefbigredman wrote: I'll be honest with you....I've stepped away from 40k.
I think its a fun game, easy to learn, very nice models, fairly low model count (painting wise) and its just a pretty fast game when I want to play a quick fun game.
I would recommend picking it up. Don't play tournaments tho that's where you end up meeting a lot of the D-Bags who just want to win. Not saying everywhere is like this tho my area is pretty friendly and everyone has a fun time.
I'd go fantasy if I were you. (I've got to be the one guy to say it I'm sorry guys)
The game is more balanced in terms of armies, there is not really such thing as winning with a list and its more based on how you play tactically. Plus the magic phase is much to my liking. Although the new 7th ed 40k rules makes the magic stuff much better for 40k which I like (sucks that I play tau tho lol)
Anyways I'd pick it up just don't take it to seriously
Really? I've never played Fantasy first, I've only watched some games, but Fantasy still seems really one sided. I've seen armies with magic completely rape one that wasn't. Is this commonplace, do armies without magic just get wasted? That and cannons seem really unfair
My experience with fantasy (it's been a couple years as the local playgroups died) has been that you can have armies without shooting very easily, you can have some armies without CC really, but you can't have an army without Magic, or at least some anti-magic.
Really? I've never played Fantasy first, I've only watched some games, but Fantasy still seems really one sided. I've seen armies with magic completely rape one that wasn't. Is this commonplace, do armies without magic just get wasted? That and cannons seem really unfair
Its far from one sided. You probably just watched an inexperience player (or someone who didn't know how to use a new army) play someone who did.
Most armies (not dwarves) can bring magic and there 8 spell Lore's in the rulebook and lots of armies have their own lores they have access too. Some magic is better than others.
If your playing at 1000 points (which is super uncommon) you don't need magic if you play at 2500 points (fairly standard game size) you bring magic...if you don't your not utilizing a huge part of the game. Even if you don't take magic tho you still get dispel dice to try to dispel enemy magic. You can still win games without magic. You can win games without any shooting too its all in your tactics.
Cannons are really effective against large multiple wound models yes but I dont think they are unfair.
Huge part of fantasy is movement and deployment and there is real skill in learning tactics to out manuever and play your opponent.
You should try it out or watch more games you'll see what I mean
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: My experience with fantasy (it's been a couple years as the local playgroups died) has been that you can have armies without shooting very easily, you can have some armies without CC really, but you can't have an army without Magic, or at least some anti-magic.
Dwarves don't have magic (well they get access to a few things but not like others) they still win and are tough as nails
Really? I've never played Fantasy first, I've only watched some games, but Fantasy still seems really one sided. I've seen armies with magic completely rape one that wasn't. Is this commonplace, do armies without magic just get wasted? That and cannons seem really unfair
Its far from one sided. You probably just watched an inexperience player (or someone who didn't know how to use a new army) play someone who did.
Most armies (not dwarves) can bring magic and there 8 spell Lore's in the rulebook and lots of armies have their own lores they have access too. Some magic is better than others.
If your playing at 1000 points (which is super uncommon) you don't need magic if you play at 2500 points (fairly standard game size) you bring magic...if you don't your not utilizing a huge part of the game. Even if you don't take magic tho you still get dispel dice to try to dispel enemy magic. You can still win games without magic. You can win games without any shooting too its all in your tactics.
Cannons are really effective against large multiple wound models yes but I dont think they are unfair.
Huge part of fantasy is movement and deployment and there is real skill in learning tactics to out manuever and play your opponent.
You should try it out or watch more games you'll see what I mean
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: My experience with fantasy (it's been a couple years as the local playgroups died) has been that you can have armies without shooting very easily, you can have some armies without CC really, but you can't have an army without Magic, or at least some anti-magic.
Dwarves don't have magic (well they get access to a few things but not like others) they still win and are tough as nails
Ah, I suppose you are right. It may have been just some with better lists, but some of the ones I've seen have seem really one sided. Also, it seems like there are a lot less models, in terms of units. Like 2 or 3 bring troops. Also, don't Dwarves have access to a lot of anti-magic?
Vaktathi wrote: My experience with fantasy (it's been a couple years as the local playgroups died) has been that you can have armies without shooting very easily, you can have some armies without CC really, but you can't have an army without Magic, or at least some anti-magic.
Dwarves don't have magic (well they get access to a few things but not like others) they still win and are tough as nails
MarsNZ wrote: You'll need 100+ models for most armies, some armies can go well over 200 models. Often these will be in bricks of 50+ so enjoy painting that...
I feel like this is a newer development for WHFB. People always talk about it but I almost never used to play games that large... but I haven't really kept up with 8th edition so I feel maybe the larger armies are more of an 8th edition thing? My group mostly played 750-1500pts.
MarsNZ wrote: You'll need 100+ models for most armies, some armies can go well over 200 models. Often these will be in bricks of 50+ so enjoy painting that...
I feel like this is a newer development for WHFB. People always talk about it but I almost never used to play games that large... but I haven't really kept up with 8th edition so I feel maybe the larger armies are more of an 8th edition thing? My group mostly played 750-1500pts.
Yes, that is a thing that is original to 8th edition and a big part of why the game died.
8th edition made it so that large blocks of foot infantry trumps pretty much everything else in the game (except magic), so people are "encouraged" to buy large amounts of infantry.
Really? I've never played Fantasy first, I've only watched some games, but Fantasy still seems really one sided. I've seen armies with magic completely rape one that wasn't. Is this commonplace, do armies without magic just get wasted? That and cannons seem really unfair
Your experience is pretty much the norm for Fantasy.
Two armies meet in the field of battle, the one that manages to get its ubber spell of death first is the one that wins.
Yeah I thought that was the case. At 750-1500pts you could take a handful of small units or maybe one large unit and a couple of small units and have a fun game. With steadfast and the ability to fight in 2 ranks it seems like the definition of "small units" and "large units" has drastically increased, so to play a game with a handful of units you're pushing 2000+pts now.
I would not get into it as new player. It's too expensive for an inferior gameplay experience. There are many other games that are simply better at a lower price-point.
If you like the models and you've already got the codex and rules, and have the spare cash to start up with, then it's a bit of a no brainer.............go for it.
I started playing again in 5th ed, and am glad I bought my mini's then, as the price has sky rocketed. I play Eldar and my main boxed sets (Aspect warriors) used to cost £18 for 5 models, this went up to £23 a couple of years back. The DA also went from a 10 man squad to a 5 man squad for an extra £5 ouch.
Luckily I had a bit of spare cash each month, so have built up about 7000pts over 5 years. I haven't bought anything for the last couple though due to the price (and not really needing anything), and have relied on birthdays and christmas if I want any models.
It will depend a lot on your gaming group as to how fun it can be, luckily I have a group of friends who got back into the hobby with me. Yeah there have been a few "heated discussions" about the rules, but we've just learned to flip a coin, get on with the game and read up on disagreed rules after the game (if it can't be quickly found in rule book).
Best advice I can give you if you're playing, is don't take it too seriously. We've had a few arguments over the years, but have learned to just chill out and get on with it.
Who told you it is bad? It is the best wargaming miniature series in the world! I started playing half a year ago, and I have a collection of 200 already! Fantastic detail and mouldings!
lliu wrote: Who told you it is bad? It is the best wargaming miniature series in the world! I started playing half a year ago, and I have a collection of 200 already! Fantastic detail and mouldings!
Every army has access to that one Doom spell that will just mess you up and win the game. Most lists I've seen revolve around at least 2-3 Wizards, with one of them having the "I win!" spell. The armies jockey around for a bit, the spell gets cast, the opponent tries to stop it, and then they shake hands and call it a day. I've seen it happen more often then not. You HAVE TO HAVE MAGIC in your army, or you are playing with one hand behind your back. There is no way you can play Fantasy without magic in your army. Magic is that good. I don't know how the Dwarfs do it. The only really good Dwarf army I've ever seen was a massive cannon army, and it still lost... a lot.
For model count- GW has changed the force composition for Fantasy:
Your army may contain up to 50% of its points in Hero's/Lords choices, at least 25% in troops, up to 25% rares, and up to 50% specials. It's entirely possible now to field an army at 2000 points with as little as 30 models. Maybe even less... I haven't really tried to build that kind of list.
If you play a 2000 point game, it's possible to field Nagash (all 1000 points of him!) as your General (he has to be the General of your army), then you'll need another 500 points of troops, and another 500 points of whatever. If you field Nagash, I hope you have a spare 100 zombies/skeletons/ghouls laying around for his summoning (and even that might not be enough).
Warhammer is very much returning to the days of Hero Hammer, where you have one, super-duper awesome, powerful model, and then the chaff around him to take some hits. I very much believe GW will just throw force composition out the door in the next edition of Warhammer.
The points about Fantasy are all interesting but the thread is about 40K.
Herohammer was why I gave up on Fantasy many years ago, and it is part of the reason I am 90% given up on 40K.
That said I would not sell off my armies. I have hopes of doing something with them using 5th edition, or maybe GW will return to better organised, better value rules in the future.
That's a large, heavy, and loaded question. Before anyone can answer that question, you have to define what a good game is, and what you want out of that game. It's a preference thing- some people want awesome looking models, others want a strong, cohesive rules set. Some people just want to grab the Toy Soldiers, a couple beers, and a bag of Pretzels.
There are a TON of threads littered throughout this forum discussing the good and the bad about 40K. You have to ask yourself first "What do I want out of 40K?", THEN people can give you their opinions on whether or not that particular aspect of the game is "good" or "bad". As a start, here are a few things to think about before answering the question "What do I want out of 40K?"
Are you a Gamer, or Hobbyist, or both? Do you like to just play the game with grey, silver, and white (no paint) models? Or do you like to convert them, add bits to them, spend hours/days/weeks painting one model? Does the appearance of your army matter to you, or would you rather pour through a codex, using math, probabilities, and statistics to hone an army list to a razors edge?
Do you like clear, unambiguous rules, or do you like "wiggle room" and "Let the dice decide!" rules mechanics?
Is the fluff and artwork more important to you? When you look at a table top, can you close your eyes and see the battle, with the models moving around and shooting/fighting?
Do you have a lot of spare time and disposable income? Who will you be playing with? Your friends? Neighbors? Is there a gaming group already established at the FLGS? Or will you be traveling and playing the game at other venues (in which case, army portability becomes an issue).
How do you want to feel while you are playing? How do you want to feel after the game? Do you argue about 1/8", or do you just let your opponent have it? Do you want to drink a soda, beer, tequila, water, or nothing at all while playing? Do you want to be around people your own age, or younger/older people?
As a side note, if your doing Tequila Shots while playing 40K, I hope you are not around children or planning on driving...
TLDR; The question should be "This is what I want out of 40K. Is this the game for me?" rather then "Is WH40K really as bad as everyone says it is?".
A good rule set by definition should be clear and concise instruction set , of how to play the game.
40k has not got a good rule set by this basic definition.
The cost of collecting a 40k force/faction/army that is at the generally used level of play is much higher in terms of time effort and money , than other games systems.
Objectively comparing actual measurable metrics, 40k is not as good as the other game systems .
In all honesty, I love 40k. Despite all of the games flaws/GW's failings, for me it is still awesome. The miniatures are great and the game is enjoyable, especially if you play with the right people; and the fluff is top notch.
GW definitely deserves some flak, they have the business sense of a dead badger, and 40k has it's imbalances/holes, but many people get carried away and fail to look at the positive sides as well as the negative.
For me no other games or miniatures company comes even close in terms of awesome factor.
Hi SoggyKittenz.
If your personal opinion is that 40k is the game for you despite all of the 'issues.'
Then you have made an informed choice about your hobby,which is great.
But some people seem to want to ignore the factual problems and issues when discussing 'how bad 40k really is' .
And that is doing a disservice to people who are genuinely unaware of other options.
Its still is a game of 40k if you use other rule sets and or other minatures but keep the inspiring background!(Despite what GW tell you.)
Hi SoggyKittenz.
If your personal opinion is that 40k is the game for you despite all of the 'issues.'
Then you have made an informed choice about your hobby,which is great.
But some people seem to want to ignore the factual problems and issues when discussing 'how bad 40k really is' .
And that is doing a disservice to people who are genuinely unaware of other options.
Its still is a game of 40k if you use other rule sets and or other minatures but keep the inspiring background!(Despite what GW tell you.)
I'm not sure I follow, do you mean to say that i'm ignoring the problems and issues, or are you saying something else..
Either way, I know the problems are there, and found that it really does depend on the people you play with. I would recommend trying other games out if you wanted to really be competitive, as 40k does fail to handle this aspect well; Mono-build lists everywhere and loopholes that make you want to hit things, so try malifaux or bolt action. For more casual gaming, 40k works just fine, and is very entertaining (although this is a little subjective).
Hi SoggyKittenz.
I was referring to the fact you posted you are aware of all the issues with the 40k rule set, but you and your player group have found ways to work around them to have fun.Which is a genuine and honest way to communicate about 40k game play.
Eg the statement;-
'If you are prepared to put the time and effort in finding like minded people prepared to fix/RAI the 40k rules in the same way, you can arrive at a fun game of 40k, that is worth the effort.'
(Basically what you wrote.)
Is more helpful and honest for new players, than;-
'If you are not having fun, YOU are to blame !You are a WAAC/FAAC(delete as appropriate) player .'
'There is nothing wrong with the rules,or game balance, its just picky competitive players that have problems.'
These type of statements are not honest or helpful.As they try to put blame the issues with the rules on the players NOT the rules writers.
(One of these groups gets paid to write/develop 40k rules , the others do not. )
No one has said that you can not have fun playing 40k with like minded players.
ONLY that other game systems do not require so much time and effort to arrive at a fun game , as 40k does.
So compared to other game systems 40k is that bad. (Not completely unplayable or so bad it invalidates all effort of the players.)
But for a game with 40k 's level of simple game play , and focus on narrative style.
It has over complicated rules* , and counter intuitive use of F.O.C and PV.**
*40k uses several resolution methods to cover a single interaction.
**Including F.O.C and PV infers the game is suitable for fun random pick up games.But the level of balance is simply not good enough for this.
In short , a game of 40k can be fun DESPITE its poor rules. 40k is NOT fun because of the rules GW writes, but because of the attitude and effort of the dedicated players.
In short I thought you post was a genuine insight into the way 40k has to be enjoyed.I wanted to commend you on your post!
$120 is the price of me getting all the modeling supplies I'd want + a couple units to paint, I did some googling and it's about ~$100 more for the rest of the 500 point DE army I wanted to make, plus or minus a few dollars depending on how good the deals I can get on ebay are. So really the total investment I'd have to make to be able to field an army would be about $220; $80 for supplies and ~$140 for the models. I don't have the friend group for it yet, but I live in a decent sized city and I'm fairly easy to get along with haha. $120 is more the cost for me to get supplies + models to see if I enjoy the painting/modeling side of things. I already have the 40k 7th Ed rulebook/DE Codex so that's not factored into the entry price.
500 points will probably be too small to get a decent game out of it. I'd suggest you go for Kill-Team then. You have far less problems with all sorts of complications (no flyers, no special commander snowflake units, no big tanks and superheavy walkers...). Still, right now, the only two things going for 40k is the IP behind it and it's widespread availability, though I hear warmachine is quite popular too by now...
No one has said that you can not have fun playing 40k with like minded players.
My opponents are necron, eldar, eldar+deldar and GK. Technicly instead of the eldar and deldar combo I could play against demons, but they are hard to transport so the chance is slim for that. I can try to play other people, but then I get strickt ETC and RAW rules. Which is even more un fun then the house ruled stuff we play. I am unable to have fun playing. Before the GK change our friend had no fun playing and neither did we playing them, even me where his army was the only one I could beat.
I'm not going to read the other posts here and/or get involved in the current discussion; but instead just offer another opinion:
If you have the people, or the potential to get people, involved in your own experience - it's TOTALLY WORTH IT. Check out my blog (http://atticwars40k.blogspot.com/), we have a great group, and play regularly, and thus LOVE 40K.
But if you don't have the people, or at least a decent club nearby with a fun community - you'll be spending money with little payback (except your painted works of art). In that case I'd say either start really small or don't bother.
I enjoy it in my own way. I mainly paint and read the books, but I don't think there are many people in my area with a similar approach to the game, so I don't play much.
I love this forum though. People coming to a forum about a thing to tell everyone on the forum how bad the thing is. It borders on sociopathic at times.
If it was so bad they would stop reading the forum and take up golf.
scottmmmm wrote: People coming to a forum about a thing to tell everyone on the forum how bad the thing is. It borders on sociopathic at times.
But telling people how bad they are and bordering on sociopathic is totally okay, right? As long as you're the one complaining about the complainers its all good, amirite?
If it was so bad they would stop reading the forum and take up golf.
Yeah, maybe in your black and white world of love it or hate it.
But telling people how bad they are and bordering on sociopathic is totally okay, right? As long as you're the one complaining about the complainers its all good, amirite?
When that is the topic of discussion at hand, it's perfectly fine. I wasn't complaining either. As I said, I love reading the forum and watching threads spiral out of control. It's great reading.
Yeah, maybe in your black and white world of love it or hate it.
Here in reality, things are a lot more nuanced.
Aside from the fact this was a joke my point was that some people on the forum seem to repeatedly spew bile about how bad the hobby is. My point (in answer to the OPs question) is that if the hobby was really THAT BAD, they would sever ties with it and stop putting themselves through the wringer worrying about it. The fact that they continue to invest their time in it -despite their apparent hatred of it - suggests that there's something of interest here.
I recognize I'm more often than not in the threads slagging GW. I dislike much of their practices and the game is well, kinda broken. That said, I still love the fluff, aesthetics, and the 28mm company level feel of the battles (because tanks are fething cool). I still get excited to put models together and think about what it'll all look like when its finished. I love reading battle reports between two cool looking armies.
There's more to the 40k experience than just the tabletop wargame. Not to mention, many of the lovely models out there would make for great models in the RPGs or other discontinued GW games that have quite solid rules. I can't speak for anyone but myself when I say this, but I stick around in the vain hope GW actually pulls its head out of its arse and recognizes its failings.
That and dreaming of a full re-release of BFG all in multi-part plastic kits makes me feel all tingly.
But telling people how bad they are and bordering on sociopathic is totally okay, right? As long as you're the one complaining about the complainers its all good, amirite?
When that is the topic of discussion at hand, it's perfectly fine. I wasn't complaining either. As I said, I love reading the forum and watching threads spiral out of control. It's great reading.
Yeah, maybe in your black and white world of love it or hate it.
Here in reality, things are a lot more nuanced.
Aside from the fact this was a joke my point was that some people on the forum seem to repeatedly spew bile about how bad the hobby is. My point (in answer to the OPs question) is that if the hobby was really THAT BAD, they would sever ties with it and stop putting themselves through the wringer worrying about it. The fact that they continue to invest their time in it -despite their apparent hatred of it - suggests that there's something of interest here.
You're still not getting it. I'm not "worrying about" 40k. I gave up a while ago and moved on to other games. However, I'm a gammer and I love discussing games. I spent 20+ years with 40k and I am still interested in where it's going and how it's doing. I'm torn. A part of me wants to see GW crash and burn and another part wants to see it rise above the crap it currently is. So, until then, I'm still watching and waiting because I'm curious. Also, if you think critics of the game are "spewing bile" then that's not a good start to a healthy conversation. Perhaps its your perceptions that need to change?
Depends. 40K is a fairly decent game for beer and pretzels or narrative campagins/rpg's, but for competitive uses 40K is absolutely horrible and lacks balance of any sort.
Wyzilla wrote: Depends. 40K is a fairly decent game for beer and pretzels or narrative campagins/rpg's
Is it though?
What about its cost, complexity, balance, and lack of built in rules for campaigns makes it good for campaigns or rpgs, or a 'beer and pretzels' game, for that matter?
But telling people how bad they are and bordering on sociopathic is totally okay, right? As long as you're the one complaining about the complainers its all good, amirite?
When that is the topic of discussion at hand, it's perfectly fine. I wasn't complaining either. As I said, I love reading the forum and watching threads spiral out of control. It's great reading.
Yeah, maybe in your black and white world of love it or hate it.
Here in reality, things are a lot more nuanced.
Aside from the fact this was a joke my point was that some people on the forum seem to repeatedly spew bile about how bad the hobby is. My point (in answer to the OPs question) is that if the hobby was really THAT BAD, they would sever ties with it and stop putting themselves through the wringer worrying about it. The fact that they continue to invest their time in it -despite their apparent hatred of it - suggests that there's something of interest here.
You're still not getting it. I'm not "worrying about" 40k. I gave up a while ago and moved on to other games. However, I'm a gammer and I love discussing games. I spent 20+ years with 40k and I am still interested in where it's going and how it's doing. I'm torn. A part of me wants to see GW crash and burn and another part wants to see it rise above the crap it currently is. So, until then, I'm still watching and waiting because I'm curious. Also, if you think critics of the game are "spewing bile" then that's not a good start to a healthy conversation. Perhaps its your perceptions that need to change?
I respectfully disagree. I don't think I've said much I'd like to take back or change. They're just my opinions, disregard them if you disagree.
Wyzilla wrote: Depends. 40K is a fairly decent game for beer and pretzels or narrative campagins/rpg's
Is it though?What about its cost, complexity, balance, and lack of built in rules for campaigns makes it good for campaigns or rpgs, or a 'beer and pretzels' game, for that matter?
40k may just mug you for your beer and pretzel money.
The cost can be prohibitive but it certainly has a great deal of variety and a large back-story to give it some structure.
It reminds me of a bad user interface, I use 40k for the bones of a good game and adapt, it is rather woeful in pick-up games but with friends can be awesome.
The rules "should" be good but they have many issues so you learn to accept, adapt or reject it altogether.
But telling people how bad they are and bordering on sociopathic is totally okay, right? As long as you're the one complaining about the complainers its all good, amirite?
When that is the topic of discussion at hand, it's perfectly fine. I wasn't complaining either. As I said, I love reading the forum and watching threads spiral out of control. It's great reading.
Yeah, maybe in your black and white world of love it or hate it.
Here in reality, things are a lot more nuanced.
Aside from the fact this was a joke my point was that some people on the forum seem to repeatedly spew bile about how bad the hobby is. My point (in answer to the OPs question) is that if the hobby was really THAT BAD, they would sever ties with it and stop putting themselves through the wringer worrying about it. The fact that they continue to invest their time in it -despite their apparent hatred of it - suggests that there's something of interest here.
You're still not getting it. I'm not "worrying about" 40k. I gave up a while ago and moved on to other games. However, I'm a gammer and I love discussing games. I spent 20+ years with 40k and I am still interested in where it's going and how it's doing. I'm torn. A part of me wants to see GW crash and burn and another part wants to see it rise above the crap it currently is. So, until then, I'm still watching and waiting because I'm curious. Also, if you think critics of the game are "spewing bile" then that's not a good start to a healthy conversation. Perhaps its your perceptions that need to change?
I respectfully disagree. I don't think I've said much I'd like to take back or change. They're just my opinions, disregard them if you disagree.
But an opinion formed out of ignorance isn't valid.
I might be a little bit rusty, but how "Bad" does everyone say 40k is? I'm gathering it's mostly complaints about imbalance, tournament Douchebags and GW being over-priced and not listening to their customer base?
But telling people how bad they are and bordering on sociopathic is totally okay, right? As long as you're the one complaining about the complainers its all good, amirite?
When that is the topic of discussion at hand, it's perfectly fine. I wasn't complaining either. As I said, I love reading the forum and watching threads spiral out of control. It's great reading.
Yeah, maybe in your black and white world of love it or hate it.
Here in reality, things are a lot more nuanced.
Aside from the fact this was a joke my point was that some people on the forum seem to repeatedly spew bile about how bad the hobby is. My point (in answer to the OPs question) is that if the hobby was really THAT BAD, they would sever ties with it and stop putting themselves through the wringer worrying about it. The fact that they continue to invest their time in it -despite their apparent hatred of it - suggests that there's something of interest here.
When the OP said "is it THAT BAD", it's not like saying "is Hitler REALLY THAT EVIL".
People don't come on and say there's no redeeming quality to 40k, they just point out what is bad. The "haters" will still admit to thinking the fluff, the models, the aesthetics/feel of the universe and/or playing a game with friends can be good otherwise no one would have started the game in the first place.
If people thought the hobby was genuinely so bad as to sever all ties with it... they would do that. You also have to remember people often have hundreds if not thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of their time invested in to 40k. Just because you dislike it enough to not recommend it to other people doesn't mean you dislike it enough to just accept the loss.
Also, you talk about people "worrying" about it as if that's all they do... I'd say most the people that have quit 40k and stuck around the forums to talk about it are people who are still wargamers or hobbyists and still read the other forums.
But telling people how bad they are and bordering on sociopathic is totally okay, right? As long as you're the one complaining about the complainers its all good, amirite?
When that is the topic of discussion at hand, it's perfectly fine. I wasn't complaining either. As I said, I love reading the forum and watching threads spiral out of control. It's great reading.
Yeah, maybe in your black and white world of love it or hate it.
Here in reality, things are a lot more nuanced.
Aside from the fact this was a joke my point was that some people on the forum seem to repeatedly spew bile about how bad the hobby is. My point (in answer to the OPs question) is that if the hobby was really THAT BAD, they would sever ties with it and stop putting themselves through the wringer worrying about it. The fact that they continue to invest their time in it -despite their apparent hatred of it - suggests that there's something of interest here.
You're still not getting it. I'm not "worrying about" 40k. I gave up a while ago and moved on to other games. However, I'm a gammer and I love discussing games. I spent 20+ years with 40k and I am still interested in where it's going and how it's doing. I'm torn. A part of me wants to see GW crash and burn and another part wants to see it rise above the crap it currently is. So, until then, I'm still watching and waiting because I'm curious. Also, if you think critics of the game are "spewing bile" then that's not a good start to a healthy conversation. Perhaps its your perceptions that need to change?
I respectfully disagree. I don't think I've said much I'd like to take back or change. They're just my opinions, disregard them if you disagree.
But an opinion formed out of ignorance isn't valid.
Then proceed to sentence number 3 and disregard what I have to say. There's no such thing as "validity" in an opinion.
If I'm playing a beer and pretzels game, I want something with much less clunky rules. My opponent and I shouldn't have to take ourselves out of the game to debate the wording of rules. I also like some semblance of balance in my wargames. What if my buddy just happens to like the look of grav tanks and wraithknights? What if someone else in our group just likes the look of chaos marines? There's nothing fun about getting roflstomped while drinking beer and eating pretzels. The game is far too complex to call it a beer and pretzels game. The game is far too imbalanced to call it a good competitive game. It also has rules designed for skirmishes but tries to be a mass battle game. All of this speaks to a design team that doesn't know how to write a good ruleset and a company that doesn't care. That's not something I would advise anyone to go spend $500-1,000 on when there are alternatives like WMH that provide a better beer and pretzels game and also a better competitive game with tighter rules that are easier to learn and lower cost of entry.
scottmmmm wrote: There's no such thing as "validity" in an opinion.
Really? So it doesn't matter if you take your sick dog to a veterinarian or a witch doctor? I'm sure they both have an opinion on how to cure the poor thing.
Darkzephyr wrote: I might be a little bit rusty, but how "Bad" does everyone say 40k is? I'm gathering it's mostly complaints about imbalance, tournament Douchebags and GW being over-priced and not listening to their customer base?
No, it's worse than that. The entire game is garbage, and the only way to fix it would be to delete everything and start over from the beginning. GW starts with the core rules of a 1980s fantasy game (games decided by a giant melee in the middle of the table with shooting a minor factor, blocks of troops with poor maneuverability, etc) and then tries to apply those rules to a game with modern-style infantry tactics, tanks and aircraft, and lots of shooting. So you get things like IGOUGO (a terrible system in general, but especially bad in a modern context) creating 15-minute turns where you just remove models against your opponent's alpha strike, half the stat line devoted to marginally-relevant melee rules (when was the last time the WS table ever mattered?) , and important concepts like suppressing fire limited to a token mention of rolling a leadership test occasionally (with most units effectively ignoring it anyway). Then on top of the mess of an inappropriate core system you add GW's "never use one rule when you can use three" habit of adding special rules followed by exceptions to the special rules followed by exceptions to the exceptions, all with no overall design concept to guide them. So you have idiocy like paying careful attention to exactly what melee weapon a sergeant is armed with in the same game where artillery can snipe the sergeant out of a squad, and mass firepower can kill the whole unit before it ever gets into melee range. Finally, just to make sure that the game sucks, GW policy is that playing games is not something you should do on your own time instead of while you're getting paid and therefore playtesting isn't necessary. And so every balance mistake from the rough draft of a rulebook makes it into the final rules, while GW blames it all on TFGs who aren't forging the narrative enough and dare to make their army-building choices based on what wins games.
In short, it isn't just a superficial balance issue or two, the whole game sucks. You can occasionally have fun despite the bad rules, but GW's rule authors certainly aren't going to help you do it.
Yes, No, Maybe, I don't know. Can you repeat the question?
I've been a 40k player for roughly 10 years, I've had great times, I've had bad times, I've had boring times and I've wasted a considerable amount of money.
Would I say it was worth it?
I would, as much as the rules can suck from codex to codex or edition to edition, as much as the system can be abused, people can be pedantic or outright cheaters and the models and materials to go with are mind numbingly expensive. I would say it was worth it for me because the good outweighed the bad, I made most of my best friends through the game and had some of the best days/nights of my life because of the game.
Does that mean you will find it worth it? the honest answer and pretty much the only meaningful answer I can give you here is 'I don't know, because I am not you.'
Only you will know if you will enjoy something or find it worthwhile, but in terms of practical advice if you are not sure then borrow someone elses army and try it out, play a few practice games with people in your LGS before you sink any money into it.
I'm not saying ignore other peoples opinions of the game, but don't let other peoples opinions ruin something you may very well come to enjoy.
MWHistorian wrote: You're still not getting it. I'm not "worrying about" 40k. I gave up a while ago and moved on to other games. However, I'm a gammer and I love discussing games. I spent 20+ years with 40k and I am still interested in where it's going and how it's doing. I'm torn. A part of me wants to see GW crash and burn and another part wants to see it rise above the crap it currently is. So, until then, I'm still watching and waiting because I'm curious.
This is pretty much where I'm at, as well. Although I have no particularly interest in seeing GW crash and burn...
I'd like nothing more than to go back to enjoying 40K as much as I did during 5th edition... but that's just not going to happen with the current state of the game, so I'm just sort of hanging around to see where it goes. Hopefully this is just the down-swing on the pendulum and they'll realise for 8th edition that they actually need to put some effort in...
MWHistorian wrote: You're still not getting it. I'm not "worrying about" 40k. I gave up a while ago and moved on to other games. However, I'm a gammer and I love discussing games. I spent 20+ years with 40k and I am still interested in where it's going and how it's doing. I'm torn. A part of me wants to see GW crash and burn and another part wants to see it rise above the crap it currently is. So, until then, I'm still watching and waiting because I'm curious.
This is pretty much where I'm at, as well. Although I have no particularly interest in seeing GW crash and burn...
I'd like nothing more than to go back to enjoying 40K as much as I did during 5th edition... but that's just not going to happen with the current state of the game, so I'm just sort of hanging around to see where it goes. Hopefully this is just the down-swing on the pendulum and they'll realise for 8th edition that they actually need to put some effort in...
I feel like if you asked any of us 'haters' on dakka the overwhelming majority will be in the same or similar boat.
Those that truly don't care don't stick around to talk about it.
Darkzephyr wrote: I might be a little bit rusty, but how "Bad" does everyone say 40k is? I'm gathering it's mostly complaints about imbalance, tournament Douchebags and GW being over-priced and not listening to their customer base?
No, it's worse than that. The entire game is garbage, and the only way to fix it would be to delete everything and start over from the beginning. GW starts with the core rules of a 1980s fantasy game (games decided by a giant melee in the middle of the table with shooting a minor factor, blocks of troops with poor maneuverability, etc) and then tries to apply those rules to a game with modern-style infantry tactics, tanks and aircraft, and lots of shooting. So you get things like IGOUGO (a terrible system in general, but especially bad in a modern context) creating 15-minute turns where you just remove models against your opponent's alpha strike, half the stat line devoted to marginally-relevant melee rules (when was the last time the WS table ever mattered?) , and important concepts like suppressing fire limited to a token mention of rolling a leadership test occasionally (with most units effectively ignoring it anyway). Then on top of the mess of an inappropriate core system you add GW's "never use one rule when you can use three" habit of adding special rules followed by exceptions to the special rules followed by exceptions to the exceptions, all with no overall design concept to guide them. So you have idiocy like paying careful attention to exactly what melee weapon a sergeant is armed with in the same game where artillery can snipe the sergeant out of a squad, and mass firepower can kill the whole unit before it ever gets into melee range. Finally, just to make sure that the game sucks, GW policy is that playing games is not something you should do on your own time instead of while you're getting paid and therefore playtesting isn't necessary. And so every balance mistake from the rough draft of a rulebook makes it into the final rules, while GW blames it all on TFGs who aren't forging the narrative enough and dare to make their army-building choices based on what wins games.
In short, it isn't just a superficial balance issue or two, the whole game sucks. You can occasionally have fun despite the bad rules, but GW's rule authors certainly aren't going to help you do it.
Don't you ever get tired of basically writing out the same post every single day. I mean it's pretty tragic really.
Darkzephyr wrote: I might be a little bit rusty, but how "Bad" does everyone say 40k is? I'm gathering it's mostly complaints about imbalance, tournament Douchebags and GW being over-priced and not listening to their customer base?
No, it's worse than that. The entire game is garbage, and the only way to fix it would be to delete everything and start over from the beginning. GW starts with the core rules of a 1980s fantasy game (games decided by a giant melee in the middle of the table with shooting a minor factor, blocks of troops with poor maneuverability, etc) and then tries to apply those rules to a game with modern-style infantry tactics, tanks and aircraft, and lots of shooting. So you get things like IGOUGO (a terrible system in general, but especially bad in a modern context) creating 15-minute turns where you just remove models against your opponent's alpha strike, half the stat line devoted to marginally-relevant melee rules (when was the last time the WS table ever mattered?) , and important concepts like suppressing fire limited to a token mention of rolling a leadership test occasionally (with most units effectively ignoring it anyway). Then on top of the mess of an inappropriate core system you add GW's "never use one rule when you can use three" habit of adding special rules followed by exceptions to the special rules followed by exceptions to the exceptions, all with no overall design concept to guide them. So you have idiocy like paying careful attention to exactly what melee weapon a sergeant is armed with in the same game where artillery can snipe the sergeant out of a squad, and mass firepower can kill the whole unit before it ever gets into melee range. Finally, just to make sure that the game sucks, GW policy is that playing games is not something you should do on your own time instead of while you're getting paid and therefore playtesting isn't necessary. And so every balance mistake from the rough draft of a rulebook makes it into the final rules, while GW blames it all on TFGs who aren't forging the narrative enough and dare to make their army-building choices based on what wins games.
In short, it isn't just a superficial balance issue or two, the whole game sucks. You can occasionally have fun despite the bad rules, but GW's rule authors certainly aren't going to help you do it.
Don't you ever get tired of basically writing out the same post every single day. I mean it's pretty tragic really.
You can write a novel about a person writing tragic posts every day about a thing he liked some time ago but doesn't like now. In the end the thing does get better but he's so used to hate it that goes on and on always finding out something bad about it. Cause there's always something bad even in good stuff. Add in some black coffee and cigarettes and you've got a bestseller. Don't thank me.
MarsNZ wrote: Don't you ever get tired of basically writing out the same post every single day. I mean it's pretty tragic really.
You know what's also tragic? That the best response you can come up with is "YOUR SO TRAGIC!!!!", and you can't say anything about the substance of my criticism or defend GW in any way.
Darkzephyr wrote: I might be a little bit rusty, but how "Bad" does everyone say 40k is? I'm gathering it's mostly complaints about imbalance, tournament Douchebags and GW being over-priced and not listening to their customer base?
No, it's worse than that. The entire game is garbage, and the only way to fix it would be to delete everything and start over from the beginning. GW starts with the core rules of a 1980s fantasy game (games decided by a giant melee in the middle of the table with shooting a minor factor, blocks of troops with poor maneuverability, etc) and then tries to apply those rules to a game with modern-style infantry tactics, tanks and aircraft, and lots of shooting. So you get things like IGOUGO (a terrible system in general, but especially bad in a modern context) creating 15-minute turns where you just remove models against your opponent's alpha strike, half the stat line devoted to marginally-relevant melee rules (when was the last time the WS table ever mattered?) , and important concepts like suppressing fire limited to a token mention of rolling a leadership test occasionally (with most units effectively ignoring it anyway). Then on top of the mess of an inappropriate core system you add GW's "never use one rule when you can use three" habit of adding special rules followed by exceptions to the special rules followed by exceptions to the exceptions, all with no overall design concept to guide them. So you have idiocy like paying careful attention to exactly what melee weapon a sergeant is armed with in the same game where artillery can snipe the sergeant out of a squad, and mass firepower can kill the whole unit before it ever gets into melee range. Finally, just to make sure that the game sucks, GW policy is that playing games is not something you should do on your own time instead of while you're getting paid and therefore playtesting isn't necessary. And so every balance mistake from the rough draft of a rulebook makes it into the final rules, while GW blames it all on TFGs who aren't forging the narrative enough and dare to make their army-building choices based on what wins games.
In short, it isn't just a superficial balance issue or two, the whole game sucks. You can occasionally have fun despite the bad rules, but GW's rule authors certainly aren't going to help you do it.
I think you forgot to mention that GW tries to make both a skirmish game, 28mm scale game and a 15mm scale game at the same time (though you hinted at it with the Sergeant example).
Their complete inability to decide on a "scale" is, in my mind, a big part of their over-all problem.
MarsNZ wrote: Don't you ever get tired of basically writing out the same post every single day. I mean it's pretty tragic really.
You know what's also tragic? That the best response you can come up with is "YOUR SO TRAGIC!!!!", and you can't say anything about the substance of my criticism or defend GW in any way.
No, what's tragic is to keep trying and arguing with you. In every thread, it's the same thing. Why bother arguing against a brick wall?
Doesn't arguing assume both sides are using arguments. Till now what I have seen is the side that dislikes the shape of the game giving facts like high entry cost, bad rules writing, mechanics from skirmish games used for a non skirmish system and the "pro" GW side giving non, and am not saying in this thread.
MarsNZ wrote: Don't you ever get tired of basically writing out the same post every single day. I mean it's pretty tragic really.
You know what's also tragic? That the best response you can come up with is "YOUR SO TRAGIC!!!!", and you can't say anything about the substance of my criticism or defend GW in any way.
No, what's tragic is to keep trying and arguing with you. In every thread, it's the same thing. Why bother arguing against a brick wall?
With respect, despite his tone, reading the substance of his post, and being objective about things, peregrine isn't exactly wrong either in a lot of the things he says. Although igougo isn't the monolithic monster he claims it to be - it can work rather well, and is kinda necessary for games like warmachine.
MarsNZ wrote: Don't you ever get tired of basically writing out the same post every single day. I mean it's pretty tragic really.
You know what's also tragic? That the best response you can come up with is "YOUR SO TRAGIC!!!!", and you can't say anything about the substance of my criticism or defend GW in any way.
No, what's tragic is to keep trying and arguing with you. In every thread, it's the same thing. Why bother arguing against a brick wall?
With respect, despite his tone, reading the substance of his post, and being objective about things, peregrine isn't exactly wrong either in a lot of the things he says. Although igougo isn't the monolithic monster he claims it to be - it can work rather well, and is kinda necessary for games like warmachine.
Well, my core issue with what peregrine and the anti-40k crowd tend to have is that they make sweeping statements as if they were facts, when they are not. For instance he almost always uses "you" (referring to the plural reader) rather than "I" (referring to himself) when stating opinions.
For example, I think that IGYG, turn based strategy games are the best. I like them on computers, I like them on the tabletop. I far prefer a long game to a short game. I prefer a 15 minute turn with an epic number of models -- I want to see a master-painted table with three thousand dollars of models and terrain, and a thousand hours of painting, because this gives me great pleasure. I want rich, complex rules with many special abilities for thousands of troop types that make it so that I will never run out of new things to try.
I do not think that GW is perfect (my lord, far from it), but I think the universe, game system, artistic aesthetic, and variety are second to none. I concede that many people disagree with my opinion on some or all of this, but that's THEIR opinion, and they should not speak for me in saying that I can only occasionally have fun, or that other games are generally more fun.
I do not feel that WMH, Malifaux or Xwing offer the complexity that I crave. I like a game where you can pick it up and learn it quickly, but where there are many special rules and special abilities that have a steep learning curve to learn to master and exploit. Am I in the minority? Perhaps; I don't know. But I do know that most of my gaming friends feel the same way, and we always have a lot of fun with 40k. There is no other game other than 40k/whfb in the scifi fantasy genre that is well suited to 300 model games, that look like a real "war". Infantry, vehicles, flyers, monsters great and small, where a great massive enemy is a fearsome and not to be trifled with. Campaigns, both GW and player made, are immensely satisfying, to me.
Yes, 40k has lots of problems, but I can live with them or work around them, and I certainly have a lot of fun doing so. I'm perfectly fine with someone else disagreeing (and I'm the first to say 40k isn't for everyone)... just please don't speak for me, or others like me.
For example, I think that IGYG, turn based strategy games are the best. I like them on computers, I like them on the tabletop.
Why do you think IGYG systems are the best? What other systems have you tried in miniature wargames that you can compare it to and what advantages do you think that that system has over them?
Why? What inherent advantage does a long game has over a short(er) game?
Do you consider the often seen experience in 40k of loosing the game in the first few turns due to the opponents alpha strike but still having to slog through 2+ hours of game time a pleasant experience? Why?
I prefer a 15 minute turn with an epic number of models
When those 15 mins are often spent just pushing models without any regard to their actual positioning or without having any actual impact on the game, why do you prefer those longer turns? (And most of the time is not 15 mins, its 20 to 30 minutes where the non-active player doesn't have practically anything to do)
-- I want to see a master-painted table with three thousand dollars of models and terrain, and a thousand hours of painting, because this gives me great pleasure.
Why do you derive pleasure from the cost of the models and the terrain?!
I want rich, complex rules with many special abilities for thousands of troop types that make it so that I will never run out of new things to try.
Then why do you play 40k? 40k doesn't have rich or complex rules... It has complicated rules but that is a very different thing. If you want rich and complex rules systems then you'll have to turn to Infinity, or WMH or Malifaux. THOSE are systems with rich and complex rules.
There is no other game other than 40k/whfb in the scifi fantasy genre that is well suited to 300 model games, that look like a real "war".
What other systems have you tried to be able to make this statement? Neither of those systems is well suited to field 300 models to start with... You would have your entire side of the board covered in models meaning that there would be no room to manoeuvre and all you could really do is push you models forward and roll dice... I mean, the average GW game is usually already like that but that seems like an even less satisfying experience to me.
For example, I think that IGYG, turn based strategy games are the best. I like them on computers, I like them on the tabletop.
Why do you think IGYG systems are the best? What other systems have you tried in miniature wargames that you can compare it to and what advantages do you think that that system has over them?
Why? What inherent advantage does a long game has over a short(er) game?
Do you consider the often seen experience in 40k of loosing the game in the first few turns due to the opponents alpha strike but still having to slog through 2+ hours of game time a pleasant experience? Why?
I prefer a 15 minute turn with an epic number of models
When those 15 mins are often spent just pushing models without any regard to their actual positioning or without having any actual impact on the game, why do you prefer those longer turns? (And most of the time is not 15 mins, its 20 to 30 minutes where the non-active player doesn't have practically anything to do)
-- I want to see a master-painted table with three thousand dollars of models and terrain, and a thousand hours of painting, because this gives me great pleasure.
Why do you derive pleasure from the cost of the models and the terrain?!
I want rich, complex rules with many special abilities for thousands of troop types that make it so that I will never run out of new things to try.
Then why do you play 40k? 40k doesn't have rich or complex rules... It has complicated rules but that is a very different thing. If you want rich and complex rules systems then you'll have to turn to Infinity, or WMH or Malifaux. THOSE are systems with rich and complex rules.
There is no other game other than 40k/whfb in the scifi fantasy genre that is well suited to 300 model games, that look like a real "war".
What other systems have you tried to be able to make this statement? Neither of those systems is well suited to field 300 models to start with... You would have your entire side of the board covered in models meaning that there would be no room to manoeuvre and all you could really do is push you models forward and roll dice... I mean, the average GW game is usually already like that but that seems like an even less satisfying experience to me.
Everything your challenging are just preference things. You don't like those things or think they are important, that's fine, other people do. You don't think it has rich/complex rules compared to XYZ, other people do. It's all a matter of opinion trying to quantify any of these things into which is 'better' is useless. It's like quantifying the value of different music or art pieces, the value is solely in the preferences of the Individual, there is no universal right or wrong.
Annnnnd this is why I avoid these threads, anyone who genuinely prefers 40k as a better option brings out others trying to convert them to other games o.o.
Wyzilla wrote: Depends. 40K is a fairly decent game for beer and pretzels or narrative campagins/rpg's
Is it though?
What about its cost, complexity, balance, and lack of built in rules for campaigns makes it good for campaigns or rpgs, or a 'beer and pretzels' game, for that matter?
It's setting. The only really good part of 40k. You have to bend the rules, make houserules, create whole new objects or whatever (basically better create your own game) but yeah, the setting is awesome for campaigns and rpgs.
I agree withe peregrine. You can have fun with this game (under certain circumstances) but GW aint helping you here. So if you want 40k, go 40k. If you want a good tabletop wargaming with miniatures you can paint and good rules to play, take anything else out there.
Everything your challenging are just preference things. You don't like those things or think they are important, that's fine, other people do. You don't think it has rich/complex rules compared to XYZ, other people do. It's all a matter of opinion trying to quantify any of these things into which is 'better' is useless. It's like quantifying the value of different music or art pieces, the value is solely in the preferences of the Individual, there is no universal right or wrong.
Annnnnd this is why I avoid these threads, anyone who genuinely prefers 40k as a better option brings out others trying to convert them to other games o.o.
Nope. That is called the "balance fallacy". Opinions that aren't based in facts don't automatically have the same weight as those that do. If someone has only ever eaten ramen noodles then is their opinion that ramen noodles is the best food in existence equally as valid as someone that has tasted from a much more varied menu?
Besides, this is a discussion forum and I'm just trying to ascertain the basis for Talys preferences, I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything.
Everything your challenging are just preference things. You don't like those things or think they are important, that's fine, other people do. You don't think it has rich/complex rules compared to XYZ, other people do. It's all a matter of opinion trying to quantify any of these things into which is 'better' is useless. It's like quantifying the value of different music or art pieces, the value is solely in the preferences of the Individual, there is no universal right or wrong.
Annnnnd this is why I avoid these threads, anyone who genuinely prefers 40k as a better option brings out others trying to convert them to other games o.o.
Nope. That is called the "balance fallacy". Opinions that aren't based in facts don't automatically have the same weight as those that do. If someone has only ever eaten ramen noodles then is their opinion that ramen noodles is the best food in existence equally as valid as someone that has tasted from a much more varied menu?
Besides, this is a discussion forum and I'm just trying to ascertain the basis for Talys preferences, I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything.
Nem kinda said it all, so I wasn't going to reply, but I guess I got dragged back in. Oh well. Here goes. Here's me so that you can understand my perspective a little better:
I've played most of the major game systems for scifi/fantasy (the type stocked at FLGS) since 1985 or so. I have no interest in historical games. The ones played at the 3 local FLGS that I frequent (not including the GW store or the MtG-only shops) are 40k, WMH, Malifaux, and X-Wing, and it's pretty easy to find games of any of them, although the number of 40k gamers has certainly declined over the years as other alternatives became available. I own virtually all the books for WMH, and at invested at least $3,000 on PP models, because I enjoy them. Comparatively, I have spent much more (obscene amounts) on Games Workshop products.
Generally, I prefer large scale battle over small scale skirmish; as long as the table is big enough, "the bigger the better". I like to see tons of miniatures, and I don't understand why someone wouldn't be happy to see hundreds of awesomely painted miniatures on a table that is a gorgeous setting. I think it adds so much to the mood. It's not about the money that's been spent; but it's not possible to get a large scale war going without spending a substantial amount of money.
It is quite easy to get 150 models per side in a 40k game, and it's not even that slow, if you play 4 people (2 v 2). The game tables we play on are 8x4, 6x4, and when I host, 10x5 (I use a billiards table)
I avoid playing games on paper foldouts and unpainted minis -- to those who like this, and I see it all the time, all the power to you; it's just not me. There's nothing epic or immersive about that to me. For this type of gaming, I would rather play a board game, like Talisman, Space Hulk, or Supremacy. My favorite related game in my youth before I got into miniature warfare was Car Wars; my favorite board game was actually Talisman.
When I go play for an evening, it is from about 5:30pm to about 2 am, with pizza somewhere in there. That's about how long I like 1-2 games to be.
In "other stuff sold at my FLGS", I used to be an ultracompetitive mad MtG player, through about the first 6 years of that game's life. I also role playing games -- D&D in specific, though I own about 100 different RPG systems, dating back to Chainmail. I own, and have played , a massive pile of board games from companies like Games Workshop, too, like BloodBowl, Talisman, HeroQuest and Gammarauders.
In "video games that FLGS peeps like to play", my favorite computer game of all time is Civilization. This should tell you something about me, since the average game length is... very long. And, I enjoy micromanaging all those cities. I would choose Panzer General (TBS) over StarCraft (RTS) any day. I am not a huge FPS fan, though I am competent; however, I am an ace Diablo 2/3 player; I've been a top ranked player -- as in #1 on a given server -- many times, and held that spot for very long stretches of time (months at a time, until I lose interest).
At this stage in my life, my primary interest in the hobby is painting and modelling. My typical model now is 10+ hours, even for a $2 infantry model, because I'm looking to paint at least as well as the studio version, if not surpass that level. I play only once a week or so, and I don't much care whether I win or lose a game, although I don't want to lose ALL my games! I believe that an excellent game is one where two players have well-matched forces and strategically push the other into making tough decisions, and I actively seek to play with players that share my same values.
And, I am 100% fine with other people having different priorities, and feeling that other games are superior. I think all that is good for the industry, and that competition between games for our business is excellent. I do not believe it is either/or; I just don't feel that 40k is a "flawed" system in the sense that it's broken and not fun.
I am pretty easy going... but I do get mildly offended when people can't seem to understand that some players who game regularly actually believe that 40k and WHFB are good games, and actually choose to play it over other "more modern", "better", "superior", <insert adjective> games.
Everything your challenging are just preference things. You don't like those things or think they are important, that's fine, other people do. You don't think it has rich/complex rules compared to XYZ, other people do. It's all a matter of opinion trying to quantify any of these things into which is 'better' is useless. It's like quantifying the value of different music or art pieces, the value is solely in the preferences of the Individual, there is no universal right or wrong.
Annnnnd this is why I avoid these threads, anyone who genuinely prefers 40k as a better option brings out others trying to convert them to other games o.o.
Nope. That is called the "balance fallacy". Opinions that aren't based in facts don't automatically have the same weight as those that do. If someone has only ever eaten ramen noodles then is their opinion that ramen noodles is the best food in existence equally as valid as someone that has tasted from a much more varied menu?
Besides, this is a discussion forum and I'm just trying to ascertain the basis for Talys preferences, I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything.
Nem kinda said it all, so I wasn't going to reply, but I guess I got dragged back in. Oh well. Here goes. Here's me so that you can understand my perspective a little better:
I've played most of the major game systems for scifi/fantasy (the type stocked at FLGS) since 1985 or so. I have no interest in historical games. The ones played at the 3 local FLGS that I frequent (not including the GW store or the MtG-only shops) are 40k, WMH, Malifaux, and X-Wing, and it's pretty easy to find games of any of them, although the number of 40k gamers has certainly declined over the years as other alternatives became available. I own virtually all the books for WMH, and at invested at least $3,000 on PP models, because I enjoy them. Comparatively, I have spent much more (obscene amounts) on Games Workshop products.
Generally, I prefer large scale battle over small scale skirmish; as long as the table is big enough, "the bigger the better". I like to see tons of miniatures, and I don't understand why someone wouldn't be happy to see hundreds of awesomely painted miniatures on a table that is a gorgeous setting. I think it adds so much to the mood. It's not about the money that's been spent; but it's not possible to get a large scale war going without spending a substantial amount of money.
I avoid playing games on paper foldouts and unpainted minis -- to those who like this, and I see it all the time, all the power to you; it's just not me. There's nothing epic or immersive about that to me. For this type of gaming, I would rather play a board game, like Talisman, Space Hulk, or Supremacy. My favorite related game in my youth before I got into miniature warfare was Car Wars; my favorite board game was actually Talisman.
When I go play for an evening, it is from about 5:30pm to about 2 am, with pizza somewhere in there. That's about how long I like 1-2 games to be.
In "other stuff sold at my FLGS", I used to be an ultracompetitive mad MtG player, through about the first 6 years of that game's life. I also role playing games -- D&D in specific, though I own about 100 different RPG systems, dating back to Chainmail. I own, and have played , a massive pile of board games from companies like Games Workshop, too, like BloodBowl, Talisman, HeroQuest and Gammarauders.
In "video games that FLGS peeps like to play", my favorite computer game of all time is Civilization. This should tell you something about me, since the average game length is... very long. And, I enjoy micromanaging all those cities. I would choose Panzer General (TBS) over StarCraft (RTS) any day. I am not a huge FPS fan, though I am competent; however, I am an ace Diablo 2/3 player; I've been a top ranked player -- as in #1 on a given server -- many times, and held that spot for very long stretches of time (months at a time, until I lose interest).
At this stage in my life, my primary interest in the hobby is painting and modelling. My typical model now is 10+ hours, even for a $2 infantry model, because I'm looking to paint at least as well as the studio version, if not surpass that level. I play only once a week or so, and I don't much care whether I win or lose a game, although I don't want to lose ALL my games! I believe that an excellent game is one where two players have well-matched forces and strategically push the other into making tough decisions, and I actively seek to play with players that share my same values.
And, I am 100% fine with other people having different priorities, and feeling that other games are superior. I think all that is good for the industry, and that competition between games for our business is excellent. I do not believe it is either/or; I just don't feel that 40k is a "flawed" system in the sense that it's broken and not fun.
I am pretty easy going... but I do get mildly offended when people can't seem to understand that some players who game regularly actually believe that 40k and WHFB are good games, and actually choose to play it over other "more modern", "better", "superior", <insert adjective> games.
For me, that's a perfectly valid and reasonable opinion.
I don't mind people liking 40k at all. What I do mind is when they say it's the best when they haven't tried anything else or ignore all problems with the game. If you can get through all that and still enjoy the game, power to you.
You used the perfect word. "Priorities."
No one is saying they don't understand how people can have fun with 40k. People point out the very legitimate shortfalls of GW games, and point put other alternatives, and everyone who likes GW acts like they insulted their mothers or something...
Peregrine even said '40k can be fun with like minded people'.
A game like 40k especially requires a good bunch of players to make it fun, you play with dicks then you're gonna have a bad time.
I don't play 40k because I missed all of 6th and 7th is just too out there for me, and I just like fantasy better.
All and all, as I said, like any game the people make the biggest impact, find a good bunch and the games will be rewarding.
It is understandable observing "we have talked about this before... many times".
The game has been through 7 iterations of rules with little tweaks in-between.
We have seen the good, the bad and the ugly.
It is hard to discourage someone away from the game because any time now it just could get better.
There is little limitation of what models can be selected for an army so perceived "overpowered" lists are readily made.
Being given all this "freedom" in army selection will be a problem if GW is motivated to "balance" things in the future.
I find the game still works with friends because we can make it work, yes it sounds like excusing GW of poor rules but since they do not listen, it really does not matter.
Nem kinda said it all, so I wasn't going to reply, but I guess I got dragged back in. Oh well. Here goes. Here's me so that you can understand my perspective a little better:
I've played most of the major game systems for scifi/fantasy (the type stocked at FLGS) since 1985 or so. I have no interest in historical games. The ones played at the 3 local FLGS that I frequent (not including the GW store or the MtG-only shops) are 40k, WMH, Malifaux, and X-Wing, and it's pretty easy to find games of any of them, although the number of 40k gamers has certainly declined over the years as other alternatives became available. I own virtually all the books for WMH, and at invested at least $3,000 on PP models, because I enjoy them. Comparatively, I have spent much more (obscene amounts) on Games Workshop products.
Generally, I prefer large scale battle over small scale skirmish; as long as the table is big enough, "the bigger the better". I like to see tons of miniatures, and I don't understand why someone wouldn't be happy to see hundreds of awesomely painted miniatures on a table that is a gorgeous setting. I think it adds so much to the mood. It's not about the money that's been spent; but it's not possible to get a large scale war going without spending a substantial amount of money.
It is quite easy to get 150 models per side in a 40k game, and it's not even that slow, if you play 4 people (2 v 2). The game tables we play on are 8x4, 6x4, and when I host, 10x5 (I use a billiards table)
I avoid playing games on paper foldouts and unpainted minis -- to those who like this, and I see it all the time, all the power to you; it's just not me. There's nothing epic or immersive about that to me. For this type of gaming, I would rather play a board game, like Talisman, Space Hulk, or Supremacy. My favorite related game in my youth before I got into miniature warfare was Car Wars; my favorite board game was actually Talisman.
When I go play for an evening, it is from about 5:30pm to about 2 am, with pizza somewhere in there. That's about how long I like 1-2 games to be.
In "other stuff sold at my FLGS", I used to be an ultracompetitive mad MtG player, through about the first 6 years of that game's life. I also role playing games -- D&D in specific, though I own about 100 different RPG systems, dating back to Chainmail. I own, and have played , a massive pile of board games from companies like Games Workshop, too, like BloodBowl, Talisman, HeroQuest and Gammarauders.
In "video games that FLGS peeps like to play", my favorite computer game of all time is Civilization. This should tell you something about me, since the average game length is... very long. And, I enjoy micromanaging all those cities. I would choose Panzer General (TBS) over StarCraft (RTS) any day. I am not a huge FPS fan, though I am competent; however, I am an ace Diablo 2/3 player; I've been a top ranked player -- as in #1 on a given server -- many times, and held that spot for very long stretches of time (months at a time, until I lose interest).
At this stage in my life, my primary interest in the hobby is painting and modelling. My typical model now is 10+ hours, even for a $2 infantry model, because I'm looking to paint at least as well as the studio version, if not surpass that level. I play only once a week or so, and I don't much care whether I win or lose a game, although I don't want to lose ALL my games! I believe that an excellent game is one where two players have well-matched forces and strategically push the other into making tough decisions, and I actively seek to play with players that share my same values.
And, I am 100% fine with other people having different priorities, and feeling that other games are superior. I think all that is good for the industry, and that competition between games for our business is excellent. I do not believe it is either/or; I just don't feel that 40k is a "flawed" system in the sense that it's broken and not fun.
I am pretty easy going... but I do get mildly offended when people can't seem to understand that some players who game regularly actually believe that 40k and WHFB are good games, and actually choose to play it over other "more modern", "better", "superior", <insert adjective> games.
I am pretty easy going... but I do get mildly offended when people can't seem to understand that some players who game regularly actually believe that 40k and WHFB are good games, and actually choose to play it over other "more modern", "better", "superior", <insert adjective> games.
But the things you listed as good are either a taste thing , like painting or modeling or big battles . Other are far away from what is normaly is played. Team games, tables bigger then 4x4 or 4x6, money not being an issue or playing in the evenings, which means not playing at stores or clubs as those cluse at 18-20.You think that is how the majority of people play this around the world?
If your goal is to collect, play and have fun, then you will be fine. Simply play with players such as yourself and don't waste time playing against people who just want to crush you.
Other are far away from what is normaly is played.
Are they? With respect Makumba, from the things you’ve spoken about in your meta, especially with regard to the players, the lists they play and how they play, you should view your meta that is the skewed one, rather than the normal one.
my friend recently installed a 12 by 6 board in his garage. Three other friends of mine have their own boards/games rooms in their houses and flats. Bigger tables are hardly a rarity. People have houses, and often convert a spare room into a gaming space. It's neither hard, strange nor uncommon.
When you have a job, and disposeable income, it stands to reason that you can spend money on your hobby. It also stands to reason that a large amount of wargamers are 18+ and would have jobs… not that abnormal.
.
Makumba wrote: playing in the evenings, which means not playing at stores or clubs as those cluse at 18-20.
Generally yes, especially when playing at home. Stores gotta close at some point, friends at each other’s houses have a lot more freedom to game until late. With beer, banter, friendly atmosphere and pizza. We normally game until 10pm on a Friday, and we’re hardly unique.
Are they? With respect Makumba, from the things you’ve spoken about in your meta, especially with regard to the players, the lists they play and how they play, you should view your meta that is the skewed one, rather than the normal one.
I have seen the list posted from tournaments from other countries, unless there is some strange comp system they look the same as lists here.
Yup. These are quite popular with a lot of groups. I’ve seen plenty, and been involved in plenty.
And I seen non. I also don't know how rules would work in team games as GW never posted FAQ ment for team games.
my friend recently installed a 12 by 6 board in his garage. Three other friends of mine have their own boards/games rooms in their houses and flats. Bigger tables are hardly a rarity. People have houses, and often convert a spare room into a gaming space. It's neither hard, strange nor uncommon.
So you have bigger houses. Awesome. Only garage I have seen were under houses and if someone has a private one, then a car stands in it , otherwise why would it be there. Unless he needs it to make meth or something.
When you have a job, and disposeable income, it stands to reason that you can spend money on your hobby. It also stands to reason that a large amount of wargamers are 18+ and would have jobs… not that abnormal.
I am sorry but an avarge 1500pts w40k army costs more then most people under 40 make here per month. To buy my w40k army I worked in germany for 2 months from dusk till dawn durning harvest. If I didn't it would take me years to buy an IG army.
Generally yes, especially when playing at home. Stores gotta close at some point, friends at each other’s houses have a lot more freedom to game until late. With beer, banter, friendly atmosphere and pizza. We normally game until 10pm on a Friday, and we’re hardly unique.
And here, as in country, there is not enough space to get a 4x4 table at home most of the time. So for me that is more then unique, One would have to own a house to do it and I never met anyone who owns a house and is interested in table top gaming.
Yeah, it wouldn’t surprise me. Nor should it surprise you. Playing at stores isn’t the “done thing” for a large segment of the playerbase.
I would say its close to 100% of people here and don't know why it should be different anywhere else. The transporting of armies and the uncontroled enviroment are a problematic enough. Going to someone else house to play can end realy bad and not just for a female.
Makumba wrote: I would say its close to 100% of people here and don't know why it should be different anywhere else. The transporting of armies and the uncontroled enviroment are a problematic enough. Going to someone else house to play can end realy bad and not just for a female.
A lot of areas don't have stores to play at. Or the stores aren't set up for gaming.
In the UK and here in Oz, it's far more common for people to play at home, or at gaming clubs in hired venues than in stores.
I have seen the list posted from tournaments from other countries, unless there is some strange comp system they look the same as lists here.
.
1. Not every one goes to tournaments.
2. Not everyone (in fact, probably the majority) goes onto wargames forums. We are a minority of the hobby.
Plenty folks play their games completely independently of both tournaments and tournament lists. how they play, what their house rules are and what they field will similarly be quite different. the internet is a narrow skewed perception of the reality of wargaming.
Yup. These are quite popular with a lot of groups. I’ve seen plenty, and been involved in plenty.
And I seen non. I also don't know how rules would work in team games as GW never posted FAQ ment for team games.
Who cares. GW dont tell you how to run campaigns either, but plenty people do them too. Do you need GW to tell you everything? No, you dont. How about taking ownership of your own gaming and coming to a group consensus for working group games. Add a little common sense. 2 teams, each of two players. take it in turns. 1 player from one team, then one from the other. then the second player from the first team, followed by the second player from the second. its not exactly rocket science.
So you have bigger houses. Awesome. Only garage I have seen were under houses and if someone has a private one, then a car stands in it , otherwise why would it be there. Unless he needs it to make meth or something.
No, not really. In any case, we've got a 2 bedroom flat. an 8 by 4 board doesnt take up too much space when its lying against the wall out of use, and its easy to flip it over, set it up in a room, and have a game.
When you have a job, and disposeable income, it stands to reason that you can spend money on your hobby. It also stands to reason that a large amount of wargamers are 18+ and would have jobs… not that abnormal.
I am sorry but an avarge 1500pts w40k army costs more then most people under 40 make here per month. To buy my w40k army I worked in germany for 2 months from dusk till dawn durning harvest. If I didn't it would take me years to buy an IG army.
So then dont be stupid, and dump a whole months wages into it in one go. How about saving up a bit every month for six months to a year. Its not exactly rocket science. 40k isnt exactly cheap here in the UK either, and people have other priorities other than toy soldiers. But its not hard to have money to put towards the hobby, even if its just a bit every month. Its like that for pretty much everything from mortgages to car and insurance payments and food bills.
And here, as in country, there is not enough space to get a 4x4 table at home most of the time. So for me that is more then unique, One would have to own a house to do it and I never met anyone who owns a house and is interested in table top gaming.
rubbish. you dont need to "own a house". you just need to have "space" in a "room". Owned, rented or borrowed. 4x4 doesnt take up that much space against a wall. And i find it hard to believe all poles live in 3 by 3 rooms.
I would say its close to 100% of people here and don't know why it should be different anywhere else.
you know 100% of polish wargamers? Yeah, i call shenanigans. As to not being different anywhere else, like i said - your meta is the skewed one, and is not representative of other places. Not all people have stores nearby, and not all people want to play in stores either. Like i said, i've got wargaming buddies both here in the UK and back in ireland who primarily play at home.
Makumba wrote: The transporting of armies and the uncontroled enviroment are a problematic enough. Going to someone else house to play can end really bad and not just for a female.
transporting armies isnt exactly hard.I've lugged 40k armies around the place in a carry case walking, using buses, trains and cars. With nothing more than a shoulder strap. It isnt hard.
As to ending badly at someone's houses - i disagree. It stands to reason you game with people you know. And that you'll become friends. It also stands to reason friends socialise, and spend time together. Cinema, Shops. Pubs. Etc. you know, normal people stuff. Ever go to a friends house after school/college/work or at the weekends and hang out? Come on, we all do it, all the time. And whats the difference heading back and watching tv and hanging out, or heading back and gaming, and hanging out?
Talys wrote: I am pretty easy going... but I do get mildly offended when people can't seem to understand that some players who game regularly actually believe that 40k and WHFB are good games, and actually choose to play it over other "more modern", "better", "superior", <insert adjective> games.
And nothing you've said in that whole long post in any way justifies this statement. You talked a lot about how much you love the models, and how much fun it is to play a huge team game, but none of that supports your claim that 40k is a good game. In fact, if you love huge games then 40k is a terrible game because IGOUGO is even more broken than usual at that point, all of the rules bloat and excessive dice rolling slows the game down even more, etc. You might be having fun despiteGW's failures, but if the issues I (and other people) keep pointing out were fixed 40k would be better for the kind of games you enjoy playing.
Some people like rules bloat and excessive dice rolling. It is a dice game, after all. And I like the fact that 40k has a gazillion different rulkes with a gazillion different weapons...its an over the top sci-fi game.
These are only failures to your tastes, not to everyone's.
Makumba wrote: Doesn't arguing assume both sides are using arguments. Till now what I have seen is the side that dislikes the shape of the game giving facts like high entry cost, bad rules writing, mechanics from skirmish games used for a non skirmish system and the "pro" GW side giving non, and am not saying in this thread.
Fun is clearly not an argument? Thanks for letting me know. BRB, have to go alert the world they've been having fun wrong
jasper76 wrote: Some people like rules bloat and excessive dice rolling.
You honestly enjoy having tons of pointless rules to keep track of, most of which add very little to the game? Have you played any other games with a better ratio of complexity to depth?
It is a dice game, after all.
That doesn't mean you should roll dice just for the sake of rolling dice. Unless by "dice game" you mean that you're content with a game where the majority of "playing" it consists of rolling dice and seeing who rolls better, rather than strategy vs. counter-strategy and making better decisions than your opponent? And if that's the case why bother with the rest of the "game"? Why not just grab a handful of dice and see how many 6s you can roll?
And I like the fact that 40k has a gazillion different rulkes with a gazillion different weapons...its an over the top sci-fi game.
Being an over-the-top scifi game doesn't have anything to do with rules bloat. Let's consider the Fear USR as a good example: it seems like an appropriate thing to have in an over-the-top scifi game, right? Big monsters should be scary to fight? Too bad the execution turns it into rules bloat. First you have half the armies (more than half, if you count it by how many people play them) ignore it entirely because of their army-wide special rule. Then most of the rest don't care because anything with Fear is going to slaughter a small squad of guardsmen regardless of what happens with the Fear rule. Finally, the few units that are relevant in melee but don't have ATSKNF have LD 10/re-rolls/etc to make sure that they rarely fail. And then what happens if you do fail? Surely you run away, or kill yourself to avoid an even worse fate, right? Nope, you get a WS penalty. Which, because of the WS table, has the absolutely crippling effect of turning a 4+ to hit into a 5+ to hit. There's a very good reason why most people consider the Fear rule a waste of rulebook space.
And the other rules bloat is the same kind of thing: rules that are ridiculously complicated for the amount of depth they add to the game, options that are so terrible you'll never take them, etc. You could get rid of huge sections of the rulebook without losing any of the "over the top scifi" feel of 40k. The only effect would be that you could play the game faster, get new people into the game without overwhelming them with tons of rules to learn, and spend your time thinking about how awesome the action on the table is instead of flipping through five different rulebooks trying to figure out how something works.
It isn't an argument because it completely ignores the question of whether you could be having more fun with different rules. All "I have fun" is really saying is that the rules aren't so terrible that you can't even play the game, and that's an incredibly low standard. It's so low that it isn't even worth talking about, since most players could spend 15 minutes creating a new game and it would be possible to "have fun" as long as the fluff and models were good.
jasper76 wrote: Some people like rules bloat and excessive dice rolling.
You honestly enjoy having tons of pointless rules to keep track of, most of which add very little to the game? Have you played any other games with a better ratio of complexity to depth?
It is a dice game, after all.
That doesn't mean you should roll dice just for the sake of rolling dice. Unless by "dice game" you mean that you're content with a game where the majority of "playing" it consists of rolling dice and seeing who rolls better, rather than strategy vs. counter-strategy and making better decisions than your opponent? And if that's the case why bother with the rest of the "game"? Why not just grab a handful of dice and see how many 6s you can roll?
And I like the fact that 40k has a gazillion different rulkes with a gazillion different weapons...its an over the top sci-fi game.
Being an over-the-top scifi game doesn't have anything to do with rules bloat. Let's consider the Fear USR as a good example: it seems like an appropriate thing to have in an over-the-top scifi game, right? Big monsters should be scary to fight? Too bad the execution turns it into rules bloat. First you have half the armies (more than half, if you count it by how many people play them) ignore it entirely because of their army-wide special rule. Then most of the rest don't care because anything with Fear is going to slaughter a small squad of guardsmen regardless of what happens with the Fear rule. Finally, the few units that are relevant in melee but don't have ATSKNF have LD 10/re-rolls/etc to make sure that they rarely fail. And then what happens if you do fail? Surely you run away, or kill yourself to avoid an even worse fate, right? Nope, you get a WS penalty. Which, because of the WS table, has the absolutely crippling effect of turning a 4+ to hit into a 5+ to hit. There's a very good reason why most people consider the Fear rule a waste of rulebook space.
And the other rules bloat is the same kind of thing: rules that are ridiculously complicated for the amount of depth they add to the game, options that are so terrible you'll never take them, etc. You could get rid of huge sections of the rulebook without losing any of the "over the top scifi" feel of 40k. The only effect would be that you could play the game faster, get new people into the game without overwhelming them with tons of rules to learn, and spend your time thinking about how awesome the action on the table is instead of flipping through five different rulebooks trying to figure out how something works.Automatically Appended Next Post:
It isn't an argument because it completely ignores the question of whether you could be having more fun with different rules. All "I have fun" is really saying is that the rules aren't so terrible that you can't even play the game, and that's an incredibly low standard. It's so low that it isn't even worth talking about, since most players could spend 15 minutes creating a new game and it would be possible to "have fun" as long as the fluff and models were good.
Peregrine, what you say are perfectly good points about flaws in 40k.
What you say reflects my first tabletop game I started playing with my kids is X-wing.
I seem to remember liking to try out strange operating systems, obscure coding or complex forum UI's: I liked the challenge and it gave an "elitist" feel.
I find having played many games you can plough through the rules out of habit and get-on with the game and not really care how clunky it is, you have adapted because you can.
Not a good move for accessibility and increasing market-share but those who like the game despite or because of it's flaws may not be swayed by logic.
Think of it as a form of gaming masochism: they like it even if most would not.
jasper76 wrote: Some people like rules bloat and excessive dice rolling.
You honestly enjoy having tons of pointless rules to keep track of, most of which add very little to the game? Have you played any other games with a better ratio of complexity to depth?
Yes, and then yes. Lord of the Rings is Exhibit A. The fact that I like Lord of the Rings better doesn't in any way make me like 40k less.
That doesn't mean you should roll dice just for the sake of rolling dice. Unless by "dice game" you mean that you're content with a game where the majority of "playing" it consists of rolling dice and seeing who rolls better, rather than strategy vs. counter-strategy and making better decisions than your opponent? And if that's the case why bother with the rest of the "game"?
I do like dice games . I spend more time moving troops into the positions I want them to be (there's your strategy) or positions that my opponent doesn't want them to be (there's your counter-strategy), then I do rolling dice. Sometimes, I wish I had a butler to move all my pieces for me where I tell him to, so I could sit back, roll my dice, drink beer, and eat pizza, and do rude things to my good buddies.
Peregrine wrote: Why not just grab a handful of dice and see how many 6s you can roll?
If you are referring to Yahtzee, I do enjoy that game too, but the models aren't nearly as cool.
Anyway, my main point is, to each his own. You are not everybody, and there is no hard science as to what makes a game fun for some people, and not fun for others.
And with that, I am jumping out of the fray of this latest installment of, "Why I Hate 40k".
My general experience of 'why is that good/bad?' wargaming discussion across various games on the internet, including 40k, generally boil down to the following:
If you like something then you are an idiot for various and silly reasons. Remember also if the inverse is true and you don't like something, then you are also an idiot and the reasons listed below also work.
Feel free to make your own, any reason can work.
Examples:
1) Because I said so.
2) Because I do/don't like it.
3) The sky is blue (or arguably not blue).
4) Space Marines.
5) Rules, Special Rules, Exceptions to those rules.
6) Wave Serpents.
7) Price.
8) The Internet.
On a more serious note, some people love the game, others hate it or think that it has somehow worsened or changed too dramatically over the years, don't let negative opinions weigh you down too much and try it out.
I'll apologize if this post seems bleak or harsh but I've seen threads of this nature into the 30/40 page margin and it does get tiring.
I was very much of the ilk that found 7th changed quite a few things for the worse but out of love of the game, I still lurk and play occasionally in the hopes things change for the better. It's maybe not what some would call a good reason to play but Its one I'm happy with. :3
Apart from the fact most posts pointing out issues with the 40k rule set , have used objective comparisons with other rule sets, and actual examples of how the rules could be improved.
This has mainly been objective critique.
The people trying to defend the 40k game system, simply post they can have fun with their player base, and that the collecting and hobby side is also enjoyable.
This has mainly been subjective opinion.
It could be summed up as...
Objective critique argument.
Why pay over twice as much for a rule set that you have to fix/re-write yourself, when other rule sets are much cheaper and require lots less effort to arrive at an enjoyable game?
Subjective opinion based replies.
I enjoy trying to work out how rules should actually work, and arguing the point.Even if I loose the game I can win some rules arguments!
I like using poorly worded rules so I can cheat to try win all my games.
I mainly collect minatures,and the rules let me push them around a nice looking table and roll dice to see what happens.
Its the game my group plays/we have played it for years .
I have spent so much time and effort on 40k, i dont want to give up on it.
Admittedly this thread has not gotten to that extreme that I described yet, there have been valid/objective/subjective opinions, I'm just saying more for the OP that you will regularly find threads like these in many places and most are not eloquent/well formed and they can be incredibly irritating/tiring to read. I can understand why they scare people away from the game.
I'll apologise though as I probably didn't get that across too well with my post
I fail to see what's so strategic about having random dice tables for everything. What will my warlords trait be today? Well this one really fits with the the theme of my army so I'll choose it. Oh nvm, have to roll. Damn, I rolled a 2 and I don't even have any TWC! Oh well, now on to my psyker. This one would be really good for what I'm trying to accomplish. Oh nvm, let me roll a dice to see which power he learned when he woke up this morning. Now onto the game. Let me position my models here so they're in cover and holding this objective. Oh, you have weapons that ignore cover and LOS and can shoot me from the far end of the table? Then there's maelstrom missions where what you're trying to accomplish each turn and how much you're rewarded for accomplishing it are totally random. What I see is "We don't know how to properly design or balance a game, so let's put everything on a random dice table. Then when it sucks, they can blame the dice instead of our incompetence.
The only strategy in 40k is target priority. It is not a strategy game. You might as well set your models on the table, make some pew pew sounds and have a dice roll to see who wins. WMH has FAR more strategy and is complex without being overly and pointlessly complicated. Why is close combat in 40k so complicated? Just resolving 1 round of close combat when your models have different weapons, I and WS stats is a chore. There are far too many pointless rules that add bloat and confusion to the game without actually adding any depth or complexity. Again, this is a hallmark of bad game design.
Toofast wrote: I fail to see what's so strategic about having random dice tables for everything.
In theory it requires you to adapt to changing circumstances and make the best use of what you have available, kind of like sealed/draft formats in MTG. The problem is in the execution, where GW fails in two big ways:
1) It's in the same game where GW is pushing "forge the narrative" as hard as possible. But when you follow that guidance and focus on the narrative aspects you get frustrated with how things that should be story elements (your warlord's leadership talents, for example, or what the mission objective is) are taken out of your control and replaced by random tables. So if you want to play the game the way GW suggests you immediately have to house rule away GW's rules and replace them with better ones. In an alternative game that was more focused on the strategy elements this would be less of a problem, and people would just understand that you have to build flexible lists that can make good use of any of the random table results.
2) The options are not equal. Most random tables have obvious results that you want because they're clearly more powerful than the others, and obvious results that you hate because they suck. So instead of rolling to see what equally-valuable tools you're going to have in your toolbox this game you're essentially rolling to see how powerful your army will be. And people hate this for the same reasons they'd hate it if playing a 1500 point game actually meant playing game with 1500 points +/- D3x100 points, where you could have a game between a 1200 point army and an 1800 point army. The random tables wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem if all the results were equally powerful and just led to subtle strategy adjustments depending on what you roll.
Buy your minis from craigslist or online 120 bucks cans get you a fat army. I was able to buy 50 tacticals, 10 terminators, a dreadnought, 1 predator, 10 devs, and a big-bunch of bits for 150. Only go to this forum for questions of rules, painting, etc. Everyone "vents" a lot on this forum and it can be really discouraging.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Don't let them neck beards get to you buy a army and have fun!
zombiekila707 wrote: Buy your minis from craigslist or online 120 bucks cans get you a fat army. I was able to buy 50 tacticals, 10 terminators, a dreadnought, 1 predator, 10 devs, and a big-bunch of bits for 150.
Sure, but what condition were they in? Many, if not most, of these "amazing" deals are for models that should be thrown in the trash. That might be acceptable if all you want to do is play the game as cheaply as possible, but a horrible idea if you care about the modeling and painting side of the hobby. And really, if all you care about is the game and the models don't matter then why are you playing such a horrible game instead of one of the far better alternatives?
Only go to this forum for questions of rules, painting, etc. Everyone "vents" a lot on this forum and it can be really discouraging.
Translation: avoid anything that could include honest discussion of a subject instead of just reinforcing your belief that the thing you just spent money on is worth it. I really don't see why "discouraging" is something to be avoided. It's a hobby that can be freely dropped at any time, not an essential life thing that you have to do no matter how much you hate it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zombiekila707 wrote: Don't let them neck beards get to you buy a army and have fun!
KEEP YOUR GW™ FINEFOIL™ TINFOIL HAT ON AT ALL TIMES!!!! BUY GW™ PRODUCTS™ WITHOUT QUESTION!!!! NOT SPENDING MONEY ON GW™ PRODUCTS™ IS HERESY!!!
It's a game, and like all games, whether or not its fun is so incredibly subjective that the only way you will get to know for certain is to try in and see if you like it.
Ask to borrow models, play some games, see if you can have an experienced player walk you through it, and network with players so you can get multiple viewpoints on the game as it stands with the locals.
At the end of the day, what is fun for me might not be fun for you. I played Warhammer 40K from Rogue Trader (Color me cobalt!) to 6th edition, dropped off sharply, and at the on set of 7th edition, I got rid of my Grey Knights, Orcs, and Ultramarines as the game went in a direction that i didn't want to go in.
I picked up Warmachine, because i like the rules set better, i got in with some guys playing AT43, and really like that game, as well as testing some Malifaux right now, and that game is just creepy and cooky, and all together spooky, but incredibly entertaining and fun.
Its all about what you want to get out of the game, but understand a few key points, regardless of whether you think I'm a hater or an apologist.
1. The rules are horrid. People can make excuses as much as they want, but they are terribad. Nothing short of killing off the current rules set in its entirety will ever get close to fixing this pile of crap they call rules.
2. The models are great, but they arent the only company producing great looking models. I highly suggest, if you love hobbying more than playing, look into Infinity, and if you don't care about the game at all, all model lines have beautiful looking models. WMH has Bradigus Thoryle, Harbinger of Menoth and a host of other AMAZING models to look through, Infinity has the cool electro sword space age peeps, AT43 has the americans or allies, Malifaux has....well....its Malifaux, look it up. i cant really describe it other than Amerian McGees Alice meets Nightmare Before Christmas and they had a love/hate partial birth abortion that somehow lived into a vindictive little axe murdering child.
3. Check for the longevity of the players playing in your local area. WH40k is not a game that you will be able to play a pick up game easily with. it just isn't, because the rules require repairing before people will play a game, so if you're going to try to get into a game group, make sure they will stick around for a while, and on top of that, hang out with them and make sure that they are people you WANT to hang around with. If you don't want to play against your opponents, you wont enjoy the game.
Lastly, don't be afraid to admit it isn't your game. I have seen players get into the game because they want A game to play and it ends up costing them money for a game system they wont enjoy. Be open to playing multiple games and choose the ones you want from there.
Sc077y wrote: It's a game, and like all games, whether or not its fun is so incredibly subjective that the only way you will get to know for certain is to try in and see if you like it.
Ask to borrow models, play some games, see if you can have an experienced player walk you through it, and network with players so you can get multiple viewpoints on the game as it stands with the locals.
At the end of the day, what is fun for me might not be fun for you. I played Warhammer 40K from Rogue Trader (Color me cobalt!) to 6th edition, dropped off sharply, and at the on set of 7th edition, I got rid of my Grey Knights, Orcs, and Ultramarines as the game went in a direction that i didn't want to go in.
I picked up Warmachine, because i like the rules set better, i got in with some guys playing AT43, and really like that game, as well as testing some Malifaux right now, and that game is just creepy and cooky, and all together spooky, but incredibly entertaining and fun.
Its all about what you want to get out of the game, but understand a few key points, regardless of whether you think I'm a hater or an apologist.
1. The rules are horrid. People can make excuses as much as they want, but they are terribad. Nothing short of killing off the current rules set in its entirety will ever get close to fixing this pile of crap they call rules.
2. The models are great, but they arent the only company producing great looking models. I highly suggest, if you love hobbying more than playing, look into Infinity, and if you don't care about the game at all, all model lines have beautiful looking models. WMH has Bradigus Thoryle, Harbinger of Menoth and a host of other AMAZING models to look through, Infinity has the cool electro sword space age peeps, AT43 has the americans or allies, Malifaux has....well....its Malifaux, look it up. i cant really describe it other than Amerian McGees Alice meets Nightmare Before Christmas and they had a love/hate partial birth abortion that somehow lived into a vindictive little axe murdering child.
3. Check for the longevity of the players playing in your local area. WH40k is not a game that you will be able to play a pick up game easily with. it just isn't, because the rules require repairing before people will play a game, so if you're going to try to get into a game group, make sure they will stick around for a while, and on top of that, hang out with them and make sure that they are people you WANT to hang around with. If you don't want to play against your opponents, you wont enjoy the game.
Lastly, don't be afraid to admit it isn't your game. I have seen players get into the game because they want A game to play and it ends up costing them money for a game system they wont enjoy. Be open to playing multiple games and choose the ones you want from there.
Can't exalt this post enough. This is spot on advice. The key thing about 40k is that it is what you make of it:
If you want a game with solid rules that you can play all types of players at a game store, then 40k is not that game because the rules are awful and you need to decide how to interpret a lot of rules with your opponent because they are so vague, and this results in different opponents having different interpretations which can lead to confusion and disagreements.
If you don't like the fact that the units you might like are going to be bad enough to cost you the game before you roll, just because you included them, then 40k isn't the right game because the army lists are full of choices like that for seemingly no reason other than nobody bothered to actually test the unit in a variety of scenarios but thought up a statline and abilities, played it a handful of times and had them randomly not completely suck, and threw them in.
If you like the models and background and have a regular group of people to play with, where you can all agree on how to interpret the vague rules and there's an unspoken gentleman's agreement not to play cheese lists because then nobody has fun in those cases, then 40k is a fine game for that situation, because all signs point to that being the intended way to play the game since that's basically how the GW designers play the game.
Kilkrazy wrote: Speaking personally, I used to enjoy it but it simply has become too expensive and at the same time less enjoyable in various ways, and the balance point has been crossed. My money and time is better spent on other games.
As stated, this is my personal experience.
Which is the same conclusion I, and probably a lot of others as well, came to regarding 40k.
jasper76 wrote: Some people like rules bloat and excessive dice rolling. It is a dice game, after all. And I like the fact that 40k has a gazillion different rulkes with a gazillion different weapons...its an over the top sci-fi game.
These are only failures to your tastes, not to everyone's.
Seriously? Name one. Name yourself and be the first. I know nobody who likes complicated, bloated and redundant rules that do not add realism or flair but do a hell of a job making "this unit has +1 BS" as complicated as humanely possible.
Rules are fine as an overall system. Tweaks are needed to bring some things into comparable power levels.
Codexes are of course not balanced, but look at the top 8 lists of the BAO 2014 tournament:
White Scars bikers with a knight
Ultramarines drop pods - sternguard and tacticals
Eldar/DE - wraithblades/DA in WS (3 WS), jetbikes, warp spiders, 2 wraithknights, allied baron+warriors
Tau Empire - 3 riptides, fire warriors in fish, 2 hammerheads, 2 broadside teams
White scars/iron hands - tacticals in rhinos, thunderfire cannons
Necrons - royal court, warriors in scythes, annibarges, wraiths, pylons
Necrons/CSM - similar but with chaos lord, cultists and a heldrake
Ultramarines drop pods - sternguard, tacticals, an assault squad(!)
All I ever see is whining about wave serpents and riptides, and yet there is one eldar list and one tau list in that top 8.
Even the tyranid players are happy at the moment as the new units and tyrannocyte drop pod are good.
If you think this is unbalanced tournament play, you should rewind to 1996 and play Magic:The Gathering. One deck completely dominated that season, and the challengers to it were really, really focused on that meta.
Until we have a proper organised play structure, 40K is going to be - relatively - unbalanced. I think it's not bad at the minute, and it's getting slowly better. Here's some tips for not getting frustrating matches:
1) everyone plays a competitive list
2) make sure there is enough terrain (I see far too many games with far too little terrain, which favours certain factions)
3) play maelstrom, or play partial maelstrom
4) Restrict FW and LoW. Really don't think these are actually 40k - often they're experimental, and LoW in a 40K game to me is just silly... if I wanted to play with Titans, I'd play Epic.
Case and point: I bought my first Warmachine starter kit, me, Mr 40k got-more-models-than-I-know-what-to-do-with.
It is making wayyyyy too much sense.
No rage-quit here, I will still play eventually, we just agreed to separate to go date others for a time...
Talizvar wrote: Case and point: I bought my first Warmachine starter kit, me, Mr 40k got-more-models-than-I-know-what-to-do-with.
It is making wayyyyy too much sense.
No rage-quit here, I will still play eventually, we just agreed to separate to go date others for a time...
That's like 8-9 models per side. Your 40k game will have so much more than that, not to mention more choice of different types (bikes, fliers, transports, tanks, etc). It's just a very different game -- i think 40k would be pointless with a 5 man tactical, hero, and three terminators.
That's like 8-9 models per side. Your 40k game will have so much more than that, not to mention more choice of different types (bikes, fliers, transports, tanks, etc). It's just a very different game -- i think 40k would be pointless with a 5 man tactical, hero, and three terminators.
So is that a "for" or "against" 40k?
I play with even less models in X-wing and have huge fun.
The larger model count for 40k may arguably be a requirement for a fun game.
You need them all to distract you from the boring, random, choiceless game mechanics.
Second edition lumped so many special abilities on individual models you HAD to play small skirmish games since so much was going on.
The last few editions have replaced the individual models with entire units acting little better than hit-points
So far, Warmachine looks like it is a true skirmish game so the smaller model count is it's comfort zone.
I saw just last night some 30 odd models per side and the extra huge warjacks fielded so larger games are doable.
Steam/magic powered bikes, transports and fliers would have to be pretty angry looking to be accepted in that setting.
Anything resembling a train or coach repurposed will do as a tank or transport however.
I am sure we will see zeppelins soon enough.
40k I guess is unnecessarily complicated, too many steps to bring about a final "action" I feel rather than all that dice rolling I should just look up a table / chart (throw darts at it?) or check tea leaves. Too much random, not enough choice. You need all those models so from actual statistics you may get a result you were pointing your army to.
I think little can compare to the size and drama of a 40k game but few can compare to the HOURS of play to complete a game.
I do like 40k but it is so imbalanced you really cannot take a win or loss seriously when calculating the odds.
Talizvar wrote: Case and point: I bought my first Warmachine starter kit, me, Mr 40k got-more-models-than-I-know-what-to-do-with.
It is making wayyyyy too much sense.
No rage-quit here, I will still play eventually, we just agreed to separate to go date others for a time...
That's like 8-9 models per side. Your 40k game will have so much more than that, not to mention more choice of different types (bikes, fliers, transports, tanks, etc). It's just a very different game -- i think 40k would be pointless with a 5 man tactical, hero, and three terminators.
Not sure if serious...
Anyways, 40k used to be around the same size (a little larger when you factored in vehicles) because it wasn't meant to be an entire war but a specific part of a larger battle. At some point the wires got crossed and someone got the idea to go full hog Epic 28mm (because you know, why sell a bunch of 6mm figures when you can sell expensive 28mm figures?).
Talizvar wrote: Case and point: I bought my first Warmachine starter kit, me, Mr 40k got-more-models-than-I-know-what-to-do-with.
It is making wayyyyy too much sense.
No rage-quit here, I will still play eventually, we just agreed to separate to go date others for a time...
That's like 8-9 models per side. Your 40k game will have so much more than that, not to mention more choice of different types (bikes, fliers, transports, tanks, etc). It's just a very different game -- i think 40k would be pointless with a 5 man tactical, hero, and three terminators.
Not sure if serious...
Anyways, 40k used to be around the same size (a little larger when you factored in vehicles) because it wasn't meant to be an entire war but a specific part of a larger battle. At some point the wires got crossed and someone got the idea to go full hog Epic 28mm (because you know, why sell a bunch of 6mm figures when you can sell expensive 28mm figures?).
Well, even during rogue trader, 40+ 28mm figures was pretty common to fill up one table side, plus a couple of vehicles. Notice I didn't even mention titans and super heavies (the epic stuff), because you can play a great game without them. Even the starter box for 40k comes with 10 tactical, 5 terminator, 3 bike 2 IC as a minimal force (for one side!), and basic set 40k makes for a pretty sparse game on 4x6.
Not at all saying WMH isn't a good game are disagreeing that the starter box is eminently plyable -just that a 17 model 40k game would be almost pointless. Deep strike, sweep, game over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frozen Ocean wrote: I do it primarily for the models. I don't get to game much, anyway.
Yeah, me too. Most of my gaming is PC and XB1, as it s simply much more time efficient. Still, the odd 40k or WMH game if a friend is over is fun. I have plenty of models of several factions, so they don't even need to bring anything.
120$ . Even a recast 1500 army costs more. The rulebooks and codex alone are over 150$.
who absolutely believe that the only valid opinion is their own. Treat whatever they say with all appropriate respect.
once you start getting the good stuff...Forgeworld kits!
Alot of the same successful lists and builds 
