Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

How do other systems compare with it? I do get the feeling from the forum that 40k is some sort of Golden Child in the gamer world, that all other systems are not up to scratch, am I wrong about this?

Just let me clarify my standpoint over this. I collected and played GW games for over 15 years. In that time I've had 4 40k armies, 1 Dwarf army, 1 large Ork v2 Epic army, 1 Necro gang, 1 BFG Space Marine fleet and a Bloodbowl team, most of this stuff has been sold now apart from my BFG fleet and Necro gang. I've not played any GW games for nearly 2 years now.

I don't hate GW, I like their figures and I enjoyed their games, but I've moved on to other systems. If 40k gets some more depth back to it I may go back.

I now play Urban War, Hordes, Confrontation, AT43, PBI and Rules of Engagements, all of which I enjoy in the same way as I did 40k. The rules for these games are, in my mind, no worse then each other or 40k. All of them have good and bad things in them, but I'm open to them.

Is it percived in the gaming world that all other systems are sub standard so there is no point playing them? If it that would be shame because I remember gaming in the late 80's, and buying loads of different systems, it was about the taking part and having a new gaming experience. Does the fact that you have to invest so much in a 40k army stop people trying something else? The reason I like games like Urban War and Hordes is that you can start playing a game quite quickly, but if you don't like the army you bought or get bored with it, you can collect another one without having to get a 2nd job.

40K is far from the best set of rules but the minis and fluff are popular. It also benefits from its wide popularity because it's easy to find other players. It's certainly the biggest game in the SF field by an order of magnitude.

Historicals is a different matter. I have no idea how many Napoleonics players there are, for example, it could be tons more than 40K players. The difference in historicals is that there isn't one dominant system or set of models, there are dozens of companies involved in each period.

There are a lot of wargamers who are aware of 40K but do not play it. I suspect there are a lot of 40K players i the younger age group who are not very aware of non-40K games.

Insofar as I can tell from hanging around Internet forums the Warhammer rules are the rules considered sub-standard, while LOTR, Warmaster, Epic: Armageddon, and Blood Bowl are all acclaimed. The popularity of the Warhammer games stem from, well, their popularity and the conservatism of their fans. Perhaps this is to be expected considering how inelegant the Warhammer rules are and how long the games take; if you haven't tried anything else you probably think it's all like Warhammer and don't really have the time or energy to make that investment twice!

Don't get me wrong, I like Warhammer 40k (although I'd rather enjoy some dentistry than play Warhammer Fantasy Battle), it's just not as easily picked up and played as my favourite games like Carcassone, Settlers of Catan, Bohnanza, Blood Bowl, Warmaster, or even Epic: Armageddon.

In my long experience, 40K is one of the most difficult games to learn not because it is complicated (it is in various ways fairly simple) but because the rules are badly written. See many previous threads about this.

In that way it holds sway in the gaming world simply because people are looking at its rules and trying to solve the same problems in some other way. One of the charms that Warhammer players often associate with the Rube Goldberg Device that is the Warhammer 40k rules is its random attention to detail. Some people seem to think that going into clumsy representative detail in some parts of the game while glossing over other details is quite enjoyable.

I mean take Epic 40,000, for example. It's a great game, but it failed because it wasn't a great Warhammer game of the sort that Epic: Space Marine and Epic: Titan Legion players wanted to play. It wasn't full of irrelevant details about the 40,000 background and people didn't like that.

The real test of a TTMG is when you take away the fancy terrain and the pretty miniatures and play it like a board game. Epic 40k is a great wargame, but like Chess with fancy pieces it felt unrepresentative to players used to playing in the cartoon world of 40k presented in previous versions of Epic, as well as with the rules employed to represent it.

40k is as "mainstream" as the hobby is going to get at
this point in time. No one really thinks it's the best in
everything it does. Even ardent GW supporters roll their
eyes at rules and releases.

A local said it best: would I play without the figs? Nope. And
so he makes sure to hobby as much as possible because
really we're playing because we started out in love with
the models rather than the game.

I've heard the 40k rules called a lot of things, most of them negative. There have been some raging debates as to why and how much they suck. I agree that it's popularity lies in widespread use, and multi-facted aspects of the hobby. Different people enjoy it for different reasons. My wife loves to paint WFB figures. I bought an entire WE army for her to paint years ago, and she is still just a chuggin through the figs when she gets time. I hate to paint, i like to play b/c I find it a little more social than computer games and we have a good crowd at my local.

GW holds sway b/c it is the biggest, moreso than being the best.

As for the domination of 40k on the market, I'd doubt as much as majority of gamers have even one 40k armies. It has by far the biggest plurality of any gaming system.

What I mean is that if you added all the non-40k gamers together, I'd imagine they'd outnumber 40k gamers, but no one system has anywhere near the popularity of GW right now, although PP is giving them an honest to go run for their money.

People have mentioned the GW figures as being really nice....erm, really? I mean, they not quite $h1t....but there are far nicer figures out there, take Infinity, and Confrontation?!?

I think where GW has held ME prisoner, has been the fluff. However, as time has worn on, and GW has twisted and turned, re-edited, and deleted...I've begun to disregard the fluff and even distrust it. You read a novel from BL and suddenly everything you clung to as fact is now no more!?!?

GW miniatures, games and fluff, are more or less on the back burner for me right now, sure I'm still gonna finished my DA army, and I'm developing my own, custom built army, which can be played in the 40K universe, but because the miniatures are my own design, can also be played elsewhere with different rules.

I played 40k for almost 6 years before I stumbleb upon warmachine. and it really is a great system, much better then any GW system ever was, but I still keep playing 40k because there's so much possibilitys to convert and create an army theme.

+ Hordes has no Orks

My result was basically similar to Rama's. Once I had played my first game of Warmachine, trying to play 40k again was painful. GW still makes a hell of a model. The majority of their releases are top in the industry, in my mind. And the fluff is what got me into 40k in the beginning. But without a good game to play, my interest in the rest has waned.

I hope GW gets knocked down a couple notches, just so they have to change their market outlook and philosophy. Maybe then we'll have a 40k worth playing.

I think the secret behind 40k is what has already been said, it is highly accessible.

Historicals, particularly Napoleonics, is a much older hobby. In fact, I think it is the oldest of the "gamer" hobbies, unless you count those weird parlor games they used to play in victorian times. I know it is a lot older than what we call role playing games.

I would imagine that there a very large number of traditional miniature gamers, but I dont think they're as "visible" as 40k gamers or role players. I dont have any rational reason for saying that is so, I just get that impression when looking over websites and talking to locals. Also, I imagine there are more casual GW players, while I would think most historical guys are pretty hard core.

GW has marketing and suport behind it, even if it is hit and miss, they do a good job of pimping thier product, Via the stores, thier website, and the White Dwarf.

Of course having strings of specialist shops with the big GAMES WORKSHOP strewn across the world doesn't hurt, either.

As for holding sway, depending on who you ask, it is a matter of perspective.
When they were actually a gaming company, as in making up a good selection of different games, then giving the freedom to the players to play, contribute, and actually feel that they had a say in the hobby, Yes, they did.
Now that they are a global conglomerate, the answer is NO.

They have learned the hard lesson of buisness, that they either change with the market, lead from the front with innovation, push bounderies, and continually remake themselves, or die.

The biggest issue I see with GW now is that they are stuck on themselves.
I can appreciate that they are the so called leader in the gaming industry, but when they got into that big buisness mentality of " Oh WE know whats best for you..." they shot themselves in the foot, and continually pander to the New gamer market, all the while neglecting the base that they are oh so carefully trying to establish.
People can only be new gamers ONCE, and then the moment is gone.
If they can get themselves a foothold, reinvent themselves, and gain thier collective reputation back, they MAY have a chance to get back in the drivers seat.
The best thing GW has going for it is the other companies success. FOW, PP, Mongoose... etc. they all have the issue of trying to continue to get thier markets back, and compete with each other for quickly drying up extra hobby cash.

Then there is the little matter of the changing of the guard.
GW doesn't change developers and support effectively for the fanbase to take it in stride and continue to stay engaged.
When they bring in new writers, developers, etc. The very first thing the new guy always wants to do is to want to tear the house down and start building it from the foundation up. They neglect the established fanbase,while they neglect years of cannon, established lore, and background.
Thereby destroying their own product all in the name of selling FOTM armies that quite simply suck.
Swinging the nerfbat doesn't make for improvements when people put down hard earned coin for a product, only to have it made worthless at the drop of the pen.

I would like them to get back to gaming. Apocalypse seems a step in the right direction, and actually giving the players freedom to play, without having to try to play for them. If they can get off of the high horse, get back down to the gamers level, and help them, rather then tell everyone what to do, then they might have a chance. If not, then Warmachine, FOW, and others take the food out of GW's collective mouth.

They don't make money selling rulebooks, though. Not
really.

I wonder if people would still bother buying Warmachine
figures if they grew up in a culture without 40k. So many
people don't bother painting that it makes me think they'd
also be willing to proxy.

GW makes tons of money off the Codices.

So much that other companies would go nuts if they could make that much profit, period.

Fell out of my chair twice when I saw the BA codex printed and available for download. Then fell out again.

Not compared to the amount they must make on the minis.

Most previous posters have already covered the main assumptions on the predominance of 40K. I am an old historical gamer from way back. I really enjoyed Napoleonics, SYW, WRG, and several other older rule sets. Back then we either bought rules and they looked like crap or had photocopies, and they still look like crap. When I got into 40K back in the late 80's the pictures and fluff got me.

I'm now older and have less time to play so I stick with 40K. The rules are simpler and you don't have to play for 3 days to resolve one battle. I like games that last no more than 3 hours.

In my opinion, which may be contrary to most others here, Warmachine is not well received by the old historical crowd either. I remember the old Herohammer days of WHFB and really hated it. Warmachine reminds me of that. I have actually bought warmachine and played for 2 years when it first came out. I even got the next rule set after Prime. But the Herohammer aspect and also similarities to MtG with counters and stuff really turned me away from Warmachine. But that's my own opinion.

I

warmachine really is a different game. I enjoy it, it makes for a great change of pace. However, I find myself coming back to 40k. All the different popular game systems that have been mentioned here have their different ups and downs. I think none of them have QUITE the issues 4k does. However, playing several different systems had made me appreciate them all, I guess.

GW did stop being a gaming company, prob. right about the time they decided it was time to start making some serious money instead of playing games.

It's a shame. I don't know if it will be heir downfall. On the one hand, profts are down, leadership changes, etc... On the other hand, people have been doomcrying them for years. I know a store who held a fire sale on GW product just as my wife and I were swinging through town, owner convinced GW was down the toilet. That was 8 years ago. That's a long time to flush!

@ inquisitor bob: Do you think that one reason the OHC (Old Historical Crowd) is turned off by Warmachine is their whole "Play like you got a pair" attitude? They are more irrevrant, encourage powergaming and rules "abuse". Most OHC I know are a bit more, erm... conservative, and the whole PP thing walking aorund with cigars and stuff in all their pics could be a bit off-putting for the more, erm... conservative. It DOES seem like they are trying too hard with a macho attitude to me.

There's a lot of tongue-in-cheekiness about page 5 'tude, I think. Yes, the game is more about coming up with power combos, but that's what the game's been built on. 40k has always been about fluff and character. WM is getting fluffier as the game and storyline develops, but it has a lot less influence on gameplay than 40k does. That's only made my glee for WM grow as the game does.

Edit: WM is game first, fluff second. 40k is (or should be) the opposite.

I think OHC plays with the old adage of infantry, artillery, and cavalry. The combination of these three requires careful planning and overall coordination. Warmachine is like having Alexander the Great wiping out the entire Persian army all by himself with some really cool feat. On the other hand perhaps Darius might have some feat to counter Alexander. In that type of scenario it's just too much like MtG where one card counters another and there is really no tactical aspect to the game at all.

I think Warmachine rules are really well done. PP are quite good at posting FAQ's and update their customer with new revisions. GW should take note of that. Historical gamers on the other hand just make up home revisions and continue playing the game. Back in the old days rule progression is slow. I remember the rules I first used for Napoleonics was Empire 2nd edition. It took the company about 15 years to progress to Empire 5th and that was after the 2nd edition was already out for quite a few years.

I do not think historical gamers are put off wit the PP thing at all. Afterall, back in the days, there were very few illustrations so I don't think that really mattered. Don't forget most historical gamers are elitists in their opinion on GW and perhaps even PP products. The same historical gamers also look down on Flames of War (another system I play and enjoy to some extent).

Inq Bob: Don't you think things are changing now with
the advent of the Internet? Rules can be tested amongst
a community of gamers who don't even play together!

Yes, you no longer have to walk for two hours barefoot in the snow, uphill, to get to your gaming store.

"Back when I was a kid, we only gamed with the raided
corpses of national heroes."

"And we had to carve our minis out of the bones of our friends who weren't lucky enough to survive. And whenever you lost one on the battlefield, your opponent got to smash it beneath their heel."

I think we need a new thread for this discussion.

malfred wrote:Inq Bob: Don't you think things are changing now with
the advent of the Internet? Rules can be tested amongst
a community of gamers who don't even play together!

Good Point.

I have not played with my old Historical group in about 10 years. I know some of them are still around.

In my opinion I do think the internet changed the historical gaming community. I still see the old ugly historical gaming rulebooks out at a couple stores near me. They really do not appeal to anyone except those who know these rules. I'm on TMP and although many of them favor certain games over others I just don't see any of these people in the majority around the game stores I frequent. TMP is a great website. I use it often to read reviews and comments. I think that most commercial historical game companies do have a presence on TMP and they contribute to the discussions. The internet is a great tool for players and companies to come together to discuss any game system whether the rules are good or bad. I see many on TMP making very good suggestions to alter the rules to fit certain situations. These discussions are definitely more civilized than some of the heated 40K debates on Dakka. In general the Historical crowd are fairly congenial towards each other and they love to share information.

But even following some of the discussions at TMP I see that most of the posters are the driving force for historical gaming in their area. If these guys are not around the historical game group will probably fall apart. My FLGS recently had a few new faces, one of them was trying to promote Battletech. Boy, was I really stoked about that. I got into Btech back when it was Battledroids in 83 or 84. I just bought the new rules back in September, 2007 but there were no players. It'll be interesting to see if this guy can keep the game going.

As has been said, accessibility helps GW a lot: it's fairly easy to find someone with whom to play 40k. I also think a lot of people like how customizable 40k can be. I haven't played Warmachines, but from what I understand, the units have no options. 40k army building is a lot of fun precisely because there are many units and many options for each unit.

Of course, this is less true now than it was when I started playing in 2nd edition. It seems like customizability is getting steadily worse, and I think that this has hurt the game a lot. Imbalance also hurts customizability, as it makes many options essentially inviable in competitive settings, and everyone knows how much of a problem this now is. GW is really hurting the game with its rules, and I think this is going to have an impact on popularity sooner or later. Maybe it has already.

People criticize 40k, a lot. In a lot of places, people are right to criticize 40k, there’s plenty of flaws in there.

But the same people will then turn around and sing the praises of all sorts of other systems. Having played a lot of other systems, nothing is that wonderful, strategy and gameplay always get a little stale if you play it for a while. By and large whether you like it or not is based more around the design goals of the game than any idea of absolute quality.

It’s like people having a go at McDonalds. Yeah, McDonalds is pretty crappy. But then, KFC is also pretty crappy, but not as high profile, so people have a go at it less. Not that 40K (or any game) is as crap as McDonalds, but the principle is the same.

GW can be graded as follows:
A for Fluff - lots and lots of Fluff for a distinctive universe

A- for Minis - lots of good stuff, but held down from some old junk.

C+ for Rules - too much clunky junk.

Given that GW is a minis company and their rules aren't that good, it constantly amazes me that anybody wants to make the rules more complex and bloated. GW really should be about a minimalist ruleset, given their gaming focus on Minis.

JohnHwangDD wrote:GW can be graded as follows:
A for Fluff - lots and lots of Fluff for a distinctive universe

A- for Minis - lots of good stuff, but held down from some old junk.

C+ for Rules - too much clunky junk.

Given that GW is a minis company and their rules aren't that good, it constantly amazes me that anybody wants to make the rules more complex and bloated. GW really should be about a minimalist ruleset, given their gaming focus on Minis.

That's a weird conclusion to get at. They HAVE good minis. Why not
focus on doing better with the rules?