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.

I won't comment on b) but I think it is a fair call to say 40k is, objectively, bad as a game. As an excuse to push some lovely painted models around a board and drink with mates I'm sure it's wonderful but as a GAME, ie in terms of game mechanics and the like, it is horribly imbalanced, there are countless rules queries that are never going to be addressed and 'if you don't know roll off' is only ever acceptable as a safety net to catch problems and FAQ them in the first few months after a release. No professional ruleset should ever need that rule to operate.

 jonolikespie wrote:
No professional ruleset should ever need that rule to operate.

Every RPG, LARP, etc.. has a similar rule to settle disputes. It's industry standard. Why should it be omitted, simply because GW adds miniatures to the mix?

Because RPGs and gak aren't suppost to be competitive.

40k isn't either, but if people choose to use it that way, it needs to be better than "4+ it's this" to do so

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
No professional ruleset should ever need that rule to operate.

Every RPG, LARP, etc.. has a similar rule to settle disputes. It's industry standard. Why should it be omitted, simply because GW adds miniatures to the mix?

I haven't encountered a RPG with anything near the level of rules disputes as 40k and even so there is a HUGE difference between a wargame played between two competing players and a group of players acting together with a GM to dictate anything like that that comes up.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Instead of comparing 40k to an RPG compare it to other wargames. There are tons of them. Infinity, Warmachine/Hordes, Warpath/Kings of war, Dystopian Wars/Firestorm Armada, Dropszone Commander.. you get my point. Show me one of those that's riddled with the same kind of imbalance or rules queries as 40k.

But thats the point.

40K doesn't try to be or want to be a wargame like DZC, Infinity etc..

It emphasises narrative, storytelling and campaigns.

Don't try to make it into something it isn't and doesn't want to be.

None the less people want to play it competitively. GW used to run grand tournaments, and still do run tourneys on a local level. GW themselves saying the game is about storytelling and whatever but it doesn't change the fact that it's a piss poor excuse for bad rules writing.

There is no reason a clear ruleset would take away any of the storytelling elements.

 jonolikespie wrote:
None the less people want to play it competitively. GW used to run grand tournaments, and still do run tourneys on a local level. GW themselves saying the game is about storytelling and whatever but it doesn't change the fact that it's a piss poor excuse for bad rules writing.

There is no reason a clear ruleset would take away any of the storytelling elements.

Emphasis on "used to".

And I am not claiming the ruleset is perfect or beyond improvements. But their quality (and the ways to possibly improve them) first need to be measured against the appropriate benchmark to set them against. And that benchmark are narrative RPGs or LARPs (with Miniatures instead of people) at least as much (and arguably more so) as they are board/wargames (wether or not they use similar props to play).

The constant ranting about how X should be a better car, more like other cars, doesn't help when X is a boat.

The fundamental difference between 40k and RPGs, is that (usually) players aren't in direct competition with each other in an RPG, Even in massively imbalanced D&D 3.5, it's entirely possible to have am unoptimised fighter in the same game as an optimised wizard and have the player still participate in the game, feel like a valued member of the party and enjoy the game. Compare that to a game of 40k between an optimised Taudar list vs an unoptimised Ork list. The game will be brutal and one-sided, the Ork player will not enjoy the game or really feel like they're participating in it at all beyond removing their models from the board.

And even if we are comparing 40k to RPGs, it's more imbalanced than most RPGs I've encountered. If Dark Heresy had the same level of imbalance 40k has the FFG forums would be full of rage (well, more than they currently are).

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The fundamental difference between 40k and RPGs, is that (usually) players aren't in direct competition with each other in an RPG, Even in massively imbalanced D&D 3.5, it's entirely possible to have am unoptimised fighter in the same game as an optimised wizard and have the player still participate in the game, feel like a valued member of the party and enjoy the game. Compare that to a game of 40k between an optimised Taudar list vs an unoptimised Ork list. The game will be brutal and one-sided, the Ork player will not enjoy the game or really feel like they're participating in it at all beyond removing their models from the board.

Which is why you should talk before the game, discuss expectations and perhaps adapt the scenario to fit the game of these TauDar vs. the Ork Hordes (and the specific Models they include) to match. A Farseer with Riptides will have different motivations, priorities and "victory" conditions than a howling green-tide of Orks on a Waagh. Build these into the game, specific points based on the Farseers backstory perhaps that could give the Orks an edge, etc.. .

The "relative contribution" each player adds to the game comes with the story.

40K is a competition of the armies on the table. It is still a cooperative effort of the players as much as most RPGs (with D&D being a bad example, seeing how it is rather to the wargaming-side of things), which is why it doesn't work as a "competitive" game.

40k at it's core is a game where two players play against each other. There is a win condition. It sets two players against each other with only a rulebook (or in the case of tourney's a TO) to arbitrate the results and determine a victor.

It can not be compared to an RPG because no matter how involved you get in creating a story around 40k it is not a cooperative game with a third party such as a GM dictating the results.

 jonolikespie wrote:
40k at it's core is a game where two players play against each other. There is a win condition. It sets two players against each other with only a rulebook (or in the case of tourney's a TO) to arbitrate the results and determine a victor.

It can not be compared to an RPG because no matter how involved you get in creating a story around 40k it is not a cooperative game with a third party such as a GM dictating the results.

As long as you cling to this mistake, so long will you continue to be disappointed.

So there's nothing wrong with the rules as long as you don't actually play by them?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So there's nothing wrong with the rules as long as you don't actually play by them?

There is nothing with rules for a cooperative game as long as you don't play it competitively (and, usually, vice versa)

Hell, some books (Crusade of Fire comes to mind) even suggest a Game Master if you feel unsure handling between yourself (though a Game Master in and by itself doesn't make a cooperative game).

As above.

The express written intent of the rules given is that they are a framework for you to d owith as you wish.

Stating "but it has to do..." ignores this intent.

You might not like it, and it might not be the brightest, most business savvy way to run it, however that is the studios call, and not yours.

I would love a ruleset that was less internally contradictory, including better but not perfect balance (as the complexity is such that it is likely impossible to achieve perfect balance, and perfect balance can be incredibly dull), etc

I disagree with the idea that rule disputes are constant - attending, and running, a fair few tournaments (from 12 players to over 100) over the years has shown that to be NOT the case. In friendlies at our gaming club, with probably 10 - 15 games ona club night, actual ruels arguments are incredibly rare, and disputes are usually worked out between players fairly quickly.

Alright, Zwei, I think I may be having some trouble understanding your argument here so can you please clarify something for me.

People who play the game in a competitive fashion*, are they playing the game wrong and should stop because it's not that kind of game or are they not going to have fun playing like that because the game doesn't work that way?

Are you suggesting anyone who sees the game as something to win and are uninterested in turning it into a pseudo-RPG are playing it wrong, or are you suggesting the game doesn't work any other way?


*Not powergamers, WAAC players or tourney player, just people who don't discuss how to forge a narrative beforehand and play with the assumption that they will be trying to win

 Zweischneid wrote:
But thats the point.

40K doesn't try to be or want to be a wargame like DZC, Infinity etc..

It emphasises narrative, storytelling and campaigns.

Don't try to make it into something it isn't and doesn't want to be.

It's a bit hard to have a narrative when, unless you take specific units, your army will get roflstomped 9 games out of 10...

 jonolikespie wrote:
Alright, Zwei, I think I may be having some trouble understanding your argument here so can you please clarify something for me.

People who play the game in a competitive fashion*, are they playing the game wrong and should stop because it's not that kind of game or are they not going to have fun playing like that because the game doesn't work that way?

Are you suggesting anyone who sees the game as something to win and are uninterested in turning it into a pseudo-RPG are playing it wrong, or are you suggesting the game doesn't work any other way?


*Not powergamers, WAAC players or tourney player, just people who don't discuss how to forge a narrative beforehand and play with the assumption that they will be trying to win

What I am suggesting is that you stop asking for Warhammer 40K to become "like other wargames", because those other wargames already exist.

Those who would like to a play a game that is "like other wargames" can already play those other wargames.

Those of us who like Warhammer 40K just fine the way it is, only have Warhammer 40K. No alternative.

There is no point in making Warhammer 40K "like other wargames" (because there already are other wargames) and there is no alternative to the current Warhammer-40K-take on gaming, because nobody else does it like Warhammer 40K


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

It's a bit hard to have a narrative when, unless you take specific units, your army will get roflstomped 9 games out of 10...

you don't get roflstomped if you cooperate with your fellow player across the table to make the confrontation on the table an exciting one.

 Selym wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
But thats the point.

40K doesn't try to be or want to be a wargame like DZC, Infinity etc..

It emphasises narrative, storytelling and campaigns.

Don't try to make it into something it isn't and doesn't want to be.

It's a bit hard to have a narrative when, unless you take specific units, your army will get roflstomped 9 games out of 10...

What he is saying and I agree is that rightly or wrongly GW are assuming both players don't take take the "I win" units - if they - problems ensue............

Alright, Zwei, I think I may be having some trouble understanding your argument here so can you please clarify something for me.
People who play the game in a competitive fashion*, are they playing the game wrong and should stop because it's not that kind of game or are they not going to have fun playing like that because the game doesn't work that way?
Are you suggesting anyone who sees the game as something to win and are uninterested in turning it into a pseudo-RPG are playing it wrong, or are you suggesting the game doesn't work any other way?

No thats not what he said - he said the rules are not written with those players in mind and therefore will need to be adapted by them in their groups to give them the game play style they want. I thnk he is right - its the same as if they were written with a competative mindset, people who just want a narrative game need to adapt them..

This sort of disucssion is happening at our club at the moment .........................what and how to play 40k with radically different expectatiuons.

knas ser wrote:
Okay, you know what? feth it. I laid everything out reasonably but it's plain to see that 'my kind' aren't welcome here.

Get off your cross already. I've said several times that you can play the game competitively if you want, I was just making a point that the game is just really bad at being that competitive. The problem with that started with 3rd when GW tried to get into the whole tournament scene and it went downhill from there.

knas ser wrote:
I started playing back with 1st edition and then dropped out somewhere around third. I came across my old models when moving and thought it would be really fun to get back into it. But apparently because I actually want to play it as a game, I'm not welcome here.

You're plenty welcome, but you obviously don't understand the state that this game is in right now. You've been out for 2-3 Editions and are coming back in and trying to argue that the game is somehow more suited for competition than it actually is. You can play it in tournaments but honestly you're playing a game of "who has this month's best army" over "who is the most skilled general here". It's not an issue with you or "your kind" it's a problem with the game that you're not seeing and it's probably because you've been gone.

knas ser wrote:
My opinions should be shot down and I should be patronized because that's not WH40k is about and Heaven forbid that I actually express my wants for the system because then I'll just get told (twice) that I'm just trying to lord it over other people in wanting the game to be balanced. Oh and apparently compared to a madman for wanting GW to playtest something like the revenant before releasing it because, yes, of course that's such a fething unreasonable expectation that you have to fething chastise me for such crazy pipedreams.

First off, opinions get shot down all the time. This is the internet and people aren't required to agree on everything here. Also, someone was "treating you with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority"? When did that happen?

You really didn't read all of what I wrote I guess because honestly there are problems you're failing to see:
1. GW doesn't playtests in large enough groups to solve those sorts of issues because they play a very soft version of the game internally compared to what's done competitively
2. I didn't say the game shouldn't be balanced, I said that 6th can't be that balanced game because of all the junk it's carrying, some of which dates back to Rogue Trader (design mentalities, a lack of a points costing system, ect). This edition can't be salvaged into a proper, competitive game. If there is enough pressure from the fanbase 7th might. The problem is that a majority of the fanbase are more content to sit on their thumbs than actually deal with GW about their problems (writing letters, or signing a petition is just "too hard" for some people and they give up before they try because of it) and honestly that's part of the reason the game continues to be as badly balanced as it is.
3. You missed what was the closest thing GW had to a competitive ruleset with 5th edition so you really didn't see the mess that was the tournament scene then. It's still a mess now, just a worse one because the rules aren't designed for tournaments.

knas ser wrote:
Fine. Maybe I wont get back into 40K. I'll stick to sports seeing as that's where you think competitive people who "just want to place themselves on an imaginary pedestal" belong.

That's your prerogative. Also I never said all competitive people where like that, just that there is a considerable number of them who bring it into every game, no matter what you're doing and just make it unfun. Unless you think Quadtide is a fun playstyle to be facing when you're not running one of it's few counters.

knas ser wrote:
Apparently what I should be doing if I want to play is being "proactive" in changing the rules rather than actually discussing the matter with like-minded people here on Dakka. Well feth it. You make it more than clear that people like me are not who 40K is for so feth it, I'll find a different hobby. If it's such a fething ask that something as simple as the more outrageously broken things to be play-tested then plainly the fault is mine for having such crazy stupid expectations. So I'll just let myself out and stick the old models back in the attic. Well done. You just killed the enthusiasm of a returning player with your relentless attacks on a simple opinion that D-weapons are. broken. Squash is healthier for me and clearly suits my character flaws as someone who wants to feel superior to others. Plus the cost of a single titan will pay for courts from now till 2015. So thanks. You did me a favour in bringing me to my senses before I started buying models again. I'm sure the hobby will be better off with me.

Honestly now, have you even played 6th edition yet, or looked at it's rules? It's not the kind of game you're looking for if all you want is a game where you can test tactics and skill in. Not to mention your arguing with someone who knows the current edition, has been playing it, studying it, reading it, examining it and trying to think of ways it could be better since it came out but have said you're only just getting back into the game. If you think I'm actively being mean because I say this edition doesn't work competitively then you really don't understand this game.

There are far bigger issues than D-Weapons in this game, and the fact you don't know that, but want to argue that it can be more with the ruleset it currently has (not to mention the codex balance that's all over the place), shows that you honestly have no idea how bad the competitive game is.

If you really quit because of this, then you're welcome because you were about to waste money trying to play a competitive game that doesn't, and currently can't, exist. I'm sorry 40k isn't that game, but trying to blame me because I'm aware of this and am trying to explain that to you and you're not listening despite not being involved in 40k for a few editions isn't my fault. You're taking the state of the game as a slight against you when I say it's not made for competitive play, can't be just fixed easily for competitive play, and doesn't support competition like you obviously want it too. It doesn't stop people from trying, but it does lead to pages and pages of constant complaints that it's not what they want it too be that never go anywhere beyond "I'll complain about it on the internet and my problems will magically be answered."

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Alright, Zwei, I think I may be having some trouble understanding your argument here so can you please clarify something for me.

People who play the game in a competitive fashion*, are they playing the game wrong and should stop because it's not that kind of game or are they not going to have fun playing like that because the game doesn't work that way?

Are you suggesting anyone who sees the game as something to win and are uninterested in turning it into a pseudo-RPG are playing it wrong, or are you suggesting the game doesn't work any other way?


*Not powergamers, WAAC players or tourney player, just people who don't discuss how to forge a narrative beforehand and play with the assumption that they will be trying to win

What I am suggesting is that you stop asking for Warhammer 40K to become "like other wargames", because those other wargames already exist.

Those who would like to a play a game that is "like other wargames" can already play those other wargames.

Those of us who like Warhammer 40K just fine the way it is, only have Warhammer 40K. No alternative.

There is no point in making Warhammer 40K "like other wargames" (because there already are other wargames) and there is no alternative to the current Warhammer-40K-take on gaming, because nobody else does it like Warhammer 40K


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

It's a bit hard to have a narrative when, unless you take specific units, your army will get roflstomped 9 games out of 10...

you don't get roflstomped if you cooperate with your fellow player across the table to make the confrontation on the table an exciting one.

While I agree that I've never seen another game have the same sort of combat I believe it is to a fault. Why are so many aircraft focusing on a small firefight? Why is a Revenant titan wasting it's time with this small group? 40k is a game that is designed with skirmishes in mind but tries to fit in mass unit combat into it. That just doesn't work and makes for a clunky and overly long game.

Like I said earlier, 40k is terrible for writing stories. Sure, you can have fun telling the story of how the Cadian 1337th regiment fought tooth and nail beating the Chaos Space Marines back in a lovingly detailed environment but you'd have to bend over backwards to do so. You can't take too many artillery pieces or else the marines will be destroyed, you can't take certain fortifications, you can't take too many blobs, you have to take some weak units, you can't have too many heldrakes and you can't have too many oblits.

Beyond scenarios so contrived you'd might as well just write the story and include the pictures for fun 40k as a narrative tool is still poor. The fact that it inherently favors some codices over others makes for bad stories. Who wants to read the story about how a bunch of Necron aircraft destroyed a foot army of Ork slugga boys? Or the gripping tale of Commander Farsight and his many Riptides ripping apart an IG armored convoy with little effort? Or what of the tale of Lord Commander Stern ordering his artillery pieces to blow a distant Blood Angel army up?

My point is that the only stories worth reading come out of carefully planned instances. Most players either don't have the time for these sort of things or the patience. Remember, some of us just want to have fun pushing models around and don't want to make a fanfic with accompanying images. So the excuse that 40k is good as a narrative system is rather poor IMO.

Warhammer 40K can be played competitively and in a reasonably balanced manner, but not with the current 6th Ed. Rules and its following releases. In fact I’d say GW is openly discouraging such play in an effort to squeeze as much out of its players as possible by creating a continuing cycle of having the next rock beat the current scissors that just trounced paper. Meanwhile the rules randomize conventions to the point skill has less effect on a battle’s final result. GW has effectively “moved the goalposts” by turning the game into something less competitive and more akin to story telling like an RPG. It’s an attempt to broaden its base because they feel they have saturated their market of “serious” gamers so it’s better now to appeal to the “non-serious” gamers. This way little Timmy can win plenty too, especially if he has cash! But it’s not an RPG…it’s a war game gone sour, putrefied by its own bloat. A good game creates a narrative (rewards good play and occasional luck); it doesn’t force it with dumb mechanics used as an excuse to justify poor rules.

I find the arguments about how it’s only a “beer and pretzels” game for “casual” play or for “fun” either naïve, disingenuous or simply ignorant. A beer and pretzels game doesn’t require a genuine investment of money, time and effort. It doesn’t cost $500++, take a 100+ hours of work to build and have over 150 pages of basic rules to play.

Period.

And how have “fun” and “competitive” become mutually exclusive? Only in the minds of those who support the current GW model, I guess. I have no problem with those who enjoy the game for what it’s worth or play “friendly only” games. Why is it however such a crime for those who want to play a game where their generalship actually means something? Why shout down legitimate criticism? Even if the game were PERFECT GW would change it…it’s their model for generating sales.

For those who just say love or leave it, I say change it or lose it. But change in and of itself is of no value unless it’s positive. My little cadre of players has improved and streamlined the rules and we are having the best games ever. They are competitive, balanced, intuitive and interactive. Remarkably our rules aren’t that different from GW’s; it CAN be done. Unfortunately, really great rules aren’t GW’s goal. The goal is to CHANGE the rules…and for people to continuing buying into that, figuratively and literally.

By the way, as this is a forum people have a right to express their views on the game however complimentary or critical as they may be…and it might even do some good. Saying GW doesn’t care or won’t change really isn’t the point. A forum is where thoughts and ideas are shared, reviewed, criticized and discarded if need be. I admit I feel a kinship with many on these forums who have a bad taste in their mouths as to what has happened to their favorite game. Maybe GW WILL get a clue that what they’ve done is less than satisfactory for so many die hard fans and players. Waiting for the chance that somehow 7th Ed. will magically make it all better is sadly misunderstanding GW policy. If it happens, everybody wins…but I won’t nor will I need to hold my breath.

I think 3++ nailed it here: http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/12/40k-has-changed-accept-it/

 amanita wrote:
Warhammer 40K can be played competitively and in a reasonably balanced manner, but not with the current 6th Ed. Rules and its following releases. In fact I’d say GW is openly discouraging such play in an effort to squeeze as much out of its players as possible by creating a continuing cycle of having the next rock beat the current scissors that just trounced paper. Meanwhile the rules randomize conventions to the point skill has less effect on a battle’s final result. GW has effectively “moved the goalposts” by turning the game into something less competitive and more akin to story telling like an RPG. It’s an attempt to broaden its base because they feel they have saturated their market of “serious” gamers so it’s better now to appeal to the “non-serious” gamers. This way little Timmy can win plenty too, especially if he has cash! But it’s not an RPG…it’s a war game gone sour, putrefied by its own bloat. A good game creates a narrative (rewards good play and occasional luck); it doesn’t force it with dumb mechanics used as an excuse to justify poor rules.

I find the arguments about how it’s only a “beer and pretzels” game for “casual” play or for “fun” either naïve, disingenuous or simply ignorant. A beer and pretzels game doesn’t require a genuine investment of money, time and effort. It doesn’t cost $500++, take a 100+ hours of work to build and have over 150 pages of basic rules to play.

Period.

And how have “fun” and “competitive” become mutually exclusive? Only in the minds of those who support the current GW model, I guess. I have no problem with those who enjoy the game for what it’s worth or play “friendly only” games. Why is it however such a crime for those who want to play a game where their generalship actually means something? Why shout down legitimate criticism? Even if the game were PERFECT GW would change it…it’s their model for generating sales.

For those who just say love or leave it, I say change it or lose it. But change in and of itself is of no value unless it’s positive. My little cadre of players has improved and streamlined the rules and we are having the best games ever. They are competitive, balanced, intuitive and interactive. Remarkably our rules aren’t that different from GW’s; it CAN be done. Unfortunately, really great rules aren’t GW’s goal. The goal is to CHANGE the rules…and for people to continuing buying into that, figuratively and literally.

By the way, as this is a forum people have a right to express their views on the game however complimentary or critical as they may be…and it might even do some good. Saying GW doesn’t care or won’t change really isn’t the point. A forum is where thoughts and ideas are shared, reviewed, criticized and discarded if need be. I admit I feel a kinship with many on these forums who have a bad taste in their mouths as to what has happened to their favorite game. Maybe GW WILL get a clue that what they’ve done is less than satisfactory for so many die hard fans and players. Waiting for the chance that somehow 7th Ed. will magically make it all better is sadly misunderstanding GW policy. If it happens, everybody wins…but I won’t nor will I need to hold my breath.

Way too much contradiciton here - apparently you feel shouted down but those who disagree are naive, disagreeable and Ignorant? Or do they not have the right to express their views as you do?

If you read the actual post, I and other s were not saying you are doing something wrong - more that the present ediiton may not be not designed for competative play - what you want to do with that is kinda your decision - so you can modify or shout at GW or even just discuss it and see what you want it to be.................

@ Mr Morden - maybe you should read my response again. Looking for straw, man? I agree completely this edition sucks for competitive play; I merely said WHY it does and probably will continue to. I never addressed anything you wrote specifically, but I apparently hit a nerve. I never said people can't debate the merits of the game, I just have seen too many examples of people whitewashing its warts and saying stupid things like 'grow a pair or quit' which isn't useful in the least.

And yes I'm sick to death of people saying they play "for fun" like it's some higher morale ground when it's just code for not taking the game very seriously and mocking those who wish for something that requires more tactical involvement.

We agree: current WH 40K isn't it.

 jonolikespie wrote:

I haven't encountered a RPG with anything near the level of rules disputes as 40k...

I have. Several, in fact.

Backfire wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

I haven't encountered a RPG with anything near the level of rules disputes as 40k...

I have. Several, in fact.

D&D comes to mind.

Where I see rules disputes arising in RPGs is more along the lines of someone expects something to work one way "OMG!! I just stabbed that dude for 40 damage with a great sword! He should fall over and be counted prone!" and the rules don't work that way, "If this were real, Bob, you might have a point, but that's not how combat in this game works."

I get this smetimes in my DH games. "But the book doesn't list any weight for a ration pack!" "Yes, but the book doesn't intend for you to carry 5000 of them on your back."

Rarely, in an RPG, do I see a rules-dispute that needs a YMDC-like forum, where you hash out the "logic" behind the rule and come to a consensus. Usually, in an RPG, it's a situation that isn't covered by a rule, and so you make up a house-rule for it... or someone wants a house-rule to over-rule something presented by the game-books.

I've played Warmachine and 40K quite a bit. Warmachine has tighter rules and is just a dramatic, if not more so, than 40K because things make sense in the game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

MtG was made to be a competetive game while 40k started as a game that required a GM (go Rogue Trader) to keep things "fair".

MtG was not originally made a competive game: quite the contrary. It was originally utterly unsuited for competive play since power of the cards was often controlled by their rarity, which is just unworkable in open environment. It was perfectly possible to make decks which almost certainly killed your opponent before he had chance to play a single card. Also, there were lots of wacky card mechanics which didn't suit for competive play since they were complicated and/or too easy to abuse.

WotC noticed that many people wanted to play competive Magic, so they diligently changed the game by filtering out rules and mechanics which were too strange for tournaments, streamlining the rules, and most importantly, enforcing an extremely heavy-handed restriction policy in tournaments: if something was found to be broken, it was simply banned or restricted to 1 per deck. Problem solved. This last part is the biggest difference between MtG and 40k competive settings: by the rulebook, neither game is well suited for competive play, but for MtG, parent company has highly refined tournament restriction ruleset, whilst for 40k, anything goes. Both games' playerbases have got so used to the situation that they can't imagine it any other way, and probably would be aghast if someone tried to force them other way around (ie. GW would began to release restricted/banned lists for tournaments, etc).

The catch here is that WotC drove off lots of MtG veterans with their focus to lucrative competive play and making their release schedule to support it: the game is now better suited for competive play, but it is also much less fun than it was in the wackiness of the early editions. There are no free lunches.

@Backfire thanks for the clarification. That gives a pretty good example why GW isn't moving that way: they saw the change in MtG's community and didn't want to go down the same road.

They experimented a bit with it, saw the changes to the community from it and chose to mulligan on it, much to the outrage of some.