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.

grizgrin wrote:Andy "Chapter Approved" Chambers quit/P45'ed due to GW rejecting his 40K4E rules

it appears that 40k was in a slump for popularity during all of 4E, and has picked up quite a bit in 5E

I don't really believe that is the case, and I don't believe we're going to know the truth of it for a very long time.

4E wasn't a particularly good ruleset, but it wasn't terrible. It was the first "current-style" ruleset that could be considered "complete". Recall that 3E was a total mishmash of rulebook and trial rules, patched with WD articles, with no consistency or coherency - just stuff that kind of worked together. 4E pulled all of that stuff together into a single complete ruleset, making the whole thing a lot less messy. But innovation wasn't very high, and a lot of balance issues weren't well thought through. Worse, the Codices were going down a high-detail, high-option path which basically prevents balancing.

5E, on the other hand, really benefitted from the 4+ years of 4E being a single unifed ruleset. GW was able to do a much better job of dealing with the various problem areas and cleaning things up. As a ruleset, 5E is considerably tighter and clearer than before. And really, while the "changes" (e.g. TLOS, KPs) *feel* revolutionary, they really aren't major elements of the ruleset as a whole. By and large, 5E plays far more consistently and cleanly, and that's a real benefit.

Plus, immediately preceeding 5E, GW released Apocalypse. I don't think everybody realizes just how significant Apocalypse is. Apocalypse is what really kick-started 40k again. Simple and straightforward, and getting back to the basics of just having a helluva lot of fun pushing tin.

Augustus wrote:Is there such a thing as a cheap hobby...
?

Sleep is a killer hobby. And so cheap. Plus, I don't need to overpay for the pewter miniatures that I can imagine, and all my stuff is done by 'Eavy Metal... for free! And I always win, because 5th edition doesn't have IG-boning rules... in my dreams!

All things aside, it is a somewhat expensive hobby. Compare 1500 points of Space Marines or Orks (supplemented by half of one box of Black Reach) to purchasing a console and three games (for three missions).

$299 for an Xbox 360 + $100 for three average games is still comparable to a box of Black Reach, a codex, a battleforce and some boxes and blisters to round out a 1500 point army. (And yes, other armies do cost more, but they're cooler "games" in my example).

Bare minimum for a Tau army used to be an Ethereal, a squad of FW and a squad of FW or Kroot. Total cost £32.50 about 3-4 years ago. Not that you would get much use out of an army that small.

Then the new codex came out, so you needed a suit instead of the Ethereal, and the troops boxes went up to £18 each, and the vehicles went up as did the new plastic Stealth suits.

It's true that the Army boxes are a saving -- the limited Tau box launched with the new codex saved about £30 off the price of all its contents. It was still £145 (if I recall correctly) which is not pocket money prices.

GW figures cost more than historical figures though many SF and fantasy ranges cost the same.

Another thing about historicals is that lots of players use 15mm or 6mm figures which are a lot cheaper than 28mm.

However this is all OT.

Right, so you are comparing apples and oranges for a start, and then not taking into account the price of the basket for one because all of a sudden, thats a gift....

New York, NY - March 5, 2007 - New York, NY - March 5, 2007 - The number of U.S. television households with video game consoles has expanded by 18.5% since the fourth quarter of 2004, according to a new report released today by Nielsen Wireless and Interactive Services, a service of The Nielsen Company. In the fourth quarter of 2006 there were 45.7 million homes with video game consoles, representing 41.1% of all TV households, compared to 43 million (39.1%) in 2005, and 38.6 million (35.2%) the previous year.

Well in all likelihood it is, or at the very least the kid bought it already. Since, y'know, half of all households have one (extrapolating from the upward curve).

HHLD 111,400 45,774 41.10%
P2+ 283,500 148,456 52.40%
P2-11 40,060 28,332 70.70%
P12-17 24,790 19,794 79.80%
P18-34 66,700 41,950 62.90%
P35-49 63,900 36,577 57.20%
P50+ 88,050 21,802 24.80%

Especially when you take into account that between 60% and 80% of homes with members in the age and gender range that bank games workshop 12-40 have them.

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.55dc65b4a7d5adff3f65936147a062a0/?vgnextoid=998a30a34c121110VgnVCM100000ac0a260aRCRD

So you can go ahead and call it a bad argument, but it is likely that the entrant into the hobby has alternatives that cost less. Bury your head in the sand if you want.

The Batallion gives a newcomer a workable force straight off the bat. From there, you can add periodically, like I used to do when I were a nipper.

And I could barely scrape together twenty dollars at once. A 90 dollar battleforce was unthinkable (and they were like 60 or 70 back then). The battalion boxes also do not come with rulebooks, measuring devices, codexes, dice, paints, sprays etc.

Now, given that consoles cost around £200 without ANY games, which one is better value, if you spend the same amount on starting?

Microsoft has remained tight-lipped about a British Xbox 360 price cut, but there is at least one retail chain in the UK that will be flogging The 'Soft's machines cheap this Christmas. According to reports, high street store Woolworths will be reducing its 360s. How nice of them.

The Arcade SKU will be sold for £129.99 while the Premium model is to have an asking price of £169.99.

And the Wii is only 180£ and comes WITH a game.

Not to mention the entry point of a console is merely the money for the game and device. Hook it up and immediately you are good to go. Everyone has friends who play videogames and they aren't exactly hard to get cheap. Consoles are simply much more immediately useful (does your rhino play DVD's?).

And in my opinion, to get the most out of any console, you need to keep on buying games, as once completed, it's a rare game that bares playing again.....unlike Wargaming.

Unfortunately that's not a cost of entry. Thats a cost over the lifespan of the item in question. Which is a totally different argument. I've been playing mini's games for over a decade and likely wont stop, but I'll readily admit I get much more use out of my xbox 360 for both entertainment and as a utility.

bryantsbears wrote:All things aside, it is a somewhat expensive hobby. Compare 1500 points of Space Marines or Orks (supplemented by half of one box of Black Reach) to purchasing a console and three games (for three missions).

$299 for an Xbox 360 + $100 for three average games

OK, now let's look at those Marines:
1x AoBR ($60)
1x SM Codex ($30)
2x SM Battleforce ($90 ea)

= $270 retail
= $225 after 20% discount and shipping

Throw in $50 for supplies (glue, spray primer, spray paint, detail paint, and GW wash), and you *still* have the entire 40k game and army for less than the console without any games.

GW games really aren't that bad when you look at them for the long haul.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

bryantsbears wrote:All things aside, it is a somewhat expensive hobby. Compare 1500 points of Space Marines or Orks (supplemented by half of one box of Black Reach) to purchasing a console and three games (for three missions).

$299 for an Xbox 360 + $100 for three average games

OK, now let's look at those Marines:
1x AoBR ($60)
1x SM Codex ($30)
2x SM Battleforce ($90 ea)

= $270 retail
= $225 after 20% discount and shipping

Throw in $50 for supplies (glue, spray primer, spray paint, detail paint, and GW wash), and you *still* have the entire 40k game and army for less than the console without any games.

GW games really aren't that bad when you look at them for the long haul.

Well firstly thats using the assault on black reach metric which is what? 270 dollars of materials in a single 60$ box? Hardly representative of what a player will expect to pay for a full force and basically a non issue if they choose to play anything but orks or space marines.

But the issue isn't the "long haul". It's the price of entry. Which is all upfront. To get a small (1500ish) point force takes a considerable expenditure even with two AOBR's and a battalion which comes out to around 1500pts. Thats 210$ +codex, glue, paint and primer. Even if the cost of maintaining the hobby is low if you choose not to expand the force (who does that though?) the initial barrier is still there. Even at 210$ which is the extreme bare minimum with a totally un-customizeable force using a non representative and bizarrely good value box thats still a hell of a lot for a twelve year old to pay. Not to mention saying that the cost of entry for miniature gaming is lower than with videogames is kind of a stupid consideration. One vastly outsells the other, is hundreds of thousands of times more popular, and has an installed user base in the hundreds of millions worldwide.

If you want to compete with that, you can't be questionably more pricey. You have to be a clear and attractive alternative.

I started this game when I was twelve. So did a bunch of my friends. We also played Magic the Gathering. You know what I don't see anymore? Kids playing this game. There is no longer a gateway drug for 40k, it's priced itself out of reach of anyone without a steady income.

I'm still trying to figure out what was so critically wrong with 2nd edition that warranted a complete rewrite of the core game engine... Yeah, yeah, I know, "uber-characters" and tons of cheese. I've heard that all before. However, in all the gaming I did under 2nd edition, I only ever ran into a very small handful of gamers who played that way, and then only during in-shop gaming. None of the folks I played RT with (or 2nd edition, later) were that kind of player. So, personally, I lay the blame on folks facing these types of players on those complaining... If you don't like the way the guy plays, don't play with him. Too easy.

I started reading my copy of 5th edition the other night. I have to say that, so far, it looks at least more comprehensive and sleeker than 3rd or 4th edition did. Still, I miss using grenades as the offensive weapons they are. I miss the tactical employment of smoke/blind screens to cover a squad's advance. I miss heroes being able to be heroic on their own (vice relying on their command squad to keep them alive long enough to do some damage to the opponent).

My son (13) and I still play the occasional game of 2nd edition, and I've been working, on again/off again, at a rewrite of 2nd edition rules with all the positives of 3rd/4th edition codices (with a smattering of Inquisitor thrown in as well). One day I might actually finish it off. Who knows...

1) I actually see quite a few kids playing this game. I myself started when I was about 15.

2) Yes an average 1500 pt army is a little more expensive than your average console game maybe, but for a parent to spend 60 bucks on a black reach box and another 10-20 on some paint and glue and stuff really isnt that bad and you can sit down and play with it. If some kid walks into my FLGS and wants to play 400 pts with his black reach guys I'll probably play. The great thing about the warhammer hobby is you can build on it and once you get to 1500 pts and have enough to play in tourneys and stuff you can spend the 50 bucks a month to flesh out the army a bit more and not really break the bank, even if youre not making a whole lot of money as a kid.

3) That said, Im not convinced that this is a hobby for all 12 year olds to get into, its fluff is mostly dark and brutal, it does cost alot of money, and the tactics are mostly beyond the reach 12 year olds at least if they are playing competitively.

I started when I was ten, and when I went into my local GW for the first time in about 3-4 years recently, there was three adults and a crap load of kids. It was a Saturday afternoon, but still...

ShumaGorath wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

bryantsbears wrote:All things aside, it is a somewhat expensive hobby. Compare 1500 points of Space Marines or Orks (supplemented by half of one box of Black Reach) to purchasing a console and three games (for three missions).

$299 for an Xbox 360 + $100 for three average games

OK, now let's look at those Marines:
1x AoBR ($60)
1x SM Codex ($30)
2x SM Battleforce ($90 ea)

= $270 retail
= $225 after 20% discount and shipping

Throw in $50 for supplies (glue, spray primer, spray paint, detail paint, and GW wash), and you *still* have the entire 40k game and army for less than the console without any games.

GW games really aren't that bad when you look at them for the long haul.

Well firstly thats using the assault on black reach metric which is what? 270 dollars of materials in a single 60$ box? Hardly representative of what a player will expect to pay for a full force and basically a non issue if they choose to play anything but orks or space marines.

Given that the overwhelming majority of GW sales (and operating profits) are from Space Marines, using AoBR is a fair starting point.

Also, the poster I replied to started us down the road of using AoBR. And while AoBR is a good deal, no doubt, it's only $60 worth, because that's what GW sells it for.

ShumaGorath wrote:But the issue isn't the "long haul". It's the price of entry. Which is all upfront.

OK, then the price of entry is a whopping $60 for AoBR. That's the minimum starter set.

- console gaming? $400+
- golf? $500+
- bicycling? $500+
- 1/10 RC Cars? $500+
- PC gaming? $700+

Motorsport? Your entry fee is $10,000 and you can burn $500 in tires / fuel / fees in a single weekend.

And God help you if you choose sailing / flying... :S

The only games with a lower entry point are CCGs, which start anywhere from $10 to $20. But wow, do they make it up in the boosters...

ShumaGorath wrote:To get a small (1500ish) point force takes a considerable expenditure even with two AOBR's and a battalion which comes out to around 1500pts. Thats 210$ +codex, glue, paint and primer.

You realise, of course, that $200 is peanuts when you're talking about a competitive setup in any "cool" hobby, right?

Do you know what a competition race bike or club set costs? A high-end road bike is $1000+, same with golf clubs.

Anyhow, I've long considered 2 SM Battalions as the ideal starting point for a SM army. Add AoBR, and it's still good.

ShumaGorath wrote:Even if the cost of maintaining the hobby is low if you choose not to expand the force (who does that though?) the initial barrier is still there. Even at 210$ which is the extreme bare minimum with a totally un-customizeable force using a non representative and bizarrely good value box thats still a hell of a lot for a twelve year old to pay.

Good thing $200 is peanuts to mummy & daddy...

ShumaGorath wrote:Not to mention saying that the cost of entry for miniature gaming is lower than with videogames is kind of a stupid consideration. One vastly outsells the other, is hundreds of thousands of times more popular, and has an installed user base in the hundreds of millions worldwide.

If you want to compete with that, you can't be questionably more pricey. You have to be a clear and attractive alternative.

There is no question that 40k is an inexpensive hobby, all things considered.

ShumaGorath wrote:I started this game when I was twelve. So did a bunch of my friends. We also played Magic the Gathering. You know what I don't see anymore? Kids playing this game. There is no longer a gateway drug for 40k, it's priced itself out of reach of anyone without a steady income.

Oddly enough, when I go to the Bunker, kids are there.

Of course, one issue you need to ask yourself is: how old does a kid need to be to play at a game shop on his own? If they're too young, they play at home where it's safer and more convenient.

amenzer wrote:If some kid walks into my FLGS and wants to play 400 pts with his black reach guys I'll probably play.

FWIW, AoBR is a *lot* more than 400 pts. I estimate like this:
100 pts Commander
100 pts Dreadnought
200 pts Terminators
200 pts Tacticals

That's 600+ pts.

Really, really not the point Jonny.

He was pointing out how you can start small and then build, and how you can have fun at any level and ... oh feth it... you can't see my posts anyway.

I guess in your overwhelming desire to be right about everything you just had to post the points values.

BYE

With regard to starting small and that, IIRC, there was a rumour on Warseer shortly before my banishment that GW were working on more Cities of Death style supplements, and one may well cover much smaller games.

Though how much of this is accurate, and how much sheer wishful thinking, I don't know.

My sense is that GW will be doing a small-scale supplement in the near future, as the "baby brother" to Apocalypse.

GW pulled Kill Team and 40k in 40m from the 5E rulebook, so that allows them to charge for it, rather than "giving it away for free" in the main rules.

I just hope it's as good as Apocalypse. Also, it would be a masterstroke of marketing if they were to use the smaller, Citadel Journal size page format to drive home the small - normal - supersize game progression...

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:With regard to starting small and that, IIRC, there was a rumour on Warseer shortly before my banishment that GW were working on more Cities of Death style supplements, and one may well cover much smaller games.

Though how much of this is accurate, and how much sheer wishful thinking, I don't know.

Wishful thinking? On Warseer? Surely you jest!

ShumaGorath wrote:Well firstly thats using the assault on black reach metric which is what? 270 dollars of materials in a single 60$ box? Hardly representative of what a player will expect to pay for a full force and basically a non issue if they choose to play anything but orks or space marines.

But the issue isn't the "long haul". It's the price of entry. Which is all upfront. To get a small (1500ish) point force takes a considerable expenditure even with two AOBR's and a battalion which comes out to around 1500pts. Thats 210$ +codex, glue, paint and primer. Even if the cost of maintaining the hobby is low if you choose not to expand the force (who does that though?) the initial barrier is still there. Even at 210$ which is the extreme bare minimum with a totally un-customizeable force using a non representative and bizarrely good value box thats still a hell of a lot for a twelve year old to pay. Not to mention saying that the cost of entry for miniature gaming is lower than with videogames is kind of a stupid consideration. One vastly outsells the other, is hundreds of thousands of times more popular, and has an installed user base in the hundreds of millions worldwide.

If you want to compete with that, you can't be questionably more pricey. You have to be a clear and attractive alternative.

I started this game when I was twelve. So did a bunch of my friends. We also played Magic the Gathering. You know what I don't see anymore? Kids playing this game. There is no longer a gateway drug for 40k, it's priced itself out of reach of anyone without a steady income.

-First, Black Reach is supposed to be your gateway drug to the game
-Second, if you're trying to do this cheap and easy, you buy two copies of black reach and split them with a friend. Box of Black Reach + Battleforce + Codex = 180$.
-Third, you can always go about replacing the 'noncustomizable models' with the real version later on, when you know that you'd like to continue to drop more money into the game. You're not pidgeonholed into continuing to play with your first miniatures all the time - I know that my first two squads of guardsmen that I painted come out over 2000 points.
-Lastly, the "clear and attractive alternative" sells well to the parental figures who are likely splashing the cash.

It is a constructive hobby that teaches critical thinking and rewards the knowledge of rules. You don't spend your time staring at a screen. You learn to follow instructions, assemble figures and paint them. I think that's a clear and attractive alternative to button mashing.

I definitely agree tabletop games give a satisfaction through the effort of assembling and painting everything that can't be got just by shelling out £30 on Amazon for a game disc.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

grizgrin wrote:Andy "Chapter Approved" Chambers quit/P45'ed due to GW rejecting his 40K4E rules

it appears that 40k was in a slump for popularity during all of 4E, and has picked up quite a bit in 5E

I don't really believe that is the case, and I don't believe we're going to know the truth of it for a very long time.

4E wasn't a particularly good ruleset, but it wasn't terrible. It was the first "current-style" ruleset that could be considered "complete". Recall that 3E was a total mishmash of rulebook and trial rules, patched with WD articles, with no consistency or coherency - just stuff that kind of worked together. 4E pulled all of that stuff together into a single complete ruleset, making the whole thing a lot less messy. But innovation wasn't very high, and a lot of balance issues weren't well thought through. Worse, the Codices were going down a high-detail, high-option path which basically prevents balancing.

5E, on the other hand, really benefitted from the 4+ years of 4E being a single unifed ruleset. GW was able to do a much better job of dealing with the various problem areas and cleaning things up. As a ruleset, 5E is considerably tighter and clearer than before. And really, while the "changes" (e.g. TLOS, KPs) *feel* revolutionary, they really aren't major elements of the ruleset as a whole. By and large, 5E plays far more consistently and cleanly, and that's a real benefit.

Plus, immediately preceeding 5E, GW released Apocalypse. I don't think everybody realizes just how significant Apocalypse is. Apocalypse is what really kick-started 40k again. Simple and straightforward, and getting back to the basics of just having a helluva lot of fun pushing tin.

What you call "a total mishmash of rulebook and trial rules, patched with WD articles, with no consistency or coherency" I call fun and interesting.

What you call "considerably tigher and clearer than before" I call bland.

This isn't a dig at you or anything please don't take me the wrong way. I'm just really honestly saddened because 40k got me into wargaming and now I really just have no will to play it any more.

However, you are correct that 5e is much clearer and concise than 3e I can't deny that. I just feel that the move towards USR's instead of codex specific rules makes the game too bland and uninteresting.

Although as I'm writing this I guess it isn't really fair to say that this is 5e's fault because this is really an issue with the way they write the new codices but I associate this really with the release of the 4e chaos codex and the movement towards this hasn't stopped since then. Is the unit supposed to be tough? Give it FNP. Is it supposed to be good in CC? Give it Furious Charge. It this attack or shot supposed to be powerful? Give it rending.

For me, taking away the uniqueness of the armies takes away the appeal and excitement of the game.

"Worse, the Codices were going down a high-detail, high-option path which basically prevents balancing."

Sorry, I'm just really struggling to understand how you hold the opinion that this is a bad thing.


Sorry this if this is a bit off topic I just read that post and it made me a little sad.

PistolWraithCaine wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:4E wasn't a particularly good ruleset, but it wasn't terrible. It was the first "current-style" ruleset that could be considered "complete". Recall that 3E was a total mishmash of rulebook and trial rules, patched with WD articles, with no consistency or coherency - just stuff that kind of worked together. 4E pulled all of that stuff together into a single complete ruleset, making the whole thing a lot less messy. But innovation wasn't very high, and a lot of balance issues weren't well thought through. Worse, the Codices were going down a high-detail, high-option path which basically prevents balancing.

5E, on the other hand, really benefitted from the 4+ years of 4E being a single unifed ruleset. GW was able to do a much better job of dealing with the various problem areas and cleaning things up. As a ruleset, 5E is considerably tighter and clearer than before.

What you call "a total mishmash of rulebook and trial rules, patched with WD articles, with no consistency or coherency" I call fun and interesting.

What you call "considerably tigher and clearer than before" I call bland.

This isn't a dig at you or anything please don't take me the wrong way. I'm just really honestly saddened because 40k got me into wargaming and now I really just have no will to play it any more.

However, you are correct that 5e is much clearer and concise than 3e I can't deny that. I just feel that the move towards USR's instead of codex specific rules makes the game too bland and uninteresting.

Although as I'm writing this I guess it isn't really fair to say that this is 5e's fault because this is really an issue with the way they write the new codices but I associate this really with the release of the 4e chaos codex and the movement towards this hasn't stopped since then. Is the unit supposed to be tough? Give it FNP. Is it supposed to be good in CC? Give it Furious Charge. It this attack or shot supposed to be powerful? Give it rending.

For me, taking away the uniqueness of the armies takes away the appeal and excitement of the game.

"Worse, the Codices were going down a high-detail, high-option path which basically prevents balancing."

Sorry, I'm just really struggling to understand how you hold the opinion that this is a bad thing.


Sorry this if this is a bit off topic I just read that post and it made me a little sad.

I'm sorry if you're sad. I find the new direction very exciting.

"Fun and Interesting"? Buying WDs to have the privilege of doing GW's playtesting for them? NOT FUN. Carrying more than a dozen WDs with bits and pieces of the ruleset? NOT FUN. Trying to figure out what rules apply at any given point of time? NOT FUN.

"Bland"? Better than demonstrating an abject lack of imagination by creating unnecessary and unused rules.

And there's no struggle needed: the 4E Codex approach was completely out of control. That is a bad thing when armies and Codices are supposed to be balanced against one another for years at a time. Unless, of course, you're committed to keeping up with the army of the month.

It's stupid how GW somehow latched onto the idea that every bit of Fluff, no matter how poorly or stupidly written, required some sort of complex special rule that varied from Codex to Codex, with minute differences of questionable significance and intent. USRs are a good thing. They keep players honest, and make it easier for opponents to understand what they're dealing with.

But mark my words: Armies aren't Special Rules. Armies may have special rules, but 40k has sufficient depth in the basic ruleset you can make a large number of completely unique and distinctive armies from the varied statlines and USRs without adding any other special rules whatsoever. That is, one could take a 40k3 Rulebook Army List approach to capture the essential feel of the various armies and get away from unneeded Special Rules. I'd actually like to get back to that kind of gaming very much. Leave the tactics to the player, not the crutches of Special Rules.

Anyhow, if you're not happy with 40k, then play something else! Or go back to playing some house variant of 3rd Edition. Do what you find fun.

I don't think I've often agreed with JohnHwangDD, but I do agree moving towards USRs is a good idea.

As-is, there's a lot of 'acquire habits' in GW gaming because players read a oft-repeated line of text and make assumptions because it looks like a rule from somewhere else... Using USRs formalizes this and lets us know that if a USR isn't used it's for a good reason.

Balance wrote:I don't think I've often agreed with JohnHwangDD, but I do agree moving towards USRs is a good idea.

As-is, there's a lot of 'acquire habits' in GW gaming because players read a oft-repeated line of text and make assumptions because it looks like a rule from somewhere else... Using USRs formalizes this and lets us know that if a USR isn't used it's for a good reason.

I second these remarks.

John, I agree that the haphazard way rules were presented in 3e could make for a massive head ache at times.

I also see what you are saying about how USRs make it easier for all players to understand what is going on and therefore minimizing mistakes made by players who either didn't understand a rule, mistook it for another special rule, or just didn't know the unit/char has it.

Do you play Warmachine/Hordes? (I'm not trying to compare the quality/fun/whatever of the two games or start some stupid argument about it, I think they are both trying to do two separate things so this is a just a disclaimer.) The reason I ask is because the special rules situation is much more extreme than it was in 3e if you can believe it. Often times, when you are a new player, a single model , not even unit, will have something that you didn't realize it had and this will loose you the game. This can be frustrating when you first get in to the game as you'll just get the tar beat out of you for a while until you get a handle on the capabilities of other units. However, once you do get the hang of it, I've found that the tactical depth that these rules add makes the game quite rewarding and fun to play. The unit specific rules allow for what is, imo, a much greater amount of variation than what the USRs in 40k currently allow.

I think that both of us have valid points to some extent and that eliminating some of the more vague, ridiculous, and downright confusing rules and replacing them with some USRs and then unifying all of them into a single set of rules instead of the pain that the WDs were would have been great. So what I'm basically saying as that I think moving towards USRs was a good idea just not to the extent that they did it.

I disagree with you when you say that you think that with varied stat lines and USRs there is enough variety to make unique and flavorful armies, I guess this depends on how much flavor you think makes something flavorful. Considering that there is no movement stat any more and that GW rarely makes most stats anything other than 2-5, some stats 3-5, and likes to apply the same 4 or 5 special rules to everything, I don't think the stats and the USRs are enough.

For example, take Dark Eldar. I think that the rules for wych weapons and combat drugs are cool and flavorful. But if DE ever do get a new codex I would be willing to bet that these would both be removed and replaced with rending and furious charge respectively, and basically turning them into harlequins. I also think the old frenzy rules for world eaters captured the flavor and feel of the army better than furious charge does and I could go on and on with examples.

But hey, what do I know, this is just my opinion and I'm sure loads of people are really excited about it. If people like it it must be doing something right. Wow this is long I don't really expect anyone to read this....

BTW, if you do respond to this and I wouldn't blame you if you didn't because it's so long, please don't tell me to just go play Warmachine if I like it so much. I find that telling someone to just go do something else instead if they don't like the current incarnation of the rules is just a way to try and stifle discussion and unhelpful.

Actually, I have a nice little Cryx army for WarMachine, from when the game first came out and was focused on the novelty of 'Jack combat. Ultimately, I moved away from WM because:
- I already have binders and boxes of Magic cards, so don't need another combo-based game
- I already have a 40k and WFB armies, so don't need another infantry-based miniatures combat game
- I already went through the experience of buying rules one-by-one when 3E came out.
YMMV, but I don't think that WarMachine gameplay is particularly deep. At least, not compared to Magic or any other CCG.

The preference between more Special Rules vs USRs is just that: individual preference. I prefer something a bit more streamlined. You want more chrome. It's all good.

When you say that you need more than stats and USRs, that is again personal preference. I take it you didn't much like playing with the 3E Rulebook lists.

I think you like your examples the way you do because your 40k game history is shorter than mine. If you haven't seen as many versions of the same unit, changes make less sense. Fun question: What should the stats and rules be for a Rubric Marine?

Anyhow, it's all good, no harm, no foul.

And I wasn't trying to cut you off. Just trying to be practical - if you don't like something, life is too short - don't do it!

Hmm, having actually paid my way into both 40k and console gaming, I would say that console gaming is a lot easier to get into. Espeically becuase now for 300 dollars plus tax you get the xbox pro and two games. (Call of Duty 4 and a racing game that I cannot remeber) from most chain stores. Like Best Buy. You take it out of the box and play immediately.

40k on the other hand, while me and my brother simply split two Battle for Macragge boxes it ended up being 100 dollars each, after primer, paints, glue, and brushes. Then we spent two days assembling the models, then we played quite a few games but we didn't finish painting the models for nearly two months. We still haven't finished painting the terrain. And in the end we still had to buy a codex each, eventually a big rulebook, as well as another two to three boxes of minis to make it large at all.

The only cuts we got from our parents was they paid for the tax. They seemed to like the mention of math and its too expensive to afford both this and drugs.

Medieval 2: Total War.

There's your answer. You brits can probably find it for about £10 in any rip-off retail store now.