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.

Basically a lack of suitable alternatives.

The only other miniatures games that are popular in my area are Flames of War and War Machine.



FoW is cute but I don't really care for the models and setting. I might be tempted to play it if they came up with a Modern version but I like my games to be games, not simulations. War Machine and Hordes models are just way too ugly for me. The aesthetic is absolutely atrocious. I know that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but there is absolutely nothing about the War Machine or Hordes models or setting that I like.

 ansacs wrote:
I like 40K 80% because of the fluff and artistic style of the models.

The rules are okay, though I would like a more reactionary actions to be added. I think the biggest weaknesses of the rules are the length of one player controlling the game with basically no interaction from the other player. This has improved with interceptor and overwatch now but I would like to see more such abilities introduced in a balanced way.

For all of you complaining about static armies lobbing board range shots. I would ask you have you complained about flyers? If you have you are a hypocrite and should seriously rethink your stance. Flyer's have the most tactical movement in the game and playing a 6+ flyer list is like playing movement chess with your plans having to be 5 turns ahead of the opponent. I would say they could fix 90% of the problems people have by introducing harsher penalties for firing through terrain and putting some sort of assault from reserves back in (perhaps such an assault allows overwatch at full BS).

This game has three levels to it; the bottom level where you are starting and basically just slugfest, the middle level where some basic target priority and strategies are employed, and the top level where the players start pulling out tricks. The top level is no longer populated by static gunline armies but highly mobile armies which should clearly indicate movement is important here. The problem is against mediocre players and lists gunlines work extremely well. This causes the local "big" man to be a gunline player unless you happen to have other good players to change the meta.

Some of these complaints are being addressed by the new dexs being released. Out of the new dexs only the Tau can even attempt a good across the board firebase. Even then the good players have mobile elements in their lists like riptides and outflanking kroot. All the other armies are highly mobile, DS in, or have short range firefight tactics. I have been very happy overall with where 6th edition dexs are taking this game. Every single one of those dexs is interesting to play as (I have played them all except Tau). I am looking forward to when they are all updated so some of the more boring stuff is dumped (ie entirely static IG gunlines and SW longfangs to the max).

The best thing about the rules though is the diversity. I have at least 18 different distinctive armies that I field.Each of these armies has a different play style and the most similar of them is the falcon corsair army and the waveserpent DA army that I field. Even these though are fairly different due to the fact that the corsair list makes use of different support elements for the main force.

You should also try the campaigns and specific skirmishes in the different supplemental and FW books, etc. These are much more interesting than the book missions and can really spice things up.

Many of these comments sound more an inexperienced player getting pounded by a strategy/weapon they were not ready for and it leaving a bad after taste. All I can say is it happens and hopefully you can get back on the horse and beat it next time.

no, not really. when you get past the gunlines things just get even more stupid and broken. case in point:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/524401.page

What isn't there to like... its WH40K! The standard.

Thanks for the info it's interesting to see people's views. I remember when I attended lots of tournaments I enjoyed the games more but the atmosphere less so. I think that the terrain the more I think about it, and the less than tight rules are really what are putting me off

Isengard wrote:


I look at other games and I see imitation, I see people going "GW is pricey so I'll come up with something very similar for 20% less". For me price is not in any way the defining characteristic of a game system. I'm not defending GW pricing or going down that route at all. All I'm saying is when I look at warmahordes I'm seeing not an attractive games system but an attempt to produce a cheaper alternative with about 1% of the depth.

I want to be playing a game with a massively immersive universe and backstory with endless possibilities for discussions and storytelling. I don't want to switch simply because of the cost, especially when I know all I'm doing is moving to a coat-tail system that produces very similar looking figures with slightly different weapons and armour.

I've got to ask this. How is Warmahordes a knock-off or a coat-tail system? 40k and WHFB are army-based battles while Warmahordes is skirmish-based. WHFB and 40k feature pretty standard storyline basics in terms of the fantasy and sci-fi genres, respectively (i.e. several different races fight it out for one reason or another) while Warmahordes is more of a politically oriented storyline at its heart (not to say that WH doesn't have its share of politically motivated stories, but in general such things are only a single element of a story rooted in xenophobic wars). And I'm really struggling to get the whole "1% of the depth comment." 1% of the background story depth? I'd say that's fair, given that one system has existed for decades while the other is only ten years old. 1% of the rules depth, though? On that front, I would have to say that I disagree. Warmahordes might have 1% of the rules arguments that WH has, given that its rules are actually clarified and consistently written, but otherwise I'm not buying such a line of thought.

I'm not trying to start a fight here, but unless I'm misreading your comment or misunderstanding you somehow, this just seems to be a potshot based on unfounded reasoning. Maybe I just need some clarification.

My appeal to 40k came in stages.

A strong long term:
I played battletech, mage knight, VOR, and HorrorClix. I was tired of stopping play a year or two after I dove in. 40k had been around the longest in the local groups (nobody here plays fantasy). So I felt more secure after being burned so often.

After that, Setting and faction:
Kill team(the PC game was really what helped me get a feel for the basic grim dark setting and introduced me to a stompa. When I saw that there was an actual kit, I became an ork player.

Now, Steady Play: It's the most common game, with the most variable rules I can readily find. Armies change up, local tactics change up. It's been real fun.

Isengard wrote:
For me this is the daddy of all such games. It has such depth and such a great backstory - silly in places, contradictory, etc but it just has so much invested in it. The races all have such developed backgrounds. No other game universe even comes close in terms of sci-fi tabletop wargames.
.

With respect, i have to call you on this Isenguard.

first up, 40k isnt sci-fi. a technicality to be sure, but 40k is first and foremost, a fantasy game and setting, except in space. Now, lets be brutally honest and also point out how everything in 40k is also ripped from somewhere else. i recently read Dune, and a huge amount of 40k lore is cut-and-pasted over from that setting. And thats one book! the races might all be developed, and a lot has been invested, but it hasnt evolved, either. it is extremely stagnant, and with respect, i genuinely cant see how GW has invested more in the eldar, than privateer press have invested in trolls, for example.
Also, up to two or three years ago, i would have said "i enjoy 40k for the fluff, especially the forgeworld stuff" - believing the fluff was excellent. and i'll be honest - most of the fifth ed codices were highly enjoyable to read - dark eldar, orks, space wolves, and guard are the high water marks if you ask me. But then we got codex grey knights, which stank. then you got codex: comedy robots. i had high hopes for necrons. i wanted tragedy. i wanted loss. i wanted pain. in the end i got comedy robots, with quirky leaders sending emails to inquisitors and "collecting" battles. no thanks. considering what it could have been, for me it was an epicfail. then the sixth ed offerings - of which only tau has been interesting to me. i found the rest terrible (and for a guy who never sells stuff second hand-i cant part with books ever, i parted with my newly bought chaos codex, as i found it so terrible!) So as it stands, i cant say i enjoy 40k for the fluff any more. my very last holdout is forgeworld, which i still enjoy.

Isengard wrote:

I look at other games and I see imitation, I see people going "GW is pricey so I'll come up with something very similar for 20% less". For me price is not in any way the defining characteristic of a game system. I'm not defending GW pricing or going down that route at all. All I'm saying is when I look at warmahordes I'm seeing not an attractive games system but an attempt to produce a cheaper alternative with about 1% of the depth.

other games imitate 40k? and yet most of what 40k is was taken from elsewhere. I'll agree on the comment about price - for me, price is not that big an issue compared to other aspects of the hobby. But that point about warmachine offends me. Have you read the background? Because, and i say this with respect, but you are spouting nonsense. Warmachine is 10 years old today, and the wargame evolved from an excellent D20 RPG setting. I have all the books as PDFs. believe me when i say this, but saying warmachine has 1% of the depth of 40k is flat out laughable. Im not saying this to be mean, or rude either. I would actually go to you and recommend you to read some of the fiction as well. I'll be honest - when i first got into warmachine and hordes, i was a bit hesitant about the fluff as well. I found it a bit lacking. it felt like an "arcade" setting when i wanted a 'campaign mode" if i can use a computer game analogy. So i left it aside. Que a hiatus from wargaming for a year and a half (40k burnout), and i got back into gaming again, and of my choices, i decided to go with warmachine and hordes (it was the start of the mk2 playtest). I decided to be "serious" about my game of choice, and get the lore. And really to see if i could lose myself in the setting. So i chased down the old D20 books - the character guides, lock and load, five fingers-port of deceit, monsternomicons 1 and 2 and the world guide.
i read it through, and i'd only just started, and i was sucked into the setting. I genuinely hadnt expected it. Here was my "campaign" setting. believe me, the iron kingdoms screamed at me. its gritty, its dark, its vivid, it has character, it has incredible depth and it is a living, breathing thing. the setting is utterly fantastic. No bones about it. it has thousands of years of tightly constructed and intricate history, great mosters, great heroes, terrible villains, mysteries, evocative imagery and a dark, brooding and gritty atmosphere that left me breathless. the background for the iron kingdom elves for example is one of the best elven backgrounds i've ever read. it is a fantastic, quite unique(rather than straight fantasy "ports", PP have a habit of taking tropes and turning them on their heads for something new) and utterly enthralling setting. then they go all out and offer the gavin kyle files in no quarter which is additonal information on all the characters, factions, groups etc not found in the main books, or the source material. Please note - im not mentioning 40k here. i dont want you to see this as a swipe at GW. its not. But believe me, the iron kingdoms are fully capable of standing on their own two legs, and tearing your throat out.
i will challenge you to do something. And this challenge will be its own reward, if you can believe me, as you will enjoy it immensely. chase down the background, and read it. devour it. and then try and come back and tell me that it has 1% of the depth of GWs offerings. it wont happen and like i said, you will enjoy it immensely.

Isengard wrote:

I want to be playing a game with a massively immersive universe and backstory with endless possibilities for discussions and storytelling. I don't want to switch simply because of the cost, especially when I know all I'm doing is moving to a coat-tail system that produces very similar looking figures with slightly different weapons and armour.
.

you can do this with the iron kingdoms. heck, you can ask the main writer questions about the background and he'll chime in. We have our what ifs and mysteries that we discuss endlessly from aspects of the history, geography, myths, legends, and facts all the way to character motivations. believe me, while i speak of the iron kingdoms here in particular, other systems fully offer this without being variations of GW. believe me, PPs offerings are far more than a "coat-tail system that produces very similar looking figures with slightly different weapons and armour".

Isengard wrote:

I'll happily play games which are different and not GW knock-offs, FoW springs to mind, Deep Wars looks interesting but the bulk of the competition seem to be offering something very similar and hoping you'll switch because it's cheaper. I've played most of them and they did nothing at all to convince me to swap.

i have to disagree with this statement. i find FoW to be an excellent game - almost what 40k could have been, as the scale of the game is absolutely perfect. but games like infinity and warmachine/hordes dont offer something "similar" to GW offerings. For me, they are my preference, and they're a step apart from 40k. "cheaper" isnt an issue. but when it comes to immersive tactical play, for me, other games offer more.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

to answer the OP, and to bring back a bit of a positive vibe to my post regarding the appeal of 40k, here is my take on it:

plastic kits. GW offer great bits for conversions. if i want to convert my PP minis, i choose to use GW kits. although all games offer customisations, i find GW kits offer the easiest ways to do this. I am also a big fan of foreworld.

I just enjoy it. I like the models, I enjoy painting and kitbashing to make my own unique squads and characters, I like the Fluff. The rules can sometimes get pants on head stupid, but I even enjoy watching Batreps and playing the game.

Deadnight wrote:
first up, 40k isnt sci-fi. a technicality to be sure, but 40k is first and foremost, a fantasy game and setting, except in space..

This made my head hurt.

In order to be true science fiction, do the fictional space marines, which are genetically enhanced, by science, which use weaponry and machines that don't, and couldn't, exist with our current understanding of physics, who also use psychic powers, and travel through alternate dimensions, need to make more baking soda volcanoes to satisfy you?

Furthermore, The Lord of the Rings isn't actually fantasy, it's a period piece.
And Star Trek isn't science fiction either, it's a historical documentary that simply hasn't taken place yet.

40k isn't science fiction or fantasy - it's a science fiction fantasy ripoff.....

and BL writers aren't sf writers I'm freaking sure on that....

 deviantduck wrote:

This made my head hurt.
.

cant see why. there is nothing wrong with it being a fantasy setting.

 deviantduck wrote:

In order to be true science fiction, do the fictional space marines, which are genetically enhanced, by science, which use weaponry and machines that don't, and couldn't, exist with our current understanding of physics, who also use psychic powers, and travel through alternate dimensions, need to make more baking soda volcanoes to satisfy you?
.

2 points.
(1) they don't have to be, and (2)Whats your point?

fact is, this is a setting with gods, demons, magic, spells and sorcery, inhabited by races ported straight-from-fantasy. Even if its dressed up with some sci-fi trappings, its still at heart, as Pete Haines put it - "the dark ages, with laser guns and spaceships".

And let me be clear. there is nothing wrong with that either.

 deviantduck wrote:

Furthermore, The Lord of the Rings isn't actually fantasy, it's a period piece.
And Star Trek isn't science fiction either, it's a historical documentary that simply hasn't taken place yet.

never mentioned either. Nor can i say i'm a huge fan of either (never 'got' star trek, and tolkien writing hundreds of pages about trees did my head in). In fact the only sci fi i've ever mentioned on these boards is Dune.

Tyranids.

Seriously - if Tyranids weren't in the game, I probably wouldn't have gotten back into it.

For me, 40K gaming is all about the universe and the fluff. I'm pretty indifferent about the rules, and I am really not that loyal to them at all. For instance, I can get the same theme with skirmish games of "In the Emperor's Name".

It's a common joke to comment on "Forging a Narrative", but that truly is the most important thing for me when I go through all the steps to take a 40K army from bare metal and plastic to the tabletop.

I think people stick to the sunk costs and once they have an army or two they sort of keep playing because "What else is there?". Also not just money invested but time can make a pretty high barrier to switching systems.
Definitely easy to find players in pretty much all major cities. Similar to how D&D has such a following compared to other RPGs just because it's the biggest.
I also think 40k is great at pandering to the back and forth playground argument of "Oh yeah, well MY guy fights your guy but he has fire and a laser!" "Who cares MY guy has a shield and six arms and claws!"
When it comes to rules I think 40k is an absolute mess though and the fact that GW can't release organized, consistent codexes with each new rules edition is laughable. So tedious to argue over minor, fiddly rules every single phase of every single turn.