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.

 Skriker wrote:


I've been wargaming for 36 years. In that time I have played some amazing games and I've played some real dogs. As much as I love the 40k figs and forces and the like the ruleset has never been more than a midgrade mediocre on my list. I put up with the rules because I don't have the time to port my armies to a better system these days. It is not even remotely close to the worst game ever that I was forced to play during my tenure as a wargamer, but it has never been close to the best either. Perhaps if GW made a serious effort at balance, stability, and common sense I would move them up the list, but not today. Any game that has no ability for modern units to split fire and is full of unit specific special rules that should actually apply to every unit in the game and not just a single unit is never going to raise above Mediocre in my book.

Skriker

Emphasis mine, and, I believe, cuts to the heart of the matter.

Excellence is viewed as unsustainable, I think, and mediocrity is sufficient to keep the lights on and the shareholders happy, so why do more than "good enough?"

But, referring to your post as a whole and not just the bit I quoted, I seldom hand out exalts, but you sir, may have one!

 heartserenade wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
My apologies but is this debate even worth continuing? It's just going to be running around in circles.

To be fair it's not even a debate. It's one side using logical arguments backed with evidence, and one side saying "lol we don't need evidence! NOTHING CAN BE OBJECTIVELY KNOWN! Also, Halle Berry's Catwoman is the best movie ever despite me not watching any other film and I'll ignore everyone's very valid points as to why it is bad." Then when someone asks him why won't he try watching other films to know why it is bad, he'll bring up having sex with stallions or something.

Ever been in any of the religious forums out on Amazon's website? This thread is exactly like just about everyone of those.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
Emphasis mine, and, I believe, cuts to the heart of the matter.

Excellence is viewed as unsustainable, I think, and mediocrity is sufficient to keep the lights on and the shareholders happy, so why do more than "good enough?"

But, referring to your post as a whole and not just the bit I quoted, I seldom hand out exalts, but you sir, may have one!

Thanks mate. Thankfully there are companies out there doing more than "good enough" so that definitely helps in my book.

Skriker

But don't you know that your opinion is invalid? It doesn't matter that you've played other games, xruslanx hasn't and therefore knows more about the subject than you do.

xruslanx wrote:
. Just look at the most perfectly balanced game - chess. Do you hear people rave about how awesome the white bishops are? Or the awesome fluffy rules that black pawns get? Nope, because they have none.

Yeah, nobody enjoys Chess...

Contrast this to 40k, where a unit can be made cool or fluffy without having to castrate it, and you actually get to get excited about the rules.

And you don't think people would get more excited about the rules if that unit was actually playable?

Because getting excited about the model, and then discovering that the rules are crap and the unit not worth taking would seem to run counter to your idea that lack of balance is the most awesome thing since sliced bread.

And a model's rules certainly don't have to be unbalanced in order for it to be fluffy. I can't even begin to fathom how you could make that claim with a straight face.

Such a "perfect" game would certainly not be as popular as 40k is at the moment.

Given the number of people I have spoken to over the years who love the background and the models but dropped the game because of the standard of the rules, I would question that claim.

If you have a game with awesome fluff, awesome models, and crap rules, and you turn that game into one with awesome fluff, awesome models, and clear, easily understandable rules, you really think that this is going to make the game less popular?

Seriously?

Example that rules mean an awesome model will not be used:
Pyrovore. I like that model a lot. I refuse to purchase one because of the failboat of rules.

rigeld2 wrote:Example that rules mean an awesome model will not be used:
Pyrovore. I like that model a lot. I refuse to purchase one because of the failboat of rules.

Penitent Engines. Beautiful models. Gak for points/rules (but at least their rules make sense and work!) Also didn't stop me from buying 9 of the fethers. Although I refuse to buy 9 more for double FoC...for now.

xruslanx wrote:...I think I'm just going to let this thread die.

I think he meant it guys. While there is still some discussion going on about it, I'm fairly sure that OP is done with this thread. Can't say I blame him either.

I actually blame him because he's the one who makes this thread not foster on good discussion.

OP didn't like the notion that 40k is for kids but I quite frankly don't see the problem. Kids are smart, my twiglight struggle box says 14+ and it's imo a great game, most FFG games are 12+ afair and I like quite a few. Not to mention you ussualy start playing chess few good years before boardgames and wargames and it does not insult chess in any way or take away from the king of games aura it has.

GW as every other gaming company obviously has to target kids/ teens as non gaming 30 years old are pretty immune to people trying to sell them a 50$ plastic doll (most people who do not knowing wargaming whom I ask about what they think my Hive Tyrant price is say something around 3$ - 10$ equivalent), the gaming kid is a future gaming adult. That does not make 40k a kiddie game by itself. Bryan Ansell said in an ancient times that the target demographic for Warhammer books and games is "intelligent 18 years old" but that for me sounds like a compliment for a game, not an insult.

And here's Rick Priestley about target audience:

"The audience for Warhammer grew up with the first three versions"

http://talesfromthemaelstrom.blogspot.com/2011/09/rick-priestley-interview.html

Sure that's ancient quote too but I'm quite sure GW of today isn't just ignoring the huge adult player base and making the game for kids.

Also OP if you read, the idea that Warhammer 40K 6th edition is not a competitive game and that 40k never was is senseless. GW might pretend it is not as an additional excuse to stay lazy about balance but it is competitive by nature since 2nd edition, and it was stated so in 5th edition rulebook. Here's Priestley again:

WHFB

"Yes they certainly were! A lot of the complexity of 3rd was inspired by standard historical wargames rules such as WRG Ancients. That was a tournament rule set really – with a great deal of fiddly movement post combat as I recall. "

WHFB and 40K

"By then both games had acquired a character and a commercial role that took precedence – so it was more a question of making sure they worked well within very narrow and specific commercial boundaries. I think that ‘head-to-head’, point value driven, army list moderated, competitive or tournament style game was just the ‘commercial’ side."

Casual beer and pretzels games are quick small and easy games not wargames with behemots of rulebooks.

there's all ways rook for improvement, but I feel 6th ed is clear improvement on 5th.

The new codexes so far have been good as well for the most part.

I like how the 6th ed plays, much more tactical and visual, as opposed to messing about with wound allocation trickery etc.

makes you really think about where you are placing your models, but still plays fast.

so yeah I like it a lot.

 Paradigm wrote:
I like the rules. I don't love them, admit they are far from flawless, but they enable me to use the figures I have bought and spent time painting, and to create a story around them. That said, I have 0 interest in competitive play, so am not really bothered by internal/external balance of the various codexes and the rules themselves.

In the same way as you can enjoy a video game that suffers from glitches, poor graphics and/or sub-par mechanics, I enjoy 40k, purely for fun.

This is exactly how I see the game.

Please don't revive threads that have been idle for more than 30 days, particularly just to add "Me too"-equivalent posts.