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.

 Peregrine wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Why on earth would you not be in favor of this?

I am in favor of it. I just reject this idea of it being in the form of a separate tournament ruleset instead of putting all of those changes into 9th edition and using the new rules for all games. This conversation started with the idea of making separate rules because they wouldn't be appropriate for non-tournament games, when in reality what is needed is a comprehensive overhaul of the entire game where at the end of it there is no further need for separate tournament/narrative/etc rules.

It will surprise you (though it shouldn't given sales) that a lot of players really like the rules we already have. In my experience, most of those people don't play tournaments, which is why they like the rules.

I explained to another guy in another thread that he could start with BSF, play a character through all of those missions Then step up to kill team by adding a few more models, and play there for a while and letting a whole squad of characters grow organically, before creating a detachment and taking that same BSF character into 40k and playing there for a while until the army grew into an Apocalypse sized game. All of these games can be linked in a huge story that takes literally years to tell and would rival any novel in its complexity by the time you get to the end.

Now the player said he didn't want to play that way, and that's fine. But since I do want to play that way, and because it is actually the only way I ever play this game, I am living through the MY golden age of 40k. I've been playing since 89 and for my preferences, the game really and truly is the best it's ever been. You and many other Dakkanaughts are unhappy with the current rules; I get that, which is why I want GW to create rules that make you happy. But since I am already happier than I've ever been with the game, I also want to keep doing what I'm doing, dig?

So if they release tournament only rules EVERYBODY wins- you get what you want, but those of us who love what we have get to keep it.

You seem to not only want rules that you like, you want everybody else to have no choice but to play using the rules you like. That seems selfish when there is a perfectly viable option that keeps everyone happy.

You aren't defending your viewpoint because tighter rules benefit EVERYONE.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You aren't defending your viewpoint because tighter rules benefit EVERYONE.

For that to work we would also need to step away from the CCG style stratagems and add in more actual battlefield mechanics.

But alas.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You aren't defending your viewpoint because tighter rules benefit EVERYONE.

This, as well as you can like rules but still think they are not in a good state. I myself still like some of the systems they have in 40k, as well as some they have abandon.
The rule set would probably be a whole lot better if they just cleaned up each of the factions, and set about making sure they all play the game well.
That includes how missions function and the base rules for terrain and how factions themselves interact with them, Things like the knights codex is a failure of design and i can only think of the company lowly until they step up.

Do not even have to put the rules out all at once, but at least have a good idea what rules are coming in a edition.

Right now some army, seem to just be left with no release for models. But should have full access to others without issue, or no good plane from the company. GW is big enough that this should not be a issue, ANd yet i think they are the only company that has this issue. Poor planing ? Poor design ? Poor Writers? at some point i think it has to come back to poor handling of the whole game from management.

The key pick up I found from most of the gw fanverse is that tighter rules are not desired for the most part, and additionally that moving away from CCG style stratagems is most definitely not desired.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You aren't defending your viewpoint because tighter rules benefit EVERYONE.

For that to work we would also need to step away from the CCG style stratagems and add in more actual battlefield mechanics.

But alas.

Strats were a good idea that was poorly executed in some manners. I think the pre-game ones like with Infiltration and Deep Strike were good and helps affect army building (much to the disagreement of some I'm sure), and then there's silly situations out of it. For example, Space Wolves have the True Grit Strat and it affects one unit. For whatever reason, only one Space Wolves squad remembers they can shoot into melee like Pistols. I also don't think Strats handling Relics was good at all. Relics need to be paid for, period.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You aren't defending your viewpoint because tighter rules benefit EVERYONE.

For that to work we would also need to step away from the CCG style stratagems and add in more actual battlefield mechanics.

But alas.

Strats were a good idea that was poorly executed in some manners. I think the pre-game ones like with Infiltration and Deep Strike were good and helps affect army building (much to the disagreement of some I'm sure), and then there's silly situations out of it. For example, Space Wolves have the True Grit Strat and it affects one unit. For whatever reason, only one Space Wolves squad remembers they can shoot into melee like Pistols. I also don't think Strats handling Relics was good at all. Relics need to be paid for, period.

Alternativ deployment is somewhat ok, i agree with that. The rest is bs.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You aren't defending your viewpoint because tighter rules benefit EVERYONE.

For that to work we would also need to step away from the CCG style stratagems and add in more actual battlefield mechanics.

But alas.

Strats were a good idea that was poorly executed in some manners. I think the pre-game ones like with Infiltration and Deep Strike were good and helps affect army building (much to the disagreement of some I'm sure), and then there's silly situations out of it. For example, Space Wolves have the True Grit Strat and it affects one unit. For whatever reason, only one Space Wolves squad remembers they can shoot into melee like Pistols. I also don't think Strats handling Relics was good at all. Relics need to be paid for, period.

GW has a really bad habbit of going all in on some things, and half doing other things. Its why i think so much of there ideas seem like they just copy what another game did better. :(

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You aren't defending your viewpoint because tighter rules benefit EVERYONE.

Prioritizing the narrative over rules also benefits EVERYONE.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You aren't defending your viewpoint because tighter rules benefit EVERYONE.

Prioritizing the narrative over rules also benefits EVERYONE.

Good rules tend to be good for narrative, GW just sucks at both sorts of Rule sets.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You aren't defending your viewpoint because tighter rules benefit EVERYONE.

For that to work we would also need to step away from the CCG style stratagems and add in more actual battlefield mechanics.

But alas.

Strats were a good idea that was poorly executed in some manners. I think the pre-game ones like with Infiltration and Deep Strike were good and helps affect army building (much to the disagreement of some I'm sure), and then there's silly situations out of it. For example, Space Wolves have the True Grit Strat and it affects one unit. For whatever reason, only one Space Wolves squad remembers they can shoot into melee like Pistols. I also don't think Strats handling Relics was good at all. Relics need to be paid for, period.

Alternativ deployment is somewhat ok, i agree with that. The rest is bs.

A redo of Strats being army wide would've been a better idea. For example, with True Grit, you could pay 2CP at the beginning of the turn and everyone gets it. The Snakebites Strat might be 1CP too expensive, but it affects the whole army and that's why I'm a fan of it.

 auticus wrote:
The key pick up I found from most of the gw fanverse is that tighter rules are not desired for the most part, and additionally that moving away from CCG style stratagems is most definitely not desired.

And that first part is really baffling.

How is it a contentious point that what the rules actually say and what the intended outcome of the rules is should be the same?
How is it a contentious issue that armies should have access to units which allow them to be on a roughly even playing field when taking an equal number of points?

These do nothing to take away from narrative players, in fact they help them! Knowing that 2000 points of Tau is roughly equal to 2000 points of blood angels makes creating narrative campaigns and scenarios easier as it gives you the framework to construct imbalanced match ups in such a way that they work. That 1000 point Tau garrison defending a fixed position as a rear guard against 2000 points of marines will have a tough time surviving as they try to hold off the attackers for 5 turns. That battle is telling a narrative that fits the universe. 2000 points of marines getting slaughtered by a Tau force half their size is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You aren't defending your viewpoint because tighter rules benefit EVERYONE.

Prioritizing the narrative over rules also benefits EVERYONE.

Good, clean, unobtrusive rules enables good narratives.

And that first part is really baffling.

If GW did produce cleaner rules those people would also not have a problem with that.

Thats what white-knighting is all about. Supporting the game no matter its state, good or bad.

For many many people, the game is a lot more than its rules. Its that you can go into literally any game store anywhere on the planet and get a game of 40k. You can't do that with any other game. Its also the closest miniatures game that exists that is eeking towards tournaments with thousands to tens of thousands of dollars in prize money (reference the warzone atlanta tournament coming up later this year where there is a $10,000 first prize) because of the massive player population that supports that.

Aside from point values for units not properly reflecting its performance on the board, stratagems being unevenly helpful, and typos on the rulebook/codex, exactly what about the rules do you guys truly think is wrong/bad about it?

Or is it simply the sins of the above that brings down the entire game?

The reason I don't play 40k anymore is I got tired of churn and burn, I have no interest in continuing to have to buy new armies every year, and my city is HIGHLY competitive so getting people to tone down is difficult.

I'm not a huge fan of CCG mechanics in games either, and would much rather play a wargame that is built around the concept of battles and battlefield management (terrain that matters, etc) but I would still play if the balance was tighter and I didn't have to constantly rotate armies out and play certain builds that changed yearly.

 skchsan wrote:
Aside from point values for units not properly reflecting its performance on the board, stratagems being unevenly helpful, and typos on the rulebook/codex, exactly what about the rules do you guys truly think is wrong/bad about it?

Or is it simply the sins of the above that brings down the entire game?

The terrain rules fething suck and you can't defend them as is.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Aside from point values for units not properly reflecting its performance on the board, stratagems being unevenly helpful, and typos on the rulebook/codex, exactly what about the rules do you guys truly think is wrong/bad about it?

Or is it simply the sins of the above that brings down the entire game?

The terrain rules fething suck and you can't defend them as is.

Hah. Yeah terrain rule may as well not exist.

 skchsan wrote:
Aside from point values for units not properly reflecting its performance on the board, stratagems being unevenly helpful, and typos on the rulebook/codex, exactly what about the rules do you guys truly think is wrong/bad about it?

Or is it simply the sins of the above that brings down the entire game?

It is very much a cascading effect of the above with some extra stuff on top.

For the above, you often have units which are weak in books with weak stratagems which are competing against strong units from books with stratagems which make them even stronger and which can generate more CP than the weaker book.

If it were me, I'd do away with all re-roll stratagems. They don't do anything to make the game more interesting to play, they just make you roll more dice. I'd also do away with roll modifier strats, they also don't make the game more interesting and for the most part are just ways to avoid interacting with rules such as Gets Hot. If a game mechanic is unfun and players are trying to avoid it, then just get rid of the mechanic.

Have less stratagems on the whole but those which remain change how units interact with the gamespace and each other rather than just mechanical probability bonuses. Also, flat CP available to armies determined by points limit of the game, no CP generation. CPs are a limited resource, once you spend it it's gone.

I'd also like rules which reward positioning and manoeuvring. Bring back rules like pinning which gives players methods of hampering movement, along with giving weapons abilities that make them more effective at pinning the enemy in place. This allows for weapons to contribute beyond pure damage which increases player choices. A heavy bolter which can shut down the movement of an enemy unit moving towards an objective can be a good choice even if it is less damage efficient than other alternatives. Successfully flanking a pinned enemy should be a decisive action which has a huge chance of destroying or breaking the target unit, meaning units now need to support each others flanks to prevent them from being outmanoeuvred and destroyed.

Also, revamp the missions. I'm a big fan of asymmetrical mission goals, like is used in games like Risk. So say you have 6 objectives on the board, player A might need to capture 3 and 5 whilst player B needs 2 and 6. Neither player knows what objectives the opposing player needs and this allows for the use of strategies such as feinting to try and draw the opponent away from your true target.

 auticus wrote:

And that first part is really baffling.

If GW did produce cleaner rules those people would also not have a problem with that.

Thats what white-knighting is all about. Supporting the game no matter its state, good or bad.

For many many people, the game is a lot more than its rules. Its that you can go into literally any game store anywhere on the planet and get a game of 40k. You can't do that with any other game. Its also the closest miniatures game that exists that is eeking towards tournaments with thousands to tens of thousands of dollars in prize money (reference the warzone atlanta tournament coming up later this year where there is a $10,000 first prize) because of the massive player population that supports that.

Which is anoying, Also. The its played everywhere is super annoying. We get so many new players that turn up to play, have been told its easy to find players, and have purchased into 40k without anyone smart enough to tell them they should find out what games are played in the area. Or if they need to travel further.
I think its harmful to the hobby as a whole, these players wont even be set up for kill team without more purchases. Honestly makes me really angry when its younger player that thought they where getting good advice to get into the hobby.
Even a starter box, plus some paints can be a lot of money if your left unable to play with most of the box.



A town called malus, there was one game that had racial mission objectives along with normal mission objectives. It was really interesting and made the games more interesting with a base narrative in every game being quite a bit complex

Apple fox wrote:

 auticus wrote:

And that first part is really baffling.

If GW did produce cleaner rules those people would also not have a problem with that.

Thats what white-knighting is all about. Supporting the game no matter its state, good or bad.

For many many people, the game is a lot more than its rules. Its that you can go into literally any game store anywhere on the planet and get a game of 40k. You can't do that with any other game. Its also the closest miniatures game that exists that is eeking towards tournaments with thousands to tens of thousands of dollars in prize money (reference the warzone atlanta tournament coming up later this year where there is a $10,000 first prize) because of the massive player population that supports that.

Which is anoying, Also. The its played everywhere is super annoying. We get so many new players that turn up to play, have been told its easy to find players, and have purchased into 40k without anyone smart enough to tell them they should find out what games are played in the area. Or if they need to travel further.
I think its harmful to the hobby as a whole, these players wont even be set up for kill team without more purchases. Honestly makes me really angry when its younger player that thought they where getting good advice to get into the hobby.
Even a starter box, plus some paints can be a lot of money if your left unable to play with most of the box.

Saying that the issue is not knowing what kinds of games are being played is so wrong it's not even funny.

If there were more balance you wouldn't HAVE to worry about that and you could do pickup. All that needs to be negotiated is points and Mission. Quite frankly, that's all that SHOULD be discussed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 auticus wrote:

And that first part is really baffling.

If GW did produce cleaner rules those people would also not have a problem with that.

Thats what white-knighting is all about. Supporting the game no matter its state, good or bad.

For many many people, the game is a lot more than its rules. Its that you can go into literally any game store anywhere on the planet and get a game of 40k. You can't do that with any other game. Its also the closest miniatures game that exists that is eeking towards tournaments with thousands to tens of thousands of dollars in prize money (reference the warzone atlanta tournament coming up later this year where there is a $10,000 first prize) because of the massive player population that supports that.

Which is anoying, Also. The its played everywhere is super annoying. We get so many new players that turn up to play, have been told its easy to find players, and have purchased into 40k without anyone smart enough to tell them they should find out what games are played in the area. Or if they need to travel further.
I think its harmful to the hobby as a whole, these players wont even be set up for kill team without more purchases. Honestly makes me really angry when its younger player that thought they where getting good advice to get into the hobby.
Even a starter box, plus some paints can be a lot of money if your left unable to play with most of the box.

Saying that the issue is not knowing what kinds of games are being played is so wrong it's not even funny.

If there were more balance you wouldn't HAVE to worry about that and you could do pickup. All that needs to be negotiated is points and Mission. Quite frankly, that's all that SHOULD be discussed.

I was saying, that players should look what other players are playing, No matter how good a game is. If no one wants to play with you it does not matter. Its why i reply to the post about how its played literally everywhere.
Killteam is the 40k game here now, outside of narrative which i do at my house. It was a comment at whiteknighting like that.

I honestly wonder, if someone were to build a set of rules for "Tusslegavel 60M" and then release it online, so that everyone could have a free set of rules, why it hasn't been done yet.

We have legions of fans with the ability to knock this out, hell, we could have BCB fact check it. It would be a living set, constantly updated. And it would be free so GW couldn't kill it.

Why hasn't this been done yet? Honestly asking. If we as a forum spent half the time building this that we do bitching about the GW rules updates, it would have been done yesterday.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Balance isn't hard to define. One TAC army should be able to go toe-to-toe with another TAC army. The moment one army is completely better at that aspect, there's imbalance.
Of course there's the question of what's considered "TAC", which is slightly more holistic and prompts more discussion, but we can think of the basic definition for now as you bringing something to handle every reasonable threat.

A reasonable start, but how do you account for terrain or missions?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also you've always been saying that about Marines and don't have the statistics to back it up. YEAH they got better after the new Codex, but just wait for everyone else to get a rework.

Hate to break it to you, but you don't have the statistics on it either.

You'd have a point if the terrain rules commonly used actually mattered. It only matters for the dudes automatically getting it (ala army bonus) and when you pop the strat T1. The City Fight terrain rules go a longer way to make terrain matter more, BUT nobody plays "narrative" and, because it not being part of the official rule set, nobody cares. When it comes to stopping LoS it sometimes helps, but it doesn't actually make Assault Marines better at their job. It just means they love longer before I laugh at the pitiful attempt they make at their job.

Missions are kinda fine but definitely favor certain armies rather than certain compositions for those various armies, and I wouldn't say ITC or ETC completely fix this either. That's both an internal and external issue for the codices.

I'll totally admit that the terrain rules should be better, but simply increasing the amount and variation of LOS blockers, and throwing down more terrain impassable to tanks will change the value of units. It takes very little effort to create a big effect.

Sure, drive your Leman Russ commanders into dense terrain where their range is reduced and they cant move, and they can't support the objective without driving closer. Watch Assault Marines land within strike range but out of LOS, then charge and make the Leman Russes useless.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why hasn't this been done yet? Honestly asking. If we as a forum spent half the time building this that we do bitching about the GW rules updates, it would have been done yesterday.

It has been, but it's all fandexes and fan rules. Hard enough to get a local group to switch let alone pick-up players.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I honestly wonder, if someone were to build a set of rules for "Tusslegavel 60M" and then release it online, so that everyone could have a free set of rules, why it hasn't been done yet.

We have legions of fans with the ability to knock this out, hell, we could have BCB fact check it. It would be a living set, constantly updated. And it would be free so GW couldn't kill it.

Why hasn't this been done yet? Honestly asking. If we as a forum spent half the time building this that we do bitching about the GW rules updates, it would have been done yesterday.

Things like that are done all the time. Its just that fan made rulesets without an official miniatures line or a company backing them are ignored by the vast majority of people because no one knows when it will disappear, and honestly its not 40k. Look at all of the professional games out there that are blips. Even with their own miniature line. Because its not 40k. Antares is a pretty solid system, has its own miniature line, has a great pedigree of top industry rules developers... and no one plays it. Because its not 40k and you can't get a game of it anywhere (self fulfilling prophecy) and there aren't huge tournaments and world rankings for it.

I have a feeling if someone wealthy decided to back Antares and put out tournaments with $10,000 prize money that you would start to see more Antares though but that would need tested.

Fan made game projects rarely if at all do well. Not neccessarily because the rules aren't that good (I've seen a lot of great amateur games pushed out over the years) but because of the 40k phenomenon that plagues even professionally backed games with their own miniature line.

Fan made 40k alterations are not tournament standard, which is where they fall on their face. If you want to see fan made 40k alterations (yes technically ITC is a fan made 40k alteration) do well, you need to pump a lot of money into prize money and world rankings (like ITC does).

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I honestly wonder, if someone were to build a set of rules for "Tusslegavel 60M" and then release it online, so that everyone could have a free set of rules, why it hasn't been done yet.

We have legions of fans with the ability to knock this out, hell, we could have BCB fact check it. It would be a living set, constantly updated. And it would be free so GW couldn't kill it.

Why hasn't this been done yet? Honestly asking. If we as a forum spent half the time building this that we do bitching about the GW rules updates, it would have been done yesterday.

Time is a big one, not being payed for it would suck. The fear of GW stamping you down if you overstep in anyway is a big issue.
As well as getting adoption of even a fantastic set of rules is hard without players knowing about it.
There are sets of rules that i think lots of people would love if they know they exist, and got outside of there comfit zone a bit.
Even i want 40k to succeed due to nostalgia for the setting.
If i was completely rational i would likely have just walked away from 40k in its entirety and never looked back. GW has that over any other rules that come out, even great rules someone did for 40k that play great.
Its the same reason i would still use warmachine rules if someone come out with a full and fantastic re-imagining.
Infinity would be the same, I still have and run both Inquisitor and Mordheim.
As well as having about 30 other mini games rule sets, and way to many RPGs.

 skchsan wrote:
Aside from point values for units not properly reflecting its performance on the board, stratagems being unevenly helpful, and typos on the rulebook/codex, exactly what about the rules do you guys truly think is wrong/bad about it?

Or is it simply the sins of the above that brings down the entire game?

Terrain rules are too simplistic (cover largely doesn't matter), stratagems + abilities + IGOUGO encourage CCG-like combo stacking as the basis of army composition, wargame-essential concepts like maneuver and positioning only exist in the context of abstract, game-y concepts like 9" deep strike bubbles and auras, morale is just weird, and there is just so much bloat and dice rolling and rerolls and it's a bit excessive.

I still play and enjoy the game- not competitively- but those are my big five. It doesn't feel like a wargame to me anymore.

My go-to comparison is Epic. Epic preserves a lot of the flavor of the individual armies while simplifying the base mechanics and not requiring an avalanche of special rules. It models command and control, morale, and suppression through simple mechanics, and it really emphasizes maneuver and strategy over simple target priority and abilities.

 skchsan wrote:
Aside from point values for units not properly reflecting its performance on the board, stratagems being unevenly helpful, and typos on the rulebook/codex, exactly what about the rules do you guys truly think is wrong/bad about it?

Or is it simply the sins of the above that brings down the entire game?

Honestly it's that, and in general, the rules are just bad. They're poorly written, with little or no strategy other than target priority and combos, and in general, it's a piss poor wargame overall. And it's repeatedly shown that the designers either could write good rules and choose not to or have no idea how to actually write good rules so don't even try. But it's a near-total disconnect with how a gaming company should be, because GW doesn't consider itself a gaming company so the rules are an afterthought rather than something done in tandem with the models like it should be.

It's just popular with a lot of fire and motion behind it, and GW's fanbase has repeatedly shown that they don't really care about rules because they forgive the terrible rules every time they showcase a new over the top model and continue to support GW to the point where they have what, doubled or tripled profit while doing barely anything different? If that doesn't show that the fans don't care about having a good game, I don't know what will.

White knighting. It shows that people care more about the social environment that 40k fosters, where they know that a ton of other people also play the game, than they do about the rules of the game itself.

If there never was a 40k and no juggernauts existed today and someone came around and produced 40k or AOS and tried to push it, I think it would fall flat on its face because I honestly don't think a lot of people play it because they think the rules are great; they play it because they know a ton of other people also play it and THAT is a powerful motivator.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Not factual errors on the level of GW's problems. You don't have a legitimate biology textbook accidentally devoting a whole chapter to how young-earth creationism is the only valid theory, or a legitimate math textbook carefully and elaborately explaining that 1+1=3. And yet somehow GW continues to publish games that use the IGOUGO mechanic.

Erm. . . design choice =/= factual error.

No, IGOUGO is genuinely that broken. It's about as much of a "design choice" as adding a special rule that space marines always win because space marines are better than whatever trash army the other player has.

Uhhhh. Nope. Just nope.

Like, you can have a strong opinion about it, but IGOUGO clearly works and thousands of players don't have any problem with it. If it "didn't work", the game wouldn't be enjoyed by as many people that enjoy it.

Imagine playing a game of chess where the player playing white could move all of their pieces before black got to move. That is what IGOUGO does, it exponentially increases the first turn advantage, even in games where both sides have identical forces.

Now imagine that the white player also has 3 queens, 3 rooks, 3 bishops and 3 knights instead of some pawns whilst the black player has no queen, one rook, one bishop and no knights but these missing pieces aren't even replaced by pawns. Think how ridiculous it is that the white player gets to move every one of their pieces before the black player, who was already at a massive disadvantage due to their lack of pieces, can move a single one. That is how imbalanced some match ups can be in 40k and demonstrates how first turn advantage, coupled with ability to use your entire army on the first turn before your opponent can react and the potentially ludicrous imbalance between armies all build off of each other.

Okay, but now imagine parts of the board only allowed certain models to have access, Queens cost 200 points each.... Ect ECT.

The chess metaphor falls apart because we're working with more variables than chess does.

I agree I would like something more like how Apoc works in 40k (I actually feel Apoc captures the game better but that's just me) I don't think turn order is the part of the game that breaks the game.

If anything, the chess metaphor is so great *because* 40k has more "variables" than Chess does.

Chess is a structured game with a *vaslty* simpler rulesset (but more complex gameplay). So if a problem is inherent to the common foundations, it can be examined more easily in Chess than 40k. And Chess is widely regarded as well balanced (but not perfectly balanced).