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.

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Noir wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

Still that what I going to point out, maybe you should you know think before you post. Be cause after that must people think your a joke, and rightly know you are sadly uniformed when it come to miniature gaming.

Wait, is this me or him? Because I play other games to refute that. If it is not, I apologize mate, I am just confused who it was directed towards.

Him of course, the rest of use know how much fun sheep are.... I mean other games .

No no, sheep are tons of fun... >_>

...you need the sheep, a cliff, and a pair of rubber gumboots...

I would be interested in a thread that explains why WH is a better ruleset than others on the market.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I would be interested in a thread that explains why WH is a better ruleset than others on the market.

Unfortunately you're going to have to wait a while for that one. So far in 30-40 pages of recent argument about the subject I have yet to see a single explanation of how GW's rules are better than the alternatives. The entire pro-GW argument consists of "they're good enough for me, stop complaining".

The entire thread would be shorter than my affair with Fleecy.

 Fafnir wrote:
The entire thread would be shorter than my affair with Fleecy.

50 Shades of Wool

Another interesting thing would be to examine other rulesets and say what makes them good.

I look for these points in a rule set:
- Clarity of rules with appropriate core rules (What's the point of a lack of a movement value in 40k when half the units have special rules to make them move faster)
- Short learning curve with great tactical emphasis (X-Wing is the perfect example of this)
- Depth appropriate to scale (I couldn't care less about individual models in a mass game like Epic or Kings of War - just what units do, while flyers have absolutely no place in a 40k sized game)
- Balanced forces, both internally and externally (pick your army list to suit your tactics, rather than selecting The Best Units and adjusting your tactics to suit them)
- Manoeuvring is a key tactic (not gunline up on opposite sides of the board and roll dice)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Another interesting thing would be to examine other rulesets and say what makes them good.

I guess the main upsides I've seen are rules that don't cause arguments, rules that are simple-to-grasp-hard-to-master, and any complexity adds actual tactical depth instead of just confusion. Specifically:

Infinity: Getting to do SOMETHING in the opponent's turn instead of sitting for 30-45 minutes only waking up to roll saves. Full army UGO-IGO is one of the worst problems with 40k in my opinion. Anyway having a set core mechanic that is used for all resolutions, instead of a weird split of shooting and melee being totally different. Each unit can be customized a lot and is still balanced, so it's hard to take an over/underpowered list.

X-Wing Miniatures: You could teach this game to a 4 year old but it is still a blast to play for an adult. Awesome tactics due to the hidden-move-segmented-reveal of maneuver dials. Quick resolution mechanism with fun custom dice, so you still get that excitement of a "lucky hit". Lots of customization between pilots and gear. Incredible value since you can get playing for $35-40 (depending on how expensive the starter set is in your area).

Chain Reaction (Two Hour Wargames): Always interacting with the game, instead of again sitting still, passively, while your whole army is gobbled up by shooting.

Firestorm Armada: All about positioning baby. Also alternating activations instead of entire fleet at once. Plenty of fun dice rolling, plenty of variety between races, great models that are fairly inexpensive (and more importantly you don't need 80 of them to play). Good variety of "space terrain" and variables to change how the game plays (such as Mines).

Battletech: Clear, unchanged mechanics that are tried and true. Phenomenal build system for creating your own custom mechs. Lots of neat weapons that vary playstyles. Heat management is genius. Playing on paper hex maps with stand-up paper models makes the game so cheap to start.

Car Wars (5th edition): Theme matches mechanics beautifully. Very easy for people to grasp because you just move via angles and get to play with Hot Wheels. Simple and good bell curve shooting mechanism, lots of car customization, and besides a $5 PDF or book it's basically $1 per model (again, Hot Wheels matchbox cars).

Silent Death Next Millenium: Coolest degrading performance damage track I've ever seen. Each spaceship will have their speed, armor, weapons, etc. slowly degrade as they take damage.

Song of Blades and Heroes: Awesome activation mechanism, basically you can "push your luck" but trying to get more actions, but there is a chance you'll fail to activate a unit or even worse, pass play to your opponent! Extremely fast playing (4-6 games in the span of a single 40k game). Lots of neat units. Simple statline. Pre-set movement speeds are nice. Combat has a couple of options to give you choice on how to spend the actions you gambled for.

D&D (4th edition): Say what you want about the roleplaying aspects, but the combat is rock solid. Zillions of options that give the player a ton of choice, but are all internally balanced. You feel like you can DO neat things. Lots of tactical movement as well with positioning, pushing, sliding, attacks of opportunity, etc.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I would be interested in a thread that explains why WH is a better ruleset than others on the market.

One could do something of the sort, but that would be kind of subjective.Although it is the the tightest, clearest ruleset I played so far (There could be others that pop-up in the future that change my mind, and is fast-paced so you have a game fit in at lunch break if you want one, the down side it that it leaves little room for custom characters (although it deals with that issue quite well with a lot of unique playstyles from each casters, but it is a bit jarring to most people still) and the occasional bad match-up (which is taken care of the two-list format in tournaments). Also I would like to add that it is very much IGOUGO format, and some people might want to move away from that and try something else.

I think the comparison between the current GW rules and A.N.Other ruleset is simply that those that are held up as good examples of rules are generally produced by companies that engage with their user base and actively manage the ruleset.

That way, even if something does slip through the net, its gets fixed (I'm not a player, but I understand some Warmachine units have been adjusted multiple times to get the balance right) whereas GW simply don't bother.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I would be interested in a thread that explains why WH is a better ruleset than others on the market.

Wait, do you mean Warhammer or Warmahordes? Because if it's the former, the response would be "because it's the only game I've played" or "I like the fluff! And models!" or "It's cinematic!". Or just "it's okay. Has its flaws, though." As seen in the other thread.

 heartserenade wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I would be interested in a thread that explains why WH is a better ruleset than others on the market.

Wait, do you mean Warhammer or Warmahordes? Because if it's the former, the response would be "because it's the only game I've played" or "I like the fluff! And models!" or "It's cinematic!". Or just "it's okay. Has its flaws, though." As seen in the other thread.

I thought he meant Warmahordes when I posted my response...welp...and pretty much that would be the case.

I stopped playing 40k because the rules are so bad, I play Infinity now, a far superior game miniatures wise and rules-wise IMO.

 snurl wrote:
The rules are great for starting arguments.

This. I hate having to explain to people how the game works. One fella insisted that Weapon destroyed meant ALL the vehicles weapons.. took me about 10 minutes to tell him why that's not how it works

GW rules are not unplayable. They are an obstacle that must be overcome however.

 Peregrine wrote:
Unfortunately you're going to have to wait a while for that one. So far in 30-40 pages of recent argument about the subject I have yet to see a single explanation of how GW's rules are better than the alternatives. The entire pro-GW argument consists of "they're good enough for me, stop complaining".

Not to mention the 10 people who have clearly never seen another war game of any type - not even chess - it seems.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Another interesting thing would be to examine other rulesets and say what makes them good.

And another thread explaining why those games aren't as popular as 40k. Seriously, people don't like perfection.

xruslanx wrote:
And another thread explaining why those games aren't as popular as 40k. Seriously, people don't like perfection.

Yeah, what we need is yet another thread explaining GW's business strategy of driving independent stores out of business through store location/inventory "shortages"/etc, or how the "all my friends play it" effect keeps people starting GW games even when better alternatives are available. The answers are there if you want them, but we all know you don't want to listen.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
And another thread explaining why those games aren't as popular as 40k. Seriously, people don't like perfection.

Yeah, what we need is yet another thread explaining GW's business strategy of driving independent stores out of business through store location/inventory "shortages"/etc, or how the "all my friends play it" effect keeps people starting GW games even when better alternatives are available. The answers are there if you want them, but we all know you don't want to listen.

I agree. Frankly I'm astounded that anyone could disagree with you on anything ever, since every single statement you make is backed up by reams of irrefutable quantifiable data.

xruslanx wrote:
I agree. Frankly I'm astounded that anyone could disagree with you on anything ever, since every single statement you make is backed up by reams of irrefutable quantifiable data.

At least that's better than you backing up all of your statements with "playing non-GW games is like sex with animals".

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I agree. Frankly I'm astounded that anyone could disagree with you on anything ever, since every single statement you make is backed up by reams of irrefutable quantifiable data.

At least that's better than you backing up all of your statements with "playing non-GW games is like sex with animals".

Peregrine, you're being trolled.

From personal experience I suspect this user likes to drink and post of a weekend, I expect you'll get called a neck beard and a nerd before long too. Just use the triangle of friendship or hit of ignore if I were you.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I agree. Frankly I'm astounded that anyone could disagree with you on anything ever, since every single statement you make is backed up by reams of irrefutable quantifiable data.

At least that's better than you backing up all of your statements with "playing non-GW games is like sex with animals".

Peregrine, you're being trolled.

From personal experience I suspect this user likes to drink and post of a weekend, I expect you'll get called a neck beard and a nerd before long too. Just use the triangle of friendship or hit of ignore if I were you.

Reported. Please don't accuse people of trolling just because they disagree with you.

xruslanx wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I agree. Frankly I'm astounded that anyone could disagree with you on anything ever, since every single statement you make is backed up by reams of irrefutable quantifiable data.

At least that's better than you backing up all of your statements with "playing non-GW games is like sex with animals".

Peregrine, you're being trolled.

From personal experience I suspect this user likes to drink and post of a weekend, I expect you'll get called a neck beard and a nerd before long too. Just use the triangle of friendship or hit of ignore if I were you.

Reported. Please don't accuse people of trolling just because they disagree with you.

Lol!

Ok kid, that's exactly what I was doing!

News flash, there's an 8-odd page thread in 40K Discussion where you got your arse spanked by many, many other users repeatedly, while you continued to make totally unsubstantiated nonsense posts that didn't address any of their valid, supported claims, while accusing them simultaneously of posting unsubstantiated nonsense.

In this matter, everyone disagrees with you.

If everyone on an internet forum disagrees with me, I'm probably right.

xruslanx wrote:
If everyone on an internet forum disagrees with me, I'm probably right.

Whatever keeps you warm at night dude, that one thread just demonstrated to me that you're simply not worth engaging with as you can't be expected to argue logically and showed one of my own personal ""7 deadly sins" for dealing with people in any context, real life or Internet, when your ignorance of a subject was demonstrated to you, you showed no desire to either educate yourself or accept the opinion of those better placed to know than you, that's a pretty unforgivable thing for me.

I think we're well and truly done here.