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.

This strangely is not designed to be another GW bashing thread but a genuine attempt to try and understand what people are enjoying about 40K.

As a preface I've played it since 2nd Ed, and assembled 4 decent sized forces in that time. Though I've sold all but one now.

The issue I have is that after a years break from the game I've played a couple of games and just don't understand what people see in it anymore?

The models are lovely there is no denying that but the costs these days compared to other games have sky rocketed! My dire avengers are almost worth their weight in gold. I can justify buying a couple of new units but starting a whole new army would be insane. Also when compared to other companies, infinity has nicer models and you need to spend less for an army in almost any other system.

And then the rules. They almost feel like a cartoon, they seem to lack any complexity, subtlety or depth. It really felt like it was about who through the most dice won.

The other thing that really got me is the lack if tactics, due to the increase in model count and daft things like not assaulting when you outflank you have no real concept of mobility, it's pretty much two lines of models on an increasingly cluttered 6 by 4 board.

The two strengths I always find with 40K are the ease of opponents - though some do seem to be more 'childish' compared to players of other systems ( thankfully where I live there are plenty of opposition for multiple other systems) and the fluff, which wonderfully done by black library I will say.

Maybe it's time and the exposure to so many other games, but I'm struggling to find why 40K is enjoyable

I play because it is played a lot at my club.
Also, I find the 20-odd years is immersion in the fluff makes the games more worthwhile than other games.

 Reaver83 wrote:



The two strengths I always find with 40K are the ease of opponents

I really do like Warhammer 40k, but to be honest, with the new prices this is the main reason I don't switch to another table top game. All of my friends are deadlocked into video games, so I would much rather go to my local Gamesworkshop store then hunt for other people to play.

Universe background, some nice models (Eldar).

I'm with you on the actual game part, it's pretty godawful/boring.

There is a good/strong Warmachine community near to me, and once the Eldar get stale I'll probably return to that.

I think most people will give you some sort of opponent finding reason, and/or sunk cost excuse.

I mainly play because i love the lore/the settings and the races...

Yes i agree about GW blowing the prices way out of proportions... Starting a new army is almost only possible when buying a second hand army or a Dark vengeance box kina thing... Eldar players have it rough IMO... almost all Aspects are Resin... which are ugly models... BUT THE DETAIL!?! Ah to hell with that... staves and swords are bend,.. it takes hours to get the models to look good,... glueing and painting them is a biaaaaatch.... Just another cheap producing way for GW and then say... but its resinn. give more moneyz!!!!

On the other hand.. the rules although a lot, are quite easy to follow... Books look great though way over expensive... (codexes) The way the game plays is great IMO.. I stull heave lots of fun... though once more,... GW will eventualy see that the pricebumbs will kill their own hobby... There is quite a large group of people i know who play warhammer... Over the past year 9 have stopped bying from GW stores and only buy from ebay and other websites like that... Usualy saves about 10-30 euros depending on what they buy..

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.

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 don't play for the realism of the rules, I've never seen a wargame that did that, all have issues. I play for enjoyment. 40K is cinematic and silly with loads of issues of realism and balance but it is great fun, you can have a great chat about all the permutations, etc.

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.

Sisters of battle is what got me into 40k then I started reading more fluff, and more and more fluff and I fell into the black hole known as the Warhammer Zone. I play fantasy as well so it just made sense to stick with these games after so much time has been invested into them.

I find its the fluff and the options in forces. You can build an army to do what you want it to and not have to just drop it and go to a different army to make it happen. I have sm and have ann all assualt list a bike list a foot list. I can run any am codex I grab without an issue except for gk but I dont like them. And there is a pretty good community of players in my area. I find its a lot better then just sitting around getting fat playing video games. And haveing spent 5 years in the Marines I like the whole futuristic war thing.

I first played 40k when I was about ten years old. I got that Space Marines vs Dark Eldar set for my birthday and was hooked. Glued all the dudes weird and had gak ily painted Blood Angels as my main force and everything

But as a kid, couldn't find any opponents. Everyone else was 20-40, so I dropped it. But I followed it for over a decade, waiting for the day when I'd have enough money to get into it.

Start of this year I finally was able to. I bought a crapload of second hand Orks, nicely painted and such, from my country's version of ebay. Then set to work building a veritable fleet of scratch built vehicles, hordes of converted Lootas and Burnas etc from a big pile of bits, all sorts of stuff.

And then I played. And from minute one I was disappointed in the game. I've played a lot of games in my time, mostly computer based, and so I know what constitutes "strategy" or "depth". And you know what *isn't* strategy or depth? That first shot I ever suffered in a game, D3 large blast barrage hits from the Manticore hitting anything it liked at any part of the board and blowing apart a third of my army turn one.

The repercussions of that one shot have been massive. I know what that shot means, it means that this game utterly disregards movement and cover, its nothing more than a mindless slugfest and grind between the guy who gets first turn and the remnants of the guy who does not.

There have been other Manticores, and other rubbish such as fliers across the course of my games, and I've done a good job of blowing that crap away. But there was always that first shot and what it meant for the game.

Somehow this game can still be fun as a Beer and Pretzels sorta game. Win or lose, I enjoy playing it that way and can't really understand why - I guess its the elements of 'cinematic' experience that GW apparently goes for, combined with a 'gentlemans agreement' to leave the stuff that breaks and exploits the rules out of the game. Other games, such as Flames of War, have far more solid rules but I'm currently sitting at about six yawns per game. But competitively, this is a game of gunlines and first turn, a total joke of a system or as OP nicely put it, a "cartoon". However its not about the most dice, its about that first dice roll of the battle, the one who determines which gunline gets to obliterate the other with the first turn.

I have been playing this game since rogue trader, on and off with more off! I loved the original game and I really enjoy the latest edition. It upsets me to think that pretty soon GW will be selling to Hasbro and it makes me shudder to think of what that means.

I like painting the models, the background, the game system, whilst it has some really stupid rules (morale check to not be run over by a tank) I do like the current rules.

I miss certain rules like being able to shoot an entire line of troops with a heavy bolter.

I have looked at other games and have played fow for a while. I agree that most seem to be a cheaper version.

Unfortunately gone are the days of a box of marines for £9.99 for 30 plastic guys.

I'll keep playing as we have a good club and circle of gamers and I attend events where I can.

I also agree that to buy a new army is ridiculous. The only way I will buy another is when sisters become plastic.

There are a few factors as to why I decided to get into 40k and stick it out:

- Popularity - Investing in any table top game can get expensive after a while. Many game systems come and go over the years, GW games have proven that they will stand the test of time.

- Story/Setting - The grimdark setting is very much my style. I love that they made 40k in our universe. Basically the earth we live on is ancient Terra and somewhere out there right now the xenos could actually exist i just need a time machine to go 38,000 years into the future to see if its all true.

- Army variety - There is something for everyone - and this was achieved by standing by typical science fiction/fantasy race staples. Sure the races aren't terribly original, but the fluff spices them up enough to make them feel unique from other game systems.

- Gameplay - I know there is better out there, but 40k is simple enough and does a decent job of letting you take fairly sizable armies into battle. Usually when people complain about lack of tactics in 40k, it is because that person chose to avoid synergy in their army. It is easy to fall into the trap of point and click army lists. If you are a competitive gamer - you will be frustrated, but if you take a more casual approach (with some competitiveness) you'll find that 40k is pretty great.

- I can get a game. Finding players to play infinity with me is akin to pulling teeth.

- I like the models. GW does voodoo with their plastic kits. Its amazing and I love it, as each model looks unique. Every 3rd model in my Cygnar units look alike and that's very detracting for me.

- I love tanks and planes. No other game system integrates those elements to their tabletop games as well. Warmachine has jacks, but they are not the same.

- I love the conversion opportunities. I can get a bunch of models on ebay for cheap then convert them to be something amazingly cool. This works best with Chaos and Orks.

- I dig the fluff. While the continual 'endless war' and 'the only emotion i feel is manliness' of the books does get a bit old -- its still overall enjoyable.

- At the higher level of play there is a lot of tactics and strategy. You really don't notice it until you start playing people who are that good.

You can find a game easier than you can with any other game system for one. The setting and aesthetics of the game are what really draw me in, and I actually enjoy the game itself plenty.

Also

'the only emotion i feel is manliness'

is the best thing I've ever read on this forum, goddamn. That should be the Catachan motto, flown above every government building on Planet Rambo.

Good question...

I like 40k for a myriad of reasons. I started with rogue trader, then 2nd. Skipped 4th and 5th, mostly because of military service and real life intrusions, and am now back with both bolters blazing.

1. The fluff is amazing. There is a depth of story that is so immersive as to never, IMHO, let anyone down for a lack of "something that appeals to them". I started as a die hard, only "Spehs Mahrine" player but found the "Spehs Elfs" too alluring. Also always liked Necron and Tau... and orks... ahhh hell, I like em all. The nice part is, whenever I decide to do something else, GW and FW are there to cater for my appetite for more stuff. more fluff and more cowbell. The sheer volumes of historical info and the opportunity to create anything you want within that universe, and not step on any toes, amazes me all the time.

2. The models are fantastic. Now, don't get me wrong, FailCast irks me to no end. It is a travesty and I hate them for it. The plastics, though, are fantastic, modeling opportunities abound. Whatever level hobbyist you are, you can have a great looking army that makes you feel decent. You don't have to be a slayer sword winner to play. If you are the guy the converts and remakes everything, you get the adulation of the crowds.

3. The other games always seem to be lacking to me. FoW uses tactics that are completely unrealistic for the periods it models. Malifaux and Infinity make me laugh at times. Very good rules and systems, I enjoy them both, but every time I ask a player about the games, they start with "Well, I used to play 40k, but...". To me, any games that are based on re-treads from another system has a longevity problem. I'm not dogging them, mind you, I think they are both innovative and alot of fun, I just don't see them lasting 30 years as a huge force. (hope i'm wrong, though!) Warmahordes is a blast, and they are really the only competition for 40k. The guys at Privateer hit on a good one here.

4. The rules are bozo simple and yet provide a good amount of meat to the game. It reminds me of golf. You can get decent at it very easily, but it will take you YEARS to get really good. The rules are simple, and based on an archaic D6 system, but that is also part of the appeal. All the balance (or lack thereof) has to be done in a very small, tight window of opportunity. When you consider that 1 is always bad, and 6 good, your window shrinks to 4 in 6, or 25% for each result. (I know it's not statistically correct, but for simple tactics, it works... lol) You know, with some relative degree of certainty, of what the outcome of a particular action will be. It lets you plan your strategery and tactics around you units. I know that some lists are so entrenched in "the Meta" that they will suck or be awesome, but I have found, to a large degree, that these prognostications are normally wrong. The laziest wacko list from the fat guy in mom's basement can sometimes beat the Rankings HQ Meta-making list.

5. Now that codexes are raining down like mana from heaven, there is infinite diversity in infinite combinations. (shout out to IDICBeer there...). You can find an army that plays the way you want to play and have fun.

6. Money is always an issue, but I think there is a bit too much griping here. Yes it is expensive, what hobby isn't? Unless you're in to competitive grass counting, hobbies are expensive. Try woodworking, or golf or mountain biking. Getting the top of line stuff there costs a bunch too. Like my wife says, with this hobby, I'm home alot, not carousing with the guys and getting drunk... oh wait, she's never been to a Con... People tend to look at models in a vacuum. Every hobby out there is expensive, and I, for one, have never told my opponent that they could not "counts as" a model for something that they wanted to try out. Life is too short to be that kind of a jerk. (I'm a jerk in numerous other ways...)

So, 40k scratches a need for me. I'm almost 50 and still hobbying and playing and having a great time. That's the appeal for me...

v/r
Bill

1)The background /and artistic style.

2) Current Popularity.

Despite the best efforts of Kirby and co , the work the GW studio staff put in for 30 years is still engaging enough for some.

I agree with just about everything in the OP.

I haven't played 40k in almost two years now (or more...can't remember anymore), and the only reasons I'd still play are the models and the fluff. The ease of finding opponents certainly helps, but I imagine it'd be hard to find a halfway decent FLGS that hasn't diversified their games.

Compared to the dozen-ish rulesets I've played, 40k is probably the worst. I may be biased because my true love is for spaceship combat games, but the rules are just lacking in 40k. I love spaceship combat games because it boils down to force concentration and target priority, which are heavily dictated by proper maneouvring. 40K lacks any complex maneouvre based tactics, especially at higher point games where there's more space taken up by models than their is empty table space.

Then again, there's a reason most 28mm games are skirmish games, not 40k's weird skirmish/company level games that would probably be best done at 15mm.

But the models are too nice, the conversions and bits too great, and the fluff too glorious for me to give it up.

1. cool models
2. A large [and decent community]
3. Nearly every model is plastic/resin, you don't have to deal with finecrap... er, I mean metal.
4. excellant fluff
5. Books based on the fluff

That's all I can think of right now.

For me, it's mainly the ease of finding people who play.

I prefer other games, but all of my TT gamer friends are stuck on 40k, which I still enjoy playing... mainly because Dark Eldar are awesome.

So:
1) Ease of of finding opponents
2) Dark Eldar are awesome.

Even when I lose, I win because I get to play with cool toys.

 Blacksails wrote:
I love spaceship combat games because it boils down to force concentration and target priority, which are heavily dictated by proper maneouvring.

In 40k that section of the game is called deployment. I find a lot of people blow past this part of the game to get to the dice rolling and then are surprised that their units are out of position to do anything. Force organization and target priority are huge aspects of 40k. As I see you used to play guard, achieving force organization is harder than for marines. And a bunch of dudes without transports are much harder to move than a mobile marine force.

bogalubov wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I love spaceship combat games because it boils down to force concentration and target priority, which are heavily dictated by proper maneouvring.

In 40k that section of the game is called deployment. I find a lot of people blow past this part of the game to get to the dice rolling and then are surprised that their units are out of position to do anything. Force organization and target priority are huge aspects of 40k. As I see you used to play guard, achieving force organization is harder than for marines. And a bunch of dudes without transports are much harder to move than a mobile marine force.

Sure, but the games I'm talking about include tactical deployment and maneouvring. 40K lacks the second part, which is continual, and reactionary for both parties in other games. The reason deployment in 40k is so important is precisely due to the lack of any true tactical movement.

Which still basically proves my point about 40k being significantly less tactical than many alternatives available. If 40k was simply scaled down to 15mm with the same ranges and some movement tweaks, it'd function a lot better. But now we're getting close to what Epic was/is.

I think what most people don't remember is that when this game first came out it wasn't marketed to wargamers. It was marketed to wargamers kids. It was something for them to do while their dads played Napoleonics and American Civil War.

I've mostly retired from 40k.

I have one army now. And have no intentions of starting another.

My new passion is paintball.

That being said... My friends are making a paintball team based on the Blood Pact.

40k will forever be part of my imagination now, just like Ninja Turtles, X-men, Star Wars ect.

But like those other interests, I will not be spending any more money on them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

joetoc wrote:
I think what most people don't remember is that when this game first came out it wasn't marketed to wargamers. It was marketed to wargamers kids. It was something for them to do while their dads played Napoleonics and American Civil War.

No, it was a skirmish sci-fi game marketed at the people interested in the new coolness of the mid 70's.

Star Wars, Dungeons and Dragons, Dune, The Hobbit to name a few things.

Having been at the genesis of the game, in terms of playing the test bed games with the very first Citadel sci-fi figures I can say that it was first invented because one of the model makers did a space marine and it was immensely popular. GW decided to run with it and innovated by using fantasy races and transplanting them into a space opera in effect. It is basically fantasy wargaming in space, hence the close combat, swords on 40th millennium warriors, etc, etc. It began as a skirmish level game with a few models and a storyline like WFB did, models were expensive and you only had a few. Initially it was a handful per side. It has grown obviously but it is not a game based on realistic war fighting it is supposed to be a mix of wargaming and roleplaying, with a 'narrative' something they have really harped on about in 6th ed. It is a game where the players are supposed to be playing out a scenario in effect. It's supposed to be cartoonish and fun with lovely models to move about.

Im not sure. the turn system is terrible. the rules in general are terrible.

has no one at GW ever played any turned based strategy video games before? Once you have you realize what a joke of a ruleset it is.

kb305 wrote:
Im not sure. the turn system is terrible. the rules in general are terrible.

has no one at GW ever played any turned based strategy video games before? Once you have you realize what a joke of a ruleset it is.

If it made sense then they would never have to make a new version! and not making new versions doesnt sell very well.

But seriously, I like this game because of the models and the storyline and because I get to make my own army and then play an actual game with it. AMAZiNG.

and I also like convoluted tactical rules.

3. The other games always seem to be lacking to me. FoW uses tactics that are completely unrealistic for the periods it models.

How so? It seems pretty straight up to me, but I'm no WW2 expert. Would be interested to hear what it's doing wrong when its apparant main focus is on a historically accurate depiction (within reason of course)

bogalubov wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I love spaceship combat games because it boils down to force concentration and target priority, which are heavily dictated by proper maneouvring.

In 40k that section of the game is called deployment. I find a lot of people blow past this part of the game to get to the dice rolling and then are surprised that their units are out of position to do anything. Force organization and target priority are huge aspects of 40k. As I see you used to play guard, achieving force organization is harder than for marines. And a bunch of dudes without transports are much harder to move than a mobile marine force.

Deployment doesn't matter all that much when every weapon worth using can reach across the board, and theres bugger all terrain or the terrain is permeable allowing units to shoot through it. Not to mention the terrible, terrible IGOUGO turn system in a game using this type of firepower and board layout

Imperial Guard achieve force concentration easier than anyone else. Their pie plate droppers can literally concentrate 90% of the IG firepower at any point on the map without any restriction or means for the opponent to counter or avoid such firepower. These types of weapons are the antithesis of tactical deployment, maneuver and positioning, even moreso than gunlines or point and click armies.

 Icculus wrote:

kb305 wrote:
Im not sure. the turn system is terrible. the rules in general are terrible.

has no one at GW ever played any turned based strategy video games before? Once you have you realize what a joke of a ruleset it is.

If it made sense then they would never have to make a new version! and not making new versions doesnt sell very well.

But seriously, I like this game because of the models and the storyline and because I get to make my own army and then play an actual game with it. AMAZiNG.

and I also like convoluted tactical rules.

you know what else doesnt sell very well? bad rules and trying to milk your customer base.

For me its mainly the lore, setting and models.

The game isn't as fun as it once was but hey its still a laugh with a few beers and pizza

joetoc wrote:
I think what most people don't remember is that when this game first came out it wasn't marketed to wargamers. It was marketed to wargamers kids. It was something for them to do while their dads played Napoleonics and American Civil War.

Not even slightly. The old, baroque art from Realms of Chaos, especially, what with the Daemonettes with boobs all over the place, some pretty gruesome depictions of mutations, and the grim, grim, GRIM setting definitely did not suggest that this game was intended for children. Mature teens, perhaps, but not children.

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.