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.
2013/09/05 17:28:23
Subject: Is 40K or WHFB (both current) editions, a game worth playing on its own merits?
If you take out the "fluff" factor and the other things the OP mentions than the actual ruleset for Warhammer 40k is not a great game.
It is burdened by outdated mechanics, mountains of special rules that would be better served by stats (i.e. a MV stat instead of fleet of _____ and it's variants), and the constant modification of those rules by codicies is silly.
Yet, despite having a massive rulebook, 40k completely disregards tactical options offered by things like overwatch (the 40k mechanic bearing this name is NOT), reactive actions, etc.
All that is not to say that 40k is a bad game. It's just compared to other current games not a "great" or even a "very-good" game. It's an ok game that survives by virtue of ubiquity, market share, an extensive-and-growing miniatures line, and a stunningly deep background.
2013/09/05 23:43:43
Subject: Is 40K or WHFB (both current) editions, a game worth playing on its own merits?
Easy E wrote:Th eOP has to put a LOT of caveats in.
I think that speaks volumes.
To be fair though, it could have been stated shorter and said the exact same thing. All the OP had to say was
"Considering only the rules and codicies, is 40k worth playing".
I just think the OP chose a more verbose way to state this.
frozenwastes wrote:IGOUGO is tolerable up to a certain model count. As you increase the wait time for the opponent while you move your models, the worse of an issue it becomes.
I have no problem with IGOUGO if it serves the purposes of the game. If you're going for a more streamlined game, then IGOUGO can, and does, work very well for some games. The warband skirmish ruleset "Song of Blades and Heroes" uses IGOUGO (abeit with some interesting additions) as it's base activation mechanic. Even a mass battle game can use IGOUGO. King of War moves so swiftly even with huge armies that IGOUGO doesn't place a burden on the opposing player.
For a game like 40k, however, IGOUGO will seem to many to bog down the rules as it can result in longer periods of player downtime. This can be somewhat alleviated by saving throws and such, but if a player is spending too long a time as the "passive" player, then perhaps IGOUGO is not the ideal mechanic to be using. If 40k was written today and was as involved and complicated as it presently is, I think the designers would most likely have used a different activation mechanic.
2013/09/06 11:37:10
Subject: Re:Is 40K or WHFB (both current) editions, a game worth playing on its own merits?
AegisGrimm wrote: Despite people saying how the latter editions were dumb-ed down, 2nd edition 40K is far and above easier to learn than the convoluted mess of updates, rules, and FAQ's that is 6th edition. Yes, characters had the large possibility to become too powerful, and close combat was a bear to learn.
Spoiler:
There were easy ways to mitigate this, especially when playing friendly games. So you limit the character count on the board, drop some of the OP wargear, and emphasize troops. Yeah, close combat is a bear, but there were ways to get around it, unless you specifically went for a melee army. It was definitely the biggest evil of the system. At least all the abilities of a weapon were in a single statline, rather than having to reference other special rules for each gun with Rending, etc.
IGOUGO was also perfectly fine back then. The game was geared towards smaller armies, so it was hard to get bored during the other players turn when he only had a couple of squads with maybe a character attached, some bikes, and a vehicle. Overwatch fire also gave you something that was both tactical and engaging to do during the other player's turn. It wasn't the same as modern versions of alternate activation, but it was still an entire phase of the game you could perform during your opponent's turn.
The game is geared towards armies of at least twice the size nowadays, even at the exact same points values.
Hell, I recently got a hold of one of the "Battle Bibles" available online for 2nd edition, and I can say that I could easily and enjoyably dedicate some time this weekend to teaching my spouse to play, while at the same time I would not touch 6th edition with a ten foot pole even to play exclusively with my buddy that was a big gamer during 4th-5th editions. Even just the size that the section of special keyword abilities has grown is off-putting. I feel like I would be constantly referencing the book, instead of playing.
Interesting observation. My experience was quite different. I had a very nostalgic view of 2nd edition also, as it was the first edition I played. So I dug out my books and picked up the codicies that were missing from my collection, and setup a game with a friend on a club night.
It was kind of a flop. even with the following restrictions...
750 point armies
Max 25% characters (from your list or allies)
No vehicles
No wargear cards
No using the Dark Millenium supplement.
No special characters -WYSIWYG (except for grenades of course)
Half-squads were allowed for units where the required number of minis is 10+
.... the game took too long, and I couldn't see much about it that was better than my preferred rulest for this size of Sci-Fantasy game "WarEngine/Shockforce".
I played 6th edition 40k a few months later and found it, IMHO, to be a better-playing ruleset that moved more quickly. Still not a great game, but better for medium-to-large battles than 2nd edition.
warboss wrote: . I bring a 40k army with me to the games store in case I can't wrangle up a game of either xwing or heavy gear and for that it suits my needs. Playing randomhammer 40k 6e is still preferable to driving home and wasting time/gas on the long monthly trek to the store.
This hits on one of the strongest advantages of 40k, and one that is not given enough credit. It's ubiquity.
Though, IMHO, a very weak ruleset, 40k can still be fun ( I enjoy a couple games of 40k a year), and in many places it's still THE game in town. WM is making strides, but whether WM isn't to taste or 40k is the only popular game, a game of 40k sure beats not wargaming.
As someone who has helped organize a club centered around indie wargames, I know that finding or building a group of people that will play games that aren't "the popular ones" takes effort, patience and -if I am honest- a bit of luck. I feel it's more than worth the effort, but I don't begrudge anyone who says 40k is fun enough for that they'd rather just pay the upcharge than have to mess with trying to wrangle up a group to play something else.
It's almost like asking someone in the American Midwest, "Should I join the local Softball league or try and teach the locals Cricket?"
(note: I know nothing about Cricket, the metaphor is about ubiquity, not quality)
Ubiquity, plus great fluff, plus good (and a wide variety of) models, plus a ruleset that is still playable (if not great), adds up to a pretty strong argument for a choice of 40k, even though you're going to pay a significant upcharge for it.
IMO, the "Ruleset" ( a term I prefer to "game") is not worth playing on it's own merits, but gamers considering other games have to ask:
"What is it worth to me to be able to find a game almost whenever I want?"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/11 02:05:29
2013/09/11 20:43:31
Subject: Is 40K or WHFB (both current) editions, a game worth playing on its own merits?
The problem is, the popularity is riding on the success of 3rd-mid 5th edition before they started trying as hard as possible to kill the hobby side while driving up prices of their models. Unless they stop making boneheaded decisions, that popularity will drop as more and more veterans simply get tired of it, dropping its popularity as a pickup game.
I'm not sure if I buy that rosy view of 3rd to 5th edition.
The fact is that GW has pretty much always been the expensive miniature gaming company. I started gaming at the beginning of 2nd edition and they were already just about the most expensive option at the FLGS.
As for the hobby side, I don't see a time when GW wasn't trying to bring more and more of the hobby under their roof and into their product line. It's all part of a long term trend stretching back at least to 2nd edition, and maybe further.
It's only now when we look back and see how much of the hobby they've managed to swallow that we look back and try to find a "better" time. IMO, many people that look back to the better times are just looking at a particular time when GW gotten around to taking over another DIY aspect of the hobby. Surely by now it's clear that GW only endorses DIY until they have a product to fill that niche. It's just that now they've filled alot of niches, so they have alot less DIY to write about.
2013/09/11 22:20:13
Subject: Re:Is 40K or WHFB (both current) editions, a game worth playing on its own merits?
Pacific wrote: Well, whatever makes you happy mate ultimately.
There are guys at my club that have been playing the same opponents in WFB for as far back as I can remember.. probably 15 years or so, and while happily picking up each new edition have never displayed any inclination to try another game. To me it seems like playing only a single computer game for years, although I realise a lot of people do this too so I guess it must be a personal thing!
I will say though that prices from scratch for both 40k/WFB make people less likely to try other games. If I'd just spent $400-500 on a load of new stuff for an army, 6 months painting it etc, no way on earth I would be looking at other stuff to try!
I've noticed this too, we've been playing on and off since 2nd Ed. But what's possibly most telling is that my main gaming buddy refuses to consider other systems because he's already spent so much on 40K (probably 6000pts of Blood Angels) that he doesn't want to sink money elsewhere and is concerned about how much it'll cost him.
You should check out the cost of historicals. Practically everything is at the most 1/2th to 1/3rd the cost of equivalent GW models.
And that's for line infantry. For command and specialist models, the cost is more like 1/4th to 1/6th. There is no logical justification (beyond "people will pay it", the only one GW needs) for a commander to cost $20-$30
2013/09/17 17:10:55
Subject: Is 40K or WHFB (both current) editions, a game worth playing on its own merits?
Easy E wrote: I'm not exactly a GW fanboi, but GW games do have a great sandbox universe where you can fit just about anything you want in. Even a Generic game like Tomorrow's War can't pull this off as well. GW has just enough of a guideline to give you a distinct flavor, but not too much.
I have played a lot of games, and none of them quite hit that sweet spot of sandboxiness as GW manages; especially in 40K.
However, a lot of competitors are striving to find the mark. Now more than ever.
Ummm...but you can play the 40k setting in Tomorrow's war with some abstraction...and you can play anything else as well. How can that be less sandbox than playing a game that only works with 40k?
Of course you can, but you are still using the sandboxiness of 40K, not Tomorrow's War.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
infinite_array wrote: If anything, I'd argue Tomorrow's War is much more of a sandbox then 40k is, as the game actively require you to create your own forces in both fluff and in-game stats. This has increased with the release of By Dagger and Talon, which has rules for Special Forces and aliens.
Yes, you would think that wouldn't you. However, the very lack of ANY guidelines means that it can be too wide open. The 40K universe gives you some guide rails to work with, but still add all the detail you want.
Don;t get me wrong. I LOVE Tomorrow's War and would rather play that to 40K any day.
Seems like you guys are arguing from the mistaken assumption that rules and fluff are inextricably linked. I don't buy that.
I see rules, fluff (background, universe, etc) and miniatures as separate entities to be used together, mixed with others or modified at will.
If someone likes the 40k universe, but not 40k rules, they could always play using the "In The Emporer's Name" or "WarEngine" rules.
Further, if they want to add somethign to the 40k universe or use a different company's models, they could do that as well.
Though some are to various degrees "closed", most fantasy or sci-fi universes are as "sandbox" as players want them to be.
I realize that there are reasons to play rules, minis and background from the same company/universe (Continuity, design asthetic, fanbase) but I still don't think they have to be irrevocably tied to each other.
2013/09/18 00:44:51
Subject: Is 40K or WHFB (both current) editions, a game worth playing on its own merits?
Seems like you guys are arguing from the mistaken assumption that rules and fluff are inextricably linked. I don't buy that.
I see rules, fluff (background, universe, etc) and miniatures as separate entities to be used together, mixed with others or modified at will.
.
I personally believe that there is a link between the fluff and the rules - such is the case in Infinity, for example. However, GWs fluff is too ridiculous to work well on the tabletop. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy the Horus Heresy books, for example. I do, but I understand that the game cannot support such a scale of things.
Other games can support their fluff. I believe that they are better games because of that.
Hmm, Infinity is a good example for your assertion. What Little I've read about Infinity does support the idea that it's fluff and technology is very well synched with it's rules. However, I think that it wouldn't be too hard to use another ruleset to play battles that accurately reflect the Infinity universe. It wouldn't play like inifinity of course. It might be more abstract, or larger, or faster, or more detailed, but if you wanted it to play like Infinity, then you'd use the Infinity ruleset. In most cases, though I don't think that the connection is always necessary. There's several rulesets that can do a 40k style game quite well (Warpath, No Limits, Warengine).
The Rules-Fluff-Figures connection perception really only exists in scifi and fantasy games where it's easier to discourage (via copyright and trademarking) others from writing rules that work well with your universe. In the Historical realm nearly every setting (genre and scale) has myriad rulesets, often with new ones appearing every few years. Folks will argue endlessly about which ruleset is best for a given scale/genre/playstyle/realism/etc, but almost no one says the ____ war in ____ theater in the year of _____ is only playable with ______ ruleset.
2013/09/20 21:25:14
Subject: Re:Is 40K or WHFB (both current) editions, a game worth playing on its own merits?
And just like miniatures, you should be attracted to the look of the miniatures at least and not just the game world and the rules (but they're important as well!).
Yes, I just compared relationships to miniatures.
I actually agree with this. Here's a similar analogy.
I once took a "year off" from college and worked at Guitar Center. I would tell parents that it's a good idea to buy the best guitar they can reasonably afford, but that's it's still ok if your kid's first guitar purchase is based largely on looks. Most anything in the store can be setup to play reasonably well, but if looking at it doesn't inspire your kid to pick it up and play then they're probably not going to play guitar for very long.
For most folks, it's the same with miniatures, both the game you play and the faction you choose. It's got to look cool to you. I rarely play 40k anymore, but it was definitely the cool minis that made it my first (and for 10 years "only") wargame.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/20 21:25:34
2013/09/21 12:12:09
Subject: Re:Is 40K or WHFB (both current) editions, a game worth playing on its own merits?
Lanrak wrote: Could it be the GW game developers have been trying to tie the rules to the 'inspiring fluff' directly , which leads to the diffuse and needlessly over complexity in the instructions to play the game?
You hit it on the headI think that "inspiring fluff" is exactly why the rules have become overcomplicated. 40k is a game targeted to teenagers. One thing marketers know is that pre-teens and teenagers have a larger (larger than adults) capacity for minutiae and they are wired for obsession. Ex. How many pokemon can a kid tell you about? 40k exploits this to the max. What adults might see as needless complexity, teens lap up as further emersing themselves in the 40k world.
Lanrak wrote: .Perhaps because the game play of 40k became rather shallow after the transition to 3rd ed.
As for shallow post-2nd edition. That depends on your point of view. 3rd edition was more streamlined than 2nd, but that's largely because as the size of games grew, it became clear that for larger games (though not even close to the # of figs in a 1800 point game today) 2nd edition is a clunky mess. It's basically a ruleset that functions well with a few squads (an outgrowth of Rogue Trader) that boggs down at the level most folks play at. On a nostalgia kick I played a game of 2nd edition last year. It was like playing Necromunda with too many figures.
2013/09/22 00:28:40
Subject: Is 40K or WHFB (both current) editions, a game worth playing on its own merits?
xruslanx wrote: it's weird how my friends and i are all adults and managed to read the rulebook without 'immediately pointing out the lack of proffessionalism and logic' in it.
If you would prefer a tighter ruleset with fewer special rules then that's great, but don't just lable anyone who thinks that special rules make the game more enjoyable a child.
Personally i think it would be pretty boring to know that my army's rules could all be cut from the same cloth as all others, but k'm prepared to accept that others may disagree without labling them as something derogatory.
Just wanted to clarify that it was not my intention to label anyone a child. I'm simply pointing out what the community has known for a long time, that is, 40k is targeted at teens.
As for the "kids don't have enough $" argument, it's simply not true. GW targets middle, upper-middle and upper class kids who have access to surprisingly high levels of disposable income. Anyone who's worked at a guitar, video game, toy, etc store anywhere even moderately affluent will have similar experience with the incredible spending power that children can wield through their parents.
No one is disputing that 40k is not merely enjoyed by children, I enjoyed it well into my 20's and still play the odd game. That doesn't change the fact that it's a product that is targeted to teens and designed around their developmental state in much the same way as magic, clix games, video games etc. All of which are targeted at teens, but have a sizable adult following too, especially as "kid things" have become steadily more socially acceptable for adults over the last decade.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/22 00:30:10
