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.

One of the most realistic games I have ever played is the GHQ Microarmor game. My problem with it is that it just lacks richness and depth. All the best rules in the world can lead to a extremely realistic experience like the old 'Squad Leader' historical game, but anything with so much detail that it takes you fourteen hours to play one freaking engagment is aggravating. I remember WH40Kv.2 driving me up the wall because a typical 4000 point game would take all weekend. ARGH! I prefer the fun sociable less realistic game to the hyper detailed exercise of tactical warmongering. Don't forget the one realistic aspect of 40K is that the side who can spend their resources the best wins, it's not SPAM or Cheese, we call it logistics. The hyper realistic historical games use logistic tables to keep your task force moving, and it is a pain in the ass. The Task Force Games Starfleet Battles used huge rulebooks and tons of supplements to manage starship power systems, it was all based on conserving and spending power, and it was a pain in the ass. Pacing and speed is important and makes for more entertaining games... which is why I do it, not for realism.

If you want a realistic 40K game have a scenario where one side gets 2000 points and the other side gets 200 points. The whole table is urban terrain. The 200 point force does not need to observe squad coherancy and can set up anywhere, in hiding. The 2000 point force enters one tableside. Every turn the 2000 point force rolls a D6 for every squad, on a one the squad suffers a casulty due to injury, lack of supply, running out of ammo or negligence. For the 200 point force to win the scenario they must inflict one casualty on the 2000 point force and escape the board with 50% of their personnel. For the 2000 point force to win they must capture every OPFOR model (capture represented by H2H fighting). If they kill any models by shooting them it is considered a tactical draw and moral defeat for both sides. Does that sound like fun? Nah.

BTW - I like the idea of simultaineous turns or phases that allow for reactions based on initiative. This is something I enjoyed about SFB and the "impulses."

- J

 Peregrine wrote:
Then this is why you shouldn't play 40k: it has way too much pointless complexity, way too much tedious dice rolling, and way too many rule debates. And the general trend of bigger and bigger games certainly doesn't help.

I disagree, the chaps I play with are fairly sporting, we don't debate rules hotly but discuss them. Bigger and bigger battles are fun.

Which is a great idea in theory. Too bad GW completely destroys that theory by making the game so unbalanced that even the 10 year olds can figure out that some units are overpowered and you can win if you spam them. That's not a game of complex decisions in how to spend your resources effectively, it's an exercise in buying the right models.

Yes, buying and building the right models is exactly how it works. You get what I am talking about. This is the essence of government procurement. This is why I own one obligitory Necron Monolith even though I really dislike the model. It's the only Necron model I dislike, in fact I secretly hate it.

Of course it doesn't sound like fun. It also doesn't make any sense, it's just a bunch of pointless rule ideas that have nothing to do with 40k (whether rules-wise or fluff-wise). It sounds like all you're doing is making up a ridiculous strawman of a "game" and using it to "prove" that 40k works.

Actually no I was describing a realistic tactical situation that could get ruined by logistics, politics and poor leadership. I am glad I don't have to put up with that crap when playing WH 40K. Thanks for letting me clarify.

I like your fire though!

- J

weeble1000 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
40k is and has never been a competative ruleset. You may as well critisise your new car because it's gak at driving underwater.

A more apt analogy would be:

"You may as well criticize your car for having comparatively bad gas mileage, comparatively poor trunk space, and a series of irritating manufacturing defects."

But hey, I like how it looks, so what does it matter how it drives? And even if I have to get it serviced more often, getting parts is very easy.

Only, well, this thread is about what is "under the hood," so to speak.

I'm sure that is frustrating for some folks, especially if you don't know how an engine works. If all you know is a trusted brand name, it can be hard to participate in the discussion. But if you really like the brand name, you might have a strong desire to defend it from what appears to be criticism of the quality of its products. I think I get it. All the same, if you've never driven any brand of car besides a Hyundai, and you've never taken much time to consider what factors into the vehicle's performance characteristics, there's not much to say in a discussion about relative merits of timing belts, on board computers, bearings, fuel injection manifolds, and so forth.

Wow, very well said. I guess my question is; what is a viable solution?

- J

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
define 'properly'.

Here's a good definition for this context: if the problems with competitive balance are because of choices that actually improve "casual" play, not the incompetent idiots GW hired to write their rules.

And judged by that standard 40k fails. It isn't a bad competitive game because it has design goals that conflict with being a good competitive game. 40k could easily be a better competitive game without sacrificing "casual" gaming. In fact, the changes that would make 40k a better competitive game would probably make it a better game for everyone else as well. The only reason we don't have a good competitive game is because GW has convinced people like you that it's somehow a good thing if they publish low-quality rules that only work if you have a "beer and pretzels" attitude.

What I am not hearing is a solution. We could invent our own rules, which would go nowhere because we are not GW. We could stop playing the game, but just like leaving the Republicrats and Democrins by going to a third party we would just shut ourselves from our gaming communities. People would still buy 40K. Or we could contact the company and request politely something you see in the computer industry... joint application design, where users work with developers to make a more palatable product. I use a DOD system regularly that has a "suggestion link" where users are invited to spam the developer with the changes they would like to see. The more they see the same suggestion from multiple sources the more they are likely to consider making the change. A group of enthusiasts could be invited by GW to sit on a panel for future product releases. This would benefit the company as their specially tooled customer driven product would drive sales and market share even higher.

Just saying...

- J