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.

GW states that 40k is meant to be a "beer and pretzels" game. I believe they are off their rocker.

So, what does "beer and pretzels" mean to you? Is there an amount of time such a game should take? Is there a community aspect, meaning something played by more than two people at a time? Should it be something you could teach in 2 minutes or less and for that player to have a reasonable chance of success?

To me games like poker or even Yahtzee qualify. But what is a good definition we could use? And, does 40k qualify?

To me the term means casual/fun type of game. I don't think that's too bad of a thing really, although, with GW themselves stating this, it seems kind of odd. Even though I personally don't play the games (yet), it seems that theres a lot of concentrating on moves, tactics and rules etc, which is fun in itself, so perhaps not that much time to be having beer and pretzels?

To me it only means that I'm drinking beer and eating pretzels.

Yeah, a 'beer and pretzels' game is one that isn't meant to be too serious. It's a game you play while chatting about the latest shiny thing, preferably having a drink or two, and not gettng too worked up about the whole thing.

It doesn't mean that you should have to fill in all of the gaps in the rules to make the game playable, which seems to be the interpretation applied by some of those who try to excuse shoddy rules writing. A game can be light and fun while still have coherent and comprehensive rules. Moreso than one that leaves you with a while bunch of situations where you have to figure it out for yourself...

Beer means 1 victory point.

(Anyone else played a game like this?)

I also take it to mean a casual gaming experience. More specifically it is a game that you don't necessarily need a lot of preparation or extensive background knowledge of the game, to play.

Currently my "beer and pretzels" game of choice is Zombicide. Its fast to set up, easy to teach, but provides a lot of fun for gamers and non-gamers alike. You can definitely drink and still play the game (relatively) well.

In my stinky opinion 40k isn't a beer and pretzels game unless you use the very broad definition of "casual gaming experience" or you are referring to the intended play style. I very much believe GW intends for 40k to be a casual gaming experience, but the game fails to achieve that goal based on the amount of material that you need to consume as a player (rules, models ect.) making it anything but a casual experience.

Battletech is still labeled by some as a beer and pretzels game, and I think in 1984 when it first started it was. But in the last 30 years rules and unit expansions have made it a convoluted mess that is rather daunting to start up. Still, you can recreate that basic, fun play style of the original game but you just have to work at it a bit. I think 40k is in the same boat. Years of expansion have bloated it to the point where you need a virtual library of rule books and appendices in order to play.

Just getting together for the purposes of blowing the out of each other. If somone wins, someone wins, if somone looses, someone looses.
What is important is having a good time.

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, a 'beer and pretzels' game is one that isn't meant to be too serious. It's a game you play while chatting about the latest shiny thing, preferably having a drink or two, and not gettng too worked up about the whole thing.

It doesn't mean that you should have to fill in all of the gaps in the rules to make the game playable, which seems to be the interpretation applied by some of those who try to excuse shoddy rules writing. A game can be light and fun while still have coherent and comprehensive rules. Moreso than one that leaves you with a while bunch of situations where you have to figure it out for yourself...

You don't have to. It's completely optional.

However, if you find the rules to be inexcusable, inferior, or unplayable in order to enjoy the game in your way- nobody is forcing you to play the game. If you are unwilling or don't have any desire to find ways to improve your enjoyment in the game, complaining about the state of the game on forums won't increase your enjoyment.

What I tire of in every thread that appears with this topic are the poisonous people that show up and bombast the ruleset, yet continue to support the very thing they belittle.

And if they don't support it? Evidently they must enjoy complaining to other hobbyists who often want nothing more than to find the positives/make the experience positive. I really don't know anymore.

It means enjoying the game and having a laugh. We rarely actually drink, since that makes it hard to concentrate on the game, but we do snack. Never on pretzels though, we're English for goodness' sake.

What do you snack on then? ...crisps?

We did a "Take a drink for every VP you gave up" game in 5th.
We all felt bad for the multi Platoon Guard Player.

 Gunzhard wrote:
What do you snack on then? ...crisps?

Usually crisps. Sometimes a sandwich. When I get my own place I might start doing paninis.

It means that you have fun while playing, talking about whatever floats your goat with the opponent while playing, having some brews and some snacks (pretzels optional, you can as easily have buffalo wings or peanuts or chips or nachos or whatever-the-feth) and if a dispute comes up, roll off on it. Don't spend 90 minutes pulling out 9 books and arguing over it because it doesn't mean that much. Roll a dice and play on.

XenosTerminus wrote:
You don't have to. It's completely optional.

However, if you find the rules to be inexcusable, inferior, or unplayable in order to enjoy the game in your way- nobody is forcing you to play the game. If you are unwilling or don't have any desire to find ways to improve your enjoyment in the game, complaining about the state of the game on forums won't increase your enjoyment.

What I tire of in every thread that appears with this topic are the poisonous people that show up and bombast the ruleset, yet continue to support the very thing they belittle.

And if they don't support it? Evidently they must enjoy complaining to other hobbyists who often want nothing more than to find the positives/make the experience positive. I really don't know anymore.

Ah yes, the ever-popular 'if you don't like it, get out' response.

You know what else gets tiresome? People insisting that if you don't agree that the game is perfect, that you should just walk away from it.

Here's the thing: I don't have to think that the ruleset is perfect in order to enjoy playing the game. I like 40K. I have 20 years worth of time, effort and money invested in it. I (generally) enjoy playing it. That doesn't mean I can't see the holes in it, just that I don't consider them to be bad enough (yet) to warrant not playing it, particularly after spending $85 on the current rulebook for it (and that only because some nice soul on eBay was selling one considerably cheaper than GW Oz expect us to pay for it...).

I would rather acknowledge the flaws, and figure out how to deal with them, than just bury my head in the sand and pretend they don't exist, and then have to figure out what to do about them on the fly when they actually come up in a game.

YMMV, obviously.

You know that those of us who are calling it a beer-and-pretzels game are much the same, right?

We know the game is a gak-pile of broken rules, unclear writing, imbalanced codices and harebrained decisions. We just don't get our panties in a twist and act like it's the worst thing to happen in the history of mankind. Or that it's an unusual situation for 40K in general.

 Psienesis wrote:
You know that those of us who are calling it a beer-and-pretzels game are much the same, right?

We know the game is a gak-pile of broken rules, unclear writing, imbalanced codices and harebrained decisions. We just don't get our panties in a twist and act like it's the worst thing to happen in the history of mankind. Or that it's an unusual situation for 40K in general.

And that is when I love it!

To me it means a game that takes no more than 10 minutes to wrap your head around and no more investment than a pack of cards or a single boxed board game kinda thing.

I don't know what term would be used to describe the polar opposite of a beer and pretzels game but any game that requires at least 1 more rulebook on top of a 450 page hardcover (per player) can never be a beer and pretzels game. A bear and Pretzels game's rules should fit on a 4 page leaflet.

 Psienesis wrote:
You know that those of us who are calling it a beer-and-pretzels game are much the same, right?

We know the game is a gak-pile of broken rules, unclear writing, imbalanced codices and harebrained decisions. We just don't get our panties in a twist and act like it's the worst thing to happen in the history of mankind. Or that it's an unusual situation for 40K in general.

Why does everyone who feels the need to defend 40k/GW feel the need to characterise anyone who is demanding more from a product hat commands one of the biggest financial commitments in the market as some sort of unreasonable fanatic?

Beer and pretzels to me is a paper thin excuse to justify a sub standard product and try and brain wash the consumer into a specific mindset that allows GW to get away with it.

It should mean a game that is easy to get into, set up and play, in both a physical and financial sense, that doesn't require any more commitment than a purchase and a few minutes learning the rules, and straightforward enough to play while pissed.

Oh, fun fact, there is an actual description on Wikipedia.

wikipedia wrote:A beer and pretzels game is a game which is humorous and light on rules and strategy, usually containing many random elements. This is in direct contrast to German-style board games, which are generally heavy on strategy and light on randomness. They are so called because of the tradition of drinking beer and eating pretzels while playing these kinds of games; this is not to be confused with drinking games, which actually include alcohol as a game component. Wizwar is a beer and pretzels game, as are many games produced by Steve Jackson Games.

Playing it the way GW tells you to play it it meats the humorous and light on strategy aspects but, again, a beer and pretzels game (by definition) needs to be light on rules. 40k is about 500 pages past that just between a codex and BRB.

Not "serious business" or something where you pull out all the stops to win (e.g. take 3x Hellturkeys/Riptides/cheese du jour) but something where you can have a good time without pressure.

It was a cheep and eazy to get into when I started back in 89. I still play it that way.

 Psienesis wrote:
You know that those of us who are calling it a beer-and-pretzels game are much the same, right?

What are you on about? I call 40K a beer and pretzels game. Once you get past the sheer number of books that you need to wade through, it's ultimately a fairly basic 'throw dice at the table and hope for the best' sort of game compared to some other, more tactically-oriented games.

My point was simply that being a beer and pretzels game doesn't excuse badly written rules. A shoddy product is a shoddy product, regardless of its intended function.

We know the game is a gak-pile of broken rules, unclear writing, imbalanced codices and harebrained decisions. We just don't get our panties in a twist and act like it's the worst thing to happen in the history of mankind. Or that it's an unusual situation for 40K in general.

Hyperbole is fun, but rarely adds anything constructive to a discussion.

Beer and Pretzels means to me: Easy to learn, easy to play, and easy to set up time and time again.


Miniatures games CAN be beer-and-pretzels. Tannhauser is definitely Beer and Pretzels. The ultimate Beer and Pretzels games though IMO are the non-collectible card games like Resident Evil. They're the epitome of casual - easy to learn, easy to set up, zero pay-to-win, etc.


40k is pretty much as far from Beer and Pretzels as you can get, while still retaining the facade of a "game."

clively wrote:
What does beer and pretzels mean to you?

A catch-all cop-out for not even trying to make a decent set of rules.

beer and pretzels to me means that the average joe, new or not can open the box, throw some minis out and roll some dice.
games like super dungeon explore and axis and allies are beer and pretzel.
40k is not, theres way too much involved.

King of Tokyo = Beer and Pretzels
Smallworld = Beer and Pretzels
40k =/= Beer and Pretzels


Heck even Mantic's Deadzone is more beer and pretzels than 40k.

To me it is a completely false and flimsy excuse for having very quality rules and refusing to do anything about it.

Laid back games, not playing to win, but to socialise.
That's beer and pretzels to me.

Beer and Pretzels implied to me that the game:

1 - Does not require ones full attention
2 - Rules are crisp and clear as to prevent confusion
3 - Has the ability to last over 1 hour via 1 long game or repeated short games with lots of variance
4 - Can support 2 to 6 players
5 - Easy, defentative way to determine a winner
6 - Easy to setup for repeated games

Let's compare 40K to Poker, THE beer and pretzel game.

Poker
1 - Person only needs to be engaged on their turn where they must know the bet and what wins.
2 - What cards beat what cards are known, don't change and are the same around the world.
3 - Hand randomness and player interaction makes repeated games interesting.
4 - I think poker can easily go up to 6 players.
5 - See item 2
6 - Shuffle the cards and redeal, takes 5 minutes.

40K
1 - Person needs to be continually engaged to prevent potential rules violations that may occur during the game because it's easy to unintentionally cheat. Players must roll dice on both turns.
2 - Any game that has a "roll a D6 if you don't agree" does not have clear and crisp rules.
3 - 40K can last over 1 hour
4 - 40K has issues supporting odd number players because it ends up being a team up vs a lower count of players.
5 - Can end in a tie.
6 - Takes at least 15 minutes to setup, with setup not being all that easy.

40K is not a Beer and Pretzel game.

 insaniak wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
You don't have to. It's completely optional.

However, if you find the rules to be inexcusable, inferior, or unplayable in order to enjoy the game in your way- nobody is forcing you to play the game. If you are unwilling or don't have any desire to find ways to improve your enjoyment in the game, complaining about the state of the game on forums won't increase your enjoyment.

What I tire of in every thread that appears with this topic are the poisonous people that show up and bombast the ruleset, yet continue to support the very thing they belittle.

And if they don't support it? Evidently they must enjoy complaining to other hobbyists who often want nothing more than to find the positives/make the experience positive. I really don't know anymore.

Ah yes, the ever-popular 'if you don't like it, get out' response.

You know what else gets tiresome? People insisting that if you don't agree that the game is perfect, that you should just walk away from it.

Here's the thing: I don't have to think that the ruleset is perfect in order to enjoy playing the game. I like 40K. I have 20 years worth of time, effort and money invested in it. I (generally) enjoy playing it. That doesn't mean I can't see the holes in it, just that I don't consider them to be bad enough (yet) to warrant not playing it, particularly after spending $85 on the current rulebook for it (and that only because some nice soul on eBay was selling one considerably cheaper than GW Oz expect us to pay for it...).

I would rather acknowledge the flaws, and figure out how to deal with them, than just bury my head in the sand and pretend they don't exist, and then have to figure out what to do about them on the fly when they actually come up in a game.

YMMV, obviously.

Yes. it's popular for a reason. It doesn't matter how long you have been involved in or how much you have invested in this hobby.

If you do not like the current state of the game, why do you play it? Why do you continue to buy the books, models, and support a company who evidently is doing nothing right in your eyes?

It's one thing to make a conscious decision when something is not to your liking and find a solution (I am not suggesting that quitting 40k is necessarily the only answer- there are countless ways you can increase your enjoyment in the hobby regardless of GW's shortcomings). It's another thing entirely to continuously complain about something you have 100% control over, expecting different results every time you are disappointed.