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.

 Azazelx wrote:
Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you here. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with IGOUGO. If you don't like it, you can simply play other games that don't use it.

IGOUGO is the single biggest problem with the game. It is absolutely a fundamental problem with a wargame when there is a single die roll affects the game to such a high degree, and just saying "go play something else" isn't really an appropriate answer for this discussion as we're talking about a single pair of systems.

What about IGOUGO is *good*? The bad points are easy to see: having the first turn gives one player a disproportionate advantage, requiring one player to sit around leads to player disengagement, and as stated, it makes the game revolve around a single, predictable die roll that neither player generally has any power to affect in any meaningful way. The only good point that I can think of regarding the system is that it's simple. Simple has its own quality at times, but given how simple-minded the rest of the system is, there's room for a little bit of complexity there.

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. At lower model counts, it may also be possible to mitigate the first turn advantage by the merit of less force being brought to bear. So yeah, it is terrible in that you have to work around it to preserve good game player rather than it just being what produces good game play.

As for pre-3rd edition using multiple dice, that in no way counters the point about d6s and 4s for space marines. Even though RT & 2nd Ed used other dice size, the core mechanics were all d6 based. The extra dice were used at odd times to determine extraneous things rather than regularly to determine core things. For the vast majority of rules interactions, 40k has always been about three six sided dice rolls-- hit, wound and save. Occasionally you'd hit a multi-wound target or a vehicle and have to pull out another dice, but their use was never integrated into the core of the system.

It's "good" because it works just fine. And "play another game" really is a valid answer and option. I don't play 40k as my one-and-only by any means either, so it's not like I'm white-knighting GW. I think different games with different systems as different options are a really good thing. - Though I also get a bit sick and tired of too many new rulesets. I'm too old and disinterested to learn a new sci-fi skirmish ruleset each month.

I also tend to favour smaller games, and more "narrative" ones as well, so while I can see issues with the alternating system getting more severe as you get to bigger and bigger games through to Apocalype - which is where they're pushing 40k it's simply never been an issue in games I've played.

Simply put, if you hate the alternating player turn system, then the Warhammers probably aren't for you (along with other games that use the same system), and there's little point complaining about it because they're not going to change. You're obviously better off playing other games.

In the context of this discussion "is it worth playing on it's own merits" you're quite welcome to have your opinion that it's a fundamental, gamebreaking flaw. On the other hand, my opinion that it works well enough and has basically been fun is also a legitimate opinion. - And "go play something else" is obviously the best option.

clively wrote:
It's fairly easy to through some models together (DV box) and get started shooting/punching your opponent. This alone is worth it's weight in gold to GW for enticing new players.

Only if you don't mind ruining your models by assembling them badly. If you want to do them right you're going to spend lots of time carefully removing them from the sprues, removing mold lines, etc. And then that just gets you the basic starter game, if you want to play the real game you're spending hundreds of dollars and a lot of reading/learning time.

Compare that to X-wing where the models are literally "take out of the box and play", the quickstart rules are a page or two and can be learned in a few minutes by even non-gamers, and the full rulebook is under 30 (small, picture-filled) pages. That is a real case of low barriers to entry.

Does it offer that new/casual player more than another system like Warmachine or Infinity?

Of course it doesn't. 40k only seems to offer more if you don't have any real experience with other games. Things like "random dice = unexpected outcomes = have to adapt your tactics" are not even close to unique to 40k.

From a value perspective: absolutely. For $100 US you get the full rulebook and 48 miniatures. With Warmachine that same $100 will buy you 8 models ( 2 starter kits which include free rules). For Infinity it looks like $100 with get you 12 starter models. For someone on the outside it sure looks like the GW box is a MUCH better deal. Of course, I like miniatures in general. For someone that isn't crazy about having a lot of models then this might not matter.

The difference here is that those other games give you a complete army for $100, while 40k gives you a small part of two armies. If you want to play 40k even casually you need to spend hundreds of dollars buying more models just to reach the bare minimum. If you want to play Infinity casually you can use your starter box indefinitely and only buy new models if you think something is cool. IOW, the 40k starter set is only a good deal if you want the cheapest possible models, if you want the best deal on a complete game you go elsewhere.

From an ongoing playability perspective: I think so as well. There are far more expansions to 40k between Apoc, planetstrike, etc than there are for the other game systems. This provides a tremendous amount of material to cover just about any type of battle you'd want to do, including campaigns.

And nobody ever plays them. I can't remember ever seeing a game of Planetstrike. And of course the rules for those expansions are even worse than the core game. Apocalypse is an unbalanced mess that pretty much consists of "put models on the table, then take models off the table while making shooting noises", while Planetstrike is literally impossible for the attacker to win unless the defender decides to be nice and cripple their own defenses.

 Azazelx wrote:
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with IGOUGO.

There really is. IGOUGO in 40k is an utterly stupid game mechanic for two reasons:

1) It kills realism. Why are my troops standing there doing nothing while an enemy unit drives up, gets out of their transport, and shoots them to death? Why aren't they returning fire and trying to pin down the enemy unit and disrupt its attack? The IGOUGO system asks you to believe that nobody ever responds to actions, they just sit there and wait while the enemy completes their move-shoot-assault sequence without interference. Even games with a fundamental IGOUGO structure (Infinity, for example) have realized that IGOUGO alone is stupid and you need to make out-of-sequence reactions an important part of the game.

2) It's boring as hell. Sitting there for half an hour doing nothing but rolling saves is not fun. Instead of playing the game I'm watching the game, and the only reason I don't wander off and talk to my friends/go eat dinner/etc is because I have to make sure my opponent isn't cheating. Compare that to, say, X-wing where you have alternating moves/actions and you're never waiting for more than a minute or two between making your own meaningful actions and decisions.

Similarly with D6s. Rogue Trader used all kinds of dice (even used percentile tables), and so did second edition. It was in 3rd when everything got streamlined to D6s, so you're completely wrong on that one.

I'm talking about the basic stat line, where you have things like IG veterans, tactical marines, and sternguard veterans (the elite of the elite) at BS 4 even though fluff-wise they represent a range of shooting ability from "above average" to "superhuman". Why? Because a D6 only has six sides, and GW has decided that BS 1 and BS 6-10 don't exist. So all you can do to adjust the stat line of shooting units is decide between BS 3 or BS 4. GW could fix this by moving to a D10 or even D20 system to allow finer control over stats, but they're stuck with the D6 system from 30 years ago.

Again, going to posit that while the stats may have initially been reskinned from WFB, they work fine for a game that's not based around shooting, fluff-wise, but around space fantasy/space-LotR where people use swords, axes, claws and shields almost as much as they do pistols and rifles. It's sci-fi D&D, not sci-fi WW2. (though it has elements of everything, due to "inspiration".

You're confusing cause and effect here. Fluff-wise 40k is primarily a shooting universe. The hero with a sword is important, but the defining iconic character in 40k is the tactical marine with a bolter. A sensible design would add detail to shooting (instead of having just one shooting stat) and consolidate all the melee stats into a simpler version, with gameplay focusing on shooting and assaults being the final decisive attack to finish off the enemy. Instead we're stuck with re-skinned WHFB where most of the stats and half the units/armies are all about melee combat even though the fluff and core game design favors shooting. Unfortunately instead of fixing the problem GW continues to pretend that melee combat is the focus of the game, and we get crippled melee army/unit after crippled melee army/unit.

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.

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.

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.

Hmm... leaving aside expenses and esthetics... I am not fond of the current edition of either WHFB or WH40K.

My problem has nothing to do with IGYG - it does not bother me in the slightest.

My problem is simply that the game mechanics become increasing random with each iteration - with random charge distances being added in the most recent version of each game.

Random chance is forgiving to an inexperienced player, or a poor tactician - good luck can win out over many obstacles.

I liked WH40K 3e - leaving out the spotty nature of the codecii. I liked that blast weapons only deviated if you missed.

Then they decided to put back in the damned deviation rules from 2e.

These days I play Kings of War - the rules are consistent, and in general luck is less of a factor.

But then I came into miniatures gaming after years of wargames from companies such as the late, and long lamented, Avalon Hill. Then I went into historical wargaming, with games such as System 7 Napoleonics.

It was not until I first played Dungeons & Dragons back in 1976 that I had any real urge to play fantasy miniatures games.

The Auld Grump - I was introduced to both wargaming and to RPGs by a Catholic priest.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I don't know about fantasy, but I believe 40k could stand on its own. So much crazy stuff can happen when both players(or 4 or more players even) are just out for a fun game. Its a ton of fun when everyone keeps it casual, and is just hanging out for a good time with friends.

So what? ANY game can do this with the right people. 40k is nothing special here, the only reason you have fun with 40k and not some other game is that you're already playing 40k for other reasons (models, it's what your friends all play, etc).

Or you could also enjoy the rules, such as I do.

I find that I tend to have less problems with the rules, and more problems with other people going overly literal on me(like the people who claim that you cant attach an infiltrating character to a unit, or that vehicles dont benefit from invul saves)

Other than that I think they are fine. Tactics are not something that is fixed, they are:

a : the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat
b : the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end

So under that definition warhammer is just as tactical as anything else, it just means that there are more factors that you have to account for in your planning. Some people might not like that but that is what it is.

Then again people like consistency but at the same time that can really make a game very boring if there is too much of it. (for me personally)

Regarding IGOUGO: There are few enough activation mechanics across all wargames that I don't think IGOUGO is that bad. Warmachine has it.

Regarding D6 vs other mechanics: GW is locked in to D6's now due to the model count involved. Other games with lower model count can use different dice mechanics (D10, 2D6) because they involve only one model acting at a time. You only need a few dice - Warmachine for instance, I most commonly you are rolling 2 or 3 dice at once, and the maximum you can possibly get is 8 iirc. In 40k rolling 20 dice for a single unit's shooting is not that uncommon. The simple logistics of being able to acquire and handle bulk dice means that D6's will always be preferable once you need more than 3 or 4. IMO this is ok for 40k when you're rolling bundles of dice, because you'll end up with a normal distribution: but when the dice roll is only 1 at a time, it really sucks.

Regarding list building? GW 'list building' is more of a checklist exercise. Because of generally terrible internal imbalance in many codices, you can ignore half the units when building a list. Then just spam the great units and fill any tactical holes in your list with the ok ones. With few exceptions, 40k armies lack inter-unit synergy and so the best results are gained by taking as many of the best thing that you can. See 3 helldrakes, 3 vendettas, flying mechrons....
WMH list building revolves so much around synergy between different units. Because the units themselves are pretty well balanced internally, and because there are so many 'buffing' units, it does require extra care to build a good list. IMO this is a great thing - not only do you need to be smart when list building, but on the tabletop it also makes order of activation very important (compared to 40k where there is pretty much no harm in activating in whatever order you want.


As for the original question? I don't like the 40k rules that much any more, and I have been increasingly disenchanted with them since I've started playing Hordes and Dust Warfare. When the new Tau Codex came out for me, I've started winning a lot of games. I don't need to try hard, its quite boring, and most opponents I effectively table on turn 3.
Warmachine has a very well structured rule set, which allows for more interesting and exciting rules without making the game unnecessarily complex. Being well so well structured also makes things a lot more tactical IMO - many of the abilities in WMH have analogies to those in 40k, but have a much greater effect on the game.
There are some things I like about 40k more than WMH - primarily the look on the board as everything is further spread out rather than fighting over the same 12" objective zone. But I get that same feel from Dust Warfare games which takes pretty much everything good about 40k and puts it in a far simpler and better rule set.

IGOUGO is terrible when IGO = I get to shoot the gak out of your army before you even get a move.

In games that are primarily shorter ranged (Fantasy, Warmachine) or where there is huge amounts of cover (Infinity) or shooting over long distances is rubbish (Flames of War) it doesn't matter. But 40k has shooting that is extremely powerful, doesn't become any worse at long distance, and has no way to hide from it.

 Dakkamite wrote:
IGOUGO is terrible when IGO = I get to shoot the gak out of your army before you even get a move.

To be fair - this is part of risk management when deploying. If you deploy with your forces in the open and/or not in cover, then you need to expect some casualties. This can happen in any game. I noticed you're looking into Infinity - it is IGOUGO as well and a bad deployment phase can be just as devastating even with its ARO system. A fast moving model with serious firepower, particularly a template weapon, rambo'd into a deployment zone will completely ruin your day if you didn't deploy well. Hassassin Fidays are designed to do exactly this - particularly the boarding shotgun variant.

40k is a B action movie with a cult following. You play it cause most of the models are cool, you can sit at home and drink beer and most likely you know a guy who plays so you now do as well.

That being said unless everyone drops 40k and switch's games I will proably always play as long as i can find a game one a month at least.

 spacewolved wrote:
40k is a B action movie with a cult following.

Most games have a cult following (ie dedicated fans). It also doesn't fit 40k, as 40k is pretty mainstream in the wargaming hobby, and something that is 'mainstream' doesn't really qualify for a cult following anymore. It's just broadly popular.

These days, 40k is popular because it's popular, not because it is doing something to be popular, and a lot of people that claim to hate it still play it simply because it's popular. It's like the Kardashians of wargaming.

 Azazelx wrote:
X-Wing is a more recent release, but still a bit expensive to recommend for teens to start with - $50 startup, $20 per ship, $44 for the Falcon or Slave 1 - sure you only need a few, but you're over $150-200 without blinking - you can buy an XBox 360/PS3 for that much.

The indivual ships are a bit pricey, but the reality is that you don't actually need many of them. We've played plenty of games with just 2 starter sets split, as we found X-Wing against 2 Tie Fighters a bit small. There are plenty of card combos you can use to add variety. Admittedly if you want bigger games or 1 or 2 of everything, then you'll spend a lot money, but my point is that you don't need to in order to get a good game.

Looking at the rules for 40k and WHFB in comparison to other rule sets.
They are over complicated , when compared to the amount of game play they deliver.

This is particularly true of 40k.
Rather than use rules written for the current intended game play of 40k.
Current 40k uses a terrible mutation of WHFB rules.
It tries to tell you everything is easy, by saying 'everything works like this'.
Then lists all the exceptions that fall out of the over simplified statement.

EG everything moves 6", and D6" in difficult terrain.

Then lists MULTIPLE exceptions that do not fit in this simple statement.

People play and enjoy 40k because of the background, and the game play.

The awful instructions to play the game only have a negative impact, that some choose to ignore,(fluff bunnies) other chose to take advantage of.(WAACs)

In short the rules sets for 40k and WHFB are written as sales promotion pamphlets , rather than well defined instructions to play the game.

So NO the rules are not worth playing , compared to other rule sets.
(If you want well defined straightforward intuitive rules .)

Lanrak wrote:
Looking at the rules for 40k and WHFB in comparison to other rule sets.
They are over complicated , when compared to the amount of game play they deliver.

This is particularly true of 40k.
Rather than use rules written for the current intended game play of 40k.
Current 40k uses a terrible mutation of WHFB rules.
It tries to tell you everything is easy, by saying 'everything works like this'.
Then lists all the exceptions that fall out of the over simplified statement.

EG everything moves 6", and D6" in difficult terrain.

Then lists MULTIPLE exceptions that do not fit in this simple statement.

People play and enjoy 40k because of the background, and the game play.

The awful instructions to play the game only have a negative impact, that some choose to ignore,(fluff bunnies) other chose to take advantage of.(WAACs)

In short the rules sets for 40k and WHFB are written as sales promotion pamphlets , rather than well defined instructions to play the game.

So NO the rules are not worth playing , compared to other rule sets.
(If you want well defined straightforward intuitive rules .)

I love how you complain about 40k giving you simple rules then exceptions to said rules, then give us a simple, broad statement and then an exception to your simple statement. You've obviously learned a thing or two from GW!

 -Loki- wrote:
To be fair - this is part of risk management when deploying. If you deploy with your forces in the open and/or not in cover, then you need to expect some casualties.

I expect there to be casualties. I expect that if I deploy aggressively instead of using cover that it's going to be a slaughter on both sides. I do NOT expect that my army will just sit around and die without bothering to return fire just because it's not my turn yet. This is purely a problem with 40k's idiotic turn structure, if it had some kind of sensible action/reaction or alternating unit activation system my opponent and I would exchange fire and my suicide units would go down shooting.

And of course the typical lack of terrain in 40k makes this problem even worse, since there often isn't enough terrain to protect your deployment properly even if you wanted to deploy defensively. Granted, this isn't strictly a problem with the rules of the game, but GW certainly doesn't do very much to inspire sufficient terrain use. Their example battlefields and deployments are always absurdly light on terrain with models standing out in the open waiting to die.

Wrote this short battle-report ages ago - it's a bit of a joke write-up, but I think contains some of the good and bad points of the game and comments of the 40k community

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/444245.page

no, it's not worth it.
they shift power to sell the new stuff. the speed at which they do it appears to be increasing drastically. and i thought blood angels got invalidated quickly. with this new rapid fire release schedule gw is wanting you to shelve your stuff and buy new stuff constantly. from what ive been reading the grav centurions will be cutting through monstrous creatures like butter.

i cant really support any company that doesnt try to improve their game but rather only thinks up ways to give people the middle finger while telling them "buy the new stuff". a little power creep i could live with but massive shifts really is just flipping the bird.

 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.

You can see my observations and brief battle report here:
http://chicagoskirmish.blogspot.com/2011/11/vintage-warhammer-40k-2nd-edition.html

 Leth wrote:
I find that I tend to have less problems with the rules, and more problems with other people going overly literal on me(like the people who claim that you cant attach an infiltrating character to a unit, or that vehicles dont benefit from invul saves)

That statement seems to contradict itself a little. If people can get "overly literal" with the rules, surely that indicates a problem with the rules? Either that they're allowing absurd things to be technically legal, or that they're vague enough that a player can argue that they're legal and not be proved wrong with a page reference.

I always hesitate to bring up Warmachine, as I don't want to be the PP fanboy, but one of the big appeals is that once I thoroughly understood the rules, I never had a problem or rules debate that couldn't be resolved through checking what the rulebook or model text actually said. When I played 40K (albeit 5th edition), every game seemed to have at least one grind-to-a-halt debate over different interpretations of the same rule.

 Leth wrote:
I find that I tend to have less problems with the rules, and more problems with other people going overly literal on me(like the people who claim that you cant attach an infiltrating character to a unit, or that vehicles dont benefit from invul saves)

And this is why 40k's rules are garbage: you can take them "too literally" and cause problems, because GW didn't bother to write them clearly and unambiguously. Yes, you can "fix" the problem by doing what "makes sense", but if you think that the rules as GW has published them are high quality then you have really low standards. Contrast this situation with MTG where every single rule question can be answered by reading the relevant part of the rules, and you will never get a situation where RAW is obviously absurd.

So under that definition warhammer is just as tactical as anything else, it just means that there are more factors that you have to account for in your planning.

That's because it's a bad definition. "Tactical" isn't a black and white thing, there are degrees of tactical depth. And 40k is on the very shallow end. Player decisions are often overwhelmed by poor balance and game-swinging randomness, and even when that doesn't happen most of the decisions are pretty straightforward.

Speaking about 40K, 6th is better than 5th, and offers more tactical interest. However there is no command and control and not much psychology. Some of the core system -- UGOIGO and combat resolution -- is brute force simplistic, which slows the game. A lot of the system in over-complicated by layers of special rules that interfere with each other and cause all sorts of problems.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Speaking about 40K, 6th is better than 5th, and offers more tactical interest.

I disagree. What you gain in tactical depth with the new (and better), wound allocation rules and "snap fire" in 6th ed, you loose with the additional randomization added to the game and the added min-maxing of lists afforded by "allies"...

@loki.
Sorry mate , I can NOT see any exceptions in my post.
I started off with a broad statement of why 40k/WHFB are not worth playing ,Then went in to more detail of why 40k is not worth playing in more detail.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Balanced games are more fun and exciting because the outcome depends on player decisions and not the fact that one player spammed an unbalanced design mistake.
And yes, powerful units have a place, but that's why there's a point-based system. If you want a powerful unit you should have to pay for it. The problem is GW doesn't understand how to balance point costs so you get cheap units that are also more powerful than expensive units.

Why have defend games or a "remember the Alamo" type scenarios?
The differing models and scenarios add "flavor" that is why they keep pushing for a story to the fight, a reason for it.
It is a little hasty to say an "imbalanced" game is "ridiculous".
You want true balance and full accountability for decisions, play chess. I did for a long time. Planning for uncertainty I find exciting.
I think the knee-jerk to "imbalanced" is "unfair", it tends to be remedied when the scenario acknowledges a degree of disadvantage so sets the conditions of victory differently.

We had taken tactical games and tried to make them as balanced as possible and it usually ended in it being "pabulum".
Historical gaming is rife with spamming things or a "rock-paper-scissors" like infantry vs. cavalry but they tend to play to see if they could change a historical outcome.

It is the "good for all things" units and not paying the points for them that "break" games as you are pointing to (no planned right place, right time, right tool needed).
I agree that GW does have a problem with balance for cost (or an army's special rules), from that standpoint you have a valid point just do not paint with broad strokes.

Close games can be good at the time because it sure beats being tabled but they tend not to be remembered unless it is a "pulling it out of the fire" moment which is still a situational "disadvantaged/imbalanced/unfair" event being turned into a victory, luck or brilliance tend to be debatable due to dice rolls.

 Talizvar wrote:
Why have defend games or a "remember the Alamo" type scenarios?

That's entirely different. A "last stand" game deliberately favors one side, it isn't just accidentally making some units/armies better than others. And if you're doing it right a "last stand" game still has a 50/50 chance of winning because you define "winning" for the doomed side based on how long they survive before dying/how many enemy units they kill/etc.

It is a little hasty to say an "imbalanced" game is "ridiculous".

You're confusing "balanced" with "all sides are identical". A game can have diverse forces, strategic depth, and even random events and still be balanced. GW just doesn't want to invest the effort required to do it.

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

 necrondog99 wrote:
I prefer the fun sociable less realistic game to the hyper detailed exercise of tactical warmongering.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.