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.

 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

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Not really identical either, I remember playing as Tau, shooting dark eldar down to one man, him getting into melee and destroying the squad.
This seemed balanced in that each had a good chance of wiping out the other, but yes, is just a single example/moment in the game not big picture.

Taking into account all conditions and having a point or value system to evaluate the degree of advantage: that would be an ideal goal, I agree for a competitive game.

GW as discussed in other threads, want more story and are less concerned with reducing the number of variables to allow proper measurement: they do not want to restrict their "narrative".

It is a different viewpoint: do you want a rule of thumb to "forge the narrative" (GW tm?) and make some scenario from their books or do you need a reliably balanced strategy game? (which you will not get from GW)

Peregrine, you bring up good points and I think we could agree this is not a true strategy game, it is more like role-playing with miniatures on a bigger scale.

I have found the Warpath 2.0 Rules far simpler and easier to play than Warhammer 40k rules ..(low learning curve more playing less arguments due to poorly written rules)..for a Grimdark Backdrop ..at a 28mm scale..
...................................................................................
Flames of War is similar ..on a 15mm scale for a WWII back drop ..
Infinity/Warmahordes/Malifaux I have zero experience in so have zero opinion on..
................................................
Fun Level ..My gaming group finds the Mantic rules more fun than the 40k rules ..easier, faster play for bigger armies..
.................................................
Same with KoW vs WHFB..easier faster simpler rules..
models are pretty much interchangable ..
.............................................
Conversion, moddling and painting ..you can go to town with KoW , Warpath, 40K , WHFB..

Is this thread to help the OP pick a game or does he/she want to better understand it? I read page one and skippe over the rest. to me a simple wargamer who loves to paint and model more then playing this is how i see things.

40K: To me is a great hobby to have if you like to paint and convert the models, GW really allow you to go nuts.

40k Gaming: I have only played a few games of 6th. Forgeting a rule or doing something wrong can really bit you in the but. The armys can be unbalanced as new codex comes out the older ones dim out. And who knows when your dimmed out codex will get revamped The game also favours buyers over thinkers.

40k Gamers: They can be a tough nut to crack the more tourny type players will hang out at the local gamming shop. As the more kicked back all about good time players play at home. This is how i see it. Ive had a hard time getting in with the FLGS locals as they where all about beating face and less about fun.

40k Fluff: The fluff is great and draws you in. Its great and there is plunty of it. I do enjoy reading what i can and it helps me enjoy my models more. The fluff and converting are what keep me into it. I do like playing the game to, but the time per game can be 2-3 hours long.

Now i play warmachine and i can share what i have noticed.

Players: Im lucky my local FLGS has a good group of players. I was taken care of by the game champion there who runs demos and intros for free. He spent an hour going over the game with me and answering my 1,000 questions. The players where glad to have another player and welcomed me in.

Game: Is very balanced there is almost a rule for everything. The game favours thinkers not buyers, you can play any model you like as they all play a role.

Converting: Not a whole lot you can do compared to 40k.

Price: Very very cheap to get into and be able to play right offf the bat!

Fluff: I really have yet to pick a book up and look into it. The artwork and the fluff i have came across was ok. Nothing outside of the game and models draw me into it, like fluff artwork.

Im a simple guy who likes to role dice and think about what im doing. Im not a hardcore gamer who plays three or more times a week. Im all about fun and fluff.

 Talizvar wrote:

GW as discussed in other threads, want more story and are less concerned with reducing the number of variables to allow proper measurement: they do not want to restrict their "narrative".

It is a different viewpoint: do you want a rule of thumb to "forge the narrative" (GW tm?) and make some scenario from their books or do you need a reliably balanced strategy game? (which you will not get from GW)

Peregrine, you bring up good points and I think we could agree this is not a true strategy game, it is more like role-playing with miniatures on a bigger scale.

I really wish that people stopped throwing this "40k is a narrative game" nonsense around, it simply isn't true! If you really wan't to play a game that forges a narrative as you go along, you play 1st ed. Malifaux, or Infinity or even GW's own Inquisitor. THOSE are games that have a distinct RPGesque "vibe" to them and that really tell a story as you go along. Same thing with Mordheim and Necromunda when using the campaign rules.

40K's and WHFB's flavour of "randomize everything" has nothing to do with forging a narrative, that is just the latest marketing spiel that GW has decided to tack on their latest editions!

The fluff, it's all about the fluff. What initially brought me into the game was the idea of overrunning the enemy with IG ChiCom style. Guns blazing, sweat dropping, blood spilling! For the Emperor! Now you can try to make the game as technical as you want. Most adults I know don't have the time to acquire, assemble, paint an army that's of a good size and quality before another edition comes out! It's a game about dedication, that's for sure.

 -Loki- wrote:

 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.

There are now things in the game that help mitigate this - I mean defensive Link teams. The will not save you if you have deployed incorrectly, but they do make a difference if the active models faces even 2 of your Linked dudes.

PhantomViper wrote:
40K's and WHFB's flavour of "randomize everything" has nothing to do with forging a narrative, that is just the latest marketing spiel that GW has decided to tack on their latest editions!

There are many games that make use of "randomize everything" but to varying degrees of controlled probability, so is not all that shocking a statement.

If I was to exclude the RPG'ish back story of every model and the variety of customization allowing you to play any character you want, then it really boils down to negligence; poor control of rules and model options preventing balanced game play.

I would say many things about GW but not that they are stupid about this.

This is an intentional choice and easier to manage, do not claim "perfecting" game balance and say it is all up to you the player to make it work: go "forge" the right scenario.

I really cannot take a game seriously anymore in 40k and it really seems to be the right attitude: play your best, make it entertaining and never get hung up on a given rule, there may be 3 ways to interpret it so "who cares".

If I am stressed about this stuff it will no longer be a hobby.

 Talizvar wrote:
GW as discussed in other threads, want more story and are less concerned with reducing the number of variables to allow proper measurement: they do not want to restrict their "narrative".

And this is the problem: you've bought GW's idea that story and balance are mutually exclusive. This is what GW wants you to believe because it means that they don't have to invest the effort required to make a game that has both, they can just throw some rules together on their lunch break and say "4+ it if you have a problem" and you will continue to buy it.

It is a different viewpoint: do you want a rule of thumb to "forge the narrative" (GW tm?) and make some scenario from their books or do you need a reliably balanced strategy game? (which you will not get from GW)

I want both, just like how MTG is both a balanced competitive game and an awesome casual game full of stories. The miracle of GW's business plan is that they've sold you half a game and convinced you that you're getting the best game in the world.

Peregrine, you bring up good points and I think we could agree this is not a true strategy game, it is more like role-playing with miniatures on a bigger scale.

Except 40k also sucks as a RPG.

 Dakkamite wrote:
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.

Ever play Soldier's Companion, for the Space:1889 series of games?

Players roll initiative, adding Coolness Under Fire - player that wins moves and shoots. Players roll initiative....

It is possible for a Veteran force (with high Coolness Under Fire) to roll over a much larger Green force, without the Green force getting a single turn....

Strange as it may sound, I like the game, but I generally play the British, who have lots of Veteran units....

 -Loki- wrote:

 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.

WH40K doesn't have a cult following?

Greetings, and welcome to Earth - you obviously are not from around this part of the galaxy....

WH40K has the biggest cult following of any wargame that I have ever seen. (And I know folks that have managed to finish an entire game of The Longest Day.)

There is nothing wrong with the game having a cult, other than the way GW treats their worshipers, but saying that WH40K does not have a cult following... it very much does.

And some of us are now apostates....

Say something bad about WH40K and White Knights show up to defend the Emperor!

Say something that the Apostates see as false praise, and they shall storm the barricades.

In general, I see the Apostates as having more sense, but that may be because I am one. But I have seen raving Apostates as well - which does not make WH40K less of a cult, merely a cult that has suffered a schism.

The Auld Grump, but then again, what do I know? I also claimed that 4e wasn't the future of D&D....

@Peregrine

I ask this out of genuine desire to know the answer, but try as I might, can't phrase it in a way that doesn't sound confrontational when written down, but please don't take it that way.

You have been heavily critical of 40K in this thread, yet almost 60% of your post history is either 40K tactics or discussion.

If you dislike the game as strongly as your posts here suggest, why not move on and find a new game?

 azreal13 wrote:
If you dislike the game as strongly as your posts here suggest, why not move on and find a new game?

Because of those factors outside the rules of the game: the fluff, cool models, and the fact that it's the only game (other than X-wing, which I'm committing to more now) you can pick if you want to have anyone to play it with. 40k's rules are a clumsy unprofessional mess, but they're still the rules we're stuck with.

Though TBH now that X-wing is finally getting over its stock problems and the X-wing league is on the same day as 40k my interest in anything GW produces has been declining significantly.

Ever play Soldier's Companion, for the Space:1889 series of games?

Players roll initiative, adding Coolness Under Fire - player that wins moves and shoots. Players roll initiative....

It is possible for a Veteran force (with high Coolness Under Fire) to roll over a much larger Green force, without the Green force getting a single turn....

Strange as it may sound, I like the game, but I generally play the British, who have lots of Veteran units....

Awww mannnnn this brings up so many good memories dealing with GDW and Frank Chadwick is a top notch person.


Back on topic. The short answer is no, just because the lack of quality control and technical support in creation of the rules and codexes.

It has become, "he who has the most money to buy the most models and the special models that unlock unique abilities for that army in question, so you can throw more dice than your opponent". Magic the gathering on plastic as well as Robo Hammer with Giant monsters/aliens/robots crushing Tokyo and the JDF (Japanese Defence Forces and if it was in the 21st century genre). Place that concept in 40000 years in the future and you got the epic fail.

The game mechanics of 6th Ed is utter crap. 8th Ed is even worse. Takes too long to set up. Takes too long to play the game because of the game mechanics and the lack of clarity of the game as people argue about the rules and its meanings. Takes too damned long throwing massive amount of dice. Takes too long packing up...

And finally takes too much money for people to start from scratch to have a half way decent army so you will not get curb stomped and beaten to death like a baby seal by some WAAC (they call themselves competitive players mind you) job whose only thrill in twisted his little life is pushing man dollies across the board.

I have 13 different 40K Armies and 6 Different WFB armies. All of my Fantasy models in storage. 12 out of 13 40K armies are on display or in storage as well.

I'm now only playing with a generic, non hell turkey Chaos Army with no Allies.

But even though I am having fun with this army because I'm playing this in a casual fluff manner where I could care less if I win,
I am running out of options as the players are leaving 40K in my region and going to something else and the reasons are what I have posted. And soon I'll be following them completely if I run out of decent players to game with. You have to go what the meta is if you wish to continue the hobby as a whole, which generally now for me is to sit with people and paint and game whatever the trend types of game is being currently played.

If you can find decent players to game in your local area and can ignore the blatant flaws of the game and can get some casual games in then you are blessed.

I definitely think that it is a game worth playing on its own merits, if it is a fun game you are after, I would not say that it is a good competitive, strategic game though, if I wanted to play a serious game I would prefer something more tactical. I still really enjoy it though having said that, Balance does not really worry me at all as long as I can have fun, I have enjoyed sooo many games where I dont really stand that much of a chance and for me "being the underdog" is really enjoyable, I have played over 100 games of BB with halflings and gobbos so I am used to coming off second best !
I do think the fluff is a major factor too, although I guess if you are a new player you might find the fluff from other games just as appealing, I myself find it hard to get into any other games systems after so long in the 40k universe, I dont know what it is but they seem to lack the appeal for me that 40k has.

 Alkasyn wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 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.

There are now things in the game that help mitigate this - I mean defensive Link teams. The will not save you if you have deployed incorrectly, but they do make a difference if the active models faces even 2 of your Linked dudes.

So what link team can my vanilla Haqqislam take?

Bad deployment being exploited is part of the game, as is mitigating it with things like link teams, units with total reaction or sixth sense and other methods. You can still deploy badly even with all of that, and even when not deployed badly a shrewd player can sometimes find weaknesses to exploit and KO half your army in turn one. It's just part of IGOUGO gameplay.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Alkasyn wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 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.

There are now things in the game that help mitigate this - I mean defensive Link teams. The will not save you if you have deployed incorrectly, but they do make a difference if the active models faces even 2 of your Linked dudes.

So what link team can my vanilla Haqqislam take?

Bad deployment being exploited is part of the game, as is mitigating it with things like link teams, units with total reaction or sixth sense and other methods. You can still deploy badly even with all of that, and even when not deployed badly a shrewd player can sometimes find weaknesses to exploit and KO half your army in turn one. It's just part of IGOUGO gameplay.

Agreed.

For your Vanilla army it's only Total Reaction HMG remotes, good deployment and a bit of luck.

I think the biggest indictment in terms of 40k and WFB failing to offer good gameplay for those looking for a "narrative" game is the constant refrain you hear over and over again when discussing the rules and the fictional universe of the game.

Fluff isn't rules.

It takes other forms as well, but the basic idea behind it is that any expectation that the rules will produce something like the fiction isn't valid. Even to the point that when people question why a given rule doesn't represent the fiction or that a rule doesn't make sense from a narrative perspective, very quickly it will be pointed out that expecting the rules to produce results like those in related fiction isn't reasonable.

I would absolutely love a game where the designer's took a 40k novel and asked "what sort of things happen in this story?" and wrote a rules set from the ground up to produce those sorts of results. 40k (or WFB) is not an example of such a rules set. The closest you'll come is authors using a crowbar to force in nods to the game in the various novels.

I would absolutely love a game where the designer's took a 40k novel and asked "what sort of things happen in this story?" and wrote a rules set from the ground up to produce those sorts of results. 40k (or WFB) is not an example of such a rules set. The closest you'll come is authors using a crowbar to force in nods to the game in the various novels.

Funny that you mentioned that. This is doable. The game I have is called "The Forever War", Made by MayFair games in 1983, with help from the Author John Haldeman. Overall all it is a good little game that on based on the book.

Your concept is very doable but we both know that this will not happen in any near future with the company's current line of thought.

My problem is that modern 40K is such a weighty set of rules. random rolls for everything, pages and pages of universal special rules, gobs of special rules that modify other special rules, etc.

Simply too much to keep track of while playing a game. Every new army has tons of stuff to make it cool and unique, and you end up with more reference materials on the table than models to play a game. It seems to be becoming far too increasingly overwhelming and cumbersome to me over the 15+ years I have been with the hobby.

@AegisGrimm.
I agree that the actual instructions to play the game have become needlessly over complicated.

And that NO ONE has actually objectively defended the rule set on its own merits ,(eg as instructions on how to play the game.)Is very conclusive evidence on how awful the current 40k rules truly are.

Saying you like the background/art, and having a fun time with your friends , does NOT excuse the awful rules writing found in 40k.

When generic sci fi rules deliver a better game experience than GW plc OWN rules for its OWN game , its a very poor state of affairs!(IMO.)

The problem for me is that I find it very hard to get into other games after being in 40k for so long. I just cant seen to get hooked on another system and they just seem so unappealing to me for some reason.

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!

 necrondog99 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

40k 'list building' is a joke compared to other games. Representing the 'essence of government procurement' is not what anyone wants in a game. A choice between a terrible unit and a great unit really isn't a choice at all. Why not just have two decent, balanced units and make all choices a decent choice? Make it so people don't have to sacrifice being competitive for fluff - let them have both!
It also leads to horribly boring lists where the competitive build is 3 each of the best units in the codex and ignoring the other 15 'choices'.

Warmachine does this very well. Pretty much every unit in each army is a decent choice. Building a WMH list, Kriel Warriors (the oldest trollblood unit) or Warders (the newest trollblood unit) are equally needed (depending on caster) and even work fantastically side-by-side. And due to inter-unit synergy, there are very few instances even when you have a fantastically good unit that you want to take more than 2 squads of it.

There is no excuse for internal imbalance. There is nothing that imbalance 'achieves' that is not performed better by proper balance.

PhantomViper wrote:

 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"...

I don't like allies either, because of that exact reason. We can ignore the Allies rule, though, while we can't "ignore in" something like opportunity fire into 5th. Just my opinion, of course.

Both are worthwhile to play. I play both with a group of friends and both games provide ample fun, laughs, artistic creativity, modeling creativity.

Both are worthwhile games.

 Pacific wrote:
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!

My friends and I are like this. We've played 40k since 2nd editions launch. We've tried to break into other games - Epic, Battlefleet Gothic, Warhammer Fantasy (about 5 times), Inquisitor, Necromunda, Mordheim, even outside of GW with Warzone. The end result was always the same - we played the game for about 2-3 months and went back to 40k. We don't play pickup games with anyone outside of our group for the most part (one of us did because for a while he lived in a house with about 4 other 40k gamers). This leads to a lot of internal politics and bickering and a certain amount of list tailoring. However, it has also led to our group developing our own attitude to the game and house rules to get games moving better, and even our own metagame.

The good thing is recently due to the rising cost of 40k, I've successfully managed to get Infinity seriously look ed at and have no intention of letting it die after a few months. I've also gotten some of them interested in Dropzone Commander, though we've yet to start that. I doubt we'll drop 40k - like I said, as a group we've been playing since the early 90's. 20 years of history isn't easily given up, and we all have decent sized armies to carry on without needing to splurge huge amounts of money on new armies. But finally managing to get some new games some serious table time has been great.

 Haight wrote:
Both are worthwhile to play. I play both with a group of friends and both games provide ample fun, laughs, artistic creativity, modeling creativity.

So how do 40k's rules contribute to this "fun" more than other games you could play? The question here is whether or not 40k is worth playing instead of other games purely on its own merits (instead of factors like "it's the only game anyone plays around here"), not whether anyone has ever had fun playing it.

 Phobos wrote:
I am just curious to know if the rules underlying these games are in and of themselves, good.

No, I don't think so. If you deducted the background and the models, leaving only the rules played with generic counters (like "infantry", "jump infantry", "tank", etc.), I doubt more than a handful of people would play it. I did have fun with some historical wargames while trying them out using printed out counters only showing flags and a unit symbol, though.

In the end, the GW systems feel more like a way to have your toy soldiers beat each other up in a moderated fashion than a game first with model support for eye candy second. Which has always been GW's view as well AFAIK.

 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.

I see the wargaming hobby as a whole as an "all you can eat smorgasbord".

Certain people ONLY ever play one game for their entire gaming life.

These people are snacking on the tofu plate at a banquet.

Having a large army for 40k never stopped me wanting to try other things out. 40k wasn't my first game, and it won't be my last.