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.

@Herzlos.
I am aware of the misconception that lots of 40k player have about other game systems.
Tell your friend to take heart and try out other rule sets with his 40k minatures.

No limits , Stargrunt II are both free to download.(And are fun for narrative skirmish games IMO.)
Lots of folk like using Tomorrow War and Warpath rules with 40k minatures.

Herzlos wrote:

 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.

That's called the "Sunken Cost fallacy". Basically, because he invested so much time and money into 40K, he thinks that even considering a different game would mean that the money and time spent on Warhammer, as well as the fun he had, would all be invalidated somehow.

Yup I agree, I managed to get him into X-Wing recently, but he's cited the cost when starting other games (he's worried he'll spent 40K money on other games too even though I've shown otherwise).

But then, he's pretty stubborn about new things, and the kind of person that'd only eat the cheese pizza from a buffet.

I enjoy playing 40k, therefore it is worth playing to me.

Herzlos wrote:
Yup I agree, I managed to get him into X-Wing recently, but he's cited the cost when starting other games (he's worried he'll spent 40K money on other games too even though I've shown otherwise).

But then, he's pretty stubborn about new things, and the kind of person that'd only eat the cheese pizza from a buffet.

One way I've found to get around this - if, of course, it's in your gaming budget - is to buy a two player starter pack yourself and give him a demo game. If he enjoys it, offer to just give him the starter force from the set. Having a starter force for free is a good motivator to get into a game.

I'm not that averse to 40K, so I'm happy to play X-Wing/GW with him and other games with other folk.

With a lot of the smaller scale systems I'll be maintaining multiple armies though

Lanrak wrote:
@AegisGrimm.


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.
)

I noticed this as well. Every defender of the GW ruleset has posted some variation of the fluff, I've been doing it so long, or everyone else does it as their primary argument, whereas the detractors are able to cite specific examples of the rules supporting the argument.

I think that speaks volumes.

If player base and cost are kept out, the only thing fantasy really has going for it is the fluff. Most other games have better rules (like KoW), and DUST warfare has tighter rules than 40k. You'll likely be drawn to warhammer fluff, as it surpasses all other game fluff (had a lot more time to build it up). But if you ignore the fluff, and the only other thing fantasy has going for it is OP magic and finding that PERFECT unit that is a nightmare to wipe out (7th Ed Chosen star, Bloodknights with Drakenholc banner, Daemons->everything, etc). If you want a game of skills, jump onto Kings of War with The Auld Grump, ScarletSquig, Porkuslime and me. We don't bite...

tell me more about kings of war. is there magic? what makes it better than whfb?

also is there a list for lizardmen? my wife is a big fan of them.

No lizards, sadly. Magic is VERY toned down: you have healing spells, electric bolts (called Zap!) and fireballs. Undead have a movement spell as well. Magic is a supplement to your army, it doesn't control it. Mantic has the rulebook available for download (free) on their website, I'd recommend checking it out.

Answering the precise wording in the OP, I'd say "No". I might even say "Heck no". 40k is and always has been a mess of a ruleset. Fluff is a big draw to people, as is the sunk cost of having $700+ invested in an army, or the fear of learning something new, or the momentum of having played the game for years, or friends who don't want to play anything else, etc.

I don't think the 40k rules can stand on their own. Not one bit. If it was some free indie game people would choke on their Khorneflakes at how badly the game plays.

Just actually stop and think about a standard shooting attack, which should be one of the most basic, repeatable, fun, and innovative aspects of the game. And yet, as a new player, I imagine it sounds something like this long, drawn out narrative:
Okay I'm going to shoot my unit at your unit. Range looks good, my BS is *checks statline* 4 so I need a 7-4=3+ to hit, let me gather up 14 D6s and roll them. Oh and I'll use red dice for my special weapons to differentiate them. *rolls 14 dice*
I rolled 9 3+s *separates hits*, what's your Toughness?
*opponent checks statline* Um, 3.
At Strength 4 I need *checks chart on the quicksheet* 3+ to wound. *rolls another 9 dice*
So that's 5 wounds, one of which is my special weapon.
Hmm I think I'm in cover so I should get a cover save here.
I don't know about that, let me hunch down to look. I can sort of see the whole model.
Here let me come around to your side of the table. No way man his lower legs are totally covered.
Fine whatever, roll your saves.
Okay you had 4 normal wounds and 1 special right? *gathers up 5 dice* My saving throw is *checks statline* 4+, what's the AP though?
AP, um, *checks weapon quicksheet* 4, so you don't get a save.
What I thought if AP is equal I get a save still?
No way, it has to be above!
Let me just check the rulebook real quick. *checks the disorganized mess of a rulebook for six torturous minutes*
Fine you're right. Okay so just my cover save right? *rolls 5 dice* Okay I only made 1 save, so I'll take these 4 guys away.
Wait I think that guy is closer than the other guy.
*yawns and walks away*

That's forgetting the fact that melee works completely differently, and is reliant on four stats that are basically used for nothing but hitting a guy with a sword (WS, S, I, A...but the game is totally sci-fi!). Oh and then vehicles work differently from that. As do flyers. And movement for different unit types (because the 2nd edition approach of having a Movement stat was "too confusing".

Try looking at the game with new eyes. Really think about it. Do you honestly think a new player would remember who shoots what at Combat Speed is fun? Or twiddling your thumbs for 45 minutes while your equally new opponent stumbles through their turn?

40k feels a lot like kids on a playground going "Well my guy has a raygun!" and the other kid going "So what my guy has six arms and super duper sharp claws!".

I've felt for years and years that GW needs to divorce the rules creation from their miniatures line. Just totally have the rules written by a different company. I also think it's a complete joke that one of the biggest game companies in the industry cannot produce up to date codexes in time for a new release. Why are people okay with that? Beyond the need for more sales and money, why aren't the useful 5 pages of stats in each codex just rolled into the core rulebook? Why not a "rules only" rulebook with all the stats for every army (that would be professionally and openly playtested for once), then have a "fluff book" of all the stories from the core rulebook and codexes.
It'd be great if points costs were mathematically calculated instead of just off-the-cuff ideas based on what the designers "felt" was fair.

I could rant forever and ever though

 Phobos wrote:
tell me more about kings of war. is there magic? what makes it better than whfb?

also is there a list for lizardmen? my wife is a big fan of them.

Phobos, The core Kings of War rules and army lists (equivalent to WHFB army books for usage) are available for free download here:

http://www.manticgames.com/Hobby/Gaming.html

The core rules don't cover siege or all the magic items (most are just buffs to heroes or units; and units/heroes can only ever have one such item anyway).
The rules are very good, play quickly and you can use WHFB models or anybody's brand that you want.

The downside is KoW just doesn't have the presence that established GW games do.
It can be harder to find opponents----but since you have a wife that games...

Good luck to ye!

In the end, each player must decide for himself, or herself, whether or not any game is worth playing.

My personal answer for the current editions of each game is 'no'.

Other folks still enjoy the games, some poor mistaken fools people even think that the current editions are better than previous editions.

All that I can really say is play it - if you have fun then keep playing.

If you don't... then go and find a game that you do like.

Or you can go back to a previous edition that you enjoyed - a lot of local groups did not make the leap to the new edition.

Me, I play Kings of War and the very occasional game of WHFB 3.


In regards to Lizardmen - there is a fan made Lizard Lizt, I mean Reptileman army Here.

In no way official, but it looks workable.

The Auld Grump

 bosky wrote:
Answering the precise wording in the OP, I'd say "No". I might even say "Heck no". 40k is and always has been a mess of a ruleset. Fluff is a big draw to people, as is the sunk cost of having $700+ invested in an army, or the fear of learning something new, or the momentum of having played the game for years, or friends who don't want to play anything else, etc.

I don't think the 40k rules can stand on their own. Not one bit. If it was some free indie game people would choke on their Khorneflakes at how badly the game plays.

Spoiler:

Just actually stop and think about a standard shooting attack, which should be one of the most basic, repeatable, fun, and innovative aspects of the game. And yet, as a new player, I imagine it sounds something like this long, drawn out narrative:
Okay I'm going to shoot my unit at your unit. Range looks good, my BS is *checks statline* 4 so I need a 7-4=3+ to hit, let me gather up 14 D6s and roll them. Oh and I'll use red dice for my special weapons to differentiate them. *rolls 14 dice*
I rolled 9 3+s *separates hits*, what's your Toughness?
*opponent checks statline* Um, 3.
At Strength 4 I need *checks chart on the quicksheet* 3+ to wound. *rolls another 9 dice*
So that's 5 wounds, one of which is my special weapon.
Hmm I think I'm in cover so I should get a cover save here.
I don't know about that, let me hunch down to look. I can sort of see the whole model.
Here let me come around to your side of the table. No way man his lower legs are totally covered.
Fine whatever, roll your saves.
Okay you had 4 normal wounds and 1 special right? *gathers up 5 dice* My saving throw is *checks statline* 4+, what's the AP though?
AP, um, *checks weapon quicksheet* 4, so you don't get a save.
What I thought if AP is equal I get a save still?
No way, it has to be above!
Let me just check the rulebook real quick. *checks the disorganized mess of a rulebook for six torturous minutes*
Fine you're right. Okay so just my cover save right? *rolls 5 dice* Okay I only made 1 save, so I'll take these 4 guys away.
Wait I think that guy is closer than the other guy.
*yawns and walks away*

That's forgetting the fact that melee works completely differently, and is reliant on four stats that are basically used for nothing but hitting a guy with a sword (WS, S, I, A...but the game is totally sci-fi!). Oh and then vehicles work differently from that. As do flyers. And movement for different unit types (because the 2nd edition approach of having a Movement stat was "too confusing".

Try looking at the game with new eyes. Really think about it. Do you honestly think a new player would remember who shoots what at Combat Speed is fun? Or twiddling your thumbs for 45 minutes while your equally new opponent stumbles through their turn?

40k feels a lot like kids on a playground going "Well my guy has a raygun!" and the other kid going "So what my guy has six arms and super duper sharp claws!".

I've felt for years and years that GW needs to divorce the rules creation from their miniatures line. Just totally have the rules written by a different company. I also think it's a complete joke that one of the biggest game companies in the industry cannot produce up to date codexes in time for a new release. Why are people okay with that? Beyond the need for more sales and money, why aren't the useful 5 pages of stats in each codex just rolled into the core rulebook? Why not a "rules only" rulebook with all the stats for every army (that would be professionally and openly playtested for once), then have a "fluff book" of all the stories from the core rulebook and codexes.
It'd be great if points costs were mathematically calculated instead of just off-the-cuff ideas based on what the designers "felt" was fair.

I could rant forever and ever though

Your wall of text is bigger than my usual, read it all, I agree.
For some of elitist nerds, hard rules are sometimes wanted to keep the riff-raff out
They tend to make models based on art, then rules based on the models so it is then leads to some interesting rules creation.
My rant and soapbox as well is that they claim to focus more on story and fulff and "cool models" rather than "restrictive" rules that may lead to game balance.
I honestly think this will never change since they pretty much claims it is up to us as the players to agree to everything or be forced to dice-off on everything rules written down or not.
So, I feel like a fluff bunny, make what I think is a cool army and somewhat "competitive" and try not to care to much how the outcome goes (will still do my best but not sweat it too much).

I do three other things:
Play Battletech and blow the heck out of my enemy and laugh at the carnage!!!! I love the game...
Play X-wing and blow the heck out of my enemy and laugh at the carnage!!! I love that game too...
Carefully make a scenario for my friends, play some games against myself to get a feel for balance, add some random elements so I do not "know" the true final result and usually have a good time.

40k is more work to make it fun and not get your head caved in by strangers (or the other way around for me lately, getting tired of playing "balanced" armies).

 Talizvar wrote:
Your wall of text is bigger than my usual, read it all, I agree.
For some of elitist nerds, hard rules are sometimes wanted to keep the riff-raff out
They tend to make models based on art, then rules based on the models so it is then leads to some interesting rules creation.
My rant and soapbox as well is that they claim to focus more on story and fulff and "cool models" rather than "restrictive" rules that may lead to game balance.
I honestly think this will never change since they pretty much claims it is up to us as the players to agree to everything or be forced to dice-off on everything rules written down or not.

Glad you took the time to read my lengthy rant
I just wish that GW would realize(and help their fanbase realize) there can be simple rules that provide tactical depth, instead of complex rules that are shallow. I also think it's more than possible to make rules around cool models without it being "unfun" or something.

And yeah nothing like a roll-off because everyone is too exhausted to argue over fiddly rules any longer. Then again the game itself sometimes comes down to a roll off of trying to seize the initiative.

 bosky wrote:
I also think it's a complete joke that one of the biggest game companies in the industry cannot produce up to date codexes in time for a new release. Why are people okay with that?

Customers put up with a lot from GW, which never ceases to amaze me. If the prices are going to be high, if your annual reports are going to talk about being the best, the product better darn well be the best, down to cleaning the books of typos. Forget game design for a minute. GW does not even give its customers worthwhile editing.

What GW communicates to me is laziness, which would be acceptable at a bargain rate. It is indicative of an inherent, deeply ingrained lack of respect for the customers. Those folks at GW don't care about anybody (by which I mean upper management), and least of all their customers or their product.

In a sharply competitive environment, that doesn't fly. GW's games are fun enough, as I have said, they're just the sort of half-baked stuff you can easily get in an amateur rule set for the cost to print a .pdf at home. There's not much value there when you look at the quality of the product.

The OP's question is like asking about the comparative quality of Transformers and The Avengers from a purely cinematic perspective. Transformers may be fun to watch for plenty of people, but strictly speaking it is not a "good" film from an objective standpoint. This isn't much of a problem if the only investment is two hours of my time, but tell me that I can only watch one movie every month and you won't find Transformers on my list, nor will I pay to watch something similar in the theater.

Lots of folks who play GW games have the GW DVD special edition boxed set with the full two-season cartoon series spin off on their shelf and nothing else. So when the time comes to sit down and watch something, something GW is your only option.

But, as the OP has indicated, if your buddy has never seen an action movie, should you hand him the Transformers movies straight away, or should you start him off with something better?

For me personally, no. I play 40k because I enjoy the universe thematically and because its generally the lowest common denominator in scifi games. I have plenty of legacy armies that cost me nothing to maintain except for a codex every few years and I can usually find someone looking for a game of it on weekends at the FLGS. I've never personally seen someone converting an existing active universe into 40k because they like the rules, only converting an army from a failed game into 40k to get some/any use out of those other figs. I bring a 40k army with me to the games store in case I can't wrangle up a game of either xwing or heavy gear and for that it suits my needs. Playing randomhammer 40k 6e is still preferable to driving home and wasting time/gas on the long monthly trek to the store.

If you take cost and access to players out of the question then no they arnt in my oppinion there are plenty of other better balenced and more fun to play out there. Some of the models are very good quality but you could always use them for other rule sets.

 warboss wrote:
. I bring a 40k army with me to the games store in case I can't wrangle up a game of either xwing or heavy gear and for that it suits my needs. Playing randomhammer 40k 6e is still preferable to driving home and wasting time/gas on the long monthly trek to the store.

This hits on one of the strongest advantages of 40k, and one that is not given enough credit. It's ubiquity.

Though, IMHO, a very weak ruleset, 40k can still be fun ( I enjoy a couple games of 40k a year), and in many places it's still THE game in town. WM is making strides, but whether WM isn't to taste or 40k is the only popular game, a game of 40k sure beats not wargaming.

As someone who has helped organize a club centered around indie wargames, I know that finding or building a group of people that will play games that aren't "the popular ones" takes effort, patience and -if I am honest- a bit of luck. I feel it's more than worth the effort, but I don't begrudge anyone who says 40k is fun enough for that they'd rather just pay the upcharge than have to mess with trying to wrangle up a group to play something else.

It's almost like asking someone in the American Midwest, "Should I join the local Softball league or try and teach the locals Cricket?"
(note: I know nothing about Cricket, the metaphor is about ubiquity, not quality)

Ubiquity, plus great fluff, plus good (and a wide variety of) models, plus a ruleset that is still playable (if not great), adds up to a pretty strong argument for a choice of 40k, even though you're going to pay a significant upcharge for it.

IMO, the "Ruleset" ( a term I prefer to "game") is not worth playing on it's own merits, but gamers considering other games have to ask:

"What is it worth to me to be able to find a game almost whenever I want?"

WFB is quite a bit of fun with some balanced armies. I really like 8th edition minus every army book written.

 Eilif wrote:

 warboss wrote:
. I bring a 40k army with me to the games store in case I can't wrangle up a game of either xwing or heavy gear and for that it suits my needs. Playing randomhammer 40k 6e is still preferable to driving home and wasting time/gas on the long monthly trek to the store.

This hits on one of the strongest advantages of 40k, and one that is not given enough credit. It's ubiquity.

Odd, I'd say it get given more than enough credit. Most of the time when I see a thread about why someone still plays or has just started 40k the main reason is 'because it's the easiest to find a game of'. 40k's ubituity is very well known and very often cited as the reason to play the game.

The problem is, the popularity is riding on the success of 3rd-mid 5th edition before they started trying as hard as possible to kill the hobby side while driving up prices of their models. Unless they stop making boneheaded decisions, that popularity will drop as more and more veterans simply get tired of it, dropping its popularity as a pickup game.

The idea that you can get games of 40k at the drop of a hat is probably over emphasized. To the point where the original poster asked about game considerations not factoring that in.

And for many people in many places, it's not the go to game. I don't know where or how I'd find a game of 40k around here. It's all WM:H and Flames of War. I'm sure if I went on Facebook and searched for my city or something, there might be a 40k group. But no store I know of has regular gaming days for 40k where I could just show up and expect to get a game in.

I think the current 'Marmite' state of 40k game play area by area is quite telling.

Where 40k remains popular due to the players putting lots of effort int to try to make playing 40k as enjoyable as possible, (with NO help from GW rule set.)
40K is the go to game for popularity.

Where the poor rules writing and support for the game play, and hobby to an extent, has lost critical mass for 40k .
it is simply not played .

The real problem is IF the current trend keeps going, 40k will loose critical mass in so many areas, it will simply become an unsustainable game system.
As there will be a severe lack of interest from the former fan base.

 -Loki- wrote:

The problem is, the popularity is riding on the success of 3rd-mid 5th edition before they started trying as hard as possible to kill the hobby side while driving up prices of their models. Unless they stop making boneheaded decisions, that popularity will drop as more and more veterans simply get tired of it, dropping its popularity as a pickup game.

I'm not sure if I buy that rosy view of 3rd to 5th edition.

The fact is that GW has pretty much always been the expensive miniature gaming company. I started gaming at the beginning of 2nd edition and they were already just about the most expensive option at the FLGS.

As for the hobby side, I don't see a time when GW wasn't trying to bring more and more of the hobby under their roof and into their product line. It's all part of a long term trend stretching back at least to 2nd edition, and maybe further.

It's only now when we look back and see how much of the hobby they've managed to swallow that we look back and try to find a "better" time. IMO, many people that look back to the better times are just looking at a particular time when GW gotten around to taking over another DIY aspect of the hobby. Surely by now it's clear that GW only endorses DIY until they have a product to fill that niche. It's just that now they've filled alot of niches, so they have alot less DIY to write about.

Herzlos wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Well, whatever makes you happy mate ultimately.

There are guys at my club that have been playing the same opponents in WFB for as far back as I can remember.. probably 15 years or so, and while happily picking up each new edition have never displayed any inclination to try another game. To me it seems like playing only a single computer game for years, although I realise a lot of people do this too so I guess it must be a personal thing!

I will say though that prices from scratch for both 40k/WFB make people less likely to try other games. If I'd just spent $400-500 on a load of new stuff for an army, 6 months painting it etc, no way on earth I would be looking at other stuff to try!

I've noticed this too, we've been playing on and off since 2nd Ed. But what's possibly most telling is that my main gaming buddy refuses to consider other systems because he's already spent so much on 40K (probably 6000pts of Blood Angels) that he doesn't want to sink money elsewhere and is concerned about how much it'll cost him.

You should check out the cost of historicals. Practically everything is at the most 1/2th to 1/3rd the cost of equivalent GW models.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Well, whatever makes you happy mate ultimately.

There are guys at my club that have been playing the same opponents in WFB for as far back as I can remember.. probably 15 years or so, and while happily picking up each new edition have never displayed any inclination to try another game. To me it seems like playing only a single computer game for years, although I realise a lot of people do this too so I guess it must be a personal thing!

I will say though that prices from scratch for both 40k/WFB make people less likely to try other games. If I'd just spent $400-500 on a load of new stuff for an army, 6 months painting it etc, no way on earth I would be looking at other stuff to try!

I've noticed this too, we've been playing on and off since 2nd Ed. But what's possibly most telling is that my main gaming buddy refuses to consider other systems because he's already spent so much on 40K (probably 6000pts of Blood Angels) that he doesn't want to sink money elsewhere and is concerned about how much it'll cost him.

You should check out the cost of historicals. Practically everything is at the most 1/2th to 1/3rd the cost of equivalent GW models.

And that's for line infantry. For command and specialist models, the cost is more like 1/4th to 1/6th. There is no logical justification (beyond "people will pay it", the only one GW needs) for a commander to cost $20-$30

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Well, whatever makes you happy mate ultimately.

There are guys at my club that have been playing the same opponents in WFB for as far back as I can remember.. probably 15 years or so, and while happily picking up each new edition have never displayed any inclination to try another game. To me it seems like playing only a single computer game for years, although I realise a lot of people do this too so I guess it must be a personal thing!

I will say though that prices from scratch for both 40k/WFB make people less likely to try other games. If I'd just spent $400-500 on a load of new stuff for an army, 6 months painting it etc, no way on earth I would be looking at other stuff to try!

I've noticed this too, we've been playing on and off since 2nd Ed. But what's possibly most telling is that my main gaming buddy refuses to consider other systems because he's already spent so much on 40K (probably 6000pts of Blood Angels) that he doesn't want to sink money elsewhere and is concerned about how much it'll cost him.

You should check out the cost of historicals. Practically everything is at the most 1/2th to 1/3rd the cost of equivalent GW models.

I've got tonnes of historicals*, and he watched me buy an Empire Of The Dead (Victorian Sci-fi skirmish game) starter (Rules, any 2 faction sets, 2 cases) for less than he spent on GW stuff at a convention, but he's still reluctant. Partially because he isn't keen on new things, and partially because he's worried it'll end up costing as much as GW stuff. He may have a point, I've spent more on EOTD stuff than GW stuff in the last year, but they tend to cost about £5-7 a character figure, or £3-4 a line figure (all in metal).


*In progress I've got: 15mm US Airborne & German Grenadiers, 28mm WW2 Soviets, 28mm Romans and 28mm Celts, all costing much less on a per-figure basis than I can get from GW. But that's largely irrelevant as we're talking about rules and not cost

 Phobos wrote:
[
The question isn't really about my preferences. I am just curious to know if the rules underlying these games are in and of themselves, good. From reading here and elsewhere, it seems that what carries these games is their inertia and being the most popular because "everyone plays it". Thats why I put the parameters I did in the OP.

Personally I've never played a game of either outside of a Gamesday event. I've always just liked the lore and models. Though somehow, I do have current rule books for both.....

You can't separate the rules from the fluff. What is here being described as inertia essentially comes down to the fact that GW Space Marines are iconic. Yes, there are many similar ideas out there, and the 40k universe draws on lots of sources, but they have succeeded in building up a fantasy universe, so their concept has achieved a kind of critical mass. Also, of course, there's the sheer diversity of models. And there's actually a sense of humour to 40k that many of its competitors lack.

If you judge it on rules alone, I don't doubt there are other games that are superior. But 40k games are played for fun, they're not an olympic sport - it's the way they stimulate the imagination that makes them fun, and in that respect 40k is superior.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:


You can't separate the rules from the fluff.

Of course you can separate the rules from the fluff, especially when the rules are in no way representative of the fiction for the game.

Case in point: Space Marines are supposed to be super-humans bio-engineered to be perfect killing machines superior in every way to regular humans.
In the rules: they shoot exactly the same as a normal human that has spent more than 5 years in the IG...

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

What is here being described as inertia essentially comes down to the fact that GW Space Marines are iconic. Yes, there are many similar ideas out there, and the 40k universe draws on lots of sources, but they have succeeded in building up a fantasy universe, so their concept has achieved a kind of critical mass. Also, of course, there's the sheer diversity of models. And there's actually a sense of humour to 40k that many of its competitors lack.

No, 40K HAD a sense of humour, now its only grim darkness in the far darkness of the grim future... with skulls... Or are you somehow able to find the hidden humour in Space Marines killing women and bathing in their blood to protect themselves from corruption?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

If you judge it on rules alone, I don't doubt there are other games that are superior. But 40k games are played for fun, they're not an olympic sport - it's the way they stimulate the imagination that makes them fun, and in that respect 40k is superior.

Bullcrap!

Every miniature game is played for fun! The fact that GW's rule sets are convoluted, unbalanced and randomized messes doesn't magically make them "more fun" than all the better balanced and cleaner games out there.

Endless rules discussions doesn't somehow "stimulate the imagination" better than just knowing how a rule works. Unless you mean imagining what you will do to your opponent if he tries to pull the Wolf Lord with TA infiltrating with Wolf Scouts and claim that its legal again!

PhantomViper wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

If you judge it on rules alone, I don't doubt there are other games that are superior. But 40k games are played for fun, they're not an olympic sport - it's the way they stimulate the imagination that makes them fun, and in that respect 40k is superior.

Bullcrap!

Haha, well you sound like a fun guy! How people will enjoy debating rules interpretations with you!