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.

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

If it was a clear ruleset there wouldn't need to be any debate on rules interpretations

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

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!

What? Did I offend your tender sensitivities with my made up swear words?

Also I don't debate rules interpretations any more since I stopped playing WHFB and 40K when 8th and 6th came out respectivelly.

Hahaha, I was more amused by how in your ruleset, a made up swearword automatically trumps a reasoned argument. Is that like your own, made-up, ID weapon with no saves allowed?

My amusement is increased by the fact your vehemence is matched by your ignorance, given that you don't play 6th edition.

As for tricky rules... my 12 year old son has no problem with them. Maybe you should ask a teenager to explain them?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

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!

What? He's right. 40k's rules are a pure exercise in frustration. This especially becomes more apparent when you've checked out other games rules. You wonder how they can be so hippy-dippy and sloppy with their rules writing. The "fun" that you get from a game of 40k comes to a screeching halt when you come into contact with one of it's many rules inconsistencies, utterly taking you out of the moment. These kinds of things simply do not happen with other games with tighter rulesets.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Hahaha, I was more amused by how in your ruleset, a made up swearword automatically trumps a reasoned argument. Is that like your own, made-up, ID weapon with no saves allowed?

Reasoned argument? You are claiming that inaccurate, confusing and unbalanced rules somehow make the game "more fun" and claim that that is a reasoned argument?

I thought you were just making that stuff up as you went along since it makes absolutely no sense, therefore my choice of also making up a swear word to counter it.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

My amusement is increased by the fact your vehemence is matched by your ignorance, given that you don't play 6th edition.

I don't play 6th edition ANY MORE, doesn't mean that I never played it. In fact, it would have been quite stupid of me to give up the game because of an edition that I had never played considering that when I gave up the game I had several 10's of thousands of points worth of models divided over several different armies...

Also, how many different non-GW systems have you played before proclaiming GW to be more fun than every other system? Can I accuse you of ignorance in that aspect?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

As for tricky rules... my 12 year old son has no problem with them. Maybe you should ask a teenager to explain them?

There is a 581 page sub-forum in this very site, that is dedicated to try and clear the mess that are the 40K rules.

Either you are lying that your son has absolutely no problem understanding them all, or you are calling all the posters in that sub-forum dumb... You make the choice...

To be honest its each to his own, Some people care more about fun than balance and some prefer to be competitive, i am pretty sure that there are many in between too.
No one will ever persuade me that its not worth playing because I enjoy it, no matter how badly some people think the rules are written, some of us just don't care as long as we can play a good game with our mates. Although I think it has gone downhill a bit while the prices have gone up, I would still consider it a good game, as I enjoy playing it.

His son probably D6s any rules queries which is a fine way to deal with the problem although of course it does not remove the basic issue.

 Rayvon wrote:
To be honest its each to his own, Some people care more about fun than balance and some prefer to be competitive, i am pretty sure that there are many in between too.
No one will ever persuade me that its not worth playing because I enjoy it, no matter how badly some people think the rules are written, some of us just don't care as long as we can play a good game with our mates. Although I think it has gone downhill a bit while the prices have gone up, I would still consider it a good game, as I enjoy playing it.

Not trying to persuade you not to play it or anything but there is NO reason balanced rules would not be as fun as any other rule set.

PhantomViper wrote:


Reasoned argument? You are claiming that inaccurate, confusing and unbalanced rules somehow make the game "more fun" and claim that that is a reasoned argument?

Oh, thanks for highlighting that your logical skills not only extend to making up swear words, they also include making up imaginary arguments. Neither I, nor anyone else that I noticed, has claimed that "inaccurate [sic] confusing and unbalanced rules make the game "more fun."

In case it's too hard to follow, like the rules, I'm suggesting that many people are attracted to the models, and the universe, and this outweighs issues with confusing rules - which do indeed exist, but which many people seem to be able to surmount without losing their temper and making up swearwords.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Reasoned argument? You are claiming that inaccurate, confusing and unbalanced rules somehow make the game "more fun" and claim that that is a reasoned argument?

Oh, thanks for highlighting that your logical skills not only extend to making up swear words, they also include making up imaginary arguments. Neither I, nor anyone else that I noticed, has claimed that "inaccurate [sic] confusing and unbalanced rules make the game "more fun."

In case it's too hard to follow, like the rules, I'm suggesting that many people are attracted to the models, and the universe, and this outweighs issues with confusing rules - which do indeed exist, but which many people seem to be able to surmount without losing their temper and making up swearwords.

Nice backtracking you did there, so now there are issues with confusing rules? I thought your 12 year old son had absolutely no problems understanding them in their entirety?

Its ok, I understand how admitting that you are wrong must be painful for a white knight like yourself, so I'll forgive you for your condescending tone and posts that are entirely empty of content.

Have a nice day.

This thread is about games which are supposed to be fun.

You seem so emotional and bound up in hatred, presumably of GW, that even the statement that GW has good models, and an immersive universe, make you angry and start resorting to tired claims, like the fact that people who disagree are 'white knights.'

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
This thread is about games which are supposed to be fun.

You seem so emotional and bound up in hatred, presumably of GW, that even the statement that GW has good models, and an immersive universe, make you angry and start resorting to tired claims, like the fact that people who disagree are 'white knights.'

And 40k is not fun because it has turned into cinematicrandomhammer with an archaic hippy-dippy ruleset that makes playing many games a chore. Seriously, go look at other rules out there. Many of them are free and only serve to highlight how GW looks like complete and utter amateur hour when it comes to writing rules.

The "Oh look on a 4+ I get to cheat" solution is just silly. Many of these things should not make it through playtesting (but we know GW does not do much of that). These glaring errors serve to take a lot of fun out of the game. It takes you out of the moment. If GW want to make their game "Cinematic" and be able to "Forge a narrative" then they should make tighter rules to not take you out of the moment.


If you cannot see this then I really don't know what to say...

 -Loki- wrote:

 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.

Well, and to be honest, one of the main reasons that I don't play 40K or WHFB anymore is because I don't want to pack up all the models just in case I can't get in a game of what I really want to play. It is too much of a hassle for something that does not rate very high on the satisfaction scale.

Now, in one bag I can bring enough models to cover two players for Mordheim, Freebooter's Fate, Blood Bowl, Quar (SOA), Malifaux, Tomorrow's War, Song of Blades and Heroes, and more besides. If the FLGS had sufficient terrain available I would simply head down and work out a game of whatever. The principle reason why I like to be darn sure what game I am going to be playing before I head out is that I also usually bring a couple of tubs of terrain.

Lugging my 40K stuff around means a whole bag all on its own. It just aint worth the effort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

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

If it was a clear ruleset there wouldn't need to be any debate on rules interpretations

Bazinga! Ouch...did I just make a Big Bang Theory reference...I'm going to Hell.

Okay you two kiss and make-up because I don't want this thread locked.

To the fellow who posted the 40k example thank you that was very eye opening. I got the rules for KoW. It looks clear on a first read.

 Phobos wrote:
Okay you two kiss and make-up because I don't want this thread locked.

To the fellow who posted the 40k example thank you that was very eye opening. I got the rules for KoW. It looks clear on a first read.

I concur with Phobos.

As to KOW, I have always found it interesting, and a guy at the shop is always talking about playing it, so maybe I will give it a whirl sometime. It seems to me that Cavatore sort of ruthlessly cut down and streamlined WHFB to make KOW. It has a similar feel in terms of fundamental concepts, but is much cleaner.

The only thing that really threw me off was using wound counters instead of removing models. It makes good sense, of course, but the thought of doing up all of those models just to put a glorified rectangle on the table saddened me. Now, that said, it probably does mean that I could do up about half of the models and insert filler bases, which would have the added benefit of allowing for more dynamic poses. As a sci-fi/skirmish player primarily, I have oft run afoul of bad posing when building models for troop blocks.

My Mantic zombies are the worst. They look great individually, but MAN will they not sit flush in a movement tray! I had 30 all assembled and looking good sitting in front of me and I was very satisfied. Then I tried to mush them together and I was like, "Noooooooo! Fail! What have I done!"

Grimtuff wrote:And 40k is not fun because it has turned into cinematicrandomhammer with an archaic hippy-dippy ruleset that makes playing many games a chore. Seriously, go look at other rules out there. Many of them are free and only serve to highlight how GW looks like complete and utter amateur hour when it comes to writing rules.

The "Oh look on a 4+ I get to cheat" solution is just silly. Many of these things should not make it through playtesting (but we know GW does not do much of that). These glaring errors serve to take a lot of fun out of the game. It takes you out of the moment. If GW want to make their game "Cinematic" and be able to "Forge a narrative" then they should make tighter rules to not take you out of the moment.

If you cannot see this then I really don't know what to say...

I agree with everything you said, but I also wanted to say "Oh look on a 4+ I get to cheat" is a hilariously true way to look at rolling off for a rule.

Wound counters can be replaced with off table notes or on table casualty figures.

weeble1000 wrote:
The only thing that really threw me off was using wound counters instead of removing models. It makes good sense, of course, but the thought of doing up all of those models just to put a glorified rectangle on the table saddened me.

Which is quite the norm in many (most?) historical rulesets. One of the usual side-effects is that the model count only represents the units' sizes in relation to each other. Fielding a Tercio in a Thirty Years War battle with GW's scale philosophy would be a nightmare, for example.

I do think that this is a very good illustration of what we're talking about: KOW was arguably designed as a "game on its own merits", which benefits from the "glorified rectangle" approach, while Warhammer was always meant to give your individual models maximum representation on the table at the expense of the actual game flow.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wound counters can be replaced with off table notes or on table casualty figures.

We just use dice. Also, I'd rather keep my nicely painted minis on the table, instead of using them as useless wounds to be tossed off the table before they see play.

As you may tell from my signature, I play 4 games - the three GW games plus WM/H.

Personally, of all those games that I've played, I'd rank it it in the following order:
1 - LOTR
2 - WHFB
3 - Warmachine
4 - 40k

I love the Lord of the Rings game, but that's not the original poster's question. But I'll briefly explain why: you can use real-life tactics (I did a Cannae plan on a small scale, my opponent was so embarrassed that he used an Imperial Swedish deployment in the next game which he then went on to win), it's simple but it makes sense, the armies are pretty balanced, and the miniatures are pretty (generally). The issue, of course, is players, but you said to ignore that. Another thing going for the game is the fact that most models are simple two or three part snap-fit things if they're plastic, making modelling easy for a beginner. As far as a GW game goes, this is probably the best, and definitely can be played on its own merits.

I place WHFB over Warmachine for several rather silly reasons. First of all, I like the look of the miniatures, both individually and the way the army looks on the tabletop. It is, for me at least, very satisfying to see a large army on the table ranked up instead of a smallish army in a loose formation. I know this can be done with other games, so that's a stupid reason to play it over another game. I actually quite like the randomness in the game because it makes more sense here than it does in 40k. The randomness promotes banter between the players - "I need a 4 to charge these Wild Riders into the rear of your skink unit, oh no, I rolled a double 1!" etc. I think that this makes it a bit more amusing than other games which are a lot more boring regarding charge rules, and other less random aspects. I'm probably one of the few who actually like this change. The new books seem to be getting more and more balanced, and I'm beginning to understand how to play my Wood Elves, and to be honest, they're not that bad an army, they just require a lot of getting used to. The big problem is the IGO-UGO system, which was improved upon in the Lord of the Rings game. Can this game be played on its own merits? Yes, I think. It's a very fun game, in my eyes, and at the end of the day that's what we look for.

Warmachine is over 40k because the game is tightly written, the game is probably the most balanced of the four games I've mentioned. In addition, the concept of the game is probably the most fun, and who doesn't think giant Werewolves wrestling with steam powered robots armed with spears and shields is awesome?

40k is last, because the randomness here makes little sense. In fantasy, you're the commander of an army that's probably unruly and mostly conscripted or made up of levy warriors. Even without that, the communications in an army are a lot mroe difficult to handle, which is why perhaps the Wild Riders didn't charge into the flank of the Skinks. It makes no sense in 40k. The armies are professional, well-trained on the most part and equipped with highly advanced armour and weaponry. If the opening cinematic of Dark Crusade is indeed canon, then Space Marines can talk to each other through their helmets. There's no excuse for failing that charge, or missing every single one of your bloody shots. But anyway - the thing with 40k is that you have to suspend your disbelief a lot more with this game than the others, to a stupid level. Plus the rules writing for the armies and things is generally more shoddy than the other three games, even fantasy. It's fun, but not that fun. So 40k is less of a game I'd play based on its own merits.

Haven't tried many other games apart from those four though.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:
To be honest its each to his own, Some people care more about fun than balance and some prefer to be competitive, i am pretty sure that there are many in between too.
No one will ever persuade me that its not worth playing because I enjoy it, no matter how badly some people think the rules are written, some of us just don't care as long as we can play a good game with our mates. Although I think it has gone downhill a bit while the prices have gone up, I would still consider it a good game, as I enjoy playing it.

Not trying to persuade you not to play it or anything but there is NO reason balanced rules would not be as fun as any other rule set.

Oh I totally agree, I was not saying one equals the other or not, just hinting that different people want different things.
There is also no reason for me that a balanced one would be any more fun either really, but then we go back to my initial point, each to his own !

 Allod wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
The only thing that really threw me off was using wound counters instead of removing models. It makes good sense, of course, but the thought of doing up all of those models just to put a glorified rectangle on the table saddened me.

Which is quite the norm in many (most?) historical rulesets. One of the usual side-effects is that the model count only represents the units' sizes in relation to each other. Fielding a Tercio in a Thirty Years War battle with GW's scale philosophy would be a nightmare, for example.

I do think that this is a very good illustration of what we're talking about: KOW was arguably designed as a "game on its own merits", which benefits from the "glorified rectangle" approach, while Warhammer was always meant to give your individual models maximum representation on the table at the expense of the actual game flow.

A lot of historical ranges I've seen use a slightly smaller 'scale', like 25mm or more true to scale proportions, which means the models physically take up less space, and are consequently somewhat easier to arrange. Heroic 'scale' models are really pushing the limits of 25mm bases these days. I use a lot of Perry Historicals for a variety of projects (none historical, lol), and I find them much, much easier to work with and just better-looking.

The Mantic undead look great, but a lot of them are just bursting off of the base, which looks great singly, and looks great if you assemble them such that you can get them together nicely, but mistakes are pretty easy to make.

In terms of game play, philosophically I have nothing against a glorified rectangle, but my thought is: why bust my butt to put X actual models in the rectangle when the size of the rectangle itself conveys all of the requisite information. I expect KOW would say: go nuts! This is a charming thought.

weeble1000 wrote:


In terms of game play, philosophically I have nothing against a glorified rectangle, but my thought is: why bust my butt to put X actual models in the rectangle when the size of the rectangle itself conveys all of the requisite information. I expect KOW would say: go nuts! This is a charming thought.

Well, would you rather have a well painted unit of models in the game around for the whole time the unit is there, or immeadiately begin to pull those miniatures off the table as that unit takes casualties?

weeble1000 wrote:
Now, in one bag I can bring enough models to cover two players for Mordheim, Freebooter's Fate, Blood Bowl, Quar (SOA), Malifaux, Tomorrow's War, Song of Blades and Heroes, and more besides. If the FLGS had sufficient terrain available I would simply head down and work out a game of whatever. The principle reason why I like to be darn sure what game I am going to be playing before I head out is that I also usually bring a couple of tubs of terrain.

Lugging my 40K stuff around means a whole bag all on its own. It just ain't worth the effort.

I thought that I was the only one that carted around two armies, just to make sure I had something to play against!

I have a big double layered case that was designed to carry four pistols - I typically cart around two of the *cough*six eight Mordheim warbands that I have painted*cough*. Most often either Reiklandser or Ostlanders and either Undead, Orcs, or Dwarf Treasure Hunters.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

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

If it was a clear ruleset there wouldn't need to be any debate on rules interpretations

Bazinga! Ouch...did I just make a Big Bang Theory reference...I'm going to Hell.

Why this is Hell, nor am I out of it.

weeble1000 wrote:
As to KOW, I have always found it interesting, and a guy at the shop is always talking about playing it, so maybe I will give it a whirl sometime. It seems to me that Cavatore sort of ruthlessly cut down and streamlined WHFB to make KOW. It has a similar feel in terms of fundamental concepts, but is much cleaner.

The only thing that really threw me off was using wound counters instead of removing models. It makes good sense, of course, but the thought of doing up all of those models just to put a glorified rectangle on the table saddened me. Now, that said, it probably does mean that I could do up about half of the models and insert filler bases, which would have the added benefit of allowing for more dynamic poses. As a sci-fi/skirmish player primarily, I have oft run afoul of bad posing when building models for troop blocks.

I felt kind of the same way when I first tried KoW - but it grew on me quickly. One of the niftier things about those big block bases is that you can make each movement tray into a small diorama if you like. Looks better on the shelf that way, but can look kind of odd on the table. On the other hand, it is fun having the ghouls chomping away on a poor lone Imperial halberdier. So I use a mix of regular and dioramic bases.

My Mantic zombies are the worst. They look great individually, but MAN will they not sit flush in a movement tray! I had 30 all assembled and looking good sitting in front of me and I was very satisfied. Then I tried to mush them together and I was like, "Noooooooo! Fail! What have I done!"

There is a pretty easy fix, if it is not too late - get another box of the zeds, and build zombies that can be used to space out the ones that take up too much room. Those legless zombies are good for that, as is the one that is just a pair of legs and a bit of spine.

If you feel like it you can also scam even more, fill a base with greenstuff, then stick in a head and one or two arms, so that it looks like a zombie is just emerging from the grave.

The Auld Grump

GRUMP! GENIUS!

Spacer zombies that aren't really spacers. Yea, that will probably work.

And I didn't say Bazinga! was Hell, just that I was going there...Although I am sure Bazinga! is said repeatedly and with much enthusiasm in the depths of the fiery abyss (though if it is fiery it must be failing at being a proper abyss).

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:This thread is about games which are supposed to be fun.

You seem so emotional and bound up in hatred, presumably of GW, that even the statement that GW has good models, and an immersive universe, make you angry and start resorting to tired claims, like the fact that people who disagree are 'white knights.'

I get that it sucks to be called a white knight. You want people to see your positions as fair and well thought out and not as part of some devotion on your part. You want them to treat you the exact opposite way you treat others-- you want them to not make assumptions about you being motivated by emotion. They see you as being motivated by unreasonable devotion and you see them as being motivated by unreasonable hatred.

Emotions aside, I think the idea of "cheat on a 4+" is a pretty good descriptor of how GW's rules fail and then rely on a random roll to fix them. If the rules were good and covered what goes on in play, you wouldn't need fixes like that.

 frozenwastes wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:This thread is about games which are supposed to be fun.

You seem so emotional and bound up in hatred, presumably of GW, that even the statement that GW has good models, and an immersive universe, make you angry and start resorting to tired claims, like the fact that people who disagree are 'white knights.'

I get that it sucks to be called a white knight. You want people to see your positions as fair and well thought out and not as part of some devotion on your part. You want them to treat you the exact opposite way you treat others-- you want them to not make assumptions about you being motivated by emotion. They see you as being motivated by unreasonable devotion and you see them as being motivated by unreasonable hatred.

Emotions aside, I think the idea of "cheat on a 4+" is a pretty good descriptor of how GW's rules fail and then rely on a random roll to fix them. If the rules were good and covered what goes on in play, you wouldn't need fixes like that.

There was a standard bearer in the.. Lizardmen release issue of White Dwarf I think where Jervis out and out said (rather aggressively) the rules don't need to be written well, that's what the 4+ rule is for, and anyone who thinks differently is wrong. Personally I think that if the people developing the game have that attitude then there is no hope for the game to be worth playing purely on it's own merits.

In addition, I've already me turned this in another thread, but Jervis this month talks about his "process" when writing rules.

Never mentions balance, not once.

 jonolikespie wrote:
There was a standard bearer in the.. Lizardmen release issue of White Dwarf I think where Jervis out and out said (rather aggressively) the rules don't need to be written well, that's what the 4+ rule is for, and anyone who thinks differently is wrong. Personally I think that if the people developing the game have that attitude then there is no hope for the game to be worth playing purely on it's own merits.

BEER AND PRETZELS FORGE THE NARRATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But seriously, the fact that GW can openly brag about how they publish unprofessional garbage and have their customers defend it is one of GW's greatest accomplishments as a business.

A lot of GW HHHobbyists start in wargames with GW and haven't experience with other rulesets.