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:

 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.

Yup, they exist despite themselves. Quite remarkable really.

I would argue they (I can only speak for 40k) can stand on their own but it's all about what the player wants out of the game.

As a rule set for a competitive game then no. The slow release of updated codex books compared to the rule set eliminate that, not matter how hard GW try.

As complete game, including the universe that surrounds the game, for casual, fun play then yes. I have had many narrative driven games that just blow anything else I play out of the water. Hell just the story people create around their army is just so much fun. Everyone has a slightly different story which supports their unit choices, paint choices, war gear choices, everything. The world around the game for me is what makes it fun.

I've played against armies that start with just a scout biker with a homing beacon on him, to armies that take 30 minuets just to move all the miniatures, each one has a story, a purpose and a person behind it. I have played other games where there isn't a person behind the army, there is an internet list that can be seen being played 1000 times over. That is actually what turns me off really competitive games. The idea of one single list to rule them all. I like fluff. I like fielding 9 Land Speeders even if they are kinda sucky.

Which 'other games' are you talking about? It was my understanding that 40K suffered 'internet list' syndrome, not so much other games which are better balanced and therefore prone to less abuse in that regard.

 Riquende wrote:
Which 'other games' are you talking about? It was my understanding that 40K suffered 'internet list' syndrome, not so much other games which are better balanced and therefore prone to less abuse in that regard.

Go to any of the sub forums on this site for other games and ask what you should buy for X faction. Most of the responses will be 'what do you like?' or 'I like this but it's totally up to you'.

 Riquende wrote:
Which 'other games' are you talking about? It was my understanding that 40K suffered 'internet list' syndrome, not so much other games which are better balanced and therefore prone to less abuse in that regard.

I think that he is talking about his different experiences with 40K and not with other game systems.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Riquende wrote:
Which 'other games' are you talking about? It was my understanding that 40K suffered 'internet list' syndrome, not so much other games which are better balanced and therefore prone to less abuse in that regard.

I think that he is talking about his different experiences with 40K and not with other game systems.

Now that I read that again, your interpretation does make more sense.

 Riquende wrote:
Which 'other games' are you talking about? It was my understanding that 40K suffered 'internet list' syndrome, not so much other games which are better balanced and therefore prone to less abuse in that regard.

Yeah I'm kind of wondering that as well because from what I have seen 40k seems to be very internet list heavy.


Take Chaos Space Marines for example. No competitive list will field thousand sons because there are better choices.

Bad rule set and even worse balance issues. Great models and awesome background. If you can find friends who enjoy the latter then 40k can be one of the most rewarding games out there. Unfortunately you are very likely to run into people that take advantage of the former.

neonshock wrote:


As complete game, including the universe that surrounds the game, for casual, fun play then yes. I have had many narrative driven games that just blow anything else I play out of the water. Hell just the story people create around their army is just so much fun. Everyone has a slightly different story which supports their unit choices, paint choices, war gear choices, everything. The world around the game for me is what makes it fun.

Except that has nothing to do with the game being played. That is all the player doing it themself, creative doesn't stop just becouse it is not a GW game. Well atleast for most poeple, I met a few were it does.

I'm not exactly a GW fanboi, but GW games do have a great sandbox universe where you can fit just about anything you want in. Even a Generic game like Tomorrow's War can't pull this off as well. GW has just enough of a guideline to give you a distinct flavor, but not too much.

I have played a lot of games, and none of them quite hit that sweet spot of sandboxiness as GW manages; especially in 40K.

However, a lot of competitors are striving to find the mark. Now more than ever.

 Easy E wrote:
I'm not exactly a GW fanboi, but GW games do have a great sandbox universe where you can fit just about anything you want in.

Except Tau, apparently, because I've heard people bitch for years about how they don't "fit in" this sandbox universe where supposedly everything fits in because they aren't dark enough.

I would have said the 'sandbox-iness ' more to do with the background fluff rather than the rules.

 Easy E wrote:
I'm not exactly a GW fanboi, but GW games do have a great sandbox universe where you can fit just about anything you want in. Even a Generic game like Tomorrow's War can't pull this off as well. GW has just enough of a guideline to give you a distinct flavor, but not too much.

I have played a lot of games, and none of them quite hit that sweet spot of sandboxiness as GW manages; especially in 40K.

However, a lot of competitors are striving to find the mark. Now more than ever.

Ummm...but you can play the 40k setting in Tomorrow's war with some abstraction...and you can play anything else as well. How can that be less sandbox than playing a game that only works with 40k?

If anything, I'd argue Tomorrow's War is much more of a sandbox then 40k is, as the game actively require you to create your own forces in both fluff and in-game stats. This has increased with the release of By Dagger and Talon, which has rules for Special Forces and aliens.

 frozenwastes wrote:

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.

Doesn't suck, but doesn't add to the argument. I really don't mind people holding other opinions to me, there's a lot of evidence to support that case after all, due to GW's complacency. But if you deny that 40k is a pretty interesting universe, with a lot of great models, you've got to acknowledge your opinion is entirely subjective.

Again, agreed there are more than a few annoying rules issues, like the one about gravity weapons and cover saves for vehicles. But most people don't find them game-breakers, they resolve them amicably.

Kaptajn Congoboy wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I'm not exactly a GW fanboi, but GW games do have a great sandbox universe where you can fit just about anything you want in. Even a Generic game like Tomorrow's War can't pull this off as well. GW has just enough of a guideline to give you a distinct flavor, but not too much.

I have played a lot of games, and none of them quite hit that sweet spot of sandboxiness as GW manages; especially in 40K.

However, a lot of competitors are striving to find the mark. Now more than ever.

Ummm...but you can play the 40k setting in Tomorrow's war with some abstraction...and you can play anything else as well. How can that be less sandbox than playing a game that only works with 40k?

Of course you can, but you are still using the sandboxiness of 40K, not Tomorrow's War.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:
If anything, I'd argue Tomorrow's War is much more of a sandbox then 40k is, as the game actively require you to create your own forces in both fluff and in-game stats. This has increased with the release of By Dagger and Talon, which has rules for Special Forces and aliens.

Yes, you would think that wouldn't you. However, the very lack of ANY guidelines means that it can be too wide open. The 40K universe gives you some guide rails to work with, but still add all the detail you want.

Don;t get me wrong. I LOVE Tomorrow's War and would rather play that to 40K any day.

I would actually use the 'sandboxiness' as an argument against the 40K setting.

We don't like Squats! So they aren't here anymore! Yay!

Let's throw the hole 'grim darkness' part out and put in Tau! Yay!

That isn't playing in a sandbox, that's using three ring binders as your history texts.... *rip!* Yay!

I like the setting, but the fact that GW is forever changing that setting does not sit well with me.

The Auld Grump

Well that is off topic, unfortunately, because it is about just the rules.

I stick with GW mainly for the fluff and miniatures that follow. The only reason I play the game system at all is to see my army on the table using my semi-competitive/fluff lists.

I haven't dabbled in other systems too much over the last few years, but I was looking into infinity a few months ago (still debating on picking it up) and the rules just seemed so much more fluid and somehow simplified (while retaining a degree of complexity). GW's rules are dated, but it would take a massive overhaul to bring it up to speed - something that would invalidate many codices (probably take a year or 2 of steady releases to get things back into order).

gossipmeng wrote:GW's rules are dated, but it would take a massive overhaul to bring it up to speed - something that would invalidate many codices (probably take a year or 2 of steady releases to get things back into order).

But doesn't that seem strange that one of the biggest game companies in the industry can't overhaul their rules and release codexes in a reasonable timeline? Whenever I really sit down to think about it I get sort of embarrassed for GW.

 bosky wrote:

gossipmeng wrote:GW's rules are dated, but it would take a massive overhaul to bring it up to speed - something that would invalidate many codices (probably take a year or 2 of steady releases to get things back into order).

But doesn't that seem strange that one of the biggest game companies in the industry can't overhaul their rules and release codexes in a reasonable timeline? Whenever I really sit down to think about it I get sort of embarrassed for GW.

And they did just that for WHFB 6th Edition with Ravening Hordes. Arguably the best rules edition for WHFB ever made.

PhantomViper wrote:

 bosky wrote:

gossipmeng wrote:GW's rules are dated, but it would take a massive overhaul to bring it up to speed - something that would invalidate many codices (probably take a year or 2 of steady releases to get things back into order).

But doesn't that seem strange that one of the biggest game companies in the industry can't overhaul their rules and release codexes in a reasonable timeline? Whenever I really sit down to think about it I get sort of embarrassed for GW.

And they did just that for WHFB 6th Edition with Ravening Hordes. Arguably the best rules edition for WHFB ever made.

I don't follow WHFB too closely but that sounds interesting. However how much of a re-write was it really? Does it still use WS, BS, S, etc.? Does it use full army you-go-I-go for turn structure? Is it still D6s? Are all the armies point based but no math is used in determining those values? Was it a large incremental update or a full grounds up rewrite?

 Easy E wrote:

Kaptajn Congoboy wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I'm not exactly a GW fanboi, but GW games do have a great sandbox universe where you can fit just about anything you want in. Even a Generic game like Tomorrow's War can't pull this off as well. GW has just enough of a guideline to give you a distinct flavor, but not too much.

I have played a lot of games, and none of them quite hit that sweet spot of sandboxiness as GW manages; especially in 40K.

However, a lot of competitors are striving to find the mark. Now more than ever.

Ummm...but you can play the 40k setting in Tomorrow's war with some abstraction...and you can play anything else as well. How can that be less sandbox than playing a game that only works with 40k?

Of course you can, but you are still using the sandboxiness of 40K, not Tomorrow's War.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:
If anything, I'd argue Tomorrow's War is much more of a sandbox then 40k is, as the game actively require you to create your own forces in both fluff and in-game stats. This has increased with the release of By Dagger and Talon, which has rules for Special Forces and aliens.

Yes, you would think that wouldn't you. However, the very lack of ANY guidelines means that it can be too wide open. The 40K universe gives you some guide rails to work with, but still add all the detail you want.

Don;t get me wrong. I LOVE Tomorrow's War and would rather play that to 40K any day.

Seems like you guys are arguing from the mistaken assumption that rules and fluff are inextricably linked. I don't buy that.
I see rules, fluff (background, universe, etc) and miniatures as separate entities to be used together, mixed with others or modified at will.

If someone likes the 40k universe, but not 40k rules, they could always play using the "In The Emporer's Name" or "WarEngine" rules.
Further, if they want to add somethign to the 40k universe or use a different company's models, they could do that as well.

Though some are to various degrees "closed", most fantasy or sci-fi universes are as "sandbox" as players want them to be.

I realize that there are reasons to play rules, minis and background from the same company/universe (Continuity, design asthetic, fanbase) but I still don't think they have to be irrevocably tied to each other.

 Eilif wrote:


Seems like you guys are arguing from the mistaken assumption that rules and fluff are inextricably linked. I don't buy that.
I see rules, fluff (background, universe, etc) and miniatures as separate entities to be used together, mixed with others or modified at will.

.

I personally believe that there is a link between the fluff and the rules - such is the case in Infinity, for example. However, GWs fluff is too ridiculous to work well on the tabletop. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy the Horus Heresy books, for example. I do, but I understand that the game cannot support such a scale of things.

Other games can support their fluff. I believe that they are better games because of that.

PhantomViper wrote:

 bosky wrote:

gossipmeng wrote:GW's rules are dated, but it would take a massive overhaul to bring it up to speed - something that would invalidate many codices (probably take a year or 2 of steady releases to get things back into order).

But doesn't that seem strange that one of the biggest game companies in the industry can't overhaul their rules and release codexes in a reasonable timeline? Whenever I really sit down to think about it I get sort of embarrassed for GW.

And they did just that for WHFB 6th Edition with Ravening Hordes. Arguably the best rules edition for WHFB ever made.

Mmmm, arguably, I suppose - I prefer 3rd, but 6th was the last edition that I was at all happy with. If you don't date back to those first, early editions... then, yeah - it was pretty good.

And, yes, Ravening Hordes was a big part of that - it was the last time that folks could actually pull out their old army and play the day that the new edition came out.

Ravening Hordes is something that they really need to start doing again - sure, come out with full codecii as they are produced, but give folks something to work with in the interim.

And I think that it is something that they can do, even now - it is too late to make it for the grand unveiling of the current Warhammer - but with the internet... make it a PDF, and it will go a long way.

The Auld Grump

 Alkasyn wrote:

 Eilif wrote:


Seems like you guys are arguing from the mistaken assumption that rules and fluff are inextricably linked. I don't buy that.
I see rules, fluff (background, universe, etc) and miniatures as separate entities to be used together, mixed with others or modified at will.

.

I personally believe that there is a link between the fluff and the rules - such is the case in Infinity, for example. However, GWs fluff is too ridiculous to work well on the tabletop. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy the Horus Heresy books, for example. I do, but I understand that the game cannot support such a scale of things.

Other games can support their fluff. I believe that they are better games because of that.

Hmm, Infinity is a good example for your assertion. What Little I've read about Infinity does support the idea that it's fluff and technology is very well synched with it's rules. However, I think that it wouldn't be too hard to use another ruleset to play battles that accurately reflect the Infinity universe. It wouldn't play like inifinity of course. It might be more abstract, or larger, or faster, or more detailed, but if you wanted it to play like Infinity, then you'd use the Infinity ruleset. In most cases, though I don't think that the connection is always necessary. There's several rulesets that can do a 40k style game quite well (Warpath, No Limits, Warengine).

The Rules-Fluff-Figures connection perception really only exists in scifi and fantasy games where it's easier to discourage (via copyright and trademarking) others from writing rules that work well with your universe. In the Historical realm nearly every setting (genre and scale) has myriad rulesets, often with new ones appearing every few years. Folks will argue endlessly about which ruleset is best for a given scale/genre/playstyle/realism/etc, but almost no one says the ____ war in ____ theater in the year of _____ is only playable with ______ ruleset.

 bosky wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 bosky wrote:

gossipmeng wrote:GW's rules are dated, but it would take a massive overhaul to bring it up to speed - something that would invalidate many codices (probably take a year or 2 of steady releases to get things back into order).

But doesn't that seem strange that one of the biggest game companies in the industry can't overhaul their rules and release codexes in a reasonable timeline? Whenever I really sit down to think about it I get sort of embarrassed for GW.

And they did just that for WHFB 6th Edition with Ravening Hordes. Arguably the best rules edition for WHFB ever made.

I don't follow WHFB too closely but that sounds interesting. However how much of a re-write was it really? Does it still use WS, BS, S, etc.? Does it use full army you-go-I-go for turn structure? Is it still D6s? Are all the armies point based but no math is used in determining those values? Was it a large incremental update or a full grounds up rewrite?

They still kept the same basic mechanics, but the gap from 5th to 6th was so big that GW decided that the old army books just wouldn't cut it, so they released Ravening Hordes that was a booklet with all the stats for all the armies updated for 6th edition and it was even FREE!
(well, it came with WD, so you had to pay for that)

So, once upon a time, GW did have the capability to update all armies AND develop a new edition at the same time.

 Easy E wrote:

Of course you can, but you are still using the sandboxiness of 40K, not Tomorrow's War.

You're using the 40k setting ("sandbox"?) within Tomorrow's war. Which also has the option to include any other sci-fi setting. Sure strikes me as considerably more flexible than just playing in the 40k setting with 40k alone...

40k is and has never been a competative ruleset. You may as well critisise your new car because it's gak at driving underwater.

xruslanx wrote:
40k is and has never been a competative ruleset. You may as well critisise your new car because it's gak at driving underwater.

That is a very strange statement to make considering that up until very recently GW actively promoted and patronized a relatively large amount of competitive events for both 40K and WHFB.

In fact, and I might be misremembering here, that particular flavour of corporate spiel only started to be stated when WHFB 8th edition was released (mid-5th edition when translating to a 40K calendar).