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.

40k is worth playing "on its own merits" or I would not have so many darn models.

The crux of the frustration is that it is a "fluff" game and not a truly competitive game system.
It is falsely advertised as such and many people would be happy to lock horns with me and argue otherwise.
It is a FANTASTIC game for rules exploits and some people just love when rules are not clear and that is what fuels claims of "competitive play".
WAAC players are drawn to this game like moths to a flame because there is such "gray zone" and at the very least you can "roll off" if there is a rule you do not like (rather than have to live with what the rule says).

As a more scenario based, campaign game with an epic story; few systems can compete for scope and depth.

Cost can be argued but it all boils down to perceived value of the game and the models.

I have seen time and time again that as soon as a highly competitive (looking at rules ONLY) play is done, there is a ton of butthurt.

Yes, play to win but do not try to force them to play your latest net army list; they may just walk away.

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.

I'm guessing when said car goes underwater you get to see all the red herrings there...

IMO, if 40k was worth playing on its own merits it would not need so many pretty pictures of painted minatures/artwork. and pages of back ground stories to inspire people to buy in to it.

Lots of GOOD rule sets provide engaging and fun game play even if you use bits of paper to represent units.

This is sort of the point is it not?

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.

This statement is full of Titanic level fail. Buying a car and expecting it to drive under water is ridiculous and no sane person would do so. Buying a game and expecting its rule set to work properly however is a completely different matter. And up until fairly recently Games Workshop did in fact encourage and endorse tourneys.

And up until fairly recently Games Workshop did in fact encourage and endorse tourneys.

That does not however make their ruleset competitive or even balanced.
McDonalds actively encourage healthy eating.....

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
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.

Interesting universe. Check. Lot of great models. Check. If you need to consider these things in order to overlook problems with the rules, then there's obviously problems with the rules. The fact that people need to derive their enjoyment from the fiction and the models because the game isn't providing it isn't exactly a vote of confidence in the rules themselves.

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.

Any system that you have to fix in order to make it work doesn't work. It's the people doing the fixing and resolving issues that are actually the source of the fun having their enjoyment despite the rules rather than because of them.

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.

A more apt analogy would be:

"You may as well criticize your car for having comparatively bad gas mileage, comparatively poor trunk space, and a series of irritating manufacturing defects."

But hey, I like how it looks, so what does it matter how it drives? And even if I have to get it serviced more often, getting parts is very easy.

Only, well, this thread is about what is "under the hood," so to speak.

I'm sure that is frustrating for some folks, especially if you don't know how an engine works. If all you know is a trusted brand name, it can be hard to participate in the discussion. But if you really like the brand name, you might have a strong desire to defend it from what appears to be criticism of the quality of its products. I think I get it. All the same, if you've never driven any brand of car besides a Hyundai, and you've never taken much time to consider what factors into the vehicle's performance characteristics, there's not much to say in a discussion about relative merits of timing belts, on board computers, bearings, fuel injection manifolds, and so forth.

weeble1000 wrote:

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.

A more apt analogy would be:

"You may as well criticize your car for having comparatively bad gas mileage, comparatively poor trunk space, and a series of irritating manufacturing defects."

But hey, I like how it looks, so what does it matter how it drives? And even if I have to get it serviced more often, getting parts is very easy.

Only, well, this thread is about what is "under the hood," so to speak.

I'm sure that is frustrating for some folks, especially if you don't know how an engine works. If all you know is a trusted brand name, it can be hard to participate in the discussion. But if you really like the brand name, you might have a strong desire to defend it from what appears to be criticism of the quality of its products. I think I get it. All the same, if you've never driven any brand of car besides a Hyundai, and you've never taken much time to consider what factors into the vehicle's performance characteristics, there's not much to say in a discussion about relative merits of timing belts, on board computers, bearings, fuel injection manifolds, and so forth.

Wow, very well said. I guess my question is; what is a viable solution?

- J

 Ratius wrote:

And up until fairly recently Games Workshop did in fact encourage and endorse tourneys.

That does not however make their ruleset competitive or even balanced

umm, that was kind of my point.

 necrondog99 wrote:

Wow, very well said. I guess my question is; what is a viable solution?

- J

An open mind helps. Plus, there's ways to discuss it from a higher level perspective, which most of this discussion has been in anyway. I don't know about car engines, but I know about consumer stats like gas mileage, trunk space, and so forth. I suppose the corollary would be things like typical game length, accessibility of the rules (in terms of learning curve and such), the frequency of rules disputes, the "depth" of a game (although that is subjective), etc. But if you don't know about that first hand, you have to take peoples' word for it because the wargaming industry doesn't track stats like that.

More in the weeds issues would, I think, be things like comparing the relative merits of core game mechanics like I-go-you-go, dice mechanics, rules interactions, writing and layout of rulebooks, and so forth. You may know one game to a tee, but if that's all you know, it is tough to compare apples to apples. Like, why would one say that the dice and attribute mechanics of Warmahordes are superior? Some might make an argument about statistical probabilities, but one could approach that feature from a broader perspective such as not having to roll more than a few dice at one time. Does that make the game go faster or slower? Is it simpler, cleaner, or more cumbersome? I love In Nomine, a RPG from SJ Games, and I think the rules are pretty good, but the layout of the rulebook is absolutely terrible, like incredibly bad. If all I ever played was In Nomine, I might not appreciate how much more effectively a rulebook could be written.

Ultimately, if you haven't played a lot of different rule sets, you just have to sort of take people at their word. I can say from experience that Warmahordes runs smoother than 40K or Fantasy, but if you've never played Warmahordes, well you have to take my word for it. Otherwise we've got to dig way into details, but to get into that discussion it really helps to be familiar with the bones of how a game system works in general, and that usually comes with broad experience with different rule sets, so you're back at square one.

Wow, there's a lot here. To start, I'd echo a few things being said.

Firstly, 40k does have a simple rules set. This may seem odd given the size of the rulebook, but it's about the rules you use and how often that's important. 40k is simple because if I said "this is a tac marine squad with a missile launcher", you know that it's 8 models with the same weapons and statline, one model that's the same except he's got a close combat weapon and bolt pistol and +1Ld, and another guy that's exactly the same, except he uses a missile launcher - a well-known weapon upgrade.

For example, I've played 1 on 1 games of 40k before with over 200 minis on the table between the two of us, and knocked it out in just a few hours. Imagine playing battletech with 200 mechs? Imagine playing Malifaux with 200 minis! You would literally die of old age before that game ended. Your children and their children would, by blood oath, be required to keep playing it until the game finally resolved itself at the prophesized end times of "The Great Game".

Secondly, I know that the OP wants to screen that out, and the kardashian comparison was hilarious, but the popularity of the game is something substantial, for two reasons. Firstly, as mentioned, what does it matter if you have a "better" game if you can't actually play it with anyone? The game you play is automatically better than the one you can't.

More importantly, the popularity is telling about the game itself. Yes, GW has better marketing, and has video games, etc., but still... I've been actively playing 40k for 6 years now. Six years ago I started a 40k guard army, and can walk into my local store on 40k night next monday and play it again. For however much people whine about how bad 40k's rules are, the simple fact is that 40k would have long ago disappeared if its rules weren't good enough.

During those 6 years, I've seen many games with "better" rules sets come by. Whether their rules sets were better or not, I can't say, but the simple fact is that everyone around here still plays 40k, and they don't play heroclix or At43 or battletech anymore. If the market decides what's good and what's bad, then the popularity of 40k compared to the death of virtually everything else (except warmahordes and to a lesser extend FoW), then, empirically, 40k is a better game. If it weren't, people would have moved on to something else, like they moved on from all those other games.

To get to 40k's rules more specifically (I can't say abything about WHFB), no, it's nowhere near a serious strategy game. Any game that relies so heavily on a random element can't be a serious strategy game. If you want that, play chess or Go. I'd note, though, that this applies to most games that you'd seriously be looking at, though. Malifaux still uses cards to see what happens, and there are a lot of other dice games out there.

And 40k itself has been slowly becoming less of a strategy game over time. In 5th ed, for example, you had set charge distances and no pre-measuring. This meant that if you had the player skill of distance estimation, you got into close combat, every time, and if you didn't have those skills, then maybe you did, but maybe you didn't. In 6th ed, you don't need estimation skills because you can pre-measure. Then they added in random charge range which means that it's lucky players that make it into close combat and unlucky ones who don't, regardless of player skill.

40k has always had terrible balance, but that hasn't really ever bugged me... until now. In earlier versions of 40k, if you brought a long-range shooting army, it was a real gamble. A short-range-shooty army would take more casualties than you early on, but then they'd do more damage than you when they arrived. Likewise, close combat armies would spend half the game doing no damage whatsoever, but did twice as much damage when you got there.

What makes a game interesting is when a player is offered lots of chances to make meaningful choices. In the case of gunlines, they throw most of those choices out for themselves. They don't really use the movement phase much (and then, only if they really have to), which causes you to lose out on choices made in the movement phase. Same about assault and close combat, etc.

And that might be annoying but fine, except for the way they've set things up, especially in 6th ed. Gunline armies are so imbalanced on the overpowered side that if you're wanting to play an interesting army in an interesting way where you get to/have to make a bunch of meaningful decisions, it doesn't matter, because you're just going to get tabled by a gunline. People playing the game in boring mode on a brain-dead difficulty mode winning isn't necessarily a problem (though it sort of is), but when people playing that game can comprehensively prevent you from being able to play the game in a more interesting way... that's a serious problem.

Then, to add the annoying insult to injury, as others mentioned, new rulebooks (or, to a slightly lesser extent, codices) and will completely change your army out from underneath you. Just ask all those players who played a trukk rush, or slugga tide, or kan swarm in 5th ed, only to find their armies unusable when 6th came out.

I can't say much on this kind of an issue with other games, but my guess is that they probably have this problem sooner or later, and that's why they collapse in on themselves. Once players figure out "the" way to win, then the challenge is gone, and people move on to something else. At least 40k's asymmetric codex and rulebook releases does keep that "discovery" phase in there a little bit.

And perhaps that kind of explains it. 40k may not have the best rules set, but, over time, it's the best you're going to get. Everything else may or may not be better, and once you figure it out, then there's not much more left to do but to move on to something else. Much less so with 40k.

Also, a couple of other things about 40k. Firstly, as others have mentioned, it's really important who you play against. In a game where you have basically no options (like chess, for example, where you don't get to pick which pieces you field), then it doesn't really matter what options your opponents pick. With 40k, though, it's strength of being so open-ended is also one of its potential deepest flaws. If you're playing against people who have taken certain units in certain combinations so that you're not really going to get to PLAY when you play a game of 40k, then, in a way, it's the other players' fault, not the game itself. As such, while you have a lot more potential people to play with, you've got to actually be choosy with who you play against.

The other main problem, I think, is that 40k games are too big. Yes, you CAN play 2000 point games. The game scales up to that level. That doesn't mean you SHOULD though. The game starts to become much more line-up-and-shoot with the more minis per square area you have. Apocalypse is 100% this way, but It's also true for 1850 point games as well. 40k may be able to scale up to huge games thanks to its simplicity, but the best games are at the skirmish level (which 40k actually does pretty well - other games are more complex, but 40k, being simple, can be played in a half hour or less at a 500 point level). Once you are restricted in points, you have to start making meaningful choices in list building, and you have to make meaningful choices in deployment and movement if you can't just spam HS slots and cover the table in gunfire. You have to make meaningful choices if you don't have the ability to both table your opponent and run for objectives at the same time.

With lower point games, you have more meaningful choices, which, as mentioned above, is what makes a game good. Huge battles of 40k look cool, but I don't think the game is as good at that level. And it didn't used to be so bad either. When I started playing guard in 4th ed, I think I literally only ever played 1000 point games. Or less. Back a scant few years ago, a 1250 point was considered a big game, and an 1850 point game was considered just silly.

Since then, there has been a lot of up-pressure to play larger and larger point games. In the meantime, codices have been coming out and making the models cheaper and cheaper (pointswise). I think players have been suckered into playing 40k the wrong way just so that they can put more minis on the table.

Oh good, another Ailaros rant full of inconsistent arguments and complaining about how everyone else is WAAC and ruining the game.

 Ailaros wrote:
Firstly, 40k does have a simple rules set. This may seem odd given the size of the rulebook, but it's about the rules you use and how often that's important. 40k is simple because if I said "this is a tac marine squad with a missile launcher", you know that it's 8 models with the same weapons and statline, one model that's the same except he's got a close combat weapon and bolt pistol and +1Ld, and another guy that's exactly the same, except he uses a missile launcher - a well-known weapon upgrade.

That doesn't mean 40k has a simple rule set, it just means that there are certain units that are common enough that most people know what they are. You can do this with ANY game, there will always be "standard" units that you can describe in very simple terms. Consider EVE Online, a game with hundreds of upgrade options that can be combined into a staggering number of potential ship configurations (a number in the same general range as the number of possible 40k armies). And yet despite this complexity if I tell you I'm flying a "Nanocane" you know exactly what ship I'm flying, what strategy I'm using, and you can probably tell me the exact modules I have fitted (with 2-3 minor variations). Why? Because people figured out the optimal ship and modules for that role, and that single configuration became a standard one.

For example, I've played 1 on 1 games of 40k before with over 200 minis on the table between the two of us, and knocked it out in just a few hours. Imagine playing battletech with 200 mechs? Imagine playing Malifaux with 200 minis! You would literally die of old age before that game ended. Your children and their children would, by blood oath, be required to keep playing it until the game finally resolved itself at the prophesized end times of "The Great Game".

That's only because 40k uses tons of models which have no purpose besides occupying space on the table. It would be like if you had a game of X-wing, but instead of a TIE fighter having 3 HP you put three 1 HP TIE models on the table. The only thing it would accomplish would be increasing the number of models on the table, which isn't a very relevant goal.

Secondly, I know that the OP wants to screen that out, and the kardashian comparison was hilarious, but the popularity of the game is something substantial, for two reasons. Firstly, as mentioned, what does it matter if you have a "better" game if you can't actually play it with anyone? The game you play is automatically better than the one you can't.

The point is to consider just the game itself, not the position it inherited from previous editions where GW had a near-monopoly, or GW's use of questionable tactics to drive independent stores (which might sell competing games) out of business in favor of their own GW-only stores.

For however much people whine about how bad 40k's rules are, the simple fact is that 40k would have long ago disappeared if its rules weren't good enough.

This is not true at all. First of all you're going to have people buying the game because of the fluff/models/etc, and those people aren't going to stop just because the rules suck. Second, you're missing the effect of popularity. 40k's rules can suck, but if it's the only game anyone plays then it's going to stick around for a long time.

If the market decides what's good and what's bad, then the popularity of 40k compared to the death of virtually everything else (except warmahordes and to a lesser extend FoW), then, empirically, 40k is a better game. If it weren't, people would have moved on to something else, like they moved on from all those other games.

You're ignoring the issue of barriers to entry in a market, where even a superior product can fail to sell (and even die completely) because the market gives a significant advantage to established products regardless of their quality.

And perhaps that kind of explains it. 40k may not have the best rules set, but, over time, it's the best you're going to get. Everything else may or may not be better, and once you figure it out, then there's not much more left to do but to move on to something else. Much less so with 40k.

I seriously doubt it. I see no reason to set such a low standard for "best possible", especially when there are much more likely arguments for why other games fail.

If you're playing against people who have taken certain units in certain combinations so that you're not really going to get to PLAY when you play a game of 40k, then, in a way, it's the other players' fault, not the game itself.

How the hell is this not the game's fault? A properly balanced game wouldn't have this problem because those units either wouldn't exist, or would have limits imposed on them that keep them from dominating the game. And you even conceded this when you said how 6th made things so much worse. Nothing about the players changed from 5th to 6th, so that pretty clearly puts the blame on the rules.

Since then, there has been a lot of up-pressure to play larger and larger point games. In the meantime, codices have been coming out and making the models cheaper and cheaper (pointswise). I think players have been suckered into playing 40k the wrong way just so that they can put more minis on the table.

Didn't you start off this post by claiming that one of 40k's virtues is how you can play a game with lots of models on the table?

 Phobos wrote:

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.

This statement is full of Titanic level fail. Buying a car and expecting it to drive under water is ridiculous and no sane person would do so. Buying a game and expecting its rule set to work properly however is a completely different matter. And up until fairly recently Games Workshop did in fact encourage and endorse tourneys.

define 'properly'.

Then tell me which edition of 40k was specifically balanced for tourny play.

xruslanx wrote:
define 'properly'.

Here's a good definition for this context: if the problems with competitive balance are because of choices that actually improve "casual" play, not the incompetent idiots GW hired to write their rules.

And judged by that standard 40k fails. It isn't a bad competitive game because it has design goals that conflict with being a good competitive game. 40k could easily be a better competitive game without sacrificing "casual" gaming. In fact, the changes that would make 40k a better competitive game would probably make it a better game for everyone else as well. The only reason we don't have a good competitive game is because GW has convinced people like you that it's somehow a good thing if they publish low-quality rules that only work if you have a "beer and pretzels" attitude.

you actually used the words 'incompetant idiots' when defining the notion of 'properly'.

I think i will leave you to your ontological butchery now.

xruslanx wrote:
you actually used the words 'incompetant idiots' when defining the notion of 'properly'.

I think i will leave you to your ontological butchery now.

I'll take that as your concession that 40k's rule suck for both competitive and casual play. Thanks for having this discussion!

Unfortunately, bad spelling does not prevent his post from being valid.

GW is not interested in balancing the rules, they are interested in selling product.

Balanced rules do not mean that the background has to suffer - but when your mission statement is: 'You need to sell X amount of product, oh, and come up with rules for these figures that we just made at the last minute - but we need the codex by Friday....' Then the rules are going to suffer.

The Auld Grump

neonshock wrote:
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.

 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.

This just about sums it up perfectly. If it weren't so bulky it'd go in my sig

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
define 'properly'.

Here's a good definition for this context: if the problems with competitive balance are because of choices that actually improve "casual" play, not the incompetent idiots GW hired to write their rules.

And judged by that standard 40k fails. It isn't a bad competitive game because it has design goals that conflict with being a good competitive game. 40k could easily be a better competitive game without sacrificing "casual" gaming. In fact, the changes that would make 40k a better competitive game would probably make it a better game for everyone else as well. The only reason we don't have a good competitive game is because GW has convinced people like you that it's somehow a good thing if they publish low-quality rules that only work if you have a "beer and pretzels" attitude.

What I am not hearing is a solution. We could invent our own rules, which would go nowhere because we are not GW. We could stop playing the game, but just like leaving the Republicrats and Democrins by going to a third party we would just shut ourselves from our gaming communities. People would still buy 40K. Or we could contact the company and request politely something you see in the computer industry... joint application design, where users work with developers to make a more palatable product. I use a DOD system regularly that has a "suggestion link" where users are invited to spam the developer with the changes they would like to see. The more they see the same suggestion from multiple sources the more they are likely to consider making the change. A group of enthusiasts could be invited by GW to sit on a panel for future product releases. This would benefit the company as their specially tooled customer driven product would drive sales and market share even higher.

Just saying...

- J

 Ailaros wrote:
Wow, there's a lot here. To start, I'd echo a few things being said.

Firstly, 40k does have a simple rules set. This may seem odd given the size of the rulebook, but it's about the rules you use and how often that's important. 40k is simple because if I said "this is a tac marine squad with a missile launcher", you know that it's 8 models with the same weapons and statline, one model that's the same except he's got a close combat weapon and bolt pistol and +1Ld, and another guy that's exactly the same, except he uses a missile launcher - a well-known weapon upgrade.

For example, I've played 1 on 1 games of 40k before with over 200 minis on the table between the two of us, and knocked it out in just a few hours. Imagine playing battletech with 200 mechs? Imagine playing Malifaux with 200 minis! You would literally die of old age before that game ended. Your children and their children would, by blood oath, be required to keep playing it until the game finally resolved itself at the prophesized end times of "The Great Game".

Secondly, I know that the OP wants to screen that out, and the kardashian comparison was hilarious, but the popularity of the game is something substantial, for two reasons. Firstly, as mentioned, what does it matter if you have a "better" game if you can't actually play it with anyone? The game you play is automatically better than the one you can't.

More importantly, the popularity is telling about the game itself. Yes, GW has better marketing, and has video games, etc., but still... I've been actively playing 40k for 6 years now. Six years ago I started a 40k guard army, and can walk into my local store on 40k night next monday and play it again. For however much people whine about how bad 40k's rules are, the simple fact is that 40k would have long ago disappeared if its rules weren't good enough.

During those 6 years, I've seen many games with "better" rules sets come by. Whether their rules sets were better or not, I can't say, but the simple fact is that everyone around here still plays 40k, and they don't play heroclix or At43 or battletech anymore. If the market decides what's good and what's bad, then the popularity of 40k compared to the death of virtually everything else (except warmahordes and to a lesser extend FoW), then, empirically, 40k is a better game. If it weren't, people would have moved on to something else, like they moved on from all those other games.

To get to 40k's rules more specifically (I can't say abything about WHFB), no, it's nowhere near a serious strategy game. Any game that relies so heavily on a random element can't be a serious strategy game. If you want that, play chess or Go. I'd note, though, that this applies to most games that you'd seriously be looking at, though. Malifaux still uses cards to see what happens, and there are a lot of other dice games out there.

And 40k itself has been slowly becoming less of a strategy game over time. In 5th ed, for example, you had set charge distances and no pre-measuring. This meant that if you had the player skill of distance estimation, you got into close combat, every time, and if you didn't have those skills, then maybe you did, but maybe you didn't. In 6th ed, you don't need estimation skills because you can pre-measure. Then they added in random charge range which means that it's lucky players that make it into close combat and unlucky ones who don't, regardless of player skill.

40k has always had terrible balance, but that hasn't really ever bugged me... until now. In earlier versions of 40k, if you brought a long-range shooting army, it was a real gamble. A short-range-shooty army would take more casualties than you early on, but then they'd do more damage than you when they arrived. Likewise, close combat armies would spend half the game doing no damage whatsoever, but did twice as much damage when you got there.

What makes a game interesting is when a player is offered lots of chances to make meaningful choices. In the case of gunlines, they throw most of those choices out for themselves. They don't really use the movement phase much (and then, only if they really have to), which causes you to lose out on choices made in the movement phase. Same about assault and close combat, etc.

And that might be annoying but fine, except for the way they've set things up, especially in 6th ed. Gunline armies are so imbalanced on the overpowered side that if you're wanting to play an interesting army in an interesting way where you get to/have to make a bunch of meaningful decisions, it doesn't matter, because you're just going to get tabled by a gunline. People playing the game in boring mode on a brain-dead difficulty mode winning isn't necessarily a problem (though it sort of is), but when people playing that game can comprehensively prevent you from being able to play the game in a more interesting way... that's a serious problem.

Then, to add the annoying insult to injury, as others mentioned, new rulebooks (or, to a slightly lesser extent, codices) and will completely change your army out from underneath you. Just ask all those players who played a trukk rush, or slugga tide, or kan swarm in 5th ed, only to find their armies unusable when 6th came out.

I can't say much on this kind of an issue with other games, but my guess is that they probably have this problem sooner or later, and that's why they collapse in on themselves. Once players figure out "the" way to win, then the challenge is gone, and people move on to something else. At least 40k's asymmetric codex and rulebook releases does keep that "discovery" phase in there a little bit.

And perhaps that kind of explains it. 40k may not have the best rules set, but, over time, it's the best you're going to get. Everything else may or may not be better, and once you figure it out, then there's not much more left to do but to move on to something else. Much less so with 40k.

Also, a couple of other things about 40k. Firstly, as others have mentioned, it's really important who you play against. In a game where you have basically no options (like chess, for example, where you don't get to pick which pieces you field), then it doesn't really matter what options your opponents pick. With 40k, though, it's strength of being so open-ended is also one of its potential deepest flaws. If you're playing against people who have taken certain units in certain combinations so that you're not really going to get to PLAY when you play a game of 40k, then, in a way, it's the other players' fault, not the game itself. As such, while you have a lot more potential people to play with, you've got to actually be choosy with who you play against.

The other main problem, I think, is that 40k games are too big. Yes, you CAN play 2000 point games. The game scales up to that level. That doesn't mean you SHOULD though. The game starts to become much more line-up-and-shoot with the more minis per square area you have. Apocalypse is 100% this way, but It's also true for 1850 point games as well. 40k may be able to scale up to huge games thanks to its simplicity, but the best games are at the skirmish level (which 40k actually does pretty well - other games are more complex, but 40k, being simple, can be played in a half hour or less at a 500 point level). Once you are restricted in points, you have to start making meaningful choices in list building, and you have to make meaningful choices in deployment and movement if you can't just spam HS slots and cover the table in gunfire. You have to make meaningful choices if you don't have the ability to both table your opponent and run for objectives at the same time.

With lower point games, you have more meaningful choices, which, as mentioned above, is what makes a game good. Huge battles of 40k look cool, but I don't think the game is as good at that level. And it didn't used to be so bad either. When I started playing guard in 4th ed, I think I literally only ever played 1000 point games. Or less. Back a scant few years ago, a 1250 point was considered a big game, and an 1850 point game was considered just silly.

Since then, there has been a lot of up-pressure to play larger and larger point games. In the meantime, codices have been coming out and making the models cheaper and cheaper (pointswise). I think players have been suckered into playing 40k the wrong way just so that they can put more minis on the table.

So... Are you saying 40k rules are good or gak?
You seem to be trying to say they are the best but have listed a ton of reasons why they're utterly rubbish.

 necrondog99 wrote:
What I am not hearing is a solution.

Who said there is a solution besides "play a different game"? The topic was "is it worth playing", not "how can we fix GW's mistakes".

This would benefit the company as their specially tooled customer driven product would drive sales and market share even higher.

There are a lot of things that GW would benefit from but will never do. This is one of them.

 necrondog99 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
define 'properly'.

Here's a good definition for this context: if the problems with competitive balance are because of choices that actually improve "casual" play, not the incompetent idiots GW hired to write their rules.

And judged by that standard 40k fails. It isn't a bad competitive game because it has design goals that conflict with being a good competitive game. 40k could easily be a better competitive game without sacrificing "casual" gaming. In fact, the changes that would make 40k a better competitive game would probably make it a better game for everyone else as well. The only reason we don't have a good competitive game is because GW has convinced people like you that it's somehow a good thing if they publish low-quality rules that only work if you have a "beer and pretzels" attitude.

What I am not hearing is a solution. We could invent our own rules, which would go nowhere because we are not GW. We could stop playing the game, but just like leaving the Republicrats and Democrins by going to a third party we would just shut ourselves from our gaming communities. People would still buy 40K. Or we could contact the company and request politely something you see in the computer industry... joint application design, where users work with developers to make a more palatable product. I use a DOD system regularly that has a "suggestion link" where users are invited to spam the developer with the changes they would like to see. The more they see the same suggestion from multiple sources the more they are likely to consider making the change. A group of enthusiasts could be invited by GW to sit on a panel for future product releases. This would benefit the company as their specially tooled customer driven product would drive sales and market share even higher.

Just saying...

- J

They have done this it was called BBRC. They spent years of there time for free creating the BBCRP, then GW laid a hot one on there chest.

jonolikespie wrote:So... Are you saying 40k rules are good or gak?.

Both, and it's that strange paradox that's causing people championing only one side or the other to sort of only see half of what's going on.

40k has a ton of soft stuff going for it (hobbying, backstory, etc.), but even if you disclude that for the moment, you're still left with, once you've done some reading, a very playable game. A playable game where lots of interesting things can happen. I just read the kings of war rulebook and while the rules are lightweight and simple... it seems like it would get boring kind of fast. There just isn't very much flesh on those bones. Not as many rules or options interacting with each other. 40k's complexity in this case is a huge strength, as it adds a lot of variability and depth.

And, at the same time, that same complexity in an open-ended system means that it's going to be pretty much impossible to balance or to make it all that serious of a game. It also means you have to rely on the players a LOT more to use, but not abuse that complexity. To be able to take anything you want and use it for the purpose of preventing people from playing what they want. From using complexity to shut down complexity.

40k is good because it has options. Lots and lots of options. Kings of War (at first glance, at least) seems to be those couple of units from one army against those couple of units from another army played over and over. When the players themselves use choices that reduce a 40k-deep-and-complex game to a kings of war level of depth, then there's no reason to have that extra complexity, if you're not going to use it. Not a point to having choices if you can only sort of make one decision.

But the thing is, 40k rules are good because they have that depth and complexity, but are bad because there's nothing in the rules to stop players from using that complexity to destroy what makes 40k good.

You have to do that on your own, in awkward "nah, I'm not going to play you" conversations, and doing things like trying to find people who play the game in the way you want it to be played.

Could 40k's rules be written in such a way that they give the complexity, but the rules prevent people from ruining it? Perhaps. That's not, for me at least, a reason to go find a game that doesn't have that kind of complexity in the first place. That doesn't even aspire, even if the end result is the pain of pretension.

If you break down the human population into three groups:
1. people who put up with it
2. people that bitch about it
3. people that act on it.

Then it is very obvious that the majority of these conversations take place between the first two types of people, because inherently the third type has already removed themself from the situation.

I cant help but see a whole forum of young brides, sold off before they fully understood their decision, all getting together to complain about their communal abusive husband.

Some are happy, cause its better than nothing; Some are saying he will get better, either by reminiscing of the good ol days, or by pointing out obvious areas for improvement; Some have endured past the stage of positive thinking and are threatening to leave; Some already have; and some on the outside are trying to help liberate others who are going through what they have already experienced.

They say a sucker is born every minute; At the end of the day, That is why GW continues to be successful: Moreso than any other mini-company they pander to the weak, ignorant, follower personality type. Its the reason the target audience is outcast preteen/teenagers who have no knowledge of other systems: "Hey little kid, i know in the real world you have no authority, get no respect, and have to borrow money from your parents to make purchases, but in our world you are a badass leader of this ultimate army!!..."

which sounds great to the beginner, but then the cruel reality sets in

"...The only catch is that the rules are so bad that they drive anyone but the fluff nuts away. However, there are TONS of socially awkward cultists who always seem to be trying to form a new gaming group, so you can try to fumble through a game with intentionally obtuse verbiage and little or no official rulings: That basically means the most stubborn person wins! Doesnt that sound like fun?"

Which brings us back to the beginning, where the gamer again considers their options:
1. put up with it
2. bitch about it
3. act on it.

 Ailaros wrote:
Not as much interacting with each other.

Are we still talking about 40k, the game where if you changed "roll to save" to be "roll to beat defense" (mathematically the same) you could just go do something else for half an hour while your opponent takes their turn?

And, at the same time, that same complexity in an open-ended system means that it's going to be pretty much impossible to balance or to make it all that serious of a game.

No it doesn't. It means that you have to have professional playtesting and game developers who take pride in their work. The only reason GW doesn't is because you're a typical customer with typical low standards.

40k is good because it has options. Lots and lots of options.

This is not true, because 40k doesn't provide meaningful options. It's like offering you three dinner choices: pizza, hamburger, or week-old roadkill. You really only have two options there, plus a waste of text. 40k is the same, the designers add tons of "options" that don't really exist because they don't bother to balance the game properly.

You have to do that on your own, in awkward "nah, I'm not going to play you" conversations, and doing things like trying to find people who play the game in the way you want it to be played.

So how exactly is having to have a "I won't play you if you take more than two Riptides" conversation better than simply making Riptides a 0-2 choice in the Tau army because any more is unbalanced and not fun? 40k's rules are garbage because they don't even try to do this, and leave it all up to the players.

Also, a game where you have theoretical "choices" that you can't use because of unwritten rules about what you're allowed to use if you want anyone to play with you is no better than a game where those choices don't exist at all.

Exactly, you can't blame the players if they aren't doing anything other than build a perfectly legal list.

WFB I think is the better game in terms of the experience it offers - certainly seems more balanced than it has been in the past, despite the introduction of far too many random elements which hamper the game.

As for 40k, I'll probably find myself playing a game every 6 months or so. Usually I'll have been drawn back into trying from reading a few BL books or delving into a box of minis and getting an army out. Halfway through the game, inbetween eye-rolls at the ludicrous amount of dice you have to roll and ridiculously abstracted, nonsensical rules (with different codecies sparring with each other, re-rolls against your re-rolls!), I'm thinking about other games to play - trying to avoid the temptation to sit there on my phone, which I always think as slightly rude despite the fact I've got to wait half an hour for my opponents turn to finish..

I understand it's very much a personal thing, and I've arrived at this point from playing the game so much over the years - you become less enamoured with the imagery involved (which would certainly hook in new players - I mean, how cool is a bunch of marines jumping out of a rhino to start machine-gunning stuff?) and more focused on the glaring abstractions in the rules, imbalances, and (perhaps again this is a personal thing) new miniatures that are making the tabletop start to look like something from the early learning centre with all of the big, chunky plastic (frequently unpainted) toys.

 Peregrine wrote:

40k is good because it has options. Lots and lots of options.

This is not true, because 40k doesn't provide meaningful options. It's like offering you three dinner choices: pizza, hamburger, or week-old roadkill. You really only have two options there, plus a waste of text. 40k is the same, the designers add tons of "options" that don't really exist because they don't bother to balance the game properly.

Have to admit that made me laugh..

 Phobos wrote:
What I mean, is to someone totally new to wargaming and has never played any system before, are the 2 GW systems worth playing in and of themselves? There are alot of competitive rule-sets out there these days. Kings of War, Dust Tactics, Bolt Action, Dropzone Commander, Flames of War, etc. What makes the GW systems better or worse?

Disregard costs associated with them. Assume all rulebooks and models are free. Ignore any extra-curricular activities by the company.

Further assume the person will never have to find a game (they have a constant supply of players), and does not care about tournaments.

So, are the 2 GW systems good enough to stand on their own?

I'd say YES, I've been around gaming since the 80's and GW is tried and true while so many others come and go and fail. Plus there are so many GW players out there it easy to have games. So many other companies look good, sound good, but then as you collect they go out of business.

This company has books novels, game books, miniatures that just get better and better, Games Days, Tournaments, painting competitions, GW Hobby Centers, Hotlines to ask any questions from rules to customer service to replace missing bits in kits. A company called Forge World makes some of the most beautiful kits that can be used in the games such as Titans, Drop Ships, beasties... it just goes on and on, pick your flavor and run with it!

Cheers!

 Kelly502 wrote:
This company has books novels, game books, miniatures that just get better and better

Which is a matter of opinion. IMO the miniatures get worse and worse (centurions, apocalypse, etc), and the rulebooks are just garbage. Meanwhile competing companies put out much better work for equal or less money.

Games Days

1) That's missing the point of this thread, which is about the game itself, not the stuff associated with it.

2) GW is doing their best to kill Games Day. Fewer of them, fewer interesting events at them, etc. Meanwhile countless general gaming/hobby conventions are a much more appealing option.

Tournaments

Again, killed off by GW*. All tournaments these days are run by third-party groups, which can run tournaments for other games just as well.

*Unless you live near GW HQ, in which case you can have the "privilege" of playing in some mediocre-at-best "tournaments".

GW Hobby Centers

Which are just independent game stores but with a much smaller range of products available and a ban on using anything in the store that isn't a GW game/model. If every single GW store disappeared overnight the miniatures hobby as a whole would benefit significantly.

Hotlines to ask any questions from rules to customer service

You mean the rule hotline that is notorious for having people who don't understand how the rules work and give you a different answer each time you ask?

to replace missing bits in kits.

Also known as "providing the minimum customer service as required by law". Fixing a defective product isn't something to be praised, it's just the bare minimum to avoid filing a fraud report and getting your credit card company to reverse the charge.

During those 6 years, I've seen many games with "better" rules sets come by. Whether their rules sets were better or not, I can't say, but the simple fact is that everyone around here still plays 40k, and they don't play heroclix or At43 or battletech anymore. If the market decides what's good and what's bad, then the popularity of 40k compared to the death of virtually everything else (except warmahordes and to a lesser extend FoW), then, empirically, 40k is a better game. If it weren't, people would have moved on to something else, like they moved on from all those other games.

I strongly disagree with this.

Survival does not mean that the GW games are superior to the ones that did not survive. What it means is that this company is better at exploiting the market than the companies running the other games.

For instance, BT, Heroclix etc are targeting the wargamer community for their sales. But 40k is targeting the vastly larger group known as "tweens", churning and burning through the money of rich parents who don't know any better.

So while a bunch of good games are splitting a tiny market between them and collapsing, GW isn't necessarily targetting that market at all, or is only doing so to support its main sales to children.

Not saying this is good or bad, just that its really not indicative of the quality of the respective games.