Is 40K or WHFB (both current) editions, a game worth playing on its own merits?

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.

**SoloFalcon1138**

Rainbow Dash wrote:
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Yes, GW games are worth playing "on [their] own merits." Are there rules challenges? Yes. Is it a trial and error procedure to build an army? Maybe. But what are you looking for, a game to play with others or an existential experience in absolute perfection?

GW's games are barely playable at times

For whom? I have never had a problem finding or playing a GW game. I'm in it for fun and tournaments when I can get to them. I think too many of you are trying to make it a philosophical exploration into perfection. Get a grip. If it's fun, what is the problem?

**jonolikespie**

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Rainbow Dash wrote:
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Yes, GW games are worth playing "on [their] own merits." Are there rules challenges? Yes. Is it a trial and error procedure to build an army? Maybe. But what are you looking for, a game to play with others or an existential experience in absolute perfection?

GW's games are barely playable at times

For whom?

That's not the most compelling argument Rainbow but SoloFalcon, you didn't answer my question about why anyone would play 40k over other games that have, at the very least, clearer rulesets.
I can't see any reason people would other than liking the fluff or the models or the ease of finding a game, which is not the point of this discussion.

**Rainbow Dash**

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Rainbow Dash wrote:
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Yes, GW games are worth playing "on [their] own merits." Are there rules challenges? Yes. Is it a trial and error procedure to build an army? Maybe. But what are you looking for, a game to play with others or an existential experience in absolute perfection?

GW's games are barely playable at times

For whom? I have never had a problem finding or playing a GW game. I'm in it for fun and tournaments when I can get to them. I think too many of you are trying to make it a philosophical exploration into perfection. Get a grip. If it's fun, what is the problem?

its not fun, hence why I said I didn't like the rules
I just want a game I enjoy the rules of, and I don't enjoy the current ruleset of either game

**Rayvon**

The level of anti GW angst in these threads always amuses me.
The games are worth playing to a lot of us, and some just don't seem to like that, we know there are loads of other games yet lots of people still choose GW games over them.

If you don't like it don't play it, I realise that its not for everyone and that's fair enough, I see crusading against it as quite pointless because those that are big fans wont care or listen anyway anyway.

**Peregrine**

xruslanx wrote:
By contrast our single childless 20-something with a full time low-paid job has £100 a week in disposable income. Sure not all of it is going on 40k, but if he sees some awesome new tank that's coming out at a hefty price-tag, he doesn't think "ah damn, going to have to wait for my birthday for that", he thinks "woah i can afford that on pay-day if I live off noodles for a week".

The difference is that the 20-something also has a lot of other things to spend their money on. GW is competing with going out with friends, airplane rentals, other games, etc, to get that $150/week. And the 20-something is probably more aware of their options and less willing to settle for second-best, so it's hard to get them to be that "buy everything" customer.

Little Timmy, on the other hand, just has to scream "MOMMY BUY SPACE MARINES NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" loud enough and out comes the credit card. They don't care about quality, they just want the box of space marines to wave around and make shooting noises. And who cares if Timmy drops the game after a purchase or two, little Billy will be coming in tomorrow to demand a box of space marines.

Ailaros wrote:
Parents look at children and think "Am I going to shell out a bunch of cash for something they might instantly loose interest in?"

Or they look at it as "for $50 I can get little Timmy to stop whining for a while", and little Timmy gets a box of space marines. The parents probably don't know anything about the game, they just know that little Timmy will be happy if he finds a box of it under the tree this year.

Yes, there are a lot of special rules, but there are UNIVERSAL special rules.

And lots of non-universal special rules. And stupid things like having USR X which gives you USR Y and Z, instead of just giving the unit Y and Z. Honestly, you should be very familiar with this problem since you spend so much time complaining about things like how Tau supposedly break all of the normal rules.

Also, as mentioned, compare 40k to old battletech, or some of the WWII simulator games or, classically, advanced squad leader. In 40k, I roll up a meltagun to the tank. I have BS4. I hit the tank on a die roll of 3+. Everyone knows this. I just roll a single die, and there you have it. In other games, you've got to spend twenty years looking up tables to see how far the unit moved, and over what kind of terrain, in what weather conditions, and how far from their commander they are, and what they had for breakfast that morning, and what their policy is towards allowing women to participate in military service, and what their favorite color is. And then, after all that calculating, then, perhaps, you'll get to roll a die, and see if you hit.

That's because those games are "simulation" games that aim to represent events as accurately as possible. Having complex rules is just the price you pay for that realism, and everyone involved knows and wants it. 40k's complexity, on the other hand, doesn't make it more realistic, it just makes it more complex. For example, the wound allocation rules are complex and frequently a pain to deal with (let's argue again about which model is 1mm closer!), but also incredibly stupid from a realism point of view. It's the worst of both worlds, you get the same realism and strategic depth of a simple game but all the tedious dice rolling and measuring and arguing of a simulation game.

If you want a good example of a simple game then look at X-Wing. The rules are simple enough to learn before you've even finished reading the introduction to the 40k rulebook, understanding your opponent's squadron takes a minute or two at most, no roll ever takes more than a few seconds to count dice for, and yet it still has lots of strategic depth.

... and I just want to play my game.

So why are you playing 40k, the game where you have to spend an hour negotiating what units you're allowed to use so you don't make your opponent unhappy? It's funny that you'd want to "just play my game" when you spend so much time complaining about how everyone else is TFG/"playing on easy mode"/etc.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
For whom?

Anyone with standards who has played other games and realized that GW is on the bottom end of gameplay quality. 40k's rules are the thing you suffer through because your models look awesome on the table, not an experience worth enjoying for their own sake.

**Rainbow Dash**

Rayvon wrote:
The level of anti GW angst in these threads always amuses me.
The games are worth playing to a lot of us, and some just don't seem to like that, we know there are loads of other games yet lots of people still choose GW games over them.

If you don't like it don't play it, I realise that its not for everyone and that's fair enough, I see crusading against it as quite pointless because those that are big fans wont care or listen anyway anyway.

and I don't understand why posts like this keep coming up, you are aware the thread will progress like this and yet you still feel the need to say this like, what do you expect people to just apologize to you, or GW?
Because to people like you, if I were to say; I quit GW games, then I simply have no opinion, and if I say, I do play them, then I seem to not to be allowed to say negative things- it becomes play or get out
when something sucks people are going to talk about it.
if the games/company were better, then they'd have a tad more praise now wouldn't they?

**Kilkrazy**

The point of the thread is to discuss the rules on their merits, mentioning factors that are good or bad, comparing them with other games, not whether people hate GW or not.

**Dakkamite**

Anyone with standards who has played other games and realized that GW is on the bottom end of gameplay quality. 40k's rules are the thing you suffer through because your models look awesome on the table, not an experience worth enjoying for their own sake.

Man that sums it up quite nicely.

I've been playing a few more competitive games lately and I really, thoroughly did not enjoy it.

**l000babyseals**

Peregrine wrote:
No, 40k is not worth playing on their own merits. Considered in isolation the rules are utter garbage. You have the core mechanics of a fantasy game from 30 years ago with a bunch of "updates" bolted on without ever reconsidering the basic structure of the game, so the whole thing is a clumsy mess. And these updates lack any clear vision of what the game is supposed to be, so you have the same 6th edition update adding detailed RPG-style rules about shooting casualties/challenges/specific types of power weapons/etc while simultaneously adding things like flyers that only belong in a much larger-scale game. Then once they assemble this awkward mess GW does not playtest professionally, so game balance is nonexistent (either within each army or army vs. army) and the "rules" require constant FAQing and arguments. The fact that they think they deserve $50-75 for such awful tree-wasting idiocy is just insult to injury.

There are only three reasons you would ever want to play 40k:

1) It's the most popular game in your area, and you'd rather play a bad game than have a great game collecting dust on your shelf with nobody to play it against.

2) You enjoy the fluff and/or models enough to buy them no matter what, and you just want some rules to occasionally push your cool models around a table and imagine a battle.

3) You're a masochist and whips and chains aren't giving you enough pain these days.

I don't play WHFB so I'm not entirely sure how much of that criticism applies, but I suspect there's a good reason it's so lacking in popularity compared to 40k.

Da Butcha wrote:
The game is intentionally simplistic, so it's fairly easy to learn how to play, and reasonably quick for someone to become conversant with the rules.

Simple compared to what, Star Fleet Battles? GW games* aren't even close to simple and easy to learn. Individual rules might be dumbed down past any point of sanity, but the whole awkward mess is a nightmare to learn. I mean, maybe you could play tactical squad (with no heavy weapons) vs. tactical squad pretty easily, but if you want to play even a casual 1500 point game you're going to spend weeks/months learning the game and even then you're probably going to constantly get rules wrong. Outside of the tiny minority that visits forums I'd say the vast majority of players are playing an approximation of a GW game at best.

If you want to see a simple game go look at X-wing. Simple enough that even non-gamers can learn the quickstart rules within 15 minutes, and the full rules are less than 30 small and picture-filled pages.

*GW core games, at least. Aeronautica Imperialis was a beautifully elegant game that generated complex strategy and decisions from very simple rules, but sadly it was abandoned to the same fate as the other specialist games.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

azreal13 wrote:
News flash, for all my criticism of GW, and belief that they could do things differently and still be successful, games that are run purely as games and not as a means to generate income from the player base are the reason there are so many games we used to play. What GW do is necessary for their continued existence and that of the game, they could just be more subtle about it.

Sure, game companies need to remember that they are for-profit businesses or die, but that doesn't excuse GW's decisions. MTG is a much better game than 40k (clear rules, vastly superior balance, etc) that is enjoyed as a game by everyone from casual "kitchen table" players to professionals playing for $50,000 cash prizes, and somehow WOTC is still making huge amounts of money off it.

As someone who plays MTG competitively, the game is not very balanced at all, especially if you play the most common format at Friday Night Magic where everyone has net decked the tier one decks in an attempt to grab a promo. The rules are not always clear, and things dont interact clearly most of the time especially when a new set is released. Unless its kitchen table, if you don't have the right cards or spend that $100 on four cards, and then god knows how much on the others, you're going to be in for a sad night.

Sure, 40k may have some rules that are utterly broken and GW Is slow to answer important questions on the FAQ, but its still fun to play even if you lose 75%of the time. I'd say its worth playing even with all the flak GW gets

**Rayvon**

Rainbow Dash wrote:

GW's games are barely playable at times

Whats this supposed to mean ?

My friends and I have been playing them just fine since about 1988.
There are a few bits here and there in the recent edition, that seem like they could be left out, but I dont recall ever having a problem playing any of the games tbh.

**Ailaros**

So, something else I find humorous is that, when describing how bad GW games are, they talk about lots and lots of other games that are better. There are whole fields of better games. Whole oceans. More better games than there are grains of sand on the beach.

... But I can't be bothered to name any of them. Or say when last I went into an FLGS and actually played any of them, much less a few weeks in a row.

But trust me. Millions and millions of better games out there. I can't be bothered to even talk about them, there are so many...

**heartserenade**

l000babyseals wrote:

As someone who plays MTG competitively, the game is not very balanced at all, especially if you play the most common format at Friday Night Magic where everyone has net decked the tier one decks in an attempt to grab a promo. The rules are not always clear, and things dont interact clearly most of the time especially when a new set is released. Unless its kitchen table, if you don't have the right cards or spend that $100 on four cards, and then god knows how much on the others, you're going to be in for a sad night.

Sure, 40k may have some rules that are utterly broken and GW Is slow to answer important questions on the FAQ, but its still fun to play even if you lose 75%of the time. I'd say its worth playing even with all the flak GW gets

How are the rules not always clear? Have you read the comprehensive rules, or does your FNM have an incompetent judge? And on some rare occurrence that a weird rules interaction pops up, once it is addressed it is errata-ed very quickly. I used to play MtG competitively and have been fairly successful at it (three top 8s, one of them getting me an invite to the Nationals), and never have I encountered a rules question that could not be answered by reading the comprehensive rules.

With regards to balance, it would depend on how you define balance. If you're going to follow perfect balance then yes, MtG is imbalanced. One definition of balance is that a balanced game doesn't mean that your chances of winning are the same as the other guy even though you brought a deck with one creature and 59 lands. I might be exaggerating a bit but for any game where you can choose the pieces you can play with, there will be subpar lists and optimal lists. That's like saying basketball in Olympics is imbalanced because European countries have taller players on average than us Filipinos.

I think the only game I have played where this is not present is Infinity (just to some extent. It's still possible to make a bad list but people are less likely to do that).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:
So, something else I find humorous is that, when describing how bad GW games are, they talk about lots and lots of other games that are better. There are whole fields of better games. Whole oceans. More better games than there are grains of sand on the beach.

... But I can't be bothered to name any of them. Or say when last I went into an FLGS and actually played any of them, much less a few weeks in a row.

But trust me. Millions and millions of better games out there. I can't be bothered to even talk about them, there are so many...

In case you haven't noticed, people have brought up Warmahordes, Malifaux, Infinity, MtG, Chess, Dust Tactics, X-Wing.

**Peregrine**

heartserenade wrote:
In case you haven't noticed, people have brought up Warmahordes, Malifaux, Infinity, MtG, Chess, Dust Tactics, X-Wing.

This. We've named games. I guess it's just easier to ignore it when people name alternatives and just attack your strawman.

**Deadnight**

Ailaros wrote:
So, something else I find humorous is that, when describing how bad GW games are, they talk about lots and lots of other games that are better. There are whole fields of better games. Whole oceans. More better games than there are grains of sand on the beach.

... But I can't be bothered to name any of them. Or say when last I went into an FLGS and actually played any of them, much less a few weeks in a row.

But trust me. Millions and millions of better games out there. I can't be bothered to even talk about them, there are so many...

Warmachine/hordes, infinity, dystopian wars, flames of war, firestorm armada, mailfaux.

I live in Scotland. I can get Non-40k and non-wfb for any of these other systems pretty much any night of the week. And the most is need to drive is about thirty minutes outside of the city

The idea that 'other games exist but no one plays them' is extremely short sighted. First thing I did when I moved to Edinburgh was find out what gets played where and all these games have a large following, alongside gws offerings.

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

Peregrine wrote:

... and I just want to play my game.

So why are you playing 40k, the game where you have to spend an hour negotiating what units you're allowed to use so you don't make your opponent unhappy? It's funny that you'd want to "just play my game" when you spend so much time complaining about how everyone else is TFG/"playing on easy mode"/etc.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
For whom?

Anyone with standards who has played other games and realized that GW is on the bottom end of gameplay quality. 40k's rules are the thing you suffer through because your models look awesome on the table, not an experience worth enjoying for their own sake.

Why are you bothering to argue, when all you have to make are such desperate points?

The majority of people here on dakkadakka play 40k regularly, have fun, even play competitively, perhaps get bugged by some issues. Unless you hang out with weirdos, hardly anyone spends hours arguing about what model to use. And, in fact, many gamers play several systems and enjoy 40k, as they do at our local club.

If you could make a nuanced argument it would help your point. But arguing that 40k has no merit whatsoever is a waste of our time - and yours. You might prefer Warmachine, that's your prerogative, but anyone who has even seen a game being played knows that it is not perfect either.. No single game is perfect, and to argue that those who choose another game are idiots is a judgement that simply rebounds on you.

**Peregrine**

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Why are you bothering to argue, when all you have to make are such desperate points?

Because they aren't desperate.

Unless you hang out with weirdos, hardly anyone spends hours arguing about what model to use.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the person I'm replying to there? Ailaros has a long history of complaining about what lists other people use. FW is "overpowered and WAAC", anyone who plays a gunline is playing on "easy mode", anyone who plays Tau and JSJs is a sociopath (and this was before the new codex!), etc. In his version of 40k you need to carefully negotiate what you want to use so you don't ruin his fun.

And, in fact, many gamers play several systems and enjoy 40k, as they do at our local club.

I'm sure there are lots of people who either enjoy the fluff/models enough to overlook the bad rules, or just don't have high standards for their games, and can enjoy playing 40k. I've even enjoyed playing it myself occasionally. But that doesn't mean it's a good game.

But arguing that 40k has no merit whatsoever is a waste of our time - and yours.

Sorry, but it has no merit. We're now 11 pages in and nobody has managed to come up with any reason why 40k's rules are good, beyond "I've played it and had fun". Which, by the way, is an absurdly low standard that pretty much any game can meet, even that embarrassing one you made one evening when you were 15 years old.

No single game is perfect, and to argue that those who choose another game are idiots is a judgement that simply rebounds on you.

Nice straw man there. Nobody is arguing that another game is perfect, just that 40k falls well short of the standards for quality established by other games.

**Shandara**

Is there some sort of International Wargame Rules Committee that sets the standard for how 'good' rules must be?

Claiming that by any standard GW's rules are bad is quite silly, since everyone's standards differ.

I don't think anyone (I surely won't) will claim their rules are the paragon of balanced, well-written and clear rules, but they are perfectly useable.

**Peregrine**

Shandara wrote:
Is there some sort of International Wargame Rules Committee that sets the standard for how 'good' rules must be?

No, but I think the complete absence so far of any reason why GW's rules rise above "adequate", and many arguments for why they're flawed, is a pretty clear sign that they're not very good.

Claiming that by any standard GW's rules are bad is quite silly, since everyone's standards differ.

Ok, fine. By what standard are they better than adequate?

I don't think anyone (I surely won't) will claim their rules are the paragon of balanced, well-written and clear rules, but they are perfectly useable.

Any system of rules is useable if you're willing to house rule answers to any problems that come up. "Well, I successfully played a game and had some fun" is about as relevant a standard as claiming that a restaurant is good because you ate there once and didn't die of food poisoning.

**heartserenade**

Shandara wrote:
Claiming that by any standard GW's rules are bad is quite silly, since everyone's standards differ.

By that logic, no one can claim if anyone/anything is pretty or ugly, any song/movie/whatever is good or bad without being "silly". Because everyone's standards differ, obviously.

Oh, your paintjob looks like a 4 year old painted it? Everyone's standards differ so it's okay! it's surely in league with a Golden Daemon winner because to some people standards, that Golden Daemon painter's technique is bad!

See how it becomes actually silly if we follow that line of thinking?

This is a forum. We discuss things in forums. Calling discussions on forum "silly" is a bit weird, in my opinion, specially if you're participating on said forum.

**Shandara**

Yet, it is claimed the rules are rubbish. I can claim they aren't.
Both are not useful points in a discussion.

You can discuss the actual rules that are badly written, don't work or are unbalanced.

If you consider that, the vast majority of GW's rules work properly. By that standard I say they are average enough.

**Lanrak**

@Shandara.
Ok here is an objective method of assessing rule sets under comparison.

The rules are simply viewed as instructions to play the game.
The depth of game play sets the base amount of instructions required.

We are all familiar with the amount of game play 40k has.(In game decision making, player interaction etc.)

So we can compare the amount of instructions ,(level of complication,) and clarity of instruction,(how many rules queries, length of time to learn the rules.) Across games systems with similar or more complex game play.

As 40k and WHFB are found to be inferior on these criteria compared to several popular games that are currently available.

This does NOT mean that you can not play the game, or you can not have fun.

BUT the 40k/WHFB rules are OBJECTIVELY inferior to all the other top 10 rules sets currently available from other companies .

Now if the largest company that has the highest level of gross profit margin . Has not managed to get rule set beyond 'only functional with lots of effort from the players.'

Then it MAY be subjectively called 'rubbish.'(Probably following a subjective opinion calling it good.)

Or objectively called rubbish if you range the top ten games as 'rubbish, sub-standard, poor, adequate,average, above average, good , very good , excellent , Exquisite.

)

40k/WHFB can be proven to be inferior to other rule sets ,using OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT.

The only DEFENCE so far for 40k has been SUBJECTIVE opinion.

IGNORING all the other factors other than the rules as written. 40k and WHFB are NOT worth playing purely from a rules perspective.

Are we going to get another round of subjective opinions ignoring the OP statement?
Or are we done now?

**heartserenade**

Shandara wrote:
Yet, it is claimed the rules are rubbish. I can claim they aren't.
Both are not useful points in a discussion.

But just claiming something doesn't make it necessarily true. This is why the others provide evidence and reasoning to support their side.

So far what you have provided is that "everything is subjective". That doesn't really support anything, does it?

You can discuss the actual rules that are badly written, don't work or are unbalanced.

If you consider that, the vast majority of GW's rules work properly. By that standard I say they are average enough.

Wait what? So for something to not be considered rubbish, it only need the majority of the time to work for it to be not rubbish? That's like saying your car works 80% of the time. That's still a rubbish car if you can't use it for the other 20%.

**Shandara**

Unlike cars, wargame rules don't all stop working if some parts don't work. Heck even cars will run even if the lights don't work or the rear doors won't open.

I don't think 20% of GW's rules are broken beyond repair, surely not any core parts.

I'm not saying they are brilliant or perfect, merely functional.

**xruslanx**

heartserenade wrote:

Not irrefutable evidence, but tons of little evidence pointing in the same direction could lead you to a pretty good conclusion, you know?

Well I've debunked both that you've cited so far. Is there any more that you'd like to display?

You've stated that GW games are targeted at adults, and yet you haven't' provided irrefutable evidence yourself. At least we provided evidence. Perhaps you should try that sometime instead of just claiming something without evidence to back you up.

Please provide evidence to prove your claim, otherwise you're just spewing an opinion based on your perception, not a fact.

I feel like I shouldn't have to prove why such an expensive hobby is aimed at adults rather than children.I can't prove that Faberge eggs are aimed at adults, I can't prove that the Bible is aimed at Christians.

But, y'know. Common sense. Children simply don't have as much money as adults.

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

Lanrak wrote:
@Shandara.

BUT the 40k/WHFB rules are OBJECTIVELY inferior to all the other top 10 rules sets currently available from other companies .

No
40k/WHFB can be proven to be inferior to other rule sets ,using OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT.

The only DEFENCE so far for 40k has been SUBJECTIVE opinion.

IGNORING all the other factors other than the rules as written. 40k and WHFB are NOT worth playing purely from a rules perspective.

Are we going to get another round of subjective opinions ignoring the OP statement?
Or are we done now?

Ah, beautiful. Putting a word in capitals makes it objective! I commend you on your sutble command of rhetoric.

It's a little bit like when English people can't speak a foreign language, so they simply shout at the foreigners and get annoyed that they don't understand.

Objectively - which means, judged by disinterested criteria - it seems 40k is an adequate or better ruleset, according to Dakka's current poll.. Unfortunately none of the options is in capital letters.

**heartserenade**

xruslanx 550170 6074731 wrote:
Well I've debunked both that you've cited so far. Is there any more that you'd like to display?

How is that "debunking", pray tell? do you have any sources that will claim that GW has changed its target market since the 90s? just saying the commercials are old doesn't mean you've debunked them, you just merely pointed out that the commercials are old.

You've also provided what, anecdotal evidence based on your experiences. I'm sure that's prime evidence right then and there.

I feel like I shouldn't have to prove why such an expensive hobby is aimed at adults rather than children.

Disregarding the fact that you can totally prove that the Bible is for Christians, that's either lazy, incompetent, or dishonest. Asking others for evidence and not providing your own for your own statement? Doesn't that sound fishy?

But, y'know. Common sense. Children simply don't have as much money as adults.

Common sense would also dictate that a statement like this:

"Demographic Criteria: At least 500,000 total population within 10 miles with 33,000+ 14- to 24-year-old males. Median household income is at least $50,000."

you, know, an age demographic that clearly shows teens in their target demographic, I dunno, maybe they're targeted at teens? Maybe I'm just crazy.

**Lanrak**

I can assure you a child can spend more of their parents money, on their toys, than the adults get to spend on themselves.

But the discussion is not about the players of the games realy is it?
This is just a ploy to detract from the fact that Games Workshop plc stopped caring about game play a long time ago.
And are now simply '..in the business of selling toy soldiers to children..'
(Unless you want to claim that GW plc's OWN C.E.O has no influence on company directions and focus?

)

Can anyone find an objective reason* to use GWs 40k/WHFB rules to play games with , in preference to other rule sets?

(NOT using popularity/availability or art/style/background etc.For reasons outlined in the original post.)

**xruslanx**

heartserenade wrote:
xruslanx 550170 6074731 wrote:
Well I've debunked both that you've cited so far. Is there any more that you'd like to display?

How is that "debunking", pray tell? do you have any sources that will claim that GW has changed its target market since the 90s? just saying the commercials are old doesn't mean you've debunked them, you just merely pointed out that the commercials are old.

Well maybe if it was an advert for GW, sure. Not an advert for a single store in the USA. Clearly, that evidence is useless, yes?

Disregarding the fact that you can totally prove that the Bible is for Christians, that's either lazy, incompetent, or dishonest. Asking others for evidence and not providing your own for your own statement? Doesn't that sound fishy?

I can see where this is going to go. You are going to continue "demanding evidence" for something that you know full well I don't have. No, I can't prove that adults are the guys spending huge amounts of money. Top job old fella.

As I say, I also cannot prove that diamond encrusted rings are bought by adults. Also unlike you I accept that *I* do not have hard evidence to back up what I am saying. You just keep repeating that you have all this evidence, then refusing to show me.

Common sense would also dictate that a statement like this:

"Demographic Criteria: At least 500,000 total population within 10 miles with 33,000+ 14- to 24-year-old males. Median household income is at least $50,000."

you, know, an age demographic that clearly shows teens in their target demographic, I dunno, maybe they're targeted at teens? Maybe I'm just crazy.

Did you not see my earlier post or something? For that to be valid evidence you'd need to prove that a majority of GW's sales are in their stores (this despite there being swathes of new releases that are not even available in stores).

It also ignores pre-existing stores, battle bunkers and suchlike. Just because a company is *expanding* in a certain area it doesn't mean that makes up its core market, it means the opposite - GW want to build stores near kids because all the adults around will already be ordering off the internet anyway.

So yes, that "evidence" is debunked.

Let's try to use common sense again. Just look at the new codexes. Look at what you get for £30. Clearly most parents would struggle to justify spending that on a relatively small book, whereas any young adult with a disposable income could get one at the drop of a hat.

**jonolikespie**

xruslanx wrote:
heartserenade wrote:Please provide evidence to prove your claim, otherwise you're just spewing an opinion based on your perception, not a fact.

I feel like I shouldn't have to prove why such an expensive hobby is aimed at adults rather than children.I can't prove that Faberge eggs are aimed at adults, I can't prove that the Bible is aimed at Christians.

But, y'know. Common sense. Children simply don't have as much money as adults.

Tom Kirby, Chairman and CEO of GW, has literally said in investors reports that GW are in the business of selling toys to children.

Why is this still a discussion? Yes it makes sense for them to market to adults but the only evidence put forward so far in this thread is that they have made TV ads aimed at children (and their parents).

**Compel**

Examples of 40k rules being terrible, listing them just off the top of my head.

1) The entire ruleset for the Fortress of Redemption. Line of Sight gun rules, I have friends insisting the Walkway doesn't exist for it.. What's a valid firepoint?

2) Landing Pad rules. I see no rules reason (other than not wanting to be an jerk), to stop someone fielding mortar squads underneath the pad, and sticking a Baneblade on top of it.

3) Terrain set-up rules. You find out what deployment type, what table half you're on, you set up fortifications, THEN terrain? That's just truly horrible, even if you aren't using the 'alternating' terrain rules. - And if you are, you then have to deal with the problem of your opponent inevitably sticking a clifftop in front of your bastion. Because that makes sense.

4) Someone mentioned this earlier. "Zealot" confers both the "Fearless" and "Hatred" special rules. That's just bad rules writing, plain and simple. An argument could be made that 'slow and purposeful' is quite a mess as well.

5) The barrage rules are another example of horrible rules writing. Let's combine both positive and negative phrasing to make the most convoluted rule possible.

6) Rushed print runs of rules resulting in incredibly stupid errors, which have to be FAQ'ed. Examples: Chaos Codex helbrutes, Dark Angels Codex ravenwing and veterans, Tau codex missile drones and possibly the Eldar codex with the shadow weaver?

7) And, the opposite of (6), very badly thought out FAQ rules changes / 'clarifications', that end up either changing the nature of the game (The Heldrake 360 arc baleflamer) or making certain units almost entirely useless (removing 'lumbering behemoth' and replacing it with 'heavy' ends up being the deathknell for most Leman Russ variant builds.)

8) Making models and forgetting about how their own rules work. EG, Eldar Wraithknight. Lets give it up to 4 guns, put them on the cover of the box. Oh wait, we forgot they can only fire 2 and it's not like they get weapons destroyed results. Lets give the option to give it a sword that adds to its strength, oh wait, we forgot it is already at max strength... See also Grey Knights Dreadknights for similar mistakes.

9) I'd really want to put down Chaos Demons random rolls on top of random rolls on top of random rolls. But, that's probably far too subjectivee.

10) Apocalypse. "I know, lets make the main mechanic for games of Apocalypse revolve around our players getting fed up of playing Apocalypse and wanting a break from it..."

And that, is pretty much 10 reasons, listed straight off the top of my head about how 40k's terrible rules and therefore, I submit m'lud, not worth playing on its own merits.

Whereas, comparing it to the main game I'm playing right now, Dreadball, there has been about 4 'bad rules' found since release last year, which has been tested and fixed by the designer in a published form within a matter of months that they've been discovered.