Switch Theme:

How much do you enjoy the 40k ruleset?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
How much do you enjoy the 40k ruleset?
Massively! It's the greatest ruleset ever made.
A lot. It's a good ruleset, but not perfect.
Not really
Not at all

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




xruslanx wrote:
At this point the argument has simply become "I say 40k is bad because I have played more games than you". If you can't critisise the 40k ruleset outside of picking apart a couple of minor rules inconsistencies, then your argument isn't of much use to the overwealming majority of players who have no interest in other rules systems.


its more than a "couple" of "minor rules inconsistencies", my good man. stop trying to magically hand wave things away. face facts instead of this wilful, deliberate ignorance. as to the "overwhelming majority" of players with no interest in other rules systems, can you back this up please? where is your data? because all i've seen back home in ireland, or over here in scotland is those very players and their surging interest in warmachine/hordes especially, but also malifaux, infinity, flames of war, dystopian wars, dropzone commander etc.

xruslanx wrote:
True. If other people would prefer 40k be like non-40k, that's fine. But then, that wouldn't be 40k. But if I and a huge number of people enjoy 40k - more than any number of people enjoy any other tabletop game - then to insist that the 40k ruleset is poor, badly written or unprofessional could be said to be untrue. It is simply different to what other people like.

No, not really. You’re making an extremely poor argument.
Firstly, Popularity does not necessarily equal quality. Otherwise bands like one direction would be the greatest bands ever.
Saying “because a lot of people enjoy the game, so therefore anyone saying the ruleset is poor, badly written and unprofessional is wrong” is being extremely intellectually dishonest. One does not link to the other. Or how do you explain the 12page thread, 10page thread, and 4page thread here in which we’ve been involved where people have amply demonstrated GWs rules bloat, GW rules excess, GWs poor quality control, GWs poor proofreading, and GWs poor balance. Do you just stick your head in the sand and ignore it? How do you react when people, coming from a knowledge base of playing multiple games come in and show how other companies do things, but do things better?
Also, its intellectually dishonest to equate ‘better, tighter rules’ with 40k somehow not being 40k. So long as it has space marines, chaos, orks, tyranids and the imperium of man, beset on all sides by its foes, its 40k. game mechanics are nothing more than an abstraction – they are not an ‘identity’. 40k has gone through six iterations of its rules – of which 1st ed, 2nd ed and 3rd ed and onwards all are significantly different. And yet all are still uniquely 40k. You can represent 40k in many, myriad ways, through many different mediums, and its still 40k. And GWs game mechanics have frequently been shown to be lacking.
I play other games. Back in the day, I got into Andy Chambers’ Starship Troopers – fantastic game, despite some flaws, but it was clever, and years ahead of its time in many ways. And this is what Andy had wanted 40k 4th edition to be, before he left the company. And I looked at Starship Troopers, and the inherent genius (and I don’t use that lightly!) of its gameplay, and I looked at what GW had released as 4th ed 40k. And I was sad. I was genuinely thinking – “this is what 40k could have been!” It would have been so much better.
It’s the same with another game I’ve started playing recently – flames of war. It’s a small scale ww2 game designed by a few ex-GW designers (iirc). Again, I play that game, and as I move my infantry platoon stands around, and whole platoons of tanks and I am genuinely thinking every time I do – “this is what 40k could have been”. The scale is perfect. The mechanics are great. You genuinely feel like you are moving a large army around the place. Tactics and strategy feel more real. They have so many interesting, and well thought through game mechanics. It’s a joy to play. I got a friend into it, and as he’s described it – its ruined wargaming for him, as he sees it as his perfect game. he used to be a big 40k gamer (orks and tau) but now cant even look at it.
xruslanx wrote:
As someone who has actively followed alt 40k rulesets, I have seen some alternatives. Usually over-hauls are pretty crappy but more often than not there's a few good ideas sprinkled in.

Have you ever read about, or tried to follow alternative, non-40k rules sets?


xruslanx wrote:
I can happily discuss the 40k ruleset objectively so long as it isn't simply a list of minor rules problems blown out of all proportions by the internet hate machine, sure.

If that’s your position, you should then start trying to discuss it objectively. Without caveats. Im sorry, but you can’t objectively discuss the rules set without also listing its faults – that’s part of an objective discussion. And you have to have standards in this – GW games cannot simply stand on their own, with no other comparisons allowed. Face it – GW is merely one horse in a large stable. If you want to discuss their rules objectively, you have to allow for direct comparisons between it, and other companies’ products.
But lets step aside from rules problems.
How do you feel about the rules excess present in Gw games? How do you feel about the rules bloat? I posted this earlier and you avoided it.
Deadnight wrote:
xruslanx wrote:
 jonolikespie wrote:
Ok I am going to take off my bitter-(not very)old-veteran hat for a minute and ask the people in this thread, what do you actually like about the rules?

Speaking for myself here, what I like about the rules is the easy interaction between the fluff and the ruleset. If the designers want to impliment something because they think it's cool, they don't have to use the existing mechanisms in the ruleset, they can just stick it in. I will give some examples of this since that won't much much sense on its own.
The old demon codex was full of special rules that were simply tacked on by the designers with no existing mechanisms used at all. The Changling for example, could simply select an enemy model, make it perform a Ld check, and if it failed then you'd get to shoot it that turn. It could well have been broken or usable, since within the game-rules that that special rule utilises, there is complexity, and there could be problems with the way the Changeling's rule interacts with existing shooting rules. But so what? It's an awesome special rule and it's fluffy as hell.
Or Fateweaver's ability to give anyone with 6" a re-roll to any armour/invul/cover save they could take. Potentially game-breaking but fluffy and cool.
Or GK's Warp Storm. Against the old demon codex it practically broke them, yet still fluffy and cool.
A "tighter" ruleset just sounds boring to me. It would essentially mean that anything actually *new* would be impossible, everything would have to be created from pre-existing methods.

The fact that thy do this in warmachine/hordes too makes a mockery of this argument. Take epic butcher, Magnus or Caine as examples. In each case, their fluff matches their in game rules. In butchers case, he even has a unique rule called homicidal maniac, his berzerker nature, where he goes into a killing spree, the mechanisms by which he literally kills everything around him, heedless of whether he kills friend or foe is represented perfectly within his rules, the fact that his rage ebbs and flows, and fuels his sorcery, and his extremely unstable nature is represented by his random focus generation, his rage is literally transferred to the war jacks under his command as thy become more aggressive by default. Even if you look at his feat, where his rage literally boils over and infects his whole army is excellently done. Read his fluff. Look at his rules. Play a game with him. Now go back and repear. That is epic Butcher on the table top. Rendered down to a t. he is a perfect table top incarnation of his own fluff.
Look at Magnus. His crushed leg held together by a brace - low speed and def. look at his special rules - backstabbing, feign death and resourceful - all perfectly within character. Look at his spell list - representing a former cygnar affiliation along with more from being on the run since.
Look at Caine. Look at his feat. Try and tell me it's not cool and flavourful.
And yet this is all in a game famous for its extremely tight rues set and balance. Which puts a mockery to the claim that 40k is somehow better, despite all its faults, because it allows the background to be represented on the table top.
xruslanx wrote:. What is your actual point? Could you demonstrate how you think the 40k ruleset is poor beyond things being under-over costed?

40k suffers from bloat, and from needless excess layers of rules, excess die rolls and other aspects that essentially add nothing but clutter. clutter is bad. Sure, you can work around it, and still have fun with friends, but ask yourself this - are you having fun because of the rules, or in spite of them.
I'll give you a few examples.
Excess rules. Bloat, essentially. and more crucially, bloat that does not add to the game. Take the simple example of movement. You have the basic movement rules for infantry for example, and then all the exceptions. Jump packs and their jet pack exceptions, bikes and their jet bikes exceptions, cavalry, vehicles, and their fast vehicle exceptions, fliers, walkers, monstrous creatures etc. now why does 40k need all these extra movement classifications to add a pseudo-depth to the game when others like Warmachine pull it off with a variable movement stat (infantry move 5-7, cavalry move 7-9 etc). Rules exist that tell you how to do things, except for everything else that does it some other way how about needless rules - like how 5th ed marines could simply ignore the whole part of the rule book about morale?
How about we talk about Excess die rolls. Roll to hit, wound, armour save, fnp. The latter three essentially deal with the same question (does the shot that hit me kill me?) other games like infinity and warmachine (and even dnd!) use 2. Wmh - roll to hit, roll to damage. Infinity - roll to hit, and roll to save against the power of what hit you. Simple, elegant, and streamlined. 40k is excessive for the sake of it and adds nothing except time, and the mistaken belief that more dice is more depth.
Further excess - vehicles and infantry use different mechanics. One uses wounds the other armour. Historically, vehicles were an add on to a fantasy game, but GW as stuck with this awkward dual system ever since. Other games use a universal inflict damage system, and use universal 'wound' mechanics, with vehicles simply having more, or else having damage effects marked differently - look at warjacks and infantry in warmahordes - same universal system is at the core of both. Look at Infinity. Its TAGs (mechs) use the same hit, and save mechanics, but have structure points instead of hit points (note: this was before 6th ed 40k’s hull points!) and can take EMP damage.
Further excess and layers of extra game mechanics - try strength and AP in guns. You use the AP to determine if you get through infantry armour (strength doesn’t really get used) and you use strength to determine if you get through vehicle armour (AP doesn’t really get used). Why? Its all armour! One would assume if it can get through inch-thick armour on a tank, it can get through inch-thick armour on a trooper. It's pseudo-depth. Why? What does it add? Surely it makes sense to use the one system? For me it achieves nothing but dissociation from the game when I realise a str10 ap5 gun will in all likelyhood pulp a land rider, predator tank, and most apc's in the game, but will bounce off a grot with power armour.
Cover- terrible mechanic with the alternative save. A marine with power armour in 6+ cover could take a cover save against a lasgun, and fail, and die in the game- somehow he loses his power armour because he ducked behind a tree.ok.... Surely a guy in power armour and cover should gain more of it than this?! Do lasguns ignore cover, somehow? But you use one or the other when common sense would tell you it's more than the sum of its parts (a marine in cover gets combined protection from both his armour, and the cover he’s using – its silly to assume he only gets one or the other) . Other games with cover have various mechanics that treat cover as increasing the difficulty to hit you (warmachine, hordes, early 40k editions) or offer superior protection via positive armour save mods (starship troopers) . Some like infinity do both. But 40ks system is nonsensical, and poorly taught through.
Now on top of this, consider the fact there is no higher direction as to what 40k actually is. This is crucial. Games need direction. Games need a purpose. Infinity is an infantry based small scale sci fi skirmish game with a huge emphasis on guns. Warmachine is a small scale skirmidh game that is character driven, melee centric and designed for competitive play, with a huge dose of hero hammer. There is direction, and purpose and so, a game can be structured around that purpose. But 40k? Is it about shooting? Then why are so many armies and so many rules all about cc? Is it a skirmish game? You can do it that way but... Is it a mass battle game? You can do it but... Is it about infantry? Well, yes except for all the tanks. So it's about armour? No, not quite... Is is about competitive games? No, but it can be. You see, 40k is a mess of design ethos. It can best be described as 'a user defined sandbox' in that it tries to allow itself to be a game open to all, but this clear lack of focus is also a glaring weakness. 40k tries to be a mass battle game in terms of numbers and pieces fielded, and yet it insists on using an individual model based micro management system far more appropriate to a skirmish game. It ends up being messy on all levels.
I'll be honest - I don't enjoy the 40k rules set. It is a thirty year old relic. In evolutionary terms, it's a dinosaur. It simply has not keep with the times. Game design theory is actually something I'm quite interested in, and it has moved on significantly from those days in the early 80s when 40k was ported over from fantasy as their '... But in space' game. I'd like to enjoy 40k again - I really would! I went through my bits box organising things and found a whole bunch of unassembled marines. I'm very tempted to do a marine project, of some kind. The sad fact is whatever the project evolves into, it won't be done using the rues set from 40k.b

   
Made in us
Sslimey Sslyth




xruslanx wrote:
 heartserenade wrote:
Genuinely curious at the OP: have you ever tried playing any other game before?

No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong. Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?


You know, I'm beginning to think you must have studied logical debate because you use so many of the fallacies with such amazing expertise.

You're really comparing playing multiple gaming systems to having sex with non-humans? Seriously?

There's really no use in talking to you on this subject. You're not interested in having a meaningful discussion. Talking to you about the shortcomings of GW's rules is like talking to L. Ron Hubbard about the shortcomings of Scientology.
   
Made in gb
Infiltrating Broodlord






Deadnight wrote:
xruslanx wrote:
At this point the argument has simply become "I say 40k is bad because I have played more games than you". If you can't critisise the 40k ruleset outside of picking apart a couple of minor rules inconsistencies, then your argument isn't of much use to the overwealming majority of players who have no interest in other rules systems.


its more than a "couple" of "minor rules inconsistencies", my good man. stop trying to magically hand wave things away. face facts instead of this wilful, deliberate ignorance.

xruslanx wrote:
True. If other people would prefer 40k be like non-40k, that's fine. But then, that wouldn't be 40k. But if I and a huge number of people enjoy 40k - more than any number of people enjoy any other tabletop game - then to insist that the 40k ruleset is poor, badly written or unprofessional could be said to be untrue. It is simply different to what other people like.

No, not really. You’re making an extremely poor argument.



you might be absolutely right. If you stopped lecturing people about how they should enjoy themselves, then people might be able to appreciate your argument.

In fact, very few of your arguments seem to be about enjoyment- it's more about putting other people down. AS it is, it's an undeniable fact that more people play 40k than its competitors, so you'd be better off acknowledging that fact, getting off your pulpit, and reasoning rather than shouting.

   
Made in ph
Utilizing Careful Highlighting





Manila, Philippines

It's undeniable, yes but also largely irrelevant if you're talking about the quality of the rules. Deadnight has already addressed this: just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. Why is Justin Bieber still popular, then?

Popularity does not mean quality, so discussing what game has a bigger following when you're talking about the rules is really not relevant.


 
   
Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
AS it is, it's an undeniable fact that more people play 40k than its competitors, so you'd be better off acknowledging that fact, getting off your pulpit, and reasoning rather than shouting.


Sure, though not hard to understand, as its one of the longer running wargames designed.

However, as long as you understand that the market share (and easily extrapolated to the playerbase) is growing leaps and bounds for several other wargames. 40k may currently have more players, but its no longer the monopoly it used to be.

And its fairly obvious the many reasons behind this significant migration from 40k. Prices, game balance (codices being either overpowered or underpowered), and the rules being shoddy compared to many competitors.

But this argument doesn't have that much of a bearing on the quality of 40k's rules. 40k's popularity has little to do with the rules themselves, and is played in spite of the rules. The appeal is in its legacy, fluff, and models.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in us
Old Sourpuss






Lakewood, Ohio

I'm so glad I took OP off of ignore, we've been ehrensteined with his sex with non humans comment

DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+

Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics 
   
Made in gb
Gangly Grot Rebel



Scotland

I don't understand what game you guys are playing that has this wonderful ruleset? Could you tell me which one it is please? I've been trying to play the other table top wargames and I still have not found one that isn't rubbish compared to 40k.


I'm a god damned sexual Tyrannosaurus.
 
   
Made in us
Old Sourpuss






Lakewood, Ohio

jamin484 wrote:
I don't understand what game you guys are playing that has this wonderful ruleset?

Warmachine/Hordes, Malifaux, Infinity, Bolt Action, Brushfire, Flames of War, Endless Fantasy: Tactics, and X-Wing. And those are just the games that I personally play.

Could you tell me which one it is please? I've been trying to play the other table top wargames and I still have not found one that isn't rubbish compared to 40k.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours, what do you believe is so fantastic about the 40k rules that makes it a better game than all of its competitors?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/09/26 15:14:59


DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+

Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




jamin484 wrote:
I don't understand what game you guys are playing that has this wonderful ruleset? Could you tell me which one it is please?


ones. plural. Warmachine/Hordes (Khador and Circle), Infinity (Ariadna, and Yu-Jing), Flames of War (a friend's germans/brits, but i'll be buying into the japs when they're released), Dystopian Wars (prussians), and interested in Firestorm Armada (Dindrenzi, and allied fleets, especially the RSN and Hawker) and Dropzone Commander (shasvatii).

personal favourites are warmachine/hordes, infinity and flames of war.

jamin484 wrote:
I've been trying to play the other table top wargames and I still have not found one that isn't rubbish compared to 40k.


may i ask why you feel this way? What is it that 40k offers that the others fail at? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.
   
Made in gb
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






Deadnight wrote:
jamin484 wrote:
I don't understand what game you guys are playing that has this wonderful ruleset? Could you tell me which one it is please?


ones. plural. Warmachine/Hordes (Khador and Circle), Infinity (Ariadna, and Yu-Jing), Flames of War (a friend's germans/brits, but i'll be buying into the japs when they're released), Dystopian Wars (prussians), and interested in Firestorm Armada (Dindrenzi, and allied fleets, especially the RSN and Hawker) and Dropzone Commander (shasvatii).

personal favourites are warmachine/hordes, infinity and flames of war.

jamin484 wrote:
I've been trying to play the other table top wargames and I still have not found one that isn't rubbish compared to 40k.


may i ask why you feel this way? What is it that 40k offers that the others fail at? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.


 Alfndrate wrote:
jamin484 wrote:
I don't understand what game you guys are playing that has this wonderful ruleset?

Warmachine/Hordes, Malifaux, Infinity, Bolt Action, Brushfire, Flames of War, Endless Fantasy: Tactics, and X-Wing. And those are just the games that I personally play.

Could you tell me which one it is please? I've been trying to play the other table top wargames and I still have not found one that isn't rubbish compared to 40k.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours, what do you believe is so fantastic about the 40k rules that makes it a better game than all of its competitors?


Guys, you're wasting your time again.

From earlier in the thread:
jamin484 wrote:
I like it becasue it is better than all of the other table top games I play. kings of war, infinity warmachine/hoardes all rubbish. Nothing quite provides the variety, fluff, competitive games, tactics and lovely models that 40k does for me. Especially FW 40k.


Guy's made up his mind. No matter how wrong he actually is...


Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

I enjoy 6th edition 40k very much, actually. I just wish I could get more chances to play it.

DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Old Sourpuss






Lakewood, Ohio

Grimtuff wrote:From earlier in the thread:
jamin484 wrote:
I like it becasue it is better than all of the other table top games I play. kings of war, infinity warmachine/hoardes all rubbish. Nothing quite provides the variety, fluff, competitive games, tactics and lovely models that 40k does for me. Especially FW 40k.


Guy's made up his mind. No matter how wrong he actually is...

This sucks because, "variety, fluff, competitive games, and tactics and lovely models" have nothing to do with the rules of the game. I could adapt 40k to use the Bolt Action rules and have a better system and I'd have the same fluff, tactics, competitive game, and lovely models. Variety would take some work

kronk wrote:I enjoy 6th edition 40k very much, actually. I just wish I could get more chances to play it.

If you were closer to where I lived, I'd play with you.

DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+

Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

It's more that I don't have time right now. I'll be unpacking for the next month, then I'm scheduled to travel for work to get in time at the manufacturing plants before the Thanksgiving through New Years turn downs we typically have.

DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in ca
Confessor Of Sins





daisho wrote:
The rules are "ok", they could be really good if they would only make a core rule book and all army books at once - but GWS always makes new books choices stronger than before just for the sake of selling more stuff thus bringing inbalance _on purpose_, which is really the biggest downside of 40k.


"In accordance with the mating habits of the Vulcans, the most logical race in the galaxy, new rules and models will be permitted only once every seven years. For many of you, this will mean much less new rules and models. For me, much much more."

. . . I may have stayed up all night watching the Simpsons. But hopefully everyone got a laugh. : D
   
Made in gb
Gangly Grot Rebel



Scotland

Infinity is stupid, loads of my guys sit doing nothing (cheerleaders) so that one guy or squad of guys can run about doing everything. Some elements of the game are clever but it is ridiculous that you can spend as many actions on one guy as you want. I think it is probably better in a campaign as it stands I only tend to move one model - and I've won quite a few games with this approach. I like my volunteers with chainguns but they just sit and generate orders for my beatstick, which is pretty daft.
Warmachine is rubbish. Crap models, crap fluff stupid rules. Played a couple of games but couldn't get excited about it. The characters seemed to define what kind of army you took and if you could kill your enemies character you tended to win from what I saw. boring.
X wing is pretty good, but I'd not class it as a wargame as such.
I haven't tried bolt action or flames of war and I probably should.
Kings of war was terrible when I played it (a few years ago now). Still better than WHFB but terrible. Very limited units, stupid bounce after combat, and units don't take casualties. Mantic rule sets are awful

I am genuinely interested in playing other table top games and share many of your frustrations with 40k. I have even started developing my own fantasy type game. I have started doing this out of frustration with the rule sets which are available (both GW and other companies). I feel that you guys are looking at other game sets with rose tinited glasses in the same way as some others are still talking like 40k has no flaws.

What is making me enjoy 40k at the moment is the pace of codex releases, the supplements (great idea) and variety of armies that are being offered. The rules are fine. I would tweak some stuff sure but I'd tweak some stuff in almost every game I'd play.

I'm a god damned sexual Tyrannosaurus.
 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

jamin484 wrote:
The characters seemed to define what kind of army you took and if you could kill your enemies character you tended to win from what I saw.

That is the whole point of Warmachine, yes. The idea is that your choice of army commander really matters... But it also adds a whole truckload of variety to the game, because two otherwise identical forces play completely differently just by taking a different warcaster to lead them. And the fact that you have to weigh up just how personally involved you get your warcaster makes for some nail-biting moments, as opposed to 40K where your army's leader dies and everyone just says 'Meh, didn't like him anyway' and carries on with absolutely no issue whatsoever.


X wing is pretty good, but I'd not class it as a wargame as such.

What would you call it, then?

 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator





Southern Oregon

If you like 40k as a whole, then play. If you think its crap then don't play. Take the game as is, because you are not going to change anything by whining about the rules.

Chaos: 6500pts
Imperium: 2500pts
Orks: 1000pts
AoS Chaos 3000pts


 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






Peoria IL

Any game with 2++ rerollable saves, 50+ point terminators but 25 point honour guard, helldrakes, LoS! but challenges, and chaplains and Libbys at the same cost, 100 point TFCs, Initiative swaps first turn, random powers, and Doom has some serious rule issues (and those are just the ones that affect me... I know there are more)

Love the girl, but that doesn't mean she's always good to me.

DO:70S++G++M+B++I+Pw40k93/f#++D++++A++++/eWD-R++++T(D)DM+
Note: Records since 2010, lists kept current (W-D-L) Blue DP Crusade 126-11-6 Biel-Tan Aspect Waves 2-0-2 Looted Green Horde smash your face in 32-7-8 Broadside/Shield Drone/Kroot blitz goodness 23-3-4 Grey Hunters galore 17-5-5 Khan Bikes Win 63-1-1 Tanith with Pardus Armor 11-0-0 Crimson Tide 59-4-0 Green/Raven/Deathwing 18-0-0 Jumping GK force with Inq. 4-0-0 BTemplars w LRs 7-1-2 IH Legion with Automata 8-0-0 RG Legion w Adepticon medal 6-0-0 Primaris and Little Buddies 7-0-0

QM Templates here, HH army builder app for both v1 and v2
One Page 40k Ruleset for Game Beginners 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




West Browmich/Walsall West Midlands

i think Deadnight hit quite a few nails on the head in his posts but i'll add my critique to the fray.

Currently 40k is an 'ok' ruleset, and arguably the best background of any wargame. However the ruleset is begining to show its age, and is not helped by the semmingly sloppy attitude they take to writing the rules.

Now if the rules were written in the style that warmahordes uses the game would be far more enjoyable, simply becasue those rules are perfectly clear and leave little room for grey areas, those only tend to occur with unit abilites within a particualr army, partly because there are so many of them.

On another level the card system in warmahordes makes things far easier on the tabletop, people can ask to see that card of a unit for one reason or another, and you have all the rules of the unit at your finger tips without having to get a book out and flip through it to find the rule or whatever it is you are after. And it allows them to add new units to factions without having to do the entire army unlike GW.

those are just my few opinions

A humble member of the Warlords Of Walsall.

Warmahordes:

Cryx- epic filth

Khador: HERE'S BUTCHER!!!

GW: IG: ABG, Dark Eldar , Tau Black Templars.
 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






Peoria IL

Agreed on the unit cards. That or something like that would help. The other games I'm invested in are Axis and Allies miniatures (both the land and the sea edition), CAV, Hail Caesar, Mechwarrior, Crimson Skies, SFB and I can say that the games with seperate unit cards have much shorter rules questions. 40k rules are so poorly written that debating rules has become an expected social part of the game... During the game, which is hilarious/sad.

DO:70S++G++M+B++I+Pw40k93/f#++D++++A++++/eWD-R++++T(D)DM+
Note: Records since 2010, lists kept current (W-D-L) Blue DP Crusade 126-11-6 Biel-Tan Aspect Waves 2-0-2 Looted Green Horde smash your face in 32-7-8 Broadside/Shield Drone/Kroot blitz goodness 23-3-4 Grey Hunters galore 17-5-5 Khan Bikes Win 63-1-1 Tanith with Pardus Armor 11-0-0 Crimson Tide 59-4-0 Green/Raven/Deathwing 18-0-0 Jumping GK force with Inq. 4-0-0 BTemplars w LRs 7-1-2 IH Legion with Automata 8-0-0 RG Legion w Adepticon medal 6-0-0 Primaris and Little Buddies 7-0-0

QM Templates here, HH army builder app for both v1 and v2
One Page 40k Ruleset for Game Beginners 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





USA

I've played Warmachine, Flames of War, and a couple different historical rule sets, all of which had shortcomings. But when I read through the rules for 40k, I find it's almost the opposite; more instances of "Wait...what?" than "Oh ok, that's clearly defined.". With Warmachine (I haven't played MK2) I wasn't confused about the rules, they're simple enough to where you can jump right into a game and have a blast.

Flames of War? If there was a competition for rule sets that make you want to punch infants, 40k and FoW would be damn close to tied. Granted FoW has a rule for EVERYTHING, so FAQ's aren't needed to make a game playable, but at the same time there are rules that make no sense (Bailed Out anyone?). But again, there's a rule for everything so you never run into issues like in 40k where there are blatant conflictions between special/regular rules. I still love me some 40k though.

As for enjoying the ruleset, I don't think anyone actually does, I think people like the GAME of 40k which involves more than a series of poorly written codex's and overpriced rule books.

Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points) 
   
Made in gb
Gangly Grot Rebel



Scotland

 insaniak wrote:
jamin484 wrote:
X wing is pretty good, but I'd not class it as a wargame as such.

What would you call it, then?


A board game with models. Kind of like Horus Heresy, Space hulk or dreadfleet.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/28 07:02:52


I'm a god damned sexual Tyrannosaurus.
 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






jamin484 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:


jamin484 wrote:
X wing is pretty good, but I'd not class it as a wargame as such.


What would you call it, then?


A board game with models. Kind of like Horus Heresy, Space hulk or dreadfleet.



Err, lol? How is X-wing not a wargame? It plays exactly like a game of 40k/Warmachine/etc, except with fewer models.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 Peregrine wrote:
jamin484 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:


jamin484 wrote:
X wing is pretty good, but I'd not class it as a wargame as such.


What would you call it, then?


A board game with models. Kind of like Horus Heresy, Space hulk or dreadfleet.



Err, lol? How is X-wing not a wargame? It plays exactly like a game of 40k/Warmachine/etc, except with fewer models.


Gotta move the goalposts somehow, otherwise he might have to admit to liking a wargame other than 40k...


Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in gb
Gangly Grot Rebel



Scotland

 Grimtuff wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
jamin484 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:


jamin484 wrote:
X wing is pretty good, but I'd not class it as a wargame as such.


What would you call it, then?


A board game with models. Kind of like Horus Heresy, Space hulk or dreadfleet.



Err, lol? How is X-wing not a wargame? It plays exactly like a game of 40k/Warmachine/etc, except with fewer models.


Gotta move the goalposts somehow, otherwise he might have to admit to liking a wargame other than 40k...


Is Horus Heresy a wargame? or dreadfleet? Perhaps it is a wargame, I've never considered it as such and haven't given it much thought until now. What about space hulk? Is that a wargame? Risk?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/09/27 22:18:57


I'm a god damned sexual Tyrannosaurus.
 
   
Made in us
Zealous Sin-Eater



Chico, CA

jamin484 wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
jamin484 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:


jamin484 wrote:
X wing is pretty good, but I'd not class it as a wargame as such.


What would you call it, then?


A board game with models. Kind of like Horus Heresy, Space hulk or dreadfleet.



Err, lol? How is X-wing not a wargame? It plays exactly like a game of 40k/Warmachine/etc, except with fewer models.


Gotta move the goalposts somehow, otherwise he might have to admit to liking a wargame other than 40k...


Is Horus Heresy a wargame? or dreadfleet? Perhaps it is a wargame, I've never considered it as such and haven't given it much thought until now. What about space hulk? Is that a wargame? Risk?



Well I find the easy way to tell what a board game is... if it has on a board to play on.

Peter: As we all know, Christmas is that mystical time of year when the ghost of Jesus rises from the grave to feast on the flesh of the living! So we all sing Christmas Carols to lull him back to sleep.
Bob: Outrageous, How dare he say such blasphemy. I've got to do something.
Man #1: Bob, there's nothing you can do.
Bob: Well, I guess I'll just have to develop a sense of humor.  
   
Made in gb
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






jamin484 wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
jamin484 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:


jamin484 wrote:
X wing is pretty good, but I'd not class it as a wargame as such.


What would you call it, then?


A board game with models. Kind of like Horus Heresy, Space hulk or dreadfleet.



Err, lol? How is X-wing not a wargame? It plays exactly like a game of 40k/Warmachine/etc, except with fewer models.


Gotta move the goalposts somehow, otherwise he might have to admit to liking a wargame other than 40k...


Is Horus Heresy a wargame? or dreadfleet? Perhaps it is a wargame, I've never considered it as such and haven't given it much thought until now. What about space hulk? Is that a wargame? Risk?



Yes. They are all wargames that just happen to be played on a board. A sub-category called "Board Wargames"


Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






jamin484 wrote:
Is Horus Heresy a wargame? or dreadfleet? Perhaps it is a wargame, I've never considered it as such and haven't given it much thought until now. What about space hulk? Is that a wargame? Risk?


The answer is to define what separates wargames from other games and then ask if those games fit the definition. IMO a good definition for a wargame:

* The game attempts to simulate a single battle (or skirmish, dogfight, etc) not abstract strategy (chess) or entire large-scale wars (Risk).

* The players choose their forces from a list of units and upgrades.

* Unit positions (along with terrain and other features) are represented by their actual position on the table, not spaces on a game board (Risk) or position-less cards (MTG).

* Unit interactions are resolved by dice (or equivalent random number generator) modified by the relevant unit's attributes.


By that definition of "wargame" X-wing is clearly a wargame. If you disagree then instead of just saying "it isn't" you need to come up with an appropriate definition of "wargame" that includes 40k/Warmachine/WHFB/etc but does not include X-wing.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 Peregrine wrote:
By that definition of "wargame" X-wing is clearly a wargame. If you disagree then instead of just saying "it isn't" you need to come up with an appropriate definition of "wargame" that includes 40k/Warmachine/WHFB/etc but does not include X-wing.


"A wargame is 40k, Warmachine, WHFB or one of those historical games."

Am I doing it right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lobukia wrote:
Agreed on the unit cards. That or something like that would help. The other games I'm invested in are Axis and Allies miniatures (both the land and the sea edition), CAV, Hail Caesar, Mechwarrior, Crimson Skies, SFB and I can say that the games with seperate unit cards have much shorter rules questions. 40k rules are so poorly written that debating rules has become an expected social part of the game... During the game, which is hilarious/sad.


Unit Cards work better when you don't really have upgrades. Everything in Warmachine that is X always comes with Y. While in 40k everything that is X may have A,B,C,D,E.... You get the point.

I'm not saying cards can't work, but 40k would need to be redone from the ground up (not like it doesn't need that anyways if it ever wants to actually be as awesome as it setting says it should be).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/09/27 23:20:21


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm not saying cards can't work, but 40k would need to be redone from the ground up (not like it doesn't need that anyways if it ever wants to actually be as awesome as it setting says it should be).


Or you could use a system like X-Wing where the upgrades are also cards (and each unit card shows how many of each kind of upgrade card it can take.)

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: