Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.)

The problem with that (for me at least) is that it's mess book keeping where each unit would need a stack of cards for everything in the unit.

Maybe if we used the big 3"x5" index cards it'd have enough space for it all, and for you to check all the boxes for which options you took but then try fitting those in sleeves so you can use a dry erase marker to check boxes on.

That could work if you have only a few units like in X-Wing or Infinity but if you have more than 10 then that's really a nightmare in bookkeeping.

Admittedly, cards can also help "fluff" with illustrations of the upgrades or adding little flavor texts if it should be done.

 Peregrine wrote:
. 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).

Not sure why you would exclude a game that simulates large-scale war from the wargame category... Risk is as much a wargame as Epic or 40k.

AFAIK, wargames cover everything from tactical exercise without troops,(TEWT) total theory battles.To full scale re enactments , or actual war games conducted by military forces will actual equipment and weapons!(I should now as I have been involved in them!).

Table Top Minature Wargames , use some form of minature to represent the combatants/forces.
Some are played on a board, others are played directly on the table top.

The main difference is board games tend to have hexes/squares on them to determine range/movement.And those played on the table top tend to use tape measures for this.

I enjoy playing a game of 40k with Tomorrows War/Stargrunt II /No limits rules.FAR more than GWs own rules for 40k.

I play a lot of different games and rule sets and some of those mentioned here I have not even heard of. The difficulty is finding other people to play the more obscure tabletop wargames with. I'm not convinced on the argument that their rules are better than 40k anyway. 40K has issues sure but then, so do all of the other table top wargames I've played and I've tried quite a few. I think people are understandably angry at GW and have become a wee bit 'burnt out' playing 40k. Naturally they have migrated to other game systems which is great, and good for the hobby in general. It does lead them to look at different games with rose tinted glasses on however and ignore some of their more obvious flaws.

As far as defining wargames as opposed to board games I would argue that much of it is subjective as the definitions for each are elastic and many games inhabit a grey area between both, necromunda, dreadfleet, X-wing, battle of 5 armies etc.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.)

The problem with that (for me at least) is that it's mess book keeping where each unit would need a stack of cards for everything in the unit.

Maybe if we used the big 3"x5" index cards it'd have enough space for it all, and for you to check all the boxes for which options you took but then try fitting those in sleeves so you can use a dry erase marker to check boxes on.

Or you could include all the cards in one collection, bundled in with a load of artwork and fluff. And you could call it a "codex"

jamin484 wrote:
I play a lot of different games and rule sets and some of those mentioned here I have not even heard of. The difficulty is finding other people to play the more obscure tabletop wargames with. I'm not convinced on the argument that their rules are better than 40k anyway. 40K has issues sure but then, so do all of the other table top wargames I've played and I've tried quite a few. I think people are understandably angry at GW and have become a wee bit 'burnt out' playing 40k. Naturally they have migrated to other game systems which is great, and good for the hobby in general. It does lead them to look at different games with rose tinted glasses on however and ignore some of their more obvious flaws.

It's been objectively proven that these other rulesets do not suffer from all of the rules issues that 40k suffers from. Just take 2 seconds to look at the relevant YMDC forums. It's already been gone over in this thread as to how such a statement is factually incorrect.

The core rules for 6th edition don't have THAT many issues, its the codex rules that tend to really muddy the waters and cause problems. I think that's where GW's trend for sloppy editing and play testing tends to shine. They start to include units that have special rules or mechanics that completely ignore or break the core rules and then they wait 6 months to issue an errata of FAQ to clear things up.

I can forgive some of the mistakes, because lets face it, 40K has more (and bigger) armies to cover than most rules sets, and in order to keep each army and unit from playing the same, they have add a layer of complexity, which unfortunately, leads to some game breaking rules interpretations that really need clarification. What I have a harder time forgiving is the absolutely shoddy way they keep up with and resolve these game breaking problems. We've had 4 new codex releases without a meaningful update to the Errata and FAQs, and its not like there hasn't been a need for an update.

@ ClassicCarraway.
The core rules for 6th edition have issues because they STILL use the rules written for WHFB.
Which cover a completely different game type to what 40k is.

Trying to cover a modern wargame using modern unit types, with 30 year old mutated Napoleonic rules IS going to lead to some issues.

40k has more and bigger armies than SOME games.
(Firefly has over 600 units from horse drawn to jet powered in 45 army lists.)

BUT because 40k rules use resolution methods that LIMIT the scope of the resolution.
We have a Galaxy full of diverse and amazing creatures, but we limit the interaction to 3+4+5+ on a D6 roll.
Most units are stuck with very little deviation between their stats.(eg 2 to 5 )
Because 40k uses less than optimal game mechanics and resolution methods , it HAS to resort to use extra complication in the form of additional rules, and completely separate resolution methods.Adding complication simply through poor game development.

Compare any edition of 40k to Epic Armageddon rules and see what I mean.
Epic covers EVERYTHING in 40k and MORE in 138 pages of rules.

I enjoy the intended game play of 40k .But the rules for 40k 6th ed just get in the way of it.(Compared to other rule sets.)

Challenges are crap, cinematic randomness is crap, shared psychic powers tables spoil the whole diversity thing, Look Out Sir is needless complication. There's too much randomness in general in 6th.

I critiqued the ruleset from the very release but after trying alternatives of the ussualy bashed systems in 40k (i.e. IGOUGO, true LOS) I find them not much better or sometimes plain worse than 40kish ones.

As for GW and playtesting, I remember reading an interview with Robin Cruddace where he stated they have a playtesting team and invite renowned tourney players to help. He also mentioned that they have only 36 months time to write and release all the codieces for an edition and there is WHFB too.

What I have issue with is critique of GW mixing skirmish scale with epice scale and everything in between, I like it tbh. There are tons of big scale more abstract wargames, many skirmish small scale games and kudos to GW for trying to mix it all up and somehow succeding (the real problem is cinematic crap and some failed rules not general idea imo). It's not like the micromanagment takes so much time, it's still very playable. In Total War on PC you can fiddle with formations too.

I like how 40k game takes on so many various unit types, armies, playstyles and still more or less works and how games with unbalanced terrain or armies still mostly end up very close (unless you deliberatly spam OP units). I see glaring error in balance but in the end it works, can't say how.

Yep that was kind of 40k ruleset appreciation post.

 Peregrine wrote:
GW has somehow managed to make rules that are a clumsy mess while simultaneously failing to capture the "cinematic" events of the fluff..

Yeah, pseudo cinematic artificial crap should go, it is only ridiculous. Before that what should go are weapon ranges, everything should be unlimited with BS dropping with distance depending on weapon or sth.

xruslanx wrote:Were you one of those people who hated Star Wars because the stormtroopers are such bad shots, by any chance?

Not a question to me, but I for example was the one that hated Star Wars in general.

So many random elements are unfortunately nothing more than a lazy way to balance poor game mechanics. The unnecessary bloat of the game and the constant changes for changes sake between editions has left 40K as a shadow of what it could be. Luckily we are enjoying it more than ever because we are playing our own modified version.

I think we can all agree that everyone is part of these forums because we all enjoy Warhammer 40k, both as a hobby and as a game. And 40k does have a lot going for it: excellent models, interesting lore, and unique factions and units. Unfortunately the game rules as they stand, while functional, are complete rubbish. How the rules ever get published in the state that they are is a complete mystery to me. It genuinely feels like I could do a considerably better job writing the rules than GWs professional writers, especially if it was my dayjob. I am honestly at quite a loss as to why people seem to defend such poor writing or even see it as a blessing. Sure 40k is a fun game, but surely adding better, easier to understand and resolve and clearer rules would only improve the 40k experience. Is it too much to ask for a ruleset that doesn't result in a rules dispute every 10 - 20 minutes?

40k's rules suffer severely from two very distinct problems: poorly written rules that are ambiguous, unclear, unfair, unnecessarily complicated and/or difficult to resolve, and game balance problems that exist between codices, between units within codices and between different classes of units. The main rulebook tends to be responsible for the former problem and the individual codices for the later, but there still is plenty of crossover. The later problem is a bit more understandable as with so many factions, units and updates it is going to be impossible to balance everything perfectly, but certainly some semblance of balance should exist. Things such as the Heldrake, the Doom of Ma'lanta, and the Fateweaver really shouldn't exist, at least not in their currently form, and it really should not be possible to obtain rerollable 2+ and 3+ inv saves. Certainly such insane over the top units could be eliminated without impacting the large diversity of units and tactics available within 40k.

What really gets me though is the basic game rules. Unlike the codices, there is really no excuse to screw these up. The basic rules serve essentially the same function regardless of edition, and they are initially only written for a single class of unit, so each new edition should be an opportunity to further refine existing rules, make them clearer, and resolve potential rules conflicts. Yet in the two editions that have been released since I started playing, GW will take two steps forward only to take two more steps backwards when in comes to updating the main rules between editions.

Case in point is wound allocation. The wound allocation rules in fourth edition were excellent, they were elegant, simple, fair and unexploitable. When 5th edition rolled around, rather than refining these rules further, GW discarded them in favor of the abomination that was the 5e wound allocation rules, which earn my vote as the worst set of rules of any kind released by GW since I started playing. The 5e wound allocation rules were obtuse, cumbersome and difficult to resolve, counter intuitive and worst of all highly exploitable, the later problem resulting in insanely stupid unit configurations. I have absolutely no idea why the 5e rules were ever adopted in the first place, but it shows very poor judgement on GWs part. And when 6e rolled around, GW still refused to go back to 4e wound allocation rules, instead adopting another needlessly complicated system that is thankfully less exploitable than 5e, if only do to a FAQ fixing the way "look out sir" worked.


Wound allocation is not the only problem though, here is an incomplete list of ill-conceived rules in 6e:

Kill Points - Carry over from 5e. Grossly unfair because a dead Rhino = a dead Landraider. Victory points were a far better alternative. Thankfully only one sixth of the missions now.

Warlord Traits - Another stupidly unfair rule. Depending on how you roll, you could receive no benefit at all. Or you could receive army wide stealth and move through cover if you are playing on a ruins table.

Mysterious Terrain/Objectives - So idiotic that my opponent and I always agree not to use these rules, without every having to even verbalize the agreement. These rules might was well not even be there.

Random Assault Range - Just a big middle finger to assault armies. This serves no purpose other than to annoy Ork/BA/DT/DA players.

Overwatch - All this does is waste time during the assault phase. What does ineffectually firing at a charging units add to the game? It seems to exist only to give Tau an army wide special rule, and as a long time Tau player, I feel it is an army wide special rule that poorly represents how the Tau actually fight.

Vehicle Shooting Rules - Call me crazy, but tanks should be able to move faster than infantry while shooting, and they definitely should be able to fire more then one weapon on the move. It's kind of the whole point behind using armored vehicles.

The Change from 50% to 25% Concealment for Vehicle Cover Saves - How exactly am I supposed to determine if a vehicle is 25% concealed? 50% was a much easier judgement call, if more of the vehicle is concealed than not, it gets cover, otherwise it does not. And despite its simplicity, I still got into more than enough arguments over the 50% rule. The new rule is practically guaranteed to cause arguments whenever small obstructions lie between the shooter and a vehicle.

TLOS - Makes it nearly impossible to conceal sizable units from LOS, which leads to powerful alpha striking armies, makes footmobile and assault armies difficult to play, and makes longrange gunline armies particularly potent. Also, getting a "models eye view" to judge LOS is a great way to knock over and break models, especially if using multi-level ruins. It is also the number one source of rules arguments in almost any game a play. Abstracting LOS makes it easier to break up fire lanes, easier to judge LOS, reduces rules arguments, and results in fewer broken models.

Phanixis wrote:
... And when 6e rolled around, GW still refused to go back to 4e wound allocation rules, instead adopting another needlessly complicated system that is thankfully less exploitable than 5e, if only do to a FAQ fixing the way "look out sir" worked.

The FAQ makes it less exploitable, yes, bt it still doesn't fix it, since you can still play wound spreading shenanigans by shuffling the positions of the models in the unit each turn.

Rather than changing LOS to work off the closest model, they could have fixed it properly by just ruling that a partially-wounded model (if there is one present) has to take the wound.

Warlord Traits - Another stupidly unfair rule. Depending on how you roll, you could receive no benefit at all. Or you could receive army wide stealth and move through cover if you are playing on a ruins table.

Yeah... I like the idea of Warlord Traits, but they would have been better off, if they wanted to keep them random, making you roll on which type of trait you get, but allowing you to choose from within that type.

Mysterious Terrain/Objectives - So idiotic that my opponent and I always agree not to use these rules, without every having to even verbalize the agreement. These rules might was well not even be there.

I actually quite like both of these rules.

Random Assault Range - Just a big middle finger to assault armies. This serves no purpose other than to annoy Ork/BA/DT/DA players.

The thing is, random assault and run moves are a kind of necessary trade-off for being able to measure distances between units whenever you want. In a game that uses a board with marked squares, being able to always check how far you can go to do whatever it is you're trying to do works fine, but for a game relying on tape measures, everyone would just be measuring constantly to check optimum charge distances and the like... and there would be far more arguments over precise movement measurement. As it is, measurement precision isn't quite as important if your movement is going to be random anyway.

That being sai, I would prefer if runs and assault movements did have a bigger minimum distance...

TLOS - Makes it nearly impossible to conceal sizable units from LOS, ...

That's largely down to the terrain that people choose to use. It's been my experience that people tend to use far too little large, LOS-blocking terrain.

Also, getting a "models eye view" to judge LOS is a great way to knock over and break models, especially if using multi-level ruins.

In nearly 20 years of playing 40K, I can't say that's every been a problem. I've had issues with knocking models over, certainly... but not while drawing LOS.

Nearly taking an eye out on a banner pole or roof spike, though... that's another story...

It is also the number one source of rules arguments in almost any game a play. .

That's actually where 5th edition's cover system was good. Allowing cover saves when any part of the model is obscured greatly reduced the number of arguments over LOS.

That's largely down to the terrain that people choose to use. It's been my experience that people tend to use far too little large, LOS-blocking terrain.

The thing is, not all gaming stores have that much LOS-blocking terrain, so this is not always possible. And do to the higher gamer turnout, 40k tournaments will often be the worst offender, as the gaming store will need to stretch too little terrain between too many tables. Now if your gaming store is well equipped, this is less of a problem, although it is still easy to see sizable units because if I see any part of any model in the unit, even through a tiny window in some ruins, it is legal to shoot.

Also, when in comes to ineffective LOS blocking terrain, I find GW terrain to be some of the biggest offenders. A lot of official GW terrain is unsufficient to conceal anything. The best pieces by far are ruins, but even those have plenty of windows to see larger models and units behind them. Typically its the homemade terrain pieces made out of cans and boxes that works the best for breaking LOS, because they tend to be solid and have few or no windows. Of course this speaks volumes on how GWs different departments work together, as you think they would do a better job selling terrain pieces designed to work with their rules.

Phanixis wrote:
...lots of salient points!

I agree with everything you listed! Luckily, so does my gaming group for the most part, hence we adopted rules based on 4th Ed. with improvements along the way. Not everyone is so lucky to play rules they like.

I rather enjoy the rule set, as always there is room for improvement but as a whole it's not too bad.

Hi silvu.
The 40k rules are 'not too bad' compared to what exactly?
Compared to most other popular rule sets, as instructions to play the game, they are bad!

I enjoy the background and artistic style of 40k as much as anyone else.
BUT as far as instructions to play the game go.

The 40k rule set is good for starting arguments, and allowing you to cheat on a 4+.

But for clarity brevity and intuitive implementation , as an instruction set 40k is quite bad!

I have an old Blood Angels army from my Rogue Trader days I wanted to use to get back into 40K but honestly it just seems too hard. Like many things, once you have experienced a better version it's difficult to go back.

The best analogy I can think of is a black and white TV. The fluff and the models are the shows on the TV. You can watch these awesome shows, really enjoy them and get great pleasure out of them but they're still being shown on a crappy, low res black and white screen. Imagine how much more you could enjoy the same show on a HD LCD?

Hence why I converted the system to a better one.

xruslanx wrote:
Since there's talk in Dakka Discussions along the lines of "literally everyone who likes 40k is a moron or a child", thought I'd ask the community itself. Do you like the ruleset or not?

Just the rules I'm talking about here, not background fluff or models.

Plenty of other better written rulesets out there. GW has an annoying habit of leaving enough rules vague enough that it just causes too many arguments around the table. I can play multiple games of flames of war every day for a week and still have far fewer rules based arguments than playing a single game of 40k. I only put up with the rules because I like the minis and the story behind the game. If I had more time on my hands I'd just convert everything for my armies over to a different rules system instead, but don't have the time to do it these days and can either spend my brief time available playing a game or two or converting codecies...games win that arguement every time.

Skriker

 Grimtuff wrote:

jamin484 wrote:
I play a lot of different games and rule sets and some of those mentioned here I have not even heard of. The difficulty is finding other people to play the more obscure tabletop wargames with. I'm not convinced on the argument that their rules are better than 40k anyway. 40K has issues sure but then, so do all of the other table top wargames I've played and I've tried quite a few. I think people are understandably angry at GW and have become a wee bit 'burnt out' playing 40k. Naturally they have migrated to other game systems which is great, and good for the hobby in general. It does lead them to look at different games with rose tinted glasses on however and ignore some of their more obvious flaws.

It's been objectively proven that these other rulesets do not suffer from all of the rules issues that 40k suffers from. Just take 2 seconds to look at the relevant YMDC forums. It's already been gone over in this thread as to how such a statement is factually incorrect.

Is it factually incorrect that our games are not riddled with disputes? Why should how we play our games be affected by how you play yours?

xruslanx wrote:

Is it factually incorrect that our games are not riddled with disputes? Why should how we play our games be affected by how you play yours?

Have you ever considered that many other peoples' games are riddled with disputes?

Anecdotal evidence from this thread and the other similar one shows that many people do, in fact, have a lot disputes over the rules on a regular basis.

Your experience =/= others' experiences

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

Is it factually incorrect that our games are not riddled with disputes? Why should how we play our games be affected by how you play yours?

Have you ever considered that many other peoples' games are riddled with disputes?

Anecdotal evidence from this thread and the other similar one shows that many people do, in fact, have a lot disputes over the rules on a regular basis.

Your experience =/= others' experiences

So, why should I base my opinion on something based on other peoples' opinions? Why don't we all just judge something based on what *we* think about it, rather than what random people on the internet think about it?

xruslanx wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

Is it factually incorrect that our games are not riddled with disputes? Why should how we play our games be affected by how you play yours?

Have you ever considered that many other peoples' games are riddled with disputes?

Anecdotal evidence from this thread and the other similar one shows that many people do, in fact, have a lot disputes over the rules on a regular basis.

Your experience =/= others' experiences

So, why should I base my opinion on something based on other peoples' opinions? Why don't we all just judge something based on what *we* think about it, rather than what random people on the internet think about it?

I'm not saying you should, I'm saying you should acknowledge that there are a number of people who do encounter problems. Then you should consider what this is indicative of, and then understand its because the rules could be clearer, tighter, better, and everyone would benefit - even you. Consider that you're trying to argue a point based on your opinion and anecdotes, but dismiss other people's anecdotes and/or opinions because they're not yours. See the hypocrisy?

Besides, you do seem to care what people on the internet think; if you didn't, you wouldn't be defending this so much and have created a separate poll because you didn't like the first one.

Honestly, you need to at least try several other games before defending 40k's rules so much. I understand you like the game a lot, many of us do, but the rules are quite lackluster once you've tried half a dozen other well done games.

I don't need to consider other people's opinions when I evaluate whether or not *I* like something.

Nor do I feel the need to track down a rulebook, memorise a new set of rules, buy some new models, paint them up, then persuade a friend to do all that, then get the free time nessesary to play a new game, just to prove something to someone on the internet.

I'm a 40k player, not a tabletop wargames player. One is a sub-set of the other.

Then don't get all uppity when others tell you that 40k isn't a particularly good ruleset.

It works, and its playable. The background and models are great, but the rules could be a lot better.

No one's saying you can't enjoy 40k, but we are saying that the rules aren't as good as you make them out to be, which detracts from what would otherwise be a great game.

You really are missing out though. There's so much more out there than GW, it'd be a shame if you never gave them a shot. You wouldn't be proving anything, don't think of it like that. Stop being defensive. Think of it as trying something new for your own enjoyment. Get the experience, see what else is available. For all you know, your favourite wargame of all time might be right under your nose.

xruslanx wrote:
Nor do I feel the need to track down a rulebook, memorise a new set of rules, buy some new models, paint them up, then persuade a friend to do all that, then get the free time nessesary to play a new game...

Haha you don't realize how much 40k has skewed your view on what is required to play a wargame. Memorizing rules like it's a chore, instead of 2 pages of light reading. Having to buy models instead of using your existing collection, or paper stand-ups, or tokens/counters, etc. Trying a new game is really not the mammoth effort you make it out to be. It's also extremely rewarding and fun.
Do you also stubbornly not try anything else new? "Ugh why would I need anything but channel 2 on TV?" "Pssh why would I watch the new Lone Ranger, I just like to stick to Office Space" "New restaurant? Nah I'll eat soup at the same place I've been going for 20 years." "Video games? Don't get me started, I still enjoy Warcraft 1 and won't even TRY to learn something new!"

 Blacksails wrote:
Then don't get all uppity when others tell you that 40k isn't a particularly good ruleset.

It works, and its playable. The background and models are great, but the rules could be a lot better.

No one's saying you can't enjoy 40k, but we are saying that the rules aren't as good as you make them out to be, which detracts from what would otherwise be a great game.

You really are missing out though. There's so much more out there than GW, it'd be a shame if you never gave them a shot. You wouldn't be proving anything, don't think of it like that. Stop being defensive. Think of it as trying something new for your own enjoyment. Get the experience, see what else is available. For all you know, your favourite wargame of all time might be right under your nose.

Right but if other people can only explain *how* the 40k rules are flawed by saying "try other game systems", that makes me loathe to do so. If I enjoy playing 40k as it is, and what flaws I do have with it are unrelated to anyone's critisism, then why should I acknowledge your point of view? Why should *you* getting into arguments with other people affect the way that I see a game system?

And the notion of trying to objectively evaluate it is nonsense. I get that this is the 21st century but, believe it or not, most things cannot be proven using data and facts.

 bosky wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Nor do I feel the need to track down a rulebook, memorise a new set of rules, buy some new models, paint them up, then persuade a friend to do all that, then get the free time nessesary to play a new game...

Haha you don't realize how much 40k has skewed your view on what is required to play a wargame. Memorizing rules like it's a chore, instead of 2 pages of light reading.

Two pages of light reading? I'm sorry but I have no desire whatsoever to try such a eunuch of a game. If that's what "tight" rules mean to you, you can keep them.

xruslanx wrote:
Two pages of light reading? I'm sorry but I have no desire whatsoever to try such a eunuch of a game. If that's what "tight" rules mean to you, you can keep them.

And again you show your lack of experience with other systems. You literally have NO IDEA how a 2-page ruleset would play. That is staggering to me.

xruslanx wrote:
Right but if other people can only explain *how* the 40k rules are flawed by saying "try other game systems", that makes me loathe to do so. If I enjoy playing 40k as it is, and what flaws I do have with it are unrelated to anyone's critisism, then why should I acknowledge your point of view? Why should *you* getting into arguments with other people affect the way that I see a game system?

And the notion of trying to objectively evaluate it is nonsense. I get that this is the 21st century but, believe it or not, most things cannot be proven using data and facts.

Except there have been almost a total of 20 pages plus other threads that have many lengthy and detailed posts explaining why 40k isn't a good rule set. They have used examples, comparisons, anecdotes, and numbers in quantity of rules disputes on this board.

You refute ALL those arguments by repeatedly claiming that you personally don't have any problems and that you enjoy it. Which is fine, but it does nothing to say 40k isn't flawed. You've never made an argument defending 40k's rules in any meaningful way. If you did, we'd be having an actual discussion.

Again, most of are discussing the *quality* of the rules, which can be mostly objectively shown to be sub par, especially when also comparing to other games.

Your last line is another zinger from you, almost as good as your sex with non humans quote. Proof is done using data and facts. That's how things are proven. Data and facts. Indisputable evidence. I honestly have no clue what you even mean by that last line. Congrats.

Out of curiosity, how would you go about proving things? Opinions? Myths? Anecdotes?

xruslanx wrote:

Right but if other people can only explain *how* the 40k rules are flawed by saying "try other game systems", that makes me loathe to do so.

Except, contrasts and comparisons is how we evaluate things in life. If 40k does things one way, and another game accomplishes the same thing in a far more elegant and streamlined manner,then it is a valid point explaining how 40k rules are flawed. You can't hold things in a vacuum and then try and say they're the best whilst ignoring everything else that's out there. That's not how discussions and analysis works.

Are you that scared of expanding your horizons? Are you genuinely that scared of going outside of your comfort zone?


What makes you 'loathe' other games systems? No wait - what makes you loathe even trying new games systems? Is it from your extensive experience from playing other games?

What makes you so scared from objective analysis?

xruslanx wrote:

If I enjoy playing 40k as it is, and what flaws I do have with it are unrelated to anyone's critisism, then why should I acknowledge your point of view? Why should *you* getting into arguments with other people affect the way that I see a game system?
.

When those criticisms are coming fro folks with a much broader understanding, and experience base, it's sensible to listen to what is essentially a more informed opinion. They tend to carry more weight. When someone knows more about something, I'll listen to them. If what they say counters my own limited world view, I can either stick my head in the sand, or grow and evolve my own opinion. No one liked being small minded.
In any case, Why shouldn't you acknowledge other peoples opinions? If we only accepted our own limited and skewed world view, without any other external analysis, or alternative points of view, we don't really get that fat, do we?

xruslanx wrote:

And the notion of trying to objectively evaluate it is nonsense. I get that this is the 21st century but, believe it or not, most things cannot be proven using data and facts.
.

I know plenty scientists and analysts who will disagree with you. And they can prove it! Facts and data is what proves things, and what informs people as to what's going on. Pretending this isn't the case - wow...

xruslanx wrote:

Two pages of light reading? I'm sorry but I have no desire whatsoever to try such a eunuch of a game. If that's what "tight" rules mean to you, you can keep them.

And your qualification for saying that is... What, exactly? The quick start rules for warmachine are on a few a4s, and that has levels of depth 40k can only dream of.
Try some of those games before leaping to judgement.