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.

 Blacksails wrote:

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?

all i have seen in critisism is whinging about a hyper-literal interpritation of the rules being invalid (which is the fualt of the gamer, not the rules), and picking out individual rule inconsistancies. Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not? Certainly when i compare 40k to video game systems, it comes out on top.

It's actually quite a modern phenominon, the notion of objective proof. As far as i know only mathematics allows complete 100 percent proof, and even then by tracing it back to unprovable axioms. If you actually want to prove something, you need to make sure it has quantifiable boundries - 'x can travel t miles faster than y'. Certainly 'i think x is better than y' is quite obviously a qualitative statement, and as such is up to a man's intellect to decide upon.

Not really. And i'm not sure if I simply do not like having to relearn 40k. Or that I actually dislike the rules. Quite a few erk me. Like the new Tau armybook and Overwatch. Transports, the flyer rules still have me scratching my head.


I also hardly ever play 40k anymore given that my local scene is all about WHFB.

xruslanx wrote:
Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not?

Well you certainly wouldn't know the answer since all you've played is 40k.

xruslanx wrote:
(...) Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not? Certainly when i compare 40k to video game systems, it comes out on top. (..)

... Which is a symptom of poor rule writing. Special Rules stacked on top of Special Rules do cause bugs yes. Which is why it's poor rules writing to firstly have a set of core rules which are more complex (without added depth) than competitors, but that they're also so unsuitable for use that there are so many unique special rules. If you have to give everything special rules, then the core rules are not fit for purpose.

Tell me, do you believe that a game which is more complex is objectively better? Or that complexity equals depth?

 bosky wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not?

Well you certainly wouldn't know the answer since all you've played is 40k.

if you'd like to explain how a special rule involving shooting could operate without interacting with the rules that govern shooting, i'm all ears.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bosky wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not?

Well you certainly wouldn't know the answer since all you've played is 40k.

if you'd like to explain how a special rule involving shooting could operate without interacting with the rules that govern shooting, i'm all ears.

xruslanx wrote:

if you'd like to explain how a special rule involving shooting could operate without interacting with the rules that govern shooting, i'm all ears.

I don't think that's the part that bosky was responding to. I think it was the part that said it would automatically create bugs and "how could it not"? (It was the bolded bit)

Daedleh wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

if you'd like to explain how a special rule involving shooting could operate without interacting with the rules that govern shooting, i'm all ears.

I don't think that's the part that bosky was responding to. I think it was the part that said it would automatically create bugs and "how could it not"? (It was the bolded bit)

Of coruse he missed it or he have to come up with a real reason. Instead of "becouse GW gooooooood".

He doesn't know any better, refuses to know any better, and uses his personal opinions and experiences to defend how great a game 40k is from a rules perspective.

Really hard to properly discuss anything with him when any points brought up are dismissed as 'not good enough' for his tastes but can't put together a proper point defending the quality of 40k.

xruslanx wrote:
all i have seen in critisism is whinging about a hyper-literal interpritation of the rules being invalid (which is the fualt of the gamer, not the rules)

So you're just going to continue to ignore complaints I've made about things like how the IGOUGO turn structure sucks, or how GW has no consistency in scale (having air strikes/artillery appropriate to a huge game along with nitpicking the details of power weapons like it's a 10-model skirmish game).

Also, hyper-literal interpretations are not the fault of the players. Other games manage to have rules that function exactly as intended no matter how literal you get, GW only fails to do the same because they're incompetent and/or lazy.

Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not?

Nonsense. MTG has at least as much complexity as 40k and absolutely zero bugs. You just keep ignoring every counter-example of games that have complex and interesting rules without 40k's complete lack of clarity.

xruslanx wrote:
Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not? Certainly when i compare 40k to video game systems, it comes out on top.

Just to put this to bed, last I checked (and I'm happy to provide the spreadsheet if you'd like proof), prior to Convergence, Warmachine/Hordes had approximately eight hundred and thirty *unit rules. This does not include USR like Pathfinder, Tough etc. Nor does it include the literally hundreds of Feats or spells. Now I don't know how many special rules 40K has but I'm quite sure it's significantly less.

*Yes, I totally get why people say the game is too complex for their taste but that is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that over a thousand unique game effects interact with barely a handful unresolved issues.

I like this set the best so far, I have been involved since Rogue Trader, I still like the RP style of RT but this is workable and me friend and I are not tourney players so we just tweak and change it to suit our desires. I game for FUN and love to work on the models. The rules and the fluff just make for an enjoyable back drop.

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?

If you are not interested in the opinion of random people on the internet regarding the Warhammer 40k ruleset, why in the love of all that is good and holy did you post a topic asking random people on the internet for their opinion of the 40k rules?

xruslanx wrote:
Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not?

And so, again: Twelve thousand unique MTG cards.

Zero rules disputes that last longer than a few weeks after publication, due to WotC actively supporting their games system and doing everything they can to ensure that it can't be broken in a competitive setting.

40k, by comparison, has basic issues with its rules that have been there for
6 editions now.

The bugs in 40k's rules aren't there because the game is complex. They're there because GW doesn't care enough about their product to correct them.

xruslanx wrote:

all i have seen in critisism is whinging about a hyper-literal interpritation of the rules being invalid (which is the fualt of the gamer, not the rules), and picking out individual rule inconsistancies.

To be fair, there are a hell of a lot of those 'individual' rule inconsistencies. If it was one or two, fair enough, but we've got dozens, if not hundreds of issues. If it was a car, you'd scrap it.

Regarding the hyper literal interpretation of the rules - if other companies can do this (eg with magic the gathering, warmachine, malifaux, infinity etc) that can allow for both a casual approach, and hyper literal one where every term is clear, defined and utterly unambiguous, the fact that gw don't/ can't do this is an objective failing.

Oh yeah, that's right - you don't like us mentioning other games that actually help prove our points, and do this. But it's ok to mention video games?

xruslanx wrote:

Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not? Certainly when i compare 40k to video game systems, it comes out on top.
.

How could it not? Easy - by writing good rules!

You compare 40k to video games (despite any examples of these companies actually fixing bugs and improving things) yet you refuse to compare 40k to other ttgs, despite them being a far more valid comparison? Oh, that's right, you are ' loathe' to play other games, or even wanting to know about them. Which essentially makes any point you make invalid as you have an extremely limited knowledge base to work with, and base your opinions on, or against and yet, you refuse to expand your knowledge base, or even accept the possibility that there is more out there. Anything that fundamentally contradicts your world view gets ignored, despite its validity and authenticity - not good grounds for a debate.

Why are you so insistent on not seeing any view of the hobby, or game design beyond the tiny fishbowl that is gw? Why are you so insistent on closing your mind to how other companies do things? Why do you refuse to acknowledge, consider or even accept them?bWhy do you then not want to know any better, refuse to know any better, and then blindly insist that you are still right, all the time ignoring evidence and factual points brought up to the contrary? Debates don't work that way son.

Regarding the 'complexity of 40k' and the bugs caused by all the usr's conflicting with each other - look at warmachine/hordes. Hundreds of unique warcasters and warlocks, each with half a dozen different spells, feats, with an associated level of hundreds more units, jacks, beasts, solos, special rules, abilities, that all continuously interact etc and you don't have any of this rules ambiguity. Look at magic. God knows how many thousands of cards are there interacting, and they don't have any ambiguity.

What I've learned from this thread: it's impossible to reason wit someone who doesn't use reason to begin with. The hypocrisy is strong on this one: ask for evidence for other people but it doesn't apply to him (because it makes sense to him!). Put into consideration his anecdotal evidence while ignoring everyone else's anecdotal evidence. Trying to prove (objectively) that 40k is better while believing that nothing can be proven objectively (and that last part... Wow. Just wow.).

No amount of reasoning will convince someone who wasn't reasoned to his beliefs to begin with. I think any conversation here would be fruitless (or at least, regarding convincing xruslanx that 40k rules are really subpar) to be honest.

This thread has turned into an entertaining read . I haven't witnessed this much outright denial in quite some time.

xruslanx:
- This is an internet forum. The point is to share anecdotes, stories and opinions. If you don't like that, there really is no place for you here.
- You can't attack the credibility of data and hard facts, AND have a poll at the top of your thread.
- It is perfectly valid to compare 40k to other wargames when assessing rules quality. When comparing your cars top speed to another cars top speed, you can't just assume that your car is the fastest because it's the only car you've driven. Someone who has driven both cars might actually know, after all.
- Your "21st century" poll states that the bulk of people here enjoy 40k's ruleset "A lot. It's a good ruleset, but not perfect" This would imply some kind of issue inherent in the rules.

I have only played 40k. I love the 40k universe and backstory. It is outstanding. I like the rules too, but they are clunky. There is a lot to them, and some of it could be trimmed without diminishing enjoyment at all. Furthermore, there are mistakes and holes in the ruleset. Some of them are gaping, and many of these have been pointed out to you already.

Warmachine and Flames of War have higher-quality rulesets. But you can't blow up swarms of Tyranids or push Space Marines around a table unless you play 40k.

However, if we were told to select a wargame based off quality of rules alone, not knowing what the models or fluff were like, I doubt many of us would pick 40k. There are just too many gaps..

 Zed wrote:


Warmachine and Flames of War have higher-quality rulesets. But you can't blow up swarms of Tyranids or push Space Marines around a table unless you play 40k...

Technically though, you can! you can play epic, you can 'port' over the rules from another system (marines v tyranids using the starship troopers game mechanics, for example), you can mod a current set of rules, or you can do a home brew.

Nothing says your space marines or tyranid models can only be used with 40k rule, or can only be represented by 40k mechanics.

I get what you're saying though - 40k is the only universe where you have space marines and tyranids, and it's an appealing 'verse. It has it's iconic imagery. But you can inhabit this universe in many different ways.

Deadnight wrote:

 Zed wrote:


Warmachine and Flames of War have higher-quality rulesets. But you can't blow up swarms of Tyranids or push Space Marines around a table unless you play 40k...

Technically though, you can! you can play epic, you can 'port' over the rules from another system (marines v tyranids using the starship troopers game mechanics, for example), you can mod a current set of rules, or you can do a home brew.

Nothing says your space marines or tyranid models can only be used with 40k rule, or can only be represented by 40k mechanics.

I get what you're saying though - 40k is the only universe where you have space marines and tyranids, and it's an appealing 'verse. It has it's iconic imagery. But you can inhabit this universe in many different ways.

Entirely true . Admittedly, I'm too lazy for anything more arduous than a couple of custom missions for a tourney here or there, so that avenue slipped my mind.

Phanixis wrote:
If you are not interested in the opinion of random people on the internet regarding the Warhammer 40k ruleset, why in the love of all that is good and holy did you post a topic asking random people on the internet for their opinion of the 40k rules?

If you look back at the first page or two the OP admits that they created the thread and biased poll as a deliberate attempt to "counter" the negative threads in the other sub-forum. The goal is to "prove" that lots of people love 40k. Needless to say the OP has failed pretty badly at this.

Honestly, 40k was the first wargame I ever got into and its fun to play with my friends all casual and laid back like. That said, I can't imagine playing it and actually trying to be full on 100% competitive.

I don't have any objection to the rules themselves (but then again I've found that I enjoy pretty much any game system that's not "rock paper scissors" level of complexity, although I can certainly see how that argument could be made about 40k now I mention it) but I swear the writing is just so loose and sloppy.

I remember one person once joking how 40k players must all be shameless WAC players since we argue about the rules so much. I didn't really understand what he meant until I actually read some other games. The revelation that not every game has to involve rules vagaries didn't even really occur to me.

xruslanx, I want you to take your BRB, and any codexs you have, and the FAQs from GW's website and answer every single question, just on the first page even, in the YMDC forum. Go on, I'll wait.

Oh wait, you can't because otherwise we wouldn't have all the mess that is in YMDC. Because those questions would already be answered otherwise in one of those sources. The fact that they are not is the problem I personally have with the 40k ruleset. I love 40k, I hate the rules. No, that's not quite right, I hate all the holes in the rules that GW says to just solve with a 4+ dice roll off.

You say these issues are just the players' fault or minor inconsistencies due to several rules interactions at once. I disagree. Why is it the fault of the players for arriving at a situation that the rules of a game simply fail to address or cover? That is a sign of poor rule design, not some fault of the players.

Feth it, you know what, just answer the questions from GW's latest and greatest, C:SM. Go here and answer all of those question, or tell everyone in that thread that it is their fault and not GW's that these questions even exist.

Yes, GW does occasionally FAQ things, but if you look at the list of actual questions asked compared to the list that GW actually answers, you'll have a much better understanding of why people in general take issue with GW's rules writing and design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This should NEVER happen in a game:

rigeld2 wrote:
The rules don't cover the situation.

Source

I refuse to vote as my opinion is not listed. I like it less then "a lot" but more than "not really".

If anything, I would prefer a combination of 5th and 6th.

Deadnight wrote:

Entirely true . Admittedly, I'm too lazy for anything more arduous than a couple of custom missions for a tourney here or there, so that avenue slipped my mind.

Allow me to do the work for you.
Free Quick Start Warmachine rules.
Admittedly it's not balanced or complete, nor does it have room for larger vehicles but it's an excellent example of how you can play a wargame, with 40K models that reflects the 40K fluff and have a tight rules set.

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

I'm sorry, what?

40k is a tabletop wargame, so yes you are a tabletop wargame player because you play 40k. You're absolutely right one is a sub-set of the other, 40k is a subset of tabletop wargaming.

That's like saying you're American but not human.

Playing 40k means you're both a 40k player and a tabletop gamer.

Perhaps he meant to say he is into the 'GW 40k Hobby'.Rather than a 40k player.

Because senior GW management define the 'GW hobby' (tm) as 'buying product from GW.'(Just hoard those boxes of stuff after you buy them! )

And that has got NOTHING to do with table top war gaming.

And probably why he cannot see any flaws in the 40k rule set.

 Kojiro wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Entirely true . Admittedly, I'm too lazy for anything more arduous than a couple of custom missions for a tourney here or there, so that avenue slipped my mind.

Allow me to do the work for you.
Free Quick Start Warmachine rules.
Admittedly it's not balanced or complete, nor does it have room for larger vehicles but it's an excellent example of how you can play a wargame, with 40K models that reflects the 40K fluff and have a tight rules set.

You quoted the wrong person mate- that quote isn't mine.

Deadnight wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Entirely true . Admittedly, I'm too lazy for anything more arduous than a couple of custom missions for a tourney here or there, so that avenue slipped my mind.

Allow me to do the work for you.
Free Quick Start Warmachine rules.
Admittedly it's not balanced or complete, nor does it have room for larger vehicles but it's an excellent example of how you can play a wargame, with 40K models that reflects the 40K fluff and have a tight rules set.

You quoted the wrong person mate- that quote isn't mine.

You're looking for me, I think.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
all i have seen in critisism is whinging about a hyper-literal interpritation of the rules being invalid (which is the fualt of the gamer, not the rules)

So you're just going to continue to ignore complaints I've made about things like how the IGOUGO turn structure sucks, or how GW has no consistency in scale (having air strikes/artillery appropriate to a huge game along with nitpicking the details of power weapons like it's a 10-model skirmish game).

Also, hyper-literal interpretations are not the fault of the players. Other games manage to have rules that function exactly as intended no matter how literal you get, GW only fails to do the same because they're incompetent and/or lazy.

Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not?

Nonsense. MTG has at least as much complexity as 40k and absolutely zero bugs. You just keep ignoring every counter-example of games that have complex and interesting rules without 40k's complete lack of clarity.

If you hate the 40k ruleset so much why the feth are you still playing the game?

Oh and on the subject of scale consistancy I don't think a force of trenchers get turned into defenseless vegetables just becuase they're leader has been incapitated.

[quote=sing your life 553737 6121716 d5b6361d4be44597fba380adfcb066bb.jpgIf you hate the 40k ruleset so much why the feth are you still playing the game?