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.

I have to say for simple elegant rules design X-wing.

Both my kids picked it up after 30 mins , and we have been having a blast ever since.

With Dead Zone , Dreadball both coming a close second.(For ease of picking up.)

The other rules sets that are really good at what they do, great involving game play with straightforward rules , are.
Bolt Action
Drop Zone Commander
Force on Force/Tomorrows War
Infinity
Malifaux
Kings O War
Warmahaords
Warpath.

Last week at my LFGS they did a X-wing and 40k 'bring and battle.'
We played through 2 complete games of X-wing before the 40k crowd managed to agree on what books-data slates they were going to use , and if 'unbound lists' were going to be 'allowed' .

Herzlos wrote:

 pretre wrote:
I'd list 40k as well, just because despite the problems it is really one of the best out there. I will not go hide to avoid the backlash.

What makes the 40K rules one of the best out there?

Several things. Firstly, I can't think of another game out there that has even half the variation in armies and lists as 40k, so from that standpoint, it's great. Secondly, while some rules may be clunky, they also cover a huge amount of stuff. The uniqueness in special rules with slight variations allows it to better represent the fluff than something with more limited rules. And finally, 40k is easy to teach. There's no cards or extra tokens or anything like that. The core rules are based on simple mechanics that are fairly intuitive, and can be picked up in a turn or two.

I'm not saying it's the best game ever, but it is still the most widely played game for a reason.

I'd disagree with almost all of that.

Yes the GW rules have a huge amount of variation (But I don't think there's really any more variation than, say, Flames Of War or Malifaux), but that's done via a huge clunky overlay of similar and interrelated special rules whilst adding little to the game (X gives a unit Y which means Z) and creates huge imbalance.

Most of the rules seem somewhat redundant as well, and could easily be rolled into the unit stats, which are largely identical and using special rules to add character.

Because of the wealth of special rules and lack of cards it's harder to teach.

On top of that it's not very concise or well written, making the rules even harder to understand.

I also feel that despite all of the special rules you end off with a tactically simply game with complex mechanics, instead of a mechanically simply game with complex tactics.

You could vastly improve/simplify the game by creating stat cards and translating the special rules on there, so instead of a codex that says "Unit has the fleet special rule", you put on the card "Ignores terrain". Voila, much easier to play and learn, with nothing lost.

 Zweischneid wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Anyone claiming that 40k is the best rules set, at anything, can only make that claim if they've never experienced any other miniature game... ever...

Same for X-Wing.

The game's balance is so horribly out of whack, it makes 40K look like chess.

But it's popularity proves that "internet-good-will" is more important than actual objective review of the rules.

I really shouldn't enter an argument with you since your GW fanboyism precludes any type of objective discussion from the start, but here it goes anyway:

Game balance has exactly zero bearing on weather a rules set is objectively good or bad. X-Wing's rules are very simple to teach and learn and have almost no grey areas in them while (and this part is IMO), they still manage to convey the "feel" of the movies and hide inside them a surprisingly deep tactical experience. <- This is what makes X-Wing a good rules set.

I would also dispute your ridiculous claim that X-Wing is anywhere near as unbalanced as 40k, simply because unlike 40k, there are no auto-win lists in X-Wing (and whatever strong builds there exist are being actively balanced by FFG's release of specific counters to them). But that would be a topic for a completely different thread.

PhantomViper wrote:
Game balance has exactly zero bearing on weather a rules set is objectively good or bad.

Game balance is an aspect of the rules, if balance is bad it therefore part of the rules is bad which is the largest problem I have with 40k rules. I could put up with the rest of it if it was balanced.

 Paradigm wrote:

Several things. Firstly, I can't think of another game out there that has even half the variation in armies and lists as 40k, so from that standpoint, it's great. Secondly, while some rules may be clunky, they also cover a huge amount of stuff. The uniqueness in special rules with slight variations allows it to better represent the fluff than something with more limited rules. And finally, 40k is easy to teach. There's no cards or extra tokens or anything like that. The core rules are based on simple mechanics that are fairly intuitive, and can be picked up in a turn or two.

I'm not saying it's the best game ever, but it is still the most widely played game for a reason.

I disagree with almost all of that...

First, if you don't know of another game that has that much variation of armies, take a look a FoW or Warmahordes. Both of those games have just as much variation as 40k.

"some rules may be clunky" <- this right here just disqualifies 40k from being the "best" rules set at anything. Also what huge amount of stuff is that that 40k covers but no other system does?

Uniqueness in special rules that have slight variations between them only leads to confusion amongst the players. As an example you have the movement stat where everyone moves the same base distance but then you have a large amount of special rules to differentiate between... Why not just roll most of those rules into varying move distances for each unit in the first place? How would that represent the fluff any worse than the current way?

And to top it all of, 40k is by no means easy to teach! The core mechanics are pretty simple, but teaching just those doesn't allow a new player to play the game and the frightening amount of special rules and exceptions that are on top of those make teaching 40k anything but an easy proposition.

Also the lack of tokens or cards is a minus for the game, not a plus. Cards and tokens allow the players to much easily remember the game state and to have easy access to each units characteristics. Having to reference an army book each time you need to check a particular unit's rules is a waste of time and bogs the game down and I'm sure we've all experienced times where that shaken tank still took shot at something simply because both players forgot that the tank was shaken in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yonan wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Game balance has exactly zero bearing on weather a rules set is objectively good or bad.

Game balance is an aspect of the rules, if balance is bad it therefore part of the rules is bad which is the largest problem I have with 40k rules. I could put up with the rest of it if it was balanced.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

For me game balance is part of why I would enjoy a game or not (along with aesthetics, fluff, etc), but it certainly isn't part of the rules of that game.

A game can be perfectly balanced and have pretty bad rules (I can't think of any example of that right now ), but it can also be unbalanced and still have pretty good rules (Blood Bowl, Necromunda and Mordheim are examples of this latter type).

I can't speak for Warmahordes as I've never looked at it, but the variety in FOW consists of Men with Guns and Tanks vs Other Men With Guns and Tanks. Compare that with Power Armoured Men Falling From The Sky vs Aliens with Hover Tanks and Battlesuits and you can see what I mean. Every faction in 40k, with the exception of the SM chapters, plays entirely differently, works differently, and 'feels' different. That's the kind of variety I'm on about.

Regarding the clunkyness of the rules, I never said 40k was the best, most perfect and ultimately balanced ruleset. I'm just trying to point out that some slight issues with the rules don't preclude it from being a good game that people can play and enjoy.

As for the huge amount of stuff, I can't think of another 28mm system that can really handle shooting, close combat, vehicles, monstrous creatures, fliers and abilities as well as 40k can. The sheer scope of the game is what puts it ahead of others in that regard.

The variation in special rules helps this as it means that for cases where two things work even slightly differently fluff-wise, that can be represented. If you just had the USRs, some units would lose certain quirks they had before. For example, the SW Long Fangs can just shoot 2 targets in any combination they want, whereas Split Fire only allows 1 guy to target independently.

Regarding teaching, all I can say is that in the last few years, I've taught maybe half a dozen people to play 40k, and all of them, by the end of the second or third turn, understood the core mechanics, which is ultimately what the game needs to work. Of course it is hard if you try and introduce everything at once, but if you break it down, it's fine to teach. As I say, I can only speak for my experience here.

If you want cards and tokens as gaming aids, then that's fine and they are easily makable or even buyable in some cases. The point is, 40k doesn't need those to function, simply the rulebook and codex, and after a few games with an army, you rarely need to refer to those more than once or twice a game.

 Paradigm wrote:
I can't speak for Warmahordes as I've never looked at it, but the variety in FOW consists of Men with Guns and Tanks vs Other Men With Guns and Tanks. Compare that with Power Armoured Men Falling From The Sky vs Aliens with Hover Tanks and Battlesuits and you can see what I mean. Every faction in 40k, with the exception of the SM chapters, plays entirely differently, works differently, and 'feels' different. That's the kind of variety I'm on about.

FoW consists of different qualities of men (giving different morale/skill levels) with different types of guns (with different ranges/damage/fire rates), paired with different qualities of tanks (giving different morale/skill levels) with different specs (speed/armour/ROF) and weapons (with different ranges/damage/fire rates), and aircraft.

40K consists of different things which are largely equivalent; units with 2+ save and 3+ to hit (TEQ), units with a 3+ save and 3+ to hit (MEQ), units with a 5+ save and 4+ to hit (human equivalent), and so on. They look different and play a bit different, but they tend to have fairly similar stats for all of the special rules thrown at them. Some units move faster, or hover, or whatever, but in game terms they are fairly similar.

And whilst they play differently you need to change a lot of them to change how your army plays. In games like Malifaux you can change a model or 2 for a vastly different play style.

Regarding the clunkyness of the rules, I never said 40k was the best, most perfect and ultimately balanced ruleset. I'm just trying to point out that some slight issues with the rules don't preclude it from being a good game that people can play and enjoy.

Even balance issues aside, I think it barely counts as a competent ruleset. It's trying to do epic things, but it doesn't do them well.

As for the huge amount of stuff, I can't think of another 28mm system that can really handle shooting, close combat, vehicles, monstrous creatures, fliers and abilities as well as 40k can. The sheer scope of the game is what puts it ahead of others in that regard.

I'd assume any game which supports all of those units will do it as well.

If you want cards and tokens as gaming aids, then that's fine and they are easily makable or even buyable in some cases. The point is, 40k doesn't need those to function, simply the rulebook and codex, and after a few games with an army, you rarely need to refer to those more than once or twice a game.

I've been playing 40K on and off for nearly 20 years, through 3 editions (2nd, 5th, 6th) and I don't recall ever playing a game where I've only had to look at one of the books as little as once or twice, usually to check what a special rule means. Whereas after my 3rd game of Malifaux I haven't even opened the rulebook.

PhantomViper wrote:


Game balance has exactly zero bearing on weather a rules set is objectively good or bad.

Agreed.

But 99% of the criticism of 40K seems to miss that point.

And I love X-Wing. And I don't really play 40K that much anymore these days. My only "GW-fanboyism" is pointing out this exact argument to people wrongly claiming 40K is objectively bad (which it well might be for other reasons) because of it's lack of balance (when no game can objectively be good or bad on the account of balance).

 Paradigm wrote:
I can't speak for Warmahordes as I've never looked at it, but the variety in FOW consists of Men with Guns and Tanks vs Other Men With Guns and Tanks. Compare that with Power Armoured Men Falling From The Sky vs Aliens with Hover Tanks and Battlesuits and you can see what I mean. Every faction in 40k, with the exception of the SM chapters, plays entirely differently, works differently, and 'feels' different. That's the kind of variety I'm on about.

FoW also has cavalry units, biker units, ambushing units, fortifications, helicopters, trains, para-troopers, glider troops, etc... You are way over-simplifying the unit variance in FoW.

 Paradigm wrote:

Regarding the clunkyness of the rules, I never said 40k was the best, most perfect and ultimately balanced ruleset. I'm just trying to point out that some slight issues with the rules don't preclude it from being a good game that people can play and enjoy.

But that was not the question asked by the poster that you responded to, the question was: "What makes the 40K rules one of the best out there?"

No one is claiming that you can't enjoy it or play it, people are just disputing that it can be called "one of the best" at anything.

 Paradigm wrote:

As for the huge amount of stuff, I can't think of another 28mm system that can really handle shooting, close combat, vehicles, monstrous creatures, fliers and abilities as well as 40k can. The sheer scope of the game is what puts it ahead of others in that regard.

Infinity and Warmahordes handle all of those things just fine. In fact I would argue that every single 28mm system I've ever tried handled all of those things just fine (with the probable exception of vehicles if we are talking about some fantasy systems like Mordheim or Malifaux since they just don't have those).

 Paradigm wrote:

The variation in special rules helps this as it means that for cases where two things work even slightly differently fluff-wise, that can be represented. If you just had the USRs, some units would lose certain quirks they had before. For example, the SW Long Fangs can just shoot 2 targets in any combination they want, whereas Split Fire only allows 1 guy to target independently.

That is exactly the kind of simplification that would only improve game clarity without loosing anything! And besides, when you have such huge fluff-breaking rules in the game like the new Daemonology rules, arguing that the difference between the Long Fangs targeting rule and split fire is somehow significant to the fluff strikes me as somewhat naive.

 Paradigm wrote:

Regarding teaching, all I can say is that in the last few years, I've taught maybe half a dozen people to play 40k, and all of them, by the end of the second or third turn, understood the core mechanics, which is ultimately what the game needs to work. Of course it is hard if you try and introduce everything at once, but if you break it down, it's fine to teach. As I say, I can only speak for my experience here.

Congratulations, you taught half a dozen people how to play a very minor subset of 40k. On those same 2 turns you could have taught the entirety of X-Wing's rules to a new player. THAT is the mark of an easy to teach game.

Teaching someone how move-shoot-assault works and then sending them home to read the rest of the 200 pages rulebook does not an easy to learn game make.

 Paradigm wrote:

If you want cards and tokens as gaming aids, then that's fine and they are easily makable or even buyable in some cases. The point is, 40k doesn't need those to function, simply the rulebook and codex, and after a few games with an army, you rarely need to refer to those more than once or twice a game.

No miniatures game needs cards or tokens to function but 40k can be vastly improved in playability with both, that is why GW itself released a token set a few years back and that is why people have printed Army builder style pages with unit stats since the beginning of time.

Herzlos wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
I can't speak for Warmahordes as I've never looked at it, but the variety in FOW consists of Men with Guns and Tanks vs Other Men With Guns and Tanks. Compare that with Power Armoured Men Falling From The Sky vs Aliens with Hover Tanks and Battlesuits and you can see what I mean. Every faction in 40k, with the exception of the SM chapters, plays entirely differently, works differently, and 'feels' different. That's the kind of variety I'm on about.

FoW consists of different qualities of men (giving different morale/skill levels) with different types of guns (with different ranges/damage/fire rates), paired with different qualities of tanks (giving different morale/skill levels) with different specs (speed/armour/ROF) and weapons (with different ranges/damage/fire rates), and aircraft.

40K consists of different things which are largely equivalent; units with 2+ save and 3+ to hit (TEQ), units with a 3+ save and 3+ to hit (MEQ), units with a 5+ save and 4+ to hit (human equivalent), and so on. They look different and play a bit different, but they tend to have fairly similar stats for all of the special rules thrown at them. Some units move faster, or hover, or whatever, but in game terms they are fairly similar.

And you're telling me FOW isn't the same? I imagine most things still have fairly similar statlines if you want to put them into categories, and they're all limited by virtue of being a historical representation. Do you have units that can teleport? No. Do you have units that can deploy from drop pods? No, of course not. and that's not something that inherently bad, but all I'm saying is that 40k has the ind of variety that few others can match.

And whilst they play differently you need to change a lot of them to change how your army plays. In games like Malifaux you can change a model or 2 for a vastly different play style.

This is simply by dint of being a skirmish ruleset, so the comparison really is invalid. From what I've read, Malifaux has 5-10 minis a side, and changing two therefore represents a 20-40% change in army composition. In 40k, being able to change 30% of an army would just as easily allow me to change the play style of the army.

Regarding the clunkyness of the rules, I never said 40k was the best, most perfect and ultimately balanced ruleset. I'm just trying to point out that some slight issues with the rules don't preclude it from being a good game that people can play and enjoy.

Even balance issues aside, I think it barely counts as a competent ruleset. It's trying to do epic things, but it doesn't do them well.

As for the huge amount of stuff, I can't think of another 28mm system that can really handle shooting, close combat, vehicles, monstrous creatures, fliers and abilities as well as 40k can. The sheer scope of the game is what puts it ahead of others in that regard.

I'd assume any game which supports all of those units will do it as well.

And an example of that would be? In 28mm, I really can't think of one that's readily available.

If you want cards and tokens as gaming aids, then that's fine and they are easily makable or even buyable in some cases. The point is, 40k doesn't need those to function, simply the rulebook and codex, and after a few games with an army, you rarely need to refer to those more than once or twice a game.

I've been playing 40K on and off for nearly 20 years, through 3 editions (2nd, 5th, 6th) and I don't recall ever playing a game where I've only had to look at one of the books as little as once or twice, usually to check what a special rule means. Whereas after my 3rd game of Malifaux I haven't even opened the rulebook.

Well, as I say, all I can speak from is my experience. Maybe I just tend to remember things too well, but the only things we end up checking the rules for are rule interactions that haven't come up before. I've never had a rule slow the game by more than as long as it takes to get a 3rd party opinion or roll off for it.

 Paradigm wrote:
Do you have units that can teleport? No.

You do. They are called para-troopers.

 Paradigm wrote:

Do you have units that can deploy from drop pods? No, of course not.

Again, you do, they are called Assault Glider troops.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Regarding teaching, all I can say is that in the last few years, I've taught maybe half a dozen people to play 40k, and all of them, by the end of the second or third turn, understood the core mechanics, which is ultimately what the game needs to work. Of course it is hard if you try and introduce everything at once, but if you break it down, it's fine to teach. As I say, I can only speak for my experience here.

Congratulations, you taught half a dozen people how to play a very minor subset of 40k. On those same 2 turns you could have taught the entirety of X-Wing's rules to a new player. THAT is the mark of an easy to teach game.

Teaching someone how move-shoot-assault works and then sending them home to read the rest of the 200 pages rulebook does not an easy to learn game make.

I tend to assume people playing 40k have the basic intelligence required to read a codex for themselves, and understand how those rules work. It's hardly rocket science.

 Paradigm wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Regarding teaching, all I can say is that in the last few years, I've taught maybe half a dozen people to play 40k, and all of them, by the end of the second or third turn, understood the core mechanics, which is ultimately what the game needs to work. Of course it is hard if you try and introduce everything at once, but if you break it down, it's fine to teach. As I say, I can only speak for my experience here.

Congratulations, you taught half a dozen people how to play a very minor subset of 40k. On those same 2 turns you could have taught the entirety of X-Wing's rules to a new player. THAT is the mark of an easy to teach game.

Teaching someone how move-shoot-assault works and then sending them home to read the rest of the 200 pages rulebook does not an easy to learn game make.

I tend to assume people playing 40k have the basic intelligence required to read a codex for themselves, and understand how those rules work. It's hardly rocket science.

Are you actually claiming that a brand new player that never played the game before, can simply be taught how to move-shoot-assault and then figure everything out by himself simply from reading the book(s)?

Also answer me this please, is 40k easier or harder to teach than X-Wing?

PhantomViper wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Regarding teaching, all I can say is that in the last few years, I've taught maybe half a dozen people to play 40k, and all of them, by the end of the second or third turn, understood the core mechanics, which is ultimately what the game needs to work. Of course it is hard if you try and introduce everything at once, but if you break it down, it's fine to teach. As I say, I can only speak for my experience here.

Congratulations, you taught half a dozen people how to play a very minor subset of 40k. On those same 2 turns you could have taught the entirety of X-Wing's rules to a new player. THAT is the mark of an easy to teach game.

Teaching someone how move-shoot-assault works and then sending them home to read the rest of the 200 pages rulebook does not an easy to learn game make.

I tend to assume people playing 40k have the basic intelligence required to read a codex for themselves, and understand how those rules work. It's hardly rocket science.

Are you actually claiming that a brand new player that never played the game before, can simply be taught how to move-shoot-assault and then figure everything out by himself simply from reading the book(s)?

Also answer me this please, is 40k easier or harder to teach than X-Wing?

Actually, yes I am. That's how I learned, just from the books. That's how the guy that introduced me learned. I'm not saying it's the best way, but it's certainly doable so long as you can and will read the rulebook and, if need be, can 'test' it with models. The rulebooks exist for a reason, to tell people the rules.

I've not idea on 40k vs X-wing as I've never looked at X-wing at all.

 Paradigm wrote:

As for the huge amount of stuff, I can't think of another 28mm system that can really handle shooting, close combat, vehicles, monstrous creatures, fliers and abilities as well as 40k can. The sheer scope of the game is what puts it ahead of others in that regard.

I'd assume any game which supports all of those units will do it as well.

And an example of that would be? In 28mm, I really can't think of one that's readily available.

Brushfire

 Paradigm wrote:

I've not idea on 40k vs X-wing as I've never looked at X-wing at all.

Thank you for proving my point that any claims that 40k is the best at anything are just the product of someone that actually has no experience on anything other than 40k...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:

As for the huge amount of stuff, I can't think of another 28mm system that can really handle shooting, close combat, vehicles, monstrous creatures, fliers and abilities as well as 40k can. The sheer scope of the game is what puts it ahead of others in that regard.

I'd assume any game which supports all of those units will do it as well.

And an example of that would be? In 28mm, I really can't think of one that's readily available.

Warmahordes, Infinity, Tomorrow's War...

 Paradigm wrote:

I tend to assume people playing 40k have the basic intelligence required to read a codex for themselves, and understand how those rules work. It's hardly rocket science.

The core rules themselves are fine is a bit badly worded at times. The problems come in with all the exceptions and interactions.

For instance, I've got an I6 character with a powerfist in one hand (so I1) and a power sword in the other (I6). My opponent is I4. Who strikes first?

PhantomViper wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

I've not idea on 40k vs X-wing as I've never looked at X-wing at all.

Thank you for proving my point that any claims that 40k is the best at anything are just the product of someone that actually has no experience on anything other than 40k...

Incorrent, and unfounded. I have never looked at X-wing, but have played 40k, Warhammer Fantasy, Deadzone, Warpath, LOTR, War of the Ring and will soon be starting Malifaux. 40k was not my first game, and is far from my only one. My reasons for not approaching X-wing are purely down to the cost of the ships and their small size. That and the fact they're pre-painted kills any interest I have in it.

 Paradigm wrote:

As for the huge amount of stuff, I can't think of another 28mm system that can really handle shooting, close combat, vehicles, monstrous creatures, fliers and abilities as well as 40k can. The sheer scope of the game is what puts it ahead of others in that regard.

I'd assume any game which supports all of those units will do it as well.

And an example of that would be? In 28mm, I really can't think of one that's readily available.

Warmahordes, Infinity, Tomorrow's War...

Infinity is a small-scale Skirmish game, I'd like to see someone try a 40k sized battle with it. Warmahordes I don't really know about but from what I've seen is purely about killing one enemy model; and it seems to lack elements from my list such as fliers and vehicles. Tomorrow's War I've barely even heard of, so I can't comment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

I tend to assume people playing 40k have the basic intelligence required to read a codex for themselves, and understand how those rules work. It's hardly rocket science.

The core rules themselves are fine is a bit badly worded at times. The problems come in with all the exceptions and interactions.

For instance, I've got an I6 character with a powerfist in one hand (so I1) and a power sword in the other (I6). My opponent is I4. Who strikes first?

That's simple, and covered in the rule. You pick a weapon to strike with, apply any bonuses or penalties, and then strike in that order. You can't use both, so either you use the sword and hit at I6, or the fist and the opponent hits first. I really can't see how that would cause an issue when it's clearly set out in the rules.

Flames of War

Warhammer 40k


The rest of the games I play are kind of out of date now I think. But id say that those two are the best at the moment. Both have a lot of players, one is more tight and competitive while the other is more loose and free. I would put warhammer up there but im still kinda new to it, but so far its ok too. If King of Kings is still considered new then that goes in place of warhammer.

 Paradigm wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

I've not idea on 40k vs X-wing as I've never looked at X-wing at all.

Thank you for proving my point that any claims that 40k is the best at anything are just the product of someone that actually has no experience on anything other than 40k...

Incorrent, and unfounded. I have never looked at X-wing, but have played 40k, Warhammer Fantasy, Deadzone, Warpath, LOTR, War of the Ring and will soon be starting Malifaux. 40k was not my first game, and is far from my only one. My reasons for not approaching X-wing are purely down to the cost of the ships and their small size. That and the fact they're pre-painted kills any interest I have in it.

Its not. You were claiming that 40k was easy to teach when apparently you've never experienced a system that is actually easy to teach as a comparison.

 Paradigm wrote:

Infinity is a small-scale Skirmish game, I'd like to see someone try a 40k sized battle with it. Warmahordes I don't really know about but from what I've seen is purely about killing one enemy model; and it seems to lack elements from my list such as fliers and vehicles. Tomorrow's War I've barely even heard of, so I can't comment.

Stop moving the goalposts of the discussion every time that you are proven wrong, please, it gets tiring.

Infinity is a small scale skirmish game but has all the elements that you've mentioned. You never mentioned anything about sizes of battle in your argument.

Warmahordes is not about killing one enemy model, go look at the various mission packs that are issued for it every year (and even if it was, that had absolutely nothing to do with any of the arguments that you used before). Also, Warmahordes has both vehicles and flyers.

Again, all your arguments seem to boil down to 40k is the best because it is all that I know...

 Paradigm wrote:


I've not idea on 40k vs X-wing as I've never looked at X-wing at all.

Well. The main problem is of course scale and complexity.

40K is a decades-old game with nearly 20 factions, hundreds of different units and miniatures, which with all options amount to close to a billion possible armies and army-matchups.

X-Wing is a not-quite-2-year-old game with 2 factions, currently 8 miniatures per side, each with less upgrade/weapon-variations options than your average Sternguard entry.

Also, there is only 1 type of terrain in X-Wing, no variations to deployment, standardized shooting, no HtH, no movement variations, no "transports" of units-within-units, no psychic phase, etc., etc.., etc...


To "fairly" compare the games, you'd either have to "assume" X-Wing up there with 40K's complexity, or 40K down there with X-Wings simplicity. And even than, you'd not be accounting for the very different style of game these two games want to create, which are - it would be safe to say - almost the exact opposite in the intentions of the game designers.

40K is a glorified skirmish game. Most armies only consist of a handful of units which are discrete elements with discrete rules. Even horde armies typically don't have a wide assortment of units.

Just because there are 100 models on the table doesn't mean the game is massively more complex, or that it gets a pass on clunky rules because it 'does so much more.' A squad of 10 Space Marines is one discrete thing. Functionally not much different from a warjack in Warmahordes, a character in Malifaux, a TAG in infinity, etc.

 Paradigm wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

I tend to assume people playing 40k have the basic intelligence required to read a codex for themselves, and understand how those rules work. It's hardly rocket science.

The core rules themselves are fine is a bit badly worded at times. The problems come in with all the exceptions and interactions.

For instance, I've got an I6 character with a powerfist in one hand (so I1) and a power sword in the other (I6). My opponent is I4. Who strikes first?

That's simple, and covered in the rule. You pick a weapon to strike with, apply any bonuses or penalties, and then strike in that order. You can't use both, so either you use the sword and hit at I6, or the fist and the opponent hits first. I really can't see how that would cause an issue when it's clearly set out in the rules.

That makes sense, thanks. I must have misread something about (paraphrasing) "models with power firsts always strike as if I1". I've only read through 6th Ed twice.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

I've not idea on 40k vs X-wing as I've never looked at X-wing at all.

Thank you for proving my point that any claims that 40k is the best at anything are just the product of someone that actually has no experience on anything other than 40k...

Incorrent, and unfounded. I have never looked at X-wing, but have played 40k, Warhammer Fantasy, Deadzone, Warpath, LOTR, War of the Ring and will soon be starting Malifaux. 40k was not my first game, and is far from my only one. My reasons for not approaching X-wing are purely down to the cost of the ships and their small size. That and the fact they're pre-painted kills any interest I have in it.

Its not. You were claiming that 40k was easy to teach when apparently you've never experienced a system that is actually easy to teach as a comparison.

No. I was claiming 40k was easy to teach and learn given my experience of learning and teaching several games; 40k has been no harfer to teach than any of the others.

Please define 'actually easy to teach' and then go through all the games I listed and prove that 40k is harder to teach than all of them, then I'll accept that I'm saying what I am saying 'because I've never experienced anything that is actually easy to teach'.

 Paradigm wrote:

As for the huge amount of stuff, I can't think of another 28mm system that can really handle shooting, close combat, vehicles, monstrous creatures, fliers and abilities as well as 40k can. The sheer scope of the game is what puts it ahead of others in that regard.

I'd assume any game which supports all of those units will do it as well.

And an example of that would be? In 28mm, I really can't think of one that's readily available.

Warmahordes, Infinity, Tomorrow's War...

Infinity is a small-scale Skirmish game, I'd like to see someone try a 40k sized battle with it. Warmahordes I don't really know about but from what I've seen is purely about killing one enemy model; and it seems to lack elements from my list such as fliers and vehicles. Tomorrow's War I've barely even heard of, so I can't comment.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Warmachine/Hordes has been the best average to competitive ruleset since 2003, Though I also find Bolt Action to be simple and balanced, so it's better for casual play than the former.

I've also played a little bit of the new 40k Editions. I thinks it looks good so far.

It would be if everything did not boil down to meeting in the center dishing it out to see who get to kill the enemy "king" first.

That's pretty much a description for every battle in history before 1800....

 Zweischneid wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Anyone claiming that 40k is the best rules set, at anything, can only make that claim if they've never experienced any other miniature game... ever...

Same for X-Wing.

The game's balance is so horribly out of whack, it makes 40K look like chess.

But it's popularity proves that "internet-good-will" is more important than actual objective review of the rules.

Balance and rules are two totally separate things.

X-wing has incredibly tight and easy to learn rules, but has some issues with balance.

40K has poorly written rules and poor balance.

Edit:

To clarify, one of my biggest problems with GW rules writing for the last 25 years is their insistence on having fluff explanations intermixed in with actual rules written in paragraph form. I hate that.

weeble1000 wrote:
40K is a glorified skirmish game. Most armies only consist of a handful of units which are discrete elements with discrete rules. Even horde armies typically don't have a wide assortment of units.

Just because there are 100 models on the table doesn't mean the game is massively more complex, or that it gets a pass on clunky rules because it 'does so much more.' A squad of 10 Space Marines is one discrete thing. Functionally not much different from a warjack in Warmahordes, a character in Malifaux, a TAG in infinity, etc.

That, once again, is laded with pre-judgement

To bring 40K down to a "comparable" level to X-Wing, you'd need to reduce the complexity a lot.

- Remove all factions save 2 (say, Space Marines and Necrons?)
- Strip those 2 factions down to only single-miniature-units, with only 4 or 5 miniatures per faction (e.g. Tac Marines, Assault Marines, Dreads, Scouts, vs. Warriors, Immortals, Wraiths & Flayed Ones? Each with a handful of equipment options)
- Standardise weapon-ranges for all weapons
- Standardise all weapon-damage-types to 2 dice, 3 dice, 4 dice or 5 dice.
- Standardise all armour, defense, saving throws, cover, jink, etc.. to 2 dice, 3 dice or 4 dice.
- Remove hand-to-hand-combat
- Remove all variant deployment options (e.g. infiltrate, reserve, etc..)
- Remove all terrain types except one.
- Remove all psychic, Willpower, Leadership-related rules
- etc...
- etc..

There's a lot to strip away from 40K to make a valid like-for-like comparison with X-Wing, even if you assume that 40k is an "oversized skirmish game".

@Zweischeid:

Have you ever considered the fact that 40K's attempt to do so many things at the same time is one of the reasons why there are so many issues with the rules?

(And please, do not try to argue there aren't that many serious issues with the rules. I'm certain you've visited YMDC recently.)

Saldiven wrote:
@Zweischeid:

Have you ever considered the fact that 40K's attempt to do so many things at the same time is one of the reasons why there are so many issues with the rules?

(And please, do not try to argue there aren't that many serious issues with the rules. I'm certain you've visited YMDC recently.)

Have you ever considered that 40K is simply trying to achieve something very different than ... say ... Warmachine, X-Wing, Infinity, etc.. and that comparing them on the same (usually Warmachine/Infinity-biased)-benchmark is missing the point of what 40K is trying to do?

Whether 40K succeeds or fails at what it tries to do is a topic for a different thread.

But the very fact that 40K does try to create something very different (and, I would argue, unique) from the other run-of-the-mill-miniature-games out there is why it is such an enrichment to the hobby in general.

Ultimately, they offer different experiences. 40K doesn't scratch my "let's-play-chess"-itch (or Dreadball-cravings, or Axis & Allies, or X-Wing), and chess (or any of the others) doesn't fulfill my "let's-play-40K"-needs. Horses for courses. Apples and Oranges. etc...