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.

What is it trying to achieve that is different enough to make it incomparable with any other game?

IMHO it's not a skirmish game, and other skirmish games are better. It's not a mass battle game, and other mass battle games are better.
It's certainly the only one that lets you "forge the narrative" with your collection of minis set in the "40K universe", but you can use other games for that, and other games give better narrative play.

 Zweischneid wrote:

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.

Actually, no, this is exactly the thread for it.

We're discussing games with good rules. People have brought up 40K as having "good rules." If the rules set for 40K does not succeed at "what it tries to do," then obviously the rules are not good.

Herzlos wrote:
What is it trying to achieve that is different enough to make it incomparable with any other game?

A hugely open 28mm mass battle game with a strong narrative element and huge amounts of player freedom, combined with a massive degree of variation in and within armies, and that can support small skirmishes to hugely apocalyptic battles.. The reason 40k is the go-to game for most sci fi players is that it offers this on a scale that no one else does.

Saldiven wrote:


We're discussing games with good rules. People have brought up 40K as having "good rules." If the rules set for 40K does not succeed at "what it tries to do," then obviously the rules are not good.

Perhaps.

But people have also said that X-Wing or Infinity are "better" rules, even though they aim to achieve very different things.

That is obviously wrong.

I would argue that ... say ... X-Wing is vastly inferior at achieving what Warhammer 40K is trying to achieve (and vice versa).

 Paradigm wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
What is it trying to achieve that is different enough to make it incomparable with any other game?

A hugely open 28mm mass battle game with a strong narrative element and huge amounts of player freedom, combined with a massive degree of variation in and within armies, and that can support small skirmishes to hugely apocalyptic battles.. The reason 40k is the go-to game for most sci fi players is that it offers this on a scale that no one else does.

But it attempts to do it on a battlefield that is, at 28mm scale, roughly 100 meters by 150 meters.

The scale of the battles have gotten way too big for the scale of the models. Their attempts to do so much at this scale is, in my opinion, the direct reason why there are so many issues, inconsistencies, and poor interactions with the rules.

Saldiven wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
What is it trying to achieve that is different enough to make it incomparable with any other game?

A hugely open 28mm mass battle game with a strong narrative element and huge amounts of player freedom, combined with a massive degree of variation in and within armies, and that can support small skirmishes to hugely apocalyptic battles.. The reason 40k is the go-to game for most sci fi players is that it offers this on a scale that no one else does.

But it attempts to do it on a battlefield that is, at 28mm scale, roughly 100 meters by 150 meters.

The scale of the battles have gotten way too big for the scale of the models. Their attempts to do so much at this scale is, in my opinion, the direct reason why there are so many issues, inconsistencies, and poor interactions with the rules.

It's a game, not a simulation.

Would you say that the space-distances and flight speeds on your average X-Wing table are more "realistic" (in a space-flight-simulation-kind-of-assumption)?

How many square-miles of "space" is your average 3 by 3 X-Wing table "to scale" with that X-Wing miniature?

 Zweischneid wrote:

Saldiven wrote:


We're discussing games with good rules. People have brought up 40K as having "good rules." If the rules set for 40K does not succeed at "what it tries to do," then obviously the rules are not good.

Perhaps.

But people have also said that X-Wing or Infinity are "better" rules, even though they aim to achieve very different things.

That is obviously wrong.

I would argue that ... say ... X-Wing is vastly inferior at achieving what Warhammer 40K is trying to achieve (and vice versa).

?????

X-wing achieves its attempted goal better than 40K achieves its attempted goal.

That's why X-wing has better rules.

The only reasonable measuring stick is how well the respective games achieve what that system wishes to achieve. We're discussing relative rule sets, not game genre.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Would you say that the space-distances and flight speeds on your average X-Wing table are more "realistic" (in a space-flight-simulation-kind-of-assumption)?

How many square-miles of "space" is your average 3 by 3 X-Wing table "to scale" with that X-Wing miniature?

In a Star Wars dog fighting game? It's pretty much spot on, and fits perfectly with the ship combat scenes from the movies.

Saldiven wrote:


?????

X-wing achieves its attempted goal better than 40K achieves its attempted goal.

That's why X-wing has better rules.

The only reasonable measuring stick is how well the respective games achieve what that system wishes to achieve. We're discussing relative rule sets, not game genre.

Perhaps.

But 40K is still the best (and arguably only) game far and wide at achieving what 40K sets out to do. Until a better game comes along at creating the 40K-style experience, it'll have its place as "the best" in that particular field.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
What is it trying to achieve that is different enough to make it incomparable with any other game?

A hugely open 28mm mass battle game with a strong narrative element and huge amounts of player freedom, combined with a massive degree of variation in and within armies, and that can support small skirmishes to hugely apocalyptic battles.. The reason 40k is the go-to game for most sci fi players is that it offers this on a scale that no one else does.

But it attempts to do it on a battlefield that is, at 28mm scale, roughly 100 meters by 150 meters.

The scale of the battles have gotten way too big for the scale of the models. Their attempts to do so much at this scale is, in my opinion, the direct reason why there are so many issues, inconsistencies, and poor interactions with the rules.

It's a game, not a simulation.

Would you say that the space-distances and flight speeds on your average X-Wing table are more "realistic" (in a space-flight-simulation-kind-of-assumption)?

Totally, 100% missing my point.

For the last four editions, 40K has been ever expanding the size of the armies on the battlefield. Back in Rogue Trader, a full sized army might have 20-30 models on the table. Today, it's gotten to the point that they're including aircraft, titans, massive warmachines, huge fortifications, and armies than have 150+ models. They've done this while keeping the overall scale the same. The attempts at keeping the scale the same while increasing the size of the battles is, in my opinion, one of the things that has caused some of the rules issues.

 Paradigm wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
What is it trying to achieve that is different enough to make it incomparable with any other game?

A hugely open 28mm mass battle game with a strong narrative element and huge amounts of player freedom, combined with a massive degree of variation in and within armies, and that can support small skirmishes to hugely apocalyptic battles.. The reason 40k is the go-to game for most sci fi players is that it offers this on a scale that no one else does.

I don't think it does it in a particularly elegant way though. There's not enough detail for small skirmish games yet far too much detail for apocalyptic battles. Because of balance issues there isn't a massive degree of variation of and within armies, unless you're playing "casual" games and ignoring half the rules.

There's a reasonable amount of player freedom, but it comes at the expense of an unwieldy game system, whereas other systems handle it better, including things like unit/stat builders to allow you to field literally anything you want.

Saldiven wrote:


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.

I wouldn't say balance and rules are totally different things. If the rules (core mechanics) are well written, they also make balancing easier. IMO easy balancing is one of the key elements of a good rule set, as a game needs to give roughly equal footing to each participant.

Addressing the question of 'simple vs. complicated' - I think some hallmarks of a good rule system is that the core is streamlined enough to allow easy learning and quick play, but also allows modifiers and further learning that create more tactical depth. These modifiers also should be easy and logical to use, and shouldn't take much extra time or effort. So it's a sort of question of 'complicated enough, but not too much', and ease of use and ease of understanding for all the players is one of the important design features.

One of my key gripes with 40k is that it feels bloated, meaning that it has somewhat complicated core rules, and a lot of extra rules that you need to look for in different books. You also get 'surprise' special rules in opponent's wargear etc. that are difficult to remember, unless you can spend a lot of time learning how the opponents army works. IMO a good system is where you see your opponents army list on the table, have the ability to quickly understand the key strengths and weaknesses of their units, and then adjust your own tactics accordingly 'on the fly'.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Saldiven wrote:


?????

X-wing achieves its attempted goal better than 40K achieves its attempted goal.

That's why X-wing has better rules.

The only reasonable measuring stick is how well the respective games achieve what that system wishes to achieve. We're discussing relative rule sets, not game genre.

Perhaps.

But 40K is still the best (and arguably only) game far and wide at achieving what 40K sets out to do. Until a better game comes along at creating the 40K-style experience, it'll have its place as "the best" in that particular field.

Being "the best" in the particular field doesn't mean their even "good" in an absolute sense when, as you assert, they're the only game trying to do what they're trying to do.

If you're the only person in your math class, getting a 35% score on your final exam still makes you the best in your class, despite the fact that you abjectly failed.

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.)

Agreed the reason you dont see many other 28mm games try and cover so many types of units is because thats not what 28mm was intended for if you really want a game that works for that size armies and variety of units the you need a smaller scale thats why I play dropzone commander ok not quite the large range of factions but lots of variety between the current ones and its a relatively new game so that will come.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Saldiven wrote:


?????

X-wing achieves its attempted goal better than 40K achieves its attempted goal.

That's why X-wing has better rules.

The only reasonable measuring stick is how well the respective games achieve what that system wishes to achieve. We're discussing relative rule sets, not game genre.

Perhaps.

But 40K is still the best (and arguably only) game far and wide at achieving what 40K sets out to do. Until a better game comes along at creating the 40K-style experience, it'll have its place as "the best" in that particular field.

What's a 40K style experience?

So essentially you're saying that 40K is a good rule set because it's the best at 40K? I've heard of people who prefer getting their 40K fix through other systems (Tomorrows War, modified Bolt Action, etc), so people disagree with you even there.

 prowla wrote:
One of my key gripes with 40k is that it feels bloated, meaning that it has somewhat complicated core rules, and a lot of extra rules that you need to look for in different books. You also get 'surprise' special rules in opponent's wargear etc. that are difficult to remember, unless you can spend a lot of time learning how the opponents army works.

I agree with this completely.

(I'll get flamed for this, but it's also something I feel about the current state of Warmachine/Hordes. They've gotten to the point that there are so many darn different units that have their own rules on the cards that it's tough to keep up with everything. If you don't play a ton, you have to reference your own and your opponents cards all the time just to make sure you're not messing yourself up in your decisions. The PP core rules are good, but the sheer number of units with their own rules and stats has gotten to a point that it's impractical to remember all of them.)

Herzlos wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Would you say that the space-distances and flight speeds on your average X-Wing table are more "realistic" (in a space-flight-simulation-kind-of-assumption)?

How many square-miles of "space" is your average 3 by 3 X-Wing table "to scale" with that X-Wing miniature?

In a Star Wars dog fighting game? It's pretty much spot on, and fits perfectly with the ship combat scenes from the movies.

Really? A 3' by 3' X-Wing table corresponds to ~20 ship lengths (on the basis of the 4cm bases), or about 3x the full 30cm range 3 ruler.

An X-Wing is said to be 12 meters long (and the miniature is actually longer than its base in the game).

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/X-wing_starfighter

The would make the recommended X-Wing table a ~ 250 meters by 250 meters (275 yards by 275 yards) patch of space to scale with the miniatures (possibly less).

That is not the kind of dog-fights I've seen in the movies.

Herzlos wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
What is it trying to achieve that is different enough to make it incomparable with any other game?

A hugely open 28mm mass battle game with a strong narrative element and huge amounts of player freedom, combined with a massive degree of variation in and within armies, and that can support small skirmishes to hugely apocalyptic battles.. The reason 40k is the go-to game for most sci fi players is that it offers this on a scale that no one else does.

I don't think it does it in a particularly elegant way though. There's not enough detail for small skirmish games yet far too much detail for apocalyptic battles. Because of balance issues there isn't a massive degree of variation of and within armies, unless you're playing "casual" games and ignoring half the rules.

There's a reasonable amount of player freedom, but it comes at the expense of an unwieldy game system, whereas other systems handle it better, including things like unit/stat builders to allow you to field literally anything you want.

It may not do it that elegantly (although, the way I see it, it's functional enough as it is). The balance is only a real issue when you look to break it, and that's only the nature of the competitive scene that GW has tried to get away from, because to them it's not the way 40k is meant to be played. It's meant to be casual, and as you point out, the balance is far better there. Hence, variation occurs when you play the game GW want you to play.

I really don't see how the system is that unwieldy (other than the weight of the rulebook ) but I think we'll have to agree to disagree there.

I think FoW works a pretty tight ruleset, it's got a workable tournament scene, some imbalances, but nothing insurmountable. Also the variety available by having a unit who can have the same armament but have variable skill/morale depending on list builds in a lot of variety with relatively few models

 Paradigm wrote:
The balance is only a real issue when you look to break it, and that's only the nature of the competitive scene that GW has tried to get away from, because to them it's not the way 40k is meant to be played. It's meant to be casual, and as you point out, the balance is far better there. Hence, variation occurs when you play the game GW want you to play.

The balance is only an issue for anyone who expects that points parity will give a vaguely fair game. I.e. a 1500pt force Vs a 1500pt force. You don't need to try to end up with a horribly broken match-up. There's no reason whatsoever that balance would hurt casual play, and the only way it works in casual play is by deliberately handicapping yourself and ignoring large chunks of the rulebooks. If the rules are only balanced when you re-write them, what's the point?

 Zweischneid wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Would you say that the space-distances and flight speeds on your average X-Wing table are more "realistic" (in a space-flight-simulation-kind-of-assumption)?

How many square-miles of "space" is your average 3 by 3 X-Wing table "to scale" with that X-Wing miniature?

In a Star Wars dog fighting game? It's pretty much spot on, and fits perfectly with the ship combat scenes from the movies.

Really? A 3' by 3' X-Wing table corresponds to ~20 ship lengths (on the basis of the 4cm bases), or about 3x the full 30cm range 3 ruler.

An X-Wing is said to be 12 meters long (and the miniature is actually longer than its base in the game).

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/X-wing_starfighter

The would make the recommended X-Wing table a ~ 250 meters by 250 meters (275 yards by 275 yards) patch of space to scale with the miniatures (possibly less).

That is not the kind of dog-fights I've seen in the movies.

As you said earlier, it's a game and not a simulation. It works pretty well for what it does even if the playing area is abstracted a bit. Though I'd say in a dogfight situation with agile craft a 250x250m area isn't ridiculous. Real jet fighters might need a couple of square miles to dogfight but bi-planes did it in much less.

It still jarrs less with immersion than having fortifications without a stones throw of an enemy fortification, or using fighter craft, or city destroying titans in an area the size of a football pitch.

You still haven't explained what the 40K experience is though.

Herzlos wrote:


As you said earlier, it's a game and not a simulation. It works pretty well for what it does even if the playing area is abstracted a bit. Though I'd say in a dogfight situation with agile craft a 250x250m area isn't ridiculous. Real jet fighters might need a couple of square miles to dogfight but bi-planes did it in much less.

It still jarrs less with immersion than having fortifications without a stones throw of an enemy fortification, or using fighter craft, or city destroying titans in an area the size of a football pitch.

You still haven't explained what the 40K experience is though.

Well, I have no issue with 40K's scale. Nothing there is "jarring" to me, at least not more so than in X-Wing.

Personal preferences and all.

The 40K experience places heavy emphasis on narrative game-play and next to none on balance (hence why judging it on the criteria of balance misses the point, as you can only "judge" a game on balance if it tries to be balanced in the first place). The 40K experience also emphasizes giving you a lot of options (Flyers, MCs, "space-magic", etc..) in the understanding that you shouldn't "ok" everything all the time and in every game.

Like a good spice rack in the kitchen, 40K works best if you pick your ingredients carefully. All at once will spoil the food.

 Zweischneid wrote:

The 40K experience places heavy emphasis on narrative game-play

What rules does 40k have that emphasize or promote narrative gameplay over, say, X-Wing (to quote another game that you say that you play)?

PhantomViper wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

The 40K experience places heavy emphasis on narrative game-play

What rules does 40k have that emphasize or promote narrative gameplay over, say, X-Wing (to quote another game that you say that you play)?

The "mission-statement" of the designers, as communicated through the books, White Dwarf, etc.., and therefore (among other things) the relative importance "the rules" as such have in the game.

 Zweischneid wrote:

The would make the recommended X-Wing table a ~ 250 meters by 250 meters (275 yards by 275 yards) patch of space to scale with the miniatures (possibly less).

That is not the kind of dog-fights I've seen in the movies.

Its not? It matches the dog-fights that I've seen in the movies pretty closely from what I remember.

We are talking about the same movies where enemy pilots were literally able to look each other in the eye and no craft could hit another unless they were less than 10 meters away from each other, right?

Saldiven wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Saldiven wrote:


We're discussing games with good rules. People have brought up 40K as having "good rules." If the rules set for 40K does not succeed at "what it tries to do," then obviously the rules are not good.

Perhaps.

But people have also said that X-Wing or Infinity are "better" rules, even though they aim to achieve very different things.

That is obviously wrong.

I would argue that ... say ... X-Wing is vastly inferior at achieving what Warhammer 40K is trying to achieve (and vice versa).

?????

X-wing achieves its attempted goal better than 40K achieves its attempted goal.

That's why X-wing has better rules.

The only reasonable measuring stick is how well the respective games achieve what that system wishes to achieve. We're discussing relative rule sets, not game genre.

Exalted for brevity.

 Zweischneid wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

The 40K experience places heavy emphasis on narrative game-play

What rules does 40k have that emphasize or promote narrative gameplay over, say, X-Wing (to quote another game that you say that you play)?

The "mission-statement" of the designers, as communicated through the books, White Dwarf, etc.., and therefore (among other things) the relative importance "the rules" as such have in the game.

So the reason the 40K rules are good at what they do, is because the designers tell you the rules aren't important?

 Zweischneid wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

The 40K experience places heavy emphasis on narrative game-play

What rules does 40k have that emphasize or promote narrative gameplay over, say, X-Wing (to quote another game that you say that you play)?

The "mission-statement" of the designers, as communicated through the books, White Dwarf, etc.., and therefore (among other things) the relative importance "the rules" as such have in the game.

LOL...LOL...LOL

I'm sorry guy, but this is hilarious. In a thread about which wargaming rule sets on the market are 'the best', you are saying that a set of rules is good because the game designers tell you that the rules of their game aren't important? Really?

Herzlos wrote:

So the reason the 40K rules are good at what they do, is because the designers tell you the rules aren't important?

Not in the "written-in-stone" sense they are used in other games.

Of course the 40K rules are important, but trying to communicate that they are trumped by other, more relevant factors to people who aren't used to that kind of mature gaming and have no experience outside of games that hold your hand for every little step is often abbreviated (and best achieved) by initially communicating that people should worry less about the rules and get the important things right first.

Again, Jervis Johnson, etc.., have frequently and repeatedly used the "buffet" or "spice rack" analogy to explain how the rules for 40K offer players a wide selection of things that player chose (economically and selectively) from in the pre-game negotiation. Approached in this manner, the rules are both "important" and work very well.

 Zweischneid wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

The 40K experience places heavy emphasis on narrative game-play

What rules does 40k have that emphasize or promote narrative gameplay over, say, X-Wing (to quote another game that you say that you play)?

The "mission-statement" of the designers, as communicated through the books, White Dwarf, etc.., and therefore (among other things) the relative importance "the rules" as such have in the game.

Those aren't rules, those are declarations of intent. They don't do anything to actively promote a gaming narrative.

I'll give you an example of a truly narrative game: in Force on Force the units that you an your opponent use are defined by the story of the mission that you are playing. There are no points costs for units and therefore there aren't any suggestions that both forces will be balanced in relation to each other and as a matter of fact, more often then not, they won't be. But that is perfectly fine, because both forces will have asymmetric goals to accomplish and those goals will reflect their comparative strengths.

See, that is an example of a narrative rules set.

Another one is the campaign mode in Necromunda or Mordheim, for example, where the player is encouraged to weight the value between winning the individual game or preserving its forces for future battles and where the accomplishments or failures of individual models will carry through to the next game, therefore forging a natural narrative.

There is absolutely nothing like any of these examples in 40k, neither is there any other rule designed to encourage any type of narrative gameplay. The only thing that exists is a suggestion from the game developers that you should find ways for your army to be fighting the opposing players army, and that you can do in every single miniature wargame in existence!

 Zweischneid wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

So the reason the 40K rules are good at what they do, is because the designers tell you the rules aren't important?

Not in the "written-in-stone" sense they are used in other games.

Of course the 40K rules are important, but trying to communicate that they are trumped by other, more relevant factors to people who aren't used to that kind of mature gaming and have no experience outside of games that hold your hand for every little step is often abbreviated (and best achieved) by initially communicating that people should worry less about the rules and get the important things right first.

Give it up Zwei, you just torpedoed your position and have lost all semblance of credibility.