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.

 Nate668 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Oh look at this, another thread bitching about people bitching, while failing to explain how a balanced rule set would ruin beer and pretzels time, or why I can't expect one for the $220 they expect me to spend on the two rule books alone.

People understand that GW isn't listening. The customers are though. As said, "vote with your wallet".

Glad to hear how much GW works for you though nate668. Because that's my main concern when I looked 7th for the first time, I was thinking "damn I hope this edition doesn't negatively affect the level of enjoyment nate668 gets out if his beer and pretzel nights". And I'm sure I speak for the vast majority of all the people not impressed by GW currently as well.

But thanks for making this thread, now all the rest of us can sleep easy. I doubt there will be another anti-GW post in months after this.

Be sure to check back in when 8th drops nate668!

Man, you're so far off the point I'm trying to make. I'll summarize as clearly as I can here:

40k has (and frankly, always has had) some fundamental flaws that make it unsuited to competitive play. This sucks! We all wish it was better. The only thing we can do to affect GW is to vote with our wallets, and avoid purchasing the things we disagree with. Complaining on Dakka will not change 40k, and is a waste of time and energy that could be better spent doing something that makes each of us happy. If you take a break from 40k, you may find that you still want nothing to do with it years from now, or you may be able to accept it for it's shortcomings and find that you enjoy it for what it is. Either way, you will have more time and energy to devote to things you like, and Dakka will be a better place for everyone.

If I drop 40k once 8th comes around, you won't find me here posting about it, because I'd rather spend my time having fun instead of complaining about things that I wish I liked.

Except complaining on Dakka might effect that change for the following reason.

A player looking into starting tabletop wargames will likely look at forums to see what the community is like and whether there's any things they should know before they put a load of money down. And so they might see the problems highlighted by users here and decide to spend their money elsewhere.

That results in less sales for GW and so you have effectively got someone to vote with their wallet without actually ever giving GW any money, which is the best outcome from a wallet-voting standpoint.

GWs entire "marketing strategy" is based on existing players recruiting new players and, nowadays, often the easiest way to do that is on the internet. And so complaining on the internet about real issues with the game and GW allows you to tell the largest pool of people about those issues. The customer has never had as much power to force change from a company as they do now with the internet as it easily allows you to address a huge amount of people.

That is the danger of GW's strategy.

However it may turn out there are more people who like the new version of the game than the old one.

@Kilkrazy: ...This is the internets, after all, and logical, calm arguments tend to be drowned out by all the bs. ...

On DakkaDakka we have moderation to encourage people away from that line of thinking.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

However it may turn out there are more people who like the new version of the game than the old one..

I would find that a bit strange since the new edition doesn't do anything to address the grievances of the players that left the game with 6th, but instead seems to double down on most of them.

bullyboy wrote:
it's not GW that makes 40K generally a poor game, it's the player base. The constant search for the next "star" or broken combo is what drives the game in the wrong direction. GW could tighten the rules by adding restriction after restriction, but with so many options currently available, it would take a serious commitment and culling to do so. Basically starting from scratch which is almost impossible to do..

why "impossible"?

I disagree that this is the case. Hard? Sure. But impossible? No. And what about the potential rewards? A redesign from the ground up is not an impossible thing. its also been done before - even by GW in their shift from 2nd to 3rd.

Also, i find it ironic that you equate tight rules with restriction built upon restriction - but look at the game you have now. Loads of the options are effectively no-go areas and might as well not be counted.

bullyboy wrote:
i So what do players do? They abuse the freedom that is provided. Daemonology is a perfect example. It's a great idea to introduce this into 40K, especially with the dark nature of the 40K universe, but then the player base has to find a way to get 30+ summoning dice available. That's the player, not the game. Beastmaster with beasts, how about maybe 5 beasts with your beastmaster? No, player base wants 20+ of them. Etc, etc.
Eldar players told to spam wave serpents with minimal DA sqds inside. OK, aspect warriors in wave serpents are a fluffy feature, but you know the serpent can carry 12 models right?

and this is a thing because of shoddy rules. Had the rules been balanced, those lists would be a thing, but wouldnt have any of the negative connotations. 20 beasts? Sure why not. a balanced game would mean you could play those lists because you liked them and thought they were cool, without any backlash from the community. and why should the beastmaster and 20 beast player feel bad? Why should be suffer some one elses temper tantrum? Is their choices not as valid? Hmm. Who are you to tell him his choices are invalid? who are you to say he is"abusing" the freedom when it might simply be something he finds engaging and appealing? you cant just label people because they have a different perspective.

What we have with 40k is self policing via social control, negative stigmatisation and group pressure. Bullying by other words. if anything, this attitude leads to even more resentment within the player base.

bullyboy wrote:

GW has made the ruleset and the codices pretty flexible (overly so) so that many odd combos can be played to cover the 40K 'verse, and small units allowed so that players can play 500pt games with a mix of units. But it's the player base that has created most of the angst that is associated with the game. There are more TFG than you probably think and you may well be one of them. Hate GW as much as you wish, but first figure out what is truly ruining the game.

See above. it is possible to have a flexible rules set that is well made.

Once you've escaped GW and 40k and moved on to greener pastures, sometimes you want to bitch and moan and point out flaws in the hopes other people will leave too.

Some tabletop gaming is better than no tabletop gaming, but I feel like there are better ways to spend precious tabletop gaming time than 40k.

I dislike the idea that 40k should only be enjoyed as a "beer and pretzels game". That's basically just excusing poor game design.

I'm not a very competitive gamer anymore, but a more balanced ruleset can't hurt anything.

To me, what's worse, is that 40k's rules just feel sloppy, they don't feel like a narrative oriented game, the rules are still made for what really are pickup games with even points levels of indeterminate forces.

Essentially this means the basic game setup is one of a competitive "pick up and play" game, but everything else that follows doesn't fit this, it's basically "yeah um, just take whatever stuff you bought from us and do stuff with it". Ultimately this doesn't really make it a "beer and pretzels" game, it makes it a badly designed game and relies entirely on players (having already set up for a "competitive" type game) to then make it a "narrative".

There are other games that really do go out of their way to do the Narrative thing much better, and would often have specific scenarios that would explain exactly how terrain would be laid out, what armies had which units, etc.

GW's current method of "here's a tournament style mission and deployment setup, then throw down whatever toss dice" is just really sloppy and feels like it's trying to do too many things, and does them all very poorly.

Personally, a tighter ruleset would make 40k more of a beer and pretzels game to me because having to stop and puzzle out what the drunken monkey who wrote the rule meant when he wrote it is just pure buzzkill.

In fact, Kirby et al shall forever be known collectively as Buzzkillington Inc.

Not trying to discourage anyone from playing 40k that way, but I've found Dreadball to be a *much* better beer and pretzels game than 40k. 15 min games, fast action, good depth and rapid changes in fortune for players make it not only fun to play, but fun to watch. It also has a 2-6 player version so no one has to be left out - which is great because I rarely drink with just one friend.

KommissarKarl wrote:
You're saying that a forum dedicated to discussing something, shouldn't be pro-something?

Not intrinsically, no. A forum dedicated to discussing something should be pro-discussion.

That means there should be room for everybody's opinion on that thing.


Some forums appear to be more positive overall because they choose to delete anything they see as overly negative. We prefer to allow people to share their opinions, provided they remain civil about it. Stifling any criticism doesn't create a healthy community... just one that is blind to any problems.

You know, one thing I often dislike is that 40k isn't even an narrative game. I know I've said this before but it keeps getting stuck in my craw, as it were. Nothing about 40k's rules are narrative anything, they're sloppy.

A narrative rules set would allow for more variety in what you pick (okay as much as I hate it Unbound did this somewhat) without opening the floodgates to just take every broken thing in your army (Unbound). A narrative rules set would allow for actual scenarios that could be part of a larger battle, not a bunch of missions that are just minor variations of the same thing. A narrative rules set wouldn't just have a ton of random gak thrown in like the objective cards or warlord traits; you'd be able to buy/pick a trait for your army that fits your commander's theme and flesh them out. A narrative rules set would allow for odd scenarios like the Roarke's Drift one with Praetorians vs. Orks, with imbalanced forces by design to add to the story.

40k doesn't do any of those things. They claim it's a narrative game, but they aren't offering anything to make it that way, in fact what they offer is little better than making up rules as you go and godmodding.

WayneTheGame wrote:
You know, one thing I often dislike is that 40k isn't even an narrative game. I know I've said this before but it keeps getting stuck in my craw, as it were. Nothing about 40k's rules are narrative anything, they're sloppy.

Couldn't agree more! I wish we could find an experienced wargamer who lived in a 40k-less vacuum, then give them the rulebook (minus the intro paragraph about forging a narrative) and let them play, and see if they consider the game narrative based. To me the rules do not encourage, support, or lend themselves to narrative gaming at all. Especially compared to ACTUAL narrative games like Star Wars Edge of the Empire or even the Mouseguard RPG.

The designers push for one thing, then the rules speak volumes to the opposite.

Any crying that 40ks rules are cinematic and/or narrative should look at Deadzone. THAT game is cinematic as hell, as well as being fluid and fun. Having complex rules and special rules on every unit does not make it cinematic.

WayneTheGame wrote:
You know, one thing I often dislike is that 40k isn't even an narrative game. I know I've said this before but it keeps getting stuck in my craw, as it were. Nothing about 40k's rules are narrative anything, they're sloppy.

A narrative rules set would allow for more variety in what you pick (okay as much as I hate it Unbound did this somewhat) without opening the floodgates to just take every broken thing in your army (Unbound). A narrative rules set would allow for actual scenarios that could be part of a larger battle, not a bunch of missions that are just minor variations of the same thing. A narrative rules set wouldn't just have a ton of random gak thrown in like the objective cards or warlord traits; you'd be able to buy/pick a trait for your army that fits your commander's theme and flesh them out. A narrative rules set would allow for odd scenarios like the Roarke's Drift one with Praetorians vs. Orks, with imbalanced forces by design to add to the story.

40k doesn't do any of those things. They claim it's a narrative game, but they aren't offering anything to make it that way, in fact what they offer is little better than making up rules as you go and godmodding.

They could've even returned the old rogue trader campaign rules, the various sets that allow for wounds to say your warboss, maybe even buy upgrades from the Mad Dok who may accidentally give him a squig brain.

It was Narrative!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
You know, one thing I often dislike is that 40k isn't even an narrative game. I know I've said this before but it keeps getting stuck in my craw, as it were. Nothing about 40k's rules are narrative anything, they're sloppy.

A narrative rules set would allow for more variety in what you pick (okay as much as I hate it Unbound did this somewhat) without opening the floodgates to just take every broken thing in your army (Unbound). A narrative rules set would allow for actual scenarios that could be part of a larger battle, not a bunch of missions that are just minor variations of the same thing. A narrative rules set wouldn't just have a ton of random gak thrown in like the objective cards or warlord traits; you'd be able to buy/pick a trait for your army that fits your commander's theme and flesh them out. A narrative rules set would allow for odd scenarios like the Roarke's Drift one with Praetorians vs. Orks, with imbalanced forces by design to add to the story.

40k doesn't do any of those things. They claim it's a narrative game, but they aren't offering anything to make it that way, in fact what they offer is little better than making up rules as you go and godmodding.

They could've even returned the old rogue trader campaign rules, the various sets that allow for wounds to say your warboss, maybe even buy upgrades from the Mad Dok who may accidentally give him a squig brain.

It was Narrative!

There were rules for XP upgrade ideas in the back of the 4th ed Rulebook too, along with an example campaign. Not comprehensive but gave good starting points as to what kind of thing you could do to actually tie battles together with consequences of losing units in battle etc.

 MWHistorian wrote:

bullyboy wrote:
it's not GW that makes 40K generally a poor game, it's the player base. The constant search for the next "star" or broken combo is what drives the game in the wrong direction. GW could tighten the rules by adding restriction after restriction, but with so many options currently available, it would take a serious commitment and culling to do so. Basically starting from scratch which is almost impossible to do. So what do players do? They abuse the freedom that is provided. Daemonology is a perfect example. It's a great idea to introduce this into 40K, especially with the dark nature of the 40K universe, but then the player base has to find a way to get 30+ summoning dice available. That's the player, not the game. Beastmaster with beasts, how about maybe 5 beasts with your beastmaster? No, player base wants 20+ of them. Etc, etc.
Eldar players told to spam wave serpents with minimal DA sqds inside. OK, aspect warriors in wave serpents are a fluffy feature, but you know the serpent can carry 12 models right?

GW has made the ruleset and the codices pretty flexible (overly so) so that many odd combos can be played to cover the 40K 'verse, and small units allowed so that players can play 500pt games with a mix of units. But it's the player base that has created most of the angst that is associated with the game. There are more TFG than you probably think and you may well be one of them. Hate GW as much as you wish, but first figure out what is truly ruining the game.

I think that's an overly simplistic way of looking at it. TFG with his OP Super Morphin' Power List is easy to spot and dismiss. It's the gray areas that cause most of the problem. Take a player that really loves Eldar Guardians. He's loved Guardians since RT times. Well, he needs a way to get them up field to capture objectives, so what does he use? Waveserpents. Now all of a sudden he's a "TFG WAAC Player."

I would disagree with this. We have a tau player who's collected for about fifteen years, and after the new codex came out the only person who had a problem with him was the waac/cheater guy, who immediately called cheese and refused to play against him. I think, as long as your gaming group knows you, this sort of thing shouldn't be a problem. Hell if anything people are happy when they finally start stomping face - I was genuinely pleased for my eldar friend when he *finally* started winning some battles, regardless of how "cheese" or "op" some might have called them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
You know, one thing I often dislike is that 40k isn't even an narrative game. I know I've said this before but it keeps getting stuck in my craw, as it were. Nothing about 40k's rules are narrative anything, they're sloppy.
.

That's because you refuse to use any non-negative adjective to describe GW. I often see on dakka people saying "40k is not beer and pretzals", "40k is not casual" etc etc. Can you think of a single non-negative word you'd use to describe 40k?

Conveniently brushing aside the obvious fact that more people play 40k as a narrative game than play all other tabletop games put together, obviously.

 Gold tooth Jerry wrote:
The cure is a petition and a protest on their next release. If just half the players world wide stopped buying their products for a month they would make drastic changes. Remember they dont care about us. They care about our money in our wallets. Until we start using it as a weapon against them, they will keep using it as a weapon against us.

That's a good idea, but plenty of people lack the self control to stop impulse buying things like Riptides and Wraithknights.

KommissarKarl wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
You know, one thing I often dislike is that 40k isn't even an narrative game. I know I've said this before but it keeps getting stuck in my craw, as it were. Nothing about 40k's rules are narrative anything, they're sloppy.
.

That's because you refuse to use any non-negative adjective to describe GW. I often see on dakka people saying "40k is not beer and pretzals", "40k is not casual" etc etc. Can you think of a single non-negative word you'd use to describe 40k?

Conveniently brushing aside the obvious fact that more people play 40k as a narrative game than play all other tabletop games put together, obviously.

Setting aside your dropping of our previous discussion, the reason people play 40k as a narrative game is because of the fluff - not the rules. The 40k setting is amazing, who doesn't love the idea of chainsword wielding warrior monks charging into the ranks of a dying elder race with righteous fury? The problem is that doesn't work on the tabletop with melee being gimped unless you have a good way to get the models into combat - and even then, only the durable ones like wraiths excel. What have GW done lately that deserves a positive adjective? The only two things I can think of are the increased speed of releases (if you ignore potential quality concerns) and the introduction of some larger bundles that actually have discounts, of which I bought 3 each of the SM strike forces - that's (I shudder to think) something like $1200 I've spent on GW because for once they had models (that I wanted) sold at a reasonable price, from a US discounter. Note: I had to avoid 1. regional pricing in Australia and 2. the RRP to get this decent price. But still, I've complemented them on these and their paints recently because those are the only things they have done that I can think of that are worth compliments.

 Yonan wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
You know, one thing I often dislike is that 40k isn't even an narrative game. I know I've said this before but it keeps getting stuck in my craw, as it were. Nothing about 40k's rules are narrative anything, they're sloppy.
.

That's because you refuse to use any non-negative adjective to describe GW. I often see on dakka people saying "40k is not beer and pretzals", "40k is not casual" etc etc. Can you think of a single non-negative word you'd use to describe 40k?

Conveniently brushing aside the obvious fact that more people play 40k as a narrative game than play all other tabletop games put together, obviously.

Setting aside your dropping of our previous discussion, the reason people play 40k as a narrative game is because of the fluff - not the rules.
.

So people *do* play it as a narrative game? I appreciate your agreement, even if your insistance on trying to make me out to be somehow defending 40k is a little grating. Yes it's clunky and way too bloated but people still have fun playing it, the refusal to acknowledge that fact is one of the reasons that people are labeled as "haters" or "whingers" because they always push it to the extreme in stating that it is *too* bloated or *too* clunky to be playable at all. Just look at the above post - the refusal that 40k is a casual game when it demonstrably is, under more or less any definition of casual.

No one said that people don't play it as a narrative game, just that the lack of balance, unnecessary randomness and clunky rules doesn't help it be played that way. Also the lack of "narrative" rules such as the campaign rules in Deadzone make it's ability to play narratively worse than other games. So the argument is that while yes you can play it as a narrative game, it's 1. not as good as it could be and 2. worse than other games (except for the one redeeming factor, it's fluff).

Depending on your tolerances and how you play, 40k can be casual I guess, but it's certainly not optimal as a casual game given 1. investment required, 2. complexity of rules and 3. time required to play. You can probably play it casually, but other games are better at being casual because they don't suffer those three problems.

No one is saying people can't have fun playing 40k - or that we want them to not have fun. We're saying it's not as fun as it should be (for anyone), if some small changes were made by GW it would be that much fun again. Since those changes haven't been made, many of us are finding more fun playing elsewhere, even though we love the 40k setting and are willing to put up with a lot of gak to play in it - just not this much, which has ramped up rapidly since 6th.

 Yonan wrote:
No one said that people don't play it as a narrative game, just that the lack of balance, unnecessary randomness and clunky rules doesn't help it be played that way. Also the lack of "narrative" rules such as the campaign rules in Deadzone make it's ability to play narratively worse than other games. So the argument is that while yes you can play it as a narrative game, it's 1. not as good as it could be and 2. worse than other games (except for the one redeeming factor, it's fluff)..

That was not the jist of the post I replied to, I would probably agree with both of your points. The post I replied to literally said "40k isn't even a casual game", when it demonstrably is.

I'll leave that poster to back up his absolute if he wants to. I just stand by it not being as much of a casual game as other games, and that the problems we have with it - which some defend by saying it's to make 40k more casual - in fact don't make it more casual, if anything they can be proven to make it less casual.

KommissarKarl wrote:
Yes it's clunky and way too bloated but people still have fun playing it, the refusal to acknowledge that fact is one of the reasons that people are labeled as "haters" or "whingers" because they always push it to the extreme in stating that it is *too* bloated or *too* clunky to be playable at all.

People occasionally have fun playing lots of bad games. That doesn't make them good games.

Just look at the above post - the refusal that 40k is a casual game when it demonstrably is, under more or less any definition of casual.

No, 40k isn't even close to a casual game. A casual game is one that you can play "out of the box" without too many rules to learn, have a quick game or two without putting much attention into it, and then do something else. 40k is the exact opposite: you have to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars just to get started, learning the rules takes ages, setting up a game takes longer than playing an entire game of a real "casual" game, and you'd better have a few hours available to play your epic battle. That's not casual, it's a serious hobby that demands huge investments to get any reward out of it.

The only reason anyone thinks 40k is a casual game is that GW has convinced them that "don't ask any questions about how the rules are supposed to work" is all you need to have a casual game.

 Yonan wrote:
I'll leave that poster to back up his absolute if he wants to. I just stand by it not being as much of a casual game as other games, and that the problems we have with it - which some defend by saying it's to make 40k more casual - in fact don't make it more casual, if anything they can be proven to make it less casual.

Can you give me a single instance of somebody saying "Rule x is unclearly written because it makes the game more casual"? Or "This mechanic does not work properly because 40k is casual"?

 Nate668 wrote:
The 40k community here on Dakka is decidedly toxic.

If you say so...

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
I'll leave that poster to back up his absolute if he wants to. I just stand by it not being as much of a casual game as other games, and that the problems we have with it - which some defend by saying it's to make 40k more casual - in fact don't make it more casual, if anything they can be proven to make it less casual.

Can you give me a single instance of somebody saying "Rule x is unclearly written because it makes the game more casual"? Or "This mechanic does not work properly because 40k is casual"?

I think you missed my point. My point was that people say "the lack of clarity in the rules allow you to interpret it in your own way, which makes the game more casual."

edit: Maybe that is what you meant with the first one. I'll try and dig some up.

 Peregrine wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Yes it's clunky and way too bloated but people still have fun playing it, the refusal to acknowledge that fact is one of the reasons that people are labeled as "haters" or "whingers" because they always push it to the extreme in stating that it is *too* bloated or *too* clunky to be playable at all.

People occasionally have fun playing lots of bad games. That doesn't make them good games.

Yes it does. The point of a game is for the players to have fun. If they do this, that game is objectively good, regardless of whatever arbitrary criteria you might hold it up to. You are of course free to analyse and critisise a game when compared to other games and point out what you perceive its failings to be, but that doesn't make your opinion any better or worse's than any others.

If I design a game where you and I flip a coin each - if I flip a heads I win, if you flip a heads or tails you still lose. Clearly we won't enjoy or play this game, therefore I would consider it objectively bad. People aren't stupid (well I'm not sure about that), they wouldn't sit around playing 40k if they weren't enjoying themselves. And since they are enjoying themselves, it's a successful game.

Incidentally I feel this way about plenty of things that I regard as crap. The Sims has outsold Europa Universalis a billion times over, yet I still consider it utter trash. And yet, due to its popularity, I have to acknowledge that it is a successful and good game. Ditto how way more people will watch Lee Evans than Charlie Brooker, despite me having risible contempt for the former. And yet millions of people will tune in to watch him, so again on some level I have to acknowledge a talent there.

Ubiquity =\= quality

 Yonan wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
I'll leave that poster to back up his absolute if he wants to. I just stand by it not being as much of a casual game as other games, and that the problems we have with it - which some defend by saying it's to make 40k more casual - in fact don't make it more casual, if anything they can be proven to make it less casual.

Can you give me a single instance of somebody saying "Rule x is unclearly written because it makes the game more casual"? Or "This mechanic does not work properly because 40k is casual"?

I think you missed my point. My point was that people say "the lack of clarity in the rules allow you to interpret it in your own way, which makes the game more casual."

Okay, can you give me an instance of that instead? Because I think you're confusing the notion of "it's not important that the rules are unclear because we play it casually" vs "the rules are unclear and that makes it casual". I would agree with the former (while acknowledging that it can and should be clearer), I don't think I've ever seen anyone state what it is you appear to so vehemently disagree with.

Edit - nevermind I'm going to bed now. Reply if you want but I can't guarantee I'll get back to you.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Yes it's clunky and way too bloated but people still have fun playing it, the refusal to acknowledge that fact is one of the reasons that people are labeled as "haters" or "whingers" because they always push it to the extreme in stating that it is *too* bloated or *too* clunky to be playable at all.

People occasionally have fun playing lots of bad games. That doesn't make them good games.

Yes it does. The point of a game is for the players to have fun. If they do this, that game is objectively good, regardless of whatever arbitrary criteria you might hold it up to. You are of course free to analyse and critisise a game when compared to other games and point out what you perceive its failings to be, but that doesn't make your opinion any better or worse's than any others.

If I design a game where you and I flip a coin each - if I flip a heads I win, if you flip a heads or tails you still lose. Clearly we won't enjoy or play this game, therefore I would consider it objectively bad. People aren't stupid (well I'm not sure about that), they wouldn't sit around playing 40k if they weren't enjoying themselves. And since they are enjoying themselves, it's a successful game.

Incidentally I feel this way about plenty of things that I regard as crap. The Sims has outsold Europa Universalis a billion times over, yet I still consider it utter trash. And yet, due to its popularity, I have to acknowledge that it is a successful and good game. Ditto how way more people will watch Lee Evans than Charlie Brooker, despite me having risible contempt for the former. And yet millions of people will tune in to watch him, so again on some level I have to acknowledge a talent there.

To use some video game examples:

ET on the Atari is not a good game, though enjoyment can be had when playing it (or maybe watching other people play and get more and more infuriated).
Big Rigs: Over The Road Racing is not a good game, though you can have fun playing it (just seeing all the different ways to break it).
Superman 64 is not a good game but yet again you can have fun playing it (just to marvel at how bad and dull it is. Flying through hoops...YAY!).

Or maybe a notorious film example:

The Star Wars Holiday Special is awful. It goes beyond "so-bad-it's-good". Yet this can also provide some enjoyment when viewed in the right context. It's just that the context is not, at all, what the creators intended.

So you can have fun despite things being objectively bad. Having fun does not make something good. It just means that you can have fun playing something bad.

And, more importantly, people don't have fun because the 40k rules are good, they have fun despite the 40k rules being awful. People enjoy the setting and the models and that's enough to enjoy playing a game, but the rules make it a lot less fun than it could be. Replace the current game with one that doesn't suck and most people would have a lot more fun playing it.