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.

confoo22 wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
The value is being compared at a NORMAL game level, not the extremes. That's what you aren't understanding. Kill Team/Combat Patrol is not indicative of a standard 40k game and has no relevance, just like a Battlebox game for Warmachine has no relevance to the discussion. You can get a normal sized force for other games than it would take for an entry-level force for 40k, ergo 40k's price is way too high is what the entire argument is here, not that 500 points of 40k is such and such versus 300 points of Infinity.

In the context of a normal 40k army, $50 for five guys (e.g. Sternguard) is too much. Whether or not those five guys are amazing in a Kill Team game doesn't matter, because a Kill Team game is an outlier and not something that typically gets played outside of specific scenarios, leagues and/or tournaments. Kill Team isn't even referred to as a typical way to play the game, so it's not even a starting point of note for 40k.

I understand perfectly what he's saying. He's saying that you can accurately determine the value of a unit by determining how much of a standard sized list that particular unit fills up and then correlating that with their monetary cost to produce a number. The higher that number then the more value that unit has. I disagree, value is subjective and can't be quantified by comparing how much of a list a TIE fighter fills up in a 100 point Star Wars match versus how much a sternguard unit takes up in a 1500 point match. Both the numbers and units are arbitrary and do not address whether any situations or scenarios beyond numbers. Do the values change depending on your local meta? Are flyers more valuable if your opponent has no AA? Is a unit that consistently performs well in your local group more valuable than one that always dies every turn? What about suicide units? Alpha strike units? Sternguard models are expensive, but they almost always make their points back on the table, is there any though to that for value? And none of that is even touching the aesthetic or hobbying side of the game, which can also add value.

There's just no way to quantify value, all Azrael has done is determine a formula that lets you know how much money you're spending to create a 1500 point 40k army compared to how much you're spending to fill 100 point X Wing one. And though that is certainly accurate, it's not a standard for determining value.

Good lord, I don't even know where to start with this.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. All sorts of wrong. Wrong as far as the I can see.

In fact, you've managed to include things here that I myself, in this thread have said in attempt to explain why you think I'm wrong!

I really don't have the motivation to refute each individual point you've got wrong, chiefly because I already have at least once already in most cases, suffice to say I felt you hadn't really grasped the concept of what I was trying to do and this post pretty much proves that.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Actually I think there is probably a reasonably easy way of expressing a unit value in terms of the percentage of a typical list size it represents over the cost to buy it.

I'm not a mathematician and I'm tired,so forgive me if my numbers are off, but taking the example of a basic TIE Fighter, which is 12 points of a 100 points list at typical values, so 12%. RRP of a TIE in the UK is £12, so it has a value of 1 Azreal (hey it's my idea!) But it can also be used to represent Howlrunner, at 18 points, which then gives it an improved value of 1.5 Azreals.

A basic, single Sternguard costs £6, and without upgrades costs 24 points. Assuming a basic list of 1500, it represents 0.016% of a list, giving a value of 0.003 Azreals. Upgraded with a Plasma Gun, which I think is the most expensive upgrade a single SG can be given, we get 39 points, which improves the value to 0.004 Azreals.

A whole unit of SG could be assumed to cost 150 points with some combi weapons etc, making the unit weigh in at 0.3 Azreals.

So, one can, with a few reasonable assumptions say that a TIE fighter for X Wing represents between 3 and 5 times the value than a Sternguard box does for 40K. This obviously makes no account of unit effectiveness, but that shouldn't be relevant as all units should be of a power commensurate with the amount of resources they use in your list, only 40K really suffers from inequalities in this.

Explain to me how I'm wrong. You put out that there that the monetary cost of the unit versus how much of the army it fills is an accurate way or portraying the value of the unit and then state that tabletop effectiveness isn't relevant to that number. Using this method you rank Sternguard as three times less valuable than a TIE fighter. If you're saying something different, then please enlighten me because this post does nothing to suggest that.

Yeah, you've conflated a number of different concepts there, which I guess is where the misunderstanding is stemming from.

There are several different possible meaning to the word value, value for money, in game efficacy and a number with meaning.

In terms of how much of a normal sized army is taken up by a given unit, the TIE represents much better return in the money spent. This is using fixed, objective concepts like normal list size, points cost of unit and RRP.

One could argue the Sternguard represent better value for money, because they offer greater hobby time, building and painting etc.. as Pacific already did, and I agreed with him, but made the point this was a subjective point. One could also argue that if you factor in the cost of rules and materials needed to build and paint the Sternguard that it represents poorer value for money than the TIE. This is, again, subjective.

My original point was a basic means of comparing the amount of a typical list is filled by a given purchase per £ spent. It was never meant to address issues beyond that like how good the unit is in game or whether it was worth it's points or represented good value for money. How could it? Those are all subjective concepts.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yeah, you've conflated a number of different concepts there, which I guess is where the misunderstanding is stemming from.

There are several different possible meaning to the word value, value for money, in game efficacy and a number with meaning.

In terms of how much of a normal sized army is taken up by a given unit, the TIE represents much better return in the money spent. This is using fixed, objective concepts like normal list size, points cost of unit and RRP.

One could argue the Sternguard represent better value for money, because they offer greater hobby time, building and painting etc.. as Pacific already did, and I agreed with him, but made the point this was a subjective point. One could also argue that if you factor in the cost of rules and materials needed to build and paint the Sternguard that it represents poorer value for money than the TIE. This is, again, subjective.

My original point was a basic means of comparing the amount of a typical list is filled by a given purchase per £ spent. It was never meant to address issues beyond that like how good the unit is in game or whether it was worth it's points or represented good value for money. How could it? Those are all subjective concepts.

Well then we agree...

how awkward.

No worries, happens to the best of us.

Well, not me, but I'm told it does...

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
40k is worth it because it's simply the best wargame. Has the bet models, the coolest story and is the most fun to play.

It has the best models. The story line hasn't evolved in 20 years and they have said it will not evolve in the future. The most fun to play? Since I started learning WMH I haven't played a single game of 40k. Everyone in my 40k group that has done a demo game of WMH has commented on how much better the rules are, how it feels like your tactical decisions actually have an effect on the outcome of the game and how much more fun it is to play. The only people who think 40k is the most fun to play are people who don't have any real experience playing other games. That's like saying the Honda Civic is the best car to drive when you've never driven anything else. Take an NSX for a spin and you'll feel differently. GWs rules and general gameplay is awful. If the models didn't look so good the game would have died a long time ago. Other games don't need 47 house rules, a 20 minute discussion before the game and 35 times of checking the rule book during the game to be played fairly.

Toofast wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
40k is worth it because it's simply the best wargame. Has the bet models, the coolest story and is the most fun to play.

It has the best models. The story line hasn't evolved in 20 years and they have said it will not evolve in the future. The most fun to play? Since I started learning WMH I haven't played a single game of 40k. Everyone in my 40k group that has done a demo game of WMH has commented on how much better the rules are, how it feels like your tactical decisions actually have an effect on the outcome of the game and how much more fun it is to play. The only people who think 40k is the most fun to play are people who don't have any real experience playing other games. That's like saying the Honda Civic is the best car to drive when you've never driven anything else. Take an NSX for a spin and you'll feel differently. GWs rules and general gameplay is awful. If the models didn't look so good the game would have died a long time ago. Other games don't need 47 house rules, a 20 minute discussion before the game and 35 times of checking the rule book during the game to be played fairly.

Nailed it.

No one who has experienced more than 40K ever says 40K is the "best wargame." It is the "best known." Potentially has *some* of the "best models" (which is changing daily, as competitors are catching and passing 40K/Fantasy/GW quality), and is basically a name brand with nothing to back it outside of the name. The fluff has been butchered continually, and while you CAN have fun playing it, it requires work JUST to play it. If I drive 500 miles to play W/H, I will be playing the same game no matter the location. 40K is a different game for EVERY PLAYER. People who just want to push their marines across the table and play Yahtzee have their game, and that is not wrong at all. But if you want to compare rules, fairness, and now... even fluff and models, 40k is showing its colors.

I play these games because I do enjoy the aesthetic, I do enjoy the in-person interactions, and I do enjoy the competitive side as I like to use my brain in games. 40K can handle the first two just as well as anyone. The problem is that I can build a list and know if I won or lost during deployment. I want a game, not *just* a hobby of painting models. I want that game to be fair.

The cost of GW goes far beyond the price tag. I do know, however, that $35 for 5 plastic Dire Avengers (that are no better than $36 for 10 plastic guardians WITH a heavy weapon platform) is a way to bleed a stone. When GW moved from metal to plastic (or finecrap) prices went UP. PP moves from metal to plastic, prices go DOWN.

Cost should never be the question, anyway. It is about value. I value the game I am playing, others value the model itself. In that regard, it's a wash.

The rules issue is another major thing, that cannot be quantified in a price. GW themselves basically say that the rules are for players to manipulate, but the fundamental issue with that is the majority of players don't play in a single group (at least outside the UK). So the way you play with Group A might not be the same way Group B plays, and that's the issue. I get the impression that GW thinks that all their customers (or at least the ones they seem to care about) play with a regular gaming club and can all agree on house rules and the like, when that doesn't often happen.

Exactly like what happens in Lenton!

If you want to outfit your Sternguard with multiple combi-weapons you'll be either hunting for bitz (and sellers know what they're worth) buying multiple boxes (doubtful) or buying extras from Forgeworld (nice but not cheap) because GW does not give you enough parts to give all your Sternguard combi-weapons, certainly not five of the same type.

There are third party manufacturers like BitzPudlo though.

There is a fun game at the heart of 40k, but it's a game trapped in a web of far too many rules. KISS (keep it simple stupid) is a mantra that all game designers should follow.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
If you want to outfit your Sternguard with multiple combi-weapons you'll be either hunting for bitz (and sellers know what they're worth) buying multiple boxes (doubtful) or buying extras from Forgeworld (nice but not cheap) because GW does not give you enough parts to give all your Sternguard combi-weapons, certainly not five of the same type.

That IMHO is indicative of one of the major issues with the cost vs. value of GW products in general. They deliberately don't put all the options in a box because their company line is that you'll buy additional boxes (as ridiculous as that is). I suspect that was part of the reason they got rid of the Bitz service as well. It just adds fuel to the fire and reinforces the idea that they are out to cheat you as much as possible while still crowing that their miniatures are the best anywhere ever.

It also in a subtle way reinforces the fact they don't care about the game. A "collector" might actually assemble each guy with a different weapon for variety, whilst a gamer rarely if ever would because they want to use them effectively on the tabletop. That GW doesn't give enough bits to outfit the kit in a way that makes sense within the game really shows what camp they feel they cater to and which they don't care about.

$50 for five plastic figures, options be damned, is way too expensive. Doubly so when you can't even outfit them in a proper manner without losing effectiveness. Like I said earlier, the price for five figures is insane when you can get sixteen figures that are 54mm, with more details (due to larger size) for less than the cost of those five. There's no reason GW cannot competitively price their figures, they just see no reason to do so when they feel all their customers are drunk fanboys that will buy anything in a GW box at any price.

 Carnage43 wrote:

It just goes around and around. The end result is that the games and hobbies cost as much as you are willing to spend, and how much bargain hunting you can do to decrease the costs. I think the discussion boils down to GW being semi-reasonably priced on a per model basis compared to other games, but the fact that a standard 40k games requires so many more models really drives the cost of the game up to a level or 2 beyond most other games.

No disagreement that 40k is an expensive game in its class: on the other hand, you get what you pay for. I play 40k largely because of its visuals, I love the look of a large, painted army with infantry, tanks, walkers or monsters or whatnot. The unfortunate truth is that a skirmish game or even Warmachine cannot compete in this respect, which is why they don't interest me. Sadly, same applies to X-Wing: Star Wars visuals work well in the movies, but not so much on tabletop. Typically, Star Wars craft is grey or white, sometimes with few red stripes, or if they really go crazy, blue stripes. Combined with pre-painted minis, not much is left for creativity.

I do think X-wing minis are tad overpriced...a Revell Millenium Falcon is same size as FFG one but half the cost, though of course without the cards and counters. Also if you compare X-wing prices to Games Workshop's own BFG, which is much more...er...unavailable... :(

 insaniak wrote:

Scibor's models aren't on par with GW's. They're just covered in a lot of stuff.

Which, for pauldrons, puts them away above par for GW's Waiting for GW to sue them, claiming to own the concept of shoulders.


Actaully a lot of thier detail kits are pretty good.and compare favorably to FW.


And, how about that Victoria Lamb?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Scibor's models aren't on par with GW's. They're just covered in a lot of stuff.

Which, for pauldrons, puts them away above par for GW's Waiting for GW to sue them, claiming to own the concept of shoulders.

They tried that with the CHS case and lost, even after GW's attorneys tried to manipulate evidence and patent filings. While the marks on the shoulder pads can be markable, the actual shape of a shoulder pad (at least currently in the US) cannot.

Back to Sternguard. I'm honestly surprised that GW hasn't limited the options of the unit to match the contents of the box since they seem so dead-set on killing the 3rd party market...

 agnosto wrote:

They tried that with the CHS case and lost, even after GW's attorneys tried to manipulate evidence and patent filings. While the marks on the shoulder pads can be markable, the actual shape of a shoulder pad (at least currently in the US) cannot.

Is the bold part true, or just speculation?

If the former, I'd be interested to hear exactly what they were doing.

 vipoid wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

They tried that with the CHS case and lost, even after GW's attorneys tried to manipulate evidence and patent filings. While the marks on the shoulder pads can be markable, the actual shape of a shoulder pad (at least currently in the US) cannot.

Is the bold part true, or just speculation?

If the former, I'd be interested to hear exactly what they were doing.

There are emails between GW and the copyright office saying shoulder pads are too generic. GW then never presented those emails to the court and the judge made a call that the shoulder pads are protectable. GW's excuse when CH's private investigators discovered this years(?) later was they never got another email about it so they considered the matter closed.*

There was also the part where they claimed the Mantis Warriors icon then when asked for the contact information from the original artist they said they had none. Later CH's PIs found his contact info and he provided emails showing a discussion between him and GW's head of IP and legal departments before they where asked for his contact info.
The discussion involved them telling him they owned the artwork but lost the documents saying so and that he had to sign over the rights again. He then signed a testimony saying that was not true, he was not on staff at the time, they had the right to publish his artwork in the WD it was commissioned first then it reverted to back to him.

*Edit: just to be clear the timeline went GW hits CH with the lawsuit > GW goes to copyright office about making them protecable > they say no > judge asks for all relevant information, nothing provided > judge considered it protecable >>>>>> CH finds the emails.

 vipoid wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

They tried that with the CHS case and lost, even after GW's attorneys tried to manipulate evidence and patent filings. While the marks on the shoulder pads can be markable, the actual shape of a shoulder pad (at least currently in the US) cannot.

Is the bold part true, or just speculation?

If the former, I'd be interested to hear exactly what they were doing.

I can't recall the exact particulars and it's somewhere in the huge CHS thread but apparently one of the lead attorneys, Moskin, for the firm that GW hired has a reputation for doing things fast and loose and got caught during the CHS case lying about contact with the US Patent Office and was sanctioned by the court for withholding discoverable documents. (he pulled a similar trick during a case involving the Gallo winery and was caught then as well).

 agnosto wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Scibor's models aren't on par with GW's. They're just covered in a lot of stuff.

Which, for pauldrons, puts them away above par for GW's Waiting for GW to sue them, claiming to own the concept of shoulders.

They tried that with the CHS case and lost, even after GW's attorneys tried to manipulate evidence and patent filings. While the marks on the shoulder pads can be markable, the actual shape of a shoulder pad (at least currently in the US) cannot.

Back to Sternguard. I'm honestly surprised that GW hasn't limited the options of the unit to match the contents of the box since they seem so dead-set on killing the 3rd party market...

I don't get why they haven't done this, period, since they do it all the fething time with all of their boxes. Oh but wait they expect us to buy multiple boxes for all the options, because that's something normal people do.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The problem with 40k is it uses squad-game pricing for a game that is close to a company level game.

If you actually want to play company level games, you have things like this...

https://www.perry-miniatures.com/product_info.php?products_id=2924&osCsid=fmned70s3a36v8vsosttakpso0

http://www.wargamesfactory.com/webstore/myths-and-legends/wgf-ml002

http://www.wargamesfactory.com/webstore/world-war-2

Where you're looking at less than $1 per model.

GW models are priced as if you only need 15-30 of them, but you actually need 50+.

You know, I wouldn't even have an issue with that, so long as armies that are meant to be one squad = 20 normal squads were the only ones like that. If I could buy a company of IG for the price of 2 squads of Space Marines and then change the game so that Space Marines on the tabletop match Space Marines in the fluff, then this wouldn't be that big of an issue. But that fact that GW has basically the same price lines for every faction and every type of army is just ridiculous. What they need to do is make units that are meant to be bigger and badder actually bigger and badder and then make blob armies like Orks or IG get like 30-90 units in a pack of the same cost, because in the fluff, each Space Marine is supposed to equal an army. So make the Eldar faster, give the Space Marine standard infantry an extra wound and make the models bigger, give the Mechanicum the option of 6 Praetorians in one pack or 50 lesser Skitarii for the same price, make a Dreadnought 9 times taller than an Ork, make a Wraithknight able to kill an Ork by bumbing into it, make the Orks get 80 Nobz in a package. Basically, they need to modify the pricings and selling points to match the Universe and the gameplay.

40k minis start at a pretty high base cost for what they're honestly worth, but this is the same for pretty much any game out there.

I think the big difference is that 40k does not have a spending cap ( You can pretty much always keep adding on to your collection ) and the base cost of getting a playable army on the field is pretty high, considering rulebooks and codex'es.

You can buy whole model lines for other games too. no says one can only play 2 or 3 casters or the same faction all the time.
The problem is that with GW starer sets are not starter sets, and actual armies cost two or three times as much as armies for other games.And that is not couting the multiple books you have to own to play them.

My friend played demon with csm ally. He had to buy 3 codexm, the rule book and the fortification book just to start playing. For the same money he could buy a whole real army for other games. For some games even more.

 Moktor wrote:

No one who has experienced more than 40K ever says 40K is the "best wargame." It is the "best known." Potentially has *some* of the "best models" (which is changing daily, as competitors are catching and passing 40K/Fantasy/GW quality), and is basically a name brand with nothing to back it outside of the name. The fluff has been butchered continually, and while you CAN have fun playing it, it requires work JUST to play it. If I drive 500 miles to play W/H, I will be playing the same game no matter the location. 40K is a different game for EVERY PLAYER. People who just want to push their marines across the table and play Yahtzee have their game, and that is not wrong at all. But if you want to compare rules, fairness, and now... even fluff and models, 40k is showing its colors.

I have played many miniature wargames, and I consider 40k the "best wargame". FAR from the best balanced, most fair, best value, but clearly, for me, the best wargame. Here is why:

1. Best fluff. I could give a crap about Germans and French fighting in WW2, or the civil war. I would never paint a historical model, ever.
2. Best weapons. There are no companies, including PP, that have weapons that look as cool as those on Citadel models.
3. Best variety. There are more models in 40k than I could ever hope to paint or even own, and there is something for everyone. I love this.
4. Most new releases. There is new stuff coming out all the time, more so than any other company.

I don't CARE if the game is balanced or fair, or if the mechanics are botched. That's what house rules are for. Besides, there is a HUGE disparity in player skill and army build. It doesn't matter how fair or unfair the game is, when the matchup is often between a highly skilled competitive player, and someone playing just for fun. Personally, I *like* these games, and I usually have a troop advantage, so I'm happy to simply handicap when I play, or simply not play an optimized list.

I am an expert-level chess player, and there are no wargames that come remotely close to the skill, practice, and strategic thought process required to play chess. There is simply no way to create parity between two forces where the two forces are not perfectly symmetrical. I'm not saying it's not fun; just that it's inherently unfair. And that's ok. I also used to be a HUGE TCG fan, and army building in wargames is a joke when compared to building optimized decks in TCGs. And if you think 40k is expensive, try to keep up with every new card that comes out in MtG that you need to be tournament-competitive.

At the end of the day, to me, the models and the game universe isn't just important, it's EVERYTHING.

Talys wrote:

 Moktor wrote:

No one who has experienced more than 40K ever says 40K is the "best wargame." It is the "best known." Potentially has *some* of the "best models" (which is changing daily, as competitors are catching and passing 40K/Fantasy/GW quality), and is basically a name brand with nothing to back it outside of the name. The fluff has been butchered continually, and while you CAN have fun playing it, it requires work JUST to play it. If I drive 500 miles to play W/H, I will be playing the same game no matter the location. 40K is a different game for EVERY PLAYER. People who just want to push their marines across the table and play Yahtzee have their game, and that is not wrong at all. But if you want to compare rules, fairness, and now... even fluff and models, 40k is showing its colors.

I have played many miniature wargames, and I consider 40k the "best wargame". FAR from the best balanced, most fair, best value, but clearly, for me, the best wargame. Here is why:

1. Best fluff. I could give a crap about Germans and French fighting in WW2, or the civil war. I would never paint a historical model, ever.
2. Best weapons. There are no companies, including PP, that have weapons that look as cool as those on Citadel models.
3. Best variety. There are more models in 40k than I could ever hope to paint or even own, and there is something for everyone. I love this.
4. Most new releases. There is new stuff coming out all the time, more so than any other company.

I don't CARE if the game is balanced or fair, or if the mechanics are botched. That's what house rules are for. Besides, there is a HUGE disparity in player skill and army build. It doesn't matter how fair or unfair the game is, when the matchup is often between a highly skilled competitive player, and someone playing just for fun. Personally, I *like* these games, and I usually have a troop advantage, so I'm happy to simply handicap when I play, or simply not play an optimized list.

At the end of the day, to me, the models and the game universe isn't just important, it's EVERYTHING.

Good for you, however there is a big difference between saying that for you personally 40k hits all your good points, and saying that because 40k hits all your criteria that there is no issue at all and everyone who disagrees is a whiner/troll. Not to say that you personally have done that, but that's the general fallacy that gets thrown around. For one person, 40k might be great but that doesn't mean there are no issues at all with it.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Good for you, however there is a big difference between saying that for you personally 40k hits all your good points, and saying that because 40k hits all your criteria that there is no issue at all and everyone who disagrees is a whiner/troll. Not to say that you personally have done that, but that's the general fallacy that gets thrown around. For one person, 40k might be great but that doesn't mean there are no issues at all with it.

I completely agree.

I was simply replying to the initial assertion that "no one who has experienced more than 40k ever says that 40k is the best wargame". To me, it is still my favorite game universe for tabletop wargames, and I've experienced many, many wargames.

And, I also agree that the issues with 40k many, and they are epic.

Talys wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Good for you, however there is a big difference between saying that for you personally 40k hits all your good points, and saying that because 40k hits all your criteria that there is no issue at all and everyone who disagrees is a whiner/troll. Not to say that you personally have done that, but that's the general fallacy that gets thrown around. For one person, 40k might be great but that doesn't mean there are no issues at all with it.

I completely agree.

I was simply replying to the initial assertion that "no one who has experienced more than 40k ever says that 40k is the best wargame". To me, it is still my favorite game universe for tabletop wargames, and I've experienced many, many wargames.

And, I also agree that the issues with 40k many, and they are epic.

It would be my favorite if the cost was more reasonable. The fact every few days I flip through my old White Dwarfs is a testament to that...

You've actually, consciously or not, drawn a line there. You say it is your favourite game universe, not your favourite game.

As a game universe, for the time being unless GW decide to try and wring a few more pennies out of us by mixing it all up a la WHFB, it is likely the best, but it had a 20 odd year head start in many of it's rivals.

One other aspect regarding price is that GW's rulesets strongly push you to buying new models in order for your army to stay competitive. "Whoops, it's year 4 in our 8-year cycle, so now units A-P are crap for the next 4 years. Don't worry though, because we've buffed units Q-V. What's that? You don't own any of those units? Well you'd better buy some then. And, don't forget the £30 codex while you're at it."

 Azreal13 wrote:
You've actually, consciously or not, drawn a line there. You say it is your favourite game universe, not your favourite game.

As a game universe, for the time being unless GW decide to try and wring a few more pennies out of us by mixing it all up a la WHFB, it is likely the best, but it had a 20 odd year head start in many of it's rivals.

Sure you can say that, but to me, there is no distinction, as I view this game as entertainment, so game universe and play pieces are paramount. Otherwise, I would just play chess or starcraft

I have little loyalty to GW as a company, so when other universes are as rich, I am happy to jump ship.

Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You've actually, consciously or not, drawn a line there. You say it is your favourite game universe, not your favourite game.

As a game universe, for the time being unless GW decide to try and wring a few more pennies out of us by mixing it all up a la WHFB, it is likely the best, but it had a 20 odd year head start in many of it's rivals.

Sure you can say that, but to me, there is no distinction, as I view this game as entertainment, so game universe and play pieces are paramount. Otherwise, I would just play chess or starcraft

I have little loyalty to GW as a company, so when other universes are as rich, I am happy to jump ship.

Well part of the overall issue, and this is not something that you personally have done, is the unwillingness to look beyond the very specific genre of 40k. For example, Warmachine has as rich if not richer universe than 40k, in the sense there are tons of lore and information, not to mention the story actually advances so characters grow. But the general complaint is that it's not sci-fi grimdark with xenos and power armor and Chaos and the Emperor, and so it sucks or doesn't compare to 40k because they are specifically looking for the same context and tropes found in 40k.

Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You've actually, consciously or not, drawn a line there. You say it is your favourite game universe, not your favourite game.

As a game universe, for the time being unless GW decide to try and wring a few more pennies out of us by mixing it all up a la WHFB, it is likely the best, but it had a 20 odd year head start in many of it's rivals.

Sure you can say that, but to me, there is no distinction, as I view this game as entertainment, so game universe and play pieces are paramount. Otherwise, I would just play chess or starcraft

I have little loyalty to GW as a company, so when other universes are as rich, I am happy to jump ship.

FFG have a wide range of card games and RPGs officially licensed from GW set in the Warhammer worlds.

They're well thought of, haven't played them myself yet, but if it is a hit of fluff you need, they're probably better at it than the current tabletop game.