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.

Okay, i think there's a similar thread in 40k general discussion, but to answer your question briefly:

No, GW games are not a good idea. And here's why:

* Horrible, clunky rules. Dozens of random tables, special rules, and slow gaming pace when resolving combat. Be prepared to spend more time on determining how barrage weapons interact with passengers in open-topped transports than actually enjoying the game.
* You want to have all options open for your army? Well, you need the codex, two supplements, five dataslates, a campaign book, escalation, two issues of imperial armour, death from the skies and these three white-dwarf magazines. The dark gods help you, if you want to have an allied formation.
* Expensive models. You get 40+ solders and some heavy weapons in bolt action for the same price you'd pay for a standard 10 dudes in 40k.
* Lots of models. Not only will you pay too much, you need a lot of them, especially with horde armies. Other systems need less models, some are entirely playable with something between 10 and 40 models on the table.

There are only two things going for 40k - the setting and it's ubiquitous nature. The former is undeniable, the later may help you find a gaming group but nothing stops you from introducing a better system to said group, so there's that.

If you are dead-set on GW, try Kill Team. With only 200 pts of models on the board you dont spend much, the games are not too long and you still get the richt world of 40k to forge your narrative.
Otherwise, you'll have more fun at less cost and less time consumed painting with ANY other system out there.

 Kosake wrote:
There are only two things going for 40k - the setting and it's ubiquitous nature.

I'll add a 3rd thing to that list -a range of models that overall is (generally accepted to be) a grade or 2 superior to any other range out there. which as a modeller first and gamer second -is why I collect it.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
There are only two things going for 40k - the setting and it's ubiquitous nature.

I'll add a 3rd thing to that list -a range of models that overall is (generally accepted to be) a grade or 2 superior to any other range out there. which as a modeller first and gamer second -is why I collect it.

Inferior to Corvus Belli, and likely a few others and some boutique manufacturers too.

Vehicle-wise, inferior to Bandai's modern ranges and many other sci-fi scale model kit producers (both injection plastic and resin) such as Kotobukiya.

I sure would! I love 40k and one more convert would be pretty awesome.

I'd caution that it has a pretty steep learning cliff and, like all hobbies, is expensive though.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
There are only two things going for 40k - the setting and it's ubiquitous nature.

I'll add a 3rd thing to that list -a range of models that overall is (generally accepted to be) a grade or 2 superior to any other range out there. which as a modeller first and gamer second -is why I collect it.

That hasn't been the case for many years, especially since Finecast came out. There are worse mini's out there, but there are many that are better or equal to GW's in terms of quality. Most even cost a lot less.

Actually, the best thing about GW's headline games is the intro rules. If I need to get a newbie up and playing, GW does the learning scenarios better than just about anybody else in the business. Only BattleFront's Flames of War comes close.

Herzlos wrote:
That hasn't been the case for many years, especially since Finecast came out. There are worse mini's out there, but there are many that are better or equal to GW's in terms of quality.

Respectfully disagree (except regarding the undisputable failings of Finecast). I've seen other models that are their equal in level of detail, aesthetic appeal or character, but rarely all 3 together. Especially character. The best way I can explain my opinion is that when I look at GW high elf elites or grey knight terminators I see something distinct and strongly designed. When I look at equivalent models from most other ranges, even good sculpts, I see a generic elf, and a generic soldier in power armour.

I will concede there are indiviudual models / units available elsewhere that give their equivalent GW model a run for their money, but I have yet to see an entire range of minis that I can say that for.

And obviously GW have made some hideously bad models, but by and large I think they retain a very good standard.

I'd hand them an X-Wing starter box, and paperbacks of the first three Horus Heresy novels.

The only thing about 40k that I'd recommend to someone new is the background. There are better games, with much better rules floating around. The miniatures are neat, but the financial barrier to entry for 40k is so high and the game designers are so hostile to the idea of writing good rules that I can't recommend their work to anyone.

 Daba wrote:
Inferior to Corvus Belli, and likely a few others and some boutique manufacturers too.

Spent a few minutes looking at the Corvus Belli models. There are some things I'm really impressed with like those wolves and wolfmen, are actaully better than anything in the SW range. The fur sculpting is superior, might actaully use a wolf one as a basis for a wolflord.)

And if the rest of their range hit that par, I'd agree with you...but I don't think they do. In particular I find the cloth sculpting on a lot of the soldier minis are substandard, as are some of the faces and the neck joins can be a bit choppy.

Realistically I would not recommend a beginner to start any kind of GW game unless they met some very specific criteria, namely:

* Plays 100% for fun and doesn't care if the rules are lacking and imbalanced
* Plays in an established group/gaming club and not just against whomever shows up at the game store's "40k Night" for a game
* Likes the models/fluff/etc. rather than wanting a balanced, well-written game
* Doesn't care about the price

In that situation, then sure 40k can provide lots of enjoyment.

I have been playing or involved with GW games for over 20 years and I have had loads of fun within it. I would definitely recommend it. You have a very healthy monthly budget. It is expensive but if you have a good budget to spend it is an immersive and fun world with a rich and deep back story. The game might not be perfect but no game is and you can adapt it yourself...... As long as your friends agree!

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Daba wrote:
Inferior to Corvus Belli, and likely a few others and some boutique manufacturers too.

Spent a few minutes looking at the Corvus Belli models. There are some things I'm really impressed with like those wolves and wolfmen, are actaully better than anything in the SW range. The fur sculpting is superior, might actaully use a wolf one as a basis for a wolflord.)

And if the rest of their range hit that par, I'd agree with you...but I don't think they do. In particular I find the cloth sculpting on a lot of the soldier minis are substandard, as are some of the faces and the neck joins can be a bit choppy.

I'm curious which models you're looking at here. CB are in the middle of resculpting a lot of their more goofy looking old models but if you're looking at newer stuff I'd really like to know what you find substandard.

I personally find GW to be the opposite, a lot of older models look pretty good and have held up well but the recent stuff is terrible.

Specifically the new nurgle stuff for WHFB feels very much like a toy with bad mold lines, very little actual texture but lots of boils pretending to be texture and a general 'wow look at how big it is' feel to it rather than any actual selling points on the model itself.

The space wolves failed on a conceptual level with murder murderson and his murder claws on the planet murder (not to mention the exposed face), grimnar claus, and that flyer that could have been an awesome space longboat but kinda missed all the points of a longboat other than being long.

Then there is the Knight, which has practically 0 possibility compared to the entirely posable dreamforge leviathans, which are around the same price but bigger.

And then there is the dual kits like the high elf shadow warriors. Same five models packaged twice in a box in game where you need a lot more than 5 guys. Absolutely dreadful.

If someone was considering a GW game, I'd have to give them the following caution:

Please be advised that Games Workshop games are old fashioned, 80's era war games. You'll be expected to embrace all aspects of the wargaming hobby. You'll be expected to collect your own models, assemble them, maybe do a bit of conversion on them, paint them, and also build, assemble, repair and rewrite the rules of the game just like you do with the miniatures. Other game companies are currently trending towards focusing away from expecting their players to become game developers.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
There are only two things going for 40k - the setting and it's ubiquitous nature.

I'll add a 3rd thing to that list -a range of models that overall is (generally accepted to be) a grade or 2 superior to any other range out there. which as a modeller first and gamer second -is why I collect it.

In that case skip the rules, skip the rulebook, buy the models you like and paint, nothing's stopping you here. The question was whether 40k as a game is worth it and by now I must say "no, it isn't". And there are better miniatures than GW produces out there.

I have to chime in and say that Corvus Belli does have superior minis to GW. Some of the older stuff is a bit wonky, but everything in the past few years has been outstanding. But it's hard to judge a mini until you hold it in your hand.

If you like the models and have other players near you, 40k is the best game on the market. Go for it.

 PhillyT wrote:
If you like the models and have other players near you, 40k is the best game on the market. Go for it.

Good one, that actually made me laugh!

 PhillyT wrote:
If you like the models and have other players near you, 40k is the best game on the market. Go for it.

40K isn't even the best GW game...

But seriously, if he likes the models and has a lot of money and really keen on grimdark then sure why not... though as a balanced playable game, no.

 PhillyT wrote:
If you like the models and have other players near you, 40k is the best game on the market. Go for it.

If 40K is the only game being played near you, then 40K is the best game on the market. If people are playing anything else then go for that. Unless you really dislike the mini's/setting from everyone else.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

40K isn't even the best GW game...

This says it all to me.

If someone wants to get into GW games because of the background, I'd probably show them BFG first, personally. Then again, I have three fleets, so there's that.

Seriously though, 40k is nowhere near the best wargame, in any sense of being a game. Its a great setting, but a pretty weak game on all accounts and hideously expensive to boot.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
There are only two things going for 40k - the setting and it's ubiquitous nature.

I'll add a 3rd thing to that list -a range of models that overall is (generally accepted to be) a grade or 2 superior to any other range out there. which as a modeller first and gamer second -is why I collect it.

I actually like a fair number of their models, but have to disagree. Mierce and many others straight up blow them out of the water. Years ago, Rackham's Conftontation was considerably better. IMO, its been a long time, if ever, that GW was generally considered to be top of the sculpting game.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

40K isn't even the best GW game...

This says it all to me.

If someone wants to get into GW games because of the background, I'd probably show them BFG first, personally. Then again, I have three fleets, so there's that.

Seriously though, 40k is nowhere near the best wargame, in any sense of being a game. Its a great setting, but a pretty weak game on all accounts and hideously expensive to boot.

I consider even Fantasy to be better, and that's not just my personal bias.
Like you can counter magic, anything can be wounded no matter how tough, modifiers in shooting, no giant things flying around that nothing can even touch. Half the armies aren't variations of the exact same thing.
Yeah it's not a great game either but it's still stronger in many areas then 40k.
And it's fluff advanced so it has that going for it.

Bossk_Hogg wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
There are only two things going for 40k - the setting and it's ubiquitous nature.

I'll add a 3rd thing to that list -a range of models that overall is (generally accepted to be) a grade or 2 superior to any other range out there. which as a modeller first and gamer second -is why I collect it.

I actually like a fair number of their models, but have to disagree. Mierce and many others straight up blow them out of the water. Years ago, Rackham's Conftontation was considerably better. IMO, its been a long time, if ever, that GW was generally considered to be top of the sculpting game.

Fair enough, to each their own. A large part of my preference is that aside from oversize shoulder pads and power fists, etc, I find the aesthetics of GW figures strong and it appeals to me a lot more than 90% of other models out there. Perhaps my earlier statement is contestable. I'd like to see a poll entitled "What is youf favorite model range." Tthat'd be the only way to tell really. It'd be interesting in any case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

I'm curious which models you're looking at here. CB are in the middle of resculpting a lot of their more goofy looking old models but if you're looking at newer stuff I'd really like to know what you find substandard.

I personally find GW to be the opposite, a lot of older models look pretty good and have held up well but the recent stuff is terrible.

Specifically the new nurgle stuff for WHFB feels very much like a toy with bad mold lines, very little actual texture but lots of boils pretending to be texture and a general 'wow look at how big it is' feel to it rather than any actual selling points on the model itself.

The space wolves failed on a conceptual level with murder murderson and his murder claws on the planet murder (not to mention the exposed face), grimnar claus, and that flyer that could have been an awesome space longboat but kinda missed all the points of a longboat other than being long.

And then there is the dual kits like the high elf shadow warriors. Same five models packaged twice in a box in game where you need a lot more than 5 guys. Absolutely dreadful.

I wasn't impresses with the cloth on the Kotail mobile unit and Reverend Morias. You're correct, the bad face was on an older looking unit, I can't find the name of it sorry. Looking at more of them now...PanOceania models. OK those Knights of Santiago are superb. So are magister knights and some of the IC's. But not mad on the asthetics of a lot of the other squads tbh.

That's funny about the Nurgle minis, I actually think they're excellent!

And yes, we're in agreement about the new SW stuff....and by extension GW's tendencies to slap wings on their tank designs and call it an aircraft. & if I ever run Murderson, he'll be getting a nice sarcophagus to cover that growling face! What were they thinking...

 frozenwastes wrote:

Eilif wrote:
Example, I wanted to field a unit of beastmen. There' isn't an entry for beastmen, but there is one for "Abbysal Bezerkers". Voila! My beastmen are now in play!

I don't consider this a proxy. This is using the miniatures you want with the rules you want. I consider a proxy to be a temporary stand in.

It's always good to define terms.

Anytime you use something to represent something different (i.e. Beastman for Abbysal Bezerker), you're using a "Proxy".

If you use a miniature that is of the same type (i.e. Mantic Maurader for GW apace Ork) and relatively similarly armed and equipped, you're using an "Alternate Model".

A Proxy can also be a "Counts-as". A term that is often used interchangeably, but generally implies an across the board substitution of one race for another or one weapon type for another.
Examples would be: "Squats Count-As IG" or " All Plasma Guns count as Meltas."

Alternate Models and "Counts-as" generally (though not always) have better connotations than "Proxy" which can range from the reasonable (Beast man for Abbysal Bezerker) to the ridiculous (Pop can for Warengine).

I do alot of proxying (often counts-as) in my Kings of War armies. Generally it's just a matter of taking a model you have, and looking at the various avaialble profiles and fitting the one that best fits the model. I find that if you start from the model and find stats that fit it gets a much better response from folks than picking out the stats you want and putting them on models.

Words are defined by usage and when people show up to actually play and say "this game I'm proxying unit x" they mean a temporary stand in, not a permanent one. Or when people are asking about what miniatures to get for an army next, people will tell them to "proxy them and try them out in a game first" so they don't end up getting something they won't like on the table.

I get it that people also use it more broadly, but when the representation is permanent, I don't consider it proxying. They aren't standing in for the miniatures you use, they are the miniatures you use.

I'm okay that people use words differently than me and that there are regional differences to consider as well. Though, I am just going to keep using the word to apply only to temporary substitutions.

OP: Sounds like you are one of "our people" trying out the full spectrum of the tabletop game.

WHFB is a much more tactical game and you are right that busting the bank may be possible.
The latest rule-set seems to have killed the game for now, even in my area no-one is hosting a night to play it because no-one is showing up.
So look around in your area and see if others play, just to be sure.
I would suggest against WHFB since it seems to have been left hanging by GW other than the recent "end of times" push.

40k, I am tempted to tell you to run screaming.
To avoid cost, buying online rules and a favored codex would be a start and then look at models.
It is such an insanely expensive hobby now I would be hesitant to recommend.
The rules for army selection is so open ended that game imbalance is a certainty.
I have played it so long and have so many models that new releases are no big deal to me but I would hate to start over.
Yes, read some 40k novels, the stories are quite good.
Then build an army (slowly) to what interests you.

Battletech is getting a dust-off with new rules so is worth a look and use fewer models but they do need to be assembled and painted.

X-wing needs no painting but is a VERY fun game.

The other squad based games I do not have experience with but recommend themselves well.

Good luck!

 thegreatchimp wrote:

That's funny about the Nurgle minis, I actually think they're excellent!

I've seen a lot of people agree with you there actually but it just rubbed me the wrong way. I was painting a LOVELY great unclean one bust from Mpyrec (hope I spelled that right) when the nurgle stuff hit and I couldn't help compare the two. Admittedly that's probably not a fair comparison as it was a very limited run, high end boutique piece, but it made GWs stuff look very heavily CAD sculptured with little texture and very toy like.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Words are defined by usage and when people show up to actually play and say "this game I'm proxying unit x" they mean a temporary stand in, not a permanent one. Or when people are asking about what miniatures to get for an army next, people will tell them to "proxy them and try them out in a game first" so they don't end up getting something they won't like on the table.

I get it that people also use it more broadly, but when the representation is permanent, I don't consider it proxying. They aren't standing in for the miniatures you use, they are the miniatures you use.

I'm okay that people use words differently than me and that there are regional differences to consider as well. Though, I am just going to keep using the word to apply only to temporary substitutions.

Fair enough. You are correct that though proxy has a wide variety of uses, it does tend to imply something of a temporary nature. The Dictionary will back you up on that.
Thus the terms "counts-as" or "Alternate models" can also be used. For my proxy armies, I usually refer to them as " _____ run as ______" or "__________ using the _________ army lists". I tend to proxy armies or units that are pretty close to WYSIWYG in terms of size, armor and weaponry though, so counts-as or Alternate Models are applicable as well.

 deviantduck wrote:
There is no better tactical strategy game involving miniatures than 40k. Dive in head first and enjoy.

What is tactical or strategic about random warlord traits, random psychic powers, random mission objectives, random rewards for completing those objectives (many of which will be impossible depending on situation and army composition) and codex imbalance?
40k strategy
1. Choose top tier race
2. Build list spamming best units from top tier race
3. Hope for good rolls on a million random D6 tables
4. Target priority

That is the essence of strategy in this game.

Exalted hard, Toofast.

When people rave about 40K as a tactical game, I just have to assume that they're generally that type of gamer raised on GW and too full of inertia and a disturbingly blinkered kind of brand loyalty to even glance at another game.

That sounds a little more ranty than I intended, but I don't think it's too inaccurate a description of the kind of thing I've seen. That we've seen. (The GWombies walk among us) I can understand the appeal of doing all the hard work with a codex and a calculator before the game, and just letting the models autorun during, but... I just don't understand it very much, and understand it less with every new rule-set I experience and as the gulf between me and the ol' core two grows. It smarts to see this described as tactical, and I perform a little facepalm inside whenever I scroll past a gaming forum's entire '40K tactics' board, on my way to boards where several deeper games are lumped into one.

So to extend my earlier answer to the OP's question: not only wouldn't I recommend the core two to a beginning gamer, I'd actively beg their vets and aficionados - with all the love and peace and goodwill and positive vibes and Christmas cheer - to try something else - anything else - if you think WFB and 40K are deep, tactical games. You ain't seen nothin' yet. I have basic, free, idle-time, waiting-in-a-queue games on my phone that are more tactical than 40K.