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.

 scottmmmm wrote:
People coming to a forum about a thing to tell everyone on the forum how bad the thing is. It borders on sociopathic at times.

But telling people how bad they are and bordering on sociopathic is totally okay, right? As long as you're the one complaining about the complainers its all good, amirite?

If it was so bad they would stop reading the forum and take up golf.

Yeah, maybe in your black and white world of love it or hate it.

Here in reality, things are a lot more nuanced.

 Blacksails wrote:

But telling people how bad they are and bordering on sociopathic is totally okay, right? As long as you're the one complaining about the complainers its all good, amirite?

When that is the topic of discussion at hand, it's perfectly fine. I wasn't complaining either. As I said, I love reading the forum and watching threads spiral out of control. It's great reading.

Yeah, maybe in your black and white world of love it or hate it.

Here in reality, things are a lot more nuanced.

Aside from the fact this was a joke my point was that some people on the forum seem to repeatedly spew bile about how bad the hobby is. My point (in answer to the OPs question) is that if the hobby was really THAT BAD, they would sever ties with it and stop putting themselves through the wringer worrying about it. The fact that they continue to invest their time in it -despite their apparent hatred of it - suggests that there's something of interest here.

Its not hatred though.

I recognize I'm more often than not in the threads slagging GW. I dislike much of their practices and the game is well, kinda broken. That said, I still love the fluff, aesthetics, and the 28mm company level feel of the battles (because tanks are fething cool). I still get excited to put models together and think about what it'll all look like when its finished. I love reading battle reports between two cool looking armies.

There's more to the 40k experience than just the tabletop wargame. Not to mention, many of the lovely models out there would make for great models in the RPGs or other discontinued GW games that have quite solid rules. I can't speak for anyone but myself when I say this, but I stick around in the vain hope GW actually pulls its head out of its arse and recognizes its failings.

That and dreaming of a full re-release of BFG all in multi-part plastic kits makes me feel all tingly.

 scottmmmm wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

But telling people how bad they are and bordering on sociopathic is totally okay, right? As long as you're the one complaining about the complainers its all good, amirite?

When that is the topic of discussion at hand, it's perfectly fine. I wasn't complaining either. As I said, I love reading the forum and watching threads spiral out of control. It's great reading.

Yeah, maybe in your black and white world of love it or hate it.

Here in reality, things are a lot more nuanced.

Aside from the fact this was a joke my point was that some people on the forum seem to repeatedly spew bile about how bad the hobby is. My point (in answer to the OPs question) is that if the hobby was really THAT BAD, they would sever ties with it and stop putting themselves through the wringer worrying about it. The fact that they continue to invest their time in it -despite their apparent hatred of it - suggests that there's something of interest here.

You're still not getting it. I'm not "worrying about" 40k. I gave up a while ago and moved on to other games. However, I'm a gammer and I love discussing games. I spent 20+ years with 40k and I am still interested in where it's going and how it's doing. I'm torn. A part of me wants to see GW crash and burn and another part wants to see it rise above the crap it currently is. So, until then, I'm still watching and waiting because I'm curious. Also, if you think critics of the game are "spewing bile" then that's not a good start to a healthy conversation. Perhaps its your perceptions that need to change?

Depends. 40K is a fairly decent game for beer and pretzels or narrative campagins/rpg's, but for competitive uses 40K is absolutely horrible and lacks balance of any sort.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Depends. 40K is a fairly decent game for beer and pretzels or narrative campagins/rpg's

Is it though?

What about its cost, complexity, balance, and lack of built in rules for campaigns makes it good for campaigns or rpgs, or a 'beer and pretzels' game, for that matter?

 MWHistorian wrote:

 scottmmmm wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

But telling people how bad they are and bordering on sociopathic is totally okay, right? As long as you're the one complaining about the complainers its all good, amirite?

When that is the topic of discussion at hand, it's perfectly fine. I wasn't complaining either. As I said, I love reading the forum and watching threads spiral out of control. It's great reading.

Yeah, maybe in your black and white world of love it or hate it.

Here in reality, things are a lot more nuanced.

Aside from the fact this was a joke my point was that some people on the forum seem to repeatedly spew bile about how bad the hobby is. My point (in answer to the OPs question) is that if the hobby was really THAT BAD, they would sever ties with it and stop putting themselves through the wringer worrying about it. The fact that they continue to invest their time in it -despite their apparent hatred of it - suggests that there's something of interest here.

You're still not getting it. I'm not "worrying about" 40k. I gave up a while ago and moved on to other games. However, I'm a gammer and I love discussing games. I spent 20+ years with 40k and I am still interested in where it's going and how it's doing. I'm torn. A part of me wants to see GW crash and burn and another part wants to see it rise above the crap it currently is. So, until then, I'm still watching and waiting because I'm curious. Also, if you think critics of the game are "spewing bile" then that's not a good start to a healthy conversation. Perhaps its your perceptions that need to change?

I respectfully disagree. I don't think I've said much I'd like to take back or change. They're just my opinions, disregard them if you disagree.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Depends. 40K is a fairly decent game for beer and pretzels or narrative campagins/rpg's

Is it though?What about its cost, complexity, balance, and lack of built in rules for campaigns makes it good for campaigns or rpgs, or a 'beer and pretzels' game, for that matter?

40k may just mug you for your beer and pretzel money.

The cost can be prohibitive but it certainly has a great deal of variety and a large back-story to give it some structure.
It reminds me of a bad user interface, I use 40k for the bones of a good game and adapt, it is rather woeful in pick-up games but with friends can be awesome.
The rules "should" be good but they have many issues so you learn to accept, adapt or reject it altogether.

 scottmmmm wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 scottmmmm wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

But telling people how bad they are and bordering on sociopathic is totally okay, right? As long as you're the one complaining about the complainers its all good, amirite?

When that is the topic of discussion at hand, it's perfectly fine. I wasn't complaining either. As I said, I love reading the forum and watching threads spiral out of control. It's great reading.

Yeah, maybe in your black and white world of love it or hate it.

Here in reality, things are a lot more nuanced.

Aside from the fact this was a joke my point was that some people on the forum seem to repeatedly spew bile about how bad the hobby is. My point (in answer to the OPs question) is that if the hobby was really THAT BAD, they would sever ties with it and stop putting themselves through the wringer worrying about it. The fact that they continue to invest their time in it -despite their apparent hatred of it - suggests that there's something of interest here.

You're still not getting it. I'm not "worrying about" 40k. I gave up a while ago and moved on to other games. However, I'm a gammer and I love discussing games. I spent 20+ years with 40k and I am still interested in where it's going and how it's doing. I'm torn. A part of me wants to see GW crash and burn and another part wants to see it rise above the crap it currently is. So, until then, I'm still watching and waiting because I'm curious. Also, if you think critics of the game are "spewing bile" then that's not a good start to a healthy conversation. Perhaps its your perceptions that need to change?

I respectfully disagree. I don't think I've said much I'd like to take back or change. They're just my opinions, disregard them if you disagree.

But an opinion formed out of ignorance isn't valid.

I might be a little bit rusty, but how "Bad" does everyone say 40k is? I'm gathering it's mostly complaints about imbalance, tournament Douchebags and GW being over-priced and not listening to their customer base?

 scottmmmm wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

But telling people how bad they are and bordering on sociopathic is totally okay, right? As long as you're the one complaining about the complainers its all good, amirite?

When that is the topic of discussion at hand, it's perfectly fine. I wasn't complaining either. As I said, I love reading the forum and watching threads spiral out of control. It's great reading.

Yeah, maybe in your black and white world of love it or hate it.

Here in reality, things are a lot more nuanced.

Aside from the fact this was a joke my point was that some people on the forum seem to repeatedly spew bile about how bad the hobby is. My point (in answer to the OPs question) is that if the hobby was really THAT BAD, they would sever ties with it and stop putting themselves through the wringer worrying about it. The fact that they continue to invest their time in it -despite their apparent hatred of it - suggests that there's something of interest here.

When the OP said "is it THAT BAD", it's not like saying "is Hitler REALLY THAT EVIL".

People don't come on and say there's no redeeming quality to 40k, they just point out what is bad. The "haters" will still admit to thinking the fluff, the models, the aesthetics/feel of the universe and/or playing a game with friends can be good otherwise no one would have started the game in the first place.

If people thought the hobby was genuinely so bad as to sever all ties with it... they would do that. You also have to remember people often have hundreds if not thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of their time invested in to 40k. Just because you dislike it enough to not recommend it to other people doesn't mean you dislike it enough to just accept the loss.

Also, you talk about people "worrying" about it as if that's all they do... I'd say most the people that have quit 40k and stuck around the forums to talk about it are people who are still wargamers or hobbyists and still read the other forums.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 scottmmmm wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 scottmmmm wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

But telling people how bad they are and bordering on sociopathic is totally okay, right? As long as you're the one complaining about the complainers its all good, amirite?

When that is the topic of discussion at hand, it's perfectly fine. I wasn't complaining either. As I said, I love reading the forum and watching threads spiral out of control. It's great reading.

Yeah, maybe in your black and white world of love it or hate it.

Here in reality, things are a lot more nuanced.

Aside from the fact this was a joke my point was that some people on the forum seem to repeatedly spew bile about how bad the hobby is. My point (in answer to the OPs question) is that if the hobby was really THAT BAD, they would sever ties with it and stop putting themselves through the wringer worrying about it. The fact that they continue to invest their time in it -despite their apparent hatred of it - suggests that there's something of interest here.

You're still not getting it. I'm not "worrying about" 40k. I gave up a while ago and moved on to other games. However, I'm a gammer and I love discussing games. I spent 20+ years with 40k and I am still interested in where it's going and how it's doing. I'm torn. A part of me wants to see GW crash and burn and another part wants to see it rise above the crap it currently is. So, until then, I'm still watching and waiting because I'm curious. Also, if you think critics of the game are "spewing bile" then that's not a good start to a healthy conversation. Perhaps its your perceptions that need to change?

I respectfully disagree. I don't think I've said much I'd like to take back or change. They're just my opinions, disregard them if you disagree.

But an opinion formed out of ignorance isn't valid.

Then proceed to sentence number 3 and disregard what I have to say. There's no such thing as "validity" in an opinion.

If I'm playing a beer and pretzels game, I want something with much less clunky rules. My opponent and I shouldn't have to take ourselves out of the game to debate the wording of rules. I also like some semblance of balance in my wargames. What if my buddy just happens to like the look of grav tanks and wraithknights? What if someone else in our group just likes the look of chaos marines? There's nothing fun about getting roflstomped while drinking beer and eating pretzels. The game is far too complex to call it a beer and pretzels game. The game is far too imbalanced to call it a good competitive game. It also has rules designed for skirmishes but tries to be a mass battle game. All of this speaks to a design team that doesn't know how to write a good ruleset and a company that doesn't care. That's not something I would advise anyone to go spend $500-1,000 on when there are alternatives like WMH that provide a better beer and pretzels game and also a better competitive game with tighter rules that are easier to learn and lower cost of entry.

I always interpret "beer and pretzels" as "you have to be drunk to enjoy it"

 scottmmmm wrote:
There's no such thing as "validity" in an opinion.

Really? So it doesn't matter if you take your sick dog to a veterinarian or a witch doctor? I'm sure they both have an opinion on how to cure the poor thing.

Darkzephyr wrote:
I might be a little bit rusty, but how "Bad" does everyone say 40k is? I'm gathering it's mostly complaints about imbalance, tournament Douchebags and GW being over-priced and not listening to their customer base?

No, it's worse than that. The entire game is garbage, and the only way to fix it would be to delete everything and start over from the beginning. GW starts with the core rules of a 1980s fantasy game (games decided by a giant melee in the middle of the table with shooting a minor factor, blocks of troops with poor maneuverability, etc) and then tries to apply those rules to a game with modern-style infantry tactics, tanks and aircraft, and lots of shooting. So you get things like IGOUGO (a terrible system in general, but especially bad in a modern context) creating 15-minute turns where you just remove models against your opponent's alpha strike, half the stat line devoted to marginally-relevant melee rules (when was the last time the WS table ever mattered?) , and important concepts like suppressing fire limited to a token mention of rolling a leadership test occasionally (with most units effectively ignoring it anyway). Then on top of the mess of an inappropriate core system you add GW's "never use one rule when you can use three" habit of adding special rules followed by exceptions to the special rules followed by exceptions to the exceptions, all with no overall design concept to guide them. So you have idiocy like paying careful attention to exactly what melee weapon a sergeant is armed with in the same game where artillery can snipe the sergeant out of a squad, and mass firepower can kill the whole unit before it ever gets into melee range. Finally, just to make sure that the game sucks, GW policy is that playing games is not something you should do on your own time instead of while you're getting paid and therefore playtesting isn't necessary. And so every balance mistake from the rough draft of a rulebook makes it into the final rules, while GW blames it all on TFGs who aren't forging the narrative enough and dare to make their army-building choices based on what wins games.

In short, it isn't just a superficial balance issue or two, the whole game sucks. You can occasionally have fun despite the bad rules, but GW's rule authors certainly aren't going to help you do it.

OP- 40K is a great game. It isn't perfect, but certainly a lot of fun.

Is WH40k really as bad as everyone says it is?

Yes, No, Maybe, I don't know. Can you repeat the question?

I've been a 40k player for roughly 10 years, I've had great times, I've had bad times, I've had boring times and I've wasted a considerable amount of money.

Would I say it was worth it?

I would, as much as the rules can suck from codex to codex or edition to edition, as much as the system can be abused, people can be pedantic or outright cheaters and the models and materials to go with are mind numbingly expensive. I would say it was worth it for me because the good outweighed the bad, I made most of my best friends through the game and had some of the best days/nights of my life because of the game.

Does that mean you will find it worth it? the honest answer and pretty much the only meaningful answer I can give you here is 'I don't know, because I am not you.'

Only you will know if you will enjoy something or find it worthwhile, but in terms of practical advice if you are not sure then borrow someone elses army and try it out, play a few practice games with people in your LGS before you sink any money into it.

I'm not saying ignore other peoples opinions of the game, but don't let other peoples opinions ruin something you may very well come to enjoy.

My 0.02 USD.

 MWHistorian wrote:
You're still not getting it. I'm not "worrying about" 40k. I gave up a while ago and moved on to other games. However, I'm a gammer and I love discussing games. I spent 20+ years with 40k and I am still interested in where it's going and how it's doing. I'm torn. A part of me wants to see GW crash and burn and another part wants to see it rise above the crap it currently is. So, until then, I'm still watching and waiting because I'm curious.

This is pretty much where I'm at, as well. Although I have no particularly interest in seeing GW crash and burn...

I'd like nothing more than to go back to enjoying 40K as much as I did during 5th edition... but that's just not going to happen with the current state of the game, so I'm just sort of hanging around to see where it goes. Hopefully this is just the down-swing on the pendulum and they'll realise for 8th edition that they actually need to put some effort in...

 insaniak wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
You're still not getting it. I'm not "worrying about" 40k. I gave up a while ago and moved on to other games. However, I'm a gammer and I love discussing games. I spent 20+ years with 40k and I am still interested in where it's going and how it's doing. I'm torn. A part of me wants to see GW crash and burn and another part wants to see it rise above the crap it currently is. So, until then, I'm still watching and waiting because I'm curious.

This is pretty much where I'm at, as well. Although I have no particularly interest in seeing GW crash and burn...

I'd like nothing more than to go back to enjoying 40K as much as I did during 5th edition... but that's just not going to happen with the current state of the game, so I'm just sort of hanging around to see where it goes. Hopefully this is just the down-swing on the pendulum and they'll realise for 8th edition that they actually need to put some effort in...

I feel like if you asked any of us 'haters' on dakka the overwhelming majority will be in the same or similar boat.

Those that truly don't care don't stick around to talk about it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Darkzephyr wrote:
I might be a little bit rusty, but how "Bad" does everyone say 40k is? I'm gathering it's mostly complaints about imbalance, tournament Douchebags and GW being over-priced and not listening to their customer base?

No, it's worse than that. The entire game is garbage, and the only way to fix it would be to delete everything and start over from the beginning. GW starts with the core rules of a 1980s fantasy game (games decided by a giant melee in the middle of the table with shooting a minor factor, blocks of troops with poor maneuverability, etc) and then tries to apply those rules to a game with modern-style infantry tactics, tanks and aircraft, and lots of shooting. So you get things like IGOUGO (a terrible system in general, but especially bad in a modern context) creating 15-minute turns where you just remove models against your opponent's alpha strike, half the stat line devoted to marginally-relevant melee rules (when was the last time the WS table ever mattered?) , and important concepts like suppressing fire limited to a token mention of rolling a leadership test occasionally (with most units effectively ignoring it anyway). Then on top of the mess of an inappropriate core system you add GW's "never use one rule when you can use three" habit of adding special rules followed by exceptions to the special rules followed by exceptions to the exceptions, all with no overall design concept to guide them. So you have idiocy like paying careful attention to exactly what melee weapon a sergeant is armed with in the same game where artillery can snipe the sergeant out of a squad, and mass firepower can kill the whole unit before it ever gets into melee range. Finally, just to make sure that the game sucks, GW policy is that playing games is not something you should do on your own time instead of while you're getting paid and therefore playtesting isn't necessary. And so every balance mistake from the rough draft of a rulebook makes it into the final rules, while GW blames it all on TFGs who aren't forging the narrative enough and dare to make their army-building choices based on what wins games.

In short, it isn't just a superficial balance issue or two, the whole game sucks. You can occasionally have fun despite the bad rules, but GW's rule authors certainly aren't going to help you do it.

Don't you ever get tired of basically writing out the same post every single day. I mean it's pretty tragic really.

MarsNZ wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Darkzephyr wrote:
I might be a little bit rusty, but how "Bad" does everyone say 40k is? I'm gathering it's mostly complaints about imbalance, tournament Douchebags and GW being over-priced and not listening to their customer base?

No, it's worse than that. The entire game is garbage, and the only way to fix it would be to delete everything and start over from the beginning. GW starts with the core rules of a 1980s fantasy game (games decided by a giant melee in the middle of the table with shooting a minor factor, blocks of troops with poor maneuverability, etc) and then tries to apply those rules to a game with modern-style infantry tactics, tanks and aircraft, and lots of shooting. So you get things like IGOUGO (a terrible system in general, but especially bad in a modern context) creating 15-minute turns where you just remove models against your opponent's alpha strike, half the stat line devoted to marginally-relevant melee rules (when was the last time the WS table ever mattered?) , and important concepts like suppressing fire limited to a token mention of rolling a leadership test occasionally (with most units effectively ignoring it anyway). Then on top of the mess of an inappropriate core system you add GW's "never use one rule when you can use three" habit of adding special rules followed by exceptions to the special rules followed by exceptions to the exceptions, all with no overall design concept to guide them. So you have idiocy like paying careful attention to exactly what melee weapon a sergeant is armed with in the same game where artillery can snipe the sergeant out of a squad, and mass firepower can kill the whole unit before it ever gets into melee range. Finally, just to make sure that the game sucks, GW policy is that playing games is not something you should do on your own time instead of while you're getting paid and therefore playtesting isn't necessary. And so every balance mistake from the rough draft of a rulebook makes it into the final rules, while GW blames it all on TFGs who aren't forging the narrative enough and dare to make their army-building choices based on what wins games.

In short, it isn't just a superficial balance issue or two, the whole game sucks. You can occasionally have fun despite the bad rules, but GW's rule authors certainly aren't going to help you do it.

Don't you ever get tired of basically writing out the same post every single day. I mean it's pretty tragic really.

You can write a novel about a person writing tragic posts every day about a thing he liked some time ago but doesn't like now. In the end the thing does get better but he's so used to hate it that goes on and on always finding out something bad about it. Cause there's always something bad even in good stuff. Add in some black coffee and cigarettes and you've got a bestseller. Don't thank me.

MarsNZ wrote:
Don't you ever get tired of basically writing out the same post every single day. I mean it's pretty tragic really.

You know what's also tragic? That the best response you can come up with is "YOUR SO TRAGIC!!!!", and you can't say anything about the substance of my criticism or defend GW in any way.

 Peregrine wrote:

Darkzephyr wrote:
I might be a little bit rusty, but how "Bad" does everyone say 40k is? I'm gathering it's mostly complaints about imbalance, tournament Douchebags and GW being over-priced and not listening to their customer base?

No, it's worse than that. The entire game is garbage, and the only way to fix it would be to delete everything and start over from the beginning. GW starts with the core rules of a 1980s fantasy game (games decided by a giant melee in the middle of the table with shooting a minor factor, blocks of troops with poor maneuverability, etc) and then tries to apply those rules to a game with modern-style infantry tactics, tanks and aircraft, and lots of shooting. So you get things like IGOUGO (a terrible system in general, but especially bad in a modern context) creating 15-minute turns where you just remove models against your opponent's alpha strike, half the stat line devoted to marginally-relevant melee rules (when was the last time the WS table ever mattered?) , and important concepts like suppressing fire limited to a token mention of rolling a leadership test occasionally (with most units effectively ignoring it anyway). Then on top of the mess of an inappropriate core system you add GW's "never use one rule when you can use three" habit of adding special rules followed by exceptions to the special rules followed by exceptions to the exceptions, all with no overall design concept to guide them. So you have idiocy like paying careful attention to exactly what melee weapon a sergeant is armed with in the same game where artillery can snipe the sergeant out of a squad, and mass firepower can kill the whole unit before it ever gets into melee range. Finally, just to make sure that the game sucks, GW policy is that playing games is not something you should do on your own time instead of while you're getting paid and therefore playtesting isn't necessary. And so every balance mistake from the rough draft of a rulebook makes it into the final rules, while GW blames it all on TFGs who aren't forging the narrative enough and dare to make their army-building choices based on what wins games.

In short, it isn't just a superficial balance issue or two, the whole game sucks. You can occasionally have fun despite the bad rules, but GW's rule authors certainly aren't going to help you do it.

I think you forgot to mention that GW tries to make both a skirmish game, 28mm scale game and a 15mm scale game at the same time (though you hinted at it with the Sergeant example).
Their complete inability to decide on a "scale" is, in my mind, a big part of their over-all problem.

 Peregrine wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
Don't you ever get tired of basically writing out the same post every single day. I mean it's pretty tragic really.

You know what's also tragic? That the best response you can come up with is "YOUR SO TRAGIC!!!!", and you can't say anything about the substance of my criticism or defend GW in any way.

No, what's tragic is to keep trying and arguing with you. In every thread, it's the same thing. Why bother arguing against a brick wall?

Doesn't arguing assume both sides are using arguments. Till now what I have seen is the side that dislikes the shape of the game giving facts like high entry cost, bad rules writing, mechanics from skirmish games used for a non skirmish system and the "pro" GW side giving non, and am not saying in this thread.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
Don't you ever get tired of basically writing out the same post every single day. I mean it's pretty tragic really.

You know what's also tragic? That the best response you can come up with is "YOUR SO TRAGIC!!!!", and you can't say anything about the substance of my criticism or defend GW in any way.

No, what's tragic is to keep trying and arguing with you. In every thread, it's the same thing. Why bother arguing against a brick wall?

With respect, despite his tone, reading the substance of his post, and being objective about things, peregrine isn't exactly wrong either in a lot of the things he says. Although igougo isn't the monolithic monster he claims it to be - it can work rather well, and is kinda necessary for games like warmachine.

Deadnight wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
Don't you ever get tired of basically writing out the same post every single day. I mean it's pretty tragic really.

You know what's also tragic? That the best response you can come up with is "YOUR SO TRAGIC!!!!", and you can't say anything about the substance of my criticism or defend GW in any way.

No, what's tragic is to keep trying and arguing with you. In every thread, it's the same thing. Why bother arguing against a brick wall?

With respect, despite his tone, reading the substance of his post, and being objective about things, peregrine isn't exactly wrong either in a lot of the things he says. Although igougo isn't the monolithic monster he claims it to be - it can work rather well, and is kinda necessary for games like warmachine.

Well, my core issue with what peregrine and the anti-40k crowd tend to have is that they make sweeping statements as if they were facts, when they are not. For instance he almost always uses "you" (referring to the plural reader) rather than "I" (referring to himself) when stating opinions.

For example, I think that IGYG, turn based strategy games are the best. I like them on computers, I like them on the tabletop. I far prefer a long game to a short game. I prefer a 15 minute turn with an epic number of models -- I want to see a master-painted table with three thousand dollars of models and terrain, and a thousand hours of painting, because this gives me great pleasure. I want rich, complex rules with many special abilities for thousands of troop types that make it so that I will never run out of new things to try.

I do not think that GW is perfect (my lord, far from it), but I think the universe, game system, artistic aesthetic, and variety are second to none. I concede that many people disagree with my opinion on some or all of this, but that's THEIR opinion, and they should not speak for me in saying that I can only occasionally have fun, or that other games are generally more fun.

I do not feel that WMH, Malifaux or Xwing offer the complexity that I crave. I like a game where you can pick it up and learn it quickly, but where there are many special rules and special abilities that have a steep learning curve to learn to master and exploit. Am I in the minority? Perhaps; I don't know. But I do know that most of my gaming friends feel the same way, and we always have a lot of fun with 40k. There is no other game other than 40k/whfb in the scifi fantasy genre that is well suited to 300 model games, that look like a real "war". Infantry, vehicles, flyers, monsters great and small, where a great massive enemy is a fearsome and not to be trifled with. Campaigns, both GW and player made, are immensely satisfying, to me.

Yes, 40k has lots of problems, but I can live with them or work around them, and I certainly have a lot of fun doing so. I'm perfectly fine with someone else disagreeing (and I'm the first to say 40k isn't for everyone)... just please don't speak for me, or others like me.

Talys wrote:

For example, I think that IGYG, turn based strategy games are the best. I like them on computers, I like them on the tabletop.

Why do you think IGYG systems are the best? What other systems have you tried in miniature wargames that you can compare it to and what advantages do you think that that system has over them?

Talys wrote:

I far prefer a long game to a short game.

Why? What inherent advantage does a long game has over a short(er) game?

Do you consider the often seen experience in 40k of loosing the game in the first few turns due to the opponents alpha strike but still having to slog through 2+ hours of game time a pleasant experience? Why?

Talys wrote:

I prefer a 15 minute turn with an epic number of models

When those 15 mins are often spent just pushing models without any regard to their actual positioning or without having any actual impact on the game, why do you prefer those longer turns? (And most of the time is not 15 mins, its 20 to 30 minutes where the non-active player doesn't have practically anything to do)

Talys wrote:

-- I want to see a master-painted table with three thousand dollars of models and terrain, and a thousand hours of painting, because this gives me great pleasure.

Why do you derive pleasure from the cost of the models and the terrain?!

Talys wrote:

I want rich, complex rules with many special abilities for thousands of troop types that make it so that I will never run out of new things to try.

Then why do you play 40k? 40k doesn't have rich or complex rules... It has complicated rules but that is a very different thing. If you want rich and complex rules systems then you'll have to turn to Infinity, or WMH or Malifaux. THOSE are systems with rich and complex rules.

Talys wrote:

There is no other game other than 40k/whfb in the scifi fantasy genre that is well suited to 300 model games, that look like a real "war".

What other systems have you tried to be able to make this statement? Neither of those systems is well suited to field 300 models to start with... You would have your entire side of the board covered in models meaning that there would be no room to manoeuvre and all you could really do is push you models forward and roll dice... I mean, the average GW game is usually already like that but that seems like an even less satisfying experience to me.

PhantomViper wrote:

Talys wrote:

For example, I think that IGYG, turn based strategy games are the best. I like them on computers, I like them on the tabletop.

Why do you think IGYG systems are the best? What other systems have you tried in miniature wargames that you can compare it to and what advantages do you think that that system has over them?

Talys wrote:

I far prefer a long game to a short game.

Why? What inherent advantage does a long game has over a short(er) game?

Do you consider the often seen experience in 40k of loosing the game in the first few turns due to the opponents alpha strike but still having to slog through 2+ hours of game time a pleasant experience? Why?

Talys wrote:

I prefer a 15 minute turn with an epic number of models

When those 15 mins are often spent just pushing models without any regard to their actual positioning or without having any actual impact on the game, why do you prefer those longer turns? (And most of the time is not 15 mins, its 20 to 30 minutes where the non-active player doesn't have practically anything to do)

Talys wrote:

-- I want to see a master-painted table with three thousand dollars of models and terrain, and a thousand hours of painting, because this gives me great pleasure.

Why do you derive pleasure from the cost of the models and the terrain?!

Talys wrote:

I want rich, complex rules with many special abilities for thousands of troop types that make it so that I will never run out of new things to try.

Then why do you play 40k? 40k doesn't have rich or complex rules... It has complicated rules but that is a very different thing. If you want rich and complex rules systems then you'll have to turn to Infinity, or WMH or Malifaux. THOSE are systems with rich and complex rules.

Talys wrote:

There is no other game other than 40k/whfb in the scifi fantasy genre that is well suited to 300 model games, that look like a real "war".

What other systems have you tried to be able to make this statement? Neither of those systems is well suited to field 300 models to start with... You would have your entire side of the board covered in models meaning that there would be no room to manoeuvre and all you could really do is push you models forward and roll dice... I mean, the average GW game is usually already like that but that seems like an even less satisfying experience to me.

Everything your challenging are just preference things. You don't like those things or think they are important, that's fine, other people do. You don't think it has rich/complex rules compared to XYZ, other people do. It's all a matter of opinion trying to quantify any of these things into which is 'better' is useless. It's like quantifying the value of different music or art pieces, the value is solely in the preferences of the Individual, there is no universal right or wrong.


Annnnnd this is why I avoid these threads, anyone who genuinely prefers 40k as a better option brings out others trying to convert them to other games o.o.