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.

 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?

It's setting. The only really good part of 40k. You have to bend the rules, make houserules, create whole new objects or whatever (basically better create your own game) but yeah, the setting is awesome for campaigns and rpgs.

I agree withe peregrine. You can have fun with this game (under certain circumstances) but GW aint helping you here. So if you want 40k, go 40k. If you want a good tabletop wargaming with miniatures you can paint and good rules to play, take anything else out there.

 Nem wrote:

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.

Nope. That is called the "balance fallacy". Opinions that aren't based in facts don't automatically have the same weight as those that do. If someone has only ever eaten ramen noodles then is their opinion that ramen noodles is the best food in existence equally as valid as someone that has tasted from a much more varied menu?

Besides, this is a discussion forum and I'm just trying to ascertain the basis for Talys preferences, I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

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.

Nope. That is called the "balance fallacy". Opinions that aren't based in facts don't automatically have the same weight as those that do. If someone has only ever eaten ramen noodles then is their opinion that ramen noodles is the best food in existence equally as valid as someone that has tasted from a much more varied menu?

Besides, this is a discussion forum and I'm just trying to ascertain the basis for Talys preferences, I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything.

Nem kinda said it all, so I wasn't going to reply, but I guess I got dragged back in. Oh well. Here goes. Here's me so that you can understand my perspective a little better:

I've played most of the major game systems for scifi/fantasy (the type stocked at FLGS) since 1985 or so. I have no interest in historical games. The ones played at the 3 local FLGS that I frequent (not including the GW store or the MtG-only shops) are 40k, WMH, Malifaux, and X-Wing, and it's pretty easy to find games of any of them, although the number of 40k gamers has certainly declined over the years as other alternatives became available. I own virtually all the books for WMH, and at invested at least $3,000 on PP models, because I enjoy them. Comparatively, I have spent much more (obscene amounts) on Games Workshop products.

Generally, I prefer large scale battle over small scale skirmish; as long as the table is big enough, "the bigger the better". I like to see tons of miniatures, and I don't understand why someone wouldn't be happy to see hundreds of awesomely painted miniatures on a table that is a gorgeous setting. I think it adds so much to the mood. It's not about the money that's been spent; but it's not possible to get a large scale war going without spending a substantial amount of money.

It is quite easy to get 150 models per side in a 40k game, and it's not even that slow, if you play 4 people (2 v 2). The game tables we play on are 8x4, 6x4, and when I host, 10x5 (I use a billiards table)

I avoid playing games on paper foldouts and unpainted minis -- to those who like this, and I see it all the time, all the power to you; it's just not me. There's nothing epic or immersive about that to me. For this type of gaming, I would rather play a board game, like Talisman, Space Hulk, or Supremacy. My favorite related game in my youth before I got into miniature warfare was Car Wars; my favorite board game was actually Talisman.

When I go play for an evening, it is from about 5:30pm to about 2 am, with pizza somewhere in there. That's about how long I like 1-2 games to be.

In "other stuff sold at my FLGS", I used to be an ultracompetitive mad MtG player, through about the first 6 years of that game's life. I also role playing games -- D&D in specific, though I own about 100 different RPG systems, dating back to Chainmail. I own, and have played , a massive pile of board games from companies like Games Workshop, too, like BloodBowl, Talisman, HeroQuest and Gammarauders.

In "video games that FLGS peeps like to play", my favorite computer game of all time is Civilization. This should tell you something about me, since the average game length is... very long. And, I enjoy micromanaging all those cities. I would choose Panzer General (TBS) over StarCraft (RTS) any day. I am not a huge FPS fan, though I am competent; however, I am an ace Diablo 2/3 player; I've been a top ranked player -- as in #1 on a given server -- many times, and held that spot for very long stretches of time (months at a time, until I lose interest).

At this stage in my life, my primary interest in the hobby is painting and modelling. My typical model now is 10+ hours, even for a $2 infantry model, because I'm looking to paint at least as well as the studio version, if not surpass that level. I play only once a week or so, and I don't much care whether I win or lose a game, although I don't want to lose ALL my games! I believe that an excellent game is one where two players have well-matched forces and strategically push the other into making tough decisions, and I actively seek to play with players that share my same values.

And, I am 100% fine with other people having different priorities, and feeling that other games are superior. I think all that is good for the industry, and that competition between games for our business is excellent. I do not believe it is either/or; I just don't feel that 40k is a "flawed" system in the sense that it's broken and not fun.

I am pretty easy going... but I do get mildly offended when people can't seem to understand that some players who game regularly actually believe that 40k and WHFB are good games, and actually choose to play it over other "more modern", "better", "superior", <insert adjective> games.

Talys wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

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.

Nope. That is called the "balance fallacy". Opinions that aren't based in facts don't automatically have the same weight as those that do. If someone has only ever eaten ramen noodles then is their opinion that ramen noodles is the best food in existence equally as valid as someone that has tasted from a much more varied menu?

Besides, this is a discussion forum and I'm just trying to ascertain the basis for Talys preferences, I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything.

Nem kinda said it all, so I wasn't going to reply, but I guess I got dragged back in. Oh well. Here goes. Here's me so that you can understand my perspective a little better:

I've played most of the major game systems for scifi/fantasy (the type stocked at FLGS) since 1985 or so. I have no interest in historical games. The ones played at the 3 local FLGS that I frequent (not including the GW store or the MtG-only shops) are 40k, WMH, Malifaux, and X-Wing, and it's pretty easy to find games of any of them, although the number of 40k gamers has certainly declined over the years as other alternatives became available. I own virtually all the books for WMH, and at invested at least $3,000 on PP models, because I enjoy them. Comparatively, I have spent much more (obscene amounts) on Games Workshop products.

Generally, I prefer large scale battle over small scale skirmish; as long as the table is big enough, "the bigger the better". I like to see tons of miniatures, and I don't understand why someone wouldn't be happy to see hundreds of awesomely painted miniatures on a table that is a gorgeous setting. I think it adds so much to the mood. It's not about the money that's been spent; but it's not possible to get a large scale war going without spending a substantial amount of money.

I avoid playing games on paper foldouts and unpainted minis -- to those who like this, and I see it all the time, all the power to you; it's just not me. There's nothing epic or immersive about that to me. For this type of gaming, I would rather play a board game, like Talisman, Space Hulk, or Supremacy. My favorite related game in my youth before I got into miniature warfare was Car Wars; my favorite board game was actually Talisman.

When I go play for an evening, it is from about 5:30pm to about 2 am, with pizza somewhere in there. That's about how long I like 1-2 games to be.

In "other stuff sold at my FLGS", I used to be an ultracompetitive mad MtG player, through about the first 6 years of that game's life. I also role playing games -- D&D in specific, though I own about 100 different RPG systems, dating back to Chainmail. I own, and have played , a massive pile of board games from companies like Games Workshop, too, like BloodBowl, Talisman, HeroQuest and Gammarauders.

In "video games that FLGS peeps like to play", my favorite computer game of all time is Civilization. This should tell you something about me, since the average game length is... very long. And, I enjoy micromanaging all those cities. I would choose Panzer General (TBS) over StarCraft (RTS) any day. I am not a huge FPS fan, though I am competent; however, I am an ace Diablo 2/3 player; I've been a top ranked player -- as in #1 on a given server -- many times, and held that spot for very long stretches of time (months at a time, until I lose interest).

At this stage in my life, my primary interest in the hobby is painting and modelling. My typical model now is 10+ hours, even for a $2 infantry model, because I'm looking to paint at least as well as the studio version, if not surpass that level. I play only once a week or so, and I don't much care whether I win or lose a game, although I don't want to lose ALL my games! I believe that an excellent game is one where two players have well-matched forces and strategically push the other into making tough decisions, and I actively seek to play with players that share my same values.

And, I am 100% fine with other people having different priorities, and feeling that other games are superior. I think all that is good for the industry, and that competition between games for our business is excellent. I do not believe it is either/or; I just don't feel that 40k is a "flawed" system in the sense that it's broken and not fun.

I am pretty easy going... but I do get mildly offended when people can't seem to understand that some players who game regularly actually believe that 40k and WHFB are good games, and actually choose to play it over other "more modern", "better", "superior", <insert adjective> games.

For me, that's a perfectly valid and reasonable opinion.
I don't mind people liking 40k at all. What I do mind is when they say it's the best when they haven't tried anything else or ignore all problems with the game. If you can get through all that and still enjoy the game, power to you.
You used the perfect word. "Priorities."

No one is saying they don't understand how people can have fun with 40k. People point out the very legitimate shortfalls of GW games, and point put other alternatives, and everyone who likes GW acts like they insulted their mothers or something...

Peregrine even said '40k can be fun with like minded people'.

Painting and modelling has little to do with rules, though, except to the degree that the rules allow people to create new and interesting models.

40K used to be a lot better in that respect than it is now.

A game like 40k especially requires a good bunch of players to make it fun, you play with dicks then you're gonna have a bad time.
I don't play 40k because I missed all of 6th and 7th is just too out there for me, and I just like fantasy better.
All and all, as I said, like any game the people make the biggest impact, find a good bunch and the games will be rewarding.

It is understandable observing "we have talked about this before... many times".
The game has been through 7 iterations of rules with little tweaks in-between.
We have seen the good, the bad and the ugly.
It is hard to discourage someone away from the game because any time now it just could get better.
There is little limitation of what models can be selected for an army so perceived "overpowered" lists are readily made.
Being given all this "freedom" in army selection will be a problem if GW is motivated to "balance" things in the future.
I find the game still works with friends because we can make it work, yes it sounds like excusing GW of poor rules but since they do not listen, it really does not matter.

Find your fun where you can!

Talys wrote:

Nem kinda said it all, so I wasn't going to reply, but I guess I got dragged back in. Oh well. Here goes. Here's me so that you can understand my perspective a little better:

I've played most of the major game systems for scifi/fantasy (the type stocked at FLGS) since 1985 or so. I have no interest in historical games. The ones played at the 3 local FLGS that I frequent (not including the GW store or the MtG-only shops) are 40k, WMH, Malifaux, and X-Wing, and it's pretty easy to find games of any of them, although the number of 40k gamers has certainly declined over the years as other alternatives became available. I own virtually all the books for WMH, and at invested at least $3,000 on PP models, because I enjoy them. Comparatively, I have spent much more (obscene amounts) on Games Workshop products.

Generally, I prefer large scale battle over small scale skirmish; as long as the table is big enough, "the bigger the better". I like to see tons of miniatures, and I don't understand why someone wouldn't be happy to see hundreds of awesomely painted miniatures on a table that is a gorgeous setting. I think it adds so much to the mood. It's not about the money that's been spent; but it's not possible to get a large scale war going without spending a substantial amount of money.

It is quite easy to get 150 models per side in a 40k game, and it's not even that slow, if you play 4 people (2 v 2). The game tables we play on are 8x4, 6x4, and when I host, 10x5 (I use a billiards table)

I avoid playing games on paper foldouts and unpainted minis -- to those who like this, and I see it all the time, all the power to you; it's just not me. There's nothing epic or immersive about that to me. For this type of gaming, I would rather play a board game, like Talisman, Space Hulk, or Supremacy. My favorite related game in my youth before I got into miniature warfare was Car Wars; my favorite board game was actually Talisman.

When I go play for an evening, it is from about 5:30pm to about 2 am, with pizza somewhere in there. That's about how long I like 1-2 games to be.

In "other stuff sold at my FLGS", I used to be an ultracompetitive mad MtG player, through about the first 6 years of that game's life. I also role playing games -- D&D in specific, though I own about 100 different RPG systems, dating back to Chainmail. I own, and have played , a massive pile of board games from companies like Games Workshop, too, like BloodBowl, Talisman, HeroQuest and Gammarauders.

In "video games that FLGS peeps like to play", my favorite computer game of all time is Civilization. This should tell you something about me, since the average game length is... very long. And, I enjoy micromanaging all those cities. I would choose Panzer General (TBS) over StarCraft (RTS) any day. I am not a huge FPS fan, though I am competent; however, I am an ace Diablo 2/3 player; I've been a top ranked player -- as in #1 on a given server -- many times, and held that spot for very long stretches of time (months at a time, until I lose interest).

At this stage in my life, my primary interest in the hobby is painting and modelling. My typical model now is 10+ hours, even for a $2 infantry model, because I'm looking to paint at least as well as the studio version, if not surpass that level. I play only once a week or so, and I don't much care whether I win or lose a game, although I don't want to lose ALL my games! I believe that an excellent game is one where two players have well-matched forces and strategically push the other into making tough decisions, and I actively seek to play with players that share my same values.

And, I am 100% fine with other people having different priorities, and feeling that other games are superior. I think all that is good for the industry, and that competition between games for our business is excellent. I do not believe it is either/or; I just don't feel that 40k is a "flawed" system in the sense that it's broken and not fun.

I am pretty easy going... but I do get mildly offended when people can't seem to understand that some players who game regularly actually believe that 40k and WHFB are good games, and actually choose to play it over other "more modern", "better", "superior", <insert adjective> games.

Thank you very much for your reply.

I am pretty easy going... but I do get mildly offended when people can't seem to understand that some players who game regularly actually believe that 40k and WHFB are good games, and actually choose to play it over other "more modern", "better", "superior", <insert adjective> games.

But the things you listed as good are either a taste thing , like painting or modeling or big battles . Other are far away from what is normaly is played. Team games, tables bigger then 4x4 or 4x6, money not being an issue or playing in the evenings, which means not playing at stores or clubs as those cluse at 18-20.You think that is how the majority of people play this around the world?

If your goal is to collect, play and have fun, then you will be fine. Simply play with players such as yourself and don't waste time playing against people who just want to crush you.

Makumba wrote:

Other are far away from what is normaly is played.

Are they? With respect Makumba, from the things you’ve spoken about in your meta, especially with regard to the players, the lists they play and how they play, you should view your meta that is the skewed one, rather than the normal one.

Makumba wrote:
. Team games

Yup. These are quite popular with a lot of groups. I’ve seen plenty, and been involved in plenty.

Makumba wrote:
tables bigger then 4x4 or 4x6

my friend recently installed a 12 by 6 board in his garage. Three other friends of mine have their own boards/games rooms in their houses and flats. Bigger tables are hardly a rarity. People have houses, and often convert a spare room into a gaming space. It's neither hard, strange nor uncommon.

Makumba wrote:

, money not being an issue

When you have a job, and disposeable income, it stands to reason that you can spend money on your hobby. It also stands to reason that a large amount of wargamers are 18+ and would have jobs… not that abnormal.

.

Makumba wrote:
playing in the evenings, which means not playing at stores or clubs as those cluse at 18-20.

Generally yes, especially when playing at home. Stores gotta close at some point, friends at each other’s houses have a lot more freedom to game until late. With beer, banter, friendly atmosphere and pizza. We normally game until 10pm on a Friday, and we’re hardly unique.

Makumba wrote:

You think that is how the majority of people play this around the world?

Yeah, it wouldn’t surprise me. Nor should it surprise you. Playing at stores isn’t the “done thing” for a large segment of the playerbase.

Are they? With respect Makumba, from the things you’ve spoken about in your meta, especially with regard to the players, the lists they play and how they play, you should view your meta that is the skewed one, rather than the normal one.

I have seen the list posted from tournaments from other countries, unless there is some strange comp system they look the same as lists here.

Yup. These are quite popular with a lot of groups. I’ve seen plenty, and been involved in plenty.

And I seen non. I also don't know how rules would work in team games as GW never posted FAQ ment for team games.

my friend recently installed a 12 by 6 board in his garage. Three other friends of mine have their own boards/games rooms in their houses and flats. Bigger tables are hardly a rarity. People have houses, and often convert a spare room into a gaming space. It's neither hard, strange nor uncommon.

So you have bigger houses. Awesome. Only garage I have seen were under houses and if someone has a private one, then a car stands in it , otherwise why would it be there. Unless he needs it to make meth or something.

When you have a job, and disposeable income, it stands to reason that you can spend money on your hobby. It also stands to reason that a large amount of wargamers are 18+ and would have jobs… not that abnormal.

I am sorry but an avarge 1500pts w40k army costs more then most people under 40 make here per month. To buy my w40k army I worked in germany for 2 months from dusk till dawn durning harvest. If I didn't it would take me years to buy an IG army.

Generally yes, especially when playing at home. Stores gotta close at some point, friends at each other’s houses have a lot more freedom to game until late. With beer, banter, friendly atmosphere and pizza. We normally game until 10pm on a Friday, and we’re hardly unique.

And here, as in country, there is not enough space to get a 4x4 table at home most of the time. So for me that is more then unique, One would have to own a house to do it and I never met anyone who owns a house and is interested in table top gaming.

Yeah, it wouldn’t surprise me. Nor should it surprise you. Playing at stores isn’t the “done thing” for a large segment of the playerbase.

I would say its close to 100% of people here and don't know why it should be different anywhere else. The transporting of armies and the uncontroled enviroment are a problematic enough. Going to someone else house to play can end realy bad and not just for a female.

Makumba wrote:
I would say its close to 100% of people here and don't know why it should be different anywhere else. The transporting of armies and the uncontroled enviroment are a problematic enough. Going to someone else house to play can end realy bad and not just for a female.

A lot of areas don't have stores to play at. Or the stores aren't set up for gaming.

In the UK and here in Oz, it's far more common for people to play at home, or at gaming clubs in hired venues than in stores.

Makumba wrote:

I have seen the list posted from tournaments from other countries, unless there is some strange comp system they look the same as lists here.
.

1. Not every one goes to tournaments.
2. Not everyone (in fact, probably the majority) goes onto wargames forums. We are a minority of the hobby.

Plenty folks play their games completely independently of both tournaments and tournament lists. how they play, what their house rules are and what they field will similarly be quite different. the internet is a narrow skewed perception of the reality of wargaming.

Makumba wrote:

Yup. These are quite popular with a lot of groups. I’ve seen plenty, and been involved in plenty.

And I seen non. I also don't know how rules would work in team games as GW never posted FAQ ment for team games.

Who cares. GW dont tell you how to run campaigns either, but plenty people do them too. Do you need GW to tell you everything? No, you dont. How about taking ownership of your own gaming and coming to a group consensus for working group games. Add a little common sense. 2 teams, each of two players. take it in turns. 1 player from one team, then one from the other. then the second player from the first team, followed by the second player from the second. its not exactly rocket science.

Makumba wrote:

So you have bigger houses. Awesome. Only garage I have seen were under houses and if someone has a private one, then a car stands in it , otherwise why would it be there. Unless he needs it to make meth or something.

No, not really. In any case, we've got a 2 bedroom flat. an 8 by 4 board doesnt take up too much space when its lying against the wall out of use, and its easy to flip it over, set it up in a room, and have a game.

Makumba wrote:

When you have a job, and disposeable income, it stands to reason that you can spend money on your hobby. It also stands to reason that a large amount of wargamers are 18+ and would have jobs… not that abnormal.

I am sorry but an avarge 1500pts w40k army costs more then most people under 40 make here per month. To buy my w40k army I worked in germany for 2 months from dusk till dawn durning harvest. If I didn't it would take me years to buy an IG army.

So then dont be stupid, and dump a whole months wages into it in one go. How about saving up a bit every month for six months to a year. Its not exactly rocket science. 40k isnt exactly cheap here in the UK either, and people have other priorities other than toy soldiers. But its not hard to have money to put towards the hobby, even if its just a bit every month. Its like that for pretty much everything from mortgages to car and insurance payments and food bills.

Makumba wrote:

And here, as in country, there is not enough space to get a 4x4 table at home most of the time. So for me that is more then unique, One would have to own a house to do it and I never met anyone who owns a house and is interested in table top gaming.

rubbish. you dont need to "own a house". you just need to have "space" in a "room". Owned, rented or borrowed. 4x4 doesnt take up that much space against a wall. And i find it hard to believe all poles live in 3 by 3 rooms.

Makumba wrote:

I would say its close to 100% of people here and don't know why it should be different anywhere else.

you know 100% of polish wargamers? Yeah, i call shenanigans. As to not being different anywhere else, like i said - your meta is the skewed one, and is not representative of other places. Not all people have stores nearby, and not all people want to play in stores either. Like i said, i've got wargaming buddies both here in the UK and back in ireland who primarily play at home.

Makumba wrote:
The transporting of armies and the uncontroled enviroment are a problematic enough. Going to someone else house to play can end really bad and not just for a female.

transporting armies isnt exactly hard.I've lugged 40k armies around the place in a carry case walking, using buses, trains and cars. With nothing more than a shoulder strap. It isnt hard.

As to ending badly at someone's houses - i disagree. It stands to reason you game with people you know. And that you'll become friends. It also stands to reason friends socialise, and spend time together. Cinema, Shops. Pubs. Etc. you know, normal people stuff. Ever go to a friends house after school/college/work or at the weekends and hang out? Come on, we all do it, all the time. And whats the difference heading back and watching tv and hanging out, or heading back and gaming, and hanging out?

Talys wrote:
I am pretty easy going... but I do get mildly offended when people can't seem to understand that some players who game regularly actually believe that 40k and WHFB are good games, and actually choose to play it over other "more modern", "better", "superior", <insert adjective> games.

And nothing you've said in that whole long post in any way justifies this statement. You talked a lot about how much you love the models, and how much fun it is to play a huge team game, but none of that supports your claim that 40k is a good game. In fact, if you love huge games then 40k is a terrible game because IGOUGO is even more broken than usual at that point, all of the rules bloat and excessive dice rolling slows the game down even more, etc. You might be having fun despite GW's failures, but if the issues I (and other people) keep pointing out were fixed 40k would be better for the kind of games you enjoy playing.

Some people like rules bloat and excessive dice rolling. It is a dice game, after all. And I like the fact that 40k has a gazillion different rulkes with a gazillion different weapons...its an over the top sci-fi game.

These are only failures to your tastes, not to everyone's.

Makumba wrote:
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.

Fun is clearly not an argument? Thanks for letting me know. BRB, have to go alert the world they've been having fun wrong

 jasper76 wrote:
Some people like rules bloat and excessive dice rolling.

You honestly enjoy having tons of pointless rules to keep track of, most of which add very little to the game? Have you played any other games with a better ratio of complexity to depth?

It is a dice game, after all.

That doesn't mean you should roll dice just for the sake of rolling dice. Unless by "dice game" you mean that you're content with a game where the majority of "playing" it consists of rolling dice and seeing who rolls better, rather than strategy vs. counter-strategy and making better decisions than your opponent? And if that's the case why bother with the rest of the "game"? Why not just grab a handful of dice and see how many 6s you can roll?

And I like the fact that 40k has a gazillion different rulkes with a gazillion different weapons...its an over the top sci-fi game.

Being an over-the-top scifi game doesn't have anything to do with rules bloat. Let's consider the Fear USR as a good example: it seems like an appropriate thing to have in an over-the-top scifi game, right? Big monsters should be scary to fight? Too bad the execution turns it into rules bloat. First you have half the armies (more than half, if you count it by how many people play them) ignore it entirely because of their army-wide special rule. Then most of the rest don't care because anything with Fear is going to slaughter a small squad of guardsmen regardless of what happens with the Fear rule. Finally, the few units that are relevant in melee but don't have ATSKNF have LD 10/re-rolls/etc to make sure that they rarely fail. And then what happens if you do fail? Surely you run away, or kill yourself to avoid an even worse fate, right? Nope, you get a WS penalty. Which, because of the WS table, has the absolutely crippling effect of turning a 4+ to hit into a 5+ to hit. There's a very good reason why most people consider the Fear rule a waste of rulebook space.

And the other rules bloat is the same kind of thing: rules that are ridiculously complicated for the amount of depth they add to the game, options that are so terrible you'll never take them, etc. You could get rid of huge sections of the rulebook without losing any of the "over the top scifi" feel of 40k. The only effect would be that you could play the game faster, get new people into the game without overwhelming them with tons of rules to learn, and spend your time thinking about how awesome the action on the table is instead of flipping through five different rulebooks trying to figure out how something works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Fun is clearly not an argument?

It isn't an argument because it completely ignores the question of whether you could be having more fun with different rules. All "I have fun" is really saying is that the rules aren't so terrible that you can't even play the game, and that's an incredibly low standard. It's so low that it isn't even worth talking about, since most players could spend 15 minutes creating a new game and it would be possible to "have fun" as long as the fluff and models were good.

 Peregrine wrote:

Spoiler:

 jasper76 wrote:
Some people like rules bloat and excessive dice rolling.

You honestly enjoy having tons of pointless rules to keep track of, most of which add very little to the game? Have you played any other games with a better ratio of complexity to depth?

It is a dice game, after all.

That doesn't mean you should roll dice just for the sake of rolling dice. Unless by "dice game" you mean that you're content with a game where the majority of "playing" it consists of rolling dice and seeing who rolls better, rather than strategy vs. counter-strategy and making better decisions than your opponent? And if that's the case why bother with the rest of the "game"? Why not just grab a handful of dice and see how many 6s you can roll?

And I like the fact that 40k has a gazillion different rulkes with a gazillion different weapons...its an over the top sci-fi game.

Being an over-the-top scifi game doesn't have anything to do with rules bloat. Let's consider the Fear USR as a good example: it seems like an appropriate thing to have in an over-the-top scifi game, right? Big monsters should be scary to fight? Too bad the execution turns it into rules bloat. First you have half the armies (more than half, if you count it by how many people play them) ignore it entirely because of their army-wide special rule. Then most of the rest don't care because anything with Fear is going to slaughter a small squad of guardsmen regardless of what happens with the Fear rule. Finally, the few units that are relevant in melee but don't have ATSKNF have LD 10/re-rolls/etc to make sure that they rarely fail. And then what happens if you do fail? Surely you run away, or kill yourself to avoid an even worse fate, right? Nope, you get a WS penalty. Which, because of the WS table, has the absolutely crippling effect of turning a 4+ to hit into a 5+ to hit. There's a very good reason why most people consider the Fear rule a waste of rulebook space.

And the other rules bloat is the same kind of thing: rules that are ridiculously complicated for the amount of depth they add to the game, options that are so terrible you'll never take them, etc. You could get rid of huge sections of the rulebook without losing any of the "over the top scifi" feel of 40k. The only effect would be that you could play the game faster, get new people into the game without overwhelming them with tons of rules to learn, and spend your time thinking about how awesome the action on the table is instead of flipping through five different rulebooks trying to figure out how something works.Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Fun is clearly not an argument?

It isn't an argument because it completely ignores the question of whether you could be having more fun with different rules. All "I have fun" is really saying is that the rules aren't so terrible that you can't even play the game, and that's an incredibly low standard. It's so low that it isn't even worth talking about, since most players could spend 15 minutes creating a new game and it would be possible to "have fun" as long as the fluff and models were good.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Some people like rules bloat and excessive dice rolling.

You honestly enjoy having tons of pointless rules to keep track of, most of which add very little to the game? Have you played any other games with a better ratio of complexity to depth?

Yes, and then yes. Lord of the Rings is Exhibit A. The fact that I like Lord of the Rings better doesn't in any way make me like 40k less.

 Peregrine wrote:

It is a dice game, after all.

That doesn't mean you should roll dice just for the sake of rolling dice. Unless by "dice game" you mean that you're content with a game where the majority of "playing" it consists of rolling dice and seeing who rolls better, rather than strategy vs. counter-strategy and making better decisions than your opponent? And if that's the case why bother with the rest of the "game"?

I do like dice games . I spend more time moving troops into the positions I want them to be (there's your strategy) or positions that my opponent doesn't want them to be (there's your counter-strategy), then I do rolling dice. Sometimes, I wish I had a butler to move all my pieces for me where I tell him to, so I could sit back, roll my dice, drink beer, and eat pizza, and do rude things to my good buddies.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why not just grab a handful of dice and see how many 6s you can roll?

If you are referring to Yahtzee, I do enjoy that game too, but the models aren't nearly as cool.

Anyway, my main point is, to each his own. You are not everybody, and there is no hard science as to what makes a game fun for some people, and not fun for others.

And with that, I am jumping out of the fray of this latest installment of, "Why I Hate 40k".

This is turning into a troll thread.

My general experience of 'why is that good/bad?' wargaming discussion across various games on the internet, including 40k, generally boil down to the following:

If you like something then you are an idiot for various and silly reasons. Remember also if the inverse is true and you don't like something, then you are also an idiot and the reasons listed below also work.

Feel free to make your own, any reason can work.

Examples:
1) Because I said so.
2) Because I do/don't like it.
3) The sky is blue (or arguably not blue).
4) Space Marines.
5) Rules, Special Rules, Exceptions to those rules.
6) Wave Serpents.
7) Price.
8) The Internet.

On a more serious note, some people love the game, others hate it or think that it has somehow worsened or changed too dramatically over the years, don't let negative opinions weigh you down too much and try it out.

I'll apologize if this post seems bleak or harsh but I've seen threads of this nature into the 30/40 page margin and it does get tiring.

I was very much of the ilk that found 7th changed quite a few things for the worse but out of love of the game, I still lurk and play occasionally in the hopes things change for the better. It's maybe not what some would call a good reason to play but Its one I'm happy with. :3

@Rysaer.

Apart from the fact most posts pointing out issues with the 40k rule set , have used objective comparisons with other rule sets, and actual examples of how the rules could be improved.
This has mainly been objective critique.

The people trying to defend the 40k game system, simply post they can have fun with their player base, and that the collecting and hobby side is also enjoyable.
This has mainly been subjective opinion.

It could be summed up as...

Objective critique argument.
Why pay over twice as much for a rule set that you have to fix/re-write yourself, when other rule sets are much cheaper and require lots less effort to arrive at an enjoyable game?

Subjective opinion based replies.
I enjoy trying to work out how rules should actually work, and arguing the point.Even if I loose the game I can win some rules arguments!

I like using poorly worded rules so I can cheat to try win all my games.

I mainly collect minatures,and the rules let me push them around a nice looking table and roll dice to see what happens.

Its the game my group plays/we have played it for years .

I have spent so much time and effort on 40k, i dont want to give up on it.

@Lanrak

Admittedly this thread has not gotten to that extreme that I described yet, there have been valid/objective/subjective opinions, I'm just saying more for the OP that you will regularly find threads like these in many places and most are not eloquent/well formed and they can be incredibly irritating/tiring to read. I can understand why they scare people away from the game.

I'll apologise though as I probably didn't get that across too well with my post

I fail to see what's so strategic about having random dice tables for everything. What will my warlords trait be today? Well this one really fits with the the theme of my army so I'll choose it. Oh nvm, have to roll. Damn, I rolled a 2 and I don't even have any TWC! Oh well, now on to my psyker. This one would be really good for what I'm trying to accomplish. Oh nvm, let me roll a dice to see which power he learned when he woke up this morning. Now onto the game. Let me position my models here so they're in cover and holding this objective. Oh, you have weapons that ignore cover and LOS and can shoot me from the far end of the table? Then there's maelstrom missions where what you're trying to accomplish each turn and how much you're rewarded for accomplishing it are totally random. What I see is "We don't know how to properly design or balance a game, so let's put everything on a random dice table. Then when it sucks, they can blame the dice instead of our incompetence.

The only strategy in 40k is target priority. It is not a strategy game. You might as well set your models on the table, make some pew pew sounds and have a dice roll to see who wins. WMH has FAR more strategy and is complex without being overly and pointlessly complicated. Why is close combat in 40k so complicated? Just resolving 1 round of close combat when your models have different weapons, I and WS stats is a chore. There are far too many pointless rules that add bloat and confusion to the game without actually adding any depth or complexity. Again, this is a hallmark of bad game design.

Toofast wrote:
I fail to see what's so strategic about having random dice tables for everything.

In theory it requires you to adapt to changing circumstances and make the best use of what you have available, kind of like sealed/draft formats in MTG. The problem is in the execution, where GW fails in two big ways:

1) It's in the same game where GW is pushing "forge the narrative" as hard as possible. But when you follow that guidance and focus on the narrative aspects you get frustrated with how things that should be story elements (your warlord's leadership talents, for example, or what the mission objective is) are taken out of your control and replaced by random tables. So if you want to play the game the way GW suggests you immediately have to house rule away GW's rules and replace them with better ones. In an alternative game that was more focused on the strategy elements this would be less of a problem, and people would just understand that you have to build flexible lists that can make good use of any of the random table results.

2) The options are not equal. Most random tables have obvious results that you want because they're clearly more powerful than the others, and obvious results that you hate because they suck. So instead of rolling to see what equally-valuable tools you're going to have in your toolbox this game you're essentially rolling to see how powerful your army will be. And people hate this for the same reasons they'd hate it if playing a 1500 point game actually meant playing game with 1500 points +/- D3x100 points, where you could have a game between a 1200 point army and an 1800 point army. The random tables wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem if all the results were equally powerful and just led to subtle strategy adjustments depending on what you roll.

Buy your minis from craigslist or online 120 bucks cans get you a fat army. I was able to buy 50 tacticals, 10 terminators, a dreadnought, 1 predator, 10 devs, and a big-bunch of bits for 150. Only go to this forum for questions of rules, painting, etc. Everyone "vents" a lot on this forum and it can be really discouraging.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Don't let them neck beards get to you buy a army and have fun!

 zombiekila707 wrote:
Buy your minis from craigslist or online 120 bucks cans get you a fat army. I was able to buy 50 tacticals, 10 terminators, a dreadnought, 1 predator, 10 devs, and a big-bunch of bits for 150.

Sure, but what condition were they in? Many, if not most, of these "amazing" deals are for models that should be thrown in the trash. That might be acceptable if all you want to do is play the game as cheaply as possible, but a horrible idea if you care about the modeling and painting side of the hobby. And really, if all you care about is the game and the models don't matter then why are you playing such a horrible game instead of one of the far better alternatives?

Only go to this forum for questions of rules, painting, etc. Everyone "vents" a lot on this forum and it can be really discouraging.

Translation: avoid anything that could include honest discussion of a subject instead of just reinforcing your belief that the thing you just spent money on is worth it. I really don't see why "discouraging" is something to be avoided. It's a hobby that can be freely dropped at any time, not an essential life thing that you have to do no matter how much you hate it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zombiekila707 wrote:
Don't let them neck beards get to you buy a army and have fun!

KEEP YOUR GW™ FINEFOIL™ TINFOIL HAT ON AT ALL TIMES!!!! BUY GW™ PRODUCTS™ WITHOUT QUESTION!!!! NOT SPENDING MONEY ON GW™ PRODUCTS™ IS HERESY!!!

 zombiekila707 wrote:
Don't let them neck beards get to you buy a army and have fun!

Have you ever considered you're part of the problem of the forums being discouraring posting gak like that?