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.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
What depth and breadth does 40k that other games don't? Care to elaborate?

Are you serious? ...for one - background; how does warma-hordes or infinity compare? ...not even on the same continent. How about number of factions? ...nope; hope about unit variety? ...nope? How about scalability? ...nope (sure Infinity does small scale way better but that's all it does).

C'mon I get it - you hate GW, but seriously you needed me to answer this?

Infinity and WMH backgrounds are both very very in depth. 40k has like 10-20 years head start, but lately it's not been anything special. Number of factions, again, years head start. Infinity and WMH has the same, if not more units per faction. 40k doesn't scale well either.

Hmm wow ok. I'll just point out, that in 40K, however flawed you may think it is, you can play Kill Team, Zone Mortalis, 1000 points etc all quite easily - you can also play 25,000 points Apocalypse. That is scalability that neither of those games can even come close to matching. You are holding 40K to a standard far beyond any of these other games.

LordBlades wrote:
While technically you are right, in a cooeprative RPG people are still competing gainst each other, for spotlight time and story agency. Everyone (or almost) wants to be King Arthur, not the squire who carries his weapons and grooms his horse.

Somewhat. Though, I'd say this is as much to do with the players as the rules (if not more so). For example, whilst they may not see themselves as squires, many players also don't want to be the party leader.

In addition, this is another place where a (good) DM comes in. e.g. if a rogue isn't getting much chance to shine, he can add in more stuff where the rogue's skills will come in handy - locks to pick, traps to disarm, chances to use 'interaction' skills (bluff, diplomacy), areas where stealth is useful, etc.

Okay, scalability, maybe 40k is a bit better. But everywhere else, other games are as good, or better than 40k. Don't get me wrong I quite like 40k but other games are far better. Infinity and WMH to continue the two you bought up are both better balanced and both far more tactically deep.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
What depth and breadth does 40k that other games don't? Care to elaborate?

Are you serious? ...for one - background; how does warma-hordes or infinity compare? ...not even on the same continent.

How about Star Wars? Or are we overlooking X Wing because that doesn't support your point?

How about number of factions? ...nope;

Well, there's what 12 for Warmahordes? 8 for Infinity?
The GW has 19 tabs on the website, but I'm not sure I'd count Officio Assassinorium, inquisition or Stormtroopers as factions in their own right, they've just been hived off to diversify the books and milk more cash. So more, yes, but not ridiculously more, and let's not forget that all the Power Armour armies share a good percentage of DNA.
Heck, even X Wing is up to three, and the likes of Bolt Action and Flames of War must be in the double figures.

hope about unit variety? ...nope?

I'm not prepared to do the homework for the numbers, but as the thread is ostensibly about competitive play, what does it matter how many more units 40K has when so many aren't viable in a competitive environment (and some barely useable outside of narrative campaign games.)

How about scalability? ...nope (sure Infinity does small scale way better but that's all it does).

C'mon I get it - you hate GW, but seriously you needed me to answer this?

Scaleability?

Is it illegal to play 500 point Infinity games, or 300 point Warmachine ones? No.

Are they much fun? No idea, never played them at that size, but if you're using the exercise in futility that is Apocalypse to call 40K scaleable, you're deluded.

At smaller scales, they all play well IME.

But let me say again, using the word hate because you haven't got a better argument does nothing but undermine any validity your other points may have. Argue smart or concede the point.

I will just answer to the topic.
Competitive Play is what is keeping 40 k Alive.
The normal Beer and pretzel player got his Army, is hanging out with some Friends and having casual games.for example i play very competitive, only against certain Friends i play fluff lists.
Competitive Play Means, you have to go with the Flow.
When i want to Play my tau competitivly i buy 3 yvhara from forge.
Or 3 barracuda for air superioritY.
When the rvarna First came out i bought 3 of em because they Had superior rules.
Riptide spam? 3 of em please.
Eldar? 4-5 Wave serpents.
Necrons?
I got 6 necron flyers here.... In 7th they are not that competitive anymore so i Had to buy wraithwing and immortal spam.
I guess the normal competitive player is spending alot more in the Hobby than Otto or Joe, Buying his scorpion Warriors just to be up to Date.
In my Meta every competitive player has the 7th Edition rules, from the bp Players only 10%.

 winterwind85 wrote:
I will just answer to the topic.
Competitive Play is what is keeping 40 k Alive.
The normal Beer and pretzel player got his Army, is hanging out with some Friends and having casual games.for example i play very competitive, only against certain Friends i play fluff lists.
Competitive Play Means, you have to go with the Flow.
When i want to Play my tau competitivly i buy 3 yvhara from forge.
Or 3 barracuda for air superioritY.
When the rvarna First came out i bought 3 of em because they Had superior rules.
Riptide spam? 3 of em please.
Eldar? 4-5 Wave serpents.
Necrons?
I got 6 necron flyers here.... In 7th they are not that competitive anymore so i Had to buy wraithwing and immortal spam.
I guess the normal competitive player is spending alot more in the Hobby than Otto or Joe, Buying his scorpion Warriors just to be up to Date.
In my Meta every competitive player has the 7th Edition rules, from the bp Players only 10%.

However if the game was balanced people would still buy models. They'd just buy models they liked as opposed to models that were broken in the game.

Well about scale, a game doesn't need to be able to field a thousand models and giant titans in order to be considered as good as 40k in that regard. Using Firestorm Armada as an example, you can play from the smallest skirmish to the largest fleet battle imaginable. The rules in FSA accomplish what they set out to do in terms of creating rules that represent small capital vessels and fighters up to dreadnoughts (and leviathans in the future). Games like X-Wing also scale well for anything you'd want to use it for that the rules were designed for. Being able to recreate the Trench Run with dozens of models per side means it has great scalability too.

Unless Gunhazard's standard is anything other than what 40k does, this isn't going to go very far. Different games were created for different purposes. Because a game doesn't have giant titans doesn't mean its in any way inferior.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Okay, scalability, maybe 40k is a bit better. But everywhere else, other games are as good, or better than 40k. Don't get me wrong I quite like 40k but other games are far better. Infinity and WMH to continue the two you bought up are both better balanced and both far more tactically deep.

No, your original point was valid.

There's absolutely no reason that you can't do the things mentioned in other systems. Perhaps the equivalent of Kill Team (shall we call that Infinity Lite?) for Warmachine doesn't exist officially, but there's nothing stopping a player developing it for themselves. Heck, individual models already act separately to a point in Warmachine, you're half way there with the game mechanics, you just need a specialists system.

Perhaps other, younger, games haven't expanded everywhere that 40K has yet, but there's no reason that they can't be adapted to larger or smaller games.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
What depth and breadth does 40k that other games don't? Care to elaborate?

Are you serious? ...for one - background; how does warma-hordes or infinity compare? ...not even on the same continent.

How about Star Wars? Or are we overlooking X Wing because that doesn't support your point?

I didn't include Star Wars because it's entirely different type of game ...c'mon now. So basically if 40k is better it's because they had a 10-20 year head start; but if Stars Wars is better with an entire pre-existing movie, book, comic, and toy franchise it's because GW is bad at games?

How about number of factions? ...nope;

Well, there's what 12 for Warmahordes? 8 for Infinity?
The GW has 19 tabs on the website, but I'm not sure I'd count Officio Assassinorium, inquisition or Stormtroopers as factions in their own right, they've just been hived off to diversify the books and milk more cash. So more, yes, but not ridiculously more, and let's not forget that all the Power Armour armies share a good percentage of DNA.
Heck, even X Wing is up to three, and the likes of Bolt Action and Flames of War must be in the double figures.

hope about unit variety? ...nope?

I'm not prepared to do the homework for the numbers, but as the thread is ostensibly about competitive play, what does it matter how many more units 40K has when so many aren't viable in a competitive environment (and some barely useable outside of narrative campaign games.)

How about scalability? ...nope (sure Infinity does small scale way better but that's all it does).

C'mon I get it - you hate GW, but seriously you needed me to answer this?

Scaleability?

Is it illegal to play 500 point Infinity games, or 300 point Warmachine ones? No.

Are they much fun? No idea, never played them at that size, but if you're using the exercise in futility that is Apocalypse to call 40K scaleable, you're deluded.

At smaller scales, they all play well IME.

But let me say again, using the word hate because you haven't got a better argument does nothing but undermine any validity your other points may have. Argue smart or concede the point.

40k's "scalability" is what's help ruining it. I don't want a game where my foot slogging zerkers are going up against fliers and titans. The game needs to decide what scale it is and focus on that. (Or have different versions of rules.)
Also, I think WMH's fluff is superior. It's more multi-faceted and characters prime motivations are more than "Honor," "Kill everthying" and "Murder murder!"

You're using an argument I made against Azrael which is hardly fair is it. I said about 40k having a head start, not him.

Anyway all this discussion is proving is that what constitutes a better game is very much subjective.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
Okay, scalability, maybe 40k is a bit better. But everywhere else, other games are as good, or better than 40k. Don't get me wrong I quite like 40k but other games are far better. Infinity and WMH to continue the two you bought up are both better balanced and both far more tactically deep.

No, your original point was valid.

There's absolutely no reason that you can't do the things mentioned in other systems. Perhaps the equivalent of Kill Team (shall we call that Infinity Lite?) for Warmachine doesn't exist officially, but there's nothing stopping a player developing it for themselves. Heck, individual models already act separately to a point in Warmachine, you're half way there with the game mechanics, you just need a specialists system.

Perhaps other, younger, games haven't expanded everywhere that 40K has yet, but there's no reason that they can't be adapted to larger or smaller games.

I'm sorry but this is just rubbish. Those other games cannot "do the things mentioned"... you could write your own rules I suppose; which is apparently ok for warma-hordes but means GW is evil for 40k. I don't know why I even bother - so your argument is - one day these newer games might be able to do what 40k does, so 40k is bad... wow.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Okay, scalability, maybe 40k is a bit better. But everywhere else, other games are as good, or better than 40k. Don't get me wrong I quite like 40k but other games are far better. Infinity and WMH to continue the two you bought up are both better balanced and both far more tactically deep.

WMH will scale right up to crazy lvls, it isn't realy made for it but you can play 5 Warcasters/warlocks a side 500 points. The games are crazy and very time consuming, but way better scaled and even than 40k is scaleing up.

On topic, I have a hard time believing that it's the desire and players ruining 40k.
For me it's that 40k has no idea of scale, on one side you have players turning up with elite army's posibly 20 models a side, with others turning up with 50 or 60.
With then other players turning up with super heavy tanks and walkers that by all right would completely destroy both other opposing forces in a real narrative.
40k has points, and the ability to craft missions to scale. They could with ease scale the games better, so players could be more able to find the place they want to play. And empower players to shift between them.
Like the old style of apocalypse adding super heavy units with 40k being separate.
One of the biggest flaws this brings to 40k for me is that the army's often seem to be trying to play separate games, they are different since someone said they are and there is no real thought to how an army with these resources would deploy and fight in battles of different sizes.
This is entirely separate from the competitive aspect, and I don't ever go into a game thinking I have to win, but I do go into to win. And when I take my fluffy style army that I should enjoy, it's a hindrance to my enjoyment of the game.

 MWHistorian wrote:
40k's "scalability" is what's help ruining it. I don't want a game where my foot slogging zerkers are going up against fliers and titans. The game needs to decide what scale it is and focus on that. (Or have different versions of rules.)

Agreed I'd rather see Kill Team and Apocalypse fleshed out into their own games (large scale 40k as it's own game, that sounds familiar...), with rules designed specifically for their scale.

 Gunzhard wrote:


I'm sorry but this is just rubbish. Those other games cannot "do the things mentioned"... you could write your own rules I suppose; which is apparently ok for warma-hordes but means GW is evil for 40k. I don't know why I even bother - so your argument is - one day these newer games might be able to do what 40k does, so 40k is bad... wow.

Is your argument any better?

You've really just been insulting and dismissive by calling people haters.

Maybe I could make a more compelling argument if I started my post off with 'This is rubbish', threw in something about you being a hater or white knights or something, then finish off with something like 'wow', or 'good try' or 'I don't know why I bother'.

If you don't know why you even bother, then do us all a favour and stop.

 Blacksails wrote:


And what about all these wargames on the market growing by leaps and bounds that are far more balanced than 40k?

I will be happy when there is just one other scifi wargame that supports large scale battles and has a large collectible miniature range for me to select from. Oh, with models that cost less than GW lol.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
40k's "scalability" is what's help ruining it. I don't want a game where my foot slogging zerkers are going up against fliers and titans. The game needs to decide what scale it is and focus on that. (Or have different versions of rules.)

Agreed I'd rather see Kill Team and Apocalypse fleshed out into their own games (large scale 40k as it's own game, that sounds familiar...), with rules designed specifically for their scale.

You do realize this already exists right? ...there was a 6th edition release of Kill Team with it's own rules. Granted it cannot compare to Infinity for the single-model player type game but it's fun still.

And Apocalypse has it's own book and rules that really make a HUGE difference. Super large-scale 40K is difficult - but with the Apoc rules it works.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
Okay, scalability, maybe 40k is a bit better. But everywhere else, other games are as good, or better than 40k. Don't get me wrong I quite like 40k but other games are far better. Infinity and WMH to continue the two you bought up are both better balanced and both far more tactically deep.

No, your original point was valid.

There's absolutely no reason that you can't do the things mentioned in other systems. Perhaps the equivalent of Kill Team (shall we call that Infinity Lite?) for Warmachine doesn't exist officially, but there's nothing stopping a player developing it for themselves. Heck, individual models already act separately to a point in Warmachine, you're half way there with the game mechanics, you just need a specialists system.

Perhaps other, younger, games haven't expanded everywhere that 40K has yet, but there's no reason that they can't be adapted to larger or smaller games.

I'm sorry but this is just rubbish. Those other games cannot "do the things mentioned"... you could write your own rules I suppose; which is apparently ok for warma-hordes but means GW is evil for 40k. I don't know why I even bother - so your argument is - one day these newer games might be able to do what 40k does, so 40k is bad... wow.

No, my argument is, as it always has been, that if 40K were a better written game then all these discussions about fluff vs competitive to which unit in x codex is best and how the game is unfun because of x or y unit would evaporate.

Anything else that I've written about in the thread has been an attempt to mop up the cerebral effluent that inevitably leaks all over the place when people try to defend the indefensible because of some utterly unvalued loyalty or desire to justify the time and effort that has been invested.

Talys wrote:

I will be happy when there is just one other scifi wargame that supports large scale battles and has a large collectible miniature range for me to select from. Oh, with models that cost less than GW lol.

The good news is that there are rulesets for 28mm larger scale sci-fi.

The bad news is that you'd either have port over the unit rules yourself, or dig up a suitable fan made one.

But yeah, I'm with you.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:


I'm sorry but this is just rubbish. Those other games cannot "do the things mentioned"... you could write your own rules I suppose; which is apparently ok for warma-hordes but means GW is evil for 40k. I don't know why I even bother - so your argument is - one day these newer games might be able to do what 40k does, so 40k is bad... wow.

Is your argument any better?

You've really just been insulting and dismissive by calling people haters.

Maybe I could make a more compelling argument if I started my post off with 'This is rubbish', threw in something about you being a hater or white knights or something, then finish off with something like 'wow', or 'good try' or 'I don't know why I bother'.

If you don't know why you even bother, then do us all a favour and stop.

Thanks for that compelling argument Blacksails... the thing is there are plenty of reason to be a GW 'hater', price as the top reason ...but then there is just ridiculousness that we have here, like "one day these newer companies might do what 40k can do, so 40k is bad at game design". Those other games cannot compare to 40k in scalability ...that is a actual FACT. When you try to back it up with - 'well we could write our own rules for warma-hordes to make it work' - that makes you look like a hater for the sake of hating.

You're hopelessly misrepresenting my point.

If you're doing it on purpose? Stop.

If you need me to explain it to you in different terms, please ask.

No one here is a hater, with or without the quotations.

Using it does nothing to help any point you try to make because it immediately puts people on the defensive. If you have a point to make, do so without trying to classify everyone who thinks anything negative about 40k as a hater.

Further, nothing said is ridiculous. Most of these games are fairly new, especially compared to 40k. 40k can considered to be bad design for reasons outside of what other companies have or haven't done. I don't know where or how you've created that.

You seem to be caught on scalability. Fine, 40k can scale up to the largest. Doesn't mean 40k is any way superior because you field giant titans.

 Gunzhard wrote:

You do realize this already exists right? ...there was a 6th edition release of Kill Team with it's own rules. Granted it cannot compare to Infinity for the single-model player type game but it's fun still.

And Apocalypse has it's own book and rules that really make a HUGE difference. Super large-scale 40K is difficult - but with the Apoc rules it works.

Hmmm really? I remember Kill Team getting stuffed in some mission book, is this stand alone version still available?

Also I'm not sure if you realize you're doing it, but that post feels like you're trying to make me look stupid. The tone is rather offensive and has the side effect of you looking a bit jerkish.

40k's advantage comes in the narrative/artistic potential. People may mock the 'Forging a Narrative' sidebars and complain about the price of the models but I have yet to come across another game that encourages model conversions or customized armies/stories in the way 40k does.

40k doesn't shine in pick-up games or tournaments, that's where the rules balance issues start to become problematic. Its great strength is in the sort of things you can do with a consistent long-term playgroup with narrative campaigns and homemade missions, when you've got an incentive to make sure the person you're playing with will still talk to you after the game.

 Blacksails wrote:
No one here is a hater, with or without the quotations.

Using it does nothing to help any point you try to make because it immediately puts people on the defensive. If you have a point to make, do so without trying to classify everyone who thinks anything negative about 40k as a hater.

Further, nothing said is ridiculous. Most of these games are fairly new, especially compared to 40k. 40k can considered to be bad design for reasons outside of what other companies have or haven't done. I don't know where or how you've created that.

You seem to be caught on scalability. Fine, 40k can scale up to the largest. Doesn't mean 40k is any way superior because you field giant titans.

"Nothing said is ridiculous'? ...? ...I'm scratching my head on this one. And I am certainly not the one to bring up the comparison to other games/companies dude.

Now we are getting somewhere though, I NEVER said 40K was way superior because you can field giant titans... but there are things 40k can do, that other games cannot. 40K can play small games, both Kill Team and Zone Mortalis are awesome games... and it can play large; Apocalypse rocks even if it doesn't appeal to everyone.

Further you might prefer the fluff of warma-hordes / infinity, and it might actually be a lot cooler (I don't think so), but neither have the depth that 40k fluff/background has - that is also FACT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

You do realize this already exists right? ...there was a 6th edition release of Kill Team with it's own rules. Granted it cannot compare to Infinity for the single-model player type game but it's fun still.

And Apocalypse has it's own book and rules that really make a HUGE difference. Super large-scale 40K is difficult - but with the Apoc rules it works.

Hmmm really? I remember Kill Team getting stuffed in some mission book, is this stand alone version still available?

Also I'm not sure if you realize you're doing it, but that post feels like you're trying to make me look stupid. The tone is rather offensive and has the side effect of you looking a bit jerkish.

Sorry SilverDevilfish, no intent to make you look stupid. Check this out; also the Apocalypse book is totally worth it if you intend to play huge scale games.

http://www.blacklibrary.com/games-workshop-digital-editions/Kill-Team.html

How do you define depth of fluff? By the amount of it? Its quality? Its uniqueness?

You can put FACT in capital letters all you want, but you have to actually make some kind of point or support your assertion.

Regardless, this is also off topic. The original point being that competitive players are not what is ruining 40k, but that GW is the driving force behind any failings, perceived or otherwise.

What dyou mean by depth though? Because I think they are as deep and in depth as 40k... If you mean there isn't as much, then again, 20 year advantage...

 AnomanderRake wrote:
40k's advantage comes in the narrative/artistic potential. People may mock the 'Forging a Narrative' sidebars and complain about the price of the models but I have yet to come across another game that encourages model conversions or customized armies/stories in the way 40k does.

40k doesn't shine in pick-up games or tournaments, that's where the rules balance issues start to become problematic. Its great strength is in the sort of things you can do with a consistent long-term playgroup with narrative campaigns and homemade missions, when you've got an incentive to make sure the person you're playing with will still talk to you after the game.

That's not really that unique to 40k, other games may do it differently.
40k players may encourage it, but GW doesn't previde anything extra for it than lots O bitz.
Good yes, but not that huge when there is so much potential out there.

I have conversions in all my army's for all my games, I have different styles for army's in different games.
And we create naritive so for all theses different games as we play.
40k has a great setting, but I think it's trying to set it up to high to say it's some simply amazing thing that's just better than other stuff.

Apple fox wrote:
WMH will scale right up to crazy lvls, it isn't realy made for it but you can play 5 Warcasters/warlocks a side 500 points. The games are crazy and very time consuming, but way better scaled and even than 40k is scaleing up.

This would be a terrible game. You could also use a 50' table and play the entire Ultramarine Chapter (the $12,000 bundle). Or you could get a root canal.

Apple fox wrote:
On topic, I have a hard time believing that it's the desire and players ruining 40k.

You can look at the OP's assertion two ways: that 40k is ruined by competitive players, or that 40k is a poor game for competitive players. I think both views of the same opinion are valid, but I would add a caveat: 40k is a poor game when a competitive player is matched against a casual player. 40k is a great game between two casual players, and is a workable (but not great) game between two competitive players. This is my opinion, only.

In my opinion, 40k is a fictional scifi universe with collectibles that you can model. There is a game system which allows you to play with those collectibles with rules that range from mediocre to poor, and such a variety of units that I doubt game balance just by points allocation is possible. That doesn't mean it can't be fun, it just means that it's easy to abuse army lists.

There are other game systems which are primarily gaming systems that are the opposite: they have models that you can collect (of varying quality, depending on the company), with rules that range from mediocre to great. Most other game systems are designed for quicker and pickup games, because this is what the market, in general, wants.

This doesn't make 40k, and especially WHFB bad; it just makes them different. You have to *want* and enjoy modelling and collecting tons of models, and eagerly await new releases. If this isn't so, 40k is probably a poor choice.

Apple fox wrote:
For me it's that 40k has no idea of scale, on one side you have players turning up with elite army's posibly 20 models a side, with others turning up with 50 or 60.
With then other players turning up with super heavy tanks and walkers that by all right would completely destroy both other opposing forces in a real narrative.
40k has points, and the ability to craft missions to scale. They could with ease scale the games better, so players could be more able to find the place they want to play. And empower players to shift between them.
Like the old style of apocalypse adding super heavy units with 40k being separate.
One of the biggest flaws this brings to 40k for me is that the army's often seem to be trying to play separate games, they are different since someone said they are and there is no real thought to how an army with these resources would deploy and fight in battles of different sizes.
This is entirely separate from the competitive aspect, and I don't ever go into a game thinking I have to win, but I do go into to win. And when I take my fluffy style army that I should enjoy, it's a hindrance to my enjoyment of the game.

See, this cuts both ways. I think it's fantastic that you can pit an Imperial Knight army (like, 6 imperial knights) against a hoarde of Orks and see what happens. When the Orks are decimated, bring out the Tyranids, and see what happens. I think that's a fun afternoon, even if I'm on the losing side. Of course, I'm not going to repeat it if it's a pointless battle. But it's cool that the game system allows that type of matchup. Most games are not like this, but it's the kind of thing that happens on a Christmas holiday, when friends are over, and someone posits "what if".

On the other hand, if one guy only ever wants to play with his detachment of 6 IK's, well, that isn't very interesting to play against, and they would not be a good fit for me as an opponent.

But I get your point and accept that in a pickup scene, this type of disparity sucks, and it would be nice if the rules at least had a mode that forced more unit balance. Still, it wouldn't matter, because generally speaking, new players to 40k get stomped against competitive players because they don't have the right units, and there isn't much they can do until they expand their toolset.

I just don't really happen to care -- this isn't a detractor to me, as I clearly fall into the category of hobbyist who like to collect models, and occasionally play with them, as opposed to the category of gamer who likes to play the game, and occasionally model new stuff

 Gunzhard wrote:


Now we are getting somewhere though, I NEVER said 40K was way superior because you can field giant titans... but there are things 40k can do, that other games cannot. 40K can play small games, both Kill Team and Zone Mortalis are awesome games... and it can play large; Apocalypse rocks even if it doesn't appeal to everyone.

Further you might prefer the fluff of warma-hordes / infinity, and it might actually be a lot cooler (I don't think so), but neither have the depth that 40k fluff/background has - that is also FACT.

By depth, do you mean volume? Because, while I do prefer 40K fluff to most other games, and indeed, most other fictional universes in general, making a subjective assertion and stating it fact, as well as equating quality with quantity, are dangerous things to be doing. There's some truly, truly awful BL books out there, as wells as some codex fluff that can make certain people get red and shouty at the merest mention of it.

You prefer 40K fluff? Fine. There is a lot of 40K fluff? No problem. But you seem to be trying to make some sort of factual argument based in your preferences. Not cool.

As for Scaleability, I think you're going to have to explain what you understand by the term, because you seem to be arguing that 40K scales because you can play big games and small games. I'm curious why other games can't?

EDIT
Largely ninjad by Blacksails - that makes us 15 all for ninja tennis so far today.