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.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 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?

 Gunzhard wrote:

I don't think we really need a semantics argument to know what 'depth' means.

 heartserenade wrote:

 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.

And there are other games that provide things that 40k can't do. Like having more balanced armies, for example. Or having clear rules. A lot of players don't care if a game scales well if the rules are all over the place.

 Gunzhard wrote:


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

 Blacksails wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

I don't think we really need a semantics argument to know what 'depth' means.

Oh, but we do. Otherwise I can do this.

"Warmachine's fluff is depthier. FACT."

See, I don't need to defend that, or create an argument to back up my claim, I can just put FACT at the end of it, then dodge any questions about what I mean by depthier, thereby proving my point.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

I don't think we really need a semantics argument to know what 'depth' means.

Oh, but we do. Otherwise I can do this.

"Warmachine's fluff is depthier. FACT."

See, I don't need to defend that, or create an argument to back up my claim, I can just put FACT at the end of it, then dodge any questions about what I mean by depthier, thereby proving my point.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:


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

Cool. It's defiantly a step in the right direction. Though I more so meant they should make versions of these that are their own entity. In other words instead of being part of the 40k product line, be their own product lines. That way these games could eventually gain units tailored to them instead of just converting 40k units to them and units that maybe don't fit 40k as well but are perfect for these games could be kept in these games. You still get the scalability, it's just more well organized and distinct for people who only want to play at certain levels.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Sure when you half-quote to take things out of context... but I guess "nothing is ridiculous" right Blacksails? What do they call the Black Library equivalent for Warmarchine?

Talys wrote:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:


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

Cool. It's defiantly a step in the right direction. Though I more so meant they should make versions of these that are their own entity. In other words instead of being part of the 40k product line, be their own product lines. That way these games could eventually gain units tailored to them instead of just converting 40k units to them and units that maybe don't fit 40k as well but are perfect for these games could be kept in these games. You still get the scalability, it's just more well organized and distinct for people who only want to play at certain levels.

Kill Team is definitely very cool. Quite popular at my FLGS, actually.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

I don't think we really need a semantics argument to know what 'depth' means.

Oh, but we do. Otherwise I can do this.

"Warmachine's fluff is depthier. FACT."

See, I don't need to defend that, or create an argument to back up my claim, I can just put FACT at the end of it, then dodge any questions about what I mean by depthier, thereby proving my point.

Sure when you half-quote to take things out of context... but I guess "nothing is ridiculous" right Blacksails? What do they call the Black Library equivalent for Warmarchine?

 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.)

Talys wrote:

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

 Blacksails wrote:
I didn't need to quote anything more. You originally said 40k has more depth of fluff, then added FACT.

Then you dodged the question asking to clarify what you meant by depth. Quantity? Quality? Uniqueness? Variety?

Then I illustrated how your argument seems to be fleshing out with a comical version of it.

You haven't proven or explained how 40k has more depth of fluff. You've asserted it, then failed to make any sort of argument. You alluded to there being more fluff, but you never clarified what you intended by depth, leaving the point unsubstantiated.

Once more; what do you mean by depth?

 Gunzhard wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:

 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.

And there are other games that provide things that 40k can't do. Like having more balanced armies, for example. Or having clear rules. A lot of players don't care if a game scales well if the rules are all over the place.

And you know what, sure this might be true and that was said back in my original post. Though I certainly don't think the rules are more 'clear' in Infinity at least and just like 40K there are units (tags) without answer.

You might not care about scalability at all, totally fine; not my point at all.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
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.

 Blacksails wrote:
I didn't need to quote anything more. You originally said 40k has more depth of fluff, then added FACT.

Then you dodged the question asking to clarify what you meant by depth. Quantity? Quality? Uniqueness? Variety?

Then I illustrated how your argument seems to be fleshing out with a comical version of it.

You haven't proven or explained how 40k has more depth of fluff. You've asserted it, then failed to make any sort of argument. You alluded to there being more fluff, but you never clarified what you intended by depth, leaving the point unsubstantiated.

Once more; what do you mean by depth?

Talys wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I didn't need to quote anything more. You originally said 40k has more depth of fluff, then added FACT.

Then you dodged the question asking to clarify what you meant by depth. Quantity? Quality? Uniqueness? Variety?

Then I illustrated how your argument seems to be fleshing out with a comical version of it.

You haven't proven or explained how 40k has more depth of fluff. You've asserted it, then failed to make any sort of argument. You alluded to there being more fluff, but you never clarified what you intended by depth, leaving the point unsubstantiated.

Once more; what do you mean by depth?

I happen to agree with Gunzhard, so here is my opinion of GW having more fluff depth than PP.

1. There are quantitatively more stories told about more characters in the 40k universe
2. If you write a giant timeline with a bullet for everything that happened in the universe, the 40k one would be monstrously huge, orders of magnitude longer than other worlds
3. There are movies, video games (a lot of them!), audio books, etc. to contribute to the fluffy-ness. Some are pretty good. Others are bad on an epic scale.

I make no assertion as to GW fluff being "better" than WMH fluff. In fact, I enjoy both, just like I like both games, and have thousands of dollars of models from both companies. Why can't I can't have pizza on Tuesday, and fried chicken on Wednesday, without one of them sucking?

Apple fox wrote:
Actuly we play a huge game like that and it was fun, tough and it take 2 days. But not playing massive games like that often also.

I never mean that 40k shouldn't have these larger scale games, a Titan against a horde of orcs is cool and makes for a great naritive.
But GW needs to separate them. They could do this 2 ways, ether name the types of games, or seperate them by point scale. Players turning up for apocalypse style games can expect a Titan no matter the points, but a skirmish battle up to a 1000 points will never have a heavy tank(anything over a defined amount) to make suggestions.
This is a definition of scale that helps players find games they want to play, a refinement of the systems.
Right now, I am put in the same system as players who want to play those big units, despite having no interest and none of my own. It makes a game need negotiations than simple discussions.

Right now people complain my eldar army is too competitive, and it was originally converted in 3rd edition.
Not a single wave serpent, dire avenger or farseer used is younger than 10 years old. Lack of balance hurts casual players. Far more than the mindset of competitive does for me:(

I now have a second army for eldar, hoping to get games with it, but who knows..


Added quote, hop it works >.<

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I didn't need to quote anything more. You originally said 40k has more depth of fluff, then added FACT.

Then you dodged the question asking to clarify what you meant by depth. Quantity? Quality? Uniqueness? Variety?

Then I illustrated how your argument seems to be fleshing out with a comical version of it.

You haven't proven or explained how 40k has more depth of fluff. You've asserted it, then failed to make any sort of argument. You alluded to there being more fluff, but you never clarified what you intended by depth, leaving the point unsubstantiated.

Once more; what do you mean by depth?

Now, is 'comical version' anything like a 'ridiculous' version? ...I believe you are intentionally being difficult to try to drive home a point, but cool. So ...quality and uniqueness - can we make any judgement or are those entirely subjective? - really they are subjective ...so that leaves quantity and variety and those we can certainly measure however. Do I need to go on?

More importantly do you even care or will you just disagree with anything that sounds remotely pro-GW? ....because with all of the great reasons to complain about 40K, arguing scalability and depth of background/fluff seems 'comical'.

 ImAGeek wrote:


So depth of fluff is literally just amount of fluff? Because again, 40k has what, 10? 15? Years on WMH, so there's obviously going to be more fluff. That doesn't mean there's more depth to the fluff.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I didn't need to quote anything more. You originally said 40k has more depth of fluff, then added FACT.

Then you dodged the question asking to clarify what you meant by depth. Quantity? Quality? Uniqueness? Variety?

Then I illustrated how your argument seems to be fleshing out with a comical version of it.

You haven't proven or explained how 40k has more depth of fluff. You've asserted it, then failed to make any sort of argument. You alluded to there being more fluff, but you never clarified what you intended by depth, leaving the point unsubstantiated.

Once more; what do you mean by depth?

Now, is 'comical version' anything like a 'ridiculous' version? ...I believe you are intentionally being difficult to try to drive home a point, but cool. So ...quality and uniqueness - can we make any judgement or are those entirely subjective? - really they are subjective ...so that leaves quantity and variety and those we can certainly measure however. Do I need to go on?

More importantly do you even care or will you just disagree with anything that sounds remotely pro-GW? ....because with all of the great reasons to complain about 40K, arguing scalability and depth of background/fluff seems 'comical'.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I didn't need to quote anything more. You originally said 40k has more depth of fluff, then added FACT.

Then you dodged the question asking to clarify what you meant by depth. Quantity? Quality? Uniqueness? Variety?

Then I illustrated how your argument seems to be fleshing out with a comical version of it.

You haven't proven or explained how 40k has more depth of fluff. You've asserted it, then failed to make any sort of argument. You alluded to there being more fluff, but you never clarified what you intended by depth, leaving the point unsubstantiated.

Once more; what do you mean by depth?

Now, is 'comical version' anything like a 'ridiculous' version? ...I believe you are intentionally being difficult to try to drive home a point, but cool. So ...quality and uniqueness - can we make any judgement or are those entirely subjective? - really they are subjective ...so that leaves quantity and variety and those we can certainly measure however. Do I need to go on?

More importantly do you even care or will you just disagree with anything that sounds remotely pro-GW? ....because with all of the great reasons to complain about 40K, arguing scalability and depth of background/fluff seems 'comical'.

You bought up depth of background and scalability...

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:


So depth of fluff is literally just amount of fluff? Because again, 40k has what, 10? 15? Years on WMH, so there's obviously going to be more fluff. That doesn't mean there's more depth to the fluff.

Depth *to me* means, how many heroes exist in the game world? How many stories are there of the heroes?

Depth does not equal quality (which is highly subjective anyhow). The question was, what does depth mean, and I tried to answer that. I don't believe the 40k universe is superior to the WMH universe (or vice versa). I just believe that if you want to be a 40k historian or fluff guru, it would take longer for you to read all the fictional histories and know the details about all of the key narratives.

Talys wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Actuly we play a huge game like that and it was fun, tough and it take 2 days. But not playing massive games like that often also.

I never mean that 40k shouldn't have these larger scale games, a Titan against a horde of orcs is cool and makes for a great naritive.
But GW needs to separate them. They could do this 2 ways, ether name the types of games, or seperate them by point scale. Players turning up for apocalypse style games can expect a Titan no matter the points, but a skirmish battle up to a 1000 points will never have a heavy tank(anything over a defined amount) to make suggestions.
This is a definition of scale that helps players find games they want to play, a refinement of the systems.
Right now, I am put in the same system as players who want to play those big units, despite having no interest and none of my own. It makes a game need negotiations than simple discussions.

Right now people complain my eldar army is too competitive, and it was originally converted in 3rd edition.
Not a single wave serpent, dire avenger or farseer used is younger than 10 years old. Lack of balance hurts casual players. Far more than the mindset of competitive does for me:(

I now have a second army for eldar, hoping to get games with it, but who knows..


Added quote, hop it works >.<

Well, we are in agreement then I totally agree that GW needs to offer games for "What if..." narratives to "competitive" or pickup skirmish battles, or whatever you want to call those. Players who want to play superheavies versus players who don't is usually an awful matchup.

At the FLGS that I frequent, almost everyone who plays 40k has superheavies, and it's getting to the point where many of the regulars have at least 1 or 2 Forgeworld pieces. I too wish, for the benefit of the game, new players and casual players, that there was a mode in the game that made it possible to play without multiple $100-$200 models.

ImAGeek wrote:Yeah I agree, but again, there's 15 years extra of fluff. It's nothing to do with the quality of the fluff or anything to do with the developers etc, it's just a matter of timing.

Apple fox wrote:
It has bring 40k to a tense spot, we have bleed out players like no other game. It's sad to see.

 Gunzhard wrote:


Now, is 'comical version' anything like a 'ridiculous' version? ...

I believe you are intentionally being difficult to try to drive home a point, but cool.

So ...quality and uniqueness - can we make any judgement or are those entirely subjective? - really they are subjective ...so that leaves quantity and variety and those we can certainly measure however. Do I need to go on?

More importantly do you even care or will you just disagree with anything that sounds remotely pro-GW? ....because with all of the great reasons to complain about 40K, arguing scalability and depth of background/fluff seems 'comical'.

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:


So depth of fluff is literally just amount of fluff? Because again, 40k has what, 10? 15? Years on WMH, so there's obviously going to be more fluff. That doesn't mean there's more depth to the fluff.

Depth *to me* means, how many heroes exist in the game world? How many stories are there of the heroes?

Depth does not equal quality (which is highly subjective anyhow). The question was, what does depth mean, and I tried to answer that. I don't believe the 40k universe is superior to the WMH universe (or vice versa). I just believe that if you want to be a 40k historian or fluff guru, it would take longer for you to read all the fictional histories and know the details about all of the key narratives.

Talys wrote:

ImAGeek wrote:Yeah I agree, but again, there's 15 years extra of fluff. It's nothing to do with the quality of the fluff or anything to do with the developers etc, it's just a matter of timing.

Mostly, yeah. However, Black Library pumps out fiction faster than I can (or want to) read, and this isn't the case with PP. The amount of fluff that gets added to the 40k universe each year is insane, but a lot of it isn't really high quality.

A lot of the WMH fluff is pretty decent.

Either way, the time I have to read fiction is pretty limited these days and competes with my time for modelling, so it's not like I can keep up with either :(

Apple fox wrote:
It has bring 40k to a tense spot, we have bleed out players like no other game. It's sad to see.

Yeah, for sure. As someone else mentioned, rules like Kill Team make the 40k universe much ore attractive to skirmishers and is a better competitive and pickup setting. Personally, scenarios and campaigns are my thing. I hope that GW sees the popularity of such things, and promotes them over the free-for-all that is easy to turn into a train wreck.