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.

Talys wrote:
Basically, my wife who plays no war games must be able to see them and say, well OF COURSE the jet fighter and motorcycle are different... do you think I'm stupid?

Again, that's MODELS, not RULES. The model range determines what everything looks like, the game determines how they function. For example, in 40k a MC and a tank look completely different, but in the game they're almost the same. So it isn't the 40k rules producing diversity, it's the Citadel™ Plastic™ Models™. If you adapted the 40k IP to use the Warmachine rules you'd still have the exact same diversity, and if you adapted the WM/H IP to use the 40k rules you'd still have the exact same lack of diversity.

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
Basically, my wife who plays no war games must be able to see them and say, well OF COURSE the jet fighter and motorcycle are different... do you think I'm stupid?

Again, that's MODELS, not RULES. The model range determines what everything looks like, the game determines how they function. For example, in 40k a MC and a tank look completely different, but in the game they're almost the same. So it isn't the 40k rules producing diversity, it's the Citadel™ Plastic™ Models™. If you adapted the 40k IP to use the Warmachine rules you'd still have the exact same diversity, and if you adapted the WM/H IP to use the 40k rules you'd still have the exact same lack of diversity.

And yet, a transport, bike, tank, medic, and jet fighter both look different, and work differently. Or would you dispute that?

Talys wrote:
And yet, a transport, bike, tank, medic, and jet fighter both look different, and work differently. Or would you dispute that?

Define "differently". Are you talking about having different rules (which is really more about rules bloat than diversity in 40k) or different strategic roles?

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
And yet, a transport, bike, tank, medic, and jet fighter both look different, and work differently. Or would you dispute that?

Define "differently". Are you talking about having different rules (which is really more about rules bloat than diversity in 40k) or different strategic roles?

A transport allows units to climb on board and get to the other side more quickly. A jetfighter can fly. A tank is bigger, armored, has a big gun...

The obvious stuff. They should have both different strategic roles, different rules, and ALSO look different. The look should inspire its feature (wings = flight ; bulk = armor; dragon = scary -- for instance).

Otherwise, you could have 50 paper counters in different colors and symbols and say, see, my game has variety. I mean, sure, but I would have no interest in playing it. I don't really have an interest in playing a perfect set of rules, if there aren't accompanying models for them, because, well, there are plenty of things like computer games that do that much better.

Talys wrote:
I am sure in 20 years, WMH will have more model/major unit type variety.

If WM/H stays alive for 20 years which has already been achieved by WH40K, they will have one thing coming for them next to models, and that´s rules bloat. It will come, even if the believers are gonna believe. There´s already signs of the game bloating due to continous increase in army sizes and the use of colossals, and the unhappiness stemming from that on the PP forums.

I´m certain the epic epic epic epic epic incarnation of Reindholdt, the Gobber Warcaster who´s mounted on two gun carriages will surely dominate tournaments in 2023. Luckily epic epic epic epic epic epic Forward Kommander War Dog has an answer in form of his Feat. This matchup will also hold storyline significance for the players as the tale of their rivalry has been ongoing for 8 years, detailed in the supplemental books such as Warmachine: Anger, Hordes: Murder, Warmachine: Exile and Warmachine: Forces of Gobber Speculators.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Talys wrote:
I am sure in 20 years, WMH will have more model/major unit type variety.

If WM/H stays alive for 20 years which has already been achieved by WH40K, they will have one thing coming for them next to models, and that´s rules bloat. It will come, even if the believers are gonna believe. There´s already signs of the game bloating to due continous increase in army sizes and the use of colossals, and the unhappiness stemming from that on the PP forums.

Yeah, for sure. If they want to stay alive, they need to make stuff that people want to buy, and this will invariably lead to more rules. Maybe they can do it better than 40k, or whatever, but at some point, if they want to grow, the only way they can do so is to encourage people to buy more stuff

At the end of the day, none of these companies operate just because they love gaming and are gamers -- they also want to make money and earn a good living. Which is just fine with me, because I do the same thing. And even great companies and people with noble intentions come out with flops (look at Destiny :( ).

 RunicFIN wrote:

Talys wrote:
I am sure in 20 years, WMH will have more model/major unit type variety.

If WM/H stays alive for 20 years which has already been achieved by WH40K, they will have one thing coming for them next to models, and that´s rules bloat. It will come, even if the believers are gonna believe. There´s already signs of the game bloating due to continous increase in army sizes and the use of colossals, and the unhappiness stemming from that on the PP forums.

And where exactly are these "increases in army sizes" in WMH?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

Talys wrote:
I am sure in 20 years, WMH will have more model/major unit type variety.

If WM/H stays alive for 20 years which has already been achieved by WH40K, they will have one thing coming for them next to models, and that´s rules bloat. It will come, even if the believers are gonna believe. There´s already signs of the game bloating due to continous increase in army sizes and the use of colossals, and the unhappiness stemming from that on the PP forums.

And where exactly are these "increases in army sizes" in WMH?

Or the unhappiness from the use of colossals? They've been pretty well received...

To be fair though, mk2 remix wouldn't be uncalled for in a year or two to help tidy stuff up.

Deadnight wrote:


To be fair though, mk2 remix wouldn't be uncalled for in a year or two to help tidy stuff up.

Indeed. There's a few rules spread across the supplements that need pulling in.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


To be fair though, mk2 remix wouldn't be uncalled for in a year or two to help tidy stuff up.

Indeed. There's a few rules spread across the supplements that need pulling in.

Agreed. Pretty much my thinking on things. Unbound, battle engines, colossals and a few faqs come to mind. No harm to put everything in one place

I'm not saying that the release cadence in WMH hasn't been well executed. It's friendly to people who want to casually buy models, for sure, and there hasn't been army size bloat.

However, larger models HAVE entered the game, and the game today is more expensive than the game near its inception -- because there are bigger, more expensive models. And the production cost of models has gone down, with the introduction of plastic models (which I pretty much hate from PP). There are also quite a lot of books that in my neck of the woods are $30 CDN each. These are similarities between PP's path and GW's.

I'm not saying they'll end up in the same place.

I am saying that there is the chance that at some point, leadership decides, "hey, we need to make more money. how do we do that?" And, the answers, really, are threefold:

- to produce more models at a faster cadence
- to encourage people to buy them
- to print more material

A miniature company takes decades to build a large library of models, and only one leadership team to say, "profit before player".

Talys wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
WMH is *NOT* really a Skirmish game, it's a bit larger than that at the normal playstyle. It's really just shy of platoon level. But 40k tries to be everything to everyone, and can't do it properly. It tries to be a skirmish game, a company level game and a game of huge armies, but the rules really don't work for any of those things.

That's fair

Kill Team is pretty fun, but it's vastly inferior to the *choices* (see, I'm using that instead of variety ) available in WMH for that count of models.

However, it's not possible to play WMH as a company-level game, or a mega-apocalypse game, which is really what I enjoy playing. So, riddle me this: what game would you suggest I try, for a Science Fiction, large unit count, miniature warfare game? To put it in perspective, I mostly play 5+ hour games with 2,500+ points on the table, with some games up to double that (in both time and units). 95% of my games are with regular play partners or people who are personally vouched for.

To me 40k isn't just the "best" choice for what I want... it's pretty much the only choice.

What do you consider company level? You can play WMH at 100 points up to 200 or more (4 warcasters a side, it's even called Apocalypse in the rules), just it's rare that people do that because the competitive nature and tournament format means that most games are 50 points (or 75 if you're doing an Iron Gauntlet style event), in the same vein as for a long time 40k was mostly played at 1,500 or 1850 levels because that's what tournaments were. The rules support this though, and IIRC it was closer to the case in MkI (which was very close to steampunk 40k, you even bought units in minimum sizes and then got blisters to reinforce them; whenever you see an older kit that has like 6 guys in it, that's why), I recall some old MkI books that showed 1,000 point (back before they redid the points and it was closer to 40k point values) with dual casters (IIRC it would be 100 points now).

I'm not denying that 40k isn't a valid choice if you want sci-fi large combat (relatively speaking) with flyers and tanks and big stompy things. It is a valid choice although for me, even though I want to play it again, the fact that there's little or no balance means that for me it's not worth putting the money into, even if I like the miniatures and the fluff. The poor rules and even poorer balance outweigh the cool factor of everything else, in part because most of the theme armies I want(ed) to do would get utterly demolished in actual gameplay because of said imbalances.

Talys wrote:
I'm not saying that the release cadence in WMH hasn't been well executed. It's friendly to people who want to casually buy models, for sure, and there hasn't been army size bloat.

However, larger models HAVE entered the game, and the game today is more expensive than the game near its inception -- because there are bigger, more expensive models. And the production cost of models has gone down, with the introduction of plastic models (which I pretty much hate from PP). There are also quite a lot of books that in my neck of the woods are $30 CDN each. These are similarities between PP's path and GW's.

I'm not saying they'll end up in the same place.

I am saying that there is the chance that at some point, leadership decides, "hey, we need to make more money. how do we do that?" And, the answers, really, are threefold:

- to produce more models at a faster cadence
- to encourage people to buy them
- to print more material

A miniature company takes decades to build a large library of models, and only one leadership team to say, "profit before player".

Five, actually.
- diversify products in the existing ip. Card games, board games etc.
- new ip. Pp sci-fi, anyone?

Who says WMH should define 'everything' pp do...

Deadnight wrote:


Five, actually.
- diversify products in the existing ip. Card games, board games etc.
- new ip. Pp sci-fi, anyone?

Who says WMH should define 'everything' pp do...

Fair enough.

However, a new game is a different beast altogether, as more often than not, you compete with yourself. There's WHFB, now scifi it to 40k, customers shift their business from one unit to the other. Few play both. The more practical problem is that it's a LOT of work to make hundreds of new models for a new game the size of WMH. And, there's the potential for a flop. Does anyone even play LoTR or Hobbit anymore? My stores can't sell the stuff even when it's marked at clearance prices, and I can't remember the last time I saw one of those games being played, despite it being an ultra-popular franchise.

TCGs are very lucrative, much more so than miniature wargames. None of those are pro-player. Every single one is "how do we milk money from the playerbase on the shortest release cycle possible?"

Board games are not big moneymakers, because there is no recurring revenue. By the way, one of my favorite games of all time is Talisman. Absolutely love it!

Talys wrote:
A transport allows units to climb on board and get to the other side more quickly. A jetfighter can fly. A tank is bigger, armored, has a big gun...

Ok, now stop looking at the specific rules and look at strategic roles. A transport allows a unit to move faster, but so does a jump pack or a bike. And so does a WM/H model throwing a friendly model closer to where you want it to be. Similarly, there is very little difference between a 40k "fighter jet" and a tank. The 40k fighter doesn't function like a real plane, it just gets a "only hit on 6s" rule and a bit of awkwardness in movement. And the tank isn't even always better armored or armed. Compare a C:SM Predator to an IG Vendetta: the Vendetta has better guns and equal armor. And it gets even less diverse when you look at the actual strategic roles of tanks and aircraft. In the real world there's a huge difference in how they're used, but in 40k they're pretty much interchangeable. You can debate the defensive value of higher AV vs. hit on 6s, but they're both fairly similar gun platforms that move into ideal firing position and shoot every turn.

Otherwise, you could have 50 paper counters in different colors and symbols and say, see, my game has variety. I mean, sure, but I would have no interest in playing it. I don't really have an interest in playing a perfect set of rules, if there aren't accompanying models for them, because, well, there are plenty of things like computer games that do that much better.

Again, we're talking about rules here, not models. If you play 40k with Warmachine models you have the model diversity of Warmachine. If you play WM/H with 40k models you have the model diversity of 40k. This says a lot of things about what models GW and PP produce, but it says very little about how the actual games work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Talys wrote:
Does anyone even play LoTR or Hobbit anymore? My stores can't sell the stuff even when it's marked at clearance prices, and I can't remember the last time I saw one of those games being played, despite it being an ultra-popular franchise.

This has way more to do with GW's poor handling of the IP than the value of the game. In the hands of a better company the LOTR games probably would have had a lot more success.

Talys wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


Five, actually.
- diversify products in the existing ip. Card games, board games etc.
- new ip. Pp sci-fi, anyone?

Who says WMH should define 'everything' pp do...

Fair enough.

However, a new game is a different beast altogether, as more often than not, you compete with yourself. There's WHFB, now scifi it to 40k, customers shift their business from one unit to the other. Few play both. The more practical problem is that it's a LOT of work to make hundreds of new models for a new game the size of WMH. And, there's the potential for a flop. Does anyone even play LoTR or Hobbit anymore? My stores can't sell the stuff even when it's marked at clearance prices, and I can't remember the last time I saw one of those games being played, despite it being an ultra-popular franchise.

TCGs are very lucrative, much more so than miniature wargames. None of those are pro-player. Every single one is "how do we milk money from the playerbase on the shortest release cycle possible?"

Board games are not big moneymakers, because there is no recurring revenue. By the way, one of my favorite games of all time is Talisman. Absolutely love it!

To be fair, gw did well for a long time with both wfb and 40k. You only compete with yourself when you sell multiple copies of the same thing.

And it's a lot of work to make new models for a new game, sure, but it's a similar amount of work to make these same models for WMH too. And this was the argument that pp will eventually do with WMH. And let's be fair, and realistic with regard to a theoretical new game. You start small, and build up. You don't instantly jump into a huge game the size of WMH is now. Remember when WMH started? 4 factions. 3 casters each. A bare smattering of units and jacks. Why isn't this repeatable for pp to expand their product lines?

Regarding lotr: it was hugely popular and a great money spinner for gw. Don't underestimate the role their mishandling of the franchise played in its recent demise.

And for what it's worth - I've heard the opposite regarding board games - apparently the margins are better for them than wargames. Go figure...

@Peregrine -

You can't compare a transport to a jump pack >.< For one, anyone can get into a vehicle, while only the jump pack wearer gets mobility. Plus, the transport provides protection for its occupants. And it might have some weaponry. You know, like an APC in real life.

To say that because there are jump packs that drop pods and troop transports shouldn't be in the game because they just overly complicate things and duplicate strategically similar functions is kinda crazy, in my opinion. Mostly because other than mobility, there isn't much strategically similar about them.

LoTR -- I don't think the rules were bad, to be honest. They were pretty tight, and the two times we played it, it was decent. And, it was widely marketed.

Talys wrote:
@Peregrine -

You can't compare a transport to a jump pack >.< For one, anyone can get into a vehicle, while only the jump pack wearer gets mobility. Plus, the transport provides protection for its occupants. And it might have some weaponry. You know, like an APC in real life.

LoTR -- I don't think the rules were bad, to be honest. They were pretty tight, and the two times we played it, it was decent. And, it was widely marketed.

And it was widely played too when it was marketed.

Deadnight wrote:

Talys wrote:
@Peregrine -

You can't compare a transport to a jump pack >.< For one, anyone can get into a vehicle, while only the jump pack wearer gets mobility. Plus, the transport provides protection for its occupants. And it might have some weaponry. You know, like an APC in real life.

LoTR -- I don't think the rules were bad, to be honest. They were pretty tight, and the two times we played it, it was decent. And, it was widely marketed.

And it was widely played too when it was marketed.

We even bought a copy and played it. Dunno why, it just never stuck. My point was just that it's possible to invest a lot of money into a game and have it fizzle, even when it's a decent game.

I'm not really sure I get the claims about 40k fluff vs WM/H fluff. Having engaged with both settings about the same way: TT Materials & Their respective RPGs, I can't really see an honest argument for 40k having more depth.

For WM/H you could ask me what kind of cuisine is popular in what regions, or how different people in different places celebrate the same holidays, or the names and personal history of civilian leaders and I could answer. I could give you ethnic breakdowns of each major city, the styles of music played there, I could give you the names of some famous artists or important naturalists. Hell I could even tell you when and where they grow the best wine grapes in the setting.

The setting of 40k is so big, it's forced to paint in very broad strokes. Mostly with big guys of varying colors, and skull adornment yelling at one another and blowing up each other's planets. It's got a ton of breadth, but no depth. When your settings is millions of planets big, and trillions upon trillions of people large you just can't get that granular. This may be a matter of taste but I find the kind of discrete information you can get about actually living in the setting to be very compelling.

It also helps a great deal that Doug Seacat, the primary writer for the setting and the keeper-of-the-canon directly interacts with fans on a regular basis. I've had times where in running my IKRPG game I've been unsure about a particular aspect of the setting, or know there is a hole in the lore. When I go on the forums and ask "would this happen" or "how does this work" he's personally answered my questions and I'm just random gun #6982 on the forums.

Talys wrote:
You can't compare a transport to a jump pack >.< For one, anyone can get into a vehicle, while only the jump pack wearer gets mobility. Plus, the transport provides protection for its occupants. And it might have some weaponry. You know, like an APC in real life.

This is all just nitpicking. You're putting way too much emphasis on subtle details of how the rules work instead of general strategic roles.

To say that because there are jump packs that drop pods and troop transports shouldn't be in the game because they just overly complicate things and duplicate strategically similar functions is kinda crazy, in my opinion. Mostly because other than mobility, there isn't much strategically similar about them.

Huh? Where did I make the argument that these things shouldn't be in the game? What I actually said was that they don't contribute as much to diversity as you claim because their strategic roles aren't all that diverse. It's fine to have a game with subtle variations on a given role, you just don't get to count each subtle variation as an entirely separate class of unit while dismissing subtle variations in other games with comments like "they're still just infantry".

Talys wrote:
My point was just that it's possible to invest a lot of money into a game and have it fizzle, even when it's a decent game.

Again, LOTR didn't fail because of anything about the games, it failed because GW decided to stop supporting it and allow it to fail. And then GW refused to make even token attempts to support it when the Hobbit movies arrived. That's not an example of the inherent risks of branching out into new products, it's an example of how incompetent management can kill a product. A company that isn't run by morons like GW's management wouldn't face those same risks.

Keep in mind that the WMH world is also set up for RPG, whereas 40k is not. 40k reflects a galaxy at war, and planets, stars, and entire factions are snuffed out.

In 40k, the little battles don't matter (although there are stories of them), in WMH they do. Countless billions die in the Imperium every day to war; the Imperium doesn't even know how large its own army is.

I think there is a place for both types of lore; and neither is nearly as complete for RPG purposes as any number of D&D settings.

Also, if you strictly want to enjoy fiction in a game environment, the D&D novels are far better written (with mainstream authors, too) than either.

Not that I disagree with anything you say, in particular.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Peregrine -- lets just say we disagree on the strategic purposes and enjoyability factor of model types like transports, air units, and heavy fortifications, and leave it at that.

I'll keep my Aquilla Strongpoint, Land Raider, Stormtalon, and death company and be content that they are not anything alike, anything else I have on the table, and you can play your army as you see fit

Talys wrote:
Keep in mind that the WMH world is also set up for RPG, whereas 40k is not.

See anything interesting in this link? http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_colecciones.asp?eidc=2

@Peregrine -- lets just say we disagree on the strategic purposes and enjoyability factor of model types like transports, air units, and heavy fortifications, and leave it at that.

Ah yes, "agree to disagree", the last resort of someone who knows they've lost the argument.

I'll keep my Aquilla Strongpoint, Land Raider, Stormtalon, and death company and be content that they are not anything alike, anything else I have on the table, and you can play your army as you see fit

Why do you keep creating these straw man arguments? The issue here is not whether 40k has units that are different, it's whether 40k has more diversity than other games. I could just as easily talk about how I love my a-wings and YT-1300s in X-Wing and how content I am with their tremendous differences, but you'd probably reply that they're all "just ships" and "not really diverse".

Alright Peregrine, if you want to keep on debating it, I'll entertain you and be less gentlemanly. I'm running SQL batches that will take another 6 hours so I have time to kill.

I think you're bat**** crazy to think that transports, teleporters jump packs and drop pods have anything in common other than "mobility" and that having them does not constitute variety.

I think that if you asked 100 unbiased people with a loose knowledge of tabletop war games they would say these units are markedly different.

You said that there is no artillery in 40k larger than light artillery. I pointed out Wall of Martyrs units that are MASSIVE. In fact, they are larger than any piece of artillery in any war game. It is not unreasonable to da that a model upon which you can situate a dozen other models and which does more damage than anything else in the game by an order of magnitude is not variety.

An x-wing and an a-wing are different in that they are different classes of small ships. An x-wing is different from a Jedi with a light saber, which is different from an Imperial Cruiser. So too is a helicopter, tank, and dude with rifle.

Do you really want to go back and forth on this forever? I don't have anywhere to go at the moment and I really don't agree with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
FFG is not a GW company, and GW does nothing to accommodate them -- it is just licensing the game world.

Many aspects of FFG vary from GW's universe, not always in a bad way.

I would say that while 40k has a great deal of different looking models, models that represent different concepts, but that there isn't a ton of a variety in how they interact with the game state.

Like an infantry dude and a bike dude, and a tank might look different and clearly be different things in universe but they don't really play all that differently. Different move speeds, different ranges, different target values to remove models with your weapons... that's about it.

It's still just move, shoot, see where the d6s settle. At the end of the day so many of the different models in 40k feel like basically feel like a bunch of re-skins, with only minor changes to some numbers that are used in the exact same fashion across the board.

In contrast even two models of the exact type say a Warpolf Stalker (Heavy Warbeast) vs a Woldwarden (Heavy Warbeast), in the same exact faction are going to play and feel very differently. Even putting aside casters there is more difference in terms of what those two models do and how they feel to play or play against that there is between in entire factions in 40k.

At minimum I can say this: There were things in 40k I didn't want to play against because they were a pain to deal with, or just took a ton of time to resolve. However nothing made made my ass sweaty like ending my turn and realizing I left enough space for Molik Karn's base to fit within 2" of him.

That said, that kind of complexity can certainly be a drawback for some people. It makes the game harder to play, and increases the amount of system mastery you need. So that WM/H is more diverse doesn't make WM/H "better". I just don't think there is much of an honest argument that 40k is as or more diverse in anything beyond surface appearance.

 Chongara wrote:
I would say that while 40k has a great deal of different looking models, models that represent different concepts, that there isn't a ton of a variety in how they interact with the game state. Like an infantry dude and a bike dude, and a tank might look different and clearly be different things in universe but they don't really play all that differently. Like different move speeds, different ranges, different target values to remove models with your weapons... that's about it.

It's still just move, shoot, see where the d6s settle. At the end of the day so many of the different models in 40k feel like basically feel like a bunch of re-skins, with only minor changes to some numbers that are used in the exact same fashion across the board.

In contrast even two models of the exact type say a Warpolf Stalker (Heavy Warbeast) vs a Woldwarden (Heavy Warbeast), in the same exact faction are going to play and feel very different. Even putting aside casters there is more difference in terms of what those two models do and how they feel to play or play against that there is between in entire factions in 40k.

That said, that kind of complexity can certainly be a drawback for some people. It makes the game harder to play, and increases the amount of system master you need. So that its' more diverse doesn't make WM/H "better". I just don't think there is much of an honest argument that 40k is as or more diverse in anything beyond surface appearance.

If only this were so, the game would be very east to balance, and nobody would complain about complex rules. You wouldn't see people complain about serpent shields, invisible centurions, drop pods, flyer rules, et cetra.

If a player ignores ways to use bonuses, specials, psychic abilities, and unique characteristics of units and a faction, as well as recognize the limitations of their opponent, they will pretty much fare badly. If anything, I would say that the learning curve for all the strange things possible in 40k is too steep to learn for many.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Peregrine - Also, in addition to my previous rebuttal post Peregrine, do not mistake an ability to recognize that the other person won't ever come around to your point of view or even compromise, with surrender.

I don't think you're right, I don't agree, and I am willing to defend my position (as long as I have nothing better to do at the moment). However, I recognize that it is futile, because whether you genuinely believe you are correct or just being argumentative or refuse to concede simple, obvious common-sense observations it doesn't matter -- you say what you say, and I can say what I say, til we are both blue in the face.

That's just not agreeing to disagree, which is pretty much a waste of time. But, I'm just killing time, so I might as well do it defending a game I like.

Oh yes, and just to goad and annoy you... You should stop supporting such a crappy company as Ganes Workshop by buying Forge World models.

Talys wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
I would say that while 40k has a great deal of different looking models, models that represent different concepts, that there isn't a ton of a variety in how they interact with the game state. Like an infantry dude and a bike dude, and a tank might look different and clearly be different things in universe but they don't really play all that differently. Like different move speeds, different ranges, different target values to remove models with your weapons... that's about it.

It's still just move, shoot, see where the d6s settle. At the end of the day so many of the different models in 40k feel like basically feel like a bunch of re-skins, with only minor changes to some numbers that are used in the exact same fashion across the board.

In contrast even two models of the exact type say a Warpolf Stalker (Heavy Warbeast) vs a Woldwarden (Heavy Warbeast), in the same exact faction are going to play and feel very different. Even putting aside casters there is more difference in terms of what those two models do and how they feel to play or play against that there is between in entire factions in 40k.

That said, that kind of complexity can certainly be a drawback for some people. It makes the game harder to play, and increases the amount of system master you need. So that its' more diverse doesn't make WM/H "better". I just don't think there is much of an honest argument that 40k is as or more diverse in anything beyond surface appearance.

If only this were so, the game would be very east to balance, and nobody would complain about complex rules. You wouldn't see people complain about serpent shields, invisible centurions, drop pods, flyer rules, et cetra.

If a player ignores ways to use bonuses, specials, psychic abilities, and unique characteristics of units and a faction, as well as recognize the limitations of their opponent, they will pretty much fare badly. If anything, I would say that the learning curve for all the strange things possible in 40k is too steep to learn for many.

Here's the thing, "complexity" and "balance" do not imply depth or particularly meaningful differences in game state interaction.

For example: If i make a rule in a game that says "When this model is injured, roll a d6 on a roll of 2+ he isn't hurt". This does very little to affect the procedures you use to utilize the model or the ways in which it interacts with the game state. It can still be utterly "broken" or "unbalanced", if it's out of scale with the rest of the effects. It can still be totally confusing if the game rules never once use the terms "injured" or "hurt" anywhere but in that one rule.

When I played 40k, I found it had a lot of rules like the above. They don't really change how the game is played, they just kind of turn numbers on or off in a very binary way. The game didn't have a clearly defined set of terminology or even guidelines for how rules interact, so of course choosing how to resolve them was a confusing task. This doesn't mean that confusion implied the rules were creating meaningful differences in kind between otherwise similar game entities.

@Chongara -- I don't wholly agree, but I get what you are saying. Generally, with experienced players or regular gaming partners rule ambiguity is less of an issue, or not an issue at all (is GoI movement? Gawd....).

Still, I have no problem at all agreeing that WMH rules are tighter and less ambiguous, as long as folks can also concede that they are not really rules usable for large model count games.

Talys wrote:
@Chongara -- I don't wholly agree, but I get what you are saying. Generally, with experienced players or regular gaming partners rule ambiguity is less of an issue, or not an issue at all (is GoI movement? Gawd....).

Even moving past the ambiguity problem, it remains the rules aren't creating meaningful differences in kind. This isn't necessarily "bad" if what you want that, but it's inaccurate to say they're creating any really meaty differences or variety in game play. It's all very samey save and basically boils down to what puts out the most numbers for the least points.

A Tank and Hovercraft are clearly "Different Things"(tm), but the space the 40k engine allows them for behaving differently is very limited. That behavior defines what a thing is at least in a gameplay context

Still, I have no problem at all agreeing that WMH rules are tighter and less ambiguous, as long as folks can also concede that they are not really rules usable for large model count games

WM/H rules are cumbersome in larger games, but I'm not sure that's particularly relevant. That the WM/H approach wouldn't work for 100++ model games, doesn't really say anything about the functionality of the 40k ruleset. Honestly I'm not convinced the 40k ruleset works all that well at that size either. You can definitely invest a bunch of time in terms of both physical effort, and rule resolution for not a ton of return. In my experience you can do a whole lot in 40k and not have much actually happen.

 Chongara wrote:

Talys wrote:
@Chongara -- I don't wholly agree, but I get what you are saying. Generally, with experienced players or regular gaming partners rule ambiguity is less of an issue, or not an issue at all (is GoI movement? Gawd....).

Even moving past the ambiguity problem, it remains the rules aren't creating meaningful differences in kind. This isn't necessarily "bad" if what you want that, but it's inaccurate to say they're creating any really meaty differences or variety in game play. It's all very samey save and basically boils down to what puts out the most numbers for the least points.

Well, I don't think this is so, because different armies employ different tactics against different opponents. I mean, gone are the days when forty tactical marines advanced on sixty orks and fired at each other til one side died. You can't even win a game that way, anymore (is it a scoring unit? what is it's purpose? etc.). If you want to really reduce it down, you could say there are shooty armies, melee armies, psychic armies, deep strike armies... I guess. Still, a good army is a fusion of these different aspects, and must be able to respond to a wide variety of threats, and, well, win. Winning is rarely tabling your opponent (though it happens, or your opponent is so badly beat that he can't possibly outscore you) -- usually, it's getting enough victory points in the allotted time.

 Chongara wrote:

Talys wrote:
@Still, I have no problem at all agreeing that WMH rules are tighter and less ambiguous, as long as folks can also concede that they are not really rules usable for large model count games

WM/H rules are cumbersome in larger games, but I'm not sure that's particularly relevant. That the WM/H approach wouldn't work for 100++ model games, doesn't really say anything about the functionality of the 40k ruleset. Honestly I'm not convinced the 40k ruleset works all that well at that size either. You can definitely invest a bunch of time in terms of both physical effort, and rule resolution for not a ton of return. In my experience you can do a whole lot in 40k and not have much actually happen.

Maybe just your gaming partners? 40k is for sure a larger investment in time, energy money, and I would even say, gaming partners. Personally, for me, it is more rewarding. I don't mind a 5-10 hours for gaming, because I only get to do it a couple of times a month, and as I've stated many times, I happen to like epic battles. That's nothing against people that like smaller battles.

In my opinion, for the most part, despite any failings, 40k rules are enjoyable to play, and both prefabricated scenarios and random objectives are a great deal of fun, ** especially if you are playing against the right people **.

On the other hand, if I'm gonna play against strangers in a crowd, I'd really rather play a computer game with matchmaking anyhow. Because I have limited time to play, I have little desire to play someone who is vastly less skilled or has fewer resources than me, or someone that I can never beat.