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.

I've been around for quite a long time. I started when 3rd edition core rule book was all we had. I found these forums sometime shortly after that and over the years there has been many constants in the game and the topics that get posted. The one that I'm going to talk about here is "If I use this not GW model is that ok?"

Since when did we as gamers let GW take over our enjoyment of the hobby. It was only recently that GW started culling special characters that didn't have models of their own. I cannot count the number of "count as" models I've created over time with parts from many different manufactures. All of which have graced the table top with no problems what so ever and as I continue through this game there is nothing that will keep me from putting them on the table again. And that was 10 years ago. Now there are many different Sci-Fi manufactures whos aesthetics blend perfectly in with GW. A guy in armor is still a guy in armor, and one powered sword can easily represent a GW powered sword.

The only place that this potentially might have an issue is GW stores or official national tournaments where they need much tighter control. Heck even tournaments at your local gaming shop will probably let a few "count as" models slide as long as they have wysiwyg wargear on them since its more of a local event and your army has probably shown up through the door on more than one occasion.

Most people realize that these are all things that they should discuss with their gaming friends, but for some reason feel nervous to pull that trigger. When playing various RPGs I have spent hours conversing with the DM/GM on what direction I want my character to go and make any possible changes that might be necessary to the official path progression. Why should a GW publication be any different? I say change anything that you dont like make the game yours again. Don't like the WS chart. Make your own. Think a unit is under/over priced, change it. Why should these conversations only be based on proxy models. Make the game truly yours. I know several posters over the years who have done just and I think they have enjoyed the table top gaming experience at a level far greater than just blindly following GW rules.

Regardless of what the label on the book says, this is our game, and I say we should enjoy it to its fullest, despite some of the manufactures best/worst efforts.

Well since 99% of my games are either at my local GW (good friends with current manager and previous 2 managers), or in a local tournament, or in a major tournament, I really don't have that option. The good thing is if you use 80%+ GW parts and WYSIWYG, you can play casual games with friends at your house, GTs or anything in between. If you use all kinds of proxies, counts as, etc, you can only play casual games with friends.

 Toofast wrote:
Well since 99% of my games are either at my local GW (good friends with current manager and previous 2 managers), or in a local tournament, or in a major tournament, I really don't have that option. The good thing is if you use 80%+ GW parts and WYSIWYG, you can play casual games with friends at your house, GTs or anything in between. If you use all kinds of proxies, counts as, etc, you can only play casual games with friends.

This, it's about respect and others enjoyment. If both players have a good time then it was a good game. Excessive proxies, or crap like armless marines with magical morphing weapons isn't respectful or fun.

Raven Cowl wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
Well since 99% of my games are either at my local GW (good friends with current manager and previous 2 managers), or in a local tournament, or in a major tournament, I really don't have that option. The good thing is if you use 80%+ GW parts and WYSIWYG, you can play casual games with friends at your house, GTs or anything in between. If you use all kinds of proxies, counts as, etc, you can only play casual games with friends.

This, it's about respect and others enjoyment. If both players have a good time then it was a good game. Excessive proxies, or crap like armless marines with magical morphing weapons isn't respectful or fun.

....what? The fun is relative to the players. I've seen entire armies made of proxies that I would love to play against. Besides, I'd rather play against a fun chill dude who has grey marines or proxy IG than a guy who has all WYSIWYG fully painted models but is a total nob.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Raven Cowl wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
Well since 99% of my games are either at my local GW (good friends with current manager and previous 2 managers), or in a local tournament, or in a major tournament, I really don't have that option. The good thing is if you use 80%+ GW parts and WYSIWYG, you can play casual games with friends at your house, GTs or anything in between. If you use all kinds of proxies, counts as, etc, you can only play casual games with friends.

This, it's about respect and others enjoyment. If both players have a good time then it was a good game. Excessive proxies, or crap like armless marines with magical morphing weapons isn't respectful or fun.

....what? The fun is relative to the players. I've seen entire armies made of proxies that I would love to play against. Besides, I'd rather play against a fun chill dude who has grey marines or proxy IG than a guy who has all WYSIWYG fully painted models but is a total nob.

Sorry, I'm bad at words occasionally. What I mean to say about excessive proxies is stuff like the armless marines which would be fine if what they were using was printed on a battlescribe sheet or something like a complicated historical conversion but nothing to indicate what guns are what.

 Jayden63 wrote:

Most people realize that these are all things that they should discuss with their gaming friends, but for some reason feel nervous to pull that trigger. When playing various RPGs I have spent hours conversing with the DM/GM on what direction I want my character to go and make any possible changes that might be necessary to the official path progression. Why should a GW publication be any different? I say change anything that you dont like make the game yours again. Don't like the WS chart. Make your own. Think a unit is under/over priced, change it. Why should these conversations only be based on proxy models. Make the game truly yours.

And, infact, this is basically what GW has stated things should be like. They provide us a sandbox, we decide what game to play. GW has never stated that you shouldn't agree about things with your fellow players, create your own scenarios, campaigns, tournament rules and whatnot. And one doesn't even need to bring up games among friends - it's so blatantly obvious you can play your Space Marines as Necrons if both parties are fine with it, or pretend a 6 on a die is a 1 if that floats your boat for whatever reason.

It's only people with a compulsive need of everything needing to be official who have big issues. This game currently is about the players and tournament organizers customizing it to suit their tastes and needs. It has pretty much always been so, it is nothing new.

 RunicFIN wrote:
It's only people with a compulsive need of everything needing to be official who have big issues. This game currently is about the players and tournament organizers customizing it to suit their tastes and needs. It has pretty much always been so, it is nothing new.

While I agree with the bolded part, there's also the issue of many people only having an official GW shop available to play their games.

I also believe the "I need official" mentality comes from the fact that nobody wants to feel like a fool. You've spent a gazillion of money on your "official" GW models then someone comes around with an army mostly made up from other model ranges which looks as good (or even better) as yours and has costed him/her a fraction of what you've paid. You feel like you've been ripped off and you don't like it, and those damn alternative minis remind you of it each time you see them. So if you stop seeing them, the pain somehow goes away. That's why, I think, some people refuse to play against "non-official" armies, because deep inside they know they've paid too much for their armies while having better and cheaper alternatives in the market, but they're too prideful and stubborn to admit it.

It's the Stockholm Syndrome of consumerism. The "hostage-client" in a nutshell.

There seems to be a bit of a confusion in this thread between 'proxy' and 'counts as'.

Personally I find proxies add little to the game, if I want to shake it up with friends when things are stale I'd rather play smaller games or make some new rules, scenarios or some such. Pretending that this model or 2p coin or action figure or coke can is actually something else just makes a clunky system clunkier.

I'm fine with counts as, it can add a lot of flavour to the game, as long as some effort has gone in and the physrep is reasonable.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
There seems to be a bit of a confusion in this thread between 'proxy' and 'counts as'.

Personally I find proxies add little to the game, if I want to shake it up with friends when things are stale I'd rather play smaller games or make some new rules, scenarios or some such. Pretending that this model or 2p coin or action figure or coke can is actually something else just makes a clunky system clunkier.

I'm fine with counts as, it can add a lot of flavour to the game, as long as some effort has gone in and the physrep is reasonable.

Proxies are something I generally only reserve to when someone wants to try out some unit/rule before buying it, but with the intention that if they like it, they'll invest in the real deal. When a Land Raider is a Spartan a few times for someone on the fence about dumping a lot of money on FW, I'm not bothered, if that same grey land raider is a Spartan 6 months later, then I get a little frustrated.

Counts-as, however, are great. There are lots of after-market producers who make excellent additions to certain armies, Guard and Marines in particular, where visual diversity is somewhat lacking officially and are designed to be WYSIWYG. Dreamforge, Victoria Miniatures, Mad Robot, Kromlech, Puppet's War, and innumerable others all add something to the game I'm always happy to see (and I'm a big fan of Victoria's re imagining of the old variant Guard models). Furthermore, there are many armies in-universe which are awkward to represent with one codex, but work smoother with another. For instance, right now only the Blood Angels have formations/FOC for SM 1st Company armies - I'm not the slightest bit bothered by someone using those rules to run the army they like which they're otherwise unable to do. Marines in particular are well suited to this, having largely identical models with different colours, but more creative ideas also have room; kitbashed Cadians and Firewarriors to make Gue'vesa and ran as a "Fish of Fury" list with the Tau book? Totally awesome. Chaos Space Marines using Codex: Space Marines to run counts-as Legions, not bothered in the slightest, etc.

If it looks like what it's supposed to be in regards to wargear and unit type, and you are clear in what is going on "under the hood," and there is demonstrated care and investment in what's been created, rather than a blatant power-mongering pile of BS, I'm all for it.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
Exactly what I tried to say only much better.

Exalted.

 Jayden63 wrote:


Since when did we as gamers let GW take over our enjoyment of the hobby. It was only recently that GW started culling special characters that didn't have models of their own. I cannot count the number of proxies I've created over time with parts from countless different manufactures. All of which have graced the table top with no problems what so ever and as I continue through this game there is nothing that will keep me from putting them on the table again.

Since they started printing rules for their models? You can't expect anyone to accept something that will make your army better. People can agree on general rules that GW messed up and on house rules to fix them, like let say discarding and redrawing mission cards.

Heck even tournaments at your local gaming shop will probably let a few proxies slide as long as they have wysiwyg wargear on them since its more of a local event and your army has probably shown up through the door on more than one occasion.

No they don't. It is hard to let opponents accept a proxy in a pick up game. For a tournament, which may have sponsors it is a no go. No shop is going to support people not buying stuff.

When playing various RPGs I have spent hours conversing with the DM/GM on what direction I want my character to go and make any possible changes that might be necessary to the official path progression.

Because in an RPG you play with people. You , the GM and your team try to tell a good story. In a table top game you play against an opponent, nothing in the rules even hints and some sort of co operation. In fact a lot of the inform your opponent before the game points at the opposit even stronger.

Why should a GW publication be any different? I say change anything that you dont like make the game yours again. Don't like the WS chart. Make your own. Think a unit is under/over priced, change it. Why should these conversations only be based on proxy models. Make the game truly yours. I know several posters over the years who have done just and I think they have enjoyed the table top gaming experience at a level far greater than just blindly following GW rules.

Becuase at best you will be able to force people to do it, if you have a higher status. A shop owner can say that non GW terrain or models are ok in his store, but there is no way to force people to accept such changes.

I think in my original post, I should have used count as instead of proxy.

Proxy invokes the idea of a Coke can as a Carnifex. While count as is seen more as a non-gw model that is still WYSIWYG.

Raven Cowl wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Raven Cowl wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
Well since 99% of my games are either at my local GW (good friends with current manager and previous 2 managers), or in a local tournament, or in a major tournament, I really don't have that option. The good thing is if you use 80%+ GW parts and WYSIWYG, you can play casual games with friends at your house, GTs or anything in between. If you use all kinds of proxies, counts as, etc, you can only play casual games with friends.

This, it's about respect and others enjoyment. If both players have a good time then it was a good game. Excessive proxies, or crap like armless marines with magical morphing weapons isn't respectful or fun.

....what? The fun is relative to the players. I've seen entire armies made of proxies that I would love to play against. Besides, I'd rather play against a fun chill dude who has grey marines or proxy IG than a guy who has all WYSIWYG fully painted models but is a total nob.

Sorry, I'm bad at words occasionally. What I mean to say about excessive proxies is stuff like the armless marines which would be fine if what they were using was printed on a battlescribe sheet or something like a complicated historical conversion but nothing to indicate what guns are what.

Ah okay. Yeah, my buddy does that sometimes (TWC without the riders) and its rather annoying.

 Jayden63 wrote:
I think in my original post, I should have used count as instead of proxy.

Yup, didn't want to point fingers.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
I think in my original post, I should have used count as instead of proxy.

Yup, didn't want to point fingers.

Yeah, changed the original post. It reads a little better now.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Raven Cowl wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
Well since 99% of my games are either at my local GW (good friends with current manager and previous 2 managers), or in a local tournament, or in a major tournament, I really don't have that option. The good thing is if you use 80%+ GW parts and WYSIWYG, you can play casual games with friends at your house, GTs or anything in between. If you use all kinds of proxies, counts as, etc, you can only play casual games with friends.

This, it's about respect and others enjoyment. If both players have a good time then it was a good game. Excessive proxies, or crap like armless marines with magical morphing weapons isn't respectful or fun.

....what? The fun is relative to the players. I've seen entire armies made of proxies that I would love to play against. Besides, I'd rather play against a fun chill dude who has grey marines or proxy IG than a guy who has all WYSIWYG fully painted models but is a total nob.

Wait. Entire armies of proxies?! So an army made up of Oreos, or Legos, or dice? Or do you mean count as? Words folks, words.

 Jayden63 wrote:

Yeah, changed the original post.

Looks like it might be too late!!!

Makumba wrote:
In a table top game you play against an opponent, nothing in the rules even hints and some sort of co operation.

Didn't 6th have something at the start of the rulebook, "The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is entirely yours."

It kind of implies some kind of spirit of cooperation underneath the more obvious competition. I don't see that as making everyone happy, I just wanted to point out that it actually was there.

 Lobukia wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Raven Cowl wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
Well since 99% of my games are either at my local GW (good friends with current manager and previous 2 managers), or in a local tournament, or in a major tournament, I really don't have that option. The good thing is if you use 80%+ GW parts and WYSIWYG, you can play casual games with friends at your house, GTs or anything in between. If you use all kinds of proxies, counts as, etc, you can only play casual games with friends.

This, it's about respect and others enjoyment. If both players have a good time then it was a good game. Excessive proxies, or crap like armless marines with magical morphing weapons isn't respectful or fun.

....what? The fun is relative to the players. I've seen entire armies made of proxies that I would love to play against. Besides, I'd rather play against a fun chill dude who has grey marines or proxy IG than a guy who has all WYSIWYG fully painted models but is a total nob.

Wait. Entire armies of proxies?! So an army made up of Oreos, or Legos, or dice? Or do you mean count as? Words folks, words.

Not counts as. I love counts as, adds amazing personality and diversity to any force. The issue is with armless marines or as Jr later wrote twc with no riders for more than one or two games.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Makumba wrote:
In a table top game you play against an opponent, nothing in the rules even hints and some sort of co operation.

Didn't 6th have something at the start of the rulebook, "The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is entirely yours."

It kind of implies some kind of spirit of cooperation underneath the more obvious competition. I don't see that as making everyone happy, I just wanted to point out that it actually was there.

I believe it did, or at least one of the editions did. Its amazing how so many people either didn't read it or forgot about it as soon as they changed the page.

The OP is fine and all, but doesn't really work for pick up games which I rely on. With PUG's there has to be a base standard for what games are. 40k is now unplayable for PUG's.

GW has explicitly stated multiple times that this game is in fact the gamer's, and gives them full ability to do as they wish with it.

I have never been exposed to anything the OP is talking about (the game being taken away from us) quite the contrary in fact- unless you consider GW shops and tournaments for 40k to be unfairly restrictive in their enforcement of using their models for their rules. Which I do not, nor will I ever consider it to be unreasonable for the company to wish that those who play its gaming system on a level outside of their own basements to use its miniatures.

GW is a company who's survival relies on the purchase of their models. Their rules earn them a fraction of what their models do- so they could not remain as prominent as they are if they allowed third party manufacturers the same level of tolerance that they give for their own miniatures.

This game is for you. It's designed for you, and the rulebook even says for you to do as you wish. GW is a company that doesn't take itself too seriously, and expects its customers to do the same.

That said, I propose that it is not GW who is taking 40k away from the gamers, but is instead those who wish to use non GW models and demand the company change to suit them instead of the other way around. If you want to use non GW models, then go ahead. But if you want to use those models while at the same time claiming there is an injustice in GW frowning upon it in a setting that requires all parties to be in agreement about what is acceptable in an effort to avoid conflict then I become a little confused.

Again this is all my opinion and I do not mean to sound expressly upset about this. Just offering that there are some people who see the use of GW models as a necessity in a tournament setting. I'm playing 40k specifically- not Sci-Fi in general and so have a desire for models to reflect such.

Yes, GW stores I guess would be more militant about substitute models being frowned on if not banned.
Since they do not host competitions to speak of, that has little impact on me or others depending on a local gaming store or our houses.

If it looks cool, use it.
There is no real 40k to take back: competitive gaming with use of RAW is difficult to do well and would be the only area where 40k would be the most militant of adhering to the company's wishes.

I have a rather extensive back catalogue of GW gaming stuff so scenarios with a broad outline is sent out to the guys, I get it set-up, try a couple test runs and then play with friends.
That holy grail of balance really works on knowing how various armies work and looking at it if you had to dice-off on who plays what army... you get it right pretty quick.

I am sure various home-brew models like my Marbo will still find their way into games (I liked my model better) and I would expect other people to do the same.
It is what makes the hobby fun seeing how they tinker with stuff, it is what makes it worthwhile going out and playing against strangers.

 Lobukia wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Raven Cowl wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
Well since 99% of my games are either at my local GW (good friends with current manager and previous 2 managers), or in a local tournament, or in a major tournament, I really don't have that option. The good thing is if you use 80%+ GW parts and WYSIWYG, you can play casual games with friends at your house, GTs or anything in between. If you use all kinds of proxies, counts as, etc, you can only play casual games with friends.

This, it's about respect and others enjoyment. If both players have a good time then it was a good game. Excessive proxies, or crap like armless marines with magical morphing weapons isn't respectful or fun.

....what? The fun is relative to the players. I've seen entire armies made of proxies that I would love to play against. Besides, I'd rather play against a fun chill dude who has grey marines or proxy IG than a guy who has all WYSIWYG fully painted models but is a total nob.

So an army made up of Oreos

As long as i get to eat them if i kill them.
or drink the beer pod if it explodes.

But in all seriousness Do what you want with the people you wan to play with. if you group likes to play with armless Joe on cardboard terrain because thats what you enjoy then feel free to do so. If you like to play on an EXTREMELY well painted table with golden demon quality models, then more power to you.



Personally would love to see the return of GM over view to make more interesting things happen. edit: our peanut gallery kinda does that now but not really.

OP, take an exalt! 40k, more than most games out there, is a game for us, the gamers, to do with as we see fit. Most games will permit house-rules/custom scenarios/changing the game to better suit you, but few go so far as 40k in explicitly encouraging it, and that's what makes it great!

Admittedly, this doesn't work as well for tournaments and/or pick up games with strangers, but you have to bear in mind that the games were not written with those situations in mind. GW themselves have stated time and time again that their view of the way the game should be played (casually, with friends, and with an attitude that is more cooperative than competitive), and there's nothing wrong with that. No, it doesn't make 40k a good competitive game, or one that can be played without prior communication, but as that was never the intent, it isn't really fair to judge it on those grounds.

Complaining that 40k doesn't work competitively is like buying a Formula 1 car and written wondering why it doesn't work on a rally track.

 Paradigm wrote:
OP, take an exalt! 40k, more than most games out there, is a game for us, the gamers, to do with as we see fit. Most games will permit house-rules/custom scenarios/changing the game to better suit you, but few go so far as 40k in explicitly encouraging it, and that's what makes it great!

Admittedly, this doesn't work as well for tournaments and/or pick up games with strangers, but you have to bear in mind that the games were not written with those situations in mind. GW themselves have stated time and time again that their view of the way the game should be played (casually, with friends, and with an attitude that is more cooperative than competitive), and there's nothing wrong with that. No, it doesn't make 40k a good competitive game, or one that can be played without prior communication, but as that was never the intent, it isn't really fair to judge it on those grounds.

Complaining that 40k doesn't work competitively is like buying a Formula 1 car and written wondering why it doesn't work on a rally track.

We're judging it because if they paid a little more attention to the rules, it could be good for "sandbox" style gameplay AND tournament and Pick Up games. Some believe it's just laziness on the writers' part.

Yes, it could be. In the same way that Warmachine, which I'm repeatedly told is balanced and competitive, could be a bunch of crap if you moved away from the core focus on balance in favour of narrative-based build-your-own gaming and did it badly. But PP chose tight, balanced gameplay above all else, so you get a game that's all about that.

The fact is, GW seem to have no interest in helping balance the game at the expense of their current core focus on narrative, collaborative play. They have chosen what they want the game to be, and stated that repeatedly, so I think it's somewhat counterproductive to judge it on what it could be if you deviated from those principles.

 MWHistorian wrote:
The OP is fine and all, but doesn't really work for pick up games which I rely on. With PUG's there has to be a base standard for what games are. 40k is now unplayable for PUG's.

Not so much "unplayable" as requires basically rehashing the same things with each of your opponents. Which doesn't work at all for PUGs where you want to just show up and play, especially at a game store that might be open only a certain time and you can't necessarily spend 3-4 hours there.

And therein lies the problem. 40k works great for small (or even not so small) close-knit social groups where everyone knows everyone and can all agree or have "club rules" to sort out unclear rules interactions. It works less great if you don't know who's going to turn up at the store, if it will be a regular who everyone knows or someone who's just in town and happened to bring their army with them and stopped by for a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:
Yes, it could be. In the same way that Warmachine, which I'm repeatedly told is balanced and competitive, could be a bunch of crap if you moved away from the core focus on balance in favour of narrative-based build-your-own gaming and did it badly. But PP chose tight, balanced gameplay above all else, so you get a game that's all about that.

The fact is, GW seem to have no interest in helping balance the game at the expense of their current core focus on narrative, collaborative play. They have chosen what they want the game to be, and stated that repeatedly, so I think it's somewhat counterproductive to judge it on what it could be if you deviated from those principles.

The problem with this is they also haven't really given anything that enables a "narrative-based build-your-own" style of game either. They claim that's the focus, but unclear rules and lack of balance means that the game often works worse for the casual/narrative gamer than the competitive player. GW does nothing to allow narrative, collaborative play and in fact hurts it by having units that are outright worse than others because the casual player is the one who will end up maybe picking them. The competitive WAAC/TFG type is the one who won't even look at the "crap" units in the first place.

I mean this in general, not specifically about 40k, but keeping games short and quick makes everything easier. Less expensive to get involved in, less time commitment to play, lesser chance of getting into an unexpected rules puzzle, less sting if you play a bad game.

With bloat, you have new concerns. Table space becomes an issue. Lack of terrain becomes an issue. Assembling a default army becomes more expensive. And so on and so forth. Everyone has mentioned WMH, but X-Wing has gained a lot of fans due to the low barrier of entry into the game and being quick, simple, and fun. In general I'd rather play 3-4 games at 40 minutes than a single multi-hour one. Or play one short game and then go outside and do something else. You have to adapt 40k for this format a little.

It still blows my mind people play Apoc for hours (days?). I just don't have that level of dedication.

how does it actually work at GW stores? Do they still allow kitbashes with non-GW parts mixed in (headswaps for example) or does a model need to be 100% GW.

In any case, there is nothing stopping you from using non-GW models with GW rules. The only thing you will run into is that you won't be able to play at GW's own stores (which should be kinda obvious)

WayneTheGame wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
The OP is fine and all, but doesn't really work for pick up games which I rely on. With PUG's there has to be a base standard for what games are. 40k is now unplayable for PUG's.

Not so much "unplayable" as requires basically rehashing the same things with each of your opponents. Which doesn't work at all for PUGs where you want to just show up and play, especially at a game store that might be open only a certain time and you can't necessarily spend 3-4 hours there.

And therein lies the problem. 40k works great for small (or even not so small) close-knit social groups where everyone knows everyone and can all agree or have "club rules" to sort out unclear rules interactions. It works less great if you don't know who's going to turn up at the store, if it will be a regular who everyone knows or someone who's just in town and happened to bring their army with them and stopped by for a game.

That is not a problem unique to 40k though. 40k has very clear rules compared to many other games and rulesets I have played. And at least GW bothers to resolve some of those questions. Many other companies just put out rules 'as is' and never bother to make faqs or erratas.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:
Yes, it could be. In the same way that Warmachine, which I'm repeatedly told is balanced and competitive, could be a bunch of crap if you moved away from the core focus on balance in favour of narrative-based build-your-own gaming and did it badly. But PP chose tight, balanced gameplay above all else, so you get a game that's all about that.

The fact is, GW seem to have no interest in helping balance the game at the expense of their current core focus on narrative, collaborative play. They have chosen what they want the game to be, and stated that repeatedly, so I think it's somewhat counterproductive to judge it on what it could be if you deviated from those principles.

The problem with this is they also haven't really given anything that enables a "narrative-based build-your-own" style of game either. They claim that's the focus, but unclear rules and lack of balance means that the game often works worse for the casual/narrative gamer than the competitive player. GW does nothing to allow narrative, collaborative play and in fact hurts it by having units that are outright worse than others because the casual player is the one who will end up maybe picking them. The competitive WAAC/TFG type is the one who won't even look at the "crap" units in the first place.

I strongly disagree with you here.
If you are a casual/narrative gamer, you should not be troubled by any unclear rules. Just make something up both players agree with. You will frequently be making up additional rules as well, so 'official rules' kinda stop being an issue as they are replaced by house rules.
If you are a competitive player, maybe you should look at Warmachine. GW openly states in the rulebook that the 40k ruleset is meant for narrative play.

Yoyoyo wrote:
I mean this in general, not specifically about 40k, but keeping games short and quick makes everything easier. Less expensive to get involved in, less time commitment to play, lesser chance of getting into an unexpected rules puzzle, less sting if you play a bad game.

With bloat, you have new concerns. Table space becomes an issue. Lack of terrain becomes an issue. Assembling a default army becomes more expensive. And so on and so forth. Everyone has mentioned WMH, but X-Wing has gained a lot of fans due to the low barrier of entry into the game and being quick, simple, and fun. In general I'd rather play 3-4 games at 40 minutes than a single multi-hour one. Or play one short game and then go outside and do something else. You have to adapt 40k for this format a little.

It still blows my mind people play Apoc for hours (days?). I just don't have that level of dedication.

You haven't truly played 40k untill you have played a 100.000 point Apocalypse game with all of your friends Best fun I have ever had.
It is like a computer games marathon, but more social (and miniatures)