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.

Just as a contribution the whole reason for 'dropping specialist games' thing from Tony Ackland.

GW had decided to drop Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay because it didn't promote miniature sales. However, we did get a lot of mail asking when the next scenarios would be published. They also had a lot of unedited manuscripts they had never payed for. The solution GW came up with was to create a small subsidiary to publish them. They could also use it to claw back some tax and prevent three of the more difficult staff from contaminating all the other staff. And hopefully those three would realise by running their own unit that they weren't as clever as they thought they were. We actually became the most productive part of the company.

http://realmofchaos80s.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-grandmaster-returns-second.html

 Talys wrote:
@Wayne - I may sound like a broken record, but to say the rules appeal to nobody just isn't accurate, as I'm sure there are other people like me who would label 7e + as their favorite version of the game (I mean, 7th post Decurion).

First, it's a great game and rules balance matters not at all, dare I say, if you set it up a little bit like Age of Sigmar: the two sides collaborate on setting up the scenario and acknowledge and allow for lopsided matchups and weak units. You want to play with 50 terminators with storm bolters? Well, okay, we can make that work. All of the shortcomings of 40k's rules (which I happily acknowledge), are highly mitigated when playing amongst friends and regulars who are like-minded, rather than pickup groups and competitive play. If you have the attitude that a game with as many units that are as varied as 40k won't ever be balanced in terms of x points are always equal, the game is a lot more fun. If that's what you want, I don't think 40k will ever work, in the context of today's models (without excluding many of them, like in kill team).

Second, 40k can be a visually spectacular game if you choose for it to be, in a way that no other tabletop wargame can, especially if scifi is your thing. The players and spectators can marvel at the game table as they move around their thousands of hours of modelling efforts, and for those whose interest is in this, none of the rules really matter anyways.

Third, for people who like or are invested in the fluff, 40k provides a fantastic setting to play out these battles.

I would disagree that there's no support for narrative gaming. I mean, what would you call books like Mont'ka and Kauyon? In the last 2 years, Orks, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Tyranids, White Scars, Ravenguard, Tau have all had significant storyline campaigns, and some great models made for those.

Part of it is that players don't just divide into Competitive vs Casual. There are so many other factors, like people who play in regular groups versus pickups, players who weigh spectacle or strategy more highly, gamers who like small collections or large, hobbyists whose priorities lie in modelling or not, people who like to play on small tables versus people who like to play on much larger tables, the length of game people enjoy, and so on and so forth.

40k scratches a very particular itch, but I think it's a pretty big (and obviously profitable) niche.

Game rules and balance always matters, the fact you must make your own mods in a game to balance it is problematic, the money you payed for the rules include them working and the game is balanced, I d not think anybody would say "this garden hose is really great if you take your time to plug the holes" and no 40k (or any GW game) does not have "such a huge amount of units it cannot be balanced" smaller companies show it can be done, GW just doesn't care and as many ex designers have attested there is no playtesting anymore there, so how can there be a game balance?

As for visually stunning? depends n what you think, sure the huge units and carpet of models must catch your eye they take up half (or more) of the table anyway but a good skirmish game with nice scenery can be equally eye garbing with 20 to 40 models only and make more sense to the eye

Obviously the rules as they stand do appeal to someone, but would they appeal to more or fewer people if they were split into core 40K and some optionan supplement for Apocalypse, Flyers, and so on -- roughly equivalent to 5th edition?

The sales figures say the rules appealed to more people when they were separated. (As always, I am sure that price is a factor too.)

 Talys wrote:
@Wayne - I may sound like a broken record, but to say the rules appeal to nobody just isn't accurate, as I'm sure there are other people like me who would label 7e + as their favorite version of the game (I mean, 7th post Decurion).

First, it's a great game and rules balance matters not at all, dare I say, if you set it up a little bit like Age of Sigmar: the two sides collaborate on setting up the scenario and acknowledge and allow for lopsided matchups and weak units. You want to play with 50 terminators with storm bolters? Well, okay, we can make that work. All of the shortcomings of 40k's rules (which I happily acknowledge), are highly mitigated when playing amongst friends and regulars who are like-minded, rather than pickup groups and competitive play. If you have the attitude that a game with as many units that are as varied as 40k won't ever be balanced in terms of x points are always equal, the game is a lot more fun. If that's what you want, I don't think 40k will ever work, in the context of today's models (without excluding many of them, like in kill team).

Second, 40k can be a visually spectacular game if you choose for it to be, in a way that no other tabletop wargame can, especially if scifi is your thing. The players and spectators can marvel at the game table as they move around their thousands of hours of modelling efforts, and for those whose interest is in this, none of the rules really matter anyways.

Third, for people who like or are invested in the fluff, 40k provides a fantastic setting to play out these battles.

I would disagree that there's no support for narrative gaming. I mean, what would you call books like Mont'ka and Kauyon? In the last 2 years, Orks, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Tyranids, White Scars, Ravenguard, Tau have all had significant storyline campaigns, and some great models made for those.

Part of it is that players don't just divide into Competitive vs Casual. There are so many other factors, like people who play in regular groups versus pickups, players who weigh spectacle or strategy more highly, gamers who like small collections or large, hobbyists whose priorities lie in modelling or not, people who like to play on small tables versus people who like to play on much larger tables, the length of game people enjoy, and so on and so forth.

40k scratches a very particular itch, but I think it's a pretty big (and obviously profitable) niche.

By the logic in your post, the 40k as a game isn't for:

1. Competitive players.
2. Casual players who lack a regular play group.
3. Casual players who have a regular game group but don't have like minded players.
4. Casual players who have a regular game group but dislike the pre-game balancing phase.
5. Players who want a skirmish size game, but don't have like minded players / lack a regular play group.
6. Players who are only in it for game-play and are not background/modelling/painting enthusiasts.

On top of this, the way GW has set up 40k... its not a game for those tight on money either as the cost of entry is among the highest in the war-gaming market. If GW produced proper rules, they wouldn't be artificially removing customers 1-4 (and 6 arguably). Kill Team is a thing, but it's an unsupported thing... much like how battle box games and 15 point Warmachine/Hordes battles are technically possible, but nobody plays them because the game isn't designed that way.

@keezus - it's pretty hard to find gaming entertainment that's a 100% match, so we often settle for the closest thing.

Going down your list, if someone fits many of those criteria, some other game is probably better for them. As it is, there must still be a lot of people who enjoy 40k. If I were to make a list it would be that 40k is ideal if you

1. Have or are willing to start with friends a good play group
2. Not a list-tailoring ultra-competitive type
3. Willing to spend a few hundred dollars to get into a warfare
4. Enjoy meta changes every couple of years (usually requiring some new models)
5. Enjoy adding to your armies
6. Like relatively large table games
7. Enjoy a mix of small through giant models
8. Not a person who is obsessive about the rules interpretation

There won't be many people who answer YES to EVERYTHING, but if you answer yes to enough of it, 40k can be a terrific game. If you say yes to some of it, 40k may be the only game for you. For example, if you're really excited by tanks jets, giant robots and infantry on a 6x4+ table, there's nothing else. If you love building apocalypse size armies in a scifi game, there is no alternative (without crazy repetition of models).

I personally think 40k does really well in gaming clubs and basement groups; less well in pickups, and so-so in competitive play with modified rules. It's also a great game for people who just happen to love 40k models.

 Talys wrote:

For example, if you're really excited by tanks jets, giant robots and infantry on a 6x4+ table, there's nothing else.

Well...

I personally think 40k does really well in gaming clubs and basement groups; less well in pickups, and so-so in competitive play with modified rules. It's also a great game for people who just happen to love 40k models.

I'd say that's where the game works best.
But I think that's mainly to do with the balance being so poor it requires a lot of agreements to make it somewhat playable.
The fact that GW's game designers have pushed out anything but casual club type playing isn't a good thing and won't grow the 40k community.

@mwh - well I never said there are no games with giant robots other than 40k

There's no way around it. If you want a game with rules you can dissect and build and compete based on, with factions and units well-balanced against each other out-of-the-box, 40k will NOT be the best game for you. If you want a game where spectacle is important, and the ability to play large and awesome collections is paramount, 40k is probably work well. Go to a GW store, and you'll sew nice looking game tables with nice terrain. There will be a pretty decent percentage of players with reasonably painted models. Go in with a grey army, and you may receive a cold welcome. Go to a figs on malifaux or WMH night, and how the tables look is usually not that key. There's lots of semi or unpainted armies, and the vast majority of tableaus are anything but a spectacle; certainly none of them are large.

It doesn't make any of them a bad game; they're just games targeted at different groups.

Now, like I keep saying, it would be pretty easy to make 40k a *little* better for people who want competitive type play.

 Talys wrote:
@mwh - well I never said there are no games with giant robots other than 40k

There's no way around it. If you want a game with rules you can dissect and build and compete based on, with factions and units well-balanced against each other out-of-the-box, 40k will NOT be the best game for you. If you want a game where spectacle is important, and the ability to play large and awesome collections is paramount, 40k is probably work well. Go to a GW store, and you'll sew nice looking game tables with nice terrain. There will be a pretty decent percentage of players with reasonably painted models. Go in with a grey army, and you may receive a cold welcome. Go to a figs on malifaux or WMH night, and how the tables look is usually not that key. There's lots of semi or unpainted armies, and the vast majority of tableaus are anything but a spectacle; certainly none of them are large.

It doesn't make any of them a bad game; they're just games targeted at different groups.

Now, like I keep saying, it would be pretty easy to make 40k a *little* better for people who want competitive type play.

The only game that I play/have played for which I would claim that it is significantly more likely for my opponents force to be fully painted is X-wing.

 Talys wrote:
@mwh - well I never said there are no games with giant robots other than 40k

There's no way around it. If you want a game with rules you can dissect and build and compete based on, with factions and units well-balanced against each other out-of-the-box, 40k will NOT be the best game for you. If you want a game where spectacle is important, and the ability to play large and awesome collections is paramount, 40k is probably work well.

The problem is... most gamers aren't that black and white. I like a game which is a spectacle, but I also like a game that is competitive, I don't care if I win or lose but I do care that the game is balanced and I don't enjoy spending lots of time balancing it myself (mainly because it's hard to get players to agree on what is and is not balanced) I think most gamers are in the same boat.

So it's not that 40k is good for certain people and bad for other people, it's that it's a mix of somewhat good and somewhat bad for almost everyone, with a few standouts who say it's entirely good for them or entirely bad for them. I'd suggest the latter group isn't a group you'd frequently argue with on the internet forum because they'd have no interest in the game to begin with

The frustrating thing is that 40k is simultaneously so close and so far from being a decent game in both aspects, so close because it wouldn't actually take much work from the developers and so far because GW is utterly uninterested in putting in the small amount of effort to do it.

The other problem is new players aren't going to be able to tell how good or bad a game is in different aspects until they've bought the models and spent a while playing it, by which time they're over invested and cranky that they've paid good money for rules which haven't been refined by the writers.

Go to a GW store, and you'll sew nice looking game tables with nice terrain. There will be a pretty decent percentage of players with reasonably painted models. Go in with a grey army, and you may receive a cold welcome. Go to a figs on malifaux or WMH night, and how the tables look is usually not that key. There's lots of semi or unpainted armies, and the vast majority of tableaus are anything but a spectacle; certainly none of them are large.

You're describing local quirks, not features of specific games.

I go to my local GW and at a guess I'd say more than half the armies contain at least some unpainted models, probably a quarter or so of the armies are mostly unpainted and I often come across armies that are almost entirely a sea of grey or a sea of primer. There's only the 1 employee who paints the terrain as well, so sometimes you come across terrain that isn't fully painted as well (there was that city terrain a while back which took him several months to slowly paint up). If I went to the local GW 10 years ago (different staff) it was rare to see unpainted models, the bulk of armies were painted and maybe just the new unit someone had bought recently was unpainted. If I went to the local GW 20 years ago (different staff again) there was never an unpainted model on the table, it was a rule, even if you weren't playing a game and were just working on the painted table and left some of your models on the gaming table the staff would tell you to take it off the gaming table and put it on the painting table or put it away.... there were also a lot of very poorly painted armies in those days

I go to my local club (well, I haven't been there in a few years, maybe it's changed) and it's rare to see an unpainted model. Be it 40k, WMH, LotR, whatever game they're playing, there won't be unpainted figures.

There was a local store which closed down which tended to have a real mix, I don't think people went there for pick ups so much as prearranged games with people they knew, so you tended to see games of painted vs painted or unpainted vs unpainted (compared to the local GW where you often see a fully painted army against a fully unpainted army).

I actually haven't seen anyone playing WMH with unpainted models, but then I've never really sought out the game because it doesn't appeal to me, maybe there's an enclave of non-painters that I haven't run in to.

The only games where I can really say that universally the players reject unpainted models is historic gaming, and again maybe I just haven't met the non-painting historic players, but everyone I have met or even spoken to on the internet who plays a historic game will always paint before they play. EDIT: Actually it may just be WW2 historics, as I'm sure I've seen some older historics being played with blocks of semi-painted troops.

@skink - I agree totally that everyone isn't black or white, which is why players will prioritize aspects, consider their local scene, and ultimately, make a compromise.

Even if 40k is perfect for you, unless you're willing to hire an army of painters or buy a fully painted collection, it's going to be a while before your army remotely resembles what you see in your minds eye.

Remember, this line of discussion started with my response to the assertion that nobody finds the game playable. Just based on the strangers I chatted with today (boxing day, 33% off, yay!), some of whom were walking out with $1000+ of models and books and love the game (much more than me, in terms of the game, at least) this just isn't so.

Most people, I think, would agree the game could be better, but I think a lot of people still enjoy playing it.

Enjoy playing it, invested too much to go away, ignorant of the overall offerings, choosing a bigger player base over a smaller one, been terrified of metal models because of propaganda, enjoying the aesthetics more than the game, preferring the pay to win aspect of GW games over more balanced games, love the lore more than anything, really like a cluttered table with a sea of models over a tactically engaging game, ectr ectr.

There are many reasons why people buy GW games especially 40k, not all are good or valiant, the fact of GWs numbers is the pool of people that do so is shrinking every year without reaching a plateau yet, will this stop before it becomes unsustainable? I don't know does it mean that the game is unsustainable relying only on spectacle and mass of models (either big or many)? I think yes.

Edit also local GW, way too few places have that and most of their customer base has not seen one, let alone play in one local game stores are more sane in not alienating players for not having painted armies especially the ones that rank over 100 models (which is the majority really) and clubs usually have the same mentality too, most GW armies I have seen are either unpainted or in various stages of been partially painted.

@Talys.
In every poll conducted over the last decade or so, the quality of the 40K rules was not in the top 5 reasons why people bought into 40k.
Top 5 reasons.(In no particular order.)
Game Setting.
Art style/minature sculpts.
Range of products (mainly minatures I think but could include hobby supplies?,)
Friends interested in 40k.
Depth of background

Now that does not mean the quality of the rules are not important.its just they are not the things people think about too much when they start a new game.

BUT it is the quality of the rules that keeps people playing the game after the initial appeal has faded a bit.

And this is where the GW corporate management made their biggest mistake IMO. (GW seem to rely on sunk cost fallacy instead?)

They wanted to believe the churn and burn of new customers could sustain them, and forgot about the long term players.(Write rules focusing on short term sales at the expense of long term growth.)

As the churn and burn of new customers has led to falling sales volumes.
Now with the inclusion of new stuff for longer term collectors, new players are priced out some what.

Rather than focusing on new customers OR vets.
Good game development can include both equally, when rules are well written.As they are easy for new players to get to grips with , but give enough tactical depth to keep players interested in the long term

If you break it down into the gamer types I listed, the current rules for 40k only really appeal to those that like the spectacle of larger battle games.(Epic/Apoc)

The gamers who wanted to play RPG small Skirmish play other games instead of Kill team.
The gamers who anted to play smaller games play other games rather than 40k in 40 mins type games.
The gamers who wanted to play larger skirmish /small battle games ,are having a hard time ATM. after the 'compulsory'(as some players see it) inclusion of larger models.And so tend to splinter in to sub groups that wont play each other.

The gamers who wanted to play narrative massive battle games are playing other games instead of Epic.Or are 'muddling through' with 7th ed 40k.

And the players that 'muddling through' with 7th ed 40k are having to used a horribly compromised rule set.
It has been made backward compatible to WHFB 3rd edition rules , (to appeal to WHFB players who were the target audience back in RT days.)
It has had lots of detail removed from the old skirmish core rules in the attempt to speed up play.(And GW kept the stuff that made the damn rules so clunky!)
And then has had lots of special rules patches applied to try to make the fantasy skirmish rules cope with the large battle scifi game.

If 40k 7th ed rules were a car.
It would be a small /large, town/off road, touring/formula one,car,Suitable for trips to the shops family holidays local off road / track days, international competition type driving.
See that appeals to all driver types in theory, the the mess of a vehicle that is made NO ONE WANTS TO DRIVE!!
No matter how nice you think it might look nice parked on your drive way/garage.

I can understand people enjoying the intended game play of 7th ed 40k.
But when you have rules written for the game play . you arrive at it much quicker and without so much 'hassle.'

Which is what most people complaining about 7th ed seem to want?

In summery my issue with 7th ed 40 rule set.
A rule set is supposed to be an instruction set to explain the intended game play to the players of the game.
7th ed 40k has no clearly defined game play , so the rules are just a confused mess as a result.

I hope that helps explain where the issues with the 40k 7th ed are IMO.

I agree the idea of 7th ed 40k is cool.Its just the implementation is awful , IMO.

All I know is that I went to one of the hobby shops that has 40k going on yesterday, figured I'd socialize and watch a game. I have to say, it didn't look exciting or interesting at all. It was IG (sorry, AM haha) versus Dark Angels, not sure of points but had to be high because the Guard player had like 6-7 tanks (4 battle tanks, like 3 transports) and the DA player had a Knight.

Anyways, while I was there the Guard player basically didn't move anything, just shot stuff across the board and rolled a lot of dice, then I think the Deathwing had a Drop Pod land behind him and I presume (I left around this time) carved him up.

In all honesty, it didn't look engaging or exciting and the players both didn't sound like they were enjoying it, at least not in the way I've seen people enjoy other games. It was very... bland is the best word I can describe it. The terrain was cool (had all of these laser-cut MDF ruins), but I mean just watching it I could see myself not enjoying it the way I was seeing it unfold.

A friend of mine who used to play 40k (not with me) and I were talking about it, and he was saying I just have nostalgic memories about the game that's preventing me from seeing how it really is; after watching that game I kind of agree because it did not look fun, interesting, or engaging in any way at all to my eyes.

That's me, and I'm not denying that others might find their games engaging and fun, but it didn't look like something I'd even remotely care about, and as I've stated before the miniatures alone aren't enough to entice me because ultimately I want a game to play, not figures to collect and sometimes play a game with them. Right now, 40k doesn't seem to offer enough in the game department (if it ever did, but I don't want to get into that argument), and the figures alone aren't enough to compensate for not having a good game surrounding it.

So once again, likely for good this time (there's a chance someone might offer to run an actual 40k demo for me in the coming weeks, in which case I'd agree just to experience it instead of only watching), time to shelve 40k and fondly remember the GW that was, not the GW that is.

PsychoticStorm wrote:Enjoy playing it, invested too much to go away, ignorant of the overall offerings, choosing a bigger player base over a smaller one, been terrified of metal models because of propaganda, enjoying the aesthetics more than the game, preferring the pay to win aspect of GW games over more balanced games, love the lore more than anything, really like a cluttered table with a sea of models over a tactically engaging game, ectr ectr.

There are many reasons why people buy GW games especially 40k, not all are good or valiant

Exalted. I've seen these rationalisations too many times before. It creates an impression of fear, not just of metal models, but other games. Gaming insecurities, which GW may or may not have fostered or set loose, but which they seem to lean on these days.

Lanrak wrote:its just they are not the things people think about too much when they start a new game.

Well, starting 40K, anyway.

the current rules for 40k only really appeal to those that like the spectacle of larger battle games.(Epic/Apoc)

The gamers who wanted to play narrative massive battle games are playing other games instead of Epic.

Wait, what? Are you presenting Epic as an example of a bad large battle game?

 Vermis wrote:

the current rules for 40k only really appeal to those that like the spectacle of larger battle games.(Epic/Apoc)

The gamers who wanted to play narrative massive battle games are playing other games instead of Epic.

Wait, what? Are you presenting Epic as an example of a bad large battle game?

By the looks of it he is and has just lost many credibility points for doing so.
Epic was an amazing massed battle game and actually gave one a feel of, well, epic engagements. Titans and other Super Heavies felt right there unlike in 40K where it feels like someone has taken a crowbar and some grease and forced them in with a few wallops of a hammer,

@master of ordinance - Epic was a fine game. I had always said that if Epic could be translated directly into 28mm scale, I would be very happy, because I didn't enjoy painting tiny models that you couldn't paint much detail on.... and boom... giant models in 40k. Hence, me being one of those that like 40k with giant models (and little models too). If only I owned a massive enough table to play it

I do agree that Epic was a better *game* for playing that scale than 40k, in almost every way that matters. The thing is, in terms of the hobby, the kits are really important, because I spend way more time modelling than playing. I didn't really enjoy Epic models very much and I have a ton more fun with 40k kits. Secondly, I like the look of modern 40k on the tabletop more than Epic, and this is a very important factor for me as a wargamer.

Without models I'm *really* attached to, I'd just much rather spend my gaming time on computer games, which is something that I also very much enjoy.

@Lanrak - like I said, no question, 40k could have better rules. I just don't think it's unplayable, and it's very enjoyable to some of us who do play it, to the point where it's more enjoyable than other games. Would it be better with some tweaks? Yes, I think so.

I don't see how you can say that 7e doesn't have clearly defined game play. I think it's pretty clear, and there are campaign scenarios if you want it further defined. Now, I do believe that that because of the potential arsenal of 40k, designing a game scenario to play makes a much more enjoyable game than random deployment and a random battle. It's like, if you have a game where there are bikers with chains, policemen with pistols, cartel members with assault rifles, army soldiers with tanks, and the airforce with smartbombs *all potentially in the same game*, everything can make for great games, but everything can't be good together, at the same time. Throw them all into an open field, and a thousand bikers with chains charging a single Abrams will all die a horrible death. It doesn't mean the two units can't ever be in the same game successfully, though.

I think 40k is a lot like this: because the environment extremely open ended and has models as destructive as a Warlord and as puny as a grot, while it's technically possible to have them both in the same game, it's usually not really productive. If you follow the fluff, one member of the Custodes or Astartes could best an entire legion of normal humans. One of the Primarchs could essentially dodge ten thousand bullets (or just walk through them) and use a pocket knife to slay an army. But what fun would that be to play on the tabletop, if both sides don't have access to something similar? It all makes it so that it's less ideal a game for pickup gamers, and points-centric competitive types.

The real question for GW would be, what is the formula for churn -- encouraging people to keep buying hundreds of dollars of models and books every year and not losing any of the vets to boredom -- while being an attractive game for new players. Is it even possible to make a game to pleases a ton of people AND makes GW a ton of money in an ongoing fashion?

@Talys.
I am sure you and your friends enjoy YOUR VERSION of the 40k rules.
The way you chose to interpret /adapt the rules to get the game play you want.

So please define the game play of 7th ed as described by GW plc in the 40k 7th ed rule book..
And specify the pages and quote the designers notes that tell you this.
Or cite the game mechanics and resolution methods used to confirm this is the only game play people can associate with the 40k rules.

(Objective assessment of what is actually in the 40k rules please. )

My point is many players can say their opinion of what game play 40k should have, is supported by some parts of the rule book /codex books.
And many of them can be completely different to each other!

That is why 40k has not got clearly defined game play.

It is much better to have 3 or 4 great games in the same setting than one big mess people have to try to sort out themselves .

There is a fantastic game lurking somewhere in 40k. Actually, there are many potentially excellent games to be had with the current model range and background.

1) a 10-20 model, 2d6 based skirmish game. Think war machine without warcasters. High complexity, low model count.

2) 30k... Just letting forge world run it completely.

3) competitive/pick up and play 40k. Use the basic core of rules, streamlined and balanced. Keep a lot of the rules crunch, but simply get over the fear of roll modifiers.

4) apocalypse! Include rules for everything, but make the game fully unit based rather than model based. Keep models for wound trackers and to calculate attacks and shots, but base all shooting, melee and saves on the unit.

I'd play most, if not all of those games!

 Polonius wrote:
There is a fantastic game lurking somewhere in 40k. Actually, there are many potentially excellent games to be had with the current model range and background.

1) a 10-20 model, 2d6 based skirmish game. Think war machine without warcasters. High complexity, low model count.

2) 30k... Just letting forge world run it completely.

3) competitive/pick up and play 40k. Use the basic core of rules, streamlined and balanced. Keep a lot of the rules crunch, but simply get over the fear of roll modifiers.

4) apocalypse! Include rules for everything, but make the game fully unit based rather than model based. Keep models for wound trackers and to calculate attacks and shots, but base all shooting, melee and saves on the unit.

I'd play most, if not all of those games!

As would I!

 Talys wrote:
The real question for GW would be, what is the formula for churn -- encouraging people to keep buying hundreds of dollars of models and books every year and not losing any of the vets to boredom -- while being an attractive game for new players. Is it even possible to make a game to pleases a ton of people AND makes GW a ton of money in an ongoing fashion?

Yes. GW seems to be operating on the false assumption that supporting veterans / competitive gamers would lead to diminishing returns as they have already purchased everything they need in their army. This is a very damaging assumption as in all other systems, having a strong rule system that supports veterans / competitive gamers just leads to players owning multiple armies when they have purchased everything they need in their army. GW was more interested in shoo-ing the greybeards out the door in favor of someone new who would have to climb the increasingly steep cost of entry... retention be damned.

Will have to see if they've changed that mindset. With the high prices attached to the new releases aimed at "enthusiasts", yet necessary to compete in the game, it looks like GW is burning the candle at both ends. That sort of thing isn't sustainable and usually doesn't end well.

 Talys wrote:
Go to a figs on malifaux or WMH night, and how the tables look is usually not that key. There's lots of semi or unpainted armies, and the vast majority of tableaus are anything but a spectacle; certainly none of them are large.

You probably shouldn't try to pass off gak you make up as fact. It's more than a little dishonest.

@Lanrak - our version of 7e rules is basically everything printed in BRB, current codices, campaigns, imperial armor, stronghold assault, black library, white dwarf or dataslates that originates from GWHQ (which would include things like skyhammer). Also experimental FW. Essentially, as permissive as possible to allow players to use whatever neat thing GW publishes.

That being said, we are a very reasonable and cooperative bunch. If someone wants to play terminators holding down a fortification, we will make that happen, and the opposing battleforce will be roughly equivalent, if not points equivalent. Of it turns out badly, we'll do it again with force adjustments. Nobody would play decurion vs dark eldar without a handicap. Someone might want to try out a super powerful list: no problem, someone else will take them up on it, also with a very strong list. If there's a disagreement that can't be easily resolved, a third person makes the call and everyone continues happily. You get the idea.

Mostly, we're guys that love minis and enjoy the chance to war game with them with friends every couple of weeks or so.

@keezus - keep in mind that out of all of GW's competitors, probably PP and FFG are the only companies that have made any serious profit. When you look at Mantic, for instance, they're like, 3% or smaller than the size of GW. And many people in the WMH world are unhappy with creep over there as the game matures, the rate of new players/ne faction purchases slow, and PP tries to get more money out of its playerbase.

It's worthy of discussion, I think, how to get someone to spend more on your game as it ages. Another faction sounds great, 'til you see GW veterans with 6+ armies and WMH veterans with 4+ armies. At some point, people have bought all the factions that they're interested in, and companies like GW and PP would prefer their fans NOT try other companies' games, as it's hard to get someone back once the fall in love with something else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chumbalaya wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Go to a figs on malifaux or WMH night, and how the tables look is usually not that key. There's lots of semi or unpainted armies, and the vast majority of tableaus are anything but a spectacle; certainly none of them are large.

You probably shouldn't try to pass off gak you make up as fact. It's more than a little dishonest.

I'm only stating my observations in terms of modelling. YMMV, but definitely, my observations over 2+ decades is that the GW crowd is more adamant about painted armies and culturally rewards awesomely painted spectacles more.

In any case it is factual that malifaux and WMH are not played on large tables. The games aren't made for it, and if you long to play on a 8x12, don't bother. Likewise, if your perfect game is on a 4x4, or you want to get to tour game on transit or a bike, 2000pt 40k will probably suck.

Well, if we're doing appeals to authority, in my 2+ decades of observations, you get people who like painting armies, and those that don't.

I've only seen 40K players turn up with lbs of unpainted grey plastic in ziplock baggies though.

@Az - there's no doubt that there exist players in all games who enjoy painting armies and those who don't.

Part of it may hail back to the gaming groups around my area from the 80s (when GW was the only show in town) -- in those, you HAD to paint your models, or you weren't allowed to field them. Newer gaming groups for other games OR 40k generally don't have this requirement, but like I said, it's just a gaming culture thing I've observed, and other people may have other experiences.

I can't say I've ever seen anyone bring a 40k army in ziplock bags (though grey armies certainly abound).

Its quite simply really, GW enforced it because they wanted to sell their other products, its been more than a decade now that they withdrew all their support form everywhere, no tournament organizer, or club, has any incentive to enforce such destructive rules and since it is not enforced, why bother?

@Talys.
Please do not think for one moment I am trying to say you should not buy into 40k as you can not enjoy playing games in the 40k setting.Its obvious some people still do.And there is fun to be had, IF you put enough time and effort into digging it out of the kludge.

My point is the confused mess of rules and higher cost of entry , have put many people off 40k.And the lack of game play focus is part of this problem.

40k 7th ed,tries to appeal to everyone , and ends up being an over complicated mess.
And so people wanting a particular type of game play are often better served by another rule set that just gives them what they want 'out of the box'.

40k could and should in my opinion, be split into 4 basic game play types with their own separate rules focus,

1)Competitive skirmish for new players. Balanced for random pick up game in stores.
The 'easy in' for new players.

2) Campaign books to support more narrative games using the skirmish rules.
The support for narrative play and all the weird and wacky stuff that messes up balance for pick up games.

3) Competitive battle game, suitable for random pick up games at larger organised events.

4) Campaign books to support more narrative play with the larger wacky stuff that messes up balance for random pick up games.

This way there is clear definition in the type of game players want .And like minded players can gather round the focus they like best.

If this was done properly,all current 40k game play could be served in easily identifiable packets, the customers could navigate and explore at the pace they find comfortable.

And would make a nice change from GW sales departments current influence.

@Lanrak - I agree completely that if 40k had different rulesets to appeal to different groups, that would help tremendously.

Definitely having a smaller game mode that's somewhere between Kill Team (which is really restrictive) and everything-goes-bring-your-ten-titans 40k would be great.

And don't get me wrong, either: I think there are serious balance issues between most pre- and post-2015 factions, and internal balance makes it so that half the GW collection is very unappealing in game choice terms, unless your opponent is understanding (which is hard if you're strangers). I think that *small* corrections here could make a tremendous difference, and I hold out hope that as the factions get updated, they'll at least externally be balanced to the 2015 levels.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Well, if we're doing appeals to authority, in my 2+ decades of observations, you get people who like painting armies, and those that don't.

I've only seen 40K players turn up with lbs of unpainted grey plastic in ziplock baggies though.

It's just local groups have different trends. I believe Talys when he said *in his experience* 40k people tend to paint their stuff.... but it has NOTHING to do with 40k and EVERYTHING to do with that specific local community.

40k promotes seas of grey plastic as much if not more than other games simply because of the sheer size of the army you need to paint.

There's definitely nothing special about 40k in that regard.

The only games which, IMO, genuinely foster a community of painting are historics.

 Polonius wrote:
There is a fantastic game lurking somewhere in 40k. Actually, there are many potentially excellent games to be had with the current model range and background.

1) a 10-20 model, 2d6 based skirmish game. Think war machine without warcasters. High complexity, low model count.

2) 30k... Just letting forge world run it completely.

3) competitive/pick up and play 40k. Use the basic core of rules, streamlined and balanced. Keep a lot of the rules crunch, but simply get over the fear of roll modifiers.

4) apocalypse! Include rules for everything, but make the game fully unit based rather than model based. Keep models for wound trackers and to calculate attacks and shots, but base all shooting, melee and saves on the unit.

I'd play most, if not all of those games!

That is all. (Except for 30k. 30k bores me to death).

 Polonius wrote:
There is a fantastic game lurking somewhere in 40k. Actually, there are many potentially excellent games to be had with the current model range and background.

1) a 10-20 model, 2d6 based skirmish game. Think war machine without warcasters. High complexity, low model count.

2) 30k... Just letting forge world run it completely.

3) competitive/pick up and play 40k. Use the basic core of rules, streamlined and balanced. Keep a lot of the rules crunch, but simply get over the fear of roll modifiers.

4) apocalypse! Include rules for everything, but make the game fully unit based rather than model based. Keep models for wound trackers and to calculate attacks and shots, but base all shooting, melee and saves on the unit.

I'd play most, if not all of those games!

Someone actually did that over on Lead Adventure by converting the Infinity ruleset. It's really god damn good.

Massacre of the Chaplains