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.

40k has been a beer and pretzels game for me as long as I've been legally allowed to purchase and consume alcohol. Before then, it was simply a pretzels game

I do agree with the sentiment I've seen around that 7th ed is a rough time for a beginner - I've been at this game for over a decade and I can't keep track of all the formations and supplements and new units in 7th. It's frankly kinda nuts. I'd really like a 3rd ed-style cleanup and streamlining, as we're at 2nd ed levels of bonkers now.

40k has been called a 'beer and pretzel game'for as long as GW could use this as an excuse to hand wave away poor game development and shoddy rules writing.

Most true 'Beer and Pretzel' games have rules that fit on one side of A5 paper.(Pass the Pigs , Zombie Dice etc.)

When a rule set has more pages of rules than detailed combat simulation games, calling it a 'beer and pretzel' game is a massive stretch at best and a down right lie at worst.

40k is a beer and pretzels game. And it's a bad one at it.

Most things defined as beer and pretzels have about 25% the rules volume as 40k. 40k is far too complicated now to play in an extremely casual manner. Now a game like One Page 40k? That's a beer and pretzels game, and better for it.

Hell, I'd go so far as to say that beer and pretzels games by their very nature do not need pages-long Errattas and FAQ's.

I started off at the end of 2nd and my group enjoyed it so much that we refused to move on to 3rd and 4th. It just seemed too much had been lost in those editions. We did finally convert when 5th came out. I actually find 5th to be my favorite edition. It was by no means perfect, but is seems to be the best mix of simplicity and playability we have seen. 2nd, while enjoyable, just took too long to play. I have been out of the hobby for a couple of years, but am just starting to get back in and teaching my son to play. After taking a look at 7th, I have decided to start him off in 5th. Will stick with that until 8th comes out and make a decision.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The game doesn't know what it wants to be aside from a sales mechanism.

It's not a B&P game, it's not a competitive tactical combat game, and it's certainly not a very good "pickup" game.

It tries to encompass the detail of a skirmish game with things like challenges and different blade types on power weapons but then stuffs things like Titans, air-to-air combat engagements, and tank formations with whole companies of infantry on top of that granularity. It's got rules detail suited best for RPG's and Skirmish games while increasingly wanting to play at what really should be a 10mm Epic scale.

Ultimately, it's a mess is what it is.

Its a mess because its all chucked on the table together. 40k has the potential to be great, but not as a pick-up game where one side is a skirmish but one is a tank battalion. But if the two sides discuss and agree on the style of game then its great. Its great because a single ruleset allows you to make tiny 500pt skirmish forces led by a Scout Sergeant vs a master Eldar Ranger, or huge battles of dozens of tanks, and now even Titan vs Titan warfare, all within a single rulebook and ruleset. Its just when the two clash the issue flares up.

I enjoyed 5th edition.

Super heavies, fliers, and gargantuan creatures stayed in Apocalypse games.

Everyone followed the CAD.

No unbound lists.

Much fewer supplements.

Wound allocation shenanigans could be annoying (looking at you, Nobs!) but I'll take it all back!

 Deadshot wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The game doesn't know what it wants to be aside from a sales mechanism.

It's not a B&P game, it's not a competitive tactical combat game, and it's certainly not a very good "pickup" game.

It tries to encompass the detail of a skirmish game with things like challenges and different blade types on power weapons but then stuffs things like Titans, air-to-air combat engagements, and tank formations with whole companies of infantry on top of that granularity. It's got rules detail suited best for RPG's and Skirmish games while increasingly wanting to play at what really should be a 10mm Epic scale.

Ultimately, it's a mess is what it is.

Its a mess because its all chucked on the table together. 40k has the potential to be great, but not as a pick-up game where one side is a skirmish but one is a tank battalion. But if the two sides discuss and agree on the style of game then its great. Its great because a single ruleset allows you to make tiny 500pt skirmish forces led by a Scout Sergeant vs a master Eldar Ranger, or huge battles of dozens of tanks, and now even Titan vs Titan warfare, all within a single rulebook and ruleset. Its just when the two clash the issue flares up.

Except 1 ruleset to rule them(whether scale or time) all never works. Style of battles always change so rulesets should change to reflect that.

There's reason no-one has made one ruleset that works for everything yet...

@Deadshot.
The 'Jack of all trades master of none' approach is not working out that well for 40k or GW.

When GW sales team let the game developers get on with developing a wide range of games that appealed to a wide range of customers. GW experienced its largest period of growth.

After the sales team tried to make one 40k rule set cover everything from detailed skirmish to epic battles,( to replace the 3 separate rule sets.)
40k and GW have suffered continues drop in sales volumes year on year.

So GW need to pick the scale and scope of the game 40k is supposed to be , and re-write the rules focusing on that particular game play requirement.

A big book of cool sounding ideas that you have to sort out your self is not what most gamers expect a rule book to be...
(As no other company but GW sell you the easy stuff , and leave out the difficult stuff like provable levels of game balance, and coherent well defined game play! )

tneva82 wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The game doesn't know what it wants to be aside from a sales mechanism.

It's not a B&P game, it's not a competitive tactical combat game, and it's certainly not a very good "pickup" game.

It tries to encompass the detail of a skirmish game with things like challenges and different blade types on power weapons but then stuffs things like Titans, air-to-air combat engagements, and tank formations with whole companies of infantry on top of that granularity. It's got rules detail suited best for RPG's and Skirmish games while increasingly wanting to play at what really should be a 10mm Epic scale.

Ultimately, it's a mess is what it is.

Its a mess because its all chucked on the table together. 40k has the potential to be great, but not as a pick-up game where one side is a skirmish but one is a tank battalion. But if the two sides discuss and agree on the style of game then its great. Its great because a single ruleset allows you to make tiny 500pt skirmish forces led by a Scout Sergeant vs a master Eldar Ranger, or huge battles of dozens of tanks, and now even Titan vs Titan warfare, all within a single rulebook and ruleset. Its just when the two clash the issue flares up.

Except 1 ruleset to rule them(whether scale or time) all never works. Style of battles always change so rulesets should change to reflect that.

There's reason no-one has made one ruleset that works for everything yet...

Well they have, its called 40K. When the players are in the same mindset for what type of game they want. If they have agreed beforehand that they want a huge battle representing an all out war and are on the sae page with regards to Superheavies and Flyers and that stuff, its great. And if both are happy to take a few scout-type squads and fight a small insurgence force battle, its great. But when one guy pulls up with his "Quick Response Imperial Guard Recon Force" consisting of Rough Riders, a few Chimeras with Infantry and a few Scout Sentinels, and runs into a full decked out Eldar Warhost with a giant Wraithknight, what would you expect to happen? The style of the battle makes no difference to the core rules of WS, BS, etc, unit types, Move Shoot Assault. That stuff always stays the same as they are the core of the game. 40K is a narrative game, as the FORGE THE NARRATIVE keeps trying to press they are trying to make things work like fluff. So in the fluff if 4 tactical squads and an Autocannon Predator come up against a Titan, they are fethed. As it should be.

I actually can't believe I'm saying this, but what is needed is either; "Superheavies cannot be used in games below 2000pts without agreement of all players."

Or the two players simply discuss the scenario. 500pts? Ok, I'll bring a knight and 2 small support units and you can bring your anti-Titan squads and we'll fight a battle.

 Deadshot wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The game doesn't know what it wants to be aside from a sales mechanism.

It's not a B&P game, it's not a competitive tactical combat game, and it's certainly not a very good "pickup" game.

It tries to encompass the detail of a skirmish game with things like challenges and different blade types on power weapons but then stuffs things like Titans, air-to-air combat engagements, and tank formations with whole companies of infantry on top of that granularity. It's got rules detail suited best for RPG's and Skirmish games while increasingly wanting to play at what really should be a 10mm Epic scale.

Ultimately, it's a mess is what it is.

Its a mess because its all chucked on the table together. 40k has the potential to be great, but not as a pick-up game where one side is a skirmish but one is a tank battalion. But if the two sides discuss and agree on the style of game then its great. Its great because a single ruleset allows you to make tiny 500pt skirmish forces led by a Scout Sergeant vs a master Eldar Ranger, or huge battles of dozens of tanks, and now even Titan vs Titan warfare, all within a single rulebook and ruleset. Its just when the two clash the issue flares up.

The problems with this are legion however. The game doesnt handle any of these different scales well in their own right, the game's fundamental mechanics have the detail for a skirmish game but are built on the unit funcionality of a company level wargame (i.e. unit vs unit not model vs model) and then tries to further apply such unwarranted granularity to things like Titans. If you're looking for a skirmish game, there are far better rulesets. If you're looking for a Titan vs Titan game, there are far better rulesets. If you're looking for tank company vs tank company combat, there are far better rulesets. If the only advantage to 40k is that you can do all of these with ine ruleset, but none work together well, whats the point?

Additionally, GW has been going out if its way to mash these different scsles together instead of keeping them separate to make the issue even worse. The different scales clash all the time and GW goes out of its way to encourage that.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The game doesn't know what it wants to be aside from a sales mechanism.

It's not a B&P game, it's not a competitive tactical combat game, and it's certainly not a very good "pickup" game.

It tries to encompass the detail of a skirmish game with things like challenges and different blade types on power weapons but then stuffs things like Titans, air-to-air combat engagements, and tank formations with whole companies of infantry on top of that granularity. It's got rules detail suited best for RPG's and Skirmish games while increasingly wanting to play at what really should be a 10mm Epic scale.

Ultimately, it's a mess is what it is.

Its a mess because its all chucked on the table together. 40k has the potential to be great, but not as a pick-up game where one side is a skirmish but one is a tank battalion. But if the two sides discuss and agree on the style of game then its great. Its great because a single ruleset allows you to make tiny 500pt skirmish forces led by a Scout Sergeant vs a master Eldar Ranger, or huge battles of dozens of tanks, and now even Titan vs Titan warfare, all within a single rulebook and ruleset. Its just when the two clash the issue flares up.

The problems with this are legion however. The game doesnt handle any of these different scales well in their own right, the game's fundamental mechanics have the detail for a skirmish game but are built on the unit funcionality of a company level wargame (i.e. unit vs unit not model vs model) and then tries to further apply such unwarranted granularity to things like Titans. If you're looking for a skirmish game, there are far better rulesets. If you're looking for a Titan vs Titan game, there are far better rulesets. If you're looking for tank company vs tank company combat, there are far better rulesets. If the only advantage to 40k is that you can do all of these with ine ruleset, but none work together well, whats the point?

Additionally, GW has been going out if its way to mash these different scsles together instead of keeping them separate to make the issue even worse. The different scales clash all the time and GW goes out of its way to encourage that.

Except those are 3 different rule sets. GW's advantage is that its a single ruleset applied across the entirely of the game. In Titan level battles that level of detail makes it fun as it feels model vs model. You can play model vs model as well, simply remove the unit coherency rule. The 40K ruleset is flexible in that way.

GW have gone out of their way to mash those styles for money. Titans weren't selling because people felt they were "add-ons" to the main game and so many didn't play them alongside the whole "FW isn't legal in games" debacle. They through these in to say "yes they are, play them, buy them." But ultimately its up to the players to do things their way. GW is closer to old style GMed RPGs like D&D in that sense, that an actually competitive ruleset. In fact they were founded by the same guys who originally wrote the Wizard of Firetop Mountain series of RPG books, who always encouraged fun over a hard ruleset.

On top of that, ever remember the complaints way back in 5th and before where all these different playstyles were seperate and it cost 50 for the rulebook, 50 for the FW IA book, 40 for Apocalypse, and 400+ for the models.

7th Ed is a master tome. Its "here's the core rules for all possible units in the game, go buy she codex for specific rules." Its certainly not "Here's every rule in the game you must use them all or suffer eternal damnation." Just talk with your opponent what you want to play, I'm putting anecdotal first hand experience down here to say that a 10 minute conversation before list-writing to discuss what you both want to play makes things immensely more fun.

You don't even need a 10 minute conversation. Pick a point level and if you aren't optimized it is your own fault.

While I can understand GW's desire to increase sales by removing the restrictions on massive-scale units, I fear the side effect may be a decrease in the player population overall. That sort of attempt at general appeal that leaves an increasing number of people unsatisfied. Especially when the investment for 40k is so great, the game doesn't seem to be in any sort of sustainable position. Then again, that's probably part of why GW believes 7th edition is a lame duck (per sad panda).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You don't even need a 10 minute conversation. Pick a point level and if you aren't optimized it is your own fault.

Not everyone wants to optimise though. 40K is a broad game able to do everything from competitive play down to "let's create X novel on the tabletop."

@Accolade
I can understand why they feel that given the vast majority of players on forums are angry competitives mad at something just to be mad because their style of play didnt rolfstomp every player.

 Deadshot wrote:


Except those are 3 different rule sets.

The problem is that they're not, it's one ruleset trying to be all three, but just being poor at everything.

GW's advantage is that its a single ruleset applied across the entirely of the game.

Except the different scales dont interact together well at all and other games do each aspect better, thats not a great advantage.

In Titan level battles that level of detail makes it fun as it feels model vs model.

the game is very poor at dealing with such battles. The rules are written from the perspective of infantry, and using infantry centric rules for battles between non infantry mega vehicles is very clunky.

You can play model vs model as well, simply remove the unit coherency rule. The 40K ruleset is flexible in that way.

anything is flexible if you intentionally alter the rules. That said, this breaks down very rapidly once you get beyond a very small number of models, as actions still really are built around unit vs unit combat, and most models and weapons are as well, and this makes infantry functionality on is own both clunky and time consuming.

GW have gone out of their way to mash those styles for money. Titans weren't selling because people felt they were "add-ons" to the main game and so many didn't play them alongside the whole "FW isn't legal in games" debacle. They through these in to say "yes they are, play them, buy them." But ultimately its up to the players to do things their way. GW is closer to old style GMed RPGs like D&D in that sense, that an actually competitive ruleset.

and the problem here is that the rules, particularly things like missions and force creation, are still built around a pickup/competitive style of gaming (just very poorly) with little or no attempt at GM or narrative functionality.

In fact they were founded by the same guys who originally wrote the Wizard of Firetop Mountain series of RPG books, who always encouraged fun over a hard ruleset.

Yes, though almost none of those guys remain, and of any that do remain none are involved with game design any longer.

On top of that, ever remember the complaints way back in 5th and before where all these different playstyles were seperate and it cost 50 for the rulebook, 50 for the FW IA book, 40 for Apocalypse, and 400+ for the models.

aye, though now we have 60+ books instead of 20. The big issue is that instead of trying to keep everything in proper scale and adapting mission, army construction, and core rules to fit everything in nicely, they just used preexisting mechanics to try and encompass additional scales of play that just dont fit.

Having rules that allow for the occasional inclusion of a Knight or Baneblade in a company level wargame is one thing. Trying to adapt comoany level wargaming to cover entire Knight armies while simultaneously trying to encompasse skirmish aspects like Challenges and what type of blade a powerweapon has, just doesnt work very well.

7th Ed is a master tome. Its "here's the core rules for all possible units in the game, go buy she codex for specific rules." Its certainly not "Here's every rule in the game you must use them all or suffer eternal damnation." Just talk with your opponent what you want to play, I'm putting anecdotal first hand experience down here to say that a 10 minute conversation before list-writing to discuss what you both want to play makes things immensely more fun.

which is nice when youre playing with close pals on tight gaming groups. This doesnt work so well with pickup gaming or leagues or tournaments or other events. If you show up for game night with a casual fun list and your opponent brought a Knight army, neither player likely has the ability to change their army enough to make for a fun game, they usually just didnt bring the models to change it up, and thats assuming at least one is willing to change what they brought to play in a style they werent looking for when they showed up.

 Deadshot wrote:
Well they have, its called 40K.

Yes you CAN play whatever. Badly. That's the point. It's BAD ruleset except for up to company size if that game.

You want to play huge apoc scaled battles 40k rulesystem creaks up. It's not designed for that. You don't simulate large battle by throwing up more models in platoon scale rules. With that big games attention turns from individual squads and characters to platoon and companies.

You should be looking game more akin to epic. Not 40k.

One ruleset trying to cover up every base JUST DOESN'T WORK. Lot more talented game designers than at GW have tried that for DECADES. It's flat out impossible.

 Deadshot wrote:

I can understand why they feel that given the vast majority of players on forums are angry competitives mad at something just to be mad because their style of play didnt rolfstomp every player.

I believe GW, like any other company, looks at the success of the game based on sales. Their image of the game certainly isn't based on opinions of the Internet.

 Deadshot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You don't even need a 10 minute conversation. Pick a point level and if you aren't optimized it is your own fault.

Not everyone wants to optimise though. 40K is a broad game able to do everything from competitive play down to "let's create X novel on the tabletop."

@Accolade
I can understand why they feel that given the vast majority of players on forums are angry competitives mad at something just to be mad because their style of play didnt rolfstomp every player.

I bring Tyberos a lot to games. That argument doesn't work on me here, or for TCG's I used to play (MTG and Yugioh).

You always have the option to do what you want. Tyberos dies a lot but I like using him anyway.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:


Except those are 3 different rule sets.

The problem is that they're not, it's one ruleset trying to be all three, but just being poor at everything.

GW's advantage is that its a single ruleset applied across the entirely of the game.

Except the different scales dont interact together well at all and other games do each aspect better, thats not a great advantage.

In Titan level battles that level of detail makes it fun as it feels model vs model.

the game is very poor at dealing with such battles. The rules are written from the perspective of infantry, and using infantry centric rules for battles between non infantry mega vehicles is very clunky.

You can play model vs model as well, simply remove the unit coherency rule. The 40K ruleset is flexible in that way.

anything is flexible if you intentionally alter the rules. That said, this breaks down very rapidly once you get beyond a very small number of models, as actions still really are built around unit vs unit combat, and most models and weapons are as well, and this makes infantry functionality on is own both clunky and time consuming.

GW have gone out of their way to mash those styles for money. Titans weren't selling because people felt they were "add-ons" to the main game and so many didn't play them alongside the whole "FW isn't legal in games" debacle. They through these in to say "yes they are, play them, buy them." But ultimately its up to the players to do things their way. GW is closer to old style GMed RPGs like D&D in that sense, that an actually competitive ruleset.

and the problem here is that the rules, particularly things like missions and force creation, are still built around a pickup/competitive style of gaming (just very poorly) with little or no attempt at GM or narrative functionality.

In fact they were founded by the same guys who originally wrote the Wizard of Firetop Mountain series of RPG books, who always encouraged fun over a hard ruleset.

Yes, though almost none of those guys remain, and of any that do remain none are involved with game design any longer.

On top of that, ever remember the complaints way back in 5th and before where all these different playstyles were seperate and it cost 50 for the rulebook, 50 for the FW IA book, 40 for Apocalypse, and 400+ for the models.

aye, though now we have 60+ books instead of 20. The big issue is that instead of trying to keep everything in proper scale and adapting mission, army construction, and core rules to fit everything in nicely, they just used preexisting mechanics to try and encompass additional scales of play that just dont fit.

Having rules that allow for the occasional inclusion of a Knight or Baneblade in a company level wargame is one thing. Trying to adapt comoany level wargaming to cover entire Knight armies while simultaneously trying to encompasse skirmish aspects like Challenges and what type of blade a powerweapon has, just doesnt work very well.

7th Ed is a master tome. Its "here's the core rules for all possible units in the game, go buy she codex for specific rules." Its certainly not "Here's every rule in the game you must use them all or suffer eternal damnation." Just talk with your opponent what you want to play, I'm putting anecdotal first hand experience down here to say that a 10 minute conversation before list-writing to discuss what you both want to play makes things immensely more fun.

which is nice when youre playing with close pals on tight gaming groups. This doesnt work so well with pickup gaming or leagues or tournaments or other events. If you show up for game night with a casual fun list and your opponent brought a Knight army, neither player likely has the ability to change their army enough to make for a fun game, they usually just didnt bring the models to change it up, and thats assuming at least one is willing to change what they brought to play in a style they werent looking for when they showed up.

You misunderstood, I was referring to the supposedly superior systems for tank, titan and infantry level combat. Three different rules systems, whereas 40k is one.


They aren't supposed to, that's what I'm saying, but te option is there for organise play where everyone knows the score, instead of a 2Troop/HQ TAC for pick up. Its a not a TAC game.


I've done Titan vs Titan (4 Warhounds and Reaver vs equivilent in Stompas) it works very well its very fun. 90% of "this works this doesn't" is anecdotal and based in local meta.

There's 60+ books but 40 of those are optional supplements. The core rules are contained in 1 rulebook and 1 codex. Everything else is optional.


Again, that's why I recommend that 10 minute discussion. Having that felxibility to move between 1v1 intricacy with different types of power weapons, challenges, or have a zoomed out wider battle between platoon or company level forces is great. Trying to stuff it all is the issue. Unbound exists to allow you that flexibility, but has this dirty reputation due to ability to spam competitive units.


That is unfortunate, but again, its not hard to solve. The other day I met another player using Dakka's player finder. Just said "looking for a game, nothing super competitive just fun and fluffy" and he wrote back "I'm your guy." I played a decent but not competitive Blood Raven force, he played an Amoured Infantry IG list including a Malcador of all things. It was great. But before that I was forced to play a pickup game (as I was early) against a Angels of Death White scars force including the tooled up Storm Shield grav gun Command Squad and a Librarius Conclave on bikes with Invisibility. Vs my pickup list. It was horrendous. But the game we had arranged was sctually fun and enjoyable because it was arranged and organised. Its not exactly difficult to make a Facebook page and post up "Looking to come to game night, bringing a competitive Knights list." Or "No thanks, I like to play fluffy it would be one-sided affair." 40K is as simple as having a 5 minute chat beforehand.

There are some issues, psychic powers and vehicles and powerful vs weak units. CSM are certainly shafted at every corner. But scale of the game is certainly not an issue from anything I've experienced, and 40k has taken up more than half my life.

If you tried to do the same with transport vehicles as GW have done with the game rules you would see how bad it really is.

If you had the front of a motorbike and the back end of a coach with airplane wings bolted on top.

Is it as fast and maneuverable as a motorbike?
No

Is it as good at getting larger amounts of people efficiently across long distances over land as a dedicated coach?
No

Is It as good at moving large amounts of people very long distances efficiently like a jet plane?
No.

But you can pretend it is a super good vehicle, for pretending you have the very best at everything.(As long as you ignore the motorbikes coaches and jet planes other people make.... )

i loved the orks in 2ed, hopsplat guns, were lots of fun and jam dice (all armies) made the game fun. i never saw a army destroyed on turn one, but guess it could be done. saves were weaker and everyone had crazy stuff in the wargear cards. hand to hand was harder than 7 ed i think. but 2ed terrain and position of model on board mattered more. all in all i would say the big advantage 2ed had over 7th is the limited amount of buy a new model and get a op unit. more balance in 2ed i think. it also seemed the attitude of players then was different than now. today's new player seems more concerned with winning.

5th was the closest thing we've ever had to a tournament ruleset.

Early 6th was good too.

Lanrak wrote:
40k has been called a 'beer and pretzel game'for as long as GW could use this as an excuse to hand wave away poor game development and shoddy rules writing.

Most true 'Beer and Pretzel' games have rules that fit on one side of A5 paper.(Pass the Pigs , Zombie Dice etc.)

When a rule set has more pages of rules than detailed combat simulation games, calling it a 'beer and pretzel' game is a massive stretch at best and a down right lie at worst.

This^^ GW is a liar and all you dan boys need to wake up!