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.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Honestly, many of the people here sound like the type I wouldn't step near a table they were at. The absolutism is pretty abundant and the authoritarian perspectives are everywhere. I'd show up with a milk-toast shoddy GK level custom codex that they would wipe up easily, but it brings a smile to me to simply play my custom force... and they would refuse because it isn't GW written... all the while complaining at how GW writes only the worst of the worst for rules.

Also, didn't 40k start off as a narrative game, not a balanced competitive PvP game?

it absolutely did. It's good that people are comparing it to D&D because it's worth noting GW effectively got it's start lisencing D&D out in the UK. so I suspect a lot of their design team ahs a RPGesque approuch.

as For D&D's cost it really depends what you want from it. thing is the main cost of 40k is the miniatures. something that for D&D is optional (and could even have similer costs if you say... decided to use AOS Ork minis for your d&d Orks)


when you factor in the costs they're not that majorly differant just for the rules books.

Your average D&D group has a cost of: 1 DMG (shared), 1 Beastary (shared) and 1 PHB per player (sure sometimes people share em but most vetern D&D players like to have their own book handy) plus any supplements you might desire. yet again, if you wanna use a class option from the sword coast adventurer's guide you proably end up buying it yourself.
In addition there may be third party supplements/additions ou are forced to purchase. for example the last time I ran a D&D game I opted to go for a low fantasy game set in middle earth, as such I purchased Cubical 7's Adventure's In middle earth players guide and loremasters guide (people looking to run low magic games BTW should check that out)

so yes, on a purely rules front, D&D is more or less on par with 40k in terms of whats needed. it can be cheaper, but on the other hand if you're DMing the cost of BOOKS for d&d can actually EXCEED the cost of books for 40k.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Slayer I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part but you really are coming off like a selfish ass who doesn't care about anything but your own enjoyment with the way you're wording some of those statements...

I play the game to relax, not to negotiate with my opponent on what's okay and what's not. Only 40k has THAT many issues for a pickup game and the fact that people are DEFENDING this is inexcusable.

Dude every game has that problem. If one person brings a strong tournament list, deck etc and the other person brings a weak list, deck etc the second person gets stomped. That is true for 40k, MTG, warmahordes, infinity, AOS, etc.

Talking to your opponent before a pick up game is important for all these games.

Sorry but MtG and Warmahordes/Machine at minimum do not have that issue. That's basically lying, even WITH the multiple formats MtG has.

I can't speak for Infinity but based on what I've seen in the SF bay area this issue doesn't apply to AoS. So no, you don't know what you're talking about.

Whatever dude. Unlike you I have played all those games and the basic story is the same. All choices are not made equal and the fanbase of every game complain about certain models being OP or too weak. The level of balance issues vary from game to game but they are always there. These issues are not unique to 40k.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Slayer I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part but you really are coming off like a selfish ass who doesn't care about anything but your own enjoyment with the way you're wording some of those statements...

I play the game to relax, not to negotiate with my opponent on what's okay and what's not. Only 40k has THAT many issues for a pickup game and the fact that people are DEFENDING this is inexcusable.

Dude every game has that problem. If one person brings a strong tournament list, deck etc and the other person brings a weak list, deck etc the second person gets stomped. That is true for 40k, MTG, warmahordes, infinity, AOS, etc.

Talking to your opponent before a pick up game is important for all these games.

Sorry but MtG and Warmahordes/Machine at minimum do not have that issue. That's basically lying, even WITH the multiple formats MtG has.

I can't speak for Infinity but based on what I've seen in the SF bay area this issue doesn't apply to AoS. So no, you don't know what you're talking about.

Whatever dude. Unlike you I have played all those games and the basic story is the same. All choices are not made equal and the fanbase of every game complain about certain models being OP or too weak. The level of balance issues vary from game to game but they are always there. These issues are not unique to 40k.

I have played Warmahordes too, and while the issues aren't unique to 40k, 40k has the worst that I've seen in any game.

Any of you guys watch Tabletop Tactics? It's good that there's a 3rd party involved in the game, to help arbitrate and manage the game. There's even video review to help keep everyone honest!

Some players might want to win on their list building and not on the tabletop, but a good arbitrator will not approve of a clear mismatch. They'd look at the lists and veto anything that's going to be a curbstomp. Lots of things affect balance -- terrain, player skill, mission format, scaling and skew lists, etc.

The best balance tool is going to be humans who are playing the game. Those who choose not to use it, were not interested in balanced play in the first place!

Yoyoyo wrote:
Any of you guys watch Tabletop Tactics? It's good that there's a 3rd party involved in the game, to help arbitrate and manage the game. There's even video review to help keep everyone honest!

Some players might want to win on their list building and not on the tabletop, but a good arbitrator will not approve of a clear mismatch. They'd look at the lists and veto anything that's going to be a curbstomp. Lots of things affect balance -- terrain, player skill, mission format, scaling and skew lists, etc.

The best balance tool is going to be humans who are playing the game. Those who choose not to use it, were not interested in balanced play in the first place!

Because new players who literally CAN’T make a different list can get stuffed, right?

Why not just balance the armies without points?

Yoyoyo wrote:
Why not just balance the armies without points?

Again, new players get stuffed?

Because I, having played 40k for years now, can probably guestimate what makes a balanced list. New players? Hell no.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Then you play to the best of your ability and army limits and take the time to explore new facets. GK has a 43% win rate, so hyperbole about never winning or the game being unplayable because of some imaginary social contract is a bit silly.

It was deliberately hyperbolic, because that's how a new player will think if they lose 5 or 6 times in a row. That's where the imbalance issues come into effect. Us veterans can understand that unit choices, strategy, and sometimes just plain old bad luck have a lot to do with whether we win or lose, but newer players are just gonna see that the models they think are cool keep getting beaten and immediately think "I picked wrong."

Also, it bears mentioning that tournament W/L percentages rarely translate as well to the FLGS scene. In tournaments, players often take "the best" units they can and are usually veteran players. So, while GK may have an 43% win rate in tournaments, it's gonna be with just a handful of unit choices and an experienced player backing them. A new player, or even just a less experienced one, just buying, painting, and playing the units they think are cool will likely not have the same success.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Again, new players get stuffed?

Because I, having played 40k for years now, can probably guestimate what makes a balanced list. New players? Hell no.

Well, yes! But I guess that's why it's important to cultivate communities that care about player experience, and feeling you have a fair shot on the table is a part of that.

At the end of the day, GW is a publicly traded company. Their primary responsibility is to their shareholders. When players run out in droves to purchase unbalanced models that increase their chances to stomp an unprepared opponent, that sends a message that unbalanced rules work. So in this sense? The financial imperatives of the company and the experience of the player are at odds. It's frustrating to see but not even GW's balance team can override the execs. So everything else to preserve an acceptable experience has to be done player side.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Honestly, many of the people here sound like the type I wouldn't step near a table they were at. The absolutism is pretty abundant and the authoritarian perspectives are everywhere. I'd show up with a milk-toast shoddy GK level custom codex that they would wipe up easily, but it brings a smile to me to simply play my custom force... and they would refuse because it isn't GW written... all the while complaining at how GW writes only the worst of the worst for rules.

Also, didn't 40k start off as a narrative game, not a balanced competitive PvP game?

I'd love to play against your custom rules. I'd also love to play a game that didn't force players to rewrite the rules to have a good time, but if you don't mind the fact that you have to rebuild 40k for a bunch of stuff to work it's great.

Its really hard to get too low win % in a tournament setting due to how people are matched in the lower rankings after a few games.

GK might have 42% win rate overall but most of those are probably against BA/DA/SW if against marines and not the new codex marines since IH dont even lose enough to get to the lowest 20% of the rankings to face GK in round 3-5. You usually have the worst players and the worst list/armies duking it out at the bottom and thats the only reason gk isnt dropping lower. I bet if you had gk play against only the top lists of the new Marines, Imperial soup, eldar flyers, tau, ork and GSC their win rate would be much much much lower than 40%. Its the same reason even a very strong army have trouble reaching much above 55% unless its totaly broken. They will face off against the other top lists mostly and that will even out their win %.

An army with 55% overall vs an army with 45% overall isnt gonna be a fair match even if it might look like it would be a 55/45 split in win chance. But in practice its more likely to be a 80/20 or even 90/10 advantage and only reason it isnt higher is due to the chance the worse army might get first turn and roll hot and still win. If it were a best of 3 though it might be closer to a 95/5 advantage to the stronger list.

The above 50% win rates are against the strongest lists/opponents while the sub 50% are against the weaker so each % difference between top and bottom is a much larger strength difference than what it might see.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Honestly, many of the people here sound like the type I wouldn't step near a table they were at. The absolutism is pretty abundant and the authoritarian perspectives are everywhere. I'd show up with a milk-toast shoddy GK level custom codex that they would wipe up easily, but it brings a smile to me to simply play my custom force... and they would refuse because it isn't GW written... all the while complaining at how GW writes only the worst of the worst for rules.

Also, didn't 40k start off as a narrative game, not a balanced competitive PvP game?

I'd love to play against your custom rules. I'd also love to play a game that didn't force players to rewrite the rules to have a good time, but if you don't mind the fact that you have to rebuild 40k for a bunch of stuff to work it's great.

most games that have been around awhile tend to have a collection of common house rules I've found. using a table top gaming example, Battletech has a rule that allows you to make a through armor critical hit, offically according to the rules this is only ever on the center torso, but a common house rule is "floating crits" where after you roll a TAC you roll for location. It's not part of the offical rules (last I checked) but it's used so often even many of the writers use it at their home games. (thought I'd give an example of another wargame. one whose rules are almost universlly agreed to be pretty solid)

 AnomanderRake wrote:
"Perfect balance" is a fiction. Tournament balance isn't a good benchmark. JNA is describing here exactly what the flaw in 40k is: two new players decide they're going to start 40k. They go out and buy armies (Iron Hands v. GK in this analogy). They start playing games. The GK player gets steamrolled 100% of the time, gets pissed off, and quits.

This is an undesirable outcome.

Whose fault is it? Is it the GK player's responsibility to buy a new, stronger army? Is it the Iron Hands player's responsibility to buy a new, weaker army? Or should it be GW's responsibility to make sure that random people just starting their game in good faith don't run into trap options and feel pressured to buy models they don't like because the ones they do like have trash rules?

I thought about this the other day and I think the best (and in practice most viable) solution would be to balance the Start Collecting! boxes as close to each other as possible, given the current ruleset when they were released. We need a common ground for balance to be able to provide it in the first place.

I mean think about it. If both players just pick three random boxes to start their army (HQ, troop and X), then one could end up with a Dreadknight Grand Master, 5 Strikes and a Stormraven, while the other guy brings IFF, 10 Primaris and a Land Speeder Storm. Without knowing the rules by heart, I tried to pick a combination where the GK player should be winning most of the time with ease. I think this is a situation that can come up in any game where not every unit/card/whatever is balanced against each other and not one unique to Warhammer.

If the tables turn around with an increasing collection and both notice that Iron Hands are in general much stronger than Grey Knights, out of courtesy and friendship, the Iron Hand player could play a different chapter against his friend. Unless the GK player insists that your Marines need to use the correct color scheme to use different rules

a_typical_hero wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
"Perfect balance" is a fiction. Tournament balance isn't a good benchmark. JNA is describing here exactly what the flaw in 40k is: two new players decide they're going to start 40k. They go out and buy armies (Iron Hands v. GK in this analogy). They start playing games. The GK player gets steamrolled 100% of the time, gets pissed off, and quits.

This is an undesirable outcome.

Whose fault is it? Is it the GK player's responsibility to buy a new, stronger army? Is it the Iron Hands player's responsibility to buy a new, weaker army? Or should it be GW's responsibility to make sure that random people just starting their game in good faith don't run into trap options and feel pressured to buy models they don't like because the ones they do like have trash rules?

I thought about this the other day and I think the best (and in practice most viable) solution would be to balance the Start Collecting! boxes as close to each other as possible, given the current ruleset when they were released. We need a common ground for balance to be able to provide it in the first place.

I mean think about it. If both players just pick three random boxes to start their army (HQ, troop and X), then one could end up with a Dreadknight Grand Master, 5 Strikes and a Stormraven, while the other guy brings IFF, 10 Primaris and a Land Speeder Storm. Without knowing the rules by heart, I tried to pick a combination where the GK player should be winning most of the time with ease. I think this is a situation that can come up in any game where not every unit/card/whatever is balanced against each other and not one unique to Warhammer.

If the tables turn around with an increasing collection and both notice that Iron Hands are in general much stronger than Grey Knights, out of courtesy and friendship, the Iron Hand player could play a different chapter against his friend. Unless the GK player insists that your Marines need to use the correct color scheme to use different rules

the problem is SC boxes are designed to be a value deal of around 100 bucks to start a new army. some armies simply provide more "bang for your buck" I mean, let's take some extreme examples here, Imperial Guard vs Custodes.
Custodes effectively get a start collecting box in a custodian guard box, giving 1 HQ, 1 troop and 1 elite if you build em that way.
this is a points cost of about 400 points or so. Meanwhile, Imperial Guard gives you 1 Lemen Russ, 1 Comissar, 1 guard squad, and a HWT, this is about 300 points. for a box that costs roughly twice as much but is still honestly a deal. (total price of the contents of the box: 18 USD for the Comissar, 35 dollars for the guard squad, 55 for the Lemen russ, and... you can't get a single HWT normally. for a total value of just over 110 bucks.) these are extreme ends of the deal, custodes don't even have a SC box due to their elite nature combined with the Custodian Guard box effectively acting as one, but it serves to illustrate that you can't balance starter armies unless you do some weird pricing so every unit has an approx same price to points ratio.

 Blood Hawk wrote:


I can't speak for Infinity but based on what I've seen in the SF bay area this issue doesn't apply to AoS. So no, you don't know what you're talking about.

Whatever dude. Unlike you I have played all those games and the basic story is the same. All choices are not made equal and the fanbase of every game complain about certain models being OP or too weak. The level of balance issues vary from game to game but they are always there. These issues are not unique to 40k.

totally worth it

fair play.

 reds8n wrote:
totally worth it

fair play.

Thanks for posting that - a powerful, poignant, humourous and ultimately human message.

Karol wrote:
AoS tried it, and it almost died because of it.

Well there's no reason not to use points when they work. It's valuable to have a baseline and it's fun to min-max and theorycraft. Plus I think players usually benefit from constraints in a design sense. But if it still won't work on the TT to have a fun game, you can defang a mean list by bringing in more overcosted units and forfeiting things like mono-faction bonuses. That's "balancing wiithout points" even if technically it's a more mixed approach. Because evidently those bonuses are not reflected accurately -- as a living breathing human, you can take a much more qualified and granular approach.

Like for example, what's the value of an assault army on a board with perfect LOS blocking terrain, average terrain, and no terrain whatsoever? This has an effect on gameplay and there's nothing in the unit datasheets that can reflect that.

Karol wrote:

But scale matters. yes MtG can have someone bring a deck worth as much as a car, and someone with a standard deck, even oko, get destroyed turn one. that is not the problem with w40k, and from what I read AoS too. The problem, some armies may always be non valid for tournaments. The real problems start when to play on the most basic of level some faction have to bring tournament lists, because then the whole play what you want with models you like, becomes an illusion. And then it becomes even worse, when even those tournament lists struggle vs basic list made with other books. Now I don't know about all the games listed, but in general if you spend 700$ on standard you get a deck that works, till a nerf at least. If you get 700$ of infinity you get multiple armies, and to some level all of them work. If you get 700$ of GK, you have to go after very specific units and the army is still bad comparing to a lot of other armies. How many trap choices and trap factions are there in other games?

There are a lot of noob traps in games, miniature games are no exception. If what you care about is winning then best practice when starting a new miniatures game is to research the game before hand before making any purchases. If you only buy models based on what looks cool and not what performs on the table you could easily end up with a bad list. A bad list you spent hours assembling and painting. 40k defiantly has this problem but other games do as well.

Wayniac wrote:I have played Warmahordes too, and while the issues aren't unique to 40k, 40k has the worst that I've seen in any game.

I would argue CCGs are worse. There the imbalance is built into the business model. GW may or may not release CA 2019 next month with buffs to GK but I guarantee you that WoTC will keep churning out cards in every set that are hot garbage.

If you only buy models based on what looks cool and not what performs on the table you could easily end up with a bad list. A bad list you spent hours assembling and painting. 40k defiantly has this problem but other games do as well.

my models came pre painted, so I skiped the proces. Still it doesn't really help much that other games have it too. MtG can be played with good enough when sleeved china versions of the card for fraction of the cost of a w40k army. I also have my doubts that a 20 model infintiy army costs 700$ for a casual list.

Like for example, what's the value of an assault army on a board with perfect LOS blocking terrain, average terrain, and no terrain whatsoever? This has an effect on gameplay and there's nothing in the unit datasheets that can reflect that.

Maybe, the biggest impact game wise at least, was that when GW made my army they said it is suppose to play with deep strike and running more then 3 of support options. And non of those things can be done by the army, but the point cost of the options are reflected in the rules and the price per model. I don't mind having a weaker or even weak army, but it should work. What fun is there in playing a melee, psyker anti demon army , when the army is horrible at melee, nothing special at psychic stuff and the worse army to play against demons? if suddenly GK were turned in to an army of doom, but would require spaming of techmarines and tanks it wouldn't feel as bad, but in reality wouldn't it be just different coloured IH then? To use a non GK example, I doubt and orc player would be happy about his army being mostly grut, and I know that csm players aren't very happy that their armies are suppose to include as few csm as possible in them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
totally worth it

fair play.

So to be happy all you need is to have money for projects, friends and not die. Well I guess that is a good advice as any. Kind of doesn't say what you are suppose to do when you don't have new models to paint, because everything is painted or when you don't have any friends.

Karol wrote:
my models came pre painted, so I skiped the proces. Still it doesn't really help much that other games have it too. MtG can be played with good enough when sleeved china versions of the card for fraction of the cost of a w40k army. I also have my doubts that a 20 model infintiy army costs 700$ for a casual list.

Different hobbies have different costs for entering and constantly participating in a meaningful way. Not everybody can participate in every hobby. A friend of mine would like to have a horse but can't afford it. She got a dog and a cat instead and is happy with them.
To be helpful for your comparison: You could start another 40k army with a Kill Team and slowly build from there. Or - and this has to be said - if something else like Infinity is more affordable for you and better balance wise (or at least the cost for another faction so low that you could easily switch if your army gets weak rules), then taking a step back from Warhammer until your financial situation improved is an option to consider.

Karol wrote:
So to be happy all you need is to have money for projects, friends and not die. Well I guess that is a good advice as any. Kind of doesn't say what you are suppose to do when you don't have new models to paint, because everything is painted or when you don't have any friends.

If you want to paint models and all your models are painted, then the obvious thing to do is... to go and buy something to paint I mean what are you expecting here?
From the few posts I read from you over various threads I get the feeling that your local Warhammer community is not the best anyway, so how about reaching out to people via forums? Either on Dakka or websites in your own language. I'm certain there are more than you and the two other guys from the store playing Warhammer in your area.

if something else like Infinity is more affordable for you and better balance wise (or at least the cost for another faction so low that you could easily switch if your army gets weak rules), then taking a step back from Warhammer until your financial situation improved is an option to consider.

Infinity is only an option if he actually has a group there.

Yep, of course. I was mentioning Infinity since Karol brought it up. Any other game system with a community in the area will do

 Blood Hawk wrote:
[

I would argue CCGs are worse. There the imbalance is built into the business model. GW may or may not release CA 2019 next month with buffs to GK but I guarantee you that WoTC will keep churning out cards in every set that are hot garbage.

and at least with 40k if I know something is hot garbage and don't want it I'm not going to have to buy it on the chance I'll get it. If I want Primaris intercessors and assault marines are garbage I don't need to worry about "getting another damned assault marine!"

a_typical_hero wrote:
Yep, of course. I was mentioning Infinity since Karol brought it up. Any other game system with a community in the area will do

It's funny that just about every other mini game has better balance and generally lower buy in cost than 40k yet no one ever thinks to try getting a group to start them. Even other GW games like Necromunda and Blood Bowl are forgotten about.

I think its a perception of making the most of your time. People with jobs or college or young families don't get out a lot so they feel that to make the most of their time they would rather play one 4 hour games than two 2 hour games. Also its just easier to find 40k players, but I have several Malifaux factions and two large Infinity armies and a decent sized board game collection and trying to get people to try new things is still a pain even when I have all the stuff. They just need to show up. I dunno what it is.

It is easier to play console games in one's underpants.

People are like water, for the most part.

40K is hard.
Painting takes time.
Skill takes determination.
None of this has any monetary reward, nor should it imho.

People need two jobs to pay rent.
Or they bought bitcoin at 1dollar and Ether at 10cents.

 Sim-Life wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Yep, of course. I was mentioning Infinity since Karol brought it up. Any other game system with a community in the area will do

It's funny that just about every other mini game has better balance and generally lower buy in cost than 40k yet no one ever thinks to try getting a group to start them. Even other GW games like Necromunda and Blood Bowl are forgotten about.

I think its a perception of making the most of your time. People with jobs or college or young families don't get out a lot so they feel that to make the most of their time they would rather play one 4 hour games than two 2 hour games. Also its just easier to find 40k players, but I have several Malifaux factions and two large Infinity armies and a decent sized board game collection and trying to get people to try new things is still a pain even when I have all the stuff. They just need to show up. I dunno what it is.

well here no one starts other games, because the store owners doesn't let people play stuff he doesn't sell. I like medival looking stuff, knights and stuff like that. I have seen some very nice game of thrones models online, but I wouldn't be able to play the game anywhere even if I had the money to buy in to it right now.
Infinity and 9th age are the only two games, besides cards and board games, being played at my store. Both are very tournament driven, and much smaller then the w40k.

Different hobbies have different costs for entering and constantly participating in a meaningful way. Not everybody can participate in every hobby. A friend of mine would like to have a horse but can't afford it. She got a dog and a cat instead and is happy with them.

That I don't agree. Although in my defence, no one at the store told me that a bad and good army cost often the same in w40k. Plus this was my first hobby, I invested my confirmation money in. Later durning summer my dad told me I shouldn't have started to play w40k, but it was too late then. Right now my budget for anything is under 5$ per month, so the chance of starting anything is close to zero.

From the few posts I read from you over various threads I get the feeling that your local Warhammer community is not the best anyway, so how about reaching out to people via forums? Either on Dakka or websites in your own language. I'm certain there are more than you and the two other guys from the store playing Warhammer in your area.

yes, there is over 26 people playing in store events every month. all people here play the same way. Closest other store are too far for me to go to, but some people from here go there, and it doesn't sound like they use other rules. When I posted questions on polish forums, I got laughed at. Dakka was my 3ed choice, after 4chan.

If you want to paint models and all your models are painted, then the obvious thing to do is... to go and buy something to paint I mean what are you expecting here?

I don't want to paint models, or rather I don't know If I would like to paint models. I do know, that I don't want to spend money on paints and brushs though. I was drawing the conclusion from the article, that to enjoy the hobby painting models is required.

A big issue, as is often stated, is that other games need traction/acceptance. 40k, despite its flaws, is the "safe choice", the gaming equivalent to "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". You can reasonably expect stores to stock the product (or be willing to order it), there to be tables and terrain set up for it, and people to play with.

Not always the case with other games, even if they have better rules. And since gamers as a whole seem to be reluctant to take the first step sometimes, you get a situation where nobody looks at other games because nobody thinks there will be interest, so nobody has intrest in other games because nobody ever talks about them.

Wayniac wrote:
"no one ever got fired for buying IBM".

They get fired after the first maintenance renewal comes in.

God that company is a nightmare.

As far as game systems go it really does depend on who is at your club and has a strong enough personality to change the game played by the majority. Kings of War and 9th Age were great, but they were so bland. Hordes was fun for a bit, but I just hate the models. There isn't a lot else out there with the logistics to support gaming globally.

Wayniac wrote:
A big issue, as is often stated, is that other games need traction/acceptance. 40k, despite its flaws, is the "safe choice", the gaming equivalent to "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". You can reasonably expect stores to stock the product (or be willing to order it), there to be tables and terrain set up for it, and people to play with.

Not always the case with other games, even if they have better rules. And since gamers as a whole seem to be reluctant to take the first step sometimes, you get a situation where nobody looks at other games because nobody thinks there will be interest, so nobody has intrest in other games because nobody ever talks about them.

What happens in the circles I game with is this:
A new game is coming out/one of us sees something. If it piques someones interest they'll look into it a bit further. After that look they'll bring it up to the rest of us. "Hey, have you seen.... What do you think of...."
A recent example of this is Black Seas - a 1700-1800s age of sail ship game. You know, pirates, HMS Victory, Battle of Trafalgar.... Most of the group was pass/meh on it. Two of us were quite interested though (personally I think there's better rules sets for this than what Warlord produces, but....) & another one or two will give it a try (by using borrowed ships - if they like it enough they'l buy their own eventually).
And so I now have a box of tiny plastic ships assembled & in various stages of painting. I HAVE to paint these now as opposed to later as they look pretty poor without their sails/rigging attached & painting them after that step will be A LOT harder.