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 is nothing like an RPG...

I've seen amateur RPGs with tighter rules.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
This isn't an RPG.

It works better if you assume that it kinda is.

40k rules wise does remind me of RPGs a lot. And it definitely isn't designed to be a sport.

Older editions were very much rpg inspired. You could even have a sort of dungeon master for games iirc.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
40K is nothing like an RPG...

It is a bit, and older editions were even more so. Rogue Trader is quite similar to Chainmail, the predecessor of D&D and early Warhammer was most likely inspired by it. They have evolved in different directions over the years, but the shared DNA is still there.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
This isn't an RPG.

It works better if you assume that it kinda is.

40k rules wise does remind me of RPGs a lot. And it definitely isn't designed to be a sport.

Older editions were very much rpg inspired. You could even have a sort of dungeon master for games iirc.

You still can. I've played plenty of narrative games of 40K with a neutral referee or DM who designed the scenario and triggers events to happen as the scenario unfolds and runs the NPCs (civilians, monsters, etc.).

Those games represent a pretty high proportion of my favourite 40K experiences.

 Crimson wrote:
It is a bit, and older editions were even more so. Rogue Trader is quite similar to Chainmail, the predecessor of D&D and early Warhammer was most likely inspired by it. They have evolved in different directions over the years, but the shared DNA is still there.

I'm not talking about the older editions. I'm talking about this edition, and it is nothing like an RPG.

An RPG is cooperative storytelling where groups of players work together for a common goal, shepherded along by another player who runs the story and various other elements. That bears absolutely no resemblance to 40k, which is a game in which two players (and sometimes more than two) use armies to complete objectives and defeat one another.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It is a bit, and older editions were even more so. Rogue Trader is quite similar to Chainmail, the predecessor of D&D and early Warhammer was most likely inspired by it. They have evolved in different directions over the years, but the shared DNA is still there.

I'm not talking about the older editions. I'm talking about this edition, and it is nothing like an RPG.

An RPG is cooperative storytelling where groups of players work together for a common goal, shepherded along by another player who runs the story and various other elements. That bears absolutely no resemblance to 40k, which is a game in which two players (and sometimes more than two) use armies to complete objectives and defeat one another.

When I said that it works better if one thinks that it is kinda like a RPG was referring to that cooperative storytelling aspect. That instead of thinking it is a contest where there is a winner and loser (even though there obviously technically is) one can think it as a means of cooperatively creating a story about a battle unfolding.

 Ishagu wrote:
Let's not nerf the Harlequin vehicles even more, please lol. Most have guns pointing backwards.

Vehicle facings and firing arcs are bad rules in a game like this. They are busy work and book keeping in a game that has lots of models and takes a long time.

They are fine in small, skirmish games however.

They don't have to be. GW is just bad at rules. 360 fire for everything is also a bad rule.

I have never played an rpg where we had to ask how we were handling core mechanics of the game before we played.

 Crimson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It is a bit, and older editions were even more so. Rogue Trader is quite similar to Chainmail, the predecessor of D&D and early Warhammer was most likely inspired by it. They have evolved in different directions over the years, but the shared DNA is still there.

I'm not talking about the older editions. I'm talking about this edition, and it is nothing like an RPG.

An RPG is cooperative storytelling where groups of players work together for a common goal, shepherded along by another player who runs the story and various other elements. That bears absolutely no resemblance to 40k, which is a game in which two players (and sometimes more than two) use armies to complete objectives and defeat one another.

When I said that it works better if one thinks that it is kinda like a RPG was referring to that cooperative storytelling aspect. That instead of thinking it is a contest where there is a winner and loser (even though there obviously technically is) one can think it as a means of cooperatively creating a story about a battle unfolding.

And then you come to the realization the core rules aren't good for story telling!

 AnomanderRake wrote:
How many other games do you play where you need to ask "How are we handling (this strange/nonfunctional bit of the rules)?" every time you play?

That would be almost every game I've ever played. I played my first game of Dungeons and Dragons in grade 3. We take a whole night just to make characters; which classes and supplements are used is a HUGE discussion EVERY time! Greyhawk or Darksun?

Ever play Magic? Ever play emperor style? What are the rules for shuffling between games?

Do you and your opponent choose which track you want to play on and set your options before Mario Cart?

Ever play a game of Monopoly where you didn't set a time limit or victory condition?

Heck, you can't even play checkers without agreeing before the game whether or not you're creating kings for pieces that cross the board. When you play Crazy Eights, does the Queen of Spades make you pick up 5? Can you pile 2's on 2's through a deck reshuffle?

If you play poker, what's the draw? Anything wild?

You sound like a fairly reasonable individual, but I think maybe you underestimate the amount of agreement necessary in just about any game before it begins. That, or perhaps you think it takes longer or is harder to do in 40k; this may even be somewhat justified since the options are spread over a number of different products. I'm not insensitive to your point of view, and certainly the rules could be stronger in the BRB, quite easily. But I think a lot of people here are just genuinely trying to help by suggesting that the tools you need to solve the problem do exist. I know that it's easier to do in a casual environment, and not everyone has that option.

PenitentJake wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
How many other games do you play where you need to ask "How are we handling (this strange/nonfunctional bit of the rules)?" every time you play?

That would be almost every game I've ever played. I played my first game of Dungeons and Dragons in grade 3. We take a whole night just to make characters; which classes and supplements are used is a HUGE discussion EVERY time! Greyhawk or Darksun?

Ever play Magic? Ever play emperor style? What are the rules for shuffling between games?

Do you and your opponent choose which track you want to play on and set your options before Mario Cart?

Ever play a game of Monopoly where you didn't set a time limit or victory condition?

Heck, you can't even play checkers without agreeing before the game whether or not you're creating kings for pieces that cross the board. When you play Crazy Eights, does the Queen of Spades make you pick up 5? Can you pile 2's on 2's through a deck reshuffle?

If you play poker, what's the draw? Anything wild?

You sound like a fairly reasonable individual, but I think maybe you underestimate the amount of agreement necessary in just about any game before it begins. That, or perhaps you think it takes longer or is harder to do in 40k; this may even be somewhat justified since the options are spread over a number of different products. I'm not insensitive to your point of view, and certainly the rules could be stronger in the BRB, quite easily. But I think a lot of people here are just genuinely trying to help by suggesting that the tools you need to solve the problem do exist. I know that it's easier to do in a casual environment, and not everyone has that option.

Most of that is just choosing what game mode or supplement to use. Not compensating for bad rules or design.

 Lance845 wrote:
I have never played an rpg where we had to ask how we were handling core mechanics of the game before we played.

Like points being deployed? Or even which mechanic you were going to use? Seriously, I live in an ITC-heavy area, so that is a VERY important detail to work out, to say nothing of the local 30K crowd.

PenitentJake wrote:
...You sound like a fairly reasonable individual, but I think maybe you underestimate the amount of agreement necessary in just about any game before it begins. That, or perhaps you think it takes longer or is harder to do in 40k; this may even be somewhat justified since the options are spread over a number of different products. I'm not insensitive to your point of view, and certainly the rules could be stronger in the BRB, quite easily. But I think a lot of people here are just genuinely trying to help by suggesting that the tools you need to solve the problem do exist. I know that it's easier to do in a casual environment, and not everyone has that option.

I'm aware tabletop RPGs exist. I'm aware variations exist on the rules of plenty of games.

My point of comparison here is other 1v1 tabletop wargames, particularly Warmachine, Infinity, Xwing, and older versions of 40k (particularly 4e/5e), where I feel like I can build a list to the points limit and play a game with someone else who has built a list to the points limit and have a reasonable game without needing to sit down and negotiate what models we're both using, how the terrain is going to work, or what subtle variations of the rules we're using. I do not have to worry about whether I have to buy $500 of new stuff for my PanO army to have a chance of playing against a Yu Jing army the way I have to worry about whether my Mechanicum can play a game with Space Marines. I do not have to ask people to not bring models they bought, painted, and really like because the existence of the YT-1300 hard-counters the entire Scum faction the way Dominus Knights hard-counter the entire Deathwatch Codex.

I'm aware that I have the social tools to have a more balanced experience of playing 40k. My point is that I find those tools stressful and the fact that I need to be paranoid, second-guess the rules writers, second-guess my opponent's army list, and know the competitive balance of everything to figure out whether or not one of us is going to get tabled in two turns and walk away feeling like crap makes me wish I could trust the rules writers. And I'm tired of the "just fix the game yourself!" argument. I'm aware I can fix the game myself. I know how to fix the game myself. I think the fact that I need to means the rules writers did a really s*** job of writing the game and maybe they could have done a better job.

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
This isn't an RPG.

It works better if you assume that it kinda is.

Try playing an RPG without a DM


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
Ever play Magic? Ever play emperor style? What are the rules for shuffling between games?

Oh, boy, did you pick the wrong game as an example. I don't think there are many games out there that have a rule set as tight as MtG.
Rules for emperor: https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/cr809/
Rules for shuffling: https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/mtr3-9/

Do you and your opponent choose which track you want to play on and set your options before Mario Cart?

My brother and me just start hammering B until we can select characters and have a race on lowest Mushroom Cup. In competitive Mario Cart, players have no influence on the choice of tracks.
The equivalent for WH40k would be deciding on a mission type, game type and a points limit. No one would be complaining about their rules if that is everything you need to do.

Ever play a game of Monopoly where you didn't set a time limit or victory condition?

Yes, all of them. Monopoly is a fully functional game without any changes to the rules.

Heck, you can't even play checkers without agreeing before the game whether or not you're creating kings for pieces that cross the board.

All variants of checkers create kings, just the abilities vary. Then again, all variants rules are functional without any of the players intervening.

If you play poker, what's the draw? Anything wild?

"Playing poker" is very much equivalent to "playing a wargame". Every variant of poker has well-defined rules which require no discussion before the game.

You sound like a fairly reasonable individual, but I think maybe you underestimate the amount of agreement necessary in just about any game before it begins. That, or perhaps you think it takes longer or is harder to do in 40k; this may even be somewhat justified since the options are spread over a number of different products. I'm not insensitive to your point of view, and certainly the rules could be stronger in the BRB, quite easily. But I think a lot of people here are just genuinely trying to help by suggesting that the tools you need to solve the problem do exist. I know that it's easier to do in a casual environment, and not everyone has that option.

Sorry, but not a single game you have listed requires you to fix its rules before the game. All you have to agree on is a variant and game mode and run wild. The criticism of GW's ruleset is more than justified.
Everyone should be able to play a game by agreeing on nothing but using matched play rules and a points limit.

AnomanderRake wrote:
My point of comparison here is other 1v1 tabletop wargames, particularly Warmachine, Infinity, Xwing, and older versions of 40k (particularly 4e/5e), where I feel like I can build a list to the points limit and play a game with someone else who has built a list to the points limit and have a reasonable game without needing to sit down and negotiate what models we're both using, how the terrain is going to work, or what subtle variations of the rules we're using.

Many historical wargames kinda take that for granted, like asking are we playing late or early WW2 or if the other guy would be cool fighting the Afrika Korps with their Russians. As for the older 40k editions, though there were pretty good guidelines for what terrain is what it was still expected that the players go over the table and agree on what counts as 5+ or 4+ cover and so forth.

AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm aware that I have the social tools to have a more balanced experience of playing 40k. My point is that I find those tools stressful and the fact that I need to be paranoid, second-guess the rules writers, second-guess my opponent's army list, and know the competitive balance of everything to figure out whether or not one of us is going to get tabled in two turns and walk away feeling like crap makes me wish I could trust the rules writers. And I'm tired of the "just fix the game yourself!" argument. I'm aware I can fix the game myself. I know how to fix the game myself. I think the fact that I need to means the rules writers did a really s*** job of writing the game and maybe they could have done a better job.

They sure could have, no disagreement. My condolences for having to stress over your gaming, but as the situation stands it is something one needs to adapt to and isn't that unique in the world of gaming.

Jidmah wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
This isn't an RPG.

It works better if you assume that it kinda is.

Try playing an RPG without a DM

Been there, done that, works fine. You are aware that RPG's with a gamesmaster are only one school of thought and there are hundreds of games without one? Stuff like Fiasco, Polaris, Zombie Cinema, Entropy... have a gander here for an example, broaden your horizons: https://doubleninja.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/the-ultimate-big-list-of-gm-less-rpggames/

Traditional games in the vein of D&D aren't the be all end all of roleplaying, even if they are the most often (and badly) represented in the public eye.

Jidmah wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Ever play Magic? Ever play emperor style? What are the rules for shuffling between games?

Oh, boy, did you pick the wrong game as an example. I don't think there are many games out there that have a rule set as tight as MtG.
Rules for emperor: https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/cr809/
Rules for shuffling: https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/mtr3-9/

No they didn't. The discussion of what format to play is just as valid as is discussing do you want to play 40k with narrative or tournament mindset, what terrain rules you use and so forth. In my long experience with Magic, it's also very common to have those rigid format rules subverted, changed and revisioned on the fly by the players at the table when they have a great idea, agree on it and run with it. Modifying ban lists between friends is also a thing that happens all the time.

Jidmah wrote:

Heck, you can't even play checkers without agreeing before the game whether or not you're creating kings for pieces that cross the board.

All variants of checkers create kings, just the abilities vary. Then again, all variants rules are functional without any of the players intervening.

If you play poker, what's the draw? Anything wild?

"Playing poker" is very much equivalent to "playing a wargame". Every variant of poker has well-defined rules which require no discussion before the game.

How does that differ from the situation here? You got the basic game (poker/40k), you decide how you play (for fun or for money, casually or competitively), you decide what format you use (basic poker rules or Texas, basic 40k BRB or CoD) and so forth. That doesn't require the players intervening by designing rules, they just have to pick from the available stuff to suit their tastes. GW offers defined rules, merits of which are debatable by individuals, which can be chosen just the same.

Jidmah wrote:

You sound like a fairly reasonable individual, but I think maybe you underestimate the amount of agreement necessary in just about any game before it begins. That, or perhaps you think it takes longer or is harder to do in 40k; this may even be somewhat justified since the options are spread over a number of different products. I'm not insensitive to your point of view, and certainly the rules could be stronger in the BRB, quite easily. But I think a lot of people here are just genuinely trying to help by suggesting that the tools you need to solve the problem do exist. I know that it's easier to do in a casual environment, and not everyone has that option.

Sorry, but not a single game you have listed requires you to fix its rules before the game. All you have to agree on is a variant and game mode and run wild. The criticism of GW's ruleset is more than justified.
Everyone should be able to play a game by agreeing on nothing but using matched play rules and a points limit.

Why are you arguing that in other games it's okay to first discuss what variant people want to play but in 40k discussing what variant they want to play is bad? You ARE able to play a game by agreeing on matched and points (unless playing with BCB or similar folks who forgot how humans work), even if the result is perhaps subpar for what you wanted.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Why are you arguing that in other games it's okay to first discuss what variant people want to play but in 40k discussing what variant they want to play is bad? You ARE able to play a game by agreeing on matched and points [...], even if the result is perhaps subpar for what you wanted.

You are deliberately comparing oranges to apples here and then tell me that oranges are great for apple pie, even though it tastes like oranges.
All the games listed are perfectly fine to play without any additional rules cooked up by the players, existing rules requiring consent on how to play them and negotiating how to play the game in order to not have it turn into a one-sided curb-stomp despite player skill being roughly the same.

What's equal to all the examples of picking a variant or game more for 40k:
- Open/Matched/Narrative
- Point or power level limit
- Determine mission
- Legends yes/no
- Optional expansions like cities of death, spearhead, etc
All this is perfectly fine to do negotiate before the game.

Additional things you need to do in order to have a game of WH40k
- agree on terrain rules for all terrain on the board
- agree on how larger models interact with scatter terrain, walls and other terrain where their base/hull doesn't fit
- agree on how competitive your army is going to be - the delta between top level IH and one-of-everything nidzilla is large enough to make a multi-hour game non-enjoyable
- agree on how to handle rule mistakes like 55 point neophytes or KFF big meks having no datasheet
- agree on how to handle unclear corner-cases like chain-exploding transports, whether explosions are auras or how to number maelstrom objectives
- agree on how to handle index-only units
This is not fine, and none of the games on the list require you to do anything remotely similar. It's also within GW's power to change all those issues.
They have gotten a lot better at this, and they really hope that one day their rules reach the quality of something like MtG, Poker or Monopoly.
And for that reason, I firmly refuse to accept that anything less is "good enough".

Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

 Sherrypie wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:
My point of comparison here is other 1v1 tabletop wargames, particularly Warmachine, Infinity, Xwing, and older versions of 40k (particularly 4e/5e), where I feel like I can build a list to the points limit and play a game with someone else who has built a list to the points limit and have a reasonable game without needing to sit down and negotiate what models we're both using, how the terrain is going to work, or what subtle variations of the rules we're using.

Many historical wargames kinda take that for granted, like asking are we playing late or early WW2 or if the other guy would be cool fighting the Afrika Korps with their Russians. As for the older 40k editions, though there were pretty good guidelines for what terrain is what it was still expected that the players go over the table and agree on what counts as 5+ or 4+ cover and so forth...

Most historical wargames don't pretend to have a universal pool of cross-balanced army lists that covers all possible things you can take in the game where anything should be played against anything, and most historical wargames don't require us to have a discussion about how the line of sight rules work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

Why are we talking about Monopoly? It's a terrible game.

 Lance845 wrote:
I have never played an rpg where we had to ask how we were handling core mechanics of the game before we played.

Funny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
...You sound like a fairly reasonable individual, but I think maybe you underestimate the amount of agreement necessary in just about any game before it begins. That, or perhaps you think it takes longer or is harder to do in 40k; this may even be somewhat justified since the options are spread over a number of different products. I'm not insensitive to your point of view, and certainly the rules could be stronger in the BRB, quite easily. But I think a lot of people here are just genuinely trying to help by suggesting that the tools you need to solve the problem do exist. I know that it's easier to do in a casual environment, and not everyone has that option.

I'm aware tabletop RPGs exist. I'm aware variations exist on the rules of plenty of games.

My point of comparison here is other 1v1 tabletop wargames, particularly Warmachine, Infinity, Xwing, and older versions of 40k (particularly 4e/5e), where I feel like I can build a list to the points limit and play a game with someone else who has built a list to the points limit and have a reasonable game without needing to sit down and negotiate what models we're both using, how the terrain is going to work, or what subtle variations of the rules we're using. I do not have to worry about whether I have to buy $500 of new stuff for my PanO army to have a chance of playing against a Yu Jing army the way I have to worry about whether my Mechanicum can play a game with Space Marines. I do not have to ask people to not bring models they bought, painted, and really like because the existence of the YT-1300 hard-counters the entire Scum faction the way Dominus Knights hard-counter the entire Deathwatch Codex.

I'm aware that I have the social tools to have a more balanced experience of playing 40k. My point is that I find those tools stressful and the fact that I need to be paranoid, second-guess the rules writers, second-guess my opponent's army list, and know the competitive balance of everything to figure out whether or not one of us is going to get tabled in two turns and walk away feeling like crap makes me wish I could trust the rules writers. And I'm tired of the "just fix the game yourself!" argument. I'm aware I can fix the game myself. I know how to fix the game myself. I think the fact that I need to means the rules writers did a really s*** job of writing the game and maybe they could have done a better job.

Yup.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
My point of comparison here is other 1v1 tabletop wargames, particularly Warmachine, Infinity, Xwing, and older versions of 40k (particularly 4e/5e), where I feel like I can build a list to the points limit and play a game with someone else who has built a list to the points limit and have a reasonable game without needing to sit down and negotiate what models we're both using, how the terrain is going to work, or what subtle variations of the rules we're using. I do not have to worry about whether I have to buy $500 of new stuff for my PanO army to have a chance of playing against a Yu Jing army the way I have to worry about whether my Mechanicum can play a game with Space Marines. I do not have to ask people to not bring models they bought, painted, and really like because the existence of the YT-1300 hard-counters the entire Scum faction the way Dominus Knights hard-counter the entire Deathwatch Codex.

Have you played a WMH game recently? There are numerous ways to play it, unfortunately, trying to get anything besides a Steamroller can be counter-productive, which is considered part of the failure of that game system right now.

I have never had to discuss permission to field a unit in 40K or WMH, just explain what the unit was capable of, a different story.

I have never had to worry about whether I can play a game with my army, the only question was if I could win. One time I had a good shot at winning, but my dice failed me at a very crucial point.

My first Tabletop game was Battletech. Do you know how much WYSIWYG is NOT used there, and so what explanations have to be made then?

$500 will get everything you need in a Pan-O army and make 3 more lists. If I want to just go in to one of the newest Themes for my Mercs, I'll be lucky if I can get by with spending $500, those new units cost almost as much as a Colossal on sale.

40K is hardly alone in these standards.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

Why are we talking about Monopoly? It's a terrible game.

Just like WH40k

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

Why are we talking about Monopoly? It's a terrible game.

Monopoly was designed to be a terrible game to try and convince people of the horrors of rampant capitalism.

 Jidmah wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

Why are we talking about Monopoly? It's a terrible game.

Just like WH40k

40k is a terrible game by accident. Monopoly is a terrible game on purpose.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

Why are we talking about Monopoly? It's a terrible game.

Just like WH40k

40k is a terrible game by accident. Monopoly is a terrible game on purpose.

Maybe I should try and get a game in Monopoly, never played it as it is not very popular here, but now I am curios if it is really that bad

 kodos wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

Why are we talking about Monopoly? It's a terrible game.

Just like WH40k

40k is a terrible game by accident. Monopoly is a terrible game on purpose.

Maybe I should try and get a game in Monopoly, never played it as it is not very popular here, but now I am curios if it is really that bad

It's a god damn slog.

Also the trick to winning is buy everything every time forever. If you have to mortgage property to buy more property, do it.

 kodos wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

Why are we talking about Monopoly? It's a terrible game.

Just like WH40k

40k is a terrible game by accident. Monopoly is a terrible game on purpose.

Maybe I should try and get a game in Monopoly, never played it as it is not very popular here, but now I am curios if it is really that bad

Don't. The basic problem is that whoever wins has won in the first couple of goes around the board, but it takes another four hours for them to actually win. (Also don't play with the Free Parking bonus money rule, I know it's a popular house rule but it just makes the whole thing take longer.)

Personally I hope that 9th edition will be an evolution and not a reset button again. I'd hate to have all my codexes and PA invalidated and have to start from scratch again in an environment where most SM and CSM chapters/ legions are barely distinguishable from one another.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
40k is a terrible game by accident. Monopoly is a terrible game on purpose.

40K is a terrible game by apathy more than accident. It's not hard to make a bad game.

 kodos wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

Why are we talking about Monopoly? It's a terrible game.

Just like WH40k

40k is a terrible game by accident. Monopoly is a terrible game on purpose.

Maybe I should try and get a game in Monopoly, never played it as it is not very popular here, but now I am curios if it is really that bad

Monopoly is a great game if you don’t use the “free parking” house rule, which puts too many funds into the market.