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.

 Lance845 wrote:


40k was born with the game. Rogue Trader was a game before it ever started producing books. The fluff WAS written for the game to sell models and explain armies. Let's not pretend it was ever anything else. It's not like Dragonlance and Drizzit novels are the reason the forgotten realms and dragon lance settings exist. Those books were written to flesh out and supplement the game. Not the other way around.

I am sorry that you are so invested in the one pillar that you take offense to the others not bowing to it.

It was a game born to sell miniatures. GW sold random pewter figures for middle earth, DnD, etc.. before they ever chose to make a "game" to sell the miniatures. Not the other way around.

The rulebooks, codexes, etc.. are just fancy sales pamphlets for the miniatures, paint pots, etc..

I am sorry that you are so invested in that those sales pamphlets that you take offence to the fact that the ad-tail isn't wagging the main-product dog.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


40k was born with the game. Rogue Trader was a game before it ever started producing books. The fluff WAS written for the game to sell models and explain armies. Let's not pretend it was ever anything else. It's not like Dragonlance and Drizzit novels are the reason the forgotten realms and dragon lance settings exist. Those books were written to flesh out and supplement the game. Not the other way around.

I am sorry that you are so invested in the one pillar that you take offense to the others not bowing to it.

It was a game born to sell miniatures. GW sold random pewter figures for middle earth, DnD, etc.. before they ever chose to make a "game" to sell the miniatures. Not the other way around.

The rulebooks, codexes, etc.. are just fancy sales pamphlets for the miniatures, paint pots, etc..

I am sorry that you are so invested in that those sales pamphlets that you take offence to the fact that the ad-tail isn't wagging the main-product dog.

I am not! I am happy for the models to be super intricate and great with options and whatever else makes for an excellent model.

I am so happy that modeling has improved as it has over the years so that modelers and painters have so much more to work with. It's great. No sarcasm. I love it. But over here in the pillar that is the game I don't need to differentiate between a tank top and a leather jacket. It doesn't make the model better. And it arguably actively hurts the game.

 Lance845 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


40k was born with the game. Rogue Trader was a game before it ever started producing books. The fluff WAS written for the game to sell models and explain armies. Let's not pretend it was ever anything else. It's not like Dragonlance and Drizzit novels are the reason the forgotten realms and dragon lance settings exist. Those books were written to flesh out and supplement the game. Not the other way around.

I am sorry that you are so invested in the one pillar that you take offense to the others not bowing to it.

It was a game born to sell miniatures. GW sold random pewter figures for middle earth, DnD, etc.. before they ever chose to make a "game" to sell the miniatures. Not the other way around.

The rulebooks, codexes, etc.. are just fancy sales pamphlets for the miniatures, paint pots, etc..

I am sorry that you are so invested in that those sales pamphlets that you take offence to the fact that the ad-tail isn't wagging the main-product dog.

I am not! I am happy for the models to be super intricate and great with options and whatever else makes for an excellent model.

I am so happy that modeling has improved as it has over the years so that modelers and painters have so much more to work with. It's great. No sarcasm. I love it. But over here in the pillar that is the game I don't need to differentiate between a tank top and a leather jacket. It doesn't make the model better. And it arguably actively hurts the game.

Well not at the scale we are playing at, at any rate. In like, few-on-few gladiator fights (warcry) you could account for such things - or a 1 person = 1 person game like DND.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


40k was born with the game. Rogue Trader was a game before it ever started producing books. The fluff WAS written for the game to sell models and explain armies. Let's not pretend it was ever anything else. It's not like Dragonlance and Drizzit novels are the reason the forgotten realms and dragon lance settings exist. Those books were written to flesh out and supplement the game. Not the other way around.

I am sorry that you are so invested in the one pillar that you take offense to the others not bowing to it.

It was a game born to sell miniatures. GW sold random pewter figures for middle earth, DnD, etc.. before they ever chose to make a "game" to sell the miniatures. Not the other way around.

The rulebooks, codexes, etc.. are just fancy sales pamphlets for the miniatures, paint pots, etc..

I am sorry that you are so invested in that those sales pamphlets that you take offence to the fact that the ad-tail isn't wagging the main-product dog.

I am not! I am happy for the models to be super intricate and great with options and whatever else makes for an excellent model.

I am so happy that modeling has improved as it has over the years so that modelers and painters have so much more to work with. It's great. No sarcasm. I love it. But over here in the pillar that is the game I don't need to differentiate between a tank top and a leather jacket. It doesn't make the model better. And it arguably actively hurts the game.

Well not at the scale we are playing at, at any rate. In like, few-on-few gladiator fights (warcry) you could account for such things - or a 1 person = 1 person game like DND.

Agreed. Necromunda. Killteam. Games that zoom in on the individual much more is where that level of minutia can function as a part of the game and not be a hindrance.

 Lance845 wrote:
And it arguably actively hurts the game.

Only by the design-goals you ascribe to Warhammer 40K (and to Necromunda, etc..).

I don't think you have a good understanding of what type of game, what type of audience GW is trying to get with 40K (and on the other hand with things like Kill Team, Underworlds, etc..).

If anything, it's the latter that want to peel off from the more game-oriented, competitively minded MtG, X-Wing, Infinity, etc.. crowd, while the former ... just doesn't want to do that. And would be the worst possible game in GW's catalog to try doing that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Fortunately the facts of WWII aren't nearly as malleable as the "facts" of 40K.

But this is a deliberate choice on the part of the person (people) writing the facts, and my argument is they should've chosen differently. You can't play a wargame set in lala land where there are no rules and everything is just five year olds on a playground. Only, in this case, the five year olds are the game designers.

"I can shoot you to death with my shuriken weapons!"
"NUH UH, I have two wounds because I'm a SPACE MARINE!"
"Oh yeah? Well every army's weapons are D2 now!"
"Nooo! You can't - oh, my Dreadnoughts reduce all damage by 1, because they're SO LOYAL!!"

Well, yes. 40K needs a unified narrative free of propaganda viewpoints so they can implement mathematical models for these units. But, you know. Gotta sell those marines.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
And it arguably actively hurts the game.

Only by the design-goals you ascribe to Warhammer 40K (and to Necromunda, etc..).

I don't think you have a good understanding of what type of game, what type of audience GW is trying to get with 40K (and on the other hand with things like Kill Team, Underworlds, etc..).

If anything, it's the latter that want to peel off from the more game-oriented, competitively minded MtG, X-Wing, Infinity, etc.. crowd, while the former ... just doesn't want to do that. And would be the worst possible game in GW's catalog to try doing that.

Personally, I don't think GW knows what type of game they are making with 40k. It's such a fething mess.

But claiming I don't know comes with some kind of assumption that you do? Or are you in the same boat as every other person who doesn't work in GWs office? You can try to explain the mechanical benefits of that level of minutia with the models if you want to. I am listening.

SecondTime wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Fortunately the facts of WWII aren't nearly as malleable as the "facts" of 40K.

But this is a deliberate choice on the part of the person (people) writing the facts, and my argument is they should've chosen differently. You can't play a wargame set in lala land where there are no rules and everything is just five year olds on a playground. Only, in this case, the five year olds are the game designers.

"I can shoot you to death with my shuriken weapons!"
"NUH UH, I have two wounds because I'm a SPACE MARINE!"
"Oh yeah? Well every army's weapons are D2 now!"
"Nooo! You can't - oh, my Dreadnoughts reduce all damage by 1, because they're SO LOYAL!!"

Well, yes. 40K needs a unified narrative free of propaganda viewpoints so they can implement mathematical models for these units. But, you know. Gotta sell those marines.

You can preserve the propaganda viewpoint fluff as long as you, yourself, are aware that they're propaganda.

For example, in the 5th edition IG codex, there's a blurb about an air-defense regiment equipped with Hydras that got a kill ratio of 99,999-1 fighting Orks. I don't think anyone, including the game designers, took that number seriously. Simply publishing propagandistic bolter-porn isn't the error; the error is in not having a single unified idea of how the world works.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Fortunately the facts of WWII aren't nearly as malleable as the "facts" of 40K.

But this is a deliberate choice on the part of the person (people) writing the facts, and my argument is they should've chosen differently. You can't play a wargame set in lala land where there are no rules and everything is just five year olds on a playground. Only, in this case, the five year olds are the game designers.

"I can shoot you to death with my shuriken weapons!"
"NUH UH, I have two wounds because I'm a SPACE MARINE!"
"Oh yeah? Well every army's weapons are D2 now!"
"Nooo! You can't - oh, my Dreadnoughts reduce all damage by 1, because they're SO LOYAL!!"

Well, yes. 40K needs a unified narrative free of propaganda viewpoints so they can implement mathematical models for these units. But, you know. Gotta sell those marines.

You can preserve the propaganda viewpoint fluff as long as you, yourself, are aware that they're propaganda.

For example, in the 5th edition IG codex, there's a blurb about an air-defense regiment equipped with Hydras that got a kill ratio of 99,999-1 fighting Orks. I don't think anyone, including the game designers, took that number seriously. Simply publishing propagandistic bolter-porn isn't the error; the error is in not having a single unified idea of how the world works.

Thats' not sufficient. There needs to be a factual narrative somewhere to inform design decisions.

Right, that's what I mean by a unified idea of how the world works. The design team, GW, and the novel writers all need a coherent world to live in.

The novel writers can write bolter-porn novels for people, but to the game designers, core writer team, and GW itself, they're propaganda. So that when another novelist writes, say, a Chaos-themed novel, then it can be propaganda the other way (or a brute and truthful retelling, even). That way, you get deviation and fluctuation in the lore and freedom to write your own stories, but very little of it is "true."

The core inherent way the universe operates is preserved in the aforementioned Unified Idea (now in capitals!), and the game follows that Unified Idea. That way, the universe is balanced on a knife-edge (as the overall narrative has sought to portray things!) and the game is balanced as well, while remaining lore-friendly.

If you Unified Idea has one faction that just trounces everyone, then it's boring narratively AND unbalanced on the tabletop, so don't do that. Duh.

But my SPESS MAHREENS!

The novels can have propaganda in them but the events that takes place cannot be propaganda. It should have the propaganda being broadcasted around. Reports written and filed based on it. But then when the rubber reaches road and the space marines start fighting and taking losses it should reflect the reality of the world. All the amazing genetic and technological advancements is just so they can keep up.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
And it arguably actively hurts the game.

Only by the design-goals you ascribe to Warhammer 40K (and to Necromunda, etc..).

I don't think you have a good understanding of what type of game, what type of audience GW is trying to get with 40K (and on the other hand with things like Kill Team, Underworlds, etc..).

From my perspective, I'm not sure GW has a specific audience in mind really beyond "geeks who like to play with plastic space monsters and toy soldiers", and their rules appear to increasingly be written to try and encompass everyone. 40k's rules are written such that it sells itself as something on a platoon/company level wargame, but encompasses everything from nurglings up through 100ft+ tall titans, wanting to portray entire tank companies in battle and incorporating literal strategic weapons into tactical skirmishes, while also insisting on making stats, and rolling, for individual grot blasters, diving into deep RPG detail and unit abstraction in about the exact opposite direction of what you'd expect from a wargame on platoon/company scale. 40k's design goals appear to basically be a sandbox where anything GW makes from their IP's can be used and have something to roll dice for or influence dice rolls to make it feel special and cool no matter how big or small (or appropriateness to the general scale), with little thought or intent beyond that. As a mechanism for getting people to buy models, that's great. As a game design paradigm, that's not such a great philosophy.

 Lance845 wrote:

Personally, I don't think GW knows what type of game they are making with 40k. It's such a fething mess.

But claiming I don't know comes with some kind of assumption that you do? Or are you in the same boat as every other person who doesn't work in GWs office? You can try to explain the mechanical benefits of that level of minutia with the models if you want to. I am listening.

As said above, whether it has mechanical benefits or drawbacks is of secondary concern.

If 40K is the "show-off-your-miniatures-collection-game" more than the "smooth-game-mechanics-game" (like Underworlds or Kill Team), it has the benefit of advertising different miniatures and provides a reason for people to want both tank-top and leather jacket miniatures in their collection. It harmonises more naturally with the buying habits of people that place higher priority on the "miniature" and "hobby" pillar, as you called them. Whereas there are other games available on GWs website and in the market more generally that cater more and better to people that place higher priority on the "game" pillar, to use your venacular.

And yes, we are in the same boat of not being in a GW office. As explained above, my assumptions are partly based on observing GW trying to make 40K a more streamlined, "game-pillar-game" in 3rd and 4th edition and almost going bankrupt over it. Doesn't make my view "more right", but neither have I seen arguments supporting the idea that the niche GW wants to fill with 40K when they do pie-charts and power-point presentations with their sales team would align with your ideal.

 Vaktathi wrote:
40k's design goals appear to basically be a sandbox where anything GW makes from their IP's can be used and have something to roll dice for or influence dice rolls to make it feel special and cool no matter how big or small (or appropriateness to the general scale), with little thought or intent beyond that. As a mechanism for getting people to buy models, that's great. As a game design paradigm, that's not such a great philosophy.

I've never thought about it that way but you are 100% right on the money. Any time I look at the game from a game design lens, step 1 is trimming the fat off low-level equipment and granular options; things that modelers might expect to have specific rules rather than be baked into a more generic stat profile.

Great. So when I said that emulating the level of minutia that would be a tank top versus a leather jacket would be bad for the game your argument is...

"Probably, but I don't care because I prefer fluff!"

Right? Thats where we are at?

If thats the case then I am happy for you to have your opinion but your opinion is frankly useless for any discussion about the mechanics of the game and what "should be". I.E. this discussion about bespoke datasheets and war gear versus consolidated ones. If you decide to have anything of value to add I am happy to hear it.

 Lance845 wrote:
Great. So when I said that emulating the level of minutia that would be a tank top versus a leather jacket would be bad for the game your argument is...

"Probably, but I don't care because I prefer fluff!"

Right? Thats where we are at?

If thats the case then I am happy for you to have your opinion but your opinion is frankly useless for any discussion about the mechanics of the game and what "should be". I.E. this discussion about bespoke datasheets and war gear versus consolidated ones. If you decide to have anything of value to add I am happy to hear it.

Well, imagine there are two games.

A) One game, something like Underworlds or Blood Bowl, that comes with easy two, max-three part snap-fit miniatures in pre-coloured plastic that can be assembled in minutes. Game also includes a board to play on straight out of the box, has official "organised play" support from GW itself. Rules come in cards or decks, similar to MtG, etc.. that rotate in and out of seasons. Etc..

B) The other game, something like 40K, comes with insanely complicated diorama pieces like the Silent King that by itself cost multiples of most games, is made from hundreds of delicate pieces that takes many hobbyists weeks, if not months to assemble (let alone paint), not to mention myriads of insane details (or "minutia" like tiny repair scarabs on the inside of plastic panels you won't even ever see after the model is fully assembled). To play the game, you also need additional hundred of Euros worth of boxes, construct your own terrain. Not to mention you'll probably need to invest into specialised transport to even move the thing around without breaking, etc..

Looking in from the outside, which one of those two games would be the one most people would consider (or "assume") to be the game for the "I am not super into-painting/hobby and mostly a game-pillar-type-gamer" and which one of those two games would be the game for people "I am obsessed with "minutia" and details hobby-pillar-type-gamers"?

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Great. So when I said that emulating the level of minutia that would be a tank top versus a leather jacket would be bad for the game your argument is...

"Probably, but I don't care because I prefer fluff!"

Right? Thats where we are at?

If thats the case then I am happy for you to have your opinion but your opinion is frankly useless for any discussion about the mechanics of the game and what "should be". I.E. this discussion about bespoke datasheets and war gear versus consolidated ones. If you decide to have anything of value to add I am happy to hear it.

Well, imagine there are two games.

A) One game, something like Underworlds or Blood Bowl, that comes with easy two, max-three part snap-fit miniatures in pre-coloured plastic that can be assembled in minutes. Game also includes a board to play on straight out of the box, has official "organised play" support from GW itself. Rules come in cards or decks, similar to MtG, etc.. that rotate in and out of seasons. Etc..

B) The other game, something like 40K, comes with insanely complicated diorama pieces like the Silent King that by itself cost multiples of most games, is made from hundreds of delicate pieces that takes many hobbyists weeks, if not months to assemble (let alone paint), not to mention myriads of insane details (or "minutia" like tiny repair scarabs on the inside of plastic panels you won't even ever see after the model is fully assembled). To play the game, you also need additional hundred of Euros worth of boxes, construct your own terrain. Not to mention you'll probably need to invest into specialised transport to even move the thing around without breaking, etc..

Looking in from the outside, which one of those two games would be the one most people would consider (or "assume") to be the game for the "I am not super into-painting/hobby and mostly a game-pillar-type-gamer" and which one of those two games would be the game for people "I am obsessed with "minutia" and details hobby-pillar-type-gamers"?

And assumptions are always correct!

If it weren't for Covid, I could get a game of 40k. I couldn't necessarily get a game of Underworlds.

Moreover, I like having customizable armies. Maybe not down to the sergeant's pistol, but hero's gear? That should be mine to pick and choose, in a game like 40k. (Which GW has failed to deliver, at least for my Daemons, in any significant capacity.)

Acknowledging the fact that GW doesn't really care that much about balance, I'd at least like to be able to personalize my army heavily without having to make stuff up. I'd like 40k to be a well-balanced game, but since that's not likely, at least let me deck my Heralds out however I please.

Fundamentally, the problem is that 40k isn't a good game, but has lots of traction because:
1) A pervasive and frankly interesting IP/lore.
2) Popularity and inertia (and therefore accessibility)

 JNAProductions wrote:
And assumptions are always correct!

If it weren't for Covid, I could get a game of 40k. I couldn't necessarily get a game of Underworlds.

Moreover, I like having customizable armies. Maybe not down to the sergeant's pistol, but hero's gear? That should be mine to pick and choose, in a game like 40k. (Which GW has failed to deliver, at least for my Daemons, in any significant capacity.)

Acknowledging the fact that GW doesn't really care that much about balance, I'd at least like to be able to personalize my army heavily without having to make stuff up. I'd like 40k to be a well-balanced game, but since that's not likely, at least let me deck my Heralds out however I please.

You might like 40K to be a highly-balanced game for competitive play and couldn't care less about Underworlds.

And you might be able to catch a competitive ITC 40K game at the FLGS and not be able to get a round of Underworlds to save your life.

But that is your perspective and your hopes/ideals/wishes for 40K.

Unless you have a higher management position at GW, that presumably has no impact on how GW positions their products in their portfolio.


Of course my assumptions don't necessarily have to be correct. But if the shoe fits, why not?

I like myself a good competitive 40K tournament as much as anyone. But that doesn't mean I am blind to the "fact" (or assumption) that this is using 40K somewhat against the grain of its design-DNA (at least compared to things like Underworlds, Infinity, Warmachine, etc... not to mention straight up competitive Chess, etc..).

Sunny Side Up wrote:

A) One game, something like Underworlds or Blood Bowl, that comes with easy two, max-three part snap-fit miniatures in pre-coloured plastic that can be assembled in minutes.

Game also includes a board to play on straight out of the box,

has official "organised play" support from GW itself.

Here is stuff for the 40k grand tournament.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/zzAglnRbz6ZtUyol.pdf

Rules come in cards or decks, similar to MtG, etc.. that rotate in and out of seasons. Etc..

You were saying?

 Lance845 wrote:

You were saying?

Nothing. Seems like the product you're looking for, no?

It has much more streamlined datasheets for the units too, stripped of a lot of "minutia" like strats, chapter tactics, command protocols, all that jazz.

Just play with that.

Everything you were saying was "not 40k" in your "example a" is everything they have produced for 40k. Your idea of what 40k is or is not is just wrong.

Alright, Sunny Side Up. Question:

If 40k is supposed to be all about the minutia and customization, how come my Nurgle Daemons only have 10 options?

That's across all my units.

 Lance845 wrote:
Everything you were saying was "not 40k" in your "example a" is everything they have produced for 40k. Your idea of what 40k is or is not is just wrong.

Everything I said was in example B is also in 40K (but not in the other games).

Not sure how that refutes my point that 40K has thus a stronger pitch to hobbyists/painters/miniature-enthusiasts than Underworlds or Blood Bowl. But if you say so. I am happy to hear your argument why your claim that streamlined mechanics are a design goal for 40K for the people over at Nottingham.

Unlike me, you haven't argued anything yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Alright, Sunny Side Up. Question:

If 40k is supposed to be all about the minutia and customization, how come my Nurgle Daemons only have 10 options?

That's across all my units.

I dont know. Perhaps so there is an army in 40K for people like Lance845 and yourself that appreciate a more austere approach and would be turned away by things like bespoke rules for Catachans vs. Cadians?

Thus far, the argument was that 40K has allegedly too many minutia, now you're saying it has not enough?

Because I am not arguing that they have a goal.

1) I can't know what they want to do. I don't argue assumptions as facts.

2) They don't seem to have any plan at all. Or if they do, they seem to be to disorganized to follow through on it.

You don't have a stronger pitch. You just have your perspective and your wants.

 Lance845 wrote:
Great. So when I said that emulating the level of minutia that would be a tank top versus a leather jacket would be bad for the game your argument is...

"Probably, but I don't care because I prefer fluff!"

Right? Thats where we are at?

If thats the case then I am happy for you to have your opinion but your opinion is frankly useless for any discussion about the mechanics of the game and what "should be". I.E. this discussion about bespoke datasheets and war gear versus consolidated ones. If you decide to have anything of value to add I am happy to hear it.

Respectfully, that is not at all what I meant nor is it, I think, what Vaktathi meant either. We were remarking on why things are the way they are rather than saying this is how it should be; Vaktathi arguing that the messy inconsistencies of 40K are due to an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach to the game rather than an attempt to appeal to a specific target audience.

If it were up to me, I would have framed the gameplay side of the hobby, specifically the 'three ways to play' concept, at different scales of game rather than different rulesets.

You would have the Kill Team level where everything is represented in granular detail and it matters what kinds of grenade your dudes are carrying. Maybe have it still be squad-based like 40K, but with looser coherency requirements and maybe more of a command system for fireteam leaders. The largest scale this could operate at would be the old RT/2nd Ed scale where you might have one tank and that's it.

Then a 40K level, minus the Titans, and with LoWs exceptionally rare and only suited to the largest battles. Abstract out more of the low end of equipment and squad coherency, purging some of those minute differences. If you care whether your sergeant is armed with a power axe or power sword, you play the Kill Team level; this is about armies.

And then an Apocalypse level where infantry are abstracted out into block statlines, formations of vehicles are common, and the big Titans can come out to play.

Or to put it another way: I don't think the problem is 40K trying to give you rules for everything you could model, I think it's trying to give all those rules simultaneously. There are times when I want to simulate my lovingly converted badass characters cutting down mooks in single combat, and there are times when I want to simulate mass infantry assaults supported by superheavy tanks, but those are not the same game. I don't need rules for aircraft in the former, and I don't need rules for individual grenade types in the latter. Focusing on a coherent scale greatly streamlines design.

As long as you can play the smaller-scale games when you want that kind of granularity, but still field those individual models in the more abstract larger-scale games, then you get the best of both worlds. This also allows hobbyists to lean into what scale they care about, rather than try to accommodate the guys who want to convert a band of heroes and the guys who want to field an entire battalion with the exact same game.

 Lance845 wrote:
Because I am not arguing that they have a goal.

1) I can't know what they want to do. I don't argue assumptions as facts.

2) They don't seem to have any plan at all. Or if they do, they seem to be to disorganized to follow through on it.

You don't have a stronger pitch. You just have your perspective and your wants.

I have no wants regarding 40K.

I play the game on the market that fits my personal preference the best. Which atm happens to be 40K.

If 40K moves into a direction that I don't enjoy (or my preferences change), I pick a different game.


You're the one sitting in a McDonalds arguing they should be Pizza Hut because you prefer pizza, instead of just heading over to Pizza Hut.

 catbarf wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Great. So when I said that emulating the level of minutia that would be a tank top versus a leather jacket would be bad for the game your argument is...

"Probably, but I don't care because I prefer fluff!"

Right? Thats where we are at?

If thats the case then I am happy for you to have your opinion but your opinion is frankly useless for any discussion about the mechanics of the game and what "should be". I.E. this discussion about bespoke datasheets and war gear versus consolidated ones. If you decide to have anything of value to add I am happy to hear it.

Respectfully, that is not at all what I meant nor is it, I think, what Vaktathi meant either.

I was responding to Sunny. Sorry catbarf. We were both posting at the same time and you got in first. That being said I agree with your 3 ways to play. It's what I was really hoping for and we didn't get. 3 ways to play was really just 2 ways to build your army and some missions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Because I am not arguing that they have a goal.

1) I can't know what they want to do. I don't argue assumptions as facts.

2) They don't seem to have any plan at all. Or if they do, they seem to be to disorganized to follow through on it.

You don't have a stronger pitch. You just have your perspective and your wants.

I have no wants regarding 40K.

I play the game on the market that fits my personal preference the best. Which atm happens to be 40K.

If 40K moves into a direction that I don't enjoy (or my preferences change), I pick a different game.


You're the one sitting in a McDonalds arguing they should be Pizza Hut because you prefer pizza, instead of just heading over to Pizza Hut.

Welcome to DakkaDakka. It's a website where a bunch of people discuss the state of the game and what they think it should be while asking a lot of "why the hell did they do x". If you are not up for that kind of discusion I am not sure you are going to find much to talk about here.

 Lance845 wrote:


Welcome to DakkaDakka. It's a website where a bunch of people discuss the state of the game and what they think it should be while asking a lot of "why the hell did they do x". If you are not up for that kind of discusion I am not sure you are going to find much to talk about here.

Well, we're discussing, no? I already explained what I think 40K is, tries to be, emphasises, to what type of gamers/hobbyists it tries to appeal to (and thereby currently appeals to me), and why GW should continue to go into that direction with 40K (while simultaneously offering other games that have different qualities and appeal to different gamers).

I found no scarcity of things to talk about so far.

Or in other words, the benefit of ultra-precise datasheets as is the (publicly asked) question of this thread is it's hobby/minutia-focus that is IMO among 40K's core strengths and a big reason I am a 40K-customer atm.