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.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The spectacle is 90% of the game to you. Not to everyone.

Then what else is there? The rules that are a litany of incredibly bad game design decisions, to the point that you could write a game design 101 textbook by sticking a "don't do this" label on the cover of the 9th edition rules? The cunning strategic battle of "who bought a more powerful army"? The fluff, which is completely undermined by playing with dollar store army men and piles of trash for terrain?

The reality is that if 40k was a game of cardboard tokens on a hex grid hardly anyone would have played it and GW would have gone out of business decades ago.

40k is a hot mess, but it still plays. If you can't turn down the competitive mindset enough to have a fun game with friends, or you lack the system knowledge to make a relatively well-balanced list compared to your friends, then yeah, it's gonna suck. But if you can and do, you still get fun games-not necessarily nail biters, but games that can go either way.
The fluff is not undermined by not using proper models. That's a completely nonsensical statement.

Aecus, why does other people playing the game "wrong" matter so much to you? You're not playing with them. You don't seem to even like 40k, so any negative impact on the game itself seems moot.

 JNAProductions wrote:
40k is a hot mess, but it still plays. If you can't turn down the competitive mindset enough to have a fun game with friends, or you lack the system knowledge to make a relatively well-balanced list compared to your friends, then yeah, it's gonna suck. But if you can and do, you still get fun games-not necessarily nail biters, but games that can go either way.

It's not just about balance. Playing less competitively doesn't do anything about the obscene rules bloat, IGOUGO, scale/scope contradictions, shallow strategy, over-reliance on off-table buff cards, etc. Even a perfectly balanced version of 9th edition 40k would be a miserable slog that is only worth it because of the models.

The fluff is not undermined by not using proper models. That's a completely nonsensical statement.

Oh really? You see no difference between playing a game with a fully painted Ultramarines army, using all of the correct (and lore-appropriate!) models with canon paint schemes, and playing the same game with a bunch of dollar store army men?

Aecus, why does other people playing the game "wrong" matter so much to you? You're not playing with them. You don't seem to even like 40k, so any negative impact on the game itself seems moot.

People can do whatever they want. But the claim was made that you can play 40k for $100 and the reality is that you can't. You can only play a miserable pseudo-game with dollar store army men and piles of trash.

and there it is, the post where we inevitably go off topic and start gatekeeping. Oh and might as well start the old "painting is the most important thing ever" debate

Aecus Decimus wrote:
But the claim was made that you can play 40k for $100 and the reality is that you can't. You can only play a miserable pseudo-game with dollar store army men and piles of trash.

My buddies 3d printer + Battlescribe/Whahapedia says you don't know what your talking about.

ccs wrote:
My buddies 3d printer + Battlescribe/Whahapedia says you don't know what your talking about.

"You can play 40k for under $100 as long as you steal all the rules and someone else spends more than $100 on a 3d printer to give you free models."

What's next, talking about how you can play 40k for free as long as you shoplift everything from your local GW?

 JNAProductions wrote:
You can play 40k for pretty cheap. Not with the official models, but if you use stand-ins and just buy the rules, dice, and a tape measure, you can play 40k for maybe $100.
It's not the same as playing with awesome terrain and the real models, but it's still 40k.

Don't be a gatekeeper.

And you can get a 4 x 4 table (in the form of two quarter sheets of plywood) for like $20. $30 for a 6 x 4.

I'll gladly gatekeep people who won't do that.

The Recruit box is $60.
Thats literally all you need to start playing.
No carpentry needed.
You can play on the bed using the board in the box and the terrain.

 Blndmage wrote:
The Recruit box is $60.
Thats literally all you need to start playing.
No carpentry needed.
You can play on the bed using the board in the box and the terrain.

The tiny demo pseudo-game is not a real 40k game.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
The Recruit box is $60.
Thats literally all you need to start playing.
No carpentry needed.
You can play on the bed using the board in the box and the terrain.

The tiny demo pseudo-game is not a real 40k game.

What about the Command box?

Can you define what "a real 40k game" is?

 Blndmage wrote:
What about the Command box?

It's getting closer, but at only ~300 points not really. There are still too few units on the table to have meaningful decision trees and you don't have the complete rules (chapter rules, stratagems, etc). But since that box is $185 (and doesn't include paint or modeling supplies) now you're way past the original claim of being able to play for under $100.

Can you define what "a real 40k game" is?

An absolute minimum of 500 points, preferably 1000-2000 points. Below that you don't have enough decision tree depth for it to be a real game, it's just a rock/paper/scissors game of "can my unit roll enough 4s or better before you roll enough 3s or better" where everyone knows exactly what both sides are going to do with their 1-2 units and all you can do is roll dice to see who wins the scripted event. To use your recruit box example: the assault marines need to charge to win (and probably will if they succeed) and can do little else, the necrons need to shoot and stay out of combat to win and can do little else. The marines will move directly towards the necrons as fast as possible, the necrons will move away as fast as possible while shooting. If the necrons have dice luck on their side early in the pseudo-game they win, if they don't they lose. At no point will any meaningful decisions be made by either player and you don't really even need to bother putting models on the table to "play". Just have each side roll an equal number of D6s and award the win to the player who rolls the most 6s.

I'd probably rather play a skirmish style game, like Kill Team or Infinity, with so few models, but 40k does support it. No reason to say that it's not a real game of 40k. It's not to your taste, but not everything need be.

Have you tried 8th ed style Kill Team before, Blind Mage? I thought it was pretty fun. 100 points each. Has some fun narrative rules for your models, like leveling them up.

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You can play 40k for pretty cheap. Not with the official models, but if you use stand-ins and just buy the rules, dice, and a tape measure, you can play 40k for maybe $100.
It's not the same as playing with awesome terrain and the real models, but it's still 40k.

Don't be a gatekeeper.

And you can get a 4 x 4 table (in the form of two quarter sheets of plywood) for like $20. $30 for a 6 x 4.

I'll gladly gatekeep people who won't do that.

But what if they don't want a honking big 6x4 sheet of plywood lying around their place because it looks scruffy? Just because someone can buy a cheap sheet of wood it doesn't mean its the right answer for someone.

Dudeface wrote:
But what if they don't want a honking big 6x4 sheet of plywood lying around their place because it looks scruffy? Just because someone can buy a cheap sheet of wood it doesn't mean its the right answer for someone.

Making a slightly smaller table with a 5.8x4.8 sheet of plywood is any different? It's not like the material changes just because you make your table fit GW's standard cardboard box size instead of the 6x4 that everyone else uses, a minimum-size 9th edition table made as cheaply as possible is going to look just as scruffy as a 6x4.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
But what if they don't want a honking big 6x4 sheet of plywood lying around their place because it looks scruffy? Just because someone can buy a cheap sheet of wood it doesn't mean its the right answer for someone.

Making a slightly smaller table with a 5.8x4.8 sheet of plywood is any different? It's not like the material changes just because you make your table fit GW's standard cardboard box size instead of the 6x4 that everyone else uses, a minimum-size 9th edition table made as cheaply as possible is going to look just as scruffy as a 6x4.

Because 2k points on 60x44 isn't the only way to play, so maybe a 30x44 piece is more tolerable to some people.

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You can play 40k for pretty cheap. Not with the official models, but if you use stand-ins and just buy the rules, dice, and a tape measure, you can play 40k for maybe $100.
It's not the same as playing with awesome terrain and the real models, but it's still 40k.

Don't be a gatekeeper.

And you can get a 4 x 4 table (in the form of two quarter sheets of plywood) for like $20. $30 for a 6 x 4.

I'll gladly gatekeep people who won't do that.

What if you don't have the space for that?

And why do you want to keep people away from the hobby?

So before this turns into the poors v the Lobster and cake eating crown wearing super rich, I just want to say I started off this hobby in 7th with poker chips (Which are actually the same size as Astartes bases) and Jello shot cups. On a plastic folding table. We had a literal furby as a Daemon prince. We wrote the name of the units on the poker chips. We made do with what we had. We played outside on a double bed sheet as a table, with magic marker terrain and buildings.

And if all you are going to do is keep shifting the goal posts ("Nice that you have the room for that") then I will just reply that you can always find reasons why you CAN'T do something. Instead, why not find a way you CAN do something?

We still use a lot of paper craft terrain as well, need something specific.
Sometimes it’s just faster to throw something up out of a cardboard box for that special mission.

Infinity also, all white terrain but interesting shapes and huge buildings !
Nothing fancy but can look and play great.

For the table size itself, I think a lot is how GW use it and change it.
With the reach and ranges on so many units high, it can make the boards feel very small.

But smaller boards can be really great if both players are dropping down both the scale of the game, and the units available.

How is 40K supposed to be played? That´s actually a pretty easy question. Look at the first WD battle reports of 2nd from the 90s:

- Proper terrain on a gaming board
- Meaningful objectives
- Two fully painted armies with several units on each side

How did I start to play it? On the carpet floor with books covered with cloth, glass mineral water bottles and roughly shaped paper cutouts painted green to resemble forest terrain. It´s nothing to be ashamed of but sincerely you should improve from that state or otherwise the hobby will suck.

 Strg Alt wrote:
How is 40K supposed to be played? That´s actually a pretty easy question. Look at the first WD battle reports of 2nd from the 90s:

- Proper terrain on a gaming board
- Meaningful objectives
- Two fully painted armies with several units on each side

How did I start to play it? On the carpet floor with books covered with cloth, glass mineral water bottles and roughly shaped paper cutouts painted green to resemble forest terrain. It´s nothing to be ashamed of but sincerely you should improve from that state or otherwise the hobby will suck.

It really did make my first fully completed (assembled and painted) minis extra special for me. Unfortunately I played Guard, so that meant there were still about 40-50 models left after those 10.

Dudeface wrote:

But what if they don't want a honking big 6x4 sheet of plywood lying around their place because it looks scruffy? Just because someone can buy a cheap sheet of wood it doesn't mean its the right answer for someone.

I keep mine in my laundry room. You can keep yours in your closet, whatever. There are functionally no situations where you can store 40k models but not quarter sheets of plywood.

Hecaton, do you think that people in poverty don’t deserve to enjoy a fun hobby?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Hecaton, do you think that people in poverty don’t deserve to enjoy a fun hobby?

They do.

Dudeface wrote:
Because 2k points on 60x44 isn't the only way to play, so maybe a 30x44 piece is more tolerable to some people.

Please don't move the goalposts. Your original comment was that someone might not want a cheap plywood table because it looks scruffy, now you're trying to make it about playing smaller games in general. And the reality is that people played smaller games on smaller tables before 9th edition without any issues. If a 48x48 table for a 1000 point game is too large or otherwise unacceptable then I don't see how trimming a few inches off the sides to make it fit into GW's standard cardboard boxes magically makes it work.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
What about the Command box?

It's getting closer, but at only ~300 points not really. There are still too few units on the table to have meaningful decision trees and you don't have the complete rules (chapter rules, stratagems, etc). But since that box is $185 (and doesn't include paint or modeling supplies) now you're way past the original claim of being able to play for under $100.

Can you define what "a real 40k game" is?

An absolute minimum of 500 points, preferably 1000-2000 points. Below that you don't have enough decision tree depth for it to be a real game, it's just a rock/paper/scissors game of "can my unit roll enough 4s or better before you roll enough 3s or better" where everyone knows exactly what both sides are going to do with their 1-2 units and all you can do is roll dice to see who wins the scripted event. To use your recruit box example: the assault marines need to charge to win (and probably will if they succeed) and can do little else, the necrons need to shoot and stay out of combat to win and can do little else. The marines will move directly towards the necrons as fast as possible, the necrons will move away as fast as possible while shooting. If the necrons have dice luck on their side early in the pseudo-game they win, if they don't they lose. At no point will any meaningful decisions be made by either player and you don't really even need to bother putting models on the table to "play". Just have each side roll an equal number of D6s and award the win to the player who rolls the most 6s.

Re the command box being ~$170 and out of your $100 limit:

It's not just the models (for 2 armies), but terrain, dice and a board. But as it's for 2 players, that's only $85 each. Solidly within your $100 cap.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Hecaton, do you think that people in poverty don’t deserve to enjoy a fun hobby?

Please don't make straw man arguments. If someone is so poor that they can't afford enough space to store a couple sheets of plywood then they can't afford 40k at all. Whether or not they deserve to have fun is irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
Re the command box being ~$170 and out of your $100 limit:

It's not just the models (for 2 armies), but terrain, dice and a board. But as it's for 2 players, that's only $85 each. Solidly within your $100 cap.

That's kind of dishonest and you know it. You're only within the $100 limit if you find someone else to split the box with you and share all of the dice/rulebooks/etc, it's not an option that is generally available to anyone who wants to buy it. And it's still well short of being able to play a real game.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Because 2k points on 60x44 isn't the only way to play, so maybe a 30x44 piece is more tolerable to some people.

Please don't move the goalposts. Your original comment was that someone might not want a cheap plywood table because it looks scruffy, now you're trying to make it about playing smaller games in general. And the reality is that people played smaller games on smaller tables before 9th edition without any issues. If a 48x48 table for a 1000 point game is too large or otherwise unacceptable then I don't see how trimming a few inches off the sides to make it fit into GW's standard cardboard boxes magically makes it work.

It's not just "trimming a few inches", are you really that unwilling to listen?

48*48=2304 ²inches
30*44=1320 ²inches
1320/2304=0.5729166 =57.29%

The difference, especially when dealing with very limited space, is massive.

If I kept my game table in the closet (behind all my clothes, making it an extreme hassle to get out), it'll never get used.

If I go with the smaller board, it can be propped up on the wall easily, without being unmanageable to move.

 Blndmage wrote:
The difference, especially when dealing with very limited space, is massive.

Not really, because the total square footage of floor space used isn't changing. If you lean the board against the wall then how tall it is doesn't matter, the only difference is needing a 30" length of wall vs. a 48" length of wall. And I doubt a meaningful number of players are in the very precise situation where they have 30" of wall space to lean a board against but not 48". So please don't dishonestly pretend that you need to lay the board out flat on the floor at all times and take up the maximum amount of space.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Hecaton, do you think that people in poverty don’t deserve to enjoy a fun hobby?

Please don't make straw man arguments. If someone is so poor that they can't afford enough space to store a couple sheets of plywood then they can't afford 40k at all. Whether or not they deserve to have fun is irrelevant

Are you freaking kidding me?
Have you ever tried moving "a couple sheets of plywood" on the bus, into old ass elevators and then into an apartment that has no space to actually lay the board down?

You can play 40k at sub 25PL, that's literally what the rules for game size mean. It's still a real game.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Because 2k points on 60x44 isn't the only way to play, so maybe a 30x44 piece is more tolerable to some people.

Please don't move the goalposts. Your original comment was that someone might not want a cheap plywood table because it looks scruffy, now you're trying to make it about playing smaller games in general. And the reality is that people played smaller games on smaller tables before 9th edition without any issues. If a 48x48 table for a 1000 point game is too large or otherwise unacceptable then I don't see how trimming a few inches off the sides to make it fit into GW's standard cardboard boxes magically makes it work.

When did I move the goalpost? We're being told repeatedly buy a sheet of wood for a full size 2k game or bigger, else you're a pleb that should get out.

As a good example, "trimming a few inches off" let's me play on my kitchen table without need of a sheet of wood. 48x48 would facilitate me keeping a 4ft square of wood somewhere In the house, which gets in the way and inevitably warps of left leaning/upright.

£100 is probably enough to get into the 40k-iverse and definitely some games within the 40k stable*, but it's probably not enough to get into the mass battle game at a large enough scale that is typically envisioned as what '40k' is but perfectly serviceable for smaller games but imo £150 to £200 is probably more realistic for ^bigger^ games.

Whether the mass battle game at 2000pts is the 'proper' way of playing is absolutely up for debate. Personally I think is as proper a way of playing as any other, but its not the only way - smaller games are perfectly fine and perfectly serviceable. Imo sometimes better.

*£100 will get you more than sorted to dive into kill-team, which is a great wee game.

*£100 will get you more than sorted to dive into necromunda, which is a fantastic wee game.

I think it helps enormously if you can get a 6 x 4 board, or 4 3 x2 boards or whatever. Its not gonna cost you an arm or a leg. Whether it's foam based, plywood, proper wood etc, Heck even plastic. There are cheaper but still effective alternatives. Back in uni we used 6 x 4 felt matts we got from a fabric store. They worked perfectly well.

A little bit of pragmatism and ingenuity goes a long way with regard to storing it but it ain't hard - lets face it. I've stored boards under my bed, between the wall and a closet or even on top of a closet. Also most gaming clubs I've gone to had club boards and terrain that were safely stored by them.

Anything else is splitting hairs and trying to score internet points.

 Blndmage wrote:

Are you freaking kidding me?
Have you ever tried moving "a couple sheets of plywood" on the bus, into old ass elevators and then into an apartment that has no space to actually lay the board down?

We used to bring all our warmachine stuff and a 5x4 plywood board down to the local pub on foot, set up on a table outside in the beer garden and play our games with a few beers, then pack up and go home.

I've lifted far heavier and far more awkward things (my greyhound for example) far longer distances than I've ever had to do with a few thin sheets of plywood. Worst case scenario - split the load. It takes two to play, get your partner to help lug.