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.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Index hammer 8th was the best 40k has been since 4th edition. Especially once they reined in the power outliers, such as guileman parking lots and mass infiltrating alpha legion berserkers.

Everything since then has been better than 6th and 7th, but still utter garbage as 40k and especially by wargame standards.

It's not really fair to compare 40k to anything other than 40k. It's like inviting a neanderthal to a lecture on particle physics then complaining that he doesn't understand it.

8th brought a lot of sorely needed changes to the game and really had a relatively good reign on the competitive scene compared to most editions. It was super fun, but a lot of the new mechanics had very rough implementations and required gaming the system in ways I personally liked as a fan of consolidated super factions, but weren't really good design. It also completely lacked worthwhile terrain rules. It was a great time for the game, but had its issues.

9th did a good job of restructuring 8ths ideas into something more manageable for players and added something resembling functional terrain. It would be a marked improvement if not for absolutely out of control power creep and rulebook bloat. GW did a decent job reacting to the former, but it made the whole thing really hard to actually play (plus you know, the pandemic) making it kind of a miserable time unless you were completely dedicated with keeping up with endless strategems.

10th has really reigned in the worst of 9th and overall has been the most fun I've had with the game in quite a long while. I don't actually expect that to last. I'm sure the looming threat of the Tyranid codex will show us where things are about to go horribly wrong.

8th, 9th, and 10th all suffer from one series of design decisions that I believe destroys immersion within the world as well as removes balance levers.

The removal of WS vs WS checks in close combat and the new simplified S vs T chart and removal of Initiative stat.

I understand the move towards these decisions as a means to streamline the game, but there was nothing really simple to compensate these changes.

WS vs WS check was a great way to showcase the nimblism of expert duelists or eldar mobility in combat.

Removal of Initiative. Another balance leaver that also helps immersion showcasing the swiftness of some races over the clunkyness of others. Also a defensive layer that doesn't really have an suitable replacement other than flat "always strike first" "always strike last" rules.

S vs T being simplified to half, less, equal, more, double caused the necessity for S/T bloat to absurd numbers (like T14 and S24) where under the old 7th edition or HH S/T chart we could have had smaller tighter numbers.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

There was that brief window before the second marine codex where they errata'd marines to have a second wound and cost a few extra points where playing with and against them felt pretty good.

My recollection is that OG Marines got their 2nd wound around 9th release, maybe a little prior. The 8th ed 2.0 Marine book was instead preceeded by Bolter Discipline and the extra Attack in the first round of combat thing.

Imo Marines all moving to 2W was another big issue that we're still dealing with.

I could be misremembering. I thought that the rules right before the 2nd codex gave marines:
* Shock Assault
* Bolter Discipline
* A second wound.
* A very slight points increase.

I still stand by the second wound being a good move for marines. The problem was that around the same time (in the same release?) that they gave marines the 2nd wound, they decided to start power creeping marines. I think that was when we got doctrines as an extra layer of rules. Doctrines sort of made sense at the time as a reward for *not* taking the loyal 32 and a knight, but then they stuck around in 9th when the core rules already rewarded you (in CP) for not taking such allies.

So while the second wound on tac marines was fluffy and felt about right in casual games, you also had the more gnarly power-creep rules that meant marine saw more play; sometimes in the form of pretty potent lists. So then the meta shifted back to kill-all-marines mode which meant that marines stopped feeling the benefits of a second wound almost immediately as people starting spamming D2 to deal with them. And then that carried forward into 9th as marines has one of the first codices out. So while marines had their army-wide rule (doctrines) along with plenty of modern stratagems, relics, and warlord traits, lots of other factions were stuck with their 8th edition rules for an extended period of time. Thus marines were played even more often and were even more powerful compared to everyone else, and thus people had even more reason to spam D2. If you couldn't field your own 9th edition style power creep options, at least you could tailor your list towards what most of the field was running.

tldr; W2 marines are good. Power creep and marine favoritism are bad.

The main issue I have with 2W Space Marines is how it immediately makes most/all other core (and many non-core) infantry so much worse against them. Which is fine if you're in the game for SM power fantasy. . . but not if you're actually invested in many of these non-SM factions. A Tau Pulse Rifle is now 50% as effective against Space Marines as before. That sure stings if you're the type of person who likes Tau Fire Warriors.

The secondary, but related reason, is that it makes SPACE MARNIES worse against Space Marines. One of my favorite examples now is: How many Space Marines does it take to kill a Space Marine? With 2 Attacks each (Tactical Marine), it takes 9 Space Marines to subdue a single Space Marine. (2x.666x.5x.333x9=1.99). Conveniently, Bolters achieve the same result (2 shots at S4). Picture that though, a firing line of 9 Space Marines, rapid firing their bolters into a lone Space Marine to kill him.

It makes the infantry vs. infantry equations totally wacky.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
Index hammer 8th was the best 40k has been since 4th edition. Especially once they reined in the power outliers, such as guileman parking lots and mass infiltrating alpha legion berserkers.

Everything since then has been better than 6th and 7th, but still utter garbage as 40k and especially by wargame standards.

It's not really fair to compare 40k to anything other than 40k. It's like inviting a neanderthal to a lecture on particle physics then complaining that he doesn't understand it.

While (hilariously) true, that is why I punctuated them being garbage even as 40k / by 40k standards

The fact that so many people seem to think 9th / 10th are good is pretty indicative of just far in the bedrock GWs has managed to bury the bar.

Eh. @morganfreeman: And what would be, in your opinion, a good game/ edition? What is your standard? I'm talking about a proper wargame, so don't give me infinity.

Anyway, some thoughts so far on these editions:

- the lethality: I see some people complains on this - I love it. The thing that bothered me when I was learning 40k is that I did a lot - roll for hit, roll for wound, roll for Sv, and then...take 1 wound. yupee. Lethality is good - it makes sense logically and thematically. It also adds more to the strategy - positioning matters more, you have to be careful, you can't just walk around with impunity. Granted, I mostly play at a more casual level.

- Army construction & wargear cost/free: I liked the 8th and most 9th way of constructing the army - fairly complicated but cool. Same with equiping your guys. I'm ok with simplyifing things, but I think Gw went too far with free wargear. And 10th army building is too simplistic.

- Stratagems: I love them, they add another layer of depth to the game, plus CP adds an element of ress. management. BUT there are too many of them, so something had to be done. My idea was: keep all, but at the start of the game, after you know what your opponent is playing, you choose 6-7 strats for that game you can use. Kinda like a sideboard. It eliminates mental load and gotcha moments. I think 10th is pretty good here (Space marines number of strats in 9th was insane)

- Moral phase: fine with being gone in 10th - it was mostly whatever in 8/9th

- Missions/ secondary objectives: I love what 8th/9th did here, and it seems 10th is doing a good job, too on this front. My only qualm: if I wipe out my whole opponent's army, I should win the game. I find silly to win even if your entire army is destroyed. I think GW went a bit too far in the objective matters direction - there should be a balance. I love the mission deck for 10th - I already ordered it.

- I also liked 8th edition's 6 rounds and 6x4 battleground - I like big/longer games. But I also liked the point increase in 9th = less models needed.

- my most hated aspect: constant updates/faqs/balance dataslate - it seemed the game changed almost every 2 weeks. Just give me a game and let me play it, stupid. Unless you live and breathe 40k, keeping up with the constant changes is a nightmare. I think twice a year a balance patch (if needed) is more than enough. 10th is just been released, we already have an faq, and I'm not sure the core rules I've downloaded are the good ones or already obsolete. One reason 9th edition looks so appealing - finally, no more updates. Obviously, this comes from a more casual oriented guy who plays maybe once a month.

- as for the 7th Edition: what I heard about it - it's either a complete mess, almost impossible to get into, or a very complex, crunchy game with lots of options.

 emanuelb wrote:
Eh. @morganfreeman: And what would be, in your opinion, a good game/ edition? What is your standard? I'm talking about a proper wargame, so don't give me infinity.

Way to poison the well. What is a "proper" wargame by your definintion?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 emanuelb wrote:
Eh. @morganfreeman: And what would be, in your opinion, a good game/ edition? What is your standard? I'm talking about a proper wargame, so don't give me infinity.

Way to poison the well. What is a "proper" wargame by your definintion?

i'm assuming they meant "not a skirmish game", something where you field larger forces than infinity/Malifaux for example.

I'd say SW:Legions is a good game (better than 40k rules-wise) and though the default game size has less models than 40k, playing with more points fixes that without needing to go much over the default 800pts

 Sim-Life wrote:

 emanuelb wrote:
Eh. @morganfreeman: And what would be, in your opinion, a good game/ edition? What is your standard? I'm talking about a proper wargame, so don't give me infinity.

Way to poison the well. What is a "proper" wargame by your definintion?

What Vladimir said - non skirmish game, a game with at least a couple of dozens of models, that move in units and lore wise it is considered an army. What I tried to say is, I heard many times how something like infinity is vastly superior to 40k - and it might be, it just doesn't give the same experience.

8th, 9th, and 10th are all paying for some fundamental math errors in the 8e Indexes. The new to-wound table compresses Strength and decompresses Toughness in a way that forces stat creep on the game and makes it very difficult to find an equilibrium where a thing can be good anti-infantry and not also good anti-tank, and making Space Marines 2W and the resulting push to high-volume D2+ weapons also makes it very difficult to find an equilibrium where a thing can be good anti-infantry and not also good anti-tank.

Power creep, stratagems, and Codex bloat are all problems, sure, but the basic math problems inherent in the game rules are pushing the game towards one where there is usually a most efficient option against all targets and the incentive is to spam it. Even going back to Index 8th you don't lose these problems, as we saw from things like the Guilliman + Airplanes lists that dominated that era.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 emanuelb wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 emanuelb wrote:
Eh. @morganfreeman: And what would be, in your opinion, a good game/ edition? What is your standard? I'm talking about a proper wargame, so don't give me infinity.

Way to poison the well. What is a "proper" wargame by your definintion?

What Vladimir said - non skirmish game, a game with at least a couple of dozens of models, that move in units and lore wise it is considered an army. What I tried to say is, I heard many times how something like infinity is vastly superior to 40k - and it might be, it just doesn't give the same experience.

If you want something very like 40k, but better, three good options are:
--Horus Heresy, the current edition of which is what 8e should have been (Rites of War are a better solution to letting people take interesting narrative forces without letting them spam whatever they want than either 7e's detachments or 8e+'s just letting people spam whatever they want, reactions are a better solution to giving people things to do on their opponent's turn than stratagems, keeping blast templates for big, impactful things and turning smaller, spammier things into fixed numbers of shots is a better solution to blast templates than turning them all willy-nilly into random numbers of hits...) (Also: You can use your Leviathan, my Mechanicum army is much cooler, all Legions have unique cool stuff...)
--Bolt Action/Gates of Antares, which is what the founders of 40k did after leaving when they had a blank slate to work with and could make something more modern,
--Flames of War, which has very 40k-ish rules sensibilities applied to a historical setting, and where the 15mm scale makes battles look much larger and more dramatic than 40k's parking lots of tanks crammed into knife-fighting range with each other.

BrianDavion wrote:
I think what he's saying by primaris being gone is that the arbitary limits on what can carry what have been scaled back, not completely removed (rhinos can't carry intercessors, for example) but certainly scaled back, Land Raidersand repulsors can both carry anything allowing the land raider to deliver primaris units such as blade guard veterns, or the repulsor to carry first born units like devestators. (a repulsor executioner might make an intreasting unit to carry around a squad of devestators)

I know what he meant, but it's not something that's going to mean much in the future. We're at the mid-point of this. First they blurred the lines by making everything W2. Now we've got cross pollination of transports and some unit types (Terminators). By the time we reach the end of this process they won't need to specify "Primaris" units, as there won't be any First Borns left, and any lingering item (Terminators, Scouts) will have been redone in a larger scale to fit the bigger Primaris minis.

It's at that point where they can replace sprues like this one with ones that have Primaris Marine parts, so they don't look out of place.

 emanuelb wrote:
Eh. @morganfreeman: And what would be, in your opinion, a good game/ edition? What is your standard? I'm talking about a proper wargame, so don't give me infinity.

Others have already taking you to task for this one but:

DUST
Flames of War
SW: Legions
Bolt Action
HH 2.0 (even HH 1.0 if we're being honest).

Really though, you can pick just about any semi known wargame out of a hat and it will be better than 40k. You could pick any nerd / geek / avid gamer with a modest understanding of rule systems and game functionality, give them seven days and free meals, and have them come out with a core-rules system that's got a leg up on 40k.

40k really is that awful from a gameplay perspective.

 emanuelb wrote:
- the lethality: I see some people complains on this - I love it. The thing that bothered me when I was learning 40k is that I did a lot - roll for hit, roll for wound, roll for Sv, and then...take 1 wound. yupee. Lethality is good - it makes sense logically and thematically. It also adds more to the strategy - positioning matters more, you have to be careful, you can't just walk around with impunity. Granted, I mostly play at a more casual level.

- Stratagems: I love them, they add another layer of depth to the game, plus CP adds an element of ress. management. BUT there are too many of them, so something had to be done. My idea was: keep all, but at the start of the game, after you know what your opponent is playing, you choose 6-7 strats for that game you can use. Kinda like a sideboard. It eliminates mental load and gotcha moments. I think 10th is pretty good here (Space marines number of strats in 9th was insane)

- Moral phase: fine with being gone in 10th - it was mostly whatever in 8/9th

- Missions/ secondary objectives: I love what 8th/9th did here, and it seems 10th is doing a good job, too on this front. My only qualm: if I wipe out my whole opponent's army, I should win the game. I find silly to win even if your entire army is destroyed. I think GW went a bit too far in the objective matters direction - there should be a balance. I love the mission deck for 10th - I already ordered it.

I think most of this is a fundamental problem of why 40k is so bad. People who play only 40k are so disconnected from what actual strategy looks like that they think picking which unit to step out of LoS blocking cover to wipe an enemy unit, so that it can in turn be wiped itself, is tactical positioning. That slapping a MtG card on the table and screaming "I tap two mana so my guys shoot better!" is strategy. That the only way opposing forces can interact is by inflicting casualties, that it's thematic and lore abiding for a battle's outcome to be utterly unaffected by less-lethal interactions like suppression and pinning because soldiers at all levels will fight to the death, and every army to the man, completely unaffected by moral / broken chains of command / fog of war / ect or a myriad other factors which do not directly resolve rendering the living as the dead.


These snippits read like a litany of why 40k is such a deplorable game to actually play. Because GW has isolated and silo'd its player base to the point that they think junior-high math problems is as strategic and thematic as table top gaming gets.

 emanuelb wrote:
as for the 7th Edition: what I heard about it - it's either a complete mess, almost impossible to get into, or a very complex, crunchy game with lots of options.

7th and 6th were worse than what we have now, make no mistake. But that was due mostly to obscene codex imbalance and unkillable super-friends deathstars created by allies. The core rules themselves were crunchier than they needed to be for such simple results (especially with how some things didn't even work, such as indirect weapons) but the idea of things such as formations is actually really good.

Being condescending does not get you free points. I actually play other games besides 40k. Just out of curiosity, if you think 40k is that awful, why do you waste your time with it?

As for your games:

- Dust is dead (so is gates of antares), abandoned by their company
- Flames of War & Bolt action: (beside the fact that they have a very different theme): funny you bring them as hallmarks of good gameplay. Many historical gamers detests them and regard them as 40k in beige. Flames of war is accused of the same parking lot problem as 40k.
- HH: huh. So 40k is horrific, just play another GW game, that is based on older editions of 40k.
- SW Legions: A game with a tired theme, done to death in any form of media, mediocre minis and that has 5 factions compared to 18+ of Warhammer. As for the gameplay: to quote a Legion fan, nobody plays Legion because of the gameplay.

 emanuelb wrote:
Being condescending does not get you free points. I actually play other games besides 40k. Just out of curiosity, if you think 40k is that awful, why do you waste your time with it?

As for your games:

- Dust is dead (so is gates of antares), abandoned by their company
- Flames of War & Bolt action: (beside the fact that they have a very different theme): funny you bring them as hallmarks of good gameplay. Many historical gamers detests them and regard them as 40k in beige. Flames of war is accused of the same parking lot problem as 40k.
- HH: huh. So 40k is horrific, just play another GW game, that is based on older editions of 40k.
- SW Legions: A game with a tired theme, done to death in any form of media, mediocre minis and that has 5 factions compared to 18+ of Warhammer. As for the gameplay: to quote a Legion fan, nobody plays Legion because of the gameplay.

So are you going to suggest some better ones?

 emanuelb wrote:
Being condescending does not get you free points. I actually play other games besides 40k. Just out of curiosity, if you think 40k is that awful, why do you waste your time with it?

As for your games:

- Dust is dead (so is gates of antares), abandoned by their company
- Flames of War & Bolt action: (beside the fact that they have a very different theme): funny you bring them as hallmarks of good gameplay. Many historical gamers detests them and regard them as 40k in beige. Flames of war is accused of the same parking lot problem as 40k.
- HH: huh. So 40k is horrific, just play another GW game, that is based on older editions of 40k.
- SW Legions: A game with a tired theme, done to death in any form of media, mediocre minis and that has 5 factions compared to 18+ of Warhammer. As for the gameplay: to quote a Legion fan, nobody plays Legion because of the gameplay.

Interesting that you didn't actually comment much on the gameplay other than to give accounts of what other people have said.
Dust/Gates - Even if it's abandoned is the gameplay better than 40k? You didn't offer an opinion or argument.
Flames/Bolt - Which historical gamers? The hyper authentic ones that want to recreate historical battles? Napoleonic historical gamers? Who are you talking about? Is the parking lot problem actually a problem or is it just something you heard some guy say once? I can say 40k 10th has an OP melee problem, now you can say 40k is accused of having a OP melee problem. Doesn't make it factually true.
HH - Is it's gameplay better than 40k? It's has different systems and rules so the fact that it's also a GW game shouldn't impact on its gameplay relative to 40k.
SW Legion - Again, not discussing the theme, discussing the gameplay. Also how can a Legion fan be a fan if he dislikes the gameplay? Again, some possibly fictional singular guy making a post you haven't shown us isn't an argument against the gameplay. It's just saying one guy once said he doesn't like it.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Interesting that you didn't actually comment much on the gameplay other than to give accounts of what other people have said.
Dust/Gates - Even if it's abandoned is the gameplay better than 40k? You didn't offer an opinion or argument.
Flames/Bolt - Which historical gamers? The hyper authentic ones that want to recreate historical battles? Napoleonic historical gamers? Who are you talking about? Is the parking lot problem actually a problem or is it just something you heard some guy say once? I can say 40k 10th has an OP melee problem, now you can say 40k is accused of having a OP melee problem. Doesn't make it factually true.
HH - Is it's gameplay better than 40k? It's has different systems and rules so the fact that it's also a GW game shouldn't impact on its gameplay relative to 40k.
SW Legion - Again, not discussing the theme, discussing the gameplay. Also how can a Legion fan be a fan if he dislikes the gameplay? Again, some possibly fictional singular guy making a post you haven't shown us isn't an argument against the gameplay. It's just saying one guy once said he doesn't like it.

So how do we judge which opinion matters, and which is factually true?

- Dust/Gates: even if the gameplay is better, the fact that they are abandoned makes them hardly an alternative.
- Flames of war: https://www.littlewarstv.com/fow4.html
- Bolt Action: https://www.littlewarstv.com/bolt-action.html
- Legion: https://wargameexplorer.com/post/star-wars-legion-review/

Nothing wrong with these games, but also not something that screams drop 40k and get this. And that is before you take into consideration the lore/universe and the quality of the minis.

 emanuelb wrote:


So how do we judge which opinion matters, and which is factually true?

- Dust/Gates: even if the gameplay is better, the fact that they are abandoned makes them hardly an alternative.
- Flames of war: https://www.littlewarstv.com/fow4.html
- Bolt Action: https://www.littlewarstv.com/bolt-action.html
- Legion: https://wargameexplorer.com/post/star-wars-legion-review/

Nothing wrong with these games, but also not something that screams drop 40k and get this. And that is before you take into consideration the lore/universe and the quality of the minis.

so i skimmed the legion article, the author complaining that the barricades provided with the core set look too much like barricades was certainly an opinion lol. And while this article says the gameplay is mid, litterally every single person i've played with or talked about the game has said that its got a much better gameplay loop than 40k, which is why the game was brought up in the first place. Its BETTER than 40k, doesn't matter if some random guy online says he doesn't like thegameplay

Legion is a weird one to me. I like it, but I also find it kind of gamey. I've always described it as someone's homebrew 40k, implementing a lot of desired features like alternating activations, quick unit positioning and a color coded dice system based on symbols to count up 4+/5+ kind of rolls while also making mixed profiles easier to quick roll.

The odd thing about it is just that it feels like they focused more on implementing "fixes" rather than considering the design trade offs. Things have improved particularly post AMG taking the reigns, but the alternating activations heavily reward out activating the opponent and the order pool designed to mitigate this mostly homogenizes lists in order to give armies perfect activation control.

There's also a lot of issues with hero implementation. A lot of their power comes from the order cards, which are a neat mechanic but regulates the ability to include the faces of the franchise down to 1 or 2 on average and it's resulted in very few of them seeing the table or even getting models. Jedi are also just really weird. They're very powerful, but rely on the optional nature of their pierce ability to not kill models so they can hide in engagements and avoid their extreme weakness to being shot in the face.

So.... IDK. It's probably technically a "better" game than 40k, but I'm not sure I'd rate it higher. Honestly, neither ranks very highly in my ranks of games with "great" rules and both are more about recreating the IP they represent.

emanuelb wrote:- Dust/Gates: even if the gameplay is better, the fact that they are abandoned makes them hardly an alternative.
- Flames of war: https://www.littlewarstv.com/fow4.html
- Bolt Action: https://www.littlewarstv.com/bolt-action.html
- Legion: https://wargameexplorer.com/post/star-wars-legion-review/

Nothing wrong with these games, but also not something that screams drop 40k and get this. And that is before you take into consideration the lore/universe and the quality of the minis.

Whether any of those is a better game than 40K has nothing to do with whether they're currently supported, the lore, the setting, or the minis.

You are allowed to like 40K because it has massive ongoing support, interesting lore, and great minis. But those don't make the game rules themselves better.

I don't play Dust anymore because the pulp style never really did it for me, but mechanically it's a more modern, streamlined, and deeper play experience than the clunky atavisms of 40K.

^I think the thing that really has to happen is for this to succeed is a 40k alternative (like Grimdark Future) to start running events and build community. And I mean 40k alternative specifically as a game that lets you run your 40k armies.

8th was terrible, 9th is the worst version of the game followed closely by 6th. 10th is an okayish return to form.
It's still not 3.5 (the best version of the game ever).

 emanuelb wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Interesting that you didn't actually comment much on the gameplay other than to give accounts of what other people have said.
Dust/Gates - Even if it's abandoned is the gameplay better than 40k? You didn't offer an opinion or argument.
Flames/Bolt - Which historical gamers? The hyper authentic ones that want to recreate historical battles? Napoleonic historical gamers? Who are you talking about? Is the parking lot problem actually a problem or is it just something you heard some guy say once? I can say 40k 10th has an OP melee problem, now you can say 40k is accused of having a OP melee problem. Doesn't make it factually true.
HH - Is it's gameplay better than 40k? It's has different systems and rules so the fact that it's also a GW game shouldn't impact on its gameplay relative to 40k.
SW Legion - Again, not discussing the theme, discussing the gameplay. Also how can a Legion fan be a fan if he dislikes the gameplay? Again, some possibly fictional singular guy making a post you haven't shown us isn't an argument against the gameplay. It's just saying one guy once said he doesn't like it.

So how do we judge which opinion matters, and which is factually true?

- Dust/Gates: even if the gameplay is better, the fact that they are abandoned makes them hardly an alternative.
- Flames of war: https://www.littlewarstv.com/fow4.html
- Bolt Action: https://www.littlewarstv.com/bolt-action.html
- Legion: https://wargameexplorer.com/post/star-wars-legion-review/

Nothing wrong with these games, but also not something that screams drop 40k and get this. And that is before you take into consideration the lore/universe and the quality of the minis.

I find the fluff of Flames or War and Bolt Action totally unrealistic, I mean some jumped up dweeb trying to take over the world, as if thats going to happen

Chain of Command is better than Bolt Action and Flames of War and is about 40k scale, but I agree both of the others are still better than 40k.
(An example of a historical gamer not liking both and preferring a system)

Tbh, Chain of Command is one of the best rulesets I play. If 40k 4th had sucked into a CoC-like system rather than 5th (or 7th instead of 8th, etc) we would be in a much better place.

Speaking of running events, my local club (anecdotal I know) just had a board meeting about how 40k is failing to live up to the quantity of players promised to secure their reservation, and looking for a way to accelerate 40k play locally, while the Chain of Command club section sold out reservations at the local game store for an event on the 20th (exceeding the earmarked few tables).

 morganfreeman wrote:
I think most of this is a fundamental problem of why 40k is so bad. People who play only 40k are so disconnected from what actual strategy looks like that they think picking which unit to step out of LoS blocking cover to wipe an enemy unit, so that it can in turn be wiped itself, is tactical positioning. That slapping a MtG card on the table and screaming "I tap two mana so my guys shoot better!" is strategy. That the only way opposing forces can interact is by inflicting casualties, that it's thematic and lore abiding for a battle's outcome to be utterly unaffected by less-lethal interactions like suppression and pinning because soldiers at all levels will fight to the death, and every army to the man, completely unaffected by moral / broken chains of command / fog of war / ect or a myriad other factors which do not directly resolve rendering the living as the dead.


These snippits read like a litany of why 40k is such a deplorable game to actually play. Because GW has isolated and silo'd its player base to the point that they think junior-high math problems is as strategic and thematic as table top gaming gets.

Yep, summed it up perfectly. 40k has the strategic depth of a puddle but GW's marketing department is great at convincing 14 year olds they're a tactical genius for stacking up all the obvious buffs and having better dice math than the other side.

Seeing as this thread is getting a little more life, let's take it from the top.

 emanuelb wrote:
Eh. @morganfreeman: And what would be, in your opinion, a good game/ edition? What is your standard? I'm talking about a proper wargame, so don't give me infinity.

 emanuelb wrote:

- Dust is dead (so is gates of antares), abandoned by their company
- Flames of War & Bolt action: (beside the fact that they have a very different theme): funny you bring them as hallmarks of good gameplay. Many historical gamers detests them and regard them as 40k in beige. Flames of war is accused of the same parking lot problem as 40k.
- HH: huh. So 40k is horrific, just play another GW game, that is based on older editions of 40k.
- SW Legions: A game with a tired theme, done to death in any form of media, mediocre minis and that has 5 factions compared to 18+ of Warhammer. As for the gameplay: to quote a Legion fan, nobody plays Legion because of the gameplay.

So these aren't really counter points. You were asking for examples of wargames which are objectively deeper and more engaging than 40k and you got them; that those games are dead / have people who complain about them in turn / are based on older iterations of 40k (but subsequently much improved) doesn't violate your criteria and suddenly disqualify them.

 emanuelb wrote:


So how do we judge which opinion matters, and which is factually true?

- Dust/Gates: even if the gameplay is better, the fact that they are abandoned makes them hardly an alternative.
- Flames of war: https://www.littlewarstv.com/fow4.html
- Bolt Action: https://www.littlewarstv.com/bolt-action.html
- Legion: https://wargameexplorer.com/post/star-wars-legion-review/

Nothing wrong with these games, but also not something that screams drop 40k and get this. And that is before you take into consideration the lore/universe and the quality of the minis.

You asked a question about game design, not aesthetic. All of these games are vastly superior to 40k in terms of how they play and even their support, with companies that care about a balanced - and high quality - rule set more so than GW does.

That you don't like the minis or the lore as much, so aren't tempted to drop 40k for them, is very much a "you" thing. And while there's an objectively right argument to be made for 40k being bad from a game perspective, trying to say that the aesthetic / art / lore is bad is into the nebulous grey space of personal opinion and not really.

 emanuelb wrote:
Being condescending does not get you free points. I actually play other games besides 40k. Just out of curiosity, if you think 40k is that awful, why do you waste your time with it?

At this point? Inertion. I've been into 40k for about 20 years, I've still got a good condition 3rd ed codex in my garage as well as the built and (poorly) painted marines + land speeder that came in the starter set. I've got my first painted marine army stowed away in there, which I finished in late 3rd, my tyranid army from 4th, and a bunch of other projects stowed in boxes. Doubtlessly some of the models have seen some damage beneath the layers of dust.

My problem with 40k is not one of aesthetic, model quality, or lore. I'll readily take a dump on 40k as a ruleset, but I'll offer no contest that GW makes pretty good miniatures. Or that I even like 40ks aesthetic.

Rather, my issue is that GW gave up trying to make 40k a game. 4th ed was the last time GW actually wanted to make a wargame to be a good wargame, and every subsequent edition highlights their increasingly dramatic shift from "Let's make a good game to play our models with," to "Let's make a game to sell our models," as plainly as rings in a tree. I'm also quite peeved about it because, with the exception of a few flagrant issues, 4th ed was pretty close to being a legitimately good wargame. Even without AA mechanics it would've been pretty easy to fix the blatant issues like skimmers, shore up the mechanics themselves, and have a product which is praised for being good in addition to being pretty.

That 40k has been reduced to ultra-expensive Magic the Gathering (another game which, ironically, has more strategic depth) and 2 pages of rules torturously stretched out across a rulebook that costs $50+ and could be used as a murder weapon should upset all hobbyists.

EDIT: I should also comment that I've avoided GW products for close on a decade. Getting most things second hand or 3rd party, with the singular exception of HH2.0 because it's an actual wargames ruleset which shows some actual care and concern.

 emanuelb wrote:
...- SW Legions: A game with a tired theme, done to death in any form of media, mediocre minis and that has 5 factions compared to 18+ of Warhammer. As for the gameplay: to quote a Legion fan, nobody plays Legion because of the gameplay...

As long as we're being sarcastic, two rejoinders:
-Do you consider "releases new factions to distract from not fixing old factions" a selling point?
-I don't know anyone who plays Warhammer because of the gameplay...

A very good wargame? Epic: Armageddon (Epic 4th ed).

Problem is the mechanics do not fit very well for big 28mm minis.