Worst game ever - a warning

[Gluteus Maximus]

It's the people (and their attitude) that make gaming fun.

How true! The worst games can be made enjoyable if everyone plays with the right attitude.

Malamute has proved it by making Vampire Wars a success with his group.

40k as a rules system is not a bad foundation for a game, it's just the mentality of the gamers and the extra BS that they added to it that have ruined it.

The basics can be adapted to make a very good game.

[Gluteus Maximus]

Hey Darquebus, that's a lovely dino you have there!

[darquebus]

Well I wanted to be a bit provocative of course, but the guy I played against is a friend and was not cheating or a rules lawyer. And he tried to make it a good as possible but also said that I had no chance because you had to make sure to put your inquisitor into a flying tank with rally stripes with mega-psycho-armour and normal troops are useless...
I was just surprise that with balanced points I was not able to even damage his troops. Every single miniature has pages of special rules that the underlying original rules seem to be absolutely useless. And I think the reason here is the that they used a "historical rules system" for swords and spears, where the skill of the individual army matters, and transferred it into a "mechanised war setting, where the individual skill doesn't matter. I think the underlying "sword fight" rules are fundamentally flawed and useless for sci-fi warfare and they introduced all these special rules to compensate for that...therefore: the game is SH.. . All this "I use my deodorant of death that kills anybody on a roll of 2+ if your troops don't have the panty liner of repulsion" 
If you just pick a "normal" army you are lost, so the rules should take this into account and limit the choices or at least should not make it sooo absolutely absurd, because what is the point when the basic rules don't work??

PS
The Dino is a T.Rex from Reaper and weighs a ton, because its solid pewter 
And it was great game...also absurd but fun!

[Heldrak]

 

40k/WFB are pretty much the sort of games where you need to follow every development and add-on to keep on top. Sad to say, just picking a bog-standard balanced force just isn't enough.

I also expect you were shafted by someone 'in the know' 

I'm not normally a GW basher, but I've grown out of both those games, and then some.

I hold no brief with 40K (You roll a bunch of dice, I roll a bunch of dice, the one with the most/shiniest guns wins on turn three), but I think the mechanics of Warhammer fantasy are basically sound. I have had many enjoyable, tactical games of WHFB, even in a competitive tournament environment (although I confess, that was largely before the excesses of the new Daemon & Vampire rules sets).

I'm told that the "Kill Team" rules set for 40K worked well (small numbers of figures in a skirmishy scenario-driven game) and I also quite liked Warhammer Skirmish (again, small numbers of figures in a scenario-driven game).

[pnweerar]

My very first game of 40k was somewhat similar.

I put together a force, went up against one of my mates, and was beaten like a drum and did hardly any damage at all.

My reaction was similar -- why is it that at the same point level, I did hardly any damage at all?

Ten games later, I had got the hang of how 40k works, and finally won a match. While it does suffer myriad issues (balance, an archaic turn system, rules arguments etc...) it's still quite playable once you understand its conventions.

For example, 1500 points of Army A vs. 1500 points of Army B, doesn't mean anything in 40k.  But, 1500 points of "Army B killer" Army A, vs. 1500 points of "Army A killer" Army B, is often a balanced and interesting match up.

As said earlier on this thread, 40k means keeping up with your opponents rule books and minis as much as your own (else you end up bringing tank killers to an infantry fight). What you choose to field is more important than the point value they amass.

There are problems with a game that does not mean 1500 points of any list are not an interesting fight with 1500 point of any other list, but this is the nature (as well as all the rules issues of 40k) are inherent in the nature of such a large and complex game.

It's not that 40k is the worst game ever, its just a very different sort of game.

Please do not take offense, but I must say it is not exactly fair to play a game for the first time, lose badly, and then declare the game system the worst ever. While it is certainly not my system of choice, it, like any game, it deserves a bit more patience.

[dijit]

The basic rules system in 40K is perfectly fine, fundamentally not a great deal has changed in a long time (though I still hold that Rogue Trader was the best edition but for different reasons), themain issue comes that they have moved their standard reference point away from the standard human trooper, to the superhuman, power armoured marine. This has consequently made the standard human warrior or anything like him useless, unless he has a big bad gun (read plasma gun). To compensate for the excesses of plasma gun overload, they have to make the marines tougher in order to be the superheroes they ought to be from the fluff, which makes the human warrior worse again and so the cycle continues. The main issue is 'codex creep', where each new codex is better than the precedling ones, making the game unbalanced. Codexes are the issue, not the rules.
However my main grip with 40K is nothing to do with the rules, and is the reason I love the Rogue Trader edition, it is that the system has become so straitjacketed that its difficult to be original, create your own stuff, use other minis, etc. It's exceptional closed.
I played the edition a few weeks ago, and again being a veteran found it interesting, the one thing I didn't like too much is that the new edition is caters even more for the close assault troops than for your sit back back and shoot troops. But as the bright and shiny neopolonic cavalry thought theres much more glory in hand to hand combat than waving a gun around.

[wolfgangbrooks]

"The main issue is 'codex creep', where each new codex is better than the precedling ones, making the game unbalanced. Codexes are the issue, not the rules."

I hear this argument so many times, but I don't believe it's the case anymore (at least with 40k). It's just one of those things that the dissaffected repeat long and often enough that everyone else believes it. If there's an imbalance of the codex's it's because they're moving to a new style and new edition.

"It's exceptional closed."

It's a popular ruleset that people demand to be tournament friendly because that's what sells games and miniatures whether the prevailing minds at some game news sites believe it or not. If you add any kinds of rules for make-your-own, it will either break the game or no one will use them because they're not tournament legal. And people will complain very loudly about not being able to use their super-awesome game winning tank or point to any flaws in the relevant articles points system as proof positive that the whole game's points system is broken. (and let's not get into the whole: "all points systems are broken" argument)

Just try non-standard scenarios if you want to play something else with the system. It's true the army lists are made with the standard games in mind, but no one says you have to use the army lists as printed. But if you only want to play say .45 Adventures or Gaslight or whatever style games, why look at 40k for that? The bottom line is that's it's not what it's made for.

And how is that different from any other mainstream sci-fi/fantasy game?

Games Workshop, like most large companies, has learned that controlling the user experience is one of their most important business strategies. Also that it's not worth their time, manpower, and ensuing grief to put out books/articles/rules that allow customers to "make their own fun". Unless it's like Apocalypse and it lets them sell alot of models.

And as for close combat being a major part of the game. That's also a neccessity for a mainstream game, it allows movement and drama on the board rather than just two static armies just trading potshots across no-man's land until one side or the other gains an advantage. Again, every mainstream sci-fi game uses highly effective close combat troops. It's just what helps sell the game to the average gamer and gamer to be.

It's obvious that you don't like it, your hyperbole makes that clear. It doesn't mean the game is bad. So just don't play it, play something else. There are plenty of mods for the basic rules and Necromunda out there if you have to stick with GW stuff.

"...but the guy I played against is a friend and was not cheating or a rules lawyer. And he tried to make it a good as possible but also said that I had no chance because..."

Sounds like your friend was still being a jerk then. Make no more excuses for him!

[Weird WWII]

I gave up on all point system games a long time ago unfortunately most think that that is the only way to have a fair game when in reality it just favors the ones who play the points and rules to their advantage.  Scenario heavy games are the way to go and with a sound rules mechanic a underdog with the right tactics and skill can out fight a superior army any day.  Leave the points for the kiddies and just meet on the battlefield as gamers in for an exciting game.

Brian

[mahon]

while the codex creep and having to stay up to date with all the recent changes and news is a problem for many, I still consider it a marketing masterpiece!

most of the 40K players remain interested in the game because it keeps their attention for a longer time, and it's thanks to catching their attention every now and then with all the changes - every new codex, new interpretation of rules, new article in White Dwarf...

these who managed to find the ultimate tournament winning army often quit playing 40K maybe about a year or a half of playing this army. then they got bored.

these constant changes keep the game fresh, keep the people interested, and avoid getting bored with the game.

while I am NOT a 40K player any more, for every player leaving due to the changes there are a few who get into 40K and a few more whose involvement is saved thanks to keeping their attention by the changes.

I noticed how difficult it is to keep people interested with your game when you release it as a complete and finished product. GW (and also some other companies) found they need to release something new for their game sometimes to avoid people turning to something else due to getting bored with the closed-finished-and -complete game.

I think 40K is not up to date with current standards, but marketing-wise and sales-wise it's a masterpiece. And GW *can* make their customers/players feel like they got the best game out there. GW is happy as they sell their products, the players are happy as they got the best thing available, so where's the problem?

I quit playing 40K due to its heavy orientation toward tournament-play and some unrealistic (IMHO) and difficult to accept rules. to put it in other words: I found something which suited my gaming expectations better.

slightly off-topic, but I thought I might share my opinion...

[archangel1]

I must say from the start that I do not play WH40K, or WH for that matter, but I do like the fluff, or chrome, or whatever you want to call it.  I've got most of the Codexes and Army Books, going back to Rogue Trader and WH 2nd Edition, and I've read dozens of the novels.

Looking at the games from the outside, there are two things that strike me.  First, apparently Mankind is doomed.  Both systems are getting darker with each incarnation.  Secondly, for 40K in particular, unless you are playing Space Marines, the whole system is tilted towards the 'bad guys' and normal humans are being shafted.  Orks get bigger and stronger the more they fight, Eldar are faster, the Tau are technologically superior, Tyrannids just grow a new creature as needed, Necrons are implacable and Chaos? Chaos mutates and has access to Warp-spawned horrors.  What do humans get? Since you can't change the basic material, just give them a new gun or a bigger tank! They may have a lot of firepower but if things get close, in most cases they're in trouble.  I realize that strategy and good dice rolls play a part but I think the games in general appear to be unbalanced.  Check out the battle reports in White Dwarf over the past several months and see how many times the 'good guys' were beaten or only won a Pyrrhic victory.  Look at the damage Archaon did to the Old World in that worldwide WH campaign a while back, before he was driven off.  Another 'victory' like that and it's about over for Man, Dwarf and Elf.

As I say, I don't play the games, but as an observer, I don't see how you can really win if you play as a 'Defender of Humanity'.  The odds are stacked against you.
 

[wolfgangbrooks]

"Thus I suspectyour claim of  $450 for some plastic hills is off by $50 to $70 "

Just to nitpick: It's actually eight 2x2" plastic modular terrain board sections. Apparently the price is because they have to outsource it due to the size of the pieces. Their actual plastic hills are a bit expensive though.

"(This game is so good GW tried to sue it out of existence!)"

Actually it's because quite a few of the Shockforce models where carbon copies of Imperial Guard Cadians. Also I will not comment on what I think of Shockforce.

[Argonor]

Gave Shockforce a try and never looked back. (This game is so good GW tried to sue it out of existence!)

Basicly you can have all your 40k stuff in a system that works and the rules are free to boot. (look up the warengine for the download.)

Can't find it? Would like to see it.

To make a brief comment, I really never liked other GW 'battle game' rulesets than Warmaster and LotR (the latter not really being a 'battle' ruleset, rather a 'skirmish' one), but I think that 40K got better from 3rd(?) Ed. when they moved it away from just being an SF version of Warhammer.

I still do not like the way that you can taylor your force to your opponent - I think there's something basically wrong with a system where the points cost are not a reflection of the overall effectiveness of a model/unit.

That being said, I'm actually trying to build up a small Marine force to game with in a friendly non-competitive environment (I've been slowly collecting a Dark Angels army for decades), and am looking forward to get it on the table. I'm probably never going to win a single game, as I am not going to taylor my army from game to game (just doing a little 'I was short of heavy firepower last game; I'll put in a couple of Devastator squads for the next', or 'my Dreadnought did very good, I should bring 1-2 more next time' - adjusting), but given the right attitude from my opponents, I may still have a good time playing.

To sum up: I do not think that the 40K rules are great, but they provide a quick-flowing game (if you do not use too many of those 'special-rules-for-everything troops'), and as long as you do not take the game, yourself, or your opponent too seriously, they should also provide you with a couple of hours of entertainment.

[Gluteus Maximus]

... LotR (the latter not really being a 'battle' ruleset, rather a 'skirmish' one)

Not yet, but wait until January/February......... 

[Argonor]

I know... I'm not really looking forward to that new ruleset - I think we were very well served with the skirmish game, and the 'War in Middle Earth' fanmade adaption of the Alamo massed combat rules....

But let's have a look when it arrives... 

[Gluteus Maximus]

I know... I'm not really looking forward to that new ruleset - I think we were very well served with the skirmish game, and the 'War in Middle Earth' fanmade adaption of the Alamo massed combat rules....

But let's have a look when it arrives... 

I'd probably have to agree. The 'War in Middle Earth' rules are very good, so GW will have to produce something very special to outdo them.

But, you never know......