Game Does not Match the Fluff

[ReveredChaplainDrake]

I really don't think its the incompetence thats beyond denial, your lack of a life is though.

I shouldn't even have to respond to something so asinine, but having a hobby != having no life. Does this really need to be pointed out? I can have a life and poke enough holes in 40k's miserable internal logic to see straight through to the other side. That's much more relevant to the discussion at hand than taking cheap shots at people who disagree with you.

In Risk, Cannons move as fast as Cavalry.
In Mousetrap, you use cheese to lure the mice into the cunning but frankly over engineered trap, when really, mice prefer chocolate or peanut.
In Battleship, you guess where to shoot at where as actual battleships have RADAR

Mouse Trap and Battleship are at least internally consistent. You set out what one player can do, and every player can perform the same actions as any other player given the same circumstances. Risk is a different case altogether, as that has more to do with ambiguation, an entirely separate theory that GW themselves used to be really good at implementing in previous editions.

[Path Walker]

I shouldn't even have to respond to something so asinine, but having a hobby != having no life. Does this really need to be pointed out? I can have a life and poke enough holes in 40k's miserable internal logic to see straight through to the other side. That's much more relevant to the discussion at hand than taking cheap shots at people who disagree with you.

Except half of those points were either incorrect, for example, Flyers can Crash and Burn, pedantic to the point of absurdity, a Rapid Fire Battle Cannon fires two Battle Cannon shots, so, its rapid fire but not Rapid Fire, or you were moaning that your army isn't as powerful as you think it should be, everything you wrote about Tyranids pretty much, or straight up didn't read the fluff you supposedly want the game to match, Nova Reactor is a case in point there.

The fact that you spent, by your own admission, an hour of your life compiling that list, even if it did have any merit whatsoever, is what means you don't have a life.

Mouse Trap and Battleship are at least internally consistent. You set out what one player can do, and every player can perform the same actions as any other player given the same circumstances. Risk is a different case altogether, as that has more to do with ambiguation, an entirely separate theory that GW themselves used to be really good at implementing in previous editions.

Again, points out that you're entierly ok with abstraction for the sake of rules for a game, but not in the case of GW?

- - - Updated - - -

If the game were to match the fluff we also wouldn't be able to cherry pick the best of everything; we would have to make due with what resources were available to us and learn to use sub par units that weren't as points efficient and we would have to play in conditions and missions that were not always balanced or to our favor.

Which is, in my opinion, a much more interesting wat of playing the game, it necessitates a GM to work well, but its a way of increasing the fluff in a game. The game as the rule book shows you, is a framework, its the rules set out so that they can be broken

[Erik Setzer]

I shouldn't even have to respond to something so asinine, but having a hobby != having no life. Does this really need to be pointed out? I can have a life and poke enough holes in 40k's miserable internal logic to see straight through to the other side. That's much more relevant to the discussion at hand than taking cheap shots at people who disagree with you.

"Path Walker" is a troll who just does his best to be insulting and try to push people's buttons. I highly recommend going into your account settings, finding the Block list, and adding him. Conversations will be so much better without having to trudge through his insulting comments.

[Cactus]

Mouse Trap and Battleship are at least internally consistent. You set out what one player can do, and every player can perform the same actions as any other player given the same circumstances. Risk is a different case altogether, as that has more to do with ambiguation, an entirely separate theory that GW themselves used to be really good at implementing in previous editions.

I think the point is still, fluff doesn't match game play in any game. Name one game that is balanced, I dare you. Dollars to donuts, you can poke holes in the fluff vs. rules balance with your straw-man argument.

And: so what?

Does this really affect your enjoyment of painting and playing the game with your friends? Is the balance of fluff/gameplay the one element of the hobby that brings you enjoyment and happiness? It's not for me. Getting together with my friends is my favorite element, followed by painting/crafting models, then the actual competition. I also enjoy the fluff, particularly the Horus Heresy novels, among others and that all fuels my desire to play more but it in no way reflects on my opinion of the rules set.

I can not fathom that your enjoyment of this pastime hangs on the parity of rules and fluff. It's such a frivolous, inconsequential, and absurd argument that I'm lead to believe that your enjoyment of the hobby comes from antagonizing the fanbase.

[Path Walker]

And if you want the game to match the fluff more, to recreate those desperate last stands or raids by a squad of scouting guardsmen, do it, set that up, write a mission and play it with your friends.

[40kGamer]

Some historical rule sets put a great deal of effort into capturing 'reality'. It tends to make the game overly complex, slow and even tiresome for little benefit to the average player.

In Scifi there has to be some disconnect between fluff and game play. Take the new HALO game for instance. If you went by the books the human fleet would spend every game running away or die a horrible death... not much incentive to play the human side.

[ReveredChaplainDrake]

Does this really affect your enjoyment of painting and playing the game with your friends?...

I can not fathom that your enjoyment of this pastime hangs on the parity of rules and fluff.

You would be surprised what I find enjoyable, like the Total War engine I'm working on. Ever seen logistics like territory or supply lines actually matter in 40k? Because they're front-and-center in my game. And this oughta' give some people panic attacks: the only "luck" in the entire system is that you don't know what your opponent's resources are specifically until you actually attack their front lines and find out. It's entirely up to you to bluff the other guy out, and no dice will save you if you get found out and outmaneuvered. I should not be designing tighter and more sensible wargaming mechanics over lunch breaks than GW does for $50 / codex.

I've given up on GW games being balanced. If the metagame is gonna' be reduced to a Wraith-measuring contest for the foreseeable future and thereby render skill utterly moot, the least the game could do to justify the investment I put into it is actually tell some cool stories. Black Library seems to do this pretty well. But no, the designers can't even do that right. To them, it's about making sure their pets win, and they'll bring a hunting rifle to the cockfight to make sure it happens.

[Mr Mystery]

At the end of the day, any game is going to be abstract, else it would be real life.

From the field to the gaming room to the bedroom, playing games is inherently abstract.

You want background realism in 40k? Good luck killing a single Space Marine. Necrons would outnumber you horribly, and still keep coming. Imperial Guard your next game? Background wise you have as much chance of facing off against endless hordes of Guardsman as an overwhelming tank assault, which you simply are not packing enough Dakkas to stop.

You don't have to appreciate the game to enjoy the background, though from my perspective that's not necessarily true the other way round. There are better war games out there if that's all you're looking for as a player.

[Kirsten]

In Operation, brain and heart surgery have similar difficulty to working on an arm or leg.

that made me lol

[Houghten]

Snakes and Ladders has you riding down on the back of a snake, realistically, this would break the spine of a snake.

Riding? I always thought the point was they eat you.