Initial Impressions
March 15, 2005
As of this date I've been playing Warhammer 40K for two weeks. Technically I've been involved in the hobby since Christmas (about three months), but I've only played four games. I probably could have played more but I'm generally speaking not crazy about doing things in a manner I deem "weak," so I didn't want to play until my army was painted enough to not be embarrassing.
Now that I've played a few times I've gotten a taste for the game. Strategy games are my absolute favorites followed closely by role-playing games. Strategy games with complex rules and endless variations are the holy grail of gaming (in my mind at least) and to be able to incorporate elements of role-playing (however small) is... well, it's hard to say that I'm anything but glad I found this game. Add to the mix an element of collectable card game variance (deck building and army building share some strategic and thematic elements; truthfully they share some cost elements, too), and this may be the best game ever.
But I can't be me and not nitpick the game a little. Actually, I have to nitpick more than just the game because Games Workshop has managed to combine a game, a hobby and a company into a sort of trinity of geek-marketing genius that I admit to being sucked into hook, line, sinker and a little bit of the reel, too. For clarity's sake I'll break this down into three sections: Game, Hobby and Community/Company (Company referring to Games Workshop).
The Game
I only have experience with 4th Edition (and rather limited experience at that) so on one hand that gives me a disadvantage to being able to fully grasp the scope of the game with regards to its history. But, on the other hand it gives me a unique perspective on the game that veterans probably don't have because I'm a gamer who just happens to be dipping into wargaming for the first time much later in life than most.
Necessarily the game is abstract. It has to cope with an infinite number of possible combinations of game boards, armies, special rules, unique circumstances and customizations. From that perspective the 4th Edition rules do a remarkably good job of effectively simulating a strategic battle experience in a way that is specific enough to not leave players fumbling trying to make arbitrary rulings all the time while remaining general enough that the game itself is, at least in non-tournament settings, open to any number of customizations.
At first some of the rulings seem odd. For example it might at first make sense to have partial cover provide merely a bonus to an Armour Save rather than counting as a separate Save roll completely. But when you realize that Armour Saves can be negated by weapons with a sufficient Armour Piercing value but Cover Saves would still apply, it makes sense. Hiding behind a low wall has an off chance of protecting against that Lascannon blast, even if your armour would never stand a chance.
It is well-thought-out rules like this that impress me because the game seems to be at a state (now, in 4th Edition at least) where the abstractions are refined enough to be representative enough of the combat being portrayed by a game to allow a player's imagination to fill in the more specific details yet they don't over-represent the combat at the expense of gameplay (the casualties taken as a result of an ordinance blast which don't fall under the template is a good example; that's pretty abstract but it can be explained away with a touch of imagination and doesn't ruin or unbalance gameplay).
Of course every game of this level of complexity is going to result in a persistent state of tweaking. New units, models, rules or variations will inevitably require refinement and will affect some other aspects of the game in unexpected ways that can only be brought to the forefront through the playtesting of thousands of games, not the several hundred from in-studio playtests.
That being said, my main complaints with the game itself center around the game components, that is the books and codexes rather than the mechanics themselves. Fortunately for the mechanics they can be changed both to fix problems and to suit the individual player's tastes. Unfortunately, the way the rules are delivered to the players are only somewhat flexible and likely not to change.
The problem I see is that the $50.00 core rulebook is only really worth about $15.00. The reason I say this is because the actual rules take up only about 80 pages of the 300+ page tome. The rest of the book is filled with hobby tips, fluff (backstory and setting details), full page pictures of painted armies and a lot of other essentially optional (some might say pointless) filler. I'm not suggesting the backstory details and lovely photos of painted models aren't interesting or even useful, but I am suggesting that they combine to make a book that at most is $25.00 twice as expensive. This in itself might not bother me so much (most role-playing books have a similar devotion to the extraneous... it helps set the stage for the role-playing aspects of these games) except that the core rules are only part of what you need to start your own army since you need a codex for your particular army as well (at another $20.00). Regardless of whether I think the codexes are worth the price, they still contain vital information to the game that can't be found in the core rules.
It could be argued that the same holds true for a game like Dungeons and Dragons where the mosters, magical spells and Dungeon Master's guides are seperate purchases. The difference there is that monsters, magical spells and DM-specific rules are only necessary for specific subsets of players. Every Warhammer 40,000 player who wishes to field an army needs a codex to determine how much their army's elements cost and what is available to them. The difference is required purchase versus optional, even if the option feels a little compulsory.
The way I feel it should be done is one of two ways: The first case has the core rules being trimmed of all but the most basic fluff, removing all the hobby tips and other backstory stuff except what is strictly required to understand the game setting in a general way. Then the core concepts of the codexes should be incorporated into the core rules. The number of extra pages is probably minimal (if there are even more once you remove the glossy photos from the codexes as well) especially since there is probably a lot of overlap between the codexes as far as basic army construction and optional skills and abilities are concerned. This accomplishes a couple of things, first it allows every player to have a chance to compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of each army by seeing exactly what is possible with each. Secondly it allows all players to have the ability to familiarize themselves with their potential opponents' special rules which could make early n00b games move faster.
The downsides to this approach are obviously that any time a new army is added to the game universe a new rulebook would need to be printed. The solution would be to wait to introduce new armies until the next edition, but Games Workshop seems to be pretty interested in leaving themselves plenty of options for game expansion, even between editions.
The other option would be to not have a core rulebook at all; instead each codex contains the full rules, perhaps even customized to use the army's strengths as examples. In this case every player has the same rules and the information for their army in one place. This also may have the added benefit of giving each player the universe perspective of just their army. As it stands most of the fluff is written from the Space Marines perspective and those perspectives are only adjusted by the fluff in the individual codexes which makes the game universe seem a little like everyone is focused on the Space Marines and other races are incidental.
In either case it seems that in addition to the core rules, whether they be one book with all the codexes or a series of rulebook/codexes, there could be a second book called the Hobby Book which includes all the information currently found in the fluffy parts of the core rules, the "How To..." books on painting and terrain-building plus some extended backstory material. Obviously this book would be completely optional, but I suspect many people would buy it anyway (about as many as buy the How To guides already) because while it may be rather pointless, the fluff is pretty interesting and generally well-written and it does help move the game beyond just a variable board game into a sort of role-playing/board game hybrid that works very well.
The other reason the books need to be redone is that their layout is awful. No indexes in the codex? Why? The rules are presented in a linear fashion in 4th Edition which works okay, but what is needed is something like the game overview/summary sheets provided in the back of the rulebook only useful. As it is a complex game like Warhammer demands quick and easy access to the rules covering specific situations because no one likes the "Rules Lookup Phase" and Games Workshop's information layout (and insistence on filling books with excess fluff) makes this more difficult than it needs to be.
The current means of introducing new players to the game (the Battle of Macragge boxed set) is on the right track, but it is too specific for experienced gamers who simply happen to be getting into Warhammer later. I knew before I started playing that I didn't want to be Tyranids or Space Marines; since the Battle for Macragge set includes those two armies only I didn't want to drop $50.00 for models I had no need for. The simplified rulebook is a good idea, but I'd like to see it sold seperately from the rest of the boxed set components.
Hobby
The hobby portion of Warhammer (modelling, painting, terrain building, etc.) is in a certain respect what sets it (and other wargames) apart from your average game. Being able to combine the customization and creativity of other hobbies like model trains, model cars and arts/crafts with a strategic game is inspired.
Unfortunately, it's also expensive. One of the most discouraging things I've seen in my travels around the net to learn about Warhammer is that there are a lot of people who struggle to exit the game/hobby. I suspect that by and large this has to do with the cost committment involved. To a certain extent, any hobby is expensive. The fact that in this case the hobby part is only the beginning and when you finish that you still have a game to play makes it attractive to me. I enjoyed building models as a kid, but once they're done they usually just kind of sit there and collect dust.
I have heard a lot of people complain about the price of the components. Games Workshop has inflated the prices of its products; the question really is to what extent and whether the prices are reasonable or not. You can look at it one way: For the cost of one of the army Megaforces (roughly 800-1,000 points worth of models in most cases), a tube of superglue, four or five paint colors and a few odds and ends like brushes you can probably field an army that will bring plenty of enjoyment for around $175.00. That's not cheap to play a game (especially when you consider that you also need another $75.00 in books which makes the cost of entry to the game a minimum of about $250.00), however comparing a game like Dungeons and Dragons where a couple books sets you back about $50.00 or $60.00; adding an entire hobby to that could easily be worth about $200.00.
Where they get you is with the same mindset the Collectable Card Games do: Get better. In wargaming there seems to be the concept that the army you field is incidental, your primary asset is your tactical skills. This may be theoretically true, but as the game is ultimately decided by a few key skirmishes or movements or decisions, the details that lead up to those key moments in a battle will be influenced primarily by tactics but the actual outcomes are determined by the roll of dice. That being the case, it is in a player's best interest to stack the odds in his/her favor as much as possible.
Generally this is accomplished by purchasing and having available the most powerful and most varied units, models or options in the game. Like buying expensive individual cards to complete a killer deck combo in a CCG, Games Workshop models tend to be priced according to usefulness: Vehicles and powerful individual characters are comparatively pricey compared to the boxes of generic troops you can get which aren't necessarily that remarkable on the gaming table.
While having a fairly mundane army hovering around 1,000 points is fine, most players will probably start lusting after a particular component beyond the basics soon enough. It is this treadmill effect that I think eventually pushes some older players away once they have to start juggling the demands of the game on their wallets which is eventually going to be solely replensished by money they earn themselves.
Community/Company
Whenever you commit to an activity whose sole financial beneficiary is one monolithic company I think you generally want that company to feel worthy of your devotion. As someone starting out in this hobby/game I have already devoted somehere in the range of $200 to GW and they have more on the way.
But dealing with for-profit companies and expecting them to always do what you wish they would is a foolish game. Ultimately the company is likely to only answer to the almighty buck and while normally that means you have to be somewhat beholden to the consumers holding those dollars, there are plenty of occasions where the interests of the company and the interests of their customers will clash.
One example I see already is the official Games Workshop forums on their website. Now being a web guy I am well aware of the hazards inherent in online forums. People online are simply insane and close moderation is generally required to keep some semblance of order at all times.
But I think GW has gone a little far with their restrictions. The fact that threads are locked whenever prices are brought up, or if anything negative is said about the company. Obviously GW doesn't want their forums littered with sladerous remarks, but some the line between constructive criticism and bashing is perspective and nothing more. Also the fact that the discontinued race from 40K, Squats (Space Dwarves) are taboo; threads are locked whenever they come up because the conversations "always turn into flamewars." I understand being disgruntled having to calm people down who get worked up over something, but disagreement is part of open speech and it has to happen to create new ideas, painfully sometimes. As a new player I'm interested in the Squats because I am uncomfortable with the idea of an entire army being dropped from the game and glossed over. I want to know exactly why GW decided to take that course of action and how it came about because I want to know if the same kind of thing could ever happen to my army. I'm not about to invest hundreds of dollars for a game only to find out that in a year or so they are no longer valid with the new rules or something.
These sorts of thing smack of a certain arrogance the company has which troubles me a little. I want to think that the quality of their product is high and their attention to detail in customer service is likewise but their aloof attitudes online (I've even emailed their support staff and gotten a curt, dismissive reply) and in the stores is a touch grating.
What troubles me far more than the company however is the community. Gamers are a unique breed of people to begin with; the kind of person it takes to want to be a tabletop wargame player is the kind of person who would devote a lot of time to dissecting the intricacies of an individual strategy or maneuver.
And the community is made up of often young, earnest players eager to be good at something since often traditional skill like athleticism may elude them or fail to interest them properly. This can make for a subset of extremely competitive players and anytime intensely competitive people unite, there is bound to be some trouble.
There are two related factors here. One is simple extreme competitive behavior: The "win at all cost" mentality which is often lumped under the topic of "sportsmanship." The other is extreme competitive behavior which leads to divergent attitudes about "cheese."
Sportsmanship
Being a good sport is something that people tend to bandy around as a concept but generally have very little notion of what exactly that entails or what it really means. A good sport is simply someone who enjoys the game for itself, not for the singular thrill of victory. All other sportsman-like behaviors flow from that simple attitude which continues to elude many, many people. The problem seems to be that people don't understand why there would be competition at all if winning weren't the most important thing.
The reality is that fun is the most important thing and the truth is that winning is fun. It isn't actually difficult to see where the wires get crossed. What is often overlooked is that fun and losing aren't mutually exclusive so long as the player has the right attitude.
To be continued...