What makes a good game?

There have been a few threads on various messageboards about Warmachine and/or Hordes and how good a game experience they are for people that are used to WFB or 40K.

And the one interesting thing about these conversations is that they have pointed out to me just how many different ways there are to get a rewarding experience from a game.

Say what you like about the 40K rules but there is certainly a lot of room in that system (as well as WFB) for gamers to convert miniatures and create unique characters and figures. And this is a very rewarding experience if you are indeed interested in building and creating new miniatures.

Warmachine really doesn’t have this aspect to it (yet, as Privateer Press continues to promise the ability to order individual model components) and so some players find it a dull game as there is no apparent way to customise your army.

Unless you look at the strategic and tactical aspects of the game and then Warmachine shines in that you can build new synergies between units and casters to create new tactical options for your miniatures. This is even more the case in Hordes where Warbeasts also have new spells that they bring to the army.

Which makes it difficult really to help suggest games to someone unless you have a good idea of what that person is looking for in a game. One recent messageboard poster asked about Warmachine and I suggested that he not play it since he obviously got so much out of converting his miniatures.

This also makes one wonder if there will ever be a “better” version of the 40K rules. If the majority of 40K gamers aren’t as interested in the rules as they are in converting and painting does new rules bring anything new to the table to help them get more from the game?