PDA

View Full Version : my not-so-triumphant return to 40k or why FOW>40k



ser_hag
26-11-2007, 02:34
A brief history of my 40k experience:

I started with rogue trader, my first 40k model was a swooping hawk. I played harlequins against my friends marines and learned to dread psykers (damn change allegiance!).

2nd edition came and I picked up ultramarines and world eaters, then later valhalans. Got a bit disillusioned when games would grind down to overwatch bonanzas. Gave up on 40k, playing herohammer and partying.

Then came 3rd edition. Picked up my ultramarines again, and re did my world eaters. Played in a lot of rogue traders. After a while I got burned out on 3rd, feeling that it was too simplified and dumbed down (I really hated the loss of armor save modifiers), so I sold pretty much all of my armies on ebay.

With the advent of 4th edition, I tinkered a bit with it but was fairly unimpressed. Then came the space marine codex and I was really impressed with the customizability of it. I decided to craft a marine army out of models that I liked, which wound up being scouts, bikes, assault marines and landspeeders. I heavily converted most everything with pieces from a tamiya WW2 accesory kit and scratch built my chaplain. I was really pleased with how they looked, and I played a couple of games with it. Then I found flames of war and was blown away (more on that later), and this made me pretty much drop 40k, so my marines wound up in my closet packed away. This was in ’05.

Fast forward to now. My local shop, Mind Games in SLC, UT was having a 1500 point 40k tournament. Several of my good buddies were going to play in it, and as my wife was working that day and I had nothing better to do until the TOOL concert that night, I figured I would dig out my marines and surprise everyone by coming out of retirement. I didn’t want to have to buy any new figs, so I had to cobble together a force with what I had. This is what I wound up with.

Hag’s marines:
Advantages: bikes as troops, assault marines as elites
Disadvantages: the third one, no fancy predators. No allies, no psykers.

Hq: 3 wound chaplain, jump pack, bolt pistol, melta bombs, adamantine mantle

Elites: 8 assault marines, flamer, plasma pistol, sgt with powerfist/bolt pistol, furious charge

Troops: 8 close combat scouts, sgt with powerfist/bolt pistol
Troops: 8 shooty scouts, 2 bolters, 1 missile launcher, 5 sniper rifles
Troops: 5 bikes, 2 melta guns, sgt with powerfist/bolt pistol, multi melta attack bike, expert riders
Troops: 5 bikes, 2 melta guns, sgt with powerfist/bolt pistol, multi melta attack bike. expert riders

Fast attack: land speeder tornado
Fast attack: land speeder tornado
Fast attack: land speeder tornado

Not real optimal, but it was full of units that I liked, and it seemed like it would be tricky to use, which I really enjoy (for reference, my fantasy army is MSU dark elves).

I get to the shop 10 minutes before the tournament to laughs and cheers about my return to 40k, mostly because I am known as the 40k hater of the store- I generally go on about how flames of war is like 40k with all the stupid things taken out of it, so there is some genuine surprise that I am playing.

There are 14 people total, and the following rules are in effect for the whole tournament. Deep strike, infiltrate, victory points, table quarters and a rule called NO MERCY. NO MERCY essentially lets you re roll all rolls against a unit chosen by you at the start of the game. One of my bike units was hated on every…single…game and got creamed for it. Groan. Every table is 6x4 and has the same terrain, a hill or building on the left side and a woods on the right just outside of 12 inches mirrored on the other side plus a clump of trees right in the center. In other words, very open terrain. There are 2 objective markers on the edges of the board 24 inches in.

So my first game I get lined up against a space wolf player who has 3 land speeders, a venerable dreadnaught, some character with a lightning claw in terminator armor, long fangs, terminators, grey hunters, blood claws, wolf scouts and sniper scouts. He eventually wins the land speeder battle and when my bikes get bogged down in combat I don’t have anything to stop them from rampaging through my scouts and assault marines. At the end of the game, I have 1 scout with a missile launcher and 5 assault marines left, and he has his long fangs, a scout with a heavy bolter, 1 terminator, 3 grey hunters and his terminator character left. Bloody bloody. I think my opponent was kind of annoyed that I didn’t know the rules that well, but hey, its been a couple of years, whaddaya gonna do. All in all, it was a reasonably fun game, with me making a lot of power armor saves and him getting a ridiculous amount of kills from his landspeeders that I just couldn’t bring down.

My second game is against eldar. Avatar, maughan-ra, 2 shooty guardian squads, 1 close combat guardian squad, fire dragons, harlequins, 2 pathfinder squads, a war walker and a falcon. Ive heard bad things about falcons these days, some nonsense about only dying 9 percent of the time the get shot at or some such. I do much better this game, my assault marines wading through his fire dragons and pathfinders, my bikes flattening his guardians and my landspeeders not dying and killing his avatar and war walker and eventually immobilizing then killing his falcon (I NO MERCY’ed it, that’s the only way that happnened, im sure of it). His harlequins come out of a building, get a good fleet roll to get within assault range of a couple of my scouts, but maughan-ra fails a target priority roll so has to shoot at the scouts, letting me kill the ones that would be within assault range of the harlequins, so they get stranded in the middle of the board. In my turn they get the attention of said scouts and a bike squad, and after the assault phase the silly space mimes are no more. All things considered, I felt pretty good about this game. At the end he had 4 guardians and 3 pathfinders left, and I had only lost 1 speeder, my shooty scouts and the NO MERCY’ed bike unit.

The third game was against the resident whiny powergamer. You all know the type. He was also playing eldar, but kicked the cheese up a notch. Farseer and warlocks on bikes, maughan-ra, 3 bike units, a shining spear unit, 2 falcons loaded with fire dragons. Oh boy, this will be a treat. The game next to ours is blood angels against a demonhunters army with 5 (FIVE) land raiders, so I guess it could be worse. This game has the special rule of night fight, and also that starting with the second turn, any unit in either deployment zone loses a model or takes a glancing hit if it’s a vehicle. He gets the first turn, and with some astounding night fight rolls manages to stun 2 of my land speeders. He brings his fortune’d farseer and warlocks forward supported by the 2 falcons, and the bike squadrons move forward to shoot at my stuff but don’t see them in the night so they assault back into their deployment zone. maughan-ra also remains in his deployment zone, to which I inwardly chuckle. I hide my assault marines behind a hill and move everything else forward to get out of my deployment zone. My speeders zip around, one of them managing to knock off the pulse laser of a NO MERCY’ed falcon. In hindsight, I should have NO MERCY’ed the warlocks…oh well. His turn he loses 3 bikes and maughan-ra to the molten lava, lmao. He strings his warlock squad out really long and does some lame ass daisy chain assault to assault 2 of my landspeeders and manages to kill them both, despite needing sixes to hit and only doing glancing hits. Sigh. My turn I lose an assault marine to the lava, but they leap over the hill and charge the farseer and his crew. Combined with fortune and crappy dice on my part I manage to do only 1 wound to the farseer. This combat drags on for 3 turns before my marines and chaplain succumb to the toughness 4 might of the warlocks while only killing 1 warlock and putting 2 wounds on the farseer. Egads. My last speeder manages to immobilize the NO MERCY’ed falcon, and my scouts manage to assault some fire dragons, but that’s about it. The game ends with him having 1 fully functional falcon, 1 jetbike, 1 immobilized falcon, the warlocks and farseer and 3 fire dragons. I end with 1 speeder and both scout squads, both bike squads getting killed by shurikens from bikes, bs3 falcons and some awful power armor saves. Ah well, at least I didn’t have to deal with maughan-ra that game, so that’s something.

So I won 1 game and lost 2. I felt like I at least didn’t embarrass myself and surprisingly had a pretty enjoyable afternoon. My 2 friends won overall and best general, so I felt pretty good about that, even though one of them lost his special character jetbike to the lava after he killed too many guys and couldn’t assault out of it. Ha-HA!

Unfortunately, it reinforced what I already believed about 40k…that it is a terrible game with an awesome background and incredible miniatures. When held up against Flames of War, it just doesn’t compare. Here is a quick list of silly things that happen in 40k that don’t happen in FOW:

-You shoot at your enemy and kill too many, oops, now you cant assault and are stuck in the middle of the board! Congrats on killing the enemy, now you’re dead because you’re too good at it.
-Your sniper rifles are out of range, but your missile launcher isn’t. Can’t move the rifles and leave the missile launcher behind to shoot.
-Your non-powerfist guys are too efficient at killing, they kill everything around your powerfist, now he just sits there looking menacing. The next turn your squad gets crushed by a charging squad since your powerfist couldn’t attack and your squad got tarpitted for the turn. D’oh.
-A vehicle that has a 91 percent survivability? Egads, even king tigers can be killed in FOW.

Game balance in FOW is much better than 40k. granted, there are some ways to abuse lists (the midwar lists spring to mind), but even those lists are not as retarded as multiple falcon lists, 6 monstrous creature lists, 5 land raider lists, etc.

Well, that came off a bit negative, but I really did enjoy myself during the tournament, I swear! It was a bit of a treat to dust off my marines, but I think its time for them to go back on vacation while I crush those silly Americans with my Panzer Lehr!

Curufew
26-11-2007, 03:04
I kinda agree with you on the good background but terrible rules part. Hope they can fix it in the rumored 5th edition

JimmyP0567
26-11-2007, 03:20
Sounds like you had fun, but those tricksy eldar boys got you in the end. :P

Xenocidal Maniac
26-11-2007, 04:08
Honestly, I have a tiny little attention span when it comes to reading posts on Warseer... if you wanna start a discussion, keep it short and sweet. No offense intended, but I just think more people are likely to read what you have to say when it's not extremely long.

That said, entitling your post "why FOW>40k" isn't gonna win you lots of friends here. Not that you necessarily care. But seriously, why bother? You're coming into a 40k forum, where it's probably safe to assume the resident posters enjoy 40k, and telling them they're wrong. While I agree with a lot of your points, it's inherently offensive no matter your intentions, and I might go as far as to call it trolling.

In any case, I am glad you enjoyed the tournament. Do you think you might have more fun with an army other than marines? I was sick of 40k with my marines, and then I switched to Guard and like it a lot more.

Playa
26-11-2007, 05:20
Hey,


I am known as the 40k hater

Um, welcome to Warseer?


silly things that happen in 40k that don’t happen in FOW:

-You shoot at your enemy and kill too many, oops, now you cant assault

And that can't happen in real life? 40k isn't a sim, but that point's a stretch.
That's a rule you're expected to manage with a tactic called, um, "tactics".
Move or don't move? Which way? How far? Shoot or don't shoot? Which Unit?
The player in your point (you?) chose poorly. You choose poorly, you pay.

Your bad, not GW's.


-Your sniper rifles are out of range, but your missile launcher isn’t. Can’t move the rifles and leave the missile launcher behind

You're still thinking in Rogue Trader terms. 40k is Unit vs Unit, now.
You're expected to craft effective Units with a cohesive battlefield role.
With rare exceptions, 40k doesn't mandate clumsy Unit compositions.

Your bad, not GW's.


-Your non-powerfist guys are too efficient at killing, they kill everything around your powerfist

40k defines the Units. Unit choices and tactics are up to the player.
This is a variation on point one. IE, an example of poor tactics.

Your bad, not GW's.


Game balance in FOW is much better than 40k

I'm at a loss as to how 40k can so handily dominate FoW in the marketplace.
If it's as wonderful as you say, why is it such a very, very weak competitor?


those lists are not as retarded as multiple falcon lists, 6 monstrous creature lists, 5 land raider lists, etc.

Occasional retarded lists are fun! A simple "Not again!" stops boring replays.
I've never been *forced* to play a 40k list I didn't think would be fun. You?


I crush those silly Americans with my Panzer Lehr

For Warseers that don't know, Flames of War is a WWII sim in 15mm.
Incredibly, the models are, pound-for-pound, more expensive than Citadel's.
If the rules were truly superior to 40k, they'd be used in 28mm SciFi games.

They're not.


Playa

dblaz3r
26-11-2007, 05:39
Hey,


I'm at a loss as to how 40k can so handily dominate FoW in the marketplace.
If it's as wonderful as you say, why is it such a very, very weak competitor?

Playa

Because who wants to play a game with dumb old war guys when you can be the most disgusting devastator in a galaxy of the future..... really???:D

And at the OP, what is the point of telling us why you think FOW is better??? YAWN!!1

big squig
26-11-2007, 06:31
40k is brilliant game (if) you play on aproper table with a proper mission.
That was a terrible tourny and who ever organized it should be shot and left out in the woods.

LearnedHand
26-11-2007, 06:49
@OP

Well, I thought your post was a very enjoyable read. Entertaining even. I rather sympathize with you when it comes to the tournament setting. Just not my thing.

Squallish
26-11-2007, 07:25
While I don't know anything about the FoW ruleset, I do know about the setting.. and to be honest it's been done to DEATH for far too long. I almost pray for a new world war to better the games for my children's children (I jest! ;)).. but the point still stands that WW2 as a setting is overused (BF1942, TFort, CoH) and boring.

40k is great because of the variety of armies available. The ruleset, while not the most realistic, is simplistic to allow for quick games.


-You shoot at your enemy and kill too many, oops, now you cant assault and are stuck in the middle of the board! Congrats on killing the enemy, now you’re dead because you’re too good at it

This point is the only one I agree with, the rest I'm fine with. You should be able to assault anything within your charge distance, starting with the squad you shot at.

lolman
26-11-2007, 08:02
cant you think of it in real time? IN RL the harlies wouldn't have died where they were on the gameboard, it represents the time taken to reach the unit. Therefore, by having to run those extra few metres it gave the marines enough time to turn and blow them away? Valid?

Durath
26-11-2007, 08:17
And at the OP, what is the point of telling us why you think FOW is better??? YAWN!!1

Indeed. This is what I got out of it:

"I don't have any experience with 4th edition but decided to participate in a competitive tournament.

I made a really poor army based on real world thinking because I have no gaming experience with this edition, and brought them to the table.

I got spanked and didn't win more than lose, now I am going to complain on a 40k forum and say how wonderful another game from a different genre (being historical/real world based). Waaaaa!"

To OP: Really friend, if you want to whine, try Relic's 40k TT forum. This isn't really the place.

If you want pointers on how to make your army better for Tournament level play, please, edit out all the "cheese" references and QQ from your OP or delete it and repost. You'll find there is a ton of solid advice to be had here.

Vic
26-11-2007, 08:24
@ squal:
And a bleak gothic future isnt?!? Seriously, the overused cliche's and outright plaigarism of the 40k universe has been noted ad nauseum, so calling one game with a better setting over another is a bit of a stretch IMHO.

That said, both games cater to a different crowd. One caters to those who'd like to have a historical background, the other to those who want a sci-fi background. I play both, and yes, FOW does have better rules, but I do like the background, the models and the fluff surrounding 40k. So to say that one is better than the other is a matter of opinion.

Having said that, my biggest problem lies with GW itself. I dont care for their hamfisted corporate practices (pricing mostly, ridiculous rules on web sales, past abuse of independents etc), and for the direction they've taken the company on in the last 7 years. They are shooting themselves in the foot.

@OP, couldnt you have titled and worded this thread a wee bit better? I mean, you come on a 40k board to tell us you hate 40k!?!? WTF?? OK, you didnt have fun, we get it. Why drag FOW into this? How about maybe posting about what YOU think is wrong with the game and WHY YOU didnt have fun instead of saying "this game sux and btw FOW is better"?

chromedog
26-11-2007, 08:25
That tournament table layout was pure crap. The responsible peon should be staked out on an ant nest, smeared with honey and the remains left for the buzzards. No wonder you were getting creamed.

The thing with FOW, though, is that there is more than one manufacturer of 15mm WW2 stuff. You don't have to use their stuff in a tourney (how are they going to tell?), so it isn't necessarily as expensive as you seem to think.

stonehorse
26-11-2007, 08:40
I'm at a loss as to how 40k can so handily dominate FoW in the marketplace.
If it's as wonderful as you say, why is it such a very, very weak competitor?

:wtf:

Try GW is a well established company with a lot of highly visable high street shops, each housed by staff/management with a very aggressive retail mentality and targets a very easy target.

Where as Battlefront Miniatures who produce Flames of War have no high street shops, and have to rely on the many Internet shops and the brick and mortar shops that sell their products.

Also,

GW have been going for how long now? Roughly 30 years, where as Battlefront Miniatures have I think been going for 4 years.

Just because it is as you say 'a very, very weak competitor' does not mean that the game is worse. Sorry to sound like such a Captain Obvious... but some people really need to think about what they are typing.

Just for the record I don't play Flames of War, the only reason being is that WWII bores me to tears, and seeing a fully grown man cry is never a pretty sight ;)

Mojaco
26-11-2007, 09:16
The third game was against the resident whiny powergamer. You all know the type. He was also playing eldar, but kicked the cheese up a notch. Farseer and warlocks on bikes, maughan-ra, 3 bike units, a shining spear unit, 2 falcons loaded with fire dragons. Oh boy, this will be a treat.
How is that cheese? Seems like a good list, but not super-common and not overpowered. Sure, 2 falcons are tough, but that shouldn't force anyone not to take them.

Anyway, I've never played FOW, so I'm not expert. But I do know that I'm tired of the WWII setting and the creative freedom is too limiting imo. That some minor issues seem to make more sense in FOW is something I don't care for, as 40k is a great game despite some flaws. And who knows, 5th might change things.

Psycho_Laughs
26-11-2007, 09:23
i had a very similar experience to the OP.

i was a huge GW fanboy. 6 40k armies, fantasy army, necromunda, and even dabled into BFG.
for the longest time my mentality was "gw is the biggest they must be the best."
thinking back that sounds almost orky. in reality is kind of the experience GW inprints in its customers. next time you open up a White Dwarf try to count how many times the word awesome appears and how freely exclamation marks are used. the excitement of GW is very carefully fabricated and disseminated.
it took a friend who was a general gamer to introduce me to Privateer Press. once i got into the system, the complexity added by the sheer amount of synergy your army has, it was refreshing.
after going on 3 season leagues straight, my brain hurt from the amount of thinking i had to do. it felt like playing chess.
40k became the "brain candy" game. when i need a no brainer game to give my brain a rest, i play 40k. it has nothing to do with amount of terrain or adding objectives. the system has serious flaws that no matter how much you try to add to it, the flaws are part of the basic fundament of the game.

i thought though, am i the only one that thinks like that? alas, for the months of february till may, Privateer Press games were played more often at the local games workshop store than actual GW games. it spread to other Gw stores i nthe area. almost every regular and staffer started either a Hordes or Warmachine army. it ended because higher management caught wind of it. most of the new Privateer Press gamers simply moved to independent gaming clubs and stores.
Gw realizes the PP competition is serious, but their solutions are far from ideal. staffers in the British Columbia area are not even aloud to mention PP in conversation unless a customer brings it up. many of the stores had after hours gaming in which many staffers would bring PP to play after hours. that is no longer aloud either.

PP has taken the lower mainland by storm. the rules are dynamic and well thought out, the miniatures are superb, and the company is growing but managing to have that personable atmosphere about it.

why is it important to mention this? well, a lot of 40k gamers out there that do read these forums have never tried a different game setting. most 40kers i know haven't even tried WHFB. yes, 40k has some merit as a game, but the direction of GW seems to be driving more and more gamers to try the competition and what gamers are coming to realise is that the competition can be better.
unfortunately GW is failing to realise this. they keep a closeness with the customer that is a total charade. in canada they had a customer survey on "what could be improved" and the biggest problem customers had 90%+ of the time was price. has anything been done about it? no. then why ask the question?

netpixie
26-11-2007, 09:45
Indeed. This is what I got out of it:

I made a really poor army based on real world thinking because I have no gaming experience with this edition, and brought them to the table.

I got spanked and didn't win more than lose, now I am going to complain on a 40k forum and say how wonderful another game from a different genre (being historical/real world based). Waaaaa!"


The way I read it, it sounds like a combination of using real world thinking when you shouldn't and then using game thinking when you shouldn't He designed a list around what's cool and what he had in his box (ten points) but still fails to appreciate the (real world) point that unsupported troops get mashed. Evidence:



You shoot at your enemy and kill too many, oops, now you cant assault and are stuck in the middle of the board! Congrats on killing the enemy, now you’re dead because you’re too good at it.
-Your sniper rifles are out of range, but your missile launcher isn’t. Can’t move the rifles and leave the missile launcher behind to shoot.
-Your non-powerfist guys are too efficient at killing, they kill everything around your powerfist, now he just sits there looking menacing. The next turn your squad gets crushed by a charging squad since your powerfist couldn’t attack and your squad got tarpitted for the turn. D’oh.

Vaktathi
26-11-2007, 09:51
For Warseers that don't know, Flames of War is a WWII sim in 15mm.
Incredibly, the models are, pound-for-pound, more expensive than Citadel's.
If the rules were truly superior to 40k, they'd be used in 28mm SciFi games.

They're not.



I don't think that's a fair point to make. I can think of a number of game systems with much better rulesets and factions than 40k. What 40k has is the GW infrastructure that most other games don't have, but most importantly is the background and imagery that 40k has. Even my perennial favorite BattleTech pales in comparison.

Simply as a war-games rules-set, 40k is middle of the road average. It's nothing special and isn't amazing in any way and there are others that are much better.

As a total package of background, imagery, models, and ruleset, its amazing.

Pokpoko
26-11-2007, 10:29
I am known as the 40k hatercome to the Other GW games sub-forum,you'll fit right in:D. we also serve roasted fanboy on thursdays:p

as for the post-yeah,sympathize and all that, but as others mentioned-shouldn't have used real-life thinking. 40k is a pure abstract.

Squallish
26-11-2007, 11:26
And a bleak gothic future isnt?!? Seriously, the overused cliche's and outright plaigarism of the 40K universe has been noted ad nauseum, so calling one game with a better setting over another is a bit of a stretch IMHO.

True.. but I think that a dynamic evolving future with a wide array of army styles and appearances is a better setting than an all-IG look for all factions in a historical setting that everyone learns about in school.

To each their own, I just think that gaming is an escape mechanism and fantastic.. but reliving the "recent" past isn't either of those things.

Gaebriel
26-11-2007, 12:50
...
I'm at a loss as to how 40k can so handily dominate FoW in the marketplace.
If it's as wonderful as you say, why is it such a very, very weak competitor?
...
To lay a finger here, because it hasn't been around several decades yet. Let's wait and see where GW and Battlefront stand in 20 years. I think FoW will do very well, because it has a modern quick-flowing rules system based on an enormously popular era, and thus draws interest from both historical and non-historical gamers.


come to the Other GW games sub-forum,you'll fit right in:D. we also serve roasted fanboy on thursdays:p ...Yes, come down there - I do not think 40k is the pinnacle of gaming and I hate GW btw...

unheilig
26-11-2007, 13:34
okay, I like FoW. but there are some thigns you are not keeping in mind.

1. Flames of War has about 10% of the player base that 40k does. Less players means you have to cultivate your own player base and can "groom" new players to your playstyle. 40k has a much larger player base... but that means a wider variety in playstyles.

2. FoW is just as breakable as 40k.

3. 15mm miniatures are terrible. If you don't care enough about the quality of your miniatures to notice that, you are likely wasting your money on the gorgeous GW models.

cerealkiller195
26-11-2007, 14:53
in my mind 40k is like that girl everyone took to prom, she might have not been that amazing but at least she puts out.

so yes i am in that crowd that says 40k has some good miniatures and background but their rules are not as advanced or well balanced as they should be. But the fact that the company is established and it's relatively easy to find a game going in most hobby stores is it's appeal.

Most of the opposition to 40k come from games that are 'skirmish' type games, which allow for the rules to go into great detail what single models can do. But when it comes to established rules for fighting large battles that are supported (miniature wise because we all know GW has a thing against releasing FAQs in a timely matter) GW can't be soundly beat.

Not to say that there aren't some games that are giving GW a thrashing, for example Privateer Press (hordes/warmachine) is definitely putting some hurt on GW sales which i imagine they never thought would grow into what it is today. With the development of technology and the internet GW has to worry about word of mouth that is being spread by competition. GW has been established for a long time, but that was before the real dawn of the information/computer age you forget.

Vic
26-11-2007, 15:29
True.. but I think that a dynamic evolving future with a wide array of army styles and appearances is a better setting than an all-IG look for all factions in a historical setting that everyone learns about in school.

We're talking about 40k here, right? There are some of us who have been clamoring for an evolvong future, and a change in the current status quo, and there are those of us who want 40k to stay in it's current static state. Except for the addition of two races (Tau and Necron), not much has been changed or added to timewise in the 40k Universe...

Baneboss
26-11-2007, 15:46
Unfortunately, it reinforced what I already believed about 40k…that it is a terrible game with an awesome background and incredible miniatures.

I agree completely. The worse rule this system lacks is some kind of overwatch or stand and shoot. I just find it silly enemy can assault me even if it didnt see me at the start of the turn while my infantry just stands and watch...

"oooh my gosh, do yous see these creatures coming at us from behind the building? Lets shoot at them"
"Not yet, wait for my signal! Steady, steady.... Ok people put on your bayonets!"

Kriegsherr
26-11-2007, 16:08
Well, as much as I like 40k I also am very excited about finally starting a FOW Army... especially a north african campaign one, be it DAK or the british 11th army.

I agree with you on most points. Altough you have to see that 40k is far from being a realistic combat sim game or even a good tactical / strategy game. Its a beer and pretzel TT Game that gives you a nice amount of force customisability, and some really neat micro-management-challenges. Its far from being realistic, and doesn't really tries to be, that's why the setting is 40k years in the future and the rule of cool is more important than everything else.

Its like if you compare a DC superhero comic with a good, realistic novel.

Sure, the Novel is more realistic, but nowhere as flashy and inspiring as the DC Comic.

A german Panzergrenadier just isn't a Space Marine, and a Maus Tank is no Baneblade. GW Minis and Fluff is overimposed and sometimes unrealistic, but it is made to please the nerds, and as we all ARE nerds to some degrees, we'll thank GW with frenetic impulse buys.

Well, and then there is the thing that whining about the shortcomings of 40k is seen as almost-trolling by many on this board, especially if compared to a "superior" TT game.

Anyway, just take the game with its shortcomings and see the good parts of it... it's better for the bloodpressure and the general health. ;)

Darkangeldentist
26-11-2007, 17:39
Interesting opening post and some of the comments have also made for enjoyable reading.

I don't really agree though. People bemoan 40K's flaws and fair enough it has plenty but I've not come across a more fun game. Flames of war is fun and certainly requires some good tactical sense. However most of my games left me feeling it to be just as bad as 40K for one-sided games. It's if anything easier to setup and know from the start whether or not you even have a chance against some armies. (I've only played mid-war games so am curious if late war is any better.)

Flames of war is just different to me, not any better or worse. The thing it lacks for me is character, I can't find nearly as much enthuaism for it.

BrainFireBob
26-11-2007, 18:40
There's also the deliberate counter-culture factor. GW gets especially panned by people playing- let's face it- far less popular and widespread games. Large numbers of us enjoy their games. In terms of what I'm looking for- that is, a unit-based company-scale game- there's nothing else that really fits the bill. Unlike many of those into Warmachine et al, I'm not into my individual models dominating, nor do I care to look for that "killer combo," making games mechanistic. I'm also satisfied artistically by the modelling side. And I don't think I'm alone.

Pokpoko
26-11-2007, 19:04
In terms of what I'm looking for- that is, a unit-based company-scale game- there's nothing else that really fits the bill.
actually both AT-43 and Starship Troopers fit the bill perfectly.

catbarf
26-11-2007, 19:47
Both are much better in terms of gameplay. AT-43 is 40k with a lot of things it should have- differing movement rates, overwatch, shooting modifiers- so in essence it's like 2nd Ed. but runs as fast as 4th, and without the herohammer. Starship Troopers is another game that places HEAVY emphasis on squads, and works much better than Apoc for large games. And for both of them, while the minis come pre-painted, the paint is specially formulated to act as a basecoat if you choose to repaint them.

Malorian
26-11-2007, 20:13
40k definately has it's problems, but most of them stem from trying to make it simple to play and geared towards new players.

Personally I think 40k is perfect when allied with fantasy. A lot of people I know start with 40K, get bored with how simple and stupid some rules are and star fantasy, then they need a break and want something a bit easier, and go back to 40k, repeat, repeat

So together the two games work out this problem, although I agree I'd rather see 40k made more like fantasy.

fishtotheface
26-11-2007, 21:06
to the OP. i agree 100%... and it seems around here..more and more people do too. FOW is growing...

marneus54
26-11-2007, 21:18
Wanna kill any eldar tank?
Take a carnifex to the rear and tear it apart. :evilgrin:

FruitSmack!
26-11-2007, 21:40
There's also the deliberate counter-culture factor. GW gets especially panned by people playing- let's face it- far less popular and widespread games. Large numbers of us enjoy their games. In terms of what I'm looking for- that is, a unit-based company-scale game- there's nothing else that really fits the bill. Unlike many of those into Warmachine et al, I'm not into my individual models dominating, nor do I care to look for that "killer combo," making games mechanistic. I'm also satisfied artistically by the modelling side. And I don't think I'm alone.

Oh, you're not alone. Around here you get used to people telling you how wrong you are for actually liking 40k.

Because, it's apparently impossible to enjoy the rules, or the models, or anything else without being a noob or brain damaged.

Just stay there. The Internet Outrage Police will be by shortly to show you the error of your ways.

aaron

catbarf
26-11-2007, 21:59
Wanna kill any eldar tank?
Take a carnifex to the rear and tear it apart. :evilgrin:

Because as we all know, the most efficient means of killing a tank that moves 24" per turn is to use a creature that moves 6" per turn, and will require 4 turns simply to cross the board.

:rolleyes:

marneus54
26-11-2007, 22:01
Because as we all know, the most efficient means of killing a tank that moves 24" per turn is to use a creature that moves 6" per turn, and will require 4 turns simply to cross the board.

:rolleyes:

I had 100% success so far as it only happened once. The guy dropped it off the let out fire dragons i immobilized it with my reaper autocannon then charged the back. then boom good by falcon thing

marneus54
26-11-2007, 22:09
why does nobody listen to me around here? :cries:

What do you mean by that?

Malorian
26-11-2007, 22:11
We listen to you Vasektomy, we're just all stunned at how this threat suddenly went to 'the worst way to take down a falcon...'

ser_hag
26-11-2007, 23:01
Wow, I actually thought this would fade off the first page and into obscurity overnight! Cool. I guess I should mention that I’ve been a long time lurker (like portent days long), rare poster. Granted, I’ven’t spent a lot of time in the 40k forums as I don’t really play it (obviously).

I do suppose that my post may have come off as trolling, but it wasn’t, honestly! It was just me telling my experience of 40k after a hiatus. I did mention a couple of times that I did have a good time, so it wasn’t all negative! More than anything, it made me sad, as 40k has been a part of my life for upwards of 16 years and it in some ways (to me, anyway), has fallen from glory. It’s strange, the models have gotten better, the background added to and fleshed out, but the rules have not gotten better (but arguably worse).

The reason I brought up flames of war is that I really believe that if 40k were to incorporate some of it's mechanics ideas, it would be truly awesome. I realize that it’s not based on realism, and that’s the problem that I ultimately have with it. I realize that we are talking about super human warriors and aliens and giant bugs and demons and giant tanks with non-sloped armor and rivets, but I need a smidgen of realism. You can disagree with me and we can leave it at that, but I personally can’t just leave my brain at the door when I play a wargame. I could when I was a teenager, but not anymore. Some people can, and at times I envy them.

Insert caveat here: the following is my opinion, based on 15 plus years of wargaming.

It’s a squad sized game, which is what 40k really is, apocalypse excepted, with a battalion sized rules set. In a squad sized game, your guys should be able to move and act in at least a mildly realistic fashion. Having a scout squad with a heavy bolter to lay down suppressive fire makes sense realistically. Not being able to leave the heavy bolter behind while the other scouts advance is just silly. Now in a battalion sized game, such abstractions are necessary, otherwise the game bogs down to an unbelievably slow pace (many WW2 games suffer from this, even at a squad level). But a game with 28mm figs such abstraction is unnecessary and detracts from the figs themselves.

2nd edition had a pretty good amount of customizability and was a step in the right direction with cleaning up the rules compared to rogue trader. That said, 2nd was not without its problems, but comparatively, 3rd edition was a huge disappointment. It was around this time that GW found that marketing to kids was a great idea for making money, and I cant fault them for it (they are in it to make cash after all), but 3rd edition dumbed down the game way too much (and 4th edition should really have just been called 3.5 as very little really changed). Heres a quick list of things that changed from 2nd to 3rd that sucked:

-Uniform movement rate. A squad level game doesn’t need that type of abstraction.
- The assault phase essentially giving you a free basic move that happens outside of the movement phase.
- Uniform and silly weapon ranges. A 28mm fig carries a gun that shoots 12 inches? Good grief.
-Removal of to hit/armor save modifiers. I can understand this from a ‘not-to-complex-for-the-kiddies’ standpoint, but come on, it wasn’t that difficult to grasp (not to mention its still in fantasy).
- Vehicle rules in 2nd were poor, but the change into 3rd were not an improvement.

I don’t mean for this to come off as if I were some 2nd edition fanboy, because I’m not…it was also riddled with problems, but subsequent rules editions should be improvements, which I feel 3rd and 4th were not.

This is getting lengthy, and as some people have mentioned, they have no attention span so I will wrap this one up with things that FOW does that 40k really needs to incorporate in order to even have a mild taste of realism:

-in FOW, there is a rule called ‘shooting was too successful’. If you kill everything with shooting and have nothing to assault, you can still launch an assault and take the position (and potentially break through into another assault). If you think that it is okay for your guys to not be able to launch an assault because they were TOO good at shooting, then I am simply at a loss.

- in FOW, there is a rule called ‘defensive fire’ (which someone alluded to earlier, kudos!). this is a really elegant solution to the oft clamored for overwatch type rule. Overwatch is bad, it turns games into a ‘you move you die, so instead you camp’ situation, but without it, units can just rush forward over what should be a killing ground with impunity. Basically how it works is if you wish to assault a unit, they get to shoot at you. If you get hit enough, you get thrown back and pinned. Speaking of pinned…

- being pinned. In any game with rapid firing weapons, rules for suppression should always be present. You get shot at, even if you don’t die, its still disconcerting. If you take enough fire, you duck your head till it stops even if you didn’t catch a bullet to the dome. 40k has nothing simulating this (sniper pinning is reasonably close, but not enough).

- cover rules and being able to ‘go to ground’. Right now, cover gives you an invulnerable save, which is neat, but really being in cover makes you harder to hit. FOW has a neat mechanic that if you are concealed and didn’t move or shoot, you get a LOT harder to hit. It seems like my scouts should be able to hide in a forest and be very difficult to hit- that is their job, after all!

That’s just a few things, and while I was typing I realized that there are a myriad of things that could be added but it would take forever to explain and require a complete and total overhaul of 40k which we all know isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

Anyways, I did have an enjoyable afternoon playing 40k again, but it was tainted with my disappointments in the game system and my pining for the game that could have been as opposed to what it became.

scopedog91
26-11-2007, 23:04
Don't like 40K?
Sell your models, and quit wasting others time.
Good nite, Charlie Brown...

Gaebriel
26-11-2007, 23:13
...
Sell your models, and quit wasting others time.
...
And never, ever bring a point of critique to this forum, you heard me... :p

scopedog91
26-11-2007, 23:15
Yeah, I guess that read a little more hostile, than humorous...

catbarf
26-11-2007, 23:28
Don't like 40K?
Sell your models, and quit wasting others time.
Good nite, Charlie Brown...

Don't agree with him? Shut up and sit down. He's entitled to his opinion as much as you are. Just because this is a 40k forum doesn't make you all-mighty compared to a seemingly-'inferior' FoW player.

Ser_hag, I agree on most of your points, except for pinning. I'm not sure it fits in the game so well- after all, there are many races crazy enough to be unaffected.

ser_hag
26-11-2007, 23:33
I'm at a loss as to how 40k can so handily dominate FoW in the marketplace.
If it's as wonderful as you say, why is it such a very, very weak competitor?

For Warseers that don't know, Flames of War is a WWII sim in 15mm.
Incredibly, the models are, pound-for-pound, more expensive than Citadel's.
If the rules were truly superior to 40k, they'd be used in 28mm SciFi games.

They're not.


Playa

holy cow, you are not livin on this planet. i'm sorry if that comes off snarky, but egads. considering how long FOW has been around, they are incredibly sucessful. And if you think that 40k is more affordable than FOW, you are up in the night. You can buy a playable 1500 point FOW army for about $150. I scarcely need to point out that that amount of money barely scratches the surface of a 40k army. As someone already pointed out, Battlefront has been around for less than 5 years, so give them time.




Indeed. This is what I got out of it:

"I don't have any experience with 4th edition but decided to participate in a competitive tournament.

I made a really poor army based on real world thinking because I have no gaming experience with this edition, and brought them to the table.

I got spanked and didn't win more than lose, now I am going to complain on a 40k forum and say how wonderful another game from a different genre (being historical/real world based). Waaaaa!"

To OP: Really friend, if you want to whine, try Relic's 40k TT forum. This isn't really the place.

If you want pointers on how to make your army better for Tournament level play, please, edit out all the "cheese" references and QQ from your OP or delete it and repost. You'll find there is a ton of solid advice to be had here.

I didn't go into the tournament expecting to do well, so if i came across as bitter that i didn't crush my opponents that wasn't my intent. My problem with the tournament was that silly lists are not only a possibility but should be expected. I'm all for being competetive in a tournament, it just saddens me that such lists can be made at all. thats more of a stab at whoever writes codecies these days.


How is that cheese? Seems like a good list, but not super-common and not overpowered. Sure, 2 falcons are tough, but that shouldn't force anyone not to take them.


I suppose we just differ on what cheese is. 2 tanks and a unit that simply cannot be killed just doesn't seem right to me. It is just not fun to play against, and I don't imagine that it would be fun to play with. No risk, no reward type thinking. Different strokes I suppose.

ser_hag
26-11-2007, 23:37
Don't agree with him? Shut up and sit down. He's entitled to his opinion as much as you are. Just because this is a 40k forum doesn't make you all-mighty compared to a seemingly-'inferior' FoW player.

Ser_hag, I agree on most of your points, except for pinning. I'm not sure it fits in the game so well- after all, there are many races crazy enough to be unaffected.

yeah, that is definitely true, but exceptions could be made for such troops. i think we can certainly agree that khorne berzerkers wouldn't care, but i would think that even space marines have a bit of self preservation. after all, if they're dead, they can't spread the good word, right? :p

catbarf
26-11-2007, 23:39
yeah, that is definitely true, but exceptions could be made for such troops. i think we can certainly agree that khorne berzerkers wouldn't care, but i would think that even space marines have a bit of self preservation. after all, if they're dead, they can't spread the good word, right? :p

'It is better to die for the Emperor than live for yourself'

I kind of get the feeling that Marines wouldn't be affected :p

Damien 1427
26-11-2007, 23:45
When Flames of War release rules for Orks, then it can be considered perhaps equal.

Until then, it can bugger orf.

Xenocidal Maniac
26-11-2007, 23:45
The simple fact is, 40k is not for you.

If you are looking for a "realistic" wargame, with pinning, overwatch, no hand-to-hand, then this is the wrong game for you. It basically sounds like you are trying to fit a square 40k into your round expectation of what a war game should be. If you want "realistic" modern day warfare, play FoW. If you want armored knights running around with guns, play 40k. Simple.

And it's also really hard to take you seriously when you make such patently false and trite statements such as "GW dumbed 40k down for kids". I get sick and tired of hearing it. But in your defense, you're not the only who parrots this fallacy. They "dumbed it down" to make games take less time in order to encourage larger games so they could sell more models. They streamlined it. They didn't dumb it down. It's not like figuring out 2nd ed took a physics degree or anything. Hell, I was playing Rogue Trader when I was 9 or 10, and no one taught me.

EDIT: I wanted to add that I also wanted 40k to be a different game when I first started playing it - I used to play Legions of Steel, which was a fairly detailed and realistic war game with overawatch, pinning, no turn limit, etc. But then I realized that 40k was what it was, and if I wanted to play I'd better be ok with it rather than fight it. For more realistic war simulations, I play other games. For relaxing and playing toy soldier, I play 40k.

Grimtuff
27-11-2007, 00:13
When Flames of War release rules for Orks, then it can be considered perhaps equal.

Until then, it can bugger orf.

Unless the're Naziorks it'll never happen ;)

catbarf
27-11-2007, 00:19
The simple fact is, 40k is not for you.

If you are looking for a "realistic" wargame, with pinning, overwatch, no hand-to-hand, then this is the wrong game for you. It basically sounds like you are trying to fit a square 40k into your round expectation of what a war game should be. If you want "realistic" modern day warfare, play FoW. If you want armored knights running around with guns, play 40k. Simple.

And it's also really hard to take you seriously when you make such patently false and trite statements such as "GW dumbed 40k down for kids". I get sick and tired of hearing it. But in your defense, you're not the only who parrots this fallacy. They "dumbed it down" to make games take less time in order to encourage larger games so they could sell more models. They streamlined it. They didn't dumb it down. It's not like figuring out 2nd ed took a physics degree or anything. Hell, I was playing Rogue Trader when I was 9 or 10, and no one taught me.

EDIT: I wanted to add that I also wanted 40k to be a different game when I first started playing it - I used to play Legions of Steel, which was a fairly detailed and realistic war game with overawatch, pinning, no turn limit, etc. But then I realized that 40k was what it was, and if I wanted to play I'd better be ok with it rather than fight it. For more realistic war simulations, I play other games. For relaxing and playing toy soldier, I play 40k.

It's not that it's unrealistic, it's that it's just silly. By the same token I could argue that [insert fairly bad miniatures game here] is an awesome game, because if you're looking for realism or logic in the game then it's not for you.

The game has been streamlined, yes. But the flavor has been leached out, and extreme concessions have been made to make the game more appealing to a younger target age group. With the real tactics and strategy gone, you might as well just roll two dice and whoever rolls higher wins.

Xenocidal Maniac
27-11-2007, 00:44
The game has been streamlined, yes. But the flavor has been leached out, and extreme concessions have been made to make the game more appealing to a younger target age group. With the real tactics and strategy gone, you might as well just roll two dice and whoever rolls higher wins.

I completely disagree.

And, Catbarf, ever since I learned about your ebay scam on an unsuspecting xBox purchaser, I'm not inclined to speak to you.

FruitSmack!
27-11-2007, 01:31
...But the flavor has been leached out, and extreme concessions have been made to make the game more appealing to a younger target age group. With the real tactics and strategy gone, you might as well just roll two dice and whoever rolls higher wins.

Prove this. Seriously. Prove this in some quantifiable way otherwise you're just doing what everyone else here does when they make this same tired argument; trying to pass off your bias for fact.

You might not like 40k, but no matter how much you keep repeating this tired mantra, it's still not going to magically become true.

aaron

swordwind
27-11-2007, 01:33
Everyone complaining about FoW being WW2 should know that there are rules out there for playing Vietnam, WW1, the American Civil War, the Falklands and a whole bunch of other conflicts, though not officially included in the game, are given the thumbs up from Battlefront. The rules are open enough that they can be applied to literally any scale or period.

scopedog91
27-11-2007, 01:37
I guess CatBarf was so mad he never read my second note, so shut yer own hole...

Polonius
27-11-2007, 02:04
I really, really doubt the game was dumbed down to appeal to a younger crowd. After reading through the 2nd edition rulebook (I didn't play back then) and realizing that I can play a 4k Apocolypse game in the time it would have taken me to play a 2k skirmish in 2nd edition, I grew to appreciate 4th edition a little more.

The rules were streamlined because they were clunky and bloated. When WOTC released D&D 3rd, they gutted a lot of the gunk from 2nd edition. Some flavour was lost, but the game got incredibly more elegant.

I think the same thing happened in 40k. For all of our bellyaching about a loss of flavour, no two units in the game, even in very similar codices, are identical (Barring some tanks, of course). CSMs play differently from DAs, Crusader squads, and Codex tactical squads. Dark Eldar and Craftworld Eldar aren't even close to each other. IG and tau are both shooty races, but couldn't be more distinct. Orks and nids are swarms (well, they used to be...) but play differntly.

Could things be better? Sure. I'd like psycology rules, more advanced psyker rules, better vehicle rules and greater viability for assault troops that footslog or only have closed top transports. These are quibbles.

GW doesn't dumb done rules to appeal to kids. GW writes rules solely to sell more minis. That's it.

AgeOfEgos
27-11-2007, 02:38
40K IP > Historical anything for a great majority of people (Kids specifically)

FOW has its place but its just kind of....there. Yeah it's more balanced then 40K, certainly more strategic but I can only do so many WW2 battles before it loses its flair. Not to mention you are certainly somewhat roped into the battles you may have US vs Brits, German vs German.....it's training...uh yeah ;).

When I think 40K I think "game". When I think FOW I think "Strategy simulation". *Shrug*

Xenocidal Maniac
27-11-2007, 02:41
GW doesn't dumb done rules to appeal to kids. GW writes rules solely to sell more minis. That's it.

Your whole post was right on, Polonius.

Out of all the stupid statements I see on Warseer, none pisses me off more than the "GW dumbs its rules down to appeal to kids" line. Kids are young, not retarded. As much as some gamers may like to think of themselves as uber-intelligent, there is nothing about any wargame that is conceptually difficult for anyone over the age of 10 or so.

They streamlined the rules because they were frankly a big ****** mess before 3rd ed. 2nd ed rules were great for small games, and I love using them for Necromunda, but they simply made no sense once you had, say, more than 20 models on the board. Have any of you guys even seen the Rogue Trader book? The game was originally designed for small skirmishes of like 5-10 models per side, and the rules were correspondingly detailed.

ser_hag
27-11-2007, 02:58
Your whole post was right on, Polonius.

Out of all the stupid statements I see on Warseer, none pisses me off more than the "GW dumbs its rules down to appeal to kids" line. Kids are young, not retarded. As much as some gamers may like to think they are uber-intelligent, there is nothing about any wargame that is conceptually difficult for anyone over the age of 10 or so.

They streamlined the rules because they were frankly a big ****** mess before 3rd ed. 2nd ed rules were great for small games, and I love using them for Necromunda, but they simply made no sense once you had, say, more than 20 models on the board. Have any of you guys even seen the Rogue Trader book? The game was originally designed for small skirmishes of like 5-10 models per side, and the rules were correspondingly detailed.

While it is true that most kids that play these games are not retarded, I think it is safe to assume that they do have the attention span of, well, kids. Simplicity makes for a game that kids will play. Do you see many kids playing LOTR or BFG? I don't think its because the younger crowd wouldn't like the models or the background, the rules are considerably more complex than 40k. Of course that observation only comes from the microcosm of my local gaming community, your results may vary naturally.

Anyways. Your streamlined is my dumbed down. Again, just differing opinions.

ankara halla
27-11-2007, 03:11
Have any of you guys even seen the Rogue Trader book? The game was originally designed for small skirmishes of like 5-10 models per side, and the rules were correspondingly detailed.

Most of my games (as in more than the rest of the editions combined) of 40k were under the RT rules, then third, then second and then the fourth (to explain the lapse there, I took a break for a while and am again allmost out of the hobby).

I remember playing my Squats and Mentor Legion in armies far bigger than 5-10 models, closer to 50 actually, against two or even three opponents at a time and at most even the very biggest battles took no longer than a long afternoon. The one-on-one games took no longer than the games I've played in 4th ed tournaments.

For all the rules in RT for different situation not all of them (or even most of them!) came in to play in every turn of every game. Once you got the basics it wasn't bad at all. Also, playing with mates and restricting certain choises wasn't (and still isn't) a problem. Also, having a GM usually speeded things up quite a bit whenever the game got slow.

But hell, I'm just a grumbling old git and I know that. There are people here who like the game as it is now better and that's cool with me.

But just remeber kids, critique isn't a bad thing at all. What's bad is not having an open mind about stuff, including critique directed at the oh so holy Warhammer 40k IV edition. Sure, most of it is purely subjective, but there really are a lot of things which in a lot of people minds could be better in this edition of 40k. To summarily tell them to sell of their miniatures of bugger off becouse "This is the place where all the fans come to sing and dance so you mr. grumpyhead have no place to voice your opinion in here so why don't you just make like a tree and leave" is just narrow minded and childish. People offering their points of view about their gaming experience in 40k, like the OP, shouldn't be dismissed. It lowers the quality of the forums in general.



And this just peeved me off...


Prove this. Seriously. Prove this in some quantifiable way otherwise you're just doing what everyone else here does when they make this same tired argument; trying to pass off your bias for fact.

You might not like 40k, but no matter how much you keep repeating this tired mantra, it's still not going to magically become true.

aaron

Okey, from your sig.




2nd Ed Rules were slow and pointless.
Rogue Trader background was stupid and silly.

The sooner you understand this, the sooner you'll realize I'm right.

Long live 4th edition.

So how about it aaron, prove this. Seriously. Prove this in some quantifiable way otherwise you're just doing what everyone else here does when they make this same tired argument; trying to pass off your bias for fact.

You might not like older editions of 40k, but no matter how much you keep repeating your signatures tired mantra, it's still not going to magically become true.




It's all subjective, just give it a rest dude

FruitSmack!
27-11-2007, 03:34
And this just peeved me off...



Okey, from your sig.



So how about it aaron, prove this. Seriously. Prove this in some quantifiable way otherwise you're just doing what everyone else here does when they make this same tired argument; trying to pass off your bias for fact.

You might not like older editions of 40k, but no matter how much you keep repeating your signatures tired mantra, it's still not going to magically become true.




It's all subjective, just give it a rest dude

The sig is a joke specifically because of threads like this. No where on Warseer have I ever seriously forced my bias on anyone the way people like catbarf do on these threads. It's true I don't like older versions of the game, but I don't preach to the masses that older versions were only suitable for creepy bearded perverts that hang out in dingy game shops, for example. I actually recognize that 2nd had a strong following and why others have fun with it. I can admit that other people's fun is valid.

It is all subjective, I agree.

Also, your clever use of copy/paste sure showed me. Bravo. I'll remember not to cross wits with you again.

aaron

PotatoLegs
27-11-2007, 03:34
Do you see many kids playing LOTR or BFG?

I actually enjoyed your lengthy post, and thought you've brought decent light as to the game-play issues of the system. If anything its your perspective, and not one that's without reason so if 5th ed is going to benefit at all, it needs to step outside iteself and take a good hard look.

Having said that, I'll challenge you on the above quote - my few brief incursions into GW shops have kids(who are otherwise fresh to the entire TT gaming experience) heading straight for the LOTR section. The movies were an excellent springboard to capitalise upon, and its the kids fascinated with them that I see playing the game, not older people. In this case I don't think game-system factors in at all; its familiarity and affection that has dictated the sales

AgeOfEgos
27-11-2007, 03:46
Anyways. Your streamlined is my dumbed down. Again, just differing opinions.

It truly is. I've seen WW2 games played where each infantry man had action points, injury statistics and all kinds of crazy tables. They were having a blast, whereas I would have needed a scotch post-game.

Me...well I like models...what they do is secondary ;). I've seen gorgeous 15mm armies on the table and it just doesn't grab me = |.

Xenocidal Maniac
27-11-2007, 04:21
Anyways. Your streamlined is my dumbed down. Again, just differing opinions.

I suppose I am being nitpicky here, but, what you said was that GW had dumbed the rules down to appeal to kids. That's not a statement of opinion. It's a statement of what you think to be fact. And you're just wrong. In any case, no big deal. It's not worth fighting over.

So what are you going to do? Sell your stuff? Give it another try? Wait until a later edition?

ankara halla
27-11-2007, 06:18
The sig is a joke specifically because of threads like this. No where on Warseer have I ever seriously forced my bias on anyone the way people like catbarf do on these threads. It's true I don't like older versions of the game, but I don't preach to the masses that older versions were only suitable for creepy bearded perverts that hang out in dingy game shops, for example. I actually recognize that 2nd had a strong following and why others have fun with it. I can admit that other people's fun is valid.

It is all subjective, I agree.

Well, that's cool. The thing was that in a thread like this I did read it as if you were forcing your bias against opinions different from yours. And your sig sure didn't help.

But meh, and even though I need to check the batteries in my sarcasm detector, it'd still help an illiterate foreign language speaking tired old git like me if people would just cool it off and get past the whole you/me/us/them attitude that people have of other gamers that have different ideas about the different editions of this game of ours.

I mean, for me, every edition has had something that was better in it than the previous one. So far, unfortunately, the later editions have also had less good things about them than the previous editions, and I know I'm not alone. Seriously, where's the harm in trying to find a consensus of a better next edition among all the players (yeah, yeah... we all know that ain't ever gonna happend but it'd still be a nice exercise of the mind, right?).


Also, your clever use of copy/paste sure showed me. Bravo. I'll remember not to cross wits with you again.

aaron

I'll surely hope you'll keep that stand as my wits aren't half as sharp when put under even the most lenient of pressures, I'll snap like twig on a camels back... :p

EmperorEternalXIX
27-11-2007, 06:35
It's pretty illogical to suggest the game is so horrifically flawed when so many people play it to fine effect, don't you think?

I mean yeah, there are stupid moments. But I find they often enhance the game, believe it or not. Like the whole shooting but not getting the charge thing -- that adds an element to the game that implies the enemy is actively participating even during your shooting phases. Which makes sense from a gameplay perspective. Nothing is worse than a game where it is truly one sided each turn. It also adds a degree of randomness that, let's face it, on real battlefields, god knows what kinds of random things happened that changed a warzone's outcome.

That being said I still think it is illogical to call 40k so seriously flawed. If it was that broken would we not see higher volumes of abuse to the more bizarre rules...would we not have battle reports filled with glitched battles and rigged outcomes?

That aside if you don't like 40k I fail to see what you are doing as a part of this great community.

ankara halla
27-11-2007, 06:42
Sooo... do you think that everything that was changed from previous editions was "horrifically flawed" and that there weren't many people who played "it to fine effect"?

Varath- Lord Impaler
27-11-2007, 06:48
Sooo... do you think that everything that was changed from previous editions was "horrifically flawed" and that there weren't many people who played "it to fine effect"?

Well...in a way i could see that viewpoint.

If it wasnt 'flawed' then the games designers would have no reason to change it. They wanted to match their vision of 40k with what happens on the tabletop. They make rules to copy this, then balance them.

What happened in 2nd to 3rd edition was that there was a change in vision, and the rules had to be changed to accomodate this, in that way they were 'flawed' maybe not becuase they were broken, or boring, or anything like that, but they didnt corroborate with the designers vision.

ankara halla
27-11-2007, 07:17
So, in effect, what you are saying is that the game desingers at the studio have done their best to make fair and balanced rules to 40k to fit their (or their bosses or whose-ever) vision of the setting?

I doubt anyone could find one rational person on the face of the planet who'd disagree with that.

But isn't the question, among us mere mortal consumers (some more than others, other even less), that what in that vision of theirs goes against the grain of what we, unique induviduals and mere mortal consumers that we are, find to be a better "vision" of incorporating rules on how to move our little plastic and metal figures on a tabletop?

What would be the point of ever discussing anything constructively if one wouldn't be able to point out perceived flaws and possible improvements as well as failures and shortcomings?

ser_hag
27-11-2007, 07:37
I suppose I am being nitpicky here, but, what you said was that GW had dumbed the rules down to appeal to kids. That's not a statement of opinion. It's a statement of what you think to be fact. And you're just wrong. In any case, no big deal. It's not worth fighting over.

So what are you going to do? Sell your stuff? Give it another try? Wait until a later edition?

well, actually...



Insert caveat here: the following is my opinion, based on 15 plus years of wargaming.

2nd edition had a pretty good amount of customizability and was a step in the right direction with cleaning up the rules compared to rogue trader. That said, 2nd was not without its problems, but comparatively, 3rd edition was a huge disappointment. It was around this time that GW found that marketing to kids was a great idea for making money, and I cant fault them for it (they are in it to make cash after all), but 3rd edition dumbed down the game way too much (and 4th edition should really have just been called 3.5 as very little really changed).

as for my figs, i will hang on to them (because they are painted pretty well, and honestly the secondary market for GW figs is awful at the moment) and maybe even pick up a game or two here or there, but definitely not in a tournament setting or against any ridiculous armies. it isn't horrible, there are worse ways to spend my time, but there are a myriad of games i would rather play given the chance.

Darnok
27-11-2007, 07:44
I doubt anyone could find one rational person on the face of the planet who'd disagree with that.

I'm sure we'll find one on WarSeer. Just give this thread a bit more time. ;)

Varath- Lord Impaler
27-11-2007, 07:49
So, in effect, what you are saying is that the game desingers at the studio have done their best to make fair and balanced rules to 40K to fit their (or their bosses or whose-ever) vision of the setting?

I doubt anyone could find one rational person on the face of the planet who'd disagree with that.

Mwahahaha! I have created the Uber Arguement!



But isn't the question, among us mere mortal consumers (some more than others, other even less), that what in that vision of theirs goes against the grain of what we, unique induviduals and mere mortal consumers that we are, find to be a better "vision" of incorporating rules on how to move our little plastic and metal figures on a tabletop?

It all depends on how you want to play the game.

there are many avenues.

1. You could not play but still collect
2. You could leave the game entirely
3. you could play the game as the designers intended
4. You could send in ideas and hope to influence the designers
5. You can make your own rules and get your friends to play them.

In the end the rules are a guideline to what GW suggests we do with our models, its up to us to choose whether we accept them or not.


\
What would be the point of ever discussing anything constructively if one wouldn't be able to point out perceived flaws and possible improvements as well as failures and shortcomings?

There is a point to it, it may give you ideas, it may influence you, it may even influence a passing designer.

so we will all discuss our wargame all we wish, but Merits and drawbacks are all created on our own vision. I like Warhammer because its background draws no lines between fact, fiction and propeganda (within the context of the games fluff) so you can choose to believe or disbelieve whatever you wish.

But saying that one game or rule is superior to another is entirely within your own perspective, GW has influenced our perspective by explaining their rules in places, they are also willing to change them over time if they realise it was wrong. (the rumoured rending change in V5, or a more concrete example, the price of Tyranid warriors from the 3rd to the 4th codex)

ankara halla
27-11-2007, 08:22
I'm sure we'll find one on WarSeer. Just give this thread a bit more time. ;)

Well sure, given enough time anything is possible!



Mwahahaha! I have created the Uber Arguement!

Much less of an argument and much more of a statement... ;)


It all depends on how you want to play the game.

there are many avenues.

1. You could not play but still collect
2. You could leave the game entirely
3. you could play the game as the designers intended
4. You could send in ideas and hope to influence the designers
5. You can make your own rules and get your friends to play them.

In the end the rules are a guideline to what GW suggests we do with our models, its up to us to choose whether we accept them or not.



There is a point to it, it may give you ideas, it may influence you, it may even influence a passing designer.

so we will all discuss our wargame all we wish, but Merits and drawbacks are all created on our own vision. I like Warhammer because its background draws no lines between fact, fiction and propeganda (within the context of the games fluff) so you can choose to believe or disbelieve whatever you wish.

But saying that one game or rule is superior to another is entirely within your own perspective, GW has influenced our perspective by explaining their rules in places, they are also willing to change them over time if they realise it was wrong. (the rumoured rending change in V5, or a more concrete example, the price of Tyranid warriors from the 3rd to the 4th codex)


But saying that one game or rule is superior to another is entirely within your own perspective...

Exactly! It's all subjective. And indeed there is a point in discussing rules, all editions, as it indeed "may give you ideas, it may influence you, it may even influence a passing designer.", but such discussions would surely be pointless without appropriate criticism involved in the exchange of ideas. To blatantly dismiss people you disagree with leads nowhere. Unfortunately there are more than enough people who do exactly that whenever discussion into the different iterations of the rules come in to play, as has been done in this very thread and in many others like it.

Psycho_Laughs
27-11-2007, 08:44
on the whole kiddies issue...
i have to agree with the "gw didn't dumb it down for kids" line.
what i have to say though is that the "stream lining" did shift the demographic of people getting into the hobby. i don't have numbers i have personal observation.
having worked 18 months at a games workshop store, unless my memories have been seriously messed with, the vast great majority of people getting into 40k were kids below the recomended age of 12.
WHFB was the opposite. as soon as you started to talk about rank bonuses and armor modifiers you could see this glaze covering the kids eyes.

a lot of people here confuse hate with disapointment.
i like 40k. it's what got me into miniature games. i loved it.
but i find it is a good introductory game, a good way to get used to the whole gaming culture. it's just not the be all end all of gaming, and there are games out there that are far more intellectually stimulating.

Varath- Lord Impaler
27-11-2007, 08:46
Much less of an argument and much more of a statement...

A statement is the best kind of arguement! It ignores all that compromising crap and thought while you sit there repeating the same sentence over and over and over again! BRILLIANT!



Exactly! It's all subjective. And indeed there is a point in discussing rules, all editions, as it indeed "may give you ideas, it may influence you, it may even influence a passing designer.", but such discussions would surely be pointless without appropriate criticism involved in the exchange of ideas.

Of course, you may exchange ideas, but there is no need to compare apples and oranges. I have no knowledge of Flames of War is, from what i hear it is a predominantly World War 2 simulation wargame.

You can compare this to 40k only on the basis that it is a tabletop wargame, it doesnt need to deal with certain situations.

Flames of war is for those who want to play war without joining the army, i think (also for those without ready access to a time machine). They enjoy playing history, changing what happened, recreating the Communist war machine, etc.

While a person plays 40k for much more of a cinematic game. Close Combat features more not because its the logical choice in actual combat, but because it allows more types of units and armies, and also it is very much of heroic and cinematic form of warfare.

It is also a way of showing what the 40k universe is like. That you need to give it all, your life, your buddies life, your army, your planet, for usually absolutly zero gain. Totally pointless, but absolutly essential in the minds of your average Imperial soldier. I call it Significant insignificance.

40k also caters for a smaller subsect of gamers, those who enjoy taking an army out of history and putting them in the 40k universe. Lord Solar Macharius, Death Korps (i play these) and oh so many more are all homages on characters from history, movies and books whom we all love.

Flames of War may be much more of a realistic game (or so i hear) but 40k isnt trying to be realistic, its trying to be 40k and succeeding admirably in most cases.

BrainFireBob
27-11-2007, 08:47
To Psycho-Laughs:

Yes. But that doesn't make them better- it makes them better at specific criteria. What matters is what your criteria is- what you're looking for.

Varath- Lord Impaler
27-11-2007, 08:50
i like 40K. it's what got me into miniature games. i loved it.
but i find it is a good introductory game, a good way to get used to the whole gaming culture. it's just not the be all end all of gaming, and there are games out there that are far more intellectually stimulating.

Well see heres the thing. 40k has a very very intellectual background. Reading the Liber Chaotica is a joy in itself. Reading the fluff on why people do things in this universe and how their minds work is very much of an intellectual persuit.

40k is the game. Philosophy OF war is intellectual, but actual war is brutal, bloody and usually quite simple.

Atrum Angelus
27-11-2007, 08:50
Mmm... FOW. Got my first taste of it, and now I want more. Trying to decide on who I want to build a force for.

ankara halla
27-11-2007, 09:06
Of course, you may exchange ideas, but there is no need to compare apples and oranges. I have no knowledge of Flames of War is, from what i hear it is a predominantly World War 2 simulation wargame.

Me neither, I have never even seen what kind of models people use to play the game with.

I just found the (percived) assumptions that 40k IV ed. is the end all be all of everything it can be (until V edition anyways...), and certainly lot's better in every conciveable way than any of it's precedessors ever were, too narrowminded to pass.

Even so, I find nothing wrong in comparing apples and oranges in this context since it in your own words "may give you ideas, it may influence you, it may even influence a passing designer" and thusly steer the game to a grand new vision, or at least a better one (again, subjective) than the game of 40k is now.

Psycho_Laughs
27-11-2007, 09:07
To Psycho-Laughs:
Yes. But that doesn't make them better- it makes them better at specific criteria. What matters is what your criteria is- what you're looking for.

well, that can be said about anything though.
i don't think i used the word better in that last post though. i actually gave my criteria, which is intellectual stimulation.


Well see heres the thing. 40k has a very very intellectual background. Reading the Liber Chaotica is a joy in itself. Reading the fluff on why people do things in this universe and how their minds work is very much of an intellectual persuit.

40k is the game. Philosophy OF war is intellectual, but actual war is brutal, bloody and usually quite simple.

i'm not talking about the background. i like the cheesy, often poorly written novels from the black library. they keep me sane after going through midterm/term papers season. it's a nice break for my brain.
i cannot in good concience call the fiction intellectual though. entertaining? yup. and you barely get a glimpse of how people work in the novels. you get how the military works, but not the regular people. i have still to find a book where a plausible economy/political society exists in the fluff. if everyone is either a zealot or a soldier or both, who the hell is producing food and goods? a lot of the pursuits of characters is very simplistic too. "why are we fighting?" "because they attacked us" "why they attacked us?" "because they're evil and have evil plans, and they want to destroy everything because they are evil. did i mention they are evil?"
i like the back ground for games like hordes/warmachine.
"why are we fighting?" "because they attacked us" "why they attack us?" "because we have better more fertile land and their monarch is an imperialist seeking to anex some of our territory" "oh, ok."

the games are a good reflection of this too. 40k is brain candy when other, more challenging games make your brain hurt, much like their books are brain candy when other reading makes you want to cry.

BrainFireBob
27-11-2007, 09:23
My objection was the breadth of stimulations the mind can experience.

Myself, I enjoy the cheesey scifi "hack it with a chainsaw on a stick" side- because if I want "serious" stimulation, I'm going to quantum physics, not FoW or AT-43- which I have a hard time seeing as being so terribly stimulating they satisfy those needs beyond 40K.

Mahwell Skel
27-11-2007, 09:25
I enjoyed the original posters "story" and note with interest his suggested improvements to the 40k game system.

It is dissappointing that the thread seems to dissolve into ranting about which is the best version of 40k and the paranoia of older gamers trying to justify why they love a game children also play.

Do any of the "its not for kids" brigade have any comments on the 3 rules changes proposed by the original poster, from his own experience of 40k, to improve 40k?

Varath- Lord Impaler
27-11-2007, 09:31
Me neither, I have never even seen what kind of models people use to play the game with.

Same :P



I just found the (percived) assumptions that 40K IV ed. is the end all be all of everything it can be (until V edition anyways...), and certainly lot's better in every conciveable way than any of it's precedessors ever were, too narrowminded to pass.

i didnt play second edition. I started in 3rd edition. (i never bought the book either, i memorised the rules from watching the games)

but i will say 4th is the pinnacle because the designers now seem to know where they are heading and they are doing what they can to make the game how they picture it, balanced AND fun.

I wont say the rules are superior, but i will say they are the newest and i really like it. So it is the best for me.



Even so, I find nothing wrong in comparing apples and oranges in this context since it in your own words "may give you ideas, it may influence you, it may even influence a passing designer" and thusly steer the game to a grand new vision, or at least a better one (again, subjective) than the game of 40K is now.

That may be true. But it may mean you take things out of context. To be honest i like the cartoony and silly physics in the game, its not meant to be real. If you take ideas from a game which seeks to be real and puts them into an unreal system, it may not work well.

But you are correct that you need to keep an open mind about this.


i'm not talking about the background. i like the cheesy, often poorly written novels from the black library. they keep me sane after going through midterm/term papers season. it's a nice break for my brain.

have you read the Liber Chaotica? It is anything but badly written. It explains the nature of the chaos gods and daemons and other things in very philisophical terms many times. After studying Ancient and world religion and Mythology its easy to see that the Chaos gods are very much able to be human religious archetypes, and quite worthy of study.



i cannot in good concience call the fiction intellectual though. entertaining? yup. and you barely get a glimpse of how people work in the novels. you get how the military works, but not the regular people. i have still to find a book where a plausible economy/political society exists in the Fluff. if everyone is either a zealot or a soldier or both, who the hell is producing food and goods?

Well i charge you with writing the new Black Library bestseller "Crop growing in the 41st millenium" Without boring the crap out of your audience.

Also, The book "The traitors hand" by the black library includes many references to the planet and how it all works, its quite an enjoyable read too.


a lot of the pursuits of characters is very simplistic too. "why are we fighting?" "because they attacked us" "why they attacked us?" "because they're evil and have evil plans, and they want to destroy everything because they are evil. did i mention they are evil?"

Are you talking about 40k? Or real life?



"why are we fighting?" "because they attacked us" "why they attack us?" "because we have better more fertile land and their monarch is an imperialist seeking to anex some of our territory" "oh, ok."

This isnt what 40k is trying to do.

These races cant get along. they wont stop fighting simply because they dont stop fighting. The whole idea of 'stopping fighting' doesnt work in the 40k universe.

"Is he trying to take my land?"
"No"
"Good, Preemptive strike"

Psycho_Laughs
27-11-2007, 09:51
Well i charge you with writing the new Black Library bestseller "Crop growing in the 41st millenium" Without boring the crap out of your audience.

Also, The book "The traitors hand" by the black library includes many references to the planet and how it all works, its quite an enjoyable read too.

it doesn't have to be ultra realistic to give you a glimpse of how the 40kverse works. they never fight over some agriworld unless it's to summon a chaos daemon that was buried there thousands of years ago or because some tyranids want to devour it.

in 40k it seems that the only strategical planets are the ones that produce weapons. you know what? kill the food supply to a hive world and see how quickly it decends into civil strife. famin makes for a good pre emptive to invasion. they never look into stuff like that. just because the moto is "war all the time" doesn't mean that every planet is at war all the time, that doesn't make a distopia it makes for sillyness. no system can exist like that, at some point it collapses.

i've read the traitor's hand. it's a silly fun book.


Are you talking about 40k? Or real life?


touche. but you know what i mean right? there is just so far interest in a conflict brought by "because they want to eat us" because they want to enslave us" "because they have 8 sided tattoos" will take a story. it is entertaining, no doubt. but i find you often have to REALLY suspend all disbelief when reading them.


This isnt what 40k is trying to do.

These races cant get along. they wont stop fighting simply because they dont stop fighting. The whole idea of 'stopping fighting' doesnt work in the 40k universe.

"Is he trying to take my land?"
"No"
"Good, Preemptive strike"

i know the intent behind the 40k seting. my argument is not that 40k is something else, in fact i completely agree with that last point of yours. i just find that it lacks what better settings have. true motivation.
sometimes "they fight because they don't like eachother" becomes too vague. sometimes you want to know the history and why the hatred started.

but once again. i'm not trying to put the 40k setting down. i might have in other posts out of bitterness, but i really do like to read the novels. but come on... they are trully not intellectual, they are entertaining. they can instil intellectual thought like any reading can, but they don't trully provide it.

Varath- Lord Impaler
27-11-2007, 10:05
it doesn't have to be ultra realistic to give you a glimpse of how the 40kverse works. they never fight over some agriworld unless it's to summon a chaos daemon that was buried there thousands of years ago or because some tyranids want to devour it.

well of course. the Imperium is a vast machine and the loss of a single world does nothing except damage pride. Pride is something the Imperium has alot of, and they dont like losing it.



in 40K it seems that the only strategical planets are the ones that produce weapons. you know what? kill the food supply to a hive world and see how quickly it decends into civil strife. famin makes for a good pre emptive to invasion. they never look into stuff like that. just because the moto is "war all the time" doesn't mean that every planet is at war all the time, that doesn't make a distopia it makes for sillyness. no system can exist like that, at some point it collapses.

Hive cities have their own internal food supplies, if they didnt Armageddon wouldnt work. To take out their food supplies you need to get into the hive anyway, and while there you mayswell take the thing out.




i've read the traitor's hand. it's a silly fun book.

Quite, but it also gives information on the world, and of certain aspects of Imperial life. (Such as Tanna, the Crawlers, the STC landing pads, etc) you cant say its all war, simply because it isnt so. in the moments of respite we do see things about the non military.


touche. but you know what i mean right? there is just so far interest in a conflict brought by "because they want to eat us" because they want to enslave us" "because they have 8 sided tattoos" will take a story. it is entertaining, no doubt. but i find you often have to REALLY suspend all disbelief when reading them.

How bout "They are following gods which want to kill my god"

Basically, imagine that a person follows a religion which is specifically aimed at killing your mother. This is how the Imperials see it.


touche. but you know what i mean right? there is just so far interest in a conflict brought by "because they want to eat us" because they want to enslave us" "because they have 8 sided tattoos" will take a story. it is entertaining, no doubt. but i find you often have to REALLY suspend all disbelief when reading them.

The motivation is that there was always war. There is no such thing as peace for the whole Imperium, while each planet may have peace for generations at a time, they are part of a war which is so big noone sees it.


sometimes "they fight because they don't like eachother" becomes too vague. sometimes you want to know the history and why the hatred started.

Horus heresy, Background of the chaos gods, Eldar involvement, the primarchs. The history is there for those who want to look for it.




but once again. i'm not trying to put the 40k setting down. i might have in other posts out of bitterness, but i really do like to read the novels. but come on... they are trully not intellectual, they are entertaining. they can instil intellectual thought like any reading can, but they don't trully provide it.

Perhaps this is for a large amount of 40k fluff, but again, i will refer to the Liber Chaotica. You really need to read it. I only object to you making blanket statements because it isnt true.

Pokpoko
27-11-2007, 11:04
well of course. the Imperium is a vast machine and the loss of a single world does nothing except damage pride. Pride is something the Imperium has alot of, and they dont like losing it.i can;t believe i'm entering this discucsion.
no, if it was one of the 10 agri-world supplying the entire sector then it would be matter of more than lost pride. if the imperium loses more than this one world,two,or even three, it's facing starvation in that sector, as we all know that transport takes ages in 40k universe, plus given how idiotic imperial bureacrats are presented, they wouldn't send any help anyway.

Hive cities have their own internal food supplies, if they didnt Armageddon wouldnt work.this is pure guesswork, i can't remeber anything about it in the codex armaggedon or any other official source. it's just as possible that GW simply decided to overlook that matter as a un-heroic.

Varath- Lord Impaler
27-11-2007, 11:36
no, if it was one of the 10 agri-world supplying the entire sector then it would be matter of more than lost pride.

Planets are usually able to support their own population. Agri worlds create a surplus. Losing a single agri world makes the surplus smaller.

The Imperium has a massive surplus.


as we all know that transport takes ages in 40K universe

Sometimes it does, sometimes i'd have to say it takes less time. Otherwise the 13th black crusade would have been a pushover.


this is pure guesswork, i can't remeber anything about it in the codex armaggedon or any other official source.

Nope. but think of it, hive worlds come because the outside world is unsuitable. Hive worlds need to be self sufficient, so methods of agriculture within the hive must exist.

catbarf
27-11-2007, 11:38
Mkay, there are several things which, to me, point towards a simplification for target age demographic:

1. Removal of range modifiers. Okay, I can understand this, but it's just a basic part of so many games.

2. Removal of save modifiers. Why? It wasn't hard to figure out. Removing it for streamlining is like removing movement. It's part of the game, it doesn't make sense without it.

3. Removal of varying movement rates. In a small-scale game like 40k, there's no reason for everything to move at the same speed.

And as for flavor, there's the damage charts, misfires, all the weird and wacky things that could happen that would make each game unique.

In 4th Edition, I haven't played as many bad games as I did in 2nd. But I certainly got more good, funny, unique battles out of 2nd.

Oh, and one more thing:

And, Catbarf, ever since I learned about your ebay scam on an unsuspecting xBox purchaser, I'm not inclined to speak to you.

Closest I ever did to that was list an Xbox box, starting at $20. Some people are too stupid to read the description, got up to $200 and twenty bids within a few days. Not my problem.

Pokpoko
27-11-2007, 12:23
Planets are usually able to support their own population. Agri worlds create a surplus. Losing a single agri world makes the surplus smaller. normal planets,yes. hive world,with absurdly high population all condesned in cities, and most of the land polluted or otheriwse non-agrable? or Forgeworld with nothing but machine plants,factories and other such,with population of workers,techpriests and servitors? don't blame me,blame GW for overdoing the fluff:p

Nope. but think of it, hive worlds come because the outside world is unsuitable. Hive worlds need to be self sufficient, so methods of agriculture within the hive must exist.a proof i'd like,instead of "must" and "should". GW failed yet(as far as i know,maybe there is some obscure source with this mentioned) to produce evidence of any sort of agriculture within the hives.

Varath- Lord Impaler
27-11-2007, 12:31
a proof i'd like,instead of "must" and "should". GW failed yet(as far as i know,maybe there is some obscure source with this mentioned) to produce evidence of any sort of agriculture within the hives

Probably because noone really cares how.

Pokpoko
27-11-2007, 12:33
ah,i understand...detailed universe,indeed:D

Varath- Lord Impaler
27-11-2007, 12:36
ah,i understand...detailed universe,indeed

Well as we are comparing 40k to Flames of War in this thread, i think 40k is much more inventive that it has to create ideas from scratch. While Military simulations need to only recreate.

Pokpoko
27-11-2007, 12:40
oh,plenty inventive..but it shows that it was designed by geeks-all the detail on stupidly powerful guns,none on the logistics and how the world really works:p

reds8n
27-11-2007, 12:44
it doesn't have to be ultra realistic to give you a glimpse of how the 40kverse works. they never fight over some agriworld unless it's to summon a chaos daemon that was buried there thousands of years ago or because some tyranids want to devour it.




That's not quite true, ther planet Gereon (sp?) from the G.Ghost novels captured and pretty much gutted to provide food and water etc for the chaos armies-- they have these massive warp bred creatures that suck and teleport the water across the galaxy !

And a lot of the 40k races don't have normal diets-- Necrons don't (although the C'tan do I guess:)), not sure about orks-- do they eat fungus that they grow/follows them ?, and the Tyranids just eat everything.

Baneboss
27-11-2007, 13:07
Simplicity makes for a game that kids will play. Do you see many kids playing LOTR or BFG?

Its a completely different situation in Poland. Here Lotr is really popular among kids 8-12 year old while older play WFB, 40k.

Varath- Lord Impaler
27-11-2007, 13:19
ive never seen anyone over 12 play LotR here in Oz

Baneboss
27-11-2007, 13:28
it doesn't have to be ultra realistic to give you a glimpse of how the 40kverse works.

Read Fifteen Hours and Brothers of the Snake. Very, very mature.

swordwind
27-11-2007, 13:32
Well as we are comparing 40k to Flames of War in this thread, i think 40k is much more inventive that it has to create ideas from scratch. While Military simulations need to only recreate.

Would this be the same 40k who's entire background is just a mashup of every science fiction concept and story since HG Wells? Power Swords indeed :rolleyes:

FruitSmack!
27-11-2007, 13:53
a lot of people here confuse hate with disapointment.
i like 40k. it's what got me into miniature games. i loved it.
but i find it is a good introductory game, a good way to get used to the whole gaming culture. it's just not the be all end all of gaming, and there are games out there that are far more intellectually stimulating.

Actually, a lot of people don't confuse those things. A lot of people get upset at this passive-aggressive attitude of 40k being a silly kids game only good for introductions and/or 12 year olds and that real ultimate war gamers will either one day see that they are having badwrongfun and convert to something "better" or they will continue to be mindless nooblets and stick to their kiddy game. Either way, it allows you to continue to have smug, self-righteousness that you're some how better than us "po' dum morans" because your toy soldier game is more complicated/smarter/harder/more detailed/whatever. Please.

Do you even understand how insulting that is to people that enjoy something you don't?

aaron

Gaebriel
28-11-2007, 11:00
... this passive-aggressive attitude of 40k being a silly kids game only good for introductions and/or 12 year olds and that real ultimate war gamers will either one day see that they are having badwrongfun and convert to something "better" or they will continue to be mindless nooblets and stick to their kiddy game. Either way, it allows you to continue to have smug, self-righteousness that you're some how better than us "po' dum morans" because your toy soldier game is more complicated/smarter/harder/more detailed/whatever.
...
In a nutshell :p


Well as we are comparing 40k to Flames of War in this thread, i think 40k is much more inventive that it has to create ideas from scratch. While Military simulations need to only recreate.
Following both game settings has different requirements - 40k needs a good deal more invention - FoW needs a lot more research. The research players need to do for some historical wargames can be brutal and as rewarding as immerging oneself into fantastic world... Also, ever realized how much detail and facettes can lie in obscure historical and geographical regions of this world?

While I agree 40k is a marvelleous melange of every fiction since, well, Wells, but GW's design team doesn't have a solid building plan. The background is a multicolored behemoth built along very graphical ideas and a lot of elements of rule of cool. Most ideas are patched on or implemented without working in. Yes, the mayor storylines intertwine, but it there are few details and conclusions. What it lacks is a profound consistency that would allow to discuss it as an alternate/future reality (and the next time I read of a multimillion planet empire trying to fight an interstellar crusade with a fraction of the troops taking part in the Battle of Kursk, I'll burn the publication...).

Petrov_101
28-11-2007, 11:09
A brief history of my 40k experience:

<much snippage>

Game balance in FOW is much better than 40k. granted, there are some ways to abuse lists (the midwar lists spring to mind), but even those lists are not as retarded as multiple falcon lists, 6 monstrous creature lists, 5 land raider lists, etc.



If you don't like the rules, don't play. Why waste everyone's time with a long post about it?

If you want balanced lists, you're in the wrong hobby. See Stargrunt II (no points...) It's all an elaborate ruse.

Gaebriel
28-11-2007, 11:15
If you don't like the rules, don't play. Why waste everyone's time with a long post about it?
...
I found the post very interesting - as well as the developing discussion...

But then I don't feel the need to be defensive about my choice of a wargame... ;)

Varath- Lord Impaler
28-11-2007, 11:17
Following both game settings has different requirements - 40k needs a good deal more invention - FoW needs a lot more research. The research players need to do for some historical wargames can be brutal and as rewarding as immerging oneself into fantastic world... Also, ever realized how much detail and facettes can lie in obscure historical and geographical regions of this world?

So you agree with me? One requires invention while the other requires research, this caters to different types of gamers completly.

And your asking me about that? Guess what i do for a living? It starts with an H and ends with a Istorian :P




While I agree 40k is a marvelleous melange of every fiction since, well, Wells, but GW's design team doesn't have a solid building plan. The background is a multicolored behemoth built along very graphical ideas and a lot of elements of rule of cool.

I find no problem with this though. The galaxy is so big there are hundreds of thousands of stories inside of it. Infinate malleability.


Most ideas are patched on or implemented without working in.

This also allows players to create their own views on the universe.


What it lacks is a profound consistency that would allow to discuss it as an alternate/future reality (and the next time I read of a multimillion planet empire trying to fight an interstellar crusade with a fraction of the troops taking part in the Battle of Kursk, I'll burn the publication...).

Whats not consistant about "In the far future of the 41st millenium there is only WAR"?

Its basically "A story in 40k will have a fight in it, or leading to a fight, or just finishing a fight" or so on.

Kulgur
28-11-2007, 11:29
Fast forward to now. My local shop, Mind Games in SLC, UT was having a 1500 point 40k tournament. Several of my good buddies were going to play in it, and as my wife was working that day and I had nothing better to do until the TOOL concert that night, I figured I would dig out my marines and surprise everyone by coming out of retirement. I didn’t want to have to buy any new figs, so I had to cobble together a force with what I had. This is what I wound up with.


The game next to ours is blood angels against a demonhunters army with 5 (FIVE) land raiders, so I guess it could be worse.

How in the hell did he manage to make a legal DH army including 5 land raiders at 1500pts? I know I'm kind of derailing here, but that's been going through my mind while I've been reading the entirety of the thread, I thought DH had really really expensive units?

Gaebriel
28-11-2007, 11:35
So you agree with me? One requires invention while the other requires research, this caters to different types of gamers completly.
Yes, completely.


And your asking me about that? Guess what i do for a living? It starts with an H and ends with a Istorian :P
I envy you :)


... Whats not consistant about "In the far future of the 41st millenium there is only WAR"? ...
That is a consistant theme, but the whole built starts to fall apart when people try to discuss details, even more when they try to discuss canonical details. While the setting is fine to use as a canvas to put one's game experience on, people have a tendency to discuss it like it was a sensibly developed realism, and wonder why they hit snags.

The design team's main fault is not having a feel for (or putting attention to) dimensions, power balance - probably due to the dimensions of gameplay meddling with rule of cool-based ideas meddling with reality. A multi-million system empire, yet the loss of one world (Armageddon) will topple the whole thing? An empire that will be toppled by the loss of one world, but millions by millions of hive-fleets on the doorstep of the galaxy not a story-breaker? A couple of hundred thousands sent out to waste an interstellar race (Tau, Damocles), when you would need millions to take a planet considering the WWI-II tactics prevalent in 40k? A 1,000 Marine chapter being a force to be reconed with - as godlike as they may be?

No problem with the vision, but with the claim - that's the only critique I have.

Varath- Lord Impaler
28-11-2007, 11:56
The design team's main fault is not having a feel for (or putting attention to) dimensions, power balance - probably due to the dimensions of gameplay meddling with rule of cool-based ideas meddling with reality. A multi-million system empire, yet the loss of one world (Armageddon) will topple the whole thing? An empire that will be toppled by the loss of one world, but millions by millions of hive-fleets on the doorstep of the galaxy not a story-breaker? A couple of hundred thousands sent out to waste an interstellar race (Tau, Damocles), when you would need millions to take a planet considering the WWI-II tactics prevalent in 40K? A 1,000 Marine chapter being a force to be reconed with - as godlike as they may be?

See, whenever i see something like this in the fluff i have to divide it up.

There are personal and true accounts

Information and data reports

and Propeganda.

Sift all of the fluff into these 3 things and the 40k universe begins to make alot more sense.

FruitSmack!
28-11-2007, 14:28
See, whenever i see something like this in the fluff i have to divide it up.

There are personal and true accounts

Information and data reports

and Propeganda.

Sift all of the fluff into these 3 things and the 40k universe begins to make alot more sense.

QFMFT!

The background for 40K was never written, nor intended, to be read as a "just the facts" text book; especially the Imperial stuff. Most of it has a spin on it to give it flavor and to show inconsistencies that make tidbits of the background more mysterious and to show that the universe of 40K is a big places still full of ignorance and suspicion.

I've actually found that people "get" the background better after handing them my copy of the Uplifting Primer. Not only is it a humorous read, but it's a really good example of the things you've said above in an cool little package. For most, it's like a light clicks on and they start seeing the background for what it is instead of reading it literally.

aaron

unheilig
28-11-2007, 14:33
40k is, without a doubt, designed for kids to understand.

So is Chess.

Do we dismiss Chess as a "silly kids' game"?

swordwind
28-11-2007, 14:33
If you don't like the rules, don't play. Why waste everyone's time with a long post about it?

I had no idea there were men with guns held to peoples heads forcing them to read each and every post on Warseer...

Avian
28-11-2007, 14:42
I have deleted quite a few posts talking about an eBay scam with no relation to 40K. I expect to see no more of it.

- The Moderators

Pokpoko
28-11-2007, 14:45
The background for 40K was never written, nor intended, to be read as a "just the facts" text book; especially the Imperial stuff.ok. i buy it. however,i also declare, that from now on, a single tau fire warrior is able to take on a million space marines in close combat and win. and you have nothing to prove me wrong since it's all propaganda and myth. if there isn't any "hard data" in the background,then we as well might not bother with it, since this kind of idiocy will be just as right as the usual "100 marines to take entire solar system". i may assume that the "in character" parts are myth and propaganda,but there isn't any warning that the factual part of the fluff is also a lie.

FruitSmack!
28-11-2007, 15:02
ok. i buy it. however,i also declare, that from now on, a single tau fire warrior is able to take on a million space marines in close combat and win. and you have nothing to prove me wrong since it's all propaganda and myth. if there isn't any "hard data" in the background,then we as well might not bother with it, since this kind of idiocy will be just as right as the usual "100 marines to take entire solar system". i may assume that the "in character" parts are myth and propaganda,but there isn't any warning that the factual part of the fluff is also a lie.

If you'll notice from Varath- Lord Impaler and mine's post, we're talking about how the background is a mix of truth, legend, and propaganda and that a lot of it might not be exactly the truth or is truth spun a bit. And it varies depending on the point of view the writer wants to go for. Typically, the flavor text in codex side bars that are more story like are less accurate than the basic background of them main pages.

Helpful Tip!
See, in language we have words like "Most" and "Some" which denote that one is not talking about "All". If you ignore those, then you're attempting to use hyperbole to exaggerate your case. Usually considered poor form.

Your examples are ridiculous in the extreme and not at all what we were talking about. Next time I suggest reading the posts before replying.

aaron

Pokpoko
28-11-2007, 15:14
if it's not all thruth,then HOW do we know which part is,and which isn't? maybe GW thinks we all know that the part about 100 marines is propaganda,but the rest of the world does not? i said-i take the "in character" stories as the ones containing propaganda and lies, but i expect the "omnipotent narrator" parts to be accurate, not "pimped-up propaganda". if we assume that even this text can be not accurate in relation to the "actual" background universe, then my invincible tau is just as possible as anything else.

FruitSmack!
28-11-2007, 15:25
Because it's literature?

I really don't know what to tell you at this point. You're right that the omnipotent narrator bits are most likely accurate. No point above did anyone say that they weren't. Anything beyond that is usually written from one point of view. That point of view is most likely skewed by the author to fit the theme of whatever they're writing it for or about. That's why stuff from the Imperial point of view is usually pro-Imperial (Space Marines are neigh incorruptible and can take down hundreds of enemies a piece) or why Tau stuff is pro-Tau (the Greater Good concept is superior to all other thinking, the Imperium of Man is a horrible blight on the universe that dose no good).

Once again, did you even read the above posts? I really don't want to have to teach basic literature concepts on a web forum today.

aaron

Pokpoko
28-11-2007, 15:34
yes.i\v actually read them. i accept Varath\s division of the background, but your post actually looked to me like you thouyght that even the "textbook" parts of the fluff are written with disinformation,or maybe, with propaganda "flavour" in them. if it it true,then there is no "real" universe in the 40k setting, as we have no way to actually know whether that part of the supposedly impartial fluff is accurate or not. it's just as possible that the Armaggedon third war never happened in the setting, and all the sources in the codices are "imperial propaganda". or "chaotic proganda". that's what i'm talking about,not the usual "we killed them by the millions" later on.

ok, i feel like we'r reapeating what we'v already said at this point:D

Zerosoul
28-11-2007, 15:36
How in the hell did he manage to make a legal DH army including 5 land raiders at 1500pts? I know I'm kind of derailing here, but that's been going through my mind while I've been reading the entirety of the thread, I thought DH had really really expensive units?

I was there at the tournament(only to watch the last round, not to play) and a friend and I spent like half an hour trying to figure out the same thing. Did the math and it turns out it's 3 Heavy Support Land Raiders, two minimum size Stormtrooper squads as troops, an Inquisitor Lord with Land Raider transport and the cheapest Retinue possible, and an allied Inquisitor Lord with Land Raider transport and the cheapest retinue possible. Ends up leaving you with something like 20 points for wargear. I honestly can't figure out why people had so many problems with it, given that it only had five scoring units, two of which you only needed to kill three guys in order to knock below scoring(since DH and WH dedicated Land Raiders aren't scoring, if I recall my rules minutiae correctly).

Overall? It was not an especially well-run tournament, frankly - I say that as an outsider and not a participant, but I feel safe to say that I would say the same thing were I playing in it. The terrain was an absolute crime. A friend and I did the math, and each board had less than ten percent terrain on it. Note that this isn't because the shop didn't have enough - there was an entire rack of unused terrain. It's because...Well, I'm not sure why, frankly. Maybe they wanted the MEq slugfest people complain about 40k turning into. Given that at least one of the lists that was in the running to win(the Land Raider list) would have been screwed hideously by any more terrain than there was, and the fact that the guy running the Land Raider list was a friend of the tournament organizer, it makes me wonder a little, to be honest.

The scenarios were utterly baffling. The last scenario(with the "lose a model/taking a Glancing hit if you stay in your deployment zone" rule) hits any non-mech Tau list like a hammer. You literally have to move closer to your opponent. As much as I hate Tau, I don't think they deserve an entire scenario dedicated to screwing them. The only reason the Tau player won is because the World Eater player he was up against made some truly baffling deployment decisions(refused flank? when the Tau HAVE to move closer to your thirty or forty Berzerkers? Really?) I have no problem with people trying something new, but in this case, it just wasn't a good scenario.

I like the store in question. They're great guys. The guy running the Land Raider list is a nice guy. The TO is a nice guy. The guys who won deserved it, and I don't mean to question that. They're good players all. I just don't think it was a very well-run tournament.

Emperor's Grace
28-11-2007, 15:52
Hive worlds need to be self sufficient, so methods of agriculture within the hive must exist.

Not necessarily agriculture, though...

I always thought that it was manufactured foodstuffs.

Soylent Green and Star Trek "cube food"

Think of the nutrients that could be "recycled" into the food supply from the waste supply and casualties.

Gaebriel
28-11-2007, 19:14
See, whenever i see something like this in the fluff i have to divide it up.

There are personal and true accounts

Information and data reports

and Propeganda.

Sift all of the fluff into these 3 things and the 40k universe begins to make alot more sense.
I realize this at least reduces the fluff-intern inconsistencies. But that doesn't explain the botches in overall scale - unless I am to take everything with a grain of salt, including things like Space Marine Legions having 20,000 man, and Chapters having 1,000.

It is clearly well to see where GW means true and where they work propaganda - in every Codex the respective Codex forces are the most powerful, etc... What bothers me is the points where GW clearly means true and shows a complete lack of (historically appropriate) knowledge - I get the feeling each author just pull numbers out of a box - without an underlying agreement.

Of course I could be wrong and this could all be by intention, in which case the whole 40k-universe is a masterpiece of deceive - but given the effort GW invests into it's written material (lacking standardized rules sentences and relentless copy&paste of background material), I highly doubt that.

Chaos and Evil
28-11-2007, 20:16
Unfortunately, it reinforced what I already believed about 40k…that it is a terrible game with an awesome background and incredible miniatures.

If you want a tactically challenging simulation-style wargame set in the 40k universe, play EPIC.

It consistantly amazes me how many people don't get that 40k is now an introductory level wargame, whilst Epic is '40k Advanced'. (It compares very favourably with FOW by the way, I'd actually say it is a superior game system).

lanrak
28-11-2007, 20:25
Hi all.
IMO all GW fluff and rules are rather like impressionism paintings ,they look great if you are far away, rule of cool attension grabing ...
On closer examination its actualy a confusing blobby mess...

ankara halla
28-11-2007, 20:42
It consistantly amazes me how many people don't get that 40k is now an introductory level wargame...

It didn't use to be though... ;)

But I guess now that is pretty accurate, it's been "streamlined" to an introductory level wargame. This is something many old gits, like me, have something of an issue with.

Having said that, EPIC is great. Makes me mad at myself for having sold off my Space Marine -stuff to friends years and years ago.

FruitSmack!
28-11-2007, 20:55
If you want a tactically challenging simulation-style wargame set in the 40k universe, play EPIC.

It consistantly amazes me how many people don't get that 40k is now an introductory level wargame, whilst Epic is '40k Advanced'. (It compares very favourably with FOW by the way, I'd actually say it is a superior game system).

http://www.bakabanashi.com/icons/rollbarf3hz.gif

Ok, enlighten me. Tell me how my badwrongfun game of toy soldiers is inferior to yours without the bias of you just not liking 40K.

aaron

Chaos and Evil
28-11-2007, 21:52
Ok, enlighten me. Tell me how my badwrongfun game of toy soldiers is inferior to yours without the bias of you just not liking 40K.

I don't not like 40k... I think 40k is a fun pastime, and I own two 40k armies (Elysian Drop Troops and Tyranids, plus I'm working on some Marines).

However, it provides a fundamentally different experience to that provided by Epic (A game for which I own two IG, one Space Marine & one Tyranid army... and that's real 'armies', not the 'patrol force of fifty men which I'll call an army' of 40k).

There are many people who are looking to 40k and wishing it was more tactically complex... well, GW already sells a more tactically complex 40k wargame which is 'targeted at experienced wargamers' (That's a quote from Jervis Johnson), and it's called Epic.

PotatoLegs
28-11-2007, 21:59
I thought they'd stopped stocking epic a long long time ago?

eek107
28-11-2007, 22:09
Most stores don't have it, but there's still plenty on their site and ebay is crawling with Epic stuff. Mostly Squats and half-assembled old-school plastic Warlord titans.

Xenocidal Maniac
28-11-2007, 22:10
It didn't use to be though... ;)

But I guess now that is pretty accurate, it's been "streamlined" to an introductory level wargame. This is something many old gits, like me, have something of an issue with.

Having said that, EPIC is great. Makes me mad at myself for having sold off my Space Marine -stuff to friends years and years ago.

I just don't see how you can have an issue with the game no longer taking insane amounts of time and not having to consult six different charts just to turn a vehicle. It wasn't better or somehow more intelligent. It was just more complicated. And it didn't need to be. You get even more done now with roughly the same results and half the confusion.

If you want detailed, play Necromunda or Mordheim. That's more the scale 40k 2nd ed rules ought to be played on.

Apollyon
28-11-2007, 22:15
The sole problem with 40K is that it wants to be a 15mm game with big models. Each unit in 40K should really be on one large base, or several small bases linked by a string. Old 40K RT/2nd Ed were skirmish games 3+ tries (poorly) to be a squad based war game. The problem with that is to be a squad/unit game the unit must be based together and the 28mm scale prevents this from being done in a playable game. This leaves "New 40K" as a bastard hybrid with many weird illogical situations explained away as "its not a simulation" well why not fix the rules to remove the illogical portions? FOW is IMO a better system
and growing in popularity in my area. (KC USA) while 40K players are a dieing breed. What makes FOW better is the try to make the rules simple intuitive and logical and if you have a rules question THE ******* GAME DESINGER HIMSELF WILL ANSWER! With FAQs and updates few and far between and no interaction between player and writer on the direct level FOW and Battlefront have done something that GW has abandoned ....reached out to their players. Can I e-mail Gav Thorpe to have him explain why an army list was written a certain way? Has GW ever offered to reconsider an army list based on fan input? GW was once like that and lost their way perhaps they will find it again and resolve the issues that are driving players away in droves (in my area anyway).

I haven't played 40K in 3 years (and had been playing since RT) it would take a major reimanging of the rules for me to play again, that being said Mordheim, Inquistor and Necromunda are some of my all time favorite games, all done when GW still had it's ears toward the customer.





And that can't happen in real life? 40k isn't a sim, but that point's a stretch.
That's a rule you're expected to manage with a tactic called, um, "tactics".
Move or don't move? Which way? How far? Shoot or don't shoot? Which Unit?
The player in your point (you?) chose poorly. You choose poorly, you pay.

Your bad, not GW's.



You're still thinking in Rogue Trader terms. 40k is Unit vs Unit, now.
You're expected to craft effective Units with a cohesive battlefield role.
With rare exceptions, 40k doesn't mandate clumsy Unit compositions.

Your bad, not GW's.



40k defines the Units. Unit choices and tactics are up to the player.
This is a variation on point one. IE, an example of poor tactics.

Your bad, not GW's.



I'm at a loss as to how 40k can so handily dominate FoW in the marketplace.
If it's as wonderful as you say, why is it such a very, very weak competitor?



Occasional retarded lists are fun! A simple "Not again!" stops boring replays.
I've never been *forced* to play a 40k list I didn't think would be fun. You?



For Warseers that don't know, Flames of War is a WWII sim in 15mm.
Incredibly, the models are, pound-for-pound, more expensive than Citadel's.
If the rules were truly superior to 40k, they'd be used in 28mm SciFi games.

They're not.


Playa[/quote]

Apollyon
28-11-2007, 22:17
As long as it's OLD epic. ;)






I don't not like 40k... I think 40k is a fun pastime, and I own two 40k armies (Elysian Drop Troops and Tyranids, plus I'm working on some Marines).

However, it provides a fundamentally different experience to that provided by Epic (A game for which I own two IG, one Space Marine & one Tyranid army... and that's real 'armies', not the 'patrol force of fifty men which I'll call an army' of 40k).

There are many people who are looking to 40k and wishing it was more tactically complex... well, GW already sells a more tactically complex 40k wargame which is 'targeted at experienced wargamers' (That's a quote from Jervis Johnson), and it's called Epic.

ankara halla
28-11-2007, 22:28
I just don't see how you can have an issue with the game no longer taking insane amounts of time and not having to consult six different charts just to turn a vehicle. It wasn't better or somehow more intelligent. It was just more complicated. And it didn't need to be. You get even more done now with roughly the same results and half the confusion.

If you want detailed, play Necromunda or Mordheim. That's more the scale 40k 2nd ed rules ought to be played on.

That's just the thing, maybe I'm just getting senile or maybe my mates and I just knew the rules (or both...) well enough that we didn't need to check and re-check everything every time something happened. I really can't recall the games taking nearly as long as many people, you included, seem to imply they took.

Sure, it was a bit more complicated (like 4th grade math is to 2nd grade math, nothing undoable or more time consuming), but it was also a hell of a lot more characterful and *fun*. It offered freedom in just about every aspect of the game compared to 3rd and 4th edition of 40k and in the same time offered challenges not seen in the current version.

But that's just me, I really did prefer the rules and the atmosphere of the game pre 3rd ed. and while it's not bad per se now either, it's just not what it used to be.


And yeah, Necromunda is cool. 'Been fielding a gang of Van Saar since the game first game out, though it has been a good long while since I've been a part of a campaing.

grabula
28-11-2007, 22:30
My first post is going to be on a controversial thread but for me 40K and GW has always been controversial. Admittedly, in my old age (34 :P ) I've simmered down some, I'm building a couple of fantasy armies over the winter and will later this spring build one or two 40K armies to get back into the swing of things.
However, I can certainly sympathize with the original poster. For me, I'm always just a little disappointed when playing 40K, the latest version anyway. I'm one of those who started with Rogue Trader and boxes of 20$ figures in huge lots and I've watched prices creep up and the game evolve over time. I had the most fun in 3rd edition, but it certainly had it's weaknesses.
The latest edition, as it is for others, can sometimes be too simplified for my taste, it's sort of fallen into the category of beer and pretzels games for me, fun to pick up occasionally and play but not something I do regularly.
I'm a huge fan of the fluff, but I don't think a set of playable rules will ever really live up to the bar it's background sets and I think that is what helped me over the hump more then anything else, that there's a huge seperation between the background and how the game itself plays. I used to get frustrated when my squads of uber warrior nigh unstoppable space marines were mowed down in droves by silly space orks or flowery Eldar. It was obvious from all the reading I had done that it just shouldn't be like that but as it turns out, playing against Space Marines, as described in the books, or Eldar, or orks, etc... wouldn't be fun for anyone else.
The killer for me more then anything else is I just don't like GW's business practices. I can't say they're unfair, if they were they'd probably have been addressed by some legal system somewhere, but I do strongly believe that as a company they're not optimized for pure gaming enjoyment as they are profit margin, which is sad. Fortunately, I've also come to realize that with the world wide web going he way it is, I don't have to play by GW's games anymore so I get my armies closer to what I want for them, and can sit back and enjoy rolling buckets of D6 to squash some silly space orks or flowery eldar.
I should also throw in that FoW isn't a favorite of mine either. It's a nice concept for bringing peope into the historical gaming world but as a historical game it probably goes near the top of my list of craptacular historical rules. It's sort of 40K for historical gamers.

Psycho_Laughs
28-11-2007, 22:35
Ok, enlighten me. Tell me how my badwrongfun game of toy soldiers is inferior to yours without the bias of you just not liking 40K.

aaron

have you been reading? most of the guys here have repeatedly said they actually like 40k. it's fun.

you're taking your hobby way too seriously.
why get worked up over an "is checkers less complex than chess" agument?
checkers is less complex. does that take from its fun factor? does that make it bad? does it make it wrong? no.
but arguing that checkers is just as intellectually stimulating as chess is just silly.

catbarf
28-11-2007, 22:44
And, thus, if you've decided that checkers isn't complex enough, there's chess [2nd Edition]. Nobody is saying that 4th isn't fun at all, just that 2nd was better as a wargame for people who want more than 'place your models and smash them together'.

Gaebriel
28-11-2007, 22:48
... 'place your models and smash them together'.
That will be 40k 6th edition... :p

Chaos and Evil
28-11-2007, 22:51
As long as it's OLD epic. ;)

No, I definitely play 4th edition Epic. :D


I thought they'd stopped stocking epic a long long time ago?

Nope it's still on sale (Click to find the current SG Epic catalogue) (http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=List_Models&code=300814)

Forgeworld also sell a large range of Epic tanks & aircraft.

FruitSmack!
28-11-2007, 23:12
have you been reading? most of the guys here have repeatedly said they actually like 40k. it's fun.

you're taking your hobby way too seriously.
why get worked up over an "is checkers less complex than chess" agument?
checkers is less complex. does that take from its fun factor? does that make it bad? does it make it wrong? no.
but arguing that checkers is just as intellectually stimulating as chess is just silly.

I'm not getting worked up over anything.

See, what you and others here are doing are hiding behind strawmen. I understand that some of you enjoy 40k, this isn't lost on me as I do actually read the posts. I'm just seeing your crap for what it is when you push the same tired argument of "40k isn't how I like it so it's a throw away game".

What's silly is the insistence that 40K is more simplistic and inferior than your game of choice. It's the insistence that some how, because the rules aren't to your liking, then it's obviously flawed and simplistic.

I don't know how much more plain I can make it. That argument is ridiculously biased, not based at all in fact, and frankly, smacks of geeks talking down to other geeks because in their mind they're more superior. Please.

aaron

FruitSmack!
28-11-2007, 23:17
And, thus, if you've decided that checkers isn't complex enough, there's chess [2nd Edition]. Nobody is saying that 4th isn't fun at all, just that 2nd was better as a wargame for people who want more than 'place your models and smash them together'.

No, what you're saying under that agenda of yours is that 4th is a throw away game and that 2nd is superior because you and all the Real Ultimate Gamers know how much better it is.

Do you even comprehend how stupid that sounds?

Probably not. Shine on you crazy diamond.

aaron

cailus
28-11-2007, 23:19
I actually think that you get as much out of 40K as you put into it.

I think it's important to work on narrative, objectives, having painted armies and emersion into the fluff.

The worst games I have played have not had any of these - armies were unpainted/unassembled, trhere was no narrative, the opponents army was built to win and not according to theme ideas and victory points were all that mattered.

That's actually 50% of pick up games at any club I'v been a member of.

I am starting to get into FoW not because the system is so much better than 40K but because the player base is more dedicated to doin the things above that I think are important to a good wargame.

FruitSmack!
28-11-2007, 23:24
That's 100% true for any wargame, cailus. It's why I don't play as much as I'd like. I'd rather play with like minded people that give a crap about those things (even, shock, in a competitive setting!) than play pick up games against people that hate everything about the game we're playing (whatever it is at that time) and would sooner push cardboard chits around the board if you'd let them.

Pick-up games are like Olestra chips/crisps. They'll sort of hit the spot of the regular chips, but ultimately leave you with uncontrollable anal leakage. Er...or something like that. ;)

aaron

ankara halla
28-11-2007, 23:27
I'm not getting worked up over anything.

See, what you and others here are doing are hiding behind strawmen. I understand that some of you enjoy 40k, this isn't lost on me as I do actually read the posts. I'm just seeing your crap for what it is when you push the same tired argument of "40k isn't how I like it so it's a throw away game".

What's silly is the insistence that 40K is more simplistic and inferior than your game of choice. It's the insistence that some how, because the rules aren't to your liking, then it's obviously flawed and simplistic.

I don't know how much more plain I can make it. That argument is ridiculously biased, not based at all in fact, and frankly, smacks of geeks talking down to other geeks because in their mind they're more superior. Please.

aaron

Okey then, so please, aaron, enlighten us on how 3rd./4th ed. 40k is tactically more challenging than RT/2nd ed.?

All you do is throw rhetoric (something you accuse of other people doing BTW) and put words in other peoples mouths.

Your post here, for example, does absolutely nothing to help other people understand why you think 3rd/4th ed. are better systems, it much less challenges other peoples arguments to the opposite. All you do is quote "agenda" and "bias" and step on a high horse from which you give an impression that other peoples opinions (well argued opinions, unlike yours, I might add) aren't even worth replying to, since they have an "agenda" or are "biased".

So please, at least explain why you think 3rd/4th ed. systems are better or better yet, explain what was so horrible about RT/2nd ed. that the systems should never be compared to the "godsends" of 3rd and 4th?

FruitSmack!
28-11-2007, 23:39
Okey then, so please, aaron, enlighten us on how 3rd./4th ed. 40k is tactically more challenging than RT/2nd ed.?

All you do is throw rhetoric (something you accuse of other people doing BTW) and put words in other peoples mouths.

Your post here, for example, does absolutely nothing to help other people understand why you think 3rd/4th ed. are better systems, it much less challenges other peoples arguments to the opposite. All you do is quote "agenda" and "bias" and step on a high horse from which you give an impression that other peoples opinions (well argued opinions, unlike yours, I might add) aren't even worth replying to, since they have an "agenda" or are "biased".

So please, at least explain why you think 3rd/4th ed. systems are better or better yet, explain what was so horrible about RT/2nd ed. that the systems should never be compared to the "godsends" of 3rd and 4th?

If you reread my posts, nothing in there is even suggesting that I believe that one is superior to the other. The issue I have is the constant repeating that 4th is inferior because it's less complex/less tactical/less whatever. The issue I have is when people compare 40k to checkers whilst their favorite game is the end all of AWESOMEXXX! tactical fun or talk about how 40k is nothing but a simplistic intro game and that the smart ones wise up and see how AWESOMEXXX! this other game (that happens to be the speakers favorite) is.

See, I don't have anything to explain because what you think I'm saying isn't what I'm saying.

Nice try, though.

aaron

ankara halla
28-11-2007, 23:46
Fine (though you most certainly have taken a position regarding the complexity of different editions of 40k), but you've yet to explain this "agenda" and "bias" you see in people who really do see that there are things that could be better in the current incarnation of 40k.

But also, again, could you please explain what was so horrible about RT/2nd ed./other_wargames that the systems shouldn't be compared to the current edition of 40k. If you are that allergic to critical analysis and comparison of different game mechanics then why are you even posting in this thread, you aren't contributing anything.

Also, in the context of your posts in this thread, you sig isn't funny.

Apollyon
28-11-2007, 23:50
To piggyback on Halla the things that made "Old" 40K more tactically diverse were castrated from "New" 40K. Throw able grenades are one of the biggest that spring to mind. Blind missiles, and grenades that worked. There was nothing better than assaulting through a cloud of blind grenades into a squad on overwatch. You needed some luck, but when you pulled it off it was sweet. Hell overwatch in general (and people who complained about armies in overwatch just staring at each other and not moving must have been doing something horribly wrong ....but that is another rant)
Now 40k is truly a unit based game but without the necessary abstraction on squad "bases" or stands ...if they want it to play that may they should have it modeled that way.

Baneboss
28-11-2007, 23:52
The biggest plus of current edition is that its - because of its simplicity - very dynamic. In a way it resembles 40k environment: bullets flying everywhere, cries, pain, fast, bloody action.

Some players (like me) fall into other category and seek more tactical games. Chess like, slower action. More thoughtful, more options.

In conclusion we cant really say 4th edition is worse to older editions. At least not without saying why and where.

I just wish we had some Advanced Rules expansion.

Chaos and Evil
28-11-2007, 23:55
I just wish we had some Advanced Rules expansion.

It's called Epic. (http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2135841&postcount=89)

Gaebriel
28-11-2007, 23:56
If you reread my posts, nothing in there is even suggesting that I believe that one is superior to the other. The issue I have is the constant repeating that 4th is inferior because it's less complex/less tactical/less whatever. The issue I have is when people compare 40k to checkers whilst their favorite game is the end all of AWESOMEXXX! tactical fun or talk about how 40k is nothing but a simplistic intro game and that the smart ones wise up and see how AWESOMEXXX! this other game (that happens to be the speakers favorite) is.
...
Okay, so it's the smartassedness that disturbs you.

But what if someone said they liked 40k 4th less than another game that is more tactical or complex? Adding, to each their own, some people like these games, others those.

That would make a valid point.

I personally do not like 40k as much as back in 2nd edition, because I miss a lot of intricate details. The as I perceive it quite simple gameplay bores me to a certain degree. So I prefer other game systems. That's not to say it can't be the other way round for others.

In the end, on my personal ladder, 40k 4th doesn't rate as high as other systems, for example 40k 2nd, and with 4th being derived from 2nd, the development makes me sad (perhaps a bit grumpy, because with the majority of the followship following the current edition that robbed me of players of my favourite edition).

Better that way?

While I'm on it I have to state that streamlining the rules so a game is played quicker isn't for everyone. I personally like games that take long and have an up to a certain degree entangled complexity. My dream wargame would take a weekend to play (and sometimes it does, though we artifically break and continue the next day).

Baneboss
29-11-2007, 00:00
It's called Epic. (http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2135841&postcount=89)

It may be called hungadabunga, but I wish to be able to use 40k 28mm miniatures on which I spent so much time to paint in a more tactical game. Im not interested in smaller miniatures than 28mm.

Chaos and Evil
29-11-2007, 00:01
Then use Epic's rules with your 28mm miniatures.

I've done it before, it works quite well.

Varath- Lord Impaler
29-11-2007, 00:06
40K is, without a doubt, designed for kids to understand.

So is Chess.

Do we dismiss Chess as a "silly kids' game"?

I want to quote this as i think we've all ignored Unheilig unfarely. This is a very good point and one most people should remember.



The background for 40K was never written, nor intended, to be read as a "just the facts" text book; especially the Imperial stuff. Most of it has a spin on it to give it flavor and to show inconsistencies that make tidbits of the background more mysterious and to show that the universe of 40K is a big places still full of ignorance and suspicion.

I've actually found that people "get" the background better after handing them my copy of the Uplifting Primer. Not only is it a humorous read, but it's a really good example of the things you've said above in an cool little package. For most, it's like a light clicks on and they start seeing the background for what it is instead of reading it literally.


A good point, that. Thanks for the Kudos.


I have deleted quite a few posts talking about an eBay scam with no relation to 40K. I expect to see no more of it.

- The Moderators

Sorry Avian, wont happen again.


ok. i buy it. however,i also declare, that from now on, a single tau fire warrior is able to take on a million space marines in close combat and win. and you have nothing to prove me wrong since it's all propaganda and myth. if there isn't any "hard data" in the background,then we as well might not bother with it, since this kind of idiocy will be just as right as the usual "100 marines to take entire solar system". i may assume that the "in character" parts are myth and propaganda,but there isn't any warning that the factual part of the Fluff is also a lie.

See, saying that kind of thing is the mark of a very bad propegandist.

using propeganda has to be subtle and tailored to audience it is intended for.

The Imperium is a highly militaristic organisation which involves the warrior defeating the horde in the name of the Emperor.

A marine is powerful, very powerful. Sometimes so powerful that those heroes stories dont need to be exaggerated. But also the Imperium would want to put a spin on certain actions. A few chapters who suddenly turn from the Imperium suddenly because 'heretics' and 'daemon worshippers' and the stories of the battle involve ancient evil magics and malevolent creatures of the warp.

On Tau, the Propeganda would be much more like those old 'march of war' communist movies. "Through the Ethereals will the fire cast has pushed further the boundaries of the empire and converted more to see the greater good. The invincible armies of T'au will never see defeat. All hail the greater good!"


Not necessarily agriculture, though...

I always thought that it was manufactured foodstuffs.

Soylent Green and Star Trek "cube food"

Think of the nutrients that could be "recycled" into the food supply from the waste supply and casualties.

Of course, Emperors Grace, when i said agriculture i meant "the manufacture of food and produce" not necessarily the growing of crops. Thanks...that last sentence is quite gross :P


I realize this at least reduces the fluff-intern inconsistencies. But that doesn't explain the botches in overall scale - unless I am to take everything with a grain of salt, including things like Space Marine Legions having 20,000 man, and Chapters having 1,000.


Space marine legions were much larger and also not set in stone at size as far as i can tell. Legions may have around that number as a rough estimate.

Consider that the Ultramarines were considered to be the largest legion of all, then consider that they split into over 25 (i think) seperate chapters?

They also took no real part in the fighting of the Horus Heresy.

The thousand marines a chapter could be due to reorganisation, also due to casualties in the heresy. (For the Space wolves, Imperial fists, Blood angels and White scars) Also, numbers of the marines may be been turned into the non combatitive sections of the chapter, master of the fleets and armories and so forth.

There is a discrepancy, though. We just need to assume that the numbers of the chapter didnt become 1000 until a few years of adjustment after the codex astartes.

What we can take as fact is that the chapters fighting arm consists of 1000 men, it is stated in the codex astartes and is backed up by numerous sources. Its a constant.



It is clearly well to see where GW means true and where they work propaganda - in every Codex the respective Codex forces are the most powerful, etc... What bothers me is the points where GW clearly means true and shows a complete lack of (historically appropriate) knowledge - I get the feeling each author just pull numbers out of a box - without an underlying agreement.


Is there a real problem though? Pulling numbers out of a box is what many historians do in ancient times and also in modern times.

It gives a feel of the Imperium's mass of propeganda, lies and twisted truth are so large that noone remembers what the truth is or why they are protecting it.




Of course I could be wrong and this could all be by intention, in which case the whole 40k-universe is a masterpiece of deceive - but given the effort GW invests into it's written material (lacking standardized rules sentences and relentless copy&paste of background material), I highly doubt that.

Copy paste?

If they want to put the same fluff what are they going to do? rewrite it again?

One of the best examples for my point of view is the 2 seperate accounts of the Iron Cage debacle. Reading the Index Astartes Imperial fists and the Index Astartes Iron warriors, you can see that both the stories match up in facts, but the authors bias is very clearly shown and its quite entertaining to read.



IMO all GW Fluff and rules are rather like impressionism paintings ,they look great if you are far away, rule of cool attension grabing ...
On closer examination its actualy a confusing blobby mess...

Very accurate, the fluff of Warhammer 40k really shows how confusing the universe is supposed to be.

Xenocidal Maniac
29-11-2007, 00:06
It's called Epic. (http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2135841&postcount=89)

Uhh... funny. I play Epic as well, and, if anything, the rules are even more simplistic than 40k...

It's a fun game, but... I wouldn't say it's any more advanced or detailed than 40k.

ankara halla
29-11-2007, 00:09
No, but it's more *tactical*

That's what's lacking in current edition of 40k, but which is found in other games, the ability to use advanced tactics.

Chaos and Evil
29-11-2007, 00:11
Uhh... funny. I play Epic as well, and, if anything, the rules are even more simplistic than 40k...

It's a fun game, but... I wouldn't say it's any more advanced or detailed than 40k.

You're kidding right?

Epic's rules are indeed sometimes more simplistic than 40k, but that's because 'complex' doesn't nessesarily equate to 'tactically challenging' (Plus Epic does have to-hit modifiers, armour save modifiers, a more modern turn sequence etc... so it is more complex in many areas too.)

What edition do you play?

catbarf
29-11-2007, 00:12
In Epic, your troops don't start within rifle range of each other. Thus, you can actually move around before shooting starts. How is that no more tactical?

Seriously, XM, I think you need some sleep...

Chaos and Evil
29-11-2007, 00:16
Aye, your troops start half a scale mile from each other in Epic.

In a comparable sized 40k game (Apocalypse), your armies start fifteen feet apart... Then they charge and hit each other.

Gaebriel
29-11-2007, 00:25
...
Is there a real problem though? Pulling numbers out of a box is what many historians do in ancient times and also in modern times.
...
Well, to close this, I now see that there is a way to view what I perceive as inconsistency on the authors' side as the authors' intent, and I have no way of saying which of the two is right (or more degrees of right, as in the end as always it will be both ;) ).

So I agree that the basis of the misunderstanding lies in the different expectations of the audiences. I for my part would be much more content with what I would perceive as sensible numbers and the feel of a common baseline. Others thrive in sifting through the different shades of in-setting truth.

As I also agree that one is not worse than the other qualitywise, I'll have to change my position towards that "the 40k background doesn't match my expectations (majorly in terms of perceived consistency, and real life comparable dimensions), thus I perceive it as flawed". Doesn't mean it is necessarily bad (artistically). Doesn't mean others can't think otherwise.

Varath- Lord Impaler
29-11-2007, 00:33
Well, to close this, I now see that there is a way to view what I perceive as inconsistency on the authors' side as the authors' intent, and I have no way of saying which of the two is right (or more degrees of right, as in the end as always it will be both ).

So I agree that the basis of the misunderstanding lies in the different expectations of the audiences. I for my part would be much more content with what I would perceive as sensible numbers and the feel of a common baseline. Others thrive in sifting through the different shades of in-setting truth.

As I also agree that one is not worse than the other qualitywise, I'll have to change my position towards that "the 40K background doesn't match my expectations (majorly in terms of perceived consistency, and real life comparable dimensions), thus I perceive it as flawed". Doesn't mean it is necessarily bad (artistically). Doesn't mean others can't think otherwise.

I guess thats all i can hope for :P

Since my passion is Ancient history i like sifting through all the information and finding the truth (or at least the most likely truth) and the ambiguity entices me because of the challenge it presents.

catbarf
29-11-2007, 00:37
Ah, history. 300 Spartans... among a host of other Greeks.

Which makes you wonder: Isn't history just as confusing? We have the 'real version' of the battle of Thermopylae, and then there's the fictional version. In a few hundred years' time, who will tell the difference? Where does fiction end and fact begin?

Meh, I digress.

Pokpoko
29-11-2007, 00:47
See, saying that kind of thing is the mark of a very bad propegandist.
it worked for the sovs during the Great hunger.you'd really be hard-pressed to find a more blantant lie:cries:

anyway, it's not the point,if it's good or bad propaganda, but i'm so not going to write it again:p


In a few hundred years' time, who will tell the difference?the same people who do it today,brave,daring Archeologists and their poor,geeky Historian sidekicks;)

Varath- Lord Impaler
29-11-2007, 00:52
Ah, history. 300 Spartans... among a host of other Greeks.

Which makes you wonder: Isn't history just as confusing? We have the 'real version' of the battle of Thermopylae, and then there's the fictional version. In a few hundred years' time, who will tell the difference? Where does fiction end and fact begin?

Meh, I digress.

1000 Thebans doesnt do much against 100,000 Persians except as arrow fodder :P

Seriously, everyone looks for reasons why the Spartans 'couldnt' do what they did at Thermopylae, while the most obvious answer is that they did. They were the strongest of all the Greeks, the persians had 0 training, shields made of wickerwork and no armour.

The Spartans were in their element, had no fear, and were very very well trained.

They had 1000 Thebans with them, of course. but still, 1,300 vs 100,000 isnt anything to be sneered.



Which makes you wonder: Isn't history just as confusing? We have the 'real version' of the battle of Thermopylae, and then there's the fictional version. In a few hundred years' time, who will tell the difference? Where does fiction end and fact begin?

History is quite confusing, doesnt help that we need to battle against other Modern historians aswell :P

edit: Also people who make movies.

Mott
29-11-2007, 00:53
I play a 3000pt US rifle company in FoW and several 40k armies.

I also play alot of historical games, Age of Blood, Dogs of War (a modern combat simulation) and have delved into several Napoleonic rules sets.

My opinion is that 40k IS simple, but also streamlined. Many of the historical rulesets (especially tank battle games such as tobruk or tractics) are very realistic, and very complex.

However you spend half of the game consulting charts.

40k is simple, and a child can understand. But i have never been beaten by a child, nor have most other gamers 18+.

Simple dosent always mean easy.

And if your against simple rules, as historical games go FoW is pretty damn simple. The way it handles infantry shooting, and tank armor are simpler than 40k. Also there is no location hit table for shooting at armor. Thats incredibley unrealistic! But i still love FoW see?

Simple and streamlined can be good, in a game with Space Marines, demons from hell, and giant alien monstrosities realism can take a backseat to fun.

If its not simplisity that bothers you, but rather "tactical gameplay" (kinda broad but alright)

Any rules set can be abused, i think 40k is just easy to take advantage of, a competetive list tends to be unrealistic.
So talk it out and make lists for specific scenarios, or make some house rules to increase lethality ect.

Varath- Lord Impaler
29-11-2007, 00:56
Simple and streamlined can be good, in a game with Space Marines, demons from hell, and giant alien monstrosities realism can take a backseat to fun.

MOTT WINS A COOKIE!

Xenocidal Maniac
29-11-2007, 01:09
No, but it's more *tactical*

That's what's lacking in current edition of 40k, but which is found in other games, the ability to use advanced tactics.

Of course it's slightly more tactical. You have more room to move around. It has to do more with the scale and less with the ruleset.


You're kidding right?

Epic's rules are indeed sometimes more simplistic than 40k, but that's because 'complex' doesn't nessesarily equate to 'tactically challenging' (Plus Epic does have to-hit modifiers, armour save modifiers, a more modern turn sequence etc... so it is more complex in many areas too.)

What edition do you play?

Someone said they wished for an Advanced version of 40k. You recommended Epic, implying that the rules were somehow deeper or more detailed. You said nothing at all about tactical challenge.

That said, I find lots of things about Epic rules really, really wonky. Being able to "march" like 3/4 of the way across the board in a single turn... just strikes me as weird. The turn sequence is pretty cool. The blast marker concept is interesting, but imperfect.

And come on, Epic isn't that much more tactically challenging than 40k. As I said, it's actually fairly simplistic. You want "tactically challenging", guys? Play some Warmachine. That game gives you a headache.

I play Epic Armageddon. I have a Blood Angels army.


In Epic, your troops don't start within rifle range of each other. Thus, you can actually move around before shooting starts. How is that no more tactical?

Seriously, XM, I think you need some sleep...

Catbarf, I don't talk to thieves.

Gaebriel
29-11-2007, 01:12
...
Catbarf, I don't talk to thieves.
We had a Moderator warning on that topic. Thanks.

ankara halla
29-11-2007, 01:13
MOTT WINS A COOKIE!

Indeed he does, a post most well written.

Even so, I don't think anyone has argued that for a game to be tactical it needs to be complex. Simple *is* good as long as it doesn't detract from the tactical elements of the game (well, that's my take on it anyway :) )

Hell, in Chess you have like six different pieces movements you have to learn and that's it. A tactical marine has more stats than that! Yet Chess is among the most tactically challenging games in the history of the world.

So indeed, simple can and often is good. Despite the simple rules of chess it's a complex game that offers several tactical and stratetigal possibilities. It's when the game is *just* "easy" and "streamlined" with the expence of tactics that it gets very easily self repeating and, eventually, boring.

For beer and prezels, 40k 4th ed. is good or even great, and you still have the hobby aspect (something severely lacking in chess...) to immerse yourself into (with better miniatures than ever), but it's still a very *different* game to what it used to be and IMHO, nowhere comparable to it's older incarnations.

Then again, why should it need to be. It's a different kind of a beast alltogether.

Xenocidal Maniac
29-11-2007, 01:14
We had a Moderator warning on that topic. Thanks.

And I still don't talk to thieves. Thanks.

ankara halla
29-11-2007, 01:17
Of course it's slightly more tactical. You have more room to move around. It has to do more with the scale and less with the ruleset.

:wtf: The ruleset is made for the scale!! :wtf:

It's not like it's the scale of 40k that prevents GW from making the game more tactical...

Varath- Lord Impaler
29-11-2007, 01:20
Even so, I don't think anyone has argued that for a game to be tactical it needs to be complex. Simple *is* good as long as it doesn't detract from the tactical elements of the game (well, that's my take on it anyway )

In a game the scale of 40k there are only so many different tactics which are available.

I ask you, if you could have the chance to include tactics to 40k (not that i am saying there is none) what would they be and how would you impliment it?



Hell, in Chess you have like six different pieces movements you have to learn and that's it. A tactical marine has more stats than that! Yet Chess is among the most tactically challenging games in the history of the world.


But those white pieces are SO overpowered!



For beer and prezels, 40K 4th ed. is good or even great, and you still have the hobby aspect (something severely lacking in chess...) to immerse yourself into (with better miniatures than ever), but it's still a very *different* game to what it used to be and IMHO, nowhere comparable to it's older incarnations.

Version 2 is something much different to version 4. This is obvious. 4th edition seems to be leading towards a playable game with easier to remember rules (for less rulebook reference) and a larger scale.

Uniform special rules and other such things are all part of this.

catbarf
29-11-2007, 01:21
Of course it's slightly more tactical. You have more room to move around. It has to do more with the scale and less with the ruleset.

If it were only scale, then the armies would set up a few inches from each other. It's also the game.


Someone said they wished for an Advanced version of 40k. You recommended Epic, implying that the rules were somehow deeper or more detailed. You said nothing at all about tactical challenge.

What I believe he said was that many such 'Advanced 40k' rulesets in the developing section use elements of Epic. Epic isn't just 40k made more complex- it's a very different game, but at the same time more tactically deep.


That said, I find lots of things about Epic rules really, really wonky. Being able to "march" like 3/4 of the way across the board in a single turn... just strikes me as weird. The turn sequence is pretty cool. The blast marker concept is interesting, but imperfect.

Every game has its flaws. That has little to do with tactical depth, although I do see where you're coming from.


And come on, Epic isn't that much more tactically challenging than 40k. As I said, it's actually fairly simplistic. You want "tactically challenging", guys? Play some Warmachine. That game gives you a headache.

I play Epic Armageddon. I have a Blood Angels army.

Warmachine is a good game, for a different reason. It derives tactical depth from the many options you have in-game. 40k tries to get depth from list composition and the many options in army design. Epic is a strange blend.


Catbarf, I don't talk to thieves.

Then let's get this conversation on. Several posts have been deleted over a baseless accusation, so please end this tiresome and child-like 'I'm not talking to you!' behavior. To me, this seems rather close to trolling.

ankara halla
29-11-2007, 01:38
In a game the scale of 40k there are only so many different tactics which are available.

I ask you, if you could have the chance to include tactics to 40k (not that i am saying there is none) what would they be and how would you impliment it?

Well, how about different movements stats for different units/races? Now it's bascially 6/12/6+fleet for infantry models. Why not build it up a bit? Like where's running? (move twice movement, no shooting [or something]) and where's crawling? (move half movement, no shooting, 2+ cover, no charging [or something]).

Why not start with something like this?


But those white pieces are SO overpowered!

Tell me about it! When my father taught me to play the game, I really wanted to be the black pieces and yet go first... he wouldn't have it (having been a chess honourary player in a club or something in his youth and respecting the roots of all things, damn authority figures...) *grumbles*


Version 2 is something much different to version 4. This is obvious. 4th edition seems to be leading towards a playable game with easier to remember rules (for less rulebook reference) and a larger scale.

Uniform special rules and other such things are all part of this.

Again I have to say, I really didn't find RT/2nd ed. to be less playable than the current version. It was only as more challenging as 4th grade math is to 2nd grade math, a bit more complex but no more time consuming. Now that's the core rules. The tables were a bit much at times, but we just swang thru them. A GM enforcing a "no ruleslawyering" rule played a big part in this, no doubt (though this was dropped by GW in 2nd ed. strangely enough, it still wasn't a problem for me and my mates).

Varath- Lord Impaler
29-11-2007, 01:49
Well, how about different movements stats for different units/races? Now it's bascially 6/12/6+fleet for infantry models. Why not build it up a bit? Like where's running? (move twice movement, no shooting [or something]) and where's crawling? (move half movement, no shooting, 2+ cover, no charging [or something]).

Why not start with something like this?

Well the rumours for 5th edition include running (forced march)

Crawling seems abit...hmmm im not sure about it. Might lead to some rather silly looking scenario *Rhino Rushes up the ramps drop down and marines crawl down and blaze away*

Differing movement rates may be difficult to balance because it means that objectives are easier to capture with faster armies, putting slower ones at an immediate disadvantage. (missions such as Recon, etc)

I think that its difficult to make anything simple to encourage "tactics" simply becaues of the nature of the skirmish game.


Again I have to say, I really didn't find RT/2nd ed. to be less playable than the current version. It was only as more challenging as 4th grade math is to 2nd grade math, a bit more complex but no more time consuming. Now that's the core rules. The tables were a bit much at times, but we just swang thru them. A GM enforcing a "no ruleslawyering" rule played a big part in this, no doubt (though this was dropped by GW in 2nd ed. strangely enough, it still wasn't a problem for me and my mates).

Sorry, i didnt mean to make it sound like 2nd edition was 'unplayable', ive never played it so i can hardly make such a claim. I will say that from what people say about it, it sounds as if the power of armies was too far apart in scale and certain disadvantages were ignored.

In 40k, GW seems to be doing what ive been hoping for them to do. The main thing people do when they get an army is find a weakness and try to get rid of it. Changing the weakness into something which is ever present, but the strength needs to be able to be changed according to the players skill and army.

ankara halla
29-11-2007, 02:02
Well the rumours for 5th edition include running (forced march)

Crawling seems abit...hmmm im not sure about it. Might lead to some rather silly looking scenario *Rhino Rushes up the ramps drop down and marines crawl down and blaze away*

Differing movement rates may be difficult to balance because it means that objectives are easier to capture with faster armies, putting slower ones at an immediate disadvantage. (missions such as Recon, etc)

I think that its difficult to make anything simple to encourage "tactics" simply becaues of the nature of the skirmish game.

It's certainly a move to the right direction. One might even say it's a timewarp backwards, since "running" isnt' anything new in the history of 40k. Neither is moving slowly in cover.


It's certainly doable and not only does history prove it in the case of 40k, but there are many games today which incorporate variable movement stats to different units quite succesfully.


Sorry, i didnt mean to make it sound like 2nd edition was 'unplayable', ive never played it so i can hardly make such a claim. I will say that from what people say about it, it sounds as if the power of armies was too far apart in scale and certain disadvantages were ignored.

In 40k, GW seems to be doing what ive been hoping for them to do. The main thing people do when they get an army is find a weakness and try to get rid of it. Changing the weakness into something which is ever present, but the strength needs to be able to be changed according to the players skill and army.

True, RT/2nd ed. armylists *were* unbalanced. So are current armylists... ;) (Just try taking out a mech-Eldar army with an all GK force...)

They are all problems in the armylists themselfs, not in the mechanics of the game. And while RT/2nd ed. as well as many other gamesystems have all their problems it's hardly inappropriate to point out those flaws, especially when compared to other solutions.

Varath- Lord Impaler
29-11-2007, 02:18
It's certainly a move to the right direction. One might even say it's a timewarp backwards, since "running" isnt' anything new in the history of 40K. Neither is moving slowly in cover.

I like the sound of the rule, it will make footslogging armies even nastier (Orks and Grey knights come to mind) while static armies will need something to be able to slow them down (ill probably be using sentinels)



It's certainly doable and not only does history prove it in the case of 40K, but there are many games today which incorporate variable movement stats to different units quite succesfully.

True, what should it be?

Humans/orks- 4
Marines- 5
Nids/eldar/dark eldar- 6

Something like that.

Anyway,


True, RT/2nd ed. armylists *were* unbalanced. So are current armylists... (Just try taking out a mech-Eldar army with an all GK force...)

But i dont think its to the degree it used to be. GW have been good in keeping the balance for certain armies. In the new codex there have been no 'absolutly useless' units as far as i am aware.


They are all problems in the armylists themselfs, not in the mechanics of the game. And while RT/2nd ed. as well as many other gamesystems have all their problems it's hardly inappropriate to point out those flaws, especially when compared to other solutions.

I usually include the army lists as part of the core rules as they show the philosophy on how the rules are meant to be used and how they are framed armound. A problem with an army list is a problem with the game becuase it shows its the design philiosophy being 'bad' in some way. Or perhaps not expected, or underestimated (Falcons in this edition, for example)

ankara halla
29-11-2007, 02:41
Something like that.

Yes, something like that. A single stat would add a whole new dimension to the game and make all the different armies a lot more different from each other. Heck, just imagine if different marines/CSM would just have a different movement stat. They'd really be something else than just Power Armour in a different shade...




But i dont think its to the degree it used to be. GW have been good in keeping the balance for certain armies. In the new codex there have been no 'absolutly useless' units as far as i am aware.

No, I tend to agree here, but compared to the armylists of RT they are also very restricted and compared even to the codexes of 2nd ed. you can still find the powerbuilds just as easily.

I firmly belive that it's the lists that are broken since all the lists are equal in the face of the rules. No matter what the army, they all follow the rules laid out for them. If said lists are then made underpriced/give too much leeway regarding the rules then it is really easy to make "broken" lists, but the rules can still be solid.
They are afterall equal to all the armies (in theory anyway).


I usually include the army lists as part of the core rules as they show the philosophy on how the rules are meant to be used and how they are framed armound. A problem with an army list is a problem with the game becuase it shows its the design philiosophy being 'bad' in some way. Or perhaps not expected, or underestimated (Falcons in this edition, for example)

To me that just tells of the mindset of the studio at the time of development. One has to understand that the change from RT to 2nd ed., while not drastic ruleswise, was very drastic design studio wise. It really evolved to be a new game.
And while the rules got better (In My Ever So Humble Opinion) the armylists got worse (again IMESHO) balancewise. Again, in a friendly gaming community that's not that much of an issue, but in a world of competitive tournament play against people you've never met it's a huge issue and that's exactly what GW went for, the tournament type of play.

And while there is nothing wrong with that per se, one can easily make the argument that despite all the improvments 3rd ed. brought with it, a lot of the tactical flexibility of the game was lost in the process and ironically, in a competitive tournament, I for one, would really like to see a tactical element be a part of the competitive game.


For beer and prezels, the current edition is superior ruleswise.
For beer and prezels, RT/2nd ed. were superior armylist/funfactor wise.
For tactical flexibility, RT/2nd ed. were superior ruleswise.
For tournament game, the current edition is superior armylist wise.

Now doesn't that seem like climbing a tree with your ass against the sky :D

ser_hag
29-11-2007, 02:41
Indeed he does, a post most well written.

Even so, I don't think anyone has argued that for a game to be tactical it needs to be complex. Simple *is* good as long as it doesn't detract from the tactical elements of the game (well, that's my take on it anyway :) )

amen my brother!

that is why i rank FOW so much higher than 40k. it, to me at least, has found the balance of playability and realism.

FruitSmack!
29-11-2007, 04:55
Fine (though you most certainly have taken a position regarding the complexity of different editions of 40k), but you've yet to explain this "agenda" and "bias" you see in people who really do see that there are things that could be better in the current incarnation of 40k.

Of course there are things that can be better. There are issues I have with the game.

The problem is people that take their dislikes and attempt to use that as fact as to why something is bad.


But also, again, could you please explain what was so horrible about RT/2nd ed./other_wargames that the systems shouldn't be compared to the current edition of 40k. If you are that allergic to critical analysis and comparison of different game mechanics then why are you even posting in this thread, you aren't contributing anything.



And, again, it doesn't matter. I'm not comparing any thing here. They stand or fall on their own merits. Something many people in this thread should learn. I didn't care for 2nd. I stopped playing until 4th. I don't begrudge anyone playing 2nd and *shock, gasp* can actually understand why people enjoyed/enjoy 2nd.

See, that's how you be critical.


Also, in the context of your posts in this thread, you sig isn't funny.

Bully for you.

aaron

FruitSmack!
29-11-2007, 05:00
Okay, so it's the smartassedness that disturbs you.

But what if someone said they liked 40k 4th less than another game that is more tactical or complex? Adding, to each their own, some people like these games, others those.

That would make a valid point.

I personally do not like 40k as much as back in 2nd edition, because I miss a lot of intricate details. The as I perceive it quite simple gameplay bores me to a certain degree. So I prefer other game systems. That's not to say it can't be the other way round for others.

In the end, on my personal ladder, 40k 4th doesn't rate as high as other systems, for example 40k 2nd, and with 4th being derived from 2nd, the development makes me sad (perhaps a bit grumpy, because with the majority of the followship following the current edition that robbed me of players of my favourite edition).

Better that way?

While I'm on it I have to state that streamlining the rules so a game is played quicker isn't for everyone. I personally like games that take long and have an up to a certain degree entangled complexity. My dream wargame would take a weekend to play (and sometimes it does, though we artifically break and continue the next day).

See this? This is valid opinion. Gabriel isn't sitting her trying to pass of his opinion as fact.

I wouldn't call it smartassedness though. More like being disingenuous.

aaron

ankara halla
29-11-2007, 05:24
Of course there are things that can be better. There are issues I have with the game.

The problem is people that take their dislikes and attempt to use that as fact as to why something is bad.

Unlike you, right? You aren't trying to "use as fact" your own opinions regarding other peoples opinions which you see as, not "bad", but as "biased" or with an "agenda"...

And you still haven't answered any of my questions to you in this thread.

And, again, it doesn't matter. I'm not comparing any thing here. They stand or fall on their own merits. Something many people in this thread should learn. I didn't care for 2nd. I stopped playing until 4th. I don't begrudge anyone playing 2nd and *shock, gasp* can actually understand why people enjoyed/enjoy 2nd.

Well, if this is the case, then why your animosity towards posters who enjoy other systems/editions and would like some of their their qualities incorporated in to the next version of 40k? What's wrong with having such discussions and opinions?

And you still haven't answered any of my questions to you in this thread.

See, that's how you be critical.

Me, critical? Sure?? But in a bad way???
I honestly fail to see your point here. My critisism is solely directed at people who seem to discourage any discussion regarding the rules of various editions of various different tabletop wargames.

And you still haven't answered any of my questions to you in this thread.

Bully for you.

aaron

You do realise, that you are making yourself look like a hypocrite with every post that you make, right?

And you still haven't answered any of my questions to you in this thread.

ankara halla
29-11-2007, 05:26
See this? This is valid opinion. Gabriel isn't sitting her trying to pass of his opinion as fact.

I wouldn't call it smartassedness though. More like being disingenuous.

aaron

Sorry, but as far as I can see, you are among the most prominent posters here who is trying to "pass your opinion as fact".

big squig
29-11-2007, 06:02
Even so, I don't think anyone has argued that for a game to be tactical it needs to be complex. Simple *is* good as long as it doesn't detract from the tactical elements of the game


Thank you. There seems to be this trend among some gamers that if a game is simple, it is immediately inferior and incapable of any meaningful tactics or strategy.

I find that 4th ed 40k has plenty of tactics and strategy despite it's simple rules. Thing is, I also find that these tactics are completely dependent on the mission and terrain. And IMO, that's the way it should be.

The_Patriot
29-11-2007, 06:49
What people seem to miss concerning tactics is table layout and set up. The thing that really hinders 40k in the tactics department is that you usually have to deploy on the long edge of a 6'x4' table. This means by turn 2 you're in combat and maneuver doesn't play an important part of the game, especially when the game is limited to 6 turns. For 1500 point games an 8'x4' table is ideal and every 500 points add another 2' to the short edges and 1' for the long edge. I don't know about you but I've never seen Chess played with a 3 turn per player limit. A bigger table with lots of terrain (more then 25%), deploying on the short sides of the board, and having no turn limit makes the game more tactical. The key is fire and maneuver for a wargame just like war is all about fire and maneuver.

The other important aspect is scale. 40k's scale is way out of whack since it's a sliding scale. The further the models are the greater the scale slides. To add further tactics to the game there has to be a set scale like 1"=2 meters. Since the scale is set you have to plan accordingly to bring your weapons into line and play up on their effectiveness. As it stands now with the sliding scale bolters can rapid fire up to 1 km away which isn't very accurate. The last thing is that there needs to be set in stone that the ranges listed are for effective range not theoretical max range of the weapon.

Gaebriel
29-11-2007, 09:04
What people seem to miss concerning tactics is table layout and set up. The thing that really hinders 40k in the tactics department is that you usually have to deploy on the long edge of a 6'x4' table. This means by turn 2 you're in combat and maneuver doesn't play an important part of the game, especially when the game is limited to 6 turns. For 1500 point games an 8'x4' table is ideal and every 500 points add another 2' to the short edges and 1' for the long edge. I don't know about you but I've never seen Chess played with a 3 turn per player limit. A bigger table with lots of terrain (more then 25%), deploying on the short sides of the board, and having no turn limit makes the game more tactical. The key is fire and maneuver for a wargame just like war is all about fire and maneuver.
Amen to that. One of the problems I have with 40k is the prevalence of close combat, which, with the inclusion of dedicated close combat armies, means any bigger sized tabe further unbalances the system. That restricts table size and leads to everyone dashing towards the enemy. The last is reinforced by the turn limit. I think the ruleset suffers from external circumstances like being designed to be played within confined space, within a set time (and standing on a somewhat complicated design basis, but that's not for here).

It's interesting that I can spot former GW players playing historical games by looking at the way they move they army - usually pushing everything forward, trying to micromanage tactics on the go. Well, I guess it's one way to play...

Chaos and Evil
29-11-2007, 09:18
Of course it's slightly more tactical. You have more room to move around. It has to do more with the scale and less with the ruleset.

Areas where Epic is more complex than 40k:


- Every unit in Epic has a unique movement speed.

- Epic has armour save modifiers.

- Epic has to-hit modifiers (Both positive and negative).

- Epic's 'Armour Penetration' system is more advanced than 40k's 'Armour Penetration' system.

- The standard Epic scenario is a very complex blend of killing the enemy and controlling terrain / denying it to your enemy. (As opposed to 'capture these loot markers!')

- Epic allows you to split fire so as to target only those units in the open if half a formation is in cover, thus denying the enemy their cover save.

- Epic allows you to issue different orders to your troops, like 'stay still and get +1 to hit', or 'move twice and shoot with -1 to hit'.

- Epic (As a simulation style wargame) has a mechanism that means sometimes your orders don't get through to a formation (Especially if that formation is of low-quality troops... having Marines fail the recieve their orders is rare), when this happens they are very restricted as to what order they can undertake that turn.

- Manuever to put your enemy in a crossfire position, and they have -1 armour save.

- Snipers actually snipe, allowing you to allocate your hits amongst the enemy formation as you like, rather than being odd weapons that are only good for killing Monstrous Creatures due to their weird wounding rules.

- Epic's turn sequence is more complex than 40k's turn sequence.



Areas where 40k is more complex than Epic:

- In 40k, each unit has a Leadership stat, which is replaced by the 'blast marker' mechanism in Epic. However Leadership isn't all that important in 40k, whilst the blast marker system in Epic is both vitally important and (Due to its simplicity) more balanced than 40k's morale system.

- 40k has a blinding array of special rules (Probably in the range of thousands across the whole game). Epic has a more restricted set of around a hundred special rules, which are applied in combination to units to give them accurate rules (For example, Terminators have the Epic special rules Thick Rear Armour, Reinforced Armour, Teleport, which means that: - They don't have to take armour save modifiers when caught in a crossfire, Their 4+ armour save is re-rollable, and they may teleport onto the battlefield ala Deep Strike). As they're Space Marines they're also affected by Epic's version of 'And they shall know no fear'. Plus they have a movement stat, various weapons & cc weapon stats, and they're generally awesome... hardly 'simple')

- 40k has better models (It does).

- 40k has more races released for it (Tyranids & Necrons havn't been released for the latest Epic edition at this point).



Some thoughts:

- 40k is designed to be played by kids (Ages 12+), 'Epic is designed to be played by experienced wargamers' (Paraphrased, Jervis Johnson, from the Epic rulebook).

- Epic's 4th edition (Armageddon) was basically a brand new system, completely re-written as a robust wargame, released in 2004. It's not a multi-generational decendant like 40k, with all the legacy and problems that implies.



Someone said they wished for an Advanced version of 40k. You recommended Epic, implying that the rules were somehow deeper or more detailed. You said nothing at all about tactical challenge.

They are in many ways in which Epic *is* more complex than 40k... not least amongst them is the tactical challenge.


That said, I find lots of things about Epic rules really, really wonky. Being able to "march" like 3/4 of the way across the board in a single turn... just strikes me as weird.

That could only be done if you're using transport vehicles like Rhinos or Chimeras; Infantry on foot could only march 45cm in a single turn, and wouldn't be allowed to shoot whilst doing so.

Remember that each turn in Epic strictly represents 15 minutes of action, rather than the rather... elastic... timing represented by a 40k turn.


The turn sequence is pretty cool. The blast marker concept is interesting, but imperfect.

The Blast Marker system is a much better morale system than 40k's overly-random leadership system.

The more blast markers a formation has, the more shaken it is... simple and elegant.

Space Marines are allowed to take twice as many blast markers as other armies, because they're uber-brave. :p


And come on, Epic isn't that much more tactically challenging than 40k. As I said, it's actually fairly simplistic. You want "tactically challenging", guys? Play some Warmachine. That game gives you a headache.

I've tried Warmachine... it's a fun enough small skirmish system... and unlike Epic it's very unbalanced; but again, like 40k that's half the fun of it.

Psycho_Laughs
29-11-2007, 12:09
ah warmachine...
the complexities of that game are mind boggling... literaly.
i had to take a break from it, i had head aches trying to think of possible combos that could only work under specific conditions, which opened the door for other combos, and more synergy...
a 3 week hiatus from WM playing 40k gave the noddles a nice break.

reds8n
29-11-2007, 12:28
[
- Epic has armour save modifiers.

-- Epic allows you to split fire so as to target only those units in the open if half a formation is in cover, thus denying the enemy their cover save.




I'd have to agree that Epic is more tactical, not least for the number of units involved. But

A: there's a lot of people, myself included, who hate armour save mods and I really don't think they add anything to the game or in any way make it more tactical.If anything they lower they amount of tactics required as sheer volume of fire outweighs the correct application of the right weapon in the right place at the right time.




B : majority saves rule covers this situation in 40k equally as well.

The 40k rules are surprisingly tight IF YOU USE THEM ALL,by which I include the CoD stuff, all the FAQS etc.

basically, whilst the system works it is in desparate need of a good rewrite/edit.

Chaos and Evil
29-11-2007, 12:44
To answer your B comment:

I'm not sure you were following me... when shooting the sequence goes something like:

- Pick your target formation.
- Choose whether to shoot at the enemy units either:
1 - Shoot only at the bases in the open.
2 - Shoot at the entire formation, including the bases in cover.

If you choose '2', you have to accept a -1 to-hit, if you choose '1', you have no minus to-hit, but you can only kill the enemy units in the open.


So, much more complex than 40k.

reds8n
29-11-2007, 12:49
Well, not that much more complex than 40k eh ?


You said earlier you've been/had played epic using 40k models, how did that work out then ?

Chaos and Evil
29-11-2007, 12:52
You said earlier you've been/had played epic using 40K models, how did that work out then ?

It worked nicely.

I also tried a combination of using Epic's order system & turn sequence with Warmaster's activation system... which worked nicely too.

FruitSmack!
29-11-2007, 13:13
Unlike you, right? You aren't trying to "use as fact" your own opinions regarding other peoples opinions which you see as, not "bad", but as "biased" or with an "agenda"...

And you still haven't answered any of my questions to you in this thread.


Well, if this is the case, then why your animosity towards posters who enjoy other systems/editions and would like some of their their qualities incorporated in to the next version of 40k? What's wrong with having such discussions and opinions?

And you still haven't answered any of my questions to you in this thread.


Me, critical? Sure?? But in a bad way???
I honestly fail to see your point here. My critisism is solely directed at people who seem to discourage any discussion regarding the rules of various editions of various different tabletop wargames.

And you still haven't answered any of my questions to you in this thread.


You do realise, that you are making yourself look like a hypocrite with every post that you make, right?

And you still haven't answered any of my questions to you in this thread.

I'm not answering your questions because they're not the point of this conversation no matter how much you try to make them.

Look, you're either unable or unwilling (I'm guessing the latter) to understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying anything is better or worse than anything else so why you keep bringing that up is beyond me. What I'm saying is that it's obnoxious when people like you compare 40K with lets say, 2nd grade math. Or say 40K is only really good for introductions. Or that real gamers learn that 40k isn't that good and move to better games. It's one thing to say that you don't care for something. It's another to negatively comment on something based on the things you don't like and try to pass that off as fact.

I've done nothing of the sort here. I've never even commented on comparisons beyond that I like 4th more than I liked 2nd because my likes or dislikes between the two have no meaning except for whatever reason you seem to think they do.

And I've explained my sig up thread.

aaron

FruitSmack!
29-11-2007, 13:14
Sorry, but as far as I can see, you are among the most prominent posters here who is trying to "pass your opinion as fact".

Cite. Do it. Show me where I've done such a thing. Because I haven't.

You're welcome to keep trying though.

aaron

Captain Brown
29-11-2007, 14:02
I think this has gone far enough. Gentlemen, you are welcome to discuss the games, rules, etc. Personal insults are unacceptable on WarSeer.

Thread closed.

Captain Brown
WarSeer Inquisition