View Full Version : Closer statlines provide funner games?

01-12-2007, 12:50
Just an opinion/theory I've started to accquire...
Nothing against marines etc(I have some space wolves and a custom chapter myself) but when i play my guard, my absolute fave opponents are Dark Eldar, High Eldar:p Nids, other Guard etc. Ie T3 5+ save armies.
I swear its the casualty ratios, because they blaze away with splinter rifles and drop 6 of my men, but I rapid fire back and inflict similar numbers of deaths. You see some kind of payback. With marines if they blaze away and kill 6 men (36pts) im aware I only have to drop 2ish marines to get the pioints back with return fire, but it seems...less fun? It becomes an exercise in watching my men drop faster than MEQ's.
The theme is reversed (for me at least) when I roll out the Regal Knights chapter. Gunning down squad after squad of guardsmen in the open is too easy, wheras when playing other marines dropping 2 marines with bolters but losing three of my own to a havoc squad makes the game seem more "even" or "closely fought" and somehow funner because of the in the balance nature, even if one side is clearly winning.
It seems more like a fair fight I suppose. Even though my russes can drop 8-10 marines with a well placed shell, its less fun than blowing up 10 traitor guardsmen and knowing theres still 90 more for me to clear from the cathedral
Am I alone in feeling battles against similar statlines to ones own are funner?

Slaaneshi Slave
01-12-2007, 13:10
With my Sisters of Battle my favourite games are against Marines / Necrons etc. There is nothing better than rapid firing Marines killing two or three of my Sisters of Battle, then my return fire wiping out his squad. :p

With my Imperial Guard I like playing against Tau, but thats mainly because I like having somebody I can beat in combat. :P

01-12-2007, 13:11
No, some of my fave battles have been Nid VS Nid.

Slaaneshi Slave
01-12-2007, 13:16
No, some of my fave battles have been Nid VS Nid.

So what you actually meant to say was...

"Yes, some of my fave battles have been Nid VS Nid."

01-12-2007, 13:20
I've always enjoyed nids vs orks, it's just so much fun when the melee starts on both sides.

Agrip. Varenus Denter
01-12-2007, 13:23
I think it's sort of an obvious point - I love playing opponents who can make a game interesting - and it helps greatly if the stats are close to one another.

01-12-2007, 13:24
I started out playing Chaos, but nowadays I find that non-MEQ vs. non-MEQ games are by far the most fun and challenging. I think there are more tactical options available as you can rely on probability behaving itself a lot better when you don't have that 3+ save to throw a wrench in the works. I've even run a no MEQ (except Grey Knights) tournament a couple of times. SO much fun, but you have to make sure you give people enough time to move.

On the other hand I find MEQ vs MEQ to be rather dull most of the time. It's sad when little beyond heavy weapons, ICs and hidden power fists have an impact on the game.

This, of course, is outside of Apocalypse, where EVERYTHING is designed to bypass that 3+ save anyway. Then it's all good. It's allllllll good!

01-12-2007, 13:24
Actually, I have always enjoyed lopsided games, particularly if I'm on the side with weaker but more numerous troops. I love it that every enemy I drop matters, whereas mine just fall like leaves.

01-12-2007, 13:35
I suppose it's a case of whether when a model dies you see it as X points or whether it's just a model dieing.

01-12-2007, 14:23
I tend to agree, but I think that if what you want is for the sides to be similar then 40k probably isn't the best medium.

01-12-2007, 14:48
funner != word

Slaaneshi Slave
01-12-2007, 15:00
I beg to differ.

Main Entry: funner
Part of Speech: adj
Definition: an informal or nonstandard comparative form of fun
Example: basketball is funner than football, and soccer is the funnest game of all
Usage: also funnest (adj.)

From dictionary.com

Still, I wouldn't use the word, it makes you sound like a bit of an idiot. The OP obviously meant to say "more fun", but made a typing error.

01-12-2007, 15:17
I knew what he meant... just a pet peeve of mine. Normally I'd ignore stuff like this but today I couldn't.

To get back on topic...

I've considered painting my old Warzone Imperial trenchers and blood berets and put them up against my 40K cadian force. Both would use the IG Codex for stats. Everything would be the same stat-wise but the composition would probably be different. I think that would make for a great game, especially if the trenchers were in... well... trenches.

01-12-2007, 15:28
No, I like the idea of different stats (well, largely different) as it can drastically change how certain matchups (or even missions) play.

Lets take the infamous space marine last stand vs orks - thats hardly as much fun when its mariens vs marines is it?

Besides, winning when one is at a disadvantage makes the victory much more glorious (though this shouldn't be taken as an advocate for major mis-matches).

01-12-2007, 15:38
Nope, I actually don't like a game against an army that is similar to mine. I mostly play marines and I've always enjoyed game against eldar or guard 10x more.

01-12-2007, 22:52
I suppose it's a case of whether when a model dies you see it as X points or whether it's just a model dieing.

I don't get your point - which way round does it go?

02-12-2007, 01:12
It's not just stat-lines, it's army composition as well. Once you get beyond the "Attack unit A with unit B because the S of B is greater than the T of A (or Sv of B is greater than the AP of A...), the game opens up and you get to concentrate on what's going on on the board as well as crunching numbers. Putting the numbers into the context of a game is going to make for funner games, because you're playing the games and not the numbers.

02-12-2007, 04:19
The funnerestiest games I ever playded was IG vs IG. It's always very close and I like making up little scenarios, which is easierest when you can imagine one side simply being traitor.

:P @ Petrov

Burning Star IV
02-12-2007, 04:40
I personally find MEQ v. MEQ to be the height of tedium, but anything else I enjoy thoroughly. But yeah, Black templars with "suffer not the unclean to live" against death guard makes for a dull game. "I've got T5." "Cool, I've got S5, but only I3." "Um, I also have I3." "Oh...this should be fun."

02-12-2007, 05:46
Hands down, the best game of 40k I ever had was my IG vs. Tau. I think it came close to how modern warfare would work in 40k; mobile firepower was way more important than assaults; in fact, there were no assaults in that game, just lots of moving and shooting.

I also like the Eldar vs. Orks matchup. Soon we'll be seeing a lot more of those... :cool:

02-12-2007, 06:21
In my experience, *nothing* beats the attitude of your opponent. I don't care much for the matchups on the table, as much as I do for the one between us. If we get on well, any game will be fun, if not....:(

02-12-2007, 06:31
Burning Star IV:

So, like, do people do more than just roll to wound around your area? Like put models down on the board and attempt to use skill to exploit all the other aspects of the game in order to win? Sorry to pick on you, but all you seem to be talking about is rolling to wound in assaults. There's more to the game than just rolling to wound.

Cry of the Wind
02-12-2007, 06:51
I like all games but normally find mis-matches (i.e. differing stat lines and play styles) to be more interesting or at least more memorable. It's the games where some random guard squad or grot goes on a rampage and kills terminators or something or when a killy units really does chew through an army that the stuff of legends are made. When you get the same army or army style matching up it may be a closer fought game but might not be as interesting in the long run. That's just my take on it though, I just prefer more varried armies fighting each other for the unexpected results.

Burning Star IV
02-12-2007, 06:58

Models? For 40k? Heavens, no! In my game shop we just draw 40 to 85 stick figures on a sheet of notebook paper and assign random stats to "our guys", then we throw dice at each other until someone gets hit in the eye or somewhere equally vulnerable and loses the game. Why? Is there some other way to play it?

02-12-2007, 07:47
Why? Is there some other way to play it?
Yes, but yours sounds funner because it's spontaneouser.

02-12-2007, 10:26
I don't get your point - which way round does it go?

If you see a model dieing as x points it means that a low point army vs high point will find it better as their models are say 8 points and the other guy's are 14.

If you see it as a model dieing then the expensive army will see it as a better game (kill wise)

02-12-2007, 11:26
I like that GW is "evening out" the new codices. That makes for a better game all around, but thsat doesn't mean I want a mirror match. 1500 points, vs 1500 properly buit and skillfully played is balanced enough for me, and can make for an exciting game, regardless of race.

02-12-2007, 15:59
You mean like chess?

*ducks out of thread*

02-12-2007, 18:11
So what you actually meant to say was...

"Yes, some of my fave battles have been Nid VS Nid."

I was replying to "Am I alone in feeling battles against similar statlines to ones own are funner?" It just wasn't clear. :)

I also like the Eldar vs. Orks matchup. Soon we'll be seeing a lot more of those... :cool:

A minor dream of mine is for the 5th edition box to have TWO! non MEQ forces. :angel:

02-12-2007, 18:41
You mean like chess?

*ducks out of thread*

But chess is pretty imbalanced. Totally cheesy white pieces, allways go first. White starts d4 or e4 and black falls apart unless white doesn´t know what they´re doing.

Seriously, if a chess game starts:
1. d4 d5
2. e4 dxe4
3. f3...
It´s an uphill battle for black (and if the black player knows their stuff leads to an "Oh god, one of those theory guys" yawn).