PDA

View Full Version : And Fantasy has spoilt 40k for me!



Mad Doc Grotsnik
17-03-2008, 16:57
I was in the Shop today, contemplating a spanky new 40k army. Looking at the models, I couldn't help but be drawn to the Sisters of Battle.

Gorgeous models, and a fairly uncommon force for my opponents. So, thats 2 of my 3 boxes ticked. But, unfortunately, I am yet to find a 40k force that ticks the third box - Tactically interesting.

And for this, J'accuse Fantasy!

You see, in Fantasy, most armies can compete to some degree in each phase, and if you get lucky, can stomp the enemy flat in a phase they are normally fairly weak in (like Chaos Marauders lobbing axes around and nobbling some Knights!)

But in 40k, I just don't see this happening. Perhaps my view is skewed from years of only really playing Fantasy, but even my imaginary Sisters list (mechanised, flamers etc up the wazoo, a close ranged fire fight force) is pretty limited. Sure, I will rightly dominate the shooting phase, but I do worry I'll just get the crap kicked out of me in HTH, not a good worry when you plan on shooting the enemy right in the face from 2 feet away!

Now, this is not meant as a '40k suxxorz!' thread, it's a genuine concern. Although I am happy to shell out pretty much any amount of money on a force, do I really want an army I might get bored of fairly quickly? In 40k, I can see this happening quite easily, whereas with Warhammer, the swapping of a couple of units can make a real difference...

What to do, what to do? I don't need a new Warhammer army (still working on my Savage Orcs) but I do and don't want to get into 40k again.

What do you think? Am I being blinkered?

Tiamat
17-03-2008, 17:07
No I don't think you're getting blinkered, I generally find 40K to be much more forgiving of your mistakes as manouvre is so much easier.

in 40K you don't need to worry about wheeling, reforming or being march blocked. Line of sight is also so much easier in 40K also, 360 degrees, unlike a formed up regiments forward arc only. Plus we have to worry about doing things in the right order, or having an opponent who is open minded enough to remind you about your fleeing units before you declare any charges.

'Course 40K has it's own little quirks, I won't waste time listing them, and I really do enjoy a game on 40K night as well, but by and large I prefer Fantasy, it makes me think a little harder.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
17-03-2008, 17:10
Good thing is, my local gamers seem to be playing more and more objective based 40k, thus the tactics are coming back in, as it's a lot more than 'kick your opponent up the hoop then smash his teeth in'

But do you think it's a wise choice to try getting back in with such an expensive(ish) army? I have lots of Tau, but grew a little bored.

Tiamat
17-03-2008, 18:03
I envy you, most of the folk I play are content with the "first one to die looses" game. That does get very dull. I always try to play for objectives, using the missions, be they standard, raid, battle or whatever. Makes the game so much more interesting.

Playing objectives makes things much more interesting for a Tau player. As a fellow Tau player, I know how much we hate standing our ground, but fighting for an objective means running away is no longer an option. By adding Kroot to the mix you open up a whole world of options, suddenly a stand and fight Tau army can exist! I'm big on Auxilleries, Kroot forming a large part of my collection, and this takes a lot of opponents by surprise. Suddenly I'm taking the fight to them instead of patiently waiting for them to break into the open so I can shoot them to pieces.

It's entirely up to you if you want to go Sisters of Battle, they are a capable army, but if you're unwilling or unable to fork out the cash, I'd advise breathing new life into the Tau by investing in auxilleries if you haven't already, or have a look at Imperial Armour Vol 3, that has tonnes of Tau stuff to fire your imagination, and a kewl story to boot.

Darkseer
17-03-2008, 18:17
I know what you mean Mad Dok.
I'm constantly drawn to an army for its visual appeal, rich background...but then I wonder how it will play.

Fantasy doesn't really have this problem because you can take a little of everything and still have a great army. 40K forces you to be incredibly selective.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
17-03-2008, 18:18
I think I'll finish off my Savage Orcs, wait for the 5th Edition to come out, and then look again.

Vilicate
17-03-2008, 18:22
They're two totally different games Grotsnik.

As someone who really enjoys both games, I realize that they have two very different places in my heart. I like 40k as a more beer and pretzels type game, that I play with good friends and I don't really fret about my moves or anything. I highly recommend that you play objective-based, rather than just for victory points, because that's were the fun really is with that game. The missions make the game, IMHO, and I feel that's what makes it really different than Fantasy.

With fantasy, I feel like I have a much less care-free attitude. I really, really have to plan out my moves every turn, and while deployment, I'm usually not smiling, but really planning out my game. But once the game actually starts, I'm laughing and rolling dice, and having a good time, but my mind is definitely stretched further than 40k.

Urgat
17-03-2008, 18:24
I dunno, really. I'm not a big fan of 40k to be honest, I haven't played it for years, I've even sold my Tau army. But I got quite some people by surprise thanks to assaults from my fire warriors. Sure, they seem subpar in hth, but their 4+ save did make me believe it would work and, indeed, it did. And obviously, declaring an assault with firewarriors is something that opponents do (did?) not expect, expecially when uyour list has no kroot and makes believe you want to avoid hth at all costs. If I am to blame something, it's the fixed troops, THIS makes you kindda forced to take always more or less the same things, and this, is a bit annoying when you're used to fantasy's freedom (especially when you play greenskins and have heaps of troops to choose from :p)

mistformsquirrel
17-03-2008, 18:32
One thing I recommend remembering with your Sisters is that while they aren't *good* at Assault on their own - Acts of Faith combined with their Power Armor can make them a bit more formidable than you may think - especially if you give your Vet Sister Superiors power weapons.

(I think its Hand of the Emperor that's the Act I'm thinking of - but it gives +2 str, sure it makes you strike at I1; but given Sister's low initiative to start with, its not a big loss; and you'll wound even Marines much more handily; with that Power Weapon toting Sister Superior you'll even knock a few out armor or no.)

Admiral Samuel Eden
17-03-2008, 19:10
40K is more forgiving, to a degree. There is just as much tactical flexibility within armies, the fact of the matter is that they are very different 40k and fantasy and so it may take some adjusting. Each has their problems but in the end, their both great.

Mireadur
17-03-2008, 19:13
I play both games too but 40k has the problem that it is too much all or nothing, min/max game. I feel Fantasy is light years ahead in what comes to game balance and armies appealing. Like Mad Doc said most armies in 40k lack of a wide set of tactical choices while in Fantasy you can get this with almost every army (except chaos i guess).

Still if you play 40k how it should be played (objetives plus a lot of scenery) it can become as great as fantasy. That and.. The games take half the time normally.

Gazak Blacktoof
17-03-2008, 19:27
Like Mad Doc said most armies in 40k lack of a wide set of tactical choices while in Fantasy you can get this with almost every army (except chaos i guess).



I'd strongly disagree with that assessment. All armies in 40K have the ability to move at speed, shoot and asault. Naturally you get different levels of these in each army but there isn't a single army that can't take and hold an objective or blitz the opponent's deployment zone fairly quickly. Even a guard force can load up on drop troops, armour and demo charges and launch an all out assault.

Most armies have an area they struggle with which ever game you consider.

Sisters have always struck me as one of the more interesting 40K armies, they have power armour, but they have quirks in their rules and stat lines that make them a lot different from marines. Faith points are one of the better army wide rules.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
17-03-2008, 19:29
It not so much not being capable in any particular area, it's just unlike Warhammer, bog standard troops ARE guaranteed a kicking off superior troops, unless you gun them down first. This is a little bit, meh to me.
In Fantasy, I can flank them, bait them or do other amusing things to tip the balance, but in 40k, there is little I can do beyond avoid/shoot. Or, avoid/slap around if using a combat army.

Gazak Blacktoof
18-03-2008, 01:19
I'd say there are deffinate opportunities to tip the balance in 40K too otherwise space marines, necrons, aspect warriors, etc would always trump guard, gaunts and eldar guardians or firewarriors.

IMO 40K is the weaker of the two games so I wont disagree too strongly.

In both games intervention needs to come before an assault/ shooting match can be resolved on an even footing. In warhammer that means using the tactics you described, in 40K the tactics are different and often situational which is due to the ability of units to move and attack more freely.

ehlijen
18-03-2008, 05:00
There is plenty of options on how to avoid the phases you are weaker in.

Nasty cc machines on the way? Put something cheap in the way so that when they're done they're in the middle of your carefully prepared killing zone. Or engage it with a tarpit and use the time bought to let you actual units do their mission.

40k does have problems (lack of leadership as a meaningful stat for most armies for example), but most of these also exist in fantasy (in fact they can be even bigger problems there), such as extreme armies (gunlines, RAF, SAD...) and people who choose to built their army in such a way as to not have any tactical choices left (errantry list, all khorne, necron phalanx (move up and hose, rinse and repeat)).

Both games have about equal opportunities for tactics, and in both games, these opportunities aren't always used, and that's where boring games come from.

(The above isn't meant accusingly or insultingly, it's just an observation I have chosen to believe)

As for missions: I insist on always rolling mission and threat level after armies have been chosen. That way, neither player will know what units will be the most important for the mission.

Jampire
18-03-2008, 05:19
I haven't read all responses yet, so forgive me if it's already been said.

I think a Sisters army, well painted and modeled, is the single most amazing army in 40K.
From a gaming perspective, they can be quite devastating. Mobile, great shooting... Your concerns in HtH are well founded though... But I've seen some AMAZING games with Sisters.
What's better than seeing a SoB army making a stand, refusing to die, and then making a glorious comeback? Nothing. (Other than IG doing the same thing, they just don't look as sexy doing it!)

Peril
18-03-2008, 06:20
I think there are bigger balance problems in Fantasy than 40k at the moment (Beastmen, Orcs). At least in 40k, everyone can be mobile(ish), and can bring big guns(weird fringe lists like Kroot Mercs excluded). That isn't to say there aren't balance issues in 40k, but having played a lot of both, I really feel the pain in Fantasy (didn't bring a ton of magic defense? Don't bother playing against the new VC. Don't have significant shooting because your army doesn't actually have any? Have fun with that Dragon.)

superknijn
18-03-2008, 08:57
I'm thinking about focusing more on Fantasy than on 40K.
While fantasy doesn't have any tanks or funky guns (Well, there's plenty of types of rockets and cannon, but they're not as cool as frickin' railguns or multilasers), it does have dragons and almost forces you to think tactically if you want to have any chance of victory, most of the time. 40K is a bit too point and click for my tastes, unfortunatly.

Voltaire
18-03-2008, 09:32
It'll all boil down to the usual argument;

"Warhammer Fantasy? you mean Warhammer Disneyland! Look at them in their silly costumes and hats, sitting in their castles..."

"Yeah well, look at 40k emo. "OH Emperor, I've forsaken you." "Punish yourself brother, with this large and not so inconspicuous looking kitchen knife and let nothing more be said of it." "Oh Chaplain Manson, your teachings are my beacon of light."

Stay with Fantasy for now Doc, you're better off with the devil you know!

SuperBeast
18-03-2008, 11:07
Many moons ago, I was looking at getting back into 40K; it had been my first GW love, but after 5 years of playing just fantasy I was looking to get back in.
I was offered the chance to watch the local store 40K demigod; his Deathwing force unbeaten by all, his only draw to date against an Ork horde force.
Players waxed lyrical about his tactical ability, the fact you couldn't hope to beat him, that even the most cunning attack plans fell to ruination under his gaze.

So I watched him play. Then again. Then some more.
His 'tactical genius' was simple threat assessment.
He picked a target, stood there and emptied bolter, lascannon and assault cannon into it until it was dead. Then moved onto the next target.
Then the chaplain (with obligatory lightning clawed bodyguard) would deep-strike into the enemy HQ, and pound them into the dirt or - at worst - drive them towards the ballistic death that had done for the rest of the force.
The fact that this 'tactic' had beaten allcomers left me amazed, and I went back to my wood elves...

Ludwig von Rictoven
18-03-2008, 13:08
40k vs WFB, WFB vs 40k

Is it the eternal question? I started playing WFB 19 years ago and I'll finish with WFB, but I still play and enjoy playing 40k.

As a few people have said the unbeatable 40k "tactics" that they have seen are normally "concentrate firepower - destroy - concentrate firepower" and I have some very bad experiences against this.

My opinion is that it doesn't matter what you do or collect if you play the right people you can have fun. I prefer WFB to 40k for gaming reasons, although I am sick of currently playing HE with 7 strong special units :confused: With 40k I prefer the background and the modelling opportunities. My Black Templars have units that are 20 strong armed with bolters & shotguns with a flamer in there simply because it looks good.

Hopefully with the 40k release 40k will become more tactical again, but I don't care cause I will still play it and love it.

Thats my two cents worth anyways

ehlijen
18-03-2008, 13:15
If he used deathwing and was able to still destroy targets one at a time in threat order, then he was actually a better player than the opponent. Any kind of other army should be able to use superior numbers to stop him from doing exactly that (and deathwing is automatically outnumbered).

Also, whenever someone is referred to as a demigod at some game, there's very likely more ego than fact involved. Not always, but often.

zak
18-03-2008, 14:29
I have always had a soft spot for 40k as it is what I really started with when I first got into the hobby. As soon as I started playing Fantasy, 40k came second best and although I have dabbled in 40k since it has always lacked something. I have to admit that the 40k players were younger than me, didn't use scenarios and played to WAAC so this may have tainted the experience to a degree. I'm looking forward to the new 40k and I'm hoping they change the game to make it more appealing to myself as I have a hell of a lot of 40k mini's gathering dust.

Dalamyr the Fleetmaster
18-03-2008, 15:48
From my experience i would say that 40k is defineatly less tactically challenging and all bout army selection rather then playing the game i've only just started playing 40k after playing warhammer for 3 years and lotr 3 years before that.

In Warhammer i have about a 60 70 percwent win rate being soundly beaten by someone who's genuinely a better tactician then me on the day

At the moment i've played four games of 40k against experienced opponents and handed there backsisdes to them on a palet now if that doesn't scream out a lesser game then what does

Bac5665
18-03-2008, 18:28
40k is clearly--to me--the worse game in terms of tactics and strategy. That said, I was raised a fantasy player, but am now starting an Ork list. I love the models too much not to collect them, and that means playing at least some. I truly hope the new edition brings more tactics to it, but as long as its not a step backwards, I'll still play it some.

W0lf
18-03-2008, 19:36
Born and bred 40K player here. 6 Years 40K experience, 1 years fantasy.

Fantasy is in everyway conceivable a superiour game. Fantasy > 40K.

40K = Army list + first turn + not suffering from severely below par rolling = Won.

40K can be broken down as such:
Army list: 30% of the game decided.
Deployment: 10%
First turn: 40%
Dice rolling: 19.5%
Generalship: 0.5%

ehlijen
19-03-2008, 04:41
Right, so you're talking about the infamous Seek and destroy with automatic gamma priority on planet bowling bowl?

That's the 40k equivalent of two gunlines facing with no terrain but hills in the deployment zone.

Army list: can be a problem in either game
Deployment: use terrain and objcetives, suddenly it means a lot more
first turn: mostly helps in seek and destroy, ie 1 of the 5 missions and only with little terrain
(all the above are also addressed by random priority levels)
dice rolling: how do these not affect fantasy in equal measure?
generalship: if you don't want it to matter, it won't regardless of what game you play.

Emeraldw
19-03-2008, 05:37
I might be starting 40k soon and I am somewhat afraid I won't enjoy it nearly as much as Fantasy. I like fantasy a lot and I have heard many some what negative things about 40k, mainly about rules and exploitation, much more so than fantasy. However 40k seems to be the more popular game so if I can't find a fantasy game, I might just have to accept a 40k one.

Draconian77
19-03-2008, 10:02
I too started with 40k and I have to agree that Fantasy is the better game.

Damage potential in 40k is too high at the moment. I see many games where the opponent loses his/her best units in one turn and then struggles to achieve anything.

Bar a cannonball to a Lord choices face this rarely happens in Fantasy.

W0lf
19-03-2008, 11:02
Only ever played 40K as scenrios otherwise its pointless.

But even with scenrarios its pointless... objectives are worth so many victory points its just a game of grab the objectives whilst killing enemy. Dull to no end.

I think the objectives are worth too many points in 40K, something fantasy fixed in 7th edition.

Ixquic
19-03-2008, 13:50
The thing about 40k that I don't like is that sometimes it's just impossible to win before the game even starts. For instance with a Tyranid list involving a bunch of Carnifexes and a full force org list of min-maxed Gaunts, it's almost impossible to destroy enough units so they can't just claim the objectives last turn and win. If you have some equally min-maxed army you could win, but people that just want to put together a balanced list are going to in for an uphill battle. Fantasy seems (to me at lease) to be much more forgiving in this regard unless you take some kind of gimmick all gnoblar army or something.

Add in the stupid way 40k cover is handled and you have very cheap troops with 5-4+ invulnerable saves when they are sitting in terrain and it becomes even harder. In fantasy the negative modifiers to hitting is much better since it doesn't cheapen the higher armor save of more expensive units. When the only benefit expensive Space Marines have by sitting in a fortified position over 5 point scrubs is a slightly better armor save against weak shooting it's pretty stupid.

Draconian77
19-03-2008, 16:35
"Only ever played 40K as scenrios otherwise its pointless.

But even with scenrarios its pointless... objectives are worth so many victory points its just a game of grab the objectives whilst killing enemy. Dull to no end."


I have the opposite problem, often my opponent runs out of models by turns 3-4 and its over. Almost all 40k games I see being played are scenarios in writing but they end up being "kill them all" matches because lets face it, its easier to win by just wiping out your opponents army.

W0lf
19-03-2008, 16:51
Yes that can also be a huge problem.

I recetly played a 40K inter-store tourny and came second on gaming points (an ork payer scored 4 massacres :O)

The games were all completly dominated by objectives. When a table quater is worth 750 pts it gets abit silly. the only game i didnt win saw 6 guants (started with 12) hold 2 objectives and scoring the other player like 700 pts. he won by 100...

the fact i killed 6 carnifexes obviously counted for very little.

Ixquic
19-03-2008, 16:57
Yes that can also be a huge problem.

I recetly played a 40K inter-store tourny and came second on gaming points (an ork payer scored 4 massacres :O)

The games were all completly dominated by objectives. When a table quater is worth 750 pts it gets abit silly. the only game i didnt win saw 6 guants (started with 12) hold 2 objectives and scoring the other player like 700 pts. he won by 100...

the fact i killed 6 carnifexes obviously counted for very little.

This is similar to what I was getting at. When you only so many units that can fire a turn, when there are so many scoring units to take out, you're already at a severe disadvantage. In fantasy holding table quarters can help out a bit, but in 40k a few crappy units will net something like 20 times their point cost. It's pretty silly. Fail to kill a few of those gaunts or guard and you've lost the game.

Draconian77
19-03-2008, 17:01
But shouldn't the Tyranid/Imperial player be rewarded for getting his T3 basically non-armoured troops to secure objectives? Also if they are securing objectives they are probably achieving very little else.

I know when I play its not my Gaunts I send to grab objectives 80% of the time...

Ixquic
19-03-2008, 17:06
Maybe it's just the places I play but generally objectives contain some sort or 4+ cover and at the least 5+. So the really cheap swarm units are just sitting there with a 4+ invulnerable save since they don't have to move out of it. These troops are also cheap enough that if they are just sitting there it's not that important if they aren't doing anything else while you have twin linked devourers eating up your scoring units.

W0lf
19-03-2008, 17:14
hiding a super fast unit untill the last turn of the game does not require skill does it?

Mazdug
19-03-2008, 17:16
I too started with 40k and I have to agree that Fantasy is the better game.

Damage potential in 40k is too high at the moment. I see many games where the opponent loses his/her best units in one turn and then struggles to achieve anything.

Bar a cannonball to a Lord choices face this rarely happens in Fantasy.

I'm in the same boat, I started with 40k, and switched to fantasy and haven't gone back (although a lot of that is admitedly due to my limited time/fuinds).

I think I have only played maybe 2 or 3 fantasy games where one side was totally annihalated. And that was all in 6th ed, when panic could spread down an entire goblin/skaven battleline and cause everyone to just flee off the board on turn 1 or 2.

The great thing about fantasy is that when a lord choice gets killed in one turn by anything at all, its almost always memorable. Usually, unless they are thrown carelessly into a combat they just can't win, your general is going to be standing in a pile of corpses at the end of the game, rather then 40k where it seems the HQ tends to be more like a rocket fired into some expensive part of the opposing players army, hopefully taking enough points out before he collapses that it was a worthwhile tactical decision.

Death Korp
19-03-2008, 17:21
I play 40K, but i have a HoC force in my garage somewhere, and want to start a proper Warhammer army one day.

If you look at it, how many editions did it take of Warhammer to get it where it is now? 7.

How many for 40k? 4, soon 5. You are forgetting that Warhammer has had alot longer to make it what it is today, and 40k hasn't been out that long in comparison. So that means 40k will still ahve some problems to be sorted out, and some new rules to make it more tactical like Warhammer is today.

I like both games, but i am not going to make a judgement, as i haven't played warhammer enough fo a propper answer.

DK

Ixquic
19-03-2008, 17:25
Personally what I wish they would do with 40k is:

Take out instakill and bring back multiwounding weapons (like D3 for lascannons, etc).
Remove cover saves and put in something along the lines of Fantasy styled minuses to shooting.
Remove the destroyed result from the glanced hit on the vehicle table and make skimmers harder to hit but still be able to get a penetrating result.
Make objectives important but not worth so many points.
Bring back the movement statistic
I have no idea how to do it, but make it so cheap units don't take down equal points of "elite" units in hand to hand the majority of the time.

Lord Inquisitor
19-03-2008, 17:26
Several points:

Firstly, it's worth having a 40K army, if you're inclined to play the game at all. Fantasy is a good game, but if everyone else wants to play with tanks you're going to be sidelined.

The Witch Hunters army has a wide variety of troops, plus you can add in Daemonhunter or Kill Team allies. You can certainly add in close combat troops. Properly-tooled inquisitors, arco-flagellants, penitent engines, grey knight terminators, deathwatch, even sister repentia or seraphim can pack a whallop in close combat. The trick, of course, is making sure they're in the right place at the right time - so in some ways the sisters are perhaps one of the more tactical armies out there. Mobility is key with the sisters, so unlike some other armies it is a dynamic list that will punish you if you make tactical errors.

W0lf
19-03-2008, 17:29
How many for 40K? 4, soon 5. You are forgetting that Warhammer has had alot longer to make it what it is today, and 40k hasn't been out that long in comparison. So that means 40k will still ahve some problems to be sorted out, and some new rules to make it more tactical like Warhammer is today.

As far as tactics go 40K has gone backwards. 2nd edition was by miles a far more tactical game then it is today. ALl the new editions/books try to streamline the rules.

Soon itll be so streamlined you will roll a dice and on a 4+ the unit you shot at is removed from the table. Only if you hit of course.

StanMcKim
19-03-2008, 17:29
Why not play Daemons? Build your "fantasy" army, and just port it to 40k. Done!
-Stan

yodasluck
19-03-2008, 17:54
Reading through the pages of comments, most believe that 40K is not a tactical game. I've been playing 40K for about 5 years now and I'll disagree, 40K is very tactical. I've played a few games of WHF with my Bretonnians over the past 3 years and I'd argue that it's less tactical and more strategic. Learning how to place your Fantasy shooting, infantry blocks, calvary charges, and feints are all strategic placements to move the enemy. You have some of that in 40K, but army movements will have you change your tactics soon after the first turn. Fantasy may allow you to maintain your strategy past turn 3 before needing to tactically adjust.

Sorry for not completing my thought (and not trying to create a debate), but I found that taking extremely difficult WH40K armies forces forces tactical thinking. Inquisitor warbands supported by Inquisition stormtroopers and orbital bombardment support creates havoc for both sides and requires creative thinking before deployment and during the game. The same can be said for armies that adhere to the fluff provided (my all bike and Land Speeder Tempest White Scars using the Codex defined traits and tactics defined by Chapter Approved). My White Scars have similar issues to my Bretonnians in deployment and execution.

Gazak Blacktoof
19-03-2008, 18:12
Don't turn this into a debate over the deffintions of strategy and tactics, please.


I'll second StanMcKim's suggestion. Grab some daemons and have an army for both games. It still sucks they haven't done much new for tzeentch and nurgle.

Dalamyr the Fleetmaster
20-03-2008, 01:47
Why not play Daemons? Build your "fantasy" army, and just port it to 40k. Done!
-Stan

thats what i'm doing hehe nice to sees omeone else with a clear head aswell

Ravenheart
20-03-2008, 02:03
Interesstly, I found that the relative 'simplicity' of 40k had an appeal by itself.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
20-03-2008, 02:13
As far as tactics go 40K has gone backwards. 2nd edition was by miles a far more tactical game then it is today. ALl the new editions/books try to streamline the rules.

Soon itll be so streamlined you will roll a dice and on a 4+ the unit you shot at is removed from the table. Only if you hit of course.

2nd Edition just wasn't more tactical I'm afraid.

Overwatch, big killy guns, grenades, rad grenades, Virus Bombs...oh yeah, highly tactical. Like sticking Iron Arm on a Lvl 4 Librarian with the Quickening (or the speedy up spells proper name which I'm not sure I got right) with 3 Force Cards stored in his road, and then set him loose on the enemy.

Anyways, sadly this thread has now devolved into 40k V Fantasy, which isn't quite what I wanted. Not to worry.

Emeraldw
20-03-2008, 05:13
2nd Edition just wasn't more tactical I'm afraid.

Overwatch, big killy guns, grenades, rad grenades, Virus Bombs...oh yeah, highly tactical. Like sticking Iron Arm on a Lvl 4 Librarian with the Quickening (or the speedy up spells proper name which I'm not sure I got right) with 3 Force Cards stored in his road, and then set him loose on the enemy.

Anyways, sadly this thread has now devolved into 40k V Fantasy, which isn't quite what I wanted. Not to worry.

Though I found it highly useful. I am considering starting a 40k in the near future and this thread reinforced the idea to hold off till I see more what happens with 5th edition. I love fantasy and I wouldn't want to invest in a game that I would feel is inferior.

Draconian77
20-03-2008, 08:31
Play inquisitor.

With the right people and a few reference sheets you can have the funniest or most dramatic gaming experience you could ever want.

Also the rules for Necromunda are very good. Both of these games are a lot cheaper(free rulebook, less models) and different than Fantasy.

Mireadur
20-03-2008, 16:29
I might be starting 40K soon and I am somewhat afraid I won't enjoy it nearly as much as Fantasy. I like fantasy a lot and I have heard many some what negative things about 40K, mainly about rules and exploitation, much more so than fantasy. However 40k seems to be the more popular game so if I can't find a fantasy game, I might just have to accept a 40k one.

Dont get us wrong, 40k if used a good amount of scenery and with scenarios and objetives created for your games is a great game.

Unfortunately this statement:


40K = Army list + first turn + not suffering from severely below par rolling = Won.

Becomes truth maybe too often.

Min/maxing is the biggest problem of 40, and sadly WFB seems to be heading this direction with the systematic supression of al 0-1 units.

1st turn advantage is in reality only decissive in low, mid-low terrain games. Highly terrain populated games and with objetives to claim, give in fact the advantage to the one moving 2nd (5th edition is hopefully fixing this issue with the new deploy rules).

Pick up games are normally way more satisfactory in WFB than 40k, normally because of the lack of scenery and a battle planning (essential in 40k).

The last thing that causes big issues too is the underpar rolling. In WFB there are numerous fixed modifiers that minimize A LOT the lucky dice while rewarding the good tactics. 40k lacks totally of these so luck can be king unfortunately.

sliganian
20-03-2008, 17:07
The last thing that causes big issues too is the underpar rolling. In WFB there are numerous fixed modifiers that minimize A LOT the lucky dice while rewarding the good tactics. 40k lacks totally of these so luck can be king unfortunately.

That's due to the fact that Andy C had a firm "And They Shall Have No Dice Modifers" rule for 40K, which subsequent regimes have not sought to modify to any great extent.