PDA

View Full Version : No Tactics in 40K?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Quell
10-06-2008, 21:32
Hey guys,

So my gaming group keeps giving me crap by saying that 40K (a game I very much enjoy) has little to no tactics when compared to fantasy. I try and depend my beloved game, but I just wanted to hear what you guys had to say.

Thanks.

Torga_DW
10-06-2008, 21:35
Fantasy doesn't have more tactics, it just has more rules. People often confuse this for tactics.

Royal Tiger
10-06-2008, 21:37
from my experience the people in your gaming group are correct, the majority of battles I play in or watch have more to do with what you put in your army, instead of how you use what you have in your army.

for example if someone uses nothing but bucket loads of assault cannon in his army (4th edition) then he doesn't have to think on how to use it (and I know some players will give a load of BS that you do have to think very hard, but there just kidding themselves), you just point at an enemy, roll dice, and watch everything die very easily.

no tactics involved in the slightest

The Guy
10-06-2008, 21:38
Don't defend it. Just say "I enjoy this. You enjoy that. I don't diss fantasy for focussing more on painstaking hours spent positioning troops when I could be shooting some guys army up."

There are tactics in 40k. Army list being the big one. It's basically fantasy rules but without all the extra complicated rules. 40k is simpler and easier to play. It also has better looking armies and better fluff.

You're probably wasting your time trying to defend it by saying how tactical 40k is, but point out the areas where 40k is superior.

Eldanar
10-06-2008, 21:41
Ask them to define "tactics." And then ask them to differentiate a tactic from a game mechanics gimick.

The typical WHFB player thinks that if you do not move in blocks of troops, then you are not using tactics.

To the contrary, WHFB requires extreme mastery of the tactics surrounding movement, morale and magic (the 3 M's).

40K on the other hand primarily requires tactics for target selection, lanes of fire and utilizing cover/terrain both for movement and protection.

It is like comparing apples to oranges. Or in the immortal line from Spartacus (Laurence Olivier to a young Tony Curtis), "some prefer oysters, others snails; I prefer them both..." ;)

Havock
10-06-2008, 21:42
Fantasy doesn't have more tactics, it just has more rules. People often confuse this for tactics.

Complexity does normally offer more options and as such 'room' for tactics.

Darth Rubi
10-06-2008, 21:43
Just point out that they're laying a smokescreen to cover the fact that fantasy models are a$$ compared to 40k

blackspring
10-06-2008, 21:52
from my experience the people in your gaming group are correct, the majority of battles I play in or watch have more to do with what you put in your army, instead of how you use what you have in your army.

for example if someone uses nothing but bucket loads of assault cannon in his army (4th edition) then he doesn't have to think on how to use it (and I know some players will give a load of BS that you do have to think very hard, but there just kidding themselves), you just point at an enemy, roll dice, and watch everything die very easily.

no tactics involved in the slightest

Isn't this also possible in Fantasy = Gunlines?

Both games have builds that mitigate tactics. This is not an exclusively 40k phenomenon.

Royal Tiger
10-06-2008, 22:00
Isn't this also possible in Fantasy = Gunlines?

Both games have builds that mitigate tactics. This is not an exclusively 40k phenomenon.
indeed it is possible, but there are certain things you can do to stop gunlines, like some magic spells, ethereal creatures, flying creatures going behind the enemy, so there are still some tactics to use against this type of cheap pathetic player

blackspring
10-06-2008, 22:08
indeed it is possible, but there are certain things you can do to stop gunlines, like some magic spells, ethereal creatures, flying creatures going behind the enemy, so there are still some tactics to use against this type of cheap pathetic player

Just as there are ways to do this in 40k.

Royal Tiger
10-06-2008, 22:11
Just as there are ways to do this in 40k.
there are no magic spells in 40k to stop shooting, there are no ghosts in 40k for bullets to pass through, and there are no units that can jump behind the enemy and NOT get shot

AllisterCaine
10-06-2008, 22:12
Fantasy doesn't have more tactics, it just has more rules. People often confuse this for tactics.


Has it ever occured to you that there are more tatics because there are more rules?

Depends on what are tatics to you OP, because most of the "tatics" discussed are either exploitation (Fish of Fury) or common sense (target/weapon priority). Some people would argue that 40k has tatics, although I think it's extremely shallow at best, compared to any wargame, not just fantasy.

blackspring
10-06-2008, 22:13
there are no magic spells in 40k to stop shooting, there are no ghosts in 40k for bullets to pass through, and there are no units that can jump behind the enemy and NOT get shot

No, but there is the use of terrain, which when used properly mitigates the assault-cannon power-list you mentioned. The proper use of terrain also happens to create more interesting tactical situations.

Royal Tiger
10-06-2008, 22:18
No, but there is the use of terrain, which when used properly mitigates the assault-cannon power-list you mentioned. The proper use of terrain also happens to create more interesting tactical situations.
so basically hiding from assault cannons to avoid the worst of the fire.........not really a tactic hiding in bushes

The_Outsider
10-06-2008, 22:22
Nope, there are no tactics in 40k at all.

Yours,
The Warseer Fantasy Player's Bureau of Propoganda(™)

Darnok
10-06-2008, 22:22
I'd jump on the bandwagon of the two major points of this issue.

Firstly, let your friends explain what they mean by "tactics". As you can see from the few replies in this thread so far, different people have quite different opinions on that matter.

Secondly - but much more importantly - just enjoy your games. It really doesn't matter at all wether your joy is more "tactical" or "better" than any other stuff. If you like the game, play it.

Defcon
10-06-2008, 22:28
Fantasy doesn't have more tactics, it just has more rules. People often confuse this for tactics.

Flanks and Rear charges being in the game, making the direction of a charge possibly make a difference, already suggests a greater amount of tactics. People are not confused on this fact.

Overt_Spy
10-06-2008, 22:30
.
To the contrary, WHFB requires extreme mastery of the tactics surrounding movement, morale and magic (the 3 M's).

40K on the other hand primarily requires tactics for target selection, lanes of fire and utilizing cover/terrain both for movement and protection.

It is like comparing apples to oranges. Or in the immortal line from Spartacus (Laurence Olivier to a young Tony Curtis), "some prefer oysters, others snails; I prefer them both..." ;)

Exactly. 40K and Fantasy represent two different kinds of warfare. Fantasy obviously is like the massed battles of old, and 40K is the more modern guerrilla type battles. The rules reflect this. While fantasy has a far more important movement phase, I think it's quite foolish to say it's more tactical than 40K, just differing varieties of play. Honestly, playing against a good 40K player is no easier than playing a good fantasy player.

Also, if any fantasy player gives you guff, just tell him/her, "Your game may be more tactical, but one squad of my boys would completely destroy your entire army." :D

Bob5000
10-06-2008, 22:35
Just goes to prove you get snobbery in all walks of life , including what kind of toy soldiers game you play

EVIL INC
10-06-2008, 22:41
You will find many who do not understand what tactics are. 40k is full of tactics and they are involved with every aspect of each turn you play the game.
Only a very few examples include...
1. choosing which units to fire first in order to "whittle down" units so that all that is left is the independant character is standing by himself so that the las cannon or ml from a seperate unit can then insta kill them.
2. Placement from turn to turn as to where you put your heavy/special weapons and champions/sergeants to be most protected should the unit be assaulted or be the most effective should you be the one assaulting.
3. Choosing the direction from which to assault a unit in order to remove the expensive and dangerous heavy/special weapons while leaving the close combat orients leader of the enemy squad out of the combat and hopefully out of the game should they fail thier morale check.
4. Making use of cover in order to avoid enemy fireing lanes.
5. using effective formations in order to maximize your chooting potential as well as unitile fire lanes best.
6. Placement of your units close to enemy transport access hatches to prevent enemy troops from disembarking when it is destroyed, thus automatically killing the troops within it.
7. moving units in a stagger so that the standing still unit can cover the moving one while next turn, the favor is returned.
The list goes on and on.
Just let them talk all they like, thier ignorence should not affect your fun.

Freakiq
10-06-2008, 22:42
Just goes to prove you get snobbery in all walks of life , including what kind of toy soldiers game you play

We're not saying 40k sucks or that fantasy is better only that fantasy has more options and more tactics.

I've been playing both systems from many years and I enjoy them both but to be honest a game of fantasy requires a lot more consideration before each move and the movement phase is used for more than charge or retreat.

The_Outsider
10-06-2008, 22:44
We're not saying 40k sucks or that fantasy is better only that fantasy has more options and more tactics.

I've been playing both systems from many years and I enjoy them both but to be honest a game of fantasy requires a lot more consideration before each move and the movement phase is used for more than charge or retreat.

Again, thats more of an opinion than a fact.

Fantasy puts a lot of focus on the movement phase - 40k puts more on the shooting and assault phase typically.

Kahadras
10-06-2008, 22:46
40K reflects the modern battlefield IMHO. It's pretty easy to point at something out in the open and say 'I want that dead'. Warhammer is based on maneuver. 40K is based on maneuver and firepower.

The main question a Warhammer player has to ask himself is how am I going to maneuver to defeat the enemy. The main question a 40K player asks is how am I going to use my firepower while avoiding my opponants firepower. Basicaly the tactics are less well defined and I think that some Warhammer players prefer to think of their game as more tactical (therefore being superior to 40K somehow).

Kahadras

Overt_Spy
10-06-2008, 22:48
so basically hiding from assault cannons to avoid the worst of the fire.........not really a tactic hiding in bushes'

I don't mean to come of as snarky, but how is hiding not a tactic? I thought that was one of the ways you deal with an opponent who has superior fire power? Doesn't this happen all the time in Fantasy too? In fact, aren't Wood Elves entirely dependent on being able to hide in bushes...er trees?

The_Outsider
10-06-2008, 22:54
'

I don't mean to come of as snarky, but how is hiding not a tactic? I thought that was one of the ways you deal with an opponent who has superior fire power? Doesn't this happen all the time in Fantasy too? In fact, aren't Wood Elves entirely dependent on being able to hide in bushes...er trees?

People often forget quite how hard power armour is.

Hiding in cover is entirely valid - it often means an opponent has to use more firepower than they would if the target is in the open (quite easily upto 50% or more). It's an effective way to bleed the firepower of your opponent while sacrificing as little as possible (at best you mess up your own fire lanes a bit).

Epicenter
10-06-2008, 23:02
I think the point of rear and flank charges is very valid. Warhammer feels more "tactical" as there's an emphasis on maneuver and movement. Whereas in 40k, there's a number of armies due to their design, moving is largely pointless and you just pretty much stand and shoot because that's the only gamestyle GW lets you do.


I don't mean to come of as snarky, but how is hiding not a tactic? I thought that was one of the ways you deal with an opponent who has superior fire power? Doesn't this happen all the time in Fantasy too? In fact, aren't Wood Elves entirely dependent on being able to hide in bushes...er trees?

Don't forget the trick of Skaven hiding in a house due to certain special rules. So you can literally have a situation where a Bretonnian opponent can't do a thing to you. Tactics on the part of the Skaven player? Erm, yeah, I guess so...

The_Outsider
10-06-2008, 23:07
I think the point of rear and flank charges is very valid. Warhammer feels more "tactical" as there's an emphasis on maneuver and movement. Whereas in 40k, there's a number of armies due to their design, moving is largely pointless and you just pretty much stand and shoot because that's the only gamestyle GW lets you do.


There are only 2 armies that are "forced" to play a gunline. One of them can very easily create a rolling gunline as the list has some very powerful, highly manouverable units.

The other suffers from being a rather old codex and incorrect costing - nothing more.

I mean come on, a skaven/dwarf gunline uses infinitely more tactics than say, a necron phalanx.

Quell
10-06-2008, 23:15
Many fantasy players say that fantasy is more tactical because movement is much more important. I believe that movement is just as important in 40k, just in a different way. While in fantasy you want to try and outmanouver your opponent to get flank or rear charges, in 40k you want to get into cover and highly defensible positions so your troops don't die instantly to high strength, low ap weapons and so that your troops strike first in close combat (unless, of course, the assualting enemy has frag grenedes). So again, movement is not more important in fantasy, just important for different reasons.

Freakiq
10-06-2008, 23:28
I believe that after the switch from 2nd edition the game started to get less tactical and more about point and shoot.

Now with the 5th edition with the option to run, go to ground and true line of sight players will have to use more advanced tactics and that a game will require at least as much strategic thinking as fantasy.

Until then I will keep to fantasy if I want a challenge though I am painting up my World Eaters as we speak.

blackspring
11-06-2008, 00:42
so basically hiding from assault cannons to avoid the worst of the fire.........not really a tactic hiding in bushes

This is an oversimplification. I can also oversimplify and say that fantasy all comes down to whoever is able to get the flank or rear charge (or just charge), but of course, that isn't true, it is much more complicated than that.

I have played both fantasy and 40k equally and while at first glance 40k may seem much more simple, it isn't as simple or obvious as it seems. I have seen too many 40k players with "uncompetitive" lists do well at the game even versus "power-lists" to believe that it all comes down to the army list.

A good player with a "bad list" can still beat a bad player with a "good list". That alone shows that there are indeed tactics in 40k.

lilljonas
11-06-2008, 00:50
Being able to see in all directions, shoot in all directions, charge in all directions and take a charge as well no matter where it is from is sort of a hint that positioning your troops is not really as important in 40K as in Fantasy. No tactics? That would be exaggerating a lot. It might be a lot more reliant on dice rolling than Fantasy, but it is still not Yatzy. But yeah, not being as greatly punished for poor positioning is the biggest issue for me when it comes to how tactical a game is.

eek107
11-06-2008, 01:23
I think this misconception comes about because Fantasy has more obvious benefits to using tactics. Maneuver for a flank charge? Well done, you get a bonus. 40k doesn't do this. We have to create these "rewards" ourselves. Regarding that particular example, the idea of "flank" and "rear" are almost useless. The whole point of a squad is to have a unit that has no blind spot or weaker facing. But the placement of individual models still matters, since (for now) we can only kill what we see when shooting for example. Or only kill models within 2" in CC. Setting up a fire lane or charge to take advantage of this is our "bonus".
For the rest? Well we both have to set up fire lanes, cover our weak points, maneuver to exploit the opponent's and apply force appropriately. In that respect they're no different, just as they can both degenerate into mindless dice-fests with a big combat in the middle.
In short: just because tactical incentives aren't spoon-fed, doesn't mean they aren't there.

ReveredChaplainDrake
11-06-2008, 01:48
First of all, a bad player with a good list still beats a good player with a bad list. The difference is that the good player with bad list does way better than a bad player with a bad list. This "player trumps list" concept only applies if the list is very one trick pony, or if the bad player is an absolutely terrible player, but it largely depends on how point-and-click the army list's contents are. A noob with a Flyrant or Abaddon is still going to do some incredible amounts of damage. Meanwhile, put a Lashprince or a Deceiver in the hand of a noob and he'll get the big guy killed in a couple of turns, or at least miscalculate the unit's real strengths and weaknesses.

Second of all, Fantasy units can be incredibly point-and-click and brainless in their own rights. Star Dragon? Steam Tank? Missiletoad? Swordmasters? Fortunately though, these units are vastly outnumbered by units whose effectiveness depends on actual skill (Dark Riders, Skinks, Liche Priests) but these few offenders are enough to change the playstyle of the entire game. You can't make a Fantasy list without some kind of anti-Dragon precaution anymore, much less running a list with no ways to kill War Machines easily. And Fantasy's book creep, which is a ridiculous one-upsmanship of shiny bits, bobs, and 'buy-me's, is far more prominent than 40k's book creep, which oscillates back and forth all the time. So if Fantasy really does have more tactics, it really pays for them in the quality of their game.

Fantasy is also really rigid. Units are deceptively-inflexible in purpose, even for the fast ones. If you misdeploy, you're screwed from the get-go, so you'd better hope that your pre-programmed strategy can beat your opponent's. That, or the first hour of the game is spent without a single hand on your models, which is why I left Chess. Fantasy armies as a whole tend to have a hard time changing their tactics in the middle of a game. It makes the game so anticlimactic and boring when your big bad-arsch Dragon has to mosey around and take his sweet little time like some kind of US1 Skirmisher (while ironically small US1 Skirmishers rocket forward like Dragons, see JSoD and Assassins) in order to hit the enemy right in their flank or face the brunt of Great Cannons and Bolt Throwers, but when you do the thing becomes a veritable wrecking crew, strong (and expensive) enough to conceivably wreck armies by itself.

And finally, movement and positioning in Fantasy really doesn't mean much when nobody takes foot blocks. Face it, Fastcav, Skirmishers, Monsters, and Gunstrips (and to a lesser extent Chariots) rule the game. Footblocks on the other hand are slow, expensive, and everybody sees them coming. At this point, it's stated in a derogatory way that you're actually playing 40k when you use armies like this, but indeed, it's still Warhammer Fantasy.

Drogmir
11-06-2008, 02:00
40K isn't really that it has no tactics. It's more of Fantasy gets a lot more depth thrown into each phase.

In 40K it forgives you for moving your units wrong while punishing you for a bad list

In Fantasy it rewards you for good movement and keeps list composition less punishing. But it still hurts if you brought elite units to an army with few high powered shots.

Also in 40K If you don't get first turn that's about 1/4 of your army gone

In Fantasy if you don't get 1st turn any movement plans you had goes to waste.

Stinkfoot
11-06-2008, 02:59
I feel like the lack of LOS restrictions, more than anything, kill tactics in 40k. While you could play with armies in fantasy that don't have their LOS restricted too much (fast cav, skirmishers, monsters, etc), you MUST do that in 40k. I find that in most fantasy games people take primarily infantry armies. Even if they're not the most effective (Chaplain Drake is right on that point), they're the most fun to play and make for a very tactical game. The enemy being behind you, even with a fairly weak unit, is disastrous. As such, most games revolve around outflanking your opponent. No matter how balanced and friendly your 40k army is however, the tactics you use will still be limited. The enemy is behind you, who cares? Hide in cover, charge with your assault troops, avoid assault troops with your shooters, kill dangerous enemies with lots of guns, etc. Well... duh. None of that really requires interaction with you opponent. At least, not as much as flanking maneuvers do.

In fantasy, you opponent actively interacts with you as you try to advance your plans. 40k, beyond army composition that is not the case so much.

That's not to say 40k has no tactics, just that fantasy has more. I would say the overwhelming majority of people who play both 40k and fantasy (such as myself) would agree with that.

Koryphaus
11-06-2008, 03:05
Outflanking your opponent is just as important in 40k as in Fantasy. In fantasy, you get combat bonuses as we all know. In 40k you don't get them (besides getting more attacks on your enemy if you've got 2 or 3 units involved to their 1) but you get destroyed if you have to flee through an enemy unit. So yeah, movement and positioning your troops for cc is just as important in 40k as fantasy.

It gets even more so in the shooting phase, as you can bring extra firepower to bear, often reducing or avoiding an enemy's cover save entirely. People say there is too much firepower: I say there isn't enough terrain on the board. I often hear people complaining that f they don't get the 1st turn they lose half their army: obviously you don't deploy effectively and you have far too little cover on the board. I actively hope to get the 2nd turn, as I know my opponent is in cover, and I want him to have to move before I do.

Triggerdog
11-06-2008, 03:14
When people say 40k has no tactics it honestly offends me. In my opinion it requires more thought than fantasy actually. Thats right, I said it, fantasy for me is less engaging than 40k. A game of fantasy basically boils down to this:

1) Deploy units. regiments up front, missile troops on hills.
2) scoot units forward, make stern faces and look like you're thinking hard.
3) shoot with missile troops and charge with other units. sling spells if needed.
4) scrum in the middile until turn 6 rolls around then add up some stuff and pack up.

whereas 40k is more like this:

1) place units whilst watching where your opponent is positioning their stuff and try and figure what they're up to.
2) run forward/ towards key points or hang back depending on how confident you are and what you're opponent does.
3) Figure which enemy units are key to their battle plan and destroy them whilst not getting the bejesus kicked out of your own keys.
4) make sure that you still have those key points and/or are on the attack and not losing ground.
5) Continue steps 2-4 until turn 6.

Its quite simple. 40k has 5 steps and fantasy has 4.

Laurela
11-06-2008, 03:28
Mordheim has more tactics than fantasy and 40k! :p
Seriously though, each game requires different tactics if you want to win. To compare one game to the other is comparing apples and oranges.

lilljonas
11-06-2008, 03:33
If people wanted tactics, they'd be playing Blood Bowl.

Battle-Brother Wags
11-06-2008, 03:53
One thing that seems to me is that people say that anything that falls under the category of "well of course you're gonna try to do that" doesn't qualify as a tactic. Such things would be taking up firing positions in cover with a good field of view, trying to pit two or three of your own units against a single enemy unit, find out the highest priority enemy unit and "shoot it with lots of guns" . . . and to be honest I'm not sure why the "obviousness" of such tactics makes them any less of tactics. It seems to me that the Fantasy Critique could take the same situation and say, "Well of course you're going to maneuvre to get a flank or rear charge. Thats so obvious it isn't even really a tactic." Now that would be an unfair assessment, but its the same sort of unfair assessment as those placed against 40k. The reason is that while the goal of any said maneuvre may be "obvious," that is not the same thing as carrying out that maneuvre being simple or easy (that is not a redundancy, simplicity and ease are two different things). Anybody that says that in 40k all you have to do is shoot all your guns at the biggest threat first is only correct that 40k has no tactics if the people playing the game are not allowing it to have tactics. Most notably, these people use very little terrain. My gaming group uses a lot of terrain of varying styles and we all have VERY tactical games. Just because I know my first goal is to bring every gun to bear on the Flyrant coming to me doesn't mean actually achieving that is going to be easy and tactic-less.

At any rate, I just wanted to make that statement as well as add my "amen" to the whole "apples and oranges" thing. A game based on a medieval warfare setting had better darn well have different tactics than a game based on super futuristic advanced warfare. And being of such different natures, its not surprising to see poeple say "thats not a tactic" when they are using their own rubric to judge it by and not taking the whole picture into account.

AngryAngel
11-06-2008, 03:59
there are no magic spells in 40k to stop shooting, there are no ghosts in 40k for bullets to pass through, and there are no units that can jump behind the enemy and NOT get shot

Your seemingly a very biased player. There are psychic powers which can mess with shooting a bit. There aren't ghosts however there are transports to block line of sight as you approach to dismantle the gunline. There are units which can infiltrate very close to a gun, like SM scouts and limit the amount of incoming fire on them by lack of time to be shot at. As well as drop pods, which serve most the same purpose as the flying creature flankers to land within easy fire and then assault range on the gunline.

Why not get off your high horse and simply understand they are diffrent beasts and neither is more or less tactical then the other. Or is that the only way we can enjoy our hobbies anymore to try and rip down and attack other peoples fun.

Stinkfoot
11-06-2008, 04:00
Well, perhaps we're attacking this question the wrong way...

Why do you suppose a fair few Fantasy players say 40k has little tactics, but almost no 40k players say the same of Fantasy? I would imagine the same kind of people play both games, so the odds of one group being overwhelmingly more open minded or insightful seems unlikely.

Why is it then?

UncleCrazy
11-06-2008, 04:07
I am sick to death of this topic. Stop comparing two different games. Play 40k because you like Sci/fi games, Play WHFB because you like the medieval feel. But they are not the same nor should they be.

blackroyal
11-06-2008, 04:10
A game of fantasy basically boils down to this:


4) scrum in the middile until turn 6 rolls around then add up some stuff and pack up.



This is honestly what I have viewed every time I watch Fantasy games.

Drogmir
11-06-2008, 04:23
This is honestly what I have viewed every time I watch Fantasy games.

I agree

the flip end for 40K is

Lose first turn

watch half your army get blown away from a shooting phase.

Proceed to lose game

Pack up.

:p

Morachi
11-06-2008, 05:19
This is precisely why deployment is very important :)

Tactically, two very different games, even on a strategic level. However one thing is common to both... the will of the dice gods... you will get boned in either form of the game purely based on luck.

Cheers,
Dave

druchii
11-06-2008, 05:25
Having played both games for years (through two editions of each!) I can tell you without a doubt that there ARE more tactics present in fantasy. However the optimum question to ask is: who cares?

As people have said a game with toy soldiers is a game with toy soldiers.

Saying that one game has more tactics than another doesn't belittle one game or the players of that game, get over it. 40K has fewer tactics than fantasy and I'll tell you why: every tactic in 40k is present in fantasy (although sometimes to a smaller degree) but fantasy has many other tactics that are not available in 40k.

Keep an eye on fantasy, though, the game is being dumbed down. Certain, basic principles are being broken (repeatedly) with the release of the new army books, and fantasy is being "40k-ized".

d

Stinkfoot
11-06-2008, 05:27
Good point druchii, I hope the trend doesn't continue. Hopefully the game designers learned their lesson with all the complaints stemming from army-wide ASF.

vladsimpaler
11-06-2008, 05:59
Has your gaming group ever PLAYED a game of WH40k? This may be the problem.

If they don't have any models, just proxy them. I don't know.

As the saying goes, "You can't judge a person until you have a walk in their shoes", it's pretty much the same concept for this.

Also, you could play a game of WFB with them as a trade off. I dunno.

This may be too care-beary, but it could work.

==Me==
11-06-2008, 06:17
Can't the Fantasy players just keep the elitism in their own forum? That's why you have it, so you can pat each other on the back about how much awesomer your game is. :rolleyes:

40k and Fantasy are two different games with different tactics that apply to them.

Fantasy puts more emphasis on movement, positioning, and setting up for later turns. Less on the tactics, more on the strategy.

40k is much more fast paced and forces you to force your enemy to react as opposed to you reacting to him. Individual squad tactics take the limelight, as overall strategy can be difficult to pick with movement so fluid.

Of course, both can break down when you abuse the rules. Lash, Tri-Falcons vs. gunlines, Teclis, Thorek, and Tzeentch Daemons.

Now scurry back to your holes, you may have already caught the stupid.

blackspring
11-06-2008, 06:45
Well, perhaps we're attacking this question the wrong way...

Why do you suppose a fair few Fantasy players say 40k has little tactics, but almost no 40k players say the same of Fantasy? I would imagine the same kind of people play both games, so the odds of one group being overwhelmingly more open minded or insightful seems unlikely.

Why is it then?

Perhaps because 40k is the entry-level game into the "GW hobby". I started out with 40k and enjoyed it, but while playing at the local store I ran into Fantasy players who were able to convince me that Fantasy was "better" and "more tactical" than 40k. So I switched over to Fantasy and eventually realized that the movement rules are simply more complex--there are not necessarily more tactical, the rules themselves are just more finicky. I also enjoyed the varied movement per race BUT, this in itself does not make it a tactically superior game. I have recently moved back to 40k because simpy put: I didn't give it a fair chance.

I imagine this is similar for many Fantasy players. 40k is associated with the younger gamers and those who find themselves at the entrepot to GW wargaming. In no way is 40k without tactics, it merely appeals to different types of gamers. If you love fantasy, you will love to play Fantasy. If you love 40k/sci-fi you will love 40k. That is ultimately what it came down to for me.

cailus
11-06-2008, 07:19
40K reflects the modern battlefield IMHO. It's pretty easy to point at something out in the open and say 'I want that dead'. Warhammer is based on maneuver. 40K is based on maneuver and firepower.
Kahadras

40K in no way represents a "modern" battlefield.

First of all, bashing someone on the head with a sword is generally more powerful than shooting them. Battles in 40K are usually won through had to hand combat. 40K is more representative of ancient battles than it is of anything post-1750's. Even tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea has better exploitation of firearms.

Maneouvre plays no role in 40K. Assault troops simply pick the quickest way to get into a scrap while taking the least amount of casualties. Shooters just stand and shoot.

There is no such thing as suppressive fire, enfilading fire and little or no psychology.

Since the 3rd edition 40K is a just a big dice roll-a-thon. Roll dice till one side is dead, rinse, repeat.

edit: I don't play Fantasy but miss the old 2nd edition where you had a lot more options in the game. Maybe it wasn't tactics per se but it definitely was more colourful and more narrative.


If people wanted tactics, they'd be playing Blood Bowl.


Totally agree. I'm so happy it's available in Australia again. Now just have to find a suitable name for my human team (Imperial Griffin SM cHapter colour scheme)!

Ronin_eX
11-06-2008, 07:22
Saying 40k has no tactics not only shows a lack of understanding as to what tactics are but also a lack of understanding about the game. Saying that 40k has tactics but that they tend to be shallow compared to other wargames (not just fantasy, many games achieve much greater depth than WFB as well) would be getting closer to the mark.

The thing here is what does options do you get in 40k that you don't get in a game like, say, Warzone or Infinity. In all of these games cover is important, target priority is important as is movement in order to get into a good firing position, controlling fire lanes is important as well. So what almost any modern/sci-fi wargame has this, but this is all really basic stuff with no real room for being truly creative with options. As a basic wargame it hits most of the basics but where it starts getting little holes is in the minutiae.

Take cover for instance, useful against some weapons but a waste of time against others, 40k's application of cover means that it it is less for protecting against small arms fire and more for negating heavy weapons (which is a little unintuitive to say the least). In both Warzone and Infinity cover is important for every troop type and effective use of cover keeps squads fighting.

Target priority is pretty much a part of all games no matter what. You mark targets that need to die first and try to do it. If 40k got this wrong it would truly be a sad thing. That said it is very inflexible when it comes to target priority and again it is very unintuitive. Why are my small arms targeting a tank or why does that lascannon need to fire into that infantry squad? In 2nd edition and in Warzone (in Infinity all models are independent so they don't get a mention here) weapons could fire at the targets they were good at (in Warzone squad leaders often had an ability called Tactical Sense that allowed them to split a units fire between several targets; very useful but only if you knew when and where to use it).

Not exactly a huge time saver to simplify target selection that much and it makes more sense the other way (it is more intuitive to think that anti-tank specialists would be given orders to ignore certain targets in favour of others). So again, 40k has target priority but it is a shadow of what it is in other wargames (though this is the same in WFB as units can't split fire now either; stupid decision if you ask me).

40k has the problem of getting good firing positions in it as well so we can give it that as another mark of tactical decision but, sadly, it doesn't carry as much weight as it does in other systems. Most games give bonuses to hit at certain range bands (kind of like rapid fire but more varied) as well as usually having a greater range on infantry small arms (though with much lower chances of hitting). Add the importance of cover to how optimum weapon ranges work in most games (it isn't always closer=better) and maneuvering into you sweet spot while maintaining cover becomes important. What's more it better facilitates close quarters firefights better (something almost unheard of outside Guard vs. Tau games). So yes 40k has maneuvering and getting into weapon range but the simplified nature means that it loses out on the variety of a system with even only two range bands (short/long for instance).

Finally there is control of firing lanes and due to a lack of any kind of reaction mechanic in 40k I'd say this is hurt the worst out of all tactical facets. It is useful at long ranges but if an enemy can close distance between the guarding squad in one turn and assault then there is nothing they can do about it even if the "ambush" is obvious. Even some kind of charge reaction would help here but there is nothing. And although the unshootable assault squad is curbed somewhat in 5th edition the lack of rules that actually allow a squad to "cover" a flank or firing lane means that this is only workable early in the game if your opponent places a unit badly.

So 40k has tactics but compared to wargames in the same "genre" as it (that is sci-fi wargames) it has less intuitive solutions and far less options than average. So it isn't no tactics it's simply no tactics that you wont find elsewhere. I find that I'm never actually surprised by a game of 40k or the player across from me. In the end the lack of variety tends to limit people using options creatively. WFB suffers from a lot of the same afflictions though and really shouldn't talk.

I love both 40k and WFB to death for their style and background but neither does anything really interesting or ground breaking as far as rules go. There are tactics and options but they tend to be basic and stripped down, streamlined in the name of speed of play where it wasn't really needed. 5th edition addresses some of these issues but creates others and while I will not contend that they don't have tactics (as I've said that is a lie) I will say that compared to other games in my library they don't get me thinking as much. This is something that really has to be experienced with an open mind though, gaming has come a long way but the clunky basic system that underpins both 40k and WFB haven't really done much evolving. As always I recommend people go beyond GW games and see what other companies are doing to experience what some mean by tactical diversity.

Give a player a bigger tool box of options and see what they do with it. In 4th the basic squad actions are move, shoot and assault. These offer a fair amount of variety to the game as it is but look at how much simply adding "go to ground" and "run" adds to the options you have. Now what if you added a few more "aim", "wait" or "split fire" and how would those tools enhance or change the game (each not adding much more to the system and none really slowing it down).

A game system should give players tools with which to make decisions and see what they do with those tools (while making sure no one tool is better than any other). With only three possible basic actions currently (fleet is a special case and a good special rule that opens up options rather than defining the unit's uses from its very existence) 40k has a good amount of variety though still fairly basic. 5th seems to be adding a couple new "actions" and that is fairly exciting from a tactics point of view (more options = more ways to surprise the opponent or gain an advantage). Most games tend to have even more actions than that (and other than remembering them they don't ever slow the game down more than any of the big three do) and as such tend to be deeper because of it but usually no more complex.

I'd love to see 40k get some kind of order or drill system where squads could replace a normal "action" with something else (instead of moving they could take cover for instance, instead taking any action in their turn they could go on wait and gain a reaction if the enemy attempts to charge them). This would allow for players to have more control and allow them to react to battlefield conditions in a more natural way.

While more rules don't always equal more depth giving the player a more varied set of useful choices does increase tactical depth. Just look at the difference between chess and checkers. Chess has one major action while chess has as many different actions as there are pieces (even more if you play using en passant and a few others). Both games are exceedingly simple but because of chess's variety of different actions it is an order of a magnitude more complex (case in point a computer has mapped all possible checkers positions but at best Deep Blue only has most of the end game and start game strategies of chess with no real middle game to speak of as there are too many possibilities to map).

Just two cents from a guy who has played altogether too many game systems though. In the end you should play what you have fun playing and you shouldn't feel the need to defend it beyond that. I find 40k and WFB fun enough to play and though they aren't my favourites that doesn't stop me from enjoying them. (let's hope people have read this far and don't think I'm simply in here to crap on both rule systems needlessly though :p)


If people wanted tactics, they'd be playing Blood Bowl.

This. Though to be fair most of GW's good games are their specialist line. Necro, Mordheim, Bloodbowl (why we love Jervis), BFG, Epic, Space Hulk and many others. These are the true awesome GW games and it's a shame their main lines don't learn something about mechanics and game design from them.

LoneSniperSG
11-06-2008, 08:19
there are no magic spells in 40k to stop shooting,

Blind as a bat aren't you.

Psykers are 40k's system of Magic. Granted there is no Magic Phase (Thank god.), but still, I have two men who can raise heaps of trouble with nothing but their minds.


there are no ghosts in 40k for bullets to pass through

Necron Wraiths posess such an ability. I believe there is another unit that does, also.


and there are no units that can jump behind the enemy and NOT get shot

That could be true. But SM/Chaos Jumpers, Drop-podders, 'cron Flayed ones and other units are typically enough to atleast harass/distract half of the group in question while your shooters lay in to the front. When you can force your enemy's attention to split, that is certainly a TACTICAL advantage.

-Grimgorironhide-
11-06-2008, 08:43
My opinion is really just play what one you like more and what type of fluff you like more.
I like 40k's fluff and the games fine but sci-fi is just not my taste. I prefer fantasy not for the rules, which are good but for I love that type of Genre, Madieval, quests,Magic, dragons etc.
Don't let anyone force you to choose because if its not your taste then why bother.
cheers.

unheilig
11-06-2008, 08:49
The most tactical game in the world is Go.

It has 4 rules.

The amount and complexity of the rules has nothing to do with whether or not tactical thinking is involved.

Klam
11-06-2008, 09:10
Usually, the only problem is that 28mm scale and "small" tables we players play on most of the time. Things tend to just be a "charge in" without much more unit options working effectivly. But I still remember awesome fights with systems like good old Space Marine / Titan Legion where the scale had to offer much more.

Bran Dawri
11-06-2008, 09:16
Neither game is more or less tactical than the other.

Thing is, both games use tactics, and they're roughly the same ones, too. Use terrain to avoid your enemy while outflanking him, target priority, etc.

Fantasy, however, isn't more or less tactical than 40K. It is, however, far more strategical. You have to plan further ahead.

Darnok
11-06-2008, 09:51
The most tactical game in the world is Go.

It has 4 rules.

The amount and complexity of the rules has nothing to do with whether or not tactical thinking is involved.

Dammit, beaten to it. Seriously, listen to this.

Everytime this topic comes up, I'm puzzled how people can get so agitated about it. Aren't all those games in questions mainly there for the purpose of having fun? If you play WHF and/or 40K only for the tactical experience, then you are doing something fundamentally wrong.

Aaron
11-06-2008, 10:16
I would agree with the statement that WHFB is more tactical.

The main reason I say this is because the most tactical/strategic phase in any wargame is the movement phase.

40K's loose formations and sheer number of models on the table doesn't allow for much manoerve. But even if you do manage to out-manoeuvre your opponent, what's the reward? You can already shoot at anything on the table and there's no combat bonuses for hitting your enemy in the flank.

WHFB's movement is almost always deterministic. You know how far you can move and so the only variable is your ability to estimate distances. More often than not, you're fighting your opponent rather than the dice.

Add that to WHFB's charge reactions and movement value stat. WHFB gives players a lot more choices and decisions in the movement phase.

Complex doesn't always mean deeper, but in this case it does.

I don't buy the "target priority" arguement with 40K. The AP rule in 40K means that weapons either bounce off a target like rain drops or obliterate their target into confetti. It doesn't take a tactical genius to know what to shoot.

But if you're having fun, who cares? I enjoy a lot of games that require very little thought.

Ronin_eX
11-06-2008, 10:17
Dammit, beaten to it. Seriously, listen to this.

Everytime this topic comes up, I'm puzzled how people can get so agitated about it. Aren't all those games in questions mainly there for the purpose of having fun? If you play WHF and/or 40K only for the tactical experience, then you are doing something fundamentally wrong.

Conversely if you find deep tactical experience fun (and I do, but then I use other systems to scratch that itch) then you will likely find something missing when playing 40k or WFB. Remember that different people like different things and if one wishes to play a wargame for the tactical experience (this need not entail powergaming or other bugaboos but simply bringing your a-game and your brain) then they are doing nothing wrong but 40k/WFB may not be the best tool to reach their ideal fun level.

At the same time I would be slow to call any game the "most tactical" as I think it has become very clear at this point that most don't have a concrete definition of what "tactical" is. What I can say is that the amount of options you have in Go are staggering on every level of the word (if we thought chess had a lot of variation they haven't even scratched the surface of getting Deep Blue-like play out of a computer with Go). As always the more options a player is given the deeper the experience is likely to be.

This works fundamentally differently when we look at wargames vs. abstract strategy games simply because wargames are meant to be representing a conflict between two armies while abstract strategy is just that, strategy in and of itself with no real narrative outside of white vs. black. Comparing the simplicty/complexity duality of strategy games to the very different problem of depth in a wargame has little meaning in so far as their direct applicability to each other.

My example of checkers to chess is simply trying to show how adding to a player's tool box can increase options and depth (chess is still a much simpler game than even the most streamlined wargame but it seems to work well for my "wargames as a tool box" analogy).

But enough rambling. :D

Wargames can remain simple and streamlined and still offer loads of choices and options which does not equate to a metric ton of rules. As it is both WFB and 40k have loads of dead weight in them and many systems that don't need to be in there and only serve as redundant systems that slow down gameplay needlessly to the point that player choice is limited instead of cutting down on needless systems.

Adding more orders for a unit to perform wouldn't slow down the game (it would add to depth though) but rolling armour and toughness into one roll would certainly speed things up. For that matter why is their a vehicle damage system that has nothing to do with the way damage works for other units. This was clunky in RT and it hasn't aged gracefully (it also causes vehicles to often be less resilient than infantry and MCs). The chart system for everything is another time waster. Why not have the stat be the roll the unit needs to succeed (there are no modifiers to this roll anymore so it would be dead simple).

When I look at the basic GW system I see a bodge job with loads of needless rolls and systems slowing down play and not adding any depth while the devs attempt to remove things that do add depth in a pointless attempt to make the game go faster. What used to be fine for a platoon level skirmish game has now been shredded and reconstructed into a large scale battle game with the elegance of a nuclear strike.

While they "streamline" the system in the wrong places and take tools out of the toolbox they end up forgetting to take out those five fairly similar screwdrivers we have and give us an extra hammer. Well guess what I'd like the socket set and skill saw they took out of it in 1999 back! (having too much fun with the bloody analogy now, sleep is in order) :D

Darnok
11-06-2008, 10:24
Conversely if you find deep tactical experience fun (and I do, but then I use other systems to scratch that itch) then you will likely find something missing when playing 40k or WFB. Remember that different people like different things and if one wishes to play a wargame for the tactical experience (this need not entail powergaming or other bugaboos but simply bringing your a-game and your brain) then they are doing nothing wrong but 40k/WFB may not be the best tool to reach their ideal fun level.

Agreed. But my point was that some people seem (!) to play WHF/40K only for the tactical experience. And then - in my opinion - they do something wrong. Both games are not the best choice for this desire, and they are both damn expensive too.

I have to add: I truly enjoy 40K, and I like it for the mix of great background and miniatures most. The light tactical touch the game has is just the salt in the soup, it adds to the experience and makes it better. But I play 40K to relax. If I want to think hard and get a reward from it, I indeed play Go instead.

Grey Seer Skretch
11-06-2008, 10:31
This gets [posted pretty regularly does this thread. Still, as I normally chip in when it comes up, I shall do so again. There are DIFFERENT tactics in 40k to those in fantasy. The ones in fantasy are much easier to see and think about as things are a lot neater, units have far more restrictions on how they move, fight etc, and the game works very sequentially. By comparison the tactics in 40k are more 'min-maxed', they are divided between the small on the ground stuff like unit selection, transport options etc, then jump straight up to the scale of overall force movements (kinda imagine those WWII maps you see with the big arrows representing whole forces rather than individual units). In Fantasy the tactics are micro-managed and very neat, in 40k they're sweeping, more general, and much messier.

At the end of the day, if people don't like one as much as the other, they don't have to play it do they?Further. they should have the sense and respect for their friends and gaming buddies not to be snide or try to force their opinions on them. I like both games, and if someone tells me I'm wrong to do so, or that one isn't as good or as valid as the other, I will smile, give them a big thumbs up and/or a shiny badge, and then carry on with my favourite hobby regardless...

Ambu
11-06-2008, 10:45
Well to answer the OP on what he could do to 'combat' this additude is invite those WHF players to a game of 40k and ask them to show you tactics then. One of three(four?) things will happen:

1) They will be completely lost and you will wipe the floor with them. Whining about 'lucky dice rolls' may ensue.
2) They will realize that 40k is just a different as it is more of 'guerilla' warfare then 'chivalrous' warfare.
3) They will stomp you and say, 'IN YOUR FACE!!!'
(and 4, not too likely for the hardcore fantasy-types, but might get a convert)

Royal Tiger
11-06-2008, 10:49
Your seemingly a very biased player. There are psychic powers which can mess with shooting a bit.
a BIT, thats mot really the same as stopping a unit completely from shooting

There aren't ghosts however there are transports to block line of sight as you approach to dismantle the gunline. There are units which can infiltrate very close to a gun, like SM scouts and limit the amount of incoming fire on them by lack of time to be shot at.
transports are hardly the same as ghosts, its something that can easily be destroyed and harm anyone around it.
and units which can infiltrate are usually small in number and relatively harmless, there usually very easy to push back with a single volley of lasgun fire

As well as drop pods, which serve most the same purpose as the flying creature flankers to land within easy fire and then assault range on the gunline.
how can something that comes down completely at random be a viable example of a tactic?

Why not get off your high horse
High horse?, far from it, its my strong opinion that there are no tactics in 40k, at least not in the way we would perceive them, for example hiding in a few trees is NOT a tactic for crying out loud, otherwise imperial guard are tactical geniuses compared to anyone else

Blind as a bat aren't you.
Psykers are 40k's system of Magic. Granted there is no Magic Phase (Thank god.), but still, I have two men who can raise heaps of trouble with nothing but their minds.
I said that can STOP shooting, I know there are psychic powers in 40k:rolleyes:

Necron Wraiths posess such an ability. I believe there is another unit that does, also.
they get a save, so its nowhere near the same, there not immune to everything none magical

Freakiq
11-06-2008, 11:05
Well to answer the OP on what he could do to 'combat' this additude is invite those WHF players to a game of 40k and ask them to show you tactics then. One of three(four?) things will happen:

1) They will be completely lost and you will wipe the floor with them. Whining about 'lucky dice rolls' may ensue.
2) They will realize that 40k is just a different as it is more of 'guerilla' warfare then 'chivalrous' warfare.
3) They will stomp you and say, 'IN YOUR FACE!!!'
(and 4, not too likely for the hardcore fantasy-types, but might get a convert)

You do know many of us "WHFB players" play both games right?

We know what tactics to use in games of 40k, how to use vehicles as mobile cover, set up a crossfire or outmanuevre an enemy and take his army down piecemeal.

40k is even my main game which I own more armies for and play more often than fantasy, it's only recently I've taken a break in 40k while waiting for 5th edition.

Why are you reacting so strongly to 40k players saying that 40k is less tactical than fantasy?

Lord Damocles
11-06-2008, 11:13
a BIT, thats mot really the same as stopping a unit completely from shooting
Or you could pin the offending unit
'Leadership has no effect in 40K'
Tell that to a Dark Eldar player... :rolleyes:
Or you could assault them with a fast moving throughaway unit (Scarabs / Gueardian Jetbikes etc.)
Or you could actually USE SUFFICIENT TERRAIN so that everything can't shoot everything else on the board.

transports are hardly the same as ghosts, its something that can easily be destroyed and harm anyone around it.
and units which can infiltrate are usually small in number and relatively harmless, there usually very easy to push back with a single volley of lasgun fire
1. How many Fantasy armies have Ghosts? One? Hardly a generic 'Fantasy tactic' then is it.
2. Anyone who actually plans to infiltrate closer to the enemy generally deploys larger squads, and not just a random squad of 5 scouts. This is common sense really...

how can something that comes down completely at random be a viable example of a tactic?
Scattering has a random element, but it is possible to reasonably sure to get your squad will land within rapid fire range of their intended target (assuming that you don't land on the far side of cover) - This might well require using a tactic. Oh wait there are none in 40K right?

hiding in a few trees is NOT a tactic for crying out loud, otherwise imperial guard are tactical geniuses compared to anyone else
How is not standing in the open shouting 'Shoot Me!' not a tactic? Wood Elves must not have any tactics either then?

they get a save, so its nowhere near the same, there not immune to everything none magical
So units in Fantasy and 40K have some different abilities? Well *%!£ me. That proves that there are no tactics in 40K then. :rolleyes:

-------------------------

I'm going to go away and bang my head against a brick wall now.

lilljonas
11-06-2008, 11:15
Why are you reacting so strongly to 40k players saying that 40k is less tactical than fantasy?

Because it harms their standpoint that 40K is as tactical as WHFB, of course. Because 40K having better background, cooler minis and Forgeworld is not enough, for some unfathomable reason. ;)

Ambu
11-06-2008, 11:26
You do know many of us "WHFB players" play both games right?

We know what tactics to use in games of 40k, how to use vehicles as mobile cover, set up a crossfire or outmanuevre an enemy and take his army down piecemeal.

40k is even my main game which I own more armies for and play more often than fantasy, it's only recently I've taken a break in 40k while waiting for 5th edition.

Why are you reacting so strongly to 40k players saying that 40k is less tactical than fantasy?

Yes I do realize that, but in my experiance few cross over in BOTH games, including myself. Though to be honest haven't played fantasy in a long, long time....

and read OP, he was asking if other 40k players got this and what they did, I was responding to OP and not all the post that followed, if you read my post well you woulda seen that :p

tsutek
11-06-2008, 11:28
I blame the IGOUGO for the lack of tactics in BOTH games.

To me, Space Hulk (Advanced Space Crusade was cool too) has always been the most 'tactical' model-based (epic being the best unit-based) sci-fi system GW has made. And why? Because of only single dice rolls and 'breakable' turn sequence that allowed reactions (overwatch & CP's)

Having said that, I've been toying around with the idea of using inquisitor rules for small 40k games. Don't know how 'tactical' it'll be but at least it should be a change..

Fantasy players can claim any ruleswise superiority. With their unoriginal background (D&D, Tolkien etc.), I'm not interested in yet another "swords, spells and monsters" game and never will be.. And that's what I call "tactical thinking" on my end.

Ambu
11-06-2008, 11:33
To me, Space Hulk (Advanced Space Crusade was cool too) has always been the most 'tactical' model-based (epic being the best unit-based) sci-fi system GW has made. And why? Because of only single dice rolls and 'breakable' turn sequence that allowed reactions (overwatch & CP's)


If thats the case I would choose Blood Bowl for those reasons with skills and what have you to create a reactionary feel...

Grey Seer Skretch
11-06-2008, 11:41
I think maybe everyone is getting a tad cross about this...? It realy doesn't matter which one has 'more' tactics, they're both fun, and if individual players don't like one or t'other game, just don't play them rite? No need to shout at people that do enjoy them and think there's plenty of tactical challenge involved...

Condottiere
11-06-2008, 11:56
Tactics imply careful consideration of unit placement and task, while wary of possible enemy countermoves and reaction thereof. If these conditions are fulfilled, you're employing tactics.

EVIL INC
11-06-2008, 12:15
Not sure who originally posted this because it was quoted with no name.I will put it here in reguler quotation marks though...
"Well, perhaps we're attacking this question the wrong way...

Why do you suppose a fair few Fantasy players say 40K has little tactics, but almost no 40K players say the same of Fantasy? I would imagine the same kind of people play both games, so the odds of one group being overwhelmingly more open minded or insightful seems unlikely.

Why is it then?"
To be honest, I think it is a matter of maturity as well as open mindedness. Fantasy costs so much more money to play. That might also be a factor as to why there is such elitism in fantasy. The whole I have more money then you so I must be better then you thing. I for one do not feel the need to try to concoct a way to be "better" then everyone else so that I can then attempt to rub thier nose in it. This false elitism is one of the reasons I went to 40k after cutting my teeth on fantasy. I wanted to play with people who played for fun.
Some few fantasy players feel the need to come and start these threads every so often. This is even after being proven absolutely and irrefutably wrong on every occasion.
One way that we can try to stop this is reporting each and every thread that is started on the subject citing trolling as the reason for the report. If they get enough strikes, they might learn the lesson. What say we try that?

tsutek
11-06-2008, 12:20
If thats the case I would choose Blood Bowl for those reasons with skills and what have you to create a reactionary feel...

Psstt! Don't tip 'em off, it just might work ;)

Templar Ben
11-06-2008, 13:20
I am going to commit that gravest of sins and post without reading what everyone else said.

To me the issue is this.

What were the tactics employed by armies in the Renaissance? Are those represented in WHFB (plus magic)?

What are the tactics employed by modern forces? Are those represented in 40K (plus chainsaws)?

There is the big disconnect and that is the reason may see 40K as lacking.

EVIL INC
11-06-2008, 15:13
I just noticed this in someone's signature. It is fully apt in this situation,

"Just because the horse is dead is no reason to stop flogging it. "

40k has been proven to be EVERY BIT as tactical as fantasy. Proven time and time again with irrefutable evidence (If you dont believe this just read through this thread and every other like it over the years and you will see it). Yet, elitists still try to beat the dead horse claiming otherwise no matter how many times they are sent packing with thier tails between thier legs.
Eventually they will learn to keep thier elitist attitude to themselves. "I have more money then you so I can afford to play with more models" does not make the game with more models more tactical and having more money doesnt make you a better person. Trying to act as though it does only makes yourself look bad.
You dont see 40k players going into the fantasy forum making wild outlandish claims (telling outright lies) to try to make them look more important, why not return the favor and treat 40k players with the same respect and maturity they treat you with?

Griffin
11-06-2008, 15:46
Well said Evil.

ReveredChaplainDrake
11-06-2008, 16:28
But even if you do manage to out-manoeuvre your opponent, what's the reward? You can already shoot at anything on the table and there's no combat bonuses for hitting your enemy in the flank.

As a counter to this, the reason 40k maneuverability is so much more devastating than Fantasy is because objectives aren't cheap. In Fantasy, you can take Table Quarters and Banners for +100 pts at a shot. Woopity-doo, that's almost three of them to outweigh destroying one unit of my Saurus, or a little shy of five for killing my Black Dragon. But in 40k, Objectives can weigh a ton. 4 Objectives in a 2000-pt mission are 500 pts per, the center of the table is worth the size of each unit there, and the enemy's table quarter is worth half the game! What I like about 40k more than Fantasy is that 40k allows for killing stuff easier, but killing is not necessarily winning. Killing stuff in Fantasy is much harder, but it means a whole lot more.

This can bite me though when I play Fantasy with this 40k mindset. I'm often playing my Dark Elves such that I'm looking for an objective that isn't there (or isn't important) so I ignore the enemy's 900-pt titanium egg basket for as long as it doesn't cause me problems. Then I lose because all I've claimed are measly table quarters and the odd banner here and there, while the 900-pt titanium egg basket came out unscathed. (I've seen a VC player take an 800-pt block of Grave Guard to a 1500 pt game.) So my Dark Riders are flying around doing nothing in particular (like they're all that combat-capable...), while Chaos Bikes take objectives and make up their cost twofold.

VikingThor
11-06-2008, 16:55
Strategy is being able to execute a plan on a battlefield. That would be the game (both Fantasy and 40K). You are moving units, or blocks of troops hither and thither in an attempt to achieve an end (hold ground, destroy enemy units, etc). So both games involve strategy.

Tactics are different plans to move around said units before the battle happens. Knowing how your troops work, what kind of tricks they can exploit, their weaknesses, etc. This is the metagame which exists in both Fantasy and 40K.....otherwise we would not have troop selection and be able to customize units or equipment, or even think about how our (assaulty,shooty,balanced) army matches up against our opponents'.

Therefore both games utilize tactics and require strategy.

Therefore the statement 40K does not have/use tactics is false.

False meaning the statement does not reflect the current state of affairs accurately.

lanrak
11-06-2008, 18:55
Hi all.
Every time I see this type of thread I shake my head.

Why not ask which game has more tactics,
Monopoly or Cludo.
As they are on a similar tactical level as WH and 40k are.
They are not tacticaly rich wargames .

They are fun dice rolling games, the GW ones are there to use the 'citadel minatures of you chioce' in.:D

Sheesh some people take WH and 40k soooo seriuosly.:rolleyes:

BloodBowl has much higher levels of tactical interaction than WH and 40k.
And better all round game play IMO.

The_Outsider
11-06-2008, 20:36
Tactics? More like for The Emperor!

Reesraw
11-06-2008, 20:43
In my opinion 40k is for people who love the fluff only. tactical wargamers are wrong here... go and play chess ^^

Ronin_eX
11-06-2008, 21:08
Agreed. But my point was that some people seem (!) to play WHF/40K only for the tactical experience. And then - in my opinion - they do something wrong. Both games are not the best choice for this desire, and they are both damn expensive too.

I have to add: I truly enjoy 40K, and I like it for the mix of great background and miniatures most. The light tactical touch the game has is just the salt in the soup, it adds to the experience and makes it better. But I play 40K to relax. If I want to think hard and get a reward from it, I indeed play Go instead.

Ah, I see your point. True using 40k/WFB for the tactical experience alone might prove a little boring to some. This is why I always recommend people try and branch out to as many games as they can get their grubby little hands on in order to find out what they really enjoy. I swear half the people who spend all their time bitching about how much the WFB/40k rules suck and how GW are peeing in their corn flakes would be oh so much happier if someone introduced them to the dozens/hundreds of other wargames out there.

Wargaming is a bigger hobby than many realize and there is usually a game for everybody out there, just because one is used to GW games doesn't mean they are best for that person. I found that out a few years after dumping 40k 3rd and finding Warzone and loving every second of it. Now I regualarily play a good half dozen different games on a regular basis (and more on a less regular basis... I should pull out Heavy Gear again). I love 40k background and models and if I want to line up a horde of them and shoot the breeze with friends while having a good time then 4th/5th does the job. If I want a deeper more narrative experience out of the game I have 2nd and if I feel like something else then I have Warzone, Infinity, Full Thrust and Warmachine to keep me busy.

Each wargame has strengths and weaknesses and with the GW core games the strengths are great background and great models plus simple rules that don't get in the way of moving around toy soldiers and having fun with friends. Some people are looking for more or maybe just different things from a system and the TTG market is more than willing to help. To anyone who isn't feeling the love for GW anymore check out the non-GW forums on these boards and take a look at some games, you may be surprised at what you find. ;)

Darnok
11-06-2008, 21:30
[everything in this thread]

Very well said. I wish everybody would post in such an open and civilized manner. WarSeer would be a much nicer place. :)

Chaos and Evil
11-06-2008, 22:37
4th edition was almost bereft of tactics... it had a lot of strategy, but little tactics.

5th edition goes a way towards fixing that, but it's still not as tactical as Warhammer Fantasy IMHO.

Of course both pale into insignificance when compared to Epic and Warmaster... those are games which offer serious tactical challenges, even if the models ain't as cool. :P

The_Outsider
11-06-2008, 22:38
Very well said. I wish everybody would post in such an open and civilized manner. WarSeer would be a much nicer place. :)

Last time I checked posting valid, well thought out posts proving fantasy elitism wrong was a bannable offense.






;)

Darnok
11-06-2008, 22:41
Last time I checked posting valid, well thought out posts proving fantasy elitism wrong was a bannable offense.

Nooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!11111 :cries:

Ronin_eX
11-06-2008, 22:44
Yup, I'm off to the e-brig for sure. *waves goodbye*

Remember my las words!

Pie...

o_O

SilverDrake
11-06-2008, 23:51
In my shallow opinion, both games are not very tactical... fantasy is basically drawing lines of sight for attacking and not beeing flanked, and powering up characters and magicians, i've played 5th and just started to get back into it with 7th its slightly better then it used to be but not a good rules set at all.
As for 40k its basically making your list, deploying and when drawing lines of sight for firing and attacking.

I don't think one s more tactical or strategical, for the ones who're interested strategie does mean a greater picture when just fighting a battle.

Personally i own about 15 miniatures wargames and some board based, and 40k as well as fantasy are the worst, the only ones with worse rulesets with less tactic and stratgie are the clix systems and the cruel thing rackham did to confrontation and at43.

Though i dislike discussions as such we've got them in our gaming club as well, and as stated both games are about list optimizing, deploying and drawing lines of sight. so basically the same rules, and ther fantasy got magic, 40k already got a lot of firefighting which is actually just the same...

I personally prefer 40k a lot allthough i've owning only 5 real 40k armies and some smaller force against 8 full grown armies in WHFB. 40k just feels cooler and the miniatures got a lot more individualism, while fantasy miniatures are just mere lifecounters, at most times even in 20 minis regiment only the frontline 5 are interesting the rest is just taken away then losing lifepoints...

I presonally are looking for a fast paced fun game and as such 40k is the best for me, but for those people who like geometry as fun in their recreation time, whfb might be the better sollution, very tactical is neither, even FoW is better, not to speak of Rezolution, Infinity, Heavy Gear Blitz or any of GW's specialist games...


as conclusion i'd suggest to the Threadopener the following, try to get them into a Game and really use Terrain at least 50% should be good, the try a starting distanca of at least 36'' between the players.
If that doesn't work ask them if they consider geometry more tactical then architecture, because as said the only thing that devides 40k and WHFb is the following: 40k players discuss lines of sight for whfb players discuss angles and distances of movement.

just my 2 cents

regards SilverDrake

druchii
12-06-2008, 00:29
I just noticed this in someone's signature. It is fully apt in this situation,

"Just because the horse is dead is no reason to stop flogging it. "

40k has been proven to be EVERY BIT as tactical as fantasy. Proven time and time again with irrefutable evidence (If you dont believe this just read through this thread and every other like it over the years and you will see it). Yet, elitists still try to beat the dead horse claiming otherwise no matter how many times they are sent packing with thier tails between thier legs.
Eventually they will learn to keep thier elitist attitude to themselves. "I have more money then you so I can afford to play with more models" does not make the game with more models more tactical and having more money doesnt make you a better person. Trying to act as though it does only makes yourself look bad.
You dont see 40k players going into the fantasy forum making wild outlandish claims (telling outright lies) to try to make them look more important, why not return the favor and treat 40k players with the same respect and maturity they treat you with?

This is completely false:
I've provided "irrefutable" evidence that 40 does NOT possess more strategy than fantasy. In fact I've explained just the opposit. Trying to tag fantasy players as "elitist" and "wealthy" is pretty a pretty narrow view of things.

I think you should really take an introspective look at yourself and wonder why you're getting so worked up about miniature games. While the older army books in fantasy(as an example, those before the new HE book) promoted a great deal of "tactics" (while the new books, starting with (arguably) bretonnians and working through to the new daemons provides more "40kish" tactics) the newer books are scaling this "tactical" element back.

I'll elaborate:
40k is all about points. This unit is 200 pts, It must either kill 200 pts of my opponents army, deny them 200 pts, or gain 200 pts in some way (objectives, etc.) if this happens for more units in my army than my opponent's, then I win.

The same is said for fantasy, although the method of doing so is COMPLETELY different.

There is no (or a minute few) tactic that exists in 40k that does not exist in fantasy, while fantasy possesses a number of tactics that do not exist in 40k. End of story. I've seen very little but conjecture from the 40k "elitists" to combat this basic idea. I usually see people attacking the fantasy players themselves, while dodgeing the question of tactics.

Does 40k have more stragety involved than fantasy, and is it even close? NO.
Does this have anything to do with the people that play each game? NO. Does it matter? NO.
Does this prevent 40 from being a "good" or a "viable" game? NO.
Does the inclusion of fewer tactics reduce the quality of a game? NO.

Get over yourself, 40k, on the scale of tactics, compared to fantasy is inferior. Boo. Friggidy. Hoo.

d
ps. I still don't understand why so many people are having such a hard time dealing with this question objectively. 40k =/= you.

eek107
12-06-2008, 00:53
This is completely false:
I've provided "irrefutable" evidence that 40 does NOT possess more strategy than fantasy. In fact I've explained just the opposit.

Where? Must be another thread or something, because all you've said here (twice now) is that fantasy has more tactics... no examples or evidence given, just the statement.


I still don't understand why so many people are having such a hard time dealing with this question objectively. 40k =/= you.

I do. People sink hundreds of ponds/dollars/whatever into the hobby, then someone comes along and tells them the game's as tactically deep as a dried up puddle and theirs is so much better. Makes them feel like they have to defend their choice of hobby as well as their own intelligence.

Final note: how many threads do we see where 40k players call into question the amount of tactics in fantasy? I haven't seen any, nor have I seen any in the fantasy section become "40k vs fantasy, which is more tactical". Funny how they all seem to end up here, with so many people who have "moved on" to fantasy or don't even like GW games at all taking part. :eyebrows:

Stinkfoot
12-06-2008, 01:42
Final note: how many threads do we see where 40k players call into question the amount of tactics in fantasy? I haven't seen any, nor have I seen any in the fantasy section become "40k vs fantasy, which is more tactical". Funny how they all seem to end up here, with so many people who have "moved on" to fantasy or don't even like GW games at all taking part.

Couldn't this be because Fantasy is in fact more tactical than 40k (a point I raised earlier)? I very much doubt WHFB has a preponderance of vain players and 40k has none. The most likely explanation to your point, as I'm sure any neutral observer would agree, is that the reason nobody says 40k is more tactical than Fantasy is that that is a crazy thing to say. The converse, on the other hand, is fairly easy to demonstrate or at least provide support for.

Also, eek, where exactly have you "proved" anything. Both sides of this argument are using primarily anecdotal evidence. It's not like you have a machine that magically measures the amount of thinking a player puts into the game. Seriously, "proof" is a gross exaggeration. As for providing evidence in support of the greater depth of tactics in Fantasy, druchii has done so as have other posts repeatedly throughout this thread. Either you haven't read the whole thread, don't know what evidence is or are willfully ignoring it. I tend to think the latter is the most likely.

Warp Zero
12-06-2008, 02:07
Okay, I admit it. I did not read all the posts on this thread. I just wanna chime in real quick and offer my two cents.

In my opinion, those that have played 40k and walked away from the experience saying that the game has little to no tactics played it wrong. Or at least, played it in a way I personally think is wrong. That being, bad terrain set-ups, limited missions (playing only "Cleanse" and "Seek & Destroy), and minor rules misunderstanding.

As I continue to play 40k more and more with my gaming club, I keep seeing many examples of tactics being used to win a game. To me, it seems most players have no imagination on how to fight each other.

Here's an example: Two Tyranid players were going undefeated for quite some time with their crazy power gamer lists. We didn't complain, we had fun sitting around trying to think of ways to beat them. I keep hearing people blame the codex, or blame the rules. (one of the guys from the D6 Generation podcast always brings up how his IG get whiped out when one Gaunt's toe comes into contact with his troops).

What was our solution? It was simple. Don't put everything out on the board! If the Tyranid are going to be on top of you by turn 2, then why give them stuff to eat? My friend, the Tau player held his crisis suits in Reserve and deep striked them behind the Tyranid advance (back in the Tyranid starting zone). Now, the bugs had to hoof it all the way back where they came from while being shot by missile pods and plasma. A marine player deep strikes his speeders in the same way. Me? I would just hold my Eldar units off to one side and when they came in, very much of the Tyranid force were near my board edge already, but I get to pick where to apply pressure now. Not much survives 10 Dire Avengers blade storming a unit.

Then when my Tau friend started to win against Tyranid, the bug player had to figure a way to counter it. During one game, he saw that he was going to lose the war of attrition ... so what does he do? He backs off and hides all his bugs behind terrain. The Tau player doesn't have enough time to redeploy to get an angle...turn 6 comes, end game. Points are tallied and guess what? The Tyranid killed more points worth. The bug player won by holding back.

How about the Marine player who had trouble with the Tau player who would turtle on the back edge? Deep striking a Librarian in Terminator armor back there, using that one psychic power to cause fear...wham....we watch a bunch of Tau run off the board!

I think the ability to decide how to apply the capabilities of your models and the ability to improvise counts as tactics. This post is super long already, I can give tons of example of tactics being used, but if people just want to wind up power lists and let 'em go on "seek & destroy", then fine. But that's no where near tapping the full potential of the 40k gaming experience. There's so much stuff you can do. Some are subtle and maybe that's why people don't see it. Things like baiting with units or faking people out with your deployment or movement. There are so many ways to trip up your opponent. I don't get when people say that its all about list building and after that its just dice rolling. Pshaw!

With the whole Fantasy versus 40k thing, I can't speak yet. I've played Fantasy, but not enough to be a veteran yet. Until I do, I can't fairly compare and say which has more tactics. But I know for sure, that 40k has tactics...plenty of it. If you think it has none, you must be playing it wrong. Or just have a weird definition of the word "tactics".

Grimbad
12-06-2008, 02:08
...People sink hundreds of ponds/dollars/whatever into the hobby...

Generally, things sink into ponds, not vice versa.
Getting on topic...
I really don't have any knowledge on this issue- I have never played a game of fantasy. I really don't know or care whether or not WFB has more tactics. A fantasy player saying that fantasy is a better game than 40k because 40k has less tactics has an argument exactly as factually valid as a 40k player (me, in this case) saying that 40k is a better game than fantasy because fantasy has less tanks. This is because neither argument has any factual value whatsoever. Both games have people who love to play them but don't love to play the other.
I am satisfied with the level of tactics 40k presents me with, and the opportunity for converted models and scratchbuilds. Thus I play orks.
One of the big tactical decisions I have to make is during list-building, when I am forced to choose between fielding my favorite models and fielding my most vicious list. It usually comes out as a compromise, which is often entertaining as I end up including too many units involving random event charts.

Chaplain Mortez
12-06-2008, 02:39
Laugh.

Out.

Loud.

Poor original poster! His thread has already degraded into Fantasy vs. 40k.

My thoughts? (like anyone really cares at this point)

Most of the good Fantasy players at my store have been around since it came out. They are already into Fantasy. They've played it for a long time. They played it before 40k. To be honest, every time I hear that "Fantasy is tactically superior," I generally think this opinion is based upon not really getting into the game on a competitive level. I think that 40k players do not complain about Fantasy because most of us have at least tried or play both systems (I do). Personally, it is apples and oranges, but hey! I'll be a jerk and go ahead and list why I think Fantasy is tactically inferior:

1. The whole game is dominated by game-swinging spells, warmachines, monsters, and characters. "Irresistible force! TACTICS OUT THE WAZOO!" 40k will punish you for bad deployment and losing your army to ordinance, but will not reward you for taking ordinance simply because of the random factor.

2. Flanks and rears are just there to accommodate the fact that 5 on 5 fights in the front rank would otherwise leave the game at a stalemate or whenever someone rolled good/bad. When assaults break out in 40k, they're over in a turn. If not, they're at least fun to watch as characters go toe-to-toe.

3. The game is setup with little or no wiggle room. Once a unit is deployed, it goes straight forward or to a specific flank. Fantasy is all about memorizing setup and not about "maneuvering" as some would like to call it. There are "trick attacks" (commonly used by Eldar and Dark Eldar) where you start on one edge of the board and then move to the other to deny a flank.

4. Redundant magic items that supposedly "add" more to the game. 40k has streamlined items that, while may not be "fluffy," are all at least useful.

5. Double steam tank alter empire, dwarf gunline, woodelf treemen + battle standard, 4-lance Brettonian armies...these are just as bad as 40k netlists.

6. The game is dominated by calvary. Almost all of these units are point and shoot (chosen knights of chaos, for example). 40k makes use of tanks and foot sloggers equally. I have a lot of success using 8 tanks in my Black Templar army--3 of those are transports that work as 68 point pieces of movable terrain that dump off my guys at an objective or let me redeploy quickly to trick my opponent. Shucks--they're almost like woodelves and their tree singing/free tree.

-Grimgorironhide-
12-06-2008, 03:00
I think these arguments of whether 40k or fantasy is more tactical should stop. I mean no matter how strong an argument someone presents someone else will always try to destroy it.
Mabye instead of this pointless talk we should just enjoy this hobby and not waste time with this continued rivalry. I mean this will never achieve anything they are both different games with different tactics.
Can we just leave it at that and enjoy our games.
Cheers:D

eek107
12-06-2008, 03:12
Couldn't this be because Fantasy is in fact more tactical than 40k (a point I raised earlier)? I very much doubt WHFB has a preponderance of vain players and 40k has none.

Could be the case, but my point is why this section? Why aren't similar discussions cropping up as often in the fantasy section?


Also, eek, where exactly have you "proved" anything. Both sides of this argument are using primarily anecdotal evidence. It's not like you have a machine that magically measures the amount of thinking a player puts into the game. Seriously, "proof" is a gross exaggeration. As for providing evidence in support of the greater depth of tactics in Fantasy, druchii has done so as have other posts repeatedly throughout this thread. Either you haven't read the whole thread, don't know what evidence is or are willfully ignoring it. I tend to think the latter is the most likely.

I've proved nothing, and haven't claimed to either. druchii hasn't posted support at all, both his posts simply state that fantasy has greater tactical depth.
I'm ignoring nothing and read the entire thread. More than once. Of all the examples that fantasy doesn't share with 40k, I believe it's possible to at least provide something it has that fantasy doesn't. Here's several of the common points already raised in the thread:

40k has less rules: chess and go have even less than that
Gunlines: present in both systems, work the same way: near-mindless dice rolling
Flank charge bonuses in fantasy: model placement in 40k squads affects what can be killed from shooting (within LOS and range only) and CC (btb and 2" kill-zone), vehicles are generally weaker when attacked from sides and rear
Fantasy requires careful maneuvering to set up charges: 40k requires the same thought when setting up fire lanes (more emphasis on shooting than in fantasy) as well as charges (see previous point)
Fantasy more punishing with mistakes: but at the cost of flexibility. It's much easier to see what an opponent is up to given how poorly most units maneuver. It can simply become a case of "point-and-click", where the entire flow of the game is decided by the setup. Less room for improvisation.
Use of cover: in fantasy it's largely for blocking LOS and movement, unless you're a wood elf. In 40k it can do the same, but you can also move through it, and it provides varying levels of protection.
Big messy dice-fest in the middle: both games suffer from this if the players let it happen. Not a problem with the system, a problem with the player mindset.
Leadership has no effect in 40k: mostly referring to MEQ and 'nids. Well, the former will break when the odds are stacked against them, and the latter crumble without synapse so they rely on it.

There, that's most of the arguments put forth in the thread so far, and I've put forward examples that support my opinion that both games are equal. So... where does fantasy offer more depth?


Generally, things sink into ponds, not vice versa.
Getting on topic...

Never heard that figure of speech?

Stinkfoot
12-06-2008, 03:29
I apologize eek, I attributed something somebody else said to you.

I've never thought setting up firing lanes requires much tactical foresight, and I usually play on a table with a lot of terrain (for 40k, lots of terrain doesn't really work in fantasy). In any event I'm not sure that qualifies as moving since most troops that make use of fire lanes don't move much. In any event, maneuvering in fantasy requires considerably more thought than maneuvering in 40k. In 40k my thinking usually is something along the lines of "Do I want to get closer or stay far away?" In fantasy I think that, but then also what angle I should approach and who I need to bring along to protect my flanks.

Fantasy provides tremendously more opportunity for your opponent to interact with your moves. In 40k the best tactics usually involve doing something really fast so the opponent dies before he knows what hit him (which makes it mostly a game of list-building). In fantasy the movement and magic phases (the two most important phases I think, since in both units can move) are both highly interactive. If you want to execute your plan, you have to do something tricky to your opponent to force him into a position he doesn't want to be in. There is no forcing in 40k, just dice rolling.

As far as gunlines and dice-fests go, I realize both games can devolve into that but I still feel that progression is much more natural in 40k and you have a lot more latitude to do other things in fantasy.

I do like playing 40k. I just think it's silly to say it takes as much tactics as fantasy.

eek107
12-06-2008, 03:47
I apologize eek, I attributed something somebody else said to you.

No worries.


I've never thought setting up firing lanes requires much tactical foresight, and I usually play on a table with a lot of terrain (for 40k, lots of terrain doesn't really work in fantasy). In any event I'm not sure that qualifies as moving since most troops that make use of fire lanes don't move much. In any event, maneuvering in fantasy requires considerably more thought than maneuvering in 40k. In 40k my thinking usually is something along the lines of "Do I want to get closer or stay far away?" In fantasy I think that, but then also what angle I should approach and who I need to bring along to protect my flanks.

I might be a tad biased but speaking as an IG player fire lanes are pretty important, more so as the terrain increases. I can use lascannon teams to block off areas from vehicles, or at least make them think twice. Same goes with their infantry. If I get it wrong or the opponent does something unexpected, then I have to move about a bit. It's largely a deployment issue but when it comes to capturing objectives it includes the movement phase as well.
The angle of approach and protection matter to a lesser degree with infantry (but still an issue as demonstrated in my last post), but with vehicles the same consideration has to be taken as with the typical fantasy unit. They're essentially the same when it comes to how they should be attacked and protected.


Fantasy provides tremendously more opportunity for your opponent to interact with your moves. In 40k the best tactics usually involve doing something really fast so the opponent dies before he knows what hit him (which makes it mostly a game of list-building). In fantasy the movement and magic phases (the two most important phases I think, since in both units can move) are both highly interactive. If you want to execute your plan, you have to do something tricky to your opponent to force him into a position he doesn't want to be in. There is no forcing in 40k, just dice rolling.

Surprising the opponent is itself a strategy/tactic.
I think the whole idea of forcing them into those situations is a little detrimental to depth as well. The layout of the board can often trap units in a one-way system, so there's no decision-making after deployment for them, other than keep going or try to turn round and do something useful before the end. I can see both sides of this one, but I think they kind of cancel each other out. The extra decisions you have to make during deployment are made up for by the lack when the movement gets underway.


As far as gunlines and dice-fests go, I realize both games can devolve into that but I still feel that progression is much more natural in 40k and you have a lot more latitude to do other things in fantasy.

I still think this has as much to do with the players as anything else. When you start playing with objectives and with a decent amount of terrain, then 40k becomes a whole lot more interesting than the "line up and kill each other" that most games are set up as.

druchii
12-06-2008, 04:06
Laugh.

Out.

Loud.

Poor original poster! His thread has already degraded into Fantasy vs. 40k.

My thoughts? (like anyone really cares at this point)

Most of the good Fantasy players at my store have been around since it came out. They are already into Fantasy. They've played it for a long time. They played it before 40k. To be honest, every time I hear that "Fantasy is tactically superior," I generally think this opinion is based upon not really getting into the game on a competitive level. I think that 40k players do not complain about Fantasy because most of us have at least tried or play both systems (I do). Personally, it is apples and oranges, but hey! I'll be a jerk and go ahead and list why I think Fantasy is tactically inferior:

1. The whole game is dominated by game-swinging spells, warmachines, monsters, and characters. "Irresistible force! TACTICS OUT THE WAZOO!" 40k will punish you for bad deployment and losing your army to ordinance, but will not reward you for taking ordinance simply because of the random factor.

2. Flanks and rears are just there to accommodate the fact that 5 on 5 fights in the front rank would otherwise leave the game at a stalemate or whenever someone rolled good/bad. When assaults break out in 40k, they're over in a turn. If not, they're at least fun to watch as characters go toe-to-toe.

3. The game is setup with little or no wiggle room. Once a unit is deployed, it goes straight forward or to a specific flank. Fantasy is all about memorizing setup and not about "maneuvering" as some would like to call it. There are "trick attacks" (commonly used by Eldar and Dark Eldar) where you start on one edge of the board and then move to the other to deny a flank.

4. Redundant magic items that supposedly "add" more to the game. 40k has streamlined items that, while may not be "fluffy," are all at least useful.

5. Double steam tank alter empire, dwarf gunline, woodelf treemen + battle standard, 4-lance Brettonian armies...these are just as bad as 40k netlists.

6. The game is dominated by calvary. Almost all of these units are point and shoot (chosen knights of chaos, for example). 40k makes use of tanks and foot sloggers equally. I have a lot of success using 8 tanks in my Black Templar army--3 of those are transports that work as 68 point pieces of movable terrain that dump off my guys at an objective or let me redeploy quickly to trick my opponent. Shucks--they're almost like woodelves and their tree singing/free tree.

I'd like to point out when someone disagrees with a point, they typically offer reasons why. That is, talk as much as you like about fantasy players providing little evidence that fantasy is superior to 40k (as this is the generally accepted sentiment) because relatively few 40k players are able to enumerate why 40k is on par or better than fantasy. I will re-iterate again: All the tactics present in 40k are present in fantasy, while fantasy offers more.

The OP asked which system has more tactics. I illustrated which does, and why. What we have had relatively little (none) of is people actually disputing this fact, other than attacking fantasy players as a whole.

Finally we have someone offering examples, and I'll address these points.

1. You mean ordinance that scatters 2/3 of the time (and a well placed ord shot has a half chance after that to scatter poorly)? But when ordinance DOES hit it wipes out squads. Simply put, there is nothing in fantasy as devastating and as cheap as ordinance. And while 40k will punish you for "poor placement" fantasy will do so, except moreso. Ever tried to move a M4 unit to the opposit corner of the board? How about around your own units, and through terrain?

2. So by your own definition flanks/rears are there to add tactical depth to the game. Also, did you notice how the close combat morale checks are changing in 5th? They're doing that because assaults are NOT over in 1 turn in 40k. Ever see a book of St. Lucius in a SOB squad? Ever play, erm, SPACE MARINES? How about fearless troops (like cult troops, demons, tyranids, or Ld 10 units? Oh, and characters go toe to toe in fantasy more than 40k because of another, tactical, option called a challenge.

3. This is completely false. That's why mobility is so highly prized in fantasy. It's a tactic that is NOT shared by every unit in the game. Blocks of infantry are, by default, uncapable of "trick attacks" but skirmishers, monsters, cavalry, skirmishers and fliers are all added to the game to add depth and, well, tactics.

4. Alot of magic items in fantasy are actually quite useless because they provide a bonus that is so deliberately unuseful (or useful in a very narrow situation) that they are not at all redundant. While all army books share a common pool of magic items (that function much like power weapons, invulnerable saves and the like) they possess a great variety of very unique, and army defining wargear. Imagine a Frost Blade for every army.

5. While ALL games will suffer from the "netlist" symptoms the netlists that show up at 40k competitive events are signifigantly less than those that show up to fantasy competitions. The simple fact that you listed more than three lists proves this. In addition, alot of the "netlists" you provided are actually not at all scary or game breaking (like nidzilla, drop podding marines or mech eldar)-gunlines are near useless and 4 lance Bretonnian lists are nothing-check out the flying cavalry.

6. The game is NOT dominated by cavalry. Please refer to your "double steam tank-alter" list, or the "Dwarf" gunline list, or the wood elf super skirmisher list, or the beasts of chaos ambush list, or the new tzeentch demons list. Undead lists don't rely on cavalry, nor do a good deal of HE lists. An army including cavalry does not mean a game is dominated by cavalry.

Finally: I find it hard to believe that anything in fantasy is "point and shoot" because of the simple existence of; Charge responce: Flee.

I do find it ironic that you compare your 40k army to a fantasy army that breaks the majority of the basic tactical building blocks of fantasy and makes it more "40kish".

ps. Thanks for the honestly thought out reply, better than most.

AllisterCaine
12-06-2008, 04:14
40k has less rules: chess and go have even less than that Thats why chess has no strategy and its level of tactics is completely different.

Gunlines: present in both systems, work the same way: near-mindless dice rolling Im not sure why this is relevant...

Flank charge bonuses in fantasy: model placement in 40k squads affects what can be killed from shooting (within LOS and range only) and CC (btb and 2" kill-zone), vehicles are generally weaker when attacked from sides and rear That is the only time when flanks in 40k actually matter. Kill zone in CC and shooting? That requires as much thought as me turning on a light bulb when its dark. Its called common sense.

Fantasy requires careful maneuvering to set up charges: 40k requires the same thought when setting up fire lanes (more emphasis on shooting than in fantasy) as well as charges (see previous point) Setting up firing lanes requires much less thought than maneuvering for a charge. In fact, setting up firing lanes should also fall under the common sense category.

Fantasy more punishing with mistakes: but at the cost of flexibility. It's much easier to see what an opponent is up to given how poorly most units maneuver. It can simply become a case of "point-and-click", where the entire flow of the game is decided by the setup. Less room for improvisation. Whereas for 40k most of the time is "WAAAGH CHARGE!" Screw the bullets and screw morale. How can flexibility matter in 40k if mistakes are not punished?

Use of cover: in fantasy it's largely for blocking LOS and movement, unless you're a wood elf. In 40k it can do the same, but you can also move through it, and it provides varying levels of protection. Moving through terrain hardly matters for the armies whose only goal is to get into CC. Most of the time they can get snagged up and take the hit, and come charging in without fear of leadership.

Big messy dice-fest in the middle: both games suffer from this if the players let it happen. Not a problem with the system, a problem with the player mindset. For 40k a single troop model can have 4 attacks. In fantasy they usually have 1.

Leadership has no effect in 40k: mostly referring to MEQ and 'nids. Well, the former will break when the odds are stacked against them, and the latter crumble without synapse so they rely on it. Lets see, MEQ's apply to 5/12 armies, nids dont care about jack **** because the synapse rule is stupid, Orks hardly ever give a damn about anything, the demons are insane, the DE is hardly ever in a situation when it does matter...what armies does that leave us? Not a whole lot.

In 40k movement and leadership hardly matters. When these two hardly matter, how can 40k have more, or even the same level, of strategy and tactics as in fantasy?

Quell
12-06-2008, 04:54
What....have...I...done?

Blackwolf
12-06-2008, 05:01
Tactics is the collective name for methods of winning a small-scale conflict, performing an optimization, etc. This applies specifically to warfare, but also to economics, trade, games and a host of other fields such as negotiation.

A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.

Copied from Webster's online dictionary.

Here are the definitions for the argument in question. I think a lot of people should look at what they have posted and check it against what the word means.

Damocles8
12-06-2008, 05:04
---------
CAN
= Open....
WORMS
---------

AlmightyNocturnus
12-06-2008, 05:30
As someone who plays a lot of both, I can say its about 52%(Fantasy) vs. 48% (40K). There are additional unique elements in both games with maybe slightly more planning needed in a game of Fantasy (notice, I said "slightly"). In Fantasy Battle (FB), just setting up your army has a level of strategy all to itself...since you can`t move so freely. There`s also the magic phase and morale/leadership/psychology tests that actually have some meaning. But 40K actually USES the terrain, differentiates the missions, and shooting plays a much bigger part.
Though FB is slightly more tactical, I prefer 40K and usually use this retort to slam dunk Fantasy players` faces in the sand:evilgrin:, "At least we (40K players) don`t play smash-up derby in the middle of the field EVERY battle [fakes a big YAWN]". The universal adherence to "pitched battle" in FB is maybe its biggest weakness.
That being said, I`ll play both games till I die.

Almighty Nocturnus

blackspring
12-06-2008, 06:00
"At least we (40K players) don`t play smash-up derby in the middle of the field EVERY battle [fakes a big YAWN]". The universal adherence to "pitched battle" in FB is maybe its biggest weakness.

QFT.
Fantasy was my favorite of the two games until I became weary of pitched battles over and over and over again--this is the problem with the Fantasy movement system--which is supposedly more 'tacticful'. Objectives in 40k plus terrain make the game much more interesting as a battlefield and a strategic situation than Fantasy ever is able, due solely to the movement and facing rules for Fantasy.


Flank charge bonuses in fantasy: model placement in 40k squads affects what can be killed from shooting (within LOS and range only) and CC (btb and 2" kill-zone), vehicles are generally weaker when attacked from sides and rear
That is the only time when flanks in 40k actually matter. Kill zone in CC and shooting? That requires as much thought as me turning on a light bulb when its dark. Its called common sense.

What you refer to in 40k as common sense is also often common sense in Fantasy--you try to jockey for the best tactical position, just because one game has built-in bonuses to the system doesn't mean that it is any more tactically superior to do so.

The complexity of the method by which a player may obtain tactical advantage is not indicative of superior tactical thinking, but is merely an arbitrary and unnecessary system for the sake of complexity and shows the inability of Fantasy to implicitly do so as is done in 40k IMO.

Shadowb|ade
12-06-2008, 06:36
Hey guys,

So my gaming group keeps giving me crap by saying that 40K (a game I very much enjoy) has little to no tactics when compared to fantasy. I try and depend my beloved game, but I just wanted to hear what you guys had to say.

Thanks.

Real life.
You are a General, looking at the tactical break down of a battle and giving orders in a real time scenario. All you are doing is positioning troops and hoping (luck) that you are making the right decisions and the troops are capable of pulling off the maneuver.

40K
You are a General, looking at a tactical break down in a battle giving orders in a turn based scenario. All you are doing is positioning troops and hoping (luck) that you are making the right decisions (rock, paper, scissors) and the the troops are capable enough (Stat line) of pulling off the maneuver.

WH:F
You are a General, looking at a tactical break down in a battle giving orders in a turn based scenario. All you are doing is potioning troops and hoping (luck) that you are making the right decisions (rock, paper, scissors) and the the troops are capable enough (Stat line) of pulling off the maneuver.

One game requires Strategy (fantasy) the other requires Tactics (40k), and saying that 40k OR fantasy has no tactics is like saying that chess has none.

shabbadoo
12-06-2008, 07:05
All games have tactics, even games of chance. Rather foolish to argue otherwise, or be elitist about it.

Occulto
12-06-2008, 07:26
This ol' chestnut again.

Both have tactics, both have strategy.

I agree with what others have said in that WHFB is more formalised.

Take the flank charge. There's a concrete bonus for doing so in WHFB. Go to the relevant rulebook page and it will spell out very clearly that you negate ranks.

In 40K, choosing the direction of attack usually has benefits/effects that are more contextual. By attacking from a flank I can isolate the other guy's unit champion or put me in the right position to consolidate into another next enemy unit.

These are my rewards. But, of course, it's a little harder to spell them out in the 40K rulebook.

Chaplain Mortez
12-06-2008, 08:03
1. You mean ordinance that scatters 2/3 of the time (and a well placed ord shot has a half chance after that to scatter poorly)? But when ordinance DOES hit it wipes out squads. Simply put, there is nothing in fantasy as devastating and as cheap as ordinance. And while 40k will punish you for "poor placement" fantasy will do so, except moreso. Ever tried to move a M4 unit to the opposit corner of the board? How about around your own units, and through terrain?


Yes, ordinance will wipe out squads. However, the most powerful ordinance (basilisk, leman russ, vindicator, defiler, etc.) are all well over 130 points. A 120 point mage can decimate entire units, worth far more than his original cost. Lore of Light's first spell, for example, can drop bone giants. A level 4 mage at around 300 points can wipe out entire units with level 6 spells.

I also have to agree with another poster--Fantasy punishes and sacrifices adaptability. Is not having an army that can adapt more tactical than your opponent's poor(er) deployment?



2. So by your own definition flanks/rears are there to add tactical depth to the game. Also, did you notice how the close combat morale checks are changing in 5th? They're doing that because assaults are NOT over in 1 turn in 40k. Ever see a book of St. Lucius in a SOB squad? Ever play, erm, SPACE MARINES? How about fearless troops (like cult troops, demons, tyranids, or Ld 10 units? Oh, and characters go toe to toe in fantasy more than 40k because of another, tactical, option called a challenge.


What I was getting at is the combats in 40k are short (because one side has a counterattack) or when they are drawn out they are cinematic. With Fantasy, it seems like combats are drawn out the second one side charges. These tend to just be, erm, dull and rather about dice rolls (who can roll better with 5 dice), versus 40k where a general has to know what his unit is capable of (don't send 10 marines with bolters against 20 orks with sluggas and choppas).



3. This is completely false. That's why mobility is so highly prized in fantasy. It's a tactic that is NOT shared by every unit in the game. Blocks of infantry are, by default, uncapable of "trick attacks" but skirmishers, monsters, cavalry, skirmishers and fliers are all added to the game to add depth and, well, tactics.


...but every other unit (infantry) is still point-and-go. That would also be light calvary. I would love to see you turn around a unit of dragon princes and have them spend 4 turns changing flanks. Not going to happen. Most of the other units you listed are light and, while can help win the game, are nothing compared to an Eldar player deciding to redeploy on the other side with an entire army. It's both bold and risky--if not planned right could cost them the game, whereas 75 points worth of skinks booking it is nothing to lose.



4. Alot of magic items in fantasy are actually quite useless because they provide a bonus that is so deliberately unuseful (or useful in a very narrow situation) that they are not at all redundant. While all army books share a common pool of magic items (that function much like power weapons, invulnerable saves and the like) they possess a great variety of very unique, and army defining wargear. Imagine a Frost Blade for every army.


While many of the items are unique and useful, some are useless unless used against a specific army (cloak of beards), and when used, are just bad-mannered.



5. While ALL games will suffer from the "netlist" symptoms the netlists that show up at 40k competitive events are signifigantly less than those that show up to fantasy competitions. The simple fact that you listed more than three lists proves this. In addition, alot of the "netlists" you provided are actually not at all scary or game breaking (like nidzilla, drop podding marines or mech eldar)-gunlines are near useless and 4 lance Bretonnian lists are nothing-check out the flying cavalry.


I think you actually helped my point on this one...I'm not sure if you meant 40k had more netlists or Fantasy.



6. The game is NOT dominated by cavalry. Please refer to your "double steam tank-alter" list, or the "Dwarf" gunline list, or the wood elf super skirmisher list, or the beasts of chaos ambush list, or the new tzeentch demons list. Undead lists don't rely on cavalry, nor do a good deal of HE lists. An army including cavalry does not mean a game is dominated by cavalry.


So the game is dominated by broken combos and units?



ps. Thanks for the honestly thought out reply, better than most.

Glad you see I have a sense of humor with this :D. Quite frankly I'm sick of these types of threads.

nathonicus
12-06-2008, 08:26
Dear lord.

This is almost as big a nerd-rage vortex as the argument over who would win in a fight between the Star Wars Galactic Empire and the Imperium of Man.


Let it suffice to say that anyone who says any game more complex than tic-tac-toe has "no tactics" is exaggerating a bit. ;)

In my understanding, a tactic is usually an isolated method within a larger strategy. Both games actually employ many similar tactics in this light; for instance the use of a "bait" unit to pull a foe into charge range (FB) or rapid-fire range (40k) is a tactic found in both games.

Whether one or the other game has more strategy, where strategy is the decisive use of different tactics to achieve the win, than the other, is debatable. I personally find that playing one game often helps inform my play in the other.

Fantasy is definitely more demanding of careful analysis of the movement phase, since close combat is decided mostly by careful positioning, and close combat is the most decisive factor in the game.

40k however, also greatly rewards supportive tactics, but this is usually more to do with shooting and target priority.

I find 40k players often misunderstand fantasy, thinking they have to "kill all" of their oppoents figures, and so miss the importance of positioning to maximize combat results. Likewise, FB players see the lack of decisive "all or nothing" break tests which can gut an army, and underestimate the use of fire to whittle down the return fire your force is facing. Whether movement tactics or firing tactics are superior to one another is really pretty silly, they're just different.

There are certainly "no-brainer" armies for both games, and certainly incredibly skilled people who play both to high levels of tactical acuity.

I believe that 5th edition 40k is going to become more strategic with an increased emphasis on long-term game planning and unit support, with fewer units that are able to roll up entire flanks on their own, or fly through the game immune to everything.

Both are fun games, both have tactics. I think the failure to understand the mechanics of FB usually result in more dramatic results (i.e., whole units fleeing or cut down) than 40k, which makes it look like a more tactically decisive game. Both are games of strategy, but also games of chance, and I believe that in FB the stakes are higher, since positioning is so important, leadership is more prevalent, and the costs of breaking/fleeing are greater.

AngryAngel
12-06-2008, 08:28
Guys just let it die. Nothing short of the Emperor or other holy figure showing up to prove them wrong will convince the pro fantasy posters. If there game is so all fired amazing, perhaps they'd spend all their time playing it, and not coming into here and trying to force us to believe what an amazing game it is in comparison to 40k.

No ones mind will be changed with this so why waste your time ? I know i'm done doing it, I don't enjoy pointless arguing as much some people do.

Embalmed
12-06-2008, 09:21
I enjoy both games, though I do believe WHFB has slightly more tactics.

I find that 40k plays on each units stats more, in WHFB a weak unit can make a big difference if used well, this doesn't happen a lot in 40k, but this does depend on the scenario.

Lister of Smee
12-06-2008, 09:51
I think that 40k has the potential to have lots of tactics but individual codex's have squandered this.

An example of tactics based around the main rules that are neuterd by codex's is trying to pin down and de-moralise the enemy,

Almost every army is immune to leadership problems because of fearless, mob rule, syphanis, iron disiplin, marks etc

I think that if leadership and moral were weakend in each codex then 40k would gain alot of the tactics that are used in games like Necromunda.

I have found that the use of flawed tactics and strategy is more punishing in fantasy then in 40k.

Chaos and Evil
12-06-2008, 10:14
One game requires Strategy (fantasy) the other requires Tactics (40k)

You have it largely backwards, IMHO.

40k is a game of strategies ... You pick your killer army list and your overall plan, and once you hit the table you let your army go about its business ; Once your army hits the table in 40k, there are generally few decisions to make (Tactical choices), you simply follow your pre-prepared plan (The Strategy).

40k is a VERY strategic game.


In Warhammer Fantasy, you pick your army list (Which determines your Strategy), but the emphasis placed on the *movement phase* in Warhammer Fantasy (Due to the ability to break rank bonuses and claim flanking bonuses, etc, when charging) means that there are many more decisions to be made in-game in a game of Warhammer Fantasy.

That's why Warhammer Fantasy's main target demographic (Mid teens) is pitched slightly older than Warhammer 40k's target demographic (Early teens).

Of course, both systems have far less Tactics and Strategy than Epic (http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=List_Models&code=300814&orignav=300808) or Warmaster (http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=List_Models&code=300815&orignav=300808), but that's because those two games' target demographic is adults, rather than teens.

I enjoy and play 40k and WFB equally, in fact I'm playing a lot more 40k lately ever since my local GW got their 5th edition preview book, but there's no way I'd try and claim the game system provides something it doesn't, because as I said, I'm aware of Epic which is set in the exact same setting and does have oodles of Strategy and Tactics.


The new scenario system of 5th edition does go some way to raising 40k's level of tactical possibilities, by the way.

Doomseer
12-06-2008, 10:28
It's always good when people are dismissive!! There are some laughable posts in this thread and I'm enjoying it immensely!

40K vs. WFB?!! Noooooooooo!

Eulenspiegel
12-06-2008, 10:35
Can´t the Fantasy players start a thread in their own forum, where they pat their backs every now and then when they feel the need? I think a mod will even make it sticky (the thread, not the patting).

Just leave us 40K ****** to wallow in our ignorance, please :angel:

Havock
12-06-2008, 10:48
there are no magic spells in 40k to stop shooting, there are no ghosts in 40k for bullets to pass through, and there are no units that can jump behind the enemy and NOT get shot

Raid lord, howler wind.

Gunlines are stopped by playing points denial.
"Hey look, now everything in out of LoS"...

And to those who argue that 'more rules does not = more tactics': I point you to Classic Battletech, it has plenty of rules yet is more balanced and is more tactical than 40k.

Mike KK
12-06-2008, 10:56
I think these arguments of whether 40k or fantasy is more tactical should stop. I mean no matter how strong an argument someone presents someone else will always try to destroy it.
Mabye instead of this pointless talk we should just enjoy this hobby and not waste time with this continued rivalry. I mean this will never achieve anything they are both different games with different tactics.
Can we just leave it at that and enjoy our games.
Cheers:D

i second this

Pacific
12-06-2008, 10:58
Without getting into too much of an argument, which seems to have been done by enough people already and is by and large purely subjective, I would say the proof is in the pudding.

Alot of players I know stopped playing 40k years ago, but still play Fantasy alongside game systems from other developers. I know very few players to which the opposite is true. They aren't necessarily people who played WFB before 40k was released, and I know this to extend to clubs beyond the one at which I play.

Mewy
12-06-2008, 11:27
Without getting into too much of an argument, which seems to have been done by enough people already and is by and large purely subjective, I would say the proof is in the pudding.

Alot of players I know stopped playing 40k years ago, but still play Fantasy alongside game systems from other developers. I know very few players to which the opposite is true. They aren't necessarily people who played WFB before 40k was released, and I know this to extend to clubs beyond the one at which I play.

Seems to be the way of Mac vs PC, you always hear a PC user getting sick and tired of Microsoft's bulls&%t and going to mac, but never vice versa.

However saying that, this isn't the case at my gaming place. Everyone plays both systems.

EVIL INC
12-06-2008, 12:17
Actually, that has nothing to do with the game and on top of that is an outright lie.
Some do go to fantasy because they start playing when they are younger and can only afford to play the game that costs less money to play. Then when they get older, they start to play the game that costs more because they have gotten jobs to where they can afford to.
Then again, there are others like myself and many others I have seen over the years that started with fantasy and moved on to 40k for various reasons, these include having different priorities as to how money should be spent among other reasons.
So there is no pudding and there is no proof beyond simple facts. The simple facts remain, that one is just as tactically challenging as the other. Each time one of these threads comes up, we point out exact facts and instances and the fantasy players are left with thier simple argument of "well, fantasy is just better and more tactical and thats that" without having any shred of evidence to support thier claims while the 40k players just bury them with evidence and proof to the contrary until they are sent packing with thier tails between thier legs.

Chaos and Evil
12-06-2008, 12:22
"well, fantasy is just better and more tactical and thats that"

For anyone who's played a wide range of games, it's undeniable to say that 4th edition 40k is less tactical than Warhammer Fantasy... but better?

Better is a subjective opinion.

Both games have unique appeal.

TheOverlord
12-06-2008, 12:28
A game has about as much tactics as the players are willing to invest into said game. If a game lacks tactics, then it is the players fault. If a player says 40k has no tactics, that means that said player plays said game with said lack of tactics.

That is all.

IronNerd
12-06-2008, 12:36
I have played both fantasy and 40k equally and while at first glance 40k may seem much more simple, it isn't as simple or obvious as it seems. I have seen too many 40k players with "uncompetitive" lists do well at the game even versus "power-lists" to believe that it all comes down to the army list.

A good player with a "bad list" can still beat a bad player with a "good list". That alone shows that there are indeed tactics in 40k.

I was about to make this same point, but I didn't feel like all that typing. QFT.

EVIL INC
12-06-2008, 12:57
For anyone who's played a wide range of games, it's undeniable to say that 4th edition 40k is less tactical than Warhammer Fantasy... but better?

Better is a subjective opinion.

Both games have unique appeal.

It is actually undeniable that it is NOT less tactical. Could you please provide evidence? Just be sure to read through the entire thread first and see where evidence to the contrary of what you said has been provided repeatedly.

ehlijen
12-06-2008, 12:59
Tactics is about choosing the right course of action form several available. It is also about removing such choices from the enemy. Therefore, when playing against someone with superior tactics it can seem that, as you don't really have a choice anymore (what with the enemy having made them for you without you noticing), there are no choices at all. This especially happens when people don't use tactics and rely on the dice to begin with.

In short: If:
a) you don't use tactics
b) your opponent uses tactics
then:
a) he forces your tactic
b) you are dancing to his tune

Turning around and claiming that there were no tactics to begin with is just refusing to learn from mistakes. Yes, 40k has its problems. Lack of tactics isn't one of them though. Unless it's a crapshoot on planet bowling ball. Brain cells are forbidden on that world...

EVIL INC
12-06-2008, 13:11
Turning around and claiming that there were no tactics to begin with is just refusing to learn from mistakes. Yes, 40k has its problems. Lack of tactics isn't one of them though. Unless it's a crapshoot on planet bowling ball. Brain cells are forbidden on that world...

Even then, tactics are involved as...
1. You choose which targets to shoot at in what order and in which order you want to shoot at those targets with which of your units.
2. Which targets to assault.
3. Which units you choose to move in front of others in order to force the opponant to make leadership rolls to shoot at the "juicier" targets in the rear.
4. Choosing to use vehicles to provide cover.
5. The list goes on.

Chaos and Evil
12-06-2008, 13:22
It is actually undeniable that it is NOT less tactical. Could you please provide evidence? Just be sure to read through the entire thread first and see where evidence to the contrary of what you said has been provided repeatedly.

Please see post 116 in this thread

antin3
12-06-2008, 13:26
Who cares...I mean really,play because you enjoy the game whichever it might be, the nerd Hierarchy be damned.

Morganstern
12-06-2008, 13:31
there deffinatly are tactics in 40k. I have been playing 40k for 14 years and I have found that regardless of what anyone may say I can win most games I play because I think tactically about what I am doing, regardless of what army I am using or what list i am using.

Lame Duck
12-06-2008, 13:41
I find fantasy boring, with worse models, and worse fluff and a more tiresome playing style.

But Fantasy is more tactical. This doesn't mean 40K isn't tactical, but 40K is far more dependant on your list than how you use it.

Edit: Looking back through the thread my view is the same as Aaron and Chaos&Evil, so i'm not going to repeat it.

EVIL INC
12-06-2008, 13:53
Read post 116. There is nothing in it to even hint that fantasy is better or even more tactical. certainly not any evidence. It is only a post giving an opinion. I think you for the effort though.:)
Here are a few posts that you might find interesting as they give ACTUAL evidence that 40k is just as tactical as fantasy....
2, 5, 20, 53, 73, 80, 94, 95, 97 (figured I would add that in as an example of why those who think they are better then everyone else should not go into forums for games they dont play in order to to troll), 98, 104, 109, 125, 128, 129.

Shadowb|ade
12-06-2008, 14:00
i second this

Third through to five hundred and fiftieth this.

Aaron
12-06-2008, 14:01
Even then, tactics are involved as...
1. You choose which targets to shoot at in what order and in which order you want to shoot at those targets with which of your units.
2. Which targets to assault.
3. Which units you choose to move in front of others in order to force the opponant to make leadership rolls to shoot at the "juicier" targets in the rear.
4. Choosing to use vehicles to provide cover.
5. The list goes on.

But, as pointed out, how many of these tactics aren't directly applicable to fantasy or have a rough equivalent? 1 and 2 are also in Fantasy. 3 and 4 have equivalents in Fantasy as units/monsters block LoS.

Think about when you're charging a unit...

40K:
Choose unit to attack, shoot them with as many guns as possible, make sure you've judged the distance correctly, slam into the unit.

Fantasy:
Choose unit to attack, make sure you've judged the distance correctly and there's no compulsory movement units that might block your way, consider who you might be exposing your flank/rear to, consider whether the unit causing fear/terror, consider what their charge reaction might be, slam into unit.

40K involves tactics. That's unquestionable. However, I think it's easily argued that Fantasy requires more judgement.

(As an aside, I think Blood Bowl is the best game GW has ever made. I'm glad Jervis is involved with 5th edition.)

EVIL INC
12-06-2008, 14:07
But, as pointed out, how many of these tactics aren't directly applicable to fantasy or have a rough equivalent? 1 and 2 are also in Fantasy. 3 and 4 have equivalents in Fantasy as units/monsters block LoS.

Think about when you're charging a unit...

40K:
Choose unit to attack, shoot them with as many guns as possible, make sure you've judged the distance correctly, slam into the unit.

Fantasy:
Choose unit to attack, make sure you've judged the distance correctly and there's no compulsory movement units that might block your way, consider who you might be exposing your flank/rear to, consider whether the unit causing fear/terror, consider what their charge reaction might be, slam into unit.

40K involves tactics. That's unquestionable. However, I think it's easily argued that Fantasy requires more judgement.

(As an aside, I think Blood Bowl is the best game GW has ever made. I'm glad Jervis is involved with 5th edition.)
You see Aaron, the fantasy players are saying that all of the above apply only to fantasy and not to 40k. I was only pointing out that they DO apply to 40k and can be used. No one has said that fantasy is not tactical at all. It is the fasntasy players trying to convince us that 40k has no tactics. Actually looking back, when a monstrous creature dies in fantasy, does it's body stay on board to be use as cover the same way a "tank" does in 40k? The placement of tanks in 40k is decided upon often by how tactically usefull the ruins will be to you when it gets destroyed. That can be an example of one of the tactics that does not exist in fantasy that does in 40k.
40k = Choose a target, tactically move units so that they may fire at the target. Tactically position a unit so that it can assault said target. This being done while the opponant is tactically trying to stop you from doing this or is tactically leaving it there as a screen for other things (for example leaving a 30 man conscript squad led by a commissay to tie up a dread). Then tactically choose from which direction you wish to assault in order to be the most effective.
Fantasy = See above with no differences.

Many of the tactics involved may indeed not be present in fantasy. That does not negate them as tactics. That is like a checkers player saying that pieces in chess do not "jump" opposing pieces to remove them from the board so the way they do remove them does not count.
The same goes for fantasy, just because there are tactics in fantasy that do not equally convert into 40k, that they do not count.
The thing is, almost every possibility in fantasy has a 40k equivelant and vice versa. The only difference is that in fantasy, you have to block your models together into tight formations. Because these formations have such rigid fronts/sides and rears, moving is more difficult. That does not add or subtract tactics because both players have the same thing to deal with. assaulting a unit's side or rear gets you an advantage just as it does in both games.
You might say that fantasy units may only shoot to the front while 40k has a 360 degree fire arc. That is true. In fantasy you tactically move your models to face a certain way forcing your opponant to tactically move out of your fire arc. In 40k, you tactically move your unit to cover a larger field of fire (but likewise, you have to make the tactical decision to do this because since the enemy has the same fire arcs you do, it is not as safe to do this as it is in fantasy. Then your enemy tactically decides if they want to move into that field of fire to try to sdhoot back, make it across alive or to make tactical use of cover.
Both have an equal ammount of tactics, they are used in different ways to gain different advantages.

Bran Dawri
12-06-2008, 14:25
The simple facts remain, that one is just as tactically challenging as the other. Each time one of these threads comes up, we point out exact facts and instances and the fantasy players are left with thier simple argument of "well, fantasy is just better and more tactical and thats that" without having any shred of evidence to support thier claims while the 40k players just bury them with evidence and proof to the contrary until they are sent packing with thier tails between thier legs.

Wrong.
The only "proof" and arguments I see coming to support that 40K does indeed have tactics are: look, you have to/can do this and this and this, so there are indeed tactics in 40K.
That is absolutely true. The argument, however, is not that 40K has no tactics at all, merely that its tactics are far more simplistic than the ones utilised in fantasy.
And after a while we fantasy players get bored with 40K-ers repeating the same point which doesn't even address the argument as defense, we shrug, give up, and go on to play the more interesting game.

EVIL INC
12-06-2008, 14:34
Wrong, it is actually when you are proven wrong that you go leave.
If you feel you are soooo much better then us because you play fantasy, then dont bother coming to the 40k forum to troll.
A tactics that requires a side rule and level to measure is no more tactical then one that you can "eyeball". Easier to judge, yes. More simple, most definately not.
But again, you only state an opinion rather then provide any actual evidence while we have been burying you in evidence and proof.
More interesting? To you maybe. To others, most definately not. I know that I started with fantasy and then later upgraded to 40k because I found the game more interesting, complex.

Bookwrak
12-06-2008, 14:49
We shrug, give up, and go on to play the more interesting game.

Now now now, we really don't need to go off on a tangent about the merits of Epic 40K.

Meriwether
12-06-2008, 14:59
It is my opinion that 40K is significantly more tactical than fantasy, precisely because fantasy has rules that reward tactics (such as flank and rear charges), whereas in 40K you must create your own advantages.

I almost never lose a game of 40K, even when I switch armies with my opponents, just to prove to them how tactical the game is. (Cocky I am, but this has bearing on my point. Experience-wise, I've been playing both games since the old Warbands rules in Slaves to Darkness and The Lost and the Damned... about as long as a person *can* have been playing these games.) People who think that 40K isn't tactical lose, badly, to those who know that it is.

Maneuvering (to either deny or get charges and/or rapid-fire), target selection, use of cover and so forth are all tactical decisions, but they pale in comparison to the significance of combined arms tactics. Properly supporting your units with one another is more critical and less obvious in 40K than in fantasy, and in general is harder to do. The psychological game in 40K is more interesting to me as well, because the added fluidity of troop movement creates more options than what you get in a set piece rank-and-file game.


Has it ever occured to you that there are more tatics because there are more rules?

This quote is indicative of the malaise of which I speak. Fantasy explicity rewards you for using 'traditional' set-piece like tactics. In 40K you must make your own rewards -- and those who do this well win games.


Flanks and Rear charges being in the game, making the direction of a charge possibly make a difference, already suggests a greater amount of tactics. People are not confused on this fact.

I'm not confused, but I disagree. Combined squad tactics and outmaneuvering your opponent is every bit as crucial in 40K. Just because the game doesn't explicitly reward the maneuver doesn't mean that it isn't a tactically sound thing to do.


We're not saying 40k sucks or that fantasy is better only that fantasy has more options and more tactics.

Reiteration doesn't make it true. :D


I've been playing both systems from many years and I enjoy them both but to be honest a game of fantasy requires a lot more consideration before each move and the movement phase is used for more than charge or retreat.

I disagree. Positioning and movement is absolutely critical in both games. My Orks versus my brother's Tyranids are all about maneuvering and mutual support. Every game is fun as heck, and we each know that the first person to make a *tactical* mistake is most likely going to lose.


But yeah, not being as greatly punished for poor positioning is the biggest issue for me when it comes to how tactical a game is.

In 40K you will get absolutely hammered for poor positioning by a competent opponent.


In short: just because tactical incentives aren't spoon-fed, doesn't mean they aren't there.

QFT. I'd add that it makes a more interesting game.


First of all, a bad player with a good list still beats a good player with a bad list.

Pish-posh. This isn't true at all in my experience. I switch armies with my opponents on a regular basis just to disprove this misconception.

Go play whatever games you like to play, in the ways you like to play them, have fun, and be good sportsmen.

Meri

EVIL INC
12-06-2008, 15:09
*Applauds*

Bran Dawri
12-06-2008, 15:09
Wrong, it is actually when you are proven wrong that you go leave.
If you feel you are soooo much better then us because you play fantasy, then dont bother coming to the 40k forum to troll.

Actually, I play both. I just prefer fantasy, because it does, in fact, require a larger expenditure of brainpower than 40K. When playing fantasy, I have to think more than when I play 40K, against the same, very capable opponents.
This alone is proof enough to me that fantasy is a more tactical game.
Plus, I'm really not interested in converting anyone happy with 40K to unhappily pick up fantasy. Play whatever game you will. I do, however, dislike false arguments.


A tactics that requires a side rule and level to measure is no more tactical then one that you can "eyeball". Easier to judge, yes. More simple, most definately not.

To me, easier to judge = more simple. It's really as simple as that. The basic desicions to make are the same in 40K as in fantasy. In fantasy there are just more influencing factors to consider, and the impacts of those factors tend to be larger, making the decisions harder, and fantasy a more tactical game.
Also the argument makes no sense, as there are very few tactics in fantasy that you are allowed to measure before deciding on them. In fact I can't think of any right now, while in 40K, I can think of Stormtroopers, to start with.


But again, you only state an opinion rather then provide any actual evidence while we have been burying you in evidence and proof.

Examples already given to this effect are legion in this thread. Movement rules, leadership (especially these two), magic, leadership, working out likely combat results to decide whether or not to charge,
Claiming that we don't supply proof when so many examples are already given doesn't make the proof go away.


More interesting? To you maybe. To others, most definately not. I know that I started with fantasy and then later upgraded to 40k because I found the game more interesting, complex.

Suit yourself. I'll happily continue to play both, but when I want a greater challenge, I'll always pick fantasy.

Edit: I completely endorse the last line in Meri's post.

Meriwether
12-06-2008, 15:37
Examples already given to this effect are legion in this thread. Movement rules, leadership (especially these two), magic, leadership, working out likely combat results to decide whether or not to charge

You mention leadership twice. I think that leadership does not play nearly as large a role in 40K as it should -- but that's a different argument as to whether or not 40K is tactical.

Meri

EVIL INC
12-06-2008, 15:53
Actually, I play both. I just prefer fantasy, because it does, in fact, require a larger expenditure of brainpower than 40K. When playing fantasy, I have to think more than when I play 40K, against the same, very capable opponents.
This alone is proof enough to me that fantasy is a more tactical game.
Plus, I'm really not interested in converting anyone happy with 40K to unhappily pick up fantasy. Play whatever game you will. I do, however, dislike false arguments.



To me, easier to judge = more simple. It's really as simple as that. The basic desicions to make are the same in 40K as in fantasy. In fantasy there are just more influencing factors to consider, and the impacts of those factors tend to be larger, making the decisions harder, and fantasy a more tactical game.
Also the argument makes no sense, as there are very few tactics in fantasy that you are allowed to measure before deciding on them. In fact I can't think of any right now, while in 40K, I can think of Stormtroopers, to start with.



Examples already given to this effect are legion in this thread. Movement rules, leadership (especially these two), magic, leadership, working out likely combat results to decide whether or not to charge,
Claiming that we don't supply proof when so many examples are already given doesn't make the proof go away.



Suit yourself. I'll happily continue to play both, but when I want a greater challenge, I'll always pick fantasy.

Edit: I completely endorse the last line in Meri's post.
In truth, it requires no more "brainpower" to play one then it does the other. Now if you personally dont like one, you will obviously put less effort into it but that has no relativity on what it takes to play it effectively. I could also be that you simply are lacking in the ability to employ the tactics that are needed and thus say they dont exist in order to try to look good.
If you dislike false arguments, then stop using them and stick to the cold hard facts as we have been doing throughout.
Easier to judge does not = more simple. Simple fact, like it or lump it but you are dead wrong.
In fantasy there are no more factors to consider then there are in 40k. Again, like it or lump it. We have cold hard facts to back up our statements and have provided them.
All movements and ranges need to be measured in both games.
Your "examples, have been proven false. relying on lies does not make your argument. You need to come up with cold hard facts and actual examples as we have done. Claiming you have priovided proof when you have YET to provide any at all doesnt make the fact go away that you need to start providing some. Of course, none exists so you will be a looong time searching for some.
Continue to live in your lil fantasy world all you wish. Enjoy yourself as a matter of fact. Just stop coming here and trolling. When I want a "greater challenge" I will play whichever I feel like at the time because both games provide challenge in equal measure (as has been proven time and time again).

eek107
12-06-2008, 15:56
Thats why chess has no strategy and its level of tactics is completely different.

Chess does have strategy. If you don't have an overall strategy of your own to capture their king, then you're playing a defensive game to protect your own, reacting to the moves of your opponent... which is a strategy.
But my point was that less rules =/= less tactics. Apply that rule to compare 40k and Epic and I'm sure many players would laugh at the very idea.


Im not sure why this is relevant...

It was a point raised near the beginning of the thread in support of fantasy having more tactics.


That is the only time when flanks in 40k actually matter. Kill zone in CC and shooting? That requires as much thought as me turning on a light bulb when its dark. Its called common sense.
Setting up firing lanes requires much less thought than maneuvering for a charge. In fact, setting up firing lanes should also fall under the common sense category.

So common sense tactics aren't tactics?
I could just as easily say that it makes sense not exposing your blocks of foot troops to a flank/rear charge by a unit of knights, that's common sense so the maneuvering to do so doesn't count as thinking tactically?


Whereas for 40k most of the time is "WAAAGH CHARGE!" Screw the bullets and screw morale. How can flexibility matter in 40k if mistakes are not punished?

Well, sure, if you want to play that way. But mistakes are punished if players use skill. It's easy enough to blunt a mindless charge by proper use of speedbumps (whether terrain or small units) and concentrated fire, for example.


Moving through terrain hardly matters for the armies whose only goal is to get into CC. Most of the time they can get snagged up and take the hit, and come charging in without fear of leadership.

Not true. Let's take the typical example: Genestealers. Their only goal is CC, and moving through errain is their most logical way of doing so, since they'll get shot to shreds in the open. They rely on rolling well to get through the terrain, and if not then it'll be the same case as the open except, at best, half the kills are prevented. Which is still often enough to decimate their small units. Granted, they're 'nids, so their Ld is less of a concern for them, but upon reaching CC they need to do enough damage to break the enemy if they're capable of consolidation, or just the right amount to break them next turn to get a charge.


For 40k a single troop model can have 4 attacks. In fantasy they usually have 1.

In 40k they usually have one as well. Tactical Marines, Necrons, IG, Termagants, Guardians...


Lets see, MEQ's apply to 5/12 armies, nids dont care about jack **** because the synapse rule is stupid, Orks hardly ever give a damn about anything, the demons are insane, the DE is hardly ever in a situation when it does matter...what armies does that leave us? Not a whole lot.

Like I said, stack the odds against most armies and they break. They all pay for high leadership, whether that be through actual expense (MEQ) or that leadership being fragile (synapse). Not deciding to take advantage of things like Leadership modifiers and synapse creatures doesn't mean you can't.


In 40k movement and leadership hardly matters. When these two hardly matter, how can 40k have more, or even the same level, of strategy and tactics as in fantasy?

But they do. It's easy enough to say X, Y and Z don't matter if nobody uses them. I could go and play a game of fantasy right now where we line up opposite each other and charge straight ahead, then come here and bitch about how fantasy has no tactics. Doesn't make any of it true.


For anyone who's played a wide range of games, it's undeniable to say that 4th edition 40k is less tactical than Warhammer Fantasy...

Why? All you need to do to make that comparison is play 40k and fantasy. Other games are completely irrelevant.



40K:
Choose unit to attack, shoot them with as many guns as possible, make sure you've judged the distance correctly, slam into the unit.

Fantasy:
Choose unit to attack, make sure you've judged the distance correctly and there's no compulsory movement units that might block your way, consider who you might be exposing your flank/rear to, consider whether the unit causing fear/terror, consider what their charge reaction might be, slam into unit.

40k:
Choose unit to attack, consider whether or not to rapid fire or charge, consider whether or not you can spare another unit's shooting to soften them up, consider who you might be exposing your unit to for a countercharge and what reinforcements of your own you can bring in, consider whether breaking them this turn or next is more beneficial, consider whether or not you can indeed achieve this, consider the placement of their models (power fists, heavy weapons ICs etc) and how they will affect combat, make sure you've judged the distance correctly, slam into unit.

Meriwether
12-06-2008, 16:14
Easier to judge does not = more simple.


But my point was that less rules =/= less tactics. Apply that rule to compare 40k and Epic and I'm sure many players would laugh at the very idea.

Take "Go" for example -- easy to judge (you either win, lose, or 'tie'), but a tremendously complex game with a lot of strategic and tactical thinking that goes into it.


So common sense tactics aren't tactics?
I could just as easily say that it makes sense not exposing your blocks of foot troops to a flank/rear charge by a unit of knights, that's common sense so the maneuvering to do so doesn't count as thinking tactically?

It's common sense tactics to charge a unit in the front to lock it into place, then charge it from the flank or rear now that it's exposed. It's *especially* common sense when you are given explicit advantages in the system for doing so.

Fantasy dangles a shiny object in your face that says 'do this and you will be rewarded!' 40K does not, and that makes 40K a more interesting game to play IMNHO.

Tactics in 40K wins games every bit as much as in fantasy. That it is less obvious in 40K may speak somewhat to the subtlety required to play each game well.

Meri

Lame Duck
12-06-2008, 16:20
We can go on and on about tactics, and it is blatantly obvious that both fantasy and 40k are both tactical games.

As for 40k vs fantasy, I'll put this idea forwards.

When I think of a game with absolutely NO tactics, it would be each player rolls a D6, higher value wins. Who wins purely relies on luck.

Now, when I think of a game which soley relies on tactics/strategies, I think of chess. There is absolutely no luck involved whatsoever.

These are two extreme examples, but it gives us a 'scale'.


Now my point is that in fantasy you can create scenarios where luck plays less of a role (flank charges, rank bonuses etc). And that is basically why I see fantasy as being more tactical/challenging. This isn't saying 40k isn't, or that 40k is easy peasy lemon squeezy, just that fantasy is, to some extent, more tactical.

That said however, I'd choose to play 40k over fantasy anyday. Plus 40k fluff and models are better aswell.

EVIL INC
12-06-2008, 17:21
Now my point is that in fantasy you can create scenarios where luck plays less of a role (flank charges, rank bonuses etc). And that is basically why I see fantasy as being more tactical/challenging. This isn't saying 40k isn't, or that 40k is easy peasy lemon squeezy, just that fantasy is, to some extent, more tactical.

That said however, I'd choose to play 40k over fantasy anyday. Plus 40k fluff and models are better aswell.
In 40k it is just as easy to make luck play less of a role. The difference is that in fantasy you have a book telling you exactly what to do in order to do so. In 40k, you have to actually be able to read the battlefield in addition to a book in order to make luck play less of a role and tactically play to make it so.
Now, I like 40k models and fluff more then fantasy. That is my opinion and preference rather then it being actually better.
Likewise, because I prefer to play 40k does not make me a better or more intelligent person then someone who plays fantasy. Now if we could get some of the fantasy trollers to feel that way, we would be set. (not you Lame Duck, you just happen to be the last to post before me. :)

Lame Duck
12-06-2008, 17:48
Yes, I know when I said 'better' it was a matter of opinion, I just didn't think I had to spell it out.

Anyway.

'In 40k it is just as easy to make luck play less of a role.' (Evil INC)

Yes, you can in 40k (cover saves etc) but those are applicable in fantasy aswell. Difference is there are more scenarios in fantasy which make luck play less of a role.

In 40k, lets say for cc, you combine charges to add more dice.
But in fantasy, you combine charges to add dice and benefit from bonuses. You are rewarded for a more 'tactically challenging manouver', where as in 40k you arent. Also, once getting into these positions you have to take into account counter charges AND where theyre coming from (flank/rear) and how their bonuses will effect but in 40k not so much.

Another example is having a block of troops at a slight angle to the rest of your army. They get charged, and this presents the charging unit's flank to you, you charge and get the bonuses.


40k is tactical, just not as tactical as fantasy.
But I would alway choose to play 40K, because I find it more enjoyable.

As for troling fantasy players , an idiot who plays chess isn't smarter than a genius who plays checkers.

Not that fantasy players are idiots of course.

brain_dead_1st
12-06-2008, 17:48
well I think all you have to say is "you possition a block of men i position individual men... which is harder?"

In Life more rules does not equal more tactics,
WWI was a war with many rules but few tactics.
Nepoleonic war was a plenty with rules and tactics
WWII was lacking in rules but very tactical.

In the end both are dice based games so regardless of what you say its all down to the dice and the terrain.

Oh and I've never seen a city fight style fantasy battle... city fight being one of the most tactical styles of games involving loads of meneuvering and repositioning of forces.

Stinkfoot
12-06-2008, 17:57
Ok, earlier I attacked eek for saying crazy things. I mis-attributed some quotes to him, and apologized. The real culprit of this crazy-thing-saying is Evil Inc (I think it's the leading "e" that confused me).

Evil Inc, please stop making such grandiose and obviously false statements. The odds that two different things have exactly the same amount of anything, including tactics, is so unlikely that we can basically assume any argument claiming they are equal to be false a priori. Anyway, that's somewhat beside the point.

Do you just not read other people's posts? Please point out where you provide irrefutable evidence that 40k is as tactical as fantasy. It sounds to me like you try to attack points completely out of the context they were made, then discard anything you find too hard to argue with. Take posts 137 (by you) and 136 (by Aaron). You restate what he said about 40k, then claim fantasy is the same. In so doing you just ignored what he wrote about fantasy being different, even though it is literally 4 inches from what you wrote! And you do this repeatedly!

Evil Inc, you are being crazy and making hugely unfair arguments. Please stop.

By the way, this thread was started by a 40k player so don't accuse us WHFB players of trolling. We were just responding to the crazy things that you said, for the most part.

EVIL INC
12-06-2008, 17:59
Yes, I know when I said better it was a matter of opinion, I just didn't think I had to spell it out.

'In 40k it is just as easy to make luck play less of a role.' (Evil INC)

Yes, you can in 40k (cover saves etc) but those are applicable in fantasy aswell. Difference is there are more scenarios in fantasy which make luck play less of a role.

In 40k, lets say for cc, you combine charges to add more dice.
But in fantasy, you combine charges to add dice and benefit from bonuses. You are rewarded for a more 'tactically challenging manouver', where as in 40k you arent. Also, once getting into these positions you have to take into account counter charges AND where theyre coming from (flank/rear) and how their bonuses will effect but in 40k not so much.

Another example is having a block of troops at a slight angle to the rest of your army. They get charged, and this presents the charging unit's flank to you, you charge and get the bonuses.


40k is tactical, just not as tactical as fantasy.
But I would alway choose to play 40K, because I find it more enjoyable.

As for troling fantasy players , an idiot who plays chess isn't smarter than a genius who plays checkers.

Not that fantasy players are idiots of course.
I understand what you meant when you said 40k was better. You are one of the ones with a decent attitude as well as open mind here. I really do appreciate that. We may disagree but we are treating one another with decency and respect as human beings. I was just giving you a hard time and poking fun at those who are serious when they say one is "better" then the other. ;)
True, you dont get +1 bonuses or such for flank or rear assaults in 40k (that just sounds wrong lol). That does not mean you dont get bonuses though. You need to be carefull of your positioning of specific models in a unit. For example, keep the heavy and special weapons protected. Placing your champion with the "goodies" where they cane be most effective. Same goes when assaulting. be sure to assault the weak flank or rear so that youcan take out the expensive and damaging weapons while leaving the enemy close combat specialist out of the fight. The only think is that you need to be able to read the battlefield tactically to understand what you need to do rather then have a picture drawn of it for you in a book. Not to mention cover and it's effects on close combat, assaults and such.
I wouldnt say that fantasy players are idiots. It is only a small minority of them that come here to troll. Most understand that one is just as tactical and as "good" as the other. It is just a tiny minority who likes to stir up trouble when they get bored rather then spend thier time constructively. Or it might be that the misguided fools have fooled themselves into believing thier own lies.

Meriwether
12-06-2008, 18:13
How funny is it that I agree with Evil Inc's positions but not most of his arguments?

Meri

EVIL INC
12-06-2008, 18:18
LOL, great minds do not always think exactly alike.
Then again, my disability makes it hard for me to always "speak clearly" or make myself fully understood. I am agreeing with almost everything you say, you are just better at saying it then I am.

40kdhs
12-06-2008, 18:19
Warhammer is a dice game. How do you know that your tactic or strategy works? You roll the dices. The dices determine whether you win or loose.

Warhammer is NOT a CHESS game.

Meriwether
12-06-2008, 18:26
Warhammer is a dice game. How do you know that your tactic or strategy works? You roll the dices. The dices determine whether you win or loose.

Warhammer is NOT a CHESS game.

I fail to see the relevance of this post. In 40K, tactics (and strategy) are used to maximize the probability that the 'rolling of the dices' have the desired outcome.

It's rather trivial to argue that if most of the dice rolled are rolls that determine whether or not your opponents' models are going to die, things are going your way. If most of the dice rolled are rolls that determine whether or not your models are going to die, things are not going your way.

Do die rolls ultimately determine what happens? Certainly, yes. But that doesn't mean that you don't have a *great deal* of influence over what die rolls are made.

Meri

EVIL INC
12-06-2008, 18:33
Not to mention that through tactical play, you can influance what numbers need to be rolled. Example, whittling down a unit an independant character is attached to through small arms fire from one unit so that the las cannon in a second unit can then fire at the independant character standing all by himself. In this way, you influanced what number needed to be rolled to kill the independant character to make the percentage much higher that you roll what is needed. True, luck can still make you roll that one to wound, but it plays a much lesser role then it would if you needed to roll a four plus.
Then you can influance whether or not the dice are allowed to be rolled. If you make proper use of cover, you can block los to your units to prevent large portions of your enemies army from even having the chance to shoot at or assault you at all.
Then there are such things as the numbers games. if you are able to tactically move such that you get to make 3 close combat attacks, you are rolling more dice then if you made a less tactical move to only get 18 close combat attacks. The more dice you roll to hit the opponant, the more likely you are to hit them.

Malorian
12-06-2008, 18:43
In 40K most of the skill that wins you the game comes from making your list and deployment. Once in the game, thanks to the AP system it's it pretty obvious what to shoot and what to do. Sure there are times when you have to really decide between if it's better to shoot that tank or finish off that squad, but it just comes down to mathhammer.

In fantasy the list can be important, but it isn't as critical as in 40k. Deployment is a big deal and the way you deploy can win or lose you the game. Then of course the in game play is a big deal as well. Since it's a system of modifiers and not a you beat or not AP system your targets are not as obvious and it depends on your game plan. You also have to think several turns ahead since it's so important what side of a unit you hit and how you use psycology to your advantage (if I beat this unit in combat it will cause panic in that unit, and I should be able to hit this unit, and I'm covered by that unit...).

What it really comes down to is that I could pull out my marines and win a game even if I was half asleep, however if I did the same with one of my fantasy armies I would get destroyed.

On a scale out of ten for tactics needed in order to win, 40K is a 4 and fantasy is a 7.

Lame Duck
12-06-2008, 18:43
That does not mean you dont get bonuses though. You need to be carefull of your positioning of specific models in a unit. For example, keep the heavy and special weapons protected. Placing your champion with the "goodies" where they cane be most effective. Same goes when assaulting. be sure to assault the weak flank or rear so that youcan take out the expensive and damaging weapons while leaving the enemy close combat specialist out of the fight.

My position is, that (in general) a game with less luck is a game with more tactics. Both games can eliminate luck to some degree, fanatasy more so.

So yes, charging/combined charges in both fantasy and 40k help to swing the odds in your favour. But by a greater degree in fantasy, and this comes about with more 'lead up' to the charge in terms of manouvering.

Again, tactics DO play a part in 40k to a large degree. But tactics play a role in fantasy to a larger degree.

Aaron
12-06-2008, 19:11
All movements and ranges need to be measured in both games.

The problem with movement in 40K is that a lot of the movement is random, most significantly rough terrain and fleet of foot. It introduces an element of luck that simply isn't needed, in my opinion.

The only random movement in Fantasy is fleeing and some of the more whacky O&G contraptions.

Champsguy
12-06-2008, 19:12
Both games have tactics. Those tactics, however, are not always the same.

Fantasy places more emphasis on deployment. In 40K, deployment is rarely a factor. It really comes down to "do I deploy far forward, to get to HTH faster, or farther away, so they can't charge me" and "how many guys can I get in cover and/or totally block line of sight". Everything is a choice between being able to shoot/charge the other guy as soon as possible and keeping him from shooting/charging you. That is basically it. In Fantasy, you also have to deal with their very restrictive movement and LOS rules. That adds another layer of complexity and difficulty to deployment. Of course, you have less to worry about in shooting in Fantasy as well. An army that begins the game without cover or blocking terrain in Fantasy is normal. An army that does the same in 40K is dead. But overall, I find the Fantasy deployment system to be more difficult to master (you must think several turns ahead, not just making sure no LOS/clear firing lanes exist).

Movement in each game is different. Fantasy units use traditional Napoleonic movement. Formations of men walk forward. The only thing particularly important is calculating when, how, and who will charge. Rarely will units have special movement capabilities to out-flank you. Most of the time, units will march towards each other, carefully gauging charge distances. In 40K, alternative movement modes are common. Movement is not nearly as restrictive as it is in Fantasy. Improvisation is more important. Being flanked is common, even expected. It is easier to simply move models in 40K, without worrying about things such as facing, or often, terrain. However, this versatility applies to the enemy as well. Overall, movement difficulty seems to be a wash. Fantasy requires planning to make sure you don't screw up your own moves, while 40K requires planning to make sure your opponent can't come in with a surprise deep strike, or star engine across the board and end up behind you.

The magic phase is something that exists only in Fantasy. It is an additional requirement that players must take into account. Someone who brings no dispel dice is asking to get stomped.

The shooting phase is much more important to 40K. Most Fantasy shooting is rather weak and ineffective. Shielding units from shooting is not as important in the average Fantasy game as it is in 40K. Shooting in 40K requires much more decision making, because most units in Fantasy have limited targets they can engage.

Hand to hand in each game is different. Fantasy worries about rank bonus, flank charges, and combat resolution. The ultimate goal is to cause the opponent to fail a leadership check. 40K worries about kill radius, initiative, cover, and consolidation. The ultimate goal is to kill everyone in hand to hand, preferably in their turn. The tactics between the two are not really comparable, besides the idea that you'd like to kill more of them than they kill of you.

Fantasy makes leadership a more integral part of the game, but it also gives more big hammers that go against leadership. It is easy to get big leadership modifications in Fantasy. It is difficult in 40K. However, rarely have I seen players of either system make tactical decisions based upon leadership. The decisions remain the same. Fantasy just focuses on the outcome a bit more.

Overall, neither game requires an incredible amount of tactics. They are both relatively easy to learn. I mean, ten year olds can learn to play them, and can actually play them pretty well. These kids aren't exactly Bobby Fisher.

Warp Zero
12-06-2008, 19:19
In 40K most of the skill that wins you the game comes from making your list and deployment. Once in the game, thanks to the AP system it's it pretty obvious what to shoot and what to do. Sure there are times when you have to really decide between if it's better to shoot that tank or finish off that squad, but it just comes down to mathhammer.

In fantasy the list can be important, but it isn't as critical as in 40k. Deployment is a big deal and the way you deploy can win or lose you the game. Then of course the in game play is a big deal as well. Since it's a system of modifiers and not a you beat or not AP system your targets are not as obvious and it depends on your game plan. You also have to think several turns ahead since it's so important what side of a unit you hit and how you use psycology to your advantage (if I beat this unit in combat it will cause panic in that unit, and I should be able to hit this unit, and I'm covered by that unit...).

What it really comes down to is that I could pull out my marines and win a game even if I was half asleep, however if I did the same with one of my fantasy armies I would get destroyed.

On a scale out of ten for tactics needed in order to win, 40K is a 4 and fantasy is a 7.

Hmmm...this is interesting. I wonder if, with 40k, the tactics are more tied to you and your opponent's skill. Then Fantasy has it feel more tactical overall because of all the little conditions and rules it forces on you to get things right, thus its tactics are inbedded more in the rules. With 40k, the rules provide a place to use your tactics but it doesn't force you to do so. Obviously, those that have better tactics than others are going to win.

I think people that say they can win games half asleep are playing some really mediocre players. I've done my fair share of that too. And yes, it really didn't take much thought. But when I play against veteran and imaginitive players, its a sweatin' time every round! I heard one poster on Warseer say it best, something along the lines of, "with 40k, you get what you put into it." If both players aren't using tactics, then the game isn't tactical. I agree with this.

As I've played 40k over the years, I've gone through many phases of how I felt about the game mechanics. I went from complaining about codex balance, to complaining that the rules are too simple, to complaining about lack of tactics as well. As my skill grew with my fellow friends that started at the same time as I, our understanding and use of tactics got deeper. Maybe 40k is a game that is simple to learn, but hard to master. Maybe those that think it has no tactics are simply still stuck playing those that have yet to "master" it. Or they themselves are still fairly "young" and are not yet masters themselves. Oh, and playing for 5 years doesn't mean your a master. As my martial arts instructor once told me, "it doesn't matter if you do 1,000 punches a day, you'll still suck at punching if each punch you did was wrong."

I think that's what has happened with a lot of players that don't think 40k has tactics.

As for the comment that a less skilled player can beat a higher skilled player if his list is better: I disagree. I have an Eldar list that isn't cheezy because, quite frankly, I like to only field models I've painted. Have a limited choice to what I can bring. I can't bring three Falcons with holofields because, well...I don't own them. I new guy joined our group and played Necrons. He severely trounced the first three people he played. Then I got nervous and started to be really put off that a newbie was doing so well! Not only that, his skill was getting better and better with each game he played. Anyways, I finally fought him and won. Maybe that was a fluke.....so I fought him again some time later. I won again. My gimpy "no Falcon" Eldar army won against Rez Orb crazy Necrons. Yep....

Meriwether
12-06-2008, 19:25
In 40K most of the skill that wins you the game comes from making your list and deployment. Once in the game, thanks to the AP system it's it pretty obvious what to shoot and what to do.

I reject this unsupported assertion entirely.


Sure there are times when you have to really decide between if it's better to shoot that tank or finish off that squad, but it just comes down to mathhammer.

In fantasy the list can be important, but it isn't as critical as in 40k.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree here. I've already stated (more than once now) that I often switch armies with my opponents and then beat them. If I can do this relatively consistently, what does that say about the importance of the list?

**Obviously** the army list you choose matters. That's true in both games. That's not my point.


Deployment is a big deal and the way you deploy can win or lose you the game. Then of course the in game play is a big deal as well. Since it's a system of modifiers and not a you beat or not AP system your targets are not as obvious and it depends on your game plan. You also have to think several turns ahead since it's so important what side of a unit you hit and how you use psycology to your advantage

All true. But also all true of 40K. Even more interesting to me is the fact that the psychological aspect of the game in 40K isn't so much the miniatures, but the players. Psyching out your opponent is one of the best strategies you can use to win games in 40K -- and I've found that it's more prevalent in 40K than Fantasy.


What it really comes down to is that I could pull out my marines and win a game even if I was half asleep, however if I did the same with one of my fantasy armies I would get destroyed.

I'd love to play you in 40K, man, and try to disabuse you of this notion. :D

Meri

Malorian
12-06-2008, 19:50
Hmmm...this is interesting. I wonder if, with 40k, the tactics are more tied to you and your opponent's skill. Then Fantasy has it feel more tactical overall because of all the little conditions and rules it forces on you to get things right, thus its tactics are inbedded more in the rules. With 40k, the rules provide a place to use your tactics but it doesn't force you to do so. Obviously, those that have better tactics than others are going to win.

I think people that say they can win games half asleep are playing some really mediocre players. I've done my fair share of that too. And yes, it really didn't take much thought. But when I play against veteran and imaginitive players, its a sweatin' time every round! I heard one poster on Warseer say it best, something along the lines of, "with 40k, you get what you put into it." If both players aren't using tactics, then the game isn't tactical. I agree with this.

I absolutely agree with this. If both players put a a lot of thought into it, and your are playing some interesting mission like a city fight or something, or can really have a great game full of tactics.

I guess more tactics are just more commonly needed in fantasy. You can line your guys and shoot with your marines and be an average player in 40k, but unless you are running a pure gunline in fantasy, you are forced to think more.

lanrak
12-06-2008, 20:10
Hi all.
There are tactical options in both WH and 40k.

But force composition and deployment (which I consider strategic chioce ,)does have a larger impact on the game of 40k.
And that the amount of terrain has a more pronounced effect on the amount of tactical interchange in the game of 40k compared to WH.
(Due to 40k not having the same limitations on unit interaction that WH does.)

If some one was to say the tactical chioces in WH are more obviously in line with 'real world military tactics'.

And the tactics in 40k are more tied to the way the rules are written .
I would agree.

There are 'tactics' in the games of Monopoly, Cludo,Scrabble etc.
So having 'tactics' in a game where the player make any sort of chioce when playing is pretty much a given.:rolleyes:

If the post was to read
Lack of 'real world military tactics', intuative game play, effecient rules writing and proof reading in the 40k rule set?

Then this would be a more suitable subject for discussion.IMO.

And before some 'Numpty' says you cannot transpose real world tactics in to a fictional game , please consider how well this is done in games other than 40k.

Thanks for reading .
TTFN
Lanrak.

Chaos and Evil
12-06-2008, 21:01
Now now now, we really don't need to go off on a tangent about the merits of Epic 40K.

Well, it is very relevant to compare the two 'battle games' set in the 41st millenium (Warhammer 40k versus Epic).

Both have their cool points:

- Epic has a huge level of tactical challenge / tactical opportunity during games.
- 40k has teh 4w3some. :D

Each is appropriate for certain kinds of gamers (Epic, for example, is a horrible system to introduce wargaming to kids... it'd mostly fly over their heads as a dull 'detached' battle game when they really want to see the guy with the oversized fist punch the Ork Warboss...).



Chess does have strategy. If you don't have an overall strategy of your own to capture their king, then you're playing a defensive game to protect your own, reacting to the moves of your opponent... which is a strategy.
But my point was that less rules =/= less tactics. Apply that rule to compare 40K and Epic and I'm sure many players would laugh at the very idea.

Indeed, Epic has less rules than 40k... probably one half of the rules of 40k (If you count special rules for various armies, as Epic uses Universal Special Rules for the most part, something that is happening more in 40k as the years pass)... yet Epic is uncontestably the more tactical game system.

EVIL INC
12-06-2008, 21:08
lame Duck, you need to un derstand that you need to position yourself tactically to get the charge in 40k just as carefully as you do in fantasy.

Aaron, I understand what you mean about the randomness of some of the things such as moving through difficult areas. To me, this adds tactics rather then removes because you need to plan on that random movement. Because you cant COUNT on it being the number you need, you need to have backup plans and be flexible enough to compensate. These are tactical decisions. I also like it because it adds a touch of realism (yes, i know realism is a small part in a "sci fi/fantasy game, but I do enjoy it when I find it).

Stinkfoot, I have YET to make any sort of grandiose OR false statement. I have backed up each and every one of my statements with facts and proof. I have even referenced facts and proof provided by other posters. In other words, proven truth. Should you wish to see the proof and evidence, you should actually read the ENTIRE thread rather then picking and choosing to read only those posts that agree with what you want to see. The arguments I have made have been perfectly fair, perfectly supported by evidence and I have listened to opposing arguments with an open mind. My statements remain the same as the evidence has not changed. When you can provide proof that the facts given are false, I might then tchange my mind but as of yet you have failed to do so. Now, either take part in the discussion in the same respectable manner the rest of us are or leave. Trolling is frowned upon here.

There is also the fact that only a few have mentioned (I have purposely not mentioned it until now. 40k has a scenario syatom. These scenarios greatly add tactics as you need to control objectives, take loot counters, worry about the dark of night and such things as special rules for units being negated by the rules of the scenario. The scenarios add many more tactics and tactical decisions then the very few I just mentioned of course.

Chaos and Evil
12-06-2008, 21:17
you need to position yourself tactically to get the charge in 40K just as carefully as you do in fantasy.

'Get the charge'?

Sure, you need to judge whether or not you're in range to charge.

However, let's compare:

40k :

- Am I in range?
- Is my unit going to be slowed down by terrain?
- Will I get more kills than my enemy (Thereby winning the combat).

WFB:

- Am I in range?
- Is my unit going to be slowed down by terrain?
- Did I position myself (A turn ago) to charge the enemy in the flank or rear?
- Will my enemy stand and shoot? What damage might that do?
- Will my enemy flee?
- Will my enemy's flee move leave me moving forwards with a 'failed charge' move?
- Will that failed charge move leave my unit vulnerable to an enemy charge in the next turn?
- Will that failed charge move leave my unit blocking the rest of my army's movement later on in the movement phase?
- If I win the combat, will I be able to overrun into another unit, and is that second unit already in combat so that I can immediately fight a second round of combat with the overruning unit?
- What 'static' combat resolution do I have before combat begins (Outnumber, ranks, flanks, banners, etc).
- What 'static' combat resolution does the enemy have?

After all that, then you can start wondering about how many kills you might get, that will weigh the combat in one direction or another.


That's an oversimplification of both systems, of course.

druchii
12-06-2008, 21:46
Yes, ordinance will wipe out squads. However, the most powerful ordinance (basilisk, leman russ, vindicator, defiler, etc.) are all well over 130 points. A 120 point mage can decimate entire units, worth far more than his original cost. Lore of Light's first spell, for example, can drop bone giants. A level 4 mage at around 300 points can wipe out entire units with level 6 spells.

I also have to agree with another poster--Fantasy punishes and sacrifices adaptability. Is not having an army that can adapt more tactical than your opponent's poor(er) deployment?



What I was getting at is the combats in 40k are short (because one side has a counterattack) or when they are drawn out they are cinematic. With Fantasy, it seems like combats are drawn out the second one side charges. These tend to just be, erm, dull and rather about dice rolls (who can roll better with 5 dice), versus 40k where a general has to know what his unit is capable of (don't send 10 marines with bolters against 20 orks with sluggas and choppas).



...but every other unit (infantry) is still point-and-go. That would also be light calvary. I would love to see you turn around a unit of dragon princes and have them spend 4 turns changing flanks. Not going to happen. Most of the other units you listed are light and, while can help win the game, are nothing compared to an Eldar player deciding to redeploy on the other side with an entire army. It's both bold and risky--if not planned right could cost them the game, whereas 75 points worth of skinks booking it is nothing to lose.



While many of the items are unique and useful, some are useless unless used against a specific army (cloak of beards), and when used, are just bad-mannered.



I think you actually helped my point on this one...I'm not sure if you meant 40k had more netlists or Fantasy.



So the game is dominated by broken combos and units?



Glad you see I have a sense of humor with this :D. Quite frankly I'm sick of these types of threads.

A couple of things:
There is relatively little my opponents can do to prevent me from tossing a vindicator shell in the middle of their squad. Especially because my vindicator can move and then lob a nasty shot (and while this does improve the chances that a scatter will be more detrimental, I'm still aiming for the low roll, or the "hit") while a mage can be shut down almost indefinately-I know this from experience as I routinely run a magically defensive army. And while a mage CAN wipe out a unit (I've also seen a comet effectively end the game on turn 4) it is very unlikely. Even the biggest level 6 spells from the lores are usually reliant on a clumsy roll of 4+ or some other sort of test.

I have however, seen a 2nd generation slaan wipe out a large chunk of an opponent's army, but then again, he's over 1/3 of the army total.

I think the majority of the combats in fantasy are shorter than those in 40k. Usually, I'm having a bad day if a combat lasts more than a turn, while my opponents are banking ont he fact that their vampire will club enough guys to break me through fear. Very rarely do I see combats prolonged in fantasy (unless you're beating on dwarves with a BSB nearby). Compared to 40k fantasy combats seem very decisive with the majority of troops, while those that CAN prolonge the combat are incredibly valuable.

"Point and go" is a really lose term to describe movement in fantasy. The precise fact that units ARE so slow adds to the tactical viability of the game because you CANNOT redeploy the majority of your army in one go (like a mech eldar army) and those that CAN (like a tzeentch demon army, or a Bretonnian RAF or a wood elf fast cav list) are terrifying. Oh, and a unit of dragon princes takes at most two turns to turn and charge a flank. first turn: turn or reform, turn 2: charge or move.

I won't argue that fantasy isn't very lateral, it is. But the fact that it is places MORE emphasis (erm, tactics for lack of semantics) on those units that can break these rules.

I thought I was pretty clear, sorry: While fantasy has "more" netlists than 40k, they aren't as dominating as those in 40k.

Well, "the game" referring to 40k. In fantasy there is relatively little that is a "broken combo" compared with something like 8 TMCs or the all eldar falcon/mech list. Fantasy just dosn't sport as many game breaking builds as 40k.

And I always have a sense of humor, Warhammer is serious business, you know?

d

Champsguy
12-06-2008, 21:53
'Get the charge'?

Sure, you need to judge whether or not you're in range to charge.

However, let's compare:

40k :

- Am I in range?
- Is my unit going to be slowed down by terrain?
- Will I get more kills than my enemy (Thereby winning the combat).

WFB:

- Am I in range?
- Is my unit going to be slowed down by terrain?
- Did I position myself (A turn ago) to charge the enemy in the flank or rear?
- Will my enemy stand and shoot? What damage might that do?
- Will my enemy flee?
- Will my enemy's flee move leave me moving forwards with a 'failed charge' move?
- Will that failed charge move leave my unit vulnerable to an enemy charge in the next turn?
- Will that failed charge move leave my unit blocking the rest of my army's movement later on in the movement phase?
- If I win the combat, will I be able to overrun into another unit, and is that second unit already in combat so that I can immediately fight a second round of combat with the overruning unit?
- What 'static' combat resolution do I have before combat begins (Outnumber, ranks, flanks, banners, etc).
- What 'static' combat resolution does the enemy have?

After all that, then you can start wondering about how many kills you might get, that will weigh the combat in one direction or another.


That's some bull...

You've dramatically oversimplified 40K charges and you've added every tiny little bit of complexity to the Fantasy side. With BOTH games, it really comes down to this:

1) Can I charge?
2) Should I charge?

Each game has its own factors that must be taken into account. For Fantasy, they are the ones you just listed. For 40K, you must determine:

Is the target in cover?
Do I have the appropriate grenades?
If the enemy is destroyed, will I be left out of cover to be wiped out by enemy fire?
Are there counter-charge units nearby?
Am I going to block line of sight for an important shooting squad if I engage in hand to hand?
How far should I move before charging so that I may make best use of kill zone radius?
Are there independant characters in the combat, and if so, who must make contact with them?
Does the enemy squad have a hidden power fist or other similar weapon?
If I am going to use multiple assault squads, who should charge first so that I can best make use of my two seperate squads with different abilities?
If I am charging two or more squads with one unit, how can I position my forces so that I can legally engage both squads?

I once had a unit of 8 Genestealers charge two IG vet squads that were greater than 6" apart from each other. I did it legally, too. My opponent went through each step in the book, making sure I was abiding by all the legal assault rules. If you don't think THAT took some planning to pull off, you're crazy.

Chaos and Evil
12-06-2008, 22:14
Champsguy:

Don't most of the points you just posted come under the heading of "Will I get more kills than my enemy (Thereby winning the combat)"?

Fantasy too has many combat considerations that I did not list; I did say I was over-simplifying, for both games.



Also, don't call my words 'Bull....' as frankly that's rude.

Champsguy
12-06-2008, 22:29
Champsguy:

Don't most of the points you just posted come under the heading of "Will I get more kills than my enemy (Thereby winning the combat)"?


No, not really. It is often not about just killing the enemy, but how and when you kill the enemy. Besides, some of the fantasy considerations are the exact same thing.

As I said, it boils down to two questions.

Can I charge?
Should I charge?

The factors that go into answering both questions will be different. It doesn't mean one is more complicated than the other.

Malorian
12-06-2008, 22:39
As I said, it boils down to two questions.

Can I charge?
Should I charge?

The factors that go into answering both questions will be different. It doesn't mean one is more complicated than the other.

But the answers for those in 40K is basically all math hammer: If I charge will I win. There are some other minor points like can I consolidate into another unit after (will be gone in 5th) and will I block line of sight (will be gone in 5th). However these cases are rarely a big deal because if you are that close then you don't have a choice. It's a matter of if I don't charge then I will be. You might or you might not consolidate into another unit, but the chances are better than just standing there.

The answer for those in fantasy has a lot less to do with the mathhammer (although you obviously aren't going to charge your archers into knights) and more to do with your overall tactics for the game. The biggest difference is the choices you have: you could move out of LOS or flee the charge.

If all units blocked LOS and you could flee in 40K it would really help it out. But with everyone being able to see over anything other than a tank, and having no option but to take the charge, it really simplifies the game to the point of point and click.

Pacific
12-06-2008, 22:51
Actually, that has nothing to do with the game and on top of that is an outright lie.
Some do go to fantasy because they start playing when they are younger and can only afford to play the game that costs less money to play. Then when they get older, they start to play the game that costs more because they have gotten jobs to where they can afford to.
Then again, there are others like myself and many others I have seen over the years that started with fantasy and moved on to 40k for various reasons, these include having different priorities as to how money should be spent among other reasons.
So there is no pudding and there is no proof beyond simple facts. The simple facts remain, that one is just as tactically challenging as the other. Each time one of these threads comes up, we point out exact facts and instances and the fantasy players are left with thier simple argument of "well, fantasy is just better and more tactical and thats that" without having any shred of evidence to support thier claims while the 40k players just bury them with evidence and proof to the contrary until they are sent packing with thier tails between thier legs.

Haha ... great post there.

Before you stand on a pedestal and call me a liar (im fluttering my fan furiously at this point, and no doubt my makeup has started to run due to my perspiring) you should read exactly what I had written. Which was the situation in my gaming group and others that I know.

As far as I know, this situation could be completely at odds with every other club on the planet, with my club and colleagues alone in thinking this.

My own mistake I guess for posting in a thread that has more bad-will in it than a roundheads vs. cavaliers reunion party, I should have known better.

Personally I think the LoTR system, which I have played since 1975, is better than both of them, but not better than MB games 'Operation' which is a tactical masterclass.

Lame Duck
12-06-2008, 22:53
No, not really. It is often not about just killing the enemy, but how and when you kill the enemy. Besides, some of the fantasy considerations are the exact same thing.

As I said, it boils down to two questions.

Can I charge?
Should I charge?

The factors that go into answering both questions will be different. It doesn't mean one is more complicated than the other.

But surely you can see that more factors are involved in fantasy?

Can I charge?

40k: either you are in range, or you aren't
Interveining terrain (d6 role) pure luck

fantasy; Am I in range? A failed charge in fantasy leaves you more exposed, it's more risky.
Will they flee? again leaving you exposed
Will they stand and shoot? (could be in should i charge, but is seperate from the actual combat, so i'll put it here)
And to a lesser extent, interveining terrain.


Should I charge?

40K: Casualty ratio?
Will i still be in combat when the turn ends?
Block fire lanes?

Fantasy; Casualty ratio?
If I overrun, what kind of position will I be in? (equivalent to 'Will i still be in combat when the turn ends?'
Will I block other units movement?
How do the combat resolutions compare? (flank charges etc require planning in previous turns)
Will I be exposing my flank?

Nevertheless, I do find 40k more enjoyable, and would always choose to play it over fantasy.

blackspring
12-06-2008, 23:03
WFB:

- Am I in range?
- Is my unit going to be slowed down by terrain?
- Did I position myself (A turn ago) to charge the enemy in the flank or rear?
- Will my enemy stand and shoot? What damage might that do?
- Will my enemy flee?
- Will my enemy's flee move leave me moving forwards with a 'failed charge' move?
- Will that failed charge move leave my unit vulnerable to an enemy charge in the next turn?
- Will that failed charge move leave my unit blocking the rest of my army's movement later on in the movement phase?
- If I win the combat, will I be able to overrun into another unit, and is that second unit already in combat so that I can immediately fight a second round of combat with the overruning unit?
- What 'static' combat resolution do I have before combat begins (Outnumber, ranks, flanks, banners, etc).
- What 'static' combat resolution does the enemy have?

These are considerations, NOT tactical options, simply put.

Scallat
12-06-2008, 23:12
so basically hiding from assault cannons to avoid the worst of the fire.........not really a tactic hiding in bushes

That is like, the definition of a tactic.

kaptin_blacksquigg
12-06-2008, 23:41
In my personal experience 40k is more Tactical and fantasy is more strategic

The difference being
Tactics: Making moment to moment decisions (who do I shoot, where do I move, who do I charge)
Strategy: Longer term planning (will this move allow me to flank in 2 turns etc.)

Both are important in both games, but in 40k you have more moment to moment decisions (movement, shooting, embarkation and soon to be running and going to ground) to make but in fantasy you have less options each turn (all most units will do in a turn is move) but you must consider more long term implications for each.

My 2000 cent

Chaos and Evil
13-06-2008, 00:28
Tactics: Making moment to moment decisions (who do I shoot, where do I move, who do I charge)
Strategy: Longer term planning (will this move allow me to flank in 2 turns etc.)

I feel the exact opposite, although that's due to my definition of Strategy being correct, and yours being wrong. :p


Tactics - The decisions you make to overcome specific obstaces during a battle. If there are lots of ways to achieve something once the battle is started (Ie: after you've started playing!), then there is a lot of tactical depth in a system.

Strategy - Your overall battle plan, as detirmined by your army list, and your pre-planned theoretical responses to situations that may arise during battles that will be beyond your control (Such as the terrain the battle is fought over, or your opponent's army!). If there are a lot of different ways to approach a battle, then a system has a lot of strategic depth.

A Dictionary Definition of 'Strategy' will yeild the same meaning as my interpretation above.

- Strategy is everything you do before the battle (Select your army, make your plans).
- Tactics is everything you do to undertake your plan (Attack specific objectives, feint in particular directions, etc)


To quote from Wikipedia:


A Strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal, most often "winning." Strategy is differentiated from tactics or immediate actions with resources at hand by its nature of being extensively premeditated




Thus:

Warhammer Fantasy : Has a lot of list-building options, though most armies will be streamlined down a particular theme by the nature of their army list (Thus, a medium ammount of Strategic options for each armybook). Has a LOT of different choices that can be made during a game, mostly centered on the movement phase, but also on other 'can't take back' options like the Magic Phase (Thus WFB has a lot of Tactics).

Warhammer 40k : Army lists are very highly mutable, especially if you're playing Space Marines ; You can tailor your army list to perform to one of many different styles and plans (Thus 40k has an exceptionally large amount of Strategic Choices available). In-game decisions tend to be streamlined and largely obvious at least partially due to the usually 'binary' nature of most scenario criteria combined with the 'frontloading' of 40k games with a heavy emphasis on Strategy, meaning that your army's battle plan has been detirmined in advanced and it is extremely unwise to deviate from your pre-battle plan as it will not be compatible with your chosen army list's style of play (Thus 40k has less of a Tactical bent to its play style than WFB)

WFB : Quite strategic, Very Tactical.
40 : Quite Tactical, Very Strategic.
Epic & Warmaster : Lots of both.


All my humble opinion, of course.

Well, except the bit about the meaning of the word Strategy, I'm right on that one. :)

Chaplain Mortez
13-06-2008, 00:51
A game has about as much tactics as the players are willing to invest into said game. If a game lacks tactics, then it is the players fault. If a player says 40k has no tactics, that means that said player plays said game with said lack of tactics.

That is all.



As I've played 40k over the years, I've gone through many phases of how I felt about the game mechanics. I went from complaining about codex balance, to complaining that the rules are too simple, to complaining about lack of tactics as well. As my skill grew with my fellow friends that started at the same time as I, our understanding and use of tactics got deeper. Maybe 40k is a game that is simple to learn, but hard to master. Maybe those that think it has no tactics are simply still stuck playing those that have yet to "master" it. Or they themselves are still fairly "young" and are not yet masters themselves. Oh, and playing for 5 years doesn't mean your a master. As my martial arts instructor once told me, "it doesn't matter if you do 1,000 punches a day, you'll still suck at punching if each punch you did was wrong."

I think that's what has happened with a lot of players that don't think 40k has tactics.



I absolutely agree with this. If both players put a a lot of thought into it, and your are playing some interesting mission like a city fight or something, or can really have a great game full of tactics.


I think these posts sum up my sentiments exactly--most people saying Fantasy is more tactical or 40k has no tactics probably haven't "gone all the way" with the game to really understand the depth it provides. Also, given Fantasy's age and refinement, I think people have a better grasp from one edition to the next. Editions 5-7 have most of the same rules, but have different armies and structure of design within those armies, so players have had a chance to explore more of the game. Rogue Trader, 2nd. Edition, and editions 3 and 4 (which use most of the same rules, essentially having similar tactics) are completely seperate games. I think that 40k is still trying to figure things out. The tactics are there, just not known.



I guess more tactics are just more commonly needed in fantasy. You can line your guys and shoot with your marines and be an average player in 40k, but unless you are running a pure gunline in fantasy, you are forced to think more.

I would like to point out that unless you are using a pure gunline of marines you are required to think more than you do in Fantasy.


'Get the charge'?

WFB:
- Did I position myself (A turn ago) to charge the enemy in the flank or rear?
- Will my enemy stand and shoot? What damage might that do?
- Will my enemy flee?
- Will my enemy's flee move leave me moving forwards with a 'failed charge' move?
- Will that failed charge move leave my unit vulnerable to an enemy charge in the next turn?
- Will that failed charge move leave my unit blocking the rest of my army's movement later on in the movement phase?
- If I win the combat, will I be able to overrun into another unit, and is that second unit already in combat so that I can immediately fight a second round of combat with the overruning unit?
- What 'static' combat resolution do I have before combat begins (Outnumber, ranks, flanks, banners, etc).
- What 'static' combat resolution does the enemy have?


40k:

-Did I set up a unit to support my other for a combined charge?
-If I wipe out this unit, will it leave me in the open to be shot?
-If I win the combat, where can I consolidate/advance? Do I go into another unit or in cover? Is there even a place to be safe?
-If I can't make this charge because of terrain or because it's looking like a long six inches, will I be vulnerable to a counterattack?
-Can I get as many models as possible into combat, while leaving my opponent with the optimal amount? Is my character going to be able to fight?
-If I win combat, what can my opponent do the next turn to prevent me from going through with the rest of my plan? Do they still have terminators in reserve? A fully-loaded Falcon with Harlequins? Ork bikers?
-How viable is it for me to charge (or even shoot), given my opponent's special weapons? Is there a powerfist in there that is going to be a problem? Do they have a plasmagun? Synapse creature nearby that could prevent the unit from running, leaving me tied up?

Don't simplify.



A couple of things:
There is relatively little my opponents can do to prevent me from tossing a vindicator shell in the middle of their squad. Especially because my vindicator can move and then lob a nasty shot (and while this does improve the chances that a scatter will be more detrimental, I'm still aiming for the low roll, or the "hit") while a mage can be shut down almost indefinately-I know this from experience as I routinely run a magically defensive army. And while a mage CAN wipe out a unit (I've also seen a comet effectively end the game on turn 4) it is very unlikely. Even the biggest level 6 spells from the lores are usually reliant on a clumsy roll of 4+ or some other sort of test.


A vindicator only has 24" range with its demolisher cannon, and 6" movement if it wants to shoot the thing, so an overall range of 30 inches. A lascannon has a range of 48. A squad of gaurdsmen can move up 12" in a chimera, unload 2" out the rear, and shoot a meltagun 12" or 6" optimally, for a total of 26 to 20 inches. The point is that Vindicators may only get one shot unless you're careful. I use one, and let me tell you no one likes a pieplate at strength 10 ap 2. Other high-strength ordinance with longer ranges only have ap 3 (earthshaker), which will only hurt rank-and-file marines. Basilisks are often taken out by flanking units, or a well thought-out plan. Any army should take anti-tank weapons, just like any fantasy army should take anti-magic items.



I have however, seen a 2nd generation slaan wipe out a large chunk of an opponent's army, but then again, he's over 1/3 of the army total.


I've also seen 600 points of heavy support in an 1850 take out a majority of the army. I can also tell you my single vindicator has never won me the entire game--only helped. Sometimes it becomes useful just because I know it's such a fire magnet--shots not going on my rhinos with the real threat of 30 marines.



I think the majority of the combats in fantasy are shorter than those in 40k. Usually, I'm having a bad day if a combat lasts more than a turn, while my opponents are banking ont he fact that their vampire will club enough guys to break me through fear. Very rarely do I see combats prolonged in fantasy (unless you're beating on dwarves with a BSB nearby). Compared to 40k fantasy combats seem very decisive with the majority of troops, while those that CAN prolonge the combat are incredibly valuable.


I think this comes down to personal experience, really. I have seen a lot of combats get really drawn out in Fantasy, and a lot of combats where one unit just chews the other alive in 40k. It all depends on the armies and players involved, I guess.

Also, do not think that units that can bog down others in close-combat are lacking or useless in 40k. Far from it! Just the other night I saw a unit of 5 Chaos marines tie-up a unit of killa-cans. Or when my grots pile into a carnifex just to stall it.



"Point and go" is a really lose term to describe movement in fantasy. The precise fact that units ARE so slow adds to the tactical viability of the game because you CANNOT redeploy the majority of your army in one go (like a mech eldar army) and those that CAN (like a tzeentch demon army, or a Bretonnian RAF or a wood elf fast cav list) are terrifying. Oh, and a unit of dragon princes takes at most two turns to turn and charge a flank. first turn: turn or reform, turn 2: charge or move.


Apples and oranges, really. I think Fantasy just punishes, while 40k provides innovation (for both you and your opponent). I would call either one any less tactical.

As to the Dragon princes: starting on the far edge, turn and reform, march to the other end, turn and reform again facing the front, and then charge. 4 turns to do what in 40k takes one. Again, just an example of punishment vs. flexibility.



I won't argue that fantasy isn't very lateral, it is. But the fact that it is places MORE emphasis (erm, tactics for lack of semantics) on those units that can break these rules.


Units with special rules? Can you give an example?



I thought I was pretty clear, sorry: While fantasy has "more" netlists than 40k, they aren't as dominating as those in 40k.


I think that's just the players. There's definitely a different mentality regarding the tournament scene between both games. I would say that most of the netlists are beatable by an average army wielded by a good player (Nidzilla at my store died to an ork player using only 15 lootas...go figure).



Well, "the game" referring to 40k. In fantasy there is relatively little that is a "broken combo" compared with something like 8 TMCs or the all eldar falcon/mech list. Fantasy just dosn't sport as many game breaking builds as 40k.


But there are more netlists? Obviously these are good builds if they are popping up everywhere. In addition, both lists mentioned roll over and die to an army that can pump out high-strength shots in large volumes, such as guard with autocannons, ork lootas, or space marine assault cannons. And each of those has a weakness. People tend to complain on the internet more about 40k "broken" side and want to start swinging the nerf bat, but really these should be taken with a grain of salt (which Fantasy players seem to realize--I have some nice things to say about them/us!)

big squig
13-06-2008, 00:58
Fantasy has tactics and 40k has tactics.

Fantasy's tactics stem from using your units to get into the best position to do the most damage.

40k's tactics stem from using your units in the most efficient way to hold of an objective. A lot of the time, casualties don't even mean anything in 40k.

The problem is when people try to play 40k like fantasy and expect the same result. It's really scary how many people play 40k with no mission and way to little terrain and then complain that there was n strategy to the game.

Chaos and Evil
13-06-2008, 01:00
Don't simplify.

Why not? I simplified for both lists.

Most of your points have a mirror in Warhammer Fantasy... I just listed the things that Fantasy has that 40k doesn't have, in the very specific area of 'things to think about when charging into close combat'.

I simply removed the things that were equal in both systems, leaving only the differences, ala algebra, no?


It's quite simple:
- When you choose to charge in WFB, you opponent gets an immediate CHOICE. He gets to CHOOSE whether to run away, stand and shoot, or stand firm.

Each of those CHOICES grants the player a very real way to influence the course of the battle in a manner completely unavailable in Warhammer 40k. These CHOICES (Or 'Tactical availabilities') allow players to feint, make false 'baiting' charges, force the opponent's units to overrun in specific directions after combats (Thereby setting up a flank charge in the following turn as the opponent is drawn out of position), and a whole plethora of other movement-based tactical gambits.

40k has 'I can charge a unit and kill it, or not', and soon (5th edition) you won't even be able to consolidate into other units after a combat...

Look, I love Warhammer 40k, but it's a frankly simpler game on the tactical side of things than Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

That's not to say it isn't superlatively Strategic (It is) or a lot of fun (It is), or have the best models made by GW (Personal opinion), but it's not titanically Tactical.

Templar Ben
13-06-2008, 02:52
Chaos and Evil I agree with you that the charge response is an advantage of WHFB. Funny how something that breaks You Go I Go makes the game more tactical. ;)

Blackwolf
13-06-2008, 06:35
It's always good when people are dismissive!! There are some laughable posts in this thread and I'm enjoying it immensely!


I gotta use this line.

Bran Dawri
13-06-2008, 10:01
In truth, it requires no more "brainpower" to play one then it does the other. Now if you personally dont like one, you will obviously put less effort into it but that has no relativity on what it takes to play it effectively. I could also be that you simply are lacking in the ability to employ the tactics that are needed and thus say they dont exist in order to try to look good.

Read what I've said, try to understand it properly, and come back.


If you dislike false arguments, then stop using them and stick to the cold hard facts as we have been doing throughout.
Easier to judge does not = more simple. Simple fact, like it or lump it but you are dead wrong.

Yes, it does mean just that. We can continue yes/no-ing, but I'm gonna quit after this post, since far from me having been proven wrong, you're simply refusing to listen to reason.


In fantasy there are no more factors to consider then there are in 40k. Again, like it or lump it. We have cold hard facts to back up our statements and have provided them.

Yeah, that's what I've said. Except that I added the caveat that in fantasy, the way the factors are taken into account tends to be more complex.


All movements and ranges need to be measured in both games.
Your "examples, have been proven false. relying on lies does not make your argument. You need to come up with cold hard facts and actual examples as we have done. Claiming you have priovided proof when you have YET to provide any at all doesnt make the fact go away that you need to start providing some. Of course, none exists so you will be a looong time searching for some.

Uhh, how have they been proven false? I've given examples and arguments, and instead of giving counter-arguments, you're just shouting: No, you're wrong, waahh, waahh, without actually giving counterarguments. Until you come up with any, my points stand.
Leadership alone is nearly a definitive argument that fantasy is a more tactical game. When was the last time you had leadership or psychology influence the outcome of a 40K game?


Continue to live in your lil fantasy world all you wish. Enjoy yourself as a matter of fact. Just stop coming here and trolling. When I want a "greater challenge" I will play whichever I feel like at the time because both games provide challenge in equal measure (as has been proven time and time again).

I'm not even gonna bother replying to this.

Chaos and Evil
13-06-2008, 10:22
Chaos and Evil I agree with you that the charge response is an advantage of WHFB. Funny how something that breaks You Go I Go makes the game more tactical. ;)

That's one of the reasons that Epic & Warmaster are 'advanced' wargames of course, because neither runs on a rigid 'I-go-You-go' system.

Guardian of the Rage
13-06-2008, 10:47
In some ways, i always think these discussions are very unfair to 40k. The imagery of the 40k game appeals much more to the younger gamers would be my observation. To facilitate this, GW has quite rightly simplified the rules to make them easier to understand to younger players. This is sound business practice, and ensures the continued survival of BOTH games through increased sales. IIRC the previous, 2nd ed for example, wasn't particularly any less complicated than the fantasy version at the time, it just the way that GW has developed the products.

Lets not forget that they are in fact to separate products, and it would make no sense for a business to develop products that didn't fit the standard profile of the target consumers. My observations are that Fantasy is generally played by more experienced gamers, where as 40K is generally played by the younger less experienced ones. This explains their relative developments.

In conclusion, the fact that 40K is 'less involved' than Fantasy is solely to meet the relative target markets of the different products. That doesn't mean however that 40K players are necessarily any less able than fantasy players, just it means that different things appeal to them about the wargaming concept.

GotR

LuciusAR
13-06-2008, 11:14
That's one of the reasons that Epic & Warmaster are 'advanced' wargames of course, because neither runs on a rigid 'I-go-You-go' system.

How true. Ironically GW have another game that breaks IGOUGO and as a result has a nice tactical edge. However its dismissed by many as being 'childish'. Go figure. No wonder GW are hesitant about trying somthing differnt to IGOUGO for 40K and WFB.

Chaos and Evil
13-06-2008, 11:34
How true. Ironically GW have another game that breaks IGOUGO and as a result has a nice tactical edge. However its dismissed by many as being 'childish'. Go figure. No wonder GW are hesitant about trying somthing differnt to IGOUGO for 40K and WFB.

Indeed, LOTR is a very elegant rule system, but I would say that it is more child-focused than the other two core systems.

EVIL INC
13-06-2008, 12:03
Don't most of the points you just posted come under the heading of "Will I get more kills than my enemy (Thereby winning the combat)"?

Fantasy too has many combat considerations that I did not list; I did say I was over-simplifying, for both games.

Also, don't call my words 'Bull....' as frankly that's rude.
Those things fall under that same catagory the same as it does in fantasy. No more and no less. He also forgot to mention the advantages of getting flank and rear attacks in 40k. Yes, you get advantages for them in 40k as well as fantasy. You just need to be able to read the battlefield in order to figure out which will get you the highest advantage because it has more variable then in fantasy. That means, it is too complex to print in the rulebook while in fantasy, you get the same advantage each time so it is possible to put it in the rulebook.
Not to say that fantasy cant be complex, just that you oversimnplified the 40k version to make it falsely appear to be less complex.

Haha ... great post there.

Before you stand on a pedestal and call me a liar (im fluttering my fan furiously at this point, and no doubt my makeup has started to run due to my perspiring) you should read exactly what I had written. Which was the situation in my gaming group and others that I know.

As far as I know, this situation could be completely at odds with every other club on the planet, with my club and colleagues alone in thinking this.

Personally I think the LoTR system, which I have played since 1975, is better than both of them, but not better than MB games 'Operation' which is a tactical masterclass.

If you cant stand the heat...You are lucky it was me posting instead of one of the fantasy flamers.:rolleyes: You are right. This is a heated subject. We regulerly have a few fantasy players who intrude into the 40k forum in order to call the 40k players stupid letting us know that they feel that they are superior to us and how our game is stupid. It is no wonder that we get up in arms. We have the maturity to leave them alone in thier forum and not intrude in such a rude manner with outright lies about them and thier game. They should have the maturity and decency to not do the same to us.
You made your post and typed and intended it to say that your gaming group represent every other club/player on the planet. I knew that this was not the case and merely pointed out that that might have been the case in your particuler group but that your particuler group was most definetly NOT representative of EVERYONE.
As has been pointed out (and proven) many many times already in this thread, both games are equally "tactical" and strategic. However, as the game mechanics are different, different aspects of tactics are employed and used.

On the other game systoms, I absolutely LOVED the old epic 40k. The one that came out before the current one where they had the free giveaway in white dwarf. I think it was called "space marine". Yes, I was one of the lucky ones to win the free copy through white dwarf and that is what got me into it and then to spend thousands of dollers on it. Never tried the new version as I got disgusted at the change and sold everything.

Meriwether
13-06-2008, 12:22
But the answers for those in 40K is basically all math hammer: If I charge will I win.

False. I never win a combat with my Chaos Spawn, and yet they are very tactically useful.

Meri

Chaos and Evil
13-06-2008, 12:32
We regulerly have a few fantasy players who intrude into the 40k forum in order to call the 40k players stupid letting us know that they feel that they are superior to us and how our game is stupid.

Noone's saying 40k is stupid, they're mostly just saying that 40k is more strategic, and fantasy is more tactical.


On the other game systoms, I absolutely LOVED the old epic 40k. The one that came out before the current one where they had the free giveaway in white dwarf. I think it was called "space marine". Yes, I was one of the lucky ones to win the free copy through white dwarf and that is what got me into it and then to spend thousands of dollers on it. Never tried the new version as I got disgusted at the change and sold everything.

We're running a lot of Epic articles in this issue of Firebase, including a 'history of epic' article, but the editions have run:

1st Edition - Space Marine ('89)
2nd Edition - Epic: Space Marine ('94)
3rd Edition - Epic: 40,000 ('97)
4th Edition - Epic: Armageddon ('04)

So the version that came out before the current version was Epic: 40,000.

Chaos and Evil
13-06-2008, 12:34
False. I never win a combat with my Chaos Spawn, and yet they are very tactically useful.

Meri

Very true.

EVIL INC
13-06-2008, 13:09
We're running a lot of Epic articles in this issue of Firebase, including a 'history of epic' article, but the editions have run:

1st Edition - Space Marine ('89)
2nd Edition - Epic: Space Marine ('94)
3rd Edition - Epic: 40,000 ('97)
4th Edition - Epic: Armageddon ('04)

So the version that came out before the current version was Epic: 40,000.
Good lord!. I really AM out of the loop on epic. I absolutely LOVED that game. Enough so that my buddies and I (mostly me since at that time, I was the only one with a disposable income) bought 20k points+ of each of the armies. We would spend entire weekends playing huge battles on a full 4'/8' board. When they changed the rules and started coming out with models I barely recognized as titans, we just stopped playing. Sold some of the stuff and made the mistake of letting the guy who used to run the "local hobby shop (dont remember the name of the shop or owner but he also ran a sho in Frederick Md, Frostburg Md and Martinsburg WV) he closed his stores and stole almost EVERYTHING we had owned of epic models. Out of disgust with the whole affair, I washed my hands of it. Of course, nowadays, my wallet cant even LOOK at a new army in the systom I do play much less a whole "new" systom.

Chaos and Evil
13-06-2008, 13:32
One thing that's pointed out in the article is that a full Epic army will be £50-£60 (Ie: Less than the cost of two Land Raiders for 40k), and that a battle company of Marines for Epic costs less than a Tactical Squad of Marines for 40k.

But I understand your point. :)

royalpain88
14-06-2008, 05:06
Ahem. The original purpose of this thread is to discuss the lack of tactics in Warhammer 40K but I beg to differ. Tactics is everything. It can be a simple as where to place my troops. Who is my opponent? What are his armies strengths and weaknesses? What will he or she do first? What will they do next? How should I counter this move? What it they are to do that?
These maybe a few questions you may answer as you battle but none the less, each movement you make is based on your thinking and those movements can equal to a simple tactic like rush in or a complex one of luring or counter attacking.

gLOBS
14-06-2008, 06:06
What I am interested in hearing is with 5th on the horizon how does this argument hold up?

adreal
14-06-2008, 06:11
Okay I havn't read the whole thread, so my point may be moot, but i'm going to say my bit anyway.

I started in fantasy cause I thought the 4th ed high elf spearmen models were cool, so my main army being high elves isn't because of ASF (although I do like the rule). Playing elves has ment that, with weak armour and toughness I have to pick my fights very carefully, so I'm more cautious and will only enter a fight I know I can win (yes even with a dragon), this to me is tactical thinking. If I play my undead (tomb kings) I just wait two turns so my casket can do its damage, then I scream in with chariots, this to me is point and click. In a undead v undead game I played once, the only thing that won my opponent the game is I told him to kill my hierophant (vamps are harder to kill) so my army would start to crumble, as the combats weren't going anywhere, but the charges had to be tactical against them (they wont run), but in the main, fantasy is as tactical as you (the player) makes it. A all cav army (or chariots) is fairly point and click, where as a ground pounder list forces yuo to think about what you need each unit to do, and as said on page 1 or 2, they can't just adapt on the fly like a unit in 40K can.

When I finally went into 40K, I started with tau (in third when the trail assault rules came out) and I playe pretty much a gunline list, which was very boring, but a mech tau list is just as boring, only you actually do something in the movement phase. Now with mech chaos marines again I'm playing fairly boring games, yes there is terrain, but I think the problem is the size of the boards as my club (4x4 for storage reasons) forces you to play very very strait forward games (plus alot of one trick pnoy lists). On a 6x4 table, things become more colourful, but again, due to the list I've chosen, my playstyle is very limited, if I went with a more ground pounder type list, a 6x4 battle would be more tactically enjoyable......but yeah.....

Blackwolf
14-06-2008, 08:33
Okay I havn't read the whole thread, so my point may be moot, but i'm going to say my bit anyway.

I started in fantasy cause I thought the 4th ed high elf spearmen models were cool, so my main army being high elves isn't because of ASF (although I do like the rule). Playing elves has ment that, with weak armour and toughness I have to pick my fights very carefully, so I'm more cautious and will only enter a fight I know I can win (yes even with a dragon), this to me is tactical thinking. If I play my undead (tomb kings) I just wait two turns so my casket can do its damage, then I scream in with chariots, this to me is point and click. In a undead v undead game I played once, the only thing that won my opponent the game is I told him to kill my hierophant (vamps are harder to kill) so my army would start to crumble, as the combats weren't going anywhere, but the charges had to be tactical against them (they wont run), but in the main, fantasy is as tactical as you (the player) makes it. A all cav army (or chariots) is fairly point and click, where as a ground pounder list forces yuo to think about what you need each unit to do, and as said on page 1 or 2, they can't just adapt on the fly like a unit in 40K can.

When I finally went into 40K, I started with tau (in third when the trail assault rules came out) and I playe pretty much a gunline list, which was very boring, but a mech tau list is just as boring, only you actually do something in the movement phase. Now with mech chaos marines again I'm playing fairly boring games, yes there is terrain, but I think the problem is the size of the boards as my club (4x4 for storage reasons) forces you to play very very strait forward games (plus alot of one trick pnoy lists). On a 6x4 table, things become more colourful, but again, due to the list I've chosen, my playstyle is very limited, if I went with a more ground pounder type list, a 6x4 battle would be more tactically enjoyable......but yeah.....

So what you are saying is that there are tactics in 40k however due to your play group and your army list not all tactics are useable to you. Correct? You are stateing that the same thing happens with Fantasy. Correct? It sounds like what you have said is that in Fantasy your pretty much stuck into useing your strategy because the units and or game can not adapt to changeing suiations, where as in 40k you can change your strategy on the fly due to the game and or units. Correct?

adreal
14-06-2008, 09:45
So what you are saying is that there are tactics in 40k however due to your play group and your army list not all tactics are useable to you. Correct? You are stateing that the same thing happens with Fantasy. Correct? It sounds like what you have said is that in Fantasy your pretty much stuck into useing your strategy because the units and or game can not adapt to changeing suiations, where as in 40k you can change your strategy on the fly due to the game and or units. Correct?


yeah pretty much, I just like being long winded on occasion

Gaebriel
14-06-2008, 21:24
... but I just wanted to hear what you guys had to say. ...
In essence I believe those Warhammer Fantasy players feel the need to compensate for their chosen game system being tactically inferior to other (say historical) wargames, and so depreciate the next obvious target... :angel:

In all honesty, both 40k as well as WFB are game concepts without overly simulationist mechanics, playing smoothly but without too much depth despite occasional complexity.

As been stated above, I feel the greatest hindrance for tactical development is the small playing field, literally boxing in standardly sized forces, and from my personal point of view the extremely limited number of turns.

That is not to say both games are neither tactical nor fun - they're optimized for play with limited ressources in time and space, and they're doing a pretty good job at that.

I just feel that they sacrifice simulationist depth for gamist effect.

In comparisson, I think the perceived tactical difference stems from the difference between two ages of warfare - that of pseudomodern squad-centered skirmish warfare opposed to quasi-renaissance formed regimental warfare. Of course the tactical requirements are not the same - they can't be.

But as far as I can tell anyone delving deeper into both systems will find that both have their unique complexities and pose similarly challenging tactical problems.

Torga_DW
14-06-2008, 21:59
This should help explain who is superior to who. :)

SquishySquig
14-06-2008, 22:09
:skull: Thanks Torga_DW that answers that age old question for me. Glad it's settled. :skull:

Lame Duck
14-06-2008, 22:10
Interesting, but what exactly are Furries?

stonehorse
14-06-2008, 22:21
Interesting, but what exactly are Furries?

You really don't want to know... trust me on this one.

Back on topic.

I may be repeating what has already been said, but I think that 40K does have very limited tactics, even point unit at the enemy and roll dice can be seen as a tactic, a very simple none the less.

When 40K is viewed with knowledge of the wider spectrum of the TTG hobby it does seem very shallow in the tactics department. I think SST and AT-43 show how a Sci-Fi orientation game should work, and revolve around tactics.

This may change with the much needed changes in missions that 5th edition is bringing with it.

Gulbech
15-06-2008, 00:55
I have played both fantasy and 40k, and won a couple of tournemts (with 40+ players) in both games. And i think its completly stupid when people say fantasy is more tactical then 40k, its just two different tactics.

My main argument is very simple - why is it always the same players who wins?

In Denmark there is a group of around 15 people who always compete for the wins, so there must be a lot of tactic or else the same people would not win. The same goes for 40k, its also around a 15 players who are in the top, and they always compete for the win too. - If 40k was not tactical the same players would not win all the time.

One thing that makes 40k more tactical in my oppionon is the use of good mission, i hate playing VP because it removes a lot of the tactical thinking. If you instead play missions the game is very tactical.

Cheers Gulbech

royalpain88
15-06-2008, 04:54
Some truth to that. When i battle, my main tactic or goal is this. KILL THE ARMOR!!!! With Railguns, that's no problem. If I fail to do so, then my fire warriors are toast and there will be nothing to stop their infantry.
My 2nd tactic is the following. Place Crisis Suits close to the infantry to provide support and to do the close combat.
3rd tactic, and probably the most useful, take advantage of both terrain and obstacles.
4th tactic I use, place troops in choke points. The enemy has to squeeze through those points so line up and as they come out, fire away!

Spell_of_Destruction
15-06-2008, 11:56
This is an accusation I often hear levelled at 40k and I think it's just a lazy way of criticizing an admittedly flawed system without actually going into the detail of what exactly is wrong with it.

While I wouldn't say that 40k is more tactical than WHFB (it may be less so) I think that good tactics are a larger proportion of what is required to win at 40k than what is required to win at WHFB. Let me explain:-

Good tactics are fairly easy to implement in 40k. The only real consideration you have regarding whether x unit can deal with y threat is the range between the two units. So if I am about to use a squad of Warp Spiders my choice of how to move them will be influenced by what i) my targets are; ii) which is the best target; iii) how do best position/support warp spiders to best limit/mitigate against the potential for return fire and counter assault. Now, a lot of consideration can go into this decision making process but once you have made the decision it is easy enough to implement. You simply move your squad to the best location and f you think they may need some support, move the supporting squad(s) into a position from which they will be able to provide a counter assault if necessary.

In WHFB you have a similar number of tactical considerations but those good tactics such as flanking and baiting are more difficult to implement because ranked up units move in a restricted and cumbersome manner. Execution is key in WHFB. Sound tactics can fail because you didn't quite angle that unit correctly or left half an inch of it exposed. I personally find this quite a tedious process but then again I know a lot of people who love this aspect of WHFB and are great at it. My attention to detail has simply never been that good. If I come up with what I think is a good tactic I don't want to have to 'waste' a lot of time trying to execute it in an immaculate manner. It definitely seems to be a matter of personal preference.

Tarax
15-06-2008, 13:28
I've been on this topic on and off, so I'm not quite up to speed. But here are my 2ct.

Warmaster and Epic 40K are on a higher scale than Fantasy and 40K, respectively, with regards to bigger battles.
But if you scale them down Fantasy looks more like Warmaster than 40K does to Epic 40K.

Strategy is the way a war or campaign is planned, while tactics is about the way a battle is fought.

To me, 40K is about how your army is composed. You have decided which units to take and when placed on the battlefield there is not much more for you to do but find your targets and shoot.
Fantasy also revolves around army composition, but less. Movement plays a bigger part, whether it's because of LoS or outflanking the enemy to get the Flank Bonus and negate ranks in close combat. Therefor you get to make more decisions while playing. (Where in 40K you have to make your decision more when building your army.)

As I see it, Fantasy is a small part of a big battle that is being fought. 40K is a skirmish as part of a campaign.

Both contain tactics, but at different levels.

To me, I prefer Fantasy, because I want to make my decisions on the battlefield, instead of beforehand, for the reason I said above.

alexon47
15-06-2008, 13:50
Tarax i had a friend explain the issue like that and agree to some extent, but i think that with some things like ordinance, you have the additional tactic of area denial or annihilation.
example: two hills 4 inches apart, a leman russ demolisher covers the gap, do you go through and get killed or spend another turn moving?

on another note i think that if there was a form of flanking in 40k that pinning would become useful. pin one unit then move and destroy it by coming round the flank

royalpain88
15-06-2008, 14:01
I like what Tarax said and is in fact very true. Strategy is like how a campaign is planned. Tactics is how to fight. Like he said, initial deployment, what to use and where to move are only small parts of tactics being used.

EVIL INC
15-06-2008, 15:12
on another note i think that if there was a form of flanking in 40k that pinning would become useful. pin one unit then move and destroy it by coming round the flank
That DOES exist in 40k. it is a matter of how the unit being assaulted tactically placed his/her models within the unit and how the player assaulting tactically chooses which flank to assault to do the most damage. Here you are forced to actually think and consider placement of models and from which direction to assault as there are so many more variables that you need to tactically consider and you dont have an easy peasy page to go to every time and look up a generic bonus.

Chaos and Evil
15-06-2008, 19:00
That DOES exist in 40K. it is a matter of how the unit being assaulted tactically placed his/her models within the unit and how the player assaulting tactically chooses which flank to assault to do the most damage.

In a week or two, this tactic will be gone from the game ; 5th edition no longer has things like killzones, and the assaulted player *must* pile-in 6" the moment he's charged.

alexon47
16-06-2008, 01:39
while i agree to some extent with killzones, i also believe that there should be some bonus from hitting your opponent from behind. besides, killzones are gone, there is no real bonus for tactical movement.

catbarf
16-06-2008, 01:45
I have played both fantasy and 40k, and won a couple of tournemts (with 40+ players) in both games. And i think its completly stupid when people say fantasy is more tactical then 40k, its just two different tactics.

My main argument is very simple - why is it always the same players who wins?

In Denmark there is a group of around 15 people who always compete for the wins, so there must be a lot of tactic or else the same people would not win. The same goes for 40k, its also around a 15 players who are in the top, and they always compete for the win too. - If 40k was not tactical the same players would not win all the time.

World Rock Paper Scissors Tournament (http://www.worldrps.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=207&Itemid=73)

Just because someone can be good at it doesn't mean it is tactically deep.

snooggums
16-06-2008, 03:20
In a week or two, this tactic will be gone from the game ; 5th edition no longer has things like killzones, and the assaulted player *must* pile-in 6" the moment he's charged.

In that case, how you charge is how you open fire lanes for the following turn, as the opponent is forced to come to your bait.

Ronin_eX
16-06-2008, 04:50
World Rock Paper Scissors Tournament (http://www.worldrps.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=207&Itemid=73)

Just because someone can be good at it doesn't mean it is tactically deep.

Wow, thanks for the laugh. It also raises a good point. :p

Gazak Blacktoof
16-06-2008, 08:38
Tarax i had a friend explain the issue like that and agree to some extent, but i think that with some things like ordinance, you have the additional tactic of area denial or annihilation.


This is also present in Fantasy.

Certain close combat units and war machines are capable of denying areas of the battlefield fairly easily in the same manner that tanks can in 40K. The difference between the games with regard to area denial is that in the right situation almost any unit can deny area to the enemy.

A flank charge in Warhammer is devastating to almost any unit no matter what the flanking unit is (provided it can break ranks and score a flanking bonus- 99% of units). In 40K there's no way to make a 60+ point guard unit with upgrades as scary as a unit of fast cavalry. Even a guard squad with a melta is unlikely to do any real damage to a tank at short range.


There are certainly tactics in 40K but there are more in Fantasy.

The_Outsider
16-06-2008, 08:43
This one time (at GW) I used tactics in a 40k game while a staff member was watching the game.

I was nearly banned from the store forever, luckily I had my dice bucket close to hand. I just threw that and all was well.

Gazak Blacktoof
16-06-2008, 09:05
Looking back at the thread I just wanted to say one more thing regarding flanking attacks in 40K.

There is currently some advantage to "flanking" in 40K, but as has been pointed out its being removed in version 5.

To me the flanking that players use in 40K currently is more akin to clipping in fantasy (skimming the edge of a unit to reduce return attacks and to avoid specific models) and I'm glad its going. It seemed like a glitch and abuse of a mechanic to me rather than an intended advantage.

Besides the obvious combat resolution bonuses in Fantasy there are also bonuses for proper flank charges in terms of the ratio of models that can fight and whether characters and champions can fight. In essence the benefits that clipping can give are present elsewhere in the rules. Unfortunately 40K lacks proper flank charges so removing "clipping" further reduces the need to manoeuvre for a charge in a game with 360 degree movement and lines of sight.

The only real way to force manoeuvring for a charge is to use lots of linear obstacles (fantasy term) like walls, I find they also improve the shooting phase for 40K. Go trench warfare!


Is there an advantage to charging a pinned squad in version 5?

Aaron
16-06-2008, 12:48
My main argument is very simple - why is it always the same players who wins?

In Denmark there is a group of around 15 people who always compete for the wins, so there must be a lot of tactic or else the same people would not win. The same goes for 40k, its also around a 15 players who are in the top, and they always compete for the win too. - If 40k was not tactical the same players would not win all the time

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, there's two main reasons why the same players would continue to win in a tactically shallow game:

1) Difference of attitude. Some players want to Win At All Costs, whilst others want a relaxed and friendly game. I'm not saying that tournament winners cheat but they certainly use the rules to maximum effect and might be more inclined to argue the rules in their favour.

2) CCG syndrome. Some players have more money and more time than others. They can built up a larger collection of models and tinker with their army until their list is perfect. Other players might go to the store, buy 1,500 points of models and never deviate from their original army. Let's face it, army lists have a major impact on the outcome of 40K games, mostly thanks to 40k's all-or-nothing AP rule.

EVIL INC
16-06-2008, 14:01
while i agree to some extent with killzones, i also believe that there should be some bonus from hitting your opponent from behind. besides, killzones are gone, there is no real bonus for tactical movement.

So your saying that moving around intervening obstacles to prevent the opponant from shooting you as you come at them is not using tactics? Likewise, the killzones, true, they will be gone but then again, another aspect is being added. Before, you could shoot through your own troops as though they werent there. You can BET that now, I will be carefully using tactics just as much now to make sure that the unit I am assaulting is between my unit and other shooty units of the enemy to either prevent them shooting at me or giving me the cover save if they do. Hooray flank and rear attacks being just as deadly as before. True, this is now more towards using tactics to protect my assaulters then breaking the enemy but still an example of how it is just as tacticaly usefull as in fantasy.
Thought this quote would prove usefull as well...

In that case, how you charge is how you open fire lanes for the following turn, as the opponent is forced to come to your bait.
As has been said before, in 40k you are expected to learn to read a battlefield and apply tactics yourself without having to have a dummy book to spell it out for you and give you step by step instructions on how to play. Here, you are given the freedom to play the game the way you wish. You can ignore tactics and get stomped or you can apply tactics and win.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, there's two main reasons why the same players would continue to win in a tactically shallow game:

1) Difference of attitude. Some players want to Win At All Costs, whilst others want a relaxed and friendly game. I'm not saying that tournament winners cheat but they certainly use the rules to maximum effect and might be more inclined to argue the rules in their favour.

2) CCG syndrome. Some players have more money and more time than others. They can built up a larger collection of models and tinker with their army until their list is perfect. Other players might go to the store, buy 1,500 points of models and never deviate from their original army. Let's face it, army lists have a major impact on the outcome of 40K games, mostly thanks to 40k's all-or-nothing AP rule.
1. The waac player wins through tactics. It is the carefull applications of fire lanes, assaulting flanks and rears and use over cover ect ect that the waac players use to win. Essentially, they employ tactics. A tactically supprior "general" will win every time. And you mean that this doesnt happen in fantasy as well?
2. Likewise, true, one player might have an advantage because of having a superior force to start out with. This applies just as much in fantasy mind you. When the players switch armies, (going by the the good army will win every time no matter who plays it because tactics dont exist argument)the same army should win both games no matter who is playing which army. The thing is, this is not true. The tactically superior player wins with whatever army he/she is using. This means they will (and do) win whether they are using the "rich mans" army or if they are using the "poor mans" army.

shakespear
16-06-2008, 14:10
There are tactics in 40k, but nothing like other games. In 40k, tactics are more along the lines of army/wargear selection, getting the first turn and terrain placement. Which is sad. This game has the best looking and detailed minis, but at its heart, its barely a step up from heroclix.

To get closer to more tactical games, IE: DBM, FOG, even FOW, scale needs to be addresed. 4X6 is waaaay too small for 1850 games. 6X8 would work much better.

Also real, concrete, terrain rules would also help create a more tactical game. I am talking about, a woods terrain piece must be, XY by XY and has the following rules...

Getting rid of, "you and your opponent must agree...blah blah" would also help.

Meriwether
16-06-2008, 15:15
Has anyone else noticed that this thread has denerated into:

Person A: [Unfounded Assertion]
Person B: [Reply. Unfounded Assertion.]
Person A: [Reply. Unfounded Assertion.]
Person C: [Just thought I'd throw my two cents in here. Unfounded Assertion already made previously in the thread.]


Meri (Who wants to pull out his hair because everyone simply ignores the fact that a good player can switch armies with his/her opponent and crush them like a bug _by using tactics effectively_.)

EVIL INC
16-06-2008, 15:20
LOL, thats why I have provided facts and evidence founded on experience and mathmatics.
I also agree with your saying that the better tactical player will win whichever army they use. It IS funny to see those just stating opinions with no evidence to back them up.

Meriwether
16-06-2008, 15:44
Actually, Evil, I'm including you in the unfounded assertions bit. :D

I agree with your _position_, but have not been impressed with your arguments.

Meri

catbarf
16-06-2008, 16:49
LOL, thats why I have provided facts and evidence founded on experience and mathmatics.

:wtf:

As for the same people winning in tournaments- please see my post on the previous page.

Thoth62
16-06-2008, 16:51
Beat me to it. I was going to say that I haven't seen you post anything but "I've provided evidence/proof in the previous pages." for about 4 or 5 pages now.

It's going both ways and I've seen several threads like this already, and they always end up here. No one can agree on anything, and everybody gets unhappy.

That being said, I completely agree with you Meri, and I've seen and made it happen many times before.

Game 1: Crush your opponent.

Trade armies.

Game 2: Crush your opponent.

I've seen it happen far too many times for it to be a coincidence.

I think what really needs to be said though, is that Fantasy and 40k really are completely different games. The same overall mechanic is in place, but they are different games, with different rules and strategies. It does not leave much, if any, space for comparing them in terms of tactical/strategical viability, and it most certainly does not make one game inherently better than the other.

It just means that different people like different games for different reasons.

Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

Gazak Blacktoof
16-06-2008, 17:02
It just means that different people like different games for different reasons.

Or indeed the same people.

The guys I game with still like 40K and I doubt I'd ever ditch my Necrons.

Thoth62
16-06-2008, 17:14
Fair enough Gazak. It still means that there's no point in arguing this matter, because everybody treats it subjectively anyways.

EVIL INC
16-06-2008, 18:36
Ok, so your saying that attacking a unit in the rear or side does not provide ANY advantage at all regardless of positioning, fire lanes or doing so in such a way as to maximize the chances of going on to another unit after breaking/slaughtering the one you are assaulting now?
For evidence, set up a boardwith 2 armies. Use a side rule and tape measure to figure the fire lanes and intervening terrean. See if you get the same exact measurements from every direction. See if all units have the same exact fire arcs and possibility to fire at the assaulting unit no matter which direction they come from.
Then in the assaulted unit vary the positioning of the models. Put the champ on the left flank and then on the right and then in the front and rear. Tell me if that efects the assaulting unit any at all whatsoever. Do the same with special and heavy weapons. Even if the assaulting unit loses and the assaulted unit wins, are they able to use the special/heavy weapon afterwards if the assaulting unit killed thier owners through a flank/rear charge? Would those weapons make a tactical difference later in the game?
I have done just that and so far, I have seen that even these minor "tactical variations" can make a difference in a game. Yet, here I am STILL being assaulted with statements that tactics do not exist in 40k and that in the given example, the results are the exact same no matter what.
I have provided such examples of empiracle evidence throughout.
the same goes for switching lists. According to many here, a tactical player will lose to a better list EVERY TIME. Yet, I provide examples of players being able to switch armies and the same player winning both games using either army. According to the naysayers of tactics existing, that should not happen. Are you saying then, that they are correct and that those saying they can switch army lists and win both games regardless of which they are using are telling lies? because that is what you are doing when you discount that as evidence or proof.

"I think what really needs to be said though, is that Fantasy and 40K really are completely different games. The same overall mechanic is in place, but they are different games, with different rules and strategies. It does not leave much, if any, space for comparing them in terms of tactical/strategical viability, and it most certainly does not make one game inherently better than the other.

It just means that different people like different games for different reasons.

Let's just leave it at that, shall we?"

This is exactly what I and others have been saying throughout. The root of the problem is fantasy players invading the 40k forum making wild statements that 40k has no tactics. that thier game is better and they are better people for playing it. All 40k players must be stupid blah blah blah. that attitude is annoying. Those exact words may not be said but that is the intended message and the attitude that they are given in. We have the respect for them that we do not go into thier forum and do that to them. Why should they not have the respect for us and the maturity to not do that to us?
We should not NEED to "prove ourselves" against these flaming attacks. Both 40k and fantasy lack much of the tactics and technical gameplay that are given by other games. Why attack one another needlessly? Both 40k and fantasy are meant to be fun games. Why cant we just accept that both games have tactics (albeit with different focuses), that both games are fun and just make an effort to get along treating one another with respect and dignity?

Chaos and Evil
16-06-2008, 22:50
The root of the problem is fantasy players invading the 40k forum making wild statements that 40k has no tactics.

Noone is saying that 40k has 'no tactics'. Not one person.

Many people are saying that 40k is less tactically deep than Warhammer Fantasy, but that's not the same thing as saying 40k has 'no tactics'.

EVIL INC
16-06-2008, 23:11
You are one of the few who has that viewpoint then because this thread is full of such implied flames. We have shown time and time again that it is just as deep.
You should not need to have a BOOK tell you what is tactically a good or bad thing to do. 40k allows you to make those judgement calls without having to have it spelled out for you. The fact that you dont have a "dummies handbook" spelling out what the benefits are does not mean that benefits from tactical play do not exist.
GW games are about community, having fun, the hobby as a whole. Why can we just try to play the games and discuss them in a positive way rather then trying to denigrate them and one another?
We have shown that one is just as "tactical" as the other (albeit with different focuses) while both are inferior to other games that concentrate less on the hobby and community.

Pacific
16-06-2008, 23:58
I think the super nintendo is much better than the sega megadrive, it has better sounds and graphics.

edit: AND mario world has tons more lastability than Sonic.

The_Outsider
17-06-2008, 00:04
I think the PS3 is much better than the 360, it has better sounds and graphics.

edit: AND MGS4 has tons more lastability than Halo.

Fixed for real flames.

Gazak Blacktoof
17-06-2008, 00:10
@ EVIL INC

I don't think anybody on this forum has said 40K is crap or it has no tactics (certainly not since your last post), it isn't crap and it does have tactics.

I think you need to calm down a bit at look at the way you're writing your own posts. Calling the warhammer rule book a "dummies handbook" is pretty much the kind of flaming you are accusing other posters of.

My gaming experience with non-GW table top games isn't massive, though I've played a fair few and I've also played a number of strategic board games. In my experience bonuses are written into the rules. There are often very few hidden gems or "easter eggs" hidden within the rules.

Sure you can manoeuvre for tactical position in 40K but that's present in every war game, from chess, to risk, to here I stand and AT-43. If there weren't some element of manoeuvre then it wouldn't be a war game at all.

You admit freely that 40K is over shadowed tactically by other games, what other posters are saying is that one of those games is warhammer fantasy and that you've not really shown any contradictory evidence

Pacific
17-06-2008, 00:30
Fixed for real flames.

Hehe... so you obviously dont agree ;)

EVIL INC
17-06-2008, 00:52
@ EVIL INC

I don't think anybody on this forum has said 40K is crap or it has no tactics (certainly not since your last post), it isn't crap and it does have tactics.

I think you need to calm down a bit at look at the way you're writing your own posts. Calling the warhammer rule book a "dummies handbook" is pretty much the kind of flaming you are accusing other posters of.

My gaming experience with non-GW table top games isn't massive, though I've played a fair few and I've also played a number of strategic board games. In my experience bonuses are written into the rules. There are often very few hidden gems or "easter eggs" hidden within the rules.

Sure you can manoeuvre for tactical position in 40K but that's present in every war game, from chess, to risk, to here I stand and AT-43. If there weren't some element of manoeuvre then it wouldn't be a war game at all.

You admit freely that 40K is over shadowed tactically by other games, what other posters are saying is that one of those games is warhammer fantasy and that you've not really shown any contradictory evidence
It is the attitude and implications that are intended and sent that I find offensive.
True, I should not have called the wfb rulebook a dummies handbook, but throughout the thread (and every other like it that the wfb players constantly come here and start) it is stated that unless there are specific bonuses written into the rulebook for a tactical decision, there is no benefit. This is a falsehood. I have shown time and time again that you do NOT have to have every single little bonus written out in a book for it to be there. You just have to be tactically aware of and know how to read a battlefield. Many call this just comman sense stuff and they are true. That is what tactics is. The ability to use comman sense to read a battlefield and use that knowledge to your benefit.
40k and fantasy are just as tactical as one another. They merely focus on different aspects of the game. Just because "your" game focuses on a particuler aspect, it is easy to think that those tactics are superior and are "deeper" while downplaying the tactics required to play the other game.This is a mistake that many are making here. The players of the "other" game could very well do the same thing but they are not. The apparant reason for this is maturity, respect for other people and for the hobby itself, whatever the case may be, it is most certainly NOT because they are admitting that they are inferior to the players of the other game.
The problem here is the elitism and "I'm better then you" att6idude that is being displayed. GW games are intended to be fun and for us to enjoy as a hobby rather then to be some sort of "peeing" contest and the fantasy players should not be constantly invading a section of the forums where a game they do not play is being discussed with the sole purpose of putting others down.

catbarf
17-06-2008, 01:50
have provided such examples of empiracle evidence throughout.


We have shown time and time again that it is just as deep.

Once again: :wtf:

If you did provide such empiracle[sic] evidence (Which I sincerely doubt), it's lost beneath walls of grammar-free text.

As to your point: So, the surrounding player has an easier time shooting heavy weapons troops and leaders. Whereas the surrounded player can fire in any direction, and his opponent has split his forces and thus his firepower as well, removing his ability to eliminate threats the turn they appear. So if anything, being flanked is a boon.


(and every other like it that the WFB players constantly come here and start)

I, along with many others here, play both games. Now leaving that aside, judging by the activity of the forums, there are quite a few more 40k players here than Fantasy players on Warseer as a whole. So if there were this competition between the two, we'd see 'Fantasy has no tactics!' threads in the Fantasy section. Since we don't, and yet you insist that they are WFB players who make these threads, this means one of two things:

1. You assume that WFB players are elitist pricks, much more likely to come here and start a fight than a 40k player would in the Fantasy General forum, or

2. Maybe, just maybe, not everyone who doesn't absolutely love 40k is a Fantasy player.

Wow. What a dangerous thought.

Thoth62
17-06-2008, 02:07
You are one of the few who has that viewpoint then because this thread is full of such implied flames. We have shown time and time again that it is just as deep.
You should not need to have a BOOK tell you what is tactically a good or bad thing to do. 40k allows you to make those judgement calls without having to have it spelled out for you. The fact that you dont have a "dummies handbook" spelling out what the benefits are does not mean that benefits from tactical play do not exist.
GW games are about community, having fun, the hobby as a whole. Why can we just try to play the games and discuss them in a positive way rather then trying to denigrate them and one another?
We have shown that one is just as "tactical" as the other (albeit with different focuses) while both are inferior to other games that concentrate less on the hobby and community.

Speaking of flaming and trolling... :rolleyes:

EVIL INC
17-06-2008, 02:36
Once again: :wtf:
A. If you did provide such empiracle[sic] evidence (Which I sincerely doubt), it's lost beneath walls of grammar-free text.
B. As to your point: So, the surrounding player has an easier time shooting heavy weapons troops and leaders. Whereas the surrounded player can fire in any direction, and his opponent has split his forces and thus his firepower as well, removing his ability to eliminate threats the turn they appear. So if anything, being flanked is a boon.
C. I, along with many others here, play both games. Now leaving that aside, judging by the activity of the forums, there are quite a few more 40k players here than Fantasy players on Warseer as a whole. So if there were this competition between the two, we'd see 'Fantasy has no tactics!' threads in the Fantasy section. Since we don't, and yet you insist that they are WFB players who make these threads, this means one of two things:
1. You assume that WFB players are elitist pricks, much more likely to come here and start a fight than a 40k player would in the Fantasy General forum, or
2. Maybe, just maybe, not everyone who doesn't absolutely love 40k is a Fantasy player.
Wow. What a dangerous thought.
A. LOl, making fun of someone elses grammer in an attempt to make them look bad? Old trick that most here have seen too often to be folled with. Nice try though.
B. Actually, being flanked is not a boon and is actually a bad thing. Reasons can include, losing your special/heavy weapon on the first turn of combat, your champiuon/leader not being able to participate in the combat when he is the one in the unit tooled up for it, losing your attached independant character because they were picked out, not being able to fire at the assaulting unit because they chose to make tactical use of intervening terrean features to prevent anyone from shooting at them, having a second unit followed up into when the original assaulted unit broke, the list goes on but I have already given more then enough examples to prove that tactics exist in choosing to assault a flank or rear.
C. I hate to tell you this, but you are not the only person to have played both games. As a former fantasy player I know from experience that 40k is just as tactical. as for your #1., if the shoe fits, wear it. Luckily, it appears that only a few are jumping into those shoes. as for your #2, There is nothing wrong with preferring one systom over the other. Some are better at using some tactics then others. Likeewise, some prefer one's fluff to the other, there are a variety of reasons why some play one but not the other. I am not judging anyone else by what they play just as I should not be (although I am) by the game and tactics I personally prefer.
We still have the fact that every so often we have fantasy players come in and invade the 40k forum spouting about how 40k has no tactics, we are stupid to play it, the game sucks so on and so forth. We treat fantasy players with enough respect and dignity that we do not feel the need to constantly try to put them dowm you should treat us with the dsame respect and dignity.
This is a game, it is a hobby. Dont you feel that we, as gamers, are made fun of enough already by outsiders that we should not form elitists ranks within our own ranks to put ourselves down? We should all be presenting a united front to the world and making an effort to actually get along.

Speaking of flaming and trolling... :rolleyes:
If standing up for my rights and treating others with respect and dignity is trolling, so be it. I as a gamer and member of the community (as well as other 40k players) should not have to come on here each and every single day just to have fantasy players invading a section that has nothing to do with thier chosen game, telling us how stupid we are, how we are worthless worms beneath thier feet because we play a game that is not good enough for them. They do not come out and say those exact words but that is the intended message that they are giving us in doing so. We treat them with respect and dignity, they should comport themselves accordingly. If they feel the need to flame and make fun of people online, there are other forums more suited for it then here.

catbarf
17-06-2008, 02:46
A. LOl, making fun of someone elses grammer in an attempt to make them look bad? Old trick that most here have seen too often to be folled with. Nice try though.

Grammer. Folled. Irony.


B. Actually, being flanked is not a boon and is actually a bad thing. Reasons can include, losing your special/heavy weapon on the first turn of combat, your champiuon/leader not being able to participate in the combat when he is the one in the unit tooled up for it, losing your attached independant character because they were picked out, not being able to fire at the assaulting unit because they chose to make tactical use of intervening terrean features to prevent anyone from shooting at them, having a second unit followed up into when the original assaulted unit broke,

Torrent of fire is so amazingly worthless that the chance of a squad member being specifically picked off is just about nil. If you're surrounded, then that leader has a greater chance of making it into combat, since he now has two or more fronts to which he can move, as opposed to just one. And your last two examples, being with terrain and force disposition, have absolutely nothing to do with flanking. Being surrounded makes the last scenario less likely, as a strong center forces the opponent to funnel his troops and keep some in reserve.


the list goes on but I have already given more then enough examples to prove that tactics exist in choosing to assault a flank or rear.

And yet again, a recursive statement telling me to go look to previous examples, which in turn are simply posts telling me to go back further, until I get to the start and wonder if this thread is indeed a virtual Möbius strip and the evidence is actually yet to be posted.


We treat fantasy players with enough respect and dignity

Ahem-


The fact that you dont have a "dummies handbook" spelling out what the benefits are does not mean that benefits from tactical play do not exist.

:eyebrows:


just to have fantasy players invading a section

Nope, no bias here.


If standing up for my rights and treating others with respect and dignity is trolling, so be it.

DEEE-FENCE WOOF WOOF DEEE-FENCE WOOF WOOF

EVIL INC
17-06-2008, 02:56
Grammer. Folled. Irony.
1.Torrent of fire is so amazingly worthless that the chance of a squad member being specifically picked off is just about nil. If you're surrounded, then that leader has a greater chance of making it into combat, since he now has two or more fronts to which he can move, as opposed to just one. And your last two examples, being with terrain and force disposition, have absolutely nothing to do with flanking. Being surrounded makes the last scenario less likely, as a strong center forces the opponent to funnel his troops and keep some in reserve.
And yet again, a recursive statement telling me to go look to previous examples, which in turn are simply posts telling me to go back further, until I get to the start and wonder if this thread is indeed a virtual Möbius strip and the evidence is actually yet to be posted.
2. Ahem.
:eyebrows:
Ahem-
:eyebrows:
Nope, no bias here.
DEEE-FENCE WOOF WOOF DEEE-FENCE WOOF WOOF
1. So your saying that simply because you personally discount a rule that it no longer exists or applies? That is what you just did. Hell, if you think that just because you feel a rule is worthless that it will be taken out, then you as the god of the game decide what are tactics and what are not. Forunately for the rest of us, you do not have the right to tell GW what rules they can and cant put into the game.
Then there is much more to an assault then torrent of fire. As a matter of fact, that is not even done in the assault phase. now, as each model has a 2" kill zone, the models within that kill zone are the ones taken out and who get to fight. If I am assaulting your flank where you have left your special/heavy weapons, those will be the ones removed as they are in the kill zone. You tooled up champion on the opposite side will not even be able to fight and if you lose combat and flee, he may not EVER be able to fight again in this game.
Likewise, If I tactically used intervening terrean features to advance to get into a flanking position, I have used tactics.
It helps if you actually READ the posts that have the evidence rather then ignore them hoping they will go away. I (and others) have pointed out exact and specific examples repeatedly. You can ignore them and deny thier existance till the cows come home, it wont change them.
2. Just stating facts.I we werent constantly being attacked by fantasy players telling us how much better they are then us, we wouldnt have to defend ourselves. 40k is just as tactically challenging as fantasy just as fantasy is as challenging as 40k. I am secure enough with myself that I dont feel the need to concoct stories about fantasy so that I can tell fantasy players how stupid they are or how much better I am then they are. I treat them and thier game with the respect and dignity they deserve. If only the reverse were true, we would not be having this conversation.

catbarf
17-06-2008, 03:06
1. So your saying that simply because you personally discount a rule that it no longer exists or applies?

I'm saying that when a rule comes up rarely and even then usually has no effect, it does not immediately counter all the drawbacks to the strategies required to utilize it.


Then there is much more to an assault then torrent of fire. As a matter of fact, that is not even done in the assault phase. now, as each model has a 2" kill zone, the models within that kill zone are the ones taken out and who get to fight. If I am assaulting your flank where you have left your special/heavy weapons, those will be the ones removed as they are in the kill zone. You tooled up champion on the opposite side will not even be able to fight and if you lose combat and flee, he may not EVER be able to fight again in this game.

Please read the 5th Ed. changelist.


It helps if you actually READ the posts that have the evidence rather then ignore them hoping they will go away. I (and others) have pointed out exact and specific examples repeatedly. You can ignore them and deny thier existance till the cows come home, it wont change them.

Surely if there are so many examples, you can cite them instead of just telling me they exist?


I we werent constantly being attacked by fantasy players telling us how much better they are then us, we wouldnt have to defend ourselves.

1. Don't you think it's a little idiotic to instantly assume that everyone who thinks that 40k isn't Chess Evolved™ must be an elitist Fantasy player here to ruin your fun? This is just getting ridiculous. You claim that you treat Fantasy players 'with enough respect and dignity', then turn around and pull a stereotypical Blame It On The [Insert Minority Here] statement?

2. Perhaps you're looking for fights when there aren't any.

EVIL INC
17-06-2008, 03:19
1. I'm saying that when a rule comes up rarely and even then usually has no effect, it does not immediately counter all the drawbacks to the strategies required to utilize it.
2. Please read the 5th Ed. changelist.
3. Surely if there are so many examples, you can cite them instead of just telling me they exist?
4. 1. Don't you think it's a little idiotic to instantly assume that everyone who thinks that 40k isn't Chess Evolved™ must be an elitist Fantasy player here to ruin your fun? This is just getting ridiculous. You claim that you treat Fantasy players 'with enough respect and dignity', then turn around and pull a stereotypical Blame It On The [Insert Minority Here] statement?
5. 2. Perhaps you're looking for fights when there aren't any.
1. I had not even mentioned torrent of fire, it was you that brought it up when confronted with exact examples of how a flanking or rear assault was benificial.
2. I'm sorry, I had not realized that the official date for when 5th edition is "official" had been changed. What day was that? I hope I dont lose too many games because of it because my copy of the rulebook I preordered doesnt come in till mid-july. If the date has not been moved up, then any mention of 5th edition is irrelevant even though examples have already been given of how it will be benificial then too.
3. They have been cited over and over and over each time they are ignored. You will need to actually READ the thread.
4. I am not addressing those that that does not apply to. Notice that it is not every fantasy player on the site who is invading and attacking, just a small minority that are acting as described.
5. Me reading through the 40k forums and suddenly coming across posts telling me how stupid I am because I play 40k and how much better someone is then me as a human being because they play a superior game is not looking for a fight. The ones looking for the fight are the aggressors in the matter.

catbarf
17-06-2008, 03:28
1. I had not even mentioned torrent of fire, it was you that brought it up when confronted with exact examples of how a flanking or rear assault was benificial.

I talked about ToF. You responded about ToF. I responded to your response. What is the confusion here?


2. I'm sorry, I had not realized that the official date for when 5th edition is "official" had been changed. What day was that? I hope I dont lose too many games because of it because my copy of the rulebook I preordered doesnt come in till mid-july. If the date has not been moved up, then any mention of 5th edition is irrelevant even though examples have already been given of how it will be benificial then too.

If it's going to be official within a few months, why simply ignore it while so vehemently defending your position?


3. They have been cited over and over and over each time they are ignored. You will need to actually READ the thread.

I see endless posts saying 'As I have demonstrated already...' and words to the same effect. Again, if there are so many, surely you have no difficulty in locating them?


4. I am not addressing those that that does not apply to. Notice that it is not every fantasy player on the site who is invading and attacking, just a small minority that are acting as described.

And yet you claim that you only defend yourself from


fantasy players telling us how much better they are then us

I see defending against everyone.


5. Me reading through the 40k forums and suddenly coming across posts telling me how stupid I am because I play 40k and how much better someone is then me as a human being because they play a superior game is not looking for a fight. The ones looking for the fight are the aggressors in the matter.

I would love to see a post in this thread telling you that you are inferior as a human being due to your choice of toy soldiers within a single company. Please find me just one. Please!

Alpha_Wolf
17-06-2008, 03:39
Ugh...this thread is just getting retarded and needs to be locked me finks.



Hey guys,

So my gaming group keeps giving me crap by saying that 40K (a game I very much enjoy) has little to no tactics when compared to fantasy. I try and depend my beloved game, but I just wanted to hear what you guys had to say.

Thanks.



To the original poster (if he is still reading this...maybe), of course there are tactics in 40k. Both fantasy and 40k players utilize extensive tactics and stratagies to win.

If I were you I wouldn't trust anyone's opinion on which is more "tactical" (including me).

Play what you enjoy, its as simple as that really. Personally, I like either of the two. I don't see why people should limit their gameplay regardless of which game it is.

Is there anyone in your group who does enjoy 40k? If anyone is at least interested definately play with them. Make it a fun game for them! Let them win a little if you have to (don't make it obvious though). The fluff in 40k is a great strongpoint, try to get people interested.

If all else fails and they continue to act like jerks, depending on where you live, it may be easy to find other players who are more accomidating.

Rioghan Murchadha
17-06-2008, 04:46
Couple words. Sneak peek of new SM codex. Character on bike that can move 18", fleet, and then assault. First turn charge. Veterans being able to assault the turn they deep strike.

'nuff said.

Plastic Rat
17-06-2008, 04:56
In 40K, choosing the direction of attack usually has benefits/effects that are more contextual. By attacking from a flank I can isolate the other guy's unit champion or put me in the right position to consolidate into another next enemy unit.

These are my rewards. But, of course, it's a little harder to spell them out in the 40K rulebook.

Sorry to pick on your post, but it was the clearest example available. We all know that 5th edition is completely negating the above tactic. Trust me, and Evil Inc, I have 'empirical' evidence of it since I've actually read the 5th edition rulebook.

If you've missed it up until this point, A) 5th Edition forces ALL squads who are being assaulted to move into base to base with everything they can before combat starts. So ultimately no matter what direction you attack from, you're going to be in base to base everything. B) There is no more 2" killzone from which you can remove models. Casualties can be removed ANYWHERE.

So, the question, if GW is removing this, will there be fewer tactics in 40k after 5th edition is released, or was it simply never actually intended as a 'tactic'?



It is actually undeniable that it is NOT less tactical. Could you please provide evidence? Just be sure to read through the entire thread first and see where evidence to the contrary of what you said has been provided repeatedly.

Man, I don't think you're understanding the difference between 'evidence' and 'conjecture'. Just about everything spouted in this thread, including the stuff you're saying, is conjecture. Opinion. There IS no empiracle[sic] evidence stated and telling people to go back and look for it is a waste of their time. Trust me, I read through this entire thread.



Well, it is very relevant to compare the two 'battle games' set in the 41st millenium (Warhammer 40k versus Epic).

Both have their cool points:

- Epic has a huge level of tactical challenge / tactical opportunity during games.
- 40k has teh 4w3some. :D

Each is appropriate for certain kinds of gamers (Epic, for example, is a horrible system to introduce wargaming to kids... it'd mostly fly over their heads as a dull 'detached' battle game when they really want to see the guy with the oversized fist punch the Ork Warboss...).

Indeed, Epic has less rules than 40k... probably one half of the rules of 40k (If you count special rules for various armies, as Epic uses Universal Special Rules for the most part, something that is happening more in 40k as the years pass)... yet Epic is uncontestably the more tactical game system.

I'm left wondering how many of the people preaching deep and meaningfull tactical depth in 40k have actually ever played anything other than 40k. Seriously, after trying out a number of other games out there, trying to play 40k again is like putting your brain on power save mode. (And Evil Inc, the previous sentence is an example of conjecture, not 'hard evidence')


World Rock Paper Scissors Tournament (http://www.worldrps.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=207&Itemid=73)

Just because someone can be good at it doesn't mean it is tactically deep.

You sir are my hero and if I ever meet you I will give you a cigar and buy you a drink.