PDA

View Full Version : Thinking of trying out 40K



The Red Scourge
02-03-2009, 09:25
Just got into fantasy a year ago and has had plenty of fun with that game.

So I was browsing 40K models as I was contemplating doing a Dark Heresy RPG campaign and I was wondering whether it was worth thrying this out too.

I used to play 40K that was back in 1st and 2nd edition, before GW had thought of the idea of codexes and had only started publishing army list collected from WD in random books (Squats, Eldar Harlequin, Genestealer Chaos Cults etc.).

The WFB fanboys on this site seem to regard 40K as more of a kids game focussed on rolling dice and devoid of tactics and strategy, is this true?

Also I was thinking of doing either Tau, as I like the idea of remote controlled drones and mecha, and the models has a certain sleek and believable sci fi look. Or else do Daemonhunters, as I never got to try out the Ordo Malleus list from the Realms of Chaos Lost and the Damned its so unfair when kids haven't got rich parents ;)

So what are the fighting styles of these two armies like?

Thanks for your help :)

The_Outsider
02-03-2009, 09:34
So I was browsing 40K models – as I was contemplating doing a Dark Heresy RPG campaign – and I was wondering whether it was worth thrying this out too.

It continues to receive support which is a pretty good reason to try it iMO.



The WFB fanboys on this site seem to regard 40K as more of a kids game focussed on rolling dice and devoid of tactics and strategy, is this true?

You answered your own question the second you said fanboy - a lot of the derogatory comments come from lack of understanding (a notable example being that becuase 40k uses lots of dice, it is purely luck based- which is ludicrous considering the more dice you roll the less reliant on luck you become).



So what are the fighting styles of these two armies like?

Thanks for your help :)

Tau are focused around firepower - mobile firepower is one of their strengths, long range and high strength weaponry is what Tau do well. Close combat and tau do not mix.

DH are a mixed bag, if you go for grey knights you have a force that has soem pretty nifty close cobmat gear and a suprising amount of anti infantry firepower - at the expense of long range and cheap anti tank. GK also suffer from a rather low model count - not exactly ideal for begginners but if you want to play them you should.

The daemon hunter aspect? I'll pass since I don't know enough about them.

Angelus Mortis
02-03-2009, 11:00
If this is your first foray in 40k, I wouldn't recommend the DH unless you are a dedicated gamer. Reason being is the Daemonhunters are probably one of the most difficult lists to be successful with. They are a finesse army and are not forgiving. You have to play them just right or you will lose, and lose a lot. However, played properly, they can be absolutely lethal. They have probably the most lethal melee troops in the game (Grey Knight Terminators and GK in Power Armor are superior to others rank and file). There anti-infantry range firepower is probably one of the most lethal as well.

Just to give you an example, I've been playing 40k for 25+ years and took up DH right when they came out (about 4 or 5 years ago). I probably lost my first 30 games before I finally started to get the jist of how to play them. After, about a dozen more losses I started refining their play style and finally started to win some. I am now able to boast about a 60-70% success rate with DH now and it takes very careful playing on my part.

So, if you really want to play DH I say go for it, but make sure you are prepared mentally for it. They do have some awesome looking models and are really fun to paint as well. They also have some terrrific fluff if your into that.

Now the Tau are a bit of finesse as well, but are a bit more forgiving than Daemonhunters are. They are straight up long range, high power, shoot the crap out of it type army. The only real melee troops they have are Kroot, and they are only slightly better than Imperial Guard(who are probably the second weakest melee troops). Tau have good unit choices for the most part, and play best with massed firepower and surgical firepower (such as Marker Lights w/Broadsides/Tanks/Snipers). Their success is highly dependant on killing the enemy before he makes it to melee. If they get assaulted, you can for the most part write that squad off and get ready to shoot the crap out of whoever just wiped them out.

So, in closing, if you just want to get your feet wet, Codex Space Marines are the safest bet to learn the mechanics. They are very forgiving of mistakes. I would suggest go small (Assault on Black Reach is really just perfect, especially for the price) and then decide what tickles your fancy and go DH or Tau.

Thats my opinion.

maze ironheart
02-03-2009, 11:02
It's worth doing both 40k and warhammer as I play both games.

Born Again
02-03-2009, 11:16
As the outsider said, fanboys are not to be listened to in this instance. 40k uses more dice rolling than fantasy, but so what? I'm not aware of any tactics in fantasy to alter the outcome of a dice roll, and I hardly think stacking up ranks to get combat bonuses requires that much tactical thought anyway. 40k just relies on different tactics. IMO, you need to put more thought into your army list, not in creating killer units, but in creating killer combos of units that can support each other. Fantasy is also more reliant on moving and positioning in a manner similar to chess, where as 40k is more similar to a modern battle, where you have an objective to capture and need to set up units to provide covering fire, have a powerful unit capture it, and then have some troops secure and hold it for as long as possible.

As far as which army to play, no-one can answer that for you: go for which one you like best. However, out of the two, I would suggest Tau to a new player as they're easier to get to grips with.

The Red Scourge
02-03-2009, 11:45
Well I wouldn't mind getting my **** kicked, and playing an army requiring a bit of finesse is definitely my style my favorite WFB army is wood elves, and they require constant awareness.

Also Tau looks to be more of a WFB gunline, and even though I like the models, I'm afraid they would bore me and the kroot really doesn't appeal to me. I like to take the initiative and take the fight to my enemy instead of awaiting their move.

Also the DH models could double to be used, when the Dark Heresy RPG needs to get tactical ;)

Lord Damocles
02-03-2009, 11:59
The trick with Deamonhunters is not to become fixated on just using the units in the codex (he says, looking at pure Grey Knight army :angel:).

The Grey Knight units are cool and dead killy, but lack the equipment to effectively take on a wide variety of foes.
The non-GK units tend to lack slightly in power on their own, but are designed to back up other choices.

Inducted troops are where it's at. For the Knights - whos main weaknesses are lack of diverse weaponry and numbers - an allied Guard platoon can cover their weaknesses relatively cheaply. For radical armies, or those which just don't have any Knights, allied Marines supply troops who arn't overcosted for what they can do, along with some more killy vehicles.


That said, Deamonhunters *are* currently underpowered, so it'll often be an uphill battle with them.



The WFB fanboys on this site seem to regard 40K as more of a kids game focussed on rolling dice and devoid of tactics and strategy, is this true?
Huh, lrn to play Deamons of Chaos, lol :rolleyes:

fluffstalker
02-03-2009, 12:07
Id say that WFB is far more unbalanced than 40k currently.

Yes, Orcs are fairly strong, but they're strong with multiple, intersting builds, unlike say a Tzeentch Flamer Spam list or a boring Gateway delivery system in Fantasy.

WFB is a lot more engaging in the movement phase, you do have to have a knowledge of angles and an ability to think a few turns down the line to set up that perfect charge. The problem is that these days there are so many broken choices that even with flanking its hard to beat a list simply by virtue of its composition. For example, Grave Guard or Black Guard deathstars, even if you flank em, with the right characters in them all your doing is giving up more Static CR.

Hit even the mighty assault terminator squad with enough lasguns and it will die. Ask any guard player ;).

PS: If you play wood elves you will most probably enjoy eldar. Strong shooting, very mobile and with a ranger force quite sneaky.

The_Outsider
02-03-2009, 12:49
PS: If you play wood elves you will most probably enjoy eldar. Strong shooting, very mobile and with a ranger force quite sneaky.

I would imagine DE fit that niche as well, but whether starting them is a good idea is another matter entirely.

squeekenator
02-03-2009, 12:52
Tau are not a gunline. At least, they aren't a gunline if you want a chance of winning. You can just line up Fire Warriors and go pew pew pew, but, despite what most people seem to think, a successful Tau army relies on highly mobile, concentrated firepower. Shooting at the enemy and hoping they don't get to you in time is going to fail pretty much every time, because a Tau army simply can't dish out that much firepower in so few turns. You have to use battlesuits to jump around and take out well-armoured targets, while your Fire Warriors hop in Devilfish transports and sit around for a bit. Once you know where the enemy is weak, the Devilfish drive up, the Fire Warriors come out and utterly obliterate a single squad with massed rapid fire, and then you redeploy before the enemy can swamp them in melee. Even with the current underpowered Imperial Guard army, a Tau gunline will lose to an IG one. Once the Guard become a viable competitive choice, there isn't going to be any competition.

Then again, I'd prefer it if more people collected Daemonhunters, because right now it isn't financially feasible for my FLGS to stock more than one or two boxes at a time, so perhaps I shouldn't be saying that...

Angelus Mortis
02-03-2009, 14:01
Tau are not a gunline. At least, they aren't a gunline if you want a chance of winning. You can just line up Fire Warriors and go pew pew pew, but, despite what most people seem to think, a successful Tau army relies on highly mobile, concentrated firepower. Shooting at the enemy and hoping they don't get to you in time is going to fail pretty much every time, because a Tau army simply can't dish out that much firepower in so few turns. You have to use battlesuits to jump around and take out well-armoured targets, while your Fire Warriors hop in Devilfish transports and sit around for a bit. Once you know where the enemy is weak, the Devilfish drive up, the Fire Warriors come out and utterly obliterate a single squad with massed rapid fire, and then you redeploy before the enemy can swamp them in melee. Even with the current underpowered Imperial Guard army, a Tau gunline will lose to an IG one. Once the Guard become a viable competitive choice, there isn't going to be any competition.


Nobody said they were a gunline. The OP suggested thats what they look like, and without experience, they do. Also, he wasn't really asking for tactics, he was asking if it would be a good idea to start those lists. Everything you just told him probably flew right over his head.

Freakiq
02-03-2009, 14:03
Right now is a good time to start 40k.

The new(ish) 5th edition rules make for a very balanced game compared to earlier editions while the objective based gameplay promotes balanced armies and keeps the game from becoming a static gunfight.

You'll also notice even though there is a difference in power between different codexes it is far from a noticable as in fantasy where certain armies (*cough*daemons*cough*) walk right over others.

Most armies also have a wide assortment of plastic models and in many cases expensive metal models can be created through simple conversions, especially for Space Marines and Chaos players.

Desalbert
02-03-2009, 16:56
I would whole-heartedly recommend 40k and I play both as well. I think, the most important thing to do is pick the army which you think is the most intriguing. The worst thing to do, is choose an army because it might work well in a certain campaign or because your gaming group needs another villian army, or something. Just make sure the army you pick, is the army YOU want to spend money on, time on, and energy on-- that's pretty key.

((Also, just a side remark to the above poster, who's signature reads about people having statistics in their signatures, haha. It's terribly Ironic, because, in pasting that into your sig, you ARE giving me statistics...Namely, the percentage of people who give statistics. :p Although I know you mean win/loss/draw records, you have to admit, grammatically, I had to infer that and when you read your signature, as is, it's horribly ironic, because your percentages ARE statistics :p))

Kind regards,
-Des

volair
02-03-2009, 16:58
Just got into fantasy a year ago and has had plenty of fun with that game.

So I was browsing 40K models as I was contemplating doing a Dark Heresy RPG campaign and I was wondering whether it was worth thrying this out too.

I used to play 40K that was back in 1st and 2nd edition, before GW had thought of the idea of codexes and had only started publishing army list collected from WD in random books (Squats, Eldar Harlequin, Genestealer Chaos Cults etc.).

The WFB fanboys on this site seem to regard 40K as more of a kids game focussed on rolling dice and devoid of tactics and strategy, is this true?

Also I was thinking of doing either Tau, as I like the idea of remote controlled drones and mecha, and the models has a certain sleek and believable sci fi look. Or else do Daemonhunters, as I never got to try out the Ordo Malleus list from the Realms of Chaos Lost and the Damned its so unfair when kids haven't got rich parents ;)

So what are the fighting styles of these two armies like?

Thanks for your help :)

I do not recommend tau or demonhunters. Demonhunters are a gimmick offshoot that struggle to win games, and the Tau rules do not work well in 5th edition.

Desalbert
02-03-2009, 17:08
I do not recommend tau or demonhunters. Demonhunters are a gimmick offshoot that struggle to win games, and the Tau rules do not work well in 5th edition.

:eyebrows:

Once again, it's down to what the original poster thinks is interesting and cool. He should not be discouraged from playing either army, just because you believe that one does not have a place in the game as a standalone army, and one has a harder time winning than they used to...

All armies are viable. All armies can win, and the most important thing...Once again.. is choosing an army that interests you. Disregard posts like the one I've quoted that seems to make things so clear cut and easy.

Choose what you will enjoy, Red Scourge

-Des

squeekenator
02-03-2009, 20:00
Nobody said they were a gunline. The OP suggested thats what they look like, and without experience, they do. Also, he wasn't really asking for tactics, he was asking if it would be a good idea to start those lists. Everything you just told him probably flew right over his head.

I know that. The OP said that they looked like a gunline, and I said "actually, they require some pretty serious mobility and good positioning, they can't really gunline at all." If the OP doesn't understand exactly what I'm saying, it's at least possible to get the gist of it, which was that Tau go all movey-movey shooty-shooty.

Angelus Mortis
02-03-2009, 20:05
movey-movey shooty-shooty.

You probably would of been better served by just calling it that. All that other junk probably sounded to him like "blah blah blah...Tau....blah blah blah...gunline....blah blah blah....shooty....blah blah blah...mobile...blah blah blah".

Corrode
02-03-2009, 20:58
It's so good of you to assume the OP's a *****, that'll help a lot.

The Red Scourge
02-03-2009, 21:06
Please Angelus Mortis and Squeekenator, don't get into a catfight over me :)

I listen (read) what you're both saying and appreciate your comments and insights, they are all helpful :)

Choosing an army will for me be based solely on looks and fluff. Cheesiness and power level will have no influence on this. This is what has worked for me with fantasy, and this is the approach I will have to 40K.

Currently as I see it, both armies seem to be rated very low on the cheese scale. Which only means that games will be challenging and thus interesting.

The Tau got mecha and a sleek, streamlined, aerodynamic appearance that appeals to me. They do however suffer from the Kroots total lack of appeal, and doing an army where half of it doesn't appeal is a bad limit to set yourself, when you want to play the game.

The Daemon Hunters seem to win, as they've got the fluff, the looks, and in general a lot of things going for them. If it is possible to combine with other armies to make amends for their shortcomings, I can't see any reason for them not to be competitive (and yes I have absolutely no idea of the rules at this point ;)).

Oh, and thanks to Corrode for giving me a hearty laugh :D

SPYDER68
02-03-2009, 21:18
Daemonhunters can do good, especially with guard getting a new codex soon and taking some of them as allies to take up the lack or ranged weaponry.

sydbridges
02-03-2009, 21:32
You might want to peruse the codices of the armies that interest you before making the plunge and starting an army. Maybe look at some of the army lists in the army list subforum to get an idea as to how people put stuff together.


((Also, just a side remark to the above poster, who's signature reads about people having statistics in their signatures, haha. It's terribly Ironic, because, in pasting that into your sig, you ARE giving me statistics...Namely, the percentage of people who give statistics. :p Although I know you mean win/loss/draw records, you have to admit, grammatically, I had to infer that and when you read your signature, as is, it's horribly ironic, because your percentages ARE statistics :p))

Actually, I'm pretty sure he isn't mocking you, he's mocking the people who have signatures which read something like, "98% of all teens listen to rap, so if you're one of the 2% that listen to something else, put this in your sig" or "98% of all forum trolls are actually lictors, if you're one of the 2% of forum trolls that are humans, put this in your sig," etc etc etc.

Angelus Mortis
02-03-2009, 23:52
It's so good of you to assume the OP's a *****, that'll help a lot.

Only one person used the term ***** here. I said he has never played before, which infers he doesn't know terminology or units. Posts like yours are what escalates threads. I think we answered the OPs questions, I'm out before you guys really embarass us.

Born Again
03-03-2009, 04:54
Tau are not a gunline. At least, they aren't a gunline if you want a chance of winning. You can just line up Fire Warriors and go pew pew pew, but, despite what most people seem to think, a successful Tau army relies on highly mobile, concentrated firepower. Shooting at the enemy and hoping they don't get to you in time is going to fail pretty much every time, because a Tau army simply can't dish out that much firepower in so few turns. You have to use battlesuits to jump around and take out well-armoured targets, while your Fire Warriors hop in Devilfish transports and sit around for a bit. Once you know where the enemy is weak, the Devilfish drive up, the Fire Warriors come out and utterly obliterate a single squad with massed rapid fire, and then you redeploy before the enemy can swamp them in melee. Even with the current underpowered Imperial Guard army, a Tau gunline will lose to an IG one. Once the Guard become a viable competitive choice, there isn't going to be any competition.

Then again, I'd prefer it if more people collected Daemonhunters, because right now it isn't financially feasible for my FLGS to stock more than one or two boxes at a time, so perhaps I shouldn't be saying that...

Actually, I run a gunline style Tau army. I have battlesuits for mobility, but my Fire Warriors are all on foot, no transports. I've had a surprising outcome with them, and I'd argue that Tau can be played in this way. You need a shift in tactics, and you still need battlesuits to hop around on the move, but you certainly don't need to load everything up in a devilfish as some people seem to think. It can be a bit of a struggle at times, and if you have poor dice rolling you can quickly be overwhelmed, but generally I seem to do ok.

The Red Scourge
03-03-2009, 08:10
Okay guys.

I think, I've convinced myself that it wouldn't be totally bonkers to try out the DH – if only for modelling purposes.

I think I'd want my army to be based on stormtroopers (anything wrong with using the kasrkin models here?) combined with Grey Knight terminators, I'd love to fit in a few assassins somewhere too :)

ChaosVC
03-03-2009, 08:44
I can see some bitter 40k player over WHFB players comments of their "precious" game. I would say, "Yeah go for it!" its a fun game with some tactics though whether it is more luck base then fantasy, you will be the judge of it...after you played it.:D

Angelus Mortis
03-03-2009, 11:05
Okay guys.

I think, I've convinced myself that it wouldn't be totally bonkers to try out the DH if only for modelling purposes.

I think I'd want my army to be based on stormtroopers (anything wrong with using the kasrkin models here?) combined with Grey Knight terminators, I'd love to fit in a few assassins somewhere too :)

Your actually on to something there. In my experience, thats the best way to run DH. Base your list off expendable Troops with a nasty group of Grey Knights ready to be applied where it hurts the most. If you want some suggestions on lists or tactics, I would be happy to help you with that to hopefully make the early DH experience as painless as possible.

The Red Scourge
03-03-2009, 13:37
Your actually on to something there. In my experience, thats the best way to run DH. Base your list off expendable Troops with a nasty group of Grey Knights ready to be applied where it hurts the most. If you want some suggestions on lists or tactics, I would be happy to help you with that to hopefully make the early DH experience as painless as possible.

You know, I just might pick you up on that one :)

I think, I've decided to go slow and start by ordering a Kasrkin squad + heavy weapons and a group of grey knight terminators along with a Witch Hunter + retinue (not entirely wysiwyg, but I'll go slow and use them for Dark Heresy RPG to start with), and then try and get these done along with my VC skeletal horde. Then when they're done, I'll think, I'll open up for the next level :)

fluffstalker
03-03-2009, 21:30
Yeah VC, I mean luck can be mitigated by skill when facing a Two Hydra, Dragon Dreadlord E army right? Yup. Skill in the ability to add to my Empire list the two entries: Steam Tank and Steam Tank. Oh and the popewagon.

Or perhaps the skill to take three dispel scrolls because If I dont half of army will be gatewayed or pit of shaded off the board? Again, the current version of WFB is even more about listmaking then 40k is.

Ill agree that as an overall system WFB is more strategically engaging then 40k, but with the current power creep and the overemphasis on monsters and magic instead of RnF, Id say that 5th ed 40k is more balanced and its the perfect time to get into it.

The Red Scourge
03-03-2009, 22:30
Please Fluffstalker.

Your WFB-bashing is not amusing. I butchered many a VC list before I took on the army, and my gaming environment is not one of dual stank/hydra/special characters/dragon lords and what not. Its about having fun and fighting with strategy above stats.

As you might have noticed, I'm entering 40K purely on an interest in models and fluff and not in power. Tau and DH seem to be underdogs in the environment, yet these are the ones that appeal to me. In the same way I chose HoC pure mortals, as I liked the thought of the ravaging horde. I did Wood Elves, as I couldn't believe that T3 no armor elves could be that hard. And I set my eyes on VC, as I wanted to try out an army based on static CR and infantry regiments.

You might be disappointed in WFB, but I couldn't care less. Take a look at your gaming environment, and take a moment to wonder whether it isn't because you play with the wrong sort of people.

BTW: My most regular opponent is a die-hard empire player, and I've never had a battle against him that wasn't hard fought and challenging (and I've yet to see more than one stank). So my best advice to you is to shape up – perhaps try a different army and/or play style – and try and re-think your overall strategy. And remember to have fun while playing the game – its a game, and games are about having fun :)

Bellicose
03-03-2009, 22:46
Hi guys, new here myself and wondering about a fresh start in 40k as well, where do i go and who do i speak to about guard forces. Whats been happening with 40k over the past 18 months, or should i look up old topics. :)

Angelus Mortis
03-03-2009, 23:53
I play IG extensively as well. As a matter of fact, my Krieg force is my largest (over 8k pts). Probably best to start your own thread though so as to not hijack this one.

ChaosVC
04-03-2009, 02:18
Yeah VC, I mean luck can be mitigated by skill when facing a Two Hydra, Dragon Dreadlord E army right? Yup. Skill in the ability to add to my Empire list the two entries: Steam Tank and Steam Tank. Oh and the popewagon.

Or perhaps the skill to take three dispel scrolls because If I dont half of army will be gatewayed or pit of shaded off the board? Again, the current version of WFB is even more about listmaking then 40k is.

Ill agree that as an overall system WFB is more strategically engaging then 40k, but with the current power creep and the overemphasis on monsters and magic instead of RnF, Id say that 5th ed 40k is more balanced and its the perfect time to get into it.

Same can be said about optimal army builds from space marines to Orks, just look at the thread out there. Are Nids cheesy, are space marines cheesy? I hate Twin lash chaos SM! Your fantasy bashing doesn't make you anymore different from the fantasy people who make the same comments about 40k.

And you even admitt that fantasy is more strategically more engaging...
All I can say is that if you have problem with fantasy power play, find like minded people like you. I know I did and I am enjoying every game I play. Same can be said about 40k.

Doominator
04-03-2009, 02:51
I think, the most important thing to do is pick the army which you think is the most intriguing. The worst thing to do, is choose an army because it might work well in a certain campaign or because your gaming group needs another villian army, or something. Just make sure the army you pick, is the army YOU want to spend money on, time on, and energy on-- that's pretty key.




Ah, well I guess somebody failed to tell me that when I started out doing warhammer.:cries:
Oh well, at least I learned my lesson the hard way.:cool:

fluffstalker
04-03-2009, 10:56
I wasnt directing the comments at you Red Scourge, Im merely responding to VC's thinly veiled comments that 40k requires less skill, which may have been true in 4th Edition and a year or so back in WFB, but not with the current incarnation of WFB.

And theres no real need to assume that im not playing for fun - for pick up games and the like I actually play a themed Pike and Shot Empire from Spain, with minimal magic and a large focus on RnF, and its great fun and is extremely challenging. Pointing out flaws in the balance doesnt make me a player who doesnt care about the fluff aspect of the game.

However I dont think you can blame players for creating lists that are tailored to the powered units, I mean, having fun is the point, but in tournaments the objective is to win. Unless I was extremely proficient, I wouldnt handicap my list by not taking what are patently better choices. To a certain extent players are too blame for overengineering their lists, yes, but when the army books and entries heavily favour certain units over others can you really blame people for trying to win? Is there something wrong with that?

And are space marines and nids cheesy? No. It might seem like a rhetorical question to you but in reality the answer is : no. Check out the threads in the GD and you'll see some good reasons why not.

I guess the key difference is - dual lash CSM is bloody irritating, but beatable. Using a balanced, fun, IG list, I've dealt with Nob Biker Orc lists, and Lysander Termie lists, more often than not, without having to take a simliarly min-maxed army. In WFB though, in order to deal with say, a VC IoN or GG bunker list, I would have to tailor my own armies to the point where its more a game of lists, then it is of tatics. If I dont, and my opponent isnt an idiot, then I'll lose, and there will be little I can do about it. And yeah, as politically incorrect as it is to say on this forum, I actually prefer to win.

The Red Scourge
04-03-2009, 20:46
Sorry for the misunderstanding then Fluffstalker, and apologies given if one is needed :)

So in short you're telling me that you find 40K to be a more balanced game than WFB tournamentswise. Yet, when you refrain from the min-maxed builds, WFB is the most strategic demanding game, right? :)

jubilex
04-03-2009, 21:08
Welcome to 40k, red scourge, hope you enjoy yourself!

The Red Scourge
04-03-2009, 22:10
Arrh! Shucks I just placed an order for the first models :D

fluffstalker
04-03-2009, 23:01
I find the balance between codices and the core rules in 40k to be overall more balanced currently then the one between army books and core rules in WFB currently. Thats all.

I guess well have to agree to disagree on whos to blame. The system for having really obvious exploitable flaws, or peopl for exploiting them and power gaming/min maxing. You blame the people, I dont have thaet luxury, because If i did I would have absoutely no one to game with. Sorry about that. I mostly play tournaments or competitive games so taking "fluff" lists there isnt really an option unless Im going for laffs.

If one agrees beforehand to a balanced game, and probably using an earlier incarnation of Warhammer Fantasy, then Ill agree that the demands especially in the movement phase are much more then 40k. One mistake, one failed charge, and your in trouble. In 40k its very, very easy to correct mistakes, especially if you have a forgiving army.

Unfortunately for you though, Scourge,DH are not exactly that kind of army :P.

What kind of opponents will you be facing? That is what armies will you be facing?

AllisterCaine
05-03-2009, 01:04
40k is a fun game, but you'd be fooling yourself if you think that the amount of 40k tactics and strategies surpasses or even rivals that of fantasy. The typical arguments for fantasy bashing can be said exactly for 40k, although the people posting them would hardly admit it. As Fluff said, "bloody irritating, but beatable", and that applies to both games, not just to fantasy or 40k. The whole "more dice rolling = less randomness" thing is also BS, but not because it seems to defy logic, which it actully doesnt, but instead the scale is too small to make that statement true in 40k or fantasy. If you rolled a million dice, the "average result" will probably be a lot more accurate than rolling 1 die for example, hence the "more dice rolling = less randomness", but once again, doesnt apply because the scale is too small.

The Tau army can be made to be surprisingly maneuverable- it definietly does not have to be a gun line. Great transports, great elite choices, and good troops. I play WE and I must say that the Tau might be the closest choice in terms of gameplay. However, they do lack the "strategic punch" present in the WE army, but a squad of firewarriors + transport or battlesuits might even be able to act like a unit of Wild Riders or even wardancers, although the damage wont be from CC, obviously. I must admit that the DH army is kinda weak, no matter what you do. Stormtroopers and (power armored) grey knights are among the worst troops in the entire game.