PDA

View Full Version : to those who don't like 40k



Torga_DW
30-06-2009, 23:28
Just a thought. I started with 40k, and at several points (like now) dipped into fantasy. I think a lot of the arguments and bashings between the game occur because its like comparing apples and oranges, they're two very different games despite using similar mechanics.

But i'm something of a dragonlance gnome in real life, i'm compelled to tinker. I've already made a set of house rules for 40k which address all my problems i have with it. I'm thinking of doing the same with fantasy.

Which got me thinking. Instead of why don't you like 40k, what changes to the game would it take to make you like it? If you just don't like sci-fi in general well then thats your cup of tea, but if the rules are what put you off, then what sort of rules would make you consider playing it?

ZeroTwentythree
01-07-2009, 00:01
I'm not sure this is really the right forum for this topic. Liking one game doesn't necessarily have anything to do with liking or disliking the other. That's oversimplified "either/or" thinking.

But to get back to your point, I slowly lost interest in the game when it went from a small, tactical squad based skirmish game, to a game of seeing how many figures and tanks you could cram onto a table, and how quickly you could remove them.

Necromunda was a decent game, but I still prefered a couple squads of space marines or eldar to gang warfare.

The final straw for me was in 3rd ed. (I played since the game came out) when the game distilled down to cramming as many close combat guys as you could into transports and jumping on the enemy before they could do the same to you.

PARTYCHICORITA
01-07-2009, 01:25
I also started with 40k and then moved over to fantasy to the point where i only play 40k every once in a while and don't really enjoy it.

What i like about warhammer in general is how each army is unique and all units have tons of rules and stats that are different deppending on the army. That i feel has been lost in 40k and it's the main reason why i stop enjoying it while feeling more and more interested on fantasy.

dwarfhold13
01-07-2009, 01:34
i always use the words "point and click" when referring to 40k.. i haven't played a game in quite a while though, so i can't really give an opinion, but what i do know is that in a game that relies on outcome of die rolls, it just seems like 40 leans too much toward good and bad rolling..
i think just the simple fact that most units in a fantasy army have charge arcs means that you HAVE to set them up properly AND get charges off to do better in the game.. you can still whiff, but there is definitely a need for tactics in the game
with all that said, i don't think fantasy is the 'perfect' game, it's just what i prefer

Necromancy Black
01-07-2009, 01:42
I always found people who say 40k is too simple or fantasy isn't fast enough or complain about herohammer or cheese all the same. Bunch of whining snobs.

Play what you want. I enjoy fantasy and love painting my Lizards. My SM chapter use to have the apothecary trait and with that gone I don't have the drive to pick up 40k again.

Honestly though I enjoy all aspects of both games.

loveless
01-07-2009, 01:45
I always found people who say 40k is too simple or fantasy isn't fast enough or complain about herohammer or cheese all the same. Bunch of whining snobs.

Play what you want. I enjoy fantasy and love painting my Lizards. My SM chapter use to have the apothecary trait and with that gone I don't have the drive to pick up 40k again.

Honestly though I enjoy all aspects of both games.

This.

Also, with every edition of each game, a person's interest (if they're inclined to like both) will wax and wane.

For instance, I find 5th Edition 40K far more interesting than 4th Edition. Meanwhile, the 7th Edition Fantasy Army Books are...well...I tend to not be a fan.

Anyone who's familiar with me will know that I have a whole slew of other problems with Fantasy, but they don't really stop me from enjoying the game when I do play it.

As it stands, 40K is more interesting to me currently. Come 8th Edition Fantasy...that might change.

destroyerlord
01-07-2009, 01:57
Bring back area terrain blocking line of sight. Don't bring back 'size categories' for models. (I cant see your destroyers because there is a swarm of scarabs in the way? WTF?)
Make movement important, rather than just a method of getting into close combat.
Change the entire system to individual unit activation rather than 'I go, you go'.
Introduce psychology rules that actually do something. (Pretty much every army has an immunity to psychology in some way).
All of the above would help.


Also, with every edition of each game, a person's interest (if they're inclined to like both) will wax and wane.
This is also very true. So maybe I'll like 40k 6th more than 4th/5th (both of which I thought less fun than 3rd.)

Kasrkin 666
01-07-2009, 02:39
It all depends on what you like. I love Fantasy way more than 40k, but my friend, different story. Tryed to get him into Fantasy, he finally bit, and now he wants to go back to 40k, and we havn't even played yet! He will always be a 40k kinda gy.

-Sunny

Coragus
01-07-2009, 02:42
Something about 40K the last few months makes me look at those minis and go, "Ugh, I don't want to take them all out of the box just to put them away." For Fantasy though, I'm looking at tournaments within four hours away to drive to and play in. I can't explain it, but Fantasy seems so much more relavent for me right now.

DDogwood
01-07-2009, 04:14
But to get back to your point, I slowly lost interest in the game when it went from a small, tactical squad based skirmish game, to a game of seeing how many figures and tanks you could cram onto a table, and how quickly you could remove them.

QFT. 2nd Ed. had some ridiculous balance issues, but it was still fundamentally a game of small-unit tactics where movement, positioning, and clever use of terrain was often more important than your army list. 3rd, 4th and 5th all seem to emphasize army-building over in-game tactics. While I'm sure this is great for selling lots of minis, I'd rather not pay hundreds of dollars and spend hundreds of hours painting just to play rock-paper-scissors.

Sadly, WFB seems to be slowly moving in this direction as well.

big squig
01-07-2009, 04:18
I'll chime in as someone who plays both, but greatly perfers 40k. When 40K switched over from 2nd to 3rd I was livid. Such a massive simplification of the rules...but as time passed I found myself drawn to games that didn't play like fantasy or 2nd-ed 40k. I want to play the games and use actual tactics to overcome my opponent. I don't want to have to look up rules over and over and over because there's like a thousand of them. I don't want the winner to be decided by who knows how to manipulate the rules the best. Fantasy is full of those weird abstract situations.

I like 40K because it's a game where casualties don't really matter because of objectives and unit placement and movement decide who wins just as much as a units power. (keep in mind we NEVER play annihilation)

Now, unit placement and movement are just as important in fantasy too, it's just with a rule book three times as long and ten times complex. Fantasy's rules could be slimmed down considerably and made more approachable without any loss in strategy. No matter what GW would do to the game, so long as you trying to outmaneuver your opponent and gain flank charges the strategy will always be there.

I hear a lot of fantasy players compare 40k to 'point and click' but that's never ever ever ever true if you play with a proper terrain set-up (something that never happens at a GW store) and play with an objective based mission. There's a reason why transport based armies are better than gunlines.

Fantasy is great, it's just that it could accomplish the same level of greatness with half the rules.

Necromancy Black
01-07-2009, 04:53
I like 40K because it's a game where casualties don't really matter because of objectives and unit placement and movement decide who wins just as much as a units power. (keep in mind we NEVER play annihilation)


Gotta say I would like some more modes of play brought out by GW for fantasy and made mainstream, and then added to the tournament scene. that would really help the game alot.



Fantasy is great, it's just that it could accomplish the same level of greatness with rules that didn't need to be FAQ'd 5 times before people knew how the hell they should be played.

I fixed it for you.

Avian
01-07-2009, 05:08
I quite like the rules for 40K, I just got tired of fighting against twenty different variations on the theme of little supermen in power armour.

Torga_DW
01-07-2009, 05:38
So some people don't like the streamlining needed to move the game towards larger scale battles? It does seem to be like they're trying to move the game more in scale towards epic, doesn't it? While retaining the individual trooper atmosphere. To be honest, while it was a thrill to whip out my titans for a couple games, i'm really over apocalypse.

Other people don't like the prevalence of power armoured troops? Well thats fair enough really. I guess thats a major distinction between 40k and fantasy, the different armies involved. A big part of 40k involves marine or marine-equivalents. I hear they're trying to make empire the marines of fantasy, but i just don't see it being as prevalent as 40k is. Supermen in techno-armour is pretty cool, but i can see how it stagnates things when everyone is a superman in techno armour and so is their dog.

And the randomization factor. Fantasy rewards set tactics with in-game bonuses, while 40k largely doesn't. So if it did, certain people might find it more interesting? Anyone care to expand here on exactly what tactics are most favoured? Flank charges, outnumbering (rank bonuses), things like that? Because at the moment, if you surround an enemy unit on all sides with troops in 40k, make him fall back and its wiped out (nowhere to run). What do people think about that?

Just to touch on some other comments: i don't feel that 40k is any more about army building than fantasy is. In my experience, both games are a large part about the list. I've had a few paper-rock-scissors games of fantasy now, where certain army builds just couldn't touch others.

And oh yeah, IgoUgo. To some extent, there has to be a certain point where one player takes over and the other player waits his turn. But yes, 40k suffers from this greatly. In my house rules, i've tried to make it unit-alternating unit per phase, which makes things much more balanced. Fantasy at least has things like charge reactions, but still at the end of the day its IgoUgo. What do people think about this? Are people happy with that system, or would you prefer something else?

One final thought, orders. In both systems, characters are uber gods of war that specialize in whatever they do to kill people best. For example in fantasy, a champion is literally stronger and tougher (usually) than another soldier. But in real life, generals and lieutenants don't get stronger, they get wiser (hopefully). For us here in the real world, its all about leaders issuing orders and commands and stuff to improve the efficiency of the troops. With the new imperial guard codex (40k), their leaders can issue specific orders to the troops. What do you think of this sort of thing in relation to both systems? Happy with how it is now, or would you be interested in more command-driven combat?

Just some more thoughts i had since writing this. I'm glad we're keeping this (touch wood) polite and civilized, without any bashing or trolling so far. I like to think about my games, the pros and cons, what works what doesn't. But then like i said, i'm a gnome. So with that i'll head back to mount nevermind. :)


edit: removed some junk text at the bottom.

Condottiere
01-07-2009, 05:45
Well, I've gotten some figures which I want to try out, though being able to blast everything on the table would seem to me unrealistic in terms of modern urban warfare.

big squig
01-07-2009, 06:23
I guess my only advice to any fantasy player looking to try out 40k is to NOT play without an objective, NOT play with little terrain, and to NOT play Apocalypse.

- Missions are critical for 40k. In fantasy its just about causing maximum damage, but 40k doesn't use VP (and killpoints should be avoided as their dumb). In 40k killing is not the objective, its the means to a greater objective. Objectives should be points on the board you must leave your deployment zone for and secure. Even choosing terrain feature as objectives adds a little flavor and story to your games. But more that anything, just lining up 12" and shooting at each other has little to no strategy involved. It's just dull and you will feel a lot better about your games if you avoid doing it all together.

- USE TERRAIN!!! I can't count how many times I've walked into a GW and seen a couple kids playing 40k over a hill and a tree. I see this with fantasy players too. They just set up the same amount of terrain they use in fantasy and then complain that 40k boils down to blasting the opposition away or dog piling in the center. Use terrain, at least 25% (fill up one quarter of the board with terrain just to figure out how much you should use minimum, its a lot more than you think). Have some stuff block LOS (at least one in the center), it will create fire lanes and stop the game from being stand a shoot. Have no area greater than 12"x12" empty and use a good mix of terrain types. Avoid putting ALL the terrain in deployment zones and place useful stuff in the no-man's land...make them earn it.

- Apocalypse is fun, but it's mindless and full of sugar filled kids. It takes a LOT of prep work and without that prep work it just falls apart. There's little to no strategy involved in it and the fantasy player in you will most likely hate it.

Seriously, it's amazing how much depth and strategy pop out of 40k with these little guidelines.

Gazak Blacktoof
01-07-2009, 06:54
What spoils 40K? For me it's:

Units able to charge without LOS- charging around corners.

True line of sight.

Power armour proliferation would be a concern if the people I play with had marnies.

5th edition scenarios and victory conditions.

General crappiness of necrons (my army) in the current edition.

Lack of depth in the rules for psykers and their abilities- "dispel" abilities related to wargear instead of psykers themselves.

No balance in the attention given to armies.

Fixed move rate of 6" and random movement speeds.

Cover rules.


I'm sure I could think of a few more but I've got to go out now.

Urgat
01-07-2009, 07:12
The people I play with don't play 40K. That's about the only reason why I don't like it (that and all those space marines).
Well, we tried, in the previosu edition, actually. I picked up tau, my bro picked up dark eldar, and one of my friends picked something else. Well you got to fill all those choices, so I did so, but I went for... her... MSU firewarriors, I'd say. No kroots, no nothing, just as many blocks of fire warriors as I could. I would totally wipe the floor with anybody who'd dare challenge me, and trust me, that wasn't because of skills. Nah, with my fire warrior units, I'd outshoot everybody, I'd cover the whole terrain, I'd have a decent save against shooting and if someone pulled an assault on one of my units, at worst I lost 6 guys... Heck, I didn't even really need to bother against dark eldars, the moment they'd get their antigrav in sight, just my firewarriors would be enough to shoot them down. And I'm not even talking about the other units I had, who were all equaly nasty. My friends got quickly disgusted with that, and I sold my tau on ebay (for a nice price too :)).

big squig
01-07-2009, 08:15
The people I play with don't play 40K. That's about the only reason why I don't like it (that and all those space marines).
Well, we tried, in the previosu edition, actually. I picked up tau, my bro picked up dark eldar, and one of my friends picked something else. Well you got to fill all those choices, so I did so, but I went for... her... MSU firewarriors, I'd say. No kroots, no nothing, just as many blocks of fire warriors as I could. I would totally wipe the floor with anybody who'd dare challenge me, and trust me, that wasn't because of skills. Nah, with my fire warrior units, I'd outshoot everybody, I'd cover the whole terrain, I'd have a decent save against shooting and if someone pulled an assault on one of my units, at worst I lost 6 guys... Heck, I didn't even really need to bother against dark eldars, the moment they'd get their antigrav in sight, just my firewarriors would be enough to shoot them down. And I'm not even talking about the other units I had, who were all equaly nasty. My friends got quickly disgusted with that, and I sold my tau on ebay (for a nice price too :)).

Ya know, that's a really surprising story because gun-line, Fire Warrior focused Tau are one of the worst armies in the game.

chivalrous
01-07-2009, 08:55
I think enough has been said about the transition from 2nd edition to 3rd edition 40K being a big factor in why some of us don't play 40K and I'm no different.

But 3rd edition of 40K also brought about something of a paradigm shift in the way GW writes their rules and, maybe because of this, in the attitudes of players.
You see GW didn't just streamline the game, they also streamlined the wording of the rules which created a huge number of possible interpretations and legitimate interpretations at that!
Fantasy has had the same problem but for some reason, it hasn't had the same amount of bile and venom spilt in trying to decide which interpretation is right. I suspect that this may just be because Fantasy players are that little bit older and mature in general than 40K players. We being the Longs Fangs to 40K's Blood Claws.

Don't get me wrong, I actually prefer the background to 40K and I've spent a few hundred quid getting hold of all the old rule books, cards and templates so I can begin a 2nd edition campaign.

Gazak Blacktoof
01-07-2009, 09:04
You see GW didn't just streamline the game, they also streamlined the wording of the rules which created a huge number of possible interpretations and legitimate interpretations at that!

I really wish my friend hadn't sold our copy of the 40K 2nd edition rules as I would like to see if that statement really holds true. I remember having a fair few arguments, but then we were much younger at the time (though more like mewling pups than blood claws :)).

chivalrous
01-07-2009, 09:48
I really wish my friend hadn't sold our copy of the 40K 2nd edition rules as I would like to see if that statement really holds true. I remember having a fair few arguments, but then we were much younger at the time (though more like mewling pups than blood claws :)).

I remember one really serious argument, just one, about whether or not Swooping Hawks could carry melta-bombs in their grenade packs. I said no, my opponent insisted they could because melta bombs were in the grenade section of the wargear book and it was a grenade pack. but he wouldn't let me look at his codex.

Turns out the rules explicitly state frag or krak only.

Another one was a chaos player who resolved all of Abaddon's hits with Drachnyen because we'd all missed the rule that said you split your hits equally between the close combat weapons you are wielding (choose which weapon gets the odd one).

Most of the rules dispute we had though were not because the rules were ambiguous but because we had only skimmed through them rather than reading them properly and arguing about rules that didn't fit our perception of the background.
Reading back over them, I can't believe how we managed to make such a hash of things.

DDogwood
01-07-2009, 15:47
I really wish my friend hadn't sold our copy of the 40K 2nd edition rules as I would like to see if that statement really holds true. I remember having a fair few arguments, but then we were much younger at the time (though more like mewling pups than blood claws :)).

I think you can still download the Necromunda rules from the GW website; they're almost identical to 2e 40k. You miss out on some of the gonzo wargear combos and the massively-powerful heroes, but you still get a sense of how the rules were laid out. There were definitely some wacky things in the rules, like getting worse at hand-to-hand combat as your number of Attacks increased, but overall I preferred the way that the game emphasized cover, overwatch, and positioning.

Army list creation has always been an Achilles' heel for 40k and WFB, and many other GW games as well. They like to add lots of cool options like wargear and magic items, and lots of variety in troops - unfortunately their points values are based on a fundamentally arbitrary system, and that results in some significant disparities between how many points something is worth and how valuable it actually becomes in the game.

Back when the magic rules for WFB were a separate box set, we used to play a lot of "no magic" WFB games and "no wargear" 40k matches, and those were always my favorites. List optimization wasn't nearly as important then.

Gazak Blacktoof
01-07-2009, 16:02
I've still got the wargear book, marine and eldar codexes so downloading the necromunda rules might be good enough to see how it plays out and see if it is less fiddly.

Psykers, wargear and the strategy cards really didn't do 2nd edition 40K any favours, they could be excessively powerful.

DDogwood
01-07-2009, 22:42
I'd say that 2e is more fiddly than newer incarnations of 40k. That's something they got right. 2e worked best at a much smaller scale, though - you could have a good game with 20-30 miniatures per side, while the newer versions feel a bit empty at that scale.

chivalrous
01-07-2009, 23:00
I'd say that 2e is more fiddly than newer incarnations of 40k. That's something they got right. 2e worked best at a much smaller scale, though - you could have a good game with 20-30 miniatures per side, while the newer versions feel a bit empty at that scale.

Oh, no disagreements about 2nd edition being more fiddly but in my opinion they were far too overzealous in trying to simplify it, stripping out a great deal of the game's depth as well.
Close combat needed the overhaul and they wanted to bring the psychic phases away from a card based system but they should have left it at that.

Gazak Blacktoof
01-07-2009, 23:38
Close combat, the variety in penetration dice and facing for models on round bases are the particular points I remember as being ill suited to the scope and size of the game.

Shamfrit
01-07-2009, 23:46
So the concensus seems to be...old games were too complicated...


New game is streamlined to suit the customer/gaming communities complaints...

And now it's too simple and ambiguous? :wtf:

Would you like sense spoon fed to you instead of reading the rulebook?

(Must stop copying Condi...)

selone
02-07-2009, 00:12
I stopped playing Games workshop when 40 K was at 2nd ed which wasn't related to any weakness of 2nd or indeed 3rd ed. Having come back into Gw I had a look at 40K again.

Three big changes that stood out to me
All infantry move 6" (you can add d6, you can have jump packs) ?
They got rid of save modifiers and instead have all or nothing saves
Why go back to hitting on a 4+ instead of rolling and add your WS?

I fully understand 2nd ed had issues and over-complexities but an eldar guardian moving 1" faster than a guardsmen wasn't one of them or having a save of a 5+ which would become a 6+ against said guardsmen's ladsgun.

I can understand the 3rd change was to save time in massive games but then again massive games aren't for me. Apocalypse with its masses of tanks, masses of expense and massive ranges would be hell on earth to me.

Shamfrit
02-07-2009, 00:28
I do wonder sometimes if people have clicked that Apocalypse and 40k are two very different games...

Everyone acts as if EVERYONE plays 5k+ games 2-3 times per afternoon...

ZeroTwentythree
02-07-2009, 00:34
I'd say that 2e is more fiddly than newer incarnations of 40k. That's something they got right. 2e worked best at a much smaller scale, though - you could have a good game with 20-30 miniatures per side, while the newer versions feel a bit empty at that scale.



Exactly. I don't dislike 40k. I was rather fond of the first few editions. I just dislike where they took the scope and scale of the game in more recent editions. I enjoyed the game where it started - a sci-fi skirmish game. Something just a little bigger than Necromunda, and with military forces instead of gangs.

Gazak Blacktoof
02-07-2009, 00:44
So the concensus seems to be...old games were too complicated...

From what remember there was some needless complexity but that was probably because 2nd edition was an awkward medium between the small scale skirmish of rogue trader and full scale battle game. (EDIT: To clarify, there was nothing wrong with the size of the games, however I did find some of the mechanics too laborious considering the number of models used).

3rd edition needlessly removed some mechanics and replaced them with weaker versions.

The psychic phase and strategy cards could have stayed if they'd been balanced properly. The close combat changes have been positive as it was needlessly complex. Removing movement values was simply an odd choice and one I still don't understand.

Removing over-watch does detract from the game even if it improved fluidity. Combined with the aforementioned charging round corners, removing over-watch really messed with any sense of "realism".

Some of the persistent effects could have remained if they were handled differently, it wasn't really necessary to have expansion and contraction of grenade effects. However smoke screens can really add to the dept of play and variety in tactics.


Bed time.

Stronginthearm
02-07-2009, 03:03
I'm anti 40K for 2 main reasons, first being the infinite number of space marine split offs and repeats, its really agravating to play 4 games in sucession and them all to be against S4T4,3+ armor save units where the only difference seems to be the paint sceme and be told that they are different armies, I get more difference between a Nurgle and Slaanesh force and they're in the same codex! second being connected as the fluff seems to be imperium godlier then everything else and fighting the universe and being told endlessly how BA space marines are
End rant)if that counted as a rant)

grumbaki
02-07-2009, 03:39
My main problem with it is that (from my limited experience) terrain doesn't seem to be as important. Granted, I have some 13th company, but it just seems to me that everyone can move more or less freely. That, with cover saves (with 3+ armor saves as a norm), terrain seems to play less of a role as well. What it then comes down to is either a rush to get into close combat, or sitting back and shooting the hell out of opponents. My experience:

Game 1 (I saw): Guard v. Orks. Guard sit back and shoot, no movement. Some cover saves, but most just gunned down orcs.
Game 2: 13th v Orks. Both rush into close combat and we roll dice to see who wins. Terrain didn't slow down either side at all, just provided a backdrop for a hack n' slash.
Game 3: 13th v Necrons. I rush forward and he sits back and shoots.

In all 3 games terrain did nothing. I am used to fantasy were terrain is what wins games. -3 to hit for long range and hard cover? Completely blocking line of sight? Really hindering movement (in 40k, the 2d6 pick the highest just doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. even less with 13th's 3d6). In fantasy a large forest can be a game changer. In 40k it seems more like an annoyance.

Take this all with a grain of salt, as I am a 40k newb. But it is just what I have seen and what annoyed me the most.

big squig
02-07-2009, 03:50
My main problem with it is that (from my limited experience) terrain doesn't seem to be as important. Granted, I have some 13th company, but it just seems to me that everyone can move more or less freely. That, with cover saves (with 3+ armor saves as a norm), terrain seems to play less of a role as well. What it then comes down to is either a rush to get into close combat, or sitting back and shooting the hell out of opponents. My experience:

Game 1 (I saw): Guard v. Orks. Guard sit back and shoot, no movement. Some cover saves, but most just gunned down orcs.
Game 2: 13th v Orks. Both rush into close combat and we roll dice to see who wins. Terrain didn't slow down either side at all, just provided a backdrop for a hack n' slash.
Game 3: 13th v Necrons. I rush forward and he sits back and shoots.

In all 3 games terrain did nothing. I am used to fantasy were terrain is what wins games. -3 to hit for long range and hard cover? Completely blocking line of sight? Really hindering movement (in 40k, the 2d6 pick the highest just doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. even less with 13th's 3d6). In fantasy a large forest can be a game changer. In 40k it seems more like an annoyance.

Take this all with a grain of salt, as I am a 40k newb. But it is just what I have seen and what annoyed me the most.
Again, go one page back and look at my tips. Terrain is easily one of the most important parts of 40k.

Condottiere
02-07-2009, 05:23
There must be some merits to this game, otherwise it wouldn't be more popular than fantasy.

At this moment, what I find attractive is the ability to fool around with the TO&E and create the fluff for individual Chapters and Regiments, whereas in Fantasy there are more strictures, if you want to be consistent.

Gazak Blacktoof
02-07-2009, 10:24
There must be some merits to this game, otherwise it wouldn't be more popular than fantasy.

I think the mix of fantasy and technology is an appealing one, particularly when the models are so good. You'd have to ask somebody who actually likes the game what the merrits of the rules-set are.

I'd guess that a lot of 40K gamers haven't ever played another table top game, so it makes a special impression on them and they just never leave. 40K always seems to be marketed more heavily than fantasy- generally when I visit a GW the displays and posters are 40K oriented, that may just be coincidence though.


I started into the hobby when my brother's friends got the 4th edition WHFB boxed set, and they knew a couple of kids (Hugh and Camilla) who already collected warhamemr fantasy. I don't know how far the line extends back but I blame Hugh and Camilla for my addiction :D.

I'm not sure if I'd be playing if 40K was the catalyst for my hobby. The rules changes from 2nd to 3rd really killed the enjoyment for me, but I had fantasy to fall back on as my "first love" and suck up all my adolescent cash.

Hakkapelli
02-07-2009, 11:59
After starting flames of war I've found 40k a bit wanting at the tactical level. IMO it comes from the confusion over if it's supposed to be a scirmish level or a platoon/company level game and a few bits of lingering oversimplification.

Unfortunatley I also feel that WHFB is currently the worst of the 'big 2' with power creep, deathstar builds, 'magichammer' etc. taking the focus from the troops and ocasionally from any sorts of tactics.

DDogwood
02-07-2009, 13:09
So the concensus seems to be...old games were too complicated...


New game is streamlined to suit the customer/gaming communities complaints...

And now it's too simple and ambiguous? :wtf:

The game needed streamlining, but the designers went too far in the switch from 2e to 3e. Instead of only taking on the most egregious problems (silly wargear, weird rules for close combat, more weird rules for Psykers, etc.) they gave us Candyland. Taking out Overwatch was one of the biggest mistakes, IMO - covering fire is just too important in modern combat for it to be totally ignored in a sci-fi game. It's possible to create rules where overwatch works without slowing down the whole game - look at Infinity, for example.

I actually liked a lot of the design changes from 2e to 3e, including (sorry selone!) simplifying movement, eliminating facing, and getting rid of armor save modifiers. I also liked how they included basic army lists for every army in the back of the main rules - this is something they should do for every edition of every game, IMO (and the codex/army book should simply add more options without making the 'basic' list unplayable). The problem is that they threw the baby out with the bathwater.


There must be some merits to this game, otherwise it wouldn't be more popular than fantasy.

There are, but they aren't necessarily 'merits' that make it a good game. The space fantasy setting of 40k is more appealing to many people (especially younger gamers) than the more traditional setting of WFB. The rules are also simpler and more accessible. Space Marines are a cool-looking, powerful, and flexible army, and have always been one of the cheapest armies to get started with. Once upon a time, 40k was cheaper to get into than Fantasy - a box of 30 plastic Space Marines gave you a full army for around the same price as one or two regiments for WFB. In the earlier days, there also wasn't anything like 40k out there, while WFB was one of several fantasy battle rulesets.

Then there's the factor of momentum - because 40k was more popular than WFB fairly early on, it was always easy to find opponents. That creates a snowball effect, where plenty of people who dislike 40k still play it because they figure that bad gaming is better than no gaming at all.

Then, of course, there are plenty of us who want to like 40k, but just can't. I love the minis and the background for the game, but the game itself is so unappealing that I can't bring myself to spend money on it.

Shamfrit
02-07-2009, 13:27
I started with 2nd, (whichever the box that had the Goffs in) and stopped shortly after as I got the game for Christmas (bets present ever I thought) to discover 3rd edition being released a month or two after...I then continued with Necromunda, Bloodbowl, Fantasy and Warhammer Quest...left the game for 8 years and came back October 2007 to Fantasy...

Now I'm bordering on leaving fantasy for 40k, it's a far superior game in my eyes, but I was allot younger then, so I can see why it mightn't not have appealed all those years ago. My only current gripe with the rules is actually in my own rule book - Open Topped Fast Transports, Ork Boys, Waaagh and hitting things in an assault from up to 30" away is too good - there's either too much focus on tanks or not enough, (I lol when 2 Monoliths appear, as I've got about 12 Klaws in my list...)

Infantry armies without transports are hard as nails, and full mech lists are brittle - I think the comments about 'you either sit back and shoot' or march forth and fight are a little...hypocritical.

Evidantly you've not played Warriors fo Chaos, Brettonians for the fighting part of any form of gunline for the latter. War doesn't really change in 30 thousand years.

In the end, as I've said before (I should sig myself,) if you don't like 40k, don't play it.

If you don't like fantasy, don't play it..

If your LGS focusses on one game, look elsewhere.

For everything else, there's whining on Warseer :D

EDIT:

Oh, and Space Marines arn't as competitive now, if at all. Common, yes, but that's because they've been the iconic flag ship army of 40k since...ermm...1984ish?)

Joewrightgm
02-07-2009, 14:11
Something that I would like to see with 40k, because it would be a radical design shift that would stand it on its head, would be a blended turn you get in Lord of the Rings:

Roll for priority, highest gets to choose going last or first.

I move then you move, I shoot then you shoot, I assault then you assault. I think this would make people think alot harder about their movement and picking their assaults.

Lost Egg
02-07-2009, 15:47
I don't dislike 40k... I just dislike where they took the scope and scale of the game in more recent editions. I enjoyed the game where it started - a sci-fi skirmish game. Something just a little bigger than Necromunda, and with military forces instead of gangs.

I definitely agree here. I always liked the small scale skirmish with the occasional larger game that takes a whole day.

I do think its odd that GW changed the POV of the game as, in relation to the larger battle (for whole worlds), its still very much a skirmish. I always assumed that 40k was for the small battles while Epic was for the grand scheme and then BFG, allowing you to potentially link all 3 in a campaign. Now though, there is a grey area of exactly where you'd hand over from 40k to Apocalypse and then onto Epic.

Perhaps they will one day do a skirmish expansion with more detailed rules and smaller forces. Just a small book would be nice.

HN

P.S. Its always seemed odd that in the fiction the bad guys are much more likely to be rebel guard rather than Chaos Marines or Demons yet wheres their codex?

Znail
02-07-2009, 16:08
P.S. Its always seemed odd that in the fiction the bad guys are much more likely to be rebel guard rather than Chaos Marines or Demons yet wheres their codex?

The Empire and its people are alot more common then Elves, why does the Elves have 3 diffrent army books? The simple answer to both questions are that GW doesnt control wich armies are popular and cant force more people to play Empire and IG just to match the fluff.

Hena
02-07-2009, 16:23
I'd say a pretty much complete rewrite is needed to get this game to be playable again. However biggest bugbears to me would be

1. Movement. Or to the point lack of it. Vehicles should move faster and no everyone moves 6" things.
2. Dual stats. Vehicles have theirs and rest have theirs. End result is high T and multi W is lot better than heavily armoured vehicles. That's entirely ridiculous.
3. First I play my turn, then you play yours. This is just silly as larger points -> more efficient alpha strike you can do.
4. Special rules. Really must there be a zillion special rules everywhere. Less is more in this case.

Fenlear
02-07-2009, 17:33
In my experience which game people chose tends to come down to wither they are more interested in a tactical game or the spectacle of miniatures on the table. Those that are wewd by the spectacle tend to go for 40K (big tanks and guns definably seem more neato), those that are more interested in a tactical game lean towards fantasy or the specialty games. Sure there are things you can do to make 40K a bit more tactical like adding a lot of terrain or playing for objectives, but fantasy can be perfectly tactical without ANY terrain and much more tactical once itís added. This is why most 40K players I meat are teens and most fantasy players I meat are adults.

I rather enjoy the complexity of the fantasy rules (though I donít care for the power creep of 7th edition). I like that smart people can twist and manipulate things to their advantage. To me a good tactical game should be like chess, the better player should win most of the time. If that is not the case then the game is majorly luck based and I lose interest. People complain about the win at all cost attitude that a lot of fantasy players have but to me to do any less is extremely dull. I want my opponent to try and best me any way possible, and the very few times someone manages to do so I donít cry cheese. I say well done and keep the person in mind when I want a good game. If you donít like people to be able to out think you then stick with 40K where lucky dice rolling can easily land you a victory but please donít cry when fantasy players know the rules inside out or ague that it should be simplified to the mind-numbing level of 40K.

Condottiere
02-07-2009, 18:14
What attracts me are the armoured vehicles, and the fluff.

Shamfrit
02-07-2009, 18:49
All I need to say is:

'WAAAAAGHHHH!! DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA!!!!'

Lost Egg
02-07-2009, 20:25
The Empire and its people are alot more common then Elves, why does the Elves have 3 diffrent army books? The simple answer to both questions are that GW doesnt control wich armies are popular and cant force more people to play Empire and IG just to match the fluff.

I mean't that its odd there is no rebel guard codex and has never been one. There was the lost and the damned list and then the old Chaos list had cultists. There are some FW stuff in there books but how comes they never made it to 40k? I bet they'd be popular enough with the treadheads...well the evil ones, lol.:skull:

HN

TeddyC
02-07-2009, 22:59
I got the old 2e rules behind, I like wargear cards and over watch rules. Dont know if 3e has overwatch as I dont generally bother with it. Taken me 2.5 years to paint 4 assault marines.

I dont begrudge 40k as a 'worse' game than fantasy, it just doesnt appeal to me. Back in the day, as has beensaid you got a feeling for the small scale skirmish but now days the rules dont lend themselves that well to a small game.

As has been said Necromunda rules are similar to 2e 40k rules

Condottiere
03-07-2009, 04:01
A rebel PDF or IG would use their pre-existing force structure for C&C.

lanrak
03-07-2009, 10:59
HI all.
I like the setting and most of the asthetics of 40k.
I just can not stand the bloated counter intuitive mess that GW pass off as the 40k 'rule set'.

Look at the history.

Brian .We have got a quite a few cool sci fi minatures , how about converting the WH rules to get existing WH players to buy our scifi minis.

Rick.We can do fantasy skirmish in space.(Rogue Trader.):)

Brian .We want to sell more minatures , lets expand the rules .(2nd ed.)

Rick and co , will do boss.:)

GW PLC Right lets change the focus from a skirmish to a platooon -company level game to sell more minatures.:eyebrows:

Andy and Jervis ,We need a new rule set ,for the new game play!

GW PLC .NO just chop out the complicated bits so we can get the players to buy more minatures.:rolleyes:

The rules for 40k are very complicated, for the simplicity of the game play.Because the rule set was NEVER written for the current game play.Its just been modified by several people with varing veiws over a10 year period.

Other rule sets have simple to follow concepts Like ...
Rolling high is good.

One element sets number of dice thrown.

One element sets score required.

(Eg Shooting skill=3, roll 3 dice.
Bolt gun 3+/5+. supresses unarmored target on 3+/kills unarmoured target on a 5+.Armour value is added to the weapon attack values.)

Modifiers add to the dice roll to make action easier, OR add to the score reqired to make action harder.

EG. Moral grade 2 . Roll 2 or over to pass moral check.
If supressed +2 to moral grade.
Roll 4 or more.



It would be possible to rewrite 40k PURLEY on game play requirment , and get a comprehensive intuitive rule set of about 30 to 40 pages.
But GW PLC want to use thier core rule sets to sell minatures NOT deliver the best gaming experiance.

LOTR and WH may not be perfect, but at least the rules were written with the end game play in mind.

I prefer to use alternative rule sets with my 40k minatures.(Like Stargrunt II, Chain reaction 3 ,etc.All free to down load.)

Happy gaming
Lanrak.

zedmeister
03-07-2009, 15:17
De-lurk mode: I pretty much stopped playing 40k after the move from 2nd to 3rd and only tend to play Epic when i can find an opponent. I take Hairy Norseman's view that Epic is for the big battles and 40k is for the smaller clashes.

I always loved to set up small tactical clashes in 40k second edition, roughly 500pts a side which would end up being a vehicle or dreadnought, about 20 standard infantry and a character on a board packed with terrain. Can't really do that now-a-days as, with 20 infantry, they'll wipe each other out in a turn of shooting.

I miss the tactical elements of small games of 40k - manouvering to get best position, putting you character in place to lob his haywire grenade or positioning the heavies to set up a fire corridor on overwatch denying ground to the enemy and the inevitable pyrotechnics that happened when your vehicle got hit and penetrated!

Znail
04-07-2009, 00:05
I mean't that its odd there is no rebel guard codex and has never been one. There was the lost and the damned list and then the old Chaos list had cultists. There are some FW stuff in there books but how comes they never made it to 40k? I bet they'd be popular enough with the treadheads...well the evil ones, lol.:skull:

HN
Ah, but you missed my point. Rebel IG would essentialy be an alternate version of IG to either capture the ones already using the current IG codex to play Rebel IG or interest new players who wasnt interested in IG, but finds Rebel IG more interesting.

So, the key reason for them to even consider this is that IG is a very popular army and thus a decent chance that Rebel IG will be too. Making Rebel IG under the assumption that they would be much more popular then normal IG is a folish idea.

I always loved to set up small tactical clashes in 40k second edition, roughly 500pts a side which would end up being a vehicle or dreadnought, about 20 standard infantry and a character on a board packed with terrain. Can't really do that now-a-days as, with 20 infantry, they'll wipe each other out in a turn of shooting.
Err, you have to remember that not only will there be fewer guys to take as casualties, but there will also be fewer guys shooting. So it will take quite alot more then 1 turns shooting to finnish one side.

catbarf
04-07-2009, 00:18
I personally think both games are fairly mediocre, burdened by a boring turn system and relying much too heavily on special rules rather than incorporating the necessary abilities into the default rules.

I'm into it more for the background and painting. I do play the game from time to time, as I don't hate it, but the basic system is clunky and not what I'd turn to for a tactically engaging game.

destroyerlord
04-07-2009, 01:03
A rebel PDF or IG would use their pre-existing force structure for C&C.

You could say the same thing about renegade space marines...

Condottiere
04-07-2009, 07:21
Would that be before or after the Codex Astartes was written?

Black_Omega
04-07-2009, 11:43
The latest version is much better than 2ed. 2ed was way too needlessly over complicated and took about a day to finish a proper sized game. 40k should be about wars not skirmishes so GW has got it spot on.

lanrak
04-07-2009, 13:59
HI .
Black Omega.
2nd ed was needlessly overcomplicated ,but for the size of the games played it was exepted because of the 'deep charaterisation.'

The current version of 40k is EVEN MORE needlessly overcomplicated.(There are now twice as many exceptions as there are rules !)
The intended game play is about right , the number of minatures on a 6x4 table is reasonable.

But using the game mechanics for ancient massed rank combat (WH ) for a 'modern ' warfare units ( small groups of free roaming infantry and vehicles,) is just so inefficient.

Take the rules for football then convert them to cover golf.
Are they as good as rule developed specificaly for golf?

This is my point.Current 40k rules have improved over the last 10 years .(3rd to 5th ed.)
But are still miles behind rules written with specific game play in mind.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Delicious Ron
04-07-2009, 14:33
You could say the same thing about renegade space marines...

I agree, If Space marines with spiky armor deserves their own codex why not Imperial guard in spiky armor?

DDogwood
04-07-2009, 15:01
The latest version is much better than 2ed. 2ed was way too needlessly over complicated and took about a day to finish a proper sized game. 40k should be about wars not skirmishes so GW has got it spot on.

Epic 40k and Epic: Armageddon were about wars. 40k is, and always has been, about skirmishes, and IMO the current version tries to put far too many minis on the board.

Znail
04-07-2009, 15:43
I agree, If Space marines with spiky armor deserves their own codex why not Imperial guard in spiky armor?

Beacause there are more people playing SM then IG, thus more interest in spiky SM then spiky IG. IG is also the best supported army compared to number of codex and sales as they have almost as many diffrent minis and diffrent themes on men as SM has. IG is anything but unloved by GW and still not overly popular.

Sidstyler
04-07-2009, 16:04
The space fantasy setting of 40k is more appealing to many people (especially younger gamers)

Oddly enough, when I was younger I was more a fan of the fantasy side of things, orcs, dragons, etc. I grew up with D&D and Lord of the Rings, and the movies also came out while I was still in school, so fantasy was more interesting and relevant to me than sci-fi ever was. So if anything, I'd say that hobbits, elves and magic appeal to a younger audience more than 40k does, but I'm sure plenty of you WHF fans will disagree. :rolleyes:

As far as Warhammer goes though, I don't care if it is tactically superior, I just don't like how the game looks. Damn near every single Fantasy model is in some boring, static pose because they have to be ranked up. And like it's also been mentioned, you can't really play with that much terrain in Fantasy, so even the board looks a lot blander.

Which makes sense I guess, it's a Fantasy themed game with organized battles, so of course most of them would take place in open fields. But still, it's not as aesthetically pleasing. The background also doesn't interest me at all, I've barely even read my Dark Elves codex because I honestly don't really have to. I'm sure the Fantasy universe and all of its races are unique and GW's put their own spin on it, but it's still too cookie cutter and Tolkien-esque for me. The only reason you have to read the background is because Elrond, Gandalf, and Sauron all have different names and there are different magical macguffins.

40k has a lot of the same Tolkien races, but the setting and background for everyone is radically different. Or at least, different enough to make me want to read more about it. I find it much more interesting and original than yet another take on Lord of the Rings.

Tarax
05-07-2009, 07:35
I'm kind of the opposite. I like masses of troops lined up in ranks and blocks. The shear amount of models on the tabletop makes it more appealing to me. (I play IG in 40K.)

I don't like the background of both games. I never did for 40K, but in the last year the background for fantasy has waned as well. I too have hardly read the latest army books, while before I read them cover to cover. To me, it's a game with some story behind it, not the other way around.

But whereas Epic is battles, 40K is missions. A certain group of units is gathered together to fulfill a task set upon them, be it to kill a leader, to gather information or to take and hold an objective. Alas, the rules and codices are not set to fulfill that role. But I like the rules better now than 2nd ed. With that many rules for weapons, a whole book full of them, you were constantly looking up what would happen next. Although other rules, overwatch, different M-stats, armour save modifiers and to hit modifiers, were better fitting.

Lost Egg
05-07-2009, 10:47
Epic 40k and Epic: Armageddon were about wars. 40k is, and always has been, about skirmishes, and IMO the current version tries to put far too many minis on the board.

My thoughts exactly, plus from a painters POV I always prefer to take my time on a few minis than rush loads just to be able to have enough to play a game.


As far as Warhammer goes though, I don't care if it is tactically superior, I just don't like how the game looks. Damn near every single Fantasy model is in some boring, static pose because they have to be ranked up. And like it's also been mentioned, you can't really play with that much terrain in Fantasy, so even the board looks a lot blander.


I'd have to agree here, I think a lot of the warhammer plastic troops would look very cool on a round 40k base for skirmish. I am tempted to build a couple of skirmish forces using the warband rules and the ships rules from GC.


But whereas Epic is battles, 40K is missions. A certain group of units is gathered together to fulfill a task set upon them, be it to kill a leader, to gather information or to take and hold an objective. Alas, the rules and codices are not set to fulfill that role. But I like the rules better now than 2nd ed. With that many rules for weapons, a whole book full of them, you were constantly looking up what would happen next. Although other rules, overwatch, different M-stats, armour save modifiers and to hit modifiers, were better fitting.

There was a lot to improve on with 2nd edition but some things could do with coming back.

HN

antin3
05-07-2009, 12:44
I have been invloved in WFB or 40k for about 17years. Although I only started playing with a club in the last year. I started with 40k becuase that was what the majority of the club members played and to be honest I saw very few WFB players around on a consistant basis. Something else I rarely ever see is young kids playing 40k, now a lot of people talk about this but in my LGS at least we have about 15 to 20 members and there is one boy under 18 and he is there maybe once every two or three months.
I recently started a fantasy army and I loved my first battle. We had a lot of laughes and it was a good time. But, and this is just my perspective within my gaming community, it seems that the fantasy players just aren't around on a consistant basis. i know a few guys who have started a fantasy army only to put them back in their boxes because no one was around to keep the momentum going. One long time fantasy player at our LGS actually gave up on it and began to build a marine army. We were all shocked as he was an ardent fantasy player of many years. Now this didn't last and he eventually quit coming at all but his biggest complaint was that WFB was too unbalanced.
I don't have a problem with the 40k ruleset, call it simplified and not on par with WFB but once you understand the rules and then set up some nice terrain and play an objective based game it is a blast. I read people making comments like terrain doesn't make a difference, tell that to a guard, Tau, 'Nid, Eldar, or Ork player. Unless you have special wargear that is available only to character models and a very few select units all of these armies unit benefit from terrain cover.
Another thing I read in this thread is that movement doesn't matter, just run balls out at your opponent to get into close combat. I believe that these are comments made by people who have only watched a few games of 40k or haven't played the game in a few years. Again Eldar care a great deal about movement and facing, as do Tau armies and guard armies. Orks will run at you screaming and dying until they get into close combat but Orks are supposed to do that. I don't know of one guard army that does this, nor Eldar, Tau, or even some space marines.
Are the rules simplified so that sometimes things don't quite make sense, yes but then again we are playing with toy soldiers fighting battles 40 thousand years in the future so I can live with it for the sake of game mechanics. Simple rules don't translate into a less intellectually stimulating game as some feel. More rules does not make one game better than another. Chess doesn't have many rules someone could easily learn the way different chess pieces move around on a board.
I would love to start playing more WFB, I like the look of massed ranks on the table and the variety of armies available. It just seems to me people are unhappy right now with the game being so unbalanced and the whole atmosphere around the game isn't what 40k is right now.

Tarax
06-07-2009, 06:46
Epic 40k and Epic: Armageddon were about wars. 40k is, and always has been, about skirmishes, and IMO the current version tries to put far too many minis on the board.

I almost forgot about that one, untill Hairy Norseman reminded me of it.
Perhaps it's not the number of models on the board, but the size of the board. Not that most armies are working towards more models (and sometimes larger) the standard table should not be 4'x6', but perhaps 6'x8'.
Not only will you be able to put all your models in you deployment zone, but you will also create some manouevrability and more tactical game play.
And let's face it, with the range of some weapons, a larger table should not be a problem for these weapons.

Lost Egg
06-07-2009, 07:24
I almost forgot about that one, untill Hairy Norseman reminded me of it.
Perhaps it's not the number of models on the board, but the size of the board. Not that most armies are working towards more models (and sometimes larger) the standard table should not be 4'x6', but perhaps 6'x8'.
Not only will you be able to put all your models in you deployment zone, but you will also create some manouevrability and more tactical game play.
And let's face it, with the range of some weapons, a larger table should not be a problem for these weapons.

How many people have enough room for a 6'x8' table and all the terrain you would need, not me.

HN

Gazak Blacktoof
06-07-2009, 08:10
How many people have enough room for a 6'x8' table and all the terrain you would need, not me.

I have :D. The only reason ours is 8x5 and not 8x6 is because its easier to reach across.

Tarax
06-07-2009, 09:07
How many people have enough room for a 6'x8' table and all the terrain you would need, not me.

HN

It doesn't have to be deeper, perhaps only wider, say 8'x4' or 10'x4'.

And it's easy for me to say, we regularly play at a community center.

Lost Egg
06-07-2009, 14:48
I suppose this gets a bit chicken-and-the-egg-ish, a case of too many figs or not enough room.

If only GW went about the change to 40k as they did with the change in LoTR, keep the skirmish rules set but add the full scale war, WoTR (in the same scale rather than epic).

HN

lanrak
06-07-2009, 16:56
Hi.
I totaly agree with you HN.
GW learned too late for 40k that skirmish rules with too many minatures = awful abstraction coupled with micro-macro managment.

Thats why LoTR got a completley NEW rule set for WoTR.

If 40k rules were written focusing on UNITS rather than each individual minature it would allow for much more straight forward rules .

Lost Egg
07-07-2009, 15:27
I noticed that a few people have mentioned the 3/4 books you got with 2nd edition as well as all the vehicle and wargear cards. I think GW could easily have compressed a lot of that into one book, though I do like the idea of a seperate army list booklet. I always assumed their main reason for having all the cards was that it allowed you to lay out everything you needed for a game and have it quickly to hand so in some ways its a shame that's not around.

Having said that I can see entirely the reasons for dumping the idea.

The main rules are very similar to Necromunda and they were compressed down to about 50 or so pages in the download-able book and that's not bad either.

Looking back now, its been a while since I played a game of 2nd edition or looked at a codex, but I did like the idea of allies which is sadly missing now. Back then the 40k game was a small fraction of a larger game so it was possible to have small groups of forces working together for a common goal. Now, with the focus on armies, these alliances are no more, stiffling the flexibility of the past.

Talking of flexibility, what happened to Eldar Pirates & Exodites, Cultists, Adeptus Mechanicus, Arbites, Genestealer Broods and Squats? These colourful elements that you occasionally ran into were squeezed out of the game and left to the fluff. In some ways these guys are involved in the more common fighting of the 40k galaxy than marines, not to mention having a loyal fan base and/or following. (Please note I am not advocating the removal of marines but their is only a few million of these guys rather than the billions upon billions of guard, Orks etc).

This thread has inspired me to have another look at 2nd edition and try to get my LGC to have a go to see if it was better or at least what we could steal to improve the current edition.

HN

destroyerlord
07-07-2009, 15:43
The only reason you have to read the background is because Elrond, Gandalf, and Sauron all have different names and there are different magical macguffins.
This obviously comes from someone who has either never read any Tolkien, or never read any WFB fiction (not even the army descriptions). Seriously, this is just blind ignorance. I'll refrain from saying anything more to stop the thread going off topic, but please...there are similarities in the elf/dwarf/man relationships, and the orcs are (somewhat caricatured) Tolkien orcs. Thats about where the similarities end.
I never really used to like the WFB fluff all that much, but it actually works quite well. Consider how big the Earth really is, and there is plenty of room for myriad different cultures/races living and fighting.

Condottiere
08-07-2009, 07:58
Talking of flexibility, what happened to Eldar Pirates & Exodites, Cultists, Adeptus Mechanicus, Arbites, Genestealer Broods and Squats? These colourful elements that you occasionally ran into were squeezed out of the game and left to the fluff. In some ways these guys are involved in the more common fighting of the 40k galaxy than marines, not to mention having a loyal fan base and/or following. (Please note I am not advocating the removal of marines but their is only a few million of these guys rather than the billions upon billions of guard, Orks etc)

HNYes, what did happen to those? I am surprised the Judge Dredd inspired lists aren't made, since they do have everything outside of heavy artillery.

Zenithfleet
10-07-2009, 10:08
The background also doesn't interest me at all, I've barely even read my Dark Elves codex because I honestly don't really have to. I'm sure the Fantasy universe and all of its races are unique and GW's put their own spin on it, but it's still too cookie cutter and Tolkien-esque for me. The only reason you have to read the background is because Elrond, Gandalf, and Sauron all have different names and there are different magical macguffins

Just a thought...

I don't play WH Fantasy, and I used to feel the same way about the background--that it was trying to copy Tolkien as closely as possible without actually being Tolkien.

But then a new edition came out... 5th? It was the the one where magic was shifted into the main rules and made dice-based, and special items became restricted to each race rather than the all-purpose "Tilean merchant mass-producing Crowns of Command" days.

Anyway, for the first time that I'd seen, they printed lots of background info and, most importantly, maps, in White Dwarf. And I realised that this wasn't a medieval or ancient-mythic Tolkien world--it was Renaissance Europe where magic worked, folkloric monsters really existed (ogres, trolls, etc) and all the Earth's other cultures were composed of different species rather than humans, like Hobgoblins for Mongols (?), Lizardmen for Aztecs/Mayans, etc. The map of the world was the giveaway--the shapes of the continents were pretty close to the real ones known at that time, except for Ulthuan (hello Atlantis!)

I know this is all pretty basic and obvious to WHF players, but I was looking in from the outside, as it were, and I found it a lot more interesting after I realised all that. Still fairly derivative, but not a Tolkien clone--more derived from European traditional fantasy in general.

destroyerlord
12-07-2009, 06:50
Thanks Zenithfleet, thats what I should have said.

Lost Egg
19-07-2009, 11:55
I like many others have been a bit disappointed by increasing the number of marine codexs. What I did notice recently, and only because I was flicking through the Black Codex, is the limitation in other races. For example, you used to be able to field Ork mobz from different clans and each had different options, now they are just Ork Mobz. Why should SM get such variations explored and the alien races (Eldar Craftworlds included) not? I know SM are the cash cow but surely it would not have taken much effort for GW to have added a bit of variety to the lists.

HN

it's coming this way!
19-07-2009, 13:07
Honestly, I think what sort of killed 40k for me (other than a crap gaming group) was the lack of sub-lists... I had a LatD army, that never hurt anyone! It was hardly a competitive army list, and then all of a sudden BAM! Illegal, along with basically all of the other ones (CSM Legions, IG Doctrines). And I know the doctrines were a funky system, but I liked being able to feel that, if I went out and bought a bunch of Valhallans, they would act differently than the Cadians I could have gotten 3x as many of.

Not that you really have this in fantasy, but I never really felt like fantasy had too many offshoot lists to begin with (yes, the SoC ones, and the Cult of Ulric list a while back, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any others that really DEFINED certain armies). I personally play Empire, and I feel that while all provinces are different, they can be reasonably well-represented by what we've got in the new GW generalized-style list.

Visually, fantasy just looks more like the people playing it have an idea of what the hell's going on. Not that 40k players don't, it's just a much more cluttered tabletop, in my opinion. The older crowd attracted to fantasy never hurts either.

Things that could change about 40k that would make me more interested in it:
1. Sub Lists (If I spend all this time painting hazard stripes, I'd like to not just have Vanilla CSM's)
2. Fewer Mini's- Focus on skirmishes with units, not 100+ individuals.
3. Balance out Attention (I love space wolves, but it sucks to see some armies really get the shaft like DE)

-It's

DDogwood
19-07-2009, 13:32
Why should SM get such variations explored and the alien races (Eldar Craftworlds included) not? I know SM are the cash cow but surely it would not have taken much effort for GW to have added a bit of variety to the lists.

You answered your own question - SM sales outstrip everything else that GW sells.

IMO, all the variation in the SM codices is stupid anyways. I don't understand why we need to have different books for Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Black Templars, Salamanders, and whatever other chapter has been featured in a computer game or novel. The standard SM org chart should be designed to be complete enough to cover any chapter.

That's our fault, though, not GW's - they're just meeting the demands of silly players who think that Space Marines With Beards need special rules to distinguish them from Space Marines With Robes.

Lost Egg
19-07-2009, 15:33
There is nothing wrong with variant lists and they have been around for a long time so its not just a case of GW pandering to fans. I think that DDogwood is right in that not all of these lists need a seperate codex.

I believe the Chaos Codex for 2nd ed had 3 lists, Cultists, CSM & Demons, Eldar had Pirates & Exodites (allowing you to base an army around them if you wish), there was one Codex for Blood Angels & Dark Angels (Codex Angels of Death). Now GW have a CSM Codex, a Demon Codex and they are looking to do individual Codexs for the Chaos Legions (plus we have lost the Cultists).

Its an odd mix of variety for some and not others. As I said I know SM are the cash cow but why did they bother chopping out variety in other lists?

HN

Tarax
19-07-2009, 20:36
HN, I agree, it's just more vanilla nowadays.

Although I consider myself a newbie to 40K, I would much rather see the old Doctrines/Clans/Craftworlds/Traits(SM). I could give your army your own signature. Like they did in the old IG codex, some famous regiments had set doctriens, but you could make your own.

isaac
20-07-2009, 09:31
I liked the idea of traits (though it wasn't perfect), it let you make an army that had its own style.

Now with the New SM codex, it's special characters or nothing else.

I know people who would like to make a salamanders army that can have two special weapons per 10-man squad. They don't want to have vulkan running around in every skirmish.

Gazak Blacktoof
20-07-2009, 10:06
That's a big issue for me too. I've never been that fond of special characters and having to take them would be irritating. Fingers crossed this idea doesn't make it into fantasy.

Lost Egg
21-07-2009, 07:17
Traits were a very flavoursome idea and its a shame GW is stepping away from that. Again though this seems to be part of the shift away from smaller games to larger ones. What do traits matter to a large battle where you are taking handfuls of models off each turn.

HN

bob_the_small
22-07-2009, 21:46
What spoils 40K? For me it's:

Units able to charge without LOS- charging around corners.

True line of sight.

Power armour proliferation would be a concern if the people I play with had marnies.

5th edition scenarios and victory conditions.

General crappiness of necrons (my army) in the current edition.

Lack of depth in the rules for psykers and their abilities- "dispel" abilities related to wargear instead of psykers themselves.

No balance in the attention given to armies.

Fixed move rate of 6" and random movement speeds.

Cover rules.




That sums it up exactly for me, plus I think fantasy is a better game, due to it's rules mechanics and need for complicated tactics...