PDA

View Full Version : Should an old WH Fantasy return to 40K?



Archaon
11-08-2007, 22:24
See.. i've got a bit of a dilemma.

I left 40K years ago in mid 3rd edition because i felt the game was developing in a way that just wasn't fun for me anymore (played Chaos Marines and Tyranids). For me it all boiled down to running at each other to meet in the centre and then the player who equipped his troops better for close combat usually broke the other uberunit so he can wreak havoc relatively unopposed.

Not this is a bit exaggerating the reality of the game but it seemed to boil down to who got lucky first and at that point it was extremely hard to come back for a win because i felt 40K doesn't reward good tactical play as much as Fantasy.
Now, after you are done crucifying the Fantasy gamer ;):angel:, could you give me your honest opinion about the current state of 40K and the direction it is taking?

40K's background has always interested me more than Fantasy so i read almost exclusively 40K noves and have kept up with the general way 40K is going and the new codexes have caught my eye.

For some it seems they are dumbing them down, taking down the flexibility but for me it's a good and easy way to bring back balance without sacrificing too much. For now only the Dark Angels and the (new) Chaos Codex are done that way so it may be too soon to tell but do you believe the game will turn for the better or why?

Models aren't an issue.. the visual aspect is as always good or even improving but i won't rejoin if the game is still hugely unbalanced and one lucky shot or phase decides the whole game.

So please explain the current state of 40K to me and why i should rejoin.

I <3 W
12-08-2007, 03:06
I played WH fantasy. I prefer 40k. I think you should return. Oh i see your german. DK guys are germans (I like DK) anyways I dont know enough about fantasy, but Ive always thiught 40k was more fun.

Curufew
12-08-2007, 04:56
In my opinion stay with Fantasy. The game is still hugely unbalance. Mech Eldar, Mech Tau,the new Chaos

Rhamag
12-08-2007, 06:02
I think it depends on why you're playing.

If I want to spend 2 hours thinking really hard, I'll play Fantasy (Tomb Kings). If I want a "good time" I'll play with my 40K Orks.

If you have sufficient spare time/money to play both, then I find that they compliment each other well, as each ticks different gaming boxes.

Sorry that's not really helped much. I'm a notorious fence-sitterŽ

GodofWarTx
12-08-2007, 08:33
If you want to worry more about charge arcs and losing more men to combat resolution than actual fighting, then stick to fantasy.

If you want your shiny weapons to actually do what they were designed to do : kill your enemy, then play 40k =P

Drogmir
12-08-2007, 08:43
It's really this

Do you prefer to think 5+ hours before a game? (Unit Composition, 40K)

Or during a game? (Fantasy)

it really boils down to that

Davachido
12-08-2007, 09:00
In terms of balance you should try to look at the new codices for the 4th edition as well as the main rule book.

Some major changes in the main rule book were things like rapid fire, fearless taking wounds if outnumbered in CC (sorta like tomb kings), vechiles being brought down a peg; no more auto hull down if concealed have to roll for it etc. No longer allowed to target specific models in a squad in CC unless its an IC. There are others but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

The way the codices are going now is they have less options to each squad like in warhammer so the production team I think is trying to reduce the amount of min-maxed uber units available to people, they are also trying to down play the tough HQs to put back the focus on the troops in your force. To me this is a good turn for the game, some people may disagree with me on this but I like the direction the game is going ... unfortunately you will still see the power gamer lists in 40k though there are power gamer lists in fantasy as well.

You should maybe ask a friend who has the 40k book to borrow it so you can have a good scan through, this is how I got back into fantasy; the magic phase really got to me as being way to powerful before and with the new changes it has become less potent and that is one thing that made me happy. The changes in combat also made you look for how well your troops are positioned on the board and how you can take advantage of faster troops. So just look through the books it'll help make your decision ;)

lanrak
12-08-2007, 10:01
Hi All.
I can identify what whats being said so far.
The game mechanics that 40k started with, was the same as WH (3rd ed?).
But 40k RT was a skirmish game.(Similar to the current Necromundia.)
And although the game of 40k played has changed dramaticaly from 1st to 4th ed.
More armies to choose from, and alot more models on the table top!

The core game mechanics have not changed to keep up!
And in fact the changes made to 'make the game of 40k work' have just resulted in a lot of counter intuative ,confusing statments, and rules.

40k is a fun game.

But those who want a tactical game decided by more by 'generalship', than unit selection and luck,may benifit from looking at other games systems/rule sets.

TTFN
Lanrak

Frodo34x
13-08-2007, 01:06
Ive played since about the start of 3rd Ed. I have more recently realised that from a gameplay perspective, I can't stand 40k. However, I would easily rate 40k as my all-time favorite fantasy setting.

In other words, don't bother getting back into 40k.

Meat Shield
13-08-2007, 01:28
Wich movie do you prefer. Lord of the Rings or Star Ship Troopers. (removing the factor of bad acting)

Dawn of the Dogs
13-08-2007, 04:08
why not simply borrow an army or dust off your old one, and have a couple of games under the current rules?

Furtive Noise
13-08-2007, 06:16
Guys, he's played both games before so you don't need to use examples like sci-fi v. fantasy to answer him.

I'm not too familiar with WHF but having played a few editions of 40k I can say that the tweaks 4th edition brought have changed the game a lot for the better. It doesn't devolve into a mass melee every time (playing chaos and tyranids as you did likely adds to the chances of that though). With rhino rush tactics gone and rapid fire changed the emphasis seems to be on mobility and firepower (especially w/ missions) which leads to a more interesting game. Thats why you hear about mech skimmer armies being so powerful.

From what I understand 40k will never be quite as tactical as fantasy as its designed to be more streamlined, but 4th edition and the new codexes seem well balanced and lead to interesting, non-straightforward games. Terrain is a must, and expansions like Cities of Death add alot to the game. I'd say its worth giving a shot, perhaps with old models or proxies before mass purchase. As you've said, the models are unarguably great.

TheLionReturns
14-08-2007, 12:25
I hadn't played 40K for a long time either, since 2nd edition in fact. I'd always preferred fantasy anyway. The main thing that turned me off 40K was the simplification and larger number of models needed. It changed from the skirmish game I loved, mostly in a search for balance and to sell more models in my opinion.

I've recently started playing it again and I'm not as anti it as I thought I would be. It is a very simple game with limited tactical thinking, most of which happens before the game starts. Indeed this pre game thinking is crucial because you can be out of the game completely by picking the wrong list. Also when playing the game you get the sensation of just rolling a lot of dice at each other.

However, despite these criticisms I actually seem to have good fun playing it. I don't think its fair to compare it to fantasy as they are very different gaming experiences. Fantasy is for the serious tactician who likes to really think about his wargaming and always has a chance. 40K meanwhile seems to be more light relief to me. The game happens more quickly and with less thinking, and actually becomes an enhanced social occasion more than fantasy can be. I think that even if you prefer the tactical side of wargaming you can still have fun with 40K and might be surprised how much you enjoy it.

lord_blackfang
14-08-2007, 12:34
40K's background has always interested me more than Fantasy so i read almost exclusively 40K noves and have kept up with the general way 40K is going and the new codexes have caught my eye.

For some it seems they are dumbing them down, taking down the flexibility but for me it's a good and easy way to bring back balance without sacrificing too much. For now only the Dark Angels and the (new) Chaos Codex are done that way so it may be too soon to tell but do you believe the game will turn for the better or why?


Yes, like you've already noticed, 40k is finally turning away from the army-list-of-the-month slugfest. The moaning you currently see on the internet is players adjusting to the new armies where in-game tactical ability is more important than writing a winning list.

We're not quite there yet, obviously. But the game is moving towards the style you like.

Chaos and Evil
14-08-2007, 12:45
If you're looking for a more tactically complex wargame, I'd suggest that maybe you're ready to try Epic?

Otherwise, 40k is very fun right now, and it is coming closer to being balanced, each new rulebook is bringing things back into line.

Griffin
14-08-2007, 13:18
I'd have to say the troop-sentrik approach to the current codexes is what's making 40K Alot better at the moment - List building is rewarded (same as fantasy really) however, good tactical use of units nets large rewards in game.

Archaon
14-08-2007, 15:22
Yes, like you've already noticed, 40k is finally turning away from the army-list-of-the-month slugfest. The moaning you currently see on the internet is players adjusting to the new armies where in-game tactical ability is more important than writing a winning list.

We're not quite there yet, obviously. But the game is moving towards the style you like.

That's what i'm hoping.

The problem with both main games, and where many questons arise, are Wargear/Magical Items in the games which tend to unbalance certain things or when certain items are combined become way more powerful than the designers anticipated or even thought of.

I think the approach of eliminating the Wargear section in the Codexes is a good thing but i'm not experienced enough in 40K anymore to be able to judge it.
I know it's also far too early to see the real impact that has on 40K but it doesn't hurt to ask.

Currently i'm very interested in a pure Dark Angel Ravenwing force since i like highly mobile armies that strike where you want and can adapt/react quickly (currently playing Dark Elves which suit this style very good) but i already read that current Mech Skimmer (aka Landspeeder) armies tend to be regarded as very strong and i don't want to take advantage of that and be called a powergamer.
Any truth to that?

Brother Loki
14-08-2007, 15:38
I find that 4th edition 40k is much more a game of tactical maneuver to sieze objectives and short range firefights, and you rarely get everyone rushing to the centre of the board for a big punch up unless its a game with two very heavily close combat oriented armies. The trick to making 40k tactically challenging is to play with plenty of terrain, and to play a variety of different mission types. rules like escalation in certain missions can mitigate the perceived first turn advantage that seemed prevalent in 3rd edition. I would say that in my experience highly mobile armies have some advantages, but having said that, they usually have a lot of points invested in non-scoring transports and the like, meaning that they have less scoring units and are potentially quite vulnerable, even though they may be able to dominate the table.

I think 4th is generally a vast improvement. Expansions like Cities of Death and the forthcoming Apocalypse seem to give more options as well. There is still some imbalance in codexes if you believe the forums, but that's largely because they are produced one at a time, and isn't limited to 40k - I know skaven in WFB are believed by many to be broken.

Do you still have your chaos marines and/or tyranids? Would you be playing these if you came back to 40k, or starting something new? What takes your fancy? Do you tend to play at home, at a club, in tournaments? Your local playing environment can have a big impact on whether you'd enjoy it.

Edit. I see you posted while I was typing.

I think the Ravenwing is an interesting army with a lot of potential. I've not read the codex personally but I've read quite a bit on the forums. Mech skimmers armies are indeed powerful, but the main bugbears are eldar grav-tanks as their available wargear makes them very tough, as well as fast. Landspeeders are much more vulnerable. The main complaints are about land speeder tornadoes with assault cannons (because assault cannons are widely regarded as the most efficient gun in the game), and I believe these are more limited in the new DA codex. Use a mix of different landspeeder configurations and nobody will call you cheesy. You'll have all the advantages that mobility gives you, but sacrifice some of the heavier firepower in return. One thing to note is that your bikes will all come with teleport homers as standard, so it's not a bad idea to include a squad or two of deathwing to give you more variety. In the fluff the Ravenwing often act as scouts to locate the enemy and call in terminator support, so it could fit your theme quite well. The ravenwing battleforce box set is pretty good value for money as well.

Go on. You know you want to! ;)

Pete

Polonius
14-08-2007, 15:47
40k isn't nearly in as bad of shape as the haters make it out to be. There are at least 4 simply amazing codices out there (IG, Witchhunters, Tau, and Eldar.) While there are a handful of uber-builds left in the game (tri-falcon, nidzilla, marine SAFH), none are nearly as broken as the stuff in the old Chaos Book, or the Blood Angels from early 3rd, or the Wolves from mid- 3rd edition. Between Cities of Death and the much anticipated Apocolypse, the game has moved into new and fun directions.

On the other hand, 40k isn't nearly in as good of shape as the apologists make it out to be. Many of the new codices have lost the endless variety of broken lists and instead settle on nearly cookie cutter pre-broken lists. DA and BA are fun, but underpowered and incredibly restrictive. Horde armies are still essentially unplayable, due to cost, time (both for painting and during a game) and due to the continuing overcosting of non power armored troops (Orks and IG both suffer here). The rules debacles in early 4th left a sour taste in many veterans mouths, as did the price increases, coupled with the ravaging of the specialized builds (Eldar, Ravenwing, and Chaos to point out a few).

Fantasy is a superiour game, the lists allow for far more customization, the rules are tighter, and the clientele tends to be more adult (not in age, but in mindset. I'm not agist).

That said, 40k is tons of fun. The game altering wargear you mention is basically gone (save a few toys), and is certainly far less than in fantasy. There aren't the game breaking units anymore, now that Chaos got the revision.

finally, Ravenwing, such as it is, is in now way a powergamers army. Nobody will think you're anything but a gentleman when you play anything out of the DA codex.

King Thurgun
14-08-2007, 15:48
As has been said, the game is much less of a massed melee now, and the most effective armies are those that bring a mix of close ranged shooting, fire support, and combat punch. Whereas before, rapid fire was near useless, and the way to win at close range was to just charge in, rapid fire can now be used on the move, allowing armies like Imperial Guard and Tau a mobility they never had before. Its great for chaos and marines as well as they get a chance to truly be all-rounders: great at shooting and combat and decent with heavy firepower.

I don't think you will be getting a lot of complaints for playing a Ravenwing Army, alot of people view the DA as dumbed down, but really they were just streamlined. Ravenwing are a solid force, especially combined with Deathwing terminators who can teleport in to support them (they have a lot of nifty rules that let you do that now, its pretty sweet). A highly tactical and mobile list.

Archaon
14-08-2007, 16:36
I find that 4th edition 40k is much more a game of tactical maneuver to sieze objectives and short range firefights, and you rarely get everyone rushing to the centre of the board for a big punch up unless its a game with two very heavily close combat oriented armies. The trick to making 40k tactically challenging is to play with plenty of terrain, and to play a variety of different mission types. rules like escalation in certain missions can mitigate the perceived first turn advantage that seemed prevalent in 3rd edition. I would say that in my experience highly mobile armies have some advantages, but having said that, they usually have a lot of points invested in non-scoring transports and the like, meaning that they have less scoring units and are potentially quite vulnerable, even though they may be able to dominate the table.

Is that common nowadays? In my day it was the usual "bash the enemy and who has lost most has lost the game" type of game.

Now i'm an avid Flames of War (WW2 game in 15mm scale) player and this game is best when it's scenario based.. the simplest scenario is to take and hold one of the two mission objectives in the opponents half of the table while he tries the same.
The game is much more fun that way and i'm wondering if the same applies here?

What's your general style of play? Still "anihilate everything" or indeed more scenario play enforced by the rules?


Do you still have your chaos marines and/or tyranids? Would you be playing these if you came back to 40k, or starting something new? What takes your fancy? Do you tend to play at home, at a club, in tournaments? Your local playing environment can have a big impact on whether you'd enjoy it.

No.. i sold both armies off and everything that had to do with 40K (except for the few pieces of 40K themed terrain) so i'd be starting totally fresh.

As i said i like mobile armies, being able to outmove my opponent and i rarely leave my units in the deployment zone (except for my Fantasy warmachines which can't be moved because they need to shoot).
Thus my eye on Ravenwing and i guess they are also cheaper financially to put together.. either via the Ravenwing box (6 bikes, an attack bike and a Landspeeder) or by searching for good deals on Ebay and just buying the Ravenwing sprues directly from GW.

Tyranids are also appealing because of the visual style but i shy away from the model count.. it's a pain in the lower bodypart to put them all together and paint them (even by taking shortcuts such as dipping).

As to the gaming situation.. my close gaming circle has abandoned 40K and concentrates on Warhammer Fantasy, Flames of War and the occasional GW specialist game (Gothic being the favorite.. awesome game). However there's a very active tournament scene in my region so rejoining the 40K scene is no problem at all since i still know many of the guys from my days though i don't know the style of play.



Go on. You know you want to!

I know i'm interested and i never left my attention off 40K completely. Somehow through the years i came to accept that 40K doesn't have the sort of tactical depth or detailed rulesset i wanted (please.. it's just my opinion. Yours may differ) but i have that covered with Fantasy and Flames of War so i'd like to return to the game where i adore the background and visual style.

I'm just checking the water so to speak before investing again only to be turned away in a few months because it's not what i expected.

I might however wait a bit to see the next 2 or so codexes appear (Chaos is next i gather.. what's coming after that?) and players get more gaming experience with the new style.
My gaming budget is locked up for the next few months (gotta pay the bills ;)) so i don't think i'll be starting this year.

Thanks for all the advice and opinions.. keep them coming.

Brother Loki
14-08-2007, 17:03
Speaking personally I tend to play scenarios more. These are mostly similar to the ones in 3rd edition you may remember. However for an added level of variety each scenario can be played at 3 levels:

Alpha - the simplest, no deepstrike, infiltrate or victory points etc - victory is based on number of scoring units generally
Gamma - most missions allow deepstrike, infiltrate, sometimes dawn and dusk etc. Victory points are used for kills and objectives
Omega - all of the scenario special rules as in gamma, but also escalation (only infantry begin on the table - everything else is in reserve).

I also don't play much with my friends - except my flatmate - but mostly in local tournaments. These tend to use a mix of gamma and omega rules, and a variety of different missions. I can't speak for other areas, but I've rarely played 'line up and kill the other guy' type games - it's nearly always scenario based. I find the game tends to be more interactive if you have a good amount of terrain on the table, of different types as well. One of the innovations of 4th ed is 'area terrain' which is a fairly abstract way of dealing with things, but changes the dynamics of play somewhat.

I'd see if you can borrow a 4th ed rulebook and have a look - some of the changes are quite good.

In terms of codexes, its not 100% confirmed, but orks are slated as the next likely codex after C:CSM, in early 2008, with a chaos daemons codex due in 2008 as well.