PDA

View Full Version : 40k - Actually a much deeper game than I gave it credit for!



Jind_Singh
11-02-2010, 07:46
Hello 40k fans!
Most of you wont know who I am unless you spend a lot of time hanging out on the Fantasy forums, I'm mad for WFB!!

During my brief time as a red shirt I had to get into all parts of the hobby:

1) Warhammer - EASY PEASY! Love it so much it hurts
2) War of the Ring - Again, something I really took to and love to bits
3) Warhammer 40k - WTF?!

Started with Orcs, great for like 2 weeks, got bored - traded them for Gaurd (just before the new book). Got bored again, traded for Eldar - now looking to add a second army - Space Marines.

So whats the problem?

1) Fluff - GREATEST fluff in the GW lores is 40K fluff
2) Models - Are you kidding me? 40K has AMAZING model ranges!
3) Gameplay - This is were it fell flat for me

I just thought of the game as a simple point, click, and shoot game - rock, paper, siscor - no real thinking behind the game, its about who has the most guns.

Recently I've been trying to shake this off, so I've been playing a lot more with my Eldar (I want to start the marines though, I love them!!) and you know what? Theres a LOT to be said for the depth of 40K!

Its totally alien to Warhammer - by calling it simpler or easier is foolish, it requires rapid shifts in managing your forces, stratagy is lighting fast, and you better think about 3-4 turns ahead or your doomed.

Deployment is said to be not as important as in warhammer - but again I beg to differ. Unless your playing the horde army and cant really worry about deployment as your army IS the deployment zone its tough!

So when I went to the store today to play a 1750 army I went in with a totally different mindset - I was going to play for a win, not the draw/loss I normally get. I was going to think about a plan for my army, design the list for the plan, and then execute the plan - not just grab the cool looking units and fly around shooting things! And I was going to think 2-3 moves ahead at all times, like when I used to play chess back in the day.

1750 pts v's Chaos

He had:

4 Chaos marine squads in rhinos (each with 2 meltas and sarge with fist)
3 havoc squads, 4 with missle launchers, 4 boltguns
2 Marine lords in the Rhinos

I had

FOOT TROOPS

Farseer, guide & doom
Avatar

10 gaurdians, platform - star lance? warlock(2 shots, either AP2 or AP3)
10 gaurdians, platform - star lance? warlock
10 Dire Avengers, exharch, shimmer shield and blade, both exarch powers
10 Scorpions, exharch, scorpion claw
4 Reapers, exarch, tempest launcher, fast shot

Mech

5 Wraith Gaurd, warlock, spear, wave serpant
4 Jetbikes, shrieker

Heavy Hitters

Falcon, pulse laser, scatter laser, shuriken cannons, holo fields
Prisim canon, holo fields

The plan

Avatar & gaurdians would go together towards objectives. The scorpions and avengers would be close behind them. I would make use of cover and hide the army for as long as possible. As they close with the enemy the gaurdians would take the hits, protecting the aspects for long as possible - then I would unleash hell on the enemy at close range. The scorpions were there to protect me in close combat.

Reapers would be with farseer, tanks - they would take out rhinos ASAP to strand the marines on foot

Wave serpant would hide all game with bikes - bikes would shot and retreat to cover - they would be held back until later in the game to grab/contest objectives or provide support as I took hits

I also wanted to concentrate the forces on a point - and hold the other flank with the 2 heavy tanks and reapers so the marines would have to go for them, but it would leave the main force unmolested.


So that was the gameplan!

The battlefield

Imagine the 6 by 4 - we use the citidal table (6 sqaures)

Hill-Hill-Flat (Marine Side)
flat-hill-hill (Eldar Side)

So theres like a valley.

On the marine side the hill has a bastion.
From the left, exactly down the centre, we used a 6 inch wide wall running down the middle of the board lenghtways to one of those launch pads - its 2 feet long, and high as the launch pad. (You know the warhammer castle set? Take the wall sections, place them back to back and it looks really cool, like a viaduct or 40k imperial wall!)
The centre is fairly empty, the other flank has 3-4 ruined imperial buildings. theres also bastion walls, fences and other defences laid around key buildings - as if back in the distant past the imperials hastily errected defences before being overan.

Deployment

SO he went 1st and put all 3 havoc squads in the bastion or around it - behind barricades. 2 Rhinos to the left of the bastion. The other 2 rhinos on other flank behind buildings.

I looked at the table and thought long and hard - I eventually placed the entire army behind the big wall, out of LOS to the bastion. The 2 heavy tanks were placed in ruins on the other flank looking at the 2 lone rhinos. Reapers were also placed in the same ruin.

Despite HORRIBLE dice luck during the game I stayed focused - I kept my patience and nerve and didnt commit to stupid charges or head long rushes - I built my presence slowly - I used my heavy tanks to pick on a single rhino at a time to imoblize them, I jumped the bikes onto the wall, shoot and jump back - and the infantary rushed the middle using the launch pad for cover. Things got bleak when I couldnt kill models - he charged 10 marines into avatar, 10 scorpions, 10 gaurdians with warlock and WON COMBAT by 5!!! I couldnt roll to hit/wound with avatar and scorpios - he tied me up for 2-3 turns there!
But i held my nerve, the forces I held back in reserve were still advancing, the right flank was fine as my 2 heavy tanks were keeping his 2 rhinos busy - the reapers were placed in a ruin were ALL 12 chaos missle launchers could see them and died in 3 turns! This was done a purpose as it allowed my main army to advance - but in the end I killed the 10 marines in the centre, consolidated forwards, and charged the bastion lower defences - killed 2 squads with 1 avatar, 1 warlock, and 7 scropions. By the end the avatar died trying to storm the bastion upper levels with just 1 wound left, but the 4 remaining scorpions crushed 8 marines!! The warlock ran into the lower level so when later the scropions killed the 8 marines on the roof tops the warlock captured the objective (he was part of troop garudian squad!). The objective on the long wall was taken by my 2nd gaurdian squad who were down to 4 strong from 11.
He captured the other 2 objectives - we were tied for the 5th and the game went to turn 7

This is were my patience paid off - I was spending turns 5 and 6 walking backwards with the avengers - 10 chaos marines were chasing them. I placed my jetbikes so he could charge them - he didnt want them to fly 24" and contest his objectives. Then it happened - his mistake! The central objective was held by his 8 marines and lord - he was worried id shoot him with the prisim tank - so he jumped into the rhino to hold it.

Hehehe! My farseer ran to the dire avengers who surged to the launchpad objective - he doomed the chaos marines, i blade stormed, and wiped them out!
the prisim tank flew 24" and contested his objective in the centre

End of game - Eldar hold 3, Chaos holds 1, I contested the 5th!!! He was gob smacked, he's an experianced player and he thought the game was in the bag - and to be honest he was very relaxed and expecting an easier game but I brought it on!

By the end of the game I was really happy, and mentally tired - the 1st time ever playing 40K which goes to show it's actually a very deep game - and as such it deserves a LOT more credit than most warhammer players give it.

I for one cant wait to carry on my 40k adventures!

lanrak
11-02-2010, 09:59
Hi Jind_Singh.
The main difference is 40k is far more strategicaly loaded , than WHFB or LoTR.
The game play is heavily influenced by strategic concerns, and some gamers like this type of game.(The units you take have the greatest influence on the game outcome.)

But I prefer more tactical interaction and more straight forward simulationist type rule sets.(Like Blood Bowl and Epic.)

I find 40k rule set the most overcomplicated currently commercialy available.(For the level of game play complexity.)
Most other companies rule sets manage to exceed the 40k level of game play using a fraction of the amount of written rules.(But game play is a proirity at these companies not minature sales....:D)

As a gamer I prefer to spend my time playing games rather than trying to get to grips with poorly defined abstract counter intuitive rules.;)

Happy gaming,
Lanrak.

RCgothic
11-02-2010, 10:04
I'm not altogether certain that GW has a greater quantity of rules. It's just the way it is written as rulesfluff, and then it takes four pages to explain rules that two paragraphs would have done if it had been written more concisely. 40k suffers from this particularly.

BlackLegion
11-02-2010, 10:10
If you think Wh40k is deep then you will be totally blown away by Epic: Armageddon :D

Lord Damocles
11-02-2010, 10:32
So when I went to the store today to play a 1750 army I went in with a totally different mindset - I was going to play for a win, not the draw/loss I normally get. I was going to think about a plan for my army, design the list for the plan, and then execute the plan - not just grab the cool looking units and fly around shooting things! And I was going to think 2-3 moves ahead at all times, like when I used to play chess back in the day.
Like most things in life, with 40K, the more you put into it, the more you get out of it.

If you go into a game which you've already decided is just going to be a pyrotechnic dice-fest, then chances are you'll get a pyrotechnic dice-fest.

Similarly, if you go into a Fantasy game in the certainty that it'll just be blocks of infantry bumping into one another in the centre of the board, with combats decided by who has the best magic banner of 'I win combat', then that's what your likely to get.

Zazoo
11-02-2010, 10:37
Its totally alien to Warhammer - by calling it simpler or easier is foolish, it requires rapid shifts in managing your forces, stratagy is lighting fast, and you better think about 3-4 turns ahead or your doomed.

Deployment is said to be not as important as in warhammer - but again I beg to differ. Unless your playing the horde army and cant really worry about deployment as your army IS the deployment zone its tough!



Ive played both systems for a very long time and I have found that 40K infact has more tactics than WHF but its far more subtle and people dont recognise it as such.

But you quite right when you say its ALIEN to WHF, they cant even be compared, sure they have some of the same elements but they play completely differently.

As to the deployment thing, It is probably the most important phase in 40K, deploying wrong can easily lose you the game and being able to "con" an opponent to make mistakes in deployment is a skill in its own.

Have to say that Im happy to see that you have seen the differences and how much fun/tactics there are available in 40K.

Bunnahabhain
11-02-2010, 11:52
I find 40k throws up fewer 'there's NOTHING I can do about that' moments than fantasy. 40k, you can generally try and do something about most units, particularly where you've built a good list that covers all the bases.

Fantasy, units often have very set roles and due to the restricted line of sight rules, you can see where they're going, and there is nothing you can do about it. Really good example I had recently...
Facing vampire counts ( grimmace now!).. they had a small unit of spirit hosts ( think name is right) They're etheral, so move through terrain without being obstructed, and can only be hurt by magic, or magic weapons.

One small, cheap unit of them ate 800 points of 1999, as I only had a few things that could possibly effect them, then the wizards both rolled useless spells... You charge through the terrain, scatter my flank guard unit, hit the ranked up infantry in the side, and I can't hurt you, so just have to keep holding Ld checks at -4 or so... That's a fun game.

meno1
11-02-2010, 12:54
Similarly, if you go into a Fantasy game in the certainty that it'll just be blocks of infantry bumping into one another in the centre of the board, with combats decided by who has the best magic banner of 'I win combat', then that's what your likely to get.

From the brief time I spent in Fantasy, this was what I tended to feel. The setup seemed to me the most strategic part of the game, after that, there was nothing really to do except for point, click, and shoot a few magic missiles along the way. All my games were choosing what unit to combat my opponent's, and then rushing at them to get tied up in combat, as maneuvering was a waste of movement. As I was Chaos, this was fairly easy.

I play tested a few special rules and scenarios to make it interesting, nice fluffy games (often with only myself however) in which most units tended to be skirmishers, as it seemed much more likely. Then I come into 40K, finding that the rules (for movement) in there matched many of the rules I had been using in my scenarios. For me, it may be a little biased after about 6 months in Fantasy and around 2 years in 40K, but the 41st millennium does appeal strongly as the more strategic in gameplay.

adam-352
11-02-2010, 13:09
I do like the tactical side of fantasy, as i see the restricted movement as a big challenge and having two armies that compete in at least three of the stages of the game makes for a wonderful experience.

However, i havent played 40K since the start of 5th, so i might have to give it another go with a different mindset...

Sygerrik
11-02-2010, 14:58
I'm a big fan of both systems. I think 40k rewards getting into a certain mindset: I play Orks, and I play incredibly balls-out recklessly, hurtling down the throat of the enemy's guns and gettin' stuck in wif da boyz at every opportunity, regardless of the logic.

And it works, and it's a huge blast.

Freakiq
11-02-2010, 15:08
Used to think Warhammer was deeper and required more skill than 40k.

That was before I started my Daemon army.

Now Warhammer Fantasy is won in the Buy Models phase while 40k actually is balanced.

Worsle
11-02-2010, 15:22
having two armies that compete in at least three of the stages of the game makes for a wonderful experience

How many fantasy armies is that? Always been one of the biggest turn offs about fantasy for me there. So many armies lack tools to take part in large sections of the game. Still if they have learnt things well from WOTR and apply them to the 8th edition and fix up the army books some more I might have to take it seriously. Still not sure if I will ever come to love the ridged movement but having different games to play when you want to is nice

Jind_Singh it is nice to see you have seen the charms of 40k. It tends to be thought of as a lot simpler than it is by fantasy players. However I think I am going to have to stop my self from saying to much about your list. Simply foot guardians are not mobile enough or strong enough to work and if they are in the fearless bubble when a good assault force (scratch that, a strong breeze will do just as well) hits you will be scraping them of the floor. More mech for greater mobility too, mobility is king these days.

SPYDER68
11-02-2010, 15:24
Yea, 40k is simple if you and opponet just set your army on the table, and just play mindlessly..

It would be the same in fantasy with 2 new players just walking toward eachother unit the game was over.

When you start playing competetive games in 40k, and against players who are good with their army and can put up a challenge, it can be a very very fun game.

I tried fantasy for a year.. i thought.. this game has alot to it.. then after 6 months or so.. it turned into.. hardly anything there... We had high elves, Dark elves, Daemons, and Vampire counts. The balance was terrible, and the game was won or lost in single phases.

40k can be a very tactical game vs some opponets, then vs others, who are new and bring bad lists.. its just a turkey shoot. It all comes down to.. who your opponets are.. and how your group plays games. If i played a Tourney list, and friend played a list for fluff/fun. It would be boring games.

Spiney Norman
11-02-2010, 16:43
How many fantasy armies is that? Always been one of the biggest turn offs about fantasy for me there. So many armies lack tools to take part in large sections of the game. Still if they have learnt things well from WOTR and apply them to the 8th edition and fix up the army books some more I might have to take it seriously. Still not sure if I will ever come to love the ridged movement but having different games to play when you want to is nice


Ummm, virtually ALL fantasy armies can compete in all the game phases, about the only exceptions are dwarfs (no magic) and Warriors of Chaos (almost no shooting). Most Fantasy armies lend themselves towards one or two phases in particular, but that doesn't mean you have to ignore the others entirely, and most Fantasy Veterans I know/play opt for balanced lists as they are more interesting.

One of the main differences between the two systems I've found is that 40K is easier to get into. Fantasy was terrifically hard to learn the ropes with, and after buying my first army (Lizardmen) I don't think I won a game for almost a year. 40k on the other hand has a much gentler learning curve, I first started it under 3rd edition just after the Witch Hunters codex was released and I had great fun deploying my Sisters and probably won about half the games I played.


I find 40k throws up fewer 'there's NOTHING I can do about that' moments than fantasy. 40k, you can generally try and do something about most units, particularly where you've built a good list that covers all the bases.

Fantasy, units often have very set roles and due to the restricted line of sight rules, you can see where they're going, and there is nothing you can do about it. Really good example I had recently...
Facing vampire counts ( grimmace now!).. they had a small unit of spirit hosts ( think name is right) They're etheral, so move through terrain without being obstructed, and can only be hurt by magic, or magic weapons.

Theres some truth in that, Fantasy is generally less kind on making mistakes than 40K is. Due to the freedom of movement in 40k is very easy to redeploy your troops in a single turn to get yourself out of a developing situation, thats just not the case in Fantasy, once your unit is out of position theres very little you can do about it as complex manoeuvrings really slow you down. Also when you make a mistake in fantasy it doesn't usually cause you a problem for several turns, but your options for damage limitation are rather less.

Fantasy is all about movement, to win you have to get in the right position and charge at the right time. In 40K the freedom of movement changes that significantly. Because of the distance models can move in 40K (much further than in fantasy) and the fact that they can move in any direction without penalty there is no way you are going to avoid your opponent's assault troops for the entire game (unless you can blow them off the table), so the strategy centres on surviving combats, sacrificing the right unit at the right time, and then finding a way to take out your opponent's army using your own tricks.

Fantasy is more about preventing your opponent from charging in the first place. The charge is everything in Fantasy.

If you asked me which game I think is more tactically in depth, I think I would still say Fantasy, but then I've played it for a number more years than I've played 40K, so I guess I'm probably still learning both systems.

Worsle
11-02-2010, 17:22
Ummm, virtually ALL fantasy armies can compete in all the game phases, about the only exceptions are dwarfs (no magic) and Warriors of Chaos (almost no shooting). Most Fantasy armies lend themselves towards one or two phases in particular, but that doesn't mean you have to ignore the others entirely, and most Fantasy Veterans I know/play opt for balanced lists as they are more interesting.

Err what game are you playing? Most armies are lacking elements they need to compete in various phases of the game. Dwarves and WoC are the worst examples of this but not the only ones, oh and not only do they both lack magic and shooting respectively they both have massive problems when it comes to movement (lack all sorts of important types of units). Though seen many shooting vampire armies? How about good ogre armies? Tried to do something sensible with o&g? Really this can go on, fantasy armies ar seriously out of wack. There are some good armies but far to many need an overhaul for my liking.

Oh I am leaving beasts out because of their new book witch I am not at all familiar with but until now? Ha

Jind_Singh
11-02-2010, 17:24
Woah! This is not a Fantasy v's 40k thread, but rather a thread to celebrate the depth and intricate nature of 40k.

Not for 1 moment am I saying either game is easier to play, or a point-click-shoot game. I've played WFB since I was 16 (now hitting 33 soon) and it's a deeply satisifying game, with tactics, stratagy galore - you BETTER know how to play or your doomed.

With regards to posts on this thread, WFB is NOT a point click shoot game, almost every army plays in every phase - if you take the appropriate selections, and its def. not won in the 'buy models phase'.

Infact all the above would be true for any of the 3 game systems for par or sub-par players - but the really experianced players would whole heartidly disagree.

For e.g. the Eldar list I took yesterday drew many eyebrows as it breaks the mind set of 3 units of dire avengers in wave serpants, fire dragons in wave serpant, far seer, and 3 war walkers - which is one of the common eldar spams we see a lot in the store.
Yet I did perfectly fine with the horde infantary list as my battle plan was designed around them.

In WFB you have to really understand how your army works in compariosn with the enemy as theres a lot less you can do v's certain units - when my Orcs & goblins play the vampires I have to be canny in my deployment and handling of some of the big headaches - spirit hosts, wraiths and all other things etherial as they will otherwise destroy me. But its do-able to the point the Vampire players have never gotten an easy gaem from me, and I've even managed to eek out wins here and there - which is saying a lot as O & G are bottom tier v's the vamps top tier.

After reading many of the posts it looks like the 40k players who tried fanatasy suffer from what I was having with 40k - it's hard to really understand the full nature of the game, and as such we dont respect it. In 40k things always looked beyond my control, I felt it was down to whichever player brought the hardest guns, and luck, and then there would be a point reached in the game were it's useless - your just wasting time until the game ends. It looked unbalanced, some armies were just dominating me, and it was pretty lame game, I had no idea why anyone whose into gaming would bother with such an infantile game system - grown ups play Warhammer!!!

But thats the point behind this thread, the game of 40K is pretty bloody good - and requires alot of thinking and planning to pull off a good game. The pace of the game is solid, and I'm really looking into breaking myself into the game.

Bless the Emperor!


Err what game are you playing? Most armies are lacking elements they need to compete in various phases of the game. Dwarves and WoC are the worst examples of this but not the only ones, oh and not only do they both lack magic and shooting respectively they both have massive problems when it comes to movement (lack all sorts of important types of units). Though seen many shooting vampire armies? How about good ogre armies? Tried to do something sensible with o&g? Really this can go on, fantasy armies ar seriously out of wack. There are some good armies but far to many need an overhaul for my liking.

Oh I am leaving beasts out because of their new book witch I am not at all familiar with but until now? Ha

Again, all just personal views that mean squat in the cold light of experiance.

My Orcs and Goblins lose more games than say my Empire, but not by much. The O & G have put paid to many opponents (skilled and worthy tournment players, not causual players), and every army is pretty good. We have an Ogres player who stomps most people into dust as he is one of the best WFB players i've seen - true there are 2 armies which give him massive headaches, and he has to pray hard to the Great Maw for wins, but he's been known to do it. WoC is lamanted for lack of shooting yet they have the Hell Cannon - maybe either the best or 2nd best artiallry peice in all of WFB. AND they have maraders on horse that throw axes that always hit on 4+, and are str 4?!
Dwarves in the hands of good players are nutters - In a 3000 pt game with my Khorne Deamons vs his dwarves I was utterly wiped out to the last model for very few loss of stuntie lives - yeah he doesnt have magic but he has somehting better - Anvil of Doom! He was moving units twice - 12" - which is faster than 8" of men and other common races.
So again, please dont thump fantasy - im not here to thump either game, the point is that you have to look beyond your intial experiances and really get deeper down into the game - once your there you'll find it immensly satisfying and rewarding

In fact, Im off to the store to take on one our best players with his crazy Tau army!

Worsle
11-02-2010, 17:53
I am sorry but I am not thumping fantasy I was commenting on some thing that did not make any sense. Fantasy armies are very much out of wack, I do see a trend to improvement lately and if ideas from WOTR are implemented correctly in the next edition I am optimistic about the future. That does not change the way things stand just now, just like over very expensive rare slot hogging artillery piece does not give you a good shooting army. Oh and what is the range on those axes? Fantasy can be fun but I am not a big fan of the ridged movement rules and the deficiencies between the various army books just makes me sad. Really had better hope you pick well when you start collecting, still as I said I am optimistic.

Oh and I quite like the Tau despite much of the internet thinking they are hopeless in the 5th. Tricky to play? Maybe and limited viable options? Definitely but not a bad army if you can get over those hurdles.

adam-352
11-02-2010, 18:50
Id say that vamps cast, move and fight effectively, same as WoC, the only army i see as defficient in two areas are Dwarfs (casting and movment)

Spiney Norman
11-02-2010, 22:38
Err what game are you playing? Most armies are lacking elements they need to compete in various phases of the game. Dwarves and WoC are the worst examples of this but not the only ones, oh and not only do they both lack magic and shooting respectively they both have massive problems when it comes to movement (lack all sorts of important types of units). Though seen many shooting vampire armies? How about good ogre armies? Tried to do something sensible with o&g? Really this can go on, fantasy armies ar seriously out of wack. There are some good armies but far to many need an overhaul for my liking.

Oh I am leaving beasts out because of their new book witch I am not at all familiar with but until now? Ha

Shooting Vamps... no probably not, sorry I don't play vamps. It looks like what your saying is that fantasy armies are not identical, and this somehow a bad thing... Because surely the game would be so much better if every army could field a bolt thrower, cannons, magic flaming catapults, 1+sv heavy cavalry with lances and 2 attacks, Str 5 spearmen that always strike first and combat lords who can butcher entire units by themselves. I think diversity is one of the great strengths of the fantasy game, if you don't like the strengths and weaknesses of one particular army, you can always pick up another that has different weaknesses. Unless of course you want an army with no weaknesses that can win every game with impunity, then you can play daemons of chaos.

I think everyone is aware Ogres are in a bad state, but both 40k and fantasy have defunct armies that haven't been shown any love for a while, 40k has dark eldar, whose codex is 12 years old, that trumps the most neglected army in the fantasy range by at least 4 years. And I really don't see your point about O&G, they are one of the most versatile armies in the game, they have magic, shooting, light and heavy cavalry, basic and elite infantry, chariots, monsters, and more different types of artillery than any army except Dwarfs and Empire. As a greenskin player I feel the army gets horribly misrepresented on warseer. Granted it may not have any ultra competitive WAAC builds, but its a tremendously fun army to play in a friendly setting, whether I bring my Skarsnik lead Goblin horde or my Savage Orc list.

Its all very well to pick on the armies that are perceived as extremes, either overpowered, or flat out broken. But the truth is most armies DO compete on roughly the same level AND have access to all the phases, Lizardmen, High Elves, Empire, Wood Elfs, Dark Elves, Skaven, Bretonnia, O&G are all fairly well balanced (and with any luck beastmen will be soon as well), some armies have horribly abusable builds (like Dark Elf double hydras or Lizardmen stegzilla), but that doesn't mean you HAVE to build the army that way.


Id say that vamps cast, move and fight effectively, same as WoC, the only army i see as defficient in two areas are Dwarfs (casting and movment)
Dwarfs aren't as movement deficient as you might think. Ok they are slow, but always being able to march makes quite a difference and when you combine options like miners with the movement potential of the anvil they can compete in interesting and unexpected ways. The gyrocopter also adds much needed mobility to the dwarf list.

big squig
12-02-2010, 01:36
I find that so long as you have a proper terrain set up, and a good mission (preferably, non-annihilation type) 40k is a very rewarding and indepth game.

e2055261
12-02-2010, 01:54
It's been many years since I played fantasy. The main thing that put me off was the over-emphasis on characters and as has been said the almost invulnerability of some units. Characters are much more killable in 40k and as such I tend not to waste too many points on them (which is how it should be), preferring to use more troops...

direwolf
12-02-2010, 04:22
It was said in another thread that wargames should be representative of warfare in game's time period (or more aptly, setting, as we are dealing with games set in fictional worlds). Looked at objectively, both games do this pretty well.

40K is reasonably representative of a version of modern warfare where for whatever reason close combat with swords and axes is regarded favourably. The freedom of movement, the speed of the game and the ability to change plans mid battle reflect this. The relative weakness of characters fits the style of play, and fits the setting where the individual is pretty meaningless in the scheme of things.

Fantasy is set in a somewhat medieval based fantasy setting. Just reflect on the "fantasy" part of that for a moment. I think in light of this the power level of characters is pretty appropriate. Also the difficulty of redirecting your troops and responding to unforseen circumstances is pretty reflective of medieval warfare. It's difficult to wheel a block of infantry to meet charging horse, and it's hard for a general to get his orders to all his men in the chaos of battle without the benefit of radio.

Players of game ripping on the other (the game not the players... usually) for their perceived shortcoming usually stems from looking at the other through the lens of their preferred system. They are both very different games, more or less equal in the depth, but requiring very different mindsets to play. There is really no "better" or "worse".

Jind_Singh
12-02-2010, 05:42
Direwolf speaks the truth! Very well put sir!

On a happier note - the 40k Scalp taking continues...

So yesterday I took down Chaos Marines - fielded by a very good & respected player.
Today I faced the might of the Tau, in the hands of one of our best Tau players, and I've yet to see the fellow lose many games....

Mech Eldar

Farseer, doom, guide

10 Gaurdians, scatter laser, warlock, destructor, spear
10 Gaurdians, scatter laser, warlock, destructor, spear
10 Dire Avengers, Exharch, blade and sheild, both exarch powers
10 Dire Avengers, Exharch, blade and sheild, both exarch powers
10 Scorpions, exarch, claw

ALL FIVE units were in Wave Serpants, spirt stones, star cannon (I think thats the name, 1 shot, AP2, str 8 or 9, lance), vectored engines, 2 had underslung shuriken gun upgrades

HE had 4 squads fire warriors, 10 pathfinders, 2 units of kroot with hounds and shapers, pathfinders, 2 transports, 5 crisis suits, HQ in suit, drones, 4 broadsides

Dawn of war - 5 objectives

Again a very intense game, started amazing for me! I deployed a single wave serpant with garudians in exact centre, far in as possible. I speed the full 24" forwards and tank shocked his kroot and firewarriors - BOTH failed their morale test and ran off the board! Huzzah!
His turn - he swamped the poor wave serpant, shot it and crippled it - thankfully I had vectored engines (He was really annoyed as NO ONE in the store upgrades their transports!) and it landed! He then surrounded it and started assualting it but just caused minor damage. He also shot my 2nd wave serpant disabling its guns for 1 turn (in my reserve more I brought a serpant with averngers on extreme right, and the other 3 serpants on extreme right flank and hid all 3 behind a large rock formation)
My 2nd turn - since the serpant couldnt shoot I just tank shocked another squad of fire warriors on extreme right. They FAILED morale check and fled off board! He got really annoyed at this point so did a dirty trick on me too - he placed his gun drones behind my access point on the imobilized serpant, destroyed it in combat with the suits and HQ, and I couldn't disimbark - all 10 garudians and warlock were insta-killed! He also shot another serpant on extreme left and destroyed it, the avengers tumbled out the wreakage - which were then shot by his army and wiped out. He also disabled the guns on the serpant with scorpions for 1 turn.
Turn 3 - I tank shocked with the scorpions empty transport!! this time his pathfinders and kroot ran of the board!! OH MY! TANK SHOCK heavon!

By the end of turn 5 all I had left was 4 scorpions who ran behind the large rocks on the left, 3 serpants, and the avengers on extreme right with farseer . He still had 2 firewarrior squads, 2 transports, all his suits (inc broadsides), and some drones.

However, in turn 4 I ran the serpant 24" close to an objective deep in my own deployment zone. The 2 remaining serpants backed away from his army at 12" so they could shoot at his transports - no luck (all game actually, couldn't pen his armour!).

Turn 5 - all critical turn.....Dire Avengers moved their 6" to the objective and ran in the shooting phase - i have ONE objective. The empty serpant moved 18" into his transport containing a squad of fire warriors on an objective- BANG! I imbolized it! (He also failed his 4+ skimmer doge!). Another serpant was already contesting the objective, he had crippled it but it wasnt destroyed. So basically by ensuring I crippled his only transport that could have captured another objective, and the threat of scorpions close to another objective (which prevented him from sending fire warriors over there) I was able to squeeze a win! Luckily for me we rolled a 1 at end of turn 5 and the game ended!!!!

Hurrah! More joy for the Eldar!

Next I'm taking on one of the best players in our store - but I've claimed two major scalps already - all thanks to my new found respect and understanding for the game!

Havock
12-02-2010, 05:56
Deep compared to what? When you start out, yeah, it's all much etc. Fantasy is -at the moment- horribly unbalanced regarding army books. The rules are fine, it's just that the armybooks gives players too much free reign on things like PD. The current magic system works fine until around 10PD.

Nah, 40k is shallow.

Jind_Singh
12-02-2010, 07:56
Deep compared to what? When you start out, yeah, it's all much etc. Fantasy is -at the moment- horribly unbalanced regarding army books. The rules are fine, it's just that the armybooks gives players too much free reign on things like PD. The current magic system works fine until around 10PD.

Nah, 40k is shallow.

Deep in the sense I played a ton of games last year with Orcs, Marines, then Gaurd, finally Eldar but had no appreciation, respect, or anything for the game - I played those games to pass time with my friends in the hobby that didn't play Warhammer or WOTR - but as for the games I had zero interest.

Then this year I decided to re-vist the game to see if there was any point to it. The reason being I love the new Venerable Dread, the Scout Landspeeder Storm, and the Ironclad. I also love the profile of the Land Raider Crusader - ie I really want to collect Space Marine figures but I'll be dammned to spend money on an army for a game I don't like.

So then I re-visited my games last year and looked at the reasons why I didn't appreciate or like the game - and realized many were prejudiced by my love of WFB.

So these last 2 days I've challenged strong opponents, I've gone in off-peak hours where there are not a horde of annoying younglings bugging our game, and I've really put on my thinking hat during the game to see how I could pull wins off against seasoned vets.

Theres actually a lot of layers within the game - it's not all a point/click and shoot game - thats my point.

The only reason I could pull off the wins back-to-back was due to great tactical moves - and the mental effort required to do so wasn't any less than an intense game of WFB

To say theres no depth to the game is not a vaild comment - either your that good that you can win in your sleep, or perhaps the locals are not able to challange you enough

Ianos
12-02-2010, 08:13
Theres actually a lot of layers within the game - it's not all a point/click and shoot game - thats my point.

The only reason I could pull off the wins back-to-back was due to great tactical moves - and the mental effort required to do so wasn't any less than an intense game of WFB

Congrats for your wins. It takes an intelligent and wise person to adapt so quickly and overcome its prejudice.

I concur on your oppinions and add that as time goes by you will realize that despite having fewer rules and looking simpler than fantasy, 40k has even more to offer in terms of depth and as those veterans adapt to you and games get harder your satisfaction will be enhanced.

Jind_Singh
12-02-2010, 11:29
lol, if you talk to my wife I'm not sure if she'd agree with the intelligent or wise part! But thanks for the kind words.

It's great though as I'm really looking forward to starting the Ultrasmurfs! :D

My headache in the game right now is trying to work out a reliable way to take on armour and horde armies - armour means buying some Firedragons I guess, but not so sure how to take on horde armies - for e.g i know one fellow whose deployment zone is a green tide of angry orcs on foot!

Kal Taron
12-02-2010, 11:51
Congrats in having fun with 40K.

On the Dwarfs and mobility though:
What makes them "slow" is the following
- no cavallry
- no monsters
- no skirmishers
They can somewhat counter this with the Anvil and that they can't be marchblocked. (Dwarfs are even faster than marchblocked Elves and tie with even the fastest infantry!) They have some problems with cav but can build incredible tarpits.
And they may not be able to use the magic phase actively but have decent deffense and can compensate to a certain extent in the shooting phase.

What other armies lack severely in some phases?

And I agree with the general oppinion that it's not the WFB core rules that cause most problems but the few really bad ABs. (DEs and Vamps have a few issues, DoC is a whole league of its own.)

DeeKay
12-02-2010, 12:16
Hi there Jind_Singh, and congrats for enjoying something that you previously wouldn't have before actually getting into it. It takes some cajones to admit that "yeah, after doubting it for so long, I really like it!"

For me though, the problem is that to some degree after 2nd Ed, the game seemed to degenerate into something I didn't like. Independant Characters soon went from being expensive targets of opportunity to being army killers (I DARE ANYONE who read the 3.5 Chaos codex to say different!), transports became deathtraps, and the game for me turned into a game of how many power fists can I keep alive to make close combat.

I must stress that the comments above are simply mine and there will be people that disagree with some of what I have said, if not all. But I have to also stress the point of a game is to have fun. So long as you have fun you won't be wasting your time.

With regards,
Dan.

Azzy
12-02-2010, 12:22
Welcome to the fold, Jind_Singh!

I have no interest in WHFB (that's because I'm not interested in fantasy wargaming, not due to some perceived deficiency in the game), so I really can't comment on it. However, I do have a blast with 40K and its tanks and guns and its campy science-fantasy silliness.

With 40K, it seems like it's all in how you can adapt—whether to the terrain setup, your enemy's deployment, your enemy's maneuvering, mistakes you make, casualties, failed battle plans and all manner of wacky circumstances you may find yourself in. In most cases you can overcome the situation with a little finesse as long as you're not too rigid and you're willy to take chances.

Of course your opponent will be trying to adapt, too, so there's also an element of "playing your opponent", trying to psych out, bait, confuse, manipulate, etc. (like one would in poker) while keeping a steady eye on the mission objective.

Worsle
12-02-2010, 12:42
Shooting Vamps... no probably not, sorry I don't play vamps. It looks like what your saying is that fantasy armies are not identical, and this somehow a bad thing... Because surely the game would be so much better if every army could field a bolt thrower, cannons, magic flaming catapults, 1+sv heavy cavalry with lances and 2 attacks, Str 5 spearmen that always strike first and combat lords who can butcher entire units by themselves. I think diversity is one of the great strengths of the fantasy game, if you don't like the strengths and weaknesses of one particular army, you can always pick up another that has different weaknesses. Unless of course you want an army with no weaknesses that can win every game with impunity, then you can play daemons of chaos.

I think everyone is aware Ogres are in a bad state, but both 40k and fantasy have defunct armies that haven't been shown any love for a while, 40k has dark eldar, whose codex is 12 years old, that trumps the most neglected army in the fantasy range by at least 4 years. And I really don't see your point about O&G, they are one of the most versatile armies in the game, they have magic, shooting, light and heavy cavalry, basic and elite infantry, chariots, monsters, and more different types of artillery than any army except Dwarfs and Empire. As a greenskin player I feel the army gets horribly misrepresented on warseer. Granted it may not have any ultra competitive WAAC builds, but its a tremendously fun army to play in a friendly setting, whether I bring my Skarsnik lead Goblin horde or my Savage Orc list.

Its all very well to pick on the armies that are perceived as extremes, either overpowered, or flat out broken. But the truth is most armies DO compete on roughly the same level AND have access to all the phases, Lizardmen, High Elves, Empire, Wood Elfs, Dark Elves, Skaven, Bretonnia, O&G are all fairly well balanced (and with any luck beastmen will be soon as well), some armies have horribly abusable builds (like Dark Elf double hydras or Lizardmen stegzilla), but that doesn't mean you HAVE to build the army that way.


Dwarfs aren't as movement deficient as you might think. Ok they are slow, but always being able to march makes quite a difference and when you combine options like miners with the movement potential of the anvil they can compete in interesting and unexpected ways. The gyrocopter also adds much needed mobility to the dwarf list.

Ok sure dwarves have a good movement phase, also woc have great shooting. I am also a great fan of chocholate teapots.

No really dwarves lack all of the important movement tools and having to take the anvil to get some sort of work around is not a good thing. Gyrocopter is the only true bit of mobility you have in the list. Dwarves need skirmisher, cavalry and chariots and I will be polite and not tell you where you can put any fluff based complaints. This does not make all armies the same it is giving all armies the tools they need to compete. Look at the most powerful books (ignoring vampires as really they are not that great, just annoying to kill with all the problem armies in the game) what is the unifying factor? They all have lots of different tools to let the compete in different sections of the game and they are nothing like the same army, it would be like removing anti tank weapons from a 40k army to make them "different". Bretonnia are the only real exception but they are strong enough at what they are good at and even then still have a good selection of other tools.

Oh vampires only have combat and movement. They don't have a real magic phase instead it is just more movement and raising, they should have the ability to field an offensive magic phase. Really it is a basic part of the game can we stop pulling it out of armies? I don't know why we are trying to defend this as good design, lots fantasy armies are clearly lacking in various ways. Still if we ignore woc and vampires the trend has been good recently, so despite what I am saying I think fantasy has a good future.

Also you have empire and o&g on your good list? Empire suffers from having nothing but mediocre units, it lacks the bit in any of the sections they need more bite some where. O&G suffer from being the comedy army, unless they are taken seriously we are not going to get a good army for them. Oh and you list of good and balanced armies? Only comes to about half the armies in the game and get even worse when you remove the armies that should not be on the list... woo.

Ianos
12-02-2010, 13:57
My headache in the game right now is trying to work out a reliable way to take on armour and horde armies - armour means buying some Firedragons I guess, but not so sure how to take on horde armies - for e.g i know one fellow whose deployment zone is a green tide of angry orcs on foot!

Well, dragons are more or less mandatory in an Eldar list. Eldar lack long range AT capabilities and they must invest on taking tanks out mostly at short range/cc. The other way is to go around them and hit side/rear armor for av13- tanks. Dragons can also hit monstrous and marines hard, especially out of cover.

As for horde, Eldar are very good at controlling them. From prisms at long range to avengers mid-range, to scorps close up and even banshees are not bad vs weakened horde units. What you need to do is concentrate your force and try to make full attack moves (move shoot assault with everything), while using your psychic powers to enhance this local superiority. There is a critical amount of damage dealing/absorption, where hordes (especially fearless) take a huge beating. For example, scorpions can kill like 20 gaunts with doom, you can link this combat to another one where avengers bladestorm and charge, while being fortuned. The 20(10+10) gaunts that remain do minimal damage and will roll 20 saves per squad... Oh yeah, i love this game!:D

Worsle
12-02-2010, 14:29
Ianos is right about fire dragons being mandatory, you need two squads of them and they must have some sort of transport. Just some thing you can't get around with eldar lists. Prisms are a good addition for anti hord, fulcans can do well too and with 5 DA in them even more so. Most of your serpents should have bright lances on them too, only unit that is a good place for them sadly.

Scorpions and banshees on the other hand have to be left at home. I like them but they are just not strong enough just now, maybe they will let banshees assault out of transports some day? Even then they would still need work to really have a place in peoples lists.

Jind_Singh
12-02-2010, 19:19
[QUOTE=Worsle;4388668]Also you have empire and o&g on your good list? Empire suffers from having nothing but mediocre units, it lacks the bit in any of the sections they need more bite some where. O&G suffer from being the comedy army, unless they are taken seriously we are not going to get a good army for them.QUOTE]

Slightly off topic but since the guantlet has been thrown down....

Sorry Worsle, you couldn't be more wrong about your assesment of Empire and Orcs and Goblins!

Me and my mate Nav both love and play Empire - and last year in all our tournments he either came 1st or 2nd, I was always 2nd to 4th - and theres normally about 10 to 14 players per tournment so not bad for a 'lack-lustre' army.
Well played Empire (And by the way, both of us don't field double steam tank and war alter, we take 1 steam tank each) are tough & solid - they can out shoot anyone, their magic phase is farily strong (Not as whacky as deamons, but pretty darn brutal). I played Vamps one time and wiped out close to 16 Black Knights in 2 turns of magic - tell me again that they are sub-standard in that phase?! The only phase they lack lustre is close combat - but well supported units (by characters, co-ordinated assualts between multiple units) will wreak havoc! 5 Knights, musician, and a basic warrior priest will rip apart most things - 6 str 5 attacks, re-roll to hit = lots of fleeing enemy!

Orcs & Goblins - yeah they are not anywere near the top tier - but they are devastating when they want to be. I participated in a 5000pt ironman tournment were we had dark elves, empire, etc, and I won - hands down!
High Elves are considered upper tier yet they struggle to get a draw against my horde, warriors have been crushed more times than I'd like to recall - infact the main army I struggle against is the Dark Evles - they just tear my butt hole apart!

The Empire & Orcs & Goblins in the hands of average or sub-par players will find themselves on the wrong end of a pointy stick - but used well and wisely they are dreadful foes.

Worsle
12-02-2010, 19:47
Ok I don't want to be mean but given I don't know your local environment I have no idea how good the other players are or there lists. Problem is people seem to mix up the idea good in my area for being good, big fish in a small pond. If your 40k lists are anything to go by I get the feeling hard lists (or for 40k 5th edition lists) are kind or rare if not non-existent. Why personal chest beating does not impress me much, unless you bring up good points I am not going to care how many people you have beaten. Oh and 5000 points? Given hard boys suffers badly from people just stuffing 2000point lists full of nonsense to make up for the extra points I dread to think what a 5000 point match would look like.

Empire and o&g just find them selves lacking. Empire it is because they do not have the bite other armies have, sure all the tools are there but they are all blunt and some what in need of repair. Jack of all trades master of none, steam tank is one of the few really stand out units they have any why people tend to rely on them. O&G really suffer from the comedy army, no reliability and are not really that strong in any place either. Pretty much any army used by a good player is better than a good army played by a crap player but good players don't make bad army books better. O&G are the worse army but that does not make empire good either but I thought I should point that out too. Still sounds like a new o&g book is on its way with the new edition, maybe they it will get them a seat at the big boys table.

Corpse
13-02-2010, 00:06
Well, I would be a fantasy player since I was into the old dragon warrior Lego mini's when they came out in 1989-1993 as a kid.

The main issue I have is that the basis of the rules is set on a very small section of the world's medieval conflicts. A 500 mile radius for a great period of war used the phalanx-esque formations. While in japan, they kept formation and tried to surround the enemy in a loser formation because of how unweildy weapons swung in wide arcs.

When I tried a skirmisher army, I got my heiny handed to me in fantasy time and time again. Really, its set around the europe stages of war and does not include the other 88% of the world in its variation combat, even Attila the Hun's combat doctrine that effectively ripped into southern europe. (No, wood elves cannot count here)

That was my only major turnoff of fantasy, otherwise its a nice game.


For 40k (and being ON TOPIC) I think it's all about learning what unit can do and knowing the rough odds of what they're up against and how you utilize them before they're hurt to ineffectiveness. And how well you use the army as a entire unit rather then a bunch of small units doing individual things.

Sometimes someone complains about wishing to quit 40k, not being new to 40k just sick of losing a bunch. I ask them to make a list, few minor adjustments (like taking cheap HQ's, not putting a power weapon AND fist on a sergeant etc), and I will play that list of theirs against an experienced opponent they normally lose against. They often get surprised at the result, even if I lose.

Minor example, tanks are a big part even in denying the enemy more then just LoS, but movement restrictions, timely tank shocks, maintaining 6" of a unit's fallback path and continually forcing that unit to take LD checks until it flees. So on and so forth, micromanagement and a little forethought.

I haven't updated anything in my signature in a while, but you might want to check some of the links out.

Jind_Singh
13-02-2010, 01:13
Hey there Worsle :),

Dont get me wrong, the Empire and O & G are very sub-standard books comapred to the recent ones, they fall short in many areas - but they are still killer armies and to be reckoned with.

As for our local gaming environment - the tournments I was talking about are all over the local area - for e.g this weekend theres a doubles torunment with just over 30 people signed up for it - and we have really strong talented players.

The players I play with in WFB and 40k go to many of the main events across north america, for e.g. peter our Dark Elf won the major tourny last year - so we have tons of great, solid players.

In 40k we also have an amazing set of people - the 2 that I've beat so far are really good players, but they take fluffy lists and have fun with them - so I can afford some slack in my list building too.

My next 2 challangers though are different story - they are WAACs, and damn good at it too. One is Eldar with typical army of doom, and the other is solid IG player - I have serious doubts of even being able to make them sweat, yet alone beat them, as the 2 players I have taken down already were both over confident v's me, and as such they made mistakes through carelessness, as opposed to any misguided ideas about my own skill levels, I'm still a rookie lad! The only sad news is that the 2 main big cheeses have heard about my recent exploits and are determined to bring me back down to Earth with a solid B.U.M.P.!
And theres a few others that have put me in their targeting scopes for lessons in humiliation - they dont like rookie upstarts!

Loki73
13-02-2010, 01:13
Wow you use foot troop guardians that list is great! See non-mech can be fun!

Funny one of the things I like about fatasy is the miniatures range. It just seems that my local group the games have one or ore rules arguments per game. I hope this changes with the new edition!

vladsimpaler
13-02-2010, 02:44
Next I'm taking on one of the best players in our store - but I've claimed two major scalps already - all thanks to my new found respect and understanding for the game!

Correlation does not imply causation.

squeekenator
13-02-2010, 04:26
Correlation does not imply causation.

In this case I'd say the chance that he's been learning about 40K by playing good players is a fair bit higher than the chance of him just magically acquiring knowledge. Are you honestly suggesting that someone playing the game probably isn't the reason for them learning more about it?

Occulto
13-02-2010, 07:29
I love Warseer.

We get a positive story about someone enjoying the game.

Lanrak posts his usual mutterings about why 40K is deficient. (Why, I'm not entirely sure)

The mention of "depth" brings a comparison to Epic.

the merest mention of WHFB starts another debate about the merits of it vs 40K.

There's some chest beating and some counter chest beating.

Ultimately we're left feeling that in some ways it's a crime to profess a love for the game that's the topic of the forum the thread's being posted in.

Welcome to 40K Jind_Singh. :p

Jind_Singh
13-02-2010, 10:01
Correlation does not imply causation.

Thats a deep saying - so deep you lost me there old fruity!

When I say I'm new to 40k.....I'm new in that I'm new as I actually enjoy playing the game since the light turned on for me this week, and I think it has a ton of potential and merit - and I don't see it as a sub-standard game that I used to play to give me a break from warhammer anymore.

I even used to play 40k hardcore when I was 18 until 21 (now 32) so that was a long time ago - had pure gaurdian force back in the day.

Just out of interest - correlation does not imply causation - I understand the words but I am lost on the meaning here - could someone point me in the right step?

Are we talking about the skill level of the other players I've faced or about to? :confused:

Jind_Singh
13-02-2010, 10:07
I love Warseer.

We get a positive story about someone enjoying the game.

Lanrak posts his usual mutterings about why 40K is deficient. (Why, I'm not entirely sure)

The mention of "depth" brings a comparison to Epic.

the merest mention of WHFB starts another debate about the merits of it vs 40K.

There's some chest beating and some counter chest beating.

Ultimately we're left feeling that in some ways it's a crime to profess a love for the game that's the topic of the forum the thread's being posted in.

Welcome to 40K Jind_Singh. :p

Your awesome! Very good review of the thread to date! Yeah, basically I just wanted to express my new found love & respect for all things spacey - and to admit to everyone that actually you know what - this game is not a cake walk, and it does require layers of thinking! I wasn't here to compare it to warhammer as why would someone compare a banana to an apple? Both are tasty, both are healthy, but one is yellow, the other is not!

I am ashamed of my chest beating - but that was because we have the tired old argument all the time about some armies being totally redundant by the so called power creep - we've all accepted that the older armies struggle, but wisely used they can still hold their own - it's just that you have to work bloody hard for that elusive win!

And yeah - I still love 40k! Can't wait to get my teeth into the Imperial Gaurd player next - if I could bring him down...life would be good! :D:chrome:

moose
13-02-2010, 10:09
I had started with 40k for about a year, and then when I had a mere flash of Fantasy I was hooked for about 2years and probably didn't pick 40k up at all in that time.

In recent months, i've been drawn back into 40k after reading the books, lexicanum, and finding that 40k is alot fresher.

It's alot faster gameplay wise, and just about any unit can be countered with a standard list unlike the 'untouchable' cheese units in fantasy.


Moose.

Worsle
13-02-2010, 12:54
Occulto then some one makes a slightly snide recap of the thread for the people to lazy to read what was said? It was also more a debate about the internal balance of fantasy too, if we are being fair ;).

Jind_Singh it is just those few strong armies tend to lean on things like steam tanks. If you guys are having fun I am not going to knock you to much but it is worth remembering that just because you do well locally does not mean much if it turns out you are just a big fish in a small pond as most good players can end up like that. Like for 40k it is worrying how many people have not adapted to the 5th edition, still playing the old static armies of yesterday.

direwolf
13-02-2010, 14:31
Just out of interest - correlation does not imply causation - I understand the words but I am lost on the meaning here - could someone point me in the right step?

I believe he means that just because your apparent winning streak correlates with your new found respect and understanding for the game, this respect and understanding is not the cause of it, as implied by the wording of your post that he quoted.

Although this makes sense, I would think that your respect and understaning of the game would effect how you play and would have somewhat of a bearing on how often you win. In any case as long as you're having fun is all that matters. It is a game after all (something that some occasionally lose sight of).

Jind_Singh
13-02-2010, 16:00
in that case i would say that its only because of my new lust for 40k, and taking it seriously as a game, has let me win - prior to this (in this ed of 40k anyway) i never won any games but did get draws.
Although the streak will crash (im betting next game) it will be interesting to see how i do this year!

ashc
14-02-2010, 21:30
I am ashamed of my chest beating..

I don't think it was your chest-beating he was talking about mate :)

Zazoo
15-02-2010, 13:40
Another thing i could point out is that no matter the game system you play, what you put in is what you get out.
and a great general will always do well with any army, sure they might not win but they will still do well even if at a disadvantage.

Love the fact that you are enjoying 40K now and I hope you stick with it.