PDA

View Full Version : A newbie question - Tactics in 40K



Wrks
11-04-2007, 18:09
Hello,

I'm new to the game and was discussing something with a friend who plays Fantasy in a gaming club which I eventually would like to join, and he told me that he and most players (not all) in the gaming club prefer Fantasy over 40K because 40K lacks tactics. He also said that players who play both Fantasy and 40K say that 40K eventualy just comes down to a big shoot-out and rolling a bunch of dices, without much tactics... I kinda found that hard to believe so I'd like to check what you guys think about that?

tuebor
11-04-2007, 18:29
I think a lot of this opinion comes from how people play 40k. Far too often I see two almost identical Space Marine armies slugging it out in a straight Victory Points battle with sparse terrain. When this is occurring it does come down largely to dice rolls. However, with the addition of additional terrain and, most importantly, missions 40k becomes a lot more tactical.

For quite some time my gaming group played only these sparsely terrained Victory Point battles. I would react to this by building static gunline IG lists that weren't all that fun to play or play against. I would roll dice at them until they got to me and then they would roll dice at me. Boring. However, after we started using missions and more terrain I had to move a great deal more and my opponents had a harder time reaching me in close combat in great enough numbers through all the terrain.

To sum up, 40k is boring without missions and terrain. Fantasy, on the other hand requires less terrain and is just as tactical without missions.

tommy
11-04-2007, 18:31
Here's the simple answer:

If there were no tactics in 40k then there wouldn't be good 40k players and bad 40k players either. But there are, and it doesn't take skill to roll dice, so it must be for some other reason.

I think I probably prefer Warhammer, but that's a totally different argument.

Darkhorse
11-04-2007, 18:35
3rd Ed 40K was a bit lacking in the tactical dept. it's come back more in 4th Ed. though.
Fantasy is all about tactics and is far more demanding in that area than 40K ever was, even in RT and 2nd Ed. If you want tactical 40K try Epic.
You can win just by standing around and shooting *coughTaucough* but that's usually an invitation to get a kicking from an experienced player.

Little Geek
11-04-2007, 18:35
Personally i prefer fantacy for different reasons, i feel that the armies have more depth and character, and in gaming terms i do find that the battles are more fun.
In some ways your friend is right, on a clear board the biggest guns have the upper hand, but then he is also wrong, for instance cities of death games are far more tactical and clostrephobic (sp) if played right.
With WFB there is a lot more at risk if you move that one unit into the wrong place, and because there are less guns, you almost always have to move towards your enemy and engage them if you want to win.

From what i understand about 40K anf WFB, 40K is ment to be small forces and skirmishes, fighting smaller battles (until apocalypse comes out), where as WFB is supposed to be large armies taking part in a war.
mabey im wrong but thats how i see it.

DesolationAngel
11-04-2007, 19:41
40k does involve tactics, theres a reason some people win a lot with their armies compared to other people, add to that 11 different armies, with varient lists, scenery, cover, vechiles as well as troops, 5 main missions with 3 different levels and much more freeflowing movement and youve got a tactical game.

Personally I find warhammer to be the opposite. Same scenery every game due to pitch battle (only mission), nearly all points for kills, only a few for objectives. Then you take a gun-line (dwarves), lizzies (lots of skinks and so on), all cavalry brets or whatever.

The average game then consists of walking forward in the open getting shot for 4 turns, hoping you make it into combat against a gunline, you charge, they flee and you get shot again. I've seen whole games with a gunline that doesn't move, similar respect tree spirits, you can spend a whole game not seeing combat and might as well spend the time watching paint dry.

Any game is tactical, otherwise 1 player wouldn't win over the other (main reason I win a fair few 40k games), but with Warhammer I just find the idea of walking at a gunline and losing or staying back and losing to be very boring, same with spending a whole game not getting into combat against lizzies or tree spirits.

I really do sometimes wonder how tactical it is to march at someone in a straight line, or sit on a hill and choose targets and so on, having to have a open battlefield in pitched battle certainly doesn't help things. At least in 40k you can nearly always do something and have a enjoyable game, after going to a warhammer doubles tournament and having 5 boring games, with which the last one nearly sent me to sleep, I just can't see that with Warhammer.

For those who like it though, good stuff, I still remember playing my friend with my Empire VS his chaos list, shot him for 4 turns, never made it to combat and he lost without doing anything, he did the same thing to someone at a tournament, required no effort what so ever and he got 4th place dispite not having played for a year.

For those who see 40k as untactical go to tournaments or a GT and your view may change. 40k is also changing a bit with the new marine codexs, so its getting to be more balanced and unit based with these lists, its like most things play it a lot and you'll get into it and like it, play a few odd missions with little scenery, no missions and identical lists and its not as likely you'll get into it.

You mentioned doing badly due to making mistakes in WFB, that also happens in 40k, most 40k games I lose are due to mistakes i've made, whereas with warhammer it seems to be the rigid system that further adds to this.

WillFightForFood
11-04-2007, 20:53
Personally I find warhammer to be the opposite. Same scenery every game due to pitch battle (only mission), nearly all points for kills, only a few for objectives. Then you take a gun-line (dwarves), lizzies (lots of skinks and so on), all cavalry brets or whatever.

The average game then consists of walking forward in the open getting shot for 4 turns, hoping you make it into combat against a gunline, you charge, they flee and you get shot again. I've seen whole games with a gunline that doesn't move, similar respect tree spirits, you can spend a whole game not seeing combat and might as well spend the time watching paint dry.


The average game consists of running forward while being shot? Really? You must be playing a totally different game than the one I have seen because that style of play is more the exception than the rule. Most games of Fantasy I see are efforts in tactic; thinking of charge distances, maneuvering for maximum uses of ranks, orienting properly to get shots. One wrong move can cost you badly, and there are no very forgiving, beginner armies. Certainly there are situations where one army or the other is more likely to take the offensive posture, but a simple sprint for victory is less likely than you make it sound. True also, there are players that gravitate to the gunline or play the massive horde of x (Skinks, all cav, etc) but that type of win at all costs mentality is present in every game. Also, as I'm sure you know, there are plenty of different missions in the 6th edition rulebook, all of which are perfectly valid to use today (as there is little difference between editions). Anyone who plays the same game of run across the board in a pitched battle against a gun line every time is not taking advantage of the whole of the game system.

In contrast, what is that old adage? A game of Fantasy is won in the movement phase, a game of 40K is won in the army creation phase.

gorgon
11-04-2007, 21:10
WFB is a great game, and has a far more tactical movement phase. That's not to say that 40K doesn't have movement tactics. But the game of WFB IS its movement phase in many ways. And as others have said, a mistake in the movement phase can be catastrophic. 40K is a little more forgiving.

However, once you get past the movement phase (and maybe the magic phase), the 40K shooting and close combat phases are more involved. The 40K shooting phase requires more decisionmaking simply because it's a more shooting-heavy game. And the fiddliness of the 40K close combat phase makes it much more tactical. The problem is that non-players and casual 40K players often don't play the game at a high level, and thus fail to recognize most of the tactics and strategies involved.

IMO, they're both fun games with their own respective strengths and weaknesses. However, both games are more power build-reliant than they should be, and don't let the WFB players fool you in that regard. It's just that most of the WFB armies have at least one good power build, and that's not necessarily true with 40K. ;)

And honestly, LotR might be the most tactical current GW game.

sigur
11-04-2007, 21:19
Any game is tactical, otherwise 1 player wouldn't win over the other (main reason I win a fair few 40k games), but with Warhammer I just find the idea of walking at a gunline and losing or staying back and losing to be very boring, same with spending a whole game not getting into combat against lizzies or tree spirits.

Seems like someone tends to win in one game and to lose in another. I'll leave that uncommented.;)

I believe that WHFB is more tactical, mainly because you have more options because of the more complex and more consistent core rules. The basic rules in 40k are a bit flawed (too simplistic) and don't allow for much flexibility in a setting that actually would have to be more complex than WHFB since there is so much more stuff (vehicles, weapons, ...). On the other hand, I just can't get away from 40k. The background is brilliant (well, the parts of it I picked out, the rest is being ignored), the miniatures even more so. These two things are the aspects in which 40k excels. Gamewise, I'd still prefer WHFB on most nights. WHFB is demanding while 40k is the game you can play and drink alcohol while playing.

DesolationAngel
11-04-2007, 21:22
You play a gunline then thats what happens, its different against combat lists as you actually have a game if you have a combat list. But even then its not as interesting as playing 40k IMO.

Dwarfs (a unbalanced list if i've ever seen one) are very forgiving if you take a gunline, there are few forgiving armies in 40k either, if your not good at using the army you'll probably lose to start with, same with WFB.

Thing is they are in the previous rulebook, which few people use and most of the missions weren't that good apart from Pitched battle (ie flank attack when you can't march on for example), warhammer's far to rigid to allow for different missions, while you can do most things with 40k.

Thing is if someone plonks a gunline down against my beasts/hordes list, no scenery goes within 12" of the centre, as per pitched battle rules, I either stand back and get shot or move forward and get shot either way I lose. It really isn't much fun running at the enemy for 3/4 turns just to flee or the enemy to flee as a charge reaction. I don't use gunline lists, but go against them a fair bit. Same with going against Tree Spirits/Lizzies, very much pointless one sided games for a fair few armies, doesn't happen anywhere near as much in 40k.

40k's won with list creation (same as WFB, take a weak list and it doesn't help), mission selection, mission level selection, deployment, inflitrate deployment, how you move your troops and where you move them, which targets you shot and allow to be shot and when and how you assault the enemy. Following that playing for a objective, which is either all important, worth as many points as killing the enemy or set with a random game length.

In comparision warhammer is working out a solid list (like 40k), setting up opposite your target and walking in their direction, you get in combat, which is often a 50/50 thing with my beasts list, due to fleeing being so annoying you often let you troops get charged to avoid a stand-off. As in 40k you choose targets for magic/shooting/assault. However without a objective you can spend the whole game sitting in your deployment zone shooting.

For anyone who says 40k is all about the lists, consider that theres a reason a thorek, RAF, skink lizzie, Tree Spirits, Skaven, Gunline High Elf Mage list wins. Much like 40k some lists do a lot of the work for you, but with warhammer the system is such that its easier to win with such things. Key example was the sea guard list, completely broken and still used outside GTs.

40k is about the lists and a lot of other things, Warhammer is about the lists and less other things as theres just not as much too it when half your games are against gunlines and so on.

One example - did a doubles tourney, 1 army was dwarves and brets - shooting and units with static combat res of 4 knights, didn't stand a chance with chaos and lost. Another game Chaos Dwarf gunline and undead magic, lost as we didn't stand a chance, how is this any different than making a hard 40k list? At least in 40k you have escaltion to balance things out and can play for missions.

One wrong move can also cost you badly in 40k, I know this from experience.

Funny thing is that I played WFB for 5 years straight and often it was like pulling teeth as I played wood elves constantly (old list was just wrong, new one is better but still annoying), tomb kings regulary (2 seperate opponents and was like playing the same player) among others and it just got boring.

We now run tourneys at our club and the 40k ones are so much more interesting to watch, for example ive never seen a 40k game where someone does a bit of damage and hides for the rest of the game to win in 40k, yet this happens all the time in WFB. To me its a flawed system, but I can see the appeal for those who like it.


The average game consists of running forward while being shot? Really? You must be playing a totally different game than the one I have seen because that style of play is more the exception than the rule. Most games of Fantasy I see are efforts in tactic; thinking of charge distances, maneuvering for maximum uses of ranks, orienting properly to get shots. One wrong move can cost you badly, and there are no very forgiving, beginner armies. Certainly there are situations where one army or the other is more likely to take the offensive posture, but a simple sprint for victory is less likely than you make it sound. True also, there are players that gravitate to the gunline or play the massive horde of x (Skinks, all cav, etc) but that type of win at all costs mentality is present in every game. Also, as I'm sure you know, there are plenty of different missions in the 6th edition rulebook, all of which are perfectly valid to use today (as there is little difference between editions). Anyone who plays the same game of run across the board in a pitched battle against a gun line every time is not taking advantage of the whole of the game system.

In contrast, what is that old adage? A game of Fantasy is won in the movement phase, a game of 40K is won in the army creation phase.

e033x
11-04-2007, 21:25
In contrast, what is that old adage? A game of Fantasy is won in the movement phase, a game of 40K is won in the army creation phase.

i cant say too much about fantasy, but i can tell you that you are wrong. the army creation phase has very little to say for a win or a lose. ive seen the worst made IG list EVER played by a quite new player. he got his **** kicked, until he had to leave, and one of my friends took over for him, and managed to squeese out a draw.

and why cant you all agree _once and for all_ that both games is tacktical in its own way!

DesolationAngel
11-04-2007, 21:39
Seems like someone tends to win in one game and to lose in another. I'll leave that uncommented.;)

I believe that WHFB is more tactical, mainly because you have more options because of the more complex and more consistent core rules. The basic rules in 40k are a bit flawed (too simplistic) and don't allow for much flexibility in a setting that actually would have to be more complex than WHFB since there is so much more stuff (vehicles, weapons, ...). On the other hand, I just can't get away from 40k. The background is brilliant (well, the parts of it I picked out, the rest is being ignored), the miniatures even more so. These two things are the aspects in which 40k excels. Gamewise, I'd still prefer WHFB on most nights. WHFB is demanding while 40k is the game you can play and drink alcohol while playing.

Probably because I gave up using boring competitive lists (ie empire gunline) and switched to a themed all beasts army, whereas in 40k I actually find the system to be less basic and more freeflowing, allowing for actual games rather than chess stalemate matchs or being shot to obilivion for 4 turns.

With WFB you have movement (typically in a straightline), magic (often mostly getting nullified and is fairly simple), shooting (often no movement involved and simple target selection and combat (good system, on level with 40ks in some ways).

In comparision with 40k you have rules for missions, escalation (making each mission different), scenery plays a bigger part in the game, as does cover, movement is freeflowing, vehicles are treated very differently from troops, shooting involves more decisions and has different effects on vechiles, combat is also well though out.

As someone said I think players who don't play 40k much see there as being little to it, when it actually involves more thought than they would give it credit for. I play 2 really good players regulary and go to the GTs so I know it involves a lot of thought, otherwise you lose games

To me I play a game which I find interesting or one which isn't,for me 40ks the interesting one as ive played far too many boring games of warhammer to take it seriously anymore, hence playing balanced beasts and also losing more games as a result.

DesolationAngel
11-04-2007, 21:41
and why cant you all agree _once and for all_ that both games is tacktical in its own way!

Exactly, both games are tactical, its down the one the player prefers as to which they see as being more so, for me its 40k.

Rhamag
12-04-2007, 01:52
It doesn't matter how complex or simple the rules are, all games involve tactics and strategy. Draughts/checkers is a simple game, but the tactics are still important.

There is a way to win any game. The fun is trying to find it.

505
12-04-2007, 03:42
one of the big difference in my opinion.

fantasy's most important phasse is really the movment. its all about outmonuvering to get teh charges and advantages

40k is more about target priority. the most important phase is either assult of shooting (guard and tau shooting. blood angels and korn assult...and every other army fits somewree in there)

but that is just my two cents.

both are fun

Maarten
12-04-2007, 09:30
I agree that without any terrain Fantasy is the more tactical one.

Not that I have a lot of experience with Fantasy, but I've noticed most armies handles terrain differently - in a "terrain is an obstacle" kind of way. In 40k terrain is more integral to the game in the sense that terrain placement is hugely important to some armies.

My IG fair poorly in those "kill them all" kind of games. In missions, despite my small amonout of experience, I am unbeaten (lots of draws though ;)). All because of my use of tactics rather than rolling dice :)

Ianos
12-04-2007, 10:36
Fantasy is a streamlined medieval game. Sorcerors and archers at the back, melee warriors center and cavalry on the flanks. Most of fantasy games i have seen are about moving forward trying to flank where possible and throwing magic and missiles at the enemy to kill him. Terrain has no importance as it is more of a nuissance. There are no objectives, and there no armour valued units. Armour penetration is also dependant on strength which streamlines the game even more but reduces the possibility of weapons of choice vs. specific targets. It is still a tactical game but is very streamlined like medieval combat should be with a twist of magic.

40k on the other hand although it has less rules and less spells has a greater game variation. First of all it is not streamlined, you can shoot at a tank all day long with a heavy bolter and it will do nothing. But if you manage to get an anti-tank squad to fire at it you can take it down in one shot. You can walk out in the open and be reduced to bits and pieces in 2 turns or you can go from cover to cover, flanking vehicle armour, reducing enemy cover lanes, increasing your fire lanes while avoiding enemy ones. You can have units that deep strike, fly, transport troops, ignore terrain, move fast through cover. And the best of all there are missions. I have seen and played battles where one side had a clear advantage in regard to how many points where alive yet lost terribly because the enemy got to the objectives.

All in all 40k is future with medieval elements and has it all: shooting, magic, melee, cover, fast units, slow ones, transports, tanks cavalry, flyers, buildings, objectives, mission parameters and although it has less rules, IMHO it is more tactical than its medievel counterpart.

Eldrad Ulthran
12-04-2007, 10:56
40k does not lack anything!:chrome:
i play 40k and i collect 2 armys: Chaos and Eldar! what was said by you or your friend was WRONG! If 40k lacked tactics... How do the games last so long?:confused:
if it lacked tactics how does anyone last more than 5 mins?

my opinion is: yeah fantasy is good, but, 40k ROCKS!!

yeah it comes down to shooting but its not pointless shooting we could say the same for fantasy. thats just charging people into a slaughterfest for the smaller team![dice0]

Gorbad Ironclaw
12-04-2007, 11:05
Terrain has no importance as it is more of a nuissance. There are no objectives,


You need to see some proper fantasy games then. All I can say.

Kahadras
12-04-2007, 11:21
Personaly I feel that many gamers underrate the tactical element in 40K. It is there but it's less well defined than WFB. I tend to find that my tactics in 40K center around LOS denial. Due to the fact that shoting forms a much more important element in 40K than Warhammer cover becomes a lot more important.

I always feel that many new 40K players (especialy those who start with Marines) underestimate the benefits of cover. A 5+ cover save is a very useful thing to have and most of my army is nearly always deployed in cover. Cover can grant a cover save but it can also block LOS which is much more important.

A good example of this came in a game against IG. I had a nice big hill in my deployment zone and hid my Dread behind it. The ground in front of the hill was covered by his two Heavy weapons squads (with lazcannon and missile launchers). I used the fact that the hill blocked his LOS to keep my Dread safe while it sniped diagonaly across the battlefield at his sentinals. His Heavy weapons squads were reduced to shooting at a squad of marines (which being in 4+ cover survived the ordeal pretty well).

There are plenty of other tactics to use in 40K but they're not as well defined as in Warhammer. Usualy they are more general. The ones that I like using are...

LOS denial - Already discussed

Mechanised flanking - Send a couple of Rhino's up the flank. Use a solid firebase to soften the enemy up before the Rhino's arrive. Use a scary target (such as a Vindicator) to draw the enemies anti tank firepower away from the Rhino's

VP denial - Once a squad is badly damaged pull it back and hide it. If your opponant doesn't wipe it out he won't gain the full VP for the unit. Another tactic with VP denial is to make sure you hold or contest as many table quarters as possible. I sometimes deploy a couple of basic speeders just to grab a table quarter each come the end of the game.

There are tons of other little tricks that you can use and to list them all here would be difficult. The main problem with 40K, I feel, is the rise of the 'competitive' army build. They're less 'tactical' to play with IMO and just lean towards doing one thing (just like a Gunline I suppose).

Kahadras

Giltharin
12-04-2007, 11:38
Hi all,
In my experience 40k is tactic game provided that you play with enough terrain and you play missions. I have no xp in Fantasy so can't say if Fantasy is more tactic a game.

Giltharin

Gazak Blacktoof
12-04-2007, 11:38
40K is more forgiving than warhammer. A 40K unit can move in any direction at a whim. Warhammer units unless specialised can only move in one direction at any reasonable speed- forwards.

This makes deployment and movement crucial components of the game. Not so with 40K, where even a Tank-slow and ponderous as they are at manoeuvering in reality can flip 180 move at full tilt and flip 180 again to present their front armour. A standard warhammer unit by comparison can only move 1/4 of its full march pace in the opposite direction if it wishes to end its move facing the same direction.

The broken warhammer lists are normally those that do not need to move or have so many units that break the core mechanics of movement that they ruin the game.

As for terrain in warhammer. It is integral to the game. Terrain protects flanks, blocks lines of sight and march and provides cover to launch ambushes. Players that ignore terrain get their arses kicked!

Adjust 40K's movement rules (bring back movement values, speeds for vehicles and remove random terrain moves) and even with the silly AP nonesense it'd still be a grand game.

spikydavid
12-04-2007, 13:39
"Warhammer only has one "tactic", judging charge ranges. All of the "strategy" is about setting up, or denying, the game-winning charge."

This is about as true as saying "40K has no tactics". If anything, 40K is a far more tactical game than fantasy (or almost any other wargame I've played), but it is sorely lacking in *strategy*, which fantasy is also not great at, though better than 40K.

Epic and Warmaster (particularly historical warmaster) are good for strategy, and naval games like Full Thrust (yes, it's in space, but it's still a naval game) are probably the best mix of strategy (to get a decent attack vector) and tactics (to break at the right time in order to get broadsides off)

Democratus
12-04-2007, 16:00
Tactics include anything that you do within a single battle. So all the games above are still only tactical in nature. Strategy is on the multi-battle and theatre-wide scale. GW doesn't feature strategic games.

WillFightForFood
12-04-2007, 17:11
Dwarfs (a unbalanced list if i've ever seen one) are very forgiving if you take a gunline, there are few forgiving armies in 40k either, if your not good at using the army you'll probably lose to start with, same with WFB.


Dwarfs are a little more powerful this edition, but there are ways around them. Every army has something to deal with a gunline, but a lot of people simply don't bring them for whatever reason. Gorgers, Tunnelers, Fliers, Scorpions, etc are all very effective. You're acting like because some people bring abusive lists that it's less tactical. Anyone could point to highly abusive 40K lists and do the same thing.



Thing is they are in the previous rulebook, which few people use and most of the missions weren't that good apart from Pitched battle (ie flank attack when you can't march on for example), warhammer's far to rigid to allow for different missions, while you can do most things with 40k.


This is in error. I have played many, many scenarios and the game is not too rigid. Scenarios can be done well, assuming you take some time to think them out beforehand.



Thing is if someone plonks a gunline down against my beasts/hordes list, no scenery goes within 12" of the centre, as per pitched battle rules, I either stand back and get shot or move forward and get shot either way I lose. It really isn't much fun running at the enemy for 3/4 turns just to flee or the enemy to flee as a charge reaction. I don't use gunline lists, but go against them a fair bit. Same with going against Tree Spirits/Lizzies, very much pointless one sided games for a fair few armies, doesn't happen anywhere near as much in 40k.

If you're playing a beasts list then you shouldn't be having a problem with the gunlines. You should have at least two beast herds in for ambush. Even against Lizardmen and Tree Spirits (an average Skaven list will defeat Tree Spirits handily) you shouldn't have a problem.



In comparision warhammer is working out a solid list (like 40k), setting up opposite your target and walking in their direction, you get in combat, which is often a 50/50 thing with my beasts list, due to fleeing being so annoying you often let you troops get charged to avoid a stand-off. As in 40k you choose targets for magic/shooting/assault. However without a objective you can spend the whole game sitting in your deployment zone shooting.

For anyone who says 40k is all about the lists, consider that theres a reason a thorek, RAF, skink lizzie, Tree Spirits, Skaven, Gunline High Elf Mage list wins. Much like 40k some lists do a lot of the work for you, but with warhammer the system is such that its easier to win with such things. Key example was the sea guard list, completely broken and still used outside GTs.

40k is about the lists and a lot of other things, Warhammer is about the lists and less other things as theres just not as much too it when half your games are against gunlines and so on.

Reading this it seems like there are a few conclusions to be drawn about your situation. The lists that you're making are not taking full advantage of the armies you're using. With Ambush you shouldn't have much problem against a gunline as beasts. The people you're playing against are drawn to abusive lists and don't play balanced lists. There's a solution to that too. If your opponent drops down 50 odd skinks, the RAF list, or an empire gunline that's 80 handgunners, you pack up your figs and go. If you're not having any fun playing against those lists then why play against them.

As far as the terrain goes it's an integral part of the system. Using terrain to your advantage in Fantasy is an aspect of the game that requires thought. Obviously the penalties for rough terrain are problematic for some armies, but terrain cannot simply be reduced to a nuissance. With respect to the no terrain in the center of the board the local gaming group has pretty much scrapped that rule. This has had the net effect of making a more level playing field for more and less shooty armies. As an upside it makes the games more interesting because you have to account for center terrain in setup and movement.


To me its a flawed system, but I can see the appeal for those who like it.

All systems are flawed systems - it's just a matter of preference.

kuriad
12-04-2007, 17:51
Here my 2cents from someone who has played both systems:

1) WHFB: Great game and well developed rules, however, current 7th ed table setup rules makes terrain almost obsolete. Armies also needs to be balanced a lot better, Brettonians and Wood Elves cheese anyone??

There is also less action in a fantasy games since there is no carnage from turn 1

2) 40K is a much faster game with a simpler rule set. Anyone who says there is no tactic in it is an idiot. Army placement and terrain usage is so much more necessary in 40k. It is also a more action orientated game with both armies able to do some damage to another army from turn 1.

Overall, I feel that each system offers something unique. But it seems in my area that 40k has a better number of followers

DesolationAngel
12-04-2007, 18:05
Some armie have a answer to dwarves, most don't especailly thorek or even anvil gunlines. Problem being with dwarves that they are equally good in combat as with shooting, so the weaker units get the early charge and get beaten down unless if its against a war machine and with the amount of shooting (inc anvil) they put out these are unlikely to make it. Lose the first turn using the standard pitched battle rules and its even worse.

Thing is in 40k there are abusive lists, which still balance out, I know as I use a number of them and still have close games, in warhammer you take a abusive gunline/skimisher list and it doesn't as you either don't make it to combat due to getting shot or don't see combat due to skimishers, fleeing and fast cavalry.

Incidently speeder lists for one require tactics, can't say the same for setting up on a hill every game, shooting and not moving apart from a unit of miners in combo with the anvil. Same respect it doesn't take much to set up lots of archers, bolt throwers and 4 mages and shoot for 4 turns, its very different in 40k as missions and scenery vary and theres a certain underlying balance which to me doesn't exist in warhammer, theres a reason a dwarf gunline and lizzie list got the top 2 at a recent tourney I went to as they break the rigid movement system by either not needing to move or being able to run circles around some armies with little effort, can't really say ive seen a 40k game where one player can't do a thing, yet ive seen a lot of them in warhammer and played a lot of them to. Also can't say that abominations like sea guard lists equilivants exist in 40k either.

I've played a few, capture, which is OK, flank attack which plays more or less like pitched battle and hold the building. Whereas a 40k game is very adaptive I don't find a game where you march in a straightline most of the time to be so.

Beasts against gunlines: ambush is far to random with LD7 and not much use against quite a few armies, dwarves also outclass beasts in combat easily and the less said about organ guns the better.
Against lizzies you get out magiced and blowpiped to buggery and as far as tree spirits go it near impossible taking down a ancient, let alone a treeman and the dyrads, treekin outclass smaller beasts units, then take causing fear into account. I've played 3 very one sided games against Tree Spirits which I found very boring.

The thing is I have a tournament mentality (will play anything, have had to play thorek 3 times and tree spirits 3 times for example) and due to not enjoying warhammer much don't mind losing or playing hard lists. It just proves to be how wrong some warhammer armies are compared to others and how the lists that break the core rigid movement tend to do so well.

To be fair I don't have much fun playing warhammer in the first place (hence why I play pure beasts, probably the most fun and weakest list out there), having done so for 5 years with harder more competitive lists, so I don't mind losing as part of it is down to the system, at least in 40k its because I know I made mistakes and not the system too.

To me you can do a lot more abusive lists in Warhammer (seaguard come to mind, what were the designers thinking?, previous edition skaven also come to mind), one guy down our club who considers 40k to lack tactics and 40k to be all about the lists, plays with a super hard lizzie list that requires so little effort to win with its nearly funny, this guy also uses a anvil gunline, says it all really.

As far as terrian goes average table is 2 hills and 2 woods, most armies get slowed down so much that its not worth going in woods, hills are obvious gunline positions. So really unless if you have a gunline or skimisher list both are a annoyance and don't get used too much. Meanwhile in 40k you have different size terrian, with different saves, different sizes, different effects on vechiles, effects on combat and most importantly mobility that makes actually using it possible.

I just really do fail to see how a game where someone doesn't need to move for 6 turns and can just shoot without needing to do a mission or one where you line up and charge with 6/7 bret lances or avoid combat for 6 turns with a skimisher list to be tactical, most of these are just boring one sided games which require little effort IMO.

True, but it doesn't help if a given system is as interesting as watching paint dry to play or has so many wrong armies that you might as well not get your figures out of your case.


Dwarfs are a little more powerful this edition, but there are ways around them. Every army has something to deal with a gunline, but a lot of people simply don't bring them for whatever reason. Gorgers, Tunnelers, Fliers, Scorpions, etc are all very effective. You're acting like because some people bring abusive lists that it's less tactical. Anyone could point to highly abusive 40K lists and do the same thing.

This is in error. I have played many, many scenarios and the game is not too rigid. Scenarios can be done well, assuming you take some time to think them out beforehand.

If you're playing a beasts list then you shouldn't be having a problem with the gunlines. You should have at least two beast herds in for ambush. Even against Lizardmen and Tree Spirits (an average Skaven list will defeat Tree Spirits handily) you shouldn't have a problem.

Reading this it seems like there are a few conclusions to be drawn about your situation. The lists that you're making are not taking full advantage of the armies you're using. With Ambush you shouldn't have much problem against a gunline as beasts. The people you're playing against are drawn to abusive lists and don't play balanced lists. There's a solution to that too. If your opponent drops down 50 odd skinks, the RAF list, or an empire gunline that's 80 handgunners, you pack up your figs and go. If you're not having any fun playing against those lists then why play against them.

As far as the terrain goes it's an integral part of the system. Using terrain to your advantage in Fantasy is an aspect of the game that requires thought. Obviously the penalties for rough terrain are problematic for some armies, but terrain cannot simply be reduced to a nuissance. With respect to the no terrain in the center of the board the local gaming group has pretty much scrapped that rule. This has had the net effect of making a more level playing field for more and less shooty armies. As an upside it makes the games more interesting because you have to account for center terrain in setup and movement.

All systems are flawed systems - it's just a matter of preference.

gorgon
12-04-2007, 18:46
"Warhammer only has one "tactic", judging charge ranges. All of the "strategy" is about setting up, or denying, the game-winning charge."

This is about as true as saying "40K has no tactics".

True, WFB is a tactically challenging game. Although it's probably accurate to say many/most FB games tend to hinge on a crucial charge or failed charge or two, after which things tend to crumble quickly for one side. That's why I think it's less forgiving...you definitely have more feeling that even a seemingly small mistake can cost you the game. And putting yourself in the right spot to exploit these mistakes is where tactics come into play.

On the other hand, I can't count how many times I've seen 40K players rally and win from what seem to be impossible situations. That's cool too. It's not that either game is superior...they're just different game experiences. Some people might prefer one or the other, but I like both depending on what mood I'm in. And yes, sometimes when I'm in the mood for a "serious wargame," I pick 40K. Both games can be played seriously or as beer-and-pretzels games.

BrotherMoses
12-04-2007, 19:24
isn't what you compose your army of a tactical part of the game?

Wrks
12-04-2007, 20:57
Heh, I had no intention on starting a fight-thread over which Warhammer setting is better. :) So, to sum things up, I think we could all agree that both games are tactical enough, each in its own way, to satisfy players who play either of them?

DesolationAngel
12-04-2007, 21:43
Heh, I had no intention on starting a fight-thread over which Warhammer setting is better. :) So, to sum things up, I think we could all agree that both games are tactical enough, each in its own way, to satisfy players who play either of them?

Yes, just about sums it up, both games are tactical and depending on what you prefer your bound to find one game more tactical than the other.