Topic: 40K

[Aldaris]

That wasn't aimed at anyone here.  It is simply the observation that most people who make that comment have not played both systems enough to honestly say either way.  The common refrain is just "40k is for teh kids." without a thought.  Many of those people haven't used 5th edition and don't really have a clue.

Phil

That post I can agree with. 

[McKnight]

40K has way more weapons in its arsenal though ....at least ranged weapons close combat is kind of cc weapon, power weapon, power fist ....isn´t it?

Actually it gets a bit complicated when calculating attack bonusses. You only get an attack bonus if you have two powerfists. But can get a bonus for a CCW and powerweapon if im not mistaken. Or pistol.

[Fandir Nightshade]

Nobody in here said that 40k is easier or less tactical hence the wording "complex" Aldaris used. I know Philly that lots of WFB players put 40k in the little timmy corner I don´t because I know there are loads of measure / countermeasure stuff you have to think about making the game very tactical, but the fumbling around during a WFB movement phase IS definitaley more complex. (Also most warhammer fantasy players do it wrong ....do wheels by turning on the spot and overall place the unit how they want it to be ignoring most of the wheel and turn rules.....even on tournaments).

[phillyt]

The word fumbling is appropriate and the reason I find WFB less sophisticated than 40k.

Phil

[Fandir Nightshade]

The word fumbling is appropriate and the reason I find WFB less sophisticated than 40k.

Phil

With the right people = less fumbling but still there are quite often issues that need the rulebook.

Somehow I still go back to WFB again and again I think I like the combat.....well I liked the combat more because static CR was more important than pure killingness.

[Mathi Alfblut]

Well, I must say I find 40K more fun because of the simple fact that tactics, placement and such things do matter even if you have way more scary enemies. Guardsmen can still outfight what should be their "betters" in Fantasy, without the need to relly on heroes and gimmicks. In 40K, there is always a decent chance of winning, even with lowly guardsmen.

In fantasy, without a shitload of heroes, warmachines and other stuff, your state troops are toast, to the extent that you need to have balls of steel to field them, cause they will drag down your combat capacity.
In 40K, your grunts ARE your combat capacity. Sure, you can smack down elites, tanks, monsters and whatnot, but in the end, more often than not, it is the lowly grunts that win the game for you.
Not so in Warhammer.

Hence why I love 40K and find it really more satisfying and tactical.

[Nicholas Bies]

Just to recount my experiencesin 5th Ed (never played 4th only 3rd) I've got Tau and Nids (which I'm selling btw).

While there is undoubtably thought that goes into the game in the few game I've played it's always come down to "how much will I loose in his turn and how much of his stuff can I kill in mine" unlike certain games of fantasy (I realize I'm not making myself clear so will leave this analogy).

Maybe i'm just unhappy with 40k due to gaming reasons my last game with nids was against a competitive Guard army (noidea if it was or wasn't but I was told it was competitive). My nids just had to run to get in combat, evening hugging cover and trying to shoot at his stuff with my deathspitters and barbed stranglers the game devolved into a "I move forward, you shoot, I take some models off, I move forward again, O look I get to charge, kill you, now I'm in the open, I'll take those models off, I'll move forward again..."

TBH it bored the living snotlings out of me.

That said I played a Space Wolves Drop Pod assault against a Tau force last week and that was a lot of fun.

[phillyt]

What kind of game were you playing?  And you needed the new book.  Last edition Tyranids was kind of shit, particularly against the new IG.

Phil

[Nicholas Bies]

Not sure, I'm still pretty nooby at 5th Ed, most of the general rules I know but some of the finesse escapes me.

I'm thinking I may give it another go after April, see how things go.


Hey I was just thinking about this. But do you think some of the mentality of Fantasy > 40k is based on fluff?

40k has great fluff and from what I've seen players find it easier to fit 'movie moments' in their 40k games compared to Fantasy. I know that this is true where i'm at, 40k is the fun game fantasy is the 'mathematical' game.

[McKnight]

Yea perhaps.
But those movie movements could also happen in fantasy. In challenges for example. Its just that... well we have no chance against that chaos lord so we dont do it

[MrDWhitey]

I can imagine it now.

Standing before the heroic Captain Kurt Stutgart, the dreaded Chaos Lord Malre who had spent the past 10 years terrorising the Empire.

Malre noticed this stout figure amongst the throng of empire swordsmen, and cleared a space around him and beckoned to the Captain with a flourish of his sword that ended in a salute.

Kurt reacted in the only way a true soldier of the empire would

"Sergeant Stoutfellow!"

"Sir?"

"Stand in front of me"

[McKnight]

HAhhahahahaha

[Nicholas Bies]

hahah

very well played sir. I'd doff my hat to you had tere been a correct smilely.

[Fandir Nightshade]

I right now imagine the dread an empire soldier feels when he is promoted to Sergeant...

"Oh noooooo but I have family, please pick Hans over there he is better suited to lead this regiment!"

"Hans sits in a wheelchair!"

"Yes that is what I am talking about he is a bigger target for the lookout sir mission!"

[GamesPoet]

Much like world of warcraft sucks when compared to playing AD&D (or any other fantasy role-playing game you sit around a table playing). Instead of an intricately balanced game, it's a hack & slash botch job.

Amusingly a lot of 40k players say that about Fantasy. 

To be honest, the two systems are similar and different, depending on how one views it.  I'm beginning to wonder why its even worth making those kinds of statements.  Some folks will like one over the other, some folks will like both.  The systems are different enough where it forces different tactics and that's probably a good thing.  Also, it seems natural that as the systems develop and change, that imbalances are going to occur because of the various armies having different rules.  I'm sensing that this kind of thing seems to occur as such things happen in real life, too.

[Finlay]

The reason why I didn't like 40k was that armies tended to be either gunlines, or close combat.
And the games basically consisted of either "my gun line killed enough of you before you got into combat, I win"
or "oh, my gunline didn't kill enough of you. Know I will be mashed in CC"

BUT obviously I havent played the new edition, and the objective system was probsably implemented to combat that exact problem.

[Aldaris]

Gunlines have been nerfed somewhat by the proliferation of cover, and the need to move to capture objectives. On the other hand, real line of sight often allows shooting at models that would not have been targettable in the previous edition. CC armies have been nerfed by eliminating the possibility to consolidate into another combat after winning one. On the other hand vehicles got more durable, making it easier for transports to actually transport troops where you want them.

Add to that the objective based victory conditions that don't give a rats ass about how much you killed 66% of the time, and the game has become rather interesting.

[Fandir Nightshade]

Men.....we have a mission....and I don´t care how many of you peons die we will achieve this mission!

*cheers of the soldiers that only listened to the heroic tone of the speech*




Hmmm I might bring some 40k to the bash too.

[Mathi Alfblut]

I think someone above nailed one difference truly. 40K feels much more cinematic. It is much more up close and personal. Fast paced, shrapnel flying. How many will make it through the barrage?
Warfare is bloody and 40k makes it really bloody. How many men will you have left? That is sort of what is in the mind of many commanders. I belive 40K catches the feel of ugly and brutal war much better than Fantasy.
The movement rules in Fantasy also makes the game more abstract. It feels like a large scale wargame, lumbering formations moving and turning, the combat have become abstracted to increase speed of play etc... Still, GW have droped any mentioning of a scale in the game and many say it is a One to One relationship, which makes it utter BS!
A small unit of formed men WILL change formation much faster than a large one and the unit commander will know instantly when his unit is ready for next command.
The larger the formation, the longer the formation change, the longer the order for wheeling will take to make it through etc...

If GW treated WHFB like a scaled game, with say one mini representing 10 soldiers or something, and adapted the game accordingly, it would make more sense and be more cohesive.

40K basically works on a One to One basis, and since it uses the dynamics of modern warfare with loose firing lines, assumes soldiers will usually make the most of cover and such, the game works much more fluently.
Also, even if we say the movements are simplified to unit types, things gets more uncertain because when some special rules for terrain kicks in. How long will my men move? Will the get past that wall or will the squad end up straddling it? If I run I might make it into the cover and claim the objective, but what if I don´t and get stranded before the barrels of that Heavy bolter squad?

And even when you got units that can fleet, like Eldars. What if I don´t make it into contact and end my charge a few inches before that line of Tau pulse rifles

Lots of things to consider and I feel it is not dissimilar from the modern combat enviorment. And tactical desicions ain´t simpler today than before, when you marched in formation. They are simply different. For those who enjoy the mathematical side of gaming, I guess Warhammer is more pleasing. Makes you feel in control and such. Make you feel like a general. Truth is that you have too much control of everything in WHFB, compared to what a general in the days of yore really had.

[Fandir Nightshade]

I think with cinematic you guys mean ....fast.

40k is the faster game.

done

[Aldaris]

They're both good games. Done.
Can we stop with the stupid comparisons now? Pretty please? Unless someone has something really stupid or outrageous (read: entertaining) to say regarding that.

[Fandir Nightshade]

I heard that the 40K elves are pretty cool and all manly.

[Aldaris]

They actually are pretty cool, but from what I've seen they struggle a bit at the moment due to the age of their Codex.
They still can compete however, and most of the models are absolutely awesome. I especially like the vehicles. Falcons, Illum Zar... beautiful kits.

[McKnight]

The wraithlord is pretty cool too...

And their tanks are very good at surviving!... they can got some energy field thing for 15 pts which forces the enemy to roll two dice and selecting the lowest when rolling on the damage result chart..

[MrDWhitey]

I always associate Eldar with cheaters. Seeing as our Eldar player was one.

Rar.