Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
40k does not have enough strategic depth to compete with the likes of warmachine, DBA, warhammer fantasy or magic the gathering.
I'd say so. Games between two vets usually boils down to whose army list has the upperhand in the match-up and dice rolls. Good tactics and innovative play are not as much of a factor as they should be given the limitations of the gaming system. What do you think?
A game between two vets ends up like that, but how exactly can you define a vet if there was no strategy?
Actually I can see what you're saying, it's "in sight limited", chess on the other hand can sure be limited because there are a limited number of moves, but I would say you can't get there, so it's not "in sight limited".
But a vet can easily beat a beginner with a weaker list using superior tactics.
So yes, 40k is strategically limited, but you don't become a vet overnight.
40k is sadly not a game of strategy. manoeuvring isn't as critical as in other GW game systems (wfb, battle fleet gothic) and is more about getting line of sight.
What 40k does have however is tactics. People mistake 40k for an army game. Its not. It’s more about squad level combat on a battle on a significantly larger scale across an entire planet.
The rules are geared towards this.
Wfb and gothic however is true battle level combat. Armies are not spread over hundreds of miles, they are focused on a single battlefield (battle space) and as such strategy plays a bigger role than the tactic centric 40k
That’s my two pence
spambot kill tally: 79
[16:19] <@Alzer> Arky's right though
[16:20] <@Kaiser-> I know he is.
[16:20] <@Kaiser-> He usually is.
[16:20] <@Kaiser-> Sometimes it's intentional.
[00:01] <+zubus> i love you, ya skirt wearin nothern monkey! ^_^
I think 40k can have strategy in it, unfortunately it's also very much at the whim of the dice as well - you don't need to use strategy to win - but it's fun when you do!
I can't really comment on the comparison to BFG / WFB etc as I don't really play them though so feel free to ignore me as one of the unenlightened!
I can't really comment on the question as I don't play 40K but I will say that I'm not sure it really warranted a poll with "yes", "no" and "no opinion" options. I have set this poll to close in a week
Of course its strategically limited. Its a game. Try and find something that isn't, when you get right down to it.
And if at the end of it all, you don't find it's enough, try your hand at paintball skirmish or something! But even that's strategically limited, too...
Its a game, and there are limits to every game. But its what you can do within those limits that makes or breaks it, and there is such a massive variety of things you can do with this game. Mastered one list? Try another! Try a handicap. Try a different army!
And then there's painting/modelling!
"Pickles, the drummer, doodily doo. (Ding-dong, doodily, doodily, doo.)"
Also, you should google "garfield minus garfield". Awesome.
I'd say it is pretty limited when it comes to strategy. In my opinion most of the strategy in the games comes from army selection. Actual 'in-game' tactics basically just boils down to target priority.
So my humble Guardsman's fist is as strong as a blast from his laser rifle?
I don't know that there was ever a question about it. What 40k does provide is fun. It's a game with cool miniatures. I got into to 40k after playing fantasy because it provided a way to have fun with some friends where I didn't have to think as hard and didn't take as long as a normal level fantasy game.
Arklite's post sums it up for me. I find 40k to be less determined by strategy, and therefore favor FB (though I do enjoy blowing stuff up from time to time). This isn't to say that 40k is limited, just that the tricks and techniques used are different.