40K vs WFB

[Dr. Paris]

So first, there are some things here that are assumed that I feel shouldn't be, my comments are in red.

Originally Posted by Wolf Lord Herby

Alot of the griping by really veteran 40k players is that the 4th and 5th gen Rulebooks have just been "£30 patches" to 3rd gen rules. The jumps from 1st to 2nd, and 2nd to 3rd, were much bigger in terms of overhauling the rules. IIRC, the jump from 2nd to 3rd was so huge it invalidated all previous Codices, so they put WIP versions of all of them in the back of the 3rd gen Rulebook. After 3rd, they've just been twiddling with it, trying to get it right. Tbh, I prefered 3d.. but that's probably rose-tinted glasses

I guess since I've been playing this game since you were, 4~5ish?, that makes me a "veteran". Most of the gripes come from players experience their first big rules change. There are older players (in age) who don't like the new rules, but I wouldn't say they've been playing the game that long. Most who've played 40k since 2nd Ed, and I say most not all, like 5th ed. 4th Ed arose out of the Blood Angel Rhino rush. 4th is a patch for 3rd. Fifth, however, has turned into a major overhaul. Not so much in the rules themselves, but in the way the game is played due to victory points going away.

Originally Posted by Lanrak

Hi All.
As I have been playing GW games since 3rd Ed WH and 40k Rogue Trader.

Any how WH has changed very little from 3rd to 7 th ed.(Apart from different magic system , and more races.)
The basic game mechanics are identical, the devs just streamlined the rules slightly ,(cynical gamers say that GW did this to up the model count.)
Basicaly because the WH game has suitable game mechanics and just need tweeks to improve gameplay.(A gamer who played 3rd ed would pick up 7th ed and understand 75%+ of the system straight away.)

I don't really see this. I did play 4th Ed, and 6th was way different. They totally overhauled magic and the redid the entire army organization as well as characters. These were two very significant parts of the game. The two games have similarities, but aren't really analogous.

Most of what was here about the evolution of 40k from first until now I agree with.

The game NEEDED totaly different game mechanics .(Unfortunaley it didnt get them.)
The game devs have been trying to get 40k to 'work properly' for over 10 years now.
Micro managing interaction at the abstrcted model level, and macro managing the inter action with the army level sequential phase game turn. Just makes for far too many WTF moments IMO.

Is 40k a fun dice rolling game to use GW minis and model in, yes.

Is it a intuitve effecient and clearly defined rule set.NO.
There are lots of better rule sets free to down load on the internet.

Untill GW use more appropriate game mechanics, the 40k game will only be half the game it could be IMO.

I really don't agree with this, but I'll leave that for another thread.

Now, so I'm not just griping, my own opinions.

In 40k there have been two significant changes. One was the jump from 2nd to 3rd Ed. These cosmetically changed the game. Battles were still about killing the most units, and getting the most V/Ps, but the mechanics were completely redone. This marked 40k's break from fantasy. The details have already been discussed.

The second change was with 5th Ed. Cosmetically the game stayed the same, strategically, it is an entirely different game. Units are no longer valued by their numerical cost, troops have a significantly different roll, and the game itself just has a new approach.

Fantasy evolved more gradually in the first through 4th editions. I couldn't actually tell the different between 3rd and 4th, though I assume there were changes. The only major jump was 4th to 5th. "Herohammer" was put to an end, the army composition changed, and magic was overhauled. This changed how armies as a whole performed. While many consider fantasy "fixed" there are still issues the magic phase and rules like "fear" from what I understand.

40k has seen significant changes due to the complexity of the game. Fantasy has a long historical record to draw off of for creating tactical play. Large blocks of units are also easier to balance. 40k is much more challenging. There are a lot more variables to consider.

[crazyrpger]

Having gotten into both games a fair amount during the more current iterations (40k just after 4th edition and fantasy just after 7th edition), I didn't know much about how the earlier editions were until I sat down and looked at some friends' older books.

I have to agree mostly with what's been said so far in that both games seemed to come up from a narrative style rpg with minis to a miniature wargame. The idea of the hero as the avatar of the player on the battlefield mentioned in a few codexes or army books is the only real vestige of that mindset left, although I guess arguments could be made for other little things, but I digress...

As far as why fantasy is more "stable" than 40k, I have to make one point that hasn't been said so far. That is, ever since 40k was based on fantasy rules the game designers have been trying to change it from "fantasy in space" to a rule set that looks more unique and less like a rehash... or appeals more to 12 year old marine players, take your pick

This may be, dependent on your view, a good or bad thing, but it's not what we're trying to get at in this thread. I think GW wants to have 2 different wargames based on the same original set of rules rather than one game with 2 settings. Thus, we see a fantasy that is staying where it has been, which works very well. And we see a 40k that is struggling to figure out what it's doing/what it's becoming/where it's going. 5th edition in some ways has swapped out some of the rules that were distancing 40k from fantasy for ones more reminiscent of fantasy rules and replaced some of the holdovers that kept it close with rules that move in a different way.

What I'm getting at, I guess, is that GW is trying to diverge 40k from its fantasy roots but is having trouble figuring out how to get away from a successful and fairly stable rule set without breaking the game.

[ethsar46]

Originally Posted by Dr. Paris

While many consider fantasy "fixed" there are still issues the magic phase and rules like "fear" from what I understand.

What issues with the magic phase and fear....?

Are you talking about some armies ability to get 10-20 power dice in a magic phase? Thats not a flaw with the rules its how the army book is written. If thats not it could you elaborate please?

And in regards to fear, the rule is working fine, the big problem is that there are armies out there which all units cause it and are also immune to it and many believe that the Fear causing and ItP hasnt been appropriately costed into some units/armies.

[CaptainSarathai]

See, the trouble with people saying "40K is too much like fantasy, it needs a fix" is that GW doesn't see what fantasy truly is. Fantasy also serves as a well-balanced background to unit based warfare. If anyone here plays RPGs, there's a book in existence called "D20" and it's not it's own game, but a list of ideas and formulas and tables so that you can take the same concepts from DnD, Vampire, WW Games, Shadowrun, etc. and create a system of your own.

Fantasy has- at it's very core- the "d20 book" of wargaming. 40K would do better to become more like fantasy, adding to it's complexity, and rebalancing itself. By pandering to simpler players (not saying that all 40K players are simple, but rather, that 40K is a simpler game), and "streamlining" the rules, 40K is removing it's ability to be anything more than just another miniatures game. I would start taking steps back, treating tanks like units instead of rolling death, and adding in more psychology, and correcting alot of the balance issues throughout the game. People have already done it, several times. I don't need to rehash MacMoss's work here, or anyone elses for that matter.

[HappyJim]

Originally Posted by CaptainSarathai

Now, to play devil's advocate (please understand that I am a die-hard WHFB fan, and only play limited amounts of 40K) to these previous arguments, I must make a few points:

You sound like a 40k player to me

1> many people say that WHFB games are decided by deployment. While in 40K it is easy to redeploy, fantasy makes it nearly impossible

Not really, it can be against some armies but this depends on the speed of your army, of course with 40k the fact you can redeploy just shows its harder to make mistakes making it a simpler game.

2> fantasy takes markedly longer than 40k. If you are crunched for time, Fantasy is not the game for you

Depends on the size of game and armies, dwarfs vs Khorne chaos dosnt take half as long as most say two magic heavy armies playing.

3> fantasy is less rewarding to the painter/modeller. Because many fantasy models do not have the interchangeability of their 40K counerparts, conversions are often more difficult GS work. Painting a unit of 20 fantasy models takes longer, and is more tedious than painting 40k units of 10. And when all but 14 of those models are locked on the inside and out of sight.

Thats aload if bull, conversions really are not greenstuff work at all, i dont think i have ever used large amounts of it in mine, same as painting, the new dark elf range is amazing, what about the new chaos lords? they looking amazing models to paint, harry the hammer? I have a marine army, its the most boring army to paint once you get past the characters. Nothing is more tedious than painting space marines

4> some people don't like the assured combat results. For some, a victory should be about who kills the most enemies. In fantasy, it is quite possible to kill massive numbers of your enemy's unit, and still lose the combat. In 40K, it tends to be far more predictable based on the straightforward "whos' stats are better" scenario. In fantasy, the stats are worthless if your enemy can outsmart you and catch a flank, or bring superior numbers to bear, or put you against a stubborn unit.

Again not true, if you kill a massive amount of enemies you wont be losing combat (as massive would be around 8/9 models), static combat res is only ever going to be +5 (bar magic items and so on). I find 40k lacks something warhammer has, flanking, you just cant do that in 40k, you try that in 40k and the other guy will just turn round and charge you whiel shooting, yeah great! Oh course half the fun in warhammer is stopping someone from flank charging in the first place

Now- what do I like about fantasy? Mostly everything that I said. The models are smaller and more delicate, they look more realistic. The rules are more detailed, the game is more rewarding, and i love the background and the thematic era.

pftt

[CaptainSarathai]

While you gave MY argument to every one of those "devil's advocate" points, I do hope you realize that I was putting them up so that people hear some of the stuff that alot of others don't like about WHFB.

And please, I hope that you're being sarcastic about me being a 40K player. I play 7 fantasy armies compared to my piddly 1 40K army, build for our fantasy team, and any look around the forums will show that i tend to stay near the WHFB sections and only venture into 40ks fluff section.

[Lanrak]

HI ,
I would like to post some responces, if I may.

Dr Paris.
I am aware that WH had a different magic system ,(I stated this,) but the rest of the changes didnt have a massive impact how the game played.The basic game mechanics, game turn, to hit , to wound , to save, movment , charging etc remained unchgaged.
GW just made the game more streamlined and easier to use.
Ok the army composition and reduction of characters power altered the 'meta game', but the core game has lots of slow improvements over 25 years.

Are you aware of the other game mechanics that could be used for 40k?
(SST, At 43, Stargrunt II, Warzone,No limits , 3050 etc all have some great intuitive alternatives to 40ks.)


CaptainSarathai.
WH got the right game mechanics from the start , so it was just a case of refining the game.
40k borrowed the 'WH game mechanics' due to marketing reasons originaly.
The 40k game has out grown them.

40k need its own rule set and game mechanics as it is NO LONGER WH in SPACE,(with lotza gunz..)
When this is sorted then the game can develop and get the level of depth WH has , without uncisary complication.

So similar depth of game play but with DIFFERENT, more appropriate, game mechanics
and rules.

Is everybody clear on what game mechanics are?

TTFN
Lanrak.

[VampireCountsFTW]

Fantasy For the Win!

[CaptainSarathai]

Rep to VCFTW for taking one on the chin, and making me laugh by giving the only correct answer in the whole dang post!

FANTASY "FTW"!!

[Wolf Lord Herby]

Alright, alright. I'll agree, Fantasy ftw. BUT- only because the only army cooler than Space Wolves is in WHFB. Cult of Ulric! Yaaar for the God of War, Wolves and Winter.