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!
Is it just me or is anyone else finding games of 40k less fun since they started playing WHFB? I mean its so tactically simple and non-sencical for a futuristic game it hurts my head.
Edit: I tryed writing this is a paragraph but a list is easier to read
1. Any model in the sqaud can be taken off as a casualty even if its least likly to be hit.
2. Vehicals are to slow (if you plan on shooting) and because of it transports are usually not worth the $70 you pay for them.
3. You can't Stand and Shoot with a futuristic gun but you can with a slow black powerder weapon.
4. Fluff should reflect the way the game is played. The best example is not making SM being so Uber in fluff, just as good as they are stat wise so having more of them can be justified.
5. Armor saves should work like they do in fantasy, AP doesnt make secne, example SM have 3+ saves and anything with AP 4 or higher doesnt even effect them until its AP 3 and outright kills them.
I think this statment from another thread some up the biggest problem with 40k that isnt related the fluff:
If modern earth went to war with the IG we would loose.....unless we fought them with pistols and swords.
If I could only change one thing about 40k other than the fluff it would be an overhaul of the CC system, making it only effective for units like Tyranids to bother with it, giving the charger the disadvantage of being shot at rapid fire so it isnt seen as a defence from shooting like many players use it now.
There's no doubt that 40k is a much simpler game, tactically, than Fantasy. Personally, I started playing 40k after playing Warmachine for a while, and 40k is a much simpler game, tactically, than Warmachine as well.
For me, 40k is more of a relaxation technique; I can build a decent Space Marine army, throw them down, and they pretty much drive themselves from there-on-out. Even more tactically complicated armies fail to be really challenging to play properly--there just isn't enough variety in terms of what things are capable of, and even more importantly, the line of sight and movement rules are utterly lax in comparison to Fantasy or Warmachine.
I kinda like this about the game, though, and (having looked through a lot of systems of rules) I really can't bring myself to mind too much about the ridiculous ones that pop up. Every game has them--it seems to be virtually a natural consequence of game design that, at some point, some ridiculousies need to be included in the rules. Whatever, play Fantasy, then, if 40k irritates you. It's probably a better game, anyway. I'll keep playing 40k simply because it is so simple in comparison to the other stuff I play.
I sort of agree with Osaria but GW already has a game that is complicated tactically and they need one for younger children who can't quite grasp advanced tactics and rules so I don't really mind 40k being so simple.
A billion chinese can't be wrong - eat rice.
I think this is why most new, young players get into 40k first.
I know that it might be too much work for GW, but I wish they had two sets of rules for the game. One set could be like a "poor mans rules" for people who want to play a quick and dirty game. These would be the current rules.
Then it would be nice if there were another set of rules, a more complex set, for the people who like a more complicated game with hundreds of different aspects to it instead of just being able to quickly compare a few numbers in your head before charging and knowing that you'll win or lose.
This is probably wayyyy too much trouble to go through, but I wouldn't mind having overwatch and a modified armor rules again.
H0urg1ass- I totally agree that 40k needs a more advanced set of rules for veterans to play. Which there were rumors of that happening before the new book came out, something about advanced games for veterans. All we ended up with was the different levels of complexity for scenarios (Alpha, Gamma, and Omega). We've discussed how they can improve 40k, but it always seems to start with changing one aspect over to be like Fantasy. But if you change one thing, it starts a chain reaction of many different things, and eventually are ideas turned into playing Fantasy in space, essentially, which isn't what we started out to do. In the end, we just play Fantasy all the time, occasionally dusting off the 40k armies every few months.
I wouldn't mind them bringing Overwatch back, and I think it would make huge tactical advantages to anybody smart enough to use it right. It also allows units to get shots off much like a 'Stand and Shoot' in Fantasy, something that I thought 40k sorely lacked. Somehow your troops don't realize the flying hive tyrant is coming towards them until after they start losing heads...
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, even if it's wrong.
You mean like the old Dungeons & Dragons and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons? When I started playing I played normal D&D and it was fine for a 9 year old, and it wasn't till I was about 11 or 12 that I had the patience to read all the "new" rules in AD&D and started playing that, although I already owned the book.Originally Posted by H0urg1ass
The funny thing is 40k used to be as complex as fantasy, and GW decided that the best idea to sell games was to make it simple. TSR did the opposite, they completely scrapped "simple" D&D and changed the name of AD&D to plain D&D to give us what we have today.
Come to think of it this is a good idea. I mean where kids are concerned there's alot of difference between what a 9 year old will bother to read and what a 12 year old will, even though it's only 3 years in time. I think anyone over the age of about 10 or 11 would be perfectly capable of reading, playing and understanding complex 40k, so in effect GW has sacrificed complexity to screw one or two extra years of money out of it's customers. They have chosen to move at the speed of their slowest player.
IMHO You don't really need a simple rule set at all, as most serious gamers are over the age of 9. Plus I am one of thsoe strange people who think that the learning power of kids is amazing. I don't believe things should ever be significantly dumbed dwon for kids. I was an intelligent child who could learn anything I read pretty quickly, and so were my mates and so I think are most kids, especially those who would be interested in something like a tabletop wargame. Children are only slow if you treat them as slow I reckon.
Although like Bean I do enjoy the simplicity of 40k. I have lost patience in my old age and now appreciate elegance over exactitude (is that even a word?)
Last edited by Kahoolin; September 20th, 2005 at 01:01. Reason: spelling
Bringing in an advanced version of 40k would possibly be one of the worst financial moves ever, if you ask me. If anything, you need a seperate, simpler game for kids, not a branchoff which will make 9 year olds cry and quit the hobby because they can't understand the complex rules and thus cannot enter the elite club of people who play them.
This isn't to say I'm unsympathetic to the needs of adult gamers for a more complex gaming system, I just don't think GW should, or can ever be expected to, do anything about it. If you want to graft house rules on, or play using 2nd edition rules, there's plenty of scope to do so.
Alternatively, as others have suggested, play fantasy.
bah.... I play 40k to relax, not try and recall eight-bajillion rules...
it's more complicated than Chess, but less than a true RPG...
which makes it a solid game, as learning to maneuver is important but not core to all armies...
which makes it easy for anyone to pick up.....
there are alot of more complicated games out there,
but in my expierience, they all fall short in some aspect...
my biggest complaint is range...
we're talking 2inch figs what represent 2m tall men....
a modern firearm has a tactical (hit human target) range of like 400m...
a bolter has a range of 24m....
so yeah, if we went to war with the IG, we'd lose,
but that's 'cause the game is dumbed down to fit on a table...
i've run a handful of tac games using realistic ranges (including a LEGOWAR mod that was very warhammerish, just with unlimited range) and without massive, massive battlefields, they don't work.
AP is just fine,
that's kinda how modern armor works,
a flack vest rated for up to a 50cal can keep the wearer alive thru alot,
but if it gets hit by a round designed to rend armor, the wearer is hosed.
unlike old armors what can be defeated by brute force,
modern armors need penetration as well,
it's logical to assume in the future armors would only improve...
as for the fluff...
i've always believed the fluff and the game should be completely separate...
fluff is nice, but are just stories... and much like movies, often exaggerate the possible...
Pictures of the Smigs Army for your amusement....
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
"Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women"
"JESUS SAVES! the rest of your models each take a wound."