Fun vs. Winning - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

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!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Fun vs. Winning

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Whitby Ontario
    Age
    29
    Posts
    535
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    21 (x0)

    Fun vs. Winning

    This isn't a new statement, its just on my mind, I was talking to a buddy of mine today about it and its kind covered in my last thread but the perpose of the thread is differnt so I'm making a new one. I play warhammer to have fun and get my mind off of other things. Now I dont want to turn this into a Orks are short changed post, cause it isn't so I'll try siting other examples to, but most of my experence is playing orks so it might seem a bit like that.

    My first example is from about a week ago, one of my buddies playing Space Marines vs. Tyranids. I can sum the game in 3 words: First Turn Charge. The first half of the first turn the Tyranids charged and the game was called in the second half of the first turn, only one SM squad wasn't engaged in combat and it didnt have anything to shoot. He was so pissed off cause he didnt even get to play and it was his only day off he could play that week.


    My next example involves the new Tau Empire codex, ever since it came out I have not had one fun game ageinst them. The reason: They can do thing that logically every army shoud be able to do but only they can. Dividing fire and Use of Markerlights at the top of that list. What is so difficult of a Guard Sgt. saying "You two with the Lascannon, fire at that Battlewagon, everyone else keep those Orks at bay!" nothing at all, it makes sence and it should be in the core rules like it was, it doesnt make the shooting phase take more than 1 minute longer at most so hiding behind makeing the game more complicated as a reason it isn't legitment. This pretty much gives them their own set of rules to play the game with, I'm not saying its bad, but when its something everyone should logically be able to do then its not right.


    Another thing, this might just be a personal thing but I find that almost half of the armies being on the same side (more than half if you include all the SM chapters with their own rules) is dumb. I mean almost a third of the battles I see being played are Imperium vs. Imperium. I know the Imperium has alot of infighting but honestly.....GW should never have made the Imperium of Man the way it is from the game aspect of it, not fluffwise. They should have had 2 or 3 'smaller' human empires rather than 1 with 9 army lists (thats just off the top of my head, I know there are more). And that would not have been so hard or expensive either, SM chapters have their own indivual model ranges and rules, so do IG regiments so it would not have been impossable if they didnt focus so much on this one mega fluff rigid Imperium.

    Since alot of people play imperial armies, imperial armies are designed to fight one another as much if not more than other races, of which there arnt enough of, in fantasy there are alot of races that can have very differnt styles of play even within the same army book because the Index armylists, this allows alot more tactics and alot less list building, something that 40k needs dearly. Now you might say play fantasy then if you want more variety, well I did and dont like it for reason I'm not going to bother getting into. 40k needs at least 4 more non-imperial armies and better rules and balance, that would fix the games fun levels, lol i got way off my origonal point, oh well....


  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Member RespectUrElders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    99
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    3 (x1)

    I definitely agree with you that fun is much more impotant than just winning. I know when I had my old Eldar army I played much more seriously, but ever since I got my Imperial Guard I've enjoyed playing much, much more. There's something to be said about dozens of cheap, expendable troops slogging across the battlefield, getting mowed down by enemy gunfire and nasty close combat units. My friends seem to like my IG army as well :sleep:. I still have an alright win percentage as well (it's probably around 60% or so) but I just don't care about winning all that much compared to before. Sure it's good and all, but I find painting and having close battles much more interesting.

    I haven't really come up against the new Tau army so I can't really comment on just how good/overpowered it may be. Don't worry too much about how things don't make much sense. Logically you should be able to split your fire, but at the same time there's a lot of things in Warhammer that really don't make much sense. Why do all units move only 6"? Shouldn't superhuman Marines be moving faster than common human Guardsmen? Stuff like that...

    Nor do I agree with how you think the Imperium should be divided up. You say you see a lot of Imperium vs. Imperium battles; I'm not so sure if GW is directly responsible, but rather that Space Marine armies are typically overabundant. One of the main appeals to 40k for me is that there's this one last bastion of defense for mankind, and as large as the Imperium is it's slowly falling apart, both from the inside and the outside as well. I think having multiple "empires" if you will would only cheapen the whole "humanity vs. all."

    Keep in mind that there's often various planets or even systems that split off from the greater Imperium to try and forge their own destiny. However, the Imperium always eventually shows those traitorous rebels who they owe their fealty to and sorta, *ahem* "correct" their faulty thinking. It's just rare that someone would entirely base their army on a rebel faction such as this. Space Marines also can rebel on occasion (such as the Horus Heresy.) Other newer conflicts have come up as well, such as when the Lamenters among other chapters supported... some other rebel chapter. They ended up getting teamed up on by a bunch of other Imperial forces and forced to flee iirc.

    As for why I play 40k over Fantasy? Well I don't necesarily, I play both. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, though I ultimately prefer 40k over Fantasy. Why you may ask? Because IMHO 40k has by far a better background than Fantasy. I feel really inspired by the 40k universe. Fantasy is good but... ultimately it's still awfully familiar to a whole bunch of other settings. I also find 40k a bit more forgiving, and it encourages reacting to the enemy's moves. Fantasy I find a bit too rigid for my tastes. To each their own though.

  4. #3
    Senior Member PoptartsNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The Eastern Fringe
    Age
    32
    Posts
    913
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputation
    81 (x2)

    Quote Originally Posted by Osaria
    My first example is from about a week ago, one of my buddies playing Space Marines vs. Tyranids. I can sum the game in 3 words: First Turn Charge. The first half of the first turn the Tyranids charged and the game was called in the second half of the first turn, only one SM squad wasn't engaged in combat and it didnt have anything to shoot. He was so pissed off cause he didnt even get to play and it was his only day off he could play that week.
    They must've been playing on the tiniest board then. The only units that can realistically get a first turn charge in a Tyranid army are Hormagaunts and Gargoyles, and that's if they roll a perfect 6" fleet and if the opponent is hugging the very front edge of the deployment zone (don't do that unless you're a CC army)... and even then, all of two models on either side will get to attack each other... and Hormies / Gargoyles aren't especially useful against Marines (they lock them down... that's about it).

    Raveners, Genestealers, Flying Hive Tyrants, etc. are fast, but they still require at least two turns to get across a 24" "no man's land". If they were playing with less than 24" between armies, then the Space Marine player really deserved what he got (no offense), and should've thought tactically about exactly how far forward he wanted his troops anyway.

  5. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Whitby Ontario
    Age
    29
    Posts
    535
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    21 (x0)

    Actually, alot of Tyranids can charge 24'' if you count the scuttle move.....The Infiltrating Broodlord and retinue of Stealers got a first turn charge, and a squad of genestealers that started at the 12'' up, Scuttled 6'', moved another 6'', fleeted 6'' and then charged 6'' also got the first turn charge, as far as my freind setting up on the line, he didn't but in all the moving of the genestealers could have easily stole 1'' or 2''. There was another sqauds of genestealers like the one that got first turn charge that only got 4 on their fleet, they would have been engadged second turn.

    PS: It was on a 4ft x 4ft board cause thats the only size they got at the local GW.

    HQ:

    Broodlord = 345pts
    - Fleshhooks, Toxin Scacs, Extended Carapace
    - 9 Genestealers with Scything Talons, Fleshhooks, Toxin Scacs and Extended Carapace

    Troops:

    10 Genestealer = 280pts
    - Scything Talons, Fleshhooks, Scuttlers and Extended Carapace

    10 Genestealer = 280pts
    - Scything Talons, Fleshhooks, Scuttlers and Extended Carapace

    10 Genestealer = 280pts
    - Scything Talons, Fleshhooks, Scuttlers and Extended Carapace

    Total: 1185pts (in a 1200pts game)
    Last edited by Osaria; June 27th, 2006 at 14:06.

  6. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,271
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputation
    53 (x3)

    To bad about the small board. But still the SM player should have been further back unless he thought he was fighting Tau until he saw the first genestealers being deployed. That would have made a huge difference.

    Though it should only have made a difference to the extent deployment mismatches and impossible terrain allow. There's no way he should have let those first turn charges in. Stealers steal genes not inches and while I usually don't watch carefully over my opponents movement if I know they can't mathmatically get a charge in I'm not letting it happen.
    Last edited by sunnyside; June 27th, 2006 at 17:40.

  7. #6
    LO Zealot MobiusPrime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,503
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputation
    86 (x4)

    Y'know, any missile unit in Fantasy can split its fire if all the models can't see the 'parent' target unit.

    Also, any two armies conflict in Fantasy will generally make more sense than 40K (marines vs marines? I guess it's a 'training' session. woot, I wins some training session /sarcasm) vs (Tomb Kings vs Vampire Counts, eh? Undead vs undead you say? Read our fluff, my TK HATE your VC!)

    Plus the tactics involved in Fantasy are much higher than that of 40K, and games are decided more in the strategic placement of units, rather than simply bogging into list-hammer like 40K. (In truth, 100 pts of Gretchen will rarely if ever win a CC vs 100 pts of marines, but 100 pts of ranked up Gobos will nearly always beat 100 pts of Brettonian Knights if they charge a flank!)

    Anyways, Fantasy is just a better game in my opinion.

  8. #7
    Senior Member Fideru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    260
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    8 (x1)

    Well, I'm the only one that plays for fun. The main player I face with my SM is Tyranid and he just wants to win (unfortunatly he doesn't know that a small amount of upgraded units is better for me than a huge bloody swarm). The other players are just odd. The Tau guy just doesn't wanna play, the Space Wolves player just has ADD so he doesn't play much. The Chaos is the same as the Tau (which I don't understand, they spent about 200 each on their armies and NOW they don't wanna play? Not even 1 game?). So I usually play Mr.Tyranid, and all he wants to do is win. Nothing else matters to him.

  9. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Medusa V
    Posts
    367
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    4 (x1)

    Quote Originally Posted by MobiusPrime
    Y'know, any missile unit in Fantasy can split its fire if all the models can't see the 'parent' target unit.

    Also, any two armies conflict in Fantasy will generally make more sense than 40K (marines vs marines? I guess it's a 'training' session. woot, I wins some training session /sarcasm) vs (Tomb Kings vs Vampire Counts, eh? Undead vs undead you say? Read our fluff, my TK HATE your VC!)

    Plus the tactics involved in Fantasy are much higher than that of 40K, and games are decided more in the strategic placement of units, rather than simply bogging into list-hammer like 40K. (In truth, 100 pts of Gretchen will rarely if ever win a CC vs 100 pts of marines, but 100 pts of ranked up Gobos will nearly always beat 100 pts of Brettonian Knights if they charge a flank!)

    Anyways, Fantasy is just a better game in my opinion.
    There are a few strategies to be employed in 40k. You can have units luring other units, employing flank manevuers and effectively having a batter edge on a tank or flanking infantry to fit more to outnumber them. You can have synergy with different weapons, and real strategies like "pincer-strike" often work as well.

    What strategic options are available to fantasy other than flanking, just asking.

  10. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    34
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    4 (x1)

    In fantasy those strategies are all there, however since not every troop has the same movement stat these can be much harder or much easier to pull off. There is more to take into consideration when moving troops, its not well if I can't charge him he can't charge me sort of thing. Also since most units don't have 360 degree line of sight, this also emphasizes placement of units making sure my flank is not exposed. 40k idea of exposing flanks is usually exposing a whole ary's flank, where as fantasy one unit exposed flank can cause serious trouble. Winning combat is not always about can my guy throw out more attacks than you and one has to consider things like ranks, standards, flanks. Also because fantasy is not as cut an dry as 40k in terms of modifiers deciding to attack a unit is a tougher choice. For example attack terminators with an ig squad is probably stupid as they will always get their 2+ save. In fantasy a 2+ save knight in combat against something with higher toughness all of a sudden drops that save to a 4+ and much easier to kill. Overall, fantasy is a less simplier games, there are more rules and degrees of rules and thus one must consider more things to actually win a game.
    Last edited by asianavatar; June 27th, 2006 at 20:44.

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,271
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputation
    53 (x3)

    In my opinion fantasy is a bit more "strategy" and 40K is a bit more "tactics." A common saying around where I am with fantasy is "the game was decided at setup" this is because most units have such limited mobility and because everybody plays pitched battles the flow of the game is mostly decided on turn one with most of the later moves being details like getting the charging distances right and an almost chess like jockying for position of units taking into account where things will end up in future turns. Actually I rather like that, but still victory is largley determined by unit selection, deployment, and a battle strategy you had either before setting up or that you formulated when you saw their setup.

    40K is supposed to require more on the fly thinking. Back in 3rd edition you had to have an army list that could handle any of the current standard or special missions as any could come up on the dice roll, and you had to adjust your plans accordingly. Also the units have a lot more mobility and range causing the tactical landscape to change rapidly. For example my waveserpent with scorpeons operates entirley differently than anything in fantasy, and since over half of my army can move 24+ inches a turn, you(usually) can't simply execute a predetermined battleplan.

    Unfortunitly with people avoiding alpha missions and tending to play "the middle one" and general play restricted to standard missions 40K losses a little flavor in my opinion, and you run the risk of falling prey to listhammer. But still in battlereports often there are a couple things where you say, "ah that's a mistake, they're going to have a hard time winning now." As long as that's the case I'll stay happy with the game, I also generally ask for the roll for mission level keeping that extra degree of variety in there(each level really does play differently).
    Last edited by sunnyside; June 27th, 2006 at 22:57.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts