Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

40K Questions
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=1771		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:51 pm ]
Post subject:  40K Questions
Hey:

In the past 2 weeks I've played 2 games of 40K (the first since 2nd edition).  I know there is an innate bias around here, but does it seem that 40K is completely artificial?

By that, I mean is playing 40K more like "playing the rules" rather than using something approximating real world tactics?

In particular it struck me both times that there seems to be little or no point in bothering with cover.  Also, the fact that once one model is in hand to hand combat, it's impossible to disengage.  It seems it can easily be better to fail a leadership roll if it removes you from base contact.

Part of it, I'm sure, is that I don't know the rules, and therefore can't take advantage of the quirks.  But it just seems... off in some way.
Author:  TuffSkull [ Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:  40K Questions
Quote (nealhunt @ 30 2004 Jan.,14:51)
Hey:

In the past 2 weeks I've played 2 games of 40K (the first since 2nd edition). ?I know there is an innate bias around here, but does it seem that 40K is completely artificial?

By that, I mean is playing 40K more like "playing the rules" rather than using something approximating real world tactics?

In particular it struck me both times that there seems to be little or no point in bothering with cover. ?Also, the fact that once one model is in hand to hand combat, it's impossible to disengage. ?It seems it can easily be better to fail a leadership roll if it removes you from base contact.

Part of it, I'm sure, is that I don't know the rules, and therefore can't take advantage of the quirks. ?But it just seems... off in some way.

40K is a game. At a push, if you ignored the background, it might class as a "wargame", but theres certainly no element of "war simulation" in it that I've seen. I actually think its quite fun, but purely as a game for times when I'm feeling braindead - much like I play LoTR (Rules? what Rules? we're just having a laugh.... :D )
Author:  Legion 4 [ Fri Jan 30, 2004 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:  40K Questions
We have been saying that for years, Neal.  The 40K "rules" are puerile and not worthy of the title "wargame", as T/S intimated.  My question is why waste time playing 40K ?! :laugh:  It is for kids !  But sells amazingly well ! ???   Some like checkers ... some like chess ... some like bright shiny things ...   :;):  :laugh:
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:37 pm ]
Post subject:  40K Questions
Well, why play 40K?

1)  I have an eldar army I've had for years (ca. 1997) and only recently played with it for the first time.

2)  It is popular and easy to round up a quick game.

3)  I admit that bigger figs have their own appeal.

But most importantly,

4)  It gets me exposure to the 40K guys at the local store.  I took my copy of the EA rules down there last night and had a ton of questions and comments about it.  There were ~12 guys there last night, and not counting my armies, I'd say there were at least 7 epic armies among the group, possibly more.

Next week I'm going to go down early and set up an entire board with my terrain (better than the store, if I do say so myself) and offet to play the training scenarios with anyone interested.

======

Anyway, thanks for confirming my opinion on the mechanics, guys.

As long as we're here, what about WHFB.  I also have a fantasy army lying about collecting dust.  How does it compare?  Is it worth dragging it out?
Author:  vanvlak [ Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:  40K Questions
Quote (nealhunt @ 30 2004 Jan.,19:37)
As long as we're here, what about WHFB. ?I also have a fantasy army lying about collecting dust. ?How does it compare? ?Is it worth dragging it out?

Hi nealhunt,
I'm a kid  :p who likes 40K (bec it CAN be fun, if not particularly authentic) AND WHFB. The latter is better than the former, what with ranks and supporting fortmations and the like; unless you get the larger format of flying daemon in the way, it can be quite good. Nowhere as good as Warmaster, which is terrific, but better in my opine than 40K. And the plastic regiments have made life easier - they're not cheap, but they have made a slight improvement in affordability.
Point on 40K - I suggest you try the 40k in 40 minute-type battles - 400 points per side, more balanced, faster, and better, esp. if played with good terrain. As a variation on a theme: try 40k in 40min on Space Hulk boards, with 1 square = 1". If you aren't too fussy it can be quite good - as in Space Hulk, you need to be careful about who to put up front when advancing down a corridor. I remember my poor old Black Templar Emperor's champion getting torn to shreds in the first combat by DE Warp Beasts; later on, a single BT Initiate (=SM withclose combat weapons) tore a couple of units to shreds (loads of fluke-dice rolled). I guess they'd exchanged armour for the battle...
A fun variant we were once considering was a Hulk with wide corridors down which Ork/SM bikes and perhaps Kans and Dreads could venture. Nil manoeuverability, but could you face an Ork warbike roaring down a corridor at you?

BAck to WH - don't forget WH patrol - another fun concept with more limited army selection and small armies (500points) - again, probably better than the full scale show.  

IDEA - anyone tried corridor wars? Epic played in vast, underground passageways? With Hellbores attacking you from ABOVE?!? No Titans, no aircraft, of course. And barrage weapons would not work either! Any takers? :O
Author:  Gandalf the Grey [ Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:01 pm ]
Post subject:  40K Questions
I was a HUGE 40k 2nd player back in the day and sold all my stuff to a gaming store. They proceeded to take my painted minis and turn around and sell them for unbelieveble prices, and much to my shock, they sold.  :angry:

At any rate, I was out of the hobby for awhile until some friends mentioned that they wanted to give it a try, so we picked up the box set and some minis and began playing with the Dark Eldar and the Space Marines. I was kind of shocked at what I saw in the game. It has a very generic feel to it. I can't explain it.

There may have been too much emphasis on Characters in 2nd ed, but it was still a great skirmish game, which is what it really is.

When they made 40k 3rd, they realized players wanted to be able to play their whole armies, and the previous system really took too long. 3rd edition is quicker for large battles, but playing small ones isn't too gratifying.

There are some things about EpicA I hope keeps into 40k 4th ed, like some kind of crossfire or flanking modifiers. Right now it is basically rush into position (hopefully cover), and just blaze away. I have cover saves too, and would just prefer to have a -1 penalty to hit. Close combat isn't really a fun part of the game either, and to be honest I'd like to see all that revised.

That being said, I do like the scale, and think the minis are excellent. I would like to see some kind of skirmish rules set though, like Mordheim or Necromunda. Having everyone run around within 2 inches of each other is practically shoulder to shoulder, and I find many times the units don't get enough out of cover and still be able to shoot at targets and so forth.

When 4th edition comes, I will most likely just through away my 3rd box set. I feel very little for it. 2nd edition on the other hand, I really enjoyed. I just hope the Tyranid selection in the 4th box set is interesting, and just doesn't come with genestealers.

Does anyone know if the Space Marines are getting a face lift? Every new edition they have. . . I am happy with the way that they are now, but I can see GW releasing new ones. I just hope they aren't one-piece ones like the WFB Empire and Orcs are.

As for WFB, I have only played it a couple of times and I think it is cool. I think the rulebook is 100% better than the 40k one, but it is just the rank and file that bothers me.
Author:  iblisdrax [ Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:19 pm ]
Post subject:  40K Questions
Never liked 40k, no tactics at all.  We play Necromunda tho, and it is a lot of fun.

my 2cents,

iblisdrax
Author:  Legion 4 [ Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:09 am ]
Post subject:  40K Questions
From my standpoint, all versions of 40K had huge problems with mechanics ... among other things. That being said, do what works for you ... not me.  :;):
Author:  CyberShadow [ Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:  40K Questions
I stopped 40K at Rogue Trader, which is actually a good game. Still, I have shed loads of minis and so I should find someone with the rules and give it a try I guess. I must admit that as I have got older, I have been more interested in larger armies and more strategic games, and the more 'realism' the better. So, I doubt that I will play 40K much.
Author:  Legion 4 [ Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:05 pm ]
Post subject:  40K Questions
"... the more 'realism' the better ... "  Great point C/S !  Otherwise ... it's "bright shiny things !"   And amazingly the "faithful" on the 40K sites defend it !   It's like listening to Baghdad Bob, bin Laden, Saddam, etc., etc., spouting a corrupted and convoluted dogma !   :laugh:  :laugh:
Author:  Jimbo [ Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:23 pm ]
Post subject:  40K Questions
never confuse simplicity with unrealistic and complexity with realism

a very "realistic" wargame can have very simple rules

also SF can NEVER be realistic

I like Full Thrust (especially my Star Trek version) which I feel gives me a "realistic" feel of commanding a starship is like more so than the complicated Star Fleet Battles.

We don't have starships so how do I know it is realistic.

It's more an impression, Star Fleet Battles is all about allocating energy to shields or weapons or engines and has very detailed damage tables and stat sheets.

Full Thrust has a more simplistic rule system, however playing it you focus on the tactics of starship combat from thre Captain's point of view, rather than focussing on the intricacies of ship operations.

That is my opinion and you may feel differently and prefer a more complicated game.

However complicated does not mean realistic.
Author:  Legion 4 [ Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:30 pm ]
Post subject:  40K Questions
All good valid points Jimbo.  So it really comes down to a matter of "taste", predilections, experiences, etc.  I think DS is more "realistic" than Epic, but as I said we use a "Hybrid" system ... that works for us and may or may not work for others. My comments are mine and really mean nothing more than that.  Do what work for you ... not me !   :D  :;):
Author:  CyberShadow [ Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:40 pm ]
Post subject:  40K Questions
I agree. Perhaps when I say 'realistic' I should instead say 'plausable'. That is what I value, no matter how complex the rules are.

I want to be able to compare my actions on the wargames table with historical actions. For example, I recently got into Ancients, and I want a rule set that will allow me to explore the 'what ifs' of history, rather than the divergence of the rules.
Author:  Legion 4 [ Mon Feb 02, 2004 6:50 pm ]
Post subject:  40K Questions
I guess it's what one defines as "realistic" or "realism".  I know Jimbo is one of the "Old Timers" of Gaming around here.  But I have been gaming since '70, have a good working knowledge of history and "some" experience in weapons, tactics and military subjects in general.  So I think this is where we differ, in that I believe, that Sci-fi gaming CAN be realistic.  Whether Nazis or Japs or Orks and Eldar are driving the AFVs or aircraft, or running about with small arms, etc., they generally will "function" the same.  If you read Jervis's treatise "Epic Evolution" (we downloaded it from the Epic site and a version of it is in E-Mag #7), he says the other Epic games didn't have the feel of modern combat and you couldn't do things in Epic as you could in real combat.  And that they all have been reading history while designing E:A.  Also in the early E:A rule downloads, he quotes Napoleon, Keegan, etc. (not Kirk, Spock, Picard, Vader or Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon !).  :laugh:  As well as comments on watching "Band of Brothers", not Star Trek, Star Wars or Starship Troopers !  :laugh:   And if you "go back in time",  in an old CJ article, he writes about an optional rule for E40K Tank-Infantry ops based on what he saw in the movie "Full Metal Jacket".  So IMO, Jervis is trying to bring a modicum of "reality" to Sci-Fi Wargaming.  Which is what our "hybrid" rules and the way we "wargame" (not game !) is all about.  As C/S said about comparing history to what happens on the board, that's the way we look at it too.  So that's where we're coming from.  And I guess everyone has to draw their own "line-in-the-sand", when it comes to Sci-Fi wargaming and gaming in general.  Always do what works for you ...            :;):
Author:  Jimbo [ Mon Feb 02, 2004 10:06 pm ]
Post subject:  40K Questions
Quote (Legion 4 @ 02 2004 Feb.,17:50)
I guess it's what one defines as "realistic" or "realism". ?I know Jimbo is one of the "Old Timers" of Gaming around here. ?But I have been gaming since '70, have a good working knowledge of history and "some" experience in weapons, tactics and military subjects in general. ?So I think this is where we differ, in that I believe, that Sci-fi gaming CAN be realistic.

I think this is a good point (and one I agree with), but I also think it is a different point to the one I was making.

You can as L4 says make a set of SF rules which "realistically" reflect what happens on a battlefield from a current perspective (or happened from a historical perspective).

My point was that SF rules can not be realistic from the perspective of their background as their background has no grounding in fact.

What this means from an example is your marines with bolters may behave in a realistic manner compared to US Marines with M16s, but they can not behave in a realistic manner to Space Marines as they have no basis in reality therefore how would you know... therefore it is not realistic!

I play games because I enjoy them not in an attempt to recreate what happens in reality.

As L4 says
Always do what works for you ... ?
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/