Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You guys are all wimps. Back in the day, a wargame wasn't a real wargame unless it had at least a couple of A4 pages of quick ref sheets and tables.

A beer and pretzels game was something like Snit's Revenge or Nuclear War, that you actually could play when drunk.

Seriously though, complexity for its own sake isn't a virtue, and neither is simplicity. The amount of detail and tables and so on should be governed by what is necessary to creat gaming challenge at any particular level desired. Once you reach a certain level of complexity, you often find that more complexity will arise from the system without trying to model it.

40K's fault, IMO, is that it models a lot of complexity in tiny and arguably irrelevant differences among weapons and special powers, while ignoring major areas such as flanking and morale that have a big effect on games.

And Classic Battletech is boss. Facte!

40K's fault, IMO, is that it models a lot of complexity in tiny and arguably irrelevant differences among weapons and special powers, while ignoring major areas such as flanking and morale that have a big effect on games.

But that hardly matters anyway since the only people to suffer from anything Ld-based are Tau and Eldar. I'd say IG too but they get that Ld bubble.

Classic BTech was awesome but I though the Clan stuff was grossly overpowered as an expansion of the game, which is where I lost interest.

jeremycobert wrote:
everyone will have their own opinions on this, i think tactical games require more depth. things like supply lines,espionage and territorial disputes are needed before any game becomes tactical. 40k is just a skirmish game while WFB is a more in depth skirmish game.

I think you might be confusing tactics and strategy. By definition both Warhammer 40k and Warhammer Fantasy Battles are tactical games, at least in the sense that they deal with the tactics involved in fighting a single battle. Whether or not they are "tactical" in the sense that good tactics (as opposed to list building, luck, etc.) are the primary factor in deciding who wins the game is a different matter (although the consensus seems to be that WFB is more "tactical" in the second sense than 40k).

Things like supply lines and territory disputes all fall under the realm of strategy (or possibly "grand tactics") and would only come into play when dealing with running a campaign, as opposed to a single battle (which is also cool).





Oh, and for all you Battletech nuts out there, what are the actual mechs that come in the new starter boxed set? Would I be better off buying the boxed set and then later buying the rulebook, or should I just buy the rulebook and a couple maps and mech packs?

There's no need to use the "official" models unless they are cheap or you like them.

I plan to play using the classic "unseen" models because I have them all left over from 20 years ago. If I was starting out now I would just buy the rules and get models from ranges like Armored Core or Heavy Gear that I like.

stonefox wrote:

40K's fault, IMO, is that it models a lot of complexity in tiny and arguably irrelevant differences among weapons and special powers, while ignoring major areas such as flanking and morale that have a big effect on games.

But that hardly matters anyway since the only people to suffer from anything Ld-based are Tau and Eldar. I'd say IG too but they get that Ld bubble.

That's what I mean. Almost no armies have leadership below 10 so morale has little effect on the game.

It can be argued that the drugged up fanatic troops fo the far future do not suffer from morale, or it can be argued that morale offers interesting ways to influence the course of battles other than shooting and stabbing.

Hordini wrote:

Oh, and for all you Battletech nuts out there, what are the actual mechs that come in the new starter boxed set? Would I be better off buying the boxed set and then later buying the rulebook, or should I just buy the rulebook and a couple maps and mech packs?

The Starter Set is a great deal. It comes with one each of the following 24 'mechs:
Clint
Catapult
Whitworth
Cicada
Hermes
Jenner
Trebuchet
Dragon
Banshee
Awesome
Assassin
Quickdraw
Vindicator
Panther
Enforcer
Cyclops
Grasshopper
Atlas
Spider
Jagermech
Hunchback
Dervish
Commando
Zeus

Note that the quality of these plastics aren't that great and there are some serious miscasting issues, but there are a few really good gems in there. For a retail price of $40, it is a steal. Unless you know something I don't, you're probably not going to even find 6 of those 'mechs in their metal version for cheaper than that. And that doesn't include the starter rulebook, background, 'mech sheets, and quick reference sheet (I assume you already have plenty of dice).

If you are truly a stickler for the quality of your minis, then perhaps you should consider the box set carefully. However, if you are looking for a great deal and aren't looking for something to put on Cool Mini or Not, then I would go with the box set.

I'll ditto what Pombe said. Not great quality plastic minis, but you get so many for the price that it's still a great deal. At the very least it'll get you started, and you can replace any favorite Mechs with the more expensive metal minis later if you want.

The more games you play, the quicker and quicker it gets, so you can play bigger and bigger games.

I was up 'til 4:30am last night playing CBT with a friend. We had a blast. Never had games like that with 40K. Never.

BYE

pombe wrote:Instead of saying X game is better than Y game or why I like A game more than B game, in Table Top Gaming terms, I think variety is the spice of life.

And it's about finding the right group of friends.

Sometimes we play 40K. Sometimes we play Battletech. Sometimes we play AT-43. Sometimes we play Necromunda. And hell, sometimes we sit around the Wii and play Super Mario Strikers or we break out our NDSs and play some Meteos or Mario Cart. Or we break out our laptops for some Warcraft DOTA. We've also had long Settlers of Catan and Puerto Rico sessions. Whatever.

We haven't played Space Hulk in over 10 years, and that's okay. Same with Magic: the Gathering. And I have a painted BFG fleet that never saw a game, but that's alright.

That's what beer and pretzel is about to me. I game to hang out. I don't hang out to game.

Well spoken, good sir!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

stonefox wrote:Battletech was rendered redundant when Mechwarrior came out. Sorry guys.

Just as 40K was made redundant the moment Final Liberation game out? Or Chaos Gate? Or perhaps Dawn of War?

BYE

Actually, yeah, I think Dawn of War pretty much rendered 40K redundant.
And Battlefleet Gothic is probably the best beer & pretzels game GW has ever put out, with Man 'o War running a close second.

Hordini wrote:Oh, and for all you Battletech nuts out there, what are the actual mechs that come in the new starter boxed set? Would I be better off buying the boxed set and then later buying the rulebook, or should I just buy the rulebook and a couple maps and mech packs?

As mentioned above, the StarterBox comes with a great selection of 'Mechs. You're given enough stuff to do two Companies (3 Lances per Company) right from the start, so you can start doing big games pretty quickly once you've learnt the rules.

Three people in our group (including myself) have the starterbox, and given they're so cheap it's not a hard thing to do, giving us all a solid core of 'Mechs to use. Myself and one other have subsequently gone out and bought about a 100 more metal 'Mechs from a combination of TheWarStore, Iron Wind Metals and ExodusRoadHobbies (you get the best discounts from them, but they often have limited stock), but truthfully BattleTech is only as expensive as you want it to be. You can use cardboard cutouts for 'Mechs (I know I did for years), and it doesn't detract from the fun. Having the models is nice though.

The other thing to get if you get the StarterBox is to get the StarterBook: Sword and the Dragon, along with the two MechPaks Iron Wind Metals make for it. Not only does it expand your model collection, but it gives you quite a good scenario book to start playing with a wonderfully elegant campaign system, plus some directly on where to go next.

The only other thing you'd need would be a MechDesigner program to make record sheets (rather than photocopying the ones you've already got). I reccomend The Drawing Board. It's free, does pretty much everything, and there are files for almost every 'Mech in existance. Although once Heavy Metal Pro 2 is released I'll probably get that, as that'll have everything!!!

BYE

Another option with BTech is to buy 1/72 scale model kits and play in the garden.

Although most of the original Dougram and Macross kits are OOP you can still get some from Hobby Link Japan and other web stores, and use Gundam or other kits to make up the numbers.

Okay, I don't know if this is going to get someone ripping me a new poophole where my pee-hose is now, but I heard vague rumblings that the reviled Lord of the Rings game was a better system than WHFB or 40K. Is that true? If so, why?

Lack of clumsy legacy rules, mainly. There's the organic development of unit tactics, the dynamism of play, and the neat way Will/Might/Fate are used to represent heroism.

Except that the larger battles you play, the more chance there is that it will just end up as a never ending swirling melee in the middle of the table.

Dead Horse wrote:Okay, I don't know if this is going to get someone ripping me a new poophole where my pee-hose is now, but I heard vague rumblings that the reviled Lord of the Rings game was a better system than WHFB or 40K. Is that true? If so, why?

Never played it myself, but I've heard good things about the recent editions of the game. Apparently the earlier versions were crap, though.

Noisy_Marine wrote:I keep hearing people call 40k and WFB beer and preztel. If this is true what are some examples of fantasy or sci-fi games that are "tactical". And what the heck is the difference?

P.S. Where do AT-43 and Helldorado fall?

Edit: Oops, maybe this should be in the Other games forum?

Beer and pretzels games are games you can play while having a chat with friends, with the football on in the background. All the GW fall into this category, 40K, WHFB, Epic, Necromunda, everything. Even the much loved 40K 2nd ed was basically a beer and pretzels game that sometimes got stopped by a half hour search through the rules for some obscure situation.

These games are different to things like Advanced Squad Leader and Battletech, which require a reasonable amount of concentration and work to play properly. You simply can’t play those games without spending time each turn looking at 4 or 5 possible for the best mix of to hit modifiers. This doesn’t really make them better tactical games, just games with more stuff to consider.

On the other hand a tactical game can probably be considered one where player skill greatly increases the chance of winning. This isn’t necessarily a different concept to a beer and pretzels game. After two or three games of 40K it’s possible you’ll be up to the skill level to start winning reasonably regularly, and Btech is about the same. From there a five year veteran of either game is only going to have a slight advantage over you... there just isn’t that much more to learn.

On the other hand there are games like chess, where 5 and 10 year players can still be at a massive disadvantage to grand masters.

Hellfury wrote:Thats the problem, I have played the game. It just takes way too long to resolve.

I love the idea of the big stompy robots, but it just never really stuck with me.

I am a bigger fan of the battletech video games.

Double the damage, except to the head, and add one to the crit tables. Games can be up to one quarter as long, with lance on lance games getting resolved in as little as half an hour, and maybe up to an hour. The core strategies are still there… if anything it improves as light mechs become a lot more vulnerable and no longer dominant, while assault mechs become the only units that can confidently survive more than turn of shooting, and actually become worth taking.

Kilkrazy wrote:40K's fault, IMO, is that it models a lot of complexity in tiny and arguably irrelevant differences among weapons and special powers, while ignoring major areas such as flanking and morale that have a big effect on games.

Yeah, that’s an excellent point. 40K also has a problem that there are places where you have to pay attention to play properly. After three turns of beer and pretzels fun you crash into assault and have to start paying careful attention to make sure the zone of engagement lines up properly and you have a chance of sniping his powerfist dude while making sure yours doesn’t get sniped or isolated from combat.

There are parts of the game where you have to pay reasonable amounts of attention, but they’re random and rarely produce any tactical decisions that model real world decision making. Meanwhile there are large areas of the game where you could increase tactical decision making substantially, but it’s brushed over in favour of streamlining.

Dead Horse wrote:Okay, I don't know if this is going to get someone ripping me a new poophole where my pee-hose is now, but I heard vague rumblings that the reviled Lord of the Rings game was a better system than WHFB or 40K. Is that true? If so, why?

People who have played GW games and then switched to LOTR say this alot. I was skeptical regarding it, as when I first played it when it came out, it amounted to basically a shoving match between pretty models. No resolution, just push a model back and back...and back...

But I think they have the problems resolved for it.

Many very popular side games are based on the LOTR engine. Ancients, legends of the old west/high seas, etc use it. It seems to function quite well.

Granted, I havent played these myself yet, but after looking through the rules and seeing the rising popularity of such games locally, I am making a concerted effort of getting into them.

Its amazing how GW will print these rules and promote the models of other companies in their books. They even show off privateer press models.

Interesting.

Sorry to keep picking at this, but would you say that the LOTR rules make for a more tactical game? Does it have IGOUGO (which is my most hated facet of the 40K rules)? Is the game faster or simpler on average, or greatly different in terms of models on the field than 40K or WFB?