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.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I still don't see the wisdom in Deathstars, but then, I never saw the point in the previously much vaunted MSU.

My main point of favour in Fantasy stems from there being very, very few things in the game which cannot be taken out in combat, even with the most basic troops in the game.

But like any system, if you set out to break it, it will be broken. So to use the extreme examples of what might happen as the norm is extremely misleading, and smacks of Stelek just trying to big up his opinion to those who don't already play.

Here's the wisdom:

Death Stars = You have to kill my super unit to win/get points. My Death Star also kills you, and range/LOS/movement isn't really an issue. My Death Star is made so it's virtually unkillable.

MSU = I've got so many small units you can't kill them all to get enough points. And even though my small units aren't worth a whole lot of points, they will beat you if I flank you. Also, my units are completely disposable and I will use that ability to force you into bad situations all game that you can not escape and will have a hard time stopping me from doing so.

For the other stuff, I think this is where you're missing my point:

there being very, very few things in the game which cannot be taken out in combat, even with the most basic troops in the game.

This is no longer true in WHFB anymore.

Ok, maybe it is in your local area where you won't play anyone with really hard lists, and don't play in tournaments.

But for those of us that DO play in tournaments, the WHFB game has become crazy. If you're not playing VC, in general, blocks of infantry don't exist.

Just because i don't play in Tournaments, doesn't mean I don't come across really hard lists.

Couple of the local gamers are into their Tournies, and I quite enjoy the occasional game against their lists.

But hey, at the end of the day the quote in the original post really goes to show that generally speaking, when someone knocks a game, rather than being a genuine failing of the game, it's more down to them just not enjoying it, and feeling some need to persuade others their thoughts are accurate. Is not just Stelek who does this. Even I've done it from time to time.

The main problem with both systems are broken armies such as lash spam and nob bikers. I see no reason to say one system is better than the other. I stick with 40k because I dread the thought of all the games I would have to play as a newbie to master Fantasy... also Fantasy requires lots and lots of models.

G

I feel both games could afford to suck a little less. They're both bogged down and have an inadequate amount of real support (other than new figs).

I'm going to say that I agree that stelek is half right - really, 40k and fantasy are checkers vs checkers, in terms of gameplay. But they're both fun games.

lambadomy wrote:I'm going to say that I agree that stelek is half right - really, 40k and fantasy are checkers vs checkers, in terms of gameplay. But they're both fun games.

Pretty much.

It's worth noting though, there's more tactical depth in checkers than many people realize.

The analogy that WFB is like chess is because there is restrictive and varying movements, you can set up the equivalent of Forks and Pins, Discovered attacks etc. Thus like chess, you can stop opponent pieces/units from moving and win the game without actually destroying the enemy.

In 40k, you can almost always just plod backwards to get out of any enemy 'trap'. (whether this is a game-winning tactic is another discussion).


Re: Destroying the Deathstar; the MSU tactic is probably the best option. The deathstar unit is so many points, it must get into combat as often as possible. Feeding it small throw-away units, fleeing and re-directing using units worth 1/10 its cost means it is faffing about on one side of the table while the rest of your army is being taken apart.

A bloodthirster can be easily taken out of the game by 2/3 small units of light cav. The big unit of Shades with shorter movement would be easier still.

[edit: Voodoo Boyz - I know you already know this. I wrote it really for the benefit of non-WFB players looking in on this topic]

WFB promotes the concept of flanking and manoeuvring to gain advantage in a very visual easy to visualise manner. These concepts exist in 40k but are less easy to spot 40k also makes use of enfilade fire which WFB does not (except in extreme situation).

Neither system is particularly deep.

The analogy that WFB is like chess is because there is restrictive and varying movements, you can set up the equivalent of Forks and Pins, Discovered attacks etc. Thus like chess, you can stop opponent pieces/units from moving and win the game without actually destroying the enemy.

EXACTLY!

G

Fantasy and 40K are different games. Trying to compare them and saying one is better than the other is just idiotic.

For what they're supposed to simulate, they both do reasonably good jobs. The modern battlefield is far more fluid and organic than ones in earlier eras.

Case in point: The US Civil War. I don't know how many times I've heard people talk about "idiotic civil war generals" because of their reliance on massed blocks of riflemen.

While there's a certain element of truth in that (the rifles of the civil war were far more accurate and had a longer range than weapons in previous wars) the flip side of the equation was that massing troops was still necessary, due to the presence and utility of cavalry.

For starters, I don't like fantasy. I only played up to mid 6th ed (fantasy is up to 7th now right?), so can't really comment on the latest changes. Movement was the part I hated most, and if the original post is correct on the details, they haven't changed anything significant there. I never could shake the feeling of watching two trains lumbering towards one another on a single-track line, wondering which one turns out to be heavier. Of course, I probably sucked at the game as probably did my three regular opponents.
The need to buy and paint all those useless ranks of woundmarkers annoyed me alot as well. A unit of 25 men going about wheeling and turning looks ridiculous on the battlefield, and any attempts by GW to explain how "one man represents many" don't work. At all. If I'm supposed to paint the little useless bastards, they're damn well going to be individuals. There's Warmaster if you want to fight with "big" armies.

Having said that, to each their own. if your idea of fun is to set up sacrificial units to redirect attackers for later flanking, feel free to enjoy Fantasy. I think it's designed around the wrong basic ideas, which must be papered over with a massive amount of army specific special rules to make even remotely playable and interesting armies. Feel free to disagree, if you play the game voluntarily you're obviously find enjoyment where I do not.

There's a fair amount of good insights into both Fantasy and 40k here, and like many posters have said it's very hard to compare which one is "better". I have my opinion obviously, but I'm not going to even try to "prove" it. That might require me to play some Fantasy again, which isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My main point of favour in Fantasy stems from there being very, very few things in the game which cannot be taken out in combat, even with the most basic troops in the game.

I find it very interesting that you would use this point in favor of Fantasy. If I was asked to give one example as to why 40 is better than Fantasy, I would have used the exact same sentence except for replacing:
-"Fantasy" with "40k" and
-"in combat" with "with shooting".

In my experince the basic trooper is much more useful in 40k than in Fantasy, and that's why I like 40k. (Oh, also they have laser guns and tanks in 40k. )

Some experts consider the US civil war the first modern era war.

G

Centurian99 wrote:Fantasy and 40K are different games. Trying to compare them and saying one is better than the other is just idiotic.

For what they're supposed to simulate, they both do reasonably good jobs. The modern battlefield is far more fluid and organic than ones in earlier eras.

Case in point: The US Civil War. I don't know how many times I've heard people talk about "idiotic civil war generals" because of their reliance on massed blocks of riflemen.

While there's a certain element of truth in that (the rifles of the civil war were far more accurate and had a longer range than weapons in previous wars) the flip side of the equation was that massing troops was still necessary, due to the presence and utility of cavalry.

I have to say, the defensive I encounter on the Internets with regard to preferred game, gaming style, console, company etc will never cease to amaze me.

Why? Because for some reason, people get seriously uptight about defending their choice.

For example, I own a PS3, I prefer this to the 360. I have been found being overly defensive about this, when all I need say is simple. I trust Sony more than Microsoft, and the PS3 offers the games I want to play. Simple, and easy.

40k V Fantasy. I enjoy Apocalypse games, but I prefer to play Fantasy. Numerous reasons, but all I really need say is said. I just prefer Fantasy.

And I also doubt anyone of us on Dakka hasn't gone overboard with the reasoning before. Just an observation not really going anywhere!

That is because people seek support for their choices and purchases. It is a well documented bit of psychology.

But even so, some people are scary when defending a choice. Ah well. We human beans are all pretty messed up!

Voodoo Boyz wrote:But for those of us that DO play in tournaments, the WHFB game has become crazy. If you're not playing VC, in general, blocks of infantry don't exist.

Played against Skaven or O&G much? Granted, the powerlevel of those two (the o&g especially) aren't exactly on par with the top3, but I've seen both around in tournaments as they are fun armies to play.

Not that I disagree that uncomped/unrestricted whfb-tournament scene is utterly awful. No need to look further than the uk gt to get a glimpse of the situation("Yay, I played 4 times vs kairos+skulltaker DoC, fun?").

WFB league play is also messed up right now. It's like Storm of Chaos, except now you have to ban (or heavily handicap) Core armies with no alternative lists to turn to.

I say again, 40K has found it's groove, again. Mr. Stelik's article might have been relevant a while back with 40Kv4 and WFBv6, but it's not striking the right note right now.

Kilkrazy wrote:That is because people seek support for their choices and purchases. It is a well documented bit of psychology.

So it's okay that I bought all those demons and never played them?

GW loves you!

G

Deadshane1 wrote:I hate to give props to the guy after the trashing he does to WC, but he's put into words here very eloquently some of what I've argued (or in many cases been afraid to argue in avoidance of being ganged up on) with my local gaming group for years....

A bit acidic in the language, but he basicly has it.

So is it okay to label the piece as the obvious troll flamebait that is typical of its author, or is that considered an attack?

How can anyone take an article seriously that contemplates retardation (of non-living miniatures no less) as an explanation of behavior in a game designed to parallel ancient combat? And then degrades it because it doesn't play like a sci fi game? Quick history lesson: ancient armies weren't very maneuverable. You could get men to stay in one place or move forward, but not much else with any reliability unless they were highly trained, elite soldiers. It was hard enough to muster forces and keep them inline at the sight of a numerous enemy. A far cry from the squad based game of 40k designed to reflect high technology small scale combats. Troops with comm links and guns behave differently than farmers with spears.

I am not saying either game doesn't have flaws- they both do. Lots of flaws. But critiquing a RnF based game because troops behave like block troops is inane. And who gives a crap if one is more or less like checkers/chess? The whole point of that article was to somehow shoe that one game was better/worse by comparing it to another game that has been around about 1000 years. Are you that insecure with your toy soldiers that you feel a need to up your nerd cred?

I am tempted to question why people even bother reading Stelek's posts. Unless it is out of a desire for some masochistic pleasure over getting enraged or to feel really smart.

I think the OP is flamebait too.

G

jmurph wrote:How can anyone take an article seriously that contemplates retardation (of non-living miniatures no less) as an explanation of behavior in a game designed to parallel ancient combat? And then degrades it because it doesn't play like a sci fi game? Quick history lesson: ancient armies weren't very maneuverable. You could get men to stay in one place or move forward, but not much else with any reliability unless they were highly trained, elite soldiers. It was hard enough to muster forces and keep them inline at the sight of a numerous enemy. A far cry from the squad based game of 40k designed to reflect high technology small scale combats. Troops with comm links and guns behave differently than farmers with spears.

I am not saying either game doesn't have flaws- they both do. Lots of flaws. But critiquing a RnF based game because troops behave like block troops is inane.

I don't think Stelek cares about historical accuracy; not in this article, anyway.

What is historically accurate or realistic has nothing to do with a game's tactical depth. Neither Chess nor Checkers attempts to be a simulation of anything; Stelek was comparing the rules solely on the basis of gameplay. How actual armies operated doesn't really enter into it. A game can simulate something perfectly and still be one-dimensional and shallow from an actual gameplay standpoint.

And who gives a crap if one is more or less like checkers/chess? The whole point of that article was to somehow shoe that one game was better/worse by comparing it to another game that has been around about 1000 years. Are you that insecure with your toy soldiers that you feel a need to up your nerd cred?

I think it was in response to some rather annoying Fantasy players who tend to prattle on about Fantasy being, for some reason, a far more tactical and mature game. I believe they were the ones who started the comparison, saying that Fantasy was Chess and 40k was Checkers.

Time to shut this thread, I think.

Opinions have been expressed in support and against.

Let's stop before it becomes a flame war and an attack on someone who can't defend themself.