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.

Warhammer 40k is 30% list, 10% Luck and 60% skill.

I don't think you can break it down into percentages like that, it's perfectly possible to make a list of the same point value that literally cannot kill the opponent. In that case it's 100% list and 0% anything else

Talk to some Tau players and we will tell you how much strategy is needed for 40K

40K requires a ton for for thought and you also need to make split second decisions on the battle field. That is tactics and strategy in a nut shell. You must first plan out a strategy and when it doesn't go your way (which good games never do) you need to apply your battle field tactics to maneuver back into your initial strategy. In my experience 40K requires much more strategy then fantasy in Fantasy the game can be won in the deployment segment of the game. In 40K how you deploy may not effect the outcome of battle.

Now, I don't disagree that 40k requires some strategy and/or tactics to be successful. I am curious how many who claim 40k to be very strategic and/or tactical have played a real historic wargame in 6mm or 15mm where you're moving around an entire mechanized brigade on a simulated area of 5 square kilometres.

The difference is staggering. Even spaceship combat requires significantly more tactical (and strategic in list building and deployment as well) prowess to be successful.

I don't want to come across as being pretentious or anything, but after playing some historic WWII, Cold War, and Modern 6mm gaming as well as spaceship fleet combat, 40k is significantly simpler in comparison.

Blacksails wrote: I am curious how many who claim 40k to be very strategic and/or tactical have played a real historic wargame in 6mm or 15mm where you're moving around an entire mechanized brigade on a simulated area of 5 square kilometres.

because practically nobody plays those games.

Just because a game is more complicated, or just because it has the ability to express tactics more does not itself make it a better game. Something the OP should note.

Ailaros wrote:

Blacksails wrote: I am curious how many who claim 40k to be very strategic and/or tactical have played a real historic wargame in 6mm or 15mm where you're moving around an entire mechanized brigade on a simulated area of 5 square kilometres.

because practically nobody plays those games.

Just because a game is more complicated, or just because it has the ability to express tactics more does not itself make it a better game. Something the OP should note.

I have to respectfully disagree with your assumption that 'practically nobody' plays smaller scale games. I think that's one of the main causes of the 'GW is the bestest' cases we see because they don't play other games. This may be due to a lack of interest, time, money, or other reasons. But you don't have to wander far from GW games to realize just how poor they are for a 'wargamer'.

And I disagree with your second point as well. It depends on what you want from your game. If you want a 'war'game, then it should allow you to 'express tactics'. If you want to push your minis around the table and roll some dice without thinking too hard, then yeah, you don't want a complicated game.

If they player doesn't matter, how come the same players are always the ones winning?

DarknessEternal wrote:If they player doesn't matter, how come the same players are always the ones winning?

To be fair ask them how many they play and ask an average player how many tournaments he attends. I mean go in the tournament section and theyll attend a dozen. Not saying they aren't good but averages say if you go more you are more likely. There are good players who can't afford it because of money or other responsibilities.

Ailaros wrote:

Blacksails wrote: I am curious how many who claim 40k to be very strategic and/or tactical have played a real historic wargame in 6mm or 15mm where you're moving around an entire mechanized brigade on a simulated area of 5 square kilometres.

because practically nobody plays those games.

Just because a game is more complicated, or just because it has the ability to express tactics more does not itself make it a better game. Something the OP should note.

Remember, I did not at any point say those games were 'better'. Those 6mm games 'no one' plays are, in fact, more tactical and even strategic than 40k.

40k does require tactics and strategy to be successful. But when compared to a historic wargame in a smaller scale, 40k will always feel simpler and more restricting in its ability to allow more tactical options.

On the note of no one playing those other games, I would strongly encourage every wargamer to explore as many wargames as possible.

Anyways, its very bizarre and almost disappointing to play a game of 40k after beating back two mechanized Russian regiments with your four under strength companies of armour and mechanized infantry while defending a small town in a Cold War gone hot scenario.

Blacksails wrote:
Anyways, its very bizarre and almost disappointing to play a game of 40k after beating back two mechanized Russian regiments with your four under strength companies of armour and mechanized infantry while defending a small town in a Cold War gone hot scenario.

What's stopping you from creating such scenarios for a 40k game?

Something historical wargames almost never have is a scenario of "we both have X points, then fight" like 40k. The scenarios ARE the game, the rules are simply there to support scenarios.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Blacksails wrote:
Anyways, its very bizarre and almost disappointing to play a game of 40k after beating back two mechanized Russian regiments with your four under strength companies of armour and mechanized infantry while defending a small town in a Cold War gone hot scenario.

What's stopping you from creating such scenarios for a 40k game?

Something historical wargames almost never have is a scenario of "we both have X points, then fight" like 40k. The scenarios ARE the game, the rules are simply there to support scenarios.

Oh, my old gaming club did just that, don't worry. We'd use 40k models and a different rule set designed for skirmishes. It was a lot of fun.

To me, it looks like people are more worried about a single function army. I see way to many blood angel jump pack armies and entire Tau battlesuit armies and, they look really boring to play to be honest. You just deepstrike then jump in.

But then again i haven't played many gamea, and i'm probably completley wrong. That's what it seems like tome though.

There is alot of chance in 40k But if you dont put the right stuff in the right place the game can be over for you, also if yo do not adapt and move your units according to how your opponent moves his you could end up in a bad way, you hvae to know what from your army is going to do what against your opponents, play to your strengths and their weaknesses, if not and they exploit your inability to position then you will lose generally. But that is where luck comes in you could have the best tactics and roll bad and lose every game whle your opponent has the best rolls and the worst tactics and wins so it can very with every game howmuch tactics is needed.

Blacksails wrote:
Oh, my old gaming club did just that, don't worry. We'd use 40k models and a different rule set designed for skirmishes. It was a lot of fun.

So then why are you disappointed when 40k games work exactly like 40k games? Were you expecting a box of money to fall out of the sky instead?

DarknessEternal wrote:

Blacksails wrote:
Oh, my old gaming club did just that, don't worry. We'd use 40k models and a different rule set designed for skirmishes. It was a lot of fun.

So then why are you disappointed when 40k games work exactly like 40k games? Were you expecting a box of money to fall out of the sky instead?

I'm not disappointed with 40k. I play 40k because I enjoy it. The point I'm trying to make is that its strange to shift from a historical game to 40k, as 40k feels restricted in comparison.

Blacksails wrote:
Anyways, its very bizarre and almost disappointing to play a game of 40k

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blacksails wrote:
I'm not disappointed with 40k.

Horseshoes and hand-grenades?

Key word being *almost*. Feel free to glaze over that though to make your point.

Oh, and make sure you leave it out of context too. That's also good.

Of course not. All warhammer 40k is, are two guys throwing dice at one another. Its like craps only with models. Now if you want stratagy go play fantasy. So much stratagy, its the king of stratagy. Not like its poor dumb cousin 40k.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
I jest but they both requir stratagy and tactics. Fantasy is just more ridgid in its movement.

I kind of think that if you know your list and know generally what the other guy's list is doing, it's a fairly simple game to play well. There's not a tremendous tactical component to 40k, compared to say, Fantasy, but there are ways to play badly, like shooting at the wrong thing or misusing a unit.

40k is definitely beer and pretzels, though, all the way, i'll say 50% list building 30% luck, and 20% skill.

40k requires a lot of tactics, but Fantasy is the more "thinking man's game" of the two. When I play 40k I almost instantly know what to do to win. When I play Fantasy I always have to think one step before the opponent, like in chess.

Yes, its just one big game of rock-paper-scissors... groan...