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.

Oh look, the Warmachine players are here to hate on GW and claim their game is better and more tactical.

Every single goddamn thread...

Kaldor wrote:

phantomViper wrote:

Warmahordes, Malifaux, FoW, FoF, Infinity... The list is quite extensive and varied...

The only other "major" games that I play that I would consider to be LESS tactical than 40K or WHFB is the "Spartan Trilogy".

I specifically asked you not to just rattle off a list of names. I want to see why you think those games are more tactical.

I don't understand why random charges suddenly makes WFB less tactical than 40k, especially since, at least when difficult terrain is involved, 40k has had random charges for over a decade.

Fantasy is more tactical simply because the rules allow for force multiplying tactics.

A combi-charge from two units can be more than twice as effective as a charge from one, especially if one is a flank charge.

That happens far less in 40k.

Fantasy also requires a lot more attention to deployment and early movement. The margin of error is a lot lower than in 40k.

that all said... the tactics in 40k emerge not in the mechanics of shooting and assault, but in the nature of the missions. Particulalry when looking at more complex tournament missions, there are more choices to make than people give 40k credit for. I dont' know enough about fantasy tournament missions to really judge them.

Chowderhead wrote:Oh look, the Warmachine players are here to hate on GW and claim their game is better and more tactical.

Every single goddamn thread...

Somebody asked specifically for reasons that other game systems have tactical depth.

If you're looking for a tactically deep game, GW simply doesn't have the best product out there. If you're looking for multipart, poseable, 'cinematic' plastics, GW does have the best product out there.

I wasn't going to bring Warmahordes into this conversation. But as I play all 3 big games: WMHD, 40k, WFB, Warmahordes at the tournment based system is the most tactical out of all.

Why: timed player turns.
I'd like to see most GT level players for 40K / WFB play a game with a timed 10 minute turn. You would really have some armies become near unable playable. However, you do have large armies at the 50+ point value in Warmahordes with people able to play a timed 10 minute turn.

With Warmahordes as a previous person posted, you have to account for the 2 list format. Your 1 strong list is going to have a foil, plus you don't know what your opponent is going to present, that's half the fun. People roll through tournments based on overall knowledge of the game, not just their lists. Moving is huge in that game. With the idea of caster kill, you cannot take into account ever single unit in your opponents army. In 40K & WFB, often a HQ is hidden in a unit, so he likely will not get sniped in most games, not the way WMHD works. You have to always have your general alive, AND play the objective.

Fantasy is still the more tactical game, but its a lot easier to mitigate bad luck in 40k than in fantasy. Also, the power gap between the top and bottom armies in Fantasy is ludicrously worse, eg 40k is much more balanced at the moment.

Polonius wrote:I don't understand why random charges suddenly makes WFB less tactical than 40k, especially since, at least when difficult terrain is involved, 40k has had random charges for over a decade.

You are comparing a single instance where random charges exist (charging through difficult terrain), with an entire game based on that mechanic.

There is enough randomness involved in a game already, movement doesn't need to be random.

Polonius wrote:
Fantasy is more tactical simply because the rules allow for force multiplying tactics.

A combi-charge from two units can be more than twice as effective as a charge from one, especially if one is a flank charge.

That happens far less in 40k.

Fantasy also requires a lot more attention to deployment and early movement. The margin of error is a lot lower than in 40k.

that all said... the tactics in 40k emerge not in the mechanics of shooting and assault, but in the nature of the missions. Particulalry when looking at more complex tournament missions, there are more choices to make than people give 40k credit for. I dont' know enough about fantasy tournament missions to really judge them.

And all of that would have some meaning, except for the magic phase!

You can completely outmanoeuvre me, set up your flank charges and combats all to your advantage, if I roll well enough in the magic phase, I'll win the game and all your tactical genius (or my lack thereof), will contribute 0 to that outcome.

Chowderhead wrote:Oh look, the Warmachine players are here to hate on GW and claim their game is better and more tactical.

Every single goddamn thread...

I think the consideration of other game systems here is saving this thread from being completely irrelevant, as 40k 6th will soon be upon us.

40k and fantasy 8th may get a bum rap for being tactically simple, but I think that most veteran gamers will tell you that there are many other systems that are far more sophisticated tactically.

I will say this:
I find not tactics in WFB new style of magic of roll 6 dice, get IF, remove whole unit from the game. The former set up of magic in 7th was very tactical. You had to plan you spell casting well with armies, your opponent could build Magic Defense armies. Now... there's really not defense or for thought in some armies where its, look every model in your big block takes a characteristic check! Oh great.. there went half my unit of Chaos Warriors.

At least in 40K when you blitz a unit with shooting it requires more then 6 dice to be rolled to force the opponent into a reaction / loss of models

So why not wait until 6th drops to compare?

Based on the OP original question, WHFB is more tactical as you have to react to what happens on the field as most combats are balanced. There is also no codex creep like 40k so most armies are competitive, unlike 40k

I've never played WHFB. Assuming that doesn't automatically invalidate my opinion, asking which is more tactical(40k or WHFB) seems similar to asking "What's more tactically sound, Medieval European warfare or modern warfare?" It seems that combat would have moderate differences, requiring different styles of tactics.

beigeknight wrote:I've never played WHFB. Assuming that doesn't automatically invalidate my opinion, asking which is more tactical(40k or WHFB) seems similar to asking "What's more tactically sound, Medieval European warfare or modern warfare?" It seems that combat would have moderate differences, requiring different styles of tactics.

I don't think it's your never playing Fantasy that might invalidate your opinion, but the fact that you think what happens in games of 40k in any way resembles 'modern warfare'.

On the random charges thing, in my experience, stuff gets charged in cover a lot more than in the open these days. Even when you are in open ground so many armies have methods of making you roll difficult terrain to assault that you might as well just assume its always going to be the case. At least in Fantasy, the charge range is augmented by the movement stat so that you don't sometimes fail a charge when the enemy is 1 inch away.

The counterpoint to that is that charging is a lot less important in the current version of Fantasy, since unless you are reliant on Impact hits for damage, the bennefits are one point of CR and occasionally positioning advantage. The fact that there are essentially two classes of models in 40k, those that have grenades and actually get to use their initiative stat and those that do not, combined with casualties likely costing you attacks makes the random charges in 40k a lot more impactful.

beigeknight wrote:I've never played WHFB. Assuming that doesn't automatically invalidate my opinion, asking which is more tactical(40k or WHFB) seems similar to asking "What's more tactically sound, Medieval European warfare or modern warfare?" It seems that combat would have moderate differences, requiring different styles of tactics.

Yep, asking which is most tactical is itself, rather vague.
I think i should just add that alot of people seem to think that more complicated means more tactical too when that is not always the case.

There has been no mention of Heavy Gear Blitz, which is one of the more tactical of the mainstream games, so I thought that I would write a brief description of its tactical elements.

In Heavy Gear Blitz, players take turns activating units. The order in which you activate your units is very important. For example, you can have a weak unit fire on a target, and then have a more powerful unit fire on the same target and obtain a crossfire bonus.

Like most wargames, movement is the most tactical aspect of the game. A model can be stationary, travel forwards at combat speed, backwards at combat speed, or forwards at full speed. A model's speed influences its ability to conceal itself, the difficulty other models have in targeting it, and the number of turns it can make per unit distance travelled. If you go fast, you are likely to be noticed, but harder to hit. It also takes an action point to move at top speed, and such a point may otherwise be spent firing a weapon.

Most models have facings; front, back, and sides. You can only fire certain weapons in certain arcs. There are also bonuses for attacking an enemy in the back.

Up to this point it may sound very much like a naval warfare game, and in certain respects it is. However it also has extensive rules for terrain, cover, and height. For example there are bonuses for attacking from above.

As one would expect, there are tactics related to shooting. There are rules for coordinating fire, spotting targets for indirect attacks, and weapons jamming. Some weapons, such as missiles, have limited ammunition. So there is an element of resource management. Each weapon has an accuracy rating. Weapons have three ranges: optimal, sub-optimal, and extreme, which effect the accuracy of a shot. Thus, positioning for a shot is important.

Lastly, there are tactics related to missions. The missions are selected by the player based on the size of the game. However, the type of mission offensive, defensive, or standard is determined randomly based on the priority level of army being played.

I am certain that I have left out many tactical aspects of the game, but this very brief post gives you some idea of the tactical depth.

With all of this being said, the game may appear to be bogged down in rules. I have not found this to be the case.

biccat wrote:Fantasy by a long stretch.

Much of 40k comes down to army lists and what armies you are up against. Very little comes from decisions made in battle, either in movement, shooting, or assaults. And army building in 40k is pretty simple - find the best unit and take as many of them as you can.

Army building in Fantasy is important, but there are a lot more issues to consider because combat resolution is more important and leadership actually matters. Likewise movement is much more important in fantasy. Magic adds another dimension to games, as opposed to 40k where psychic powers are usually just better guns.

I agree with this.

HI again.
The reason It is difficult to pin down tactical depth.Is because when its is dome well,it is generated from very simple in game player chioces , that have an exponetial effect on game play!
Some games have deceptivley straight forward rules and massive amounts of tactical depth.(Alot is down to game mechanics /resolution method chioce.)

Of GW SG games Blood Bowl is a prime example.(Been playing on and off since 1996! )
It uses a variable bound game turn.
You keep taking actions with your minis unitll you fail to pass a skill test, or finish activating all the minatures you want to..
So the player has to work out what they want to do that turn, what minature they need to take actions with, what actions to take with what minatures and in what order.
Taking into acount the oponents chance of scuppering the plan after a failed skill test!

Other wargames like NET EPIC, a fan developed version of GW Epic Space Marine.And GW own EPic Armageddon.
Let the player choose what actions units are going to try to perform in a command phase, before the action starts.(By using simple order counters.)

Other games like Dust Warfare give units a fixed 2 actions per turn.
But allow them to forfit an action to react to enemy actions.
And also make units to loose actions through being supressed.
(AND have random extra actions generated at the start of each game turn.)

So in my opponents turn, I have to asses IF I should try to break up the attack by shooting at an enemy unit with one of my units.
If I do so , will they return fire and supress my reacting unit , making it totaly inactive in my turn?
Will this be detrimental to my plan ?Should I keep extra actions back to remove supression if this happens?
And in MY turn I have to be aware of enemy interdictive/reactive fire to the actions of my units.

Even games with a more restrictive armly level alternating game turn , (like Fow.)
Use other elements like combined arms ,Fog of War, supression mechanics, terrain interaction, etc to increase the tactical interaction.In FoW its not so much the units you take but how you use them together to achive the objectives.

British scout carriers(recon) and 3" mortars(lt arty) find and drop smoke on the German anti tank guns , allowing the British tank (armored)squadron tanks to advance past them while the German guns are blinded by smoke.Now the British tanks can support the Infantry asault.... (Recon, artilery/air, armour and infantry elements all HAVE to work together to be effective!)

Its much easier to talk definitively about strategic chioces.
What units to take what load out to give them how to deploy them.etc.As there is a fixed value (PV) and a fixed effect, (Stats.)
Thats probabaly why '40k tactica' comprises of 95% strategic discussions!

Actual tactics are far more fluid and situational.

I am NOT saying 40k and WHFB are not fun to play.But they tend to focus far more on strategic (what units and load outs to give them,) than tactical, (in game chioces) elements of the game play.

So if you want more tactical game play ,you could always try GW plc SGs first.Epic Armageddon and Warmaster.(Free to down load form GW web site.)
You can use other minatures/proxies for these games, if you dont like GW prices!(As you wont be playing in a GW store!)

I can not realy recomend a particular game out of the 30 or so great games out there as personal preference has a major impact on chioce.
Game scale , minature scale background etc.

Great post Lanrak, think you hit the nail on the head right there and put it in far more eloquent terms than I had!

I fail to see how 40k is more balanced across the various armies than WHFB.

GK stomp most armies out there. Yes you can counter GK but it consists of tailoring to do it in most cases.

Empire is the newest WHFB army and I not heard anyone claiming them to be stomping Every army in WHFB. The strongest army in WHFB right now is most likely VC. They are very beatable by most armies with general lists. You do not need to tailor to beat them other than making sure you got a few extra magic weapons in the armies to deal with ethereal units.

Wood Elves, Brets and Dwarfs are the oldest armies in WHFB and can still win matches more so than Tau or Eldar would in 40k.


As far as tactics goes this is a game. You are limited in what the rules allow. I find the 5E game types used in the main book of 40k to be stagnant and boring. Those in effect cause 40k to be less tactical to me as every game is either hold this objective or KP which is broken anyways.

WHFB has more varied and interesting gametypes in the main rules and thus to me, delivers more interesting and tactical games.

I play both and I soundly believe Fantasy is way more tactical than 40k. The sheer number of phases and sub-phases alone is a clue to that.

First of all, the movement phase is the most important element, I believe. In 40k, you move your units in range of the weapons and then in assault range and then into CC. In WHFB you have to carefully maneuver the units to take advantage of everything -the facing of the enemy unit (because flanking matters), even the terrain. You can have a lousy army list set up against a much better one, and if you move your units cleverly, you can have your opponent packing up his models in shame.
I agree that WHFB has more randomness involved (both in the form of charge range, shooting guess range and magic) but even so, you know when to take your chances.
Magic is a separate phase that can easily change the game...for better or worse. Some might say that some spells are so powerful that they upset the balance. Well... powerful spells require a lot of dice rolled and a lot of dice rolled means... well anyone who has lost wizards or indeed units to miscasts know what I mean.

And last but not least (in my opinion anyway-although now that I think of it this has nothing to do with tactics) WHFB is more balanced, army-wise. There are no 2-3 armies which dominate the battlefields no matter what you throw against like in 40k. Sure there are always armies that preform better than others (under the current rules usually) but proper use of tactics (this is where tactics really come in) can turn the table on anyone.

Milisim wrote:
Every game of 40k is mostly about getting into CC as fast as possible or avoiding it at all costs.

Since shooting in WHFB is less effective, setting up multi hits in CC becomes important.

So you're contention is that they are the same, but this is not the conclusion you reached.

Cryonicleech wrote:.

Fantasy at the surface is match-ups, but thanks to magic and other rules (steadfast, for one) it allows for more tactical depth. 40k Ork Boyz simply cannot fight something like the Paladin Deathstar, while Skaven Slaves, if properly ranked up, can hold up even Chaos Chosen.

I have done this!

Cryonicleech wrote:.

Fantasy at the surface is match-ups, but thanks to magic and other rules (steadfast, for one) it allows for more tactical depth. 40k Ork Boyz simply cannot fight something like the Paladin Deathstar, while Skaven Slaves, if properly ranked up, can hold up even Chaos Chosen.

But doesn't that make it less tactical? I mean, maneuvering our Paladin Deathstar into a position to deliver a killing blow to an inferior unit would be rewarding tactical play, wouldn't it? Whereas angling your powerhouse Chaos Chosen unit into a squishy unit of Skaven Slaves just to have it held up by a steadfast LD check would be punishing that tactical play.

Now, Paladins aren't a great choice for this analogy, since they'll roflstomp almost anything in combat, so tactics don't come down to trying to beat them, but finding other ways to 'deal' with them, but the point still holds. If I've managed to get my killer unit into combat with a squishy one, shouldn't I have a pretty good chance of slaughtering it? Wouldn't that be the intuitive result of a 'tactical' system?

Kaldor wrote:

Cryonicleech wrote:.

Fantasy at the surface is match-ups, but thanks to magic and other rules (steadfast, for one) it allows for more tactical depth. 40k Ork Boyz simply cannot fight something like the Paladin Deathstar, while Skaven Slaves, if properly ranked up, can hold up even Chaos Chosen.

But doesn't that make it less tactical? I mean, maneuvering our Paladin Deathstar into a position to deliver a killing blow to an inferior unit would be rewarding tactical play, wouldn't it? Whereas angling your powerhouse Chaos Chosen unit into a squishy unit of Skaven Slaves just to have it held up by a steadfast LD check would be punishing that tactical play.

Now, Paladins aren't a great choice for this analogy, since they'll roflstomp almost anything in combat, so tactics don't come down to trying to beat them, but finding other ways to 'deal' with them, but the point still holds. If I've managed to get my killer unit into combat with a squishy one, shouldn't I have a pretty good chance of slaughtering it? Wouldn't that be the intuitive result of a 'tactical' system?

In this example the Chaos Chosen would quickly cut the skaven down over a few turns of combat and break them (or in slaves case explode). However thanks to the sacrificing a cheap unit the skaven player has kept a deathstar out of the game for a few turns. How is that not tactical? THe best wat I think to compare the two is to watch to players having a redux after a game. WHFB players will use there hands to indicate angles and discuss if they may have advanced to early on the left flank etc while 40k players make pew pew sounds.

If the Chaos player is so clumsy as to LET the Skaven player feed his cherished Chosenstar that unit of slaves - an expressly designed Tarpit - then he is getting all the rewards for his 'tactics' that he deserves.

Tactics is applying your strength to his weakness. Slaves are a Skaven strength, in that he doesn't care in the least whether they live but they take their sweet time dying... and his opponent shouldn't care about them either, because killing them does little for him tactically.

40k = knowing obscure rules and being pro at list building

Fantasy = the same, but with a bit more common sense with regards to manoeuvre and flanking, etc.


In short, I think that if you've written a good list and know more about the rules than your opponent, you'll likely win 40k if your luck holds. Fantasy has more of a 'strategic' feel to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chowderhead wrote:Oh look, the Warmachine players are here to hate on GW and claim their game is better and more tactical.

Every single goddamn thread...

Their points are invalid because they play with these:



Eurgh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But then again we have this recent arrival.. perhaps the distinctions shan't be so clear-cut in the future:

Henners91 wrote:40k = knowing obscure rules and being pro at list building

Fantasy = the same, but with a bit more common sense with regards to manoeuvre and flanking, etc.


In short, I think that if you've written a good list and know more about the rules than your opponent, you'll likely win 40k if your luck holds. Fantasy has more of a 'strategic' feel to it.

Yay, more people who don't know the difference between tactical and strategic.

angelshade00 wrote:I play both and I soundly believe Fantasy is way more tactical than 40k. The sheer number of phases and sub-phases alone is a clue to that.

Complicated gameplay != <> =|= \= tactics.

Jubear wrote:THe best wat I think to compare the two is to watch to players having a redux after a game. WHFB players will use there hands to indicate angles and discuss if they may have advanced to early on the left flank etc while 40k players make pew pew sounds.

Granted that I don't really play either game system anymore, but when I hear recaps of Fantasy battles they seem to go 'Bro got [Magic Death Spell] twice and I lost'.