I agree that 40k
core rules are the same as WHFB
core rules.(Based on WGRG Napoleonic rule set Rick Priestly wrote back in the 1970s)
This works great if the models/units have to maneuver into effective weapons range.( RT
and 2nd ed were skirmish games where units had a lot more room to maneuver , and ranged weapons has restriction, based on range ,and how far the unit moved. )
However, since 3rd ed when GW
corporate forced a large increase in 40k
model count at the 11th hour.There has been little in the way of maneuvering into effective weapons range.As the restrictions on shooting were removed, and movement rates were increased to try to compensate.So special rules were added to try to fix the imbalances,(by a team of proffessional game developer over decades!) And just arrived at a large complicated mess of a rule set that was practically impossible to define clearly , let alone play.
When I refer to modern war I am referring to the strategic and tactical loading.NOT the specific abilities of units .
In Napoleonic war it is all about out maneuvering your opponent to get the best assault match ups.(Ranged weapons are used in a supporting role.)
In modern warfare there is a balance between mobility, fire power and assault.Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement, and assault to contest objectives.
My argument is that 40k
units are much closer to WW
II units and equipment than Napoleonic units and equipment.In terms of composition and function.And a rule set that balances assault and shooting better would be very beneficial to 40k IMO
.Compared to the buff /nerf swings , and rules bloat special rules 40k
So unrestricted shooting and movement is not an issue in the 40k
game play already?
You can play 40k
on a table without any L.O.S blocking terrain and there is no issue for assault based armies ?
And the order combat is resolved is so fluid and intuitive there are no WTF
moments at all?
I will have to agree to disagree.