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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Oh.. so you dont have to worry about where you units are position at all?

Not when you have zero-scatter deep strike, weapons with full-table range (and terrain that rarely blocks LOS), and movement speeds high enough to effectively go anywhere you want. Most of the time you just declare a target for your unit and roll dice.

you need to position in the right spots not ot be charged or shot out of cover

95% of time the right spot is incredibly obvious, set during deployment, and completely static. You deploy your IG gunline in the farthest back corner of the table, surround it with bubble wrap, and then you roll dice to see if you can win the game before your opponent can kill your bubble wrap and remove the real threats. Likewise, the charging army's position is incredibly obvious: go straight at the gunline as fast as possible, and roll dice to wipe them off the table once you get in range. When positioning is so obvious and simple it might as well not exist at all, either way you aren't making any interesting decisions with it.

But no its a Card game to you, even tho 1/2 the missions dont use any cards and you dont need cards to play them game.

RULE #1 PLEASE - BROOKM


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:
Would you say that's largely a symptom of the size restrictions of 40k's current state - too large forces and too many vehicles on a too small battlefield - as well as a lack of any real "friction," i.e., command and control challenges?

Partly. Those are certainly contributing factors, but it's also a problem with poor LOS rules, over-homogenization of units, removal of the FOC as a meaningful balance factor, addition of the CP mechanic, etc.

If you havent notice some of the best lists up until AND during the Knights kingdom uses melee and movement tactics, you also have deployment that is a huge part of the game.

Also, CCG is a card game and does needs cards, kinda the point of a CCG, you know "CARD GAME", if you are saying warhammer 40k is a Collecting game, sure it is, but its also a war game, it can be both a game and a collection.

barboggo wrote:
It's a TCG with distance and LOS. CP is mana, stratagems are spells, units are creatures.

This is what the game has evolved into.

I believe one post mentioned being “designed by video gamers”. I would agree with that and take it one step further. The new designers grew up playing CCGs like MTG vs. the old guard who grew up on Pen and Paper RPG’s and Historicals. The new guard are bringing their CCG sensibilities to the table and pushing the game to fit that mold.

Its absolutely a wargame. Its a miniatures wargame in a science fiction setting, but its still a wargame. Positioning does matter. There are decisions to be made in the game. Not as many as some would like, but there are still decisions. You have to analyse the objectives and come up with a plan. That plan could indeed involve trying to table your opponent. Its still a wargame.

I think, though, that agonizing over the category is rather pointless. If you want to get back in then try it out. Then decide if you like the new 40K. For what its worth, I started 40K in 2nd Ed (but was miniature wargaming for a decade before that), left at the end of 6th Ed and came back at the start of 8th.

When I hear "war game" I think hexes and counters. And then I think, I don't want to play one of those boring games, I want to play with my toy monsters and tanks. So I don't really care if 40K is a war game. I think it's more about having something to do with all of these miniatures.

Winning in the list building stage is a feature of a war simulation game, not a bug. War isn't balanced. The poorly designed army should get stomped. I'm sure the majority of real-life conflicts were decided by the number and quality of forces brought to the field.

Still, I don't see why the OP would approach this a new phenomenon with 8th edition. It's just as much a war game as Rogue Trader was. If you're "replicating tactics" and playing out some scenario as you imagine it should have gone, while not thinking about the rules, you are not war gaming. You're playing an RPG.

 Peregrine wrote:
Nope. 40k is a war-themed CCG with cards you have to paint yourself.

Kind of have to agree with this. While I personally like the core rules a lot more than previous editions, on the competitive scale I find there are far too many similarities to Yu-Gi-Oh than a wargame. CP Farming with Stratagems remove a risk-reward factor in the game. Souping everything looks exactly like what metas look like in decks having some form of 'core' then after its whatever they can use to perform that FTK. The only difference I see is that the community seems to disncourage this while the Yu-Gi-Oh community encourage it. Hell 9/10 when I watch 'competitive' batreps on YT I can call out who will win that game just by looking at the lists, very occasionally I will be caught off guard.

Its a game with fighting in it. A game that meant to capture the heart of a battle in the theatre of war. Currently its trying to be the entire war on a board and its just not working imo, but then again did any edition do this right?

Pink Horror wrote:
When I hear "war game" I think hexes and counters. And then I think, I don't want to play one of those boring games, I want to play with my toy monsters and tanks. So I don't really care if 40K is a war game. I think it's more about having something to do with all of these miniatures.

Funny you think hex's as the first wargames and the games that made the term war games are not on hex's, nothing against you, just thought it was funny.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Its absolutely a wargame. Its a miniatures wargame in a science fiction setting, but its still a wargame. Positioning does matter. There are decisions to be made in the game. Not as many as some would like, but there are still decisions. You have to analyse the objectives and come up with a plan. That plan could indeed involve trying to table your opponent. Its still a wargame.

I think, though, that agonizing over the category is rather pointless. If you want to get back in then try it out. Then decide if you like the new 40K. For what its worth, I started 40K in 2nd Ed (but was miniature wargaming for a decade before that), left at the end of 6th Ed and came back at the start of 8th.

Compared to any edition positioning matters less than ever. Terrain outside of solid LOS boxes might as well not exist, nothing scatters any more so who cares about that. Models position for wounds don't matter. Weapon facings don't matter, armor value is gone so who cares about flanking a tank. Terrain effects are so watered downed, that again unless it's a big square box, it doesn't matter. I know 7th had a lot of problems but when played with like minded people it was a lot more fun. 8th is better for a game between strangers, but their is no deny that to do that the game was really stripped down. The only position that really matters is am I in range and can i see the thing I want to shot, assault, or psyker to death.

I find the people who hate 8th rarely play it, but more importantly take zero initiative to simply make the game better themselves (either via terrain, table builds, house rules, army builds, or scenarios).

It's a cake game to make 10x better. Maybe it's because I'm a game designer/tinkerer, but if you can't enjoy 8th, you're lazy.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Pink Horror wrote:
When I hear "war game" I think hexes and counters. And then I think, I don't want to play one of those boring games, I want to play with my toy monsters and tanks. So I don't really care if 40K is a war game. I think it's more about having something to do with all of these miniatures.

Funny you think hex's as the first wargames and the games that made the term war games are not on hex's, nothing against you, just thought it was funny.

I don't think hexes were the first war games. I wish I could find amusement in your misunderstanding. Oh well.

 Elbows wrote:
I find the people who hate 8th rarely play it, but more importantly take zero initiative to simply make the game better themselves (either via terrain, table builds, house rules, army builds, or scenarios).

It's a cake game to make 10x better. Maybe it's because I'm a game designer/tinkerer, but if you can't enjoy 8th, you're lazy.

"The game is good, you just need to change a bunch of things" is a concession that the game is not good. Good games don't need changes to be enjoyable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
If you havent notice some of the best lists up until AND during the Knights kingdom uses melee and movement tactics, you also have deployment that is a huge part of the game.

You're missing the point. Melee does not mean that positioning matters or involves meaningful decisions. Most of the time melee lists are just moving as fast as possible straight at the enemy, and the only "tactics" involve remembering to use all of the rules exploits with things like using pile-in moves to extend charge distance or playing the obvious stratagems to buff your melee units. You could simply do a CCG-style "tap my orks, take 10D6 damage" attack without bothering with model positions on the table and still have 95% of the non-trivial gameplay decisions of 40k.

Also, CCG is a card game and does needs cards, kinda the point of a CCG, you know "CARD GAME", if you are saying warhammer 40k is a Collecting game, sure it is, but its also a war game, it can be both a game and a collection.

Sigh. Are you honestly this unable to see beyond the most literal dictionary definition of words or are you trying to be as frustrating as possible? 40k uses CCG-like mechanics and gameplay even if the "cards" are plastic models instead of slips of paper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pink Horror wrote:
War isn't balanced. The poorly designed army should get stomped.

This would be understandable and even desirable if "poorly designed" had anything to do with real-world tactics or how well an army represents the fluff instead of failure to identify and exploit GW's balance mistakes. "You didn't bring any anti-tank units in a game where tanks exist" is a good reason to lose a game, "you didn't bring 3ppm IG conscripts in your Eldar army to exploit GW's mistake at not making them 4-5ppm" is not.

Still, I don't see why the OP would approach this a new phenomenon with 8th edition.

Because 8th edition has gone even farther in the direction of CCG-style mechanics with things like the debacle of LOS/terrain rules, over-homogenizing units, emphasizing the importance of exploiting the most overpowered stratagems, etc.

Peregrine wrote:Nope. 40k is a war-themed CCG with cards you have to paint yourself.

kestral wrote:It was when I started (3rd/4th ed) a science fiction game created by wargamers. It is now a science fiction game created by video gamers. I miss the old 40K. For a time FW stood strong for the "military" aspect of the game, but that is largely gone now.

That terrain plays little role in the game now shows how far it has gone in the other direction.

After much consideration, I'd say the current rules edition are a combination of both of these. It is a CCG/3P shooter hybrid played through models.

With range-of-weapons being a thing, how can positioning not be important? Even with no terrain positioning is important.

Some people try to stack their lists in order to make positioning/tactics less important. . . But even that tells you it's a factor. If you approach 40k purely as a ccg, you're still going to lose to someone who out-positions you. Even in setting up an unmoving IG castle position matters.

At least 8th needs more tactics than the last two editions and is better balanced than prior editions have ever been. It really depends on what you make out of it, but that's the case with most games, really.
It's a game about war... with soldiers that simulate a battle. Therefor it's a wargame, no?

 Insectum7 wrote:
With range-of-weapons being a thing, how can positioning not be important? Even with no terrain positioning is important.

Some people try to stack their lists in order to make positioning/tactics less important. . . But even that tells you it's a factor. If you approach 40k purely as a ccg, you're still going to lose to someone who out-positions you. Even in setting up an unmoving IG castle position matters.

Range being generally "where-ever I want to shoot". Ranges high, board sizes small. Especially with the increasing sizes of armies(6'x4' was juuuust about acceptable in 2nd ed. Now remind me how many models usually were in armies then vs how many are now? Not to mention model sizes have gone up a "bit"...).

Range isn't issue. Only positioning that really matters is micromanaging buffs and consoliditate/pile in ranges.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
At least 8th needs more tactics than the last two editions and is better balanced than prior editions have ever been. It really depends on what you make out of it, but that's the case with most games, really.
It's a game about war... with soldiers that simulate a battle. Therefor it's a wargame, no?

But 8th ed has less potential for balance and tactics than last edition had. As Horus Heresy showed. Replace codexes with better and the superior core shows through

While it is true that the DNA of 40K was that of a Wargame, we see a small remnant of that remaining.

The game as it is now has morphed into a game that plays like a CCG. That is to say it is all about building a combo in your list, and seeing how that performs. Units and models are chosen basses upon the special rules they have, or how they work with other special rules to win. If a list has no synergy it is going to struggle

In a Wargame, the emphasis is on tactics during the game. A poor list doesn't have combos, it may have poor quality troops and weapons, but due to tactical manoeuvres it can win.

In 40k we see none of the following:

Enfilade fire.
Pinning.
Surpressing fire.
Flanking.
Arc of vision.
Fog of war.
Command break down.

These are quite essential for a miniature game to be a miniature wargame. The old guard who made and designed 40k have left, the new design team have changed the game to be something that is different from its original form.

That isn't to say 40K can't be fun, just approach it with the right mind set, or collect the miniatures (they are very nice after all), and to play One Page Rules Grim Dark, it while not perfect, is a damn sight better than current 40k.

TL/DR, anyone who claims 40K is a wargame, probably hasn't played a wargame.

Thanks to all posters, seems it kicked off some lively debate, as well as "what makes a game a wargame?"
Perhaps I should include my definition - a tactical 'wargame' is one where a player who utilises the tactics of the period being played, can see results which should reflect that period.

Chess for example, I think we can agree is a great 'game' - the following it has around the world makes that statement hard to disagree with. It is also a 'war' themed game. However, it is a very poor 'wargame' - though the pieces represent medieval military units, there is no ability to play the game using medieval military tactics.

Likewise, I think 40k in it's current incarnation may not be a very good 'wargame' - which doesn't preclude it being a good game.

For the record, I still do, and have always loved the 40k universe, but while I plan on collecting armies again, I'm not beholden to the GW line that "these are the mini's, and you need our rules to play with them" - if I want to introduce new people skirmish sci fi wargames, (who are likely to only play in a small circle, not a store) - I think I can find better rules outside the BRB.

 eddieazrael wrote:
Thanks to all posters, seems it kicked off some lively debate, as well as "what makes a game a wargame?"
Perhaps I should include my definition - a tactical 'wargame' is one where a player who utilises the tactics of the period being played, can see results which should reflect that period.

Chess for example, I think we can agree is a great 'game' - the following it has around the world makes that statement hard to disagree with. It is also a 'war' themed game. However, it is a very poor 'wargame' - though the pieces represent medieval military units, there is no ability to play the game using medieval military tactics.

Likewise, I think 40k in it's current incarnation may not be a very good 'wargame' - which doesn't preclude it being a good game.

For the record, I still do, and have always loved the 40k universe, but while I plan on collecting armies again, I'm not beholden to the GW line that "these are the mini's, and you need our rules to play with them" - if I want to introduce new people skirmish sci fi wargames, (who are likely to only play in a small circle, not a store) - I think I can find better rules outside the BRB.

I wish you well in finding a rule set that suits your group.

I vaguely remember reading that there was a 40k mod for Bolt Action, that is said to be very good.

Personally, I am fond of this set of free rules.

https://onepagerules.com/portfolio/grimdark-future/

8ed fantasy, which i came from, was a wargame. 8ed 40k feels more like a “warband game”

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Yes it is, just b.c its not a wargame like others doesnt mean its not a wargame.

A wargame (if i remember correctly) is defined as a game with 3 things; Terrain, Miniatures, tactical combat.

Squad Leader doesn't have two of those three, nor does Combat Commander. A "wargame" is only a game that tries to "simulate" warfare. Board game, card game, computer game, miniatures game are just different ... media? genres? of wargame. Running around the garden with sticks shouting "bang! you're dead!" is a wargame, albeit a fairly simplistic one.

 Amishprn86 wrote:


If you havent notice some of the best lists up until AND during the Knights kingdom uses melee and movement tactics, you also have deployment that is a huge part of the game.

Also, CCG is a card game and does needs cards, kinda the point of a CCG, you know "CARD GAME", if you are saying warhammer 40k is a Collecting game, sure it is, but its also a war game, it can be both a game and a collection.

Most of those lists ignore the movment phase, because they either move the whole table in a single turn, don't care about moving their units, or are something like the raven castellan that ignores all the negatives of moving. The only armies that care about movment or terrain are those like my own army aka they are very bad this edition.

Squad Leader doesn't have two of those three, nor does Combat Commander. A "wargame" is only a game that tries to "simulate" warfare. Board game, card game, computer game, miniatures game are just different ... media? genres? of wargame. Running around the garden with sticks shouting "bang! you're dead!" is a wargame, albeit a fairly simplistic on

If we go all reductionist like that, we may as well say that two 6 year olds playing with legos in a sand box are playing a wargame, because it has models, it has terrain and there is "war".

It is a wargame by the loosest of definitions.

It is to me primarily a game that borrows heavily from deckbuilding games only uses miniatures instead of cards.

The era of wargames as we know them from 20 years ago are largely extinct in the broad public eye. You have to dig deep to find activity related to classic wargames these days.

28mm aint war, 6-15mm is.

fe40k wrote:
It’s a list building game with dice rolling elements.

QFT

SG

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
28mm aint war, 6-15mm is.

Eh, that depends. Certainly, the scale that 40k wants to play at would work better at 15mm or 6mm. But if it was scaled back to Bolt Action/Konflikt 47 sized games, 28mm would be fine. And the various flavors of skirmish games are fine as well.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

A wargame (if i remember correctly) is defined as a game with 3 things; Terrain, Miniatures, tactical combat.

There is no tactical combats 8n 40k. Just screens and rule exploits.

Would be fun to see some HUGE battles in an Epic Armageddon battle again. I got into the game after Epic Armageddon, but I think it would be a lot of fun to play at 6mm scale on a 4 x 6 table.

SG

 eddieazrael wrote:
Thanks to all posters, seems it kicked off some lively debate, as well as "what makes a game a wargame?"
Perhaps I should include my definition - a tactical 'wargame' is one where a player who utilises the tactics of the period being played, can see results which should reflect that period.

Well, in 40K if you play Tau or Imperial guard you use the tactics these factions "historically" use - mainly ranged attacks with the occasional Ogryn charge or Stealth suit infiltration.
If you play World Eaters you'll see some crazy berzerkers charging heads up into gunlines. Same with Orks.
My Death guard foot slogs close to the enemy, protected by their unnatural toughness, and then uses its ranged firepower to bring them down.

All in all, 8th edition 40K makes it possible to use the "tactics of the period" to overcome your opponent.

Like OP, i played 40k early - but started again recently. I started in 3rd and unless 2nd was vastly different - 40k back then still wasn't much in the way of a 'war game' - it was very clunky and didn't make a lot of sense rules-wise.

I think OP's impression is right to some degree. There are a lot of people that play the game with the intent of 'gaming' the system and there will likely be players at your local shop that play their list exactly that way - they only play the most broken combos that they found on the internet. However, most people I play against have so far just built their lists based on "i like these models". It takes too much time and money to buy all new models every time GW nerfs something thats over-powered. Those player will inevitably be the guys on the table with unpainted or half-painted/broken models they got off of ebay, or proxying half their army with green plastic armymen.

I've played a few other tabletop games - and imo, most had better rulesets that were built around making the game flexible and quasi-realistic. 40k really doesn't make much of an effort to do that. The latest edition, it feels like their entire focus was to simplify the rules as much as possible for the sake of allowing them to balance the game, as well as making it more accessible.

I'd love if it there was an advanced ruleset available with more advanced tactical options - but i don't see that as being very likely unless it is fan-made.

That said though, there are still tactical choices that can be made in the game. A lot of that is list-building, but a good list played poorly can still lose.

I'm hoping Adeptus-Titanicus will take off. It feels as if it has some decent detailed rules that aren't so over-the-top details as to cause games to drag on for hours. I think if there's any hope for a more strategic game from GW, it will be from the specialist games side.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
At least 8th needs more tactics than the last two editions and is better balanced than prior editions have ever been. It really depends on what you make out of it, but that's the case with most games, really.
It's a game about war... with soldiers that simulate a battle. Therefor it's a wargame, no?

I think you meant to type "has more tactics" but if that is the case then I strongly disagree. 6/7th was a game with elements that placed value on angle of attack, placement of critical models with a unit, intervening terrain, spacing, proximity of units around other units, firing arcs and facings on vehicles, etc which had a major outcome on results. The risk/reward of reserves, deep striking (and more importantly how close and thus how risky the deep strike would be to get that ideal shot off), using cover (it slows you down but also gives protection), using reactive abilities like going to ground or jinking, etc gave more decision making and risk management to your actions. 6/7th had a lot of tactical depth that came from the core rules of the game unlike 8th where most of your depth really comes from stratagems which feel A LOT more CCG or MOBA like (the closest parallel is probably the munition system in Company of Heroes).

The game (8th) is better balanced sure but it was at the cost of most of the meat and fat of 7th which left a very bland rule set with far less depth. Also by your description you could say Risk is a Wargame which isn't exactly scratching that strategic, let alone any sort of tactical, itch.

Karol wrote:
we may as well say that two 6 year olds playing with legos in a sand box are playing a wargame, because it has models, it has terrain and there is "war".

That's exactly what I did say. Except without the LEGO bricks. The "war" in "wargame" is just an indication of the subject of the game, that's all. Granted, some games aren't very good wargames (whatever "good" means" - some people would say a good wargame needs to accurately simulate warfare in the period it depicts, some would say it should be a balanced, competitive game, etc).