Switch Theme:

Which is more tactically demanding?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Sinewy Scourge




Lawrence, KS

juraigamer wrote:
DukeBadham wrote:This is slightly off-topic, but is warmachine tactically and/or strategically demanding, or is it simple


All I know about the game is that you win if you kill the other sides commander. You make the call on how tactically difficult that may be.


It surprises me how many people have taken this to be a negative comment. It was a pretty neutral thing to say, from my reading. He stated what he knows, which also happens to be true: you win if you kill the other person's general. How tactically difficult is that? Well, there certainly is alot of angles to consider in that regard. The objective is simple. The obstacles in your path are many, and as varied as the tools that you have at your disposal. You do have alot to say in how tactically difficult that is. It may be easy, it may be hard. I stopped playing the game because it was a mutable complexity: the game ever changing.

Fantasy and 40k both settle into comfortable patterns where you know how to handle certain scenarios by looking at one or two key elements. WM/H requires you to see the patterns staring you right in the face.

Therion wrote:
6th edition lands on June 23rd!

Good news. This is the best time in the hobby. Full of promise. GW lets us down each time and we know it but secretly we're hoping that this is the edition that GW gives us a balanced game that can also be played competitively at tournaments. I'm loving it.
 
   
Made in gb
Brooding Night Goblin






United Kingdom

Las wrote:IMO, if youre looking for a tactically demanding game, GW isnt the place to look.


Unless you're willing to give poor, maligned WOTR a go, which is a genuinely tactically demanding, and elegant, system. It certainly suffers from some issues of balance (poor, poor elves and angmar), but the system itself is excellent, necessitating clever manoeuvring and thought at all times, and benefiting from its we-go turn system (in 40K/WHFB each player spends a turn moving, shooting and charging the enemy, then the other player does the same. In WOTR one player moves, then the other, then one shoots, then the other etc. Combined with limited 'heroic actions' allowing players to execute orders in an opponent's phase - it makes for a very dynamic game).

But it's LOTR, so gets largely ignored online. A shame.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2011/09/23 00:30:19


infrequent posting is an artform 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Maryland

Nagashek wrote:

It surprises me how many people have taken this to be a negative comment. It was a pretty neutral thing to say, from my reading. He stated what he knows, which also happens to be true: you win if you kill the other person's general.


It's more or less how he said it.

'All I know about the game is that you win if you kill the other sides commander. You make the call on how tactically difficult that may be. '

There, at the second part. The comment seems to be disregarding to the game, as if asking how tactical it could be if you only had to kill one side. Instead of posting, he could have spend the same amount of time on Google, learning a bit more on the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/23 00:32:38


   
Made in au
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





Brisbane, Australia

40k is less tactically demanding, in 40k, everything is set in stone. you usually don't have to worry that your movement phase will affect your shooting phase that much. [it does, it just isn't so prominent as a -1 to hit. ]

having said that, almost everything in 40k shoots, so you become wary of shooting as much as combat.

You know in fantasy that this model is not a threat because at best, it can only reach you in x turns and kill you. for that time, you can weaken them.

some armies have few in-game tactics, so are rather easy tactically. this makes for a less demanding army, ergo, there is not true way of saying which is worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
wiper wrote:But it's LOTR, so gets largely ignored online. A shame.


agreed. I regret forgetting how to play WOTR.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/23 02:17:31


 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: