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.

 stonehorse wrote:


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.

You do see these, even if there isn't a direct mechanic for them all.
Enfilade fire. Maneuvering to get around cover
Pinning/suppressing fire. having enough fire power to force your enemy into cover, rather then advancing.
Flanking. Deep striking, and flanking stratagems.
Arc of vision is currently missing.
Fog of war. It actually makes some sense, considering the scale of the game. As 40K is more of a company on company game, rather then army on army, it's feasible that the over seeing commander (aka you) would have a good idea of what's in the area.
Command Break Down. While Battle Shock is a poor man's version of it, it's one of the things that represents this. IG officers having to be in the area to give orders (and possibly getting killed), as well. Most of the rest however seem to only need their HQ to smash things.

--
FOr me, 40K seems to be a low end of the scale war game. It's a company on company style game, as opposed to a squad or two in most skirmish games, but missing the larger army or army group scale. Much of the resources associated with a full army are missing, such as long range artillery support, but you do have things like divisional assets, depending on how you fluff your detachments. This to me is in part due to the scale of the game, though you can also point at a lack of expertise on the part of the writers, a desire for technical simplicity for list building, and leaving things open ended for the players.

I'll go with option 1. If a war-game is defined as a game that tries on some level to simulate battles and contains an element of strategy past extremely basic and obvious things such as "Hmm, do I shoot my lascannons at the gaunts or the carnifex?" Warhammer 40,000 (and AOS for that matter) is not a war-game. Both Warhammers are dice-rolling activities. GW decided that the act of rolling dice is itself the core gameplay and not just a method of determining the success or failure of an action.

Once models are on the table the gameplay essentially consists of shuffling models toward the center of the table, picking targets, and rolling dice. The element of strategy, of attempting to read your opponent and discern what their plan is, of maneuver, of things to consider and use to your advantage (or minimize disadvantages through good play) in a general sense just isn't there.

I don't think it is fair or accurate to compare WH to CCGs, however. MTG especially, and to an extent Pokemon as well still have elements of making meaningful decisions, of playing against your opponent rather than WH's current "use your list's combo/synergies with little regard for your opponent's army and hope you roll more sixes than they do." Not to mention the host of varying interactions between cards in MTG. Even if you're playing a Combo deck, you still have to care about the other person's deck and actions, if to a lesser degree, whereas GW has stated that one of the positives about 8th is only needing to know the rules for your own units.

The comparison to MTG comes from how importance listbuilding is. It feels like a deckbuilding game. Especially when they minimized maneuver and terrain the way they have, its only a step or two away from playing the same game with cards where you don't move at all and terrain doesn't matter.

Its more of a "feel". Especially if you ever came from a classic wargame where maneuver and the battlefield were huge components of warfare and played a big part in the game.

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

Which is a fancy way of saying "playing the meta".

It's a CCG with distance and LOS. And with BOTH players knowing EXACTLY what's in each other's hands!

(Idc, I still love it)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I didn't play from 4th-7th but it feels like 8th really did away with all of the movement/orientation/spatial gameplay rules that previous editions had which seems to be what really distinguishes a wargame from other games. It's about making positioning and orientation of dudes on the board matter in strategic terms. Things like scatter dice, vehicle armor values, blast templates, difficult terrain, and flanking seemed to have made the positioning and orientation of models on the board matter more when the game had them.

I have literally zero familiarity with other wargames (not even WFB) but I'd be curious to hear what characteristics you guys think makes other wargames particularly "uniquely wargame-y ".

auticus wrote:
The comparison to MTG comes from how importance listbuilding is. It feels like a deckbuilding game. Especially when they minimized maneuver and terrain the way they have, its only a step or two away from playing the same game with cards where you don't move at all and terrain doesn't matter.

Its more of a "feel". Especially if you ever came from a classic wargame where maneuver and the battlefield were huge components of warfare and played a big part in the game.

This is a good description and puts into words well a general 'feel' about the game makes it feel so oversimplified.

It's because instead of moving models into position, we get a deployment phase and a good chunk of weapons are in-range as soon as the battle starts - or worse - deep strike and just plop down onto the field.

 Mmmpi wrote:
You do see these, even if there isn't a direct mechanic for them all.
Enfilade fire. Maneuvering to get around cover
Pinning/suppressing fire. having enough fire power to force your enemy into cover, rather then advancing.
Flanking. Deep striking, and flanking stratagems.
Arc of vision is currently missing.
Fog of war. It actually makes some sense, considering the scale of the game. As 40K is more of a company on company game, rather then army on army, it's feasible that the over seeing commander (aka you) would have a good idea of what's in the area.
Command Break Down. While Battle Shock is a poor man's version of it, it's one of the things that represents this. IG officers having to be in the area to give orders (and possibly getting killed), as well. Most of the rest however seem to only need their HQ to smash things.

Most of these things may technically exist, but have negligible practical effect.

Maneuvering to get around cover barely matters, most cover doesn't block LOS and only gives benefits to models within its footprint. So it doesn't matter what angle you come at the cover from, the unit will still get the same +1 save bonus but still be in LOS.

Pinning/suppressing fire almost never accomplishes anything. Only units that already camp somewhere will stay in cover, units that need to move will almost never be better off staying in one place. Sure, you lose fewer models, but you also take that unit out of the fight. 99% of the time your melee unit is better off ignoring the "suppressing fire" and running straight at the target.

Flanking with deep strike is not meaningfully flanking because the direction of attack is irrelevant. As long as you're within your X" range to attack it doesn't matter if you deep strike directly in front of the unit or behind it. That makes deep striking units less about positioning advantage and more a CCG equivalent to a one-shot direct damage spell.

Command break down is not at all represented by battle shock because it's something that neither player has any control over. You roll your D6 and lose a random number of models, with maybe some buff cards you can play to counter it. Your units don't break and flee from their position, your orders don't get confused, you don't have to do anything to regroup and fix the chain of command. You just add a random D6-based modifier to all casualty totals, making all weapons a bit more effective. Aura bubbles might be a very superficial version of this, except auras are almost always tied to character models that are invulnerable to attack and virtually impossible to disrupt.

 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.

Good luck in your search for other rules to use your models! Luckily, I have a close-knit group of gamers that has house-ruled 40K over the years so we play our own version, which is a blend of mostly 4th and 5th Ed with a sprinkling of 6th and an overlay of our own game mechanics. It became necessary to overhaul the primary codices as well since they are integral to the rules. We're pretty happy with it all, and we add new armies and tweak rules every now and then. Let me know if if you want me to send your our rules to either play or cherry-pick whatever for use in your own games.

barboggo wrote:
I have literally zero familiarity with other wargames (not even WFB) but I'd be curious to hear what characteristics you guys think makes other wargames particularly "uniquely wargame-y ".

IMO the defining thing that makes a wargame is what other games don't have: unit positions on the table being "real". In a CCG you just put your cards on the table in a row and exchange attacks. In a board game you have your pieces on an abstract map, with spaces and the physical distance between them having no meaning. In a wargame your units are accurately represented by their positions on the table. If unit A is 6" away and to the left of unit B then the "real" distance between them is 6" multiplied by the scale factor (28mm, etc) and the attack is resolved from the left. If you want to move unit A behind unit B and close to 50m for short-range weapons you have to actually measure the appropriate distances and move the model to that position. Even in wargames with hex grids or similar mechanics the real positioning aspect is still the same, you just have a fixed distance increment (one hex) instead of being able to move fractional inches.

The reason 8th edition 40k is more of a CCG than a wargame is how it fails to make positioning matter. Most of the time you're just lining up your respective combos and stat lines CCG-style and exchanging attacks until someone wins, it hardly matters where the models are on the table.

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?

Better balanced?

See, this is why i never understood why more people didnt play fantasy compared to 40k. Fantasy has actual tactical play. In 40k, you just compare units and shoot at what is most effective to shoot at, mixed with treat level aspects and VPs.

In fantasy, you not only compare units, treat level etc, but you place units according to an overall strategy - and use tactics like outflanking, while making sure your own flank doesnt fall. At least in casual games. This has elements from actual warfare, where if one flank would fall, there was a risk of this to continue like domino bricks. I have played games that resolved like that. This means that when list building, if you pick an infantry unit, you also think about how to protect its flanks when deploying. If the opponent had a really hard hitting front line, like cavalry or ogres, and your front line fell, then it would become a chaotic scenario with flank and rear charges left and right.

Yeah.. i miss rank and file :b

Northern85Star wrote:
See, this is why i never understood why more people didnt play fantasy compared to 40k. Fantasy has actual tactical play. In 40k, you just compare units and shoot at what is most effective to shoot at, mixed with treat level aspects and VPs.

In fantasy, you not only compare units, treat level etc, but you place units according to an overall strategy - and use tactics like outflanking, while making sure your own flank doesnt fall. At least in casual games. This has elements from actual warfare, where if one flank would fall, there was a risk of this to continue like domino bricks. I have played games that resolved like that. This means that when list building, if you pick an infantry unit, you also think about how to protect its flanks when deploying. If the opponent had a really hard hitting front line, like cavalry or ogres, and your front line fell, then it would become a chaotic scenario with flank and rear charges left and right.

Yeah.. i miss rank and file :b

Bad marketing is a simple summary.

That and the higher model count needed for a basic army.

 Peregrine wrote:

barboggo wrote:
I have literally zero familiarity with other wargames (not even WFB) but I'd be curious to hear what characteristics you guys think makes other wargames particularly "uniquely wargame-y ".

IMO the defining thing that makes a wargame is what other games don't have: unit positions on the table being "real". In a CCG you just put your cards on the table in a row and exchange attacks. In a board game you have your pieces on an abstract map, with spaces and the physical distance between them having no meaning. In a wargame your units are accurately represented by their positions on the table. If unit A is 6" away and to the left of unit B then the "real" distance between them is 6" multiplied by the scale factor (28mm, etc) and the attack is resolved from the left. If you want to move unit A behind unit B and close to 50m for short-range weapons you have to actually measure the appropriate distances and move the model to that position. Even in wargames with hex grids or similar mechanics the real positioning aspect is still the same, you just have a fixed distance increment (one hex) instead of being able to move fractional inches.

The reason 8th edition 40k is more of a CCG than a wargame is how it fails to make positioning matter. Most of the time you're just lining up your respective combos and stat lines CCG-style and exchanging attacks until someone wins, it hardly matters where the models are on the table.

If you feel positioning doesn't matter, feel free to not screen your IG tanks.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

barboggo wrote:
I have literally zero familiarity with other wargames (not even WFB) but I'd be curious to hear what characteristics you guys think makes other wargames particularly "uniquely wargame-y ".

IMO the defining thing that makes a wargame is what other games don't have: unit positions on the table being "real". In a CCG you just put your cards on the table in a row and exchange attacks. In a board game you have your pieces on an abstract map, with spaces and the physical distance between them having no meaning. In a wargame your units are accurately represented by their positions on the table. If unit A is 6" away and to the left of unit B then the "real" distance between them is 6" multiplied by the scale factor (28mm, etc) and the attack is resolved from the left. If you want to move unit A behind unit B and close to 50m for short-range weapons you have to actually measure the appropriate distances and move the model to that position. Even in wargames with hex grids or similar mechanics the real positioning aspect is still the same, you just have a fixed distance increment (one hex) instead of being able to move fractional inches.

The reason 8th edition 40k is more of a CCG than a wargame is how it fails to make positioning matter. Most of the time you're just lining up your respective combos and stat lines CCG-style and exchanging attacks until someone wins, it hardly matters where the models are on the table.

If you feel positioning doesn't matter, feel free to not screen your IG tanks.

I think its fair to say that while positioning does matter, the importance has been greatly been reduced due to the elimination and/or minimized impact of area of effect, scatter, firing arcs, vehicle facings, closest casualties, terrain rules, cover mechanics, etc. Bubble wrapping does remain a valid tactic but the number of positioning based factions to consider has gone down dramatically in the edition change.

I think a lot of people are trying to cram "wargame" into their preferred "type of wargame" instead of the vague notion.

40K has shifted in its complexity and "type" numerous times, though I think the majority of current players came from the 3rd-7th realm...which hilariously was far less detailed than 2nd. 8th is different, and less complex, but I think GW is playing far better to their audience than 7th ever was. 7th edition, for instances was a laughable joke compared to 2nd with regard to complexity, depth, rules layering, realism, etc.

What is realism? Well that's people more or less shoe-horning historical wargaming into a science fiction setting. You can judge historical games far easier because you have a litmus test to compare it to - you have background, memoirs, loads of data, personal experiences, and physical evidence. None of that exists in a science fiction setting with huge robots, aliens and psychic stuff.

I mean, no offense to the people who miss the bizarre rules of 7th, but if you thought they were good, you're missing out on a world of fantastic actual rules sets for historical wargames. I really enjoy 8th edition (though we heavily modify it - that's one of its strengths I believe, being much more streamlined it makes modifications far easier to create), but I think it ranks very low on a wargaming scale - but it's still a wargame.

I'd rank numerous other proper historical wargames well above Warhammer 40K...but that's not what I play 40K for. Would I like a more detailed game? Perhaps, but a lot of the guys I play with wouldn't, and the answer to 8th was not 7th, a corpse of 3rd edition covered in glitter over 15 years. My answer to complaints is always "shut up and fix it". There's feedback and then there's whining. Whining gets you nowhere. Thumping your chest and playing internet tough guy because you don't like the rules is useless. Either email GW with genuine feedback and shut up, or go play another game. Honestly, you're not adding anything to the conversations or the community.

Better yet...go play 7th. Seriously. It didn't disappear. Nothing went away. A few modern armies don't exist but you can figure out the rules well enough. Keep playing whatever you want to play. I still play 2nd edition on occasion. It didn't stop existing because later editions came out.

I would say realism in 40k is when there is consistensy between fluff and how the game plays, because we have no real 41st millenium warfare to compare to.

 Vankraken wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

barboggo wrote:
I have literally zero familiarity with other wargames (not even WFB) but I'd be curious to hear what characteristics you guys think makes other wargames particularly "uniquely wargame-y ".

IMO the defining thing that makes a wargame is what other games don't have: unit positions on the table being "real". In a CCG you just put your cards on the table in a row and exchange attacks. In a board game you have your pieces on an abstract map, with spaces and the physical distance between them having no meaning. In a wargame your units are accurately represented by their positions on the table. If unit A is 6" away and to the left of unit B then the "real" distance between them is 6" multiplied by the scale factor (28mm, etc) and the attack is resolved from the left. If you want to move unit A behind unit B and close to 50m for short-range weapons you have to actually measure the appropriate distances and move the model to that position. Even in wargames with hex grids or similar mechanics the real positioning aspect is still the same, you just have a fixed distance increment (one hex) instead of being able to move fractional inches.

The reason 8th edition 40k is more of a CCG than a wargame is how it fails to make positioning matter. Most of the time you're just lining up your respective combos and stat lines CCG-style and exchanging attacks until someone wins, it hardly matters where the models are on the table.

If you feel positioning doesn't matter, feel free to not screen your IG tanks.

I think its fair to say that while positioning does matter, the importance has been greatly been reduced due to the elimination and/or minimized impact of area of effect, scatter, firing arcs, vehicle facings, closest casualties, terrain rules, cover mechanics, etc. Bubble wrapping does remain a valid tactic but the number of positioning based factions to consider has gone down dramatically in the edition change.

You mean the terrain rules where monstrous creatures gained a 4++ by having a toenail in a ruin? That's the slick tactical gaming is it?

I hated casualty removal, too.

I miss flamers. And sorta miss vehicle facing/firing arcs, but then again monsters didn't follow the same rules which felt a bit off.

7th ed to me felt way more ccg to me with the pile of USRs, formation rules, multi-character unit/spell buffs and more niche weapon-armor interactions and how they manifested. Was Barkstar "tactical"? Nooo...

Terrain rules may be lacking in this edition (although there are some), but a really good fix for that is to build terrain that still works in the system. Los blockers, infantry cover, etc. go a long way. Short ruins that can't be entered by vehicles, grouped pillars of stone that block LOS but aren't individually too wide to restrict movement through them. There's plenty of opportunity here.

And There's still the range to contend with. Getting into rapid fire range with your plasma remains important. Obliterators with a 24" range and a 4" move still have to be thoughtfully deployed upon deep striking. Surrounding a unit so it can't fall back is big, or defensively deploying units together so they can't be surrounded also works. Aura buffs require proximity, but objectives often require you to spread out. Hiding behind an advancing tank/s provides cover for troops. Concentration of firepower requires coordinated movement, and cover gives troops an edge in a firefight. There's plainly tactical gaming available if you want it, but it will require a bit of investment on your part. 40k has always been a "you get out what you put in" type of thing.

The OP nailed it. It has become a ccg using 3d "cards" tabletop dynamics so abstracted as to hardly matter and this has rewarded a type of player focused on rules manipulation and loophole exploitation i.e. "the meta".

So, again, why waste your time on a forum dedicated to a game you vehemently hate? Find something better to do.

It’s definitely (2) from your two proposed scenarios. There’s a vocal segment of 40K players on the internet who see it as an exercise in, as you say, “gaming the system” to try and gain a competitive advantage. However, there are plenty of people out there with a more relaxed, old-school attitude (what I like to think of as the “roleplay that gak” vibe) and, really, 40K is now, as ever, a framework for you to approach as you see fit. I would recommend not spending too much time on the internet though, as it does skew heavily towards the competitive mindset. (And, as you’ve probably gathered from this thread, a lot of pointless and tangential bickering.)

Northern85Star wrote:
See, this is why i never understood why more people didnt play fantasy compared to 40k. Fantasy has actual tactical play. In 40k, you just compare units and shoot at what is most effective to shoot at, mixed with treat level aspects and VPs.

In fantasy, you not only compare units, treat level etc, but you place units according to an overall strategy - and use tactics like outflanking, while making sure your own flank doesnt fall. At least in casual games. This has elements from actual warfare, where if one flank would fall, there was a risk of this to continue like domino bricks. I have played games that resolved like that. This means that when list building, if you pick an infantry unit, you also think about how to protect its flanks when deploying. If the opponent had a really hard hitting front line, like cavalry or ogres, and your front line fell, then it would become a chaotic scenario with flank and rear charges left and right.

Yeah.. i miss rank and file :b

There's a couple of reasons fantasy wasn't as popular. The rule set was a lot more complex which meant learning the game took more of a time investment. The armies took an insane amount of models, particularly something like skaven. Plus you needed movement trays which added another cost. The larger model count made transporting an army more difficult. Ultimately there were just too many barriers to entry. You needed to learn a relatively complex rule set compared to 40k. You needed to buy more models and buy movement trays. You needed more time to assemble and paint an army because of the increased model count. Transporting models became more of a chore especially if you lived somewhere where you needed to use public transport to get to your LGS.

All of these combined means you lose potential players who get overwhelmed by having to learn so many rules in one go, players who can't afford to build an army on the scale they need in a reasonable time frame, players who can't assemble or paint the models in a reasonable time frame and players who can't transport the models conveniently. So even if someone does have their army and a way to transport it it's much more difficult to get a pick up game. Games need to be arranged in advance so people stop bringing their fantasy army in case someone else has one and they just bring their 40k army or they stop coming to the store on game nights if they don't have a game arranged. This reduces visibility for the game too because no one sees it played. I used to live a 5 minute walk from a GW and in the roughly two years I lived there I saw maybe a dozen games fantasy. Several of which were me trying out the game which I always had to prearrange.

There were certainly things I liked about the game but there just weren't enough people playing it even though I was living in the capital city of my state in Australia. In a larger city somewhere like the USA or UK there should be more players but there's still the problems of transporting an army around in a city.

With 8th ed 40k the simplified rule set made jumping back in much easier so I'm now part of a play group that largely consists of returning players. There's enough depth for us to be enjoying the game and I'm sure some of the people would like a bit more complexity in some areas of the game but everyone is able to jump in and get some games. Before 8th ed 40k was practically dead locally so I hadn't played since around when 6th ed dropped. It's still a wargame but it's a wargame where you can actually find an opponent.

A lot of the 'not a wargame' crowd seems to be using defining 40k as 'not a wargame' as a thinly veiled (or explicit) critique of 40k's tactical depth. To this I say, in my general experience there is a clear inverse relationship between how much you whine about 'tactical complexity' and how skilled you are at the game.

There's plenty of tactical depth in 40K. The game a lot of people posting seem to want to play is called "Napoleonic historicals". for which there are plenty of good rulesets out there and affordable miniatures. Forcing 40K into that mould is not gonna happen.

IMO 8th edition is just a board game, it's no longer trying to simulate actual combat. Which has been very good for the game itself (because GW sucked at simulating combat), but probably not for people who want to play a wargame.

It requires strategy, just like any board or card game with any resemblance of depth, but no actual strategies that you would see on a battlefield.

Has it ever had such strategies? I don’t recall putting a toe in cover giving you cover IRL, vortex grenades being a thing IRL, or rifles having a range less than a real world pistol.

It simulates fantasy space conflict. It is not a real world combat sim, and has never pretended to be.

 Jidmah wrote:
IMO 8th edition is just a board game, it's no longer trying to simulate actual combat. Which has been very good for the game itself (because GW sucked at simulating combat), but probably not for people who want to play a wargame.

It requires strategy, just like any board or card game with any resemblance of depth, but no actual strategies that you would see on a battlefield.

The definition of a wargame is miniatures with gear, terrain on the table, and combat with strategy.

40k is this, it doesnt matter is the stratagem is less than other games, it is a wargame, it fits the 3 criteria.

Saying 40k isnt a wargame is like saying "The Room" isnt a move b.c its gakky story and acting, it still has everything a movie has.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
IMO 8th edition is just a board game, it's no longer trying to simulate actual combat. Which has been very good for the game itself (because GW sucked at simulating combat), but probably not for people who want to play a wargame.

It requires strategy, just like any board or card game with any resemblance of depth, but no actual strategies that you would see on a battlefield.

The definition of a wargame is miniatures with gear, terrain on the table, and combat with strategy.

40k is this, it doesnt matter is the stratagem is less than other games, it is a wargame, it fits the 3 criteria.

Saying 40k isnt a wargame is like saying "The Room" isnt a move b.c its gakky story and acting, it still has everything a movie has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming

In my opinion, this ceased to be a wargame when they introduced objective cards that changed from turn to turn.

Look, I get that requirements change in the field, but they don't change every 2 minutes. High command isn't schizophrenic. There's no war, ever, where it was important to get to somewhere and remain there for 5 minutes before dying.

Prior to 7th edition, at least the objectives tended to make sense in a 'war' sense. Go take some ground. Go kill the enemy. Stop the enemy advance. Hold a vital position until the end of the game.

Everything else is details. I mean, technically, the game has terrain still. It still has cover. They're not good terrain or cover rules, but they have them.

 Redbeard wrote:
In my opinion, this ceased to be a wargame when they introduced objective cards that changed from turn to turn.

Look, I get that requirements change in the field, but they don't change every 2 minutes. High command isn't schizophrenic. There's no war, ever, where it was important to get to somewhere and remain there for 5 minutes before dying.

Prior to 7th edition, at least the objectives tended to make sense in a 'war' sense. Go take some ground. Go kill the enemy. Stop the enemy advance. Hold a vital position until the end of the game.

Everything else is details. I mean, technically, the game has terrain still. It still has cover. They're not good terrain or cover rules, but they have them.

You mean the entirely optional objectives, which are just one of the several different ways you can potentially *choose* to play the game?