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.

Im new to wargamming, I currently have 2k worth of Chaos Marines. Ive been doing alot of reading on Dakka and other forums and it seems theres alot of people that think 40k is just about using the newest models and has nothing to do with strategy. I was wondering if this is true and if so what wargames actually need strategy to use?

It's pretty much true. GW uses blatant power creep to sell each new codex, and puts no apparent effort into playtesting and balancing the game. The result is that there are always lists that dominate the game, and those lists are usually found in the newest codices. Add in the fact that the core rules are pretty shallow (though absurdly bloated with pointless nonsense) and often the game comes down to identifying the most overpowered units in your codex, bringing as many of them as you can, and rolling dice to see if you win. The core IGOUGO turn structure encourages armies that just mindlessly throw dice at targets in descending order of priority, and alpha strike gunlines that can do serious damage before their opponent even gets a turn.

Yes, there are still strategic decisions to make, but once learn how to play the game they aren't very complicated.

I don't think that is true.

True there is a trend for tournament/completive players to strive for notional optimal army builds, that is to say combinations of units and rules that do the most damages or effect versus cost but even in that environment there is sill strategy involved.

If there wasn't and it was just a case of turning up with a combination of X and Y in your army then no one would play 40k. When in fact 40k is the most popular wargame out there.

Don't get me wrong 40k isn't perfect, nor the most strategic game out there but it is fun and varied. I've been playing on and off for 25 years.

Also reading the internet and accepting statements there in.

You have the army go and play some games and see what you think and see what you think works well for CSM. There are far too many trolls, noobs and grognards spouting off their own prejudices on the internet that you would think nothing is fun or useful except a very limited selection of models. Just get some mates together or join a club/store and play some games. Trying out new units and learning how best to use them is part of the fun, finding netlists/optimal builds by short cutting on the web just isn't part of that for me or most people i'd suggest.

The problem with 40k, beyond the newest-and-biggest tends to win, is with the scale.

With 28mm tanks on a normal sized table (up to 6x4') you're generally always in range and there's no movement options, so I've always found strategy pretty limited. I managed to play a couple of 1500pt 40K games on some huge tables (8x6 and 12x6) and the game plays much better because movement becomes important. Unfortunately it also means you need a huge table. It's a phenomenon known as carparkhammer.

For better strategy beyond list selection, have a look at a smaller figure game, like FoW. It's 15mm (so about half the size), meaning you get a lot more manouvring options on normal tables. I've had much more strategic games on 4x4's with FoW than GW.

There's also the issue with 40K being an odd hybrid of skirmish and mass battle game, which tends to make it feel a bit clunky.

However, don't be put off by it, it's still a fun game, but if you feel you need stretched a bit check out FoW (which you can get 2 useable armies for the cost of 2 40k unit boxes) or X-Wing (where you can get the full game for the cost of most 40k tanks).

What about warhammer fantasy? is it just as unbalanced?

Herzlos wrote:The problem with 40k, beyond the newest-and-biggest tends to win, is with the scale.

With 28mm tanks on a normal sized table (up to 6x4') you're generally always in range and there's no movement options, so I've always found strategy pretty limited. I managed to play a couple of 1500pt 40K games on some huge tables (8x6 and 12x6) and the game plays much better because movement becomes important. Unfortunately it also means you need a huge table. It's a phenomenon known as carparkhammer.

For better strategy beyond list selection, have a look at a smaller figure game, like FoW. It's 15mm (so about half the size), meaning you get a lot more manouvring options on normal tables. I've had much more strategic games on 4x4's with FoW than GW.

There's also the issue with 40K being an odd hybrid of skirmish and mass battle game, which tends to make it feel a bit clunky.

However, don't be put off by it, it's still a fun game, but if you feel you need stretched a bit check out FoW (which you can get 2 useable armies for the cost of 2 40k unit boxes) or X-Wing (where you can get the full game for the cost of most 40k tanks).

This is a good point but one I think is driven by players rather than the game - people just want to use their toys I suppose. I think 40k plays best at 1250-1500 points. It reduces the ability of unscrupulous players to exploit rules and forces choices in list composition. It is also makes best use of the most commonly available table size - 6'x4'.

The other thing you need that players most often omit is lots of terrain/scenery. The most LOS/cover available the more strategic the game becomes - but this is true of all wargames IMHO.

 notprop wrote:
If there wasn't and it was just a case of turning up with a combination of X and Y in your army then no one would play 40k.

You're neglecting the appeal of 40k's models and fluff, and its position as "the game everyone else here plays" that it built up in the past when it had no real competition. If 40k had to survive on the merits of its rules alone it wouldn't exist anymore.

 Peregrine wrote:

 notprop wrote:
If there wasn't and it was just a case of turning up with a combination of X and Y in your army then no one would play 40k.

You're neglecting the appeal of 40k's models and fluff, and its position as "the game everyone else here plays" that it built up in the past when it had no real competition. If 40k had to survive on the merits of its rules alone it wouldn't exist anymore.

I don't think I am - you're nit-picking elements and it would appear assuming everyone that plays 40k must be doing so because they can't look past the shineys.

I know you struggle with the rules, but many do not. Its not perfect but it is fun. People really wouldn't play it if it wasn't now would they?

sykl wrote:
What about warhammer fantasy? is it just as unbalanced?

I've found warhammer fantasy far more balanced and tactically deep.

The problem is for all intents and purposes it's dead in most areas (mostly thanks to the push towards massive armies while lowing the number of men to a box and increasing the price of the box, party I guess just because GW are hemorrhaging sales in most areas and it's nowhere near as popular as 40k so it dies first).

sykl wrote:
What about warhammer fantasy? is it just as unbalanced?

Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition is all about rolling buckets of dice for 3 hours and whoever gets their ubber spell first wins.

Its value as a tactical game is pretty much nill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 notprop wrote:
If there wasn't and it was just a case of turning up with a combination of X and Y in your army then no one would play 40k.

You're neglecting the appeal of 40k's models and fluff, and its position as "the game everyone else here plays" that it built up in the past when it had no real competition. If 40k had to survive on the merits of its rules alone it wouldn't exist anymore.

I don't think I am - you're nit-picking elements and it would appear assuming everyone that plays 40k must be doing so because they can't look past the shineys.

I know you struggle with the rules, but many do not. Its not perfect but it is fun. People really wouldn't play it if it wasn't now would they?

People play 40k because of the models and the fluff and mostly because they have never experienced any other ruleset outside GW...

Don't listen to him, I posted first therefore I am right

Seriously though it can be a bit stupid at times when people start throwing the really big spells around but in a competitive environment I've found those big spells are more often than not last resorts. Magic can backfire, hard, and the odds of that increase with the number of dice you throw. People normally don't throw all their dice unless they have nothing left to try or their opponent is running a death star, in which case the big spells are there exactly to act as a counter to a death star because nothing else can.

 notprop wrote:
I don't think I am - you're nit-picking elements and it would appear assuming everyone that plays 40k must be doing so because they can't look past the shineys.

It's not about being "tricked" with the models. People play 40k because they enjoy the models and the fluff, and the rules are adequate for pushing your space marines around the table and imagining how cool the battle is. That's a perfectly legitimate reason to play a game, but it doesn't mean the rules are balanced or have any strategic depth.

I know you struggle with the rules, but many do not. Its not perfect but it is fun. People really wouldn't play it if it wasn't now would they?

See previous threads on "are the rules for 40k good". There are long lists of the many flaws in the rules, and the best defense anyone was ever able to offer was that the rules don't suck so badly that they can't enjoy playing with their cool models. Nobody was ever able to make any kind of credible argument for how the rules are even close to good.

PhantomViper wrote:
.......

People play 40k because of the models and the fluff and mostly because they have never experienced any other ruleset outside GW...

What's the view like sitting with your strawman up on the moral high ground?

That aside I think there is some truth to this but credit for that lies with GWs business model. Their stores enable them to create the idea of the GW hobby rather than a wargaming one.

Of course that has nothing to do with the point of whether the game is strategic or not.

What about this Hordes/Warmachine game, are these strategically engaging or are they just throwing dice at each other till you die?

 notprop wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
.......

People play 40k because of the models and the fluff and mostly because they have never experienced any other ruleset outside GW...

What's the view like sitting with your strawman up on the moral high ground?

Why is it a strawman? 40k as some pretty cool models and a wonderful universe supporting it, enjoying the game for those reasons is valid and legitimate and like you said, the relative lack of market penetration of GW's main competitors means that a large portion of GW's clients never tried any other ruleset so don't have any real base to compare them.

And then you have those GW customers that compare trying other games to having sex with animals...

 notprop wrote:

That aside I think there is some truth to this but credit for that lies with GWs business model. Their stores enable them to create the idea of the GW hobby rather than a wargaming one.

Of course that has nothing to do with the point of whether the game is strategic or not.

GW's business model of brand stores only really applies in the UK. Most other countries will have a much higher number of LGS that will carry several different games.

sykl wrote:
What about this Hordes/Warmachine game, are these strategically engaging or are they just throwing dice at each other till you die?

Personally I never saw the appeal, it seems to be to require lots of combos (X caster with Y jack and Z infantry will get more use out of the caster's abilities than A jack and B unit) but it is, generally, held up as an example of wonderful tactical depth and strategic play as opposed to throwing piles of dice.

PhantomViper wrote:

 notprop wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
.......

People play 40k because of the models and the fluff and mostly because they have never experienced any other ruleset outside GW...

What's the view like sitting with your strawman up on the moral high ground?

Why is it a strawman? 40k as some pretty cool models and a wonderful universe supporting it, enjoying the game for those reasons is valid and legitimate and like you said, the relative lack of market penetration of GW's main competitors means that a large portion of GW's clients never tried any other ruleset so don't have any real base to compare them.

And then you have those GW customers that compare trying other games to having sex with animals...

I paraphrase but...."40k is not a good game because all the players haven't played anything else" is one I'm sorry to say. I've played many systems over the last 25 years and yet I find 40k no less enjoyable.

As for the Bestiality.....er well.....is that a Portuguese thing?

I hope not as I have had some very nice meals on holidays there and hate to think that's how you tenderise your meat?

 notprop wrote:

Herzlos wrote:The problem with 40k, beyond the newest-and-biggest tends to win, is with the scale.

With 28mm tanks on a normal sized table (up to 6x4') you're generally always in range and there's no movement options, so I've always found strategy pretty limited. I managed to play a couple of 1500pt 40K games on some huge tables (8x6 and 12x6) and the game plays much better because movement becomes important. Unfortunately it also means you need a huge table. It's a phenomenon known as carparkhammer.

For better strategy beyond list selection, have a look at a smaller figure game, like FoW. It's 15mm (so about half the size), meaning you get a lot more manouvring options on normal tables. I've had much more strategic games on 4x4's with FoW than GW.

There's also the issue with 40K being an odd hybrid of skirmish and mass battle game, which tends to make it feel a bit clunky.

However, don't be put off by it, it's still a fun game, but if you feel you need stretched a bit check out FoW (which you can get 2 useable armies for the cost of 2 40k unit boxes) or X-Wing (where you can get the full game for the cost of most 40k tanks).

This is a good point but one I think is driven by players rather than the game - people just want to use their toys I suppose. I think 40k plays best at 1250-1500 points. It reduces the ability of unscrupulous players to exploit rules and forces choices in list composition. It is also makes best use of the most commonly available table size - 6'x4'.

I'm not sure what size table people actually play on, but outside of warhammer world I've never played 40K on a 6x4 as I don't have the space. Even on 6x4 a lot of the tactics are neutered because most heavy weapons have a range of 48" i.e. the whole width of the table, so the only positioning involved is in deployment.

The other thing you need that players most often omit is lots of terrain/scenery. The most LOS/cover available the more strategic the game becomes - but this is true of all wargames IMHO.

Definitely; the best money I've spent on gaming has been scenery.

sykl wrote:
What about this Hordes/Warmachine game, are these strategically engaging or are they just throwing dice at each other till you die?

I haven't played it, but everyone who has seems to regard it as tactically better than 40K, and that the rules are much clearer.

sykl wrote:
What about this Hordes/Warmachine game, are these strategically engaging or are they just throwing dice at each other till you die?

Practically in every other game that I tried (FoW, Infinity, Malifaux, WarmaHordes, FoF, etc), tactics play a much bigger role in the outcome of the game than in the current editions of either 40K or FB.

 notprop wrote:

I paraphrase but...."40k is not a good game because all the players haven't played anything else" is one I'm sorry to say. I've played many systems over the last 25 years and yet I find 40k no less enjoyable.

That's.. not what he's saying.
40K is not a good game thanks to bad rules, but many of the people who play it will argue it is a good game because they haven't played anything else.
You can enjoy it for the models, you can enjoy it for the fluff, but I have yet to see someone who has played other games argue that 'I move/shoot/assault everything, you move/shoot/assault everything' is a good mechanic for a game of that scale.

 notprop wrote:

As for the Bestiality.....er well.....is that a Portuguese thing?

I hope not as I have had some very nice meals on holidays there and hate to think that's how you tenderise your meat?

One of the people arguing 40ks rules are good did so for 15 or so pages before admitting he hasn't played anything else, his repose the barrage of 'well you're not exactly in a good position to judge then' comments was 'I don't need to have sex with animals to know I like sex with humans either'.

 notprop wrote:

As for the Bestiality.....er well.....is that a Portuguese thing?

I hope not as I have had some very nice meals on holidays there and hate to think that's how you tenderise your meat?

It was just a reference to xruslanx answer when he was asked if he had played any other game other than 40K or FB...

*Ninjaed by jonolikespie!

Indeed. $$$ spent on new shineys dictate victory in 40K these days. Sad, but true.

sykl wrote:
What about this Hordes/Warmachine game, are these strategically engaging or are they just throwing dice at each other till you die?

Having played both warmachine/hordes and 40k I prefer warmahordes, I feel the need for more tactical maneuvering in it than I ever did when playing 40k. There is something to the combos thing that jono refers to above but its partially that synergy bit that i like so much. One warning, it can be unforgiving if you're new trying to learn against people who know how to play and it is a different scale than 40k (skirmish vs battle).

Leads me to two questions
1) Are you looking for something to play with your friends at home or something to play at the local game store with others.
2) What type of game are you looking for (skirmish, battles,mass armies)

If you want strategy, play chess. If you want to paint your minis, enjoy the universe/fluff, and like the look of the models, play a tabletop wargame. Every ruleset is going to have detractors and flaws. Find something you enjoy and don't listen to negative people. Solid advice for life, IMO.

For the record, 40K is what I play and enjoy. I like to paint, and I make terrible army lists composed of models I enjoy seeing on the tabletop.I dislike how much things cost, but I've collected enough stuff over the years that I don' t need to buy much to update my armies.

I think the main thing is that 40K and Fantasy are fine enough games, though they are towards the lower end of the pile in terms of quality.

If you want to play 40K, and don't want to play competitively, you'll probably be fine if you can get together with opponents who aren't just trying to win. That is a lot of qualifiers, of course, but if you have the models, you should give it a whirl and see if you enjoy it. Wargaming ins't always a blood-sucking battle to dominate your opponent, but with 40K you can find that even in 'friendly' games, the rules and balance issues make trying to win with the army you want to play frustrating, and you may find that the game is unsatisfying if you wind up feeling like your actions don't have much of an impact on the outcome of the game.

If you were looking to invest in a game, I'd steer you away from Games Workshop products immediately. Your money really is better spent elsewhere unless you have a particular fancy for Warhammer and the game is scratching an itch other than playing a table top wargame. Most games are fine. If there's one in your area, you can always head down to the Friendly Local Game Store for a few nights and see what people play, talk to the staff, and maybe even see if you can get into a few games to see what you like.

When I first started wargaming I bought a used IG army on ebay, went down to the FLGS, opened the bag, and started asking people what the heck I had. I was playing a game inside 20 minutes. I have since moved WAY on from 40K, but the point is that in a hobby like table top wargaming, you should just jump right in with whatever. If you like it, it's probably because you enjoy table top wargaming in general, and you'll easily find what you like best about the hobby and be able to direct your efforts in that direction, which could very well involve finding a game that plays better .

Oh, and welcome to table top wargaming! I hope you enjoy it!

 the_Armyman wrote:
If you want strategy, play chess.

Or even a wargame that offers a strategic experience. Yeah, I'd go with that instead.

 the_Armyman wrote:
If you want strategy, play chess. If you want to paint your minis, enjoy the universe/fluff, and like the look of the models, play a tabletop wargame. Every ruleset is going to have detractors and flaws.

And this, for the record, is what I was talking about when I mentioned the usual replies that you get from people that haven't played anything other than GW games... Since they don't have any frame of reference, they usually think that every miniature wargame is like 40k.

sykl wrote:
Im new to wargamming, I currently have 2k worth of Chaos Marines. Ive been doing alot of reading on Dakka and other forums and it seems theres alot of people that think 40k is just about using the newest models and has nothing to do with strategy. I was wondering if this is true and if so what wargames actually need strategy to use?

Play some games for yourself, and make up your own mind. Don't let us on the Bitternet tell you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
Every ruleset is going to have detractors and flaws.

This is absolutely true, so just play what you like to play and don't worry too much about it. If other people see you having fun, they will want to join in on the fun too. I have played lot's of games besides just GW ones.

If you have 2K worth of 40K models you can might as well stick to that for a bit and make your own opinion.

 Riquende wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
If you want strategy, play chess.

Or even a wargame that offers a strategic experience. Yeah, I'd go with that instead.

Lol yes right..

40k isn't a bad game by any means, like anything I think it's a case of 'people not the place', and how your gaming group are, and the way they play, will dictate how much fun you have.

I generally play a game every 6 months or so, drawn back in by the evocative background material, but then find myself banging my head against a wall with the way the game mechanics work, and then move onto something else the next week. I think that's partly just from playing too much in the past (20 years + I suppose), and of course like anything you can get bored with doing something too much, but also because I began to resent my extensively converted and prepared army getting carpet-bombed by the new flyers, or mashed by some of the tomix toy-like massive plastic kits. I suppose it's a personal thing, the game looks to appeal to an increasingly younger audience, with no real change to its now rather aged and strained core mechanics, as I have got older and experienced other games.

I would never say "don't play this game" about any game (well.. most games!), there will always be fun to be had, but I don't think you will find much argument against the fact that there are better designed games out there, on both the strategic and entertainment level, with comparable miniature quality, and for a much lower price.