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.

 Easy E wrote:

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.

No one is questioning that, now are they?

Miniature wargaming is a hobby, you do hobbies for fun, ergo you should play whatever game you find fun to play, for whatever reason you like, be it tactical depth, miniature quality, game immersion, opponent availability, personal coolness factor, etc. And those are all valid reasons to prefer any game over any other.

But that was never the OP's question to begin with. So I'll give you extra points for a successful topic deflection.

I find that the game is what you make of it, I've played people who buy the newest and best and go all out and have to win and if you look, yes a lot of the newer models are pretty powerful. But by the same token, I play with a lot of units that aren't necessarily powerful, I don't have all the best or newest, and I am extremely lacking in the area of fliers. For me it's all about fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Really though, I ifnd if you're not using all the latest and best, and you want to challenge yourself it's just as good as others. I think strategically every game, and I do pretty good. However awesome that unit may be, If I shoot it 10 times with a heavy weapon it's going to die. and then there you are wondering how you're going to finish off my horde of men without your hammer of a unit.

 Bobaram wrote:
However awesome that unit may be, If I shoot it 10 times with a heavy weapon it's going to die. and then there you are wondering how you're going to finish off my horde of men without your hammer of a unit.

Unless of course it's a unit with a re-rollable 2++, in which case your heavy weapon probably did nothing.

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?

Firstly, no, don't worry. Codex creep is a lie. For every greatly-more-powered codex that comes out like tau or eldar, there is a low-powered codex that comes out like CSM or tyranid. Likewise, there are codices that come out that are about the same as they were before, like orks or DA. It's not a conspiracy of making new stuff overpowered, it's a simple fact of the difficulty of making such a complicated game balanced. Plus, probably bad communication skills between game designers at GW.

As for 40k being a game of strategy, no, it's not. Not really. Skill in this game is learning to play the odds better, and that's a tough skill to learn with a very steep learning curve (because, as mentioned, it's a complicated game). Once you get past that, to a certain level of proficiency, though, it's a dice game, and that's that. If you want a serious strategy game, play one that doesn't rely on a random element to determine what does on. Like chess, for example, or Go. Lots of options.

That said, GW products have an awful lot to offer other than just a pure strategy game. They have the entire whole hobby element to them, for example, and all the fluff, and all of the other crazy stuff. If you take a holistic approach, 40k can be a great game (if you find the right friends to play it with), but it will never be a proper strategy game.

Of course, if you want a proper strategy game that also involves miniatures, then good luck. The ash-heap of history is filled with failed games and games that pretend to be better, but aren't, which is why it's so hard to find someone to play them with you.

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.

Can you name a tabletop wargame that offers a strategic experience?

PhantomViper wrote:

 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.

I don't know if you intend this is or not, but comments like this make you sound a bit arrogant. I enjoy 40K, but that doesn't make me ignorant to what other games and rulesets are out there.

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?

Welcome to wargaming! Its great fun, I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

40k is a decent enough game. The fluff is quite good, most of the models look superb, and with a little imagination you can really make the battelfield come to life. The 'problem' with it is that it was designed with the view that no-one will take it too seriously or try to win that much. If both you and your opponent just pick the models you like and set up for a scenario driven battle, you'll have a great time. If you try to take the strongest army you can and go to a tournament to play against strangers, you're going to have a wholly different experience as people begin to bring armies of eg 4 helldrakes which hardly anyone can deal with.

From a purely rules standpoint (neglecting any of the other factors like models, number of players, story, etc) there are better games than 40k. A huge amount of the 'strategy' in 40k revolves around identifying the best units in a codex, and taking as many of those as possible (Riptides, Valkyries, Heldrakes etc). Strategy once on the tabletop is fairly minimal after you've made those choices, and generally involves picking the biggest threat you can be effective against and pouring fire into it until it dies.
Compare this to Warmachine. There is still a huge amount of list-building strategy in Warmachine - possibly even more, because you need to identify combinations of units which will work well together. But most units are fairly evenly balanced internally, making the choices less obvious. When you get to the tabletop, the greater emphasis on individual model's actions in Warmachine tends to make each decision more important, and the various scenarios make tactical play a major consideration in every single turn. The rules in Warmachine are better written so that there are less questionable situations raised.


I think the point that people try to make about newest models getting the best rules is severely overstated. It ascribes too much competence to the rules makers, and if you look back through the past codices you'll see glaring examples where both great and terrible models are released at once (prime example is Tyranids with Pyrovores).


So don't be discouraged: I've had a lot of fun playing 40k over the last 12 years. Just realise that if you're trying to play competitively, 40k is going to throw you some curve-balls.

Trasvi wrote:
If both you and your opponent just pick the models you like and set up for a scenario driven battle, you'll have a great time.

Unless your opponent happens to pick overpowered models. Then you lose.

 the_Armyman wrote:

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.

Can you name a tabletop wargame that offers a strategic experience?

PhantomViper wrote:

 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.

I don't know if you intend this is or not, but comments like this make you sound a bit arrogant. I enjoy 40K, but that doesn't make me ignorant to what other games and rulesets are out there.

Of course you're not ignorant of other games and rulesets, that is why, in the same post you make that claim and ask what other tabletop wargames offer a strategic experience...

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?

First of all let me start by saying I love 40k. With that being said I've played some Warmachine games and I feel that game is more balanced than 40k because basically every faction in Warmachine can be OP, that is what makes it balanced in my opinion. Warhammer 40k definitely seems to have a trend with the newest codex being the best (usually), it would probably be more balanced if every army was updated at the same time on a level playing field but this does not support or fall into the GW business model.

I will say I think 6th edition, while not perfect in my opinion, has been much more solid than the previous edition and the 6th ed books have been more balanced with each other than in recent editions. (I know I know Tau are OP and all that Jazz but each 6th ed book has various strong suits to it that make them competitive with the exception of maybe Dark Angels).

In closing I will leave you with this, keep in mind 'you' have control over who you play. If you enjoy 'fluff' and 'fun' but your play group enjoys 'WAAC' (win at all costs) then you might consider finding a different play group. For some players fluff and competitiveness can mesh but for others the game is only about winning, if you find yourself on one side or the other of that particular fence you might want to make sure your play group reflects what 'you' value in the game.

So just to be clear then.
The models and back story for 40k is inspiring and loads of people enjoy it.

The rules are good enough IF ;-
1)You can ignore the lack of proof reading , editing, spelling , general clarity .
2)You are happy just rolling off , (cheat on a 4+ as some call it,) any issues that arise from a poorly implemented and written rule set.
3) You are not concerned about who wins or loses, but just focus on the narrative, despite the fact the rules are so random and unbalanced that it makes forging a narrative more difficult.
4)You discuss at length before the game starts what units you are going to use ,and the grey areas of the rules to avoid the worst match ups/arguments that kill the fun for both players.(Unless stomping newbs with a net list/rules lawyer arguments are your idea of fun.)

I think the intended game play of 40k is brilliant.
Unfortunately GW plc write rules to sell the latest minatures , rather than bring the game play to the table top with elegant efficiency.

In short people play 40k DESPITE the rules.

I've been playing GW games since the 90s. I took a nice break from tabletop gaming for nearly a decade. I've recently got back into it these past 2 or so years because its a hobby I can share with my girlfriend (she found some stray Lizardmen models one day and immediately wanted more). Lately I've been playing games on the skirmish level and using rules that are more generic. What does allows me to do is collect miniatures that I like rather than how potentially potent they are in the game. This allows me to put on any stat on the model. Games I find are more equal across forces because everyone has access to all the stats. Yes, it can definitely be abused by min-maxers, but our group doesn't have any powergamers.

The systems I've been using lately are Ares, Skulldred, and Song of Blades and Heroes (SOBH). These are all fantasy oriented, but Skulldred can easily be used for Sci-Fi games too. SOBH has expansions that cover all settings. These have completely renewed my vigor in the hobby. Its refreshing to not be constrained to specific rules and I like that I don't have to put together multiple of the same models just to fill up a squad.

If you're into the idea of going skirmish.. there is Deathsquad for 40k. Also I hear Infinity are a good rules set for Sci-Fi

To the OP:


Honestly, you're going to get extreme opinions on a wargaming forum on this topic that are diametrically opposed. I would suggest playing a good number of games (as you already have the models - my advice would be different if you were looking to get into 40k but weren't sure), and make your own decision.

Because the people that are frustrated the rule set is not tighter are going to say its no strategy or skill, all codex creep, all flavor of the month, and a blind, half-slowed tree sloth could put Taudar on the table and beat anyone else.

Meanwhile the defenders are going to go to similar lengths as well to defend the game as a shining paragon of gaming.


The real answer is probably somewhere betwixt the two. Make up your own mind.


My opinion ? I see 40k as more cinematic and beer and pretzel than i do truly tactical or strategic of a game. That doesn't stop it from being a seriously awesome way to kill an evening with some buddies.

Starter boxes rock. Pick up a warmachine or hordes starter box, an infinity starter army, and a dust starter, or fow, or bolt action or whatever. You don't have to stick to one game. Life is about exploring new things.

(Don't listen to me. I'm fast becoming a rules slut).

PhantomViper wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

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.

No one is questioning that, now are they?

Miniature wargaming is a hobby, you do hobbies for fun, ergo you should play whatever game you find fun to play, for whatever reason you like, be it tactical depth, miniature quality, game immersion, opponent availability, personal coolness factor, etc. And those are all valid reasons to prefer any game over any other.

But that was never the OP's question to begin with. So I'll give you extra points for a successful topic deflection.

Okay, you win. Do you feel better now?

Look up Free wargames rules if you hunger for more. Some of them are quite good and require only generic minis.

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?

Am I the only one who understands this fellow used the wrong words from the get go?
Are there no Vets here at all?

sykl, both W40K & WFB are tactical games - not strategy games.
Someone accurately told you to go play chess if you want strategy; I would also add Go to that short list.

sykl, any game that involves personnel less than battalion strength is a tactics game unless you also have to deal with logistics.
Even if logistics is involved, anything below company strength is still only a tactical game and most, if not all, of the games aforementioned on this thread, other than chess and go, are just this.

This is important to understand because the needs at the tactical level are very much different than those at the strategic level.
None of these games, including Warmachine/Hoards or any other skirmish level game, involve strategy.
It is all about tactics instead.

Now sykl, do not despair, you can adapt these games to a strategic format.
That is what an assault tree is all about.
You start with battalion numbers (5,000+ points under the rules: W40K 2nd Ed & WFB 5th Ed - I do not play any newer editions because of rules dumbage and then later flawed repairs) of troops, but every last skirmish is with limited troops (500-1500 points, 2000max) on the way to the final confrontation (everything left on both sides).
Some people start the whole matter in space to really make the encounter strategic; worked great back in the day with the game Renegade Legion in my mind.
I do not know with W40K; back in my day, Space Fleet had some serious flaws and later, never got into Battlefleet Gothic to see if they repaired those, made news ones or did both.

sykl, I do not know if I have helped you.
Remember, in chess, a pawn is not actually and was never meant to be when the game was created a single warrior; each one is an army.
A Rook is in fact a series of fortifications, if not a major citadel with multiple layers of .fortifications, not simply a single keep.
Bishops represent the widespread, but angled effect the ecclesia can have on conflict and the involved politics.
A Knight is a fast moving, but usually unsupported strike force of mounted troops.
Even the Queen, which had been called "The King's Champion" before that title, was better classified as a troop formation of elite well-mounted troops.
Only the King has always been a single piece representing a single agent; that is why its abilities are so limited.

I hope I have helped though sykl.
I just cannot bring myself to say, "Enjoy your Chaos army." because in fact it is a Chaos army.
I just do not ever play or encourage the "bad guys" even if a "nice guy" is playing them.

I can say, "Have a good game." though, so do so even in defeat because you are Chaos.
Good day.