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.

catbarf

i am amused you used DUST as an example. i have been actively promoting it for a while now because the mechanics of the system is so much better than the comparable system developed for 8th ed 40K.

It has the combined effects of- tactical play, hard counter balanced rules/units, reaction mechanics and enough simulation effects for grounding the immersion (vehicle have wounds, but also have weapons facing and armor classes) all while keeping both players actively involved even when it isn't their activation turn.

I should also add it does this all without bloat/power creep or poorly written rules.

 aphyon wrote:
i am amused you used DUST as an example. i have been actively promoting it for a while now because the mechanics of the system is so much better than the comparable system developed for 8th ed 40K.

And it makes perfect sense, because the writer is none other than Andy Chambers- who originally left GW because he wanted to iterate on the game after 3rd Ed, but the suits wouldn't let him.

It's especially interesting in the context of this thread, because despite having game elements that are more simulationist/wargamey than 40K (as you noted it has reactions, weapon facing, and armor types; I would add that it has a lot more restriction on weapon roles, with you really needing anti-aircraft guns to deal with aircraft), stylistically it's more 'gamey' than even 40K. I can field a reasonable TOE for a Marine or Guard company in 40K, but I can't even imagine what a German infantry company is supposed to look like in Dust, seeing as all the infantry units are five-man squads and most of the officers are unique/named characters.

The fact that I'm still playing 40K and not playing Dust anymore goes back to why a lot of us are still here- the cool models and setting, moreso than a tightly written ruleset. I guess I'm part of the problem.

Didn't realize Andy was involved i know it is paolo's game concept just like he did with AT43 when rackham didn't want a WWII setting for the game.

the stylistic approach to the game is pretty heavily tied to the 50s style comic book feel of the game.

As for TO&E the latest editon of the game has specific themed builds with benefits but the free build nature of the game doesn't force any kind of force org if you don't want it. this is of course another positive for the game design in the fact that you can use whatever units you want in any configuration and it still doesn't break the game.

when it comes to officers i think you are forgetting the generic command squads. that avoids your named characters and gives you an officer, medic and engineer. and they exist across the board for every sub-section of the army block. i am looking at building a german paratroop force (fallshirmjager) without their light vehicle support (they have light walkers as well as light tracked heavy weapons now) just infantry and their air dropped towed weapon teams. as i already have a themed blutkreuz laser themed force with vehicles.

it gives you the options (with or without jump packs, because weird war II) of battle squads, anti-tank squads, anti air squads and command squads. i think you could easily build a somewhat accurate unit combo to represent the actual force historically within the confines of the game mechanics.

I think the latter point is due to game community availability. i have 3 dust armies myself for the purpose of showing people how to play the game and promote it (even though i still play 5th ed 40K as well). Since it doesn't seem to be that well known in my area.


This kind of leads us circular back to the point of the sim aspect of a miniatures game allowing it to not just behaving like a board game or a CCG. that is unfortunately the feel i got from 8th ed in standard scale games and GW compounded it with the rules i have read for 9th. all i am seeing is damage output buffs at the expense of actual tactical play that doesn't rely on objective rushing to score enough early points to secure a default win.

 aphyon wrote:

Sounds to me you played on tables with far to little terrain where you could gun line from the back of the table (as an infinity player i tend to go terrain heavy to force maneuver even if it is not to the infinity level.), or you didn't have many scout/outflank/drop pod units to worry about.

Formations were also not what i would classify as "being fluffy" it was a way to break core game mechanics by buying a specific set of models. it was more of a marketing play than anything else. 3rd/4th ed and for some armies 5th were the editions where "fluff/lore" were a key part of game play. where factions could both be effective and play according to fluff without breaking core game mechanics I still have great love for many of the codexes form those editions -chaos 3.5, demon hunters, witch hunters, dark angels mini dex, armageddon codex etc....and we still incorporate them into our 5th ed games.

As an old school battletech player i am a big fan of combined arms play so bringing in flyers and superheavies is not game breaking to me. i always build my forces as all around army builds to deal with a bit of everything. and often times i could just ignore those units unless opportunity presented itself to work on other targets in the enemy force as prior to 6th they just were not that scary using their original FW rules.

Played FOW in MK1 back in the day. it never really grew on me. i much prefer forces of valors "battle tactics" skirmish level game or DUST to get my WWII fix.

We seem to have very different experiences, or, more likely, one of us has some seriously prescription-strength fond nostalgia glasses. Mathematically, the rear armor of basically any tank is unreachable by maneuver in practical play, unless it chooses to expose it. A Leman Russ, Rhino, etc. are about 4" long, so with 6" of movement for the would-be shooter if the tank is 2" away from them they wouldn't be able to get rear shots.

I prefer to play company to divisional scale games, not what we refer to as "skirmish scale" games, so Flames of War just clicked. More small models appeals to both what I like to build and paint [since I like to paint and field units by the squadron with all their proper tactical markings], and just the general scale of battle I want to play at.

I come to miniatures gaming from playing wargames where a single playing piece was a platoon or company of infantry or tanks, and honestly, that's pretty much the scale I prefer.


As a side note, I also think more smaller models in general makes for a more fun and more wargame-wargame. The key is the size of the board and maneuver space for actual battlefield strategic and tactical maneuver and not just fiddly bits that gets into the realm of RPG's like "which way is GI Timmy looking". I have yet to meet a miniatures game in general that resolves this problem, because of the limitations of board size, where there's no operational depth. There's no penetration or exploitation or defense-in-depth because the depth of the board is limited to the no-man's land and the main line of resistance and the objectives are all in the no-man's land, and there's nothing like the center of gravity of the attack or concentrated push or anything because the board is also too narrow to really have that. Smaller minis, larger armies same size or larger boards does tend to get better in the wargame strategy and tactics department, though, even if it doesn't get quite there.

Fascinating ongoing discussion, sad to have missed most of it but tagging back in to steal some ideas.

Bigger board sizes (relative to the minis, so smaller minis work) is something I agree with. I don't know if it's possible for people to agree on what they think is "important" in a game though - for example, I like the armor systems for both 40k and Flames of War even if 40k's rear armor is basically irrelevant; they're largely the same system (except how you draw the lines) and if the rear armor is relevant (say you have an immobilized tank, or better yet make your movement rules so you can't just pivot at the end of a turn, meaning if you want to move laterally you have to expose your side and rear) then it is worthwhile.

Absolutely agreed on board size though.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
We seem to have very different experiences, or, more likely, one of us has some seriously prescription-strength fond nostalgia glasses. Mathematically, the rear armor of basically any tank is unreachable by maneuver in practical play, unless it chooses to expose it. A Leman Russ, Rhino, etc. are about 4" long, so with 6" of movement for the would-be shooter if the tank is 2" away from them they wouldn't be able to get rear shots.

I prefer to play company to divisional scale games, not what we refer to as "skirmish scale" games, so Flames of War just clicked. More small models appeals to both what I like to build and paint [since I like to paint and field units by the squadron with all their proper tactical markings], and just the general scale of battle I want to play at.

I come to miniatures gaming from playing wargames where a single playing piece was a platoon or company of infantry or tanks, and honestly, that's pretty much the scale I prefer.


As a side note, I also think more smaller models in general makes for a more fun and more wargame-wargame. The key is the size of the board and maneuver space for actual battlefield strategic and tactical maneuver and not just fiddly bits that gets into the realm of RPG's like "which way is GI Timmy looking". I have yet to meet a miniatures game in general that resolves this problem, because of the limitations of board size, where there's no operational depth. There's no penetration or exploitation or defense-in-depth because the depth of the board is limited to the no-man's land and the main line of resistance and the objectives are all in the no-man's land, and there's nothing like the center of gravity of the attack or concentrated push or anything because the board is also too narrow to really have that. Smaller minis, larger armies same size or larger boards does tend to get better in the wargame strategy and tactics department, though, even if it doesn't get quite there.

I'll second earlier recommendations for Epic, as it sounds like exactly what you're describing.

Individual infantry stands represent ~5 infantrymen, units represent platoons, and the board actually is big enough to have real maneuver space. It uses the standard 6x4 table as other GW games, but small arms range is typically 15cm and heavy weapons are typically 30-60cm, so it's actually able to model the closing to contact stage of combat, and transports are really useful for getting to where the fighting is. Units can multiply their base movement (15cm for infantry, 30cm for fast vehicles) by x2 or x3 at the cost of shooting ability, but it also requires a successful command check, so once attrition penalties come into play units get 'sticky' and hard to recommit.

Throw in rules for C&C, crossfire, and meaningful morale, and maneuver/center-of-gravity becomes a lot more important. You actually can execute an armored breakthrough across a narrow frontage, deploy mechanized infantry to establish a salient before the enemy can respond, commit reserves to wipe out entrapped enemies in crossfire, and still be out of range of most of the enemy army. A small, elite, force-multiplier force of Marines actually feels substantially different from a strong but nigh-impossible to command horde of Orks.

You can also deploy flyers, superheavies, and Titans without it feeling contrived.

I enjoy FoW for many of the same reasons, but find that the 15mm scale often creates AFV parking lots. The system feels much better suited for 6mm (micro armor) scale, which in turn is pretty close to the 6-8mm that Epic used. At that scale, it's got a great historical feel and I think strikes an excellent balance between playability and realism. I sometimes wish it didn't have perfect information (knowing exactly what piece of bocage is hiding the AT gun sure changes how tankers operate), but that's a general problem with tabletop games and one area where videogames really shine as an alternative.

If GW were to bring back Epic without gutting the rules in the name of streamlining I'd be all over it. It is, IMO, the best game system GW ever made, and by far the most 'wargamey'.

I regret not getting to play Epic ever now!

 catbarf wrote:
...If GW were to bring back Epic without gutting the rules in the name of streamlining I'd be all over it. It is, IMO, the best game system GW ever made, and by far the most 'wargamey'...

I've tried Epic over TTS and I have a hard time working out how you'd make it more streamlined, it's already pretty stripped-back.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
...If GW were to bring back Epic without gutting the rules in the name of streamlining I'd be all over it. It is, IMO, the best game system GW ever made, and by far the most 'wargamey'...

I've tried Epic over TTS and I have a hard time working out how you'd make it more streamlined, it's already pretty stripped-back.

Try the new Apocalypse, it is ruleswise the latest iteration of Epics (more company level than Epic Armageddon, which is more in the battalion territory) and less crunchy, but more by design than just leaving things out.

Unit, it's always a good time to get in Epic
3d printers and third parties have made getting gorgeous armies trivial, GW has started pushing out nice small scale models and all the rules are freely available.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
...If GW were to bring back Epic without gutting the rules in the name of streamlining I'd be all over it. It is, IMO, the best game system GW ever made, and by far the most 'wargamey'...

I've tried Epic over TTS and I have a hard time working out how you'd make it more streamlined, it's already pretty stripped-back.

Try the new Apocalypse, it is ruleswise the latest iteration of Epics (more company level than Epic Armageddon, which is more in the battalion territory) and less crunchy, but more by design than just leaving things out.

Unit, it's always a good time to get in Epic
3d printers and third parties have made getting gorgeous armies trivial, GW has started pushing out nice small scale models and all the rules are freely available.

Games Workshop have started pushing out nice small scale models - What?

If anyone knows a third party provider doing epic models, please do let me know.

Vanguard Miniatures is a reasonable place to start, Admiral - there's a thread in N&R which shows some of their stuff.

I've got a small order of things from them that I really need to paint at some point - including a not-Mastadon

I'm guessing the "GW pushing nice small scale models" is referring to Titanicus and Aeronautica. They do look nice sculpts, but the prices...

AdmiralHalsey wrote:


Games Workshop have started pushing out nice small scale models - What?

If anyone knows a third party provider doing epic models, please do let me know.

Titanicus and Aeronautica models are in scale with each other and 6 mm infantry, Epic communities around the globe are using them without a hitch. For third party sites you have people like Vanguard, Onslaught, Trolls under the Bridge etc. as well as 3d printing services, public libraries and friends.

Regarding GW specialist prices... eh, a Titanicus starter for 120 e has a fully playable army, AI fliers come 4-6 in a box of 30 e and what not. Cheaper than 40k.

 Dysartes wrote:
Vanguard Miniatures is a reasonable place to start, Admiral - there's a thread in N&R which shows some of their stuff.

I've got a small order of things from them that I really need to paint at some point - including a not-Mastadon

I'm guessing the "GW pushing nice small scale models" is referring to Titanicus and Aeronautica. They do look nice sculpts, but the prices...

Doesn't a titanicus army cost like half what a normal w40k army costs?

Titans are only useful if you want your Epic Army to have titans - They don't even have a non Imperium/Chaos Titan in production either, so its pretty useless for say, Orks or Eldar.

I will go check out Vanguard however. Thanks guys!

Karol wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Vanguard Miniatures is a reasonable place to start, Admiral - there's a thread in N&R which shows some of their stuff.

I've got a small order of things from them that I really need to paint at some point - including a not-Mastadon

I'm guessing the "GW pushing nice small scale models" is referring to Titanicus and Aeronautica. They do look nice sculpts, but the prices...

Doesn't a titanicus army cost like half what a normal w40k army costs?

Trivially. The 120 euro starter alone gives you about 1200 points, normal games tending towards 1250-1750 point range. Add one box of your choice in there and for less than 200 you've got the rules and a fully playable army.

This is getting a bit off topic, sorry for shilling here

So i had a bit of an epiphany via this topics subject matter as it relates to my dislike of late 8th edition 40K and now 9th edition.

I hate card games, we have a large group of players at the FLGS who are avid CCG players predominately magic the gathering...GW has turned 40K into MTG


Think about it

mana/lands=CP
.creatures=units
.spells/buffs=stratagems or combos of stratagems.

It is no wonder that little tingle in my spidey sense kept going off when i looked at what has been happening to 40K as a war(game) and why i went back to older editions.

At that abstract level, pretty much every game is a TCG.

 Sherrypie wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:


Games Workshop have started pushing out nice small scale models - What?

If anyone knows a third party provider doing epic models, please do let me know.

Titanicus and Aeronautica models are in scale with each other and 6 mm infantry, Epic communities around the globe are using them without a hitch. For third party sites you have people like Vanguard, Onslaught, Trolls under the Bridge etc. as well as 3d printing services, public libraries and friends.

Regarding GW specialist prices... eh, a Titanicus starter for 120 e has a fully playable army, AI fliers come 4-6 in a box of 30 e and what not. Cheaper than 40k.

I've had trouble 3d-printing 6mm and 15mm scale infantry, but most of the tanks work pretty well.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


I've had trouble 3d-printing 6mm and 15mm scale infantry, but most of the tanks work pretty well.

With resin, it's often about how well the file is made. My guys here are 7-8 mm tall, as marines should, and damn if they haven't come out pretty well with lots of well placed supports.





On the actual topic, echoing Jidmah here. Aphyon's view is overtly reductionistic and does not generalize well. Heck, great many games use resources like CP's to fuel the way armies work on the field without reducing the amount of war-likeness (1914 springs to mind with its command system).

 Sherrypie wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


I've had trouble 3d-printing 6mm and 15mm scale infantry, but most of the tanks work pretty well.

With resin, it's often about how well the file is made. My guys here are 7-8 mm tall, as marines should, and damn if they haven't come out pretty well with lots of well placed supports...

Almost certainly. I'm mostly working off my own FDM printer, though, and it can't handle the fiddly weapons very well.