Description: Child's Play??
Magork - August 31, 2007 04:21 AM (GMT)
I was just looking at all the new apocalypse rules and stuff and, although it looks pretty sweet, i dont think i can go back to 40k. The difference is like playing Risk the Board game, then going back to playing Candy Land or Chutes and Ladders...
Any of you guys feel the same way??
Ra-num - August 31, 2007 05:02 AM (GMT)
The new apocalypse reminds me of 2nd ed Epic with company cards.... Ahhhhh that was a great game.. Then GW did 3rd ed and stuffed it up :blink: ..
Just another way GW can get players to spend a large amount of money on large companies of troops and tanks..
Mind you the feeling of making a unit of Ork Stompas is somewhat appealling to me :lol: ...
KingTut - August 31, 2007 01:32 PM (GMT)
I wouldn't exactly call it childs play. But a different game yes. But its more like stratego vs Risk than candyland vs risk. IMO both require strategy however one requires high luck with dice (ok 40k and fantasy both do but my point was about different strategies ie you dont get a lot of bonus points in 40k for a flank charge but you do if you go for the objective. Something that warhammer fantasy lacks is a good "capture the flag" game scenario and its done differently too.) and in games of 40k you can fight in HONKING GREAT CITIES with multiple levels and such. Something fantasy (not skirmish fantasy core fantasy) lacks
eltique - September 1, 2007 11:18 PM (GMT)
I wouldn't call 40k candyland. Constructing a 40k army list is more complicated than a fantasy list, and I'd say that 40k fluff would be less appealing to younger groups than fantasy fluff. As for Apocalypse, I'm not going to get into it, firstly because I am not willing to spend money to construct a ridiculously large army when I could play a fun 2000pts game, and secondly I wouldn't be able to paint all of the models decently. I wish that gw would just change the 40k rules to make it more flexible for varying point battles (like the fantasy army list structure) instead of coming up with an expansion book with whole different army structures.
Bodis - September 8, 2007 09:30 AM (GMT)
40k is faster, more.. "fun and easy" in the aspect that you'll never lose due to a failed leadership roll or such, your uber insane hero won't be ran down by getting flanked ^^. Rules are a lot easier and the game runs very smoothly.
However 40k is all your army list, there is no real tactics within the game, the "skillcap", to lend a word from the newbleethaxxor computer world, is very low and you can almost instantly see who's gonna beat who after looking at their lists. What to do is so very obvious and the opponent can't really out manouver you, go out of your LOS (as 40k as 360 degrees) or redirect you. Objectives is a no brainer too I'm afraid.
Shooting is obviously a lot more effective and many games end on turn one 'cause the other guy won the go first dice roll and shot your tank up before you could shoot his etc. Shooting also reduces many 40k games to the famous deploy, roll dice, go home games Skaven SAD are known for.
All in all it's a fun game though, due to it's speed and the models and fluff are simply wonderful and I had my fun with it, played 40k for about 5 years.
Cbt - September 8, 2007 10:14 AM (GMT)
there are a lot of rules differences and while you can set things up for a combat army the ultimate shooty armies win. Tau and Eldar spring to mind, I think that fantasy requires a little more thought to your selection (but I would say that woundn't I!) Some of the rules are made simple but they become stupid in the same way, for example the
|QUOTE (KingTut @ Aug 31 2007, 02:32 PM)|
|HONKING GREAT CITIES with multiple levels and such. |
isn't really that true, sure you can play the diverse rules of cities of death but in a standard game you get 3 levels.
1 = ground level
2= Man size
3 = Vehicle
so you can put a sniper in the highest building on the table and he still counts as level 3 there aren't levels 4,5,6 etc
I must admit that I play 40K but it's been 6+ months since my last game
Coyote - April 9, 2008 05:38 PM (GMT)
As a long time 40k and only recently Fantasy player I do agree that fantasy requires more foreward thinking in terms of strategy as a whole. Generally 40k is more forgiving to play because you can recover from mistakes. This is actually a main gripe of mine for fantasy, it is easy to actually lose the game on deployment. The converse side of this is that at the moment in 40k, it can be a first turn win game as well depending on the armies involved. From what I've seen, 5h edition will change this. The edge that 40k has on fantasy is that I believe that it is a much more balanced game than fantasy at the moment. The characters aren't overpowered and the armies are roughly equivalent. It's easy to call 40k a "child's game" but I doubt the same people who say that could play 40k regularly and win.