Bridging the Gap; a comment. [Archive] - BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum

S0ULDU5T

12-12-2009, 11:03 PM

Poeple just need to realize that WHFB is a more tactical game. Period.

This is represented in what Fantasy offers that 40k doesnt, and not just in how they do things differently. This means how the shooting phase is conducted as opposed to just mentioning one system uses arrows and the other lascannons.

Movement phase - both systems share target identification and logical countermeasures. However, contrary to some posters veiw the "restrictions" that Fantasy places on movement are additional tactics not existent in the 40k "point and click" movmenet phase. Restrictions, in all meanings, are what prompt tactical responses for overcoming the challenges those restrictions present. Moreover, 40k actually splits it's movment phase into two phases and overlaps into a third - Movement, running in the shooting phase and then assualt - watering down an already oversimplified mechanic. Fantasy does movment and assult in one phase with one simple manuever called a wheel. "Manuever", a word never once used in any recent addition of 40k. Now, what else does Fantasy have that 40k doesn't during the movement phase? Wheeling, march blocking, baiting, charge responses, redirecting and a list of manuevers. Enough said.

Lets compare magic phases...wait...no, 40k doesn't have that. you guys choose which power you want as if it were equipment and take a leadership test and the enemy dispels it with..nothing. Ok, well Fantasy players manage a pool of power and dispel dice, use randomly generated spells, and wager tactfully as to what spells will work and which ones won't. 40k has absolutly nothing to compare this too. "Just as tactical" my ***, what a bunch of crap.

Close combat phase? Pretty much the same here, except we have challenges but those are more fluffy than anything. The latest edition of 40k added modifiers to combat resolution that were more common to Fantasy. Overall the only thing Fantasy offers here that 40k doesn't is more emphasis on combat resolution what with altitude, ranks, numbers and flanks coming into the picture which really equals quite a bit more tactical thought.

What, overall, does 40k offer that fantasy doesn't? Again, not in terms of tanks vs. trees, but in gameplay system? The only point I can think to make is equipment management; Every race has it's own list of equipment from the standard to the rare that is uniquely it's own and it takes some tactical thought as to what to use and where best to use it. However, This would be the only point I could give to 40k that is not also somehow found in Fantasy and usually in more detial with more tact required. Given that WHFB still possess "armories" where as most recent codexes do not, I would also say this point does not give too much credit.

WHFB is a more tactical game. Any argument against it is a fools argument; however more 40k players see this as an insult as if since they are playing (or prefer) a less tactical game then that must mean they're stupid. This is completly incorrect, and I think of it like this: If you would rather watch a sitcom than the history channel, it does not make you a less intellegent person. Sure, theres no doubt that the history channel takes more intellegence to understand and that more intellegent people watch it but is in no way indicative of your intellegence should you choose not to watch - you can be just as smart as someone that does but prefer sitcoms instead for the qualities that it offers.

I'm a proud player of both WHFB and WH40k.

As for the stereotypical demographic of tabletop gamers playing these two games...It's true and if you've been around long enough you've seen it this way - younger gamers with 40k and older gamers with Fantasy. But this is also not indicative of intelligence that these two groups of gamers have and is most certiantly not always the case. The reason for this is not intellgence, but patience. Younger gamers, especialy given the video/graphics driven entertainment industy we have, are more keen to a streamlined (read also: less to memorize, study, think about, stress over, i.e. less tactical) experience. A younger gamer might at once be curious by the tabletop game and mechanics but simultaniously wondering if theirs a video game adaption of it (and lo, there is!). It does not need mentioning how older gamers differ from this attitude, suffice to say that they do and why they would prefer a game with more tactics involved despite the patience it requires. Having made this point, I will also say i've seen kids playing Fantasy and older folks playing 40k, but I would hardly say this represents the majority demographic for each game.

eagleboy7259

12-12-2009, 11:59 PM

This is mostly opinion trying to pass itself off as fact. You over simplified the 40k movement phase, the argument of psychic powers vs. magic phase, and the games in general. I won't fault you for that since it would take whole books to write up a fair comparison, but failure to reasonable explore any piece of evidence doesn't so much as back up your argument as leave holes in it. Certainly a number of similar situations appear in both games however there are a number that appear in each that either don't occur or occur rarely enough in the other that they aren't a true part of the game. You can say that a pike man moving slower than a knight is similar to a tactical marine moving slower than a biker and make all the comparisons you want about what's like what only more complex, but its the things that are missing from each system that really makes this a matter of apples and oranges. Maybe moving, running, and assaulting are like wheeling but I don't see many Deep Striking or Outflanking type maneuvers in WFB, just like I don't see skeletons popping out of the ground in 40k. They tactful for very different reasons, and using a more complex system to achieve the same purpose doesn't necessarily equal more tactful. It wasn't too long ago that GW moved 40k away from the a very similar armory type system like WFB still supports, moving the options into the unit selection and the streamlining has in many ways improved and clarified game play. There is a lot that could be said about this obviously biased statement of yours; many people already did to similar statements under the thread on the main page. Being a player of both systems does not give you a third party view into either system.

DarkLink

12-13-2009, 12:00 AM

Poeple just need to realize that WHFB is a more tactical game. Period.

This is represented in what Fantasy offers that 40k doesnt, and not just in how they do things differently. This means how the shooting phase is conducted as opposed to just mentioning one system uses arrows and the other lascannons.

Movement phase - both systems share target identification and logical countermeasures. However, contrary to some posters veiw the "restrictions" that Fantasy places on movement are additional tactics not existent in the 40k "point and click" movmenet phase. Restrictions, in all meanings, are what prompt tactical responses for overcoming the challenges those restrictions present. Moreover, 40k actually splits it's movment phase into two phases and overlaps into a third - Movement, running in the shooting phase and then assualt - watering down an already oversimplified mechanic. Fantasy does movment and assult in one phase with one simple manuever called a wheel. "Manuever", a word never once used in any recent addition of 40k. Now, what else does Fantasy have that 40k doesn't during the movement phase? Wheeling, march blocking, baiting, charge responses, redirecting and a list of manuevers. Enough said.

Lets compare magic phases...wait...no, 40k doesn't have that. you guys choose which power you want as if it were equipment and take a leadership test and the enemy dispels it with..nothing. Ok, well Fantasy players manage a pool of power and dispel dice, use randomly generated spells, and wager tactfully as to what spells will work and which ones won't. 40k has absolutly nothing to compare this too. "Just as tactical" my ***, what a bunch of crap.

Close combat phase? Pretty much the same here, except we have challenges but those are more fluffy than anything. The latest edition of 40k added modifiers to combat resolution that were more common to Fantasy. Overall the only thing Fantasy offers here that 40k doesn't is more emphasis on combat resolution what with altitude, ranks, numbers and flanks coming into the picture which really equals quite a bit more tactical thought.

What, overall, does 40k offer that fantasy doesn't? Again, not in terms of tanks vs. trees, but in gameplay system? The only point I can think to make is equipment management; Every race has it's own list of equipment from the standard to the rare that is uniquely it's own and it takes some tactical thought as to what to use and where best to use it. However, This would be the only point I could give to 40k that is not also somehow found in Fantasy and usually in more detial with more tact required. Given that WHFB still possess "armories" where as most recent codexes do not, I would also say this point does not give too much credit.

WHFB is a more tactical game. Any argument against it is a fools argument; however more 40k players see this as an insult as if since they are playing (or prefer) a less tactical game then that must mean they're stupid. This is completly incorrect, and I think of it like this: If you would rather watch a sitcom than the history channel, it does not make you a less intellegent person. Sure, theres no doubt that the history channel takes more intellegence to understand and that more intellegent people watch it but is in no way indicative of your intellegence should you choose not to watch - you can be just as smart as someone that does but prefer sitcoms instead for the qualities that it offers.

I'm a proud player of both WHFB and WH40k.

As for the stereotypical demographic of tabletop gamers playing these two games...It's true and if you've been around long enough you've seen it this way - younger gamers with 40k and older gamers with Fantasy. But this is also not indicative of intelligence that these two groups of gamers have and is most certiantly not always the case. The reason for this is not intellgence, but patience. Younger gamers, espeically given the video/graphics driven entertainment industy we have, are more keen to a streamlined (read also: less to memorize, study, think about, stress over, i.e. less tactical) experience. A younger gamer might at once be curious by the tabletop game and mechanics but simultaniously wondering if theirs a video game adaption of it (and lo, there is!). It does not need mentioning how older gamers differ from this attitude, suffice to say that they do and why they would prefer a game with more tactics involved despite the patience it requires. Having made this point, I will also say i've seen kids playing Fantasy and older folks playing 40k, but I would hardly say this represents the majority demogrpahic for each game.

People just need to realize that 40k is a more strategic game :P .

Seriously though, this is what happens; the human brain has limited processing power. In 40k, there are near limitless possibilities in most given situations, too many for most to quickly analyze and come to the "perfect" conclusion. Whereas in Fantasy, with all those restrictions you have a much more finite list of possible moves at any given time. It's easier to analyze that with our limited brainpower. It "feels" more tactical.

Same thing happens in chess. The later into the game it is, the better humans play, because the computational requirements are lower as more and more pieces are removed from the board.

Besides, I've always laughed when I hear someone proclaiming Fantasy to trump 40k in tactics. It's like saying the Civil War was more tactical than WWII and later wars, because in the Civil War everyone got into nice little lines before they shot each other. The tactics are still there, they're just much "softer" and more subtle. Your armies strategy becomes more important, because your individual units actually have tactical flexibility to rapidly adjust to changing situations.

Fantasy is more like a chess game, with set, well defined movements, while 40k is more like a paintball war, where you can do what you want, but good tactics and strategy will still win the day (assuming neutral luck and reasonably balanced armies). They're two different beasts. Apples to oranges, if you will.

And frankly, I prefer 40k, with tactics in 40k being more subtle rather than more clear cut like in fantasy. I haven't played much fantasy, but all that I have played and seen played seemed like "there's only one or two good things for this unit to do this turn, so I don't have to think about what it should do much". That's just me.

S0ULDU5T

12-13-2009, 12:23 AM

People just need to realize that 40k is a more strategic game :P .

Seriously though, this is what happens; the human brain has limited processing power. In 40k, there are near limitless possibilities in most given situations, too many for most to quickly analyze and come to the "perfect" conclusion. Whereas in Fantasy, with all those restrictions you have a much more finite list of possible moves at any given time. It's easier to analyze that with our limited brainpower. It "feels" more tactical.

Almost any decision can be met with near infinite conclusions with the probablities and circumstances of anything. However, this is a dynamic present in both Fantasy and 40k, my point being what tactical offerings Fantasy has that 40k does not and I gave many examples. The restrictions you mention only "stop" the mind (thus resulting in one 'clear' path to choose) if you let it, meaning that there are only finite things you can do only if your unwilling to consider that there might be infinite things you can do. Of these thought provoking circumstances during the movement phase, Fantasy has distincly more.

Same thing happens in chess. The later into the game it is, the better humans play, because the computational requirements are lower as more and more pieces are removed from the board.

How is this point in your favor? the movement phase in Fantasy encompasses movement, charging, positioning and alloting for shooting just to name a few; things that 40k spreads into three different phases to break it down and simplify it; to 'reduce the computational requirements'.

Besides, I've always laughed when I hear someone proclaiming Fantasy to trump 40k in tactics. It's like saying the Civil War was more tactical than WWII and later wars, because in the Civil War everyone got into nice little lines before they shot each other. The tactics are still there, they're just much "softer" and more subtle. Your armies strategy becomes more important, because your individual units actually have tactical flexibility to rapidly adjust to changing situations.

As funny as you think your example is, no one here is claiming that or making any mention of how these two wars are alike; your examples are complety random despite the existence of "lines", in which case I hear there are all sorts of similarities to other geometric shapes.

What do you mean "softer" and more subtle? Your saying the same thing I am but in a more colorful way. Your tactics are more subtle, so less defined and not as prevailant? Doesn't that prove my point? Softer, as in not as intensive and thought provoking? It's like the original article using the word "restrictive", it all means the same thing. In 40k the processes aren't as complicated or tactical but I appreciate that you agree with me albeit with choosing different words that mean the same thing.

Fantasy is more like a chess game, with set, well defined movements, while 40k is more like a paintball war, where you can do what you want, but good tactics and strategy will still win the day (assuming neutral luck and reasonably balanced armies). They're two different beasts. Apples to oranges, if you will.

By "like a chess game", you mean that we follow a set of rules? So do you, just Fantasy requres more tactical thought in so doing. Besides, you know your comparing Fantasy to one of the most intelligent thought provoking games in the world, known to some as "the game of kings"?

eagleboy7259

12-13-2009, 01:12 AM

Almost any decision can be met with near infinite conclusions with the probablities and circumstances of anything. However, this is a dynamic present in both Fantasy and 40k, my point being what tactical offerings Fantasy has that 40k does not and I gave many examples. The restrictions you mention only "stop" the mind (thus resulting in one 'clear' path to choose) if you let it, meaning that there are only finite things you can do only if your unwilling to consider that there might be infinite things you can do. Of these thought provoking circumstances during the movement phase, Fantasy has distincly more.

How exactly does fantasy have more thought provoking circumstances in the movement phase? Fantasy is mostly a linear game, units move up and down across the table to meet each other in the center of the table 90% of the time. In 40k units move across the table in a number of ways, deep striking, out flanking, just to name a few. WFB is played mostly across smooth, flat areas. 40k tables encompass vast sections of terrain which effect the survivability, movement, and vision of units.

How is this point in your favor? the movement phase in Fantasy encompasses movement, charging, positioning and alloting for shooting just to name a few; things that 40k spreads into three different phases to break it down and simplify it.

How does that support your argument? That's like me saying "40k encompasses psychic powers into multiple phases of the turn, WFB has a separate phase for that" That proves nothing. It's like me saying I walked from the chair to the stairs and you saying "well I stuck my left foot out in front, then my right foot... and standing both feet together reached the stairs." We both walked there for good sake. Generally complexity like this have relatively little to do with tactics. The breaks are in part necessary. 40k has to break shooting down into a separate phase because 90% of the models have guns, most stuff in WFB doesn't. The Assault phase is a throw back to editions past when units could shoot one thing and then charge another, it was complicated by guns and is a hold over to this edition.

What do you mean "softer" and more subtle? Your saying the same thing I am but in a more colorful way. Your tactics are more subtle? Doesn't that prove my point? Softer, as in not as intensive and thought provoking? It's like the original article using the word "restrictive", it all means the same thing. In 40k the processes aren't as complicated or tactical and I appreciate that you agree with me albeit with choosing different words that mean the same thing.

Just simply, no. Again complicated doesn't equal tactical. If anything WFB is more restrictive. Most units in 40k can fulfill multiple roles on the battlefield decently, units in WFB mostly fulfill all of the same role. WFB: These guys here shoot, these guys here charge, or for the mix up everybody charges. Umm... what? very tactful. 40k: Basic Tactical Marine can shoot and do combat decently, he's not really part of a whole army line, where do you move him to? what does he shoot at? should he assault? All they take all comers or dedicated to some role? Theres a lot that goes into designing and playing with individual units. Not really the same for WFB as the roles are more or less dictated out, archers shoot, warriors charge...

By "like a chess game", you mean that we follow a set of rules? So do you, just Fantasy requres more tactical though in so doing. Besides, you know you comparing Fantasy to one of the intelligent thought provoking games in the world, known to some as "the game of kings"?

Oh you mean "the game of kings" as in you might as well just put four heros or lords onto the table and the rest of the army is just filler?

Just_Me

12-13-2009, 01:34 AM

DarkLink

12-13-2009, 01:58 AM

I really don't understand this debate, the tactical elements of any given game system (beyond a certain level of complexity) has nothing to do with the system itself, and everything to do with how players choose to approach it. To continue using the "game of kings" as an example, chess has severely limited movement options and playing space, to some it may appear that this means that there are only a few different ways for the game to unfold with very few valid "tactical" options, to another (e.g. a chess grandmaster) there are virtually unlimited options.

In short, each of the GW systems will only give you back what you put into it, if you are convinced that there are only a few viable options for armies and tactics in 40k, then that is all you will get out of it, if you realize that there are vast numbers of tactical options available to you, then that is what you will get.

Actually, this is what I'm trying to get to. I'm not going to say that one game is more or less tactical than the other (or at least, I don't intend to). I'm trying to say that they're different games, and require different thought process, tactics and strategies. Saying on is more or less tactical than the other is, to me, kinda dumb, to be completely frank.

40k is tactical because you need to be very flexible and fluid during the game, as the tide of battle can shift very quickly, and you need to realize this and deal with it. Fantasy is tactical, because it requires you to carefully plan out how everything will move and attack, because there are lots of limitations on what you can do. Both are tactical, in different ways. That's not to say that they share nothing in common in terms of tactics, just that they're different games and it is pointless to directly compare them.

And I think it's worth pointing out that regardless of which system we're talking about, there are just times when an army is just point and click, or is so much more powerful than the other army that there aren't really any tactics needed. But one of the reasons I find the claim that fantasy is more tactical funny is that, as a Grey Knight player, the only reason I ever win is because I outplay my opponent. It doesn't always happen, and sometimes luck gets in the way or my opponent has a unit that I just can't deal with, but after playing so many games against skilled, competitive players I find the idea that skill and tactics don't matter in 40k to be rather peculiar. In my gaming group, they mean the difference between victory and defeat in the majority of our games.

Besides, how do you quantify tactics anyways? I'd say its more a matter of "do you have to think about your choices carefully or not". I feel this happens in both games, thus both games are tactical.

BuFFo

12-13-2009, 02:34 AM

Before quitting Fantasy earlier this year, for the entirety of 7th Edition, I have not played a single game where both Fantasy players do not line up their armies in the middle of the deployment zone, with flankers to the left and right of the army. Then, both armies move 'oh so tactically' straight into each other, with the only hint of strategy being that of flank march blockers, and charge bait units. Magic either is completely an after thought to a match, or it dominates the entire game. Same with shooting, as it either ignored or over used.

In the end, it does come down to opinion and person choice. My opinion is that Fantasy, in its current edition, is nearly unplayable due to its repetitiveness of the single, solitary scenario over and over again, and how core units are generally worthless while elite armies rule the day. Play yourself an Orc, Ok, TK, WE, DE, HE or Empire army with mainly core units ON FOOT and get rolled over.

Thats my opinion, nothing more, nothing less. :)

Melissia

12-13-2009, 02:36 AM

Redacted by Jwolf.

zealot

12-13-2009, 03:24 AM

Redacted.

Yeah I donno. Fantasy is a fantasy game and 40k is science fiction.

one has orks with guns. both are cool

Kahoolin

12-13-2009, 03:46 AM

"Tactics" are nothing more than responses to the actions or potential actions of another to achieve an aim. You can't have tactics without an opponent, and tactics are entirely dictated by your opponent and what they do or you think they will do. To say that the rules of a game influence the tactical performance of the people taking part in it is completely redundant. The rules of a game are the representation in the game of real life parameters.

Seeing as we are all labouring under clunky analogies here, how about this: Saying the rules of a game make it more tactical than those of another game is like saying sea battles are more tactical than air battles. It is an erroneous statement. All games require tactics to win, just like battles, and all tactics in games are restricted by the rules in the same way that tactics in real battles are restricted by the environment.

Tactics are what you do to overcome your opponent within the rules. To say that rulesets can be more or less tactical is senseless. They can be more or less complex, but every game in existence is equally tactical, that is, their tactical demands are placed upon the players by the other player. Connect 4 has exactly the same tactical requirements as chess, Risk or Warhammer (of any flavour).

Aldramelech

12-13-2009, 03:50 AM

They are different games, period. I like both and play both. I see no point to the argument.

Bean

12-13-2009, 11:57 AM

While the OP's post does come off as somewhat unnecessarily combative and, well, somewhat unnecessary in general, he's basically right, and he's right for the right reasons. The decisions you have to make in Fantasy are significantly more involved, and that's basically what we mean when we say that a game is more "tactical."

The OP did, however, miss one element of complication that 40k has and Fantasy doesn't, and that's vehicles. There's no vehicle equivalent in Fantasy. In 40k, balancing out your firepower between anti-infantry and anti-vehicle, and deciding, for those units which do both, which to focus on in general or use at any given point in time, is a type of decision that you just don't have to make in Fantasy, since Fantasy doesn't have this sort of dichotomy in terms of units. Sure, it has monsters, but they're just not sufficiently different from regular guys, in terms of mechanics, to be comparable to vehicles in 40k.

That being said, I like both games. I like 40k better, because I find some of the nit-picky details you have to worry about in Fantasy to be more annoying than fun, but I enjoy both. If there's one thing I could do to make 40k more like fantasy, it would be to change psychic powers and psychic defense to be more like fantasy's magic system. Having a separate phase for it would be stupid, like it is in fantasy, and the random spell generation is, frankly, unnecessary and mostly just irritating, but the casting and dispel mechanics, with the resource management elements they entail, are substantially better than those in 40k.

Denzark

12-13-2009, 12:34 PM

They are different games, period. I like both and play both. I see no point to the argument.

Must we talk about that time of the month my dear?

PS

@ Bean We've been there, done that, with 2ed card system which people said over dominated the game (I didn't as lascannoning works as well as dispelling).

Aegis

12-13-2009, 12:47 PM

Just my own take on the whole discussion, but it seems as though Fantasy supporters tout the rigidness of much of the rule set as the defining factor of the game. As though having less options makes it more tactical, or strategic. However, my own mindset seems to see that almost as a failing. As Buffo put it, the vast majority of games in the current rule set devolve into marching in a straight line, more or less, and beating each other over the head. That, I believe, is a symptom of the lack of freedom of movement.

Souldust alluded to the over complexity of 40k's phases as though it was what made it simpler for people to play and understand, thus less tactical. Now, I may have misunderstood what he was aiming for, but that was how I read it, and frankly, if that is the case, it seems like a contradiction. By all means, though, if I am wrong in that analysis, let me know.

When it comes to the movement in 40k, though, because of the lack rigid movement patterns, and additional chances to move, it allows for a greater degree of strategy, allowing the player to adapt more fluidly to the pace of the game. In Fantasy, once you move, you are committed to a certain path. That is not tactics or strategy. That is lining your ducks up in a row, and hoping it works out.

As a final note, I am not about to say one is superior to the other, as I have enjoyed both games at one or time or another (with my current focus on 40k). What I will note, though, is that Fantasy is in dire need for an update in how it is played, which I hope the new addition brings to the table.There is little variation in the manner in which it is currently played, and there are too many factors in the game that feel redundant, or unnecessary, many of which know the factors of which I allude.

DarkLink

12-13-2009, 12:59 PM

Redacted.

Yeah, whenever I hear someone say "Fantasy is more tactical," I get the mental image of a rich British guy holding a pipe and a cup of tea looking down over his nose at the "obviously inferior 40k players".

Herald of Nurgle

12-13-2009, 01:13 PM

Yeah, whenever I hear someone say "Fantasy is more tactical," I get the mental image of a rich British guy holding a pipe and a cup of tea looking down over his nose at the "obviously inferior 40k players".
Good Day to you, sir, I am Baron Herald the Fourth. Plum, tea, and sherry and all that.

I agree, of course, my good man. The argument is as invalid as colonials bearing the rights to rule their own country, by jove!

RocketRollRebel

12-13-2009, 01:27 PM

They are different games, period. I like both and play both. I see no point to the argument.

Yeah this whole argument is kinda stupid. I play much more 40k but I would really love to get into WHFB (I may with the new BoC book). The only thing I would argue is that 40k armies do seem much more balanced and the tournament scene does seem better. In 40k it seems old armies can still win in competent hands and you don't go to 40k GT's and see anything like 7 carbon copy internet demon lists.

BuFFo

12-13-2009, 01:35 PM

Yeah this whole argument is kinda stupid. I play much more 40k but I would really love to get into WHFB (I may with the new BoC book). The only thing I would argue is that 40k armies do seem much more balanced and the tournament scene does seem better. In 40k it seems old armies can still win in competent hands and you don't go to 40k GT's and see anything like 7 carbon copy internet demon lists.

Most army books are considered 'old', so you are completely correct. Older books cannot compete with the newer books.

Melissia

12-13-2009, 01:37 PM

I can win regularly with my Sisters thank you very much, unless you're referring to older WFB armies at any rate.

Rapture

12-13-2009, 02:37 PM

I can ski and snowboard. I think snowboarding is easier. My brother thinks skiing is easier.

Can you see the moral of the story?

Marshal2Crusaders

12-13-2009, 02:54 PM

I can ski and snowboard. I think snowboarding is easier. My brother thinks skiing is easier.

Can you see the moral of the story?

Kill those who think different?

Aldramelech

12-13-2009, 03:34 PM

I can ski and snowboard. I think snowboarding is easier. My brother thinks skiing is easier.

Can you see the moral of the story?

A good point well made

BuFFo

12-13-2009, 03:47 PM

I can win regularly with my Sisters thank you very much, unless you're referring to older WFB armies at any rate.

What I said/responded to had nothing to do with 40k.

Melissia

12-13-2009, 03:50 PM

Okay, apologies then, I misread your post.

BuFFo

12-13-2009, 03:53 PM

Okay, apologies then, I misread your post.

Yeah, I agree with you, and the guy I responded too, that in 40k, older Codexes can compete and beat newer ones.

When it comes to Fantasy, their Army Books are so skewed that when you take two players of equal skill, older books cannot beat newer books. Fantasy is just a mess at the moment, if "moment" means "since the High Elvf Army Book came out with its band aid balancing, to until the game gets reset like it did in 6th edition'. :)

Jwolf

12-13-2009, 04:52 PM

Okay, seems to be calming down. Please state your opinions labelled as opinions.

For instance, I play 40K and Fantasy. I find that 40K requires more planning and more reacting, because I know what my opponent is going to do from set-up in WFB, whereas the movement and Reserves in 40K means I have to deal with more curves. I also can expect more reliable outcomes in 40K, as there are more dice rolled (which normalizes the curves) and artillery are nowhere near as random.

The Magic phase argument seems fairly specious to me, as so many armies do little to nothing with Magic, and usually one side is just enjoying attempting to take advantage of their free phase.

Katie Drake

12-13-2009, 04:56 PM

Just because Fantasy has more rules doesn't make it more tactical. Setting up your army in a line of blocks and then moving toward the relative center of the board is not tactical.

DarkLink

12-13-2009, 05:34 PM

In my opinion, there are two different aspects of tactics involved between 40k and fantasy.

Fantasy has more rigidly defined rules, and my limited experience with fantasy makes its tactics seem like a chess game, where pieces can only move certain ways and the first player to get the superior position gets an advantage. Kinda like Chess.

40k, on the other hand, is about predicting your opponent's moves and effectively countering them, or preventing your opponent from countering your moves. It's more like a game of Risk, where you have a lot of freedom as to where you concentrate your forces, and you and your opponent will be trying to circumvent each other's defenses and win the day.

You have to think "where is his assault going to focus" as opposed to "his assault is going here (because that's the only place it can really move to), how can I position my forces to, say, flank charge him and steal the advantage" like in fantasy. Both require though, just different areas of though.

And it's not like they can't overlap in some areas.

Aenir

12-14-2009, 12:08 AM

RocketRollRebel

12-14-2009, 01:00 AM

I play both 40k and fantasy, and I feel that while both games are fun, 40k (at least for me) is superior in enjoyment as well as competitiveness

As a poster in the early parts of the thread mentioned, Empire on foot is near to impossible to win witn (7 games, 6 Massacre, 1 Solid Loss) it is just too slow to react to anything other than dwarves it seems.

My dark angels on the other hand, are fast(ish) fluid and able to deal with near anything that is thrown at them

Exactly. I'm not sure why but it seems older 40k armies seem to still have the ability to win where as old WHFB armies are kinda effed. I don't know why but that just seems to be the way things go. I mean some 40k armies certainly have an uphill battle but not to the point where its absolutely impossible to win in a competitive setting.

DarkLink

12-14-2009, 10:27 AM

Exactly. I'm not sure why but it seems older 40k armies seem to still have the ability to win where as old WHFB armies are kinda effed. I don't know why but that just seems to be the way things go. I mean some 40k armies certainly have an uphill battle but not to the point where its absolutely impossible to win in a competitive setting.

Right. I play Grey Knights, the weakest army in the game since long before Necrons got hit with a foam bat, and I still managed to pull of wins a good amount of the time. And a lot of players in my group are very competitive, too. We don't have any hardcore IG players, though.

Melissia

12-14-2009, 10:30 AM

I've defeated an IG army that focused on AP3 large blasts and autocannons with a Sisters army, despite the fact that it was tailor-maid to destroy my army. Good tactics, a bit of luck, and a win can be pulled out of seeming defeat.

Lord Azaghul

12-14-2009, 11:00 AM

I’m not sure that this is even a valid discusion. I think the only real points are that 40k is far more of a ‘balanced’ game that fantasy. I don’t really think its fair or productive to compare one or the other has more or less tactical. They are different game systems.

However I believe that learning to play fantasy first has made me a better 40k player.
I think fantasy requires more planning ahead, and it is a ‘less forgiving game then 40k’ as a friend of my mine used to say. In fantasy if you make a mistake earlier, especially in deployment or movement it is harder to recover. Target priority is very important in both games, but you really have to take it to heart in fantasy, but mainly because the majority of your models in the army don’t usually have a gun(s)!

Things I really like about each game:
Fantasy: large blocks of troops, a real ‘army’ feel to the game. The planning, the math, the order of phases.
40k: the unpredicatible, outflanking, reserves. Loads of dice. The ‘speed’ of the game. The ability to ‘react’

Things I don’t like about each game
F: Power discontinuity, units rolling large loads of dice, things that ‘just go off’, DoC, VC, Gav Thorpe. The current state of the game.
40k: Occation ‘wound allotment’ abuse… other then that…no major issues

Melissia

12-14-2009, 11:52 AM

DarkLink

12-14-2009, 03:50 PM

They have a real army feel to them... until you actually get to combat. From what I can tell, you have things like spearmen do not defeat horsement charging from the front, archers can't beat lightly armored spearmen, and so on and so forth. Essentially it might have the appearance of a real army, but it doesn't go by the rules a real army would go by.

Of course, in 40k everyone is somehow able to sprint hundreds of yards in the time it takes their opponent to fire a handful of shots. Small bushes and shrubbery can stop fully automatic rocket launchers. Tanks smashing into each other at full speed only scratch the paint, and when a tank drives through the middle of a giant mob of orks, every single one somehow manages to dodge out of the way every single time.

But, yeah, at least 40k can handwave all that stuff based on its futuristic setting. We know how fantasy type battles would go in real life, though (except magic and daemons and stuff), and it just doesn't match reality.

BuFFo

12-14-2009, 04:10 PM

I agree with Lord,

Fantasy is for players who can plan out 4 turns in advance, and with static bonuses, be able to predict outcomes for a very linear game. Fantasy is Proactive.

4 K is less predictable, and more on the player's ability to react and adjust. 40k is Reactive.

Other than that, Fantasy sucks. :eek: :eek:

S0ULDU5T

12-14-2009, 06:41 PM

I respect the poster that said, bassicly, that you get out of each game what you put in. I can see the sense in that, but I also get out of bottles what I put in and if I have a larger bottle for fantasy than I do 40k than I'm going to get more out of it irregadless if I attempt to put just as much into both. Such it is, that Fantasy offeres a broader scope of game defining options in more phases of the game. The difference between getting flanked in the side of a unit and losing the ability to contribute your ranks to CR could be just exactly how you turn a flank protecting unit to receive an enemy. Now I think about if my unit champion is in proper contact so that I can issue a chellenge, get overkill res, force my opponent toflee and persue them into another unit. If I've planned it right, I've also chosen to do this combat before the one I persued into so now I get to attack with my unit twice in the same cc phase. This, and many other examples do not occur in 40k. Do I have cover? Uhh...really who doesn't anymore. Am I in weapon range for myself or them, and should I roll two dice to be able to move through this terrian are the only tactical issues for 40k during the movement phase.

There is no contest as to which game is more tactical, simply becuase passion does not equal proof and just becuase you prefer 40k doesn't mean it will ever posses qualities it naturally lacks.

As you all know by now, Darkwynn's Imperial Guard won at Ard Boyz. Some of you may not know that no game lasted more than 60 minutes for the champion. Sit with that a moment – the Finals for Ard Boyz, 2500 points on each side of the table, and no game over an hour. In the words of the 2nd place finalist, this army blew opposing armies off the table "like a leafblower".

Yeah, great tactical game where on a national level the games (plural, as in, more than one game) didn't last past turn three. Those that complain about fantasy (looking at Lord Azaghul) being imbalanced and prefer 40k need to examine the facts more closely before spouting off nonsense like fantasy being imabalanced (I think you and I have danced this dance before, no?). Universal rule of any game, if something is this imbalanced then the game is broken - at the very least the Fantasy 'Ard Boys games lasted as long as they should have but that was probably becuase they simply had more to think about.

They have a real army feel to them... until you actually get to combat. From what I can tell, you have things like spearmen do not defeat horsement charging from the front, archers can't beat lightly armored spearmen, and so on and so forth. Essentially it might have the appearance of a real army, but it doesn't go by the rules a real army would go by.

How dare my plastic men not behave like real people! Come to think of it, where are the supply lines, food wagons, etc? Geez, you might think you were playing a table top game if it weren't for the fact that we all know America only won WW2 becuase we had awesome die rolls and our army book was written by Gav Thorpe. Thank you, if not for your well thought out insight I might have continued to have an imagination.

Subject Keyword

12-14-2009, 07:09 PM

I like to think about my relationship with the two games in terms of their weaknesses, not their strengths, as follows.

Main problem with 40k: Feels a bit like a children's game at times. Too simple.

Main problem with WFB: As soon as you get into CC it's like "calculator battle, GO!" A bit too much like doing a spreadsheet.

I can agree that a fantasy snob always looks like a pompous, skinny, British dude in my head, but I'll have to add that a 40K snob looks like a hooting, beer-guzzling, space-marine-wanking, macho **** in my head.

I say, if you have too many masculinity issues to play with elves and vampires and numbers, avoid WFB.
If you have have an issue with fast and loose fights with heroic, metal badasses, stay away from 40k

I loves them both.:D

DarkLink

12-14-2009, 08:25 PM

There is no contest as to which game is more tactical, simply becuase passion does not equal proof and just becuase you prefer 40k doesn't mean it will ever posses qualities it naturally lacks.

Passion doesn't win arguments, you're right. But you haven't really put up an argument about why 40k isn't tactical, just displayed your passion for the issue. There is a whole series of posts talking about how it's pointless to attempt to compare the "tacticalness" of a gaming system. We, as people on the internet, like to argue over pointless things like this. But you need to actually argue, not simply say "I'm right and you're wrong." Takes all the fun out of the pointless arguing.

Yeah, great tactical game where on a national level the games (plural, as in, more than one game) didn't last past turn three. Those that complain about fantasy (looking at Lord Azaghul) being imbalanced and prefer 40k need to examine the facts more closely before spouting off nonsense like fantasy being imabalanced (I think you and I have danced this dance before, no?). Universal rule of any game, if something is this imbalanced then the game is broken - at the very least the Fantasy 'Ard Boys games lasted as long as they should have but that was probably becuase they simply had more to think about.

I don't think you'll find many people who'll agree with you that fantasy is more balanced than 40k. Particularly since your example comes from what might be the single best army in the game, under perfect circumstances. He won first turn each time, his opponents didn't have any outflankers and didn't use reserves, and from his battle reports it sounded like he had good luck in all of his games. Without those perfect conditions, it is entirely possible that he wouldn't have been so dominating.

Plus, by all accounts, he is a very skilled player. Consider the possibility that he took a powerful army, and used those "tactics" that you claim don't exist, and won the game through tactical skill as well as superior firepower. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Or maybe both.

Old_Paladin

12-14-2009, 08:46 PM

I love how the title of the thread is "Bridging the Gap" implying that both 40K'ers and Fastasy players should check out the other side of the hobby and we should both come away with a new light (both in regards to our favoured game and to the other fun game that we don't play as often).

But really, the thread should be called "I don't like your game, so step off!"
It's sad really, both are great in different ways; with different styles to make everyone happy.

I personally feel that fantasy can have a 'clunky' feel at times; 40K tends to play 'smoothly' and more fluid.
I guess some people find 'clunky' tactical; but really, the wheeling, angle calculation, charge deflection, ect. seem very time consuming.

I don't mind that at peak levels 40K can be done in an hour because of brutal death and lots of big explosions.
With some fantasy armies being so unbalanced; I would hate to play a game for two and a half hours, knowing I'm losing and see the loss build up every turn; and still have to play out another 50 minutes because of time spent wheeling the blocks around, rolling 5-8 dice per combat over three rounds of combat between 5 different melees across the board, seeing the vampire roll a single dice at a time for casting like 8-9 times because they're casting a 3+ or 4+ spell over and over and over, and have things just drag out...

RocketRollRebel

12-14-2009, 09:01 PM

DarkLink

12-14-2009, 09:06 PM

But really, the thread should be called "I don't like your game, so step off!"
It's sad really, both are great in different ways; with different styles to make everyone happy.

That's kinda the feeling I'm getting from S0ULDU5T, to be honest. And he's the one who started the thread. Personally, I haven't played enough Fantasy to say which system I prefer, but I did have fun with fantasy as well. They're both fun, and I just happened to get into 40k rather than fantasy when I started playing. I just don't think that one is more tactical than the other. I don't even see what the point of making that argument is, other than to sound condescending.

S0ULDU5T

12-14-2009, 09:34 PM

That's kinda the feeling I'm getting from S0ULDU5T, to be honest. And he's the one who started the thread. Personally, I haven't played enough Fantasy to say which system I prefer, but I did have fun with fantasy as well. They're both fun, and I just happened to get into 40k rather than fantasy when I started playing. I just don't think that one is more tactical than the other. I don't even see what the point of making that argument is, other than to sound condescending.

A stickshift semi is harder to drive than a normal car despite following all the same "rules" of the road becuase of all the things a semi driver needs to consider that normal drivers do not. This does not mean normal drivers aren't as good, just that they prefer to drive different things for their own reasons. This leads back to my OP where I said that 40k players choose to be insulted when confronted with the fact that their game is not as tactical when it isn't meant as an insult at all, just a realistic observation.

S0ULDU5T

12-14-2009, 09:44 PM

Passion doesn't win arguments, you're right. But you haven't really put up an argument about why 40k isn't tactical, just displayed your passion for the issue. There is a whole series of posts talking about how it's pointless to attempt to compare the "tacticalness" of a gaming system. We, as people on the internet, like to argue over pointless things like this. But you need to actually argue, not simply say "I'm right and you're wrong." Takes all the fun out of the pointless arguing.

I don't think you'll find many people who'll agree with you that fantasy is more balanced than 40k. Particularly since your example comes from what might be the single best army in the game, under perfect circumstances. He won first turn each time, his opponents didn't have any outflankers and didn't use reserves, and from his battle reports it sounded like he had good luck in all of his games. Without those perfect conditions, it is entirely possible that he wouldn't have been so dominating.

Plus, by all accounts, he is a very skilled player. Consider the possibility that he took a powerful army, and used those "tactics" that you claim don't exist, and won the game through tactical skill as well as superior firepower. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Or maybe both.

I'm going to double post and just qoute this whole thing. I don't list reasons why 40k isn't tactical? thats becuase thats not my point. People, please actually read my posts, please? 40k IS a tactical game, just not AS tactical as fantasy. And seriously, 40k players have nothing they can say about fantasy in terms of balance while they have a guy winning tournaments in turn one. And no, I don't believe he"just got lucky" each and every round he played against everyone. Every post I've posted I've listed examples and reasons why I think the way that I do, then I get some guy that completlyignores those points and says "Hey, you really need to back up what your saying withpoints and explanations", then people wonder why I come off sounding like a jerk when I reply.

DarkLink

12-14-2009, 09:47 PM

S0ULDU5T

12-14-2009, 09:55 PM

From what I understand, in some areas it isn't uncommon in fantasy for tournaments to allow different point values based on the army your taking. That is completely unheard of in 40k, as far as I know.

I've heard of chickens that play tic-tactoe in New York. What is your point?

When it comes to comparing the two games, I try and do the only logical thing and take a format of tournament found in both games, 'Ard Boyz. I'm not sure what point your trying to make (not that there isn't one there, just that I don't see it) but thats the rational that I use.

As for the link, I've read it. I already have so many other arguments on these forums as to wither Fantasy is balanced which I firmly believe that it is. These other posts take into account the information on this link and rebuff it as much as only a man without a graph can - not that it sits well with others that disagree. I don't wish to restart that argument here as it has nothing to do with the original article; the only reason I brought it up is becuase of the abundance of players crying how tactical 40k is and how broken fantasy is but you've got a guy making turn one wins in many tournament games which makes it a cold hard fact that something is broken in the game system of 40k (in other words,calling those people that think fantasy is broken hypocrites) but also alluding to the fact that whatever is wrong with the game system that would allow this draws away from any tactics the game has. I use the rational that the other players that competed in the tournament must have posessed some measure of skill but that skill was made irrelevent by whatever broken mechanic exists at the time.

Nabterayl

12-14-2009, 09:58 PM

A stickshift semi is harder to drive than a normal car despite following all the same "rules" of the road becuase of all the things a semi driver needs to consider that normal drivers do not. This does not mean normal drivers aren't as good, just that they prefer to drive different things for their own reasons. This leads back to my OP where I said that 40k players choose to be insulted when confronted with the fact that their game is not as tactical when it isn't meant as an insult at all, just a realistic observation.
I think perhaps the sticking point is the use of the word "tactical." It sounds like you're using "tactical" to mean "has choices associated with it," so that a game is more or less tactical based on the number of choices associated with play. I don't personally find that to be a very useful definition of the word. Every game has choices associated with it, but it seems silly to me to say that Monopoly is more "tactical" than Sorry just because it calls on the player to make more choices, or plan further ahead.

I prefer this definition of tactical:

A game is tactical to the extent that it admits of analogies between tactics that can successfully be used within the context of the game and tactics that have been or are successfully used by real-world combatants.

One of the implications of this definition is that you can learn about the tactics of the game by learning about the tactics of its real-world analogues, and you can learn about the tactics of one tactical game by learning the tactics of another. It tries to put its finger on the thing that makes a player not a skilled player of Fantasy or 40K, but a skilled tactician.

40K plays fast and loose with its tactical analogies, which both is part of the fun and decreases the amount that it is "tactical" by this definition. For instance, in my opinion, orks are essentially Napoleonic in the way they play, despite having armored fighting vehicles and automatic weapons - if you know how to handle early 18th century armies, you know how to handle orks; but try to play orks like World War II era infantry, and you won't be as successful (in my opinion).

I'm not familiar enough with Fantasy to judge it on this basis, but it's not obvious to me, by this definition, that Fantasy is any more tactical than 40K, for the reasons that Melissia outlined in this post (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=41329&postcount=35).

eagleboy7259

12-14-2009, 10:06 PM

I'm going to double post and just qoute this whole thing. I don't list reasons why 40k isn't tactical? thats becuase thats not my point. People, please actually read my posts, please? 40k IS a tactical game, just not AS tactical as fantasy.

Okay so prove it. Say something that isn't either just straight opinion or isn't completely pointless. The wheeling thing, the magic thing, crying about who is more unbalanced under GW's rules and the "oh I happen to have a plan when I build an army list" doesn't count for squat in my book.

Really either just keeep your opinion to yourself because this is more or less an apples an oranges type thing, since the level that tactics plays into a game is both an interpertation based on game play experience and dependent upon the level of competition you come up against or you can go post this in the WFB section where you might get some support.

Lord Inquisitor

12-14-2009, 10:31 PM

I will say one thing and one thing only. You are insulting and talking down about 40k. I say that because that is what I am getting out of everything you say. And from the responces of most people they have the same opinion. When you are giving a person words to listen what you say is determined by what the other person believes you said, not always by how you mean it. From what you've said you have only gotten animosity. Either you are a troll who only wants to stir up trouble, or you need to learn to get ideas across in a better way.

S0ULDU5T

12-14-2009, 10:32 PM

Okay so prove it. Say something that isn't either just straight opinion or isn't completely pointless. The wheeling thing, the magic thing, crying about who is more unbalanced under GW's rules and the "oh I happen to have a plan when I build an army list" doesn't count for squat in my book.

Really either just keeep your opinion to yourself because this is more or less an apples an oranges type thing, since the level that tactics plays into a game is both an interpertation based on game play experience and dependent upon the level of competition you come up against or you can go post this in the WFB section where you might get some support.

If I wanted support, would I really be posting here, in a 40k dominated site and forum? Anyway, so I'm suppose to prove to you that fantasy is a more tactical game without using the movement phase or magic phase becuase apperently it doesn't mean 'squat' to you..well since you and your squat are so important I guess I must oblige. So close combat phase? Fantasy offers challenges, tactical positioning within a unit, flanks that determine effeciency in close combat, strength that modifies armor saves, a combination of three different saves to consider, height advantage, numbers within a unit, the impact of psychology such as frenzy and hatred in a unit (as well as fear and terror checks) as well as a host of flee and persuit rules. These are things unique to Fantasy that 40k doesn't have, though some form of combat res and persuit exists it doesn't exist in the same full capacity as it does in Fantasy which is why I counted it. Does that satisfy your 'squat'?

Now I just sit back and wait for someone to say something thats already been addressed then tell me I don't give any points for my arguments.

From what you've said you have only gotten animosity. Either you are a troll who only wants to stir up trouble, or you need to learn to get ideas across in a better way.

Or maybe you should not be so senstive to what others "might" mean and just accept things at face value, a point is a point. And to consider your point, if I have been 'down' on 40k its only been to counteract those that have been far to 'up' on 40k - see this as you will but I doubt that I need to pander to persons self esteem in order to prove a point and if I do then that person is in greater need of help then I can offer.

Nabterayl

12-14-2009, 10:40 PM

so I'm suppose to prove to you that fantasy is a more tactical game ... Fantasy offers challanges, tactical positioning within a unit, flanks that determine effeciency in close combat, strength that modifies armor saves, a combination of three different saves to consider, height advantage, numbers within a unit, the impact of psychology such as frenzy and hatred in a unit (as well as fear and terror checks) as wellas a host of flee and persuit rules. These are things unique to Fantasy that 40k doesn't have, though some form of combat res and persuit exists it doesn't exist in the same full capacity as it does in Fantasy which is why I counted it. Does that satisfy your 'squat'?

Do us all a favor and define "tactical?" The Army's definition is the ability to employ units (i.e., any units, in any army and any rule system) in combat in relation to each other, the terrain, and the enemy in order to translate potential combat power into victorious battles and engagements.

Your definition of tactics does not seem to be the ability to employ units in combat in relation to each other, the terrain, and the enemy in order to translate potential combat power into victorious battles and engagements. It would help a lot if you could provide a definition.

It would also help if you could explain to us why it is of interest to you whether Fantasy is more "tactical" (however you define that term) than 40K. Are you venting because somebody recently insulted you by telling you that Fantasy is less tactical than 40K? Is it your perception that we on this board are claiming that Fantasy is less tactical than 40K? Without knowing what you're reacting to it's like you walked up and said, "Stick shift is a more advanced driving skill than an automatic." Even if true, when said out of the blue like that, it's hard not to assume that the speaker is trying to insult the listener.

S0ULDU5T

12-14-2009, 10:59 PM

Do us all a favor and define "tactical?" The Army's definition is the ability to employ units (i.e., any units, in any army and any rule system) in combat in relation to each other, the terrain, and the enemy in order to translate potential combat power into victorious battles and engagements.

Your definition of tactics does not seem to be the ability to employ units in combat in relation to each other, the terrain, and the enemy in order to translate potential combat power into victorious battles and engagements. It would help a lot if you could provide a definition.

It would also help if you could explain to us why it is of interest to you whether Fantasy is more "tactical" (however you define that term) than 40K. Are you venting because somebody recently insulted you by telling you that Fantasy is less tactical than 40K? Is it your perception that we on this board are claiming that Fantasy is less tactical than 40K? Without knowing what you're reacting to it's like you walked up and said, "Stick shift is a more advanced driving skill than an automatic." Even if true, when said out of the blue like that, it's hard not to assume that the speaker is trying to insult the listener.

Fair enough,my definition: tac·tics (tāk'tĭks)
n. 1.
a.(used with a sing. verb) The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy: Tactics is a required course at all military academies.

b.(used with a pl. verb) Maneuvers used against an enemy: Guerrilla tactics were employed during most of the war.

2.(used with a sing. or pl. verb) A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.

As for why this subject is important to me - well, if you would define the sky as blue and someone calls it green, how much you would care to correct someone would directly depend on all sorts of things. Specificly, how much you care about the sky, the person uttering the nonsense, and how much effort your willing to expend to convince others of your opinion,etc. In short, I care as much about furthering my point in this arguement as those that care to deminish it, and that is all. As for what brought it up, the original article chose to use the word "restrictions"in much the same context as the word "tectcs" but then went on to say that while fantasy possesed more restrictions, it had the same amount of tactics as 40k. This struck me as hypocrisy and rubbish and so I posted here.

What you people need to realize is that, despite my method of debate,if I truly did not think highly of this community then I woundn't post here nor continue to do so adamantly. Take that as you will.

Even if true, when said out of the blue like that, it's hard not to assume that the speaker is trying to insult the listener I agree, and only do not apologize for seeming as such becuase I do not believe it a fault to be straight forward; the neccesity to tip-toe around a persons feelings or the infinite ways something can be interpreted (espeically on the internet)are of little concearn to me as long as a logical and well thought out points are present.

Melissia

12-14-2009, 11:03 PM

How dare my plastic men not behave like real people! Come to think of it, where are the supply lines, food wagons, etc? Geez, you might think you were playing a table top game if it weren't for the fact that we all know America only won WW2 becuase we had awesome die rolls and our army book was written by Gav Thorpe. Thank you, if not for your well thought out insight I might have continued to have an imagination.

The claim was made that it's like a real army . I disputed it. Don't bull**** around afterwards trying to act like my dispute is illogical when the logic you use to make your point makes the claim that I was disputing also illogical.

And you have yet to prove that 40K is less tactical. "Tactical" means, to put it succinctly:

"of, or relating to tactics; of, or relating to military operations that are smaller or more local than strategic ones; adroit, skilful or ingenious"

If you are saying it takes more skill, ingenuity, or whatnot to play WFB than 40K, then I ask of you to prove it. As it is, the only thing that's really been proven in this thread is that it takes a different kind of skill to win in WFB than 40K, not more or less. Arguably it actually takes less skill in WFB if you play certain armies.

S0ULDU5T

12-14-2009, 11:08 PM

The claim was made that it's like a real army . I disputed it. Don't bull**** around afterwards trying to act like my dispute is illogical when the logic you use to make your point makes the claim that I was disputing also illogical.

What?

And you have yet to prove that 40K is less tactical. "Tactical" means, to put it succinctly:

"of, or relating to tactics; of, or relating to military operations that are smaller or more local than strategic ones; adroit, skilful or ingenious"

If you are saying it takes more skill, ingenuity, or whatnot to play WFB than 40K, then I ask of you to prove it.

I've already defined what I mean by tactical in the very post above, and have given numerous examples of why I feel fantasy is a more tactical game. I encourage you to read my earlier posts, including where I specificly say that I'm not arguing that 40k isn't tactical, just that fantasy is more so.

Rapture

12-14-2009, 11:13 PM

Nabterayl

12-14-2009, 11:16 PM

Fair enough,my definition: tac·tics (tāk'tĭks)
n. 1.
a.(used with a sing. verb) The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy: Tactics is a required course at all military academies.

b.(used with a pl. verb) Maneuvers used against an enemy: Guerrilla tactics were employed during most of the war.

2.(used with a sing. or pl. verb) A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.
Okay, that's not too different from what the definition I would use. That being the case, I imagine you and I would both define "tactical" as "pertaining to tactics." Most of what you describe, though, doesn't strike me as an argument for one game being more or less tactical than the other. Let me try to explain:

Let's take movement as an example, and stipulate, for the sake of argument, that Fantasy's Movement requires more precision, and has more variables, than the 40K Movement phase. That makes Fantasy's Movement phase more complex. Depending on the implications of those variables and that precision, it might make it deeper. But the precision and variables are not "tactical" because they do not, by themselves, pertain to the securing of objectives or the deploying and directing of troops in effective maneuvers against the enemy.

In order to be tactical, the extra precision and variables in the Fantasy Movement phase would have to allow a player to employ his troops in effective maneuvers against the enemy. This, they undoubtedly do. But in order to be more tactical than the 40K Movement phase, the Fantasy Movement phase would have to facilitate a Fantasy player's employment of his troops in effective maneuvers against his enemy more than the 40K Movement phase facilitates a 40K player's employment of his troops in effective maneuvers against his enemy.

Now, that is an argument we might be able to have. We might decide that the Fantasy Movement phase is more important to the outcome of the game than is the 40K Movement phase, and on that basis judge the Fantasy Movement phase to be "more" tactical than the 40K Movement phase.

But now - and here's the crux of the problem - apply that reasoning to the entire game. Does the entire Fantasy ruleset allow a Fantasy player to employ his troops in effective maneuvers against his Fantasy enemy more than the entire 40K ruleset allows a 40K player to employ his troops in effective maneuvers against his 40K enemy? How could you even begin to answer that question?

This is, by the way, why I prefer my definition. I can't say that Fantasy's rules allow me to secure my Fantasy objectives any better, or any more completely, than Monopoly's rules allow me to secure my Monopoly objectives. So I prefer to speak of games as being more or less tactical based on how well they mirror tactics that actual soldiers have actually employed at actual times (though I'm all for interesting historical mix-and-match). That way I can say that Fantasy is more tactical than Monopoly, because Fantasy more closely mirrors tactics used by actual soldiers at actual times more than Monopoly does.

As for why this subject is important to me - well, if you would define the sky as blue and someone calls it green, how much you would care to correct someone would directly depend on all sorts of things.
Well, fair enough, but did anybody in this community call the Fantasy sky green? I sure didn't.

S0ULDU5T

12-14-2009, 11:19 PM

40k has aircraft, so it is obviously more tactical.

Technicly, without Apocolypse which is an addition to the game and not the game itself, there are only flyers that operate as skimmers and nothing more.

Nab, your post is just above mine and I'm responding to it as a whole so I've decided not to qoute it here. I really respect your point of view, and I appreciate your input. Using your example, let me illustrate my point; specificly the movement phase and the issue of complexity versus tactics. While you say that the movement phase in fantasy is more complex(undoubtedly) you also seem to say that this isn't the same as tactics becuase they do not pertain to the securing of objectives. However, its complexity that drives that creation of tactics. For instance, if I take a straight line with my objective to go from point A, the begining, to point B which represents the end then tactics can also mean any of those things along that line that needs overcoming. To expound further, I'm saying that wheeling, positioning, consideration of flanks, etc while complex present obstacles along my path to the objective which must be overcome by clever use of the tool of tact. The fact that fantasy has more of these restrictions, obstacles or complexaties are only more things for a fantasy player to consider that a 40k player doesnt, furthering my point that more tactical consideration is required by a fantasy player. This is by means of one example only, and doesn't mean my point is limited to the movement phase only - it was just the best example to use from such a well thought out and intellegent response.

eagleboy7259

12-14-2009, 11:23 PM

If I wanted support, would I really be posting here, in a 40k dominated site and forum? Anyway, so I'm suppose to prove to you that fantasy is a more tactical game without using the movement phase or magic phase becuase apperently it doesn't mean 'squat' to you..well since you and your squat are so important I guess I must oblige. So close combat phase? Fantasy offers challanges, tactical positioning within a unit, flanks that determine effeciency in close combat, strength that modifies armor saves, a combination of three different saves to consider, height advantage, numbers within a unit, the impact of psychology such as frenzy and hatred in a unit (as well as fear and terror checks) as wellas a host of flee and persuit rules. These are things unique to Fantasy that 40k doesn't have, though some form of combat res and persuit exists it doesn't exist in the same full capacity as it does in Fantasy which is why I counted it. Does that satisfy your 'squat'?

Now I just sit back and wait for someone to say something thats already been address then tell me I don't give any points for my arguments.

And in 40k everybody just rushes right in with no thought to anything and it's just a big jumbled mess right? because half that stuff doesn't also apply to 40k, not to mention 40k has it's own unique parts to our assault phase but I suppose that doesn't matter to you at all. Half the time with any given army a number of that stuff is out of your hands anyway. Not to mention that isn't tactics that's game mechanics.

Tactics: the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.
Strategy: the art or science of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.

Strategy meaning the utilization and planning, Tactics being the deployment and use in actual combat.

Almost all fantasy games involve the same tactics and strategy, meeting engagement with most units duking it out in the middle of the table. Armies just line themselves up in a straight line across from each other most of the time. Sometimes units are faster and can pick out a favorable match up. Lovely, 90% of the time its the same damn thing. A very limited number of armies can somewhat alter this, making skeletons pop out of the ground, miners appear from out of no where, etc. The fact is both armies line up and generally run towards each other trying to whack at each other with axes, maces, or what ever they have or they try to sit there and shoot the pieces out of the army coming their way with guns and magic. Almost every mechanic, piece of equipment or anything just tries to create a favorable or "exciting" modification to these IMOP blunt and boring tactics invoked by the game play design.

In 40k the armies are vastly different, sure it breaks down into variations of a few common methods, but it's hard to make a list that deals with mech, hordes, drop pods, multi-monsters, etc. Sure there aren't infinite possibilities but it's enough to make matches new and exciting. Army building like that has never been a problem for WFB, you can build one list and on your end tactics wise it works just as well no matter the opponent. You don't have to decided that your standard troop is going to try a different role or say a different "tactic" as the word is meant to be used, it just does 1 job, only 1 job, never anything but one 1 job. On the other side of things there is a lot more thought put into the deployment of 40k armies. No straight lines, they utilize the board, the special rules of the army, and the special rules of the mission. Something that starts the game on the table could the next game be put mostly in reserves, infiltrate, you get where I'm going by now. Sure list building and execution matter for something in WFB, if it didn't I'm sure no one would play the game, but you aren't granted as much variation as you are in 40k.

If you were to stop, say something that vastly changes my opinion on WFB with examples, perhaps like "looky here skaven and drawves and wood elves can do A which never ever happens in B type armies let alone C, its like a completely different mindset" I'm familiar with the mechanics behind WFB, I used to play it, I got sick of playing the same type of game only against different armies, I don't need a game play lecture at every single turn because you think all 40k is so simple no one can grasp the "ultimately superior WFB."

S0ULDU5T

12-14-2009, 11:49 PM

half that stuff doesn't also apply to 40k, not to mention 40k has it's own unique parts to our assault phase but I suppose that doesn't matter to you at all. The fact that half of it doesn't apply to 40k is my point, though my full point was that none of these considerations applied to 40k while also saying that almost every consideration present in 40k is in fantasy usually in more depth and requiring more thought. What is it that you can do, for example, during your assualt phase that I cannot do in fantasy? The assualt phase allows you to move first, then also charge after shooting. In fantasy, we do this in one phase and also have to consider the shooting phase. This process does exist in both games so I havn't given it much attention (the consideration of the shooting phase), but I've asked the question from my very first post of something 40k offers that fantasy doesnt? An assualt phase, unfortunatly, is very much present in form, function and entirity in fantasy.

Tactics: the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.
Strategy: the art or science of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.

Strategy meaning the utilization and planning, Tactics being the deployment and use in actual combat.

Not to seem rude, but I was the only one asked to define tactics and the definition I used was from the dictionary, I didn't make it up to idly support my point.

In 40k the armies are vastly different, I need to bring attention to this statement, as even if there are "diverse" armies, 70% of all 40k players don't use them. Take that as you will.

If you were to stop, say something that vastly changes my opinion on WFB with examples, perhaps like "looky here skaven and drawves and wood elves can do A which never ever happens in B type armies let alone C, its like a completely different mindset"

I'm not here to convince you or make any point of why you should play Fantasy which you obviously don't care for over 40k. My point was something entirely different and if you want to discuss why you should play fantasy over 40k then ask someone else as I'm of the mind that both are a harmless form of entertianment thus whatever is fun foryou is what you should be doing.

I don't need a game play lecture at every single turn because you think all 40k is so simple no one can grasp the "ultimately superior WFB." Your own delusions are huanting you my friend, as no one has claimed this.

Sam

12-15-2009, 12:15 AM

Question. How exactly is any of this "bridging the gap"?

Melissia

12-15-2009, 12:24 AM

What?
[...]
I've already defined what I mean by tactical in the very post above, and have given numerous examples of why I feel fantasy is a more tactical game. I encourage you to read my earlier posts, including where I specificly say that I'm not arguing that 40k isn't tactical, just that fantasy is more so.

I did read them. I fail to see how you have proven your point, or how anything you have said is relevant to your argument that 40K isn't as tactical as WFB, or that the things that are relevant actually prove your point. Playing 40K against a skillful enemy requires anticipation of the enemy's moves, making the most of all phases of combat. For example, the movement phase I would argue is actually the most important in 40K, unlike you. I play Sisters, a short-ranged shooty army. Positioning and movement are vital to my succeeding in a combat-- I need to judge how far to move, whether I should move each individual unit forward or backwards, whether or not I want to move to either side. I need to keep in mind my enemy's units, what they can do, what my opponent plans to do with them. I need to plan out my movements so that I get the best single turn of shooting I possibly can before the inevitable assault, or before my own assault on more shooty armies (of which there are only really two that I'd bother assaulting, IG and Tau). If I screw up on the movement phase, whether through poor planning, poor execution, forgetting some tidbit about my units or the enemy's units, I face an incredibly uphill battle and quite possibly have already lost the game because the enemy assaults my units before I can maximize my damage output.

It is precisely BECAUSE I have more choice, and my enemy has more choice, that I have this struggle in the movement phase. The freedoms given by 40K compared to WFB promote this brand of tactics. The restrictions of WFB promote a different brand of tactics. NOT more or less tactics. DIFFERENT tactics.

As for your question of "what", I don't see how my statement doesn't stand on its own. I was responding to someone claiming that WFB felt more "real". I pointed out it felt more real... until you actually start playing. For example, when a unit of horses charges a spear wall formation of multiple ranks from the front, the results in WFB aren't anything what you'd expect. And then after I stated that, you came along and made some random comments and a strawman argument, making yourself look a fool.

CrimsonFist1149

12-15-2009, 12:28 AM

why does it have to be a competition? Can't we admit that they're both great games? Most people play both anyways

Melissia

12-15-2009, 12:32 AM

That's precisely my argument, CrimsonFist. I'm arguing that neither game requires more or less intelligence, tactics, etc to play. Only that they require a different kind.

Some people are utterly brilliant in mathematics, but utterly stupid in social settings. Other people are utterly brilliant in social settings, but can't do math without a calculator. Other people are utterly brilliant artists but you can't ask them to comprehend philosophy-- meanwhile, still other people are brilliant philosophers and debaters, but they cannot grasp the sciences.

Just the same, for real life tactics. Modern armies do not necessarilly use more tactics or even better tactics than in history. When looking at the massed troop movements in the medieval period, those took a great deal of coordination to do. but just the same, it takes a huge amount of coordination to make a modern war work, too.

Old_Paladin

12-15-2009, 12:46 AM

So close combat phase? Fantasy offers challenges, tactical positioning within a unit, flanks that determine effeciency in close combat, strength that modifies armor saves, a combination of three different saves to consider, height advantage, numbers within a unit, the impact of psychology such as frenzy and hatred in a unit (as well as fear and terror checks) as well as a host of flee and persuit rules. These are things unique to Fantasy that 40k doesn't have, though some form of combat res and persuit exists it doesn't exist in the same full capacity as it does in Fantasy which is why I counted it.

Ok, fair enough.
Lets treat this like adults and examine your points.
1) Strategic positioning: 40K has this too.
If I can keep his powerfist over 2" from combat he doesn't get to use it. In multi-combats, you can send fodder against the fist'er and leave the dread/armour sentinal/penatent engine to blast through the squad.
2) Flanks: Not quite the same, but having two units against his single unit with the right positioning is useful on several levels (weapon positioning, dividing attacks, better run-down potential).
3) Save modifiers: power weapons! The fact is you need to have a plan getting the right weapons against the right opponent. A lot of normal attacks are useful against low armour units, but a couple of power weapons is more useful against power/termie armour.
4) Different Types of saves: Armour, Invuln., FNP/WBB/bionics/special character*; looks like we get several kinds as well, and several stack.
5) Height Advantage: also a little different; but ask any 'Nid player (beasts/cav.) how he feels when the opponent deploys on the second floor of a building.
6) Number of bodies: you get +1 outnumbering; I get a butt-load of attacks! Bet you wish all 25 of your spearman could fight ('cuz I won't be able to find a single Ork player that you trade the rules for 'only base to base models attack, but outnumbering gets you +1 res).
7) Pysch: Well, there's fearless, ATSKNF, stubbon, rage, litanies of hate/battle, prefered enemy; I'll count counter-attack and furious charge too, if you get frenzy.
8) Persuit rules: well, we have hit-and-run, sweeping advance (which not everyone can do), consolidate.

So all in all looks like the two systems are nearly the same; with just some minor, superficial differences.
That means... pretty equal tactics are involved.
Stuff like:
Eldar Scorpions are better against Guard, but Banshees are better against marines.
If those Orks charge, they get a lot of bonuses, but if I charge them I take those bonuses away.
If I charge my grots into the front, it ties up the powerfist; then when my killa kans charge the rear, his unit cannot hurt them.
All those sound an aweful lot like... gosh, tactics and tactical planning to me!

Nabterayl

12-15-2009, 12:59 AM

The fact that fantasy has more of these restrictions, obstacles or complexaties are only more things for a fantasy player to consider that a 40k player doesnt, furthering my point that more tactical consideration is required by a fantasy player. This is by means of one example only, and doesn't mean my point is limited to the movement phase only - it was just the best example to use from such a well thought out and intellegent response.
I feel I should point out that you're talking about two different things here. You're arguing that Fantasy tactics are more complex than 40K tactics. I'm not sure I agree about that (which is a different post, and one I'm not very well qualified to do, as a non-Fantasy player), but that's different than saying they're "more tactical." Saying that one set of tactics is "more tactical" than another is like saying that the ocean is wetter than the river.

Just_Me

12-15-2009, 01:03 AM

I still don't see why this debate is even relevant, as I said earlier and Nabterayl said more recently (and more eloquently) tactics has nothing whatsoever to do with game mechanics.

“Tactics” and “tactical” refer to the way in which one commander (or in this case player) takes action to compensate for their opponent's actions and to further their own goals. Any of us can compare game mechanics until we are blue in the face and we can never establish one as more tactical than the other because that comparison is utterly irrelevant to the question of “tactics.” Tactics are only applicable to individual commanders (players), never to an entire game system.

Why this debate is going on at all boggles the mind…

Your own delusions are huanting you my friend, as no one has claimed this.

And no, Nabterayl’s opinions are neither delusional nor his alone. While your intentions may have been innocent (which is frankly hard to believe), you have to recognize that posting a purely opinion based argument in the 40k section of this forum essentially telling us all that we are foolish for not agreeing with you that WHFB is a more “tactical” (which the way it is being used here sounds like “more intellectual” i.e. “better”), it comes across as confrontational at best, and just plain insulting at worst. Add to this that you have generally dismissed everyone else’s arguments out of hand, and it is honestly difficult not to become frustrated with your posts.

I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not actually trying to be insulting, but you should know that your post doesn’t really seem to be serving any other purpose, it isn’t fostering profitable debate, just your effort to push your opinion on the rest of us and dismiss our attempts to generate counter arguments.

Honestly it speaks to the character of all present that this hasn't degenerated into a flame war (yet).

Old_Paladin

12-15-2009, 01:11 AM

Honestly it speaks to the character of all present that this hasn't degenerated into a flame war (yet).

You should read the stuff that we got into, in the fantasy forum.
Compared to that, he's being very civil and openminded.

Just_Me

12-15-2009, 01:25 AM

You should read the stuff that we got into, in the fantasy forum.
Compared to that, he's being very civil and openminded.

The ultimate irony being that all of this was inspired by an article about "bridging the gap" between these viewpoints, it's enough to make one laugh (or cry, not really sure which...).

DarkLink

12-15-2009, 01:32 AM

40k has aircraft, so it is obviously more tactical.

I like your thinking:D.

Fair enough,my definition: tac·tics (tāk'tĭks)
n. 1.
a.(used with a sing. verb) The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy: Tactics is a required course at all military academies.

b.(used with a pl. verb) Maneuvers used against an enemy: Guerrilla tactics were employed during most of the war.

2.(used with a sing. or pl. verb) A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.

How are any of these things quantitiative? From these definitions, either something is tactical or it isn't. So how can you say that one thing is more or less tactical than another thing?

I'm not here to convince you or make any point of why you should play Fantasy which you obviously don't care for over 40k. My point was something entirely different and if you want to discuss why you should play fantasy over 40k then ask someone else as I'm of the mind that both are a harmless form of entertianment thus whatever is fun foryou is what you should be doing.

Your own delusions are huanting you my friend, as no one has claimed this.

It sounds like you're here to argue with a whole bunch of people, none of whom seem to agree with you:p.

Aldramelech

12-15-2009, 02:41 AM

Denzark

12-15-2009, 03:08 AM

Jwolf Edit: Did you know that the sarcasm and "to tear flesh" are related linguistically? It's worth considering when you go to write that scathingly sarcastic comment.

Lord Azaghul

12-15-2009, 07:42 AM

me/ posts sign
**Stop feeding the trolls**

Melissia

12-15-2009, 11:17 AM

Agreed. And I I'm a WFB before I'm a 40k player. The two games are different for a reason and I love both.
I think that you need different skills for both games, not better skills.........
That's what I've been saying... mind you, I haven't played WFB before, just read its rulebook and talked to friends who have played it for a while. It's kinda asinine to claim that one requires more tactics than the other, though, they both rely on luck and you have to work within a set of rules fo reach of them... the rules are different, but that just means the tactics are different, not better or worse.

Aldramelech

12-15-2009, 11:23 AM

That's what I've been saying... mind you, I haven't played WFB before, just read its rulebook and talked to friends who have played it for a while. It's kinda asinine to claim that one requires more tactics than the other, though, they both rely on luck and you have to work within a set of rules fo reach of them... the rules are different, but that just means the tactics are different, not better or worse.

You and me have agreed at least twice today! An unholy alliance! lol;)

S0ULDU5T

12-15-2009, 12:16 PM

Question. How exactly is any of this "Bridging the gap"? It's not, it's a comment on the article entitled "bridging the Gap" in which I posted a comment to. A lot of people seem to be confused about that, but that isn't my fault.

1) Strategic positioning: 40K has this too.
If I can keep his powerfist over 2" from combat he doesn't get to use it. In multi-combats, you can send fodder against the fist'er and leave the dread/armour sentinal/penatent engine to blast through the squad.

If your speaking about characters, then no you really don't have a choice of how you move him into combat as the rules are very clear that they move first and contact the enemy whenever possible. If your referring to upgrades than the pile in moves all but gaurentee that all models fight. So really, no tactical decision making going on here.

2) Flanks: Not quite the same, but having two units against his single unit with the right positioning is useful on several levels (weapon positioning, dividing attacks, better run-down potential). Flanks: not existent at all. Sheer numbers upon lesser number does not a flank make.

3) Save modifiers: power weapons! The fact is you need to have a plan getting the right weapons against the right opponent. A lot of normal attacks are useful against low armour units, but a couple of power weapons is more useful against power/termie armour. This is perfectly correct but completely countered by the fact that fantasy has even more weapons with greater diversity (great weapons, spears, halberds, pikes, etc) where such tactical considerations must be met more often. This isn't even considering the magic weaposn listed in each individual armory.

4) Different Types of saves: Armour, Invuln., FNP/WBB/bionics/special character*; looks like we get several kinds as well, and several stack

Actually, only armor and invulnerable as well as cover are the only things defined as "saves", and the rules are very clear that they never stack. Different options for models getting back up would be wholly countered with VC alone if you wanted to go that route.

5) Height Advantage: also a little different; but ask any 'Nid player (beasts/cav.) how he feels when the opponent deploys on the second floor of a building. Good point. I was actually referring to the bonus to combat res that higher ground gives in the first round of combat (which you don't have) but surprisingly enough, fantasy has buildings too that offer the same advantages plus more and I know we have rules for building destruction, I cant remember if 40k does or not?

6) Number of bodies: you get +1 outnumbering; I get a butt-load of attacks! Bet you wish all 25 of your spearman could fight ('cuz I won't be able to find a single Ork player that you trade the rules for 'only base to base models attack, but outnumbering gets you +1 res). Actually, we get outnumbering and number of ranks. My spearmen get 100% of all the attacks they're supposed to get, same in 40k just yours results are only affected by "who did the most bashin" without consideration for any other tactical aspects. We have to do the "bashin" then actually think about the results of the combat.

7) Pysch: Well, there's fearless, ATSKNF, stubbon, rage, litanies of hate/battle, prefered enemy; I'll count counter-attack and furious charge too, if you get frenzy. ATSKNF and Litanies are not psychology, they're just special rules much like Cold Blooded or Immune to Psychology. I believe Rage is a special rule too, but not very familiar with it. We have stubborn and preferred enemy is really the same as hatred, but where are the fear and terror checks? This represents half of the psychology game and 40k is devoid of it.

8) Persuit rules: well, we have hit-and-run, sweeping advance (which not everyone can do), consolidate. hit and run exists in fantasy as well, but isn't really a pursuit action in either game. Sweeping advance would be the closest thing you have an only involves diceing off and adding intiative - no where near as intensive as actually taking into account combat modifiers.

You're arguing that Fantasy tactics are more complex than 40K tactics. I'm not sure I agree about that (which is a different post, and one I'm not very well qualified to do, as a non-Fantasy player), but that's different than saying they're "more tactical."

While you say that the movement phase in fantasy is more complex(undoubtedly) you also seem to say that this isn't the same as tactics because they do not pertain to the securing of objectives. However, its complexity that drives that creation of tactics. For instance, if I take a straight line with my objective to go from point A, the beginning, to point B which represents the end then tactics can also mean any of those things along that line that needs overcoming. To expound further, I'm saying that wheeling, positioning, consideration of flanks, etc while complex present obstacles along my path to the objective which must be overcome by clever use of the tool of tact. The fact that fantasy has more of these restrictions, obstacles or complexities are only more things for a fantasy player to consider that a 40k player doesn't, furthering my point that more tactical consideration is required by a fantasy player. (Copies from post #58, I'm tired of repeating myself for people that don't read posts)

As for your question of "what", I don't see how my statement doesn't stand on its own. I was responding to someone claiming that WFB felt more "real". I pointed out it felt more real... until you actually start playing.

And I was pointing out how silly it was to expect it to be "real" at all given the dice and plastic miniatures.

And no, Nabterayl’s opinions are neither delusional nor his alone. Rub two brain cells together, and figure out that I never said he was delusional. I respected Nabs post very much. This is very indicative of the type of post that makes me seem like an ******* to others.

How are any of these things quantitiative? From these definitions, either something is tactical or it isn't Like any other definition in the universe referring to a single definable object, if there can be more or less ofit present than it is quantifiable.

It sounds like you're here to argue with a whole bunch of people, none of whom seem to agree with you Shucks, and I was so looking for morale support. If only the sheer number of responses actually lended credible weight to them, then it might make a difference. Otherwise, it's just one person making a decent response and then half-wits posting comments about how someone isn't getting support with stupid smileys.

It's kinda asinine to claim that one requires more tactics than the other, though, they both rely on luck and you have to work within a set of rules fo reach of them... the rules are different, but that just means the tactics are different, not better or worse. Try using this argument with a pro chess player by telling him that checkers is just as tactical, just "in different ways" and watch as he laughs his butt off.

Melissia

12-15-2009, 12:23 PM

Try using this argument with a pro chess player by telling him that checkers is just as tactical, just "in differetn ways" and watch as he laughs his *** off.
Fail analogy is fail. WFB != chess, 40K != checkers. Both are far more complex and rely much more on luck.

In many ways, I would argue that making tactical decisions in 40K is more complex than in WFB, BECAUSE you have more choice than in WFB. This does not make it better or worse, just different.

S0ULDU5T

12-15-2009, 12:34 PM

Fail analogy is fail. WFB != chess, 40K != checkers. Both are far more complex and rely much more on luck.

What the hell are you saying? is "fail analogy is fail" even an English sentence?

In many ways, I would argue that making tactical decisions in 40K is more complex than in WFB, BECAUSE you have more choice than in WFB. This does not make it better or worse, just different.

Warhammer and eating a salad are also different, it does not excuse the fact that there is a different set of skills which may require more thought required to do one over the other. The argument that it's "different" is like someone speaking of a handicapped kid.

Melissia

12-15-2009, 12:35 PM

Warhammer and eating a salad are also different, it does not excuse the fact that there is a different set of skills which may require more thought required to do one over the other. The argument that it's "different" is like someone speaking of a handicapped kid.
If any game system is handicapped right now, it's WFB, not 40K.

Jwolf

12-15-2009, 12:54 PM

And let's call that the end to this little round of hairpulling and namecalling, S0ULDU5T and Melissia.

I can't honestly understand why either of you responds to the other. Talking to your miniatures would be more likely to result in agreement, and less crazy.

Neither Checkers nor Chess bears any significant relationship to WFB or 40K. People that see WFB as some enormous leap in tactical complexity simply haven't played enough complex games. Both 40K and WFB are intentionally on the light end of the tactical complexity scale - it's like they are designed to be playable for casual gamers or something...

S0ULDU5T

12-15-2009, 12:55 PM

If any game system is handicapped right now, it's WFB, not 40K.

Obviously because you said so right? 40k has a guy winning tournaments in the first turn and in under an hour in all his rounds but still falsely believe it's fantasy that has the broken system. No that's delusional.

I can't honestly understand why either of you responds to the other. Talking to your miniatures would be more likely to result in agreement, and less crazy.

Actually, I keep replying because I respect Melissias posts for the most part, doesn't mean I agree with these though. Speaking of which, If I wanted to speak with just like minded people I would be posting on a dominantly fantasy board but why argue with people that'll just agree with me?

Neither Checkers nor Chess bears any significant relationship to WFB or 40K. People that see WFB as some enormous leap in tactical complexity simply haven't played enough complex games. Both 40K and WFB are intentionally on the light end of the tactical complexity scale - it's like they are designed to be playable for casual gamers or something...

I see kids playing checkers and chess all the time, I think the example is as fitting of one as any and I've played many a complex game. Wither or not both games exist on the "light" end of tactical gameplay, it doesn't mean that they are equal.

Aldramelech

12-15-2009, 01:01 PM

Melissia

12-15-2009, 01:11 PM

Obviously because you said so right? 40k has a guy winning tournaments in the first turn and in under an hour in all his rounds but still falsely believe it's fantasy that has the broken system. No that's delusional.
Because obviously the length of time it takes to win determines whether or not the game is broken, amirite? Regardless, read my post again-- I stated handicapped, not broken. Handicapped by armybooks that are either blatantly overpowered or blatantly underpowered, preventing WFB from obtaining its full glory regardless of what you think about its supposed tactical superiority (And yes, you are arguing that WFB is superior to 40K, regardless of what you intend, so let's cut the bull and just be honest about it).

As for that army list, I have yet to have ANYONE win against me in the first turn in 40K, no matter what list they use. Tournaments have their own metagames going, which is not representative of the overall 40K metagame-- people in tournaments have a certain perception of army strength (Which is not necessarilly connected to reality) and thus they take certain armies thinking that they'll do good, and if someone designs an army specifically to defeat these certain armies. they can get lucky and face off against armies they re designed to fight... or get dramatically unlucky and face off against an army they're weak against.

Nabterayl

12-15-2009, 01:19 PM

Try using this argument with a pro chess player by telling him that checkers is just as tactical, just "in different ways" and watch as he laughs his butt off.
This is the sort of reasoning that makes me feel like "tactical" is really the wrong adjective for what you're describing. Chess is only "tactical" in the sense that it has a simple ruleset with complex implications for play and rewards players who can think several turns ahead. That waters down "tactical" so much that it becomes a synonym for either complexity or depth, except that it doesn't distinguish between the two, so it's less useful than either.

Chess might be a good way to rephrase the points that other people are trying to make, though. There are very few rules in chess; it is, in that sense, not a very "complex" system. However, the implications of those rules are many and varied; it is, in that sense, a very "deep" system. This means there are important facts about the game that are not "in the rules." I'm a terrible chess player (in part because it isn't a "tactical" game in the way I think of that word), but even I know that some positions on the board are stronger than others, despite any explicit rules making that so. Their strength is one of the implications of the written rules.

Similarly, let's take the issue of flanking. "Flanking" is a tactical concept that falls out of the nature of any formation that either has a facing or is not circular in shape. It is not a game mechanic, although a game mechanic may attempt to simulate it. For instance, in Fantasy, when you attack a unit's flank, there is an explicit advantage you gain from the fact that you are officially attacking the unit's flank. This is a game mechanic; you can cite it from a particular page in the rulebook.

40K doesn't have any analogous rule. "Flanking" is not in 40K as a game mechanic - but it is in 40K as a tactical concept. Suppose I have a block of 20 orks. They need a formation (not because of a rule, but because the implications of other rules punish me if I don't give them one). I settle on an interval of 1", five files, and four ranks (this is in fact my standard 20-ork formation).

Now, stop right there. If you were going to attack such a formation in a game of 40K, which angle of attack would place the enemy in the greatest danger and you in the least danger? The correct answer (on a field otherwise devoid of tactically notable features) is the flank, which is the correct answer no matter what kind of attack you use. It is even the always-correct answer if you mean "attack" in the tactical sense rather than the rules sense; i.e., if you were going to approach such a formation in a game of 40K, with the intent of making a subsequent Shooting Attack or Assault, doing so from the flank would place the enemy in the greatest danger and you in the least danger. There is no rule that gives you a bonus for making a flank attack, but you get a bonus nevertheless. And this is as true of a 5x4 block of orks as it is of a 5x1 line of space marines.

Now go back to the 5x4 block of orks, and assume one of those orks is a nob with a power klaw. Assuming a formation of five files, four ranks, and an interval of 1", where is the correct place for the nob? I would argue that the answer is the second or third rank of the third file, because that is the position that minimizes the risk that a threat will appear that the power klaw cannot reach. The nob is (or should be) the pivot point of the formation, and placing it in the middle permits the formation to wheel and march obliquely more effectively than placing it in any other position. For this reason, the first rank is in my opinion almost always the wrong answer. Placing the power klaw in the first rank not only makes the formation more cumbersome, it also gives the formation a tactically meaningful rear, which is also bad (again, not because there's a mechanical bonus for attacking the rear of a formation, but because being attacked from the rear is inherently bad even without a mechanical bonus).

None of these facts are anywhere in the 40K rulebook, but they are true of the game nonetheless. I bring this up because your focus seems to be on each game's mechanics, other people are bringing up the mechanics' implications, and it's not clear to me that you recognize why.

Lerra

12-15-2009, 01:22 PM

For what it's worth, tournament play in 40k is sort of broken, but the ruleset is fine. What's "broken" is that it is extremely difficult to take 50+ players and determine a winner with only 3 games played. Many players will win all 3 games but fail to place, and everyone knows that you must massacre your opponent or go home. This leads to people taking extreme risks and otherwise playing abnormally in order to not just secure a victory, but a massacre. The tournament games that S0ULDU5T mentions were so short because the winner's opponents took serious risks during deployment that did not pay off, and then conceded early in the game. The winner did not table all of his opponents in 30 minutes, and in normal play, those games would have gone very differently.

Melissia

12-15-2009, 01:24 PM

Old_Paladin

12-15-2009, 01:30 PM

40k has a guy winning tournaments in the first turn and in under an hour in all his rounds but still falsely believe it's fantasy that has the broken system. No that's delusional.

I think you fail to understand the difference between; broken/unbalanced and a 'powerhouse of equality'.

People say fantasy is unbalanced because if you take Daemons you have a much higher success rate regardless of skill level compared to all other armies. And those that take DE and VC are also at an advatage. WoC, LM and HE tend to do very well. While O&G, OK, TK are often pretty poorly raked at Tournies.

In 40K at the 'ard boys finals it didn't really matter what army you brought.
Guard, Eldar, Orks, Marines and Chaos ALL gave the smack-down. They were all so brutal (but equal), that the small advatage of going first tended to lead to victory.
That means that the Eldar player and the IG player were totally balanced. Nearly all the games played fast, it's not like it was one sided that only a single army type played quickly or tended to win everything.

And if you still call it broken; then you have to admit this it's the core rules of 40K that is broken (if by broken you mean quick/brutal play), but it treats all individual codexes equally under it's system.
When people say Fantasy is broken they mean the core rules are fine and it's individual armies that are the problem.

Personally I'd rather play a system where 90% of the armies are boosted/nerfed equally, even if it leads to quicker brutal games; Then play a system that seems fair but actually has 2-3 armies that clearly outclass most of the others and there's nothing that can be done to the system itself to correct that problem.

I mean, fantasy (as others had said) has tournies that have a national tier scaling system that either gives changes the army size allowed or tourniment points scored depending on the army. Thats shows a huge problem.
I don't think there's many 40K players that think going to a tournie and the rules are "Ok, you play Necrons, so hears your free Monolith you get to run; good luck! Oh, you play Wolves, yeah... you have to drop 350 points from your list... you know, to be fair..." is something that would make them think, 'you know, this is a balanced game.'

Edit:
I'd just like to add my final thoughts on 'balance.'
With the 40K 'ard boyz, the top 4 players were Guard, Eldar Marines and Orks. And Nick, as a winner, got a link to his army and tactics. Because people want to know how he won.

With the Fantasy 'ard boys: two of the top 3 were daemons and the other a Bret.
People won't care about the Fate-Thirsters lists (sorry, Will); but I bet people want to know everything about that Bret list and player (ie. how the heck did he pull that off?).

S0ULDU5T

12-15-2009, 01:31 PM

Because obviously the length of time it takes to win determines whether or not the game is broken, amirite?
Yes, yes you are. If a game is supposed to last between 4-6 turns, and at a national tournement level doesn't, then yes it means the system is broken somewhere a something is incredably imblanaced.

Regardless, read my post again-- I stated handicapped, not broken. Handicapped by armybooks that are either blatantly overpowered or blatantly underpowered, preventing WFB from obtaining its full glory regardless of what you think about its supposed tactical superiority (And yes, you are arguing that WFB is superior to 40K, regardless of what you intend, so let's cut the bull and just be honest about it). I refuse to get into a discussion as to wither fantasy is balanced or not,I've already done it and can do it again elsewhere should you choose but not here. The only fact I will bring up is that our 'Ard Boyz tournaments actually had full rounds and full gmaes, despite of how "broken" you think the game is.

As for that army list, I have yet to have ANYONE win against me in the first turn in 40K, no matter what list they use.
Personal experience proves nothing. As I said about a poster earlier, you could be playing games of 40k with you cat for all we know.

Tournaments have their own metagames going, which is not representative of the overall 40K metagame I Agree wholeheartedly if we were speaking of just the character of players or the army lists people might bring but that fact that these tournament results are so incredibly lopsided and that hardly a game was played (where is the skill and tactics if there was hardly a game played?) makes it undeniable that something is not as it should be - a fact that, atlhough presumed to exist in fantasy has not been proven at this level.

I think you fail to understand the difference between; broken/unbalanced and a 'powerhouse of equality What? a "powerhouse of equality"? are you serious? Why not just call it "gamebreaking hammer of justice", it means the same thing.
They were all so brutal (but equal), that the small advatage of going first tended to lead to victory. Thats your example of how tactical 40k is? cmon.

Melissia

12-15-2009, 01:36 PM

I refuse to get into a discussion as to wither fantasy is balanced or not
Then shutup and drop your arguments entirely. If you refuse to even discuss the fact that WFB is unbalanced, then you have nothing to add to this debate; you are doing nothing more than spamming "my game's better than yours" over and over and over.

I refer to that as trolling, myself, but your mileage may vary.

S0ULDU5T

12-15-2009, 01:48 PM

Then shutup and drop your arguments entirely. If you refuse to even discuss the fact that WFB is unbalanced, then you have nothing to add to this debate; you are doing nothing more than spamming "my game's better than yours" over and over and over.

I refer to that as trolling, myself, but your mileage may vary.

The argument was never wither fantasy was balanced, but only more tactical than its 40k counterpart. I'm more than willing to discuss your misinterpretation of a game you've never played, but not on this thread. Start another, and call me out. God knows I like a verbal beating (apparently), so I'll post there. Until then, stay on track and don't lose your head - I actually admire the few qualities you demonstrate on here every so often and don't want you to act in haste so as to diminish those things.

Nabterayl

12-15-2009, 01:49 PM

Yes, yes you are. If a game is supposed to last between 4-6 turns, and at a national tournement level doesn't, then yes it means the system is broken somewhere a something is incredably imblanaced.
That ... doesn't follow. Even if it did, that would only make the game not very fun to play. If game A is less fun than game B, it does not follow that game A is less tactical than game B.

Also, let's bear in mind that this is the national tournament level you're talking about. Neither 40K nor Fantasy are designed with a national tournament level in mind. There is a national tournament level, but as others have observed, it's badly designed. And I think it's quite clear that, even though the rule writers are aware that there is a national tournament level, they still don't design their games with the national tournament level in mind. These are the same people that persist in telling players that they are perfectly welcome to ignore official FAQs, after all. Saying the game doesn't function well when used other than as intended isn't really very persuasive.

Melissia

12-15-2009, 01:54 PM

The argument was never wither fantasy was balanced, but only more tactical than its 40k counterpart.
How can a game so horribly unbalanced be "more tactical"? A game that is better balanced means that the tactical decisions the players make are more important, where a game that is poorly balanced means that the tactical decisions the players make are less important.

S0ULDU5T

12-15-2009, 02:02 PM

How can a game so horribly unbalanced be "more tactical"? A game that is better balanced means that the tactical decisions the players make are more important, where a game that is poorly balanced means that the tactical decisions the players make are less important.

Thats a terrific looking fishing rod you have in your hand Melissia, you ever catch anything with that?

That ... doesn't follow. Even if it did, that would only make the game not very fun to play. If game A is less fun than game B, it does not follow that game A is less tactical than game B. It follows that if a car is supposed to go from point A to point B and doesn't make it all the way, and multiple times no less, there's something wrong with the internal mechanics.

More on topic, it still doesn't change the fact that if a game is only lasting a single turn, and is most often decided by who goes first, then that hardly indicates a wealth of tactical gameplay present in the system.

Melissia

12-15-2009, 02:08 PM

Thats a terrific looking fishing rod you have in your hand Melissia, you ever catch anything with that?

I was making a serious point. If you refuse to refute it, can I take it that you concede the point instead?

Nabterayl

12-15-2009, 02:08 PM

It follows that if a car is supposed to go from point A to point B and doesn't make it all the way, and multiple times no less, there's something wrong with the internal mechanics.
Okay ... so, we can infer from the nature of a car that it's supposed to go from A to B. This is because a car is, by its nature, a transport.

40K and Fantasy are [light] tactical wargames. It is not in the nature of a tactical wargame to last a certain number of turns.

And you're still talking about the tournament scene. If a Prius can't handle off-roading there isn't necessarily anything wrong with the Prius, even if the Prius is trying to off-road from A to B.

EDIT: Let me reiterate my assertion that what you're really trying to say is that Fantasy has more complex rules than 40K and/or deeper rules than 40K, and my assertion that it's a mistake to equate complexity of rules with, erm, tacticality.

EmperorEternalXIX

12-15-2009, 02:13 PM

Nothing more tactical than two groups of guys standing in a perfect square dancing around each other for three turns trying to hit one another on the flank.

Old_Paladin

12-15-2009, 02:14 PM

Personal experience proves nothing. As I said about a poster earlier, you could be playing games of 40k with you cat for all we know.
I love how that's your common defence; you try and belittle people for using nothing but 'opinion' yet you get the magical defence of your opinion counting as fact (even when faced with actual stats and results from GW itself; the win/loss rates of different armies at offical tournies mean nothing, those people at tournies must have been against their cats.:rolleyes:).

What? a "powerhouse of equality"? are you serious? Why not just call it "gamebreaking hammer of justice", it means the same thing. Thats your example of how tactical 40k is? cmon.
Fair enough; then let me explain what I meant by the idea.
The armys at the 'ard boys were often outright slaughter-machines; but they were all equally so.
IE. everybuild was a powerhouse of what its codex could produce, but each army could unleash the same output of damage as any other (all being equally powerhouse builds).
I'd rather play a game where I can say, "Dear lord, that IG force can cripple my army by turn two; At least I can do the same to him with my Eldar." Instead of "Great, Daemons! That'll be three turns of movement with some shooting at me. Then he'll beat me in a round and a half of combat and I can then go to the bathroom... goodie!"

Also, way to try and mix the issues.
Balance and tactics aren't the same thing. You don't get to say "40K is unbalanced" and when I discuss the issue of balance turn around and say "You're not talking about tactics, thus your argument fails." If, by following your insane logic, you made your own argument fail since you changed the initial issue by going from tactics to balance; thus 40K has more tactics, since balance became your "example of how tactical Fantasy is."

S0ULDU5T

12-15-2009, 02:21 PM

Okay ... so, we can infer from the nature of a car that it's supposed to go from A to B. This is because a car is, by its nature, a transport.

40K and Fantasy are [light] tactical wargames. It is not in the nature of a tactical wargame to last a certain number of turns.

And you're still talking about the tournament scene. If a Prius can't handle off-roading there isn't necessarily anything wrong with the Prius, even if the Prius is trying to off-road from A to B.

It was an analogy indicating that things are supposed to operate given a set of parameters, and for 40k those parameters would assuredly not be turn one victories depending on who gets to go first. As far as the rules officially dictate, the die roll roll at the beginning of the game is simply supposed to represent who goes first, not who wins the game.

I love how that's your common defence; you try and belittle people for using nothing but 'opinion' yet you get the magical defence of your opinion counting as fact (even when faced with actual stats and results from GW itself; the win/loss rates of different armies at offical tournies mean nothing, those people at tournies must have been against their cats.).

Its common because it's true, personal experience isn't considered debatable in any form of the art. I've already referenced tournament winnings in other threads, but what is relevant here is that games were played to the fullest and weren't completely dominated by one person in one turn. There is no defense for that.

Nabterayl

12-15-2009, 02:30 PM

S0ULDU5T

12-15-2009, 02:44 PM

Right, but it ... doesn't. Except, as you keep saying, at the national tournament level. If you want to talk about 40K and Fantasy with evidence drawn from the national tournament level that's fine, but please say so now, so I can know that you aren't talking about the game I play.

When it comes to comparing the two games, I try and do the only logical thing and take a format of tournament found in both games, 'Ard Boyz. <--qouted from post #47. As I say, personal experience isn't a valid tool for debate, but those results found at the tournament level can be applied to personal games as well including the games that you play.

Nabterayl

12-15-2009, 02:49 PM

Ah, my apologies. You did indeed say that.

Old_Paladin

12-15-2009, 02:55 PM

It was an analogy indicating that things are supposed to operate given a set of parameters, and for 40k those parameters would assuredly not be turn one victories depending on who gets to go first. As far as the rules officially dictate, the die roll roll at the beginning of the game is simply supposed to represent who goes first, not who wins the game.
I'm the official rules of chess don't dictate that the person that plays white wins either. But, if two players have a 0.00% difference in skill (I mean perfectly equal); then white logically always wins, as then is no random chance in chess.

Its common because it's true, personal experience isn't considered debatable in any form of the art. I've already referenced tournament winnings in other threads, but what is relevant here is that games were played to the fullest and weren't completely dominated by one person in one turn. There is no defense for that.
There you go stating your opinion as fact again; while belittling other peoples views as worthless opinion.
Experience is often a valid point, even if there can be difficulties in its varifiablity.
Do you think that in medical studies that they ignore the subjects issues of pain, because 'it's personal experience, we cannot know for sure'.
Bio-medical Ethics is a field dedicated to personal experience and attitude (outside of laws or statistics); and it is both debatable and significant.

S0ULDU5T

12-15-2009, 02:56 PM

Ah, my apologies. You did indeed say that.

Quit being all respectable and honorable...will completely kill the mood for those of us that still want to bicker about a game we'd probably both enjoy. :)

There you go stating your opinion as fact again; while belittling other peoples views as worthless opinion.
Experience is often a valid point, even if there can be difficulties in its varifiablity.
Do you think that in medical studies that they ignore the subjects issues of pain, because 'it's personal experience, we cannot know for sure'.

Really, debate IS an art, found in every school in this country and has it's own rules as to whats acceptable. I can see how you might think I would randomly make up an opinion about the art of debate and consider it a fact, but it really exists. You would get docked for points or not considered entirely if you only relied on personal experience at all to prove a point. Experience is good for a lot of things, and is considered wisdom and a thing to pride yourself on, but due to it's admitted difficulties in verifiability and, (unlike testing the pain in patient) it can not always be repeated to be accepted as fact.

Nabterayl

12-15-2009, 03:48 PM

Quit being all respectable and honorable...will completely kill the mood for those of us that still want to bicker about a game we'd probably both enjoy. :)
Heh. Well, look ... I'm of the opinion that the national tournament scene is something that was tacked onto 40K and Fantasy both. That doesn't mean it needs to stop - people are welcome to play in tournaments if they feel like it. But I do think that the NTS contorts 40K and Fantasy in some odd ways. They aren't the definitive version of the game for me. If I want to know about, say, sport fencing, talking to a gold-medal Olympian makes sense to me. If I want to know about American football, talking to an NFL player or coach makes sense to me. But to me, looking to the NTS for information about 40K or Fantasy makes as much sense as talking to a Dancing With the Stars professional for information about dancing.

Which is to say, it makes some sense. Competitive dancing is still dancing, after all. But competitive dancing is not just dancing better than social dancing, in the sense that Olympic sport fencing is largely just high school sport fencing performed at a much higher level of skill. Competitive dancing and social dancing are different kinds of activity. Related, but different. There are "facts" about dance one could glean from the competitive scene that simply are not true of the social scene.

I think that discussing the NTS to find out 40K or Fantasy generally makes about this much sense. Some sense. But I do not think that the NTS is simply 40K or Fantasy played at a higher level of skill than non-tournament 40K or Fantasy. I think it's more competitive dance - I think the NTS is a different kind of activity than non-tournament 40K or Fantasy.

There is no national competitive scene for social dancing; by nature there can't be. But that doesn't mean that we can only ever have meaningful comparative discussions about competitive dancing. I can absolutely discuss, and even debate, social waltz or social swing with a dancer from across the country, even though we both only have our personal experiences.

Similarly, while there is no national competitive scene for social 40K and social Fantasy, and thus it's a little harder to mine data, I disagree that the only logical way to compare 40K and Fantasy is to talk about the NTS. I also disagree that all data mined from the NTS applies to all 40K or all Fantasy. The "turn one win" is one such datum.

Just_Me

12-15-2009, 04:15 PM

What the hell are you saying? is "fail analogy is fail" even an English sentence?

Unlike the spelling mistakes that riddle your statements this is not a mistake, instead it is a common internet meme that most people recognize.

Really, debate IS an art, found in every school in this country and has it's own rules as to whats acceptable. I can see how you might think I would randomly make up an opinion about the art of debate and consider it a fact, but it really exists. You would get docked for points or not considered entirely if you only relied on personal experience at all to prove a point. Experience is good for a lot of things, and is considered wisdom and a thing to pride yourself on, but due to it's admitted difficulties in verifiability and, (unlike testing the pain in patient) it can not always be repeated to be accepted as fact.

I cannot comprehend why you would attempt to invoke the bizarrely flawed system of school debate competitions as some kind of validation for your arguments. These are purely artificial attempts to impose score on what should be a purely intellectual exercise, the only effect of which is to encourage poorly constructed arguments and logical fallacies.

The fact remains that you have generally dismissed the views and arguments of others with what amounts to a verbal hand wave, and bullishly continued to tout opinions that are both unverified and unverifiable. The very construction of your arguments makes me wish I was back in my college freshmen year reasoning course just so that I could use them as examples of poor reasoning...

What makes the whole thing just too hilarious is that you are staunchly dismissing everyone else's statements as opinion and therefore irrelevant, while you offer nothing BUT opinion for your argument. And this argument can never be anything except opinion, because the topic question is essentially unverifiable in any meaningful way. It is like listening to a debate between an atheist and a religious zealot about the existence or non-existence of the divine; according to any logical or scientific reasoning there is no way to actually literally prove or disprove the existence of the divine, and each side will see the exact same body of information and view it as support for their theory.

On another note, I cannot help but picture this thread in terms of actual people in a room; S0ULDU5T and Melissa (with Aldramelech's tentative aid) are in the middle of the floor literally trying to rip each others throats out while Jwolf tries vainly to pull them off each other and Nabterayl and Old_Paladin continue futilely trying to hold an intellectual debate with the combatants as the rest of us look on in shocked confusion and occasionally try to get a cautious word in edgewise. Really, the mental imagery has made me laugh out loud a few times, if I could turn this thread into a sitcom I would be rich...

In the end I think we should ask ourselves if we really CARE whether or not WHFB is "more tactical" than 40k. It's not, and that shouldn't be that hard too grasp, but really, what does it matter? None of that is going to change the way any of us enjoy our hobby. I much prefer Lord Azaghul's re-imagination of this thread, it profits me much more to discuss what people on both sides of the WHFB/40k divide think like or dislike about the two games.