An honest attempt at Bridging the gap. [Archive] - BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum

Lord Azaghul

12-15-2009, 08:21 AM

My first gw hobby/game was fantasy. My first army were the dwarves. I chose the dwarf army because I really liked the models, the stat line looked solid, and above all I am a huge fan of Tolkien and have always admired his dwarven culture and characters. I didn't get into 40k untill about 18 months ago.

For 3 years I throughly enjoyed learning both the hobby and the game, improving my skills in both the game and the hobby. About 2 years ago for me the game stopped being fun...well afters 2 tournaments where I beat all my opponents execpt the last one, who happened to be a daemon army, and was beaten so soundly that I had no chance of placing, the sense of developed fairness and balance began to errode. However the seeds were sown and I began to become bitter, claiming every new thing that every new book had as "not fair'... I tried various armies, but didn't like the feel of any army as much as my dwarves...

To skip ahead a bit. The main group I play with has always been a fun set of guys, fair minded, and enjoy a good game far more then winning. This has become mainly what I value in the 'playing' part of the hobby. I want to have a good time and I want my opponent to have a good time. So in the spirit of the pursuit of this 'good time' a couple of my friends wanted to get back into 40k. I had never played and the store I game at already has a pretty strong 40k group. So after much pacing and debating, I finally settled on the Imperial Guard. I was a history major in college and have always enjoyed and been thrilled with war history, espeically WW2. Two of my friends, who happen to have 2 or 3 armies half way started in each game, offered to sell my a bunch of guard stuff that they've have had sitting around for ages, collecting dust and what not. So I put my dwarves and greenskins in the closet and started assembling and painting my Guard.

The first thing I noticed in 40k was the different feel of the game, it is far more forgiving then fantasy. I had often heard that 40k was a kids game, and fantasy was a more, adult game (for lack of a better term), but I really came to view the game sets has being completely rules, tactics and game play. Both have there issues, but one of the main things I noticed was that due to the nature of 5th edition, 40k was/is far more balanced and fair of a game then fantasy is in its current state.

I have been playing 40k almost exclusively now for the better part of the year, moved my gaming night from thursday to tuesday (as did a couple of fantasy gaming friends). I have made many new friends in the last year, broadend my gaming/hobby experiance, and in general am enjoying myself.
I'm just now getting back in fantasy as well, but I'm avoiding touriments, because as I previously stated, having fun, which I learned while playing fantasy, is the most important aspect of the game...
I also didnt' want everyone thinking fantasy players are a bunch of snobbie arguementative pricks who have nothing to add to any discussion.

Now I'm clearly not trying to pick a fight with anyone. I just wanted to post a thread stating that its perfectly ok to like both or just one game. Prefering one over the other does not make one more or less mature, intellegent, witty, ect...

Any thoughts or attempts and/or 'bridging the gap' any one would like to share?

RocketRollRebel

12-15-2009, 08:34 AM

A much better start. I've been playing 40k (Vostroyan IG) for about 3 1/2 years and have flirted with WHFB a bunch over that time period but I have never really been able to make the plunge since I've never had a gaming group with a substantial WHFB crowd. The clunkyness of the movement is my main problem with Fantasy, otherwise I'd really love it! I mean dont get me wrong I love the models and I love the fluff (finishing the Gotrek and Felix 3rd Omnibus now;)) but a lot of the game mechanics turn me off. Hence I've decided to start up a BoC army when the new book drops but I'm looking at the army as a modeling project first since I'm not much of a modeler so I'm hoping to expand my skills with this army. Plus a change of pace is refreshing and a skirmishing army may help ease me into the FB play style a little better.

Huzzah for positive threads!

Just_Me

12-15-2009, 09:36 AM

Well, I've been an exclusively 40k player for around 6-7 years. I have 6 armies, and while I am more into the hobby and rarely get to play, I have enjoyed just about every game I have played. For a few years I have been eyeing Fantasy (specifically Vampire Counts and Bretonnians). While I don't find the fluff as appealing as 40k, the only thing that really stops me is funds; I just can't afford to start a whole new game system, let alone one with the large troop requirements of WHFB. Add to that all I have heard about the 7th edition showing it's age, and I have been unimpressed with the rules set after reading it. Perhaps I will take a second look after 8th comes out, the idea massed regimented ranks of skeletons or galloping knights appeals to me a lot.

Melissia

12-15-2009, 09:58 AM

Jwolf

12-15-2009, 10:26 AM

I play both systems regularly.

40K is the more average system, because it has more dice thrown for an overall more average outcome over the course of the game. Unrestricted movement also makes the game at once more forgiving and more viscious. I like both of these.

WFB rolls fewer dice for more radically powerful events. Couple that with significantly more variable wargear and magic, and it's often a more random game for me. Sometimes random is a lot mroe fun, but either way, it's fun.

Aldramelech

12-15-2009, 10:32 AM

Despite the amount of time spent here! I am a WFB player first and 40k second. I enjoy playing both games and belong to a group who do too. Where Im from there is no gap to bridge, both systems being regarded as "light relief" from our historical gaming.

Absolutionis

12-15-2009, 11:18 AM

...there is no gap to bridge, both systems being regarded as "light relief" from our historical gaming.A truer statement has never been spoken concerning the 40k vs WHFB clash.

Chumbalaya

12-15-2009, 11:42 AM

I've been playing 40k since like 3rd (8 ish years?) and Fantasy for almost 2 years. I prefer 40k because it has a larger local following, better balance, much more flexible and tactical gameplay, and I just like the setting more. I do like Fantasy too, the different mechanics are fun to get the hang of and despite its much more complex rules it boils down to a very easy formula after a while, plus it has Skaven and Skaven rule.

Melissia

12-15-2009, 12:03 PM

Also, WFB has goblin spider riders, and they look friggin' awesome.

Lerra

12-15-2009, 12:24 PM

I love the WFB models and constantly steal them to add to my 40k armies.

I'd say the differences between the armies are greater than the differences between systems. Some armies are very forgiving, and others are notoriously not. Some armies are very tactically simple to play, others require superb tactics to be competitive.

CrimsonFist1149

12-15-2009, 12:46 PM

I agree with you both games are perfectly good and there shouldn't be a fight over which one is better. its also perfectly ok to like both or prefer one over the other. However i don't think its ok to attack either 40k or fantasy because you don't like one or the other. If you don't like the game you don't have to play it.

Just_Me

12-15-2009, 03:27 PM

I've been playing 40k since like 3rd (8 ish years?)

Good God-Emperor! has it really been 8 years since 3rd edition? I have been playing longer than I thought, when I started 3rd was still going strong. Remember that big soft cover rulebook with all of the army lists inside it? Sisters even had their own army list, Inquisitors were a separate choice as "Heroes of the Imperium" (no Ciphas, I didn't mean you...), and Guard could be fielded as pure Storm Trooper or Rough Riders. The times they are a changin.'

Fantasy has some great miniatures all right, and their armies do look really pretty in their neat little columns... Someday I shall win the lottery, and then I will have so much fun with all of the little toy soldiers :D.

All this talk is actually getting me kinda excited to see what 8th edition WHFB looks like...

Lord Azaghul

12-15-2009, 03:48 PM

Both games are pretty danged expensive, but I’m really starting to see fantasy as the pricier of the two.
I’ve got 5-6K in dwarves, and that’s a lot of block infantry and warmachines.
I’ve at about 3k in Greenskins, and those chariots are monsters aren’t cheap either!
Thankfully there are alternatives to buying full price gw.

Point/price/% of army wise you compare a monster or block to a tank or a 10 man squad. I think 40k is actually cheaper per army. The precentage of your army that a russ or LR is compared to the $$ cost of a block unit in fantasy seems to favor 40k. Especially since the older boxes come with 16-19 lads and most people field them in blocks of 20+

One of the things I do really enjoy about fantasy though is the big block format, it just gives you a neat image to see two fully painted armies on the field across from each other, marching toward the center, trying not to get flanked! The game still has appeal to me, and it does offer something different then 40k, I just don’t want to see certain armies across the field atm!

Nabterayl

12-15-2009, 03:57 PM

One of the things I do really enjoy about fantasy though is the big block format, it just gives you a neat image to see two fully painted armies on the field across from each other, marching toward the center, trying not to get flanked! The game still has appeal to me, and it does offer something different then 40k, I just don’t want to see certain armies across the field atm!
You know, as a non-Fantasy player who's always thought about getting in, the imagery has always been a stumbling block for me. When I see ten marines on a 40K field, I picture ten marines in my head. If there are a hundred tyranids, I picture a hundred tyranids; a Leman Russ really "is" a single Leman Russ, and so on. 40K is a game about platoons doing battle.

Fantasy, as far as I can tell, is a game about armies doing battle. So when I see twenty halberdiers, I don't know what to picture. Does that represent a hundred halberdiers? Two hundred? Five hundred? All I know for sure is that it doesn't represent twenty halberdiers. Visually this works just fine for me most of the time, but sometimes it hurts my imaginator. That enemy hero or lord just removed five of my models singlehandedly ... what does that even mean? Did he just kill a hundred guys simultaneously? Did he kill a dozen or so and the others ran?

This isn't a critique of the system, just an observation about myself. Nobody wants to play WHFB where you need to buy five hundred models just to field a single regiment! But part of what I enjoy about GW games is imagining the action in my head (and often as not writing about it with friends afterward!), and the nature of Fantasy's scope makes it harder for me to do that.

zealot

12-15-2009, 04:00 PM

Also, WFB has goblin spider riders, and they look friggin' awesome.

yeah they do. I almost got a whole gobbo army b/c of them and those fanatics

Lord Azaghul

12-15-2009, 04:04 PM

I"ve actually heard quite a few '40k first' players say the same thing!

Fantasy is far more representative then 40k. Your absolutely correct. But for me that has never been an issue. I just picture swatchs of infantry being but down by the lord, hordes of troops whithering to my dwarven guns rather then 3 out of 5 knights falling in a charge!: to me the game rules have just attached some math to make it 'playable'
I choose to view it as a matter of scope. In 40k I am fighting a portion of a larger battle, in fantasy I am fighting THE battle.

Aldramelech

12-15-2009, 04:07 PM

You know, as a non-Fantasy player who's always thought about getting in, the imagery has always been a stumbling block for me. When I see ten marines on a 40K field, I picture ten marines in my head. If there are a hundred tyranids, I picture a hundred tyranids; a Leman Russ really "is" a single Leman Russ, and so on. 40K is a game about platoons doing battle.

Fantasy, as far as I can tell, is a game about armies doing battle. So when I see twenty halberdiers, I don't know what to picture. Does that represent a hundred halberdiers? Two hundred? Five hundred? All I know for sure is that it doesn't represent twenty halberdiers. Visually this works just fine for me most of the time, but sometimes it hurts my imaginator. That enemy hero or lord just removed five of my models singlehandedly ... what does that even mean? Did he just kill a hundred guys simultaneously? Did he kill a dozen or so and the others ran?

This isn't a critique of the system, just an observation about myself. Nobody wants to play WHFB where you need to buy five hundred models just to field a single regiment! But part of what I enjoy about GW games is imagining the action in my head (and often as not writing about it with friends afterward!), and the nature of Fantasy's scope makes it harder for me to do that.

All historical game systems have a figure scale, and as a rule tell you what it is, i.e. 1 figure=50 men. GW have never told us what their figure scale is for WFB, in fact they deny having one at all! Most people work on the assumption that its 1-20.

Nabterayl

12-15-2009, 04:16 PM

I just picture swatchs of infantry being but down by the lord
I wonder if you and I would find fantasy (the genre) attractive for similar reasons. The image of swaths of infantry being cut down by a single man bugs me more than it pushes my "zomg, so awesome!" buttons. I do have ZOMGSA buttons, but that just isn't one of them. I know it's GW's universe, but for some reason, you have to work really hard to convince me that yes, your universe is such that some basic tactical facts are just wrong (though I will happily accept your magic as fact :p). Like the charges (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqO5Fa3YHLM) of the Rohirrim (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtDxeAZJ9S4&feature=related) in the Lord of the Rings movies ... they were great visuals, and I recognized that, but the coolness for me was dulled by the part of my brain that was going, "Yeah, but it doesn't work like that. Not even in your crazy fantasy universe."

Just_Me

12-15-2009, 04:22 PM

Like the charges (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqO5Fa3YHLM) of the Rohirrim (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtDxeAZJ9S4&feature=related) in the Lord of the Rings movies ... they were great visuals, and I recognized that, but the coolness for me was dulled by the part of my brain that was going, "Yeah, but it doesn't work like that. Not even in your crazy fantasy universe."

They are vikings on horseback, normal laws of reality don't apply to them! :D

Lord Azaghul

12-15-2009, 04:43 PM

To me one of the biggest failing in fantasy is Cavalry. The game dynamics just make knights rather lame: knight charges into block, has a 50% change of hitting something; his unit scores 3 kills. The opponents has more men, knights lose and run away. I want to see knights run THROUGH units!

Its sort of odd because with blocks of troops its is more reprentative, but when it comes to knights it seems to be more of an individual model, and guess what: individual knights can't beat back a regement (unless you're Aurtorius!)

*also forgive the 'swatch', clearly I meant swath!

My typical dwarves hero has 3 attacks, he often misses twice and kills one foe with his giant axe, and rarely does he kill swaths! if that makes you feel better!

Nabterayl

12-15-2009, 04:52 PM

RocketRollRebel

12-15-2009, 05:10 PM

I'm actually considering playing both games, I just don't really have the money to start such a porject. I play 40K right now, and have paused my collecting despite wanting to expand again for the same reason.

Couldn't have said it better. I've got a big IG army already and I'm working at some creative artillery conversions to save money. :p

I would love to start a WHFB army tho since there is a much bigger FB scene here in Boston then there was in NY.

DarkLink

12-15-2009, 06:48 PM

To me one of the biggest failing in fantasy is Cavalry. The game dynamics just make knights rather lame: knight charges into block, has a 50% change of hitting something; his unit scores 3 kills. The opponents has more men, knights lose and run away. I want to see knights run THROUGH units!

In real life, a cavalry unit trying to charge a block of soldiers head on would get skewered on spears, to relatively little effect. In fact, it's one of the well done things in the movie 300. They have a scene where the Spartans form a triangle formation, and spear the cavalry as they ride past. Because, believe it or not, real horses won't charge straight into a wall of spears.

Cavalry are great for their maneuverability and for cutting down broken formation, or hitting flanks. Not for charging headfirst into a phalanx.

Nabterayl

12-15-2009, 07:08 PM

In real life, a cavalry unit trying to charge a block of soldiers head on would get skewered on spears, to relatively little effect.
Or more likely ride past (as we have excellent documentation of from Waterloo) or simply stop dead in their tracks. One of the points that Hyland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Hyland) makes on this subject is that it isn't actually the spears that cause a horse to stop - it's the mass of bodies. A horse will not willingly collide with any physical mass, pointy or not, so any formed infantry, as long as its nerve doesn't break, will defeat a charge. I'm not an expert competitive equestrian, but Hyland is, so I'll take her word on that one (and again, Waterloo provides excellent evidence of the phenomenon).

I don't doubt that horses have physically collided with formed infantry in the past, but it was likely to be an accident, and also not very healthy for the horse. Of course, a slow-moving horse can willingly push its way through formed infantry (witness horse police), but that's a very different animal than a charge.

DarkLink

12-15-2009, 08:37 PM

Kahoolin

12-15-2009, 09:44 PM

I started GW with fantasy (Dwarfs, like the OP) in 3rd edition. Anyone remember the box that 10 each of I think Dark Elves, Wood Elves, Dwarfs, Orcs, Gobbos and Skaven? As soon as I saw that my 11 year old mind was blown.

I started 40k slightly later that same year, and played both on and off. Up until I was about 18 I preferred fantasy, then I stopped both for a few years, and when I came back I just preferred the imagery of 40k for some reason. I was over fantasy, and have been playing 40k ever since. I never detected any real difference between the rules, they seemed to me almost the same, and I honestly can't understand people who claim one is more difficult or whatever. They are both light hearted silly games with cool models and loads of dice and that's that.

Re: the scale thing, I always assumed Fantasy was on a 1:1 scale. If you think of something like the English Civil War, battles were pretty small. A lot of regiments were just a bunch of dudes from the same town with pikes, or if they were cavalry, some mates and cousins from the rich families in an area. If you think of the fighting strength of a typical 15th or 16th century village (sort of like the ones in the Empire in WHFB) there would probably only be about twenty or so adult healthy males in each town. Band a few towns together and you have an Elector state. So to me, I have no problem seeing my block of 20 guys as 20 guys. In a world as grim, dangerous and disease-ridden as the Old World I can't imagine the population being very high at all.

Subject Keyword

12-15-2009, 10:28 PM

I always assumes Fantasy minis looked smaller because they aren't wearing half of a car...
My friends SWEAR they are slightly different scales.

Nabterayl

12-15-2009, 10:38 PM

Re: the scale thing, I always assumed Fantasy was on a 1:1 scale. If you think of something like the English Civil War, battles were pretty small.
Small, yes, but small to the tune of ten thousand or so per side.

Kahoolin

12-15-2009, 11:39 PM

Small, yes, but small to the tune of ten thousand or so per side.The big ones like Edgehill, sure. But my understanding was many of the battles of the ECW were small skirmishes.

*Shrug* Just my feelings anyway, I'm not trying to argue a point or anything - I just always saw fantasy as 1:1 scale with no difficulty. If it's not 1:1, that troubles me. I start to feel, as the previous poster said, inconsistencies that ruin suspension of disbelief.

The main reason I think that I don't play it any more is lack of time and money, and I prefer the quick and flexible approach of 40k. My other problem with fantasy is that I have chronic problems choosing a faction!

Nabterayl

12-16-2009, 12:07 AM

The big ones like Edgehill, sure. But my understanding was many of the battles of the ECW were small skirmishes.
Ah, well, that's fair I suppose.

DarkLink

12-16-2009, 12:24 AM

Even most of the smaller battles probably had a thousand or so soldiers involved, usually. At the very least, they wouldn't be 100v100 man (or even smaller) battles for the most part.

Just_Me

12-16-2009, 12:58 AM

Or more likely ride past (as we have excellent documentation of from Waterloo) or simply stop dead in their tracks. One of the points that Hyland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Hyland) makes on this subject is that it isn't actually the spears that cause a horse to stop - it's the mass of bodies. A horse will not willingly collide with any physical mass, pointy or not, so any formed infantry, as long as its nerve doesn't break, will defeat a charge. I'm not an expert competitive equestrian, but Hyland is, so I'll take her word on that one (and again, Waterloo provides excellent evidence of the phenomenon).

I don't doubt that horses have physically collided with formed infantry in the past, but it was likely to be an accident, and also not very healthy for the horse. Of course, a slow-moving horse can willingly push its way through formed infantry (witness horse police), but that's a very different animal than a charge.

In fact that was one of the things about trained warhorses. In normal circumstances a horse will go to extraordinary lengths not to collide with anything or run over anything because the risk of hurting themselves is far too great, so if you simply stand in place when a horse is running at you you will be fine. Warhorses were specifically trained to ram and trample enemy infantry, it made them one of the most fearsome forces on a medieval battlefield. Which is not to say even a warhorse wouldn't balk at running straight into a mass of men in formation, indeed that is formations were for, as long as you stayed in one you were (relatively) safe, the problem came if you broke and ran, then you be run down and killed. Whats more, while a knight might be willing to charge a unit of swordsmen or archers and wade through them like a modern police horse slashing from side to side, they would know that charging into a line of pikes is absolute suicide.

Even most of the smaller battles probably had a thousand or so soldiers involved, usually. At the very least, they wouldn't be 100v100 man (or even smaller) battles for the most part.

Maybe, maybe not. The meaningful battles probably, but most actions against raiders and such would only be a few hundred men. You have to recall that in ancient times, with the exception of a handful of dedicated warriors, the people who formed your foot soldiers would be the same ones who farmed your fields. Medieval conflicts were by their nature short limited affairs, if you spent too long in the field your farmers would miss their planting or harvest window and not only would they starve, but you wouldn't have your share, and you wouldn't have enough to tithe to your feudal lord. Likewise, if you lost too many of your men in battle, your village could be crippled indefinitely without it's support structure and would die.

So size wise you really can collect what represents a fairly significant military force in WHFB, one of the cool things about it.

Aldramelech

12-16-2009, 02:36 AM

Your average Civil war battle was about 5-6000 a side, Most Medieval battles were about the same with some noticeable exceptions during the hundred years war. After the Renaissance with the start of standing armies things got alot bigger.

The size of armies were severely restricted due to logistics, you need to feed your army and to do this many able bodied men have to stay home to farm the land.

When people talk about the things that revolutionized warfare they talk about Tanks, Planes, Barbed wire and Machine guns, but the thing that changed warfare forever was the invention of Tinned Food!

Tinned food and other preserved foods allowed nations to keep large standing armies in the field all year round and the First World War wouldn't have happened without it.

When you read the fluff for WFB there is no doubt that the Armies are quite large and number in their thousands and that there is defiantly a "campaign season" in the Warhammer World". With this in mind I have no problem with my unit of 20 Dwarfs representing 400.

Denzark

12-16-2009, 05:00 AM

Shame the vicious leg breaker closed the last bridging the gap thread; this reasoned, well balanced and down right polite discussion isn't half as entertaining...

Melissia

12-16-2009, 12:01 PM

I also tend to think of IG, Tyranids, and Orks as much bigger than they actually are.

Jwolf

12-16-2009, 12:31 PM

Shame the vicious leg breaker closed the last bridging the gap thread; this reasoned, well balanced and down right polite discussion isn't half as entertaining...

I don't mind if the threads get crazy, especially opinion threads. Once the personal attacks reach a certain level and people not involved in the mudslinging are reporting it, then legs must be broken.

But have faith, Denzark. I'm sure that someone will start vomiting random bile again soon. It's the season for giving, after all. :D

Melissia

12-16-2009, 12:35 PM

Then they can give me some plastic Sisters!

*shakes fist angrily at GW*

CURSE YOUUUUUUU!

*plots for ten years, during which time plastic Sisters are released, but is too busy plotting to notice*

Denzark

12-16-2009, 01:07 PM

I don't mind if the threads get crazy, especially opinion threads. Once the personal attacks reach a certain level and people not involved in the mudslinging are reporting it, then legs must be broken.

But have faith, Denzark. I'm sure that someone will start vomiting random bile again soon. It's the season for giving, after all. :D

random bile in the season of giving that's genius! I got away with an edit not an infraction so I'll count that as a kiss under the miseltoe (do you colonial chaps carry out such pagan activities lol?)

PS who is Nathaniel Greene I like his quote.

@ Melly fair one howsabout a new Inq codex with Ordo Xenos...?

Jwolf

12-16-2009, 01:14 PM

Nathaniel Greene was a general in the American War of Independence. He has some good quotes, and was an interesting fellow. Spend 10 minutes on wiki reading about him; it's worthwhile.

Melissia

12-16-2009, 01:26 PM

@ Melly fair one howsabout a new Inq codex with Ordo Xenos...?
No. If the Deathwatch/Ordo Xenos should be put in, they should get their own codex instead of cluttering up space in my Sisters' codex.

I want them to create a Sisters army list equivalent in size and customizability to the Imperial Guard and Space Marines codex added in earlier this edition. Not some crappy piece of craptacular crap that would inevitably ensue if they were to toss four entirely separate armies into one.

Just_Me

12-16-2009, 02:32 PM

I also tend to think of IG, Tyranids, and Orks as much bigger than they actually are.

Hmm... interesting. I actually thought about it the same way at first, but now I find it easier and more appealing to view them all on a 1:1 basis, and assume that the 40k battles we fight are in fact the sorts of skirmishes that make up part of a much larger fluid battle, similar to actual battles in modern warfare. Since around WWI tactical military maneuvers have been conducted on a smaller and smaller scale, it is almost unheard of for regiment or even battalion sized tactical operations anymore, and most actual combat takes place on the platoon level. With this in mind I don't really have an issue with scale.

I actually find smaller games both flow more easily and are more fun, though I have always wanted to fight in a truly MASSIVE Apocalypse battle, as in across a gym floor (with suitable terrain). Something where the obscene ranges on artillery and titan-scale weapons would actually matter, and you could have whole armored spearheads making lighting advances. I recognize it's no more than a pipe-dream, but still...

Nathaniel Greene was a general in the American War of Independence. He has some good quotes, and was an interesting fellow. Spend 10 minutes on wiki reading about him; it's worthwhile.

He was indeed an interesting man, he rose from private to Washington's right-hand man (sort of replacing the much maligned Arnold in that capacity). He was arguably the most able field commander in the Continental Army (though making superlative claims like that about military commanders is in some sense a meaningless intellectual exercise), and the architect of many of Washington's victories. In truth, many of the movers and shakers of the Napoleonic period are eminently quotable, it's as if they were very much aware (and I believe many of them were) of the importance future generations would ascribe to their words and actions.

Bedroom General

12-18-2009, 06:02 PM

I came up through Necromunda into 40k and have had a go at WFB. The reason that I prefer to play 40k is that there is at least the potential for all of my lovingly painted (or randomly splashed, I once took down Tigurius with three black base painted spinegaunts...Happy days!) models to have their time in the sun. Probably a hangover from the individuality of the gangers in Necro'. This doesn't happen with large blocks of WFB infantry etc and so for my money, and painting/converting time, it is an unattractive system. I know that it conforms to some degree to historical battle formations but all being equal, I'd rather play that sort of game on a computer.

I do steal the models for conversions though, some of them are fantastic. I'm also carefully painting up Bretonnians in my occasional non 40k spare time, because when I was young I fell in love with a book called "Knight Crusader" by Ronald Welch. That was EVERYTHING that "Kingdom of Heaven" should have been, complete with a believable lead character (Blacksmith becomes lethal knight in 10 seconds of practice with a big hairy German.? Yeah right.) I don't necessarily expect to use them, its just for fun.
Also highly recommend Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "Sir Nigel" and "The White Company" he quite rightly rated them much more highly than his Sherlock books, and so do I.

Just_Me

12-18-2009, 11:16 PM

Also highly recommend Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "Sir Nigel" and "The White Company" he quite rightly rated them much more highly than his Sherlock books, and so do I.

You make a bold claim sir, I have read all 100+ Sherlock Holmes stories and he is one of my favorite literary characters. Still,Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is a skilled writer, I should look into those stories, especially if they are half as good as you claim...

As long as we are derailing this thread into the author thing; Steven Erickson. He is a virtually unknown genius, read him. That is all.

Bedroom General

12-19-2009, 01:18 AM

Sir Nigel was written after the White company, but is a prequel. I strongly suggest reading it first as SACD does not screw his characters up at all and the prequel actually embellishes your enjoyment of the white company. I am a fan of Sherlock, my claim is not made lightly, and I'm agreeing with the author.
I will investigate Stephen Erickson, can you recommend a book?

oni

12-21-2009, 03:26 PM

IMO... 5th edition 40k is by far the best rules set and is damn near perfect in balance.

The issue of unbalance however crops up with the codices. Each new codex is having more and more exceptions to the core rules. Take the new Codex: Tyranids. Some have "rending", but it doesn't work like the universal special rule rending. Some have "toxic weapons", but they don't work like the "toxic weapons" in the core rules. Codex: Space Wolves takes the force organization chart, pisses on it and then throws it out the window.

Army unique rules are one thing, they're additional rules that sit outside the realm of the core rules. It's when a codex takes core rules, rules that were designed to be balanced, and changes them that the game becomes unbalanced. It only takes one exception for the snowball of unbalance to start rolling. What ends up happening is subsequent codices are designed and then tailored around this unbalance to try and bring things back into balance. Needless to say it never works out. This phenomena is commonly referred to as codex creep.

Lord Azaghul

12-21-2009, 03:30 PM

IMO... 5th edition 40k is by far the best rules set and is damn near perfect in balance.

The issue of unbalance however crops up with the codices. Each new codex is having more and more exceptions to the core rules.

Army unique rules are one thing, they're additional rules that sit outside the realm of the core rules. It's when a codex takes core rules, rules that were designed to be balanced, and changes them that the game becomes unbalanced. It only takes one exception for the snowball of unbalance to start rolling. What ends up happening is subsequent codices are designed and then tailored around this unbalance to try and bring things back into balance. Needless to say it never works out. This phenomena is commonly referred to as codex creep.

And you've pretty much described what happened to fantasy
7th ed was a good rules set, but gw went over the top in updating new army books; midway through its current edition doing a complete 180 a pumping new books way beyond a median, leaving so many books hurting.