Really, what is the appeal of this?
40k players are always plagued by the stereotype that they are incapable of considering complicated tactics, the subtleties of command and control, and that their thinking only works on the “bigger guns=better tactics” level.
This reputation is not undeserved, I suppose, but pictures and events like this one (from the daily GW blog) don’t do anything to help the problem:
Giant Tank Battle, or Advanced Chutes and Ladders?
I mean, seriously? What kind of tactics are being used here? The most essential element of warfare, maneuver, is completely useless in this situation. There is no cover, no tactical deployment even. None of these tanks will ever have to move, or even pivot, to do their job. No measuring, no moving, just rolling dice. A friend of mine likes to call games like that “advanced chutes and ladders,” and I agree with him in this case.
I don’t want to sound like I’m telling other people how to have fun. If this is your thing, go for it I suppose. I’m just (one) confused as to how this is appealing, and (two) concerned that GW is looking at events like this and ‘Ard Boyz and thinking that these mindless grinders are what the game should look like for everyone.
June 27, 2010 at 18:15
Yup, I know exactly what you mean, It feels like maneuver is replaced simply by attempting to use cover as best as possible, and the thing that matters most is the army list.
June 27, 2010 at 18:23
Actually, (the above comment was accidently posted too soon) that was the main reason I stopped playing 40k. I feel like the only escape is through map based campaigns, where you can maneuver, and manage a regiment sized force to conduct envelopment, raids, ambushes, supply line cuts, and such stuff on a operational movement level. obviously, this requires friends willing to stick out a campaign that may last a month or so, but I think it has more potential then what seems like battlefield brawls.
June 27, 2010 at 20:15
Hey, it’s nice to see a new face around here!
I recently saw an article on BoLS about how “The first twenty games with a new army don’t count towards your win/loss record.” I was astounded – I mean, let’s be honest, 40k (and WFB) are games about playing with toy soldiers. Does ANY of this count? Unsurprisingly, someone answered me in the affirmative.
Honestly, I find it amazing that people’s priorities are so messed up that they only see a game like this as a means to acquiring more possessions, and that so many of them will act like angry children (throwing models and the like) when they can’t win it. Faced with this kind of backwards thinking, I’m not surprised when tons of people show up to simply roll dice at each other until someone is declared a winner.
July 27, 2010 at 20:53
I played the original Warhammer 40K (Rogue Trader) and recently got back into the books/fluff as well as the game recently; building my Space Marine Chapter and stuff these days. As a 16-year US Army Infantry veteran, I have a distinct appreciation for maneuver, concealment, firepower, and the Inter Galactic Space Cannon (oops… …NSA will have my butt for that).
One of my complaints is that while the books/fluff are not appreciated, they speak to the actual tactics that make success from failure and audacious victories from expected routes. As the Blogger suggests, bigger army and rules mongering and more more more more is the way of the current gamer, I for one am trying to bring the elegance of tactics back to the tabletop gamer like when I played micro armor or Firefight or something where cover and concealment and true maneuver means something and not “I have a bigger dice multiplier” with no real skill.
Cheers guys.