A wise Quote

[Iron Warrior]

To quote Phil Barker about ancient wargames:

"Choose one (an army) that you can love even when it loses ... Each loss will engrave itself on your heart, and you will not make the same mistake twice. ... What you must not do is is change your army, because that would mean starting to learn all over again. There is a very common type of gamer, who in his first game is, shall we say, defeated because his cavalry is frightened by elephants. He then goes out and buys elephants. Next time, he is trampled by super heavy cavalry, and gets some of those. Next time he is run down by chariots, and so on. he ends up with a huge army, far too big to get on the table at one time, having learned nothing of tactics. . ."

Learn to use the army you have rather than keep looking for the Holy Grail.

Phil Barker, Airfix Magazine Guide No.9 Ancient Wargaming, 1979.



Unfortunatly it cannot be applied to 40k.

[Iron Dragon]

?? Tom hasn't found much that the Ultramarines can't handle...

just need to tweak things till you get the hang of it.

and then there's your Iron Warrors.

[Wolf Lord Snorville]

irondragon said:

just need to tweak things till you get the hang of it.

You are a genius

[Iron Warrior]

Wow Dave, your insight is astounding, now read the quote again, but this time think about it. ;D

[McCommander]

This quote certainly has merit, but in general I think peoples first armies are about experimentation and in learning how to play. People just end up with really large first armies because they are still learning what they wanna play based on their style of play.

For most of us veterans, our 2nd, 3rd, and some times 10th armies are a bit more stable, because we either know what we wanna do, or we simply like the challenge that the army presents.

I'm interpreting that this author is referring to some peoples need to jump on the band wagon for the new uber unit of the month. He's suggest that you don't need to do that if you simply spend more time practicing and coming up with new strategies for what you have. For the most part I agree.

My $.02

[Iron Warrior]

For the most part you are right Kevin, that is what the author is saying. If you want to learn how to play tactics wise use what you have and how it works before you decide that you need the uber unit. Once you learn how to use those "things" effectively you can learn how to win without the uber stuff and when it comes time, and you have a grasp on the game, those uber units become unstoppable because one knows how to use them.

Now as for my comment earlier about it really doesn't pertain to 40k. One cannot make a list anymore and play it over and over and expect it to be remotely effective (much less fun) for 40k. I think the game has devolved into who has the most uber units will win. Of course I'm speaking from a new persons stand point. Some one that knows little of the game, what good and whats not.

And descriptions of Uber can come in many forms from min.max to Ordnance armies to Tooled DP's. Something I don't think needs to be discussed again, its been beaten to death. Uber is just a nice way of saying cheese.

One, (Veteran or Noob) cannot sit down and make an army he wants from any race with any combinations (or lack there of) can make a list (with out taking in the consequences of facing other armies) while being both Competitive and Play what said person wants. The game has become very one dimensional imo. In the rise where only the uber survive one cannot help but do the opposite of what the author has suggested, so one must come to the conclusion that 40k is not about tactics but about the Uber units.

Now before anyone gets up in a huffle puff about what I said about your precious game (and I would have been with you a year ago) This is just my opinion on the matter. I'm not trying to convince you to not play 40k, hell I will still play from time to time. But what would be interesting to know is look at your current army....now try to remember you ORIGINAL, the very first list you made for 40k (if you can) Is it the same or vastly different?

Mine? Mine is pretty much the same, lots of marines, a bunch of tanks. Most have seen me play the same army in several different rules versions (some more than others) my Original army has changed very little....slowly the difficulty of playing the army increased as time went on. Shouldn't the opposite happen? As time with the army increase the ease of playing the army should also increase? Another interesting point is that with each revision with the rules (if you were to graph it out) I bet you would see a gradual decrease in wins vs losses

Mind you with each revision something went to the extreme, assault or shooting. Now to close this out, I have done what the author suggests for a long time. Not change the army and played with what I had. Learned the tactics of the game without purchasing the uber units even when they crushed me. However why is it that the games get more difficult now (assuming we are all playing on the same playing field) Should not experience and tactics win over Uber and tooled up? I would say it SHOULD, but it doesn't. The Uber units are too Uber for my liking and you may notice a few people don't particularly like that and have stopped playing altogether.

there my buck and a half.

[Ranger Dude]

I think you are taking this to a bit of an extreme. Personally, I find that my armies and play have improved over the course of time. My two main armies have a set concept that I work around, and I try not to change it too much. As time has gone by, I have seen my win loss record improve, drasticly in recent months. Some of this is probably due to the fact that I wasn't the greatest tactician to begin with and I have learned quite a bit about what my army can and can't do.

Now, I'm not saying your entirely wrong either. I do notice GW's trend of putting out the uber unit of the month and how said unit wrecks most things. The part I find particularly ammusing is how they talk about the fact that troops should be the core of any army, but most battle reports show minimum troops and lost's of "cool" stuff.

To be perfectly honest, I think it is more of a failing of the current 40k designers than GW in general. I haven't played fantasy for very long, but I have noticed that theme armies are a lot more competetive, and there is less of an uber factor. That's not to say it isn't there, just less noticeable. They do still suffer from the "unit of the month" syndrome.

And as pointed out before, this is my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Iron Warrior]

I dont think that is a too extreme pov. You really only see the uber unit of the month in a few gw games. 40k and LOTR. Fantasy doesnt seem like you would get any benifit from it.

As the author from the quote suggests. You have all these top notch, really expensive units you cant all field at the same time. At least in fantasy if you have that uber unit you have some way of dealing with it AND one way is to ignore it! (I love that option) Ignoring the uber unit in 40k just wont work. Take the tooled DP, he flys or most likely steeds himslef into your lines and begins to crush things, how do you ignore something like that?

Ok lets try shooting? Nope he is too d**ned fast and a smart player will use terrain to his advantage (and why wouldnt he?)

Set up a counter assualt? The DP will wreck anything you send at it in HTH.

I only see one option here, get a DP yourself or something of its equivelent to deal with it. Now thats not what I wouldnt consider tactics, thats an arms race of uber units. (Of course this is only one scenario, there are plenty out there) Also keep in mind you are playing against competitve armys vs the army you want to have fun with.

Now i have gotten off topic here a bit. The point is you really cant build the worst possible army out there and then the best, have them fight and be a close game. Why? The game have become one diemnsional. Why is there a "worst" and "best" army...the game is built on points right, so if we both build armies of the same points cost shouldnt they be equal in Strengths? (One would think so?)

Few things for thought. What would the game be like if you took out the following. AP 1,2,3,4,5,6 Rending, Enhanced movement (other than vehicles) Entanglement, Stat enhancers, Anything that ignores something youre opponet paid for. Would be a very diffrent game wouldnt it be...Even if you Just took out the AP system the game would change dynamiclly. My opinion why? The game reallys doesnt derive its play from tactics, it derives it from special rules.

agains my buck and a quarter (running out of money here )

[McCommander]

There are a lot of good points here. Now, I'm no expert on fantasy, but I'd like to take a stab at this based on observation. I think the reason you don't see the same kinda of comparison between 40k and fantasy is that the uber things are designed differently. It's not that 40k is special rules heavy. To prove that just look at Alex's list of rules and character restrictions for fantasy in the upcoming Daboyz GT. If you have to make a point system that complex then that tells you that there are plenty of special rules and combo killing stuff.

I think it has more to do with 40k focus on "all comers" uber units. In fantasy, you see more flash in the pan, new one-trick promotional armies. That are really good at doing one thing and at killing one type of army, but that get crushed against other armies.

To illustrate an example that I know. It's like the difference between the Eldar Avatar and the as before mentioned your uber DP. Both are great units for there point cost. (I don't think that can be disputed.) The Avatar, while he does rock in certain situations, can easily be destroyed by and equal cost unit in the wrong situation. This is much how I see fantasy uber units. "Units of Finesse" A DP on the other hand, or things that 40k makes as the uber of the month, are just solid all around. (Simply a babysat unit.)

One of these promotes strategy and the other doesn't. We used to see armies of finesse in 40k, but they seem to have fallen by the way side, in favor of the babysitting that we see now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fantasy warhammer lover or anything. It certainly has it's own problems, but the need for strategy doesn't seem to be one of them. Perhaps one of you could make a list of babysat fantasy armies that would win almost all of the time. I think it would be fairly small. I know I could make a huge list of 40k ones.

[Ranger Dude]

I remember seeing a discussion about this type of thing for fantasy at one point. The thing I found interesting is that the posters found it easier to list the nearly useless armies than it was to list the uber armies. Fantasy seems to be more like 40k used to be. A new army comes out. People whine about it, and then they learn how to beat it and no one whines anymore.

[Iron Warrior]

Yeah, for the most part I agree with you. In fastasy all one has to do is flank a unit and its pretty much over for the unit being flanked. Its a bad situation to be in none the less. Any uber unit will lose to the old fasion flank/rear charge. Its a tactics that works quite well.

Its more diffacult in 40k because the game doesnt reward one for being in a good location/frontage to attack from. That uber unit is free to roam no matter if its on defense or offense (charging or being charged)

And i dont think its so much as people learned how to beat the armies, i think people are just seeing how futile it really is to female dog about something they have no control over. I still think there is no effective way to beat the Farseer council army from doom without specifically tooling for that army (which imo is wrong and not in the spirit of gaming at all) And even then its an up hill battle. There are other armies out there I dont mean to pick on one army it just popped in my head atm.

Going back to the authors quote and my original statement. I dont see 40k being all that tacticful. Or as some people put it, theres not enough "play" to it.

But I can see where your coming from gabe.

[Ranger Dude]

Actually, I was agreeing with you regarding 40k. I think it USED to be that people learned how to beat an army. Now, I think people simply wait for the next new army since it will likely be tooled up even more than the last one. That's how you beat a new army in 40k. Wait for the next big thing. Kind of sad.

[Iron Warrior]

Yeah its very dishearting, I really do like 40k the concept. 40k the game, man I wish it was 2nd or 3rd edition again when the worst army you have to worry about was Blood angels. hahahah!

[MajorSoB]

You know Ron, I understand and agree with you to a point. I know how enthuazed you are now with FOW, partial because it seems to be a solid and competitive game, but it is also obvious that it is a reaction to the direction that GW has perverted 40K. I still enjoy 40K, but since I started playing I have seen the focus switch from fun to win at all cost. I still play for fun, and enjoy painting and modeling the minis as much as actually playing. I see your point that now a gap has emerged in the armies. You can either A) Play an army you like, or B) Play an army you can win with. I do realize this and I think the lesson that drove this home was my past sunday games against Shaun. First I played my Sisters army, slightly tooled up (2 Exorcists), but very similar to the army that i first began playing with. Shaun got first turn, game over. Next I pulled out my Iron Hands, even more tooled out, and although it was a closer game, the result was stil the same. In Shaun defence, he played a sound army with very little ungrades, fluffy, but it was just plain nasty. Yes, the dice god was with him, yes, Shaun is an ok player ( ;D), yes I could have done a few things slightly better, but in all honesty it all came down to army selection. It would be nice if GW would focus on balance between the races and chapters, but I guess that isn't the way to sell minis. Making the latest, the greatest seems to be their way to motivate the consumer to but new product. So where does this leave me and the rest of the 40K gamers? My answer is this, I will continue to play because I have alot invested in the hobby and my sence of enjoyment is not driven by simply winning. I enjoy the hobby, which means painting and modeling as well as playing. I do also plan on trying other systems in the future, but I want to play them because I like that game, not just a way of reacting to the problems in 40K. FOW does seem fun and once it develops a bigger base, and I break out some cash, I am sure I will have an army as well.

Back to the original statement. I agree somewhat, and followed this idea when started out. I played my first army until I learned to be good with them, yes I expanded my ranks, but not in a reaction to getting the latest beatstick, but in a way to have fun and keep my army from growing stagnant. Sometimes it is fun to play different unit, even bad ones. Winning should not be the only factor that drives this hobby, fairness, yes but winning no.

That's my $1.75, Seacrest out...

[Iron Warrior]

Please dont take this topic as me bashing on 40k or 40k players, but its easier to relate to the game I have played for 8-9 years. Im not trying to convince anyone to stop playing and Im sorry -if- people see it that way. Im all about having fun with what you do be it 40k, fantasy or FoW.
There are some people out there that can make 40k enjoyable to play, but more often than not it has been a power gaming nightmare as of late. Im not into that thing, Id be content with fair underpowered armies facing off against each other than the uber units. Hell if the game was just one race like guard, Id still be playing. But when a non experience pre teen can have his parents pick up the uber unit of the month and put your army to shame no matter what tactics( if there are any in 40k) you use his army soundly throttles yours 9 outta 10 times unless you resort to the same tactics. I wont even go into those players that just have no regard for thier opponents playing experiences and just wants to Win At All Costs. But thats enugh from me. ;D