tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post7582436572148575497..comments2024-02-16T18:32:38.635-05:00Comments on The Back 40K: 40K Seems So... Weird NowFarmpunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622091234212120598noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-53709441609072441512012-02-21T13:52:13.191-05:002012-02-21T13:52:13.191-05:00I don't think this is about Sci-fiction vs. Hi...I don't think this is about Sci-fiction vs. Historical fiction.<br /><br />What I find interesting is how a Game company that also produces models approaches the hobby, vs. how the Model company that also produces a game approaches the same hobby.<br /><br />I overall agree more with BF's business model approach. Selling Books, and making a solid game makes money. Models are the gravy.<br />This is different than GW professing to be a model company (although it seems they drop the ball on that a lot. Nids, and Thunderwolves, I'm looking at you.) and wanting a game to sell more models. It's also been pointed out recently pointed out (http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ppwzq/iama_former_games_workshop_employee_ama/) GW wants to be an 'Elite' game, and wants to ultimately pull as much of your entertainment disposable income out of you as possible.<br /><br />I've been disenchanted with GW for over a year.<br /><br />they still have a 'fun' game.<br /><br />I'm finding red superhuman vs. blue superhuman to get a little old. I know there are other forces out there. I could field green superhumans, or silver superhumans. If you don't like Superhuman armies, there's the mediocre men. They're just not as Super.... and it all gets a bit... blah.<br /><br />I still play Necromunda, and it's as good as it ever was. (we even had 10 people show up to play Necromunda last night at the North GP.)<br /><br /><br />as a game system, I find FoW to be a more elegant game than 40K.<br />after playing 40K, FoW feels like playing football on a Polo pitch, instead of playing football on a Tennis court.<br /><br />At the Same time, 40K and Flames cover two different genres.<br /><br />Genre preferences aside, I find myself wanting to play FoW the Game system more than I want to play 40K the game system.<br />I feel like FoW allows for a more strategic experience, and more tactical possibilities. Part of that might be the scale. As 40K pushes to more and more stuff on the same size table, tactics become more limited.<br /><br />as to fluffer-nutters.... they occur in all systems. I've had people curse my 40K armies and tell me they lost because I didn't bring a very accurately fluffy Inquisition army because (insert made-up fluff reason here about Sisters of Battle).<br /><br />yep the histori-fluffers have history to compare every thing to.<br /><br />in the end:<br />40K is a Science Fiction game.<br />Flames of War is a Historical Fiction game.<br /><br />in all endeavors to improve, it never hurts to shop around.Farmpunkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622091234212120598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-42913349182561596222012-02-21T11:56:30.212-05:002012-02-21T11:56:30.212-05:00Not realistic. Logically consistent. They're s...Not realistic. Logically consistent. They're separate things.<br /><br />If your model is carrying a gun, and someone is running at them, it's logical to wonder why you can't shoot at them. If one target is further away than another, it's logical to wonder why you need the same roll to hit both. If our game doesn't account for things like ripping weapon arms off of a Carnifex, then why do we track weapon damage to tanks? Why is damage to a monster more determinative than damage to a vehicle? 40K is full of little moments like this. That doesn't make it a bad game, but it does make it a less immersive one.SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265244938930651317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-12373471535651797212012-02-21T11:50:11.133-05:002012-02-21T11:50:11.133-05:00@Orcboy
My experiences with those other WW2 syste...@Orcboy<br /><br />My experiences with those other WW2 systems is why I resisted trying Flames for so long.<br /><br />My comparisons of Flames with 40K are happening because the 2 games are so similar in structure and overall feel. While playing Flames it doesn't feel like a wholly different game. It feels like a refined version of 40K. The Russians ARE Orks. Their rules fit the green tide idea better than 40K's rules, because they change the way the force is LED. The Germans ARE Tau. The Americans are more like 40K's IG, because they can bring everything and the kitchen sink, making it all work together, without excelling at any one particular thing.<br /><br />It makes me dream of horde Orks, where only the Warboss matters to morale. Or Tyranids without any HQ at all. Or Tau having the best, most costly tanks in the game.SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265244938930651317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-40533114000598355142012-02-21T11:00:21.475-05:002012-02-21T11:00:21.475-05:00Note also that except for your "weirdness&quo...Note also that except for your "weirdness" #6, you've described WarmaHordes.The Fabulous Orcboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10677144817589636500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-84004323719144047992012-02-21T10:21:41.916-05:002012-02-21T10:21:41.916-05:00I gotta go with Spag on this one.
Yes, Sandwyrm. ...I gotta go with Spag on this one.<br /><br />Yes, Sandwyrm. 40K and FOW **are** different games. Yes, 40K is very high-cost (at full retail, from GW), and that's an issue. Yes, 40K is a comic-book game, and FOW is (vaguely, loosely) based on WW2.<br /><br />But some people like the comic books. And as for FOW, it's rather purposely overlooking three big, historical elements in order to keep the game artificially competitive and fun:<br /><br />(1) China<br />(2) Japan<br />(3) A-bomb<br /><br />So yeah. Each to their own. And as for FOW, if you're worried about "sloppiness", there are WW2 systems that are tighter, more detailed, less sloppy, etc. Once you're in the historicals arena, there's a wide wide world of options, and FOW is just the sloppy, cartoon-ish entry-level system for a lot of long-time hard-core WW2 enthusiasts. :pThe Fabulous Orcboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10677144817589636500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-21725082294888287512012-02-21T09:37:06.854-05:002012-02-21T09:37:06.854-05:00Oh my! So now we have to talk about how logical th...Oh my! So now we have to talk about how logical the game is? It's a game, set in the future, with fictional characters, fictional acts of heroism and combat, and people want it to be more realistic to every detail? That is a problem.....Spaguatyrinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09459803772469387289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-14238028624363056052012-02-20T23:40:29.551-05:002012-02-20T23:40:29.551-05:00We all know the Venerable Psyfleman dread is just ...We all know the Venerable Psyfleman dread is just the latest Mat Ward special.<br /><br />I found out the other day that he wrote the 8th ed Fantasy book. It explained SO much...Koronahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250234754318025124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-644831945645745222012-02-20T13:53:51.959-05:002012-02-20T13:53:51.959-05:00Great stuff - I still enjoy playing 40K (and I don...Great stuff - I still enjoy playing 40K (and I don't have a huge amount of choice most of the time to be honest) but yes - I agree with everything you now find weird. <br /><br />Perceived 'competitiveness' aside, I really like that FoW is designed to be a far more collaborative game too.Admiral Draxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07476823273954165890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-9339602192215248432012-02-20T12:21:53.814-05:002012-02-20T12:21:53.814-05:00Well, that's the point I was making. Not that...Well, that's the point I was making. Not that I'd expect you to not expound on the idea you put forward. The above Russian example seems, to me, perhaps too close to the Mob rule that orks already have... it could be a suitable replacement for that alone perhaps, but together it's either too redundant or makes them more unbreakable than a fearless army (cause that's somehow possible).<br /><br />I think it's difficult to do something that simplistic, though (blanket to hit mods based on speed), when the speeds in question are so very drastically different. The WWII tanks of Flames are more akin to Leman Russ's... so lumbering that if you want to Cruise, it's a d6" extra, not a 12" movement.<br /><br />If a to-hit table were to be implemented, I'd prefer something closer to the "leaked 6th ed". Stationary targets are easier to hit because they're standing still. Vehicles moving up to Cruising are probably standard. Faster is harder, depending on how fast you go. Skimmers that moved at all would be harder to hit than a tank that moved at all, because moving 10' in a straight line is easier to predict than something that, again, is jinking in all 30 directions at once.<br /><br />It's all hearsay, at the least.Anonymous Foodiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14362829012549159278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-48498151525087453422012-02-20T10:40:08.215-05:002012-02-20T10:40:08.215-05:00Well of course you can't just bring new rules ...Well of course you can't just bring new rules over to 40K without re-balancing the factions. :P<br /><br />In the Orks' case, I'd give them something similar to Flames' Russian rules. The entire army is considered one big unit, and only takes a morale check when half of the units are gone. So blow up that truck. They don't care. We'll spore more... :)SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265244938930651317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-17628490164151206632012-02-20T10:27:48.888-05:002012-02-20T10:27:48.888-05:00You're being more ranty against Flames than I ...You're being more ranty against Flames than I was against 40K. I never said that I didn't have fun in our game. It's right up there in the article, I had fun! :P<br /><br />Our game wasn't weird because of the matchup or the table. It was weird because of all the illogical 40K-isms that I was suddenly more sensitive to. Your Venerable Psyfleman Dred, for instance, only needed a 2+ to hit my partially hidden Speeder across the table. That just seems… wrong. Yes, yes, it got cover and all that. But Flames handles it much more logically.<br /><br />There's no doubt that 40K's Sci-Fi setting makes it a more attractive game to younger players than WWII will ever be. Space Knights and Monsters are forever cool, and GW does make the best infantry and monster models in the business. Their vehicles are well… dumb looking; but so is every comic book tank/airplane ever devised. 40K is a comic-book universe, after all.<br /><br />As long as you stick to playing the Marines and Space Monsters, you'll have a good time. As a Blood Angel player, I can still enjoy the game for what it is. As a Guard player though, I was getting increasingly frustrated with the game's sloppiness. <br /><br />Cost also is a huge factor for me. I simply can't afford to stay on the GW upgrade treadmill. Not in this economy, with 2/3rds of the family income that I had 2 years ago. If GW's rules were as good as Battlefront's (or better), then I could justify paying their premium prices to play Sci-Fi. But Battlefront is offering a superior game, with good-enough models (and lots of low-cost model competition), for a total cost-to-play that's about one-third of 40K's, model-wise.<br /><br />Consider:<br /><br />For the $450.00 that it cost me to build the Emo-Wing (a 'cheap' 2000-point 40K army), I have 5000 points of Germans. That's 24 tanks and 100 infantry. Plus transports, Anti-Aircraft trucks, and Artillery. Which means that I can play the game all sorts of different ways, even against a small number of opponents.SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265244938930651317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-12761475509426521122012-02-20T09:55:03.352-05:002012-02-20T09:55:03.352-05:00Remember too, tho, that "fast" in 40k an...Remember too, tho, that "fast" in 40k and "fast" in WW era's are vastly different things. Going fast enough in 40k means you're going *so* fast it's much harder to hit... half of the time while jinking up and down on the way because you're in a fully effective anti-grav tank.<br /><br />I'm by no means against to-hit modifiers to replace cover saves, although I've never seen it first hand on a large scale, only small, small skirmish. But be careful when you bring rules over fully like that. DE vehicles and Ork Trukks rely on that bonus from moving fast to have any survivability at all - turning it into a penalty would turn those armies (vehicles, at least, and armies in some cases) into paperweights.Anonymous Foodiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14362829012549159278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-5822485388826362912012-02-20T08:08:31.845-05:002012-02-20T08:08:31.845-05:00My turn to jump in and mess up the party. We all ...My turn to jump in and mess up the party. We all have opinions as seen here by ANOTHER RANT AGAINST 40K!! <br /><br />My opinion:<br /><br />40K is better than FOW anyday. I have played both and gave my army away. (Still waiting for those models I gave it away for.....) :)<br /><br />FOW is more of a hobbist game than a competitive game that I like. Do you see younger gamers playing FOW very often? Not as much. As most of you have stated, almost every detail has to be perfect to play. Whether it is terrain, how the model's are painted, if the tank has the actual real gun or not, etc. I am highly competitive and therefore enjoy the game more than the fluff and am NOT interested in history and WW2.<br /><br />40K as a competitive game is in my opinion easier to get into. A lot of people like to switch armies which creates the ability to obtain armies at a $$ amount that is reaasonable. At FOW once you buy it you are stuck and no one will want your stuff unless is extremely painted well. In 40k I can build a great army by building and kit bashing, and maybe changing the colors of some things. I can't do that in FOW because the old guys are going to have a fit if I try to use my americn tank as a german one. <br /><br />40k players are more adaptable than people think: Everyone thinks 40k players all want to play giant games all the time. For Grand Tournaments that is the way it is, but numerous people have started playing small 500 point tournaments in between larger tournaments here in Indy and they have had tremendous success at bringing in all kinds of 40k players. Try something different once in a while.<br /><br />Futuristic verses Historic: Many people enjoy the concept of our future vs history. I am the same way and therefore for me it is more fun to play something like 40k. When I did play FOW i didn't care what happened in what battle hundreds of years ago. I actually played a game where someone said after they lost. "This wouldn't have really happened if you would have brought a more realistic army list." How much of a whiner where they? Since I am playing a game I should be able to dream up what I want to happen not try to recreate what already did happen. What's the point to that?<br /><br />@Sandwyrm,<br /><br /> Maybe it's weird because you were playing an army that you haven't played very much, against an army that you never have with that army, on 2 table that were set up for 2 500 point hero hammer games, and as you admitted, you thought you had me.....<br /><br />Or maybe you will just never be happy with 40K again.....Spaguatyrinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09459803772469387289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-47404910656179041572012-02-20T06:12:59.989-05:002012-02-20T06:12:59.989-05:00You raise a point many FoW players seem to forget-...You raise a point many FoW players seem to forget- There are TWO ways to win a Flames game.<br /><br />-Win via objectives.<br />-Break the enemy force via morale.<br /><br />This is why I never put a Shrek or Faust on my 1ic- it would encourage me to put them on the front somewhere, instead of keepin' 'em alive for re-rolls on morale checks.<br /><br />Or, at least...that's how I used to do it....2ic does re-rolls now in 3rd.<br />:)SinSynnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12352693991857976930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-31123479701354516572012-02-20T01:15:22.799-05:002012-02-20T01:15:22.799-05:00That's another thing I'll speak up for sec...That's another thing I'll speak up for second edition over. Those cardstock buildings, and the bunkers from Warhammer 40,000 Battles, were the only terrain I owned until I got into WFB a few years later. That was enough to populate a 4x4 board. The mission design could easily (though I didn't do this at the time) be redefined into "game ends when one player has fulfilled their Primary Objective" - would that give you something like Flames?Vonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12583821960347555993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-44992617778326632302012-02-20T01:12:44.173-05:002012-02-20T01:12:44.173-05:00I think Infinity and Malifaux occupy a similar nic...I think Infinity and Malifaux occupy a similar niche, perhaps slighly smaller in terms of bodies on the board, but they're too divergent in mechanics for me to call them retroclones with a straight face. I understand the term 'retroclone' to mean a very faithful re-iteration of a dead rules system, with a few changes to things the individual developer finds objectionable.<br /><br />This example may lie in 'teaching Grandma to suck eggs' territory, and if it does I apologise: look at things like Labryinth Lord, Swords and Wizardry, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, OSRIC etc. and compare them to AD&D. Compared to the closeness with which those cleave, Malifaux and Infinity are just waaaay too divergent and innovative to qualify.<br /><br />Not sure about Warpath. Can't say I'm really interested. Kings of War looks a bit like Warhammer 6th with all the bits that would get 'em sued stripped out, though.Vonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12583821960347555993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-70807344389578589202012-02-20T01:03:52.105-05:002012-02-20T01:03:52.105-05:00I don't entirely disagree, although I don'...I don't entirely disagree, although I don't quite follow the connection between Herohammer and static armies either.<br /><br />Herohammer was I think part of the development from pseudo-RPG into platoon-level wargame. Fourth/fifth edition WFB and second edition 40K both suffered from that to an extent, that neither-one-nor-the-other-ness, where they'd done away with the GamesMaster but not quite the level of interactions that needed one.<br /><br />It was slow as hell, no denying that. The system needed a good hard de-cluttering and third certainly gave it that, although I think in doing so it put an end to another style of play (the 'narrative wargame with a GM' approach, which you can do with the later GW games but which I have never <i>seen</i> anyone do).<br /><br />I have to admit though, I don't miss 2nd's Close Combat phase, which was very much suited to Necromunda-style games (lone models, fine, but when you've twenty Orks to administer through it).<br /><br />The thing that always stuck with me was a WD article I read just after I got started, all about Andy Chambers' 500 point campaign; that was a character and a couple of squads or maybe a squad and a tank per side and playable in a lunchtime. Second edition was nice at that size. I've never understood the drive for bigger and bigger games, more and more stuff, in 28mm. There comes a time where the system is just so inflated that you'd be better off moving to 10mm games... and isn't this where we came in?Vonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12583821960347555993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-49598606782405005382012-02-19T22:57:09.189-05:002012-02-19T22:57:09.189-05:00I played one of the Vraks missions a couple of mon...I played one of the Vraks missions a couple of months ago.<br /><br />It's funny how fairly small changes can make a big difference to how a game like 40k plays out.<br /><br />The scenario gives the assaulting player "without number" for his squads but requires him to get troops into the enemy trenchline to score while he gets killpoints for any squad he wipes out.<br /><br />It's a game with two infantry guard lists but it's also one of the most dynamic games I've played. We used the entire table trying to lure each other out of position.<br /><br /><br />For cheap, great looking scenery we use cardstock. We've got an Ork settlement at the club which I downloaded for free on the net (I think the guy who made it was called Tommygun). It blocks LoS nicely and a cluster of Orky buildings and barricades looks good however you set it out. Anyway, I'm pretty convinced that 40k is a game where more terrain is almost always better.Koronahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250234754318025124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-66764537663549177822012-02-19T20:27:23.052-05:002012-02-19T20:27:23.052-05:00It's not real war we fighting, but the further...It's not real war we fighting, but the further away from reality you get, the more people will encounter logical 'WTF?' moments. Battlefront found a way to end a battle once it's decided, not at some arbitrary number of turns or when every last model has been killed. Chasing down survivors isn't interesting and can really turn off casual players. If you can't contest that objective within a turn of your opponent grabbing it, it's pretty much over anyhow. You're not likely to get it back.<br /><br />As for point levels, I think I can speak for most of the NOVA-going folks on this. While the older books (Tau, Eldar, etc.) were definitely balanced for 1500 points, all of the new 5th Edition books have been balanced for 2000 points. I say this not because someone at GW told me it was so, but because I and others have played so many games at all point levels that we know where the sweet spot is.SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265244938930651317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-35094865008508549542012-02-19T18:42:32.885-05:002012-02-19T18:42:32.885-05:00That's a good point for FoW. I'm too used...That's a good point for FoW. I'm too used to skirmish games (Infinity, WarmaHordes, etc) where objectives are literal things, not "Take the high ground, force them back!".<br /><br />40k's universe isn't "real" war though - Imperial Guard are thrown at problems like it's WWI again, Tyranids don't "fall back", Chaos are often out for blood not territory. While this is Rule of Cool, I'm just pointing out that the rules for a Historical WWII game are going to be closer to "life" than rules for a Grimdark macho-bash in the future. To me, this doesn't make it a worse game but rather a worse simulation of war.<br /><br />I notice you play 2000pts. I really don't like anything over 1750 unless I'm just playing for laughs, as I feel 40k is at it's competitive peak around 1500-1750. Obviously you have different experiences of 40k than me, especially in how competitive I feel it can be, and I'm not trying to convince you - just trying to understand your reasons for feeling the way you do.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17367202513244127126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-84330548544455023622012-02-19T18:10:48.271-05:002012-02-19T18:10:48.271-05:00Woah now, while a applaud the fact that Battlefron...Woah now, while a applaud the fact that Battlefront has a supported tournament circuit for Flames, I am concerned that it seems to be built on the same soft-score foundation that 40K is only now starting to shed en masse. Frankly it's the one dark stain on an otherwise excellent game.SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265244938930651317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-36984631161233564102012-02-19T17:22:33.839-05:002012-02-19T17:22:33.839-05:00Wow it is great to hear a player who is making the...Wow it is great to hear a player who is making the commitment to getting into table top miniatures and advance in their understanding of this kind of game. I have compulsively playeed 40K since the summer of 1987 when it came out. I have since 3rd Ed been consistently heartbroken by the inability of this multi million dollar corp to simple write a good set of rules for what is the greatest gaming universe there is.<br /><br />I have been playing historical and writing rules for over 30 years and like you have now discovered 40K is very likely the worse published rule set on the market. My frustration and maybe yours is that the miniatures and the universe are so fantastic that you keep playing hundreds and hundreds of games just hoping for that one time that the stars align and the game is compelling and enjoyable.<br /><br />I am surrounded by 10's of thousands of dollars in gaming minis, terrain. About a third of it is 40K at any time. I even own a games publishing company and had a game store for years. Even so, some kid who has never played anything but a card game, clicky minis game or the such will get envolved in 40K and call me a hater, you will be one now also, just because you point out that the game system itself is a giant stinking pile of garbage.<br /><br />When some one like yourself points out these flaws in a public way it does a great service to the community. It puts pressure on GW to create something decent and or it prepares the community to come up with its own option. You should try some of the other options. You can even play 40K using different rules sets. Try Killzone for one or maybe Jim's new rules for larger games he is working on. You could even try out Bellum Astra and Bellum Terra when my company releases them. Of course the problem with those options is that if you enjoy the tournament system it will not work for you. However it seems you have discovered how superior FoW is and their tournament system is excellent.<br /><br />Expand your reach where gaming of this type is concerned. Try Infinity or get Osreys new "Tomorrow's War" rules set. All great options and it will feel like you are driving a sports car compared to peddling GW's old tricycle.<br /><br />-STUCARIUS-Stucariushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11385689440802437473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-4779986944924041282012-02-19T17:13:36.968-05:002012-02-19T17:13:36.968-05:00I like to think of the objective taking as breakin...I like to think of the objective taking as breaking the back of your opponent's defense. Forcing them to fall back to another position and regroup. <br /><br />Most of the time armies don't fight to the death. Once the objectives are lost, it's much better to fall back and regroup. Real world casualties are usually less than a quarter of the forces involved. The battles are really more about messing up the enemy's organization and moral. Forcing them to regroup and lick their wounds.SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265244938930651317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-38009542028295583262012-02-19T17:10:16.114-05:002012-02-19T17:10:16.114-05:00I think 40K's problems have more to do with th...I think 40K's problems have more to do with the central rules. When cover is the ONLY way to modify your opponent's chances to hit, that causes huge imbalances on the tabletop. It dictates the abstracted terrain layouts that competitive play requires. If there was simply a -1 to hit for long range, another -1 for gone-to-ground, and double shots to hit fast moving targets (as in flames), then you could have a reasonable play experience even without any terrain at all.SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265244938930651317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-32809322136678046762012-02-19T15:26:47.726-05:002012-02-19T15:26:47.726-05:00Great article; to me, what you've identified i...Great article; to me, what you've identified is one of the underlying causes of the hobby vs. WAAC argument, and the heart of GW's "play for the narrative" intent of the game system: there is a major cognitive dissonance in tournament-style terrain vs. narrative terrain, likewise in "waac" lists vs. fluff lists. Although I think 5e has improved a lot in terms of making codexes both fluff- and competitive-consistent, there are still lots of models that are simply unplayable from a competitive standpoint. Been looking at a lot of terrain lately, and I find myself wishing for better battlefields that have a narrative quality, rather than simply being placed on the board in a balanced manner so one side doesn't have a huge advantage. If FoW came out with a DirtsideII-type future variant, I'd be all over it. Quite bored with anything WWIIish. =\<br /><br />@Von: I'd count Infinity and Warpath as retroclones, and Malifaux as a steampunk version of Necromunda...Ghostinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612442936351544336noreply@blogger.com