JamesR wrote:
40k is terribly imbalanced to the point of being a joke. And WHF is move my infantry block forward, now you. Roll off, remove formation casualties, repeat.
I much prefer 40k of the two, there are some fun things about it, like crazy monsters like the Doom (who doesn't exist anymore). But there's very little in the way of tactics in either, by nature of the rule systems.
I much prefer X-wing, infinity, Bolt Action, flames of war, and especially Dreadball! To the "other two" GW games. I think they are terribly written systems
I'd agree that 40k doesn't require that much tactics but I'd argue that fantasy requires a fair amount of tactics (e.g positioning of units). I haven't had the privilege to play those other systems so I can't comment on them
VandalCabbage wrote:
40K's decent, but it suffers from terrible stat creep. You think watchers of Karna are bad? The 40K system of points to stats is running on no logic at all.
And whereas LOTR has been mostly ignored, 40K has had targeted depredations inflicted on the fanbase that have wrecked everything.
40K coulda been a contender, even on terms of lore if you don't mind dystopia (the Horus Heresy novels are quite nice). Sigh.
I'm not trying to say that some of the units aren't ridiculously OP lol, and I agree that LOTR is better but I don't think they are terrible systems, just certain units imbalance them. I agree with you about that Horus Heresy stuff by the way, the novels and especially the FW sculpts (if only they weren't so expensive..)
To be honest though I'm kinda inexperienced at all 3 of these systems and only play against a limited player base, who tend not to play cheap - so take this with a pinch of salt.
{ PORTAL }
Print view
Top
