Do you play Warhammer or 40k?

Anthony_TBBF · Post by **Anthony_TBBF** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 pm

and last but not least Bomberz over Da Sulpha River

LOL, you win.

Icedman · Post by **Icedman** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 3:29 am

Deathwing wrote: Bet I can 'out-whore' you!
Hmmm....WHFR, Space Crusade(with Mission Dreadnought expansion), Heroquest (with 3 expansion packs), Advanced Space Crusade, all three editions of 40K to date (inc additional stuff like both Ork hardbacks, Dark Mil. and the Vehicle rules and Battle Manual and about 1500 points of Orcs; Dark Angels: a complete 100 marine tactical company, plus around 1000 pts of Deathwing and 1000pts of Ravenwing), Necromunda (with additional metal Goliaths and Cawdor boxes); Gorkamorka; complete Skaven, Norse, Dwarf fleets (and all monsters) for Manowar, Space Marine (old epic with both expansions) and Titan Legions with several large armies; Warhammer Quest; Dark Future; and last but not least Bomberz over Da Sulpha River. And now I'm getting that fortnightly LOTR thing as well.

Anthony_TBBF wrote: LOL, you win.

Yes, DW, you do!

Milo · Post by **Milo** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 3:44 am

Icedman wrote:
Anthony_TBBF wrote: LOL, you win.
Yes, DW, you do!

I disagree. No one who's this much in hock to the great GW Monopoly can ever be considered to be "winning". =)

Bob-the-Fish · Post by **Bob-the-Fish** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 4:06 am

I used to play 40k. I got tired of it with the new edition and loss of anything resembling strategy required to play. The new movement system killed it for me.

I own 40k, Necromunda Warhammer Quest, and Epic besides BB. And I've dabled in all of GW's newer games. I have to say that BB and Necromunda are the most interesting and enjoyable of all the games I've played. Cheap to play with limitless potential. All the others seem pretty repetitive after a couple of games unless you can shell out the rediculous amounts of cash for larger armies.

Sixpack595 · Post by **Sixpack595** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 5:06 am

I really need to disagree about 40K lacking strategy. Last Ed was about who could cheese out their army more. 3rd was better, but with the focus on Rt format has really kept it fair. In 40K the better player will win almost every time, regardless of the army played.

Bob-the-Fish wrote:I used to play 40k. I got tired of it with the new edition and loss of anything resembling strategy required to play. The new movement system killed it for me.

Purrbear · Post by **Purrbear** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 9:19 am

I have a couple of 40K armies (because that's what people here played) but haven't played in well over a year.

Also have 3 Warmaster armies -- a great game !!!! Too bad it isn't supported by the GW crowd.

As for Fantasy, I used to have a Lizardman army, but the rules got changed and most of my stuff became "illegal" . . . but if you would like to try a quick, fun and challenging set of fantasy rules, WRG's "Hordes of the Things" is really, really good (and a lot of fun).

Right now, BB is the only GW game I'm playing -- but I'd like to play some Warmaster as well (it is also a good set of rules).

Indigo · Post by **Indigo** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 11:44 am

Sixpack595 wrote:I really need to disagree about 40K lacking strategy. Last Ed was about who could cheese out their army more. 3rd was better, but with the focus on Rt format has really kept it fair. In 40K the better player will win almost every time, regardless of the army played.

IMO opinion that's bollocks - 40k has been dumbed down because it is GW's biggest earner, and it's kids spending their parent's cash. They went on a massive crusade to "simplify the game and cut down the number of dice rolls" with the end result that each and every army is utterly bland. The games invariably end up as a massive hand to hand ruck in the centre (particularly on the 4'x4' boards that GW shops insist on using

). Talk to any GW staffer - after paints, the biggest sellers are space marines. Take 2 equally skillful opponents, give one a marine army and the other any army you like (except possibly chaos) and the marine will win... this summer will see chaos released in droves with suitably cheesy rules & stats to accompany them.

I LIKED 2nd ed. despite the fact it took a full afternoon to play 1500pts. I played 2000pts in 45 minutes on tuesday 3rd edition. Don't get me started on how the new points values force the players to buy more and more minis, costing about £6 a blister.

AND the fact they ditched the half decent (though granted occaisonally overpowered) psychic system because it cost too much to print the cards (like epic, WFB, BB....) and also..... [rant fades to silence]

If it wasn't because of the fact I already own armies I'd never play 40k etc. again, and I actually quite like the universes the games are set in.

LOL good to get that off my chest

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:03 pm

Sixpack595 wrote:I really need to disagree about 40K lacking strategy. Last Ed was about who could cheese out their army more. 3rd was better, but with the focus on Rt format has really kept it fair. In 40K the better player will win almost every time, regardless of the army played.

Only if both players are playing assault orinted marines or a swordwind eldar army. Somethings are just to point efficent in 40k. Blood Angels are one of them.

ZanzerTem · Post by **ZanzerTem** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 1:31 pm

I collected a huge Orcs and Goblins army for WFB, but haven't played in years. On that note, anyone wanna buy some orcs and gobbo's

The huge cost of almost everything GW (or anything involving gaming, period) turns me off of trying new stuff. The only reason why I even play BloodBowl is because I already had a team that was collecting dust. the LRB got my group of friends playing again, so I ressurected my old stuff.

The 7th Duke · Post by **The 7th Duke** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 3:31 pm

Played Warhammer, and Bloodbowl - but not any of the others... War games don't have a huge following in South Africa - don't get me wrong, there are plenty of die hards, but not enough new players.

You'll be surprised at how many role-players there are out here though (me being one of em) - or at least there were until Magic the Gathering came along and threw a spanner in the works...

Plaguelord is busy setting up a Mordheim game for us - and we are also looking at getting back into Warhammer (ah, the good old days, how far away they seem...)

Bob-the-Fish · Post by **Bob-the-Fish** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 4:34 pm

Of course it requires SOME strategy to win in 40k but In the new edition (3rd?) it all ends up being who can charge first and roll the most dice. And since all the armies move the same speed (the dumbest thing I have ever seen in a tabletop game) it really limits your options. So of course armies like Blood Angels, Orks, etc will be considered over powered. Sure, they tried to add Tau saying they were a shooty army but with the new system HTH is really what wins games. If I wanted massive (and expensive) units wacking each other I'd play fantasy. In a futuristic combat game it would seem like shooting would be more common, but in the current 40k its just a way to take out a couple of models before HTH.
In the older edition I could play a game with 20 or so models and it took a few hours and we had fun. Each model could effect the outcome of the game. Having a battle tank actually ment something.
You can't play 40k with 20 models and have it involve strategy anymore. Now you need at least 50 or more models to have a decent game that doesn't hinge on one combat in the middle of the table.

Sixpack595 · Post by **Sixpack595** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 7:38 pm

I'll agree that 3rd isn't perfect, but I think its better. The change in movement, and simplification of vehicles was bad. Ditching the IMHO retarded psycher rules was great. Changing the close combat rules to make sense also was a huge improvement. I like the larger armies too.

I don't care why they changed it, I'm just happy it happened. I do think they dumbed it down a bit too much, but at least they got rid of a lot of stuff I hated.

As for marines usually winning, thats because there are more varients of Marines and more players. People like Marines, and they come in the game. I play Guard, and win with them just as much as with my Blood Angels (that is almost allways). I know people who are almost unbeatable with almost every army out there...except vanilla marines, Eldar, and Black Templars. If you are good, all the armies are pretty close. If you suck, theres a big difference.

I see GW aiming to make their games more tourney friendly. They remove alot of the goofy fun stuff (think BB cards, 2nd ed 40K orks...). I don't mind it for 40K, but BB is Orcs playing football! How can you take yourself that seriosly? Anyway, I agree the 4x4s suck, thats why I never play at GW stores.

Deathwing · Post by **Deathwing** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 9:20 pm

Hey..I forgot 'Valley of the Four Winds' (the first GW game I bought). It was a good v. evil hex based fantasy war game with cardboard counters.
Fond memories of that one...

khorneskulls · Post by **khorneskulls** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 3:42 am

i curently play choas, also got armored company and eldar....

kenshin138 · Post by **kenshin138** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 9:42 pm

I currently play quite a bit of 40K. I had a very large Death Guard (chaos Nurgle) team that I reciently sold (seen at http://www.deathguard.org) . I also have Marines and the start on several other armies.

Been playing for close to 12 years now. No reason to stop thus far.

Talk Fantasy Football

Do you play Warhammer or 40k?

The title says it : do you play warhammer or 40k?