Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35142 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20817 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7405 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3967 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3492 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2074 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2582 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2250 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2494 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3009 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1971 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3692 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2619 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2461 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2289 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2505 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× WELCOME TO TRASHDOME!

This is part of a series of bloody matches to the death. Show support for your favorite game so it will do better in the fight. You can support it by writing why you think its the better game and more importantly by betting (i.e. voting for) it. Please make it clear for when I check the bets later. You have until Friday when I tally the bets and declare the winner. I will reserve my bet for any tie-breakers.

Although you should be familiar with both games, there is no rule that says you have to have played both of them. The only rule in Trashdome is this;

Two games enter! One game leaves!

Easter Trashdome: WH40K vs WHFB (closes May 8th)

More
25 Apr 2011 22:09 - 25 Apr 2011 22:10 #95046 by Rliyen

SuperflyTNT wrote: They're different game styles, though, Jeff. 40K is a pure and simple skirmish game where each unit is an individual (although they can and do move in loose formations) where FB is a unit game more closely tied to a civil war game than anything else I can compare it to.

With 40K, facings don't really matter, and the details are left in the nebula; you must assume that as professional soldiers they know what they're doing and will always assume the best defensive or offensive positions.

With FB, everything is left to the user; facings, movement type (charging/marching..) and it's far more of a "war simulator" than a skirmish. It's a lot more work if you dig that sort of thing.

Then there's the shooting. You can't equate the two because one is using powered armor and firearms where the other is sticks and bows and whatnot. There has to be range modifiers in FB because the weapons are far more primative where the 40K weapons are assumed to have very, very long range.

Then there's all the other checks and whatnot....panics, frenzies..there's a lot more shit going on in FB. Maybe that's why I like 40K better...there's less chrome and more "I want to fucking nuke you...roll...you're nuked" versus "I want to nuke you...decide movement type..move guys...check for morale (yada yada)...roll...(check for so and so)...wait while everything is tallied...ok, you MAY be nuked, and you have to break ranks and flee".

Too much minute detail in FB, hence my vote.


See Above Jeff. Super pretty much summed up everything I disliked about WFB. If I wanted all that detail in a wargame, I'd just as soon pull out Squad Leader and play that than WHFB.
Last edit: 25 Apr 2011 22:10 by Rliyen.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Apr 2011 22:10 #95048 by Ancient_of_MuMu
There is one thing that means this decision is clear cut. For 5th ed of 40K Games Workshop released the "Games Workshop Laser Pointer". Any game where things can get so pedantic that you need a laser pointer to decide if you hit or not has to really suck.

Nice theme, but terrible game.

Vote: WHFB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Apr 2011 23:03 #95056 by Mr. White

Rliyen wrote:

SuperflyTNT wrote: They're different game styles, though, Jeff. 40K is a pure and simple skirmish game where each unit is an individual (although they can and do move in loose formations) where FB is a unit game more closely tied to a civil war game than anything else I can compare it to.

With 40K, facings don't really matter, and the details are left in the nebula; you must assume that as professional soldiers they know what they're doing and will always assume the best defensive or offensive positions.

With FB, everything is left to the user; facings, movement type (charging/marching..) and it's far more of a "war simulator" than a skirmish. It's a lot more work if you dig that sort of thing.

Then there's the shooting. You can't equate the two because one is using powered armor and firearms where the other is sticks and bows and whatnot. There has to be range modifiers in FB because the weapons are far more primative where the 40K weapons are assumed to have very, very long range.

Then there's all the other checks and whatnot....panics, frenzies..there's a lot more shit going on in FB. Maybe that's why I like 40K better...there's less chrome and more "I want to fucking nuke you...roll...you're nuked" versus "I want to nuke you...decide movement type..move guys...check for morale (yada yada)...roll...(check for so and so)...wait while everything is tallied...ok, you MAY be nuked, and you have to break ranks and flee".

Too much minute detail in FB, hence my vote.


See Above Jeff. Super pretty much summed up everything I disliked about WFB. If I wanted all that detail in a wargame, I'd just as soon pull out Squad Leader and play that than WHFB.


Ok, I hear y'alls points. However, If I'm going to spend multiple hundreds of dollars on an army and multiple hundreds of hours modeling and painting the minis, then I want more game than 'roll dice, go boom.'

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Apr 2011 23:20 #95057 by SuperflyPete

Ancient_of_MuMu wrote: There is one thing that means this decision is clear cut. For 5th ed of 40K Games Workshop released the "Games Workshop Laser Pointer". Any game where things can get so pedantic that you need a laser pointer to decide if you hit or not has to really suck.

Nice theme, but terrible game.

Vote: WHFB


Ha! Heroscape is no better though...I've seen people get REALLY, REALLY shitty with one another over line of sight, but Heroquest is widely renowned as an "Ameritrash Classic". Go figure! :)

Jeff, I totally know why you feel the way you do, I get it, and I agree that if you want all that jazz than there's only a few games that can trump it at its own game. I just prefer the simplicity. I'm a simple guy, and I think everyone gets that by now! :)

Now Ex Illis....that's a game! (rolls eyes...)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Apr 2011 23:54 #95061 by Rliyen

Jeff White wrote:

Rliyen wrote:

SuperflyTNT wrote: They're different game styles, though, Jeff. 40K is a pure and simple skirmish game where each unit is an individual (although they can and do move in loose formations) where FB is a unit game more closely tied to a civil war game than anything else I can compare it to.

With 40K, facings don't really matter, and the details are left in the nebula; you must assume that as professional soldiers they know what they're doing and will always assume the best defensive or offensive positions.

With FB, everything is left to the user; facings, movement type (charging/marching..) and it's far more of a "war simulator" than a skirmish. It's a lot more work if you dig that sort of thing.

Then there's the shooting. You can't equate the two because one is using powered armor and firearms where the other is sticks and bows and whatnot. There has to be range modifiers in FB because the weapons are far more primative where the 40K weapons are assumed to have very, very long range.

Then there's all the other checks and whatnot....panics, frenzies..there's a lot more shit going on in FB. Maybe that's why I like 40K better...there's less chrome and more "I want to fucking nuke you...roll...you're nuked" versus "I want to nuke you...decide movement type..move guys...check for morale (yada yada)...roll...(check for so and so)...wait while everything is tallied...ok, you MAY be nuked, and you have to break ranks and flee".

Too much minute detail in FB, hence my vote.


See Above Jeff. Super pretty much summed up everything I disliked about WFB. If I wanted all that detail in a wargame, I'd just as soon pull out Squad Leader and play that than WHFB.


Ok, I hear y'alls points. However, If I'm going to spend multiple hundreds of dollars on an army and multiple hundreds of hours modeling and painting the minis, then I want more game than 'roll dice, go boom.'


That's not much of an endorsement if you think about it. Take away the fluff, the modifiers and it's the same game.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Apr 2011 00:03 #95064 by NeonPeon

SuperflyTNT wrote: They're different game styles, though, Jeff. 40K is a pure and simple skirmish game where each unit is an individual (although they can and do move in loose formations) where FB is a unit game more closely tied to a civil war game than anything else I can compare it to.

With 40K, facings don't really matter, and the details are left in the nebula; you must assume that as professional soldiers they know what they're doing and will always assume the best defensive or offensive positions.

With FB, everything is left to the user; facings, movement type (charging/marching..) and it's far more of a "war simulator" than a skirmish. It's a lot more work if you dig that sort of thing.

Then there's the shooting. You can't equate the two because one is using powered armor and firearms where the other is sticks and bows and whatnot. There has to be range modifiers in FB because the weapons are far more primative where the 40K weapons are assumed to have very, very long range.

Then there's all the other checks and whatnot....panics, frenzies..there's a lot more shit going on in FB. Maybe that's why I like 40K better...there's less chrome and more "I want to fucking nuke you...roll...you're nuked" versus "I want to nuke you...decide movement type..move guys...check for morale (yada yada)...roll...(check for so and so)...wait while everything is tallied...ok, you MAY be nuked, and you have to break ranks and flee".

Too much minute detail in FB, hence my vote.


I think you've just sold me on FB!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Apr 2011 00:19 #95066 by Mr. White

Rliyen wrote:

Jeff White wrote:

Rliyen wrote:

SuperflyTNT wrote: They're different game styles, though, Jeff. 40K is a pure and simple skirmish game where each unit is an individual (although they can and do move in loose formations) where FB is a unit game more closely tied to a civil war game than anything else I can compare it to.

With 40K, facings don't really matter, and the details are left in the nebula; you must assume that as professional soldiers they know what they're doing and will always assume the best defensive or offensive positions.

With FB, everything is left to the user; facings, movement type (charging/marching..) and it's far more of a "war simulator" than a skirmish. It's a lot more work if you dig that sort of thing.

Then there's the shooting. You can't equate the two because one is using powered armor and firearms where the other is sticks and bows and whatnot. There has to be range modifiers in FB because the weapons are far more primative where the 40K weapons are assumed to have very, very long range.

Then there's all the other checks and whatnot....panics, frenzies..there's a lot more shit going on in FB. Maybe that's why I like 40K better...there's less chrome and more "I want to fucking nuke you...roll...you're nuked" versus "I want to nuke you...decide movement type..move guys...check for morale (yada yada)...roll...(check for so and so)...wait while everything is tallied...ok, you MAY be nuked, and you have to break ranks and flee".

Too much minute detail in FB, hence my vote.


See Above Jeff. Super pretty much summed up everything I disliked about WFB. If I wanted all that detail in a wargame, I'd just as soon pull out Squad Leader and play that than WHFB.


Ok, I hear y'alls points. However, If I'm going to spend multiple hundreds of dollars on an army and multiple hundreds of hours modeling and painting the minis, then I want more game than 'roll dice, go boom.'


That's not much of an endorsement if you think about it. Take away the fluff, the modifiers and it's the same game.


Huh? I'm saying I want more game than just laying down my initial deployment and throwing a bunch of dice to see what happens. Pete even agreed that list and deployments are the key to winning 40K earlier, which he doesn't mind. His follow-up post is affirming that he likes that simplicity and doesn't want to deal with panic tests, unit facings, etc that are involved in WFB. I then say I understand why you have your view, but for my time and money I prefer more game, alluding to the fact that 40k isn't much of a game in comparison.

I guess they're the same game if you mean games that have Warhammer in the title and contain armies at war. Outside of that, I don't see how they're the same game.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Apr 2011 00:20 #95067 by Mr. White

NeonPeon wrote:
I think you've just sold me on FB!


Is that a vote? :)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Apr 2011 08:33 #95084 by Matt Thrower
Easy vote for WFB.

Yes, 40k appears to have the better background, but that's all it has and as others have mentioned I actually quite admire the way GW has, over the years, stolen all the best bits of all the various popular fantasy universes alongside real history and slowly blended it into something unique yet instantly recognisable. To properly appreciate how deep and intriguing the result is you really need to have played WHFRP in one of its early incarnations. I'd be interested to know how many of the 40k lovers have had exposure to WHFRP.

WFB has better gameplay. It's more tactical and strategic. The army lists are better balanced and the rules fit it better thematically. Don't forget guys that 40k was originally a copy of the WFB rules with guns and in the early days it really showed: 1st edition 40k features crossbows alongside bolt guns and the two had virtually the same stat line! It's been improved since then but it still shows - the mechanics are not suited to futuristic firefights. Can you really imagine that most battles in the far future, between forces with super high tech weaponry, is really going to come down to rushing in for hand-to-hand 90% of the time?
The following user(s) said Thank You: NeonPeon

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Apr 2011 14:40 #95117 by Columbob

SuperflyTNT wrote: Then there's the shooting. You can't equate the two because one is using powered armor and firearms where the other is sticks and bows and whatnot.


I can think of at least 3 fantasy battles armies using firearms.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Apr 2011 14:45 #95118 by Chapel
Of course.

Vote: WH40K

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Apr 2011 16:13 #95136 by NeonPeon

MattDP wrote: Easy vote for WFB.WFB has better gameplay. It's more tactical and strategic. The army lists are better balanced and the rules fit it better thematically. Don't forget guys that 40k was originally a copy of the WFB rules with guns and in the early days it really showed: 1st edition 40k features crossbows alongside bolt guns and the two had virtually the same stat line! It's been improved since then but it still shows - the mechanics are not suited to futuristic firefights. Can you really imagine that most battles in the far future, between forces with super high tech weaponry, is really going to come down to rushing in for hand-to-hand 90% of the time?

From the one time I played 40k ages ago, I recall bolters having ridiculously, stupidly short ranges.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Apr 2011 16:16 #95137 by NeonPeon

Jeff White wrote:

NeonPeon wrote:
I think you've just sold me on FB!


Is that a vote? :)

I've actually been wanting to see the two argued out for a while, because one of these days I may get the starter set for the game that appeals to me more. (I think I requested such a Trashdome to Mad Dog a while ago, and he suggested making my own thread but I was too lazy.)

But ok. Vote: WHFB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 Jun 2011 19:16 - 19 Jun 2011 19:17 #98197 by jur
I can't believe there's only 14 people voting on this one, so I'm giving this a bump and another week before calling the final tally.

And it's still very close, so your voice counts!


Apologies for letting the Trashdome slip after my holidays. I've been a bit itinerant.
Last edit: 19 Jun 2011 19:17 by jur.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Jun 2011 14:01 - 26 Jun 2011 14:07 #98559 by jur
Yup guys,

for those of you able to count it may have been apparent, but the final result is Fantasy Battles 8 votes outnumbering 6 votes for 40K.


Next up: Cyclades vs Mare Nostrum!
Last edit: 26 Jun 2011 14:07 by jur.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.192 seconds