Historical Wargaming its just not 40k?

[xbenblasterx]

I understand that no doubt this should be posted in a more Historical Wargames oriented forum but i find this place offers the best discussion! So shoot me now!

So recently I've been indulging an interest into historical wargames, so just to get a general idea on them in general I decided to pick up a copy of Wargames Illustrated and I'm not gunna' I'm struggling to see the appeal, it all comes across as very dull and vert rules and stat riddled.

Is there something I'm just not getting I understand that 40k is very much the 'hollywood' of the tabletop genre, but even a battle report on Flames of War (which I considered to be a more commerical historical wargame) failed to spark any excitement or interest within me.

So I just wondered if any of you were Hardcore Historical Wargamers what do you find to be the appeal? Is it the setting or the game itself?

Maybe i'm just some rock 'n' roll youth who cant appreciate the complexities involved in discussing the armour penetration values of a German 88' Anti- Tank Gun.

[Aldavaer]

As someone who started as a historical wargamer and came to 40K for me it is the settings. I played mainly 25mm Napoleonics and WWII and Modern microarmour.

Once you have a setting you pick a rule set that appeals. There are a wide range out there when you start digging form the quick and dirty to the very detailed, small skirmishes up to major battles.

I ran a great ACW ironclads demonstration game with a rule set that had 3 weapon types; big, medium and small. Have a look at [URL="http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/boards.mv?period=gen"]http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/boards.mv?period=gen[/URL] they have a wealth of information.

[Popsical]

For me historical wargaming is appealing because of the "what if" scenarios and the era it is set in.
I have a fondness for ECW, WW2 and 1980's cold war "what if" fulda gap scenario.
If you have a historical setting or event that interests you in its deepest sense then you can game scenarios to see your own results.
In your shoes ben, i would take a movie or book you like alot and see what systems and figs exist to act it out.
Most era's have various levels of complexity systems to choose from.
On the batrep issue, it depends on the interests of the writer as to how they like their games to read.

[Katharon]

You need to check out "Hail Caesar!" the ancient historical wargame. It was created (in large part) by Rick Priestly -- you know, the guy who pretty much co-founded GW and wrote a sh*t ton of the game mechanics of both 40K and WHFB. Definitely worth it, imho, and the models are well done as well using hard-plastic, which is slightly more durable than GW plastic (though it would be up to the hardcore modelers and tinkerers to judge which is easier to modify with a sculpt knife).

[Arkhan Land]

Another good thing about historicals is that if you are willing to dwelve into 1/72 scale warfare you can build thousands of points armies for the cost of a single tactical marines box. Base them with standard fantasy bases to help keep everything cool with da rules for WHB or Hail Ceasar and play on. The other day my roomate was like hey I've got a Late Romans Army I just finished so I ran out to the store (Hobbyworld) and bought some historical kits ($7-$15 a pop usually) I did a small egyptians army in a weekend once. but yah compare that to months and months building a several hundred dollar army

[silashand]

Having played FoW for years as well as GW stuff, I will say without a doubt that the FoW rules are hands down better written, more balanced and more consistent across all lists than almost anything GW has done. They are also very similar to GW rules in many ways so a transfer to that system has a minimal learning curve. If you are a WWII history buff it's also quite enjoyable to do those "what if" scenarios that someone above mentioned.

Other historical games are also fun. Bolt Action is one I picked up to play 28mm WWII and I am looking to give it a try as well. Again, it was written by folks who used to work at GW so many elements are similar to what you may already know.

Do I still like 40K? Absolutely. But the number of d'oh! rules in it and the blatant refusal to support the game with timely FAQs and erratas sometimes detracts from my enjoyment in playing it. Yeah, yeah, I've heard the excuse that it's not a tournament system. I don't give a rat's hairy *** about that. It's no excuse not to at least answer the legitimate questions your players have. Battlefront at least has their stuff together and will provide official answers to rules queries on their forums when necessary.

Anyway, it all depends on what sparks an interest in you. My first wargaming love will always be sci-fi/fantasy, but historicals can be interesting and fun too. Just have to find one where you like something about it and some willing opponents.

Cheers, Gary

[iamian]

historical game = rogue trader?


end trolling

[Chris Copeland]

I tried to play FoW. I acquired an army and bought the books. I had enthusiastic friends walk me through learning games. In the end I just never got into it. I tried to figure out why the game left me cold. Finally I decided that it was the fluff. I just couldn't get into FoW's background fluff: it just didn't have enough dragons or laser beams for me.

[Popsical]

Yep most historical fluff is poorly written lol. Just kidding CC.
I grew up watching WW2 movies and listening to my grandad's tales of D-day and war in europe.
I read loads of books about campaigns and battles and generals of superb or terrible quality.
40k takes bits from all those eras and wars to create its own mix of their fluff.
Youve got to find a part of history that really grips you to make it worth wargaming it.

[Chris Copeland]

You've got to find a part of history that really grips you to make it worth wargaming it.

I can see that. I keep thinking at ancient era wargames might be worth it (Greeks, Romans, etc)... perhaps I'll give those a go someday... especially if they have lasers and dragons!