Game Does not Match the Fluff

[Lhu27]

I love the Warhammer 40k fiction. I think its the best Sci Fi out there. That being said I'm really down on how the game plays out on the table top. I feel that it does not match at all how the fluff describes it. Ive gone so far as to write a letter to GW stating that. Any one else feel the same and why? After a few comments ill post why i feel it doesn't match the awesome background and fiction of the setting.

Armies I own

Tyranids
Tau
IG x2
Chaos Space Marines
Chaos Daemons
Space Marines X3
Blood Angles
Grey Knights

[Ssyrie]

The problem with the fluff is that it's showing one side as the protagonists, most of whom need to actually survive the story (or at least not die till the end). If you can find the rules for 'The Movie Space Marines' trying playing two squads against each other. See how many turns it takes just for one marine too die. The fluff always exaggerates one side over the other which would make for a vastly one sided game.

It's a problem with many sci-fi/fantasy games where the fluff and the rules don't seem to resemble one another. I used to play a lot of Battletech and can say that the game doesn't resemble how the battles play out in any of the novels. Battles in the books seemed vastly more decisive than the slow grind the game presents.

[daboarder]

The problem with the fluff is that it's showing one side as the protagonists, most of whom need to actually survive the story (or at least not die till the end). If you can find the rules for 'The Movie Space Marines' trying playing two squads against each other. See how many turns it takes just for one marine too die. The fluff always exaggerates one side over the other which would make for a vastly one sided game.

It's a problem with many sci-fi/fantasy games where the fluff and the rules don't seem to resemble one another. I used to play a lot of Battletech and can say that the game doesn't resemble how the battles play out in any of the novels. Battles in the books seemed vastly more decisive than the slow grind the game presents.

Pretty much this.

theres also a practical consideration (good luck buying enough gants to represent an accurate Tyranid swarm)

[George Labour]

You think 40k is bad about this? Try playing Flames of War or fields of glory.

germans winning at Normandy and or Kursk ,or the spartans getting curbstomped at thermopylae are incredibly common events.

[daboarder]

You think 40k is bad about this? Try playing Flames of War or fields of glory.

germans winning at Normandy and or Kursk ,or the spartans getting curbstomped at thermopylae are incredibly common events.

you'll akways have these sorts of problems with historical that are also intending to offer equality of competition. Because those battles were as much decided by the strategic choices that allowed the victorious side to bring more effective force to bear than the opponent. And a wargame at its heart usually deals with only the tactical decisions.

take Kursk for example, your never going to have a wargame realistically represent the shear strategic dominance enjoyed by the Soviets over the Germans.....because in almost every single game, the Soviets would win.

[Lord Manton]

I'd be interested to know what your opinion is OP. If it has to do with Space Marines not being as powerful as they are in the novels and fluff, then I think you should remember that in the fluff, the enemies are rarely the bad guys we're used to dealing with. Often, the Characters are trying to take down Cultist uprisings, or they're hunting down a particular enemy, rather than fighting a protracted war.

The other thing to consider is the big difference between S3 and S4 in the game. IG grunts, Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tau are all S3; Space Marines are S4, this means they can punch through the back of a battle tank with their bare hands. I think this is commonly overlooked.

In terms of the battles in the fluff being more decisive, it's because one side usually has a distinct advantage. Also, you have to remember that in the fluff they are usually talking about wars that encompass many different battles. The Table top really only represents a single, rather small battle. It also doesn't take into account the fact that if a Tyranid Hive Ship is destroyed, the Nids on the ground will have a much harder time of it, or if an Ork Warboss is killed, usually the underling bosses will then stop prosecuting the larger Waagh! and start fighting amongst themselves to determine the new Warboss.

There are a lot of different factors in what makes a fluff battle happen the way it does, whereas the game tends to focus more on a fair(ish) battle between two small fragments of a larger force to make the game fun. If you want to get the fluff to correspond more to your games, try your hand at some mismatched battles and really test your tactical skills.

Whilst I agree that there are differences between the fluff and the game, I think this can be forgiven, because if it was a closer match, I think it wouldn't be as fun, nor would it be feasible (eg a true Nid swarm).

[Denzark]

You think 40k is bad about this? Try playing Flames of War or fields of glory.

germans winning at Normandy and or Kursk ,or the spartans getting curbstomped at thermopylae are incredibly common events.

The Spartans did get curbstomped at Thermopylae...

[Cutter]

The Spartans did get curbstomped at Thermopylae...

I think someone even made a movie about that...

[Tyrendian]

The Spartans did get curbstomped at Thermopylae...

there's a difference between losing the battle for strategic gain by buying time and "getting curbstomped" though, which is what George was hinting at I assume

[Mr Mystery]

Kerbstomped surely?

/pedantmode