Jaythulhu said:
Saskwach said:
I don't see the connection here. *snip*
4th Ed is far more like a minis game than 3.5e is. Actually, it reads to me more like a multiplayer minis game based on a video gamethan anything else. Perhaps I should have added that the feel of 4th ed is very similar to warhammer sub-themed games like Necromunda, Mordeheim and Inquisitor.
Tbh, I can't see your side at all. 3.5e lacks any of the technical nature of a wargame, 4th ed has them in abundance, and is nicely streamlined to boot. A re-release of Chainmail under the 4th ed rules would be rather nice, in my less than humble opinion.
My side is that neither are more or less comfortable to a Warhammer player. They are both equally different. But if we were going to say that one was more comfortable than the other beacuse of its inherent boardgameyness, let's remember the features of all three games.
1)Warhammer measures by inches, not squares. 4e measures by squares and has an assumed bu rarely explicit distance of IIRC, 1 square=5 feet. 3.X uses squares and/or feet as its measurements. In that sense, 3.X is closer to Warhammer in that it doesn't have to use squares as the basic measurement. There are a lot of new rules that come into play when we start using squares. Who sees who and how much. None of these rules, which are integral to 4e and either glossed over or minimised by 3.X, are present in Warhammer, so would be compltely new things to learn. Not comfortable at all. In fact, as a Warhammer player, I was far more comfortable thinking of things in terms of real world distances than in terms of squares.
2)The special rules and attacks of any particular Warhammer model/unit are few or non-existent. Usually, a unit acts like any other with only the stats varying.
Most 3.X characters lack special rules and attacks or possess very few until later levels.
4e characters possess special rules and attacks from the get-go. Will you use your X attack or Y attack? How about Z?
A 3.X fighter begins his career swinging his sword and only branches out to really complex attack choices in later levels; a Warhammer unit mostly just rolls to hit and to wound, then rolls its armour saves versus the opponent's attacks and a combat is done; 4e begins the complex combat choices right away. In other words, the style of combat and strategic thought is closer between 3.X and Warhammer than it is between WH and 4e - and where there is divergence between 3e and WH it's more gradual.
Amongst other things along a similar vein.
I would agree with you that 4e is closer to a GW mini-game than 3e, but that isn't a comparison that the OP is able to make, since he hasn't played any, if we assume his post is all his table-top experience.
But to return to my main point, I just don't see how the move from WH to DnD is more/less comfortable in any appreciable degree based on addition - at least not
because of his WH experience. You have to move from seeing yourself as a disembodied general to seeing yourself as a fantasy warrior. The core assumptions of the two games just seem so wildly different that having experience in one doesn't help you any in grokking the other.
