Greetings and salutations fellow wargamers and welcome back! I hope the holidays and extended breaks has been treating you all well with great gaming and hobby progress. Today I wanted to ramble on a bit about something I've been thinking about. I've been inspired not only because of my recent gaming/hobby progress but also because I've read some other blog posts about the matter; so I figure I'll toss in my 2 cents for what they are worth (which might not even be 2 cents). This might end up being a lengthy article so grab a snack and a drink and sit back to enjoy some ramblings eh?
As the year came to a close there has been quite a lot happening in our hobby world and it's been a great year of releases and updates. The big one has been the newest edition of Warhammer 40k and the "return of GW" into the community's spotlight and what a return it was! While I know they've not swayed everyone back from the crowds they've lost, they have certainly been making the effort! Meanwhile, the game Beyond the Gates of Antares (henceforth Gates) under the leadership of Warlord Games has been steadily making progress of their own with a steadily growing group and coverage. They have so far released 2 story expansions and new model releases while catching up with their mainline of models. They've been securing a presence in the wargaming community and winning over many players into their fold with their mechanics and background. So with the presence of these two sci-fi based games and the undeniably present levels of salt in our community, it is inevitable that there will be the age-old argument: which is better?
My answer? Neither, because I like them both for different reasons. The oft-used expression of comparing apples to oranges I think applies well here. Sure they are both sci-fi wargames with approximately the same scale in terms of conflict size. They start to diverge on many different aspects though and I think it is good to look at those differences and appreciate them for what they offer. As I've surely said before this is a complex hobby and many players choose games for a host of different reasons. Some like fluff, some like game play, some find a quirky mechanic and go with it, some flock to model aesthetic, and so on. I do want to throw the caveat out there that these thoughts are just my own view and so if you disagree then insert The Dude's response wherever applicable.
 |
| Just remember this part ;P |
Let's begin with the themes if you will between the two games. 40k is, of course, the "Grimdark" universe where there isn't a lot of things to be hopeful about. Humanity has explored the stars but ideological progression has regressed and so technology is wildly misunderstood and heresy is everywhere. In addition to the various aliens running around the galaxy trying to murder humanity, there are various entities from the realm beyond who are attempting to invade and overtake the galaxy for their patron god. It's a different sort of sci-fi where it's a blend of technology, supernatural elements, and dystopian shenanigans.
Gates is at the opposite end of the spectrum. It's more "hard sci-fi" where humanity has progressed in technology and things are not so bleak depending on your viewpoint. Humans have evolved differently on various planet systems so that they are now different species though sharing the same ancestry. While there are conflicts between the races they are usually not hell-bent on trying to murder each other outright (except the Ghar, everyone hates the Ghar). There is a lack of the supernatural elements and in its stead, you see a surplus of technology and scientific divergences marking forces out.
When I compare the two themes overall I like to think of it like Star Wars versus Star Trek debates. Star Wars has the technology yes but the focus is less on the science and more on the technology is there as a means to an end. There are space wizards who have force powers and there are stories of epic battles and epic struggles were "good versus evil" and so on. Then you have Star Trek where the science is the focus and it's less on the mysticism and more on the explanations. Where civilizations have grown because of their history and the battles, while no less epic or awesome, is not so much on concepts of "good or evil but for very real reasons. Where civilizations go to war for resources, territory, military advantage, or racism and genocide. It might not be the best comparison but it's what I like to compare it to and I think it's an apt description.
 |
| Whenever someone argues about which is better I think of this |
Well, how about the model ranges? 40k has a long-standing history of being the standard of model excellence and in some regards it still holds true (exceptions do apply). They have a huge range which is due to their extensive history being in the hobby. From an aesthetic view, there are a lot of options and GW is putting out a lot of effort into updating older kits or releasing new ones to expand the ranges. 40k does have a long history of being one of the most heavily converted model's ranges that I know of, and so if you don't like one kit for whatever reason then there are a lot of resources out there to change it to your pleasure. It's a little hard to talk about a generalized model aesthetic because there are many options out there to appeal to whatever you're into. Feeling dark and evil? Chaos Marines might be your style. Want something more organic and sleek? Might I recommend the Eldar? Do you want to throw everything together and make wacky inventions of your own design? Orks for sure. So it's hard to pinpoint exactly what 40k can present because it's so massive and has a long history. Rest assured though despite the price tag the kits are high quality with a lot of personalization options available.
Gates has also been stepping up their model game as well. Initially, the factions didn't have a wide range of models to match what was on the list so there wasn't a lot of diversity going around. Now that the game has been out for about 2 years the model ranges have definitely expanded. With each new supplement, there are some new releases that go along with it, and the different races have a set theme going on so that no two races are
that similar. In terms of conversion work I've not seen a whole lot done at this point, but I do believe the potential is there for some kits (especially since they are moving from metal to plastic). Overall each faction has been given a sort of aesthetic vibe to match their personality/lore/gameplay. The Algoryn, for example, is a militaristic faction with proud spartan traditions woven into their history which result in their armor styles being militaristic and pragmatic. The Isorians are a faction that has splintered off from the Concord and melded with some alien tech resulting in a very Geiger-esque appearance, which when compared with the Concord models (who look very clean, technologically based, and futuristic) offer a very stark contrast that could appeal to many. As I've stated before Warlord is doing some work when it comes to producing their kits and for the most part I've not had any major issues with cleaning or assembly barring my own human error. If you had asked me 2 years ago to discuss this model range I might have said it was very bland but with some effort and dedication on Warlord's part, I am confident you could find something that appeals to your senses.
 |
| Aww yiss |
 |
| Aww yiss #2 |
Ok well, what about army choices and playstyles? At the time of writing this 40k has around 12 "main" factions that then splinter off into several sub-factions. For example, you have your poster-child Space Marine main army but then that can diverge into multiple subfactions with their own playstyle, army options, special units, etc. Additionally, 8th has brought on the concept of strategies, which are like expendable abilities each army can use in the game, thus further diversifying playstyles. As a result of their extensive lore, they can draw upon different sources in order to make models and sell some kind of army. This translates into 40k being quite easy to find your niche. If you tend to choose an army on aesthetic there are plenty of choices, if you choose for lore there are plenty of choices, and if you go for playstyle (guess what?) there are plenty of choices! Especially in 8th edition where there is now a prevalence of characters that appear to also tweak the style of your army and their effectiveness depending on if you choose to go that route or not. For example, in the Death Guard, there is a character, the Biologis Putrifier, that has a special ability to amplify the damage that the grenades do from nearby Plague Marine squads. Useless if you play with a lot of vehicles/daemons but if you go infantry heavy this guy can be a force multiplier easy. There are many examples across the board in different armies of combinations making each army a buffet of options. So when you look at 40k in terms of army choices the bottom line is that there are a ton and so you shouldn't have a hard time finding your click so to speak.
So looking at Gates, at the time of this writing has 7 different faction/races that you can play and choose your forces from. The differences between the factions are not as overtly or grossly expressed as they can be in 40k, but there are plenty of differences. These differences can be found in the stat tendencies, base technological preferences, and then in terms of 'flavor' units. Most of the armies share a lot of common weaponry so in a way that leads to some misconception that the armies can play too similarly with each other. Despite some armies having shared weaponry the differences between factions start to become apparent once you start actually playing the game. Let's take an example between an Algoryn AI Trooper vs a Boromite Gang Fighter. Sure they both have a standard Mag Gun rifle, but because of their stat tendencies and loadout options, the two units are slanted for different purposes. The AI squad is a good generalized squad that can be equipped with a couple of grenade launchers for increased diversity in battlefield roles, but the Gang Fighters are usually the ones helping put down pins on squads about to be assaulted by their close combat specialists. That's also not to mention if you start looking at other units in different factions with Mag Guns and/or Plasma weaponry. I think it's easy for someone new to Gates to gloss over similar weaponry equating to similar play on the tabletop, but I can assure you that's not accurate. I play Algoryn which are like the masters at flexibility and my friend Mike plays Rebel Ghar which are like a "horde" army that benefit from clumping up together to be a massive ball of annoying space gremlins. We've not touched on all the factions but with a little bit of research and community support, I am confident you can find your playstyle easily within the Gates.
I wanted to talk about this point last because it's not only the biggest difference between the two systems but it can also be a convoluted talking point and that is the difference between the two game systems from a mechanics point of view. So let's get chewing.
40k has a long history of being rather complicated in terms of mechanics and required a lot of resources into getting the mechanics down pat. That has drastically changed since the release of 8th edition and while it's easier to get the core rules down there are still depths to be dived into with certain elements. I'll try to keep this part brief.
40k uses a d6 system with most of the stats being carried over from previous editions, except instead of using convoluted charts the die roll required is either presented or follows a simple rubric. The core rules span about 8 pages (somewhere around there) with the vast majority of special rules either being prevalent in the mission being played or are part of the unit profiles. As mentioned before armies also have stratagems and other facets they can utilize to make their force different with special rules being applied more freely than before. Vehicles have been streamlined so that they have similar profiles to infantry and weapons now have a damage (aka wounds caused) profile which highlights their role even further. For example, a Lascannon deals d6 damage per successful hit making them more attractive to anti-large target roles vs single wound model removal. Armor saves have been tweaked so that they are not 'either-or' situations but a fluid system where saves are modified. The gameplay continues to adhere to an "I go, you go" system with a little more agency being placed in the close combat portion of the game as players take turns choosing units to make their attacks with rather than just hoping to survive an onslaught. Overall the system has gotten easier to teach and learn but there is still enough depth to prevent the game from becoming bland.
Gates has a very different system in place but there is enough familiarity going on that one accustomed to wargaming can get right in. First, off I want to talk about the activation system because it's not "I go, you go" system but it's more randomized. Units generate an order die and all the players involved toss their collective die into a bag and shake it up. Whosoever die is pulled from the bag gets to give an order to a unit, whether that's to shoot/move and gun/run/rally/etc. Once the bag is depleted then you put all surviving dice in the bag and start all over. There's a bit more agency involved in this style because you cannot just alpha strike unless you happen to be in luck, but sometimes the mission mitigates alpha striking for you anyways. Another key component of this game is the pin system. Each unit that gets hit not necessarily takes casualties, get a pin marker. These pins can make it harder for your troops to do what they need to do by forcing you take a command test prior to carrying out the order and incurring a penalty per pin marker on the unit. Additionally, these pins can even cause a unit to break from the table and be removed as a result, so it's not something to ignore. Gates uses a d10 system to roll dice and because of the stat variances and modifiers, it makes use of the greater pool than a d6 could hope for. In regards to agency, the units can even react in certain situation so if fired upon you could for example choose to react by having a firefight or try to duck behind cover. The game has a similar method of attacking each other where you roll to hit, but instead of rolling to wound it's presumed that the shot could cause some sort of damage so you just roll armor to resist the attack. There are a lot of modifiers being thrown around so you have to think a little bit more than usual before going "lolrolldiceIwin."
 |
| When I think about the mechanics to both games |
So it comes back around to the question: which is better?
Once again I will say neither. They are both wonderful games with a lot of things to offer a hobbyist. There are many pros and cons when getting into this hobby and both of these games are flawed beauties. Warhammer has a history of being anti-consumer and steep prices help prevent people from being committed (they are working on this I do believe) and for Gates the material out there and the rulebook design makes it seem like it's confused in what it is trying to achieve or appears to lack substance with a cursory glance (which they are also working on). Are these games fun? Hell yes they are! As of writing this, I am working on both games simultaneously in my hobby queue. I've been painting up Algoryn Intruders and infantry squads while placing orders for more Death Guard marines with Amazon. So, of course, I am going to advocate for both games if I can help it.
 |
| Right on! |
When it comes down to it this is your hobby as much as it is my hobby. You'll spend your money on what you think is pretty awesome or whatever you're interested in just as much as I spend my money. I'm hoping that if you've not looked at either game before that perhaps you'll give one of them a chance. I felt strongly writing this up because I have seen the hotly debated posts on social media about "muh game is better #lolwin" and truly I don't think it's fair to ignore the good between these two games. I have friends who are not into 40k just as much as I have some who are not into Gates, but that doesn't mean one will not appeal to new players. If you have a community growing of "X game" then yeah getting into that game will help you get some play time in if you're interested in maximizing gametime. If you want to start growing a community of "Y game," then look into getting some like-minded fellows and get some coverage out there! It won't behoove you to bash someone's game of preference because you like something else better, because let me tell you if you went to me and said "your game is dumb and you shouldn't play it, play this," then there is a good chance I will ignore your points and mentally tell you to go suck a goat. If you want to convince someone to come play one of these games then find out what they like and why and go from there; at the very least you're connecting with someone in our hobby and who knows you might convince them to give it a shot.
These are my two cents on the subject matter and maybe you'll agree with me or not, it's whatever. I just hope you are enjoying the game you enjoy, painting the models you think look awesome, are encouraged to keep doing what you do, and keep making progress. In this day and age, we don't need angry division amongst ourselves as wargamers, we just need to roll some dice and have some good times because we don't have all the time in the world.
Happy wargaming folks.
