Codex Review TC Review: Warhammer 40k: Armageddon

[Whisky]

Tags: Flashback Games; Slitherine; Warhammer 40,000: Armageddon

​

Faithful poster and contributor Darth Roxor got a chance to play Warhammer 40k: Armageddon. He was so moved by the content of it that he felt the need to write up a review.

At first glance, Armageddon looks like your typical Panzer General game. You have your hexes, your multitude of units in squads of various types and sizes, a top-down view on the strategic map, etc. But the game also brings some additions to the formula, and I honestly can’t say that any of them are very good.

Perhaps the biggest difference, which also influences a lot of further negative aspects of the game, is the lack of the soft/hard target distinction for units. Everything just has a single defensive value simply called “armour”, which is also why the overall damage model is different as well. To do any harm, an attacker’s weapon must cause more damage than the armour value of the defender – the damage roll has many factors to it, such as the cover level of the enemy, the line of sight obstruction provided by certain hexes, the unit’s inherent accuracy, the loss of accuracy per tile, the armour piercing value of the weapon and the amount of shots a unit fires when it attacks. There are a lot of somewhat vague variables at work here, and they lead to a ton of rather unnecessary randomness that can influence the attack roll in both ways and lead to hilariously unexpected results.​

Read the full article: TC Review: Warhammer 40k: Armageddon

 

[Whisky]

Thanks again to Darth Roxor for the great review.

 

[rezaf]

While I fnd myself forced to agree with the general concensus of the review, there's a few occasions where it looks like the reviewer didn't do his homework.
For example, the concept of injuries vs. kills was never a Panzer General thing, was it? It was in Fantasy Wars, and it's a neat concept that I'd like to have seen replicated, but it never was in PG, iirc?

The reviewer claims there were no proper Panzer General clones and then, a couple of lines down, mentions Panzer Corps, which followed Panzer General Forever, a freeware PG remake that got PzC's developer - who now made WH:A - started in this business.
I'm pretty fond of Panzer Corps (and everyone looking for a PG revival should definately play it over WH:A) and what disappointed me the most about this game was how many systems that were proven to work from earlier games were thrown out and replaced by new mechanics that immediately started to show their own set of flaws many of which are yet to be rectified. The review mentions some of them. I can't help to feel as if many things were also dumbed down, but maybe that's just me.

Anyway, thanks for the review.
_____
rezaf

 

[Darth Roxor]

For example, the concept of injuries vs. kills was never a Panzer General thing, was it? It was in Fantasy Wars, and it's a neat concept that I'd like to have seen replicated, but it never was in PG, iirc?

They were not in PG1, yes, but I think I distinctly remember them appearing in PG2? Fantasy General and Rites of War def had them as well.

The reviewer claims there were no proper Panzer General clones and then, a couple of lines down, mentions Panzer Corps, which followed Panzer General Forever

Like I said, I gullibly assumed they suck

 

[rezaf]

They were not in PG1, yes, but I think I distinctly remember them appearing in PG2? Fantasy General and Rites of War def had them as well.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.
Speaking of which, Age of Wonders has citybuilding, doesn't it suck that it's missing from WH:A?

Like I said, I gullibly assumed they suck

If you like(d) PG you should give Panzer Corps a whirl, it's a much better game than WH:A. Get the Afrika Korps standalone thingy for a good introduction and disable the 1.21 rules in the options.
_____
rezaf

 

[Cyberarmy]

Nice review,sadly Games Workshop not really care about the quality of WH40K games so we'll keep getting medicore games like this.
Or shitty phone/tablet games...

 

[Galdred]

I think the game suffers mostly from its identity crisis :
It tries to be both a tactical game and a Panzer General successor, but PzG was meant to be an operational game. Many of the abstractions do not work at all when they are not abstracted anymore :
Trying to model every weapon in an unit while retaining PzG mechanism, without going the extra mile to allow different profiles in the units (like The operational Art of War, or Advanced Tactics did) leads to disaster.
I liked the first act, but the last 2 ones illustrate how the game system falls apart when you introduce super heavies and titans.
What makes me sad is the little work that would be required to turn this into a quasi adaptation of epic 40k :
quadrupling all weapon ranges (but not movement), adding overwatch, removing retaliation, and reworking the weapon strength and unit armor values would be enough.
It could even be modded except for 2 items : the overwatch, and the range.
No overwatch would not be a big problem (Space Marines which was the previous edition of epic 40K before being named so) didn't have overwatch), but the 4 range limit (every shot over range 4 counts as indirect, and doesn't need LoS) is criminal, as it makes it impossible to mod the game into something else, for no good reason.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Huh, I was somewhat interested in this game but I'm not any more. Thanks Roxor.

 

[MicoSelva]

Darth Roxor just hates everything now, because he is bitter about Blackguards 2.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Darth Roxor just hates everything now, because he is bitter about Blackguards 2.

 

[Archibald]

I haven't played the game, but couldn't many of the flaws (mainly stats/balance things) mentioned in the review get fixed in patch or some mod by fans?

 

[Darth Roxor]

I haven't played the game, but couldn't many of the flaws (mainly stats/balance things) mentioned in the review get fixed in patch or some mod by fans?

I really don't think so. A lot of what is wrong about this game can be attributed to the long ranges that every unit has, and it's kind of a vicious cycle.

Long ranges mean you have to abuse artillery or any of your units that get spotted by the enemy will get bumrushed and de-rezzed by a whole horde of ork tanks that also have long ranges.

But if you get rid of the long ranges and adjust it to 'pg levels', you'll then get fucked by the map design's constant overreliance on chokepoints that will force you into attacking with like one or two units per turn while the rest of your army stands back twiddling their thumbs. Bonus points if the target is further blocked off and immune to attacks by LOS-blocking obstacles.

The game would need some sort of a total overhaul to salvage it. Just fixing the numbers would fix maybe half of its flaws, but I don't think it would make it very enjoyable regardless.