Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

With apologies to Dostoyevsky.

So, I'm a fairly longtime 40k player, and yesterday played my first game of Fantasy. I've been seeing a lot of threads posted by people looking to start Fantasy, so I thought I'd post my reactions. Keep in mind I've played a total of one game of Fantasy in my life, so this is by no means intended to be an exhaustive comparison.

I'm in the process of building a High Elf army, so a friend was kind enough to loan me his High Elves for the game. He fielded Wood Elves. This was good, because I felt assured of an elven victory.

Overall, I did not feel like I was playing 40k. I've heard from WHFB veterans claiming that this edition is closer to 40k than previous editions, and that may be true. In my opinion, though, they're two widely different games. Beyond the weapon skill and strength vs. toughness tables, I didn't feel that my 40k experience gave me much of an advantage.

A major difference is the way charges work. You have to declare charges before you move, so it requires quite a bit more planning to make sure your units are in a good position at the end of your movement phase in order to charge on your next turn (assuming the enemy doesn't just dodge you). In fact, movement in general is far more important than in 40k. Because most units are in tight formations, there are very strict rules regarding how they move. This leads to a situation where you set a unit on a trajectory, and if you screwed up, you might find that your unit of doom is off in no man's land while that battle is raging elsewhere - or even worse, they're where they need to be, but facing the wrong direction. This is kind of a cheesy observation, but the way units moved around the table, I felt like I was watching an intricate dance, and if you can call toy soldiers beautiful, it was.

Magic is also totally different. The practice of casting multiple spells with a single spellcaster was new, and the interaction between opponents during the magic phase by way of dispel dice seems to introduce a lot more decisions into the game. The buffs my Archmage was casting on my troops were absolutely essential, and there is a strategy that goes into decising how to order your spells (Can I attempt to draw out my opponent's dispel dice in order to vast the spell I really want, and do I risk a miscast in the process?).

As far as combat goes, the combat resolution modifiers almost seem more important than wounds caused (although they do factor in, of course). My Dragon Princes had been performing pretty abysmally throughout the game until they pulled of a flank charge on a unit of Treekin. Luckily, the Treekin performed equally as poorly and failed to cause a single wound. Because my knights had the flank charge and a standard bearer, they won combat, overran, and cut the monsters down. Later, a unit of Wild Riders did the same to them.

There were a few weird things, as well. For instance, mounts get an attack. Ok, I get a mount like a griffon or a cold one having an attack. But I'm talking horses. I can't tell you the number of times during the game that my Dragon Princes failed to cause a single wound, only for their mounts to bite a few of the enemy to death. I get that this could represent the bulk of a horse battering enemy lines or trampling hooves (I'm sure it hurts to get kicked in the head by a horse), but this was still weird. Another thing that I'm not a fan of is the magical terrain. Apparently in 8th edition, there's no such thing as a forest. It's almost always infested by some sort of gnome or fairy or what have you. I don't mind the odd piece of mystical terrain - this is a fantasy setting, after all - but the current odds of generating something like this are far, far, far too high.

I had a blast playing the game, though. In comparison to 40k, there are way more things to keep track of, but there are also far more decisions to make, which equals fun. Once again, I've only played one game at this point, but it seems like a far less casual game than 40k - I don't think it's the sort of game that requires anything less than your full concentration. Because of this, it also seem more immersive and thematic. Ranks of warriors wheel to face their enemy in strict formation, pennants snap smartly in the breeze (and they're not just for decoration - they're important!), challenges are issued and accepted. I purchased the 5th edition boxed set when I was 12, and never did anything with it. I'm sorry it's taken me 15 years to finally start an army, but I'm looking forward to making up for lost time.

Pretty good synopsis...

Yeah horses tend to be MVP's for some reason...

And a horse can rear back and stomp on the enemy and things like that.

well, put it this way, a horse kicking you in the head could easily kill you, if you're "lucky" (and i use that term in the loosest sense) you'll just get a coma or blindness. If it kicks you in the chest, you can expect broken ribs, possibly internal bleeding. That's why horses can kill foes, and these are warhorses too, not just some "my little pony", so not only are they powerful, they huge, and a dozen of them, armored charging full on at you (even ignoring the men riding them) can really do some damage. Add these destriers to the knights, and you have a killing machine.

For many years on the Middle Ages, heavy cavalry were the medieval wrecking balls, and knights on horseback often helped to dominate the battlefield, considering the devastating effects of the charge, and further damage they can deal.

Ok, there's my contribution to the spreading of knowledge concerning medieval history. Your description of WHFB was on the mark, and it helps people (such as myself) who've played 40k in the past better understand Fantasy.

As Above.

Horses in Medieval Times, hell up until the invention of "reliable" black Powder weapons, were the most effective war time weapon.

A trained Warhorse was another soldier on the battlefield, trained to kill the enemy. A horse kicking you will put you out of action, garunteed!

A good visual way to see how cavalry was actually used was Lord of the Rings : Return of the King. A cav charge used pure momentum to ride down the enemy....a horse hitting you at 20-30 mph will probably knock you uncocious, let alone being trampled as they ride over you.

Having cav attacks in warhammer is actually very realistic...and it is a running joke with anyone who plays that knows when Warhammer Armies : Horses come out, Daemons will feel like a gentle rain of cheese

No, I get that horses are dangerous. I've been around horses, and I definitely wouldn't want to be kicked by one. I guess it's just the fact that they turned out to be way more dangerous than the riders themselves that made it seem strange. I seem to have struck a chord of equine fixation!

What I need to do is find the army that will let you field a herd of riderless horses. Actually, one of my eagles overran my opponent's general and tore him to shreds (another statistically unlikely outcome), so I guess animals in general are just plain mean in this game.

Anyway, that was a minor point in my overall very favorable reaction to a game of WHFB. I appreciated the Wood Elves' ability to run rings around my dense formations and can't wait until I get my hands on some Elyrian Reavers in the new boxed game.

Take all your observations about WFB times ten and you have the previous editions of Fantasy battle. 8th Ed is just like 40K in that the two most important skills are list building and target assessment.

jwoolf wrote:I'm in the process of building a High Elf army, so a friend was kind enough to loan me his High Elves for the game. He fielded Wood Elves. This was good, because I felt assured of an elven victory.

You had me at hello.

RanTheCid wrote:Take all your observations about WFB times ten and you have the previous editions of Fantasy battle. 8th Ed is just like 40K in that the two most important skills are list building and target assessment.

Unlike 7th edition, where the most important skill was buying a Daemons or Vampire Counts army.

jwoolf wrote:No, I get that horses are dangerous. I've been around horses, and I definitely wouldn't want to be kicked by one. I guess it's just the fact that they turned out to be way more dangerous than the riders themselves that made it seem strange. I seem to have struck a chord of equine fixation!

What I need to do is find the army that will let you field a herd of riderless horses. Actually, one of my eagles overran my opponent's general and tore him to shreds (another statistically unlikely outcome), so I guess animals in general are just plain mean in this game.

Anyway, that was a minor point in my overall very favorable reaction to a game of WHFB. I appreciated the Wood Elves' ability to run rings around my dense formations and can't wait until I get my hands on some Elyrian Reavers in the new boxed game.

Riderless horses you say?

Centigors!

On a serious note though. Well written. Warhammer fantasy is definitely a different beast to its sci-fi cousin. The more I play the more I get into it. A fun break from nearly a decade of 40k.

Ahtman wrote:You had me at hello.

You'll be happy to know that the elves won.

Lexx wrote:Riderless horses you say?

Actually, I think a unit of horses could be thematic for High Elves. The riderless horse is a pretty strong symbol of a dead warrior, and with High Elven society in decline, it seems fitting. I also think the horses of the elves are supposed to have a spark of nobility so maybe it's not totally out of the question that the horses of a slaughtered company of knights would band together to avenge their former masters. Still, I suppose unattended animals are more of a Wood Elf vibe and the Asrai have already got the whole Wild Hunt mythology covered.

A note-- movement is vitally important in 40k for some armies (for example, Sisters). What each phase the codex relies on the most varies from codex to codex, and even build to build, but generally speaking making correct decisions in the movement phase (how far to move, which direction to move, whether to move at all or to run, etc) is vital for any army that doesn't focus on long-ranged shooting.

jwoolf wrote:In my opinion, though, they're two widely different games. Beyond the weapon skill and strength vs. toughness tables, I didn't feel that my 40k experience gave me much of an advantage.

I switched from 40k to fantasy last year, and this is how I still feel. There's quite a learning curve, beyond even just the game mechanics, in being able to win! There's a lot of tricks and units that do well in some circumstances and not others, etc, that only comes from playing! Well worth it, though

Melissia wrote:A note-- movement is vitally important in 40k for some armies (for example, Sisters). What each phase the codex relies on the most varies from codex to codex, and even build to build, but generally speaking making correct decisions in the movement phase (how far to move, which direction to move, whether to move at all or to run, etc) is vital for any army that doesn't focus on long-ranged shooting.

Oh, definitely. I'm not trying to say movement isn't important in 40k, just that it's a lot less forgiving in WHFB. If you don't have fast cavalry or skirmishers and you turn a unit the wrong way, you could be in big trouble.

I'm starting Fantasy soon, only knights and a lord are needed!

Anyways, I like 40k a lot, but I must say - I love the look of things for Fantasy.

I plinked around 40K for a while but found it way too extreme. The huge number of special rules and just crazy numbers meant you could end up with situations where you simply could not hurt stuff (because of synergies, cheese, or just being a Land Raider). So you'd have these totally goofy combinations with like plasma command squads riding around at the front lines shooting out the hatch of a Chimera. I felt the game was almost entirely about making lists and you could determine the winner just by seeing the race matchups about 75% of the time (given roughly same knowledge at unit picking). Though I love the lore.

WHFB anything can kill anything. You get enough peasants they will kill a steam tank. Movement is MASSIVE. Partially because CC is so damn important, unlike 40K where just about everyone is solid ranged.

And the rules just don't seem to be so completely cheese. Like when people were arguing that Thunderstomp should get Carnisaur's D3 or Killing Attacks, that's stuff that would be in 40K. And for the most part, "I" see WHFB players going against that and not power gaming.

jwoolf wrote:

Melissia wrote:A note-- movement is vitally important in 40k for some armies (for example, Sisters). What each phase the codex relies on the most varies from codex to codex, and even build to build, but generally speaking making correct decisions in the movement phase (how far to move, which direction to move, whether to move at all or to run, etc) is vital for any army that doesn't focus on long-ranged shooting.

Oh, definitely. I'm not trying to say movement isn't important in 40k, just that it's a lot less forgiving in WHFB. If you don't have fast cavalry or skirmishers and you turn a unit the wrong way, you could be in big trouble.

Just the same, if my Battle Sisters don't move in exactly the right way to make sure that they get a turn of rapid fire shooting, they're probably screwed against any assault-based armies. Jump packs, cavalry, and jetbikes can make this quite difficult.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:I felt the game was almost entirely about making lists and you could determine the winner just by seeing the race matchups about 75% of the time (given roughly same knowledge at unit picking).

Are you talking about 40k or WFB? Because, as far as I can tell, it was pretty well known that 7th edition WFB was pretty much competitively f***ed, with a few armies being blatantly more powerful than others. If you wanted to win, you picked Daemons, Dark Elves, or Vampire Counts IIRC, though I could be wrong here. Meanwhile, though many 40k armies are a bit on the weak side, even purist Grey Knights (one of the weakest lists people would actually use) can win games.