Well, I've given up playing Warhammer Fantasy, not because of some GW protest, but because I came to the conclusion that after x amount of games, it's not really up to much. The other day I won a game simply because I hold two 6's to get a spell off, which destroyed a unit, and panicked three others into fleeing the board. Other games I've lost because of an uber -powerful unit, or a jammy spell cast. Where's the skill?

I've played at tournaments and against a wide variety of opponents and have experimented with all sorts of army set ups from friendly play to super beardy. But depressingly, games seem to follow the same pattern. Maybe the meta game is to blame.

Anybody else feel the same? Is 40k worth getting into? I've only ever played 1 or 2 games in 20 years. Will I be just as disillusioned with 40k as I am with fantasy?

Anybody recommened any other games systems, preferably one where skill is a big factor?

Thanks.

It's definitely worth it to get into 40k.

Do what I do and play 5th ed!

40k is anyones game, the characters are balanced with cost and most codexs are on par with one another. sure one army might be better at close combat then another but usually the other army has a strength as that is a little better than the next. much more flexibility.

If you want to play a game where skill is undeniably the most important factor, I'd look into Warmachine/Hordes. The game is ridiculously dependent on tactics, finding synergies between your units, and is not at ALL forgiving when you make mistakes. Virtually every unit has its own special ability, if not several. You have a wide variety of options for pretty much everything on the table, instead of just move/shoot/assault. Positioning on the table is crucial. It's really hard to explain just how tactically intense of a game it is, honestly. Give it a look... I switched to it after 10 years of 40k and have never once looked back. (Also, it's cheaper).

***Edit***
Here's a link to a thread comparing WM/H to 40k you might find worth reading.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/376392.page

I'd second getting into wm/h over 40k, but if it's style of whfb that you like take a peek at Kings of War first and foremost. It may not end up being your cup of tea but it's free and all your gw models are cross comparable.

WHFB is just plain tedious. I sold a 2500 point painted beastman army for $200 just to get it out of my house...and make room for steel legion.

I was a tomb king fantatic, then they got nerfed. Then I realized that all fantasy is revolved around magic, not tactics. Almost every single fantasy player in the local area has more than one army and not a single on is painted. I spend hours and hours painting and modeling, then have to play against 10,000 unpainted rats! No thanks :(

@wanax the whole unpainted thing makes me depressed as well. I've got a job and other things to do with my life, but I still find time to paint my models to a good standard.

@ Belerephon Thanks for the link. So warmachine has the better rules, but GW the better plastics...damn their eyes!

I'm told that Warmachine has more tactical gameplay, whereas Games Workshop's games are more based off of army composition.

Yeah, unfortunately WFB is becoming almost a chore to play for me as well.. The newest rules made it a lot less fun. 7th had broken unfair crap too but at least all the unit types had a PURPOSE. Steadfast in one fell swoop made half of the unit types basically useless

Yay I deploy my big infantry blocks vs your infantry blocks.. We shoot magic and use warmachines. Thats basically the competitive scene

Warmachine is basically about getting off combo moves, like in a video game.

40k is great when played for fun and with friends, but tournaments do tend to fill up with spammy netlists, that turn things into rock, paper, scissor.

I used to play back when, and tried to get back into it with the latest edition.

Then i sold the book, armies and similar because i was fallign asleep trying to play it. It's mindmeltingly dull and frustrating to me.

I enjoy 40K, though i would like the built in bias reset.

I'm also getting into Warmachine

Same here. Stopped playing - sold of my DE and have kept my ogres if I ever want to play again. Despite all my whining about how I hate WM models I final have bought some Everblight. May even try HOTT but done with WHFB for the time being (don't think that much of 40k anymore either).

I just started Fantasy, actually. It doesn't seem dull at all.

Sold mine due to the Monsters and Big units gameplay they are obviously aiming for. It was more expensive to get a decent sized Fantasy army together anyways, but with the monsters, and large blocks becoming the norm, it was getting silly.

Just didn't feel it held a good value for my cash anymore. So reploughed money into 40K and Infinity for the time being.

Rules wise it wasn't much as an issue, although we only managed three battles of 8th before we decided to drop it, so no idea if that would have eventually proved a factor.

Magic did seem kinda over the top from the battles we had, and I was the Dark Elf player.

Monsters and big units? Well thats half right anyhow.. Monsters pretty much suck unless they got a ward save of sometype (Hydras, HPA) or pump out 80 hits a turn like salamanders

Basically its My big unit vs your big unit.. No flanking, no maneuvering anymore. Ive played people who claim its still tactical in the movement phase.. Then they play my skaven and I let them flank charge me and it still doesnt matter cause of steadfast.. Or no one even brings cav anymore so there are very few flank charges to begin with

Infantry-hammer ahoy!

I gave up WHFB in 2nd edition because of the way games depended on a few magicians, heroes or an "I Win" card, rather than tactical play.

I've heard that it got better in later editions but I had my ACW, my Ancients, Battletech and so on to keep me rolling.

rdlb wrote:Warmachine is basically about getting off combo moves, like in a video game.

That's actually not too far off. A lot of the time, I see it compared to Magic in that regard, but I honestly think Marvel vs. Capcom would be a better comparison.

Of course, it's not ALL about combos. Warmahordes has shorter ranges than GW games, so being able to accurately gauge distances is FAR more important in Privateer's system. The fact that models activate individually can also make it more difficult to grasp initially, as order of activation is incredibly important, either to build synergy in armies like Trollbloods or Protectorate, or just to make sure that your fully-loaded Warjack has a clear charge lane to the opponent's warnoun.

I don't actively despise the 8th edition rules, but 6th and 7th were so much better. It seems like now it's "Whoever hits the juiciest target with their cannon/big spell wins". I play Skaven and a lot of the time it seems like if I get the Dreaded 13th cast, and hit something with a WLC, I win.

Or I get Foot-of-Gork'd to death and lose.

I wouldn't recommend 40K if only because in my eternal cynicism, I'm sure GW will muck up 6th edition, and even if they don't, I hope you like spending in the neighborhood of $600 USD/375 GBP for a full army.

My experience with Warmahordes is fairly limited, but I can second that it's quite tactical, and proper use of combos, special skills, and activating the right units in the right order are key to winning.

I've played since 2000 and I'll likely play another 11 years. Then again I play mostly against my wife so if we don't like how something plays then we just house rule it to fit our style.


I think that any game can get stale after a while. Fantasy is much different than it was 2 editions ago, and this will likely be the case 2 editions from now. Right now magic plays a major role. That may change next edition.

40k is just point and shoot "Hey look my gun is bigger I win".

Then again my distaste for 40k mostly comes from the amount of young people who are too immature for my taste and I've noticed that many more 40k armies are bare plastic than fantasy ones.

I loved 6th edition fantasy, in fact i loved it more than 40k. When i decided to get back into the hobby last year i gave both the rulebooks a flick through, 40k seemed great but fantasy was awful, we are supposed to roll a charge now? Also the fact the old hard hitting cavalry and harassing fast cavalry of sixth simply seemed redundant, i cant see why anyone would take a chariot in 8th edition either.

I've given up on Warhammer "See Who Can Get Off Thier Lvl 6 Spell First" until 9th ed.

There isn't one redeeming thing about this blatent whoring out of trying to sell infantry box sets. If it doesn't have 30+ models in it, it should stay at home.

Get your fantasy models and play Kings of War is my suggestion here

Oddly enough Ive been playing rules nearly identical to KoW for years because Fantasy is not only getting ridiculous, it's far too complicated

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Well, I've given up playing Warhammer Fantasy, not because of some GW protest, but because I came to the conclusion that after x amount of games, it's not really up to much. The other day I won a game simply because I hold two 6's to get a spell off, which destroyed a unit, and panicked three others into fleeing the board. Other games I've lost because of an uber -powerful unit, or a jammy spell cast. Where's the skill?

I've played at tournaments and against a wide variety of opponents and have experimented with all sorts of army set ups from friendly play to super beardy. But depressingly, games seem to follow the same pattern. Maybe the meta game is to blame.

Anybody else feel the same? Is 40k worth getting into? I've only ever played 1 or 2 games in 20 years. Will I be just as disillusioned with 40k as I am with fantasy?

Anybody recommened any other games systems, preferably one where skill is a big factor?

Thanks.

If you are interested in historical gaming, I would recommend Flames of War. The rules are much easier to learn and less confusing than GW rules, but the game is much more tactical than Fantasy or 40k. The game is also a lot more balanced than GW games, as there are no overpowered armies (for example, taking all Tigers is by no means an easy win, they cost so much that the enemy will outnumber you greatly and would likely be able to destroy them in assault), except if you play armies from Midwar against Early or Late, or any other mix up. I have been playing it only a few months and I like it much more than 40k for the rules and game play, but still like 40k for the modeling and painting more than FoW.

If tactical gameplay is your biggest attraction I think you'll find it hard to beat Warmachine/Hordes.

Privateer Press really revitalized miniatures wargaming for me. I was basically in the 'why am I bothering with GW's ProCheckers game?' until I discovered PP.

Belerephon wrote:If you want to play a game where skill is undeniably the most important factor, I'd look into chess

But that game has balance issues...

White always gets the first turn


*begin 'white is so OP, omg! ' rant *

Play Warmahordes or Malifaux... games where skill and strategy is everything...

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Well, I've given up playing Warhammer Fantasy, not because of some GW protest, but because I came to the conclusion that after x amount of games, it's not really up to much. The other day I won a game simply because I hold two 6's to get a spell off, which destroyed a unit, and panicked three others into fleeing the board. Other games I've lost because of an uber -powerful unit, or a jammy spell cast. Where's the skill?

I've played at tournaments and against a wide variety of opponents and have experimented with all sorts of army set ups from friendly play to super beardy. But depressingly, games seem to follow the same pattern. Maybe the meta game is to blame.

Anybody else feel the same? Is 40k worth getting into? I've only ever played 1 or 2 games in 20 years. Will I be just as disillusioned with 40k as I am with fantasy?

Anybody recommened any other games systems, preferably one where skill is a big factor?

Thanks.

No description of what you were playing, what your opponent was playing, what spell was cast or what units fled.

Random dice are random.

Sounds like Warhammer just isn't the game for you.

I've also stopped for the same reasons. It's not as fun as it was or 40k is (and I hated 4th edition 40k)

Warmahordes is mtg with minatures. Get your uber combo off first and win, if not you're open to counterattack. Loose your general = autoloose? WTF??!@¢BBQ^∑! Power cree is also a big issue as is cost.

Malifaux looks interesting but it would mean a larger investment. I think I'll stick to 40k.

Phototoxin wrote:I've also stopped for the same reasons. It's not as fun as it was or 40k is (and I hated 4th edition 40k)

Warmahordes is mtg with minatures. Get your uber combo off first and win, if not you're open to counterattack. Loose your general = autoloose? WTF??!@¢BBQ^∑! Power cree is also a big issue as is cost.

Malifaux looks interesting but it would mean a larger investment. I think I'll stick to 40k.

Please explain the statement in BOLD?

I do not see how a game based around crews of 12 models or less can involve a larger investment?

Assuming you do not sell your WFB/40k armies, you can get started in Malifaux and Warmachine for less than $AUD 100, which is usually cheaper in other countries.

AvatarForm wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:I've also stopped for the same reasons. It's not as fun as it was or 40k is (and I hated 4th edition 40k)

Warmahordes is mtg with minatures. Get your uber combo off first and win, if not you're open to counterattack. Loose your general = autoloose? WTF??!@¢BBQ^∑! Power creep is also a big issue as is cost.

Malifaux looks interesting but it would mean a larger investment. I think I'll stick to 40k.

Please explain the statement in BOLD?

I do not see how a game based around crews of 12 models or less can involve a larger investment?

Assuming you do not sell your WFB/40k armies, you can get started in Malifaux and Warmachine for less than $AUD 100, which is usually cheaper in other countries.

I'm actually trading a few unwanted Warmachine figures for some Malifaux crews.

As for the whole 'caster kill' problem people have with Warmachine/Hordes? I'd suggest you read the http://privateerpress.com/files/Official%20Steamroller%202011%20Rules.pdf. If you head down past the 16 (16!) scenarios given to you, there is a variant section, where you can alter the scenario rules so that Caster-kill is not an auto-win condition. As for power creep, I don't see it. Since every faction gets something new in each release, and older units are just as effective as brand new ones, I don't really see where the 'power creep' is in the game.

A friend from Maelstrom still plays 8th and he actually enjoys it more, however...big however...

He insists just on a no-comp level it is fun. The randomness of the game is what makes it fun in its' own way, it's not trying to be uber tactical war game of doom. On the comp scene he said it is very different and really does go down to pure luck and hardly anything to do with tactics so it has lost a lot of the proper tactician wargammers, ironically as fantasy was always more about tactics and what not more than 40k. Seems it has swung over.

FoW is good tactically, I'm having a lot of fun with that. Just started Infinity and from what I can tell so far that will get really tactical too.

Phototoxin wrote:Malifaux looks interesting but it would mean a larger investment.

30-60$ for a playable army, rules as an official, legal free download. That's devinitely not a larger investment.

Highly recommend Kings of War if you're unhappy with Fantasy, the rules offer something new and highly tactical, the army lists are well-balanced.

Check the link in my sig for more info.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:WAnybody else feel the same? Is 40k worth getting into? I've only ever played 1 or 2 games in 20 years. Will I be just as disillusioned with 40k as I am with fantasy?

Anybody recommened any other games systems, preferably one where skill is a big factor?

I would say you will quickly be as disillusioned by 40K. If anything, it takes even less skill to play as you don't have to maneuver in blocks. On the other hand, you don't have crazy magic that can decide the game with a single roll. Both games are essentially just an exercise in rolling lots of dice, with internal and external balance of the armies completely out of whack. GW makes models, the rules are a distant secondary consideration.

For games that require more skill/have a more balanced competitive environment, I would recommend Warmachine/Hordes. I hear good things about Flames of War, too.

Phototoxin wrote:I've also stopped for the same reasons. It's not as fun as it was or 40k is (and I hated 4th edition 40k)

Warmahordes is mtg with minatures. Get your uber combo off first and win, if not you're open to counterattack. Loose your general = autoloose? WTF??!@¢BBQ^∑! Power cree is also a big issue as is cost.

While the MTG comparison is not too far off with how you have to combo models for best effect, you are utterly wrong on pretty much every other point. Far more goes into deciding victory than who gets a combo off first, you could have 80% of your army annihilated and still pull out a win. If you have trouble keeping your caster alive, you are failing to grasp the concept of the game (pretty much everyone's first loss in Warmachine is sticking their caster out and getting them killed, a valuable lesson). No one bitches about Chess, "Lose my king = auto-lose? WTF? blahblahblah!". The charge of power creep is ridiculous when some of the most powerful models are from PRIME. Cost, both for starting up to get a playable army and expanding later for more variety of play is far less than 40K, much less Fantasy.

Omegus wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Anybody else feel the same? Is 40k worth getting into? I've only ever played 1 or 2 games in 20 years. Will I be just as disillusioned with 40k as I am with fantasy?

Anybody recommend any other games systems, preferably one where skill is a big factor?

-Warmachine/Hordes - combos, tactics, skill, Chess-like win conditions
-Flames of War - favors balanced lists, no 'power armies' (you'd think a list with 6-8 Tiger 1s would be unstoppable, but they'll quickly be put down by infantry), tactics, positioning.
-Malifaux - knowing when the 'cheat fate' and when to hold off, combos between models, purchasing more models = less power for your Master, card deck allows for 'card counting' in some cases, especially when you get down to barely a few cards left
-Infinity - ARO! models cannot move/shoot with impunity, as return fire/reactions from opposing models (and sometimes more than 1) means running out into the open will get you gunned down
-Ancients/Napoleonic warfare - take your pick of era and rules set. Most try to be a realistic as possible, so (if you're going Napoleonic, for example), picking up something like Osprey Publishing's French Napoleonic Infantry Tactics 1792-1815 are actually worthwhile reads

I've quit WFB as well, but I'm hanging on to my armies 'cause I love the models and hope that some day they'll have decent rules.

Most of my club plays fantasy and prolly always will. I was always more of a 40k fan but lately I'm liking fantasy's models better. Just something about seeing a fully painted fantasy army with ranks and ranks of troops and big monsters running around. That said, it's really becoming a chore to get an army done :( I don't know why I always end up picking horde armies.....

I agree the games can get long and dull, 40K just seems more fun, but not as fun as Dust Tactics :p

Have to agree, try branching out to non GW games. Most of the time theres genius effort and passion poured in

Omegus wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Warmahordes is mtg with minatures. Get your uber combo off first and win, if not you're open to counterattack. Loose your general = autoloose? WTF??!@¢BBQ^∑! Power cree is also a big issue as is cost.

The charge of power creep is ridiculous when some of the most powerful models are from PRIME. Cost, both for starting up to get a playable army and expanding later for more variety of play is far less than 40K, much less Fantasy.

I think this point bears re-iteration. If you want a game system with almost no power creep and a strong likelihood that your army will survive competitively intact for a couple years, Warmachine/Hordes is about as reliable as it gets.

If you want to see ranks of soldiers in pretty uniforms and maneuver blocks of troops, try Black Powder for historical gaming. It is fun.

For SciFi there are a ton of skirmish level games. You just have to be willing to investigate, purchase, and be the main conductor of games to get a following started. Most people would rather put up with crap rules and not make any other effort sadly...

+1 to Flames of War. The ruleset is very nice and highly tactical, and as others have said, the rules award balanced armies. It has to be said that battlefront has dropped the ball with one list in early war though, so it is not perfect, but one overpowered list out of a hundred or so is a pretty good track-record, and lightyears ahead of GW's track-record

wanax wrote:If you want to see ranks of soldiers in pretty uniforms and maneuver blocks of troops, try Black Powder for historical gaming. It is fun.

Or if you're more of a non gunpowder person then Hail Caesar is great

Both are basically updated versions of warmaster

I think the problem people have with switching is the investment. And not just money, but time. Even if another game is cheaper, you still have to get the rules, build an army, paint it up, and then in a lot of cases convince your friends to do the same.

This is one of the reasons I like Dust Tactics.

Models look really great and are pre-built and pre-primed, big time saver there. You buy a box of men, and it's got all the models you need for that unit, no extra junk you won't use, no need to buy another box just to have a normal unit (like WFB boxes of 10 men when you need 20-30 for a unit that can do something useful). So you buy a box of Laser Grenadiers and that's it. They are ready to play right out of the box, and you can go back and paint them up if you want. If you like converting stuff, just take them apart and get as creative as you want to be.

It's a board game, and the core set comes with all you need and 2 small armies, so you can easily introduce the game to your friends without them having to invest $500 or more just to play with you. You can even split the set with a friend to save cash. And if board-style games aren't your thing, it's pretty easy to adapt to normal tabletop game if you have half a brain. They're developing official table top rules now too but I dunno when they'll be done.

Overall it's a great system, games are quick and fun and the models look really cool, definitely a game to get if you love walkers and dreadnought kinda things.

I love playing Fantasy cause I don't know the Rules very well is I can't complain about how much better the old ones are.

I've decided to pretty much give up the whole hobby to be honest. None of my friends are into the hobby, there are no gaming clubs where I live, and the alternative is to go to a GW and stand beside a bunch of kids. Becuase of my age, that would just be wrong!

This flames of war thing sounds interesting. With it being WW2 I could rope people in.

So, If you wanted to get started with FOW battles set in 1940, all I need is the rule book and the early war book? and of course some models. Is it as simple as that? Or am I missing something? Years of GW buying means I'm never sure if I've got everything!

Fantasy as the current rule set stands is indeed not that great, but as I've said a few times recently, if you want to make it fun, play a 1000 point game where you keep the unit sizes down, use only the first three spells in the lore and limit each person to 1 special and 1 rare.

Another way around the deep ranked steadfast nonsense, is to state that any unit can't be deeper than it is wide. It kind of makes sense too, as troops aren't really going to sit there in orderly queues of five files when they could be breaking round the sides of the combat to get at the enemy.

Naturally all of the above necessitates people who are willing to tone it down.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:So, If you wanted to get started with FOW battles set in 1940, all I need is the rule book and the early war book? and of course some models. Is it as simple as that? Or am I missing something? Years of GW buying means I'm never sure if I've got everything!

Yup, that should be all that you need for early war

Yeah I think GW's games work great for small games. But they need to sell more models so they market it as you needing huge units, so people end up thinking they need a 3000 pt army to play. Some of my funnest games were like a whole 500 pts.

kenshin620 wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:So, If you wanted to get started with FOW battles set in 1940, all I need is the rule book and the early war book? and of course some models. Is it as simple as that? Or am I missing something? Years of GW buying means I'm never sure if I've got everything!

Yup, that should be all that you need for early war

Well, that depends!

Battlefront will soon be releasing the next Early War book - I think it's called Hellfire & Back - to cover fighting in the desert.

But Blitzkrieg looks like a lot of fun. I play Brits in Late War, so the British Armoured Regiment and Rifle Company boxes look really interesting.

If you're looking to draw people in, I'd recommend an escalation league to start up. Beginning at 600 points, you advance to whatever 'end goal' you're looking for - 1500, for example. So, it'd be 600, 800, 1000, 1250, 1500, over however long a period you choose.

Rule of life 40k beats warhammer fantasy

Early war for me. Matilda tanks and boys anti-tank rifles! yeah! take that adolf

But thanks for the advice, infinity. I've been looking at the wayland games prices and it's far more appealing than splashing out on GW stuff.

I felt the same way as you. I have not touched WFB for like 3 years now. 40K is getting like that with me.

Warmachine has me now.

smeugal fan wrote:Rule of life 40k beats warhammer fantasy

Strange that a few years ago ever time I asked this question it was always the reverse

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Early war for me. Matilda tanks and boys anti-tank rifles! yeah! take that adolf

But thanks for the advice, infinity. I've been looking at the wayland games prices and it's far more appealing than splashing out on GW stuff.

Just remember that friends don't let friends play the BAR (british armoured regiment). It might get better with the new early war book, but as of now, it is the only broken list in FoW

Phototoxin wrote: Malifaux looks interesting but it would mean a larger investment. I think I'll stick to 40k.

I started Malifaux recently. It cost me less then $100 for everything. The nice thing is that it uses cards instead of dice, which means that if you draw all crap there will be a light at the end of the tunnel.

Phototoxin wrote:I've also stopped for the same reasons. It's not as fun as it was or 40k is (and I hated 4th edition 40k)

Warmahordes is mtg with minatures. Get your uber combo off first and win, if not you're open to counterattack. Loose your general = autoloose? WTF??!@¢BBQ^∑! Power cree is also a big issue as is cost.

Malifaux looks interesting but it would mean a larger investment. I think I'll stick to 40k.

Sir, I would like to refer you to page 5.

I didn't quit in a strop or anything, but I wasn't enthused enough to play another game since the first. Magic just seems too powerful.

All the long timer players I am close to in my area quit. They really hate the new version.

I quit the last one because I didn't think much of it, no way I'm really going to try the new one.

Storm of magic made me think LOLWUT? Wasn't magic overdone BEFORE this edition...

I was interested in fantasy for a while, but then I heard about steadfast and quickly lost interest.

It's a shame too, since the previous edition seemed to have so much tactical potential. Not it just looks like a game of who can jam the biggest block of infantry up their opponent's backside.

You could always see if people are willing to use the older editions

I have the original 1st edition book and a copy of Warhammer Armies around here somewhere..

I get nostalgic thinking of all the army lists in one hardcover book... I miss my old Fimir and Norscan armies :(

i;d look at Kings of war or the forthcoming Warpath by Mantic games.

The games are designed so its not about uber units or army list combo's, but tactics made and decided in the heat of the game.

Phototoxin wrote:

Warmahordes is mtg with minatures. Get your uber combo off first and win, if not you're open to counterattack. Loose your general = autoloose? WTF??!@¢BBQ^∑! Power cree is also a big issue as is cost.

QFT. That sums it up perfectly.
I'm greatly down sizing my WHFB armies due to the 8th ed. rules. I'll likley finish my current skaven and that will be it for GW for me.

Yes, it sums it up perfectly if you have no idea what you're talking about.

Fafnir wrote:
It's a shame too, since the previous edition seemed to have so much tactical potential. Not it just looks like a game of who can jam the biggest block of infantry up their opponent's backside.

The previous was 'Who charges wins'.

I'm actually rather glad they turned that around. Now a small, hard hitting unit (Blood Knights, Chaos Knights) actually has to stop and think before charging a column of infantry. It's no longer 'lol, autowin, nothing strikes back as we strike first for charging and wipe the front rank.'

Now -that- got annoying fast. I didn't play at all in 7th because it just didn't impress me.

The previous was 'Who charges wins'.

I'm actually rather glad they turned that around. Now a small, hard hitting unit (Blood Knights, Chaos Knights) actually has to stop and think before charging a column of infantry. It's no longer 'lol, autowin, nothing strikes back as we strike first for charging and wipe the front rank.'

Now -that- got annoying fast. I didn't play at all in 7th because it just didn't impress me.

The magic phase was pretty much the same - predictable, and without risk if you did the maths.

DarkStarSabre wrote:

Fafnir wrote:
It's a shame too, since the previous edition seemed to have so much tactical potential. Not it just looks like a game of who can jam the biggest block of infantry up their opponent's backside.

The previous was 'Who charges wins'.

I'm actually rather glad they turned that around. Now a small, hard hitting unit (Blood Knights, Chaos Knights) actually has to stop and think before charging a column of infantry. It's no longer 'lol, autowin, nothing strikes back as we strike first for charging and wipe the front rank.'

Now -that- got annoying fast. I didn't play at all in 7th because it just didn't impress me.

Dont forget that Fear really hurt. Oh the joys of rummaging through forum posts only to see Vampire/Daemons lists!

I admit, 7th wasnt my favorite either. It is almost the exact opposite of 8th in terms of "what wins"

DarkStarSabre wrote:
The previous was 'Who charges wins'.

I'm actually rather glad they turned that around. Now a small, hard hitting unit (Blood Knights, Chaos Knights) actually has to stop and think before charging a column of infantry. It's no longer 'lol, autowin, nothing strikes back as we strike first for charging and wipe the front rank.'

Now -that- got annoying fast. I didn't play at all in 7th because it just didn't impress me.

Really? And you couldn't think of anything to prevent them from getting the charge? Like positioning a fast cavalry unit in front of your infantry or a skirmishing screen?

Or positioning so that those units only took a small part of your army and then had to spend the rest of the game to get back to the fight?

But that would have required actual thought and the use of tactics from most players, you're right the current flavour of "monster infantry units charge forward and roll lots of dice" is alot better...

marielle wrote:The magic phase was pretty much the same - predictable, and without risk if you did the maths.

The magic phase was a support to the game, the game required you to think, not just roll dice and auto-win if you get a particular spell through...

kenshin620 wrote:
Dont forget that Fear really hurt. Oh the joys of rummaging through forum posts only to see Vampire/Daemons lists!

I admit, 7th wasnt my favorite either. It is almost the exact opposite of 8th in terms of "what wins"

Fear only hurt if you where outnumbered and / or lost combat. Vampire Counts only became so dominant because of the piece of ubercrap that was the Daemon Army Book (adn everybody knows who we can blame at GW for that).

Daemons broke 7th edition, I actually prefered 6th to 7th but you can't say that 7th was a bad ruleset just because GW decided to release a completely unbalanced army for it.

Even with all its faults, it was miles better compared to the cesspool that is 8th edition WHFB.

The magic phase was a support to the game, the game required you to think, not just roll dice and auto-win if you get a particular spell through...

No it didn't. There is far more thinking in the current magic system. Do you risk the miscast? Do you risk rolling one die and risk losing the magic phase? etc And most importantly in 8th, because of the winds of magic mechanic, you have to think which spell will be of most use at that point in the game.

7th was far more of an autowin in the magic phase than 8th - it was what underpinned the tier system. To claim otherwise is to ignore the 'thinking' of those people who complain 8th is too random.

marielle wrote:

The magic phase was a support to the game, the game required you to think, not just roll dice and auto-win if you get a particular spell through...

No it didn't. There is far more thinking in the current magic system. Do you risk the miscast? Do you risk rolling one die and risk losing the magic phase? etc And most importantly in 8th, because of the winds of magic mechanic, you have to think which spell will be of most use at that point in the game.

7th was far more of an autowin in the magic phase than 8th - it was what underpinned the tier system. To claim otherwise is to ignore the 'thinking' of those people who complain 8th is too random.

I'm not talking about autowin in the magic phase, I'm talking about the magic phase making you win the game despite of everything else.

If I wanted to play a game about wich wizard is the strongest, I would stick to playing MtG (wich, funny fact, at least when I used to play it, also took alot more thinking than 8th edition WHFB)...

cricketofdeth wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Warmahordes is mtg with minatures. Get your uber combo off first and win, if not you're open to counterattack. Loose your general = autoloose? WTF??!@¢BBQ^∑! Power cree is also a big issue as is cost.

QFT. That sums it up perfectly.

That's my experience as well. About 20 games of direct experience with multiple armies and sanctioned tourneys as well. QFT+2

One of the biggest ironies is Warmahordes players often say the game is 'chess like', when it really isn't. I play chess, outside of the king dying and sole warcaster dying, ending the game (sometimes) it's not chess like at all:

In Chess players take turns moving a single piece, not an entire side
There don't ever seem to be ties in Warmachine
There's no concept of checkmate, or check
Chess pieces don't magnify each other
Chess pieces do not change abilities with combinations
Chess pieces never 'miss'
Chess pieces never 'shoot'
Chess pieces never 'save'
Battlefields aren't consistent and symmetric
Sides aren't mirrored

Warmahordes players think it sounds sophisticated to say it's very chess like, but it never really is.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:If I wanted to play a game about wich wizard is the strongest, I would stick to playing MtG (wich, funny fact, at least when I used to play it, also took alot more thinking than 8th edition WHFB)...

Ouch is it really that bad...?

I'm not talking about autowin in the magic phase, I'm talking about the magic phase making you win the game despite of everything else.

If I wanted to play a game about wich wizard is the strongest, I would stick to playing MtG (wich, funny fact, at least when I used to play it, also took alot more thinking than 8th edition WHFB)...

I have no idea what MtG is.

As for your views on the magic phase, they don't make sense... but hey ho!

I stopped because of the increased randomness makes it less fun. Random magic dice. First turn matters a ton. Even if you get first bummer, I rolled double 1s for magic dice. Opponent rolls high for magic dice and gets off the win button spell I lose. Random charge distances make it less strategic. The rolling terrible and failing a charge you would have made in 7th is really annoying.

8th fantasy is an ok casual game to play with some friends where you might not take the uber spells and if you lose cause of something dumb you can always do a rematch but I don't like it as a tourney game at all.

I been concentrating more on 40k and its summer atm so I haven't had the time to play fantasy. I also have limited people to play Fantasy with in my area.

Kirika wrote:I stopped because of the increased randomness ...8th fantasy is an ok casual game to play with some friends where you might not take the uber spells and if you lose cause of something dumb you can always do a rematch but I don't like it as a tourney game at all.

Wow I hadn't heard it was that dependent on magic foolery, thanks for the insights.

Every game I read about or the one I played seems to hinge on "CAN THEY GET THE BIG SPELL OFF!?!" which is to me a pretty gakky point of tension.

Augustus wrote:One of the biggest ironies is Warmahordes players often say the game is 'chess like', when it really isn't. I play chess, outside of the king dying and sole warcaster dying, ending the game (sometimes) it's not chess like at all.

It's not so much the king dying ending the game, as having to think several moves ahead and keeping track of potential threat vectors to your "king", while trying to open such a vector to theirs. And, of course, in scenarios, the caster kill is not so important.

In any case, the claim that it's all about pulling off one uber combo or the charge of power creep is still moronic to the extreme. The ultra mega mega combos only work against amateurs (like the Fool's mate), and again, it's hard to claim the game has power creep when some of the most powerful casters and units are among the first models ever released for the game, and the single MkII expansion didn't do anything to upset the power balance (even with the introduction of the battle engines). You don't have to like the game, but at least critique it for the right reasons, such as the sometimes mind-boggling internal balance decisions or stupid tournament scenarios.

What I mean by larger investment means that I'd need to get a rulebook, 2 factions and people to play. It's more of a gamble, and the investment is such that the minis cannot be used in GW games.

Whereas wiht GW games if I buy some space marines the bitz will be useful for many armies..

I've always found fantasy to be boring, despite the fact that most local players tell me "it's a more tactical game than 40k". In 40k, a lot more stuff happens. Heck, the game is set up to be over-the-top. You will run into annoying WAAC gamers in tourneys, but if you're a more casual player you can find plenty of wonderful people to do battle with.

I have been playing both WHFB and 40K for a long time. I like the new steadfast rules. It means one giant bad ass unit/creature/hero/lord cannot charge your giant block of troops and route them that easily. Back in 4th edition you could cook up some nasty characters, and I did. At first we hated the terrain rules, but now we like them. When you start to play multiple games and scenarios the terrain rules can play a big part. Deployment is also affected by them. It also can make a not so good army (like wood elves) use terrain to their advantage and make a big difference.

I agree Magic needs to be revamped, and some armies are highly broken. The largest tactical decision you can make is movement in WHFB. Since you get a free wheel to charge and once you hit the base you can close the gap. It has it's flaws like every GW game out there, but at least it is not see who goes first LOL Win like 40K is sometimes.

I have had 40K games where I got second turn and all my trukks were destroyed first turn, then my boyz had to march on foot, which allowed the other guy to just unload on them. Since they have no armor they pretty much just die out right.

Cutlass for my Pirate fix.

Star Mogual for Sci-Fi

RAFM's USX line for Modern Horror.

Dr Who Miniatures for.... DR WHO.

There are a few Pulp games for Pulp. ( Rattrap, Pulp figures, etc.)

Golgo Island and a number of others for some campy stuff.

Pulp City, and Superfigs for my Superhero gaming.

Blackwater Gultch, and some other cowboys and indians games for that wild west thing.

And pretty much anything else I want to get into without being tied down.

Warmahordes is OK. These are better.

Cutlass for my Pirate fix.

Star Mogual for Sci-Fi

RAFM's USX line for Modern Horror.

Dr Who Miniatures for.... DR WHO.

There are a few Pulp games for Pulp. ( Rattrap, Pulp figures, etc.)

Golgo Island and a number of others for some campy stuff.

Pulp City, and Superfigs for my Superhero gaming.

Blackwater Gultch, and some other cowboys and indians games for that wild west thing.

And pretty much anything else I want to get into without being tied down.

Warmahordes is OK. These are better.

Which is a long winded way of saying that you have no opinion...

Or rather that his taste is eclectic, and a roundabout way of saying that the OP's problem would not be so painful if he played multiple games, and thus having one change its rules would not be such a severe impact on his overall gaming enjoyment.

I like 8th, but I agree that it needs the players to agree to some houserules to tone down the madness in the magic phase and make support units like skirmishers and cavalry matter again. Kind of like 5th edition, which utterly sucked unless you added "tournament" restrictions. 6th and 7th were a golden age until Mat Ward's f'ing Daemons book. WHFB had been my favorite game since the day 6th edition was released, and now it's 40k. 40k 5th edition is pretty excellent. There are some army imbalances/mismatches, but overall the 5th ed ruleset and scenarios really work.

I enjoyed my flirtation with Warmachine a few years back, and have quite a bit of painted Cryx, but I didn't like it as much; in the sense of scale and "feel" as much as rules. And so to me it wasn't worth the time and effort investment to get really good at it.

Much respect to the folks who play other stuff. For me, the scale and feel of a several-unit "army" and the speed of play for WH & 40k have made them better than other games. Flames of War also looks quite good, but the setting and models don't appeal as much. Malifaux has excellent models but has the small-skirmish feel of WM/Hordes, and another rather complex ruleset to master.

Phototoxin wrote:What I mean by larger investment means that I'd need to get a rulebook, 2 factions and people to play. It's more of a gamble, and the investment is such that the minis cannot be used in GW games.

Whereas wiht GW games if I buy some space marines the bitz will be useful for many armies..

Soooooo the mini's and rulebook can't be used in GW games so they're worth less to you.... and that you didn't need to get people or a rulebook for GW games....

Omegus wrote:
In any case, the claim that it's all about pulling off one uber combo or the charge of power creep is still moronic to the extreme.

Yup. The Podhammer lads are trying it out, and after their first few tourneys and some games, they swiftly dismissed that idea in their last podcast. So now they are at list building+movement+terrain+combos=experience is what counts, with more +es likely to show up as they get more games under their belt.

Crom wrote:I have been playing both WHFB and 40K for a long time. I like the new steadfast rules. It means one giant bad ass unit/creature/hero/lord cannot charge your giant block of troops and route them that easily. Back in 4th edition you could cook up some nasty characters, and I did. At first we hated the terrain rules, but now we like them. When you start to play multiple games and scenarios the terrain rules can play a big part. Deployment is also affected by them. It also can make a not so good army (like wood elves) use terrain to their advantage and make a big difference.

You are saying that you like Steadfast because it means that an ubber lord from 4th edition Herohammer can't kill your units? Really? That is you whole argument in favour of steadfast?

And you could always use terrain in your favour, as a matter of fact, terrain has a lot less impact in the game now than it did in previous editions, especially for Wood Elves. I would in fact argue that the impact that terrain has in the game currently is preacticaly 0 (zero).

Crom wrote:
I agree Magic needs to be revamped, and some armies are highly broken. The largest tactical decision you can make is movement in WHFB. Since you get a free wheel to charge and once you hit the base you can close the gap. It has it's flaws like every GW game out there, but at least it is not see who goes first LOL Win like 40K is sometimes.

I have had 40K games where I got second turn and all my trukks were destroyed first turn, then my boyz had to march on foot, which allowed the other guy to just unload on them. Since they have no armor they pretty much just die out right.

The largest tactical devision you can make in WHFB is movement? Really? When your charge distance is defined by a dice roll? When charging isn't nearly as important as it was before? When harassment models don't have nearly the same effect in the game that they used to have?

Also, if all your trucks get destroyed in the first turn on a game of 40k, then you are a lousy 40k player and I would advise you to read some of Dashs BRs so that you could pick up some tips on how to prevent such an ocurrence.

There was a time when WHFB was a real tactical game, where movement and placement where the things that won you games. When varied army lists with things like skirmishers and fast cavalry matered. In those days 40k was considered the "kid game" and WHFB was for more mature players. Now those roles are reversed, I just hope that 6th edition 40k doesn't make to that game what 8th edition did to Fantasy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

marielle wrote:
I have no idea what MtG is.

As for your views on the magic phase, they don't make sense... but hey ho!

This forum has a handy feature, if you hover your mouse over some acronym chances are that there will be a tooltip to explain what that acronym is. In this case MtG translates neatly into Magic: the Gathering. If you don't actually know what Magic The Gathering is then I would politely like to ask you how old you are?

As for my views of the magic phase not making sense, then how come, acording to this thread at least, even suporters of 8th edition say that the magic phase is over the top and needs to be toned down because it makes the game less fun?

Soooooo the mini's and rulebook can't be used in GW games so they're worth less to you.... and that you didn't need to get people or a rulebook for GW games....

You're missing the point, it's easy to go into almost any game club nation-wide and find a game of 40k or fantasy. If people at his local club don't play malifaux it could take quite a lot of effort and time above and beyond the basic cost of the minis to learn the rules well enough to teach and get stuff painted to demo it out to get others interested. All for a game he does't know if he'll like yet. That said, Malifaux is pretty darn good.

Warmachine is fantastic, however. Most people in my area play way too big, 75 point+ games, while i feel it plays best at 35 which will run you about $100 to $150 or so, depending on army. While steampunk really isn't my thing (it's not high fantasy enough to satisfy that or hi-tech enough for my sci-fi desires), but there's no denying the game itself is extremely solid. It does suffer from new edition-itis where the stuff that sucked before is awesome and the stuff that rocked in 1st edition isn't so hot or is too expensive (or both), but thats more an issue for long-time players than new ones and there are definately solid choices for every army and all the factions are fairly well balanced against each other. Playing scenarios helps a lot too as it makes balances caster-kill with scenario objectives, and games rarely use victory points except as a tie-breaker.

Best of all, careful movement and planning really REALLY matters, every bit as much and more than it ever did with WFB except you have 10 man units instead of 30 man blocks. Magic is important, but the manner in which it operates makes it integral but balanced against what else is in your list and how the current game is playing out, since you forgo using your 'magic dice" (focus) to boost your robots' and warcaster's physical attacks, and deciding to cast a spell or enhance a warjack or make the warcaster a powerhouse of his own is some of the best times you'll have in wargaming, period.

Warmachine is fantastic, however. Most people in my area play way too big, 75 point+ games, while i feel it plays best at 35 which will run you about $100 to $150 or so, depending on army.

This comment can be used concerning 40K and WHFB. The main difference in my area is that the game mechanics and policy for GW is to promote LARGE scale games than to promote small scale games.

One of the biggest reasons IMHO for the loss of the GW customer base. Smaller games means smaller cost to get into the game.

GW even forgot how to sell their plastic dope to there customers correctly, which is why those who enjoy their plastic drug addiction are going to other companies so they can get their fix at a reasonable cost.

And yes it is a joke, sort of

I find most games are more tactical at smaller scale where you can't just buy everything you want and throw dice at whatever you want to die until it does, then throw dice at the next thing till it dies. Smaller points limits the crazier combos and makes you use what you have more effectively, makes you really think about what's necessary. You don't just casually throw your units around as much becuase small losses hurt. Apocalypse 40k is absolutely the worst game for me, the absolute antithesis of everything I find enjoyable in a game.

Kalamadea wrote:I find most games are more tactical at smaller scale where you can't just buy everything you want and throw dice at whatever you want to die until it does, then throw dice at the next thing till it dies.

That said, 'too small' a game favors most heavily whatever faction/codex has the most powerful 'required' models.

Chaos doesn't mind making a 500 pt list. Neither do SW or most other Marines. Necrons go 'DURRRR????'.

Although this debate could go on forever, I would say that the 'right' size for 40k is 1750 to 2000.

For Warmahordes, I think the right size is 50. Although 35 is probably the most common, 50 is the size for events and appears to be the level that PP balanced for and treats as 'standard'.
Anything materially below 35 is about who has the most powerful warcaster/feat.

Of course, the opposite of that is that in smaller games a few unlucky dice rolls can deprive you of a significant part of your army, leading to an inevitable and inexorable tipping of t he balance in your opponent's favor.

PhantomViper wrote:

You are saying that you like Steadfast because it means that an ubber lord from 4th edition Herohammer can't kill your units? Really? That is you whole argument in favour of steadfast?

And you could always use terrain in your favour, as a matter of fact, terrain has a lot less impact in the game now than it did in previous editions, especially for Wood Elves. I would in fact argue that the impact that terrain has in the game currently is preacticaly 0 (zero).

Correct, when you outnumber something you usually don't lose morale as easy. It also balances the units at the core, so you rely more on the core of your army, and not how much you can cheese out a hero/lord with items and magic. Terrain now has magical properties, and effects. Negative and positive, and they can really change the outcome of the game. The tower that causes frenzy and hatred. makes block units even more effective. If you can occupy and keep your opponent from over 6 inches away you get the advantage. Terrain has a much larger impact than it ever did, because now it does all sorts of crazy things, which also makes movement even more of a tactical decision.

The largest tactical devision you can make in WHFB is movement? Really? When your charge distance is defined by a dice roll? When charging isn't nearly as important as it was before? When harassment models don't have nearly the same effect in the game that they used to have?

Yes, because of the free wheel, and how you can now close the gap once you make base to base contact. You have to really think about movement, and anticipate your opponents moves. There is some risk involved due to the dice rolls, but you can always average out what it would be and go from there. I have seen movement really screw people over in WHFB because if you leave a gap and I expand it, your charge distance is now even further, and your chances of rolling the proper distance are even less. Then add in the fact of all the special effects terrain has now.

Also, if all your trucks get destroyed in the first turn on a game of 40k, then you are a lousy 40k player and I would advise you to read some of Dashs BRs so that you could pick up some tips on how to prevent such an ocurrence.

LOL, so since I lost my Trukks in one game I am horrible? We played the scenario whoever deploys first goes first. So I ran my Trukks in a line. However, my opponent at the time rolled a 6 to steal the initiative, so it is not like I wasn't playing the odds. Him, being a Tau player, had enough firepower to toss at my Trukks that I eventually failed my KFF save, and he rolled enough damage to immobilize, destroy, or otherwise take them out. If we played that scenario again, I would probably do the same thing because the odds of them rolling a 6 to seize the initiative are not going to happen that often, and then I just all out move my trukks and can assault by turn 2.

However, way to make some pretty solid assumptions there...

There was a time when WHFB was a real tactical game, where movement and placement where the things that won you games. When varied army lists with things like skirmishers and fast cavalry matered. In those days 40k was considered the "kid game" and WHFB was for more mature players. Now those roles are reversed, I just hope that 6th edition 40k doesn't make to that game what 8th edition did to Fantasy.

It still is.

Hi Folks.
As said before Kings of War is free , and nice change of pace from WHFB.
Armies of Arcana is probably worth a mention too.(As it has TWENTY THREE army lists with a provable level of balance!Like a tactical version of WHFB thats balanced for tournament play!)(I thisnk the rule book was £20 last time I looked, and the army lists were free downloads...)

However, most people trying out non GW games are pleasently suprised how much gamepaly can be achived with fewer pages of rules!(KoW is just 12 pages of rules!)

If WWII takes your fancy.FoW is a great way to get into this period .

Have a good old look around, and start enjoying the wider table top minature game hobby.
I am sure you will be pleasantly suprised!

marielle wrote:

Cutlass for my Pirate fix.

Star Mogual for Sci-Fi

RAFM's USX line for Modern Horror.

Dr Who Miniatures for.... DR WHO.

There are a few Pulp games for Pulp. ( Rattrap, Pulp figures, etc.)

Golgo Island and a number of others for some campy stuff.

Pulp City, and Superfigs for my Superhero gaming.

Blackwater Gultch, and some other cowboys and indians games for that wild west thing.

And pretty much anything else I want to get into without being tied down.

Warmahordes is OK. These are better.

Which is a long winded way of saying that you have no opinion...

I don't see how you came up with that, unless your just trying to be clever.

I've got 101 other options to GW's Bullgak, then the average bear.
People are drinking hard kool-aid over Warmahordes, I tasted it earier in its life, and didn't like the taste.
Still got it all, but it isn't the be-all and end-all miniatures game alternative to GW, either.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Well, I've given up playing Warhammer Fantasy, not because of some GW protest, but because I came to the conclusion that after x amount of games, it's not really up to much. The other day I won a game simply because I hold two 6's to get a spell off, which destroyed a unit, and panicked three others into fleeing the board. Other games I've lost because of an uber -powerful unit, or a jammy spell cast. Where's the skill?

Welcome to 4th edition fantasy......Wheee, I play the ultimate magic card, get off that cool spell, you lose 2 units, or half your army. I saw this a long way off. 8th edition fantasy SO reminds me of 4th edition fantasy, only with dice instead of power cards.

sourclams wrote:

Kalamadea wrote:I find most games are more tactical at smaller scale where you can't just buy everything you want and throw dice at whatever you want to die until it does, then throw dice at the next thing till it dies.

That said, 'too small' a game favors most heavily whatever faction/codex has the most powerful 'required' models.

Chaos doesn't mind making a 500 pt list. Neither do SW or most other Marines. Necrons go 'DURRRR????'.

Although this debate could go on forever, I would say that the 'right' size for 40k is 1750 to 2000.

For Warmahordes, I think the right size is 50. Although 35 is probably the most common, 50 is the size for events and appears to be the level that PP balanced for and treats as 'standard'.
Anything materially below 35 is about who has the most powerful warcaster/feat.

The 500 pt Combat patrol style of playing in my region seems to satisfy the complaint of being "too small". No GW plans are large games on a 4x6 table. Other companies are IMHO taking into limitations of size of army and size of game area to play that army.

aerethan wrote:I've played since 2000 and I'll likely play another 11 years. Then again I play mostly against my wife so if we don't like how something plays then we just house rule it to fit our style.


I think that any game can get stale after a while. Fantasy is much different than it was 2 editions ago, and this will likely be the case 2 editions from now. Right now magic plays a major role. That may change next edition.

40k is just point and shoot "Hey look my gun is bigger I win".

Then again my distaste for 40k mostly comes from the amount of young people who are too immature for my taste and I've noticed that many more 40k armies are bare plastic than fantasy ones.

Thats pretty inaccurate TBH. 40K is far more complex then I have the biggest gun. APOC maybe, but not 40k

KingCracker wrote:

aerethan wrote:I've played since 2000 and I'll likely play another 11 years. Then again I play mostly against my wife so if we don't like how something plays then we just house rule it to fit our style.


I think that any game can get stale after a while. Fantasy is much different than it was 2 editions ago, and this will likely be the case 2 editions from now. Right now magic plays a major role. That may change next edition.

40k is just point and shoot "Hey look my gun is bigger I win".

Then again my distaste for 40k mostly comes from the amount of young people who are too immature for my taste and I've noticed that many more 40k armies are bare plastic than fantasy ones.

Thats pretty inaccurate TBH. 40K is far more complex then I have the biggest gun. APOC maybe, but not 40k

I agree, but 40K has a ton of balance issues. I really wish GW would go to an action point based system similar to warzone. It would need balancing tweaks but I think that overall is the best strategic gaming system for a modern warfare game. 40K is more about risk assessment, and assaulting. Assaulting is huge, since you can assault after you shoot, which allows you to put the whoop on someone. I still don't like the phase based game play in high action science fiction games as much as I like the action point system.

40K 2nd edition was all about cheesing out your characters, not so much in 5th.

2nd edition also had the "Great Equalizer" known as "Mr Vortex Grenade".

I was always ok with my friends putting as much of their army into one guy as they good. It made "pick that gak up and get it off the table" much more satisfying.

To answer the OP, I was looking at WHFB just before 8th edition. If I had not been otherwise occupied when 6th hit, that might have brought me back (I was entirely out of miniatures games at that point). I was sort of hoping for a return to something like 6th, but what 8th ended up as is not for me. So instead of WHFB, I started with a few other games (in addition WM/H, which was what got me back into miniatures gaming).

Worglock wrote:2nd edition also had the "Great Equalizer" known as "Mr Vortex Grenade"

...carried by an Imperial Assassin...on a bike...that could Dodge the Vortex grenade after intentionally fumbling it....sigh...

On WM/H points levels, 35 pts and 50 pts are the levels that I feel work best for competitive play. BB is in a class of its own; good for the beginning player. 15 pts and 25 pts are not necessarily about who has the best feat (although 15 pts sometimes look a lot like that), but it limits your possible builds. In 15/25 pts you are building very simple, one-trick-pony style lists (a bit less so with the Mangled Metal format) and certain warcasters/warlocks, whose abilities scale up, are not all that good. At 35 you feel a bit strapped for points when designing armies (which is an exercise all of its own, and one of the reasons I love 35 pts games), at 50 pts you can build very interesting lists with a lot of freedom. At 75 pts you feel spoiled...especially when coming from 35 pts.

I can't really comment on 100+ multicaster games in Mk2.

Crom wrote:
Correct, when you outnumber something you usually don't lose morale as easy. It also balances the units at the core, so you rely more on the core of your army, and not how much you can cheese out a hero/lord with items and magic. Terrain now has magical properties, and effects. Negative and positive, and they can really change the outcome of the game. The tower that causes frenzy and hatred. makes block units even more effective. If you can occupy and keep your opponent from over 6 inches away you get the advantage. Terrain has a much larger impact than it ever did, because now it does all sorts of crazy things, which also makes movement even more of a tactical decision.

You do realize I was beeing sarcastic, right? You do realize there where two editions called 6th and 7th that had already solved the "Herohammer" issue, right?

You do realize that terrain having random properties REMOVES tactics from the game, because, once again you are taking control away from the players and deciding even more stuff on dice rolls, right?

Crom wrote:
Yes, because of the free wheel, and how you can now close the gap once you make base to base contact. You have to really think about movement, and anticipate your opponents moves. There is some risk involved due to the dice rolls, but you can always average out what it would be and go from there. I have seen movement really screw people over in WHFB because if you leave a gap and I expand it, your charge distance is now even further, and your chances of rolling the proper distance are even less. Then add in the fact of all the special effects terrain has now.

You already had the free wheel in 6th edition and no, now you don't have to think and antecipate your opponents moves because with these crappy rules, even if you make the most terrible movement and placement possible and your opponent is a tactical genius and moves and places his units perfectly, you can still solve everything if you get lucky and roll the 2 right dice. And before you say that combat is also solved by dice rolling: in combat you usually roll alot more dice wich causes fewer "odd" results like all 6's and all 1's.

Crom wrote:
LOL, so since I lost my Trukks in one game I am horrible? We played the scenario whoever deploys first goes first. So I ran my Trukks in a line. However, my opponent at the time rolled a 6 to steal the initiative, so it is not like I wasn't playing the odds. Him, being a Tau player, had enough firepower to toss at my Trukks that I eventually failed my KFF save, and he rolled enough damage to immobilize, destroy, or otherwise take them out. If we played that scenario again, I would probably do the same thing because the odds of them rolling a 6 to seize the initiative are not going to happen that often, and then I just all out move my trukks and can assault by turn 2.

However, way to make some pretty solid assumptions there...

You really don't get it do you? Yes, because you failed to plan your deployment for the very real possibility that your opponent could steal the initiative from you, you are a bad 40k player, or at least not a very good one. That kind of thing will happen in 1 out of 6 games, its not that far fetched. Go read some tournament reports from some decent 40k players and more often then not they will tell you that the deployment that they made was not the best deployment possible, but that they took into consideration the possibility that their opponent could steal the initiative.

THAT is tactical thinking.

Crom wrote:

There was a time when WHFB was a real tactical game, where movement and placement where the things that won you games. When varied army lists with things like skirmishers and fast cavalry matered. In those days 40k was considered the "kid game" and WHFB was for more mature players. Now those roles are reversed, I just hope that 6th edition 40k doesn't make to that game what 8th edition did to Fantasy.

It still is.

No it isn't.

Worglock wrote:2nd edition also had the "Great Equalizer" known as "Mr Vortex Grenade"..

Mrs. Virus Grenade was way cooler.

I myself fall into the "love 8th edition camp." Here's why:

Things I hated in 6th/7th.

1) My models never felt like they were fighting. Paint 20-25 guys up, usually have 5-6 attacks tops, and very often 2-3 (after kills.) Never had incentive to build a regiment beyond 30 guys, even for races that were "horde style" (skaven, goblins...)

2) Psychology was way to powerful. Game could flip in favour after a few failed Panic/Terror tests.

3) Large monsters/characters on monsters could easily break a unit in one charge. Why buy and paint a regiment when they can be taken out so easily?

4) Terrain was a female dog. Avoid at all costs. Failed charge into a wood? Say goodbye to that unit, you'll never see them again.

5) Constant arguing in top table tournaments about how far a wheel was during a critical charge (not the free wheel that closes the door.)

6) Gross imbalances in army books. Many tournaments having to give handicaps to "low tier" armies like Ogres and Orcs (as much as 25% extra points!)

7) No missions. Always pitched battle. 2 editions of JUST pitched battle (except for tournament play.)

About steadfast:

As you can probably tell, I'm heavily in favour of this rule. When I think of Warhammer Fantasy, I think of armies and regiments charging into battle. Steadfast encourages players to take large regiments, which IMO should be a iconic image of Fantasy.

Ways around steadfast:

Vortexes.
Spells that target every model in a regiment.
De-steadfasting them with woods or your own deep regiment.
Tying them up with a small elite unit or a Monster with at least a 4+ save.
Blast/Template weapons.

My 2 cents. Good gaming!

Zoned wrote:I myself fall into the "love 8th edition camp." Here's why:

Things I hated in 6th/7th.

1) My models never felt like they were fighting. Paint 20-25 guys up, usually have 5-6 attacks tops, and very often 2-3 (after kills.) Never had incentive to build a regiment beyond 30 guys, even for races that were "horde style" (skaven, goblins...)

2) Psychology was way to powerful. Game could flip in favour after a few failed Panic/Terror tests.

3) Large monsters/characters on monsters could easily break a unit in one charge. Why buy and paint a regiment when they can be taken out so easily?

4) Terrain was a female dog. Avoid at all costs. Failed charge into a wood? Say goodbye to that unit, you'll never see them again.

5) Constant arguing in top table tournaments about how far a wheel was during a critical charge (not the free wheel that closes the door.)

6) Gross imbalances in army books. Many tournaments having to give handicaps to "low tier" armies like Ogres and Orcs (as much as 25% extra points!)

7) No missions. Always pitched battle. 2 editions of JUST pitched battle (except for tournament play.)

About steadfast:

As you can probably tell, I'm heavily in favour of this rule. When I think of Warhammer Fantasy, I think of armies and regiments charging into battle. Steadfast encourages players to take large regiments, which IMO should be a iconic image of Fantasy.

Ways around steadfast:

Vortexes.
Spells that target every model in a regiment.
De-steadfasting them with woods or your own deep regiment.
Tying them up with a small elite unit or a Monster with at least a 4+ save.
Blast/Template weapons.

My 2 cents. Good gaming!

This sums it up for me really.

Add to this the following issues with 6th and 7th edition -

1) Chargers always striking first, casualties stopping attacks from the front rank. Take 1 elite unit of calvary and laugh at the horder when you obliterate the front rank, win by default and run it down. Welcome to the Chaos Knight or VC Blood Knight death star.

2) Power dice being linked to caster levels, dispel dice the same - got an army with lots of cheap casters and PD generation? Magic phase is yours. GG. I think a friend summed it up with the old Hordes of Chaos army book with his 26 power dice 1500 point army. Just a wee bit ridiculous if you ask me.

I haven't stopped playing Warhammer Fantasy, but I have stopped caring about it to any appreciable degree. I know that 7th Edition had some serious problems with power builds and over-the-top armies, but it also rewarded players that were able to maneuver and control the battlefield. I miss being able to hit units in the flank and actually have it matter, or use my fast cavalry to encircle an opponent's force and put them in a real tricky situation should their battle lines break. Eighth Edition is just too straight forward and dice-based for my liking, so while I still enjoy the models, I don't really feel any need to pay attention to the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

aerethan wrote:

40k is just point and shoot "Hey look my gun is bigger I win".

Says the guy who has clearly never played a single game of Warhammer 40k, ever. Not only is this gross over-simplification, it's just outright inaccurate. Take your bias elsewhere.

Zoned wrote:I myself fall into the "love 8th edition camp." Here's why:

Things I hated in 6th/7th.

1) My models never felt like they were fighting. Paint 20-25 guys up, usually have 5-6 attacks tops, and very often 2-3 (after kills.) Never had incentive to build a regiment beyond 30 guys, even for races that were "horde style" (skaven, goblins...)

This is a mater of taste, so fair enough. I don't understand how you could possibly think that HAVING to put together and paint 30+ exactly the same models to be competitive is a good thing, but kudos if you do.

Zoned wrote:
2) Psychology was way to powerful. Game could flip in favour after a few failed Panic/Terror tests.

This is a gross exageration. And most armies with low Ld had various ways of making up for it.

Zoned wrote:
3) Large monsters/characters on monsters could easily break a unit in one charge. Why buy and paint a regiment when they can be taken out so easily?

This is an outright lie. Charging a fully ranked unit means that you would need to kill 6 models to even win combat by 1. How many monsters / chars could kill 6 models regularly?

Zoned wrote:
4) Terrain was a female dog. Avoid at all costs. Failed charge into a wood? Say goodbye to that unit, you'll never see them again.

Wich mean't that terrain actually counted for something, and you could even use it to help get rid of all those "scary" units that you disliked so much. But that would mean that you actually had to think to win the game, right?

Zoned wrote:
5) Constant arguing in top table tournaments about how far a wheel was during a critical charge (not the free wheel that closes the door.)

Unless you guys are talking about some diferent free wheel that I'm misunderstanding, the free wheel after charge has existed from as far back as 6th edition...

Zoned wrote:
6) Gross imbalances in army books. Many tournaments having to give handicaps to "low tier" armies like Ogres and Orcs (as much as 25% extra points!)

That only realy hapened after the Daemon army book. If you take that away, the Fantasy has as many imbalances now as it had in 6th/7th.

Zoned wrote:
7) No missions. Always pitched battle. 2 editions of JUST pitched battle (except for tournament play.)

You're right on this one, but 1 good thing does not a good edition makes, much like the Daemon army book doesn't mean that 7th edition was a bad one.

Zoned wrote:
About steadfast:

Steadfast in one fell swoop (along with the new movement rules), killed all unit types that aren't monsters, warmachines and big old blocks of infantry. If you can't see how that is a bad thing for the game in general then I don't know how to explain it any further.

But fanboys will be fanboys. Fact is that 8th edition is destroying WHFB, it practically killed the tournament scene over here, AFAIK FoW and Warmahordes have even surpassed it in sale volume in the states. I used to have 4 WHFB armies, now I'm desperatly klinging to my surviving Dark Elves, hopping that 9th edition will bring back the game I used to love.

I stopped playing Fantasy because warriors of chaos sucked, and then they rocked, and now I think they suck again (because they have no uber monsters).

My Skaven and Dark Elf armies would do well in 8th, but from what I've seen, whoever casts Purple Sun of Xerxes first wins. Also I do not own any Hydras or Hellpit Abominations.

Besides, who wants to rank up and paint all those rats?

I've been playing various Warhammer games a long time across most of the editions. I think it's fair to identify a couple general trends in the design.

In one paradigm units and play generally stay within the framework of the core game and in the other special rules and unique exemptions define an army book or unit ability etc.

In this second paradigm things are often added with extreme variants of risk, for example: kills iteslf on a 1 on a 6 extremely effective.

Some people like this design, and think it's fun, some don't. Im in the dont category.

It seems from what I have read that this edition of WHFB is in the second design paradigm, role double 6s for magic phase and win (to the exclusion of other facets of the game) and that's where the problem lies. AT least for me a fan of the 1st design paradigm not the second.

I quit the last edition of WHFB after playing a game vs empire where a Volley gun misfired, and then shot 30 shots, killing a black dragon and rider, and causing 2 other units to flee after the morale checks. Off a MISFIRE that wasn't a game, that was a single outlandish rule.

Those kinds of games aren't fun. There wasn't any strategy, no one could account for the extreme luck. It effectively ruined the whole game because of a fluke in the rules.

While that was a rare result in the last version it seems like many games may turn out this way in the new version because of the slanted magic phase.

Perhaps some people will find that exciting, I find it random and meaningless, why set up all the troops if it's all decided by magic...?

No thank you.

Worglock wrote:2nd edition also had the "Great Equalizer" known as "Mr Vortex Grenade".

I was always ok with my friends putting as much of their army into one guy as they good. It made "pick that gak up and get it off the table" much more satisfying.

Wrong, displacement fields and dodge saved from Vortex Grenades. So, it became oh my assassin is going to win the game for me since they can dodge the vortex grenade on a 4+ and displacement fields on a 3+.....and in the old rules you could stack saves and equipment, so you could give an assassin a displacement field.

Though, Vortex grenades were ridiculous. If you didn't play an army of the Imperium and didn't have access to assassins you were just screwed. Cannot tell you how many times my hive tryant fell to vortex grenades.

The vortex grenade, at best, is a band-aid approach to fixing a broken rules system.

I nearly cried after playing 8th with my VC, and finding that Fear and Terror were slightly less than useless. Great, the backbone of the armie's effectiveness and ability to actually win combat (and not just tarpit the enemy) evaporated. Sure the magic phase is nice for VC to spam units, but at the cost of their infantry's effectiveness, no thanks.

Other then the nerfing of Fear/Terror;

1) Steadfast: Sure, large units should have a Ld bonus to represent strength in numbers. But when you build a 5 model wide, 10 rank deep unit simply to be steadfast from now till eternity, it makes a unit undefeatable without the gimmic "Hit every model" spells. Used to be that a flank/rear charge could actually cause issues with the above example, and that's exactly what was it's counter (instead of the spells). Now, unless you spam your effective heavy cav (Not an option for VC at least, and iirc prohibitively expensive for most armies apart from Empire and Brets), your flank charges are basically swinging wifflebats.

2) Magic: Yup, even as a VC player I bitch about magic. Why? Because it's gone from being too predetermined (6th and 7th ed caster spam for Power Dice) to being f-ing random. Random isn't too bad, but when a player has about a 50% chance of getting enough dice to toss off their Lvl 6 OMGWTFBBQ!1! spell of their Lore, not counting channeling and magic items, the big spells go from being "I'll be lucky if I can cast this at all this game, or I'll have to design my entire army around getting off the big spells" to "Well, I rolled a 6 and a 1 for Winds on turn 1. Say goodbye to [Insert stupidly valuable unit that would fare well against anything but this spell]"

If winds of magic was 2d3 instead of 2d6, or if steadfast meant you didn't get a Ld penalty to your break test (Instead of the unbreakable as it is atm, iirc), then I'd probably play. Until then, I'll stick with 40K (Which has its own set of wonderful, stupid issues)

darkPrince010 wrote:...40K (Which has its own set of wonderful, stupid issues)

NO WAY 40k doesn't have any issues, just last night I played against a....

oh

Grey Knights army.

Ya ok you win.

I've heard much flak against GK, but have never played them to offer my own opinion.

SW/SM/BA and their drop pod spam, on the other hand, can go jump off a cliff and die (Although half of them would land automatically at the bottom anyways).
People complain about abuse of Tau's Positional Relay army, when it's basically a drop-pod army in reverse (Around half of the army shows up on the last turn, instead of the first...)

Honestly, I find 40k a heck of a lot more boring these days. Everyone only players different flavors of MEQ or DE.

My main army is 'Nids and laboring to break open rhinos/razorbacks(or trying to even reach them through ungodly amounts of GK/SW firepower) gets boring fast.

Not to mention that playing against DE is a waste of time since any half competent player will take out your hiveguard with his 4+ Dual Cannon Venoms and 15+ Lances; and then proceed to pick your army apart from long range with ease as you shake your fist at him.

I know I'm sounding bitter, but I also play Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons and GW spat in their eyes long ago as well. It just seems these days that GW hates you unless you are one of their poster-boys.

8th took everything I hated in 7th and removed it. No more shadestars, no more Hydras auto-breaking any unit they wish, no more Chaos/Bloodknights rofl stomping what ever they liked, no more alternate dimension trees(face it, any unit that ended up in terrain was out of the game), no more 8 1/2 inches shuffles daring the enemy to come into charge range. To name a few. 8th does have some issues, but it's tons better than 7th.

Viva la 8th!

Tzeentchling9 wrote:...playing against DE is a waste of time since any half competent player will take out your hiveguard with his 4+ Dual Cannon Venoms and 15+ Lances; and then proceed to pick your army apart from long range with ease as you shake your fist at him.

Seconded, I found the DE army to be completely undercosted due to poison. I had similar results in a recent game and I was playing BA versus them, they actually had enough firepower to shoot down, SAnguinary Guard FNP unit, in a turn, AND outfight all the assault squads.... Egregious codex creep.

Really, 8th is almost amazing. They just need to tone down the Winds of Magic nonsense into something a bit more reasonable (Big spells are still an option, but you can't rely on getting them without adding a lot of casters for channeling), de-nerf Fear/Terror (Maybe not to previous levels, but at least so low-Ld troops will get sorely beaten msot of the time in CC, instead of simply being WS1), and making Steadfast a bit more balanced (Become harder to break by a good degree, but not unbreakable. Perhaps +1 Ld per rank above 2 to break tests caused by lost combat, to a max of Ld10? If you lose by 2, but have 8 ranks, you'd save your Ld 5 on a 9 instead or something.)

Oh, that and everyone needs to take a lighter and burn Teklas out of every High Elf army book they can find...

I agree that the fear/terror change is sort of dumb. I like steadfast, especially on cheap horde units. In reality a unit of 5 to 10 elites won't have an easy time taking down a unit of 50+ low level core. Sure, it is possible, but it would take them several minutes to chop through the unit, and the unit itself would not be that afraid until the numbers are highly dwindled. I think it could be tweaked, but complicating it any further would be a mess.

I think that Magic needs a revamp. I play as Lizardmen, and Slann are my generals, in fact if you play LM and don't take a slann you are really putting yourself at a disadvantage. I have had spells wipe my blocks of saurus because I didn't have enough dispel dice, and I have had miscasts blow up tons of lizards.

However, in retrospect, I like the new magic system because it is also risk versus reward. Sure you can toss enough dice at a spell and get an irresistible force, but you pay the price. Since LM basically rely on the Slann to deny the enemy mage (initiative based magic is BAAAAD!) 6s and hopefully get the lizards up close enough to attack, and hopefully survive since they always attack last.

I wish you could just give them great weapons.....makes more sense that way since they always strike last anyway.

Believe it or not, some people actually like building and painting models. When you have a deadline, in can seem like a chore. But I probably set aside an hour or so a night to chip away at my developing army. After a week of work I can really see the progress, and after a month I've almost always added two or three units to my army. I find it extremely cool and rewarding. After all, I got into table top games because of the cool models in the first place. I love the game/rule/strategy, but I was initially lured in by the minis.

I also have many friends who have legions of plastic armies who complain about how much work it is to build/paint. I liken building and painting to working out. Make some time, and you'll see the results.

"2) This is a gross exageration. And most armies with low Ld had various ways of making up for it."

Really? Some armies were Ld 9 (Empire, Brets, Orcs, Ogres, Beastmen...) Failing panic is a 1 in 6 chance. Not great when a key unit ran because you effective rolled a "1."

"3) This is an outright lie. Charging a fully ranked unit means that you would need to kill 6 models to even win combat by 1. How many monsters / chars could kill 6 models regularly?"

Bloodthirsters, Hydras, HPAs...you know, the popular ones. Besides, you didn't always want to win the first round. Win/lose narrowly the turn you charge, grind away a rank, break them (hopefully) the next turn and potentially cause more havoc.

"4) Wich mean't that terrain actually counted for something, and you could even use it to help get rid of all those "scary" units that you disliked so much. But that would mean that you actually had to think to win the game, right?"

It'd be nice if you didn't have to resort to veiled insults, but hey, it's the internet, I understand.

My problem with forests in the older editions was that they did too much. They were death traps. A foot regiment goes in for whatever reason, and it never came out or took forever to get back into the game. That is too extreme, IMHO.

Forests today play a vital role: they de-steadfast your opponents. A lot of people forget this. At the club I play at, there are almost always 2-3 forests mid field, and it forces those steadfast units to move around them, since 20 guys or 50 guys get beaten just as easily in a wood.

"5) Unless you guys are talking about some diferent free wheel that I'm misunderstanding, the free wheel after charge has existed from as far back as 6th edition..."

Not the "free wheel" to close the door. The one wheel you were allowed to make when you charged. That was not free. And very often it was critical. And anal players would quibble over half an inch to an inch since it could make a difference.

"6) That only realy hapened after the Daemon army book. If you take that away, the Fantasy has as many imbalances now as it had in 6th/7th."

And VC. Dark Elves and Lizardmen were close to tier 1 back in 7th. Armies are far more balanced now in 8th, especially with the release of the Tomb Kings and Orc army books. Every army has close to a real fighting chance. Some armies are still stronger than others, but not by the margin they were in 6th/7th.

I play Cygnar and Skorne in Warmahordes. I'm building a Cryx army around Venethrax (love the model.) I find the game ok. At the end of the day, 35pt games are not the scale I enjoy, and the mechanics aren't great for beyond 50+ points. My favorite game they produce is Monsterpocalypse, since it's the exact opposite of 40k/WM and does the Monster on Monster combat very well.

More comments later as I have to go to work!

Zoned