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.

Kilkrazy wrote:I would be interested to know how many of the people who dislike fantasy have played any historical Ancients/Mediaeval games and what they thought of it

Oh jeez, I was intentionally avoiding this, because I know it sounds like "WHFB IS DUMB BECAUSE; real world stuff" but hear goes. I played a lot of other rule sets and I don't like WHFB at all.

I have a HUGE load of reasons I hate WHFB from playing a variety of Historical Wargames, most of the contention comes from issues where WHFB players who haven't played anything else have no idea where all the WHFB concepts came from, I'm talking about formation movement, figure scale, army creation etc. here goes:

Command Rules: There aren't any command rules in Warhammer, EVERY block movement game worth a dang has them. It's what separates the great armies from the poorer ones in any historical period modeled by block movement. All WHFB armies are the same, it's just not even in the book. Imagine how hard it is to control an army of thousands with runners, messengers, flags, horns and paper...

Frontage is WRONG: In every historical game, frontage is a big issue, for the unininformed readers frontage relates to model scale and formation, basic traditional formations are 'formed', 'ordered' and 'loose', meaning disciplined ranked infantry shoulder to shoulder, (like Roman Legions), loose infantry (like tribal Gauls, early French), and loose, (like skirmishers) These are usually represented by progressively bigger base sizes, remember, when a figure is representing 50 models, the size of the men doesn't matter at all compared to how close they stand, and tightly packed infantry, is the best formation for kill power per frontage, and is why, Spartans, Romans and many others ruled their day because only trained units can do this. Warhammer determines frontage based on the size of the models, with an arbitrary 20mm, 25mm, and 40mm frontage, for essentially no reason other than building the models, this couldn't be more wrong from a historical perspective unless you just quit using bases all together!

Formation is wrong: As described above, formations represent man density and training, essentially in warhammer, everyone (read 'all armies and troops') is identical. The use of standards and musicians is to enable and assist with formed units to march, which is a rare show of discipline in the ancient and medieval context. Musicians wouldn't really be any benefit to Ork Mobs for example... However there is no reason any race couldn't train skirmishers, formed and loose order infantry.

Scale is Undefined and Vague: Warhammer Fantasy doesnt have one, parts of the game play like a 1:50 man per model scale, and other play like a 1:1, the game doesn't make sense unless a scale is agreed upon. Ground scale and Time Scale aren't even determined, how long is a turn simulating in real time, or a game? A day, a minute, a week?

Rates of fire are crazy: Cannons reload and fire as fast as short bows? This is patently absurd, a shortbowman can put an arrow down range every 3 seconds, it takes about 60 seconds to fire a cannon, with a good crew. Riflemen are similarly slower to load as are crossbowmen, even if they are smaller bows with lever arm loaders or cranks.

Medieval Artillery is poorly represented: Gun carriages are very advanced technology (Wheels, and frames) and medieval technology didn't have these innovations, even with them, a gun like that has to be blocked and dug into a position, and can not be easily aimed beyond about a 30 degree arc. WHFB artillery fires 360 degrees and even at aerial targets, which is impossible for those kinds of guns. Medieval artillery of the time period closer to WHFB, were cannons placed on dugout mounds and roped down. Rarley used in meeting engagements...

Flying Rules are ludicrous: If fantastical creatures existed that could be domesticated like horses it would break the very foundation of block movement and war. Flying monsters are ridiculous, to make them balanced they should be much more rare, or at least weaker, or vulnerable to shooting and spears.

Characters: Assuming a figure scale of 50:1 characters that kill units are absurd, no man can fight 50:1 ods. Clearly we are talking about the fantastic here, but the real inspiring part of heros is the effect they have on the men around them and under their command, but with no command rules, all we are left with is a never ending variation of Conan. Characters are there for commanding, rallying, communication and inspiration, all things that Warhammer barely has any rules for. Julius Caesar didn't wade into the front Ranks Slaughtering Gauls in all his battles...

Banners: Banners are largely for commanders to identify their own units, and other men in the army to have rallying points. They should have a role in command and control and be cosmetic, the way they are in warhammer is ridiculous. Furthermore hiding magic banners is ridiculous, "the colors" of a regiment or unit would be famous throughout a campaign, hiding a magic banner in a unit in WHFB is laughable.

Cavalry is all wrong: Since there are few "grand tactical" rules in WHFB, and abysmal rules for shooting, light cavalry is completely ridiculous. Light cavalry were the eyes and ears, and messengers of almost every army sine antiquity. Generally, whichever side has more ought to have a significant edge in at least the disposition of units if not also the set up the battlefield because thats what light cav are really for. No rules in WHFB exist for this at all. On the battlefield Light cav are for flanking, and chasing down fleeing units or closig avenues in retreat, generally in WHFB they are just another shock unit, or used for feinting.

I decided to stop, I figure by now you will have quit reading anyway, either agreed, or gotten confused and branded me a critic.

twistinthunder wrote:I try to collect fantasy armies as much as possible but:

A) most of the armies i would consider getting haven't got very good models for their core units.

B) i can't help but find it boring to paint like 20 models all the same and thats 1 unit!

C) plaguebearers, metal models, 5 to a pack, im probably only going to be interested in a mono-nurgle list so it's a waste of money if they're going to release plastic soon.

other than that i'm all for WHFB.

troll forged miniatures alternatives plague minions.

http://trollforged.com/shelf_alternative_Devils.html

Cryonicleech wrote:I realized my absolute hate of armies with metal special choices.

Freakin' $100 for 1 unit my @$%...

They're fixing this, but older armies with no plastic updates really make the S*** hit the fan.

Play Empire. I understand GW just made Greatswords in plastic. Just for you!
____

Augustus wrote:Characters: Assuming a figure scale of 50:1 characters that kill units are absurd, no man can fight 50:1 ods.

Yeah, but a Character with his hand-picked retinue of 50 dudes should do pretty well...

Otherwise, good critique.

BTW, what do you think of Warmaster?
____

Polonius wrote:the game simply isn't very fun.

Finally, 28mm is a stupid scale for a wargame. Great for skirmish games (like 40k), but if I'm going to paint ranks of infantry, I'd rather paint 15mm guys.

Have you looked into Warmaster? Or B5A?

Augustus, I really enjoyed your post. Thanks.

For the longest time, the big issue for me was that I hated how you had to have an extra plastic tray you had to buy just to move your units. And its not as easy to set up a story in fantasy like it is in 40K. Doing a fun mission line Broken Alliance in 40K is near impossible in fantasy as if you have all that cover and story terrain, it becomes near impossible to move or do anything.
I just started because all my friends are playing, but seriously doubt Ill go past 2k points. 40k is just faster paced and less model management.

Thanks guys, I wanted to ad generally:

I know that sounds like a brutal lambast, it was intended as such, but also...

I love the concepts of WHFB, I love the minis, I love the art, and the stories and the paintings and the long game history of it, I even think the armies are spectacular, if they are all painted!

For me it just fell apart in play (see my game descriptions further back).

So if you think my critique was to harsh, I can concede a little, I understand, it is only an abstract game. If you like it, go for it!

I'd need a lot more models to play WFB. I already have all I need for W40K.

Having said that, I will play WFB at some point. I might even start collecting Skaven when the new book comes out next month, and I will certainly get 500-750 points of Chaos together at some point so I can play doubles.

I agree with you Augustus about many of the concepts lacking and do need fixing. I would wait for the next rule book to see if they solve many of the old probs. And really you gotta look at fantasy warhammer as that fantasy. It's tales of heros and dragons and super gods and all that good stuff. How they do it all is not suppose to make sense lol.

I find the army lists to be far too abusable. It's cool that they have so much variety, but when you end up facing mostly armies of fliers, skirmishers, chariots, cav, light cav, and nary a normal rank or flank -- it all becomes kinda silly. I mean, if I want to play a medieval-styled game -- even if it's in a fantasy setting -- I want blocks of infantry to influence the game more. I like WAB much better in this regard.

And to kinda echo what some others have said, WFB almost feels like an algorhythm at a certain point. Do certain things and the equation will spit out a victory. And when this isn't the case, it's because you're losing games based on a single blown dice roll or fluke. I feel like a game of 40K has more tension and "fight" from beginning to end. With 40K, it's much more likely that you can get beat early on but fight your way out of a corner and pull a game out of your a$$.

This isn't say I hate WFB...it's just that my only interest in the game is at a very friendly, casual level.

CajunMan550 wrote:I agree with you Augustus about many of the concepts lacking and do need fixing. I would wait for the next rule book to see if they solve many of the old probs. And really you gotta look at fantasy warhammer as that fantasy. It's tales of heros and dragons and super gods and all that good stuff. How they do it all is not suppose to make sense lol.

Sure, it's a Fantasy Battle. You are right. Let me take another direction with this though, in a moment...

gorgon wrote:I find the army lists to be far too abusable. It's cool that they have so much variety, but when you end up facing mostly armies of fliers, skirmishers, chariots, cav, light cav, and nary a normal rank or flank -- it all becomes kinda silly. I mean, if I want to play a medieval-styled game -- even if it's in a fantasy setting -- I want blocks of infantry to influence the game more.

Indeed the fantastic elements are more appealing. Let me give some insights into other games I have played that introduce concepts beyond army construction, set up and order of operations, that may help me illustrate why I don't like WHFB as much as I might like and what other games do that is very cool:

I played a game once where there were cards that controlled the events, for say, traitors, or friendly fire, or undisciplined charges. These cards were singular one time game events, when played, they would change the battle slightly. Imagine what a large challenge might be had when the unexpected, but plausible, enters the game in a situation like that.

In another game I played there was a non standard move sequence, one side would move/shoot/assault a single unit, then the other side would do the same, this made for a much changed experience, as opposed to move your entire side, it no longer mattered who went first or second at all, and is a much better abstraction of time.

I once used cards to control the phases of another game, this was a bit od, but interesting because without the certainty of incremented turns one couldn't always be sure, opportunities might slip buy.

In another game I played we set up our armies on maps, in our deployment zones without seeing the enemy at all, only reading their orders of battle. Then all the players set up their units and the game started.

In another game I played we used a curtain to divide the table and had both sides set up blind based only on a survey of the table and the objectives it contained.

In some games the commander changes how the army works strategicaly because of his presence.

Rules for weather are in some games, wet powder, unit fatigue and things beyond the control of either side.

One game I played had a control radius for the general and his units, they couldn't move if they got to far away, and an enemy cavalry attack tried to kill him and cut his chain of command by killing the sub commanders who were relaying the orders.

Another game I played had rules for daybreak and darkness, it effected the ranges of firing and enemy detection on some turns, this changed the normal game quite a bit.

See what I mean?

Sorry.. WFB isnt allowed to have special mission rules as that would totally demolish the entire purpose! Which is to set up 12" from the board edge in a nice line and attack..

again...
and again...

/sarcasm

If WFB managed to make a system which made the game different every time I would like it more.. or somehow get rid of the regiment system for EVERY UNIT

trained human soldiers fight in the same way as demons from the netherrealm?? What did EVERYONE in the ENTIRE world go to the same training academy?

Hmmmm... I stopped playing after 4th ed. for one reason explained in two examples:

Reason: They (unneccesarily) changed too much.

Example 1) With the release of Ravening Hordes (the hold-over catch-all army points lists until books were released), my 3500 pt. Beastman army (incl. 2000 painted tourney army) became less than 2000pts. They reduced Gors to half-points and gave them only one wound and they forced mixed Gor/Ungor units.

Example 2) Doing away with the Winds of Magic in lieu of the stupid dice rolling.



That said, I have been itching to play some after all these years. I bought the basic rule book and, much to my dismay, the stupid dice-rolling magic phase is still there...



Ghidorah

Hmmm, a combination of factors for me. A desire to make new 40k armies, already playing one fantasy game (two large and one small Warlord II armies), and a horrible inability to pick any one army (which in turn leads to point number one). I've got a couple of friends who might start, so I might too.

I love the look and fluff and armies of WHFB, but

- takes too many models (money, time) to make an army in most cases

- I found the rules hard to absorb just reading them. 40k and Warmachine made sense but WHFB I found more difficult to follow.

does the war of the ring address any of these points? and to answer someone one page back, i don't play fantasy but have played (though i don't consider myself an expert in) DBA, DBM, FoW, and a very little known one called Spear and Shield.

Wait wait wait, if the Dwarf Player is MOVING up the damn field, then he's not playing correctly (Unless he's running one of those "Oh look, offensive Dwarfs List)

I found a Hardbacked 1st Edition Fantasy battle book. It got me thinking about the game as it is today. The biggest issue I have with fantasy is that, as time progresses, and the models get better, the overall game rules and general tone really is... restrictive.
Along with that, you pretty much know that you are going to play and out and out game against someone with a generic army anymore.
The game is now just a matter of selling models only. Not anymore about the gamer making an army to suit themselves.

YOU are now either empire, or chaos, or elves, or orks. period. Gone are the days of variety, with a roll of the D 100 table for a clever ally, or a strange addition to the game.

I miss the oldschool hogshead/ fantasy battles connection. Even if the old stuff wasn't that great to look at, I loved it for the sheer character of the minis. Not to mention that they were 100X better then anything on the market.

I still have a load of fantasy, I am more interested in games such as Mordhiem, where you get a little variety in who you get to fight, and get some snacks along the way for the wins and losses.

Augustus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I would be interested to know how many of the people who dislike fantasy have played any historical Ancients/Mediaeval games and what they thought of it

Oh jeez, I was intentionally avoiding this, because I know it sounds like "WHFB IS DUMB BECAUSE; real world stuff" but hear goes. I played a lot of other rule sets and I don't like WHFB at all.

I have a HUGE load of reasons I hate WHFB from playing a variety of Historical Wargames, most of the contention comes from issues where WHFB players who haven't played anything else have no idea where all the WHFB concepts came from, I'm talking about formation movement, figure scale, army creation etc. here goes:

Command Rules: There aren't any command rules in Warhammer, EVERY block movement game worth a dang has them. It's what separates the great armies from the poorer ones in any historical period modeled by block movement. All WHFB armies are the same, it's just not even in the book. Imagine how hard it is to control an army of thousands with runners, messengers, flags, horns and paper...

Frontage is WRONG: In every historical game, frontage is a big issue, for the unininformed readers frontage relates to model scale and formation, basic traditional formations are 'formed', 'ordered' and 'loose', meaning disciplined ranked infantry shoulder to shoulder, (like Roman Legions), loose infantry (like tribal Gauls, early French), and loose, (like skirmishers) These are usually represented by progressively bigger base sizes, remember, when a figure is representing 50 models, the size of the men doesn't matter at all compared to how close they stand, and tightly packed infantry, is the best formation for kill power per frontage, and is why, Spartans, Romans and many others ruled their day because only trained units can do this. Warhammer determines frontage based on the size of the models, with an arbitrary 20mm, 25mm, and 40mm frontage, for essentially no reason other than building the models, this couldn't be more wrong from a historical perspective unless you just quit using bases all together!

Formation is wrong: As described above, formations represent man density and training, essentially in warhammer, everyone (read 'all armies and troops') is identical. The use of standards and musicians is to enable and assist with formed units to march, which is a rare show of discipline in the ancient and medieval context. Musicians wouldn't really be any benefit to Ork Mobs for example... However there is no reason any race couldn't train skirmishers, formed and loose order infantry.

Scale is Undefined and Vague: Warhammer Fantasy doesnt have one, parts of the game play like a 1:50 man per model scale, and other play like a 1:1, the game doesn't make sense unless a scale is agreed upon. Ground scale and Time Scale aren't even determined, how long is a turn simulating in real time, or a game? A day, a minute, a week?

Rates of fire are crazy: Cannons reload and fire as fast as short bows? This is patently absurd, a shortbowman can put an arrow down range every 3 seconds, it takes about 60 seconds to fire a cannon, with a good crew. Riflemen are similarly slower to load as are crossbowmen, even if they are smaller bows with lever arm loaders or cranks.

Medieval Artillery is poorly represented: Gun carriages are very advanced technology (Wheels, and frames) and medieval technology didn't have these innovations, even with them, a gun like that has to be blocked and dug into a position, and can not be easily aimed beyond about a 30 degree arc. WHFB artillery fires 360 degrees and even at aerial targets, which is impossible for those kinds of guns. Medieval artillery of the time period closer to WHFB, were cannons placed on dugout mounds and roped down. Rarley used in meeting engagements...

Flying Rules are ludicrous: If fantastical creatures existed that could be domesticated like horses it would break the very foundation of block movement and war. Flying monsters are ridiculous, to make them balanced they should be much more rare, or at least weaker, or vulnerable to shooting and spears.

Characters: Assuming a figure scale of 50:1 characters that kill units are absurd, no man can fight 50:1 ods. Clearly we are talking about the fantastic here, but the real inspiring part of heros is the effect they have on the men around them and under their command, but with no command rules, all we are left with is a never ending variation of Conan. Characters are there for commanding, rallying, communication and inspiration, all things that Warhammer barely has any rules for. Julius Caesar didn't wade into the front Ranks Slaughtering Gauls in all his battles...

Banners: Banners are largely for commanders to identify their own units, and other men in the army to have rallying points. They should have a role in command and control and be cosmetic, the way they are in warhammer is ridiculous. Furthermore hiding magic banners is ridiculous, "the colors" of a regiment or unit would be famous throughout a campaign, hiding a magic banner in a unit in WHFB is laughable.

Cavalry is all wrong: Since there are few "grand tactical" rules in WHFB, and abysmal rules for shooting, light cavalry is completely ridiculous. Light cavalry were the eyes and ears, and messengers of almost every army sine antiquity. Generally, whichever side has more ought to have a significant edge in at least the disposition of units if not also the set up the battlefield because thats what light cav are really for. No rules in WHFB exist for this at all. On the battlefield Light cav are for flanking, and chasing down fleeing units or closig avenues in retreat, generally in WHFB they are just another shock unit, or used for feinting.

I decided to stop, I figure by now you will have quit reading anyway, either agreed, or gotten confused and branded me a critic.

I hate to say it, but this was a great post. Not too over the top and well thought out.

right on target, so to speak.

Can someone organize this thread into a "top Ten Reaons Not To Play WHF"?

Redbeard wrote:
Dude, it's a dragon not an Iraqi guardsmen. And he's not fighting the most technological army the world has ever seen, he's fighting a ranked-up group of night goblins - squirrels with sticks. Why is the dragon running from squirrels with sticks?

Ahhh, I thought you were talking about a regular rank&file unit before. In the case of something like a big monster, yes, that doesn't make much sense. I've never fielded or fought one, but aren't most dragons ridden by characters with insane Ld, ItP, etc.? I think you'd have to whiff your Ld roll pretty badly for it to flee, which isn't much different from Kharn the Betrayer missing all his attacks on the charge. 10,000 years of combat experience in the service of the Blood God and the guy kills no one? What did he do, trip on a rock? (Does 40k still have rules for critical fumbles? Even when they did, I think Kharn had a special rule that made him immune to it.)

Redbeard wrote:
To some extent, this issue exists in 40k too. (For that matter, why are people 40,000 years in the future waving axes around??), but at least it's explained with technology (guys with swords teleport in next to you, or get dropped off by their spaceship).

If anything it's *FAR* worse in 40k. Most sword-armed units don't have teleporters (Berzerkers, Striking Scorpions, Blood Claws, Slugga Boyz, etc.). In a universe where small arms are reliable, lethal, and possess a decent range, none of these should be surviving to reach grenade assault range (<30m) with any consistency. How does a rational and well-led military force like the Great Crusade-era Space Marines (we keep hearing about how the Emperor and Guilliman are military geniuses) ever decide that giving troops chainswords (lethal range = 1m) was more tactically effective than giving them bolters (lethal range > 50m)?

40k doesn't encourage close combat, it encourages hand-to-hand combat. Weapons that should be effective in actual infantry close assaults (frag grenades, shotguns, breeching charges, flashbangs, etc.) are practically useless, and not just against power-armored Marines (which can be justifiably argued to be proof against weak blast fragmentation and bright lights) but against *everything*.

If the enemy is dropping troops from orbit, why aren't they just dropping bombs instead? Pretty much the only forces in 40k that try to occupy and exploit intact enemy economic infrastructure are the Tau and maybe the Orks. Everyone else can rationalize wiping the slate clean, so if you have starships in orbit why are you even bothering landing troops? Open up with the bombardment cannons and call it a day...

Augustus wrote:
Rates of fire are crazy: Cannons reload and fire as fast as short bows? This is patently absurd, a shortbowman can put an arrow down range every 3 seconds, it takes about 60 seconds to fire a cannon, with a good crew. Riflemen are similarly slower to load as are crossbowmen, even if they are smaller bows with lever arm loaders or cranks.

A lasgun has roughly the same combat performance as an autogun, but is more reliable and needs no ammo. If the same engineering principles can be applied, where is the laser equivalent of the SAW? or GPMG? Why do crew-served heavy weapons have such low rates of fire? Why are self-propelled artillery pieces (and with the new IG codex, now we have Theater Ballistic Missile Launchers!) present on-board in a front-line platoon/company-sized infantry skirmish? What's with the lack of effective air-dropped ordnance (FW's Thunderbolt carries 500lb bombs that are a measly S4 AP6)? Oh, right, that would be "game breaking" and render half of the game's armies useless (as they should be).

I hope my post doesn't come across as combative or anything, as I'm not saying Fantasy is a flawless game and I think this thread has brought up a lot of good points that I never considered. I just don't see how anyone can tolerate the issues I've mentioned above in 40k and yet essentially say "Fantasy is gak because bows don't kill knights" (and yes, I'm massively exaggerating the argument).

I was just reminded of another reason I don't play fantasy.

Terrain.

One of the things I enjoy the most about 40K is making terrain. I have endless amounts of terrain, the CoD Kits and the new Bastions are just awesomesauce for people like me, and I probably have more terrain that I can reasonably store in my apartment. I love making huge themed tables that tell a story.

Fantasy is... a hill or two... maybe some trees. And those nice medival buildings are just garnish - usually shoved off to the side as to not get into the way of the ranked people running at one another.

As a lover of terrain, Fantasy holds nothing for me.

That said, I do play Warhammer Quest, where the ranked bs and other stuff is removed for the sake of rule-of-cool heroic characters cutting their way through hordes of bad guys. That's the way it should be.

@HBMC: Sounds like you'd enjoy LotR SBG.

How the terrain is set up in any table-top game is up to yourself, unless it's a pre-written scenario or something. If you want terrain in the middle of the table, you can put it there! and it is not always a bad idea to do that. interesting how many WF players don't see terrain as an important factor, 'cause it really can be! Don't be so lazy

Rate of Fire is another abstraction in WFB. It's not entirely about how many times a unit can shoot, it's about the effectiveness of the shots, a cannon shot has more impact than a hail of arrows (the noise/psychological effect). Missile superiority was never a battle-winning factor on it's own. Yes, abstraction degrades a large portion of models to wound/morale counters... but these counters can look awesome. Better than just a few cardboard chits.

WFB takes more imagination in my opinion, especially nowadays, as it has become a bit flanderized for the sake of simplicity. Oh yes, it's more rigid in what you can and can't do, but with a bit of imagination, you can get around that.

"Don't nuke our imagination bro... woohoo!"

I love fantasy me.

Kilkrazy wrote:I would be interested to know how many of the people who dislike fantasy have played any historical Ancients/Mediaeval games and what they thought of it

I play a few. Admittedly not as many as other genres, but I do/have done a few.

My take: WAB works well (for me) for periods where typical encounters were in the orders of dozens of men and tactics involved shieldwalls and disciplined troops in the main (so say, the Late Anglo-Saxon period in England). It scores over WFB on gameplay because it has no magic phase and no uber-heroes despite otherwise similar mechanics. And real history>WFB fluff.

Similarly I am about to pop my Napoleonic cherry with TooFatLardies' "Sharp Practice" and Foundry's "Napoleon". Again "massed ranks" suite the period well and (short range and innacurate but devastating when it hits) gunfire has an appropriate place in the background.

My current fave period though is WWII. I love 20mm scale for this as it is dirt cheap and there are a massive range of models available. Squad-based tactics work well for this period so you can have a viable force that looks very much like a 40k one - a couple of AFVs and a couple of squads of a dozen or two members with a handful of HMGs and mortars. My personal favourite rules at the moment for this period are Mongoose's "World at War" for 40k-sized encounters and TooFatLardies' "I Ain't Been Shot Mum" for smaller ones. I plan to try "Flames of War" in the with my 20mm models at some point too.

My key criteria for whether games "work" for me are that:

1/ the background is engaging.

2/ the rules are not too complex and give a decent, fun game in a couple of hours. I prefer stuff to be intuitive and not too cluttered and gamesy. So things like GW's insistance on 2 (minimum) dicerolls before I know a wound has been inflicted irritates. As does having to be too precise about unit alignment and such. And "guess range" weapons bug the hell out of me!

3/ and the rules have to be "believable" (not necessarily "realistic" - I am a gamer not a simulationist and I prefer "fun" over "detail" any day, but the resulting gameplay has to convince me that the actions being taken by my models are sensible given the imaginary world in which they are operating - so cowardly troops fighting to the last man come what may, or close range artillery having only a limited effect on massed infantry to pick a couple of situations I have seen in various games over the years, turn me off.) If rules encourage behaviour that is anti-fluff then I don't want to know. Rules which (say) encouraged Napoleonic centre-companies to split into skirmish formation all the time would be a no-no.


[/soapbox]

Dronze wrote:I don't play Fantasy because it never really brought any appeal. I never saw the sense of lining up one's troops shoulder to shoulder to either charge into each other's lines or to shoot at each other. It makes no sense to me.

Ironically, that's how a lot of people play WH40k as well. In fact, my problem with WH40k is that it allows players to do this too easily with some armies/lists, rather than encouraging things like suppression, fire & movement and covering fire. It's come a long way since it was simply a modification of WHFB, but it could probably move a few more steps towards away.

That said, criticising either WHFB or WH40k for not being enough like their historical equivalents is ultimately a bit pointless - in the same way that it's pointless to point out all the scientific fallacies in movies like Star Wars and Aliens. Which isn't to say that some of the criticisms in this thread don't make for an interesting discussion (I too enjoyed Augustus' critique). However, the real question shouldn't be whether something is 'realistic' but whether it makes the game work better. I can live with WH40k's abstractions better than I can with WHFB's, because they generally seem to balance the game rather than unbalance it. The best example is close combat - while it's not realistic to have people battering each other with pointy sticks in a battlefield infested with guns, it makes for a more interesting and dynamic game which arguably encourages players to be more adventurous in the hope of achieving a decisive outcome. Conrast this with some WWII wargames, which usually devolve into a slow crawl across the battlefield because shooting is so lethal. Realistic perhaps, but after a while it just gets boring.

I started playing WHFB and 40k at the same time in 1990.

They have waxed and waned in enjoyment/painting/playing but I always come back to either.

WHFB is all I play now though as 40k 4th ed killed the game for me, just as WHFB was kicking but and taking names with its new streamined rules.

I DO play WHFB because of the rules (The Dark Elf, VC and Daemons have sorely tested me).
I DON'T play 40K because of the rules.

I've never played any medieval historicals, but I'm getting into Flames of War and I'm enjoying it a great deal. Closer to 40k than Fantasy, to be fair, but I'm starting to look outside the GW games.

Noble713 wrote:...

Augustus wrote:
Rates of fire are crazy: Cannons reload and fire as fast as short bows? This is patently absurd, a shortbowman can put an arrow down range every 3 seconds, it takes about 60 seconds to fire a cannon, with a good crew. Riflemen are similarly slower to load as are crossbowmen, even if they are smaller bows with lever arm loaders or cranks.

A lasgun has roughly the same combat performance as an autogun, but is more reliable and needs no ammo. If the same engineering principles can be applied, where is the laser equivalent of the SAW? or GPMG? Why do crew-served heavy weapons have such low rates of fire? Why are self-propelled artillery pieces (and with the new IG codex, now we have Theater Ballistic Missile Launchers!) present on-board in a front-line platoon/company-sized infantry skirmish? What's with the lack of effective air-dropped ordnance (FW's Thunderbolt carries 500lb bombs that are a measly S4 AP6)? Oh, right, that would be "game breaking" and render half of the game's armies useless (as they should be)...

Indeed, I completely empathize. I could level many of the same comparissons against 40k as well as fantasy. 40k doesn't really have groundscales either (though I think that the original rogue trader hardback said the scale was 1 inch is 6 feet, once upon a time).

I can't stand artillery in WH40k, also I made a city board, and ranges of man weapons get a bit wonky then, essentially most things shoot about 2 blocks, it looks pretty funny too. But then, if we are talking about effective ranges, under combat conditions, well I can see that's reasonable.

However:

Artillery? Infantry get 4+ saves for being obscured by, foilage?
300mm shells require 4 or more hits to kill a carnifex?
Things with 100s of inches of range have to be set up on the table?
No distinction between HE and AP rounds for ordinance, at all?

There probably shouldn't be any cover saves from artillery hits, unless it's fortifications... But, in apocalypse, they actually have the kind of bombs and weapons you are describing, D weapons, and l;arger templates, and they do vaporize entire units that would constitute the "end" of a 40 k skirkish...

I concede all of that, but, as a skirmish game, 40k works reasonably well, the scale is 1:1, the missions are challenging, the mechanics generally hold. In WHFB, most of the reasons to have a block and maneuver game are overcome by rules inconsistency, scale issues, flyers and the like.

Ive played fantasy once before. It must have been about 9 or 10 years ago (so what ever edition it was in then)
It seems like a cool game. Add to the fact I kicked my opponents ass! High Elves(me) vs Empire. I had a crap ton of archers, just killing his lines, and when he got in close I came in from the flank with some elf people on horse back.

Anywho, I dont play it mainly because I A. Dont have the cash to up and start a whole new game, and B. no one I play with wants to play fantasy. And since Im stuck in my ways, I dont want to go looking for a group, just to play fantasy with.