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.

I hate to give props to the guy after the trashing he does to WC, but he's put into words here very eloquently some of what I've argued (or in many cases been afraid to argue in avoidance of being ganged up on) with my local gaming group for years....

Stelek wrote:A lot of people seem to think that Fantasy is a game of chess and 40K is the simple game of checkers.

Well, I'm here to tell you just how wrong you really are in that assumption.

Fantasy is the game of checkers, and 40K is the game of chess.

Why do I think so?

For several reasons, I'm going to do a comparison of the game systems and illustrate why I think this way.

Movement: In 40K, movement is normalized AND unenforced.

What that means is, everyone moves in set patterns--there are no 'elves move 1" extra' nonsense anymore. Everyone has the same move if they are a specific unit type.

Unenforced means you can move anywhere you want to, in any direction. Fantasy doesn't do that, and that's the biggest issue making Fantasy a game of checkers. If you really think you are that bright and can 'see' how well the game goes, well...hate to break it to you, but you aren't as bright as you think you are. Do it in 40K. Can you visualize where all the units will be in 3 turns? In Fantasy, it's very easy to do because the game is so simple. The checkerboard is laid out for you after deployment. Either you are fast or you are slow. Your moves are dictated at deployment. Think about it. When you are all done setting up, are you lined up across the board from your opponent, your army facing off against his in a 36-44" spread in the middle of the table? Now think about 40K. What happens if you do that in 40K against a good opponent? You lose. In fantasy, you don't lose when you spread your entire army out and run right at the other guy. In fact, if you don't do that...people will call your army 'beardy' or 'cheesy'. Funny how that works, eh? If you decide not to play checkers but want to play chess, no one will want to play you. Very funny indeed.

Shooting: In 40K, shooting is a part of every army AND unrestricted.

What's this mean? In 40k, with limited exceptions (like if you are immobilized) you can fire in any direction with any unit. In Fantasy, you can't do this. That's not a benefit "because the game system makes you think", frankly the game has removed thinking. You can only fire out your front 45 degree arc. You can't fire if you move. Etc, etc. Are the gunners in Fantasy slowed? They can't turn and fire? Are you slowed too? Do you find the act of turning and firing so incredibly taxing that you just cannot do it, and need to take a breather after making not just a turn of 90 degrees but even a turn of 20 degrees so Bob, Jim, and Phil down the other end can 'see' and fire? Hey, I get it. It's a representation, it's a game. Pretend for a moment how Fantasy would be if you could move and fire (albiet with a penalty) instead of having all these restrictions on it and modifiers for those few units that can actually move and fire. Yes, you can move small amounts and fire--but 40K does it better, by allowing you to take a move and fire. Fantasy has a similar concept, you can march (or Run, in 40K) and you cannot shoot...but you cannot do it effectively in Fantasy because of the 'only see out the front arc' nonsense. Back that bad rule up with the can't fire in ranks unless I'm on a hill nonsense and all of a sudden you have a shooting element in the game that is very very static. In short, it's checkers.

Magic aka Psychic Powers: While not in the same place as it used to be in 40K 2nd edition (Dark Millenium) where it was overpowered, in 40K it's not nearly as all-or-nothing as it is in Fantasy but on average it's much more balanced. Sadly, in Fantasy magic is either too powerful or too weak. Teclis? A bit too powerful. For you 40K players, imagine being able to fire out 4 lashes in a turn and the enemies psychic hood is worthless. How fun would that be?? Now imagine the other spectrum, where you have the ability to cast a S4 AP - attack but only if you roll 8 or less on 3D6 every turn and if you fail...you spent all those points for nothing. Sounds even more fun, yes? It's also very limiting for game balance. Some armies have the former, but most have the latter. How can it be a game of chess when most of the pieces necessary for a chess game aren't there for BOTH players? I have a pair of kinged checkers, you have 1 checker. Hey, fun AND balanced? Not even close.

Assault: In 40K, units are not huge wastes of your money like they are in Fantasy and actually contribute to assaults in a real way and not an illusion of contribution.

All you 40K players need to know is +5. That's the standard combat resolution you need to beat against a ranked up unit. What I think of as the super checker piece. It starts 'kinged', ok?

Now imagine the normal frontage of any given unit, it's 5 models on average. Those 5 models on average have 6 attacks (1 per model, +1 for the single champion). Well hey, that's quite a dynamic and interesting system. I guess if I charge you and get to go first, if I roll enough 4+'s to hit and to wound, and you fail enough 4+'s...maybe I'll get a +1 pip in my favor. How exciting, you use your Generals LD and you have a BSB nearby...forcing you to roll a 8 or 9 with a re-roll if you fail. Hey let's get flank charges (hopping the checker pieces) and see if we can dramatically change the numbers by removing your ranks and giving me a flank charge bonus--that's a swing of 4 right there, which makes it even more likely you'll break and flee.

Imagine every unit in the game of Fantasy that is a ranked unit, is full of Imperial Guard conscripts. They can overwhelm you with numbers, but that's all they have going for them. Sadly, they can only move straight forward and can only charge forward. Without flank charges or super characters in the unit to beat the odds...you can throw checkers at each other all day, but if you've played checkers lately you should know how dreadfully boring that actually is.

So, all units fight in CC with the average dice rolls being equal to Fantasy (3+ to 5+ to hit, 3+ to 5+ to wound) yet the fights in 40K are not only deadlier they are easier (quicker) to resolve.

I don't know about you, but if all I can do is move forward...shoot forward...and I run like a girl from big scary things...how exciting is this game system?

Not very. Don't think so? War of the Rings. Go play that and see. Hey, been a fun 1 second game. You lose.

No, I don't recommend you buy the figs or the game...just saying, it's quite faster than Fantasy and far less a game of power checkers. lol

You need more unrestricted movement in 40k because there's lots more shooting going on on the table.

I agree that the magic in WFB is generally all or nothing. And much of the time there are so many modifiers to shooting that it isn't effective. Oh, and psychology is crazy powerful.

Haven't played War of the Ring so I'm not sure if you're trashing it or not.

The use of "slowed" multiple times certainly is an eloquent way to describe things...

As for War of the Ring, it's kinda your happy medium between the two main systems. You still have your ranked up units like in fantasy with specific facings, but you get the ease of moving in any direction so it's simpler for those stuck in the 40k mindset. There's no need to plan your movement multiple turns in advance to be sure your in the right area of the field facing the direction needed to not get slaughtered.

It addresses most of my gripes with the game. Once I saw that you can only move forward(really? Come on), and that the vast majority of models you bought ended up being completely useless, I figured that it wasn't worth my time.

You can move in any direction you want in fantasy, but due to having tight, uniform ranks, it detracts from your total movement to move backwards or to the side.


Frankly I see this quote as even more reason why Fantasy gets the chess of them.

movement

40k gives you equal distances and the ease of moving in any direction instead of having to think about how your units will interact wit each other to allow all the pieces to fall into place.

shooting

Those "slowed" men not being able to pick up their muskets, turn around, reload, and aim (as they aren't train for dozens to hundreds of years to hit spot on every time like a marine) are just regular folk with adequate at best skills with a firearm. Same goes for having to run with that big, heavy firearm as well.

magic

Magic does NOT win you a game, play some games and find out for yourself.

close combat

That magic 5. 3 ranks, banner, and outnumber. Of course your not going to charge your unit with one attack each straight into another fully ranked unit, theres too much chance for loss. Again, a proper knowledge of the game would help in understanding the tactics. There's reasons to units having different weapons, magic banner allowances, and including characters.

*edit*

I play both systems, and will be playing War of the Ring as well, so I do not have a grudge against any one of them, but I understand how huge of a difference there is between them. There's really no fair way to compare fantasy and 40k as there are really no similarities aside from the to hit and to wound tables

I think Stelek's in favor of WotR, or at least prefers it to Fantasy.

Personally, I find the "tactical" chauvinism between 40k and Fantasy a little ridiculous. Neither game is in a position of such tactical brilliance as to lord over the other.

So it's:

40k vs. Fantasy
"Unrestricted movement and targeting = Better!"

40k vs. Warmachine
"Unit level targeting = Better!"

40k vs. Chess
"Diversity of armies = Better!"

40k vs. The Constitution
"d6 it = Better!"

40k vs. the Bible
"Fewer books consolidated and no more Chapter Approved = Better!"

malfred wrote:So it's:

40k vs. Fantasy
"Unrestricted movement and targeting = Better!"

40k vs. Warmachine
"Unit level targeting = Better!"

40k vs. Chess
"Diversity of armies = Better!"

40k vs. The Constitution
"d6 it = Better!"

40k vs. the Bible
"Fewer books consolidated and no more Chapter Approved = Better!"

Damn straight!

Except for the constitution one. Remember, Warhammer's made in the UK. They have no written constitution there. I figure they already D6 it over there.

It's incorrect, logically flawed and betrays an ignorance of historical combat.

@ Deadshane:

You know, give props if you feel it is required, but honestly, anyone who needs to trump up why his flavor of little plastic/metal men is better than someone elses flavor and then attempt to justify it on the internets, is just wang wavin to wave his wang.

Enjoy your game. Take pleasure in playing it the way you want and for the reasons you want. Let the other guy enjoy his game his way and leave your wang in your pance.

Shotgun wrote:@ Deadshane:

You know, give props if you feel it is required, but honestly, anyone who needs to trump up why his flavor of little plastic/metal men is better than someone elses flavor and then attempt to justify it on the internets, is just wang wavin to wave his wang.

Enjoy your game. Take pleasure in playing it the way you want and for the reasons you want. Let the other guy enjoy his game his way and leave your wang in your pance.

Thank you for the "I'm not going to contribute to the discussion and instead take a stand against people conveying their opinion" post. Useless, but thanx.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's incorrect, logically flawed and betrays an ignorance of historical combat.

Ignorance of historical combat is largely irrelevant concerning the purpose of the quote. If the quote is incorrect or logically flawed....why?

Tizz wrote:magic

Magic does NOT win you a game, play some games and find out for yourself.

Many many people would disagree with you.

Thank you for the "I'm not going to contribute to the discussion and instead take a stand against people conveying their opinion" post. Useless, but thanx.

i think thats what you would class as a stand and shoot reaction


40k does have alot more freedom, but WHFB does have some better qualities
things like save modifiers are great, also, penalties to shooting make sense, allthough coversaves tend to deal with that in 40k.



Edit:

Many many people would disagree with you.

in WHFB magic is do or die.
if you dont take any, your fethed, magic heavy armies like VC and elves are a pain in the ass and will generally blow away half your army if they chose to go magic heavy.
it DOES win you battles, which is why people do it.
allthough the dragons have dragged people into more fighting than magic recently, which i have no objection with since my skink hate auto-hits from magic :K

When you consider that many excellent fantasy players see "deployment" as one of the main things in WHFB that 'wins' you the game, its rather hard to refute Stelek's logic on 'movement' concerning both systems.

His point on magic also really hit home with me. I've never liked the fact that if you dont want to "play magic" you're at an instant major disadvantage. Perhaps its to large of a part of Fantasy, but if you dont want to "play Psychics" in 40k, you really dont have to.

For the record, I REALLY like Fantasy....I like 40k more, but fantasy is a great game as well.

I find WHFB to be more organised and less chaotic than a 40k game (not really my idea of "War", but whatever...), but as far as complexity...the only thing more complex about Fantasy is figuring combat res. The tactics of the game arent more complex than 40k by any stretch.

Edit: Please do not insult other users (past or present). --yakface

I quit fantasy because of the magic system and the fact the your supposed uber leet unit would loose combat to pure trash units with bad rolling and break. I also hate the way fear works in Fantasy.

I'm trying very hard to put up with WHF mainly because 40K has just become a dice rolling game and depends all on forcing your opponent to take as many saves as possible.

40K has much more flexability in that you can move around the board with your whole army.

It doesn't depend on uber characters deciding combats by themselves.

All the miniatures I buy (with points and cash) will have some effect on the game, not just add +1 to my combat res in groups of 5. "Hey I just spent another 20 bucks for +1 combat res!"
That just really gets me, not all of the models I spend points on will actually get to fight?

One other thing, the latest trend in WHF seems to be deathstaring. WTF?! I build one crazy huge unkillable unit and just wipe my opponent while giving up no VPs?!
Maybe its just me, but that hardly seems like strategy

Ignorance of historical combat is largely irrelevant concerning the purpose of the quote. If the quote is incorrect or logically flawed....why?

Historical combat underpins all wargames because war works according to certain inevitable physical and human rules. For example, long range weapons have longer ranges than short range weapons, and untrained troops keep shooting each other in the back.

If you are not aware of these conditions, you can’t discuss wargame rules on a serious level. The quote uses comparisons of the shooting ability of 40K and WHFB units.

The logical flaw is that WHFB is somewhat similar to Chess in the regard that the units in both games are strongly differentiated according to types which restrict their movement and capturing (combat) abilities. The relatively free and similar movement and combat abilities of 40K units more resemble Checkers (Draughts) in which the counters are all the same. (It’s not an exact comparison, of course.)

It is arguable whether wide open choices or restricted choices make for a better game. Sid Meier said a game is a series of interesting choices. To have choices there have to be restrictions. The question for the player is what degree of restriction is more interesting. It is true that in WHFB, the restricted movement makes it easier to predict an enemy’s attack. It also makes it harder to make a good response, whereas in 40K you are open to an unpredictable deep strike anywhere, but equally you can send your own deep strike just as easily.

It seems to me that it’s irrelevant to say that one game is more ‘intellectual’ than another, since the value of a game to its player is primarily the enjoyment of playing it.

I know 40K’ers have taken a lot of crap over the years from WFB players who considered your game “simple.” I’ll admit to being one of those 40K players who jumped ship from late 40K V3 to play WFB V6, and then turned up my nose at 40K as “a kid’s game.” But, that had not much to do with who was playing 40K, and had mostly to do with how I felt the game had been adversely changed from the good old V2 days. And, I still think that 40K sucked from the V3 Rhino Rush through V4. It had too many clunky fixes to self-induced problems, and not enough emphasis on tactics. Meanwhile, WFB V6 was the best version of that game system. Clean, simple, tactical.

Well, after many years away, I’m back. I don’t care for a lot of changes to WFB V7. Now, it has clunky fixes that are not much fun to play, and they cause major imbalances between armies. And, it appears to be getting worse. Meanwhile, I like almost all the changes to 40K V5. I love the way that common sense solutions have fixed lot of the problems. I like the way that missions and objectives have kept the game “tactical.” I like that this is a clean system that is fast and fun, and still a challenge. Yes, over time, the designers, and the more competitive players will monkey with the game, and new armies will get special features that break the core rules, and all of these will screw things up. It’s the GW way; they have to fix what ain’t broken so that there is a reason for a new version of the game. But, for now, I think you guys have a real nice thing going here.

You no longer need to argue about which game is checkers or chess. That's not what makes your game better. Y(our) game is better because it is more fun. The silly article that started this thread completely misses that point.

Checkers and chess is essentially a moot question as boths systems are as tactical and as deep as your opponent base. When playing 40k against good opponents I am constantly presented with interesting/difficult decisions. When playing against bad opponents I rarely have to switch off autopilot.

An annalogy that I like to use is poker-
To the lay-person it's all about luck, yet the same group of people seem to end up on the final tables of all the big tournaments. Are they just constantly lucky, or is there more to the game than is originally obvious?

On the topic that magic doesn't win you games, I think Vampire Counts and Tzeentch Daemons (with or without Fateweaver) and in some respects High Elves and Tzeentch Chaos can win you a game purely on the strength of your magic.

Both games I think have absolutely degrated at this point.

I gave up 40k when 5th hit, but I was hardly playing at the end of 4th.

Having played WHFB for a while now, there are a number of issues with that game as well. Some of Stelek's comments actually have merit, though it's hardly all spot on.

40k has the problem where I can roll entirely too many dice at the other player. So much so that the limitations of the D6 system can be forced out such that your heavy infantry (Termies) can fall before the withering hail of small arms fire, or exactly what they're supposed to be resilient to.

Really, the main problem with WHFB is that those big block units are rarely worth using, partially because there's some truth to what Stelek says - Blocks suck because of restricted movement speeds, LOS issues, and the amount those things can be dictated by the opposing player.

Of course when you get down to it, 40k isn't a much better game. Things are just as broken and everyone has just as many "useless" or "no-brainer" choices. It's just broken in a different way than WHFB is.

Wow! Stelek really does have a talent for talking out of his arse!

Evidentally, having read his blog a couple of times when he promises to thrash anyone at any game, he doesn't include Warhammer Fantasy in that rather sweeping statement.

Fantasy is a game of synergy, far more than 40k. Magic rarely wins you the game. It's just too random. He mentioned Teclis as an example of game breaking Magic. Well, thats what Mr Skinny is meant to do, and lets take a look at his points....475, and a Lord choice, for a single model whose whole use is for Magic. Thats one hell of an investment, almost a quarter of your army at 2,000. You bet your sweet bippy he'd better pull his weight. He is WS3, and T2. I could bung some light skirmishers into his unit, chop his girly face off, and rake in a huge tally of VPs.

And now to take apart Stelek's rather childish arguements.

Unrestriced Movement Vs Restricted Movement. Both have their advantages as system, but I prefer the more restricted movement. I am then forced to think a couple of turns in advance. I know my limitations, I know yours. So how best to take the advantage? Well, perhaps I have invested in Harpies or a similar unit. I'll send them up behind your lines to slow your advance to a crawl. All I need to do is to avoid your Skirmish units and they should be okay. If your troops are faster than me, I will probably Castle in a refused flank. This means if you have set up in a long line, your speed advantage is reduced, as the extreme flank will have to move some to come get me, and the close flank can either charge me piecemeal and be torn to shreds, or spend a turn or two dillydallying waiting for the extreme to close ranks.

Shooting. Yup, thats the point of the game. It's all well and good having lots of shooting, but if I am a better player than you, I should be able to avoid multiple LoS to my unit, greatly reducing your effectiveness. Loved the bit about Move or Fire. Absolutely loved it. In the...14 armies out there, I can think of precisely 6 ranged weapons which are move or fire. Crossbows, Handguns, Long Rifles, Repeater Handguns, Ratling Guns and Warpfire Throwers. Bows, Longbow, Shortbows, Repeater Crossbows, Leadbelchers, Pistols, Repeater Pistols, Javelins, Throwing Axes, Poisoned Wind Globes, Blowpipes are ALL move and fire. Every single one. For the most part, you get -1 to hit the enemy. Not that deadly. Some don't even get this and are meant for high speed gallop by shootings (how I LOVE my Pistoliers). So already the cracks in his knowledge are showing. Besides, shooting achieves something very different in Fantasy than it does 40k. In 40k shooting can wipe out enemy units in a single turn. In Fantasy, it's about tipping future combats your way. Knock off a single model from a ranked unit, and you have the advantage. They only have 2 scoring ranks, you have 3 and now outnumber. Thats a 2 point swing they will struggle with. Artillery is an odd kettle of fish. Some simply offer cheap anti-infantry firepower, others are best against big stuff, and in rare cases (Repeater Bolt Throwers) offer a good mix of the two.

Combat. Ah yes, the single greatest phase ever in Fantasy. This is make or break time. This is when the activities of the previous turns bear fruit. If I have played better than you, things should be in my favour from the outset. Your best units are either completely avoided, or weakened by Magic and Shooting. Your other units face me on MY terms. Flank charges are commited to, and the dice are then rolled. Only a crap Fantasy player goes into something even vaguely resembling a fair fight. See above for the application of Firepower. Even Heavy Infantry will struggle to bring back a two point res deficit without a supporting character. Characters can go some way to guaranteeing a favourable combat outcome, which is why I prefer to put them in my more mundane units. They need the help more than Heavy Infantry, whose combination of superior WS, Armour and usually a better weapon will help carry the day.

And Magic. Absolutely 100% nowhere near as deadly as you might think. Just like shooting, it's all about stacking the future odds in your favour. Direct damage spells are very rarely used round my way (YMMV!) as we instead prefer our buffs. For example, WAAAAGH! is a lot harder to cast than 'Fists of Mork' or Gorks Warpath. But given the choice, I'll always try for WAAAAGH!. 2D6" extra movement for all my units, reroll hits in combat, and get to strike first. Whats not to like from that bad boy? But first, I need to roll it up as a spell. This spell seems to like me, and my three Shamans usually manage to have at least two between them. And of course, I have to cast it. Thankfully, this is one spell I am happy to cast at anytime, given it's useful extra movement. This forces out my opponents Dispel Scrolls, which is always a good thing. But you do NOT need Magic to win. Well, unless you're an inherently magic based army, like VCs or Tomb Kings. Spellcasters are extremely expensive, far more expensive than a combat character. Invest in Magic heavily if you wish, but you had better hope it pays off, as the points I didn't spend on Wizards went on other, hittier things. Mass combat is generally joined on turn 3 in my experience, so you better make good use of the 2 or 3 turns you have (depending on who went first you see!) before my lads come and have a word.

Someone mentioned Deathstar Units. What a totally ridiculous concept. Seriously. Dumb dumb dumb. So you've put ALL your character and most of your points into a single, easily avoided lump of weak? Fair enough. I'll have it sorted in a jiffy. One unit of Pistoliers, with Empire Captain armed with Lance, charging your rear. So far the best you have is +2 combat res (Outnumber and BSB). I reckon I can do way more damage than that. But hey, thats not the point. The point here is to do a little bit of damage, lose the combat, and watch you turn your back on my entire army. Works even better if you happen to hate my troops, as then you MUST pursue. Same with Frenzy... Deathstars are gak idea. Utterly, utterly gak. All eggs, on basket. Even if my trick fails, it can only do so much damage. Everyone up rounds it's flank so it can't see us, and instead pick on the piss weak remains of your list, and let the artillery have a field day..

I'm sorry, but Stelek has shown a shocking lack of knowledge about Fantasy. Now, if he prefers 40k, then fair enough. Each to their own. I'm not going to criticise his personal preferance. BUT, to call people slowed and generally look down upon Fantasy players, thats called being an overopinionated cock.

Wow MDG, you've got quite a few good points in there. Though to be honest I have to disagree with you on two main points:

Magic - Magic absolutely wins games all on it's lonesome.

In general, you're right it's mostly too fickle to win games all on its lonesome. The problem is that many WHFB armies CAN, and absolutely DO win games (and tournaments) based on their magic phase.

This is a combination of problems between Magic's high-reward/high-risk design in the core rules and GW's perennial failing - Army Book Balance.

When specific army books can remove most if not all risk from the magic phase, but still reap huge rewards - then your magic will win you games.

VC do this right now, they're probably the best army in WHFB or at least tied for that spot. They break a large number of crucial Magic Rules, and are utterly reliable with game winning spells (magic movement).

Daemons do this to a lesser extent. They have the ability to spam direct damage spells in ways most other armies can't counter. Their main issue is that they can combine great magic defense and a credible offense with the most powerful CC machines in the game - because they break a core convention in the game - having Wizards only come from character slots.

Warriors of Chaos also do this, though to a far less extent than the other two and with far, far less guaranteed reliability. Regardless, Gateway & Buboes spam have won tournaments in both the UK and US.

Deathstars

You're also incorrect here in terms of it always being a bad idea. In general, yes, it's a terrible idea - for the reasons you mentioned.

But (sadly), the GW Development Team's incompetence overcomes your optimism.

In my mind there are two "Death Star" armies that can be built that don't follow your conventions. VC & Dark Elves can build Death Star's that do not suffer the problems you're discussing (being redirected, ignored, flanked, etc) - and truth be told it's probably more about VC doing this than DE can.

DE can build a ridiculous "Shade-Star" that works as a credible super-unit that is near impossible to destroy. It can be made to project incredible force in any direction at long distance (shooting), is resilient against shooting & magic, and is a beast in combat as well. The biggest "problem" is that the unit can indeed be beaten by a few armies if they setup exactly the wrong situation for that unit to be in - and even then it's still hard to "win".

For VC, the Regen Banner and the fact that they can heal troops and have access to easily spammable magic movement mean that assassination runs don't work so well on the unit, redirection means little (magic movement), and they can project significant force. These kinds of armies have won multiple national tournaments in the UK & US, with different units serving as delivery systems for all the characters & regen banner (Grave Guard, Black Knights, and ironically, Dire Wolves).

Daemons can build mini-death stars with Nurgle, though those are easier to counter than the previous two, so I don't count them. Still, the "great wall of nurgle" is one of the more annoying WHFB builds to play against and is hated as much as most other Daemon builds. Mainly because most normal armies don't stand a chance against it.

Dark Elves shouldn't really get anywhere with Deathstars (by the way, your description seems to be different from my understanding. I thought it was a singe unit, usually Heavy Infantry, stuffed with as many characters as possible?)

They all have Hatred, meaning I can sacrifice a unit at an opportune time, pulling said Deathstar out into a veritable killing field. But as I said, my understanding of what a Deathstar is might be causing my confusion.

Magic. Well, VC's have always been noted as being good with Magic. But there are ways and means of dealing with them (I kind of play dirty. Played VC's at my Recruitment Day and nobbled his General in the first turn!). But oddly, and some might consider this splitting hairs, it's not entire ARMIES that are beardy or unsporting, it's specific lists, and those I am happy to say are in the minority. As ever, remember my frame of reference is one of a non-Tournament Player, so bear this perspective in mind. Daemons don't scare me at all. They are tough cookies for the unexpecting, true. But their main weakness is the speed diversity in the list, small unit count, and other than Plaguebearers, not being terribly hard to kill. T3 isn't great, and event though it's a Ward Save, 5+ is fairly weak. The biggest difficulty people face with Daemons in my experience, is fearing* to bite the bullet and just get stuck in. Pussy footing around is not the way to handle Daemons. Get stuck in, pick your fights, and try to engage as many units as possible to prevent him bringing up reinforcements.

*Ah yes, Fear, Terror, Panic etc. These to me MAKE Fantasy a great game. It makes more sense to me to be scared of a 16', Winged Daemon, and possibly decided fighting it is a stupid idea, than give it a round of applause and wait for it to charge. But hey, Horses for Courses. I still don't think Stelek is that up on Fantasy, hence the fairly wild inaccuracy of his statement. But each to their own. If he doesn't like it, fair enough. I'd rather people who don't like a game or find it to their tastes play something else. It means my opponents are less likely to whinge their way through a battle. But he made the fundamental mistake of claiming his way to be the only way, and insulted those of us who enjoy the game.

Though he is correct about War of the Ring. It kicks arse!

There is far more luck involved in a game of fantasy than a game of 40k.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Dark Elves shouldn't really get anywhere with Deathstars (by the way, your description seems to be different from my understanding. I thought it was a singe unit, usually Heavy Infantry, stuffed with as many characters as possible?)

They all have Hatred, meaning I can sacrifice a unit at an opportune time, pulling said Deathstar out into a veritable killing field. But as I said, my understanding of what a Deathstar is might be causing my confusion.

Death stars are basically the same problem Nob Bikers are in 40k.

Super Unit you can't kill with the vast majority of stuff in the game, and it projects force very effectively. Meaning you MUST deal with it if you want to win.

Heavy Infantry actually are only one kind of Death Star and aren't even that great of one in comparison. The only one is Grave Guard, but that Death Star can be done with Dogs or even Skellies in a smaller form of it.

For DE it's like 40+ Shades in one unit, MR3, ItP, ASF, with Great Weapons, Assassins, Unkillable Pendant+Armor Lord. All have RxB's and BS5+. Add Dark Riders, harpies, and Hydras to provide support and you've got a death star DE list. When you're talking about upwards of 100 shots at BS5 or better per turn (and on stand and shoots!), that skirmishes, it's a death star.

Magic. Well, VC's have always been noted as being good with Magic. But there are ways and means of dealing with them (I kind of play dirty. Played VC's at my Recruitment Day and nobbled his General in the first turn!). But oddly, and some might consider this splitting hairs, it's not entire ARMIES that are beardy or unsporting, it's specific lists, and those I am happy to say are in the minority. As ever, remember my frame of reference is one of a non-Tournament Player, so bear this perspective in mind. Daemons don't scare me at all. They are tough cookies for the unexpecting, true. But their main weakness is the speed diversity in the list, small unit count, and other than Plaguebearers, not being terribly hard to kill. T3 isn't great, and event though it's a Ward Save, 5+ is fairly weak. The biggest difficulty people face with Daemons in my experience, is fearing* to bite the bullet and just get stuck in. Pussy footing around is not the way to handle Daemons. Get stuck in, pick your fights, and try to engage as many units as possible to prevent him bringing up reinforcements.

Look man, if you're not going to talk about playing hard ass armies, then you're not talking the same kind of language that Stelek is attempting to speak.

Magic Wins Games. VC do it, Daemons do it a little worse but still do it, Warriors of Chaos do it worse than both of them - but when it works it WORKS, and 2nd Gen Slaan lists used to do it before they were nerfed out of existence. Of course it takes an optimized list, but it also requires books that allow those lists to happen.

In terms of Daemons, I don't think you're playing the same things the rest of us are talking about. You can't kill an Obsidian Armor Blood Thirster without shooting it to death, and magicking it to death isn't gong to work well either (mostly). Optimized DoC armies don't take the T3 5+ ward stuff that fights. They take the T4, 2W, 5+ Ward stuff that fights, or the T4, 2W, 5+ Ward stuff shoots, avoids you, and then fights pretty well back at you when you do catch them. All the other stuff you're just not killling - T6 3+/5++ monsters that negate magic weapons, or T4, 2W 0+/5++ Heroes.

The T3 5+ ward stuff either isn't meant to fight (and thus makes it hard to get to them), or flies around making it very hard to engage.

*Ah yes, Fear, Terror, Panic etc. These to me MAKE Fantasy a great game. It makes more sense to me to be scared of a 16', Winged Daemon, and possibly decided fighting it is a stupid idea, than give it a round of applause and wait for it to charge. But hey, Horses for Courses. I still don't think Stelek is that up on Fantasy, hence the fairly wild inaccuracy of his statement. But each to their own. If he doesn't like it, fair enough. I'd rather people who don't like a game or find it to their tastes play something else. It means my opponents are less likely to whinge their way through a battle. But he made the fundamental mistake of claiming his way to be the only way, and insulted those of us who enjoy the game.

Ah yes, Fear, Terror, Panic, etc. All the things that the "broken" armies in WHFB don't play by, and in fact - cause in other armies while not caring about it themselves.

You're right in that Stelek doesn't know exactly what he's talking about in WHFB. A large number of the things he's brought up on the few times I've seen him discuss the subject have been off the mark. Though to be fair, he does know enough to make valid points about some of the flaws in the system.

I still don't see the wisdom in Deathstars, but then, I never saw the point in the previously much vaunted MSU.

My main point of favour in Fantasy stems from there being very, very few things in the game which cannot be taken out in combat, even with the most basic troops in the game.

But like any system, if you set out to break it, it will be broken. So to use the extreme examples of what might happen as the norm is extremely misleading, and smacks of Stelek just trying to big up his opinion to those who don't already play.

This is a very difficult topic to leave unlocked because of Stelek's past history and his 'straight-to-the-jugular' opinions means that this thread is almost certainly going to contain digs at him rather than on the topic at hand.

As he isn't here to defend himself please make sure to refrain from disparaging him no matter how much you may think it is warranted.

If that proves impossible, this thread will be locked.

Fair enough matey skip.

But I think my points can be transposed to almost all knockers (huh huh. I said knockers. Twice) of any game system.