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.

As the subject says, I'm looking to start WHFB up as a secondary hobby when my FLGS starts an escalation league in the next month or so. I understand that Fantasy is all about deployment/movement compared to 40k, but what other differences are there? Some of my main questions are:

1. Does it cost more/less to get a reasonable army up and running than 40k?
2. Do the games tend to be longer or shorter?
3. How important is your army list to the outcome of the game?
4. Are any armies overplayed? (I'm an SM player and would like to avoid that in WHFB)
5. How strong is the WHFB community online?
6. When was the current edition released and how long until the next one?
7. What was the most recently released Codex and when is the next one coming out?

I'm debating between Lizardmen, High Elves, and Dwarves for my army. Are these all relatively "competitive" armies? Any ones much more expensive or harder to play than the others? It seems Dwarves tend to play defensively, but what about the other two? Do they have set playstyles or can their list be made to do multiple things? Are any of the codexes up for an update in the near future? Any information in general would be much appreciated.

1. Does it cost more/less to get a reasonable army up and running than 40k?
As you know , you get more infantry per box compared to 40k , but they generally cost less point wise.
to balance that , the characters usually cost a rather big chunk of points compared to 40k

2. Do the games tend to be longer or shorter?
Longer i think because setting up / positioning for charges / counter charges are less forgiving than 40k when failed

3. How important is your army list to the outcome of the game?
Very important because magic phase plays large part of games

4. Are any armies overplayed? (I'm an SM player and would like to avoid that in WHFB)
This is the part i like about Fantasy, a large variety of different armies and players

5. How strong is the WHFB community online?
No idea

6. When was the current edition released and how long until the next one?
I think... 2 more years?

7. What was the most recently released Codex and when is the next one coming out?
Lizardmen is current , next should be skaven


I'm debating between Lizardmen, High Elves, and Dwarves for my army. Are these all relatively "competitive" armies? Any ones much more expensive or harder to play than the others? It seems Dwarves tend to play defensively, but what about the other two? Do they have set playstyles or can their list be made to do multiple things? Are any of the codexes up for an update in the near future? Any information in general would be much appreciated.

1. Welcome to WHFB!

Now, for actual questions.

1. I'd say yes. Many 40k armies (Eldar, SM's, CSM, Tau) are cheaper.
2. Longer, for sure.
3. Unlike 40k, it isn't as important as it seems. No matter what you take, if you outmaneuver your opponent the game is yours.
4. Daemons of Chaos, for sure.
5. Not as strong as 40k, but the few of us will be happy to assist.
6. Not sure, sorry
7. Lizardmen

Between Lizardmen, High Elves and Dwarfs, I'd say all are fine. They're all great starter armies!

Of course, being a Dwarf Player and a Dark Elf Player, I'd vote for the Dwarfs. Easy, simple, uncomplicated firepower.

Gornall wrote:
1. Does it cost more/less to get a reasonable army up and running than 40k?

I would suggest looking through Army Builder (if you have it) or your local store and getting an idea of how many points troops et al cost. This will save you some time as you will know how much you'd have to buy. Check the stores/ebay/dakka trade as there are those who want to relieve themselves of armies.

Gornall wrote:
2. Do the games tend to be longer or shorter?

Depends on your point cost. What I've noticed is everyone has a base, and as you increase the points you just upgrade characters.

Gornall wrote:
3. How important is your army list to the outcome of the game?

Each army has something they're either VERY good at or are decent at a few things. If you understand your playing style, this goes a long way to determining what army you may want to play.

Gornall wrote:
4. Are any armies overplayed? (I'm an SM player and would like to avoid that in WHFB)

I agree with Luna here. WHFB really is a better mix of armies. You'll get a couple of people always playing what is just released, but most WHFB players I know just keep collecting the army they started with. Although I should have kept my DE and TK. . . .

Gornall wrote:
5. How strong is the WHFB community online?

Here is better than most. Maybe we'll get our own discussion forum

Gornall wrote:
6. When was the current edition released and how long until the next one?

WHFB as we know it came out in 2000, going through 6 and 7ed changes. It hasn't changed a whole lot since then. It's generally a better rule oriented product. Better than 40k any day.

Gornall wrote:
7. What was the most recently released Codex and when is the next one coming out?

I believe Luna is correct with Lizardmen and Skaven en route. Empire got a little love last month with some new boxes. Most people generally look "unfavorably" to Ogre Kingdoms, and Daemons are the current 8-ball cheese. Anywhere in the middle, just depends on the play style.

Gornall wrote:
I'm debating between Lizardmen, High Elves, and Dwarves for my army. Are these all relatively "competitive" armies? Any ones much more expensive or harder to play than the others? It seems Dwarves tend to play defensively, but what about the other two? Do they have set playstyles or can their list be made to do multiple things? Are any of the codexes up for an update in the near future? Any information in general would be much appreciated.

Lizardmen have good magic, nice figs, and different abilities. High Elves too. Dwarves are purely defensive due to lack of mobility, but they have great anti-magic, survivable, runes, and a great cost value due to Battle for Skull Pass sets.

I believe they should have Fanatics in every army though.

Thanks for the replies! I am probably going to start Dwarves because I always liked their fluff and being able to build it from the starter set is a solid bonus. That and I like the idea of having a set role, unlike my generalist SM army. However, does being slow make it hard for them to take/contest table quarters? Or are games generally long enough to allow the Dwarves to get where they need to go?

My only other concern is a lot of their models seem to be metal, and I much prefer plastic simply because it's easier to customize/convert. Also, is the Battalion a good buy considering the BfSP models?

Personally I would recommend against Dwarves as your starter army. They have the slowest movement and no offensive magic. You are a beast in hth and in the shooting phase, but you will be hard up to win any objective (or any movement based) scenarios.

Toughness 4 and base Ld9 goes a long way, but the stunty legs just didn't do it for me.

I would say your best bet would be to start with Lizardmen (well I would say Empire, but I have my prejudice towards them). Cold Blooded can keep even Skinks around for a while. Saurus warriors are beasts in hth. You even have the option to go magic and/or combat focused. The models have always been fantastic and a lot of the range is available in plastic.

Dwarves are a good choice, but you need to understand you won't be charging anything. BUT IF YOU DO, TAKE A PICTURE! Dwarves getting the charge is good stuff.

Before you buy anything, get the army book for whatever army you want. Really read it, think of some army lists you'd like to run and post them.

Play test with small armies so you can get the mechanics down first. Thunderers and Organ Guns are your friends

Organ gun and massed Thunderers are fantastic. If they could bottle the Organ gun into alcohol I would die from alcohol poisoning.

as far as starting fantasy, i feel that dwarfs are a good choice for a starting army, same with lizardmen.

One thing i have found with my dwarves is they tend to be win big/loose big, in aproximatly even amounts.


Opponent plays...
Fast, hard-hitting army? You loose.

Immune to Psychology? You loose.

Lots of small, low Ld units? You win.

To answer your questions:
1. WFB generally costs somewhat more because you will need many more guys.
2. WFB tends to take a bit longer, being more fiddly
3. WFB army lists are far less balanced than in 40k, so army choice and list matters a lot more than in 40k
4. Right now, there is lots of complaining about the "Big 3" (Daemons, Vampires, and Dark Elves) dominating Tournaments
5. Try The Warhammer Forum or some other square base bastion
6. WFB7 is 2 years old, should last 2 more years.
7. Lizards are most recent, Skaven are next.

Of your selections, Lizards and High Elves are probably the most competitvie. Dwarves are defensive, which is limiting to play style. Pick either Lizards or HElfs based on the models, and you'll probably do OK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Uriels_Flame wrote:WHFB as we know it came out in 2000, going through 6 and 7ed changes. It hasn't changed a whole lot since then. It's generally a better rule oriented product. Better than 40k any day.

No way. WFB has far more stupid rules questions than 40k ever will, entirely due to the fiddliness of block movement.

For example, TWF had a debate over this Charge scenario:

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=61876

That is completely slowed, and unique to the backwardness of the WFB movement system.

So several people are saying to stay away from Dwarves as a starter army... That makes me a sad panda. Are they really that much harder to win with than Lizardmen? I'm not going to play tournaments at all, but I don't want to hamstring myself for friendly matches (I tend to lean more towards the gaming than hobby side).

Well let's break it down a bit:
Cavalry: Dwarfs - No, LM - Yes
Flyers: Dwarfs - Yes (gyro, Rare), LM - Yes (Terradons, Special)
Skirmishers: Dwarfs - No, LM - Yes (skinks, Salamanders, Razordons)
Large Target Terror Causers: Dwarfs - No, LM - Yes
Offensive Magic: Dwarfs - No, LM - Yes
Yada, yada, yada the point is that LM have more options (in game) than Dwarfs. I think LM are nearly equal to Dwarfs in the Leadership field as Cold Blooded is very handy. Dwarfs have LM beat in terms of the Shooting phase and in general will strike before LM in hth, but LM have access to many units that make for an exciting game. The two most powerful list I've seen for Dwarfs are the Gunline and the Oath Stone of Death. I've tried a mix of hth and shooting with my Dwarfs, but I wasn't ever satisfied with them.

I'm thinking Lizardmen allow you to try a greater variety of units with special rules. They just make for a more exciting game than Dwarfs IMHO.

JohnHwangDD wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post:

Uriels_Flame wrote:WHFB as we know it came out in 2000, going through 6 and 7ed changes. It hasn't changed a whole lot since then. It's generally a better rule oriented product. Better than 40k any day.

No way. WFB has far more stupid rules questions than 40k ever will, entirely due to the fiddliness of block movement.

For example, TWF had a debate over this Charge scenario:

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=61876

That is completely slowed, and unique to the backwardness of the WFB movement system.

Hmm. You have one example of a movement issue. All I have to do is open the 40k YMTC forum, and I'll find a page worth.

Are Slann required for a good LM army? I'm just not a fan of their models, which is one of my big reasons for leaning toward Dwarves.

Slann are fat toads. I'd convert a Kroxigor for a Mage Warrior Priest. he's got to be as big as the hodah.

Uriels_Flame wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post:

Uriels_Flame wrote:WHFB as we know it came out in 2000, going through 6 and 7ed changes. It hasn't changed a whole lot since then. It's generally a better rule oriented product. Better than 40k any day.

No way. WFB has far more stupid rules questions than 40k ever will, entirely due to the fiddliness of block movement.

For example, TWF had a debate over this Charge scenario:

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=61876

That is completely slowed, and unique to the backwardness of the WFB movement system.

Hmm. You have one example of a movement issue. All I have to do is open the 40k YMTC forum, and I'll find a page worth.

The difference is that the WFB problem is a real problem that cannot be resolved within the WFB rulset.

The 40k YMDC stuff is almost entirely TFG-manufactured BS.

lol, you just made my sig list with that one.

But John, what about that "Librarian Termies can Sweeping Advance" Stuff goin' on.

True, it's a serious problem, but 40k has more Rules Lawyering (Perhaps due to more players?)

40k has more players, ergo, more players trying to poke holes at various minutiae and especially older Codices.

WFB has more *structural* problems tied to the ruleset itself.

This is primarily due to WFB being a few years older than 40k, so not being as cleaned up as 40k is today.

I was thinking that I might go with a starter army based off the Lizardmen Battalion Box. I think I figured it up and by adding a Scar-Vet and Skink Priest, I could have a basic army (even though it seems Temple Guard work best in Slann armies).

Get to know your core choices first. It doesn't take long, but WHFB is more about combat resolution vs actual "taking wounds". Lizzies have some of the best basic troops - S/T 4, 2 Attacks, 4+ save. All good things.

If you choose to go non-slann you can still get an Old Blood which is nearly equivalent to a Chaos Lord. You also have access to skink priests/chiefs and you also have the ability to mount them on Stegadons. LM also have a buttload of special characters if you ever want to mix it up.

I think if you buy the batallion box just use the Temple guard as Saurus Warriors for now. IIRC I think you can only use them if you have a Slann in your army.

You can use them without slann. You just don't want to.

Gornall wrote: 1. Does it cost more/less to get a reasonable army up and running than 40k?

The costs are about the same. An escalation league is aa good way to start an army so you’ll not get overwhelmed with things you want to buy and add to your army.

Gornall wrote: 2. Do the games tend to be longer or shorter?

I am just learning 40K myself, but from what I can tell, a 2K game of fantasy will take longer then a 2K game of 40K

Gornall wrote: 3. How important is your army list to the outcome of the game?

Fantasy is a lot more forgiving with mistakes in the list. Movement and deployment play more vital roles.

Gornall wrote: 4. Are any armies overplayed? (I'm an SM player and would like to avoid that in WHFB)

The main gripe about WHFB armies is the broken lists that people tend to gravitate towards. Right now the big 3 complaints are Dark Elves, Vampire Counts, and Demons of Chaos. My personal opinion is DE and VC are tough but not broken, whereas demons are ridiculous.

Gornall wrote: 5. How strong is the WHFB community online?

There are army specific sites that provide great resources. Sometimes though the bigger sites can be overbearing for a newb though. I think a site like Daka though has enough WHFB players to offer excellent assistance.

Gornall wrote: 6. When was the current edition released and how long until the next one?

We are in 7th edition and it has been out for a few years, but there are quite a few armies that have not yet received an updated book.

Gornall wrote: 7. What was the most recently released Codex and when is the next one coming out?

Lizardmen are the most recent release. GW did a good job on making them a competitive yet balanced army. Skaven are due out in November.

Gornall wrote: I'm debating between Lizardmen, High Elves, and Dwarves for my army. Are these all relatively "competitive" armies? Any ones much more expensive or harder to play than the others? It seems Dwarves tend to play defensively, but what about the other two? Do they have set playstyles or can their list be made to do multiple things? Are any of the codexes up for an update in the near future?

Lizardmen: A very balanced army with the option for a variety of lists. You can go magic heavy with a slann or combat oriented with a saurus oldblood.. They have very tough infantry and some unique units like stegasaurs, razordon and salamander hunting packs.

High Elves: Tough lists with very specialized units. The only army that allows up to six special units and four rare units. The units are expensive (points wise) and elves are a little fragile. They do have a steep learning curve though. Always strike first though is nice.

Dwarves: They are tough. Can muster obscene amounts of artillery, a dwarf gunline army is one of the tougher armies to face. Their units are excellent at close combat and have a high leadership. The only real drawback they have is their slower movement; that is the main reason why they have that stigma for being a defensive army.

I hope this helps and welcome to fantasy.