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.

It makes no sense to say it's unbalanced because of magic since pretty much everyone can get magic except for Dwarfs. Unbalanced means one side has an advantage. If everyone has it, that can't possibly be true.

They even use magic TO balance. Infantry stars are hard countered by magic.

You could say the game is more unpredictable because of magic. Because there's an awful lot of randomness, from spell determination, power dice, casting values, etc. But the game has dice in it to begin with. It is not impossible for a single skaven slave to kill 50 dragons in a row. Just unbelievably unlikely.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:but everywhere else I keep hearing "The game is unbalanced because of magiiic!"

I think most of those players are ex-40k players or converts.

Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:but everywhere else I keep hearing "The game is unbalanced because of magiiic!"

I think most of those players are ex-40k players or converts.

Possibly, I play both so I like both systems. I actually wish Psyker powers were more awesome, I mean you hear tales of a simple psyker controlling an entire planet and than you get things that are meh.

I don't think the game is unbalanced because of magic, I think it's unbalanced because randomness plays more of a role now that it ever has before. Manuver and facing matters less. Outdated books show their age far more now than ever. Because of these reasons, I would say that COMPETITIVELY speaking, Fantasy is dead. Without being able to acheive consistant results (and I have never been able to do this and I was running a campaign in 8th ed, so I have easily played over 30 games of 8th ed just for that campaign alone) you can not plan a strategy. Too many times two players could play the same lists in the same way and acheive ridiculously different results, all because of the far more random nature of the game. Manuver and planning is out. Run that way and "Kill em all!" is in. That isn't fun for me.

"Run that way and kill them all" is in for the armies that can do it. Many armies just shatter when they try. Any elf, Brettonia, Skaven, Empire, and Tomb Kings all MUST maneuver to get favorable matchups or they tend to loose. Even among armies like Vampire Counts, Lizardmen, Ogres, and Warriors of Chaos, only certain units can sweep across the field and destroy everything they touch.

I'll grant you that Steadfast being unbreakable (aside from bringing a bigger unit) makes maneuver somewhat less decisive... but it is still very much a part of the game, I assure you.


Yesterday I won a small local tournament using a unorthadox (as far as I've seen online, anyway) DE list:

Supreme Sorceress, L4 (Shadow), Sacrifical Dagger, Pendant of Khaeleth, Lifetaker

Death Hag, Battle Standard, Cauldron of Blood
Sorceress, L2 (Fire), Dispel Scroll

14 Spearmen, Full Command, Standard of Discipline <- Supreme Sorceress goes here
20 Repeater Crossbows, Full Command <- Sorceress goes here
19 Corsairs, Additional Hand Weapon, Full Command, Sea Serpent Standard

2x5 Harpies
Assassin, Additional Hand Weapon, Manbane, Rending Stars

2x10 Witch Elves, Musicians
2x5 Shades, Additional Hand Weapon <- Assassin goes in one of these units... usually

Nope, no Hydras. Not even one. No big hammers, not even any real anvils.

Long and short.... EVERYTHING in the army is expendable at need, with the sole exception of the Supreme Sorceress. I throw those Witches into combat with (seeming) reckless abandon, knowing they will loose and be slaughtered... but that any survivors will likely hold with the Cauldron nearby. The Harpies might flee from combat a lot, but when I think it will do me more good for them to hold I have no problem letting them die. If I think the Shades and/or Assassin (or even Harpies) will kill enough to offset their losses, I'll throw them into a sucidal flank or rear charge. The Corsairs usually shatter themselves on a hard combat block as well.

But each and every one of those units take their toll, along with shooting and magic. By the time the endgame rolls around, much of the enemy's strength is either severly weakened or dragged clear across the field from the real meat of my army is. And then the Crossbows and Spears get to move in and finish the job.

And how do I make this magic happen? By putting each one of them in a place where they inflict more damage than they suffer. By putting them where their deaths (or flight) moves the enemy out of position. In short, by MANEUVER.

There's something to be said for a certain degree of chaos. Risk management can be an arena for tactical choice. That's where magic comes in. You don't get to know exactly what's going to happen. You don't know which weird spells your opponent might get off. But, you do know how hard that spell is to cast, how many dice your opponent is throwing at it, and how good his wizard is at casting, and you know how good your wizard is at dispelling, and how many dispel dice you have. That's tactics. Personally, I like that the various phases have different degrees of inherent chaos.

Nagashek wrote:you can not plan a strategy. Too many times two players could play the same lists in the same way and acheive ridiculously different results, all because of the far more random nature of the game.

I think you misunderstand planning and succeeding. You can always plan for something. But randomness is going to happen. That's not peculiar to wargames or war or even life--what's that old Jewish saying, the easiest way to make God smile is to tell him you have plans. What you do is try and make best conditions for success to happen.

But ridiculously different results? No, not unless you roll ridiculously different. If both generals roll average, which is likely, they will have roughly the same results doing the same actions. That's just math.

40K I consider the opposite of this. You can LOOK at 2 lists before you put a piece on the table and at least sometimes know who will win. The game is far more deterministic because you can have units that simply cannot hurt other units. You can have a million billion trillion orks against a land raider but if they don't have AV, they will never hurt it. Everything can hurt everything in WHFB, which actually makes it more reliable and deterministic. Because 2/3/3/1 attributes, as sucky as they are, mean you can expect X result against Y situation within the standard of deviation.

I saw Wood Elves beat Ogre Kingdoms the other day, anything is possible for me now.

If you want real opinions, talk to real people, not the internet. The really good players in my area disagree with about half of what is popular opinion anyway. I recently heard magic referred to as a "noob killer" by a guy who places well in lots of events.

Not trying to sound authoritative, just trying to provide some counter-point here. And if you want to call a game that can easily end in 2 turns "balanced," then by all means stay away from the Warhammer community