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 can be hard to get someone into Fantasy, as a game, at times. Most people will certainly love the look and lore, but the game itself can turn people away. Just imagine someone's reaction when they see you moving around blocks of troops, and then you tell them that only the guys in front actually get to do anything, and all the guys behind are just there for extra wounds. Kind of takes the steam out of it a bit.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It can be hard to get someone into Fantasy, as a game, at times. Most people will certainly love the look and lore, but the game itself can turn people away. Just imagine someone's reaction when they see you moving around blocks of troops, and then you tell them that only the guys in front actually get to do anything, and all the guys behind are just there for extra wounds. Kind of takes the steam out of it a bit.

While at the same time not an entirely inaccurate model for battles up through the 17th Century.

Heck, they used to arrange arquebusiers into battles that were sixty men wide and sixty men deep. The boyos at the back might never fire a shot.

Kings of War avoids that by treating the entire unit as a single model.

The Auld Grump

WayneTheGame wrote:

I don't get it myself. Fantasy seems like the superior game and I'd much rather play that, but I went with 40k because of how many people there are who play it at the FLGS. No point in starting Fantasy and having nobody to play with.

This is the problem. Everything else attributes to this situation. Less veterans are playing, or at least not playing it publicly, which leads people to think there would be no one to play with. I know several younger people (and others besides) who would love to play fantasy in my area, but there just isn't a player base for it in public. It's also kind of a catch 22, GW is all about 40k and anyone who thinks otherwise is daft or blind, but when you spam people with "Space Marines, Imperium, Horus Heresy!" all the time people are most likely to go with that than something else. The model thing is another, as some people just don't like blocks of models, the individual feel of each model in 40k seemingly more appealing. I don't tend to play fantasy much anymore as, even though I started in 6th edition the game has traveled too far away from what I enjoyed as a kid.

If WHF were just cheaper or easier to get into I might give it a chance, but as it is now, it's so much more expensive and time-consuming than even 40k is, and considering the rules aren't that much better...no.

Like others have said, blatantly halving the contents of boxes while keeping prices about the same is complete bs and only serves to push more people away. Collecting a Fantasy army was already a daunting task to begin with but now I'm spending a minimum of $70 to build just a single core choice for my Dark Elves? feth that.

I like the idea. I bought the 8th edition rules to read through. My problem is a lot of the models for the core troops on most of the armies are or at least look old as hell. Now if GW gives fantasy some love after there done spazing on 40k then my interest would perk up much more.

Where has the love gone?
Look at LOTR. Lotr players get nothing. They are the ones with no love and no care! My favourite game is lord of the rings and every day I see it slowly fade.
Now with warhammer: Plenty of new stuff, expansions, atencion and players.
Yes gw may no longer "love" warhammer as much as they did but its not that bad compared to lotr.

Fantasy is doing well in my area, but understand the complaints. Biggest issue I see with the games decline was the lack of books for almost a year after the new edition. The game was left to languish with abuses from older books and no new armies to build interest. How many games come out that are doing well after a year with zero support. Even great games fade after that point as people get bored. No new army books caused the scene to get stale and people lost interest.

I prefer this edition over previous ones because I was horrible at guessing ranges. Plus I don't miss the arguments over whether or not a unit was within 1/8th an inch or not.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Okottekoneko wrote:
someone made the point that kids like guns more then swords.

I doubt this is a very big factor. 40k's obsession with swords is one of the few things that sets it apart from other scifi universes, and assault units/armies are popular.

Yes, but you must admit that WFB gives you far less opportunities to make 'pew pew' noises. Think that's probably the main reason for the disparity in popularity.

Going by current trends, WFB players enjoy 8th edition while it lasts. 9th edition will no doubt focus heavily on a massive £50-70 plastic kit for each army, that drops pie-plates on those big units of infantry and kills anything under them on a 2+. The only sensible option will be to field at least 2 of them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Okottekoneko wrote:
someone made the point that kids like guns more then swords.

I doubt this is a very big factor. 40k's obsession with swords is one of the few things that sets it apart from other scifi universes, and assault units/armies are popular.

It is a big factor, just don't take the expression literally. Nowadays, it's cool for a 12 year old to be playing CoD and Halo, hence kids are a lot more attracted to sci-fi universes, with guns and tanks. Yes, 40k is quite assault based, but it's the universe and the aesthetics that brings new, young players into the game, not the way the game is played.

 The Shadow wrote:
Yes, 40k is quite assault based, but it's the universe and the aesthetics that brings new, young players into the game, not the way the game is played.

But 40k is incredibly assault-focused aesthetically, even more so than in the actual gameplay. The game is pretty solidly focused on shooting right now and assault units are forced into niche roles (other than a few death star gimmicks), but practically every fluff story/picture/etc you see has screaming guys in power armor killing stuff with chainsaw swords. It's the iconic image of 40k, and one of the biggest things that sets it apart from Halo/Star Wars/etc.

This is my opinion, and I'm a member of the Nation Rifle Association. That does NOT mean my opinion is worth a damn, it just means that I 'know' firearms and can look 'outside the box,' so to speak. If you'll allow me:

It's this new generation of Call of Doody players who think that slapping a 'clip' of 'bullets' into an M4 'machine gun', which is painted in camouflage paint and mounted with a reaction, red dot sight, and running through an urban block firing from the hip and knifing noobs is cool and 'so army,' and all that crap.

Or, they're armed with a .50" calibre anti-material rifle, that weighs 27ibs, and sprints through a forest and some how 'snipes' people 'HEAD SHOT' while on the move.

They're the type that see an AKM, or AK74 rifle in a film and shout, 'SICK AK47, bro!'

Yes, guns are a big factor in my opinion. 'Kiddies' prefer 'pew pew.' It's much more satisfying to blat away with bolter armed SPESS MAHREENS then it is to fight a battle with pike, sword, and musket, or 'hand gun' as GW calls them.

But saying that, I play WH40K, 'cos I prefer a scifi, military setting, but I would at least like the chance to play WHF.

The 'too many models' doesn't hold with me, nor do I think it would for anyone who plays Imperial Guard, or Tyranids, or anyone who plays Apocalypse.

Anyway, as I say, my opinion's not worth anything, it's just what I see.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I'm not interested in it because you need so many damn models to play, way more than 40k.

I also think the idea of formations is a huge turnoff. Terrain is one of my most favorite parts of the game, and most units can't fit on/in any of the terrain bar the largest of hills in Fantasy. I don't think I've ever seen a Fantasy game where the terrain got used to any great effect, and I've never seen one in person where the terrain had been given ANY kind of aesthetically pleasing setup. Forest elves that march in formation strikes a sour note to me, and I want them to break up and filter through the woods like the guerilla fighters I think they should be.

Still, Fantasy has been on the rise in my area, rather than the reverse. If it keeps going like that, I'll have to cave and buy an army eventually. Probably ogres.

This.

Surprised nobody has pointed out a well documented, massive flaw in 8th - Cavalry. They got nerfed!

20 heavily armoured knights, or more, charging full tilt at a block of infantry from the flank or rear, will not break them, because of steadfast and the fact that the infantry outnumber the cavalry?

Very bizarre.

In KOW, the opposite is the case - you get rewarded for flank and rear charges.

Fantasy is like a better 40k.

But then again, 40k is pretty meh to begin with, and Fantasy doesn't improve enough on that to really matter. At the end of the day its the same old meaningless complexity and clunky gameplay that we slog through already in 40k.

Now KoW on the other hand, as has been mentioned many times in this thread, is really something special

i know the thing that put me off WHFB was the cost.

You need to buy so many models that it is a massive drain on your resources.

Then you need to actually assemble and paint the thousands of models, and that is a drain on your sanity instead.

Its made by games workshop

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It can be hard to get someone into Fantasy, as a game, at times. Most people will certainly love the look and lore, but the game itself can turn people away. Just imagine someone's reaction when they see you moving around blocks of troops, and then you tell them that only the guys in front actually get to do anything, and all the guys behind are just there for extra wounds. Kind of takes the steam out of it a bit.

While at the same time not an entirely inaccurate model for battles up through the 17th Century.

Heck, they used to arrange arquebusiers into battles that were sixty men wide and sixty men deep. The boyos at the back might never fire a shot.

Perhaps that's the problem. WFB is still too rooted in historical/Napoleonics gameplay. Potential players see the Lord of the Rings movies (for example) and hope to see that play out on the tabletop, but instead they get the 17th century (but with dragons!). .

Kings of War avoids that by treating the entire unit as a single model.

The Auld Grump

Didn't GW do that with the War of the Ring rules? It's been a long time since I last read them, but I remember reading them and thinking "GW needs to do some of this with WFB."

40k may outsell fantasy in my local area, but there are MORE fantasy players at the two clubs I frequent (I'll assume the 40k players all play at the local store - most of the fantasy players in my area - some of the podhammer crew included - are over 25 and prefer a beer with their mandollies).

I prefer 8th ed fantasy to 6th ed 40k.
I didn't play 4-7th ed fantasy - but I played RT-5th ed 40k.
40k just stopped being a game I wanted to play when 6th ed came around. When you have to resort to cheesy builds JUST to draw with the newer armies, then the concept of game balance has not just flown out the window, but it has also passed the cow on the way (this cow was on its way over the moon).

It seems to me at least in my area Fantasy players have their WHFB army, whereas they will often have 2-3 40K armies as well.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:
1. Needing buckets of models that will never do anything.

This. WHFB has way too many models that are nothing more than wound counters on a giant block of infantry. Even if you buy third-party models and avoid paying GW's obscene prices you still have to build and paint all of those boring unit fillers, and since they have to fit into nice neat blocks your opportunities for interesting conversions are pretty limited. 40k (and similar games) may have the same problems with per-model price but at least you have a lot fewer of them in your army.

Just would like to point out that those boring unit fillers and the considerable area they take inside a huge block of infantry actually are something that can be turned around into mini dioramas, and that is something you will struggle to have in skirmish units. So I only agree with you to a certain extent. Fantasy can be very rewarding for converters and the only limitation is your own imagination.

i hope GW realize their greed is killing their fan base.

their stupid prices (look at khrone skullcrushers) they are driving the market right into the hands of the recasters.

they will be their own deaths.
lower the price increase sales = more money.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Didn't GW do that with the War of the Ring rules? It's been a long time since I last read them, but I remember reading them and thinking "GW needs to do some of this with WFB."

Yes, they did. Actually, War of the Ring is pretty good, the only real issue is the massively flagging fanbase as the core game was so uninspiring at release. Well, there'salso a few balance issues here and there but on the whole it's by far the best rule set GW do IMO.

There's been a few folks mentioned the size of units are a turn off, as well as terrain not adding much. For me, it's the size of the units that make movement tactically challenging, and having to manoeuvre a bus of 40 night goblins through terrain in order to get them to hit the opponent at the right time, in the right place.
That's where a good chunk of the strategy and tactical depth comes in. Those elements are missing in 40k.

 Okottekoneko wrote:
) they are driving the market right into the hands of the recasters.

Or, more positively, other games companies.

Also, for peeps saying ranking up models is a pain - movement trays!

My models are magnetised and my trays are metal...

 Eggs wrote:
Also, for peeps saying ranking up models is a pain - movement trays!

My models are magnetised and my trays are metal...

In my area Fantasy is dead. I haven't seen a game played in over a year. 8th edition killed it.

It's the price! I'm looking at the Orcs at the GW website and it seems like you need at least £300 to get a 2000pt army [the most popular points level at my clubs]. People won't want to drop that much money, particularly when they can get their TG fix at maybe a eighth of that price.

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 Eggs wrote:
Also, for peeps saying ranking up models is a pain - movement trays!

My models are magnetised and my trays are metal...

I've noticed the issue is more often with getting models to fit in trays/formation due to weapons/posing than moving them comfortably.

Ranking up stormvermin was a PITA of astrominical proportions.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I'm not interested in it because you need so many damn models to play, way more than 40k.

I also think the idea of formations is a huge turnoff. Terrain is one of my most favorite parts of the game, and most units can't fit on/in any of the terrain bar the largest of hills in Fantasy. I don't think I've ever seen a Fantasy game where the terrain got used to any great effect, and I've never seen one in person where the terrain had been given ANY kind of aesthetically pleasing setup. Forest elves that march in formation strikes a sour note to me, and I want them to break up and filter through the woods like the guerilla fighters I think they should be.

Still, Fantasy has been on the rise in my area, rather than the reverse. If it keeps going like that, I'll have to cave and buy an army eventually. Probably ogres.

This.

Surprised nobody has pointed out a well documented, massive flaw in 8th - Cavalry. They got nerfed!

20 heavily armoured knights, or more, charging full tilt at a block of infantry from the flank or rear, will not break them, because of steadfast and the fact that the infantry outnumber the cavalry?

Very bizarre.

Yeah, steadfast should really have been cancelled by flank and rear charges, just like the rank bonuses.

To be honest though, historically cavalry wasn't actually that effective against massed infantry. The only times it succeeded was when the infantry in question lost their cool, or when they had support from infantry (hammer and anvil tactic).