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.

So, with me most likely getting a new 40K army this X-mas (Dark Eldar), I thought that starting WHFB would be a nice change of pace.
So my question to you guys is this:
What army plays most similar to the Dark Eldar? I like their style of fast, strong, elite units, but with units who, for the most part, die to a stiff breeze. Would that be the Dark Elves?

You're definitely going to be going for one of the elven armies

Mainly either High Elves or Dark Elves, both are very fast and capable at magic, however the Dark Elves have a better shooting phase, Dark Elves are mostly a little bit cheaper points wise than High Elves. Both of them die to a stiff breeze however.

From there it's mainly the fluff, Dark Elves are far more sadisctic like the Dark Eldar. Whereas the High Elves are the noble protectors of the world.

My only gripe about the Dark Elves is that some of their models are...odd, to say the least.

Mainly this model: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod790903

How do Tomb Kings and Warriors of Chaos compare? Those are the two other armies I like after the elves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think the High Elves are too bright and noble for my taste

Tomb Kings I can't say much about, there's only one player of him in the local area and I haven't had the opportunity to give him a game

Warriors however are generally 9 foot tall Vikings in full plate armour that are engines of destruciton, some of the toughest infantry in the game. Marauders are more like chaff, weaker however with the right marks and equipment also turn into little deathmongers. They have a few fast units however are primarily a footslogger army. A pure warriors army is Elite and extremely deadly

Ok, so now I have narrowed it down to DE and WoC. Might take some time to decide, but I don't really like the look of the Marauders. I prefer the idea of a solid wall of black plate

I also like mostly/all assaulty armies, possibly backed up by shooty units.

I have also been comparing the looks of WoC and DE, and I have to say that I like the WoC look more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, what do the marks do in WHFB? In 40K they improve things like Strength and Initiative, but I do not know of there are things like that in WHFB.

forruner_mercy wrote:I also like mostly/all assaulty armies, possibly backed up by shooty units.

Warriors backed up be Hellcannons seems to be the way you'll want to go.

forruner_mercy wrote:I also like mostly/all assaulty armies, possibly backed up by shooty units.

Matches are won in combat/assault. Don't listen to what anyone says about magic breaking the game. Games are truly decided in close combat. That being said, every WHFB army is combat-oriented. There are no pure shooty armies ala IG, Tau or (old) Necrons in 40k. Some armies have better gun lines/artillery than others, but all armies are still "built" for close combat.

128th_king wrote:From there it's mainly the fluff, Dark Elves are far more sadisctic like the Dark Eldar. Whereas the High Elves are the noble protectors of the world.

I think we all know it's really just the Dark Elves doing their best to be self-sufficient and the High Elves are smug elitist jerks.

Yeah, one can definetely see the similarities between WHFB and WH40K;

Both DE are sadistic, and the "good" cousins are arrogant bastards

But anyway, any advice for someone coming into WHFB? How does it differ from WH40K? What is similar?

There is a bit of a difference there are some other good threads kicking around about that.

Also if you decide to go with woc check out the link below.

As was said above they are big scary and maul almost anything.

forruner_mercy wrote:But anyway, any advice for someone coming into WHFB? How does it differ from WH40K? What is similar?

I recently just migrated from 40k to Fantasy this past summer. Some differences I noticed immediately:

- saves are harder to come by in WHFB. There are so many modifiers to remove saves and saves are basically based on armor, which a lot of standard units in a lot of armies don't have
- as stated earlier, combat is the heart of the game. There are no shooty armies, although a few armies do have good artillery and shooting units. Magic is also vital. It can influence the match greatly or be completely useless.
- balance. both in armies played by players (whereas in 40k 90% of players play 4 or 5 different armies?) and the actual competitiveness of the army books. In 40k, the discrepancy between the "best" armies and "worst" armies is huge. In WHFB, not so much. The "worst" armies by consensus - WE, Ogres, Tomb Kings, Brets, etc - can still beat the "best" armies - HE, DE, Demons, Skaven, Lizardmen, etc - w/o needing a master general like in 40k. This is due not only to balance, but also a lot of "equalizers" - magic, mysterious forests, rotating deployment, etc.
- definitely less ultra-competitive players. I think this is mostly b/c of 1. the type of players playing and 2. the rules - there just aren't many things to even debate over compared to 40k. (los rarely an issue, measurements are more defined since bases are squared and in rank-files, etc)

I love 40k. But, imo, WHFB is just a far superior game. I know a lot of pre-8th Ed players complain about the magic, but even playing as DE and playing against a lot of magic-heavy armies, I don't see it being as big a deal as IG flyers/tanks, lash princes, JotWW, las spam, etc

I've kind of thought about buying an ogre army myself... I don't want to futz with a load of models

Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

forruner_mercy wrote:But anyway, any advice for someone coming into WHFB? How does it differ from WH40K? What is similar?

I recently just migrated from 40k to Fantasy this past summer. Some differences I noticed immediately:

- saves are harder to come by in WHFB. There are so many modifiers to remove saves and saves are basically based on armor, which a lot of standard units in a lot of armies don't have
- as stated earlier, combat is the heart of the game. There are no shooty armies, although a few armies do have good artillery and shooting units. Magic is also vital. It can influence the match greatly or be completely useless.
- balance. both in armies played by players (whereas in 40k 90% of players play 4 or 5 different armies?) and the actual competitiveness of the army books. In 40k, the discrepancy between the "best" armies and "worst" armies is huge. In WHFB, not so much. The "worst" armies by consensus - WE, Ogres, Tomb Kings, Brets, etc - can still beat the "best" armies - HE, DE, Demons, Skaven, Lizardmen, etc - w/o needing a master general like in 40k. This is due not only to balance, but also a lot of "equalizers" - magic, mysterious forests, rotating deployment, etc.
- definitely less ultra-competitive players. I think this is mostly b/c of 1. the type of players playing and 2. the rules - there just aren't many things to even debate over compared to 40k. (los rarely an issue, measurements are more defined since bases are squared and in rank-files, etc)

I love 40k. But, imo, WHFB is just a far superior game. I know a lot of pre-8th Ed players complain about the magic, but even playing as DE and playing against a lot of magic-heavy armies, I don't see it being as big a deal as IG flyers/tanks, lash princes, JotWW, las spam, etc

One of the guys at my FLGS described how WH40K is a good place to start, and then progressing towards things like WHFB, Flames of War, and Warmachine.

Play Dark Elves, they have a fairly similar lore to the Dark Eldar and they aren't overplayed like WoC are.

I just think some of the models are a bit odd.
See my second post for my proof
Plust it would be a nice change of pace to have a slower, tougher army. Would make playing 40K and WHFB less monotonous.

The Marks do some different things then in 40k.

Khorne gives the unit/model Frenzy

Slannesh gives the unit/model Immune to Psycology

Nurgle makes enemy models attacking you be at -1WS and BS

Tzeentch improves your Ward saves by +1


Sadly, only MoT and MoK are worth taking. the other 2 are either piss poor or overcosted.

So being immune to Psychology is not worth 10 points?
I don't like Nurgle anyway, so no problems there.

forruner_mercy wrote:So being immune to Psychology is not worth 10 points?
I don't like Nurgle anyway, so no problems there.

Fear and Terror are pretty un-useful (don't want to necessarily say useless, I guess it got nerfed bad in 8th Ed), so being immune to them doesn't matter too much. The other options are way better.

...which is a shame, b/c Slaanesh is my favorite Chaos god.

Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:...which is a shame, b/c Slaanesh is my favorite Chaos god.

Same here.
So, which is overall better? Tzeentch or Khorne?
As much as I dislike going Khorne, it would give me a good excuse to use the simply awesome looking Khorne Lord on Juggernaut.
Plus it fits the style that I am going for, a bunch of crazy guys smashing your face in

forruner_mercy wrote:

Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:...which is a shame, b/c Slaanesh is my favorite Chaos god.

Same here.
So, which is overall better? Tzeentch or Khorne?
As much as I dislike going Khorne, it would give me a good excuse to use the simply awesome looking Khorne Lord on Juggernaut.
Plus it fits the style that I am going for, a bunch of crazy guys smashing your face in

well, it sounds like you answered your own question

but seriously, it all just depends if you want to go offense or defense. Marauders (w/ flails), Chosen, Warriors, etc are already pretty well-stat'd. The Marks truly are a bonus that just depends on your playstyle (and/or opponent).

I like offense, being a true believer in the Dark Eldar style of play
So Khorne.

forruner_mercy wrote:So being immune to Psychology is not worth 10 points?
I don't like Nurgle anyway, so no problems there.

Not when you have very high Ld as a baseline AND with how BSBs let you reroll all Ld based tests.

The chance of failing your fear/terror test is miniscule. paying those few points to eliminate it isn't worth it. Especially when with all the points you spent on that mark accross the army could have gotten you another couple of ranks on a few units.

Nurgle is overpriced period.



MoT and MoK have noticible effects and are priced just right. moT in particular is good because of the Parry rules(3+/5+ save in combat)

Grey said it all right there.

The mok is nice for the more choppy units and mot for the anvils that can hold a couple turns.

The 3+5+ and then the rapturous standard is awesome.

Nurgle is over priced and that is a little sad :(

Mos as was said re rollable ld 8 usually means you pass.
You could put 20 more points into mos to upgrade to mok to get the +1 attack and all that goodness

And Frenzy ALSO makes you ItP to top it all off.



I really hope MoN either drops in cost down to 20 points OR they make it +1T like in 40k. the current cost is just rediclous.

T5 warriors where do I sign up.
That or giving them regen would be nice or just -1 to hit would be wicked.
T5 may be a little crazy but oh well.

But yes as of right now it is quite over priced for the little use you get out of it.

Their magic is not bad tho.

We will most likely have to wait a while since the woc book is not that old.

Dwarfs!

ParatrooperSimon wrote:Dwarfs!

Nah, not evil enough


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, what would be good units in a all Warriors army? I was thinking a Chaos Lord, 3 or so Warrior groups (x10), 2 groups of 5 Knights, and 2 Hellcannons.
Oh, and a Sorc.

forruner_mercy wrote:

ParatrooperSimon wrote:Dwarfs!

Nah, not evil enough

How about Chaos Dwarves?

They have an army book now.

Grey Templar wrote:

forruner_mercy wrote:

ParatrooperSimon wrote:Dwarfs!

Nah, not evil enough

How about Chaos Dwarves?

They have an army book now.

Are they just evil Dwarves?

forruner_mercy wrote:So, with me most likely getting a new 40K army this X-mas (Dark Eldar), I thought that starting WHFB would be a nice change of pace.
So my question to you guys is this:
What army plays most similar to the Dark Eldar? I like their style of fast, strong, elite units, but with units who, for the most part, die to a stiff breeze. Would that be the Dark Elves?[/quote

I was in the same boat, either starting my 5th 40k army or doing a WHFB. I wanted a change of pace, plus my eleven year old showed an interest in WHFB so I wanted to give it a shot as a way to get him into the hobby.

What army did you start?