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 feel abandoned by 40k, 6th ed makes me want to drown myself in a tub..... and everyone is a rules lawyer now.... anyways

I watched some mwg stuff on fantasy, and I feel like I want to play it. It looks really 1. Challenging and 2. Fun
How can I start? Where can I start?

Biggest problem: who to play with?!?! ( not many gamers around here)

Plan A: Find some other players.They may be able to help.

Plan B: Get some friends to take the plunge with you. You've found MWG stuff, so show it to them. Grab a rulebook and Battalion each, and build from there.

Thanks. Gotta find friend willing to break from 40k now

Fantesy is pretty well balanced and the trend looks to continue.

It lacks a "poster boy" faction and all the factions are distinctly unique in both appearence and playstyle.

Only one or two factions are genuinely bad(Wood Elves and Beastmen)


While there are armies better then others, the tiers are quite close. Enough to where it comes down to player skill.

And I will tell you. A good player will brutalize a newb if he really wants to.



The game is very much movement based and how you manage the distance and angles between your units and the enemy. Make a mistake in movement and it can be the game.

Victory conditions are based on straight kills. Add up the value of units destroyed, plus some bonuses for General and BSB. 100 point above your opponent is a win, within 100 points and its a draw.


Characters are important, although they don't dominate like they used to.

Your general and BSB are important for Leadership(another important factor) control. They provide a rallying point for your army.



Basically, you can sell Fantasy on its tactical side. I think its a good game for the more mature gamers(as in those who have pretty much gotten the hang of the simpler 40k and want a deeper experience)

Its also good for people that like modelling. WYSIWYG is much laxer in Fantesy, generally you only require 50% of the unit to be properly kitted(plus characters can be fairly flexable with "Counts As")

So you have more creative freedom with your conversions.

A character with the "Sword of Bloodshed" wouldn't have to be modeled with a sword persay. It could be the "Axe of Bloodshed" or something for example. Except for items that have explicit rules of course that match particular weapons. For example Brettonian Magic Lances should be modeled as Lances obviously, because mundane Lances have their own rules.

Units are more cohesive, so you can have a more obvious theme. Such as using unit fillers. I have a filler for my Gnoblars on a 40mm base(counting as 4 gnoblars) that is 3 gnoblars arguing over some shiny stuff they found. So I am using 3 models to count as 4 while giving a unique look to the unit.

A unit of skeletons could have a couple dragging themselves out from beneath the sands, or out of a grave.

Gd GT did a goat touch you in an inappropriate place as a child? Don't listen to this guy beastmen are great if played right no other army has access to their awesome awesome chaff. Whoever GT plays against as beasts must really really be terrible.

As a matter of fact, I was molested by a goat as a child. I still can't believe I can honestly say that

I was also molested by my cow. Fortunately I was big enough to fight back then, unlike the goat when I was only 5.


Anyway, Beastmen can be a good army when handeled by a very good player.

However their army book does have a fair amount of problems. Namely the fact its infantry are as a whole overcosted compared to similer units.


They basically suffer from being poorly designed for 8th edition.

Brettonians win over Beastmen simply because they retain durability while the Lance formation allowed them to escape the 8th edition heavy cavelry hit.

I really appreciate all of this guys. The armies I wanted to play were more like: orcs and gobbos, brettonia, or vampire counts.
Gobbos bcuz I play grenskins in 40k, its my comfort zone
Bretonnia because I like the idea of an all encompassing empire, plus brettonia is just fun to say. And knights are awesome.
And vc , not because I like vampires, but the idea of mustering hordes of odd undead beings makes me smile.

Empire is more an all-encompassing empire. Brettonia is more a sissy knight thing.

Orcs and Vampires are generally both a ton of models. Orcs tend to have some difficulty because of animosity. It's hard to consistently be a winner if you army itself is inconsistent. But their stuff is mega cheap and like 40K has some pretty funny things. And some pretty funny things that are really dangerous. I think they have the most and cheapest Str5 units of any army.

So bretonnia should be out of the question? I don't like the empire. They are a mirror (or vice versa) of the imperial guard.

Orcs looked awesome, but I see what you mean about animosity.... eek that must be difficult to play!

I don't really see a downside to vampire counts.