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 have recently had my interest in Warhammer FB piqued. My FLGS is going to run an escalation type slow grow event for both 40k and FB. I have watched several WHFB batreps online and I am definitely interested in this game. I have been playing 40k for a bit under a year and I do well with and really enjoy tabletop gaming.

Into over.

I am leaning towards either Empire or Wood Elves as my first army. This army will mainly be built from a battalion box for now and then slowly expanded, but 40k is my main game so it is unlikely that I will grow past 1k points for a Fantasy game within the next year or so.

My interest in the Empire is from both fluff and the modest well-rounded nature of Empire armies. I love combined arms, and I love using my whole force as a single entity to support and augment each other. I play Codex: Space Marines in 40k and I love the idea of getting no uniquely special rules and relying more on tactics and adaptation to win the day. I love the idea of an Empire army with a solid core of state troops with ranged detachments (crossbows or gunners?) moving up and a group of knights rolling up to attack weak archer type units or attack the flank/rear of whatever my main troop block attacks, and of course an artillery piece or two pounding shells over the heads of my advancing units. Luckily for me it seems the battalion box for Empire would allow me to build this exact type of army.

My interest in Wood Elves comes from a variety of sources, mostly non-table top gaming. I love the idea of Wood Elves. Fiercely independent and owing loyalty to none but the trees and creatures of their home. I have done enough research to realize fully that they kind of blow. That said, I love a challenge. I play Codex Marines in 40k so that should prove that I don't mind playing at a slight handicap if that means I get style points and can play an army that I really enjoy. Another type of army that I would enjoy playing is a skirmishy type army that can hit pretty hard at range but simultaneously draw the enemy into CC at my discretion. With the riders, dryads, and glade guard units provided in the battalion box, it seems I could build an army around those sort of maneuver/fire/charge to my benefit sort of tactics.

My main playing environment would be equally competitive/casual. The escalation would start at about 600pts and move to 900 and then 1200, so it would be relatively few points.

TL : DR RECAP: I enjoy modest armies that are not flashy or elite based. I like good solid, old-school infantry and maneuver tactics. I love combined arms, using my whole force in unison as opposed to sending certain units at certain enemy units. I am looking to get into WHFB at the entry level, with a battalion box or about 100ish bucks worth of models to start, aiming for 600 to 900 to 1200 point games.

I am open to any suggestions from different armies to list suggestions.

Here is my opinion, unlike 40k there is a major element of deployment and tactics that exists in fantasy. In 40k it is more like rock paper scissor nuke where composition makes up about 80% of a game and first turn is the other 20%. You can see it in the lack of variation in competitive lists.

In Fantasy I believe that you can win with any army the difficulty level or options for builds is what moves a fantasy army up or down the power levels. With facings, front arc etc, deployment and movement are incredibly important in fantasy. You can lose a fantasy game before you even take a casualty if your deployment is bad.

I say get what looks cool and appeals to you.

Lastly only play comped play. GW screwed the pooch pretty hard in 8th by trying to make magic the hard counter to steadfast or horde (or something, who knows what they were thinking) and totally screwed it up.

Empire is definitely combined arms. They are pretty lackluster if you just try and take nothing but one type. It can be a bit more complicated than other armies in that regards. I mean you can just buy a zillion Ogres and walk forward and still do reasonably okay. But if you have Empire buff wagons and priests and detachments and don't get everything in order working together than they're just kinda meh.

But they have fruity armor. It's like they took Renaissance paintings of when some noble family was posing in their best clothes and somehow deduced that's what they would also wear going to battle. That and codpieces.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Empire is definitely combined arms. They are pretty lackluster if you just try and take nothing but one type. It can be a bit more complicated than other armies in that regards. I mean you can just buy a zillion Ogres and walk forward and still do reasonably okay. But if you have Empire buff wagons and priests and detachments and don't get everything in order working together than they're just kinda meh.

But they have fruity armor. It's like they took Renaissance paintings of when some noble family was posing in their best clothes and somehow deduced that's what they would also wear going to battle. That and codpieces.

I saw a battle today where i think empire was hitting on 2's or 3's vs warriors of chaos with re-rolls to hit somehow. I'm just going to let this all sink in. Also yes he did have lore of light and buff wagons. He also had a steam tank that blew itself up and did nothing and a helblaster volley gun which took down not only a daemon prince in one shooting phase but a chariot in another.

Hell Blaster volley gun ranks right up there with ironblasters and skull cannons in supremely effective war machines.

For a combined arms, tactical approach you definitely want Empire. This is coming from a diehard Wood Elf player.

At low points Wood Elves are essentially:

Blocks of 10-man Glade Guard
Couple blocks of 8/10 Dryads
Add Lord/hero choices to spice

They begin to get much more tactical in higher games, but at lower it's move back 2.5" shoot move back 2.5" shoot etc.

Though honestly for Fantasy, I'd go with whatever army you think has the best models. In my opinion Dwarfs and WE have the best, so that's what I play. My friend loves his Ogres, and my other loves his Brettonia and Skaven.

Every army can work. Some just need a lot of work. One is an uphill struggle from Turn 0. Yay WE.

I own both empire and wood elves. I do believe wood elves more finesse especialy in use of terrain.
Empire are a general all rounder but can overwhelm you with their options.
May I recommend lizardmens. I can go into details if you are interested.

Empire is a fantastic army to start learning how to play WHFB in. They can compete equally well in all phases of the game, so you can really get to grips with the whole game very quickly. You can also go with various viable formats focusing on the tactic/aspect of the game that appeals to you most.

High elves are getting a new book in a few weeks.
Every other army, except wood elves just got a FAQ update.

GW simply doesn't care about wood elves. I wouldn't even be surprised to see them get absorbed into a new brettionian book.

As always, I recommend going with an army with an 8th edition army book. It shows that GW is actively supporting the army, and that you'll have a stable army list to work with for ~4-5 years.

Seeing how you expressed interest in empire. Go empire.
Empire play combined arms very well, and if you want to win via tactics vs beat face, empire is for you.

-Matt

I agree empire is a cool army we have an empire player, i don't think i have seen the same army config from him more than a few times, they seem to have tons of variety. I would steer clear of lizardmen just for the short term, rumor is they are getting redone in fall. GW has a very consistent pattern of releasing lots of new stuff and making older stuff less playable while making the new stuff highly desirable. If anyone says pyrovore to dispute me I will call you a sillynanny.

Hey just a random question thats in line with the topic - are Fantasy Orcs and Goblins fun? Like fun in the same way 40k Orks are? Because I looked at their army book at it was very, very dissappointing.

Did someone say Empire? I highly recommend checking OnceBitten360's channels, does great battle reports and has picked them up in the last few months.

http://www.youtube.com/user/OnceBitten360/videos?view=0

I appreciate the input guys,
I've been doing a lot of reading and it does kind of seem that Wood Elves have gotten pretty badly neglected. That wouldn't usually bother me, but I'd like a lot of versatility in an army because I like to change up my lists and tactics pretty frequently rather than specialize in one or two battle plans.

High Elves caught my eye and I've been reading up on them. I love the elite nature coupled with the fact that they aren't overpowered. I like the models and the fluff I've read which is big for me because I am a Fluffhammer player in 40k and I'm looking to dive in the deep end of learning the fluff for my army.

I still think Empire is pretty sweet though too, cool fluff and aside from the fruity Renaissance armor the models are cool (and I love the Warrior Priests), but I'm worried about having to invest heavily in models to get decent numbers as they seem to be a bit horde-ish in nature.

I'd kind of rather have my core be made of semi-elite type line troops that balanced numbers and strength, as opposed to large units of low quality troops that really need numbers to survive.

I want to play "good guys" at first, but I do think there is something humorous about Lizardmen, so I'd be willing to listen to an argument for their viability.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Hey just a random question thats in line with the topic - are Fantasy Orcs and Goblins fun? Like fun in the same way 40k Orks are? Because I looked at their army book at it was very, very dissappointing.

In my opinion no. 40k orks are visous and somewhat reliable with law of large numbers and what not, they are fun in the sense that every model is an individual and you have tons of them. In fantasy orc's have some really crap rules, animosity sucks and ruin you entire game. The limitation to only use their codex magic sucks too. My buddy play OnG fantasy and basically hates it because a game will be going great then animosty or something sh1ty like that will strike his level 4 wizard bunker and its essentially game over. The do have one fantastic rule going for them. Choppa.

In 40K, the Fluff of Orks says that internal fighting is what keeps them from dominating the universe.
In Fantasy, the actual rules of Orcs that causes in fighting is what keeps them from dominating on any given battle field.

Orks win battles but lose wars.
Orcs lose battles.

WS3 for the basic orc, who's job is to get into melee is the kiss of death.
If you want to run the special character and do a WS4 S4 orc army, that works.
But basic orcs are just filler, and it's the specials and rares that get the job done.

-Matt

 UltraTacSgt wrote:
I appreciate the input guys,
I've been doing a lot of reading and it does kind of seem that Wood Elves have gotten pretty badly neglected. That wouldn't usually bother me, but I'd like a lot of versatility in an army because I like to change up my lists and tactics pretty frequently rather than specialize in one or two battle plans.

High Elves caught my eye and I've been reading up on them. I love the elite nature coupled with the fact that they aren't overpowered. I like the models and the fluff I've read which is big for me because I am a Fluffhammer player in 40k and I'm looking to dive in the deep end of learning the fluff for my army.

I still think Empire is pretty sweet though too, cool fluff and aside from the fruity Renaissance armor the models are cool (and I love the Warrior Priests), but I'm worried about having to invest heavily in models to get decent numbers as they seem to be a bit horde-ish in nature.

I'd kind of rather have my core be made of semi-elite type line troops that balanced numbers and strength, as opposed to large units of low quality troops that really need numbers to survive.

I want to play "good guys" at first, but I do think there is something humorous about Lizardmen, so I'd be willing to listen to an argument for their viability.

Well, HE are getting a new army book next month, so you may want to wait until then until you make your decisions. Same goes for Lizards (who are good guys btw!), they're getting a new book later on this year as well. Both are elite and viable armies, so that ticks some boxes!

Same goes for Lizards (who are good guys btw!), they're getting a new book later on this year as well. Both are elite and viable armies, so that ticks some boxes!

As a new Lizards player I can attest to the overall solidness of the Lizardman army.

Orks

I re-read the army book, and found that all the good stuff is at the back. Night Goblins look awesome. But standard Goblins and Orcs are still underwhelming. I've heard a heck of a lot of grumbling about animosity even before this and the whole army looks kind of like just a lucky draw - at any moment, you can lose because you roll a one or whatever and all your plans go down the crapper.

And yeah, I saw WS 3 on the Orc boy and was not impressed at all. Since I run Lizards I looked at it alongside a Saurus Warrior and honestly, by comparison they're just rubbish. As much as I like the greenskins and I like a bit of unpredictable hilarity in my army, I think these guys kind of take it too far

Empire are great, as they have good bversatility, but I still thgink that the 1 to 1 power of Chaos is unbeatable if the army is constructed, and played, correctly...