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've slowly been getting frustrated with WHFB for the past couple of months and how the mechanics play out on the tabletop. These frustrations culminated in my most recent game, where silly stuff happened and all of it was focused around the magic phase. I play VC, which I'm starting to think is the army which is worst off concerning how strong and important magic is combined with how random it is.

I'm also frustrated with GWs general policies, and I don't know if those frustrations are adding to the overall frustration and making it seem worse than it is.

Anyway, I had a discussion with my opponent at the end of that last game I mentioned, where we talked about whether or not WHFB is a "strategy" game. He didn't think so, and I don't know what I think. I know I don't want to play a pure strategy game as a hobby, because I could be playing Chess and I don't. But though I don't know whether or not WHFB is a strategy game, I realized through that discussion that I do WANT to play a strategy game. Without getting too far into the details of the discussion, I believe his main point was that WHFB is too random to be considered a strategy game, and this was after a game in which lots of random variables essentially decided the game.

So, do you think WHFB is a strategy game?

How can it be made into more of a strategy game? Am I thinking about this in the wrong way?

I try to ignore my frustrations with the ruleset but I find that the more I play a game, the better I get, and the more I want to feel like I at least have a chance at winning. Meaning, I'll be actively trying to win and care more about winning that I did when I first started. And with a game so random, that's hard to do.

Finally, are there any other good fantasy-style big battle wargames out there that anyone would recommend?

It is a Strategy game.... unfortunately the crazy randomness and overpoweredness of the magic phase can cut down on the strategy that goes into it. Really, balancing out the magic phase a bit would be the best way to make it into a better game where the strategy of the player is more important. Would not be a bad idea to do something to make Cav not suck too.... :(

Precisely what are your frustrations? You only vaguely alluded to magic, which is indeed a problem if you play VC.

 Charles Rampant wrote:
Precisely what are your frustrations? You only vaguely alluded to magic, which is indeed a problem if you play VC.

To be general, my frustrations about the magic phase concern the point that magic is very important because it is very powerful, and it is also possibly the most random element in the game. Because it is so random, it is TOO important, meaning that when very few (compared to other phases) dice go wrong it can cost you the game. I feel like something so powerful shouldn't be so random because it causes huge swings that, in many cases and certainly in my games, have almost nothing to do with strategy. This means there's no counter-play - I can't plan for it, and even if I want to plan for it, there are no choices I can make either in list building or on the tabletop that will mitigate the effect. Further, the swings have nothing to do wtih the skill of either player in almost every circumstance - the dice just hit the right numbers and the game is over, regardless of who was winning up to that point.

I can get more specific about my games if you want.

*puts flame-proof cloak on*

I can fully understand you. I also quit WHFB for the exact same reasons, but I really liked their miniatures and seeing so many models on the field. I thus returned with a huge Goblin army, all bought at a steal at second hand. I assume you also like having huge armies seeing you play VC

I was like "If GW wants to make WHFB luck-based so hard...well, opposing them won't do anything ,so why not embrace it?" and went full Goblin. Lots of fun, not very competitive. Enter lists with like +20 Fanatics

I also started joining the comp scene back then...EU comp scene which means restricted comp and, to me, the only actual comp. With all due respect, if you have fun playing 8th, alright, but vanilla rules are a joke balance-wise.

Here are the restrictions for magic in ETC:



As you can see, magic gets a lot of restrictions and it's absolutely necessary to do so. The LOS! vs. 6th spells alone is absolutely mandatory and a huge oversight by GW.

Here's the link to the complete rules for 2013:

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=115558&sid=c16abc480cd7a4f2704a6c4960c8291f

Before you quit, I'd recommend at least trying to play with ETC restrictions. Most people who complain about them have never played with ETC rules and thus, their opinion is void, but from someone who played with both systems: I would never come back to vanilla WHFB again

Do you think that using ONLY the ETC restrictions on magic will have a negative effect overall?

Jeez, I've been looking at Dwarves and that "maximum +2 dispel dice" really gaks all over Runepriests... which I wanted to take precisely because of the absurdity that is the magic phase.

As for WFB being "strategic" or not, is a hard question, and probably not one with a solid answer - it will be some degree of strategic play and some degree of list building and some degree of list matchup (ie paper scissors rock).

To give an example of a list building/list matchup game, go look up Gratuitous Space Battles. Theres nothing wrong with a game like this, if that is what your wanting to play, but it sure as hell is not a strategy game.

My experience is mostly with 40k, and that game is almost entirely the latter two elements. You make the most powerful list you can, put it on the board, and then see how it matches up with the other guys list RPS style. Movement, strategy, even just decisions in general... they barely apply - the 'strategy' of this game is more about avoiding stupid mistakes than making good decisions.

Fantasy by comparison is hampered enormously by your mentioned issues in Magic. However, its benefitted enormously in two areas compared to 40k - firstly that movement, facing etc is actually important, and secondly that shooting is generally shorter ranged and much less powerful (and so theres actually skill employed in its use). Where 40k is 90% list and 10% game, I'd be inclined to move Fantasy a few dozen percent in the right direction.

Beyond any issue of strategy though is my main 'frustration' with the game - essentially, that it does everything that Kings of War does, but in a much slower, clunkier, needlessly complex and more powergamey manner, and yet it is a million times more popular around here. That frustrates the hell out of me.

I think it is hard to argue it is purely luck when the same names always seem to appear at the top of tournament rankings. Are they just better dice rollers? I don’t think so. All these players tend to have a keen appreciation of the worth of various units, a strong grasp of probabilities and how to stack them in their favor, design lists where a single bad roll, or even a series of bad rolls will not lose them the game automatically, and tend to compete strongly in the movement phase.

 Tangent wrote:
Do you think that using ONLY the ETC restrictions on magic will have a negative effect overall?

Go ahead and try it

Magic is the biggest thing affected by the ETC rules as it is, as you also experienced yourself, the biggest letdown in 8th. Most other restrictions are army-specific or relate to stuff like huge units (e.g. Slaves) to balance their effectiveness out. I can only recommend it. Suddenly only being able to throw 4 instead of 6 dice at those 6th spells helps a LOT with balancing the game.

I will throw my hat in to the ring and say, I have been playing a few games against Dwarves recently, and what started as a challenge "I can play with no magic why can't you"? Turned into a pretty fun way to play the game, we can use magic items, and runes of course, the most magic I have brought against him was a plague priest but that was to get the furnace. I have found non-magic games really change the dynamics, and not entirely for the worse.

I have two armies, Ogres and VCs. My regular opponent and I both agree that 8th edition is lackluster as all you do is push blocks of units forward and the biggest horde generally wins... Barring someone getting off an uber spell that is.

Try Mantic's Kings of War rules for something a bit more refreshing; a good mix of tactics and horsing around.

It is a strategy game. And I understand how frustrating Warhammer and 40k can be at times. Regarding Fantasy though, I have found that a lot of frustration I have is due to the fact that it is kind of a strange place overall. 8th Edition is an excellent one, but needs some tweaking, along with that there are all the new 8th Edition armies, which for a while were all being balanced together. In addition to that there are the remaining armies that have yet to be updated, like Skaven, Dark Elves and Lizardmen, which are broken and all heavily magic based. And of course there are still the three oldest books: Dwarfs, Brettonia and Wood Elves, which are still in much need of being redone.

Speaking in a strategical sense, I find that Fantasy is heavily influenced. The right strategy is vital to a good game and solid victory. Of course, there are the times where strategy seems useless, like playing against a very broken or underpowered army.

I agree on the how many random variables there are, however I look at them as less random parts in game, and more about they are things you need to strategize around.

If it's not a strategy game what is it? An action game? You don't put out probably hundreds of thousands of words of rules and it not be strategy. I just copied the entire rules of chess into MS Word and did a word count and it was around 5000. I think one army book with just the stats and special rules of the units would be about equal to that. Which isn't to say more rulez = more strategy. But it's obviously somewhat complicated.

It is still very much a strategy game. It also has elements of chance. The strategy part is the fact you can alter the probabilities.

Now you can still get screwed by the dice, but you can make it less likely to happen.



There is one thing you can do to make magic less OP.

Make Purple Sun, Pit of Shades, and Dwellers cause a wound with no saves allowed if the test is failed instead of removing an entire model.

And change Magic Resistance to the following.

Every point of magic resistance gives you a roll to ignore the effect of the spell. MR1 is 6+, MR2 is 5+, etc...

Magic Resistance stacks with Ward saves, although it is only a Ward save if stacked with one. So against a fireball a model with MR2 and a 5+ ward save would get a 3+ ward save. But that same model would get a 5+ roll to ignore the effect of the spell against Dwellers.



As for the randomness of the Winds rolls and Miscasts. That's just part of the games fluff that makes it into the rules. That's part of what makes the game interesting.

I look at it this way.
With the introduction of hordes where people are playing 50+ model units it made the higher end spells like dwellers, pit of shades etc necessary. What good is d6 hits against a unit that size.

I have never played ETC rules but it seems like a lot to add.
For magic cutting dice, limiting a particular spell set and doesn't appear to change much.
I do like the 40 model/450 unit points cap.
All the race specifics seem a bit much.
But I have never played with it so its just observation.
We have tried with success, to limit unit size to a maximum of 2 1/2 times min unit size and only play with signature spells and the first 4. Even limiting lvl 4 sorcerers to zero.
It pushes more tactics.
If you just take the biggest unit you can and push it towards th other you will find that dice and randomness have a huge effect.
Play a 1500 pt game. Or 1000 pts. You will see how movement becomes much more important.
I believe fantasy to be much more tactical than 40k, as someone previously stated, because unit facing and movement are very important. You must have a game plan and understand your units.
I like a bit of randomness if I didn't I'd play chess.

But if you cut out the 5th and 6th spells of ALL lores you hurt the lores that are not abusive.

Fire, Heavens, Gutmagic, Vampire, etc...

they don't have abusive 5th and 6th spells, and some actually kinda need those spells. They're good, but not broken.


I prefer it when you actually solve the problem instead of making a blanket statement that hurts more than it fixes.

 sandant wrote:
I will throw my hat in to the ring and say, I have been playing a few games against Dwarves recently, and what started as a challenge "I can play with no magic why can't you"? Turned into a pretty fun way to play the game, we can use magic items, and runes of course, the most magic I have brought against him was a plague priest but that was to get the furnace. I have found non-magic games really change the dynamics, and not entirely for the worse.

So Dwarves really are that effective at stomping out the magic phase? I've started building an army of them based on the whole extra dispel dice thing, but I've never had a chance to try it out. Ditto with NG for largely the same reason Sigvatr posted - good to see I'm on the right track.

They really are.

They can look at an easy 4-6 additional dispel dice plus whatever they get from the actual roll. They will have more dispel dice than their opponent has power dice. Plus they have +2 to the roll.

On the other hand, if you deliberately build a list with no magic you can make them waste all those anti-magic points.

Try some of the comp systems out there to tone down magic a bit. We use a house rule that makes the "dreaded 6th" spells a bit better. We do LOS! rolls for characters, and then a failed test results in a S3 or S4 hit instead of just dead (which seems to be a trend in the 8th Army Books- i.e. Winds of Death for VC). It makes them not a worth it to just 6-dice irresistible cast it, but they still can do damage. It also seems to take away the whole "one dice decides the game on turn 1" thing. YMMV, but try tweaking the magic phase to make it more strategic. I think the bare-bones of the rules are quite good, but a little adjustment is needed to make it a proper strategy game.

Concerning the randomness, VC do have ways to make it more reliable, however, it requires not taking the super popular Blenderlord.

Master of the Black Arts lets you rerolls one of the dice for Winds of Magic - this can be very helpful. It can even out biased rolls, like getting a 6 and 1, giving you 7 power dice and your opponent 6 dispel dice. Reroll the 1, and maybe get a few more power dice to play with. If you only need a few invocations, reroll the 6 so they don't get as many dispel dice, since you don't need that many anyway.

Another is the Black Periapt. Being able to carry over unused powerdice into the dispell round, and unused dispel dice into the new magic phase, can really make a difference.

Vampires can also take a lot of casters, which can ensure you get all of the powers from the Lore of the Vampires, maybe even with some Shadow sprinkled on top.

Vampires magic reliability depends entirely on how you build your Vampires. If you go for Blenders with no magic phase augments, then don't be surprised when your magic phase is as unreliable as everyone elses. Sacrifice some blender power, and you'll make your Magic phase far more reliable.

As regards the "strategy game" question: my buddy thinks it is a "narrative game."

Regarding magic: While I do think the big 6 spells are a problem, my main issues have always been with miscasts.

What I'm basically getting at is this: magic is too important, which means you can't ignore it, especially as VC. If you want a combat vampire lord at 2400 points, you don't have enough points to get a separate level 4 caster, and you need a level 4. This means you have to make your combat vamp lord a level 4, but then he ends up casting all your spells.

Magic is important, so you need to cast spells and you have to get them off. If a spell requires a 12+ to cast, it's impossible to get with only 1 die - you MUST use 2. Even if you ONLY use 2 dice, and you miscast, and you Dimensional Cascade, and you roll a 3 or less, he's just dead. And your level 4 combat vamp lord just dies, and you just lost the game.

But the point is that there's no counter-play. What can I do to mitigate my risk? I can't take an item that gives me a save against the miscast. Or a save against the Dimensional Cascade. I can't ignore magic entirely - it's too important. You could argue that I didn't NEED to cast THAT spell RIGHT THEN, but it's a fairly weak argument - I will eventually need to cast SOMETHING. The only thing I feel like I can do is what I decided to do in something like the 5th game I ever played, which was never use more than 2 dice for anything. But even then, you can still hit double 6s and just die.

So it doesn't matter where I am on the board, who is near me, what turn it is, how I got there, what decisions I made ingame, what choices I made in list building. All that matters is that I decided to utilize the most important phase of the game because I can't afford to ignore it, and I lose.

@Loki - I've thought about these things, but honestly... Master of the Black Arts is pretty bad. It's really expensive and you have to take it on a vamp lord, which brings a level 4 vamp lord caster's point value to 400 points. The Black Periapt is also pretty bad at 55 points (I think), and who will take it? The same vampire? Bringing his points to 455 and he's totally naked. He still has no defense against miscasts, and wouldn't even if you fully kitted him out.

I don't mean to crap on your ideas, though, especially since you didn't know that I was more concerned about miscasts than anything else, I guess.

Other armies like CoD and WoC have the same issue (and Skavens if you go the Bell way)
If you put all your eggs in the same basket, you always risk losing them in one fell swoop
If you look at it the other way, you have a supah-dupah lvl 4 character that's very hard to kill

Also there's quite a few people who start to rely less on magic in my local club, more often than not using 2 lvl 2s or such
Less killy but more reliable and gives you more points for the rest

But I agree that I loathe the way magic works in 8th Ed. I don't mind randomness (am playing Skaven ...), but I hate when it's game changing on such a scale and where there's nothing you can do

See, it's not the risk that frustrates me, it's the mitigation, or lack thereof.

 agnosto wrote:
I have two armies, Ogres and VCs. My regular opponent and I both agree that 8th edition is lackluster as all you do is push blocks of units forward and the biggest horde generally wins...

Do we really play the same game? In my group whoever gets an advantage on the movement phase wins the whole thing.

Hordes can be redirected, tarpitted, delayed, set up for unfavourable charges, etc.

I don't agree with agnosto about pushing hordes across the table, but I've seen a great movement phase ruined by a magic phase a lot.

As another poster suggested, Mantic's Kings of War is a very simple and clean ranks and flanks fantasy game.

The rules are free for download (or were), and you can learn and play a 1000pt game in about two hours. Magic is pure support, to the extent that many people complaint that it's too mild.

Winning in KoW is all about manuever and thinking a few steps ahead. It plays very fast because it doesn't have the fine granular nature of WFB.

 agnosto wrote:

Try Mantic's Kings of War rules for something a bit more refreshing; a good mix of tactics and horsing around.

This would be my suggestion as well. Not necessarily to switch over entirely right away, but the rules and army lists are free so give them a try. All or nearly all your units have a corresponding unit in the KoW undead list (and maybe some of it's allies), and Magic plays a much less potent role in that game.

You'll likely either find that you like KoW better, or that you will find that you like certain things about WHFB more than you though you did. Either way, you're only out a few sheets of paper.

Here's my two cents on the WHFB game. An opinion is only as good as the bias behind it and the realm it comes from, so that being said, I play Skaven, High Elves, and Bretonnia, and consider WHFB to absolutely be a balanced game, the strategy component depending largely on the players and armies involved.

To start with, think about a game just about everyone is familiar with: baseball. Is it a game? Yes. Is it a sport? Yes. Is there strategy? Yes. Is it balanced? Depends.

That last question never come's up in a sport's argument. The game itself cannot be balanced, all it can hope to do is have a set of rules which are fair. It come's down to individual teams and their respective leadership which determines if a specific match is a balanced one. If I place my son's little league team up against the Cardinals, does that change the rules of the game? Are they any more or less fair? Of course not, the rules are the same for both teams, and they are fair. The balance and strategy issue is relative to the teams that took the field. No amount of clever strategy is going to change the fact that my sons team won't be able to hit the ball past the infield, or even hit the 80+ mph pitch coming their way.

This is the same for WHFB. The game comprises many different teams, each with their own unique spin on each of the games "positions". With few exceptions, every army will have the following: Combat characters, Wizard characters, Rank'n'file troops, Elite troops, Tactical units, Ranged units. That's it, those are your positions. How they get fielded, and in what amounts (if any) are up to you. If you decide that a certain position isn't needed, then you don't fill it. Maybe you don't care to take a block of archers, or maybe your ranged ability is just limited (WoC). Whatever the reason, the decision is usually entirely the players.

Where the decision is NOT the players is where the balance can be shifted too much if the specific army book is too old or too biased. As an example, take Dwarfs. No matter how cool a modeling opportunity it would be, you will not have a Wizard of any kind. This was balanced by your access to the strongest anti-magic ability of any army. Does this make for a balanced strategy game? Depends, are you playing against a magic-heavy High Elves player that brought Teclis, or are you up against a Skaven horde that didn't even take a wizard? Two viable options, two drastically different game's and strategies will be played.

The doom spells of 8th edition are the hard counter to massed units which would otherwise roam unchecked. However, it is your decision to place your expensive characters in your largest unit. Have you ever tried NOT placing your characters in the biggest blocks? If I'm looking at a unit of 50+ zombies staring me in the face, and another unit of 15 zombies with a character behind it, that really makes an opponent weight his options. Do I waste a big spell for the off-chance I snipe a character and maybe 4-5 other guys, and take the 50+ horde in the face?

And it is absolutely an off-chance. The spell has to go off, it has to not be dispelled, and the character has to fail his\her test, which for the majority of characters is a 1/3 chance. Does it still happen? Of course. Does it completely ruin the game? Depends, did you put all your eggs in one basket like a giddy little school-girl with a pretty new pet? If you took 500 points of lords and 500 points of hero's in a 2000 point game, you deserve to have a doom spell ruin your day; you gave your opponent no better choice. Do I spend the whole game trying to kill 5-6 units, or just try and kill 1 unit for a crushing amount of victory points?

I think this post has gone on long enough. Magic is powerful, but it is not all powerful. The game is balanced, the armies and their generals may not be. If you really want to try and play a balanced, fair game of WHFB, your best bet is to do open list building with your opponent prior to starting a battle. Alternate back and forth picking units to take. You pick a unit, opponent picks his counter. he picks a unit, you pick a counter. Continue until points are spent on both sides. This gives you the best possible chance of playing two armies which are designed to compete against eachother, not the warhammer world...because you are not fighting the world, you're fighting the army on the otherside of the table

That's a good post, and explains the magic/horde dichotomoy prety well.

The problem is that it ignores everything else in the game. MSU, skirmishers, and Cavalry are all very underpowered compared to those two options.

@Polonius, the three units you mentioned fall into the Tactical unit category I mentioned. They are a little more difficult to use correctly, but by and large I've found that none of them are meant to actually kill anything. They are used to gain a tactical advantage.

I'll use my High Elves as an example. I don't expect my unit of 5 Reavers to kill anything with their bows and spears. I do expect them to be on my enemies flank by the end of game turn 1, threatening war machines or poised for a flank charge next turn just for combat resolution bonuses.

I don't expect my eagles to take down his blob of clanrats, I do expect them to be placed right in the way of his large combat units to force failed charges, awkward maneuvers around them, or wasted shooting at them. Hell, I expect them to be a cheap 50 points chaff drop to see where his other stuff goes if need be.

I don't expect my 10 dragon princes to charge headlong into a 50+ unit of zombies and come out the other end victorious, ready for a new target. I do expect them to guard my flank and sit poised to charge his terrorgheist he placed opposite during deployment, should he try for a flank advantage.

I find that most who have issues with certain units do so because the unit doesn't work the way they think it should. That doesn't mean the unit doesn't work in another way. As a Bretonnia player, I really do think that my bus of 15 knights should be able to charge just about anything in the game face-first and completely destroy it. But alas, a single unit cannot. Two units of 15 probably could, but if only there was a way to make it so both units could fully attack a standard frontage on the charge...oh, hang on a minute...