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 last night someone agreed to do a demo game of WHFB with me at my FLGS. Having done all this reading, I was eager to actually try playing the game. In the preceding hours, I had been skimming over the rules, so I had a patchy understanding of what was going on, and having 40k experience helped a bunch.

The person running the demo had set up two 1250 point armies to be roughly equivalent to each other - he played a VC army with some blood knights, a couple of support units (a wizard and corpse cart), and then a mix of better down to worse infantry (tomb guard, ghouls, skeletons, and zombies), and I was handed a skaven list that looked pretty similar, except, you know with rats. The game, in brief, was both of us getting each other's frenzied cavalry to spend most of the game being useless and then hammering on each other's best infantry units with spells. Then everything ran into each other in a big scrum which, in the opening act saw a pile of 30 clan-rats with all of my characters deciding to be skaven and running away, resulting in them getting caught and swept. The game was a mop-up, thanks to more running away, except for at the very end where he detached his necromancer to safety from his pile of ghouls so they could attack my rat ogres, who rolled well against the pile of skeletons they were stuck in, and broke out of close combat a turn too early, which allowed me to charge just the necromancer and beat him to a pulp, causing everything but the blood knights and a couple of tomb guard with their wight lord to disintegrate. The blood knights got a flank charge into the ogres (thanks to frenzy overrunning), and the last rat dropped at the bottom of turn 6.

It was nice to be able to finally actually play a game. It was a little clunky, of course, because I didn't really know the rules that well, and the only thing I knew about skaven was their fluff (so I had to look EVERYTHING up every time), but that kind of thing was to be expected. Anyways, I thought I'd share my first impressions of an actual game. Now, having never played older versions of the game, I can't really compare, except based on sketchy reports, but I can at least compare it to 40k, and make comments in general.

1.) I thought the magic phase was pretty slick. Not only does it give you something more to do during your opponent's turn, but it actually felt like you were needing to make real decisions. How many dice to cast to beat the required number. How many to beat how many your opponent may or may not try to dispel with. How to not cause your wizards to explode (which didn't happen this game). Which spells you should try and dispel, and with how many dice.

And the end result felt like those decisions changed things. In my case, my opponent had the "aging curse" of slowly disintegrating my best units, and the "let's have more of my models back". In this game, I threw practically everything against the let me have my army back spell, which meant that I basically lost my best unit (a big pile of plague monks) instead to offensive magic. And it was even more interlocking, because when it came to my turn I could either cast my own flame-template and small-blast-template weapons or I could use those dice to dispel the curse, which meant his magic phases slowly built on themselves, or I could damn the casualties and try to double-down and beat him quickly before his magic eventually ground me down. It was all very clever.

I also like that it adds a resource management dimension to the game. There were my 13 power dice (we rolled a lot of 10's and 11's in the magic phase this game), which were a lot, but I had four spells, and my opponent had lots of dispel dice. There was a point where I was looking at the dice in my hand, and then looked at the little piles of dice I'd tentatively portioned out for my other spells and thought about how there was nothing like this in 40k.

2.) Stats do stuff. I mean, I knew about this, but it didn't really gel until seeing it on the table. In 40k, leadership is something that 2/3ds of the armies just pretend doesn't exist, and those that do only use it to see if some of their units run away. In this game, leadership was used to see who ran away, but even units that were "fearless" still used leadership. There were quick reforms, and there was the chance to use Ld to prevent frenzied units from charging forward recklessly. In 40k, armor is something you either get, or you don't (and, as often as not, don't), unlike the S system, where you have to sort of think about who is going to attack who. Not to merely see if your Ap is good enough, but to think things like "well, it would be okay if this unit has a Sv5+ if that other one is brought down to Sv6+ this turn", and things like that. You play odds, rather than a simple binary state.

It all sort of felt complicated, in a good way. In 40k it's "close combat, LOL!", and when it's not, it's still just looking at WS, S, and T, and really, it's just running a unit into the closest unit to them so that they stop taking casualties from shooting (or get a chance to do damage at all this game, depending on the unit). With fantasy, you use those same things, but you also have to care about the movement stat, and armor in a different way, and Ld in a different way. And figuring out who won a fight is WAY more complicated. In 40k, it's little more than "whose dice rolled better?", rather, the whole "well, who did better in the movement phase and got the charge, and who built their list with the right command guys compared to more dudes, and who arranged their models better (more attacks vs. more ranks)", and all this crazy other stuff.

Which brings me to...

3.) You've got to think about everything at least a turn or two in advance. The movement phase was not just more useful, but it was also kind of tricky. Both of us made each other's cavalry useless for the first half of the game because we angled blocks of troops in such a way where they were run through, and then, without targets in LOS, the unit had to turn the next turn, and even then may not have made it into a charge the turn after. Rather than it being a matter of "what is this unit doing this turn?", it's more of a "what is this unit going to do this game?" You just need to have things planned out that much in advance, or at least have a feel for what they're doing.

Which means that it's also a game about managing time a lot more than 40k, as well as managing space.

4.) I'm slowly starting to get the aesthetic a bit. It made more sense to see the minis in the dim light of a gaming store.

My problem, though, was one that I was afraid was going to be an issue. Getting the minis into a square was very tricky, to say the least. Anything that stuck out of the bounds of the base it was on pretty much automatically got snagged on the model next to it, and the person appeared to just have the stock models put together in the stock way. Some things like banner bearers just didn't fit in there at all. On a couple of my blocks, I could get the front row to look right, but everything else was just warpy and a little bit off. These "errors" tended to exacerbate over rank to the point where the back ranks were more the suggestion of where the models might be, rather than where they actually were supposed to go.

The person whose models they were said that he did some conversion work on one of the large-sized-model units and that it was so bad that he had to number the individual minis because they would only fit together in a certain way. I'm a little concerned by the idea that you just can't do conversion work without making the pre-game army assembling taking an hour or two just because nothing fits in right.

5.) So, WHFB is still definitely a dice game, like 40k, rather than a serious strategy game like Go. The game drastically changed direction a few times on a few key die rolls.

Interestingly, though, it seemed to do a better job of what GW is attempting to do with random stuff in 40k. Namely, it felt like the game had a bit more story to it. The randomness feels like it somehow makes the game better, rather than just getting in the way all the time. Perhaps it's because 40k has more randomness, but the end results of most of the randomness are really small. The game is a luck game because of the hundreds of tiny die rolls and the roughly two or three die rolls that really determine the game (who goes first, what mission, etc.). With WHFB it feels like there are more random chances of big things happening throughout the game, rather than only happening at the beginning and end, and everything in the middle being determined by the small, robotic die rolls that happen over the course of the game.

It's a little hard to explain. Actually, here's a way to compare it - 40k is somewhat like Axis and Allies where the first few dozen die rolls sort of determine how the game is going to go, and the rest of it is kind of going through the motions. It's playing out an all but foregone conclusion. In fantasy it sort of looks like you could have someone winning at the beginning of the game suddenly start losing mid-game because their wizards blew up, and then come back because a key unit ran away, or something.

Maybe it's just because I haven't really played WHFB and I've played a lot of 40k, but it seems like things are still happening throughout the game in fantasy while things get pretty automatic in 40k. Barring something strange happening at the beginning of the game, things were going to follow a set pattern.

Which, I suppose, is indicative of why I bothered to ask around and get a demo game set up in the first place. I was complaining about certain things in 40k, and more than one person on dakka PMed me and said "you should try fantasy - it fixes those exact problems that you're having with 40k" and, more or less... yeah, it does. At least, from what I've been able to see from a single demo game.

I guess, if I had to come to a conclusion, it feels like there's more of a game to a game of WHFB. More decisions, more interaction between rules, and just more stuff going on and more to consider. One game is, of course, not that much to draw sweeping conclusions from.

That said, it's interesting to draw sweeping conclusions...

Good to see you lost your WHFB virginity, Ailaros!

Seeing as you seem to have a few friends willing to lend you armies, perhaps have a couple of test games with each of the armies you were looking at starting and make your decision based on that. Experience with an army is very useful, and it's especially nice to not have wasted any money if you decide you don't like said army.

Anyway, my thoughts:

1) Yes, I love the Magic Phase and, like you say, it's nice to do something other than roll saves in your opponent's turn. This is mainly the reason I find WHFB more fun. You brought up other good points too: the fact you're having to look ahead, and the fact that in 40k sometimes you don't even get to make saves! All these things combined mean that WHFB, for me anyway, is a lot more engaging. Of course, in 40k, I look at what my opponent is doing and formulate plans accordingly, but always to a lesser extent to fantasy.

And yes, Magic is a great phase. The fact it's often so crucial just adds to that effect too. I'm one of those players who's guilty of taking far too long decide which spell to cast when and on what. Remember though: the number of dice in your Power + Dispel Pools can never exceed 12!

2) Practically every stat is more important in WHFB. In 40k, if you're I1 or I2, it doesn't really matter, but in WHFB that has a significant impact regarding certain spells. Leadership is the crucial one though. The main difference is with your BSB and General. They're such crucial models and the placement of them both can really make or break a game.

3) Movement is also crucial in Fantasy, so much more than in 40k. I shouldn't need to tell you why. But yes, it does make you think more. Sending your Cavalry to butcher an enemy unit is all well and good, but if that leaves you open for a flank charge by another unit, then perhaps it's not the best idea. In 40k I'd just consolidate to safety. You need to start planning in deployment too. If you put something in the wrong place, it can have a huge impact on the game. It's not like 40k where my Jetbikes are like "Hey we need to be on that side of the board. Zwoop!"

4) This is something that comes with experience. Assemble the models from the legs upwards, do them all at the same time and assemble them on larger bases (so 8 on a 80 x 40 for example), or on a strip of cardboard (measured to the correct length and using blu-tac to hold the models down). One of the best ways is to simply magnetize your models' bases to the movement tray. That way, everyone's ready to go before the battle and everyone's in the right place. Combining this with the number-under-the-base tactic is always good. And some models are just more awkward than others, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

5) Any game that involves dice will be about luck to some extent, there's no avoiding that, and there's plenty of arguments for why both 40k and Fantasy are more/less luck-based than the others. You've just got to accept there's an element of luck to it and do your best to swing the odds in your favour. That unit of five goblins could take on that unit of 40 Chaos warriors, but I wouldn't formulate my strategy around them doing so.

And randomness is great in WHFB. The random scenery just works, whereas it sort of doesn't in 40k. That's my major gripe about 6th edition 40k. They copied many of the elements of Fantasy, and made them bad.

But yeah, go out there and get more games in!

The Shadow wrote:And yes, Magic is a great phase. The fact it's often so crucial just adds to that effect too.

Well what's weird was that in this game, it sort of wasn't. Or at least, it didn't have an out-sized influence. It was more another kind of unit doing damage in another kind of way.

Now, there weren't any lvl 4 wizards, and my opponent was stuck with death magic and I with rat magic, but then we also didn't have any dispel scrolls or anything either.

It's kind of funny to compare dispelling to 40k's deny the witch roll, though. The added random element is nearly entirely pointless. Unlike the bidding system in WHFB.

The Shadow wrote:Practically every stat is more important in WHFB.

So, one of the things that didn't strike me until now is the variety as well. In 40k, you have GEq, and MEq, which pretty much describes like 85% of the infantry models you'll ever come across. Do you have 3's or 4's in your statline? Do you have power armor, yes or no? With WHFB there seems to be a much larger array of stuff. There are units that actually use stats of 1's and 2's, and armor between 4+ and 6+, and their armor still matters.

On the other side, most infantry models in 40k have a side arm which is basically the same. Marines get bolters. Dark eldar get bolters that wound on 4's. Eldar get bolters that rend. GK get bolters that fire two shots at both ranges, rather than just short. Orks get bolters, but with slightly worse Ap and it's an assault weapon. CSM and SoB get bolters that are... bolters. Really, the only thing that matters in most squads is if you have a meltagun in it or not.

Meanwhile, the tomb guard with a 4+ save and a sword played very differently than my plague monks with frenzy and an extra hand weapon.

And that opens up a whole other world of things as well. Against an imperial guard or space marine army, most of the models are more or less the same. There's not as much should I send my good units against his good units and my medium units against his chaff and my chaff against his medium units... or maybe I'll buy a turn against the good stuff with chaff, and then use the good unit to hit the medium, and the medium to clear his chaff, etc.

Much moreso than 40k's "here's the units we brought, let's all go attack the closest ones..."

The Shadow wrote:The main difference is with your BSB and General. They're such crucial models and the placement of them both can really make or break a game.

Or not, in my case

I've read a great deal about steadfast, and in my first game with my first use of steadfast with a unit that had the general in it to boot, they broke and ran.

I played power blobs long enough to know that un-modifiable Ld9 is not the same as fearless...

The Shadow wrote: Sending your Cavalry to butcher an enemy unit is all well and good, but if that leaves you open for a flank charge by another unit, then perhaps it's not the best idea.

Well and what makes it different is that the restrictions make decisions murkier. If you charge the wrong thing, there's the chance that that unit is going to have to miss an entire turn in order to reform and move somewhere.

In this game, I used some giant rats to intercept the cavalry, and did it at an angle where the frenzy was going to make the victorious knights run off the table edge. In this particular case, he rolled a 4 on 3D6 to pursue, but he was still at the wrong angle, so he still couldn't make a charge the next turn, because nothing was in LOS. It wasn't until turn 4 that they had the chance of doing something again, and because of things I did in the movement phase, they weren't able to attack again until turn 5 (which they did, and then attacked again on turn 6, but still).

So you've got to ask yourself not only am I going to have to worry about space (say, getting hit in the flank), but am I going to have to worry about time.

Welcome to fantasy Ailros! I usually lurk on the fantasy but figured I would post since I saw you. Now I can hope for a fantasy batrep series

I agree that fantasy has some great elements to it. Namely the movement, magic, and leadership mechanisms are very fleshed out and make the game a tactical exercise.

Most of the unbalancing factors in the magic phase have been gotten rid of or toned down in the new army books. This is great because it really is a trade negotiation now rather than powering through spell after spell with 12 PD vs 3 DD magic phases or irresistible casts with no negatives. You joined at a good time as the last hold outs of the old +PD kings have both just gotten new books. Wait until you get some Lv4 mages in there it will be a tactical exercise of milking out those DD so you can throw that big spell out there and decimate the enemy or throwing the big spell out there to wipe the DD pool so you can get that crucial buff off to tip the big combat.

The movement is pretty interesting as it is both faster (due to marches) and slower (due to terrain and how blocks of infantry move). The way terrain interacts with formations equates out to the placement of your units during setup can take a unit out of the fight for a turn or two or even limit it's use the entire battle. This makes every movement and the setup vital as any mistakes in these can take your own unit out of the battle.

Leadership is huge in fantasy. It is probably the single most important stat and a Ld roll can determine the battle. This is positive in numerous ways but also has some serious negatives. The positives is that the ability to kill something is not the only determining factor in a fight. The ability to stand your ground and generate CR can be just as important if not more so. Units with high mobility and large blocks of cheap troops can beat units that can kill them in a matter of 2 turns by holding the opposition and then flank charging for the CR. The bad of Ld is the terror bomb last edition where getting terror in the right place could finish battles then and there or the steadfast due to ranks where skirmishers can never break steadfast and so you have units that have become nearly useless as they cannot contribute in some battles. Steadfast just needs a few tweaks and the system would be incredible.

I also really like how cover works in fantasy as the minus to hit just makes sense and makes it useful for everyone not just GEQ. The S reducing armour is also really nice and again makes sense in fantasy. It also helps that you still usually get some type of save.

I also prefer how ward works versus inv saves. A unit with a 2+/4++ is a rarity but when you see it you know it is going to take some serious effort to remove it.

The best part is that the systems are just different enough to make them fresh.

ansacs wrote:The movement is pretty interesting as it is both faster (due to marches) and slower (due to terrain and how blocks of infantry move). The way terrain interacts with formations equates out to the placement of your units during setup can take a unit out of the fight for a turn or two or even limit it's use the entire battle.

Yeah, that's definitely one of the things I noticed. Terrain in 40k will slightly slow down your army (unless you're playing mech, which is to say, it doesn't even slow down any army you're actually likely to see), but that's about it. It's interesting to see terrain actually make a difference in one's decisions about space.

And I like marching too. 40k's run of D6 made sense back when you couldn't pre-measure, but there's no reason you shouldn't be able to just move twice as fast now.

I mean, in the game I played, there could have easily been close combat on turn 1. I just chose not to, because I didn't like the idea of charging night runners into blood knights. It definitely seemed to reduce the "well, we'll play until turn 2, and then see if I get to actually do anything this game" problems.

ansacs wrote:The S reducing armour is also really nice and again makes sense in fantasy. It also helps that you still usually get some type of save.

Oh, I was going to mention something more about this as well. I do like the modifiers, but there is a subtle thing that bugs me a little bit. Because S both gives you +1 to wound, and -1 to Sv, it's sort of like a single point of added strength counts twice. Which means that having +1S would be a pretty huge deal.

I was kind of noticing people talking around here as if +S was the only thing that mattered, and I'm now kind of starting to see why. I wonder perhaps if there's just not enough S3-4 with armor piercing on it, or whatever, to mix it up a bit.

The only bad thing about terrain is that the type of terrain is so important for some armies. This leads to strange situations where wood elves fight on a board with a single forest (the one they get to place). Forests are ridiculously important for wood elves and it would make sense that a wood elf army would almost never fight where there are not multiple forests...yet almost every fight with WE you will see only 1 forest.

I also wish that march would be implemented in 40K it would speed the entire thing up considerably. Of course march only really makes sense when you have Movement values and not a flat 6" for all infantry. The ease of learning 40K is probably what makes it the most common entry vector for GW table top gaming (that and you can play with less than 20 models).

You will like fast cavalry. With vanguard movement and M8+ you can easily close on the backfield and the only thing stopping you are the spear blocks in the way and the opponent killing you. You can even march and shoot at a seriously reduced chance to hit.


+S is pretty much the most important stat increase for killing something. That is why great swords have ASL but only increase S by 2. The nice thing is that there is no double T instant death. I am always somewhat conflicted in how I feel about this but I think in many ways it is a positive as it keeps the stats down. I also think it makes sense as there is no energy redirection tech or inertial dampeners, etc. I 40K hitting the power armour hard enough to shatter steel may not kill the guy inside but in fantasy even if you don't penetrate the armour you can still pulverize the guy inside.

Glad to see you played your first game. The bonuses-to-strength point that you made is, for me, not much of an issue. You're right that it's a kind-of "double whammy" and so it becomes a more attractive option when list building. As such, you see a LOT of lists (dare I say, every list that can) just full of great weapons (which give +2 strength and Always Strikes Last). Maybe some people don't like seeing so many great weapons (due to reasons of lack of variety or something), but I've never cared.

As for Steadfast, I've cared a little bit, but not much.

The only thing I've ever really cared about is magic.

I'm beginning to like you more and more, Ailaros. <3

Strength is pretty important, yep. I've built my main army (WoC) to have S5 minimum on every attack. Unlike Tangent, though, I wouldn't go for Great Weapons on my units because I have solid initiative and want to mow people down first. Strength is important for sure, but it's not the only thing to keep in mind and it's usually costed appropriately for its effects anyway.

Glad to see I am not the only new guy. I feel like 40k is a great beer and pretzels game.... but nothing more. If your bolter has a 24 inch range, anything inside of a 24inch circle can get shot... unit facing is crap... and the fact (although I like this a lot!) That my daemons of chaos can Plow through large tanks.... is just astounding... the whole games seems childish... but I like it still.

Fantasy is definitely the older brother, and has a much more mature and tactically satisfying feel to it!

I see the world turning back to fantasy battle in a shorter time than GW will predict....space marine overload will boil up in a few years and our eyes will roam to swords and spears!! I love 40k at the moment but my first love was fantasy role play and WHFB. We will be back on mass to it I'm sure!

How did you find the Skaven? You seemed concerned about their essentially horde-light-infantry focus, did you find that limiting when in actual play? People who play Skaven certainly seem to have a great love for them (a bit like 40k players who have Ork armies as primary).

aapch45 wrote: I feel like 40k is a great beer and pretzels game.... but nothing more.

I can't remember if I saw it here or on warseer, but someone made the comparison recently, saying that WHFB is a beer and pretzels game, while 40k is a coke and pizza game.

I consider myself an articulate person, but I can't really explain at all why I think that analogy seems absolutely perfect.

Knockagh wrote:I see the world turning back to fantasy battle in a shorter time than GW will predict....space marine overload will boil up in a few years

But most 40k players don't play space marines. This idea of "everybody plays marines, I'm sick of them" is an attitude 10 years out of date. Look at all the big codex drops in 40k over the past 6 years - guard, GK, DE, necron, tau, and eldar. Only one of them is a space marine army.

When leafblowers came out, lots of people switched to guard, and when the flying bakery came out, people switched to necron, and now everyone is racing into tau and eldar. Most people don't play marines anymore. Not surprising given how the DA and CSM codex were, and that SW and BA are painfully out-of-edition, but still, it's going to be much harder to find power armor fatigue nowadays than it is to find people who are sick of tau. Only takes about one game against them to have that happen, though...

Of course, whether people are going to switch in droves from 40k, I couldn't say. I've noticed here and on other forums, there are definitely "just getting started, need help" threads. The fact that you're seeing "40k player wanting to get into WHFB" threads, and I don't think I've ever seen the reverse to be true might be telling, though.

Tangent wrote: Maybe some people don't like seeing so many great weapons (due to reasons of lack of variety or something), but I've never cared.

I think the problem is that S makes other things less important. For example, you get threads like this.

If you compare a unit of 5 files with spears, halberds, and 2x hand weapons, the +1S of the halberds just beats the extra attacks of the other two options. You could try and glean a little extra damage against the lightest infantry, but it's not much, while the bonus that the S has against units with a good save or high toughness is huge.

It's the whole limiting options that seems a bit annoying.

ansacs wrote:I also wish that march would be implemented in 40K it would speed the entire thing up considerably. Of course march only really makes sense when you have Movement values and not a flat 6" for all infantry.

Why so?

Anyways, here's an interesting comparison. Let's say you took two units, say, some empire halberdiers and some imperial guardsmen, and told them to run forward for a turn, and then charge something.

The guardsmen would walk forward 6", and then run D6", and then would walk 6", and then charge for 2D6". The halberdiers would march 8", and then would charge for 4+2D6". The guardsmen have a range of 15"-30", while the halberdiers have 14"-24", with an average of 23" to 19", respectively. Which is indicative, I suppose, of the halberdiers having -2M.

I suppose what the real difference is is that 6th ed draws casualties from the front rather than the back, so you don't get into situations where your unit only makes it as far forward in its movement phase as the corpses of those who had made it to the exact same spot in the previous movement phase. Well, that and less long-range shooting.

ansacs wrote:You will like fast cavalry. With vanguard movement and M8+ you can easily close on the backfield and the only thing stopping you are the spear blocks in the way and the opponent killing you. You can even march and shoot at a seriously reduced chance to hit.

Yeah, I will. My favorite unit from the O&G codex is boar boyz (though I've nearly given up on the idea of playing them, given that you only really have 5 different ork units in the whole codex), while I'm casting a jealous eye towards empire outriders...

I also have no idea how they work, but I also sort of like the idea of a chariot army. Too bad the empire can't do that, though.

Charles Rampant wrote:How did you find the Skaven? You seemed concerned about their essentially horde-light-infantry focus, did you find that limiting when in actual play? People who play Skaven certainly seem to have a great love for them (a bit like 40k players who have Ork armies as primary).

Heh, I had talked to the person about the possibility of me playing a skaven army, and he was definitely "No, skaven are the greatest army ever made in any game, and any concerns you have about them are just wrong, so there." It's nice to see that level of enthusiasm, if a bit annoying that it appears to cloud one's reasoning abilities...

The problem that I'm having with skaven isn't that I don't like piles of crappy infantry, but that I'm nervous that that will be my only option. It's a concern for list building, not a concern for play on the tabletop.

Also, on a completely unrelated note, I just reinstalled warcraft III for kicks and am coming to the end of the human campaign, and the human army in that game pretty much IS the empire. Footsoldiers and knights backed up by dwarf-made guns and mortars with a few wizards in tow. I mean, there's even a unit called the steam tank...

Oh hey, that thread. There are definitely optimal and suboptimal choices (like spears vs halberds), but that's a bit tricky to completely eliminate. I do wish every choice was mathematically competitive.

To play devil's advocate a bit more, strength isn't always the go-to thing to increase. As an example off the top of my head, AHW can be better for a WoC block of Nurgle warriors given poisoned attacks either through Festus or through the Lore of Nurgle spell. Spears can be better in a big block that's given Mindrazor. I'd rather have shields on my Tzeentch warriors than halberds or great weapons.

And sadly a chariot army is the one thing Empire CAN'T do. Clearly you just need to start some WoC on the side.

(edit)

Also, on a completely unrelated note, I just reinstalled warcraft III for kicks and am coming to the end of the human campaign, and the human army in that game pretty much IS the empire. Footsoldiers and knights backed up by dwarf-made guns and mortars with a few wizards in tow. I mean, there's even a unit called the steam tank...

There were rumors that Starcraft was supposed to be a WH40k game that GW backed out of halfway through, but I think it's just rumors. Still, check out Starcraft and then look at IG/SM = Terran, Tyranids = Zerg, and Protoss = Eldar. I love Starcraft, but there's definitely some... inspiration going on with those games.

I don't know, calling protoss eldar is a pretty damn far stretch. The only thing they really have in common is that they both have psychics, but, then, so does everyone in the starcraft universe. Likewise, the only thing that space marines and terrin have is that their default unit includes the word "marine". Space marines don't have anything like firebats or battlecruisers, and terran don't have anything like rhinos or terminators, or TFCs. Seems more like making patterns from noise, more than using data as proof to me...

Anyways, about S, it's kind of interesting that they did solve this problem in 40k. More attacks, or better initiative is usually better than more strength, but sometimes more strength is exactly the one thing you need more of. Of course, in order to do this you need the Ap system... which is worse... but still. Perhaps if you could choose to make the +S be used against toughness OR armor, or something, there would be something to it. That way you'd get flexibility, but it wouldn't just be straight twice as good most of the time.

And, interestingly, the chariot list idea would go into my resurgent bad-guy army choice of beastmen. The problem with O&G (my previous choice contending for this slot) was dropped, because what I want is boyz, and O&G gives you boyz, but then everything else in the codex is a huge pile of stuff that's worse than boyz (or are boyz riding boars, etc.). In the case of Beastmen, gors are a rough analogue to boyz, except basically everything in the codex is better. It's a matter of if I want boyz and a lot of stuff worse than boyz, or if I want boyz, and a bunch of stuff that's even tougher.

And you can do the medium and the heavy infantry charge, and chariots. The problem, like everyone else has, is that there's no shooting at all, really. That and you can't do a cavalry army either also feels rather limiting. Hatred is definitely a better trait than animosity as far as what I'm looking for, though.

I suppose that's fair. I know more about Starcraft than I do about 40k. Though to be fair, Marauders are fairly Terminator-y! ...ok I'll stop.

Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, I will. My favorite unit from the O&G codex is boar boyz (though I've nearly given up on the idea of playing them, given that you only really have 5 different ork units in the whole codex), while I'm casting a jealous eye towards empire outriders...

I also have no idea how they work, but I also sort of like the idea of a chariot army. Too bad the empire can't do that, though.

Tomb Kings can...

Ailaros wrote:

Charles Rampant wrote:How did you find the Skaven? You seemed concerned about their essentially horde-light-infantry focus, did you find that limiting when in actual play? People who play Skaven certainly seem to have a great love for them (a bit like 40k players who have Ork armies as primary).

Heh, I had talked to the person about the possibility of me playing a skaven army, and he was definitely "No, skaven are the greatest army ever made in any game, and any concerns you have about them are just wrong, so there." It's nice to see that level of enthusiasm, if a bit annoying that it appears to cloud one's reasoning abilities...

The problem that I'm having with skaven isn't that I don't like piles of crappy infantry, but that I'm nervous that that will be my only option. It's a concern for list building, not a concern for play on the tabletop.

Haha, yeah I can imagine that. I've come across fellow Ork players who are... overly keen on the army and its background. And who feel strongly that you should shout a lot during games. I'm not really a shouting-game kind of guy, if you get my drift, so that always distressed me a bit. Of course, they tended not to paint anything, and that in some ways was good, as it made my half-painted army look better by comparison...

Skaven do seem to be an odd one for list building. It does bear noting, however, that basically everyone other than WoC primarily regards Core as a tax to be paid. You don't start an army because of the crazycool Core options; you do it for the fun stuff in the other categories, then pay the Core tax in whatever way suits you best. So yeah, you'll have to dick about with a bunch of rats; but you do have a lot of options once the Core rats are tithed to the army-building god, and that gives you the variety. Most armies would give their own capital cities in return for the Skaven rare options. On the plus side, it means that you can get your Core sorted quickly and then reuse it for many different armies; I'm constantly tinkering with the TK core, which means that I have far more Core points assembled and painted than I ever actually use.

Charles Rampant wrote:Tomb Kings can...

But then I'd be playing a low-M army that relies heavily on shooting. Which means I might as well play dwarfs.

Charles Rampant wrote:Skaven do seem to be an odd one for list building. It does bear noting, however, that basically everyone other than WoC primarily regards Core as a tax to be paid. You don't start an army because of the crazycool Core options; you do it for the fun stuff in the other categories, then pay the Core tax in whatever way suits you best. So yeah, you'll have to dick about with a bunch of rats; but you do have a lot of options once the Core rats are tithed to the army-building god, and that gives you the variety.

That's not true for me, and I'd hope it's not too true of the game in general. I LIKE core units (or Troops, as it is in 40k). To me, wargames aren't about who can bring the fanciest toys, and solid generalship with bread and butter units can unhinge and defeat people who were relying on gimmicks and flare to win.

Not that I don't like a little pantomime in my armies, but I don't know if I could live with an army where I begrudgingly paid half my points on throw-away units I hate so that I can field a couple of things I like. I want the core to be the foundation my army rests on, not that annoying thing that I'd get rid of entirely if I had the chance.

There are certainly core units which fulfill mainstay roles in some armies, to be fair.

Anywho, glad to see you liked Fantasy, especially coming over from 40k. I started with 40k but have always loved Fantasy, the ruleset plays incredibly well.

There are certainly core units which form the foundation of many armies, though it does differ from book to book. High Elves, for example, don't rely on core as much as say Empire or Warriors of Chaos. Even Orcs and Goblins have a solid core unit in Savage Orc Boyz, though often they only reach their potential through synergistic combinations.

Great initial post and pretty much captures why I love WHFB so much more. Playing both games with regularity for some time now, just the feel, movement, strategy, and magic phase make WHFB a much more enjoyable game to me. I go through spurts where I will only play 40k or fantasy, but in the end I usually enjoy my fantasy games so much more.

I think one of the main reasons I love fantasy is even the armies people consider bad or with weak codexes can be formidable under the right player. The most recent tournament winner at my local shop was Brets, second was Dark Elves, and third was beastmen. Every single army was represented, and that is with fantasy by far being the less played game at the shop. There doesn't seem to be as much flavor of the month army rotations going around in fantasy either. My last 40k tournament had 23 players and 7 of them were Tau armies, 5 Eldar armies, 7 MEQ, 2 Necrons, 2 Tyranids. That's it. Tau and Eldar being the most recent releases they had the most new people on the bandwagon. Look at online forums and all you see in 40k areas are players jumping onto the flavor of the month bandwagon while trying to sell off whatever recent army they bought that they didn't like. Look at most fantasy forums and you see players picking their army for looks, and deep discussions about starting Tomb Kings, Beastmen, or WE, and how to make them work.

The movement phase and unit composition are crucial. I hate a 40k game where 5 marines kill 3 orks in a 20 man unit, and in return the orcs kill 1 marine, to see the larger orc force lose combat and flee. Fantasy emphasizes ranks, unit strength, banners, and leadership placement. It's fun planning an attack against a superior force when you know you will take more casualties but can still probably win the combat resolution. It adds so much more depth.

Good stuff.

@riburn3
Actually that situation is impossible as ork unit of 11+ are fearless and cannot flee combat even if they want to. You should say imperial guard in that statement and you would describe a fair number of games. However you should also recognize that the last stand of the few against the many is an actual thing and with proper aggressiveness and resolve it is possible to make a mob flee you.


Actually I think part of the influx of new players into fantasy is the fixing of the magic phase and the improvement of the model range. At the same time last year there were 3-4 armies that could turn the game into a winds of magic roll and if that roll came up 6-6 the game could be finished then and there. One of the worst was HE who either stomped you flat with a good winds of magic or lost the game completely when the winds came up bad. The new books have all be largely a positive move to the game with a few hiccups here and there (cough...BotWD...cough)

whoops true! (haven't played my orcs in a while). I was generalizing a horde versus a few though. IG is a much better example.

I also think one reason people are flocking to fantasy is the new edition of 40k. It seems like anytime a new edition comes out people don't like the new rules or don't like the changes to their army, and they go to a more established rule set that has more books available. I personally am just waiting for more books to catch up to the current edition of the rules in 40k because I'm tired of playing whatever the current new flavor of the month is. The same happened when this current edition of fantasy came out, and everyone flocked to the established 5th edition 40k.

An interesting thesis. I'd note, though, that of the 4 editions of 40k I've played, I'd say 5th was the best. Perhaps it drew more than its usual number of players? Also, when new WHFB rules come out, I'm under the impression that it doesn't completely ruin everything like it does in 40k.

Before 5th edition came out, eldar were ultra-beasts - the absolute best chance you had of killing a wave serpent was a 1/73 chance. Then 5th came, fixes that one super broken rule, and eldar flew to the absolute bottom of the heap. Worse, before 6th edition came out, orks had 5 very different play styles. Now, they did gain one (a gunline... for orks...) but they lost three. If you were running a green tide or a trukk rush, or a kan wall, you just lost your army, and would have to basically start all over again.

Which, if you're having to start a new army and collect an entire new miniatures range anyways, that would give you an in to thinking about switching to a system that didn't tend to completely destroy everything you worked towards from time to time. I mean, people may be grousing about not being able to take certain models thanks to cannons, but at least your entire core doesn't have the chance to be ousted.

Also, for leadership and close combat, at it's height of mockery at the end of 5th it was, as implied, a joke. Two units run into each other, and odds are one was Fearless, and the other had And They Shall Know No Fear. Or maybe they were both fearless, or both ATSKNF. Or there was a guard player with stubborn rerollable Ld9/10. Or a footdar player with an avatar. Or a SoB list with st. lucious everywhere.

Pretty much the only units that could actually lose a close combat and run were units that you didn't really care if they ran, because they were speedbumps, for example.

As someone else starting to venture in to fantasy but yet to play his first game, this is an extremely exciting thread.

The following link is probably the best WHFB listbuilding/tactics analysis I've ever seen. It's basically just a guy talking about the units in his High Elf army through a variety of league games, but the insight into how units interact with each other and how each unit in the army contributes to winning is far beyond most anything you'll see online. It's pretty valuable for anybody interested in the game, I think.

http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33584