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.

The AoS Starter Set was my first entry into the entire franchise. However prior to buying it, I played around with FB books. I skimmed through the manuals and drew small pieces of units from different factions and pit them against each other to toy around.

Its only after playing with AoS since buying it this month a crap ton with the Starter Set memorizing the basic rules that as I started experimenting with 40K in vassal that I began to wonder about the differences between AoS and FB as playing around with 40K and watching Youtube tutorials and games made me see 40K as AoS/FB but with far more shooting.............

Until they released for the first time ever a Vassal Module of Fantasy Battles (which you can find the link at in /4/Vassal40k)!

So I went back and actually read the full manual and played around more. And I notice esp after you exceed 40 models per unit (esp in large ones exceeding 100 man per formation) the game becomes very slow and mentally exhausting to play.

It felt so long to finish a small skirmish between two 50 men units esp if you remove morale from gameplay. Basically it felt like through the dice two opposing factions were desperately trying to stab at holes in their shield wall formation and unlike in the movies it becomes a long grind of slowly depleting ranks if both armies are disciplined and have strong morale.

Each time a few model died per time, sending another in front to take the open gap of the line reminded me of battles in HBO's Rome and the final Season of Spartacus Blood and Sand where its was emphasized the shield blocks must be kept tight at all costs while also trying to find gaps in not just your enemy's formation but also for exposed parts of their bodies not covered by armor!

Now I understood more than ever the necessity of discipline in real life Ancient Warfare..........

While seeing the Empire's troops cut down Zombies, Skeletons, and your typical Greenskin army felt like I was sent back to time to see Barbarian hordes get stabbed to death by disciplined Roman legions!

And thats just the start, don't get me started on how using Orc Boarriders to destroy Empire Pikemen made me understand why knights dominated the Medieval Ages and what a "well timed Cavalry charge" actually means and so on.

So it it not an exaggeration at all to see Fantasy Battles as accurately reflecting pre-Napoleonic Warfare? I mean I swear defeating some Dwarves with Guns and Canons with Skaven made me wonder if Speed was why American Indians defeated some Colonial Armies?

In addition has anyone noticed that AoS felt less like infantry tactics and more like a bunch of patrolling spotted enemies and decided to pursue or got ambushed?

I mean my multiples games of Orruks against Stormcast included in the Starter Set seemed to feel like fighting outside of formation and now individual stuff like armor plays a bigger role! Honestly the Stormcast Spearman's Save points made it feel like Aztecs fighting conquistadors but unable to kill them because Spanish armor was far superior to any weapon Aztecs used as I saw Orruks get dispatched.

So much I even made a theory you need 3X more Kruleboyz against a Stormcast Eternal's numbers to hope of having a reasonable chance of winning!

So have anyone noticed this? I mean honestly a small quick game of Fantasy Battle rules felt like a prolonged Phalanx pushing!

simple answer:
no, Warhammer, in all its Editions was never close the real warfare
even with some weapons/mechanics being the opposite of how things worked in real life
(seeing WHFB as an accurately reflecting just because it has fomrations is misleading at best)

AoS is a skirmish game that misses bonus for base to base formations to add the flair that Warhammer had
but both are equal unrealistic

I would say Warmaster comes closest, with its focus on command and control.

DorkyWaddles wrote:
a small skirmish between two 50 men units

You think thats a "small skirmish"?? For most of WHFB existence units were fielded as groups of 10-20 models (rarely 25). GW tried to inflate unit sizes towards the tail end of the game by pushing rules that encouraged larger units of 30-50 models, but even then most people tried to stick with smaller units. 50 man bricks goes far beyond a "small skirmish" in the eyes of most people that have actually played the game. A small "skirmish" sized match would really be more like 2 units of 10-15 infantry, a unit of 5-10 cavalry, a cannon/monster, and a couple heroes.

So it it not an exaggeration at all to see Fantasy Battles as accurately reflecting pre-Napoleonic Warfare?

Massive exaggeration, seemingly encouraged by a false sense of what listbuilding and gameplay looked like. The long slog you described between the two 50 man blocks is a big part of the reason why nobody fielded large blocks in the game - huge waste of points tied up in what were effectively wound counters that contributed nothing towards combat capacity.

You're looking for Warmaster for the most accurate "simulation".

However every area was different.

In my area the common 8th edition warhammer army was a mega block of 70-80 guys loaded with all the characters belly slapping the other mega unit in the opponent's army until one fled and the game was over while both were throwing six dice at a nuke spell hoping for double 6 so it couldn't be dispelled which would kill half or more of the remaining army.

This was how it was also done at the Grand Tournaments of the day.

Mega unit vs mega unit with some satelite smaller units on the side.

It was god awful.

Probably as god awful as what the game turned into afterward with armies of dragons and giants and super masters of the universe characters rolling around soloing armies.

Warhammer Fantasy Battles is a very zoomed in Wargame, more akin to a sizable skirmish. It takes elements of historical concepts and then adds in a heavy dose of Fantasy. Hence why somethings that would work fine in a historical Wargame won't in WFB. Example a Spear armes human infantry were good at blunting the charges of cavalry (horses aren't too fond of running into sharp pointy metal sticks), whereas the same would not be true for a big hulking Lizardmen who feels little to no pain and is riding an even bigger lizard who has equal immunity to pain. Not going to play out the same, so it is a bit unfair to judge it next to historical wargames, as it is trying to recreate an entirely different outcome.

That said there are somethings that WFB does that mimic/tip their hat at/emulate Historical Wargames.

Flanks are crucial, an army can be rolled up along their flanks if they leave their flanks unprotected.

Panic can ripple through the ranks and cause an undisciplined force to leg it.

Unit flexibility, in WFB units can change how they are during the game. Expand their frontage, or retract their frontage. This is possible thanks to the more zoomed in element of the game, units are comprised of individual models, and not static inflexible blocks, so a unit has a big degree of adaptability to the enemy units.

Edit.
Agree with those who are saying Warmaster is the closest that GW have come to a Historical ruleset, hence why they did make a Historical version that was well received by the Historical Wargaming community.

No, regimental warfare wouldn't exist at all in a world with magic and dragons.

EDIT: I may have misunderstood the question.

Bit late to the topic, sorry, I don't peek int this part of the forum much.

DorkyWaddles wrote:
Now I understood more than ever the necessity of discipline in real life Ancient Warfare..........

While seeing the Empire's troops cut down Zombies, Skeletons, and your typical Greenskin army felt like I was sent back to time to see Barbarian hordes get stabbed to death by disciplined Roman legions!

So it it not an exaggeration at all to see Fantasy Battles as accurately reflecting pre-Napoleonic Warfare?

Firstly, I am glad that you are enjoying wargaming and engaging with history.
All the fantasy battle wargames I know (i.e. including non-GW) are games first and representations second. While they roughly feel like a battle, they are not a great place to try and gain an understanding of historical warfare.

If you are interested in historical warfare, I strongly recommend looking into historical wargames. Those prioritise being a representation of historical warfare to some degree.
There are not as many and they may take a little doing to find, but there are probably historical wargamers near you,

kodos wrote:
AoS is a skirmish game that misses bonus for base to base formations to add the flair that Warhammer had
but both are equal unrealistic

I rather wish people would stop referring to AoS as a skirmish game. There is more to skirmish games than not being rank and flank.

stonehorse wrote:... it is a bit unfair to judge it next to historical wargames, as it is trying to recreate an entirely different outcome.

That said there are somethings that WFB does that mimic/tip their hat at/emulate Historical Wargames.

Flanks are crucial, an army can be rolled up along their flanks if they leave their flanks unprotected.

Panic can ripple through the ranks and cause an undisciplined force to leg it.

That's a good way to put it.

Check out the history blog "A collection of unmitigated pedantry" for some great reads on how wargames (usually total war PC games) run with tropes that give people a bad idea of historical warfare.

auticus wrote:
In my area the common 8th edition warhammer army was a mega block of 70-80 guys loaded with all the characters belly slapping the other mega unit in the opponent's army until one fled and the game was over while both were throwing six dice at a nuke spell hoping for double 6 so it couldn't be dispelled which would kill half or more of the remaining army.

This was how it was also done at the Grand Tournaments of the day.

Mega unit vs mega unit with some satelite smaller units on the side.

Minus the magic (and amazing characters) you have pretty much described Phalanx warfare - and indeed Warhammer Ancient Battles took advantage of this. You will find that in a bunch of Ancients rulesets, big core units and skirmishers/cavalry messing around elsewhere. The battle would be lost by whoever had their big unit run first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stonehorse wrote:

Edit.
Agree with those who are saying Warmaster is the closest that GW have come to a Historical ruleset, hence why they did make a Historical version that was well received by the Historical Wargaming community.

It is very much like a historical set... because it does 1 thing well (command and control). As wargaming is already an abstraction, many systems tend to do a narrow set of 'real' aspects and abstract away the rest.

I mean not really no. Real Warfare would have Logistical supply lines, Fog of War and Orders delay and a much more punishing Moral system. Warhammer Fantasy is just a game, not a simulation.

RustyNumber wrote:Check out the history blog "A collection of unmitigated pedantry" for some great reads on how wargames (usually total war PC games) run with tropes that give people a bad idea of historical warfare.

I recommend "A collection of unmitigated pedantry" too.