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.

dlight wrote:

Stoupe wrote:

dlight wrote:

I just don't know where to start with this. No, just no.

#1 - I routinely table Grey Knights with Daemons.
#2 - Daemons Vs. High Elves with BOWD is auto lose, worse than any 40k situation.
#3 - Movement is 40K is just as important, and in some situations more so than in fantasy. It is absolutely critical.
#4 - 8th Edition magic rules are terrible.
#5 - Fantasy is just a bad rule set. I see no reason to play it when 40K is available.
#6 - Finding players is an effort in futility. There may be 5ish that play regularly in the pop 300K city I live in.

It's a waste of time.

Well aren't you just special. Ignorance must be bliss. But I have to break some news to you. While the GK v Daemons argue ment is invalid since 6th edition, it remains a key factor in most people's memories essentially balance in 40k has been terrible for quite some time and theres little signs of that changing. While in fantasy, high elves are far far far from an autowin vs daemons, even with the banner. And if they spend so many points into the banner that daemons can't win... That army can't win a tourney. (Hint: harpies are awesome for dealing with the banner).

Movement in 40k is no where near as important. This argue ment is so invalid I can't even argue against it. The lack of facing just makes movement in 40k almost a joke. I've never watched 1/8th of an inch turn or wheel like I have to in fantasy. While magic can be a bit overwhelming, a good strategy will beat out someone who relies on IF Purple sun 9 times out of 10. It's a bit too powerful, I agree, but nowhere near as "game breaking" as you imply.

#5 is not an argument. I can and do say the opposite. 5th edition was terrible (and because of it 6th edition has not been given a chance), and I see no reason to play it when fantasy is available. See?

Your sixth reason is anecdotal evidence. Here in south jersey, fantasy is far more popular than 40k or warmachine. Our tournaments regularly get 20+ attendees and 40k died with 6th edition. While 40k is growing once again back past 10 attendees, its not going faster. I would venture to say the fantasy players are there in your city. They're just not at your store/club

I am special. Very special.

And I hate to break it to you, I was tabling GK in 5th with daemons as well. Including 20 Paladin GK builds at 2K points. Matter of fact, it was a bit of a joke unless the GK player completely tailored to fight my army.

I still think fantasy is poop. If my local area was filled with fantasy players, I may change my tune. But it is not going to happen.

Honestly this is the heart of the matter. Whether or not you like one game over the other, and what does your local area play. Fantasy has been gaining momentum in my area, but 40k is still king amongst the 2 systems (however more people play WarmaHordes then both games combined).

I personally love fantasy, but 40k I'm not a fan of. I play Orks, so having a weak codex goes a long way in helping/hurting your enjoyment level. Maybe when my army gets a new codex I'll try it again. Fantasy really has made a balanced game system less focused on absolutes, and more on playing the odds. Fantasy still gives you opportunities for epically unlikely outcomes because there are no Hard counters.

For example I've never killed a Landraider with Ork shooting because there's nothing reliable in the codex to accomplish this. There are several tools you can use, but if you don't bring them, (and you aren't extremely lucky) destroying a landraider with orky shooting isn't happening.. However I've had a lot of situations in fantasy were the odds were favorable/unfavorable for me and the best/worst case scenario happened.

Just my view.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 kazian wrote:

TanKoL wrote:
To be honest, 40K 6th Ed is decent but meta is absolute crap, completely ruining the game
While 8th Ed WHFB is crap (compared to previous Eds, so might is quite fine for newcomers) with quite a decent meta
Also, the game is much more dependant on player skill compared to list building + Alpha Strike, which makes overall WHFB a more enjoyable game (IMO)

One of the things I was wondering in particular was how it stood in terms of 'balance' as nebulous a term as that is. From my impressions so far, 40k can fall into rock/paper/scissors issues where every list essentially has a hard counter that is going to be very hard to deal with.

40k is only just starting to do away with the constant 'one-upmanship' of 5th edition, where every new codex beginning with IG turned into a massive arms race of who could spam the most OTT crap... up to the point that GK's came out and suddenly most everyone cried! (Daemons & Tyranids especially)


Fantasy on the other hand has about 50% of the books updated to 8th edition AND having all been written to be roughly 'on the level' with eachother.

The only real hiccup, (okay, massive still-gagging-to-death brainfart of the century), is the 8th ed Daemons book... It's just plain horrible from an internal balance aspect and full of badly implemented gimmicks. And of course High Elves and their Banner of the World Dragon gaff defecating all over an already bad book really doesn't help matters...

In terms of overall balance, VC's & Empire are pretty much tied for top spot, while O&G's & HE's aren't far behind. Ogres & WoC can be made to be outright mean. It's a little early to tell yet how the Lizzies are faring since their book is barely a month old, and those poor, poor TK's can be quite difficult to really learn how to make the most of them.
Now while DoC can be made broken as feth, (including having the game's single most abusive gimmick), honestly the book is boring & frustrating as sin to play with due to the complete & utter lack of internal balancing it suffers from.

The rest of the armies, Skaven, Dark Elves, Dwarfs, Bretonnians, Wood Elves & Beastmen are all still waiting for their 8th ed updates.

In the most recent major UK tourney, DoC won it, and dominated the top 2 spots on the podium. Check #Clash13 on twitter. The book is actually quite good if you take off your whinging glasses and read it.

And the Top books are Ogres, WoC, DE, and Skaven. Empire are top mid, and vampires can be at a stretch.

New Lizzies look to be good, but time will tell. I still maintain my vendetta against saurus though.

I never said that DoC can't compete/are UP, just that the internal balance of the book is outright the worst of 8th and it shows, badly...
Daemons, especially competitive lists, tend to suffer from the 7th ed syndrome of 'One List to Rule Them All'. It's basically 'go Nurgle or go home', or if you like a challenge then to bring out a Slaanesh Caco-bomb and make people really hate you!

But try taking Tzeentch or Khorne and you'll only shed tears beyond the common staples of;
Lv2 Tzherald to buff Pinkies
10 man Horror units that 6-dice Gateway/Firestorm/Pink Fire
Burning Chariot
LoC w/Wand of Win if you *really* like Tzeentch a lot... (both Big Papa & Kipper are far superior choices however as they bring much better Lores to the table)
Khorne Puppies
Khannon x2 (likely the game's most undercosted unit right now)

Everything else for those God is barely average to complete trash when compared to the other options in the book... Then add to that how laughable the General/BSB rules are and Reign of Comedy.


It's simply a horribly executed book as what works is plainly obvious and leaves little room for much leeway since the other options are just 'bad'.

Compare how different competitive Daemons lists look to say WoC, HE's, Empire & VC's who all tend to have at least 2-3 solid builds. (and more room for minor tinkering between those general builds)
That's why I hate this book. The army list choices are effectively made for me, unless I want to go and play the game on lunatic mode in order to play the army I want to play. (ie: think of the position VC's were in before their 8th ed book, when every single list was basically 'Dickenhof deathstar + friends', that's what Daemons feel like if you like Khorne or Tzeentch and to an extent, Slaanesh)

I've played TWO editions of WHFB. 3rd and 8th - whereas I've played all editions of 40k (two games of 6th ed were enough to make me not like it - but I played every other edition for several years, if not all of their edition brackets).

If you don't like doing arithmetic (40k dumped modifiers for shooting and saves back when 3rd ed came out in the late 90s), you'll hate it.

WHFB is more about the tactical movement and pre-positioning of your troop blocks to get off devastating charges.
Magic plays a bigger part than psyker powers (40k did at one stage have a psychic power phase, too).

I've found I prefer 8th ed WHFB to 6th ed 40k.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 kazian wrote:

TanKoL wrote:
To be honest, 40K 6th Ed is decent but meta is absolute crap, completely ruining the game
While 8th Ed WHFB is crap (compared to previous Eds, so might is quite fine for newcomers) with quite a decent meta
Also, the game is much more dependant on player skill compared to list building + Alpha Strike, which makes overall WHFB a more enjoyable game (IMO)

One of the things I was wondering in particular was how it stood in terms of 'balance' as nebulous a term as that is. From my impressions so far, 40k can fall into rock/paper/scissors issues where every list essentially has a hard counter that is going to be very hard to deal with.

40k is only just starting to do away with the constant 'one-upmanship' of 5th edition, where every new codex beginning with IG turned into a massive arms race of who could spam the most OTT crap... up to the point that GK's came out and suddenly most everyone cried! (Daemons & Tyranids especially)


Fantasy on the other hand has about 50% of the books updated to 8th edition AND having all been written to be roughly 'on the level' with eachother.

The only real hiccup, (okay, massive still-gagging-to-death brainfart of the century), is the 8th ed Daemons book... It's just plain horrible from an internal balance aspect and full of badly implemented gimmicks. And of course High Elves and their Banner of the World Dragon gaff defecating all over an already bad book really doesn't help matters...

In terms of overall balance, VC's & Empire are pretty much tied for top spot, while O&G's & HE's aren't far behind. Ogres & WoC can be made to be outright mean. It's a little early to tell yet how the Lizzies are faring since their book is barely a month old, and those poor, poor TK's can be quite difficult to really learn how to make the most of them.
Now while DoC can be made broken as feth, (including having the game's single most abusive gimmick), honestly the book is boring & frustrating as sin to play with due to the complete & utter lack of internal balancing it suffers from.

The rest of the armies, Skaven, Dark Elves, Dwarfs, Bretonnians, Wood Elves & Beastmen are all still waiting for their 8th ed updates.

In the most recent major UK tourney, DoC won it, and dominated the top 2 spots on the podium. Check #Clash13 on twitter. The book is actually quite good if you take off your whinging glasses and read it.

And the Top books are Ogres, WoC, DE, and Skaven. Empire are top mid, and vampires can be at a stretch.

New Lizzies look to be good, but time will tell. I still maintain my vendetta against saurus though.

I never said that DoC can't compete/are UP, just that the internal balance of the book is outright the worst of 8th and it shows, badly...
Daemons, especially competitive lists, tend to suffer from the 7th ed syndrome of 'One List to Rule Them All'. It's basically 'go Nurgle or go home', or if you like a challenge then to bring out a Slaanesh Caco-bomb and make people really hate you!

But try taking Tzeentch or Khorne and you'll only shed tears beyond the common staples of;
Lv2 Tzherald to buff Pinkies
10 man Horror units that 6-dice Gateway/Firestorm/Pink Fire
Burning Chariot
LoC w/Wand of Win if you *really* like Tzeentch a lot... (both Big Papa & Kipper are far superior choices however as they bring much better Lores to the table)
Khorne Puppies
Khannon x2 (likely the game's most undercosted unit right now)

Everything else for those God is barely average to complete trash when compared to the other options in the book... Then add to that how laughable the General/BSB rules are and Reign of Comedy.


It's simply a horribly executed book as what works is plainly obvious and leaves little room for much leeway since the other options are just 'bad'.

Compare how different competitive Daemons lists look to say WoC, HE's, Empire & VC's who all tend to have at least 2-3 solid builds. (and more room for minor tinkering between those general builds)
That's why I hate this book. The army list choices are effectively made for me, unless I want to go and play the game on lunatic mode in order to play the army I want to play. (ie: think of the position VC's were in before their 8th ed book, when every single list was basically 'Dickenhof deathstar + friends', that's what Daemons feel like if you like Khorne or Tzeentch and to an extent, Slaanesh)

The list that placed first in Clash of Swords 13, featured a tonne of Tzeentch stuff. The only Nurgle Stuff was a unit of plaguebearers, a herald BSB, and 2 units of drones. OTher than the cannon, the rest was Tzeentch.

The list that placed third had a unit of 6 beasts, a single beast, a unit of 3 drones, and a unit of 4 drones. OTher than the cannon, the rest was also tzeentch

WFB is much more fidely and reliant on a few untis in your army (or spellcaster) doing all the work - there is even a term for the stuff that s not there to actually fight I believe - Chaff.

I personally don't like all the charge angles stuff / movement - "Oh you can't charge or do anything to all those enemy troops next to you as they are 1mm outside your vison arc - just ignore them......

WFB games I have played in / observed seem to be often resolved by one spell or a single combat between a couple of units. No 6 spells are horrendous - sepecially when (as often seems to happen) they are cast with Irristable Force - I really hope we never get anything like them in 40K. Even small units in 40k tend to do stuff in combat.

40K has a big advantage in its objective based scenarios are far far superior that those offered in WFB which tend to be line and kill each other.

The problem that we've run into at my FLGS is the obvious "hero hammer".which, while it does admittedly occur in both games, seems to rear it's ugly head more in WHFB.

Mr Morden wrote:WFB is much more fidely and reliant on a few untis in your army (or spellcaster) doing all the work - there is even a term for the stuff that s not there to actually fight I believe - Chaff.

I wouldn't quite say a few units. I can easily avoid people with one or two units by multicharging or just misdirecting them with chaff. While chaff doesn't have to fight, they can. They're most often throw away units that you use to lure the enemy out of position or prevent enemy movement. They cost under 100 points and sometimes will be able to fire shots at the enemy or be able to take out a warmachine. They are actually some of the most important peices in the game as they can really be detrimental to your opponent.

I personally don't like all the charge angles stuff / movement - "Oh you can't charge or do anything to all those enemy troops next to you as they are 1mm outside your vison arc - just ignore them...

While that's understandable, you have to remember the people in the front tended to be the veterans or the leaders of a unit, which the rest of the unit relied on for orders. If the leaders couldn't command them, then they weren't going to do it. This is how battles were fought for centuries before the 1850s. It's only once the huge previlance of modern reloading guns that people started looking and taking cover, which messed with this method of fighting.

40K has a big advantage in its objective based scenarios are far far superior that those offered in WFB which tend to be line and kill each other.

Honestly the book scenarios kinda suck for both systems (coming from a FOW player). A lot of tourneys mix it up, but I'd definitely like to see better scenarios in both games.

TechMarine1 wrote:The problem that we've run into at my FLGS is the obvious "hero hammer".which, while it does admittedly occur in both games, seems to rear it's ugly head more in WHFB.

Anyone playing hero hammer (taking a large majority of your force with over the top heros), tends to have difficulty winning games. Sure you can spend 50% of your force on heros. But that does not make it a good idea. Besides defensive items for ward saves or armor saves, nothing else typically gets taken.

TechMarine1 wrote:
The problem that we've run into at my FLGS is the obvious "hero hammer".which, while it does admittedly occur in both games, seems to rear it's ugly head more in WHFB.

Herohammer is actually not that effective - I actually quite like playing against it, as it's a change for me (and not that difficult to win against ), and using it, as it's also a change and I find it pretty cool to have lots of Lords and Heroes.

But yeah, it's not that competitive. There's another DE player at my FLGS who runs a Lvl 4, a Lvl 2, A Dreadlord on foot (nope, not a PegLord), a Master BSB and another generic Master. I win a lot more games than he does. Maybe I should, in true Dark Elf style, just stab him...

 thedarkavenger wrote:

The list that placed first in Clash of Swords 13, featured a tonne of Tzeentch stuff. The only Nurgle Stuff was a unit of plaguebearers, a herald BSB, and 2 units of drones. OTher than the cannon, the rest was Tzeentch.

The list that placed third had a unit of 6 beasts, a single beast, a unit of 3 drones, and a unit of 4 drones. OTher than the cannon, the rest was also tzeentch

For both armies, would that be a LoC w/Wand+Tome, Lv2 Tzheralds + min-sized Pinkies, Burning Chariot and maybe some MoT Furies or Screamers? (if they brought Flamers, then it's more likely their opponent's were too busy dying from fits of laughter at seeing them in a competitive setting! )

TanKoL wrote:
8th Ed WHFB is crap

Ah. Someone wants to pick THIS fight again.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

The list that placed first in Clash of Swords 13, featured a tonne of Tzeentch stuff. The only Nurgle Stuff was a unit of plaguebearers, a herald BSB, and 2 units of drones. OTher than the cannon, the rest was Tzeentch.

The list that placed third had a unit of 6 beasts, a single beast, a unit of 3 drones, and a unit of 4 drones. OTher than the cannon, the rest was also tzeentch

For both armies, would that be a LoC w/Wand+Tome, Lv2 Tzheralds + min-sized Pinkies, Burning Chariot and maybe some MoT Furies or Screamers? (if they brought Flamers, then it's more likely their opponent's were too busy dying from fits of laughter at seeing them in a competitive setting! )

2 Lords of change with exalted+ lesser gifts, one tzeentch herald, 7 min units of horrors, 2 units off mot furies, and 3 units of screamers. Over both armies

I personally don't like all the charge angles stuff / movement - "Oh you can't charge or do anything to all those enemy troops next to you as they are 1mm outside your vison arc - just ignore them...

While that's understandable, you have to remember the people in the front tended to be the veterans or the leaders of a unit, which the rest of the unit relied on for orders. If the leaders couldn't command them, then they weren't going to do it. This is how battles were fought for centuries before the 1850s. It's only once the huge previlance of modern reloading guns that people started looking and taking cover, which messed with this method of fighting.

I would tend to agree if we were playing historical game of ancients or medievil etc but the fantasy element does I feel change things I feel given the inhuman nature of most of the forces on the table - especially given that some of these warriors may have decades or even hundreds of years experience of the battlefield (Elves, Dwarves, Chaos etc) - A big mob of Orcs is hardly going to ignore a load of enemies wandering past them and stopping next to them - they are gonna krump them. Magic adds another element of command and control simply not open to ancient commanders.

I just prefer 40K movement as it allows you to think about where and why you are moving units to catpure objectives, get into cover or other reaons rather than measureing out excact angles and similar.................

I actually prefer the Movement system in Fantasy.

I play Eldar, so I think about movement alot in 40K, but even then, all I am really thinking about is how far away is my opponents guns are, whether there is any Line of Sight Blocking terrain I can take advantage of, and are my troops able to get to objectives by the end of the game. It doesn't matter which way my units are facing (unless its a tank but even then only the rear is typically vulnerable), and there is no strategy in positioning aside from making use of 2 inch coherancy and putting important models behind a wall or something.

In fantasy... Movement and positioning are a lot more indepth and there are a lot more considerations. Do you Move 4 and shoot, or March to get into a better position? Do you reform into Horde or Bus formation? Do you need to angle your unit to dodge an overcharge or avoid a flank charge? Chaff and redirector games are also intense, and many times the battle is won and lost based on who has better control of the Chaff.

The other day, my friend was showing me this thread on the Empire forums, detailing the Griffin Formation http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=42921.0

Nothing in 40K even approaches this level of tactical depth. Even Eldar and Dark Eldar are simple point and click armies in comparison.

I think we just enjoy very differrent styles of play

To me the extra tactical play you describe is just manipulating angles and measurements rather than the correct use of terrain and capturing the objective. To me thats what the ames about - I lked a number of elements of 8th Ed - pre measuring etc but the high level spells and "chaff" element / high powered spells put me off.

I love the fact that in 40K even very small "Chaff" units can be deadily - lost a Ravager to a lone remaining fire warrior with a speculative shot.............

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

The list that placed first in Clash of Swords 13, featured a tonne of Tzeentch stuff. The only Nurgle Stuff was a unit of plaguebearers, a herald BSB, and 2 units of drones. OTher than the cannon, the rest was Tzeentch.

The list that placed third had a unit of 6 beasts, a single beast, a unit of 3 drones, and a unit of 4 drones. OTher than the cannon, the rest was also tzeentch

For both armies, would that be a LoC w/Wand+Tome, Lv2 Tzheralds + min-sized Pinkies, Burning Chariot and maybe some MoT Furies or Screamers? (if they brought Flamers, then it's more likely their opponent's were too busy dying from fits of laughter at seeing them in a competitive setting! )

2 Lords of change with exalted+ lesser gifts, one tzeentch herald, 7 min units of horrors, 2 units off mot furies, and 3 units of screamers. Over both armies

So pretty much the Tzeentch staples and used in exactly the same way as you always see them in competitive play...

Experiment 626 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

The list that placed first in Clash of Swords 13, featured a tonne of Tzeentch stuff. The only Nurgle Stuff was a unit of plaguebearers, a herald BSB, and 2 units of drones. OTher than the cannon, the rest was Tzeentch.

The list that placed third had a unit of 6 beasts, a single beast, a unit of 3 drones, and a unit of 4 drones. OTher than the cannon, the rest was also tzeentch

For both armies, would that be a LoC w/Wand+Tome, Lv2 Tzheralds + min-sized Pinkies, Burning Chariot and maybe some MoT Furies or Screamers? (if they brought Flamers, then it's more likely their opponent's were too busy dying from fits of laughter at seeing them in a competitive setting! )

2 Lords of change with exalted+ lesser gifts, one tzeentch herald, 7 min units of horrors, 2 units off mot furies, and 3 units of screamers. Over both armies

So pretty much the Tzeentch staples and used in exactly the same way as you always see them in competitive play...

Competitive play was generally the nurgle wall, from what I've seen.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

The list that placed first in Clash of Swords 13, featured a tonne of Tzeentch stuff. The only Nurgle Stuff was a unit of plaguebearers, a herald BSB, and 2 units of drones. OTher than the cannon, the rest was Tzeentch.

The list that placed third had a unit of 6 beasts, a single beast, a unit of 3 drones, and a unit of 4 drones. OTher than the cannon, the rest was also tzeentch

For both armies, would that be a LoC w/Wand+Tome, Lv2 Tzheralds + min-sized Pinkies, Burning Chariot and maybe some MoT Furies or Screamers? (if they brought Flamers, then it's more likely their opponent's were too busy dying from fits of laughter at seeing them in a competitive setting! )

2 Lords of change with exalted+ lesser gifts, one tzeentch herald, 7 min units of horrors, 2 units off mot furies, and 3 units of screamers. Over both armies

So pretty much the Tzeentch staples and used in exactly the same way as you always see them in competitive play...

Competitive play was generally the nurgle wall, from what I've seen.

Competitive Daemons are basically limited to the following;

Lords = LoC w/Wand+Tome, or GUO, or Kipper (if running a caco-bomb of 'no-fun-for-you!')

Heroes = Nurgle BSB w/Regen Locus, Lv2 Tzherald(s) w/Exalted Locus, Slaanesh Herald w/Auto-pass characteristic tests or ASF Locus + Lv1

Core = 25-35 Plaguebearer brick, potentially an 18-20 or so secondary brick, 10 man Horror units for Gateway/Firestorm, big Daemonette brick (only if you're running mono-Slaanesh)

Special = 2x Solo Beasts + 2-3x 5 man Furies w/MoN or MoT for chaffing. 4-6 strong Beast brick for killy. Occasionally 3 man Screamer units if aiming for the Tzeentch Lore attribute. Might still see the occasional Ambushing Doggie unit, but their role is pretty much taken by Drones now.

Rare = 2x Khannons, 1-2x 3 or 4 strong Drone units (Burny Banner is ace here!), occasionally a Grinder or Burny Chariot.



Unlike most of the other 8th ed books, Daemons really do tend to run a set basic build with only some minor variance. (simply because our internal balance is so shockingly bad!)

Sure very few stubborn hold-outs might try to run Khorne or Tzeentch-heavy armies, or else include a pair of DP's, etc... because they want to/try it for the sheer challenge, but overall it's just not that viable in any kind of competitive setting...
Compare how similar almost all Daemon lists look, (besides the Slaanesh Caco-bomb which is a one-trick glass cannon pony), to books like VC's or Empire or HE's who can run at least 3-4 'main' builds.

You'll almost never see at least half the Daemon book turn up to a tournament... Things like non-Nurgle DP's, 'Thirsters, HoK, 'Letters, 'Crushers, Flamers, all 3 Slaany chariots, Seekers, etc... just get outdone by the other staple units.

Why do you have to ass up every thread that every mentions DoC about how you hate DoC yet still play it?

DukeRustfield wrote:
Why do you have to ass up every thread that every mentions DoC about how you hate DoC yet still play it?

Exaulted.

Can I just say that the bitching is useless. DoC is still midrange army. Look at all the choices you just said you had. The crying is really getting rediculous.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I think we just enjoy very differrent styles of play

To me the extra tactical play you describe is just manipulating angles and measurements rather than the correct use of terrain and capturing the objective. To me thats what the ames about - I lked a number of elements of 8th Ed - pre measuring etc but the high level spells and "chaff" element / high powered spells put me off.

I love the fact that in 40K even very small "Chaff" units can be deadily - lost a Ravager to a lone remaining fire warrior with a speculative shot.............

Chaff is what wins games in WHFB. That big 50 strong unit of pure death will never see combat against a good player with chaff and its your own chaff that allows you to get said unit into a good postion. In fact I would say in WHFB there is almost no wasted units unlike 40k where you take 4-5 troops choices to just hold objectives and little else.

Also chaff gives you more "drops" in deployment allowing you to place your units in such away that takes your opponents scariest stuff out of the fight.

Warhammer just has a much stepper learning curve then 40k and it may takes a while to really get your head around the rules and tactics but watching two good players going at it in warhammer is a thing of beauty, I think that a unit can win you the game without killing a single thing and just blocking a charge at the right time speaks volumes about the depth of the game compared to 40k (not hating on 40k 6th wasnt for me but you can bet your ass I will be checking out 7th)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

I personally don't like all the charge angles stuff / movement - "Oh you can't charge or do anything to all those enemy troops next to you as they are 1mm outside your vison arc - just ignore them...

While that's understandable, you have to remember the people in the front tended to be the veterans or the leaders of a unit, which the rest of the unit relied on for orders. If the leaders couldn't command them, then they weren't going to do it. This is how battles were fought for centuries before the 1850s. It's only once the huge previlance of modern reloading guns that people started looking and taking cover, which messed with this method of fighting.

I would tend to agree if we were playing historical game of ancients or medievil etc but the fantasy element does I feel change things I feel given the inhuman nature of most of the forces on the table - especially given that some of these warriors may have decades or even hundreds of years experience of the battlefield (Elves, Dwarves, Chaos etc) - A big mob of Orcs is hardly going to ignore a load of enemies wandering past them and stopping next to them - they are gonna krump them. Magic adds another element of command and control simply not open to ancient commanders.

I just prefer 40K movement as it allows you to think about where and why you are moving units to catpure objectives, get into cover or other reaons rather than measureing out excact angles and similar.................

Big blocks of ranked infantry are not the most maneuverable things not to mention the fact that for anyone that is not in the front rank your SA is almost nill. I don't think it matters if you have green skin,pointy ears or giant fangs.

I understand how a newer player could be put off by the "exact measuring" but once you have the concept firmly down you tend to just be able to eyeball it fairly well and funnily enough one of things I find limiting about 40k is movement is very simple. Need the unit to survive dump them in cover, need a unit to hold an objective just work out how many turns you need to get there and if you have time to take the "safe" way using LoS etc.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Why do you have to ass up every thread that every mentions DoC about how you hate DoC yet still play it?

Oh man, this.

On chaff being 'useless'... they're not for killing things. Killing things is a bonus if they can manage it. But this is kind of the difference between 40k and fantasy right here, I think. In 40k, usefulness is generally raw stats. In fantasy, usefulness can be other things too. Chaff will win you games. They may not cause a single wound, but they will save your units and give you crucial positioning to help your main units win combats. The movement phase dance with chaff is part of the reason I love fantasy and am lukewarm about 40k. There's just a lot more going on.

If you prefer going for killy shooty bloodbaths, 40k certainly delivers and there's nothing wrong with that. Just don't knock chaff for uselessness when you don't understand what it's really for.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Why do you have to ass up every thread that every mentions DoC about how you hate DoC yet still play it?

Because he probably ran the 90 bloodletter list and is now butthurt that he has to play tactically now.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:
Why do you have to ass up every thread that every mentions DoC about how you hate DoC yet still play it?

Because he probably ran the 90 bloodletter list and is now butthurt that he has to play tactically now.

Actually, I ran a list that was basically;

Tzeentch Daemon Prince w/Lv2 & Fire(8th) or Beast magic(7th)

Chariot Tzherald BSB w/make Light magic not-so-hurty banner

Tzerhald w/Heavens magic + 36 Pinkies

Occasionally a Disc Tzherald w/Tzeentch magic

18 Pinkies

18 Pinkies

5 Flamers

4 Flamers

Hardly cheese mongering, and it included 2 of the weakest options in the book while also using some of the supposedly 'weakest' magic lores between both editions.

The Daemon Prince who was considered "crap/underpowered" in the previous book somehow got even weaker! (and is a complete joke when compared to the WoC version...)
Hell, it's even shooting myself in the foot to run my Pinkies in their 'sacred number' sizes now, and Flamers are now simply unplayable they're so bad.

And yet, you compare the DoC book to the 40k Daemons codex and the difference in quality and internal balance is shocking... Better rewards - which are also organised meaning it's quite easy to give your characters protective gifts, Warpstorm can be controlled to at least not zap yourself through Instrument, most units are viable... (though the Burning Chariot is crying for an FAQ, while Nurglings are redundant & the Slaany Chariots need some help)

I can play my Daemons with the units I want in 40k and I don't feel constrained or hamstrung in my units & character selections.
That's simply not possible with the Fantasy book, where for example;
- I *must* take the LoC over the Prince because I need the added stats since I can't give adequate protection & supportive gifts to the Prince. (who's also laughably, the only Lord character in the game who doesn't get 100pts to spend on magic items/gifts!)
- I *need* to bring my Horrors in minimum 10 man units because Lore of Tzeentch only has a couple of useful spells that work well with them, AND I no longer have access to supportive BRB lores like Beasts or Light or Fire to buff their combat potential.
- I *cannot* use Flamers because they're simply the worst unit in the game... No focused role, hard-capped at only 6 meaning they melt instantly in combat due to DI, crap shooting that suffers from Warpflame... and all for this for 240pts for a max unit!

Yes I've bought stuff to make-up for this, (6 chariot kits to convert Tzeentchy 'counts as' Drones & Beasts + 1 Burning Chariot), but even then it's simply frustrating as hell because even those units tend to have specific set-ups! (Solo Beasts for chaffing, never more than 4 Drones or you lose effectiveness/can't manouver properly, etc...)
The only part of my army that actually gained in power/dropped pts were my LoC & Screamers! Everything else took it to the face with the nerf bat... (and Flamers somehow got nerfed even further from their WD update beating!)

You just did it again. I want to ask why you play Daemons but I don't think it's a good idea.

I feel at this point if someone makes a thread that says, I have to go to the doctor's later, he will jump on it and say DOC sux and here's the wall of text why.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Why do you have to ass up every thread that every mentions DoC about how you hate DoC yet still play it?

Exactly I know tzeentch is now not upper tier but really, Khorne, and Slaanesh still work and Nurgle is downright Filth. Tzeentch still has the most powerful casters in the demons book.

dlight wrote:
Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition, and just Warhammer Fantasy in general, is a terrible rule set. Pretty models, but awful, awful rules.
In most areas, fantasy has largely died off. People just don't want to play it.

I wouldn't mess with it. 40K is way more fun and it is far easier to find people to play with in most areas.

Warhammer 40K 6th has a lot of tactics and skill that come into play in competitive play. There are so many different builds you can face now with the ally system, and the codex's are getting
updated constantly. You will rarely see the same army build win different tournaments, there is a lot of diversity and depth.

There has never been a better time to be a 40K fan.

This is not true I understand this is your opinion but I've seen the EXACT opposite results, 8th edition is great

8th edition is the best WFB I have played - but I don't feel it offers any of the enjoyment or depth of 40k

but then I think the two games appeal to different mindsets - so what I like - others won;t and vice versa

I keep meaning to work out some rules for WFB troops in 40k - should be good for my forthcoming King Kong versus the Orks game at the local club

I've played 40k since late 3rd edition, fantasy since early 8th. I can't speak for the earlier additions of fantasy, but in the simplest terms, i would say the games break down thusly:

40k is a game of List Building, alpha strike, target priority, and shooting ie:

You MUST have a good list, and most of your killing will be by shooting at range since assault hasn't worked right since 4th edition (please no flame-spray, some armies can do it /coughORKScough, but alot of them just cant anymore). So since the game is mostly shooting, it becomes a game of target priority. If someone doubts this, then ask yourself...if two 40k players deployed their armies on the table and then told you which of them had first turn, could you, with some accuracy, determine WHO is likely to win just based on their list and deployments? Most 40k players could say "yes" to this...hence, list building and target priority. You usually can't do that in fantasy.

Fantasy is more balanced in that sense. In 40k, the shooting phase dominates the game, in fantasy, YOU pick which phase you want to dominate (yes, magic is strong, but it's not required to win, only recommended)

In fantasy, the Movement phase is WAAAAY more complex and important and requires that you think ahead to the next turn to be effective. But truly, there are 4 phases to the game, movement, magic, shooting, and assault. One of the best players i know (been playing since 3rd Fantasy) says all the time, build an army to dominate 2 phases of the game, and break even on a third. Then go play. Movement and shooting CAN beat magic and assault, it may be hard, but they can. Movement and assault can beat Shooting and magic, it all depends on how you play. There are some definite OTT things in fantasy but most people wont or dont play with them since they are recognized to be somewhat un-fun to play with or against. The game requires much more thought then simply "Build a bad-azz list and blast your opponent turn 1" since game-changing events can occur in any turn or phase of the game, and an army that's loosing the entire game can turn it around and win in turn 6.

In 40k, once a book becomes understood (meaning played for a while), nearly everyone has very similar armies with only minor differences, because that's the army that works. As opposed, I play vampire counts and off the top of my head i could make 3 completely different armies that share almost nothing in common and all 3 would be viable, competetive armies. Better balance.

The biggest downsides i would say to fantasy compared to 40k is this:
1. Terrain rules are strange and cumbersome, most people just end up ignoring them.
2. 40k objective based scenarios are MUCH more in-depth and interesting then fantasy, whereas in fantasy you usually just line up, say yer "howdies", and start killin. But then again, the game is so in-depth that is usually enough.