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.

1) To me, the worst part about 40K is space marines. Everything is space marines. There's space marines, then dark angels space marines, then black templar space marines. Blood Angels space marines. Space Wolves space marines. Grey Knight space marines. Chaos space marines. Necrons are just different-looking space marines. I played in a 40k tournie last year and didn't play a single army that wasn't space marines.

2) WHFB's biggest strength is its tactical depth. 40k is a game of listbuilding and target priority. Movement is important for supporting your game of target priority, but little else.

WHFB still has an emphasis about listbuilding and bringing the right tools, but your use of tools on the table is considerably more nuanced. Using chaff to block and redirect. Setting up flank and combo-charges. A well-executed WHFB battle strategy is truly a thing of beauty.

3) WHFB is a significantly more balanced game. 40k's focus on listbuilding can mean outcomes can often be determined before a single die has rolled. In fantasy a strong player can often win with bottom-tier armies by out-maneuvering and out-smarting their opponents.

4) Magic may be powerful, but it's also risky. Lean too heavily on magic and see your army falter when you get 3 dice on your winds roll, or your kajillion-point party slann or demon prince miscasts on that 6-diced purple sun and jumps into the warp.

Magic is an important part of the game, but amongst skilled players it is a much more nuanced fight than many here are suggesting.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

4) Magic may be powerful, but it's also risky. Lean too heavily on magic and see your army falter when you get 3 dice on your winds roll, or your kajillion-point party slann or demon prince miscasts on that 6-diced purple sun and jumps into the warp.

Magic is an important part of the game, but amongst skilled players it is a much more nuanced fight than many here are suggesting.

I still have nightmares about one of the last 7th ed games with my VC's...
I'd weathered the beating from WoC and was ready to raise back my anvil of Skellies as I was sitting on 11PD... Despite throwing out my bounds first & then D6'ing my Invocations to overpower my opponent's 6DD, I managed to raise all of 1 skeleton. (and my opponent never attempted to stop a single casting, simply because I'd failed the first 10. )

I love magic-heavy armies, but unfortunately what should be my army's strength tends to more often than not blow-up spectacularly in my face... Sucking a 540'ish pts LoC back into the Warp isn't much fun. (at least that'll teach me to think 2D6 casting is somehow "safer")

I personally play all three GW games, while all games revolve around rolling dice, 40k is still Mostly about what your list consists of and 99% of the time, the better list will win. (There are always exceptions.) You place your models on the table, move them a little here or there, and shot without any thought of something bad happening. LOTR requires you to be competing in all aspects of the game. But I will stay away from this for this thread.
Fantasy, The best list in the world can let you down just as easily as the weakest. A Gun line’s war machines explode turn one. Your Big Bad Wizard miss casts and is removed from play. Your Tough as nails 500 monster charges in whiffs his attacks and is destroyed by a 50 point unit of the weakest of models in the game. These things do not happen in 40k.

How would you feel if you Land raider (Or the like) had a 1-6 chance of that las gun blowing up, then a 1-3 chance of that gun taking out the entire tank, before the enemy even had a chance to shoot at it. Or how about you’re General fails his psyche test, and instead of taking a wound, he gets removed from play and every model in his unit takes a S10 AP1 hit. 40k does not have to deal with such issues.
With 40k you make a plan, deploy your army, and see if that plan was good enough to win. Fantasy requires you to make a plan, then toss than plan out the window, and think on your feet every turn.
40k look my unit can easily wound you on a 2+, but wait even though I am so strong to hurt you this easily, you still get to make that 2+/3+ save that is all over the place. This does not happen in fantasy that often because superior saves are far less prevalent. And armor does not stand up as well against stronger attacks. If my unit can easily wound you, odds are that most of your unit is going to die. How many times have a 40k player cause 30-40 wounds only to see 1 - 3 warriors die, I see it far more often than I see the unit be wiped out. In fantasy if I can wound you on 2+ odds are that 60%-75%+ of those wounds are going to kill models.

Personally, I prefer to play Fantasy over 40k. 6th ed is a major step in the right direction as far at bring the game into more of a table top strategy, but it is still holding strong to its list build table top roots. Fantasy while having its flaws, Is far superior in the strategy aspect. But both have their good and bad points.

People really need to get off the pedestal about how bad the DoC book is. Does it have some internal BS, Sure, but you are basically looking at 4 books in one. The gods do not want to work with each other deal with it. And the OP HE BOTWD only protects one unit, It is not like DoC can only attack that one Unit. Sure that unit might eat a ton of points. But If you planned your army correctly, DOC have plenty of ways of combating it, and still winning the game with ease, while still being able to compete against every other Army. As new books come out you have to be able to adjust, Adapt, and go on playing.

Another thing that gets on my nerves for both games is how everyone complains that some armies have all this entire different list, and some only have 1-2. I say that is complete crap. Every army has 1-2 list that are the strongest list for that book. But no book is cookie cut into taking that list. I have played my share of games against far more different list than most people would think. There have been games where I have said (to myself mostly) there is no way that can work, only to be proven wrong. Each player is different, and If you build a list around a concept, and not what your opponent has shown up with, you will win more of your games than you lose.

cawizkid wrote:

40k look my unit can easily wound you on a 2+, but wait even though I am so strong to hurt you this easily, you still get to make that 2+/3+ save that is all over the place. This does not happen in fantasy that often because superior saves are far less prevalent. And armor does not stand up as well against stronger attacks. If my unit can easily wound you, odds are that most of your unit is going to die. How many times have a 40k player cause 30-40 wounds only to see 1 - 3 warriors die, I see it far more often than I see the unit be wiped out. In fantasy if I can wound you on 2+ odds are that 60%-75%+ of those wounds are going to kill models.

Well, when MY marines take those wounds, I can 100% promise you the unit will not be there anymore...

Last time I brought some allied CSM's with my Daemons, the 5 man unit took a total of 6 wounds before they all died. The final casualty being the plasma gunner who rolled snake-eyes after rapid firing and then managed to pass one of his saves... (at least my buddy's Dark Angels purged those Fallen)
The lone Oblit on the other hand who kept eating ap2 shots all game never once failed his 4++ save though! (now if only he'd managed to actually hit something or even at least glance a vehicle at some point...)

Hence why I don't believe in armour saves, because dice don't like me.


And Fantasy is no different... Waaaaaay back when I still played Brets, S3 arrows were the ultimate weapon against my army of 2+ saves.

Experiment 626 wrote:

cawizkid wrote:

40k look my unit can easily wound you on a 2+, but wait even though I am so strong to hurt you this easily, you still get to make that 2+/3+ save that is all over the place. This does not happen in fantasy that often because superior saves are far less prevalent. And armor does not stand up as well against stronger attacks. If my unit can easily wound you, odds are that most of your unit is going to die. How many times have a 40k player cause 30-40 wounds only to see 1 - 3 warriors die, I see it far more often than I see the unit be wiped out. In fantasy if I can wound you on 2+ odds are that 60%-75%+ of those wounds are going to kill models.

Well, when MY marines take those wounds, I can 100% promise you the unit will not be there anymore...

Last time I brought some allied CSM's with my Daemons, the 5 man unit took a total of 6 wounds before they all died. The final casualty being the plasma gunner who rolled snake-eyes after rapid firing and then managed to pass one of his saves... (at least my buddy's Dark Angels purged those Fallen)
The lone Oblit on the other hand who kept eating ap2 shots all game never once failed his 4++ save though! (now if only he'd managed to actually hit something or even at least glance a vehicle at some point...)

Hence why I don't believe in armour saves, because dice don't like me.


And Fantasy is no different... Waaaaaay back when I still played Brets, S3 arrows were the ultimate weapon against my army of 2+ saves.

This actually the truth that makes no sense. Somehow Brettonian archers always destroy a unit they have no business killing.

I started with both 6th ed 40K, and now 8th edition Fantasy (because my group largely plays Fantasy). Huge fan of 6th ed 40k. I've been having lots of fun with the game so far. I play Tyranids.

I have very mixed emotions about Fantasy. I've had a lot of fun (I play High Elves - especially now that my book got a power boost), but in just about every game i've played I end up upset about some quirky rule. This has never happened to me in 40k, even when I get stomped by some hard-counter list. My biggest gripe comes down to how you actually win the game. Frankly, I think victory points is an awful system. If the game comes down to pts-for-pts calculations the better army book will always win. I much prefer to play 40k scenarios.

I do enjoy Fantasy though, i'm just keeping my fingers crossed that 9th edition makes the playing experience more pleasurable.

rollawaythestone wrote:
If the game comes down to pts-for-pts calculations the better army book will always win.

That's so not true.

Ogres are mostly likely better than TK but you can't begin to say every ogre general will beat every TK general and army. I find that exact thing does happen in 40K, however. That's what list building is. If your army isn't capable of fielding a good list, you're going to lose to one that is. Assuming you don't just pick garbage units.

ComTrav wrote:
Fun is subjective, there are lots of great games out there worth trying.

What a great quote HAVE AN EXALT!

Anyway I find Fantasy to be far more fun and far more interesting personally than many games that are out currently. The game seems a little daunting to get into but it really doesn't work that way. if you want a cheap (monetarily) and powerful army it is available (Ogres, Chaos Warriors.) If you want to spend the time and resources you can do Horde armies. If you want a mix there are a handful of those.

Fantasy can be very enjoyable and no book is unplayable. (Beastmen, Wood Elves and, Tomb Kings are considered to be Hard but they are functional and possible to use.) Also it should be said some Fantasy Fluff armies don't work.

40k on the other hand feels bland and boring kit all comes down to throwing dice at one another.

Or at least that is my opinion.

DukeRustfield wrote:

rollawaythestone wrote:
If the game comes down to pts-for-pts calculations the better army book will always win.

That's so not true.

Ogres are mostly likely better than TK but you can't begin to say every ogre general will beat every TK general and army. I find that exact thing does happen in 40K, however. That's what list building is. If your army isn't capable of fielding a good list, you're going to lose to one that is. Assuming you don't just pick garbage units.

In a way, I get what rollawaythestone is saying (or at least how I interpret his words) and it is a very good point actually. In 40k, I've often felt that "oh crap, I'm going to lose this", but have ended up narrowly scraping a victory or a draw through means of a last-ditch objective grab, or linebreaker, or slay the warlord. I remember one game against a Daemon Flying Circus with my Orks, I felt sure by Turn 2 that I was going to lose. In the end, I did, but he only had 5 Plaguebearers left on the board, that were sat on a 4pt objective (it was The Scouring). I remember I had one Battlewagon that just sat there because "there was no point moving it", whereas I probably could have one the game with it. Similarly, if I'd pushed for first blood, I would have won. I was quite annoyed with myself, if I remember rightly.

In Fantasy though, you can normally tell that, if you've lost a lot of points, you are going to lose. I'm not saying a comeback is impossible - it certainly isn't - it's just that 40k tends to have more close-run finishes

 The Shadow wrote:

In Fantasy though, you can normally tell that, if you've lost a lot of points, you are going to lose. I'm not saying a comeback is impossible - it certainly isn't - it's just that 40k tends to have more close-run finishes

For a counter-anecdote, in a low points game I ended up with about 5 chaos warriors and 3 marauders against two goblin chariots left on the board. I ended up positioning the marauders as a sacrificial lamb and put the warriors at an angle to try and catch the chariot afterwards. Managed to get the hail mary roll of 11 on the charge to reach after the chariots plowed through the marauders and won the game.

As you said, comebacks are not impossible. But yes, I see where you're coming from on that. I think the neat thing is that people that are more familiar with the system are going to see ways to come back. People that don't play 40k will say that one list always beats another. People that don't play fantasy will say the underpowered army will always lose, etc.

 The Shadow wrote:
In Fantasy though, you can normally tell that, if you've lost a lot of points, you are going to lose. I'm not saying a comeback is impossible - it certainly isn't - it's just that 40k tends to have more close-run finishes

Yeah but, this doesn't happen on turn one. It's like saying, you usually know who won the war as the war draws to a close. WHFB doesn't have the same, sit one unit on the object > killing a zillion dudes objectives.

DukeRustfield wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
In Fantasy though, you can normally tell that, if you've lost a lot of points, you are going to lose. I'm not saying a comeback is impossible - it certainly isn't - it's just that 40k tends to have more close-run finishes

Yeah but, this doesn't happen on turn one. It's like saying, you usually know who won the war as the war draws to a close. WHFB doesn't have the same, sit one unit on the object > killing a zillion dudes objectives.

I've seen this frequently happen by Turn 3, which is only halfway through the game. Units start hitting combat by Turn 2, so 3 turns is plenty of time for carnage to ensue.

DukeRustfield wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
In Fantasy though, you can normally tell that, if you've lost a lot of points, you are going to lose. I'm not saying a comeback is impossible - it certainly isn't - it's just that 40k tends to have more close-run finishes

Yeah but, this doesn't happen on turn one. It's like saying, you usually know who won the war as the war draws to a close. WHFB doesn't have the same, sit one unit on the object > killing a zillion dudes objectives.

Yeah, tell that to my Vamp Lord who's favourite "tactic" is to miscast and explode spectacularly half the time in her first magic phase...
At least it's not auto-lose anymore provided you bring more than a single Lore of Vamps caster.

But there's always those games though where stupid gak happens turn 1 and effectively ends the game then and there, and it's always existed in Fantasy much more so than 40k...
- My Tzeentch Daemons have gotten snake-eyes a couple times turn 1 and lost most of my chaff and even my Lv4 to Instability tests. (stupid Reign of Comedy!)

- VC's or TK's losing their general/hierophant to a miscast/cannon/war machine snipe and crumbling.

- Purple Sun being IF'ed down the flank of your majority I2 army. (I've been on the receiving end of this & seen it happen numerous times)

- Skaven Warp-Lightning Cannon (or another 'wonder weapon) misfiring and causing the entire army minus the Grey Seer's unit to leg it off the board. (as happened at the 2003 Toronto GT, earning that poor fellow the Murphy's Luck award)
Although, I do believe the proper term used was that the entire army, 'charged forwards in the opposite direction'.

- A special mention to the entire Night Goblin army, (minus the warlord's unit), that ran off the table in panic turn 1 because "it got dark". (scenario special rule)
Comically enough, this was at the 2001 Toronto GT vs a Daemon army... It was decided that the Night Goblins were able to see exactly what they were up against and decided to say "feth this!" and legged it back to the relative safety of their caves!


The only games like that in 40k I've seen/heard of where typically from 'back in the day' in 2nd edition such as the infamous 'Pulsa Rokkit into a building full of Ultramarines' at the very first Canadian GT in Toronto, (this event is obviously cursed!), or else from player stupidity such as in 3rd ed when ordinance pens could kill passengers if their tank was destroyed on a 6... (dude deployed a pair of Land Raiders side-by-side in front of an enemy Vindicator & one of those 'Raiders had a squad of tooled-up Termies + Captain inside... not so much Murphy's Luck as it was 'Darwin Award' type of play though - and yes, again this was at the Toronto GT...)

Or else you lose first turn to a gunline...

 The Shadow wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:

rollawaythestone wrote:
If the game comes down to pts-for-pts calculations the better army book will always win.

That's so not true.

Ogres are mostly likely better than TK but you can't begin to say every ogre general will beat every TK general and army. I find that exact thing does happen in 40K, however. That's what list building is. If your army isn't capable of fielding a good list, you're going to lose to one that is. Assuming you don't just pick garbage units.

In a way, I get what rollawaythestone is saying (or at least how I interpret his words) and it is a very good point actually. In 40k, I've often felt that "oh crap, I'm going to lose this", but have ended up narrowly scraping a victory or a draw through means of a last-ditch objective grab, or linebreaker, or slay the warlord. I remember one game against a Daemon Flying Circus with my Orks, I felt sure by Turn 2 that I was going to lose. In the end, I did, but he only had 5 Plaguebearers left on the board, that were sat on a 4pt objective (it was The Scouring). I remember I had one Battlewagon that just sat there because "there was no point moving it", whereas I probably could have one the game with it. Similarly, if I'd pushed for first blood, I would have won. I was quite annoyed with myself, if I remember rightly.

In Fantasy though, you can normally tell that, if you've lost a lot of points, you are going to lose. I'm not saying a comeback is impossible - it certainly isn't - it's just that 40k tends to have more close-run finishes

Yeah, this is exactly what I was trying to suggest. In my experience, a game of 40k isn't over until you roll the dice to see if it ends. You could spend the entire game shooting me to hell, but if you don't get those objectives, I still have a chance. Not so in Fantasy, where one miscast, bad combat round, or d6 wound cannon shot to your monster, can lose you the entire game.

From what I've seen, fantasy players are a much more relaxed bunch who enjoy life. Far too many 40k players get all hyper and stressed out while playing the game.

It is also true that fantasy games between two decent players are often far more close than than the one sided matches that often unfold in 40k.

Two of my recent 40k matches are pretty good examples. My list isn't overly competitive, it is a 1500-1750 pt farsight enclave consisting of many XV8s, 1 broadside team, 1 sniper drone team, 1 FW team, many drones, a commander, and farsight.

Opponent 1 brought a jump pack blood angels list. The game pretty went as follows: he spent a turn or 2 maneuvering out of LoS or in cover and then jumped out to charge. He lost about 30% of each squad in my shooting phase and then lost another 2 guys per squad from overwatch (plasma/fusion blasters were just brutal). Then we were locked into CC... and my crisis suits destroyed (str 5 punches hurt) his few marines that did survive the shooting.

Opponent 2 brought a dark eldar venom/ravager spam list. He pretty much kited me all game since his dark lances were 36 inches and my longest range was missile pods (also 36 inches), but night shields reduced me to 30". I had to concede because I had no viable options, sit in cover and slowly get picked apart or jump out and get instantly shredded.

My point is, lists in these 40k matches dictated the winner and in my experience, fantasy (while lists do matter) suffers much less from the scenarios above.

I'm personally waiting for 9th to drop and I'll try to decide between VC and hopefully WE if they receive an update in the next year or so.

Edit: I should mention that I'm definitely going to stick with 40k in the future - I'll just probably keep it as more of a fluff/modelling/painting experience while fantasy is used to have some relaxing game time.

rollawaythestone wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:

rollawaythestone wrote:
If the game comes down to pts-for-pts calculations the better army book will always win.

That's so not true.

Ogres are mostly likely better than TK but you can't begin to say every ogre general will beat every TK general and army. I find that exact thing does happen in 40K, however. That's what list building is. If your army isn't capable of fielding a good list, you're going to lose to one that is. Assuming you don't just pick garbage units.

In a way, I get what rollawaythestone is saying (or at least how I interpret his words) and it is a very good point actually. In 40k, I've often felt that "oh crap, I'm going to lose this", but have ended up narrowly scraping a victory or a draw through means of a last-ditch objective grab, or linebreaker, or slay the warlord. I remember one game against a Daemon Flying Circus with my Orks, I felt sure by Turn 2 that I was going to lose. In the end, I did, but he only had 5 Plaguebearers left on the board, that were sat on a 4pt objective (it was The Scouring). I remember I had one Battlewagon that just sat there because "there was no point moving it", whereas I probably could have one the game with it. Similarly, if I'd pushed for first blood, I would have won. I was quite annoyed with myself, if I remember rightly.

In Fantasy though, you can normally tell that, if you've lost a lot of points, you are going to lose. I'm not saying a comeback is impossible - it certainly isn't - it's just that 40k tends to have more close-run finishes

Yeah, this is exactly what I was trying to suggest. In my experience, a game of 40k isn't over until you roll the dice to see if it ends. You could spend the entire game shooting me to hell, but if you don't get those objectives, I still have a chance. Not so in Fantasy, where one miscast, bad combat round, or d6 wound cannon shot to your monster, can lose you the entire game.

Agreed thats what I have found - one close combat and eh games over, one spell and the games over as opposed to 40K where even small units can actaully do something rather than run arounnd and try and divert people. On a more positive note - maybe its a good thing they are so different as different strokes and all that!?

Hi, so, 40k player here. I was told I should take a look at fantasy in a PM. So far, all I really know about fantasy is what the models look like and what the names of the armies are, so a pretty blank slate.

On the other hand, I've played quite a bit of 40k since 4th edition, and am actually getting rather annoyed with it at the moment.

The thing that I find most shocking about this thread is that, without me telling you what's bothering me about 40k, everyone here has basically been going over my list of things that are bugging me about 40k, and saying that WHFB fixes those problems.

While there are a lot of things I could refer to, this one was the most poignant:

akaean wrote:For me at least, 40K is at its best somewhere between close combat and 24 inches. In close range fire fights where considerations such as rapid firing but putting yourself at risk of a charge, and other issues come into play. But this is watered down by 40Ks (understandably) much higher focus on powerful long ranged weaponry, and entire factions like Tau or IG specialized in shooting from across the board, with high strength low ap and often cover ignoring weapons. It really moves the game away from 2 players dancing in all phases to one player playing his shooting phase, while the other player desperately tries to make the other two phases (movement and close combat) relevant to the game, and frustratingly oftentimes the gunline will win.

The idea that there are armies in 40k that don't really use the movement phase at all, and basically don't use the assault phase (so, don't do anything more than put down miniatures and roll dice), is unfortunate, but tolerable to me. The fact that these kinds of armies have gotten to the point where they can shut down YOUR ability to use anything but the movement phase, and can make it so that YOU are stuck trying to make whole swaths of the game relevant, well... that's another matter. It's obviously far from an unbroken trend, but for the past half decade, 40k has slowly been moving towards the one (happenstantially least skilled, and most boring) type of army, and the competition over the years has been who can do this one play style best. Everyone else is just sort of screwing around and losing badly while they don't get to play their army in the way they intended to because everything just gets killed off too quickly.

Of course, I can't really say anything about fantasy, but I do like the idea of what you do in the movement phase actually matters. In 40k, the only thing movement does is get guns into range, and if your guns are already in range, you just don't use the movement phase. I also like the idea that if you can do well in any one of four phases, that you can theoretically undo what your opponent did in any other phase. Compared to 40k, where the idea that assault is a counter to shooting is a total joke.

I don't know if that's how the game is, but it's spooky-cultlike that everybody seems to say the same things in almost the same words to that effect.

One thing I do find curious is the idea that 40k objectives are better. 40k missions really, really aren't that great. 3 of the 6 missions don't really use objectives. 2 of the 3 that do, whoever gets to place objectives first (with an odd number of objectives) tends to just win, because they can hide them over in a corner and castle up on them. Plus, 40k has secondary objectives now, which means a person can deliberately play for a draw (which is a lot easier than playing for a win), and then whoever drew first blood wins. It's so common at my FLGS that we're starting to call 6th ed "first blood: the game". I don't know if I've ever seen someone who didn't get first blood win a Relic or Will game in 40k. You might as well just line up your two gunlines and see who was luckiest enough with their opening salvo and then just pack up. In comparison, I'd much rather have the old 40k 4th ed's table quarters or victory points.

Otherwise, the only thing I can speak to is soft stuff. 40k's fluff is awesome, and, admittedly with no knowledge whatsoever of fantasy, the idea of saving an entire planet from alien devastation in an entire galaxy of war does seem a lot cooler than "oh, look, those elves and dwarves are punching each other next to that mountain again". Plus, 40k models are really, excellently awesome. Meanwhile, because you have to pack fantasy minis into little squares, they always look so cluttered that it's tough for me to see the detail on them.

That's pretty shallow criticism, though. I'm sure there are interesting things about fantasy fluff, and the fact that 40k has the vast, unwashed tide of "competitive" players means that nobody really paints their 40k army before selling it off when the next codex drops, so...

Anyways, a bit of a ramble. It's interesting to see what fantasy players think of their own game.

The one thing I am a little bit confused about, though, is why people seem to hate the current rules edition so much. Obviously, knowing nothing about the current nor previous editions, I couldn't say myself. Is it just that things changed and so now are different? I mean, if that's the case, then you'd really hate 40k. 6th ed single-handedly made 3 of the 5 ways to play orks completely unplayable, and that's just orks. Guard likewise lost half their playstyles, etc. I know there's a separate thread on this right now, so I probably shouldn't inquire here, but it seems strange to see such violent anger by a minority of the players.

The one thing I am a little bit confused about, though, is why people seem to hate the current rules edition so much. Obviously, knowing nothing about the current nor previous editions, I couldn't say myself. Is it just that things changed and so now are different? I mean, if that's the case, then you'd really hate 40k. 6th ed single-handedly made 3 of the 5 ways to play orks completely unplayable, and that's just orks. Guard likewise lost half their playstyles, etc. I know there's a separate thread on this right now, so I probably shouldn't inquire here, but it seems strange to see such violent anger by a minority of the players.

I'm in the same boat as Ailaros, and was about to make a thread asking this exact question

I don't think people hate 8th. Just the people that post in the "why you hate 8th threads." So add all them up and then add up all the people posting in all the other threads.

 Dakkamite wrote:

The one thing I am a little bit confused about, though, is why people seem to hate the current rules edition so much. Obviously, knowing nothing about the current nor previous editions, I couldn't say myself. Is it just that things changed and so now are different? I mean, if that's the case, then you'd really hate 40k. 6th ed single-handedly made 3 of the 5 ways to play orks completely unplayable, and that's just orks. Guard likewise lost half their playstyles, etc. I know there's a separate thread on this right now, so I probably shouldn't inquire here, but it seems strange to see such violent anger by a minority of the players.

I'm in the same boat as Ailaros, and was about to make a thread asking this exact question

Deathstars & ungodly powerful magic that can auto-wipe entire units (including characters) are pretty awful things... 40k for example doesn't have many Deathstars, and has never really had to deal with entire armies capable of putting the majority of their army into one nearly impossible to crack pts-vault. (outside of Pallystar & the new Screamerstar)
The fact that currently in Fantasy, you only score VP's for entirely wiping out an enemy unit helps to encourage Deathstaring. And since typically you only ever bludgeon a Deathstar unit to death with a harder Deathstar unit, (which are 100% match-up dependant at this point), means that the so-called "uber spells" become the instant counter which leads to games of "who can 6 dice their FTW spell first?"

Imagine for example, a unit of Ogres (think Ogryns but typically hitting at S6) accompanied by their General, Lv4 wizard and the Battle Standard Bearer who's hoisting a banner that on a 2+ let's the unit ignore most damage spells AND any Hexes you can aim at them...
How do you fight such a monstrosity? Well truthfully, you simply don't! You feed it chaff and either re-direct it or give it crap movement avenues so it goes nowhere all game and maybe only eats 300-400 or so pts of your stuff while you then go and kill the 700-800 or so pts you need to secure the victory. (this type of 'avoidancehammer' is about as much fun as lining up 2 40k gunlines and seeing who gets first turn!)
Or else you bring an equally hard Deathstar of your own, (ie: Vampire 'Blender' Lord + friends), and Augment the piss out of them with magic lores like Light or Beasts. Problem is, you have to charge into the enemy before magic comes into play, meaning your opponent (if they're not a complete and utter moron) will know what you're up to and aim all their dispelling efforts into stopping your Augments.
Or else you take the 'easy button' solution and just 6 dice Purple Sun, hoping for that Irresistible Force to make your spell unstoppable, and then watch as the giant round template of doom sucks most of the Ogres to their doom due to them all being forced to try and pass Initiative tests on I2 or auto-die!

And most armies can build these kinds of 'all eggs in one basket' type of pts-denial units... Though some armies obviously do it better than others, the other factor is that some armies are more at risk to the 'uber spells than others as well.
Ogres, Lizzies, Nurgle Daemons & Undead for example can get hosed by all 4 of the rulebook mega spells due to their low Initiative. On the other hand, Chaos Warriors & Elves just laugh at both Purple Sun & Pit of Shades because they have naturally high initiative. (leaving just Dwellers Below & Final Transmutation to deal with them)



It's very easy for Fantasy to devolve into a game of 'who can 6 dice first?' when your meta goes deathstar-happy...

Hopefully 9th edition brings back the old rule that you get half VP's for bringing a unit below 50% of it's starting strength and/or reducing characters to less than half wounds. At least that puts a decent chink in the Deathstars' currently nearly impregnable armour.

And also reigning in those 'uber spells to not auto-kill everything, or else at least make them more dangerous to use.

There are deathstars that you have to take strong stuff against or tarpit?

Oh, no...

Also, some of the changes they made in 8th they also made in 6th ed 40k (like random charge ranges), and there's no way that a single uber spell, with a random chance to get, a random chance to cast, and a random chance to deny, along with more dice to see if it does damage can be anywhere near a tau-tau "nice to see you deployed you minis, let's start the game by having you put half of them back in your army case. See you turn 2" nonsense.

Either WHFB was a perfect game in 7th, or some of its players have pickier standards.

I do agree that the no-half-VP rule sounds strange. Why don't people just fix that in house ruling?

 Ailaros wrote:
There are deathstars that you have to take strong stuff against or tarpit?

Oh, no...

Also, some of the changes they made in 8th they also made in 6th ed 40k (like random charge ranges), and there's no way that a single uber spell, with a random chance to get, a random chance to cast, and a random chance to deny, along with more dice to see if it does damage can be anywhere near a tau-tau "nice to see you deployed you minis, let's start the game by having you put half of them back in your army case. See you turn 2" nonsense.

Either WHFB was a perfect game in 7th, or some of its players have pickier standards.

Deathstars are simply boring to play against, just like gunlines in 40k.
There's just something inherently bland/wrong when looking down at a pair of 2400pts armies and seeing maybe 800-1000pts of dead stuff between both armies after 5 turns of game play! Cat-and-mouse games are fun every once and a while, but they're downright frustrating & unappealing when they become the norm.
On the other hand, if you have the perfect counter to that Deathstar, the game is likely over within 2-3 turns since you pretty much auto-win by crushing the star. ie: hit a Gutstar w/P.Sun and you've likely killed around 50% of the total pts in the Ogre army... Or run a Cacophonic Choir bomb into the middle of then enemy army, cast 12" version, win movement phase for the rest of the game while likely annihilating most/all of the enemy chaff...

And magic isn't quite as random as you might think... It's actually a very simple matter to ensure a specific wizard gets a certain spell due to how spell generation works. (ie: you can't have duplicates outside of a Loremaster 'insert lore' ability, and if you generate a duplicate spell, you simply pick the one you want) Since most armies tend to run a Lv4 wizard + Lv2 at the very minimum, it's almost a guarantee you can get the 'uber spell of your choice AND on the wizard of your choice. (hence the popularity of Shadow/Death/Life magic)
With the average dice roll of 7, plus channeling, it's not too hard to get 5-6 Power Dice/phase. Just throw 'em all and hope for double 6's - IF'ed spells can't be stopped. And when you're talking true Deathstars, losing 33% or more of it is typically a solid handful of minis going back into their case.

The 'pass an initiative test or die' spells, (Purple Sun especially), are especially brutal since so many armies have rock bottom initiative. Dwellers is also an instant 50% unit vs. S3 units.
Before the Power Scroll nerf, you would routinely see a Death wizard on horse/peggy zip-up a flank turn 1 and unleash P.Sun down an army's flank. Vs. the likes of Dwarfs, TK's, VC's, Lizzies, Ogres it was pretty much an auto-win. Vs. predominately I3 armies is was still pretty stupid.


Fantasy isn't any different to 40k in that respect, it's simply that while 40k tends to have only a couple 'bad apples' who can play gunline FTW!, Fantasy gives most armies the ability to counter deathstar with deathstar, meaning games either become a "who can 6-dice first?" or "who's deathstar can roll better?" (or else play 'avoid the nasty uber unit for 5 turns' game)

Maybe I'm alone in thinking that games where both armies beat eachother to a bloody pulp with only a few rag-tag survivors is exciting?

40K has deathstars. They are called vehicles. And every army in every game no matter what has AV or they will lose. And a significant chunk of AV. Because as tough as fantasy deathstars are, anything can kill them. Literally anything. A solo blind gnoblar with no teeth can walk up to a 234 man Irongut deathstar with regeneration and kill every last one of them. If you do not have AV and your enemy has a lot of high-end vehicles, you cannot harm them. You could have four hundred trillion planet's worth of angry arm-breaking, marrow-sucking Orks beat on a Land Raider, literally stuffing themselves into its exhaust pipes, and they will never even scratch the paint.

40k has deathstars, and they are called deathstars

I play/played deathstars in fantasy, and let me say they can be beaten. By movement, redirecting, deployment, combo charges, piece trading, 6 spells..... And of course by another deathstar. My gaming group made a demand that I stop runnning deathstars, and I did. A friend requested I play a deathstar and he beat me anyway, mainly because he out played me in every phase (no gimmicks needed). Deathstars are an easy button, but a good general can find a way, which is something I can't say about in 40k.

Vehicles can be tough but with the amount of high strength ranged weapons, AP 2 now adding +1 to the vehicle damage chart roll, and glancing damage... Vehicles aren't as good as in the previous edition. Almost every army can reliably penetrate AV 14 at range (except Orks).

 Ailaros wrote:
There are deathstars that you have to take strong stuff against or tarpit?

Oh, no...

Also, some of the changes they made in 8th they also made in 6th ed 40k (like random charge ranges), and there's no way that a single uber spell, with a random chance to get, a random chance to cast, and a random chance to deny, along with more dice to see if it does damage can be anywhere near a tau-tau "nice to see you deployed you minis, let's start the game by having you put half of them back in your army case. See you turn 2" nonsense.

Either WHFB was a perfect game in 7th, or some of its players have pickier standards.

I do agree that the no-half-VP rule sounds strange. Why don't people just fix that in house ruling?

Why hello. I started Fantasy about a year and a half ago, looking for variety from my 40k Orks. I now basically never play 40k, as I find it just too distressing to lose all my models before I can make assault. Maybe the upcoming codex will let me swarm into the enemy deployment zone as before, but I have a bad feeling about it.

So, Fantasy! Fantasy!

You will see some common complaints about 8th edition Fantasy. I will try to outline them from a 40k perspective.

1) VP conditions; apart from some (commonly houseruled) scenarios, you tend to win games on a pure VP basis. But the BRB system specifies a "dead or fled" system; only units that are entirely wiped out, or fled off the table, count. Killing 39 out of 40 goblins - not good enough, 0VP; having a massive block of guys fleeing at the end of the game is also not good enough, as they need to be actually off the table. I don't think that anybody really likes this, but it is just one of those things. I don't think that I have played any games where this mattered that much - outside of points-denial lists, you can pretty much tell who won at the end of the game.

2) Magic. Now, magic is almost infinitely more interesting than Psychic powers, as you have a give-and-take system where your opponent gets to try to dispel your stuff, but has less resources and so has to think hard about it. So that is good; it avoids the 40k issue of watching the GK player roll dice for awesome abilities, and having no ability to interfere. However, there are a few things in the system that people tend not to like:
a] It is very random. Results ranging from winning the game on one spell, to destroying your 400pt wizard and half his unit, are not unknown. There isn't really many ways to neuter this randomness. Not every game goes this way, but enough do to earn the game a reputation for it.
b] It is powerful; arguably more powerful for almost every Fantasy race than psychic powers are for the Eldar in 40k. Ignoring the spells that just kill stuff, you have buffs and debuffs that can win combats by themselves (Mindrazor being the best example; use LD value as strength). Again, this doesn't happen all the time - but it does happen. Check my latest battle report, specifically the third game, to see what can happen when a critical spell goes off.
c] There are big spells that can obliterate units - typically killing 1/4 or more in a single go. That wouldn't be a big deal in 40k, but in Fantasy it is common to have single units of 40+ models, which represent your main unit and which your success hinges on. People go sad panda when their megaunit gets nuked. I certainly do.

3) Horde/Steadfast/Points Denial - I am putting this all together. As already noted, Fantasy is full of huge units (say, 80 Skeleton Warriors, or 100 Night Goblins with poison banner, or 50 Empire Greatswords). These units rather abuse a game mechanic that was designed to be abused - a bit like Nob wound allocation in 5th. Basically, you are Stubborn if you have more guys than the opposing side - meaning re-rollable leadership of 9 or 10 in most cases. And in conjunction with the "dead or fled" thing, this promotes a strategy of shoving all your characters into one unit and making it impossible for the enemy to get any points out of you. I don't see this all that often (although perhaps I do it a lot, thanks to the synergy approach of the TK book), but it is definitely A Thing. High Elves are currently reigning champions at this, thanks to a broken magic banner, but otherwise every race is known to throw mega-units around, stuffed with characters and whatnot, in the hopes of battering the enemy and not giving up VPs. The plus side is having huge units, that look great and act a bit like how you'd expect 100 guys fighting together to; the downside is units that you simply cannot beat, and must just avoid all game.

4) Lotsa models - you need a lot of dudes to play this game. I use less models for 2,400pts of Tomb Kings than for 1,500pts of Orks though, so swings and roundabouts.

5) Cannons, monsters, cavalry - there are a lot of gripes about how these three classes of units are felt to be badly balanced at the moment (cannons too good, monsters too weak, cavalry too redundant) but this depends heavily on the army you play.

I hope that this monstrous deluge of words helps a bit.

Well, thanks for that.

Firstly, does the game just not work at low points levels? People fall all over themselves to play at 1850 points in 40k, which is where you start maxing out your FOC (or, at least, using most of it), and basically cramming the board so full of models that the game becomes line-up-and-shoot. The thing for 40k, though, is that it scales down very, very well. We had a 250 point league for awhile with just a couple of little rule tweaks (provided in the rulebook, actually) for that points level and it was brilliant. It actually felt a lot more tactical. Actually, it felt a lot like airsoft or paintball. You and a dozen guys against them and a dozen guys in a huge area.

Even though most people play huge battles, the game works well (read: better) in small ones. Is that just not so for fantasy?

The magic thing also strikes me as strange. Let's say that I wanted to build an army that didn't really rely at all on magic. So what I do is take a single high-level wizard, and then turn all of his ability into dispelling. Thus I'm not casting spells (because I'm saving the power for dispelling), and neither is my opponent (because their stuff is getting dispelled). It seems like this is an easy problem to solve. Of course, I don't know how the actual rules work.

Meanwhile, steadfast sounds like 40k's stubborn. In 40k, at least, that's hardly a game breaker. I used to play power blobs in 5th ed 40k, which meant I'd have units of 30 guardsmen (big for 40k), that would have a rerollable Ld9 that could never suffer negative modifiers. It was cool, but it was hardly game-breaking because it was still very possible to just kill 30 guardsmen. Dead units don't get to use Ld buffs. Why is that not the case in fantasy?

Also, I REALLY don't get the deathstar thing. 40k has vehicles. 40k now has riptides and wraithknights (and old tyranid monstrous creatures). 40k has actual deathstars like nob bikers, etc. etc. In 40k, we've had single superpower units for a long time, and you just work around them. You tarpit them, or you bring them down with weight of fire, or you bring counters, or you just bring better weapons, or you outmaneuver them.

I almost feel like deathstars are coming across as a shock in fantasy because you haven't seen them before. Why are deathstars in WHFB worse than the plethora of them in 40k?

And for the VP thing, it seems dumb, but it's also so easy to fix. Just two little changes to make them like 4th ed 40k VP (units at half strength count half, units fleeing at the end of the game count as dead). Plus, given restricted movement, this seems a bit odd. In 40k, if you have a single model left in a unit you can always move and then run him behind a ruin in a board packed with terrain, and once he's out of line of sight, he's practically impossible to kill. I was under the impression that in fantasy things moved more slowly, and more awkwardly, and there was less terrain, so a single mini couldn't just disappear in the same way.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well, thanks for that.

Firstly, does the game just not work at low points levels? People fall all over themselves to play at 1850 points in 40k, which is where you start maxing out your FOC (or, at least, using most of it), and basically cramming the board so full of models that the game becomes line-up-and-shoot. The thing for 40k, though, is that it scales down very, very well. We had a 250 point league for awhile with just a couple of little rule tweaks (provided in the rulebook, actually) for that points level and it was brilliant. It actually felt a lot more tactical. Actually, it felt a lot like airsoft or paintball. You and a dozen guys against them and a dozen guys in a huge area.

Even though most people play huge battles, the game works well (read: better) in small ones. Is that just not so for fantasy?

It's the opposite for Fantasy, really. The problem at low point levels tends to be magic. You get nearly the same amount of power dice at 500 points as you would at 5000 points, so things get crazy swingy. This is easily remedied with a house rule of some sort, but it's definitely an issue if you're playing with the base rules.

Fantasy actually gets more interesting and tactical at higher point values. The movement phase becomes more important, unlike what you're describing in 40k with the line-up-and-shoot. Chaff becomes more important, charges and flanks and fleeing and all that become vital. Magic still has an impact, but much less so, and becomes more about the augments/hexes rather than raw damage output.

The magic thing also strikes me as strange. Let's say that I wanted to build an army that didn't really rely at all on magic. So what I do is take a single high-level wizard, and then turn all of his ability into dispelling. Thus I'm not casting spells (because I'm saving the power for dispelling), and neither is my opponent (because their stuff is getting dispelled). It seems like this is an easy problem to solve. Of course, I don't know how the actual rules work.

If you go for a single high level wizard (level 4), you'd get +4 to dispel. The thing is, you're also getting +4 to cast, and you still have more power dice than your opponent has dispel dice. The only army that you can really pull this off with is Dwarfs, who don't get any offensive casting at all (aside from Anvil of Doom shenanigans). They get lots of dispel bonuses and ways to steal dice. For all other armies, if you're going to invest in magic for dispelling, you're going to have to rely on magic yourself to some extent. Not ideal, but honestly it generally works out. There are some items that you can invest in to help go towards dispelling instead of casting, especially in certain army books, but even then you generally can't do anything against a 6 dice spell that's cast irresistably (2+ sixes).

Really, the best counter to magic is to have some of your own (which you'll be casting) and be aware of its effects. Purple Sun is less scary when you don't have one big deathstar unit and keep your flanks protected.

Meanwhile, steadfast sounds like 40k's stubborn. In 40k, at least, that's hardly a game breaker. I used to play power blobs in 5th ed 40k, which meant I'd have units of 30 guardsmen (big for 40k), that would have a rerollable Ld9 that could never suffer negative modifiers. It was cool, but it was hardly game-breaking because it was still very possible to just kill 30 guardsmen. Dead units don't get to use Ld buffs. Why is that not the case in fantasy?

Imagine not 30, but 50-60 models. In 40k, you can change targets. In Fantasy, once you're in close combat, you've committed. You're stuck there while your opponent can maneuver around to get a flank/rear charge with a stronger unit, or they can just leave you there to fight until the end of the game and not gain any VPs.

Personally I don't have an issue with Steadfast. Like magic, it's something you need to be aware of. It's also soft countered by having magic of your own that can affect entire units. Oh, you have 60 skaven slaves? Dwellers Below, there goes 40 of them.

Also, I REALLY don't get the deathstar thing. 40k has vehicles. 40k now has riptides and wraithknights (and old tyranid monstrous creatures). 40k has actual deathstars like nob bikers, etc. etc. In 40k, we've had single superpower units for a long time, and you just work around them. You tarpit them, or you bring them down with weight of fire, or you bring counters, or you just bring better weapons, or you outmaneuver them.

I almost feel like deathstars are coming across as a shock in fantasy because you haven't seen them before. Why are deathstars in WHFB worse than the plethora of them in 40k?

And for the VP thing, it seems dumb, but it's also so easy to fix. Just two little changes to make them like 4th ed 40k VP (units at half strength count half, units fleeing at the end of the game count as dead). Plus, given restricted movement, this seems a bit odd. In 40k, if you have a single model left in a unit you can always move and then run him behind a ruin in a board packed with terrain, and once he's out of line of sight, he's practically impossible to kill. I was under the impression that in fantasy things moved more slowly, and more awkwardly, and there was less terrain, so a single mini couldn't just disappear in the same way.

I would like the half point rule myself. Not a difficult fix. To be honest, though, when I play with friends most of the time we don't even bother adding up numbers. We've usually got a pretty good idea of who won by the end of it.

Fantasy also works much better with more terrain to influence the movement phase and create interesting tactical decisions. It's less impassable than 40k, I think, but more things like forests and fences and things that can make cavalry think twice about charging through at certain angles. It's definitely slower and more awkward than 40k in terms of movement, in the sense that you need to plan your moves ahead, though, yes.

Charles Rampant wrote: Check my latest battle report

Okay, let me get something cleared up. Is your list typical of what you might find in fantasy? 67 models and 7 med-large size pieces?

That doesn't really seem that big to me. At 1850 points I could easily field 90 guardsmen and 5 tanks with my guard army. The last 1850 point game I played with chaos was 52 models and 3 more obliterators, and that's a relatively low model count army (there were 10 tooled-up terminators in there, for instance). Fantasy doesn't seem to be incomparable with 40k, number-of-models-wise.

I suppose perhaps the difference is that it isn't possible to field an 1850 point list with only 16 models like it is in 40k (like with a draigowing), but those armies tend to... stink, anyways.

But maybe I'm letting my subjective eye wander here, as I'm used to playing foot guard. If you're not bringing triple digits of minis, you're not doing it right...

Evertras wrote:You get nearly the same amount of power dice at 500 points as you would at 5000 points, so things get crazy swingy.

So, I guess my concern is how much of a problem the centrality of magic is. I've certainly seen my fair share of "no, gunlines aren't overpowered, just use a bit more terrain and you'll be fine" as a way of papering over fundamental flaws in the game.

Is the problem that magic is too strong at lower points, or that games are too randomly determined (because their spell blows up your army or blows up their own)?

Also, I'm a little curious about how the balancing works with counterspelling. Is it that if you bring some anti-magic then their magic works worse, or is it unless you bring more anti-magic than them, then they're just going to do their thing?

Evertras wrote:Fantasy actually gets more interesting and tactical at higher point values. The movement phase becomes more important, unlike what you're describing in 40k with the line-up-and-shoot.

Wouldn't you just have less room to maneuver in higher points games? Why doesn't it become sort of a cluttered line-guys-up-and-charge sort of game?

Evertras wrote:if you're going to invest in magic for dispelling, you're going to have to rely on magic yourself to some extent.

So, in older times in 40k, taking transports was a sort of either-way option. In the imperial guard, you could spend 50 points on guys and 50 points on the transport, or you could just spend 100 points on a big pile of guys. The idea was that transports would cut down your casualites, but if you brought more guys, properly played, you could show up in the same place at the same time with the same number of guys.

Does that same thing work in fantasy? As in, he took some dudes and a wizard, and I took some dudes and then some more dudes. He kills more with his magic early on, but I have more dudes to absorb more casualties. Or is is that magic is just superpowered for how much you have to spend on it and you either focus on magic, or you just have a tough time of it?

Evertras wrote: Personally I don't have an issue with Steadfast. Like magic, it's something you need to be aware of. It's also soft countered by having magic of your own that can affect entire units. Oh, you have 60 skaven slaves? Dwellers Below, there goes 40 of them.

Or could you just tie them up with chaff?

In 40k we have "speedbumps" where you attack the big bad unit, and then the big bad unit is forced to waste time murdering a cheap, flimsy unit, and then you attack them again the turn after. In that way, you can grind down units like this with attrition. Alternately, you could just take something beefy in close combat. If khorne berzerkers charge your guard blob, then congratulations, you passed your morale test thanks to stubborn, but that one round of combat killed 25 of your 30 guardsmen, so all you did with a passed leadership roll was to live long enough to get horribly murdered next turn.

I assume various tricks like this work in fantasy?

Evertras wrote:Fantasy also works much better with more terrain to influence the movement phase and create interesting tactical decisions. It's less impassable than 40k, I think, but more things like forests and fences and things that can make cavalry think twice about charging through at certain angles.

Well, 40k terrain is weird. It gives anyone hiding in it a big bonus to durability but it way slows down mobility. Especially with big units, you could spend half the game taking difficult terrain tests, and getting nowhere. Also, charging over or into terrain is now hopeless.

What this means is that armies that sit and shoot from cover get a boost, and armies that try and maneuver get nowhere. Unless you're playing one of the armies that basically gets to ignore terrain in the movement phase.

Terrain feels like night fighting in 40k. It's one of those things that really hurts some armies, and really helps others.

 Ailaros wrote:

Charles Rampant wrote: Check my latest battle report

Okay, let me get something cleared up. Is your list typical of what you might find in fantasy? 67 models and 7 med-large size pieces?

That doesn't really seem that big to me. At 1850 points I could easily field 90 guardsmen and 5 tanks with my guard army. The last 1850 point game I played with chaos was 52 models and 3 more obliterators, and that's a relatively low model count army (there were 10 tooled-up terminators in there, for instance). Fantasy doesn't seem to be incomparable with 40k, number-of-models-wise.

He's bulked out his army with chariots, which are rather expensive for Core models.

An example of a 2000pt list with a ridiculous number of models - my Vampire Counts have 80 models of Core alone, 50 Skeletons and 30 Ghouls. The Ghouls are actually quite expensive as far as Core goes, being 10 points each. 20 Grave Guard makes up the 'killy' unit, plus 4 heroes and a monster - a Varghulf.

Something else you need to consider is how the two games are balanced. 40k is balanced towards 1500pts, so 1850 is slightly larger than normal. Fantasy is balanced towards 2500-3000pts, so for a comparable 'bigger than normal' list you're looking at 3000-3500pts. For that, my Core alone would jump to 150 models - another block of 50 Skeletons and filling the Ghouls out to 50, but probably in 2 units of 25. My Grave Guard would fill to 50. That makes 150 models before I start on the non-Core part of my army.

-Loki wrote:An example of a 2000pt list with a ridiculous number of models - my Vampire Counts have 80 models of Core alone, 50 Skeletons and 30 Ghouls. The Ghouls are actually quite expensive as far as Core goes, being 10 points each. 20 Grave Guard makes up the 'killy' unit, plus 4 heroes and a monster - a Varghulf.

Well, that's still just 104 models and a monster. Back in my power blob days, I'd run 80 models in a 750 point game. Of course, that's about as silly-high-model-count as you can get.

Anyways, it doesn't seem over the top crazy. Unless you were playing GK, I suppose.

-Loki wrote:Something else you need to consider is how the two games are balanced. 40k is balanced towards 1500pts, so 1850 is slightly larger than normal. Fantasy is balanced towards 2500-3000pts, so for a comparable 'bigger than normal' list you're looking at 3000-3500pts.

Ah.