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.

If you take into consideration the two different sizes the games are balanced towards, that 104 model 2000pt list would be being compared to a 1000pt 40k list (each is 1.3 smaller than the intended game size).

Thank about the serious choices you make at 1000pts in 40k between killy units and scoring units, and that's what you're considering at 2000pts and less in Fantasy.

-Loki- wrote:If you take into consideration the two different sizes the games are balanced towards, that 104 model 2000pt list would be being compared to a 1000pt 40k list (each is 1.3 smaller than the intended game size).

That's an interesting way of putting it.

Anyways, I'm still curious about the bigger = more tactical thing. In 40k, the more points you play at, the less tactical it becomes, as it becomes less of who made the right meaningful sacrifices in list building, and it eventually becomes much more of "I've filled all my slots, and so have you, let's see whose codex is better". Also, even at only 100-models-per-side 40k already starts feeling unwieldy and cramped on a 4x6 foot table. I mean, you look at apocalypse, as the extreme example, and it's just a matter of cramming your deployment zone full and throwing all tactics out the window as you charge forward and roll dice to see who dies.

It strikes me that fantasy would have this problem much worse, as things like wheeling and mobility would matter a whole lot more. In 40k, at least, you can have units intersperced between themselves, and you can move nebulously. I suppose that WHFB minis ARE on smaller bases, technically, and you do, of course, have to pack them in tighter, so you'd naturally have more non-unit empty space, but it still feels like things must get crowded really fast once you get above 2,000 points.

 Ailaros wrote:
Anyways, I'm still curious about the bigger = more tactical thing. In 40k, the more points you play at, the less tactical it becomes, as it becomes less of who made the right meaningful sacrifices in list building, and it eventually becomes much more of "I've filled all my slots, and so have you, let's see whose codex is better". Also, even at only 100-models-per-side 40k already starts feeling unwieldy and cramped on a 4x6 foot table. I mean, you look at apocalypse, as the extreme example, and it's just a matter of cramming your deployment zone full and throwing all tactics out the window as you charge forward and roll dice to see who dies.

It strikes me that fantasy would have this problem much worse, as things like wheeling and mobility would matter a whole lot more. In 40k, at least, you can have units intersperced between themselves, and you can move nebulously. I suppose that WHFB minis ARE on smaller bases, technically, and you do, of course, have to pack them in tighter, so you'd naturally have more non-unit empty space, but it still feels like things must get crowded really fast once you get above 2,000 points.

Remember in Fantasy you're talking about blocks of troops, rather than 40k's spaced out skirmish formations. As I've heard you say often - infantry can spread out to 2" coherency to mitigate template weapons. Not so in Fantasy. 50 models in horde or schoolbus formation is taking up about the same space as a well spaced 15-20 man unit in 40k. Add to this Fantasy generally doesn't use as much terrain as 40k, and the terrain used is different - mostly it's there to funnel movement or completely block LoS, not area terrain for units to sit in claiming cover saves.

So when you have 2-3 50 man blocks backed up by smaller blocks, remember that at their biggest, they're taking up slightly more space than 4-5 well spaced Guard or Tactical squads in total, on a board with less terrain.

Fantasy boards can get cramped - 4000-5000pt games look completely ridiculous. But at 2500-3000pts, even the hordiest army has room to move around.

 Ailaros wrote:

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)?

The number of dice you get tends to correlate to the amount of magic you can cast. More casters doesn't give you more magic, aside from occasionally an extra die or two if you're lucky. Higher level (4 vs 2, lord vs hero) will give you a better chance to successfully cast, which is worth about a third of a die each time as well, but the majority of your dice are coming from the initial pool that you get anyway. So at a low point level, there's proportionally more magic going on than at a high point level.

Let me try to explain it another way. Let's say 7 dice can kill 250 points of models per turn. At 500 points, you get an average of 7 dice for your magic phase. At 4000 points, you get an average of 7 dice for your magic phase. At 500 points, you lose half your army. At 4000 points, you lose a small detachment.

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?

To cast a spell, you select up to six dice to roll. You roll them, add up the result, add the wizard's caster level, and see if you meet or beat the target value. If you get two or more sixes, you cast with irresistable force (can't dispel) and also miscast (nasty things happen), so the more dice you throw, the riskier things get, but at least the spell will go off, which is sometimes worth it.

If the spell wasn't cast with irresistable force, the dispelling player can choose any amount of dice in their pool and roll them. They nominate a wizard to dispel, add that wizard's casting level to the dispel roll, and if that roll meets or beats the casting player's roll, the spell fizzles and nothing happens. If it fails to meet that amount, that wizard can no longer dispel spells for that phase (but can try again in the next).

Every magic phase you roll 2d6. Whoever has that turn gets the full amount in dice for their pool, and the person dispelling gets the higher of the two. So if you roll a five and a one, you get 6 dice while the opposing player gets 5 dice to try and dispel you whether they have any casters in their army or not. If you roll two threes, you get 6 while the opposing player gets 3. Generally, the casting player is going to get at least a spell off. The dispelling player needs to choose their battles and dispel what would most impact them.

You can get around this with a few things. First, you get to add your highest caster's level to the roll. So if you have a level 4 caster, you add +4 to every roll to dispel (until you fail for that phase... but let's ignore the details for now and keep things simple). So the first step to being able to dispel well is having a high level caster of your own, which means you'll have magic of your own.

If you want to go further than that and pack an extra dispel punch, there are items you can take to help. The ubiquitous Dispel Scroll will automatically dispel any attempt that isn't cast with irresistable force. This will even leave you with extra dice to help shut down a crucial magic phase. There are other variants of that, and some armies have nifty little tricks. Wood Elves, despite being generally terrible, have a nice item that allows you to reroll any dispel attempt. They have another that allows you to add a free die to any dispel attempt where your opponent used three or more. There are other scrolls that will turn the caster into a toad, etc. So if you really want to go heavy on dispels, there are options.

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?

You have to be more careful with your positioning. If you let your battle line become cluttered and everyone's stepping over themselves, then your opponent can pick you apart. It's actually a good idea to try and get your opponent to split off like that. There are various ways to redirect units and break up a clean line, and you have more tools at your disposal to punish someone who isn't moving optimally by charging into flanks, setting up traps, counter charges, etc. At small point values it tends to be head on charges vs head on charges, or just sit there and shoot, because there's not much else you CAN do if you don't have the units.

If we want to go to the old chess analogy, low point levels is like using half the pieces.

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?

It somewhat depends on the army, I think. You absolutely cannot ignore magic, and for most armies I can think of it's generally more cost efficient to invest in magic to some extent than to try to have more of a buffer and power through it. You don't have to go crazy on spending tons of points and go magic heavy, but expect to at least put some points into it or you'll feel a little helpless. Taking along a hero level wizard (level 2 preferably) with a dispel scroll should be enough to stop a lot, and you won't have to focus much points to get that.

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?

Absolutely, to all of that. You can tie them up, run them around because they're big and bulky, focus heavily on it so that you grind it down far enough anyway, etc. There are multiple options.

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.

Terrain in Fantasy gets a little wonky, and it does hurt some armies while helping others. For example, a chariot heavy army doesn't want any terrain on the field, while Wood Elves want the field flooded with forests.

The basic pieces of terrain generally hinder mobile units. Cavalry and chariots have to take dangerous terrain tests in just about anything that isn't open ground, which has the potential of nixing a model or two or even blowing up a chariot entirely. This helps create funnels and chokes against armies that rely on mobility, while the mobile army is trying to deploy/maneuver to fight in places that are more favorable so they can charge and even march without hindrance. Simple impassable terrain of cliffs, rocks, buildings, whatever also provide ways to create chokes and defensible positions, which can definitely change your plans. Then there's extra effects that can be randomly generated, which include anything from a forest that deals d6 hits on any unit inside of it to an altar that randomly casts either a beneficial spell or a terrible hex on the nearest unit.

That being said, it doesn't kill mobile armies. It just makes things a little trickier and more interesting. A dangerous terrain test means you roll a d6 for each model that charges, flees, or marches through that terrain. On a 1 they take a wound with no armor save allowed. Chariots take 1d6 wounds instead. They can still move their normal speed, they just can't march (double speed in movement phase). Infantry is much less affected, though forests do favor smaller units and skirmishers.

Different armies have a totally different # of units. Ogres, you can make their core cost like 45 per model. So if you have 20 that's 900pts. Then a super lord for around 350pts. And a couple heroes for 300. That's like 1550pts and only 22 models!

Or you make a mass goblin army and have literally 500 of them and 5 heroes and 2 Lords for maybe 1100pts.

Steadfast is a big deal because fantasy is primarily a close combat game. Yeah, you can make gunlines, but every ranged troop is inferior to its equivalent CC troop and/or costs more. And you generally just don't obliterate the enemy during the shooting phase. They are more a strategic element complimenting the main army. Kinda like long bow archers in medieval+ times. You weren't going to have an army just with archers. The enemy would just run/ride up and slaughter them. Which is kind of what happens here.

Magic is indeed very important. And yeah, it gets powerful at low levels BUT most armies can't get high level casters at low points because of their costs. Some cheapo armies can. But magic is one of those universal counters. It is a big bag of tricks that makes a lot of cheesy tactics not be used because if the enemy has the right spell (and gets it off) you basically lose the game. So it's a checks and balances. Like if you put 500 goblins in one unit, nothing is going to break that unit or kill that many models by the end of the game that you get any points for it, but there's some spells that in one shot can cause it to lose half of their number each cast. Which, among many other reasons, is why you'll never see 500 goblins in a unit. Unless someone is just crazy weird.

Thanks for that, Evertras. I guess my concern was that magic would suffer from the same fates as certain parts of 40k, where you sort of have a spiraling arms race that ends in a zero sum game. It's nice to know that if you don't want to focus on magic, you don't have to, but can relatively cheaply curb a big enough hunk of its effectiveness to tone it down to reasonable levels.

The way that some people seem to be talking about magic implies that it's just how you win games, and that everybody needs to take a bunch of wizards of the highest level they can.

Not that magic is a bad thing, but I'm from 40k, remember? A world of everything is useless except a few things. It would be tiresome to find myself in that situation again, just with different game concepts.

On an unrelated note, I finished reading those battle reports from Charles Rampant, and it was interesting to see that his army had more models than pretty much everything. In some cases, by quite a few. It's interesting to note that empire army with only 44 dudes, a couple of artillery pieces and a tank. That's small even for a 40k army at 2000 points.

That's interesting to think about magic as being some buffs or some damage unless you brought something cheezy, in which case there's a counterspell for it. I guess that would jive with the idea that people who don't like 8th are powergamers (who would be the kind of people to complain most vocally about changes as well).

 Charles Rampant wrote:

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!

This bodes well, because I'm looking to ditch 40k for the exact same reason. Stupid shooty lists blow my boys apart before I can bash heads together, and the only way to survive against them is to use lame stuff that if I'd wanted to use in the first place, I wouldn't have taken Orks to do so

I see from your batrep link you run Tomb Kings. What drew you to them? I'm just interested to see how someone in my exact situation responded and what they picked for what reason. I've been looking at Greenskins for obvious reasons but not sure if they're as 'fun' as the ones in 40k. Alternatively, Khorne daemons but they seem to only have one thing going for them (a cannon of all things, screw that)

We also use heavy comp around here, so alot of those problems you mentioned are not really an issue. I'm starting to get excited here =P

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.

Seriously man its like your reading my mind. I've been approached by the club pres to possibly run a tournament next year and I might implement this

 Dakkamite wrote:

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.

Seriously man its like your reading my mind. I've been approached by the club pres to possibly run a tournament next year and I might implement this

I'd give small games a shot - they can be fun. But you run into the problem that 40k has - some armies scale down far better than others, just like some scale up far better than others. Just like I absolutely recommend sticking to 1500pts for 40k, I absolutely recommend 2500-3000 for Fantasy. It's that sweet spot where you have a good set of scoring units (or Core in Fantasys case), some points to kit out a nice lord and some heroes, and include a few killy units. Going lower you start making it hard for armies who have less reliable Core (like Undead). Stick to around 2500pts if you want to go for 'smaller' games, as at that point you're mostly cutting a deathstar but keeping a tactically decent army on the table.

 Ailaros wrote:
Thanks for that, Evertras. I guess my concern was that magic would suffer from the same fates as certain parts of 40k, where you sort of have a spiraling arms race that ends in a zero sum game. It's nice to know that if you don't want to focus on magic, you don't have to, but can relatively cheaply curb a big enough hunk of its effectiveness to tone it down to reasonable levels.

The way that some people seem to be talking about magic implies that it's just how you win games, and that everybody needs to take a bunch of wizards of the highest level they can.

Not that magic is a bad thing, but I'm from 40k, remember? A world of everything is useless except a few things. It would be tiresome to find myself in that situation again, just with different game concepts.

On an unrelated note, I finished reading those battle reports from Charles Rampant, and it was interesting to see that his army had more models than pretty much everything. In some cases, by quite a few. It's interesting to note that empire army with only 44 dudes, a couple of artillery pieces and a tank. That's small even for a 40k army at 2000 points.

That's interesting to think about magic as being some buffs or some damage unless you brought something cheezy, in which case there's a counterspell for it. I guess that would jive with the idea that people who don't like 8th are powergamers (who would be the kind of people to complain most vocally about changes as well).

I don't think it will be a rosy as you think sadly - fine tuning armies is as prevelant in Fantasy as in 40K and I think that WFB is less forgiving - let someone cast the "right spell" (or more often watch it be cast with irristable force) and your games over. Also fluffy armies tend to get hammered just as easily in WFB as much as they can do in 40K. Casting spells with IF tends to mean you can't do anything except take off models.................and all those counters you bought specfically to deal with don;t work.

Watch out for those buffing spells - the Mindrazor spell is pure filfth at the right time.............

I haven't played 40k as long as you have, Ailaros, but WHFB feels more tactical to me. The addition of a movement phase just changes things.

I know people have already answered a lot of your questions, but I thought I would throw in my short answers, too.

@Magic - my biggest problem with magic is that it is potentially the most powerful aspect of the game while, at the same time, also the most random. I've heard people say that this "balances" it, but I disagree. And because you never know how the randomness is going to play out, you never know if your other tactical (and less random) choices will be rendered moot. And, for me, the game is less enjoyable for that.

@model count and Steadfast - You're right that 30 guardsmen that can't be broken aren't game-breaking, because you can just kill them all. But in WHFB, where the game is more CC focused, you don't tend to get VPs by killing every model in a unit. Instead, you typically get those VPs by breaking the unit and running them down. Steadfast is the most powerful game mechanic in this regard, because it prevents a unit from being broken.

At the same time, Steadfast is dependent upon model count (you need more models in a given combat than your opponent to be considered Steadfast). And so, I think a LOT of people are raw about the addition of this rule to the game because it's such an obvious money grab by GW (buy more of the EXACT SAME models and win the game!). So, people are going to hate on it for THAT reason regardless of how it changes the play of the game itself.

 Ailaros wrote:

-Loki- wrote:If you take into consideration the two different sizes the games are balanced towards, that 104 model 2000pt list would be being compared to a 1000pt 40k list (each is 1.3 smaller than the intended game size).

That's an interesting way of putting it.

Anyways, I'm still curious about the bigger = more tactical thing. In 40k, the more points you play at, the less tactical it becomes, as it becomes less of who made the right meaningful sacrifices in list building, and it eventually becomes much more of "I've filled all my slots, and so have you, let's see whose codex is better". Also, even at only 100-models-per-side 40k already starts feeling unwieldy and cramped on a 4x6 foot table. I mean, you look at apocalypse, as the extreme example, and it's just a matter of cramming your deployment zone full and throwing all tactics out the window as you charge forward and roll dice to see who dies.

It strikes me that fantasy would have this problem much worse, as things like wheeling and mobility would matter a whole lot more. In 40k, at least, you can have units intersperced between themselves, and you can move nebulously. I suppose that WHFB minis ARE on smaller bases, technically, and you do, of course, have to pack them in tighter, so you'd naturally have more non-unit empty space, but it still feels like things must get crowded really fast once you get above 2,000 points.

Not having all those silly giant flyer bases and tanks filling in real estate helps that problem alot =) anything much above the 4k game size will most likely need a larger board but thats true of all GWs systems. On a side note I think I have a fairly good idea of what type of gamer you are from my days in 5th reading your bat reps and I think WHFB would be a really good match for you. You simply have the right mindset to do well with and enjoy WHFB and I hope to hear news of your first WHFB games/armies.

Iv played both but found 40k to honestly just be really boring. Fantasy just challenges your decision making a bit more and can be pretty unforgiving at times depending on the army you play.
In regards to the Magic phase I tend to feel as though 8th edition has toned down it didn't somewhat. Obviously there are several spells that are extremely powerful, but reworking the way power dice were generated was a fantastic decision... Although I'm sure undead players would not agree. On top of this combat is now far more effective than it used to be.

I don't subscribe to the notion that 8th Ed has ruined the game. It is my favourite by some margin and I have been playing since 5th when I was about 10.

Ailaros wrote:The way that some people seem to be talking about magic implies that it's just how you win games, and that everybody needs to take a bunch of wizards of the highest level they can.

Not that magic is a bad thing, but I'm from 40k, remember? A world of everything is useless except a few things. It would be tiresome to find myself in that situation again, just with different game concepts.

Magic alone won't win you games, but it's undeniably a powerful force and is pretty much an auto-take. The issue lies in the fact that almost everyone (in a competitive environment - and usually out of one too) will be taking a Level 4 Wizard. If you don't, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage to cast and dispel. If your opponent has a Level 4 and you have no wizards, that's when Magic becomes horrendously powerful.

alex87 wrote: Iv played both but found 40k to honestly just be really boring. Fantasy just challenges your decision making a bit more and can be pretty unforgiving at times depending on the army you play.
In regards to the Magic phase I tend to feel as though 8th edition has toned down it didn't somewhat. Obviously there are several spells that are extremely powerful, but reworking the way power dice were generated was a fantastic decision... Although I'm sure undead players would not agree. On top of this combat is now far more effective than it used to be.

8th edition has the strongest magic I've ever seen, though that is admittedly down to the spells. I don't actually agree with the Winds of Magic thing though. Common sense says that the more Wizards you have, the more magic you have. It's also annoying how one phase you may have 2 Power Dice to work with and the next you may have 12.

Mr Morden wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Thanks for that, Evertras. I guess my concern was that magic would suffer from the same fates as certain parts of 40k, where you sort of have a spiraling arms race that ends in a zero sum game. It's nice to know that if you don't want to focus on magic, you don't have to, but can relatively cheaply curb a big enough hunk of its effectiveness to tone it down to reasonable levels.

The way that some people seem to be talking about magic implies that it's just how you win games, and that everybody needs to take a bunch of wizards of the highest level they can.

Not that magic is a bad thing, but I'm from 40k, remember? A world of everything is useless except a few things. It would be tiresome to find myself in that situation again, just with different game concepts.

On an unrelated note, I finished reading those battle reports from Charles Rampant, and it was interesting to see that his army had more models than pretty much everything. In some cases, by quite a few. It's interesting to note that empire army with only 44 dudes, a couple of artillery pieces and a tank. That's small even for a 40k army at 2000 points.

That's interesting to think about magic as being some buffs or some damage unless you brought something cheezy, in which case there's a counterspell for it. I guess that would jive with the idea that people who don't like 8th are powergamers (who would be the kind of people to complain most vocally about changes as well).

I don't think it will be a rosy as you think sadly - fine tuning armies is as prevelant in Fantasy as in 40K and I think that WFB is less forgiving - let someone cast the "right spell" (or more often watch it be cast with irristable force) and your games over. Also fluffy armies tend to get hammered just as easily in WFB as much as they can do in 40K. Casting spells with IF tends to mean you can't do anything except take off models.................and all those counters you bought specfically to deal with don;t work.

Watch out for those buffing spells - the Mindrazor spell is pure filfth at the right time.............

One spell will only ever auto-lose you the game if you let it. If you take a huge deathstar and you lose half of it with one spell, it's your own fault for using such an obvious tactic and/or not making a good enough attempt to neutralise the enemy wizard quickly enough. And even then, your opponent's Level 4 Wizard may blow his head off, paving the way for your own Level 4 to start wrecking stuff.

 Ailaros wrote:
Thanks for that, Evertras. I guess my concern was that magic would suffer from the same fates as certain parts of 40k, where you sort of have a spiraling arms race that ends in a zero sum game. It's nice to know that if you don't want to focus on magic, you don't have to, but can relatively cheaply curb a big enough hunk of its effectiveness to tone it down to reasonable levels.

Whilst some areas will certainly have an arms race of wizards it is important to note that some armies fair better than others without wizards, for example, Vampire Counts, being your very typical undead trope fantasy army must have at least one wizard and often cannot cope without multiple wizards, this is due to their army being about 50% units that are terrible but can be resurrected very quickly by wizards (otherwise they get destroyed quickly and give up VPs) and these units support the other 50% of your army which is incredibly powerful but is very hard to raise back up, so once its gone, its gone. Compare this with Empire which are your typical human army trope, they have the whole jack of all trades, master of none idea behind them, being able to make a decent show in all phases, but not dominate in one, they can for example make an army that is entirely heavy cavalry (mounted troops with high damage and durability) with a decent amount of shooting support in warmachines, due to the range and power of their warmachines and the speed at which they cover ground (about twice as fast as foot troops) they will be exposed to less magic phases where the enemy can target them with spells and thus are much more able to do without a wizard than the Vampire Counts are.

The way that some people seem to be talking about magic implies that it's just how you win games, and that everybody needs to take a bunch of wizards of the highest level they can.

Not that magic is a bad thing, but I'm from 40k, remember? A world of everything is useless except a few things. It would be tiresome to find myself in that situation again, just with different game concepts.

Magic in Fantasy is similar to psychic powers in 40k in that with one or two exceptions (JotWW in 40k and the No.6 spells in Fantasy) buffs are king, unlike in 40k, where you can only DtW against stuff cast at you, you can still attempt to block an enemy's attempt to buff himself in Fantasy by dispelling his spells.

On an unrelated note, I finished reading those battle reports from Charles Rampant, and it was interesting to see that his army had more models than pretty much everything. In some cases, by quite a few. It's interesting to note that empire army with only 44 dudes, a couple of artillery pieces and a tank. That's small even for a 40k army at 2000 points.

Due to the overall better balance than 40k, Fantasy players, can for the most part, take whatever they want (the most common examples are the older books) and get away with it, provided they keep to the basic restrictions, going back to Vampire Counts from early, where about 25% to 50% of the Army is garbagy units and the rest are the best you can take as well as requiring the presence of wizards, once you take your wizards, you can take whatever garbagy units you want to fulfil that role and whatever killy units you want to fulfil that part of your army. This leads to a pretty wide variation in lists, for example for my wizards I run a couple of Vampires, which double as some killy characters, I take some skeletons and ghouls as my garbagy units, some spirit hosts to support and a deathstar of Blood Knights that I sink about 1/2 my total points into as my killy stuff. But one could just as easily take necromancers as your wizards, zombies as your gabagy units, fell bats to support and a unit of Grave Guard and some Varghulfs as your killy units and be just as effective. In short, Fantasy is less about your component parts and more about tactical execution.

That's interesting to think about magic as being some buffs or some damage unless you brought something cheezy, in which case there's a counterspell for it. I guess that would jive with the idea that people who don't like 8th are powergamers (who would be the kind of people to complain most vocally about changes as well).

In my experience the people who dislike 8th, disliked the randomness, due to not being able to do things like "based off how far apart we started my unit should be just out of your charge range and so you can't charge me this turn" now I don't think there is anything wrong with randomness, or the consistency to be able make comments like the later, in fact I prefer the latter way myself, since it rewards careful movement (but to each their own ofc), my issue is that GW uses randomness as an excuse to not balance their games as good as they could, but that is a whole thread of its own entirely.

What I liked about WHFB is that it is more of a tactical game due to positioning, I play VC and I really like Hero's as well and I like the customisation of your characters.

What I disliked about WHFB is that whilst certain points that people can argue, majority of time usually everyone will agree on this point: Cannons. they are far too good for what they do I still have a VC on an undead dragon, but I have never once put him on the table, why? because he will get one-shotted of the board, one other point I don't like about WHFB is that whilst I play VC I feel like im pressured to take a lvl 4 Necromancer, and I chose VC because one main aspect I like in fantasy is that I like... well... vampires, I want a VC lord challenging my opponents general and taking their head (I have used a VC lord like this and I enjoy it very much) however if I were to play competitively I would feel very pressurised to take that Necromancer I had mentioned earlier on, also I see competitively that WHFB does also suffer from the Netlist problem, but not to the degree that 40k does.

All in all I much prefer WHFB to 40k, I really like the army I play and their gothic atmosphere and I like resurrecting my troops

 Dakkamite wrote:

This bodes well, because I'm looking to ditch 40k for the exact same reason. Stupid shooty lists blow my boys apart before I can bash heads together, and the only way to survive against them is to use lame stuff that if I'd wanted to use in the first place, I wouldn't have taken Orks to do so

I see from your batrep link you run Tomb Kings. What drew you to them? I'm just interested to see how someone in my exact situation responded and what they picked for what reason. I've been looking at Greenskins for obvious reasons but not sure if they're as 'fun' as the ones in 40k. Alternatively, Khorne daemons but they seem to only have one thing going for them (a cannon of all things, screw that)

We also use heavy comp around here, so alot of those problems you mentioned are not really an issue. I'm starting to get excited here =P

I went for Tomb Kings because I'm a classicist, and they have this great bronze age theme; the hordes of nobodies, the (surprisingly tough) heroes leading them into battle, the infantry and monster focus. I also love the models, though I'm not that good at painting them. Their rules are... not the best, and not even that good a match for my play style, but I'm invested in the army now. I don't know that much about the Orcs, but they do have the hilarious animosity rules and the ability to take squig herds, which are both things I'd happily have in 40k! I hear that they tend to run loads of artillery though, as they get cheap and good warmachines, and so don't go into combat as readily as you might expect.

In general, though you do get some gunlines in Fantasy, they are rare (only Dwarves really do them now). Though we all sit and gripe about magic, at the end of the day Fantasy is a game that is won by killing (and breaking) enemy units in melee. So almost every army can kick ass in the melee phase, they just tend to go about it differently. For a few examples:

- Vampire Counts have horrifically powerful Vampire characters, who can rip apart enemy units by themselves, as well as some fast and dangerous vampiric units (Blood Knights, among others). But the rest of the army is crap; it is about managing to get your good stuff into the right combats, while using your crap stuff to block enemy units that you don't want to fight yet. Those same crap units are very often a liability.

- Warriors of Chaos run forward, hit the enemy, crush the enemy, then drink their tears of lamentation. Very much a "point and click" approach, that works because of their superb stats.

- Bretonnians use units (called "lances") of knights, that are not all that great in melee, but which are hard to kill, have help with winning combats due to their special formation, and get powerful and cheap characters to go up front and tank the enemy. They tend to win combats by defeating the enemy units in detail, throwing most of their army into one enemy unit, crushing it utterly, and then speeding through the enemy battleline.

- High Elves die pretty fast, but have some special rules that let them attack first, and they have great stats so will usually hit. They focus on killing the enemy so fast that it is hard to respond.

And so on. That Khorne Daemon cannon is mostly good because it is cheap, and it lets your army kill stuff before it has a chance to give you trouble in melee (like enemy monsters) or enemy units that would pound your own melee stuff (like opposing cannons).

Regarding army sizes; I think that the tournament was unusual in terms of army sizes, probably because people were concerned about not finishing games. For starters, there was a noticeable prevalence of the more elite armies, and not that many horde armies. My own army wasn't that big; Tomb Kings are technically a horde army, but I don't run them as such. Sometimes, if I run my big statues and not the Tomb Guard, I can be down to about 50 models maximum. The Empire army was focused around the very expensive Demigryph Knights. I would say that at 2,400 (the equivalent of 1,500 in 40k), you would probably expect about a hundred models a side, give or take; Skaven and Goblins will have more, Dwarves will have less. A monster or character theme will reduce this. As I noted, my Orks probably use about as many models as my Tomb Kings on a day to day basis.

Finally, I've played some big games (4-5,000pts a side) and they actually work quite well. It gets a bit crowded, but Fantasy units fit together well - they are mostly rectangles, after all! Unlike 40k, which I found takes forever in a big game, Fantasy doesn't really take that much longer in my experience. It has to do with having fewer shooting units, so you don't need to engage in massive dice rolling from the first turn. You do need to be a bit of a wizard to work out the combat resolution in the big combats that result with two battlelines of over 24" length colliding though.

 happygolucky wrote:
What I liked about WHFB is that it is more of a tactical game due to positioning, I play VC and I really like Hero's as well and I like the customisation of your characters.

What I disliked about WHFB is that whilst certain points that people can argue, majority of time usually everyone will agree on this point: Cannons. they are far too good for what they do I still have a VC on an undead dragon, but I have never once put him on the table, why? because he will get one-shotted of the board, one other point I don't like about WHFB is that whilst I play VC I feel like im pressured to take a lvl 4 Necromancer, and I chose VC because one main aspect I like in fantasy is that I like... well... vampires, I want a VC lord challenging my opponents general and taking their head (I have used a VC lord like this and I enjoy it very much) however if I were to play competitively I would feel very pressurised to take that Necromancer I had mentioned earlier on, also I see competitively that WHFB does also suffer from the Netlist problem, but not to the degree that 40k does.

All in all I much prefer WHFB to 40k, I really like the army I play and their gothic atmosphere and I like resurrecting my troops

Well, most players still do take Vampires, they just put them on foot with some Grave Guard, or in a unit of cavalry. They don't put him on a Zombie Dragon, which is equivalent to putting him on a neon sign proclaiming in big letters "Shoot Me!".

I do see your point though, cannons are a little bit too powerful. In real life, I can understand that there is a small chance of your General being hit by a lucky cannon shot, but I really don't think that chance is 1/6 (i.e. the chance of failing a Look Out Sir! roll). And also, in real life, Generals are less important. Yes, they're still valuable, but if one dies, the rest of the army isn't going to crumble to little pieces.

As for netlisting, well, I guess that's true, but it's pretty unavoidable. You see people posting strong lists online, you're going to take some of that on board. I do think Fantasy's armies as a whole have more viable builds though.

Tangent wrote:At the same time, Steadfast is dependent upon model count (you need more models in a given combat than your opponent to be considered Steadfast). And so, I think a LOT of people are raw about the addition of this rule to the game because it's such an obvious money grab by GW (buy more of the EXACT SAME models and win the game!). So, people are going to hate on it for THAT reason regardless of how it changes the play of the game itself.

Not being a GW conspiracy theorist, I don't care much about that. I am interested, though, if there was some sort of problem with large infantry units that the addition of steadfast was designed to stop.

Krellnus wrote:Whilst some areas will certainly have an arms race of wizards it is important to note that some armies fair better than others without wizards

Well, that's sort of what I'm getting towards. Of course there are going to be some armies that really want to use lots and lots of magic. The question is more of if you're screwed if you use a reasonably minimal amount and move on towards other stuff. If it's one of he who has the most power dice and the most wizards wins, and he who didn't take more wizards should have taken more wizards.

Krellnus wrote:In my experience the people who dislike 8th, disliked the randomness, due to not being able to do things like "based off how far apart we started my unit should be just out of your charge range and so you can't charge me this turn" now I don't think there is anything wrong with randomness, or the consistency to be able make comments like the later, in fact I prefer the latter way myself, since it rewards careful movement (but to each their own ofc)

Right, and while I dislike some of this stuff (random charge range really screwed things up in 40k, for example), I also don't think it's necessarily a bad trend either. Yes, by removing the player skill of being able to estimate ranges well, the game does lose some of its skill. That said, not all inroads of player skill into a game are created equal. I'm sort of glad that I only played a tiny bit of 3rd ed 40k, because replacing the old guess range mechanic was a good idea (not only for the shenanigans (mentioned earlier in this thread), but also exactly because it would put off new players).

I don't think the randomness added in is, necessarily, a way of papering over bad design, as much as it is a deliberate choice of making the game different. For good or ill.

The Shadow wrote:As for netlisting, well, I guess that's true, but it's pretty unavoidable. You see people posting strong lists online, you're going to take some of that on board. I do think Fantasy's armies as a whole have more viable builds though.

Well, and it depends on what netlisting accomplishes. I spent the entire first year of 6th edition trying to play my guard army in a whole bunch of very different ways (see my sig, if you care). I managed to use like 2/3ds of the units in the codex in the process which, for a codex that has over 40 different units is rather a feat, if I say so myself. A lot of people in 40k think that there has to be A, THE, way to run an army, which I don't think is true in 40k.

The problem I'm having with 40k, though, is that there is a single playstyle that's coming to shut down everyone else. As such, it's the imperial guard version of that playstyle at the top, and then a huge, much-more-diverse-than-internet-lemmings-imply class of stuff that's all roughly equal below that.

If WHFB can avoid this problem, then I assume that netlisting, while popular, is not that much more structural than it is in 40k. Especially if the codices have better internal balance, as claimed.

Charles Rampant wrote: For a few examples:

Some interesting examples.

Charles Rampant wrote:Finally, I've played some big games (4-5,000pts a side) and they actually work quite well. It gets a bit crowded, but Fantasy units fit together well - they are mostly rectangles, after all! Unlike 40k, which I found takes forever in a big game, Fantasy doesn't really take that much longer in my experience. It has to do with having fewer shooting units, so you don't need to engage in massive dice rolling from the first turn.

An interesting observation. In 40k, apocalypse really rather feels more like work than fun...

Charles Rampant wrote:I went for Tomb Kings because I'm a classicist, and they have this great bronze age theme; the hordes of nobodies, the (surprisingly tough) heroes leading them into battle

Does it make me a bad person that I read the above as...

Charles Rampant wrote:I went for Tomb Kings because I'm a classist, and they have this great bronze age theme; the hordes of nobodies, the (surprisingly tough) heroes leading them into battle

... Anyways.

So, I spent the past couple of days reading through the fluff section through a "copy" of the rulebook. All the stuff after the rules starting at page 153, then looking at the pretty pictures in the miniatures showcase, and then sort of skimming the rest (not that interested in special battle missions at the moment).

There were several things I noticed, but there are two bad ones that seem to linger with me. To be a downer...

1.) The minis seem a bit... ... shabby? Or at least old. They kind of seem small and low on detail, especially compared to some of the knock-out-of-the-park awesome stuff that GW has done for 40k lately.

Yes, GW has come out with some nice fantasy stuff, like the VC coven throne, and the current lizardmen stegadon. That said, an awful lot of the minis seem like they're in need of a little loving. It's a bit tough to see 90's greenstuff put up next to the auto-CAD laser cuts of 40k.

I guess they are a bit cheaper, but still...

2.) Yes, I know I just read the rulebook fluff, which is always just an overview, and yes, I know that GW's fluff writers have been slowly getting worse over time...

... but come on.

The fluff in 40k is fantastic, and maybe, because of that, the WHFB stuff comes across as pretty awful. I mean, starting with one of the most eggregious examples...

Bad-guy elves in 40k:

The elves ruled a galaxy spanning empire and became so advanced that they were able to sate every whim. This lead to a galaxy wide hedonic slide into debauchery where they were unable to feel regular emotions anymore as their addiction to ever more extreme sensations spiraled out of control. Eventually, their emotions and the raw psychic energy of sensory overload became so great that it became sentient. The elf race was nearly completely wiped out as the souls of the elves merged with the raw power of their psyches to create a god. Those few who survived made a pact with their new deity - their continued survival so long as they caused more and more powerful emotional and sensory reactions. To this end, using techniques honed over millenia, they inflict the maximum amount of pain possible on everyone they come across, relying on torture as their only means of salvation.

Bad-guy elves in WHFB:

Once there were some elves. The chief elf wore a shiny hat. Another elf should have gotten to wear the shiny hat, but didn't. As a result, he invaded Canada and has been pouting ever since.

And then you look at chaos space marines, and then you look at WoC, which are literally just vikings. Boo. And then you have the Bretonnians who are a B-movie based on the scribblings of a nine-year-old who read the wikipedia entry for king arthur in an endless 4th-wall-breaking exercise in hackney fiction.

Not to say it's all bad, of course. The steampunk germans and the beardy old men shouting at teenagers are good examples, but from a surface look, it's seems... tragic.

Does the fluff in the codices redeem itself a bit, or is it sort of just something that you have to look past to play a more tactical game?

 Ailaros wrote:

Tangent wrote:At the same time, Steadfast is dependent upon model count (you need more models in a given combat than your opponent to be considered Steadfast). And so, I think a LOT of people are raw about the addition of this rule to the game because it's such an obvious money grab by GW (buy more of the EXACT SAME models and win the game!). So, people are going to hate on it for THAT reason regardless of how it changes the play of the game itself.

Not being a GW conspiracy theorist, I don't care much about that. I am interested, though, if there was some sort of problem with large infantry units that the addition of steadfast was designed to stop.

The problem was people weren't buying huge infantry units, they were buying small units. GW wants you to buy big units, so they added two bonuses for huge units - Horde formation (multiple ranks of 10 models) which lets extra models attack, and Steadfast (have more ranks than your opponent) which makes a unit a lot harder to break.

This in addition to the change to percentages instead of units (you now need 25% Core, instead of, IIRC, at least 2 units of any size of Core) was very clearly intended to boost model counts in games, thus sales. 2 units of 20 skeletons doesn't give you the Core for a 2000pt game like it used to, 2 units of 50 does. That's 10 boxes as opposed to 4.

 Ailaros wrote:

Not being a GW conspiracy theorist, I don't care much about that. I am interested, though, if there was some sort of problem with large infantry units that the addition of steadfast was designed to stop.

Well, steadfast is KING in WHFB. So if there was a problem, they probably could have found a more subtle way to stop it.

 Ailaros wrote:
Bad-guy elves in WHFB:

Once there were some elves. The chief elf wore a shiny hat. Another elf should have gotten to wear the shiny hat, but didn't. As a result, he invaded Canada and has been pouting ever since.

Lol, well when you put it like THAT...

First, I don't know much about Dark Elf lore, but I know there's a lot more to it than that, which means you probably get that lore in the army book. Second, the only army whose lore I really know is Vampire Counts (and Tomb Kings, to an extent), and I actually think it's pretty good.

 Ailaros wrote:

Krellnus wrote:Whilst some areas will certainly have an arms race of wizards it is important to note that some armies fair better than others without wizards

Well, that's sort of what I'm getting towards. Of course there are going to be some armies that really want to use lots and lots of magic. The question is more of if you're screwed if you use a reasonably minimal amount and move on towards other stuff. If it's one of he who has the most power dice and the most wizards wins, and he who didn't take more wizards should have taken more wizards.

Not really, especially since with the way PD generation works, you really struggle to be able to have them cast something each phase once you get over the 3-4 wizard mark, which generally means more room for support type and fighty type characters, especially at the 2000+ mark. Take 40k for example, I play DA and I would really like to be able to run a fighty Company Master to stomp some stuff flat, unfortunatley, if I do that I'm not taking my divination psykers which means I'm probably gonna have a hard time winning, whereas in Fantasy I can take a Level 4 wizard to be my general, a BSB to support Ld across my army and a fighty character or two to shore up a combat block and not be at any real disadvantage.

Krellnus wrote:In my experience the people who dislike 8th, disliked the randomness, due to not being able to do things like "based off how far apart we started my unit should be just out of your charge range and so you can't charge me this turn" now I don't think there is anything wrong with randomness, or the consistency to be able make comments like the later, in fact I prefer the latter way myself, since it rewards careful movement (but to each their own ofc)

Right, and while I dislike some of this stuff (random charge range really screwed things up in 40k, for example), I also don't think it's necessarily a bad trend either. Yes, by removing the player skill of being able to estimate ranges well, the game does lose some of its skill. That said, not all inroads of player skill into a game are created equal. I'm sort of glad that I only played a tiny bit of 3rd ed 40k, because replacing the old guess range mechanic was a good idea (not only for the shenanigans (mentioned earlier in this thread), but also exactly because it would put off new players).

I tend to agree with you on this, because pumping fresh blood into the game is what will keep it alive.

Not to say it's all bad, of course. The steampunk germans and the beardy old men shouting at teenagers are good examples, but from a surface look, it's seems... tragic.

Does the fluff in the codices redeem itself a bit, or is it sort of just something that you have to look past to play a more tactical game?

Oh yes, it most certainly does, believe me, the BL novels also help with this a lot, since unlike 40k ones they aren't all bolter porn devoted to one faction.

For example, Wood Elves are not only your typical forest dwelling elf trope, but every year they go on a world wide, god fuelled magical hunt across most of the surrounding area, purely for its own sake and the side effects of which include, but are not limited to, elves just falling by the wayside to die of exhaustion after taking who knows how many fatal injuries and being so consumed by the desire to hunt that they will kill and/or eat each other with not a care in the world.

They also might steal your children and make them their immortal, unaging servants because why not?

 Ailaros wrote:
[There were several things I noticed, but there are two bad ones that seem to linger with me. To be a downer...

1.) The minis seem a bit... ... shabby? Or at least old. They kind of seem small and low on detail, especially compared to some of the knock-out-of-the-park awesome stuff that GW has done for 40k lately.

Yes, GW has come out with some nice fantasy stuff, like the VC coven throne, and the current lizardmen stegadon. That said, an awful lot of the minis seem like they're in need of a little loving. It's a bit tough to see 90's greenstuff put up next to the auto-CAD laser cuts of 40k.

I guess they are a bit cheaper, but still...

2.) Yes, I know I just read the rulebook fluff, which is always just an overview, and yes, I know that GW's fluff writers have been slowly getting worse over time...

... but come on.

The fluff in 40k is fantastic, and maybe, because of that, the WHFB stuff comes across as pretty awful. I mean, starting with one of the most eggregious examples...

And then you look at chaos space marines, and then you look at WoC, which are literally just vikings. Boo. And then you have the Bretonnians who are a B-movie based on the scribblings of a nine-year-old who read the wikipedia entry for king arthur in an endless 4th-wall-breaking exercise in hackney fiction.

Not to say it's all bad, of course. The steampunk germans and the beardy old men shouting at teenagers are good examples, but from a surface look, it's seems... tragic.

Does the fluff in the codices redeem itself a bit, or is it sort of just something that you have to look past to play a more tactical game?

I think you are being a bit harsh. I mean, 40K has CSM, Catachan, and Eldar sculpts which are all starting to show their age. I would say that the aformentioned 40K sculpts aren't really any better than any of the plastic fantasy kits. GW has always been really hit or miss in all their model releases. They tend to both in 40K and Fantasy have a "good enough" mentality, where once something is in plastic they are loathe to improve it- since that investment would make less money than a big shiny Wraithknight or Coven Throne! Sure they resculpted Space Marines, but they are the flagship product, so are an exception to the general rule accross all their armies, especially since they seem to be moving away from whole army resculpts like Dark Eldar.

There are also some really nice Fantasy sculpts like the Questing Knights, Black Orcs and really everything in Island of Blood Overall from playing both games, the sculpts are about equal across the board in both 40K and fantasy. Hit or miss. At least Fantasy doesn't have much quite as aweful as the Obliterator or Centurian sculpts

As for fluff, there is really only so much you can do with it. Sci Fi is a more flexible medium than high fantasy, and there is a lot more room for creativity. The Skaven are pretty unique to the Warhammer world, and their backstory is pretty excellent as well. I think a lot of it is going to come down to preference. Warriors of Chaos in fantasy are what Space Wolves should have been. Ruthless Vikings raping churches and burning women, they have pretty decent sculpts and they have a unique identity. You pointed out that the fallen Hero makes for a better story, but on the other side of the coin, in many ways Chaos Space Marines are simply YAPAA (Yet Another Power Armoured Army) lovingly referred to as Spiky Marines. While WoC may not have quite as compelling a story as the Horus Herasy behind them, they have a unique identity in the setting in a way that CSM will never have, and this is displayed both in their fluff and unit choices.

As for Brets, YMMV. Its a fantasy setting and Bretonnians are the classic feudal era Knights and Peasants. Several Books make a point to focus on the darker side of Bretonnia- just how downtrodden the Peasantry really are, as well as hints that Bretonnian Society was constructed by the Wood Elves to serve as a buffer state. Not every armybook is for everybody, and the story is less original than 40K. But in large part that is due to the limitations of the High Fantasy setting more than anything.

 Ailaros wrote:


2.) Yes, I know I just read the rulebook fluff, which is always just an overview, and yes, I know that GW's fluff writers have been slowly getting worse over time...

... but come on.

The fluff in 40k is fantastic, and maybe, because of that, the WHFB stuff comes across as pretty awful. I mean, starting with one of the most eggregious examples...

Bad-guy elves in 40k:

The elves ruled a galaxy spanning empire and became so advanced that they were able to sate every whim. This lead to a galaxy wide hedonic slide into debauchery where they were unable to feel regular emotions anymore as their addiction to ever more extreme sensations spiraled out of control. Eventually, their emotions and the raw psychic energy of sensory overload became so great that it became sentient. The elf race was nearly completely wiped out as the souls of the elves merged with the raw power of their psyches to create a god. Those few who survived made a pact with their new deity - their continued survival so long as they caused more and more powerful emotional and sensory reactions. To this end, using techniques honed over millenia, they inflict the maximum amount of pain possible on everyone they come across, relying on torture as their only means of salvation.

Bad-guy elves in WHFB:

Once there were some elves. The chief elf wore a shiny hat. Another elf should have gotten to wear the shiny hat, but didn't. As a result, he invaded Canada and has been pouting ever since.

And then you look at chaos space marines, and then you look at WoC, which are literally just vikings. Boo. And then you have the Bretonnians who are a B-movie based on the scribblings of a nine-year-old who read the wikipedia entry for king arthur in an endless 4th-wall-breaking exercise in hackney fiction.

Not to say it's all bad, of course. The steampunk germans and the beardy old men shouting at teenagers are good examples, but from a surface look, it's seems... tragic.

Does the fluff in the codices redeem itself a bit, or is it sort of just something that you have to look past to play a more tactical game?

I could do the exact same thing, but the other way round. Providing detailed descriptions for Fantasy Fluff and short, sarcastic, taking-the-mick for 40k Fluff, and make the Fantasy background look far better. I can't really vouch much for the WoC or Bretonnian lore, but the Elven background has a lot more to it that "who wears the shiny hat". I take your "Canada" jibe though, surely it can't have hurt GW to put a little bit more imagination into the map of the Warhammer World.

I suppose the model thing might be a peculiarity. I don't know what they've done for WHFB, but I look at the last few years of 40k, and during that time they completely made an entire army, with an entire new range of models, from scratch (Grey Knights), and they made basically an entirely new army sans a couple of models, from scratch (Necron), and they did a complete and comprehensive reboot to an entire army and an entire miniatures line (Dark Eldar).

GW HAS been showing a lot of love to 40k over the last few years, so I guess it would make sense that they have the best, newest models created with the newest technology available.

The thing I find curious as well is the way they've shown miniatures in the WHFB rulebook. The 40k rulebook's miniatures showcase section shows a bunch of golden demon winners from the last few years. The WHFB rulebook shows some silver and bronze demon winners from over a decade ago. 40k's stuff is all look at all the cool stuff you can do with new minis with our new washes and stuff, and it sort of looks like they rummaged around through a cardboard box in the basement to drag out their old fantasy minis to take pictures of them for WHFB.

All of this combined makes me think that the problem here is that GW and its design team just sort of don't care about WHFB, at least, at the moment and for the last couple of years.

I suppose this is also shown by the codex every month 40k release schedule vs. fantasy, or are they also updating things more frequently for that side as well?

It's interesting that the BL books are better for fantasy, because I'd agree that they're pretty uniformly awful for 40k.

 Ailaros wrote:
I suppose the model thing might be a peculiarity. I don't know what they've done for WHFB, but I look at the last few years of 40k, and during that time they completely made an entire army, with an entire new range of models, from scratch (Grey Knights), and they made basically an entirely new army sans a couple of models, from scratch (Necron), and they did a complete and comprehensive reboot to an entire army and an entire miniatures line (Dark Eldar).

GW HAS been showing a lot of love to 40k over the last few years, so I guess it would make sense that they have the best, newest models created with the newest technology available.

The thing I find curious as well is the way they've shown miniatures in the WHFB rulebook. The 40k rulebook's miniatures showcase section shows a bunch of golden demon winners from the last few years. The WHFB rulebook shows some silver and bronze demon winners from over a decade ago. 40k's stuff is all look at all the cool stuff you can do with new minis with our new washes and stuff, and it sort of looks like they rummaged around through a cardboard box in the basement to drag out their old fantasy minis to take pictures of them for WHFB.

All of this combined makes me think that the problem here is that GW and its design team just sort of don't care about WHFB, at least, at the moment and for the last couple of years.

I suppose this is also shown by the codex every month 40k release schedule vs. fantasy, or are they also updating things more frequently for that side as well?

It's interesting that the BL books are better for fantasy, because I'd agree that they're pretty uniformly awful for 40k.

40k sells better. So GW put more resources into 40k. It's annoying, but it's what every good business would do.

And the WHFB rulebook is 4 years older, but even so, what you mention is pretty curious. It'll be interesting to see what they do with the big 9th Edition rulebook, though I'll be avoiding buying it if I can.

 Ailaros wrote:

Krellnus wrote:Whilst some areas will certainly have an arms race of wizards it is important to note that some armies fair better than others without wizards

Well, that's sort of what I'm getting towards. Of course there are going to be some armies that really want to use lots and lots of magic. The question is more of if you're screwed if you use a reasonably minimal amount and move on towards other stuff. If it's one of he who has the most power dice and the most wizards wins, and he who didn't take more wizards should have taken more wizards.

Unfortunately, there are few armies where it is actually worth it to take a "Combat" Lord over a Level 4 Wizard. Sometimes I can get away with a few Lower level wizards, but I tend to get dominated in the magic phase. While you can spend some points on a Dispell Scroll, that will only save you from one spell - often times you'll burn it in the first round of magic, and then have to weather spell after spell for the rest of the game.

rollawaythestone wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Krellnus wrote:Whilst some areas will certainly have an arms race of wizards it is important to note that some armies fair better than others without wizards

Well, that's sort of what I'm getting towards. Of course there are going to be some armies that really want to use lots and lots of magic. The question is more of if you're screwed if you use a reasonably minimal amount and move on towards other stuff. If it's one of he who has the most power dice and the most wizards wins, and he who didn't take more wizards should have taken more wizards.

Unfortunately, there are few armies where it is actually worth it to take a "Combat" Lord over a Level 4 Wizard. Sometimes I can get away with a few Lower level wizards, but I tend to get dominated in the magic phase. While you can spend some points on a Dispell Scroll, that will only save you from one spell - often times you'll burn it in the first round of magic, and then have to weather spell after spell for the rest of the game.

There armies that can quite easily afford to take both though, and Vampires can take one model that's both. Even some elite armies have builds which include a Combat Lord and a Level 4, like some DE builds, for example, that include an Unkillable PegLord and a Level 4 Supreme Sorceress.

The Shadow wrote:And the WHFB rulebook is 4 years older, but even so, what you mention is pretty curious. It'll be interesting to see what they do with the big 9th Edition rulebook, though I'll be avoiding buying it if I can.

Oh, that's interesting, so 8th ed is five years old now?

Any vague idea when 9th will be out? Perhaps that's why they've been working so hard on 40k. 40k just got a new rules edition, so need a bunch of work, and they're kind of trying to get it all out the door before starting the whole cycle again with WHFB a year or two from now.

 Ailaros wrote:

Any vague idea when 9th will be out? Perhaps that's why they've been working so hard on 40k. 40k just got a new rules edition, so need a bunch of work, and they're kind of trying to get it all out the door before starting the whole cycle again with WHFB a year or two from now.

I think the rumors are saying next year.

Oops, didn't mean to say older, just old. But yeah, the point still stands. And yeah, 9th is due out next summer, if GW keep to the normal edition release schedule