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.

Hey all, i was thinking of getting in Warhammer fantasy, i adore the skaven and the empire, but i was wondering, how well structured is the ruleset of WHFB? Are there any problems/imbalances in the system? Or is it pretty nice at the moment?

I rate it a 13 on a scale of A-F.

But seriously, I think it's pretty well balanced. If anyone has ever gamed extensively, the hardest thing is balance. The easiest ways to balance are you either make armies nearly identical or you severely limit the number of options. WHFB has a huge number of armies and while they all have the same concepts of like cavalry, chariots, infantry, war machines, etc, there are still quite a lot of combinations.

The fact that tournaments are won by all sorts of different armies shows there is quite a decent diversity. Or at least there's enough randomness involved that lesser armies can win. But I don't think you ever feel like you're totally at the mercy of the Dice Gods.

I don't really like 8th that much but I think it is at it's heart a fairly robust system. I think it can be a little too "swingy" at times, but the balance between army books has been surprisingly good. It comes down to what style of game you like I think. WFB is a lot of crazy stuff and masses of death, not deep tactics for the most part. But that can be a lot of fun if you can accept some of the randomness. (I voted Decent).

I find the magic system to be a bit ganky, but others will point out (rightly) that it provides an answer to Deathstar style play, keeping the game a bit more internally balanced.

Cannons are also a bit too good, but not every army has access to them and there are many counters for them.

Just a few tweaks, I think, and that's debatable. Magic is a little off, but as Da Boss said it's anti-death star so it's not something you can just yank out.

Maybe a few tweaks to laser cannons.

I'd like a few terrain tweaks as well. Terrain was too punishing in 7th, but it's too forgiving and gimmicky in 8th.

Not big deals, though. I'm like 90% happy.

Sounds good to me, skaven here i come!

I want my ranks of four back!

Are there any rules of note that sort of break the game? Like how 40k has challenges and such to ruin fun assaults, does fantasy have any equally gak rules?

I'd say no. As another poster said, it can be a little quirky at times, but it *is* a robust system, and the army books seem to match up better than their Codex equivalents.

Only caveat I'd have is that 8th ed. plays rather badly at "low" point values compared to earlier editions, but even that is only relevant for pick-up or tournament style of play, where you can't really expect your opponent to cooperate with you in picking an apropriate list.

If you're going in without preconceptions I think many of the things that annoy older players won't even be an issue for you, anyhow.

Yeah, I think the Fantasy ruleset is really solid, offering a good balance between tactical approaches, unpredictability and the ability to cause wanton destruction. It only really falls down on a few areas, namely the superiority of infantry, magic and cannons. But it's not superiority to the extent that this is all a good army contains, far from it.

 Da Boss wrote:
If you're going in without preconceptions I think many of the things that annoy older players won't even be an issue for you, anyhow.

This is a good point. I miss the days of 7th edition where I could much easily wreak havoc with dual hydras, but a new player won't. A new player may get frustrated by some of the powerful deathstars and spells, but you learn to cope with it pretty quickly. I think it's a great ruleset to play, and I definitely recommend taking the plunge.

 Allod wrote:
I'd say no. As another poster said, it can be a little quirky at times, but it *is* a robust system, and the army books seem to match up better than their Codex equivalents.

Only caveat I'd have is that 8th ed. plays rather badly at "low" point values compared to earlier editions, but even that is only relevant for pick-up or tournament style of play, where you can't really expect your opponent to cooperate with you in picking an apropriate list.

And I think the biggest issue with low points values is magic. Winds of Magic is a sort-of neat idea, but if anything changes in the near future I'd like to see a tweak to it. Something as simple as having different dice numbers for different points ranges would be a good start. If you house rule that, low points play a lot better. Still better at high points just for the tactical variety, but still!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ThunderFury 2575 wrote:
Are there any rules of note that sort of break the game? Like how 40k has challenges and such to ruin fun assaults, does fantasy have any equally gak rules?

Challenges work in Fantasy because it's got the proper feel for it, and they've been in the ruleset for so long that they're built with the idea in mind and not just crammed in.

There's not a rule that I universally hate. Every time I start mentally whining about any of it, I quickly come to terms with the reasons why it's a good thing to have around in at least a reasonable number of cases. Again, even my grievances above have their merits. Laser cannons are the answer to monsters for those armies, and monsters are really friggin' good in the first place so they do need a counter. Magic can be a little wonky, but it helps deter deathstars and it honestly does feel appropriately 'risky' to use in most cases.

 Evertras wrote:

 Allod wrote:
I'd say no. As another poster said, it can be a little quirky at times, but it *is* a robust system, and the army books seem to match up better than their Codex equivalents.

Only caveat I'd have is that 8th ed. plays rather badly at "low" point values compared to earlier editions, but even that is only relevant for pick-up or tournament style of play, where you can't really expect your opponent to cooperate with you in picking an apropriate list.

And I think the biggest issue with low points values is magic. Winds of Magic is a sort-of neat idea, but if anything changes in the near future I'd like to see a tweak to it. Something as simple as having different dice numbers for different points ranges would be a good start. If you house rule that, low points play a lot better. Still better at high points just for the tactical variety, but still!

This is something that can very easily be houseruled - and should be houseruled. The ruleset is designed for play in the 1600-3000 points range, really. Anything outside that benefits highly from a houseruling to 4D6 winds, for example.

 Evertras wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ThunderFury 2575 wrote:
Are there any rules of note that sort of break the game? Like how 40k has challenges and such to ruin fun assaults, does fantasy have any equally gak rules?

Challenges work in Fantasy because it's got the proper feel for it, and they've been in the ruleset for so long that they're built with the idea in mind and not just crammed in.
.

Challenges work in Fantasy mainly because the mechanics work around them. As you say, they've been in long enough, not just copied and pasted like in 6th edition 40k. In 40k a guardsman sargeant can challenge my Trygon Prime and be utterly slaughtered, only for my prime to be held up because they're only testing on -1. Overkill is one of the main reasons that challenges work in WHFB.

Magic and miscasts piss me off, but I like the dice bidding system of magic so it's good and bad there. But bad enough that I basically quit playing Fantasy because of it.

Other than that, there are some weird things, like how cavalry can almost never break steadfast, even when charging from the flank. And how cannons can snipe lone characters too easily. Those are minor issues that are fairly easily houseruled, unlike magic, but overall I like the system due to the increased importance of the movement phase over some other games that shall remain nameless.

My only real grips with the system itself would be;
1. Magic needs to scale properly.
While some may feel that it's decent from the 1700-3k pts range, IMHO it's probably closer to the 1700-2400/2500 pts range. At 3k it's still very easy for a lot of armies to have too many Wizards, especially armies like Undead who are all about the Magic phase.

2. Initiative test or auto-die spells need to go.
These are the real culprits which make a mockery of the game. Dwarfs, Vampire Counts, Tomb Kings, Lizardmen, Ogres, Orcs and Nurgle Daemons are all characterised by their average I2 or lower. Meanwhile, all three flavours of Elves (High, Dark, Tree-huggers) and Warriors of Chaos tend to have an average I5! This makes both Pit of Shades and Purple Sun especially borked, as most of the time, it's either auto-wiping most of whatever it hits, or it does piss all.
While these killer spells are needed to keep Deathstars in check, I'd rather see them work off of Strength and Toughness tests as those scores tend to average between 3 - 4 across ALL armies.

3. BSB is silly effective.
Re-rolls for everything under the sun has made psychology far less important. While the old-school 'Fear' rules for example were far too good, the advent of the new age BSB now means that things like Panic/Fear/Terror are basically afterthoughts for the bulk of your units as you simply huddle around the big flag and laugh.
I'd like to honestly see the BSB simply work for Break Tests & Panic Tests. Keeps it good and 'inspiring the troops', but makes 'Fear' actually worth a damn!

4. Laser-guided cannons are silly.

A well-thought post, 626.

I don't know about a total curbstomp of BSBs. We had a point when Terror and Fear were really really powerful. And you have to remember there are entire armies that have it. Which is a whole lot worse than an entire armies having sucky initiative.

No one wants to be constantly running away or unable to hit because they're peeing their pants. And what's worse is you can't strategically defend against it. There's no way you can maneuver or plan to prevent it. If you're susceptible to fear and they got fear, well...hope you roll well.

With a BSB at least there is a strategic aspect of protecting yourself.

There's gotta be a better way of countering deathstars than auto-die spells.

 Tangent wrote:
There's gotta be a better way of countering deathstars than auto-die spells.

Flank and rear charges need to become more deadly, especially for cavalry and chariots. Deathstars, by virtue of their size, are much harder to manoeuvre so would be more vulnerable to this.

Sounds good Is fantasy as popular as 40k? Because in my area i seem to have trouble finding fantasy players, i know a couple, but they are either really old armies (brets) or new ones with cool toys (Dark Elves)

For the most part, 40k is more popular than fantasy. However, it depends on your area, I know of some places where WHFB is more often played than 40K.

However, around where I live, a lot more players are starting WHFB, including myself.

 Evertras wrote:
Laser cannons are the answer to monsters for those armies, and monsters are really friggin' good in the first place so they do need a counter.

After seeing a single stegadon trample through an entire empire infantry force i can agree that countering monsters is important, i just don't see how it's appropriate for the counter to be half the cost (or less) and easily snipe important characters as well.

 Evertras wrote:
Magic can be a little wonky, but it helps deter deathstars and it honestly does feel appropriately 'risky' to use in most cases.

I agree with this completely, unless the enemy is in fact running a deathstar of some sort risking the miscast table is usually not worth it.

 ThunderFury 2575 wrote:
Sounds good Is fantasy as popular as 40k? Because in my area i seem to have trouble finding fantasy players, i know a couple, but they are either really old armies (brets) or new ones with cool toys (Dark Elves)

Depends on your area. 40k has been going downhill fast for a LONG time, and a lot of people that get tired of it switch to Fantasy.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
A well-thought post, 626.

I don't know about a total curbstomp of BSBs. We had a point when Terror and Fear were really really powerful. And you have to remember there are entire armies that have it. Which is a whole lot worse than an entire armies having sucky initiative.

No one wants to be constantly running away or unable to hit because they're peeing their pants. And what's worse is you can't strategically defend against it. There's no way you can maneuver or plan to prevent it. If you're susceptible to fear and they got fear, well...hope you roll well.

With a BSB at least there is a strategic aspect of protecting yourself.

I remember all too well just how OP Fear/Terror were in the days of 5-7th editions, but they've now become rather pointless rules for the most part.

It's honestly not that hard to defend the bulk of your army from it either, since you've got a total 24" bubble for the BSB. That should be more than enough to cover all the important bits, leaving just your fringes units such as the backfield & chaff likely unprotected 100% of the time. And this is on top of your General's IP to boost your Ld!
Space those two out a little bit, and the psychology rules shouldn't bother you all that much, outside of getting seriously crushed in combat/nailed with a million hexes.

Considering that outside of a couple armies, (O&G's, Skaven), everyone who is susceptible to Fear/Terror is an average Ld7-8, or else in the case of Lizardmen have a rule that makes their below average Ld far less of an issue than it appears on paper.

The low initiative is much more crippling in the current system than being susceptible to Fear right now. (even without a BSB re-roll)
A Ld7 unit for example is roughly 50% likely to require 5's to-hit vs. a Fear causer. But an I2 unit getting nailed by Pit of Shades is going to auto-lose roughly 66% of whatever gets hits! (Ogres honestly get the worst of it)
Even if you suddenly find yourself requiring 5's to-hit, it's not nearly the groin-shot that low initiative armies take vs. Shadow or Death casters. In the combat, you'll still have your ranks/banner, maybe steadfast, plus any General's Ld/BSB re-roll, then the chance to get away... The only real hope vs. the 'initiative test or die' spells is literally 'hope your opponent blows their casting attempt!'

It's mainly good with a few niggles.

The prices of an army is more of a turn off.

Mostly Good, but could use a few tweaks.

1) Weaken Steadfast (Negated by flank/rear charges of sufficient strength at the end of combat)
2) Weaken Uber-spells; someone else mentioned the imbalance of Initiative Save-or-die spells. Just make 'em hit T, or even Ld.
3) Make charges a bit less random (Maybe Spd+3+d6?) and give ASF. Bring back a it of tactics.
4) Buff Cav a bit. (See 3?)
5) Make terrain actually affect movement (eg. half speed, but allows marching)

I actually like random charge distances and I think there's more of a tactical reward with the current system. Double movement charges just screwed over low movement armies, and a lot of the movement phase turned into the "shuffling phase", as you'd shuffle forward to get 7" away from those Dwarves or whatever.

Now, all armies have a better shot at charging, and higher movement is still beneficial. It means you have to gauge risk vs reward by moving a certain distance away from an enemy unit, or when charging a ranged unit, for example.

Random charge is great. I like calculated risks. You'll see just about every battle report have something like, tried to make the charge or failed the charge. Everyone moving to 1/8th an inch out of charge range to lolol deny charges was lame and unrealistic. Your guys are running pell mell at the enemy, tripping over their halberds.

Those chin-scratching decisions on whether you should try for a charge or try for irresistible force or try and cannon snipe or whatever are real armchair general experiences.

I like most of the rules, most of my issues are similar to everyone else. i like this addition the best, and have been playing since 5th. played some of first additions when i was a kid, but i do not count those.

Magic
I agree that Int based or die test are way over the top, It needs to go away, but I am not sure how to to fix it, Maybe more like the more modern 6 spells, where you take hits, ever model takes a Int test. If passed take a S(x) wound if failed take a S(y) wound, I would also like to see winds be more balanced, Say at the start of each round both players roll a D6, add together caster gets the total, defender gets the highest for that turn, so both players will start with the same amount of dice. channels still take place on each player turn.

More penalty for allowing your unit to be flank or rear charged.

I think cannons are fine, If anything they should do more against Infantry. When a cannon ball hit a ranked up unit of troops it it took out a large chunk of them. and most people who would aim a cannon new what they where doing. You where trained as a cannon crew. It was not just some average Joe shooting it. Plus anyone who has played more than a few games can guess the distance between the cannon and the target within enough that you can pretty much hit every turn. All the new rules do is speed this up a little. Less time going well, i know that unit is about X distance away, I want my inital target to be Y distance away, so really i need to go with Z. Sure it sucks when a cannon wipes out a character, but it is still the best counter the the ridiculous OP Princes. And counters everyone leaving their LVL 4 out in the open so that the Miscast does not wipe out their hordes.

Failed Fear/Terror test, test can not use Generals IP, If test is failed can not use IP or BSB for break test. WS becomes 1 adds ASL in CC, even if you have ASF. and bring back have to take a terror test to charge a terror model, unless you cause terror or fear.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with random charges either, but I agree about terrain. There something about seeing a sweet board packed full of badass terrain that makes you want to play a game just because you want to play on that board... and then finding out that a lot of that terrain doesn't do anything.

cannons always hitting monster and rider is my biggest beef. maybe 1-4 it hits monster, 5 rider and 6 both. that way I wouldn't feel so guilty playing two skull cannons.

Camarodragon wrote:
cannons always hitting monster and rider is my biggest beef. maybe 1-4 it hits monster, 5 rider and 6 both. that way I wouldn't feel so guilty playing two skull cannons.

Meh, Beasts of Nurgle are heinously more obnoxious than a pair of Khannons...

Though cannons do need a re-write as right now they're pretty much instant death to most monsters in general. Even if they went down to causing say only D3 or D3+1 wounds per shot, that's still a 33% (or slightly higher with D3+1 version) chance to remove half or more of a monster's total wounds.

The randomised hits vs. ridden monsters would be a nice return as well, though admittedly any character riding a huge beastie is probably packing a 4++. Just reducing the damage itself would likely be enough to help make ridden monsters more viable beyond the HE versions.