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.

Chaff them the entire game, 6 spells, or just outmaneuvering them are just some of the ways one has to deal with said hassle.

non of this is an option for dwarfs . So you both get to feel the bad from this edition and the one before it at the same time at all gaming levels . And if you take the only army build that works , no one wants to play you , because it is boring . Sure is a good edition .

I wish there was fantasy hate in my area, because that means people are talking about fantasy. DFW TX and there prolly isn't more than 20 fantasy players in this entire area. That kind of info is utterly depressing for me and my friends who got tired of 40k and found immense enjoyment playing fantasy.

Makumba wrote:

Chaff them the entire game, 6 spells, or just outmaneuvering them are just some of the ways one has to deal with said hassle.

non of this is an option for dwarfs . So you both get to feel the bad from this edition and the one before it at the same time at all gaming levels . And if you take the only army build that works , no one wants to play you , because it is boring . Sure is a good edition .

That's a problem with your army book and not the edition.

I do hope that dwarves become more diverse in what they can do. Melee is where dwarves should shine, yet for some reason the current book has them being too fragile and too weak in melee. 2 things that the typical fantasy dwarves are definitely not.

S5/6 and T4 with heavy armor is too weak and fragile?

Yes.

Str5/6 is ok damage output, but when its combined with only having a 5+ armor save, which is frankly not very good at all, it really sucks. You need at least a 4+ save for it to start mattering.

All that combined with being too expensive. Dwarves are basically paying elite prices for only average damage output and durability.

They have to pick between offensive and defensive ability. Str5/6 is fine for killing stuff, but with only a 5+ save you'll die way too fast. 4+ armor with Parry is ok durability, but Str3 doesn't kill jack squat. So you are basically caught between 2 bad choices.

Ideally, Dwarves would all have 4+ armor with Great Weapons. 3+ if they were using anything else. A new item for warriors could be Dwarf Heavy Armor(4+ save). Upgrade Gromril to 3+ base. This would give them the obligatory durability buff they need.

Personally I'd like to see small blocks of dwarves be as hard to move as large blocks of skaven, because they're freaking dwarves.

However, small model counts of troops doesn't play into GW's plans so I doubt that will happen.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes.

Str5/6 is ok damage output, but when its combined with only having a 5+ armor save, which is frankly not very good at all, it really sucks. You need at least a 4+ save for it to start mattering.

All that combined with being too expensive. Dwarves are basically paying elite prices for only average damage output and durability.

They have to pick between offensive and defensive ability. Str5/6 is fine for killing stuff, but with only a 5+ save you'll die way too fast. 4+ armor with Parry is ok durability, but Str3 doesn't kill jack squat. So you are basically caught between 2 bad choices.

Ideally, Dwarves would all have 4+ armor with Great Weapons. 3+ if they were using anything else. A new item for warriors could be Dwarf Heavy Armor(4+ save). Upgrade Gromril to 3+ base. This would give them the obligatory durability buff they need.

Then you'd have to make them more costly than they are now.

Dwarves aren't only about their troops and soldiers, but their WM's extra item points and extra dispel dice. There's a reason WoC can only fight in melee or with damage lores, and their only WM is a monster that flips its lid and charges across the field. Dwarves do a good job of internal balance already. They might be a bit pricey because of their resistance to fear and how good it used to be, but remember that T4 is better than average. Needing GW's for Str 5 is par for the course and Str 6 in a unit is remarkable and should be very expensive.

And when did Str 5 or 6 become just okay?

 Thunderfrog wrote:
And when did Str 5 or 6 become just okay?

When it's paired with low mobility and comes at a premium price? Str 10 is gonna be shoddy if it comes on an expensive unit with M1 - T1 - no saves. It's only worth its points if you can use it effectively.

At the very least, I can understand people disliking the current edition of WHFB.

I agree with the OP, in that it's a better system than the current 40k. However, I think one of the problems with the current 40k was that it become more like 8th edition fantasy, whereas fantasy could have done with becoming more like 5th edition 40k (IMO, of course).

As it stands, there just seems to be far too much pointless randomness in both systems. See, this was something I really liked about 5th edition 40k - there really wasn't much randomness. Charges were fixed, psychic powers were chosen before the game started etc. Really, virtually all the randomness was the shooting and combat attacks - which could both be influenced by having more models/attacks/shots.

In 6th edition, psychic powers are now random (if I was a cynical person, I'd suggest that this was to avoid unnecessary effort in making them in any way balanced), as are warlord traits - so apparently armies pick generals without having the slightest idea what their strengths are. Assaults are now random (because assault armies were sooo amazing in 5th), and various mechanics now revolve around snapshots. Also, in Fantasy, random charges are at least tolerable - since there usually isn't too much penalty if the enemy gets the charge instead. But, in 40k, failing a charge usually means getting turned into paste in the enemy turn - so a mechanic whereby charges randomly fail is certainly not appreciated.


Anyway, with regard to fantasy, I think the main issues with the current system are Ld and Magic. Although there are others - most monsters (and monster mounts in particular) being awful, MC being better than monsters in virtually every way, cannons ignoring most of the shooting rules, very dubious pricing on a lot of items, general reduction in army-book items etc. But, I think those two may be the main ones.

- Ld is just laughable at the moment - with IP, BSBs and Steadfast, Ld tests just aren't an issue. Not to mention items like Standard of Discipline (which improves IP), and the Crown of Command. It makes the majority of Ld tests pointless - since no one cares about a test they pass 99% of the time.

- Magic is far too random and (IMO) far too strong in a lot of cases - particularly with the rulebook lores. There are spells that can erase whole sections of an army from the board, spells that buff units to ludicrous levels, incredibly cheap debuffs etc. In addition, most Lv4s are very cheap - but bring not only versatility but also a massive bonus to cast and dispel.

I'll be honest here though - I really don't know what to do to fix magic in WHFB, but at the very least I feel it could do with less randomness. As it stands:
- What spells your wizard has are determined at random
- Power dice are determined entirely at random
- Whether you get extra dice for your wizards is random
- Whether you successfully cast a spell is random
- Whether you succeed in dispelling a spell is random
- Whether you are allowed to dispel a spell is random
- Whether you miscast is random
- What happens when you miscast is completely random

Do you see what I mean?

Now, granted, there is some tactics with regard to getting spells and to casting and dispelling (mainly in that you can choose how many dice to throw). However, arguably the most important roll (Winds of Magic) is entirely random and there's very little that can modify it. This just seems like horrible design to me.

 vipoid wrote:


I'll be honest here though - I really don't know what to do to fix magic in WHFB, but at the very least I feel it could do with less randomness. As it stands:
- What spells your wizard has are determined at random
- Power dice are determined entirely at random
- Whether you successfully cast a spell is random
- Whether you succeed in dispelling a spell is random
- Whether you are allowed to dispel a spell is random
- Whether you miscast is random
- What happens when you miscast is completely random

Do you see what I mean?

Now, granted, there is some tactics with regard to getting spells and to casting and dispelling (mainly in that you can choose how many dice to throw). However, arguably the most important roll (Winds of Magic) is entirely random and there's very little that can modify it. This just seems like horrible design to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't magic always been random? With the exception of how may spell/despell dice you get casting, dispelling, miscast results, and what spells you have has always been random.

 DarkWind wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't magic always been random? With the exception of how may spell/despell dice you get casting, dispelling, miscast results, and what spells you have has always been random.

Thing is, that one right there is arguably the biggest issue.

Often, if you roll badly, that can basically end your magic phase then and there.

*Shrugs* maybe it has always been like that, but to me it just feels like there's too much randomness - we're practically leaving an entire phase of the game to chance.

The random abilities of key figures is silly.
It is nice enough that player's do not get to plan armies around game breaking synergy, but the problem is that such combinations exist.
Even so, I see steadfast and cannons as at least as bad.
Steadfast less as a rule and more as a money grab, really.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
phantom viper has been playing with people who think the Deathstar is the ultimate in tactical thought. So either the deathstar pushes straight over everything in it's path, or it gets killed by a super-spell.

His mates have never discovered the possibilities of MSU, chaff, and redirectors to keep that deathstar from ever seeing a worthwhile combat. So naturally he thinks his group is typical of all groups everywhere.

Actually PhantomViper doesn't play Fantasy any more because myself and almost my entire meta dropped the game shortly after this abomination of an edition came out.

But, hey, you guys must be right, there is absolutely nothing wrong with 8th edition! The edition that has dropped Fantasy from 2nd to 4th most sold game in the US, has seen entire gaming groups vanish into thin air and that has GW itself talking about axing entire armies if not the game itself surely is the best ever!

Ah. So you admit you never did explore alternate ways to beat those pesky deathstars that just stroll ahead and destroy everything they touch.

I'll grant you there are issues with the game; major issues at that. But 'push units straight forward and roll buckets of dice' will get you a bottom-rank placement in any tournament. Tactics are REAL. Units MOVE. And if you're not prepared to account for their movement, you LOOSE.

Off course we explored alternatives, the first few months off the new edition was nothing more than trying to find ways to use our old MSU armies to try and counter the "new" death star tactics. And guess what: even with all the redirection and small sacrificial units, the game still came down to getting the right spell off to deal with the death star, because that is all that 8th edition is.

Funny. I've never needed to resort to a super-spell to keep a deathstar army from winning a game. The inherent weakness of a deathstar build (all your assets in one easily-controlled place) make it easy to outmaneuver and ignore until you're ready to deal with it.

But hey, I guess I must just be a tactical genius or something; never mind that my friends all figured out how to do it as well...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makumba wrote:

Chaff them the entire game, 6 spells, or just outmaneuvering them are just some of the ways one has to deal with said hassle.

non of this is an option for dwarfs . So you both get to feel the bad from this edition and the one before it at the same time at all gaming levels . And if you take the only army build that works , no one wants to play you , because it is boring . Sure is a good edition .

We'll see what happens with the new armybook here in a couple of weeks.

But even dwarves can beat a deathstar; laser-guided cannon and S5 Grudge Throwers do a LOT of damage to big units. And Organ guns rip ranks off just fine at close range.

The only real problem child for Dwarves is the High Elf BotWDStar, 2+ ward vs. magic means their warmachines got a lot less effective. But that's an issue with BotWD, not Dwarves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thunderfrog wrote:
S5/6 and T4 with heavy armor is too weak and fragile?

ONE S6 attack that strikes last and rarely sees a better than 4+ on a model with a 5+ save is weak and fragile.

Consider the CW with Halberd. S5, 2 attacks, and hits the Dwarves at I5 with a 3+. The front rank (assuming 10-wide) alone will get 20 attacks, 13 hits, 8 wounds and 8 kills (S5 negates heavy armor totally). The Dwarf front rank will get 10 attacks, 5 hits, 4 wounds, and under 3 kills. That right there has the Dwarves making a break test on a 5 or less, ASSUMING the general is nearby.

Now consider all the buffs and hexes the CW has access to... and are conspicuously denied to the Dwarves.

ONE S6 attack that strikes last and rarely sees a better than 4+ on a model with a 5+ save is weak and fragile.

Consider the CW with Halberd. S5, 2 attacks, and hits the Dwarves at I5 with a 3+. The front rank (assuming 10-wide) alone will get 20 attacks, 13 hits, 8 wounds and 8 kills (S5 negates heavy armor totally). The Dwarf front rank will get 10 attacks, 5 hits, 4 wounds, and under 3 kills. That right there has the Dwarves making a break test on a 5 or less, ASSUMING the general is nearby.

Now consider all the buffs and hexes the CW has access to... and are conspicuously denied to the Dwarves.

1. No one runs hordes of warriors.

2. Your math is off, mostly because dwarves are 20mm bases to a Warriors 25. 10 Dwarves would have to be fighting 8 warriors (who usually deploy 6x3).

So..

16 attacks + 8 supporting = 24 Attacks - 16 Hits - 11ish wounds.

Dwarves?

20 attacks = 10 hits - 8 wounds (No armor on a warrior with a halberd vs S6.)

Not quite so massive a fail. Also.. 3 ranks of 8 warriors with halberds and NO MARK is 408 points. The same number of Hammerers clock in at 288. They should lose that combat if they go in unsupported anyways. I doubt that the assorted quarrelers, thunderers, and flame cannons would let those warriors make it there complete.


Edit: People comparing any unit of combat troops to warriors is asinine and pointless. They are pointed out to be to premier combat unit in the game and RARELY do players throw more than 24 on the field in one block unless they are deathstarring. *caveat to my 1st point up there.

Lol @ PhantomViper. Somebody obviously never learned how to play 8th edition worth a damn.


Regarding 8th edition, I really do agree with those people who say the game only needs a bit of tweaking. The things that bother me (most of which have been mentioned before), are:

1) There are too many toys that help leadership, and they simply become must-buys for too many armies. Everybody is LD10 with steadfast and a reroll these days, it seems.

2) Fear was overpowered in 7th, but they ratcheted it back waaaaaay too far to the point of uselessness. I think that fear and terror should both affect steadfast in some way (-1 to leadership for units in base with fear, -2 for terror perhaps?)

3) cannons need to scatter horizontally somewhat. Maybe place the token, scatter d6-BS, bounce as normal in a straight line. Still good against monsters, but wouldn't be as likely to snipe bloody characters out of units.

4) the "save or die" spells need to be toned down. They're an inelegant solution to death stars, and watching people play the "6-dice-at-dwellers" game gets old pretty fast. Most decent players understand that this is a crap strategy, but it's still obnoxious.

Not to mention that few people really ENJOY winning because they threw 6-dice at purple sun at the opportune moment.

5) Regeneration needs to be toned down as well. I think fire should strip it permanently, not just for the phase. Heck, for a turn in the least. There's a reason that chimeras and old hydras are considered some of the best monsters in the game by a huge margin.

6) Monstrous Cavalry need to come WAY down in power level. They've currently got all the benefits of regular cavalry (speed, mobility, powerful charge, immunity to stomps) with none of the drawbacks (no damage output after the charge, susceptible to killing blow). Perhaps I'm biased as a TK player, but KB should at LEAST strip armour for that singel to-wound. And if not that, then at least modify it down a little. The blow would fell a kitted-out vampire lord, but not a rank-and-file demigryph knight?

7) The whole Warriors of Chaos army book. I mean...feth me. Hydras were overpowered, so you gave them a FLYING one? An unbreakable, flying monster that you can give a 1+ armour save to that ISN'T unstable? Gah! And just when mournfang were sweeping the tables as the most powerful unit in the game, they decided to....just give warriors an even better one. Better armour, better strength, immunity to ethereal. Awesome.

8) Steadfast needs more counters. Right now the only way to break it is an even bigger infantry unit. That's...really kind of silly.

Surrounded units shouldn't have steadfast. Units denied their rank bonus shouldn't have steadfast. Fear and Terror should affect steadfast.

...and rivers and forests shouldn't just outright deny it. Because that's a little silly. No rank bonus sure, but no steadfast? I don't see how that makes any sense.

This conversation might be a bit more productive if everyone stopped going after PhantomViper & started listening.

Its not about learning the right way to play 8th, or being put out because an army got nerfed. The rules changed so much between 7th and 8th that they may as well be different games. That leaves a lot of people wondering where their favorite game went.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

1) There are too many toys that help leadership, and they simply become must-buys for too many armies. Everybody is LD10 with steadfast and a reroll these days, it seems.

2) Fear was overpowered in 7th, but they ratcheted it back waaaaaay too far to the point of uselessness. I think that fear and terror should both affect steadfast in some way (-1 to leadership for units in base with fear, -2 for terror perhaps?)

Agreed.

With regard to Fear, I feel that it should either be a modifier that isn't affected by Ld (e.g. a straight -1 to hit for all units that aren't ItP/fear-causing). Or, it needs to have a smaller effect even if the fear test is passed - e.g. WS1 if it's failed, -1WS if it's passed. Maybe -2WS if they cause terror.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

3) cannons need to scatter horizontally somewhat. Maybe place the token, scatter d6-BS, bounce as normal in a straight line. Still good against monsters, but wouldn't be as likely to snipe bloody characters out of units.

Personally, I'd like cannons to actually use BS - so that they can actually suffer modifiers.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

4) the "save or die" spells need to be toned down. They're an inelegant solution to death stars, and watching people play the "6-dice-at-dwellers" game gets old pretty fast. Most decent players understand that this is a crap strategy, but it's still obnoxious.

Not to mention that few people really ENJOY winning because they threw 6-dice at purple sun at the opportune moment.

Agreed.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

5) Regeneration needs to be toned down as well. I think fire should strip it permanently, not just for the phase. Heck, for a turn in the least. There's a reason that chimeras and old hydras are considered some of the best monsters in the game by a huge margin.

I strongly disagree. Doing the former would make regeneration pointless, and the latter would make it pretty awful. To put it another way, would it somehow have been better if those creatures you mentioned had got 4+ ward saves, instead of 4+ regenerate?

To me, regeneration isn't the issue - it's just a few cases where it makes a monster too good. Although, I do think that both ward and regenerate saves are becoming too proliferate - especially since there's very little that bypasses ward saves - at least you can add the flaming banner to a unit to get around regenerate. It seems like a 4+ ward/regenerate should be a rare item (or come with a hefty downside) - not be the standard gear for most lords.

I do think it would be nice if regeneration actually allowed a monster to regain wounds - rather than just being a bad ward save. However, I fear that doing this would make too many units not worth taking.

The internet is where hate is born.

Gamers who "hate" on a system could never create a system that is better. They mostly just want to join the circle jerk of hate. Because , you know....people.

I find the amount of rabid fanboyism in this thread to be depressing. Don't ask for the opinions and insights of others if all you truly want is for a bunch of sycophants to gather around and reinforce your own point of view.

Something is terribly wrong with Warhammer Fantasy right now. Shrinking sales numbers and a declining player base inarguably show that. The specific reason for that is (or should be, but isn't in this thread) open for debate. For those older players that thought that 6th and 7th edition were the best incarnations of the game, those reasons lay with a rule set that took away player agency in favor of more dice, more often. Your opinion may vary, but that difference doesn't make either person "ignorant."

Pancakey wrote:
The internet is where hate is born.

Nazi Germany agrees to disagree.

BECAUSE NO SPECE MAHREENZ ERG HERG ERG



That is why

 SkaerKrow wrote:
I find the amount of rabid fanboyism in this thread to be depressing. Don't ask for the opinions and insights of others if all you truly want is for a bunch of sycophants to gather around and reinforce your own point of view.

Something is terribly wrong with Warhammer Fantasy right now. Shrinking sales numbers and a declining player base inarguably show that. The specific reason for that is (or should be, but isn't in this thread) open for debate. For those older players that thought that 6th and 7th edition were the best incarnations of the game, those reasons lay with a rule set that took away player agency in favor of more dice, more often. Your opinion may vary, but that difference doesn't make either person "ignorant."

I've yet to see anything that proves shrinking numbers and slagging sales. Where I play, Fantasy is everywhere.

And it's very possible, that IF sales are slacking, it has more to do with price than the ruleset.

Everyone keeps saying Fantasy is dying and no one plays it, but GW doesnt differentiate income results on their financial reports. I think Kirby would have used Fantasy in a scapegoat in his 6 month report if it were doing so badly.

 SkaerKrow wrote:
I find the amount of rabid fanboyism in this thread to be depressing. Don't ask for the opinions and insights of others if all you truly want is for a bunch of sycophants to gather around and reinforce your own point of view.

Something is terribly wrong with Warhammer Fantasy right now. Shrinking sales numbers and a declining player base inarguably show that. The specific reason for that is (or should be, but isn't in this thread) open for debate. For those older players that thought that 6th and 7th edition were the best incarnations of the game, those reasons lay with a rule set that took away player agency in favor of more dice, more often. Your opinion may vary, but that difference doesn't make either person "ignorant."

WHFB isn't selling well because kids prefer guns to swords.

This thread isn't about WHFB's sales though, at least that's not how I - or most of the other people here - interpret it. We're discussing why some people are hating on WHFB as a game, i.e. regarding rules, play etc. Aside from the start-up cost, I think this hate is unjustified.

 SkaerKrow wrote:
I find the amount of rabid fanboyism in this thread to be depressing.

That's funny because I say the same thing about the rabid unjustified hate mongering in this thread.

 The Shadow wrote:
WHFB isn't selling well because kids prefer guns to swords.

This thread isn't about WHFB's sales though, at least that's not how I - or most of the other people here - interpret it. We're discussing why some people are hating on WHFB as a game, i.e. regarding rules, play etc. Aside from the start-up cost, I think this hate is unjustified.

Some kids, anyway. Well said, though.

This thread isn't about WHFB's sales though, at least that's not how I - or most of the other people here - interpret it. We're discussing why some people are hating on WHFB as a game, i.e. regarding rules, play etc. Aside from the start-up cost, I think this hate is unjustified.

I don't think there are any stores that sell only WFB , most sell at least w40k stuff too . Offten other games too. This means there is a finite number of tables to play on , for groups of people playing different systems . Skirmish games are fast , those with auto lose possibility build in like infinity or warmahordes can end very fast . I have never seen a WM or Infinity game take more then 1 hour , but then again I never seen people play more then standard points for each game . W40k takes longer , but with escalation and stronghold around there is enough D weapons to make the games faster. Also unless the games happen between two top tier armies with players at the same level , around turn 3-4 it is easy to see how will win . There is also random game lenght. So while w40k games do take longer , non go past the 2 hours and most are around 1 hour . But we do play 1500 games here .
And then there is WFB 2500-3000 points . 2+hours game play and a 30+min pre game "I take my 200+models out of 4 carrying cases out" phase. So while there are fewer and fewer WFB players here , their games start taking up longer and longer . If one of the players is a noob the game can easily go longer then 3 hours . In the same time people on other tables played 1-2 w40k games . 2-3 WM/horde games , 1-2 infinity unless the table was already set up and they didn't have to clean up. On top of the time it takes for the WFB players to finish , they alway carry 2-3 carrying cases with them and they take up a lot of space , making it hard for people to move around the shop here . I guess that is because WFB players are disliked here.

Makumba wrote:
I guess that is because WFB players are disliked here.

It would probably have saved you time to just write this line, it explains the rest of what you wrote more than you intended, it seems.

It is a very local thing, and also a bit of a fanboy thing. Locally, I happen to be in an area where both systems get strong support, but WHFB edges out 40k just slightly, say something on the order of 6-4. Our last tournaments had a 40k pool of 12 players, and a Fantasy pool of 18. So you get the idea.

Now that being said, there are a lot of logic fallacies made in regards to which system is more popular than the other. The first being, you have no idea the pool of players you are drawing from. The assumption is incorrectly made that we are talking about individuals who simply want to start playing any game, decide they want it to be a GW game, and walk into the store. From that point, they look at WHFB and 40k equally, and see that WHFB is more expensive to "get into", thus they choose the less (but still) expensive 40k.

This is completely wrong on many levels. The actuality is much closer to group A wanting to get into 40k, group B wanting to get into Fantasy, and group C not having a preference. Group C, by and large, is the smallest of the three. Group B, based on sales figures, is likely smaller than group A. However, when determining which system is "more popular", you need to separate these groups out. If I'm in group A, I have a 100% liklihood of purchasing something from 40k and getting into it (other factors besides interest not withstanding). However, this same person has 0% chance of buying anything from WHFB, because they just aren't interested. Same applies for group B.

As such, find someone from group C, preferably one who doesn't have a preconceived notion or care about how much the hobby will cost, and see which one he\she buys into. That would be an appropriate estimation over which system is "better".

As long as there are sci-fi fanboys who want big guns, tanks, and the idea of ruling the universe, you will always have a solid group A. Same applies for people that wish to wield magic and the power of hordes of troops and monsters to wage war for honor and glory. It's the last group of people that do not hold a preference to either archetype that can help decide which system is better. Remove bias, and truth will out.

Makumba wrote:

This thread isn't about WHFB's sales though, at least that's not how I - or most of the other people here - interpret it. We're discussing why some people are hating on WHFB as a game, i.e. regarding rules, play etc. Aside from the start-up cost, I think this hate is unjustified.

And then there is WFB 2500-3000 points . 2+hours game play and a 30+min pre game "I take my 200+models out of 4 carrying cases out" phase. So while there are fewer and fewer WFB players here , their games start taking up longer and longer . If one of the players is a noob the game can easily go longer then 3 hours.

This has been discussed time and time again. WHFB is a mass battles game, not a skirmish game. So you can't compare it to a skirmish game and saying that it takes too long, because they're two completely different beasts. And 30 mins pre-game? Magnetise your models to your trays and it takes 30 seconds to get everything out. Deployment may take longer, but that's because it's more tactical, which really is a good thing, not a bad.

 The Shadow wrote:

Makumba wrote:
This has been discussed time and time again. WHFB is a mass battles game, not a skirmish game. So you can't compare it to a skirmish game and saying that it takes too long, because they're two completely different beasts. And 30 mins pre-game? Magnetise your models to your trays and it takes 30 seconds to get everything out. Deployment may take longer, but that's because it's more tactical, which really is a good thing, not a bad.

And you think that someone who plays a game that takes 1 hour or a bit more cares , that WFB can't ? Well they actualy do care , that is why they dislike the WFB players . 5-6 games take up tables for an hour or so , and one came can not you think the 5-6 other games players are going to be ok with the fact that WFB players take up the tables for a longer time ?

What would magnetizing do , Other then get your models damaged while being transported ?I was not talking about deployment either , taking 150+models each of their own foam , checking what unit is in what box . It takes a lot more time . then the 20 or less models skirmish games need or a lot of W40k armies do it faster too . 3-4 serpents , the jet sear Riptide with buff cmd , WK . Everything else is in reservs or in transports and you can play . Now that of course doesn't mean that w40k can't be played for hours . But there are fewer armies that can get good lists with many models , the cost of owning 200+ GW cultists to play a zombi list does limit the number of players too. In WFB 40 sized units are the norm not the rare army you see from time to time.

It would probably have saved you time to just write this line, it explains the rest of what you wrote more than you intended, it seems.

And yet somehow fewer and fewer people play WFB around the world , and you can't argue with the fact that WFB takes a lot longer to play then other games .