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.

And yet somehow fewer and fewer people play WFB around the world

What are you like a globe-trotting WHFB player going from state-to-state making a statistical analysis of players?

Anyway, I'm frankly surprised miniature gaming even exists at a major level. GW has steadfastly(!) refused to put the game into computer form which would give it a vastly expanded audience. Even if they charged a similar model. Like to use 30 Saurus you had to pay $5 or whatever their true profit margin is.

I believe miniature gaming in general will become more and more niche. Just like roleplaying games have over the decades. Or boardgames. Monopoly used to be everywhere. Let alone strategic boardgames. But people just play online.

Makumba wrote:


And yet somehow fewer and fewer people play WFB around the world

You clearly never been to France.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
You clearly never been to France.

Or the U.S.A.

Or maybe outside of whatever garage gaming group is the entire gaming world for you.

As likely as it is relevant as my having no issue with finding a game.

I started Fantasy in 8th Edition, and played nothing but Fantasy for a full year before playing 40k. I'll try to elaborate on my reasons for presently disliking Fantasy, and preferring 40k currently, and keep in mind, a lot of reasons are also driven by where/who I play with, but its also the 'nature of the beast' as it were.

Fantasy has viciously unintuitive and often times fiendishly impractical rules associated with it. The inability for a model to look to his left, while an aspect of the game, is all very silly. If a Doomwheel flees into a friendly unit, does it flee through the unit, according to the rulebook, or does it stop, bounce off and deal impact hits according to the Skaven rulebook? Neither, it flees through the unit AND does impact hits, according to the FAQ. That's so devoid of something that two players would logically arrive to on their own.
Don't even ask how Inspiring Presence, Doom and Darkness, Unmodified Leadership, and Spirit Leech work together.

Fantasy suffers even more from Rules as Written vs Rules as Intended problems than 40k. The level to which people will 'interpret' rules is staggering. "If a unit of Hexwraiths moves through an enemy unit, that enemy unit takes S5 hits equal to the number of Hexwraiths moving through them." I saw at a tournament a gentlemen walk the wraiths three inches into a unit, reform them, and walk them three inches out, because they're fast cavalry. His opponent called the judge and started to argue at length that this didn't constitute moving 'through' the unit because he didn't come out the other end.

The rules problems notwithstanding, my primary complaint with Fantasy is that Magic is much too important. Your tactics can be great, but if you don't bring a wizard; a level 4 wizard specifically, you're going to have little chance of pulling out a proper victory against a reasonably intelligent opponent. And for some armies, the cost of a L4 means that you have to invest significantly to take one.
If you roll bad Winds of Magic consistently each turn, and your opponent rolls good Winds of Magic each turn, the odds for victory plummet. And while bad-rolls are part of a dice-rolling game, I can't think of a similar phase in every 40k game where a roll of 2d6 decides so much. I've lost countless games because I roll a 1 and 2 and then my opponent rolls 6 and 5.

Moreover, Fantasy isn't as tactical as players like to think. It largely boils down to getting your hammers across the board and into their guys, and try to block/screen their guys with your chaff. There's always a clearly good and bad way to handle a circumstance based on the board state. Get your optimal combat unit into your opponent's less optimal unit, or using magic to supplement your units and hope you win combat.

At least in 40k the random nature of the scenarios and objectives keeps your ability to turn your brain off to a minimum.

And I know people are going to respond here by saying that either A) I'm just bad at the game, or B) Well in 40k, X list and Y list are mindless and all you do is shoot and blah blah blah. But A) isn't engaging my argument, and B) is true for both games. In an unrestricted environment, Kairos Fateweaver is bananas, and Warriors of Chaos can take the Daemon Prince that starts and never stops. Cheese will exist forever, because there isn't a dedicated team for game balance in either games.

@thundering, plenty of what you say has merit. There are quite a few situations that require some mutual agreement beforehand with WHFB in terms of rules interactions. However, if resolved before the situation even comes up, I've found the games to be incredibly smooth. It's akin to measuring your charge range beforehand, and if it be REALLY close to something (say 13.05" away), talking with your opponent as simply as "So would you say I need a 13 or a 14 to make the charge?". Agree on the number needed before dice are rolled, and when that dicey gray area pops up, its a good thing you agreed that 13 was ok beforehand.

As for the two games and cheese and the impact of it, the only issue is the form the cheese takes. WHFB does a much better job to counter cheese than 40k does. There is no solid counter to some of the cheesiest things in 40k outside of supplements and expansions, and they come at a steep cost. While WHFB has plenty of cheese in it, the access to some form of "cheese" is present in every army. For the mechanics that can be random or unforgiving in terms of power, they are equally deadly to all armies, and accessible by more than one. It's true that elves laugh at purple sun while ogres cower in fear of it, but the exact opposite is true when facing dwellers.

The two games do well in their present state to support a classic game preference. As some people prefer playing checkers over chess, some prefer playing 40k over WHFB. You have strategy in both, just different types and to different degrees.

What I think I like about Fantasy 8th Edition, that I actually prefer to 40K 6th Edition is that Fantasy feels like it has more going on.

Yes, large steadfast death stars are obnoxious to deal with, and certain magic spells are a bit too powerful, like Purple Sun, and Dwellers below, but to a large extent those two factors balance each other out.

Sure, a lot of what Fantasy boils down to is each side has one or two big blocks of infantry, and generally those will meet. And that is a big part of the game. But at the same time that is happening there is an entirely different game going on at a smaller scale, where different chaff and support units ply the flanks and excersize delaying tactics, each side trying to set up a favorable situation for their combat blocks. In many ways the chaff battles is what paves the way for one side or another's victory. Well played chaffing allows for more favorable charges which in turn allows for a higher chance of victory.

Its this extra level of game play that 40K lacks. in 40K 6th edition it just feels like a dakka fest. Tau'Dar and Flyer spam in particular just make the game feel like a turkey shoot with whoever brought more big guns has the advantage. Sure there are objectives in 40K, but so many of the competitive lists are just focused on blasting their opponent into a crater and then contesting / claiming at the end.

The real crux of the issue is that in Fantasy all of the different phases of the game are important. Movement is hugely important for setting up good charges, and the all important chaff battle to help you get more favorable match ups, the shooting phase has warmachines which are awesome, and ballistic skill shooting which can help deal with enemy chaff, and close combat where the game is won or lost.
40K by contrast just feels like all shooting all the time, with movement and close combat ending up not nearly as important as weapon selection for your shooting.

If WHFB is indeed suffering from a declining playerbase (which sales numbers alone can't determine, btw), then I would wager that it has FAR more to do with the steadily increasing price of entry.

A 2,500 point army requires a VERY substantial investment. For instance, take my present Tomb Kings army:

Hierophant ($20)
Secondary mage ($20)

6 Chariots
21 archer bunker
2x5 horse archers
(2 battleboxes at $150 each)

Ramhotep ($20)
33 tomb guard (3x10 boxes, at $50 each)

5 necroknights (2x3 boxes $65 a box)

2 catapults (2x$50 each)

Casket ($70)

=$810, were I to buy all of that, without a discount, at my FLGS. Oh yeah, and throw sales tax on top of that (12%, where I live).

Not to mention that I have plenty of other units that I don't use. A sphinx ($65), 6 carrion (2x3 at $63), 2 scorpions (2x$30 each), 6 bowshabti (2x3 at $62), and 90 skeleton warriors (paid $90 for some non-GW models, but they'd cost me $200 for 5 boxes of 16 from GW).


That right there is a pretty ridiculous entry to barrier for new players. Not to mention the cost in time and money to assemble and paint all those minis. Compare that to a game like Warmahordes and it's no wonder that WHFB is struggling to attract new players. The game is AWESOME, but it's tough to convince new players to buy in when the cost is so high.

So if it's tough for new players to join, and old players are naturally dropping from the hobby occasionally, of course you're going to have troubles with a declining player base. Troubles that have NOTHING to do with the quality of the game, and everything to do with how saleable it is to new players.

I agree that WHFB is in dire need of a skirmish-based alternative game to get new players into the hobby. Something that can reasonably be played with 3-5 units of 3-10 models, and isn't just some garbage throwaway game.

100% agree Pirate. Each system did have a proper method for controlling the scale of their games and the universe on the whole. Mordheim was the medium that you are referring to. You could play an entire game with 10 models from the Fantasy world. The same could be true of Necromunda, and I suppose some of the current 40k expansions as well. If you wanted to have truly massive battles on a budget, then you had Warmaster and Space Marine\Epic. They had all their bases covered, but realized they could get people to play the same type of games while spending more money on larger models.

Or so they think. They still need an entry level method for each system. WHFB is playable at lower levels, but tricky. 40k armies can have just as high a cost of entry, and sometimes even higher to comparable horde armies; we've all seen the retail prices they put together for White Dwarf battle report armies, no discounts.

Maybe the talk of Specialist Games getting a new medium will help both systems out, and give a proper "entry level" game for players to begin each system with. Then, as time goes on and your collection grows, you can slowly get into the bigger games. Maybe I'll even get to battle against more than the stand grey armies of plastic too!

...seriously people, paint your models...

To be fair, there is something of an entry level game for both Fantasy and 40K. Regiments of Renown for Fantasy and Kill Teams for 40K. Although both have had official events at Warhammer World, the rules aren't really readily available or easy to find for new players.

I personally really like the Regiments of Renown rules, and i think a lot could be gained by Games Workshop making a more concentrated effort on these types of skirmish games.

All GW's entry-level games lack the same, crucial element: marketing, marketing, marketing.

It's not enough that these games exist. In addition they have to be easy(ier) to pick up, less than $100 to buy in, and marketed extensively.

This is what the beginners' box should really be, TBH. It should be two playable armies, with a set of rules that makes games at that level *fun*. It should be to the point where a group of gamers can pick up the box, play around with just the models in the box, then be inspired to go buy a couple other armies to keep playing with their friends.

I think that GW is afraid that their skirmish-based games will cannibalize the sales of their big-army games, and so really only market them to existing fans who ALREADY shelled out for big armies. But I think that's a really big mistake. They need new bodies in their stores, period. Once people are used to buying and painting models, the barrier to jump up to larger, "full" games is easy. It's like Apocolypse - were it considered the "standard" tournament game, and not just some "silly beer and pretzels game," I think you'd see a lot of 40k players gravitating heavily towards it.

Same with Fantasy. Make the beginners game easy to get into, and people will be drawn to the "full" game as their collections grow. Better than watering down the game as it exists, and alienating their current playerbase. If anything my group and I would like MORE complexity, not less.

And if they axe the game down to the point where I'm leaving even more models on the shelf I'm just going to be pissed.

You clearly never been to France.

yes , the sells go down , the number of models per army go up to in 8th and somehow magicly the number of people playing WFB goes up too.
But then again France is a country where everything is possible.

I think that GW is afraid that their skirmish-based games will cannibalize the sales of their big-army games, and so really only market them to existing fans who ALREADY shelled out for big armies.

From what I know the marketing strategy for 5-6th and 8th ed was to make people buy big armies with cool center pice models . To A spread the buying over some time and remove the surge of big buying from one codex and less buying from another new codex . B with big armies and big investment done people are less willing to leave pernamently . If someone paints 500pts of WFB or w40k , leaving the game is not much a problem , then when you painted 1500 w40k or 2500 WFB . C with armies being unfinished for a longer time and with stuff like ally , it is easier to make people interested to buy stuff from other armies . your sm or imperial army not ready? no problem add the new eldar or Dwarfs to your list .
GW realy thinks that people want to play big games and that skirmish games are not actual stuff people want to play , but stop gaps to actual gaming and actual collection .

=$810, were I to buy all of that, without a discount, at my FLGS. Oh yeah, and throw sales tax on top of that (12%, where I live).

That feeling when sells tax on toys here is 23%. And worse if a single pice costs more then 80$ , it is no longer considered a toy , but a collectable model and those are luxury products with an additionlal 35% rate on top of that . All of which do not count transport costs . Makes a WM stormwall cost almost twice what it does in US and more or less blocks most FW kits from being used [unless they are recasts of course].

Over here 40k is played more, but I think the reason isnt that WHF is broken, but because in most cases, getting into the game costs a lot more.

The higher Modelcount means you have to sink a good chunk of extra Money into your starting Army before seeing any actual games, which usually turns people off.

Personally, I think it would help greatly (For both 40k and Fantasy, but Fantasy suffers a bit more from it), if you could actually play with an investment between 100-200$ instead of around 400-500$ as it currently stands. Or if you would get some more models out of those Boxes, currently the price to value amount in WHF is really really awful.

Now, the game itself actually looks fine to me, except a few specific things that seem off. (Keep in mind im relatively new to the whole thing, and judge based on observed games and talking to other players):

- Magic seems to be a big gripe for a lot of people, and I definetly saw some Games where a lucky Roll in the Magic Phase pretty much fethed some people over for the rest of the Game. IMHO, Spells that are able to kill Units after 1 roll should not exist. "Pass or die"-Spells seem like something that should not be caused by lucky dice.

- Some of the Codexes seem outright ancient compared to others. Dwarfs were mentioned, but from what I heard and saw, there are others. I wanted to get into WHF with a Bretonian Army, but was outright told "dont bother until the new Codex is out.", which dissapointed me greatly. One of the Wood Elf-Players in my local area also complains a lot about his Codex, never seen them in action tough.

- Again, price to value should improve. Ofc prices are something people cry about all the time with GW, but in WHF I definetly think the value is outright insulting considering how much money you put on the table.

Where I am 40k is played much more than Fantasy. All the fantasy people disappeared. What I hate about fantasy in General is the startup price which is even worse than 40k and that I've heard that 8th edition is a return to Herohammer which I have very bad memories of from 5th edition. I always preferred fantasy due to it looking like an army but for me I am now considering Kings of War as an alternative.

Firstly, I'll state that I really enjoy the game and the edition. For a time this summer it was more popular in my local group than 40k and is likely to have a resurgance with our campaign due to start.

However, I have too problems with the rulesets. These are my thoughts:

- Horde formation. It encourages the player to field large units and only large units just so that you're going in with 30 attacks. This is due to my experience with the edition. My first game against the "horde" was a horde of 38 grave guard with heavy weapons and two vampires up front. I had a dwarf army with more of an MSU approach. I couldn't stop that unit from wandering through my army and wrecking it. The advise I got after the game was you need a horde of hammerers. To my shame, that's exactly what I did. The next game, said horde of hammerers smashed a unit of 21 warriors of chaos (7 x 3) which effectively won me the game. The problem with the horde formation is how much it costs. A horde of 40 halberdiers (for example) is £62 and that's one of the cheaper hordes to make. A horde of 40 witch elves £140! That fact alone has caused me to not start a dark elf army even though I like the look of the minis. My fix would be that there are no supportting attacks. Not even from the second rank unless they have spears (sort of like LOTR).

- Steadfast. See above.

- Super spells. As primarily a dwarf player, I hate them. "I roll all my dice to get a double 6. Great got it. Now you pass an initiative test or remove from play. Mwah ha ha, I win!" I agree this is the counter to the above stated Horde formation but I feel they are overpowered. If I had the choice I'd take those spells away. Magic should be used to augment the battle and not dominate it. Otherwise, (in fluff terms) why wouldn't a wizard by ruling all nations of the old world and storied by that a massive chaos army was thwarted by one wizard who unfortunately mis-cast and blew himself up. Still at least he won the day. What a noble sacrifice!

- Shooting. It might just be the games I'm involved in but I hate to sit back in a gunline. So I move my troops up to engage but that means I have two or three turns of shooting and that's it. The shooting doesn't even wear my opponent down that much. That makes a dwarf cry.

People may complain about the lack of support/player involvement for WHFB but at least its not LOTR!

My gaming group doesn't go near GW stuff because it is a bar and pretzel game...not balanced at all.

J0kerrMT wrote:
My gaming group doesn't go near GW stuff because it is a bar and pretzel game...not balanced at all.

Out of interest, what games does your group play (and presumably consider well-balanced)?

 vipoid wrote:

J0kerrMT wrote:
My gaming group doesn't go near GW stuff because it is a bar and pretzel game...not balanced at all.

Out of interest, what games does your group play (and presumably consider well-balanced)?

Warmachine, maybe?

My group plays many many different games but WFB was always a mainstay and the biggest game there. Now? Not a game played by anyone for a long time.

*cue "its only anecdotes/you are the 1%/everyone around here LOVES 8th" counter claims*

 vipoid wrote:

J0kerrMT wrote:
My gaming group doesn't go near GW stuff because it is a bar and pretzel game...not balanced at all.

Out of interest, what games does your group play (and presumably consider well-balanced)?

The group does play WarMachine/Hordes because it is, we feel, the most popular, most balanced (not 100%, but the best we got if we want to play games).

In other words we can find games and it is competitive. More than once now you can find GW people who admit GW products are more for the beer and pretzel group...they do have great models though.


PS - I am always looking for the next popular balanced game...as striving for more balance and still finding games is important to me and my group.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
*cue "its only anecdotes/you are the 1%/everyone around here LOVES 8th" counter claims*

If he had come out saying "EVERYONE KNOWS WHFB IS IN A gak STATE" you could have cued those claims. But he didn't. He said his group didn't play it anymore. He claimed nothing more than anecdotal evidence, and that's fine. People will listen to that and only put their own anecdotal evidence against it.

 Purifier wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
*cue "its only anecdotes/you are the 1%/everyone around here LOVES 8th" counter claims*

If he had come out saying "EVERYONE KNOWS WHFB IS IN A gak STATE" you could have cued those claims. But he didn't. He said his group didn't play it anymore. He claimed nothing more than anecdotal evidence, and that's fine. People will listen to that and only put their own anecdotal evidence against it.

Thats fine. Thats not what I meant.