Welcome to Librarium Online!
I am just starting to get into WFB with the release of 8th. This is due to the fact that I've seen so much ranting and raving about how 8th is just "fun". I started playing 40K about a year and a half ago since I finally had a job (At 14$ an hour!!!) and money, and Dawn of War introduced me to the setting and I loved it. As I read the rules, I really liked the idea of using high powered weapons to blast enemies, or just dakkaing like hell (I ended up as orks ) and rolling a ton of dice. The Close Combat rules seemed alright and I guessed I'd use them once I charged, but It seemed pretty same-y and every fight would pretty much just be the same thing with number variations. While I still sort of feel that way, jump packs, power weapons, and power klaws have made me respect melee a little more, and it feels a bit funner. I still like blasting with interesting weapons though, since all I have to do is change weapons and my whole damage profile changes.
One problem I'm having currently is getting excited about WFB as I read the rulebook. Shooting is way de-emphasized and the melee chapter is HUGE. So huge that it takes up most of the Movement section too... I'm not sure how I feel about this. Another concern is that a ton of the units both in my codex (Empire) and others seem very, very same-y. Pretty much every core choice I've seen has Str 3, 1 wound, Toughness 3, Init 2-4. This always strikes me as odd, because I like in 40K how the numbers seem universally higher, and there's a decent variety between squads in the same army (BTW, Thats why I don't play marines.). And on top of that, the weapon choice is a whole new stat-line to have fun with. In other words, sure most of the Ork units stats are the same, but they are very different than just about every other army, they each get +1 Str and Init on a charge, and most have a nob, who not only gets a bunch of upgrade options, he has another stat line with 3-4 better stats (Unlike champions that I've seen in fantasy that only get +1 atk usually.)
Basically, my question and reason for making this thread is: What do you find fun about fantasy? Choosing magic items? Trying to execute flanking tactics? Marching the little squares of units across the board? Using a steam tank to crush tiny rat-men?! (BTW One of the reasons Im playing empire is because I like vehicles and they have one ) The book makes it seem like it could be summed up as: "Get into melee. Shoot a bit before hand. Hope you roll well." and I'm wondering what subtleties I'm missing by not having seen a real game played yet (Battle reports only help a small bit. I need to see a full game start to finish, although I never have actually seen that in 40K yet either, barring my own games.)
This is especially directed to players who started in 40K, like me. And even moreso to people that, after reading what I like about 40K, can empathize. Finally, although this isn't the focus of the thread, does the "boring on paper" syndrome stem from my army choice (I switched to Emps from Dwarfs because Dwarves seemed DREADFULLY boring on paper. That and I don't want to paint 50% beard models...), and do you think I'd be well off playing a War-machine heavy army because of it? Finally, I want to stress that I'm not the type of person who only has fun by winning, it's more about playing the game to me. I would much rather play 5 very close games and lose all of them than 10 where I win by a landslide. (But I can only stand about 2 of being stomped D
Thank you to anyone that reads all of this and responds! I'm hoping to turn this into a real discussion and not just about me as well.
i think the main difference between 40k and fantasy is that in 40k each models is more of a character, because they move in loose formations. armies tend to be a tiny bit smaller aswell. (lower points per battle and tanks)
I like fantasy because i like to see the large blocks of goblins move and the shocks of being attacked in the rear or side is something that lacks entirely in 40k.
but, since your asking here in the cool fantasy section, 40k is for nerds wehehe
If you find empire static, then i guess you could be right. Even though it is one of the most versatile fantasy armies, because of the wide selction in the codex, their stats are average with almost all their troops. Humans are the average. Most Fantasy armies are focussed on one or several themes that sets the scene for their statlines. Much the same as that each space marine (no matter the chapter) has the same stats.
Once ive seen a space marine army, ive seen em all, and in 40 k about half of the players has one of those armies. Thats a great difference with Fantasy, we have a large variety of armies, and they are all used. When i go to a tournament with 20 players. even the most popular army around wont be played by more than 3-4 players.
If you dont like an army it's looks better than your 40k army, i would say dont go spending so much money on new models.
Warchief Diggah o da Bloodmoon Squiggahs
I like playing Fantasy because simply it takes you to a "fantasy" realm. I've always been fascinated with the medieval era, knights and chivalry. As a Bretonnian player, somehow I get an image of the battle in Kingdom of Heaven when I stage my troops in my office. It’s fun to create visually striking pieces modeled after color schemes seen in movies or books. I don’t know if this makes sense, but I think there is a bit more realism when taking Fantasy than with 40k.
When I started playing, and I’ve read some complaints about the direction of Fantasy through this forum, the 5th edition army book had a lot of neat back stories to the Bretonnian’s. It was cool stuff to read. Bringing out the Green Knight in battle from a sacred shrine was exciting because of the back-story to the piece. Having been away from the game for about 10 years, I see how some of that “fluff” has been lost.
I tried to get into 40k with the Tyranids but it never caught on with me. Where it was the style used to paint the pieces or the game play. Ie. I think you need a much more unified look to the Tyranid army compared to the Bretonnian’s of Fantasy. Sure an archer army could look the same, but if these are peasants from different regions coming together to fight, then you’ll have some variation. In addition, they are peasants, they won’t have fancy clothes, and will show up to fight in whatever they can find.
Tactics and game play wise, I guess fantasy is a bit slower than 40k with a might more focus on close combat- some may like this, others may not. Again, I think it keeps the game feeling a bit more realistic; especially for world its in. War would be about getting in close and duking it out not sitting back and shooting eachother.
Sorry for the ramble- just my 2 cents.
Last edited by pacman16; August 20th, 2010 at 15:55.
WFB is all about...well war really. The game is meant to show big battles with large units (especially with the new edition) and if we learned anything from the history of war it is that in these battles everything is about position! WFB is really all about positioning. Yes you just end up charging and "hoping the dice do well for you" but thats how you get beaten down. This begins within the setup of the game. A lot of people will tell you that games can be won and lost in how you deploy your army. You want the parts that should be moving to be able to move, you want the shooters to have LoS on what they need to see. You want to have your flanks defended and your own flankers in position where they can strike.
The game is all about getting to those places your enemy really doesn't want you to and seeing a great plan come together where the whole army is working towards one goal is great. Your units each on their own are slim pickings for any enemy but together they are a force to behold. Forcing a single unit to break in a crucial area can lay waste to any army.
Also WFB is bloody...lots of things die. Even if you outmatch and out maneuver your opponent you will still take losses and those losses are unavoidable (hey just like war) and preparing for losing some units, potentially even your most important units and turning around and still winning is something that good generals can pull off.
Thats why I find it fun. It is a struggle of what "acceptable losses", "good position" and "advantageous positions" mean and even facing the exact same army you will often have very different fights since if you know your opponent is going for the flank you will deny him that and completely change the flow of the game.
@ Slauter: I play orks in 40K. I am prepared, Nay, looking forward to "acceptable loses"
I've gathered WFB seems more about actually playing the game and tabletop choices compared to 40K, which seems the be more about list building. This idea appeals to me greatly, as that's my main complaint with 40K. I think it's due to the rules being rather "predictable" (IE you know how far you charge, you know the damage of your attacks, you know how likely you are to hit at all ranges) compared to WFB's only half-predictability, and I think 6th edition 40K might start to curve towards that as well.
I'm definitely going to want to try WFB, as well as read the Multiple Close combat section... I sort of glossed over it because it looked complicated and it's only ever come up once in about 10 games of 40K...
Edit: BTW, lack of "generic Space Marine blanket" is HIGHLY appealing to me as well.
I haven't played 40k, everything I'm writing is the differences that I can remember right now and that I have heard other people say.
When you compare the sections of Close Combat and Shooting, you might not have noticed the war machine part(most warmachines shoot in the shooting phase)
There's also magic in fantasy which is so delightfully random at times, either you destroy your opponent completely, nothing happens or you blow up your own wizard.
Then there's psychology which is very important in WFB, the best experience in fantasy is when you kill the opponents general and his entire army runs of the board as a result
That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest-son-of-a-bitch in space!
Fantasy is most certainly a close quarters game, but that's because it's based on a close-quarters style of warfare. It makes more sense than 40k ( "I have a .75 caliber, fully automatic, self-targetting machine gun... here, let me bash you with my sword" )
We also have more "regiment wide" wargear options than you. For example, my Chaos Warriors can vary in mark (Khorne gets +1 attack, Tzeentch gets +1 Wardsave, Nurgle has "to hit" modifiers, Slaanesh has psychology immunities) and then weapons (Great Weapon, Halberd, Shield, Add. HW). In 40k you buy a unit and give them a single special weapon. In Fantasy, you buy a regiment and equip every model. That is what gives them the more subtle range of abilities. Remember too that in Fantasy you are running with far more regiments than a 40k player runs units. I don't want to have to keep track of 15 different wargear options on 6 different champions, all from my Spearmen regiments.
You'll see rates of attrition crossing the field drop, which you might not enjoy, but we have weapons which offer wholesale slaughter: a good magic combo can wipe 50 of the enemy's best warriors off the table without blinking. Some regiments can simply obliterate and roll 50+ attacks in close quarters.
I like the fact that even when I'm locked into combat, movement is still everything. Rather than in 40k where you can shoot me no matter where I move to, in Fantasy, I can avoid being shot by simply getting behind/beside you, out of sight. In combat, rather than going B2B and fighting until someone is dead, a canny general can execute a flanking maneuver and tip the scales entirely.
Fantasy rewards you for the things which 40k only hints at. Flanking in 40k is a valid tactic- it keeps the rest of the enemy army out of range. Of course, they can still see you and they move just as fast as you do, so it's not as much of a help. In Fantasy, Flank Charging gives you +2 to your combat result. Fantasy generals tend to "think" more, rather than just running headlong at you with their chainsaws a-roarin'.
This helps a lot with the balance of Fantasy, in my opinion. Sure, the tiers represent which armies are "better", but it simply means which armies are easier to win with. Back in the days of 7th, everyone said that Daemons were nigh-unbeatable. Lies! I took them down with my Goblins, because my opponent was relying on his "Top Tier Army" instead of downright strategy.
Tell me if you want to play against the newest Space Marine codex with a Necron army, and think you'll pull off a win. You know already that you wont, no matter how hard you try, unless the enemy is a total moron and can't roll dice.
Our specialization comes in a huge selection of magic items. There are literally 795,480 ways to field a single Exalted Champion in the WoC book. We have customization by the truckload, it's just in a different place than in your book. We have access to more characters, and they are what sets the army apart.
Fantasy was a favorite of mine ever since I started playing it. My friend was getting stomped in 40k because of army choice, he went through 3 armies (Necrons, Tau, Dark Angels) before he finally settled on Marines... just like my army. When he got into Fantasy, he went right for Lizardmen, and his army is still a ferocious beast on the table-top. He branched out from LM because he wanted to, picking up High Elves, Tomb Kings, Ogres, Vampires, Daemons, and Skaven. He's had success with all of them. Every army in my sig has worked for me. You mention not enjoying being stomped. I'll admit that I've done more tabling in WHFB than in 40k, but I will also say that none of my victories have been won with my armylist or dice rolls alone. In fact, my last game was won in spite of my dice rolling.
If you need battle-reports, our BatRep section is full of some pretty good ones. I could link you to mine, but they're far more story driven and have less detail about the game itself. They're still very detailed and cover everything that's going on, I just don't really show numbers in my reports because I can't be bothered to record them during the game.
The "boring on paper syndrome" comes from you having played 40k, and looking at the game through those eyes. Once you get on the table, I'm sure that you'll find that there is as much (if not more) thinking in Fantasy than there is in 40k. Take a look around the boards and ask questions. There is a heated debate in the Empire section right now about which State Troop is the best option- and here you are thinking that Wargear and a 1pt Stat difference doesn't matter. I'm not saying that you're wrong to think that, but I think you'll be pleasantly surprised when you really get into the game. Some armies are indeed boring on paper because there is only one build that really makes sense and is widely accepted. Empire is not one of those armies. Dwarfs is...
That was precisely what I was looking for. +rep.
After reading that, Sarathi, I'd have to say you confirmed some things I suspected, and that's awesome. Things I seemed to notice and was looking forward to in Fantasy is: More diverse and viable armys, Battlefield tactics (Movement esp.) emphasize and not just based on Army list and "Who you attacked", Ease of moving troops with movement trays (You didn't talk about it, but that does appeal to me, lol.), and crazy chaotic magic and warmachines. So basically I don't think I'll be disappointed. I was sort of hoping for a game reminiscent of the Total War series and it def. sounds like that. Also, I'm glad I moved to Empire. After I saw the models and fluff for pistoleers I liked them. After I read exactly what "Fast Cavalry" does, I LOVED them.
I believe I've also found the source of contention in not understanding how Fantasy plays, I knew flanking and other Close Combat tactics affected the game but I didn't (and still don't 100%) know how. I can't wait for the Island of Blood to launch so I can finally get my hands on my own Rulebook (Big ones too expensive) instead of just borrowing and gleening what I can.
The Only thing I'm Iffy on is the emphasis on breaking your enemy. Actually, I like that part, I always loved doing that in Total War, it's this whole "Static Combat Resolution" thing I hear about with Empire. I suspect I need to just really familiarize myself with the resolution rules then I'll probably like it.
Anyway, This thread has been a big help! I'm picking up an Empire Battle Force on my next paycheck (And maybe selling the knights... <__<; ) and hopefully will be able to play a game before long.
Last edited by Vazzaroth; August 23rd, 2010 at 06:16.
Static Combat Resolution is what 40k lacks, and I wish they would implement it. Be glad that in 8th edition, they've gotten rid of about half of the things which used to give you SCR. Right now, you're adding a few easy elements to your kills-
Do your guys have a flag?
Do they have a really big flag (Army Standard)?
How many ranks do you have?
Did you charge?
Did you flank charge?
Did you rear charge?
Each of those things add +1 (except the rear charge, it adds +2). They stack and/or combine and all sorts of stuff, for both sides of the battle. You add in the number of wounds you inflicted, and then determine who won the fight. This means that even if I kill more of your soldiers than you kill of mine, I might find myself running away in a hurry. It somewhat mitigates the effect of bad dice, but at the same time, it's pretty awesome because you subtract the amount by which you lost combat by from your leadership when testing to stay. Your guys aren't going to stand infront of a clearly superior enemy, no matter how much you try to goad them. Makes the game a lot more interesting.
I'd keep those Knights- 10 of them, with a Priest and a Grand Master, and armed with Great Weapons, can do a LOT of damage. There's nothing wrong with Empire knights, believe me. They're not Bretonians (you can't make an army of them) but they're certainly awesome considering how many points you pay for them.
Empire Knights with their plate armour, shield, horse and barding make for a 7 movement unit with 1+ AS - What is not to like about that? Although, they do need the charge to get the 2+ ST if you have a lance, they are golden for protecting flanks and a flank charge can be awesome. Remember, the horses get an attack, too!