I regularly play WFB, though not as much as Epic, as it's got its own charm.
40k models look the best, but the game's the worst!
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Fantasy Battle - How good is it? http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=7641 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | CyberShadow [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fantasy Battle - How good is it? |
Most GW games suffer the same lack of comparrison. People either really like them and play nothing else, or dont like them and point out all of the flaws. However, there are, as far as I can see, two gaps in my game collection. One, is a serious, mass combat, 28mm fantasy game. So, just how good is WHFB? How does it compare to other games on the market. What other games are there that are really good, different, inspired...? I have Battlestorm, which has moments of genius, but is incomplete (no rules for chariots, magic...). I also have Warlord, which I can see some potential problems which put me off it. Is WHFB the best of what is left? Most fantasy games seem to suffer from 'my unit of guys meets your unit of guys and we will spend the next 4 turns just rolling dice for that combat'. Any comments or recommandations would be appreciated. Thanks. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fantasy Battle - How good is it? |
Warhammer Fantasy is a game of manuevering for position. Get your manuevering right, hope your opponent's isn't quite as good, and you can pull off flanking charges or set up bait-traps that will mean that you're nigh-on guaranteed to win a combat in a single round, and perhaps break the opposing regiment in that round too! I've heard it said that 40k is all about luck... well Fantasy is a game where if you get your manuevering right, you can often eliminate luck altogether. Plus, you've got magic (Which is often of the 'buff your own troops/extra movement' type rather than just direct damage against the enemy), ranged combat with archery & war machines, a compelling atmosphere with many races, and of course you can get a pick-up game anywhere as WFB is the Mc'Donalds of fantasy wargaming. There are quite a few army styles: - Balanced / Easy to theme to a particular bias (Empire are a good example, you can do an infantry horde, a knight's crusade, a mage's personal army, an artillery train, etc) - Unbalanced themed armies (Chaos being a good example, being primarily focused on close combat & magic, with a pretty much non-existant shooting phase). - Unique armies (Tomb King's magically powered legions fight like no other army in the game for example). - etc. All the variety you'd expect really. The only really large critique I can draw is that the entire Bretonnian army is a broken, overpowered list with a million special rules, all of which are benefits rather than drawbacks to the army. Are you interested ni gaming for fun or gaming for tournaments? |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fantasy Battle - How good is it? |
E&C's right on with the movement commentary. I've often heard WFB compared favorably to Napoleonics in that respect as opposed to typical medieval/fantasy wargames. If you look at some of the tactica available you will quickly see that it's frequently about maneuvering and/or baiting your opponent. I've heard it stated or implied, even by 40K players, that WFB is more "advanced" than 40K. In fact, what I heard one GW staffer say something to the effect of "You know how 40K players sometimes move up to WFB for a more strategic game, well Epic is where the old WFB players go." Of course, I haven' t played anything above a skirmish level in years. I think the last real WFB game I played was 1500 points. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fantasy Battle - How good is it? |
I regularly play WFB, though not as much as Epic, as it's got its own charm. 40k models look the best, but the game's the worst!
|
|
| Author: | Bombot [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fantasy Battle - How good is it? |
I haven?t played Warhammer for years, but I found it a much better game than 40k despite being into the 40k fluff. I might consider giving the new version a try. I have an old army that still needs painting?but they?re Bretonnians so if I touch them E&C might not be impressed with that! I have also been eying up Warmaster. I?ve read many good things about that. |
|
| Author: | Cuban Commissar [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fantasy Battle - How good is it? |
I don't play WFB, but I have read a lot of battle reports and such. I got the impression from reading the White Dwarf battle reports that magic, especially High magic, can dominate the game. Do you experienced guys feel that way or is that a false impression. Thanks for any thoughts |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fantasy Battle - How good is it? |
White Dwarf battle reports aren't really representative of how a WFB game tends to go... they're very good at showing how the latest-released miniature kicks ass though.  If you go magic-heavy (Fill all your character slots with Mages, upgrade all the mages to their highest possible respective levels, and take lots of magic items) then yes, your magic phase will dominate... but the rest of your army will suffer in size as a consequence. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fantasy Battle - How good is it? |
CC: There was a point (3rd or 4th edition) where warhammer obtained the nickname wizardhammer because the magic was so dominant. Now, it's possible to go heavy magic and be competitive but it can backfire because it requires a sort of "all your eggs in one basket" approach and if you come up against someone with good anti-magic like Khorne or the dwarves, you're screwed. |
|
| Author: | vanvlak [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fantasy Battle - How good is it? |
Neal is right - and the newest edition has toned down magic further - by making miscasts more risky, and having each wiz use his own power, not borrow that of others. E&Cs comments on manoeuvering are right too - although I'd add army selection (and not necessarily a power job) and deployment as being key features. Anything which can negate an enemy's movement is good news - and this only highlights the importance of manouevre. And if you pile a load of immensely powerful Chosen Knights of Khorne and fail to support them, or let them get blocked - uh-oh, it can go really bad. MUCH better than 40K. |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fantasy Battle - How good is it? |
All these good words about WHFB are tempting me even more to get into it. Must resist, must resist... 
|
|
| Author: | Lord Inquisitor [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fantasy Battle - How good is it? |
I'm a real fan of Fantasy, it is a really good game. As E&C and others have said, the game is all about movement, which is something newer players don't alway realise. (Spells that govorn movement are deceptively powerful), and that is really nice. You can even successfuly use real tactics (*gasp*!) like refused flank and soforth. The only real downsides is that it is a long game to set up and play. At least against me, I take about 15min of thinking before moving anything every turn! |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fantasy Battle - How good is it? |
Aye, while two fast players can get through a 2000 point game in two hours or so, I've seen them run 4 hours plus in the hands of two moderately hesitant players. But then, that can be common to every game except 40k.
|
|
| Author: | Lord Inquisitor [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fantasy Battle - How good is it? |
I'm really bad... I swear I win more games because my opponents lose the will to live and make mistakes... Of course, when my dastardly plan is finally hatched it's all worth it. Sometimes. There are SOME niggles in Fantasy that I don't like, but since there is a new shiny rulebook I have yet to read, so I won't comment there (anyone know if the irritating thing that a unit can never turn around if hit in the flank thing has changed?) Some more annoyances: Themed armies. Some of the variant armies - while perhaps balanced against all armies overall - are VERY difficult to beat with certain armies. Undead vs Slayers is one that comes to mind. Codex-creep. Happens from time-to-time, although to be honest the more recent ones haven't been too bad (Ogres were okay). Still, with the new army books I'm a little concerned. Stupid FAQ "clarifications". Fantasy is a VERY tournament-orientated game, with huge FAQs to try and clear things up. There's always been a bad habit of "clarifications" changing the way everybody used to play the game. Although with a shiny new rulebook, that might not be such a problem. (In 40K however... ooh, some nice new FAQs mean that the way EVERYONE I KNOW has been playing it is wrong... apparently!  ) |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fantasy Battle - How good is it? |
(anyone know if the irritating thing that a unit can never turn around if hit in the flank thing has changed?) Yes, as of the new rulebook, if the unit that's been hit in the flank manages to win a round of combat, and the enemy doesn't flee (Combat continues next round), it can change formation so that it now faces its enemy head-on. Fantasy is a VERY tournament-orientated game One of the reasons why I prefer Epic, is that there tends to be a strong bias towards playing tournament-style in Fantasy, and GW doesn't often help matters (They push the tournament-official gaming style as the main method of play). As long as you have a good gaming circle though this can be avoided. |
|
| Author: | Lord Inquisitor [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fantasy Battle - How good is it? |
(Evil and Chaos @ Oct. 03 2006,17:36) QUOTE Yes, as of the new rulebook, if the unit that's been hit in the flank manages to win a round of combat, and the enemy doesn't flee (Combat continues next round), it can change formation so that it now faces its enemy head-on. Hallelujah! That's been bugging me for years! Gonna have to get me one of them new shiny rulebooks...One of the reasons why I prefer Epic, is that there tends to be a strong bias towards playing tournament-style in Fantasy, and GW doesn't often help matters (They push the tournament-official gaming style as the main method of play). Funny you say that... I would rate Epic as the most tournament-orientated of any game I play. Perhaps it is just because I'm involved in trying to balance armies, but even though a lot of emphasis is placed on non-tournament games in the book, the existance of the ubiquitous tournament-scenario and the fact that the players tend to be serious, competitive wargamers makes it that way? Not that I think it is a bad thing - I'm a very nit-picky sort of person, and I like to have FAQs in order (I've been the one compiling the Master FAQ for Epic!) - and, to be fair, the Fantasy FAQs tend to be very exhaustive, unlike the 40K ones these days. And to be honest, in Epic and Fantasy I like serious competitive games ... since both are very tactical, I like to take it as a battle of wits. Unlike 40K, which I love too, but I find it much better suited to campaigns, scenarios, and just chuck-some-models-on-the-board bash! |
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|