PDA

View Full Version : What are your top 3 favorite/ least favorite things about Warhammer?



najo
18-10-2008, 09:17
Just curious to see what people like and don't like about warhammer fantasy. Keeping it friendly, what is your top 3 favorite things about Warhammer Fantasy Battle? What is your top 3 least favorite things about WFB? How would you change the things you don't like?

Have fun :)

Jack Spratt
18-10-2008, 10:50
Well... IMO...
I love the fact that WFB is a fairly complex tactical game. More complex than 40k. I find that the fluff is stronger in 40k but the game mechanics of WFB rewards the tactican more. (I play both games)
I like most of the models...
I like that wether you like the heros, the rank and file, the monsters, etc. there is something for everybody (i am a rank and file kind of guy myself).

I do not like the BL novels set in WFB, very few anyway.

Thats about it.

There are specific things i do not like. But i can not think of more general things.

Jack Spratt

Gazak Blacktoof
18-10-2008, 12:00
What I like
The background of the warhammer world.

The basic mechanics of the game; charge reactions, march blocking and rank breaking in particular.

The increasing availability of plastic miniatures. I really like converting so this makes things much easier.



What I don't like
The toughness of heavy cavalry. Some units are difficult to kill even if you catch them on the back foot and there aren't enough units that can receive a heavy cavalry charge.

The split of the chaos forces.

The overly restrictive movement penalties applied to units that get caught in terrain.

Leogun_91
18-10-2008, 12:22
What I like Top 3

1)The background

2)The Game

3)The models

What I donīt like top 3

1)Their website

2)The lack of Big uns models

3)The hole it lefts in my wallet

SilentTempest
18-10-2008, 12:28
What I like:
1. The variety in armies. For the most part there's something that appeals to everyone.

2. Like others, I appreciate that most of the game requires a bit of thought to do well at, and I like that they've managed to represent some real world things fairly well even given that the game is reasonably abstract.

3. Plastic models. So easy to put together, so much you can do with them. If only they'd leave the bitz as bitz, and not put them on the models (see Empire State Troops with skulls/hourglasses to see what I mean).

What I don't like:

1. How many holes there are in the rules. My friends and I have probably played 30-40 games now and still find ourselves asking new questions every game that the rulebook doesn't cover, some of which it really should.

2. Fitting together some metal models. Ball and socket joints where the ball is too big to fit the socket. Having to file and cut and greenstuff things to even just stay where, in theory, they should fit nicely. "The nice weighty feel" and extra detail of metals be damned, I'd be a happy man if it were all plastic.

3. That GW can't seem to rectify it's mistakes in any decent timeframe, if at all, and that a lot of books that go through "playtesting" don't seem to have done so. Perhaps I'm being harsh, but that's these guys' JOBS. There are MANY people out there, including me, who if we screw up, people could die, and we're under greater time pressure as well. I don't think it's unfair to expect these books to border on perfection given how long we wait, and I think that it's fair to expect an FAQ every now and then, especially given that communities often come up with the most reasonable answer, and it would just be a case of compiling them.

W0lf
18-10-2008, 12:42
Like:

1. Magic
2. Variety of armies
3. Tactics

dislike:

1. 3 warlocks at 1K ruins lower point games.
2. Lower point games with my min race, chaos are stupid.
3. Dragons/Greater daemons who fly dominating at 2K.

SuperArchMegalon
18-10-2008, 12:44
Like:

-Something for everyone, as has been stated, lots of variety.
-It got me into painting miniatures and in just a few short years I think I've come a long way.
-My life-long passion for Dwarfs can be fully realized

Dislike:

-No decent FAQ support
-Rules loopholes (not even omissions, but serious loopholes). For example I'm thinking of putting a champion on the flank of a cavalry unit, and that prevents a flanking charging unit from scoring more than one wound. Also things like conga lines... Here's one I heard the other day - putting an Ogre Tyrant in front, with a Maneater behind, giving him ItP and stubborn, for 90 points, but unable to be attacked in CC.
-Power creep, or at least the lack of apparent play-testing. Also special characters.

orkz222
18-10-2008, 14:47
Like:

1st) lots of races/army to choose, a different army for everyone
2nd) game mechanics
3rd) fantasy models


dislikes:

1st) lack of faq support (row 4+ lol...)
2nd) power creep
3) BL fantasy books

Asensur
18-10-2008, 15:20
Top 3

-Background

-Models

-Core rules

Worst 3

-Armies need to be more focused in their general strategy. Examples: keep the hill (Dwarfs), shoot and avoid (Wood Elves), ambush (beasts), horde (skavens), counter-attack (high elves), seek and destroy (warriors of chaos), break the wall (bretonnians), etc...

-All armies need to have the same number of special characters, which should be: The lord (lord), the great mage (lord), the leader (lord), the challenger (hero), the legendary unit (rare unit), plus two more lords and heroes who suit with the army tactic.

-Some units are too overpowered.

Malorian
18-10-2008, 15:30
Top three good:

1) I love the tactics involved after years of reaction speed meaning the most in video games.

2) Love the models. Just think if we were playing the same game put with pokemon rather than knights and infantry *spit*.

3) Love the fluff and the feel of the armies.

Top three bad:

1) Can't stand the complainers that spend moer time saying bad things about the game than actually playing.

2) I HATE painting... but it's something I have to do...

3) I have to agree that FAQs could come out a bit faster...

Sheena Easton
18-10-2008, 15:38
Like:

#1 The dark, brooding and gothic backgrounds - no real "good guys" and both the "good" and "bad" races / armies have lots of shades of grey - the way the different backgrounds for different armies intertwine and interact is brilliant.

#2 The way most armies have a unique playstyle and each has unique strengths and weaknesses (even though these appear to slowly be removed in favour of "rule of cool" and special characters"...)

#3 Lots of monsters, mostly

Dislike:

#1 The stopped / reversed timeline after the Slight Drizzle Of Inefficient Organisation and constant rewriting of history.

#2 Increasing use of Rule Of Cool for every unit / army, constantly decreasing points costs and making supposedly rare units and Special Characters common instead of fixing what is actually broken (or even looking at what the problem is)

#3 Restrictions on some Monsters while creating others. Why can High Elves and Wood Elves not have Unicorns or Pegasi? Why can I not use my stunning Marauder Hippogriff in any army? Where is the Chimera - were they all eaten by Tyranids? Why does the Dark Pegasus exist (basically only invented so DE could have one as well as the idea of them having a normal one seemed a bit daft)? And don't get me started on that stupid "evre1 cun us da giant iz da 1337 rorkzz 111111" :rolleyes:

Anton
18-10-2008, 15:38
Likes:
- The core mechanics of the game. The good mixture of tactics and luck, with the weight on tactics.
- The nice background of the Warhammer world, though I would love to see it evolving. I also love the fact that the background is so flexible that it allows us, the individual players, to create our own background for our armies and peoples.
- The social aspect of both gaming and modelling.

Dislikes:
- The 'all or nothing' way that magic works. I'd like to be able to take only one shaman and see him accomplish something.
- Other flaws in the rules, like movement in terrain. Maybe allow marching through difficult terrain.

Shamfrit
18-10-2008, 15:51
Likes:

+ Epic Swing - Losing So Badly You're Crying Until Turn 4, When Your Plan Finally Works And You Finally Pull Together 'Tactics.'

+ Making Up Fluff, Giving Units Names, And Acting Out Your Scorpion Exarch Taking on 5 Sternguard For 3 Turns Before Beign Hacked Town.

+ Skaven, Being Utterly Rubbish At Combat - But Beign Excellent At Baiting, Flanking And Tearing People Apart :D Well, Skaven In General..

Dislikes

+ Losing Because You Roll Bad Saves (And I Roll BAD Saves.)

+ Being The Guy Who Fails Far Too Many Break Panic And Terror Checks.

+ People Leaving Turn 2 Because Your 700 Point Caster Just Killed 5 Dark Riders Muttering (CHEESE!)

isidril93
18-10-2008, 17:38
love
the background
the armies
the models

hate
the price
lack of people for me to play against
making stupid mistakes in games cos i got over exited (lie 1st time using magic...skipped mt movement and shooting so my mage can cast fury of khaine)

Weldo Rubin
18-10-2008, 17:56
:evilgrin::

1: Very interesting Background.

2: Increasing number of more beautiful models (there's still much to do, though).

3: Painting and modelling is all right.

:mad::

1: Games Workshop constantly making new Special Characters instead of sticking with the good old characters.

2: Far too much high technology in a Fantasy World (in my opinion).

3:
The hole it left in my wallet.

sigur
18-10-2008, 18:26
What I like:
.) Nice ruleset
.) Painting
.) the looks of ranked-up infantry

What I don't like:
.) People who started playing DE now because the rules got better
.) The changes to WHFB General in the past two years
.) The way GW is presenting special characters now

merkado
18-10-2008, 18:28
Love:
1. Playing the game
2. The models
3. The background

Hate:
1. Psychology tests
2. Break tests
3. My dice

Ward.
19-10-2008, 05:16
Loves:
1: The skaven and their lore.
2: The ruleset, sure there may be some bugs but I've never found one that a D6 couldn't solve.
3: The people I play against.

Hates:
1: The feeling of books being released before they where completed, such as forsaken not being skirmishers. As someone that has attempted to write his own army book you can tell that the writer just tacked them on at the last minute because the unit he wanted to focus on was complete.

2: people that complain about the game without being able to offer evidence or find out why their gripe hasn't been resolved.

3: That's all I got.

RossS
19-10-2008, 06:02
I. The models are getting to be increasingly excellent. The Ogre and Brettonian ranges are absolutely superb, as far as this gamer and painter is concerned.

II. There are a lot of tough units and armies out there, but a well-used block of core infantry will normally see you through anything.

III. The background offers a lot of opportunities for those modellers willing to explore and be inventive. In no other fantasy world could a gamer craft a unit of pig knights and a pigasus, and have it fit in reasonably well.

Dislikes:

I. Well, as a gamer who entered the hobby during the 5th edition, I am sad to see the slow strangulation of silliness in the warhammer game. The old books were stuffed with weird and wonderful background and illustrations. This was, of course, tempered by the more grim, grisly material that now predominates. I think the Mordheim book was the high-point of this period. I hope they don't whack the Skaven (who are really a fantasy-horror army punctuated with moments of hilarity) with a "serious" stick.

II. The weapons rules need to be completely redone.

III. Terrain is a big problem. I can't tell you the number of times my Orc horde has been entangled in expanses of fen for the entire game.

DigbyWeapon
19-10-2008, 06:43
I love the corruption

I love the epicness

I love the quirkyness

Hate how the skaven pop up in every bl book!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:D

Lister of Smee
19-10-2008, 06:47
Top 3 favorite:
1. The awsome detail of forge world models
2. The core game mechanics
3. The ability to choose what is in your army

Least favorite
1. The awsome cost of forge world models
2. Rules that over ride core game mechanics (eg ASF)
3. Special Characters

Eldramesha
19-10-2008, 07:07
I like the fact that hordes of little things can kill big things.
I like the sly parallels to the real world
I like the overwhelming sense of doom that pervades the world

I dislike the unevenness of pricing
I dislike the seeming slapdash rules development
I dislike not having a local place to play

Lazarus15
19-10-2008, 07:21
Positives:
1) The tactical flexibility and challenge
2) The personalization of your army as you see it/build it.
3) The way the books are being released. The sum is greater than the parts of the whole. The units in the book are good, but the army as whole is nasty!

Negatives:
1) A little easier to spam instead of going for theme than 40k
2) More rules debates and issues arise than 40k
3) People whining like little girls about "daemons are broke, my army can't win, blah blah blah", instead of trying to figure out ways of dealing with the problem and when you get that win, it is all the sweeter.

J.P. Biff
19-10-2008, 07:37
:)
-Diversity of armies used (unlike 40k. In my area anyway)
-Look of the models... Gorgeous!!!
-Strategy/Tactics

:mad: (and how I solve the problem)
-Whiners/Rules abusers. I don't play them
-The sometimes absent release of models for certain armies. I haven't had this problem for any of my armies but it pisses off alot of people in general.
-How I can't get my armies painted as fast as I would like. Havent solved this one yet :cries:.

Tarax
19-10-2008, 11:09
Likes:

-Building and Painting an ARMY; I'd like the sight of my army coming together
-The tactical side of the game; the thinking behind the game
-Its Fantasy setting (medieval/ancient timeframe); well... 'nuff said

Dislikes:

-Too much emphasis on characters; if I want to play with heroes, I'd play a skirmish/roleplay game
-The background; too dark, no freedom, too much into roleplaying
-The powercreep in every new Army Book; due largely because of lack of playtesting and disregarding balance

C-Coen
19-10-2008, 11:36
Mine are mostly compared to LotR SBG, my other main game

+Good amount of psychology in the game, feels real!
+Armies have a really different way of playing
+Good ol' destructive magic, tough sometimes (4 mages - 2000pts) a ' - '

-Having to buy 20+ of those ****expensive metal mini's for that single unit
Similarily, as 2000pts is the normal size, you have to buy many models for a normal game
-Sometimes a bit static, moving that block straight forward etc.
-Inability to have some formations, like a regiment with hanweapon-shield in the first line, backed up by spearmen

EDIT: Just came up with another big + -> No Space Marine like army, which pretty much everybody has (and which I, therefore, would hate)!

Lordsaradain
19-10-2008, 11:38
I love the modelling and converting part, I love the sight of a finished army, and I love the fluff.

I dont like the rules for multiple combats in fantasy and how there is no lapping round or turing to a flank charge in subsequent turns if you are not already engaged at the front.
I dont like the sight of a bunch of unpainted models. I don't like the price hikes and the power creep of 7th ed.

Duke Georgal
19-10-2008, 14:27
What I Like:

1) Painting Models
2) The Fact Daemons and Beastmen Are Independent Forces
3) Funny Events In Games

What I Do Not:

1) Skaven
2) Unclear Rules Scripts
3) Core Units Without Plastics

Shamfrit
19-10-2008, 14:42
What I Do Not:

1) Skaven

Explain yourself good sir! :skull:

Cromenon
19-10-2008, 15:36
:):

1. The enormous variety of armies.
2. The plastic sets.
3. The fluff.


:mad::

1. The apparent lack of playtesting nowadays.
2. The rising prices. €20 for 10 skeletons?? come on!!
3. Loopholes in the rules.

gerrymander61
19-10-2008, 15:54
Likes:
-Playing and fiddling with a list until it's just right and exactly what you were looking for
-How big of a part psychology plays in battles
-originality and creativity of warhammer world

Dislikes:
-GW not playtesting nearly enough
-Clanrat models. They're ugly, hard to rank up properly, and have 7 ******* parts which is way too much for the core unit of a horde army where you can easily have 150+ clanrats/slaves in an army
-powercreep

mistformsquirrel
19-10-2008, 17:02
Things I love:

1) Generally speaking, the people tend to be friendlier than the 40k-only crowd. (I realize a lot of us play both, but I'm speaking of people who play Fantasy or Fantasy and 40k, as opposed to just 40k).

I don't know *WHY* - it just seems that there are more jerks as far as 40k goes. Could even just be that its more popular and thus has more people (thus creating a larger jerk-base).

2) Fluff - I adore the Warhammer World; because despite being well thought out - its got these little nooks and crannies built into it that let you still come up with truly whacked out concepts that aren't canon, but "could happen".

I also just plain dig the fact that the world is more realistic than most fantasy worlds - not so much as in things are less fantastic (there's plenty of magic, dragons, and strange contraptions) - but rather that things are gritty and real. Even if you have an awesome super weapon - it might not save you; it might even kill you.

Say for example you've got a Steam Tank; in most fantasy worlds, something like that is a sort of Deus ex Machina (quite literally) - a Steam Tank will simply crush or blast everything in its way. In Warhammer, that same Steam Tank might overload its boilers, scalding its poor crew alive; or it may explode in spectacular fashion; or if you're having a really bad day a snotling could get jammed in a valve somewhere gumming up the works.

3) Finally, the models. WHFB has some truly fantastic models. They're just... well beautifully well done in most cases. I'm not going to say they're "OMG THE BEST EVAR" because that varies by range and age - but overall I really like the look of the minis and find them well done. I also like the encouragement to customize your minis - something another game I like (Warmachine) is... less enthusiastic about. (Its not that you *can't* - but they make it a bit more difficult, including having rules about conversion legality and no 'counts as' rule)

Things I don't like:

1) First and foremost - I don't like the lack of female characters and minis. There's a laundry list of reasons that this bugs me - but to keep it short and sweet; I'd really love to see more female minis. I'm not talking 'all female' armies - that's the other extreme and equally dull in my opinion. Rather I'd prefer to be able to mix my units up a bit. Even just a couple smallish core-unit packs per race would be enough. (And obviously you can skip things for which gender is irrelevant, like Orcs, goblins, Lizardmen, undead, etc...)

2) Expense. Its not that GW is 'extra pricey' - because most game systems are pretty pricey. Warmachine for instance isn't really any cheaper than Warhammer, because although I can get a whole army up and running for less money (being as 500pts is a 'typical' army); on a per-model basis you're actually paying more. Nevertheless - expense is a nuissance; regardless of whose fault it is. Its no different than me moaning about gas prices to the gas station attendant - not their fault, not blaming them for it, but oi does it get annoying!

3) Models. I'm sure you're wondering how I could have Models on both lists... and its pretty simple really - too many metal models that mean certain units are VERY expensive to field. Like Stormvermin. I also am not a fan of most (but not all) metal models. Some are great - Executioners for instance are *fantastic* sculpts. I am however less impressed with Swordmasters (which is odd since a lot of people seem to really dig their sculpt *shrug*)

Basically, when you start getting into special units for a lot of races, its a crap shoot as to whether they'll be good looking or *****, and whether they'll be metal or plastic. (Its kinda sad that I'm the one griping about this, being as my main army is Chaos and thus our primary Special units can either be converted from Warriors or just got a new plastic kit. Oh and a new metal kit if you don't want to convert. ... I'm spoiled.)

All told - the good vastly outweighs the bad; which is why I'm still here. Its also why I've largely abandoned 40k - not because I felt the game was bad, but because I just liked fantasy *better* for the above reasons.

The ultimate downside for me is myself though <x.x> I've only made it out to a game store once; and it was on a day where no one seemed to be up to playing, so I'm still unblooded despite nearly 2 years of painting, collecting, reading, etc... stupid social anxieties <x.x>

GuyLeCheval
19-10-2008, 17:05
:D:
3. A nice battle, untouched by criticals or whiners or naggers etc.
2. Good and bad side of every army (background AND gaming)
1. Creating endless possibilities of combos and tactics. Even not in a battle.

:cries:
3. Powercreep.
2. Painting has been a hell for me.
1. Special characters in a lower point game. (imagine the utterly strong Archaon, riding his huge deamonic mount, with 24 warriors 5 knights and a shaggoth at his side. Come on, that's a scouting force. Archaon isn't gonna fight with 30 models at his side:rolleyes:

GuyLeCheval
19-10-2008, 17:12
Explain yourself good sir! :skull:

Agreed :skull:

Greebynog
19-10-2008, 19:19
I like:
Other gamers.

I dislike:
Other gamers.

Rip456
20-10-2008, 01:12
What I Like
1.The several types of armies
2.The models and how they have improved
3.The Fluff(though not as good as 40k)

What I dont Like
1.The price of metal minuatures
2.The split of Chaos(beasts cant use mortals, Mortals cant use daemons etc...)
3.Powergamers that break a list every way they can to crush everyone to increase their ego not to have fun

Zaphkiel
20-10-2008, 03:19
Likes-
the models
the fluff
the game

Dislikes-
the price
the ever-so-often unlcear rules
hateful dice gods

Duke Georgal
20-10-2008, 04:33
1) Skaven


Explain yourself good sir! :skull:


Agreed :skull:

I hope this does not turn into a Skaven Pro/Con thread, but...

I do not like Skaven. In fact, I hate Skaven. They are my number one most disliked thing about warhammer.

I hate playing against them because I never enjoy the game. The few people I know who play them are jerks. The Skaven players I know whine, bitch, and rules lawyer more than anbody else. When I am pitted against a Skaven player at a tournament they always seem more interested in arguing than having fun. I hate the way Skaven players always go "sneek sneek sneek" when they move their units. I hate the background.

And the list could go on.

GuyLeCheval
20-10-2008, 18:21
I like:
Other gamers.

I dislike:
Other gamers.

You're a genius!!
I'd need 2 weeks to explain that.
I hope it was actually ment as I interpretated it however...

lord mekri
20-10-2008, 18:26
my Likes:
1. the game itself. while not perfect, its fun as hell to play.
2. the background/fluff/imagery. the warhammer world is a great setting.
3. the models. they are great, especially the plastics. i love the fact that slowly but surely, armies can be 80% or more plastic.

my dislikes:
1. special characters that are presented and included as "normal" options instead of "permission only". its also part fo the slow return to herohammer that i dislike.
2. the price of miniatures. what once cost us $20 for 20 plastic minis now cost $35 (in just over 6 years. thats a huge increase). also, the price of metal minis (even before the last increase it was beefy. now, come on, $30 for 5 chosen models? really? REALLY???)
3. white dwarf. the mag is complete s**t now. they want me to pay them $6 a month for advertising? are you kidding me? i should have cancelled my sub after reading the crap issue that launched the plastic giant.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
20-10-2008, 18:34
Likes:
1. The way the game is designed to favor those who use clever tactics.
2. The models and background always get my imagination going.
3. The orcs! Waaagh!!

Dislikes:
1. Crybabies. This community has its fair share. Whether it's about the Black Library books, changes to the rules, trying to maintain how much better your army is than the rest, etc, it is incredibly tiring. It is supposed to be a hobby, not a way of life.
2. Leaving armies with ridiculously old and out of date models. Though that may be changing with GW deciding to do multiple waves of models for new army books.
3. Getting my friends to play a game. Stupid wives.

Alrighty then?
20-10-2008, 18:36
1) The models
2) the satisfaction of completing an army
3) The fluff

But i hate:

1) the price
2) the annoying nerds who get obsessed
3) The frustrasion of rule lawyers!

FigureFour
20-10-2008, 18:43
Things I like:
1) The game. I find the core rules engaging and challenging and the variation between armies makes for a varied and interesting game.

2) The style. I enjoy the atmosphere and setting, particularly when the rules do a nice job of reflecting it in the game.

3) The minitures. This ties in with the last point, but nothing makes a game feel cooler then a set of vivid and expressive models and terrain features. Good minitures bring the Warhammer world to life.

Things I hate:
1) The jerks who play it. Seriously. I stopped going to the GW store because for every 1 tolerable human being there were 6 ******** or hyperactive kids running around. I used to think it would be cool to work in a GW store until I realised that they spend most of their time trying to keep these kids from destroying the place or driving away their customers. They're salesmen, not babysitters for christ's sake.

2) GW's unwillingness to even discuss the possibility that there might be a flaw in the game. I can except some dodgy rules, but for god's sake, FAQ soon, FAQ often and FAQ well. Listen to your community and respond to them. It's not hard.
Edit: GW DOES seem to be getting better at this. At least they're prompt now. Still, I'd like to see a second wave of FAQs that adress issues that the current FAQs left out.

3) I can't think of a third thing actually. Thank god my only problems with the game can be fixed by playing at home with my friends.

Edit 2: Just noticed this . . .


1) First and foremost - I don't like the lack of female characters and minis. There's a laundry list of reasons that this bugs me - but to keep it short and sweet; I'd really love to see more female minis. I'm not talking 'all female' armies - that's the other extreme and equally dull in my opinion. Rather I'd prefer to be able to mix my units up a bit. Even just a couple smallish core-unit packs per race would be enough. (And obviously you can skip things for which gender is irrelevant, like Orcs, goblins, Lizardmen, undead, etc...)

Play Wood Elves. I was rather pleased to find out that most Wood Elf plastic sprues come with a few female torsos, making many of their units turn out mixed gender. Even some of the metal models (Waywatchers come to mind) have male and female versions.

I guess some armies (Bretonnians for example) have a Men Only policy when it comes to recruitment (makes sense culturally) but not all of them do.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
20-10-2008, 18:47
I hope this does not turn into a Skaven Pro/Con thread, but...

I do not like Skaven. In fact, I hate Skaven. They are my number one most disliked thing about warhammer.

I hate playing against them because I never enjoy the game. The few people I know who play them are jerks. The Skaven players I know whine, bitch, and rules lawyer more than anbody else. When I am pitted against a Skaven player at a tournament they always seem more interested in arguing than having fun. I hate the way Skaven players always go "sneek sneek sneek" when they move their units. I hate the background.

And the list could go on.

Yowzer. Those are some bad personal experiences. I love the Skaven background and their cool rules, such as "Life is Cheap" and how their leadership is directly affected by how many other Skaven are with them. I'm sorry you've been exposed to such poor players, I'm sure there are some on Warseer who could change your mind if you just gave them a game or two!

loveless
20-10-2008, 19:49
Favorite:
1) The imagery: Warhammer fantasy pretty much tops it in terms of artwork and style. I've looked at other games, I've played other games, but nowhere does the art feel as inspiring as it does in WHFB.
2) The story/background: Just about every faction in WHFB has something that strikes me as awesome or amusing in their story. The whole Dark Elf/High Elf thing is lovely, as is the War of the Beard. From what I hear, the new Chaos characters are going to add even more fun in terms of background (I <3 Siggy already)
3) Models: Most of the ones I use are plastic, making them comparatively cheaper to other games I've played. The ones that are metal that I get are gorgeous little things (like the WAR mini - great piece).

Least Favorite:
1) Choosing an army to focus on: I don't have new army syndrome (Daemons did nothing for me, nor did High Elves, and Lizardmen won't even make me bat an eye), but there are enough stories and "looks" out there that there a good lot of armies that I'd love to play - I simply can't pick one to focus on. Warriors of Chaos, Dark Elves, Vampire Counts - I suppose I need a "bad boy" to counter my "good" armies in 40K :p
2) Finding opponents: They're either grumpy, stuck on old rules, angry at new rules, or just dang hard to find.
3) No (real) support for Chaos Dwarfs: I am going to be picking up a Hellcannon just for the Dwarfs (okay, also because it's gorgeous, but still...). I like armies to have a "dark side". For High Elves, it's the Dark Elves. For the Empire, it's the cults within (or Vampires...or Orcs...or whatever). The Dwarfs have Chaos Dwarfs, but where's the support? Ah well.

OldMaster
20-10-2008, 20:16
Most favourite and most hated things?

Fav
1) The Close Combat Phase: I'm a chaos player, allright? =P
2) The converting possibilities: Seriously, I'm a converter in my heart. Warhammer offers me so many chances at modelling - I really love working with Green Stuff.
3) The amount of freedom: make your own lists, buy what you want, tool out your own heroes... I love that.

Cons
1) Armour of Caledor. A flaming cannonball cannot hurt less than a normal cannonbal. Just, that's it, really. Flaming Attacks should get different rules which are negated by the Armour, but nothing else makes sense.
2) Sevenstarsapostrophe ASF on all your troops: High Elves, you ruin my game.
3) Too high percentage of metal models: it's still way too high. GW should concentrate on plastic for 90, maybe 80% In my opinion, only some rare choises and characters should be metal and I even want a plastic character set for all of the races to put metal down even more.

Aurellis
20-10-2008, 21:13
Fav:
1) I love getting together with my brother or other friends and having a relaxed (well... sometimes fiery) time over a few beers
2) Painting - My armies Dark Elves and Beasts have opened me up to lots of different colour palettes and painting styles that i really enjoy painting
3)I really like the background, I'm currently reading the Von Carstein trilogy and I'm really looking forward to reading Blood For The Blood God, and the Witchhunter omnibus i purchased today. Roll on Honourkeeper coming out by the way!

Cons:
1) New armybook whiners
2) The cost of blisters
3) High Elves' ASF

Iseult
21-10-2008, 08:43
Good post actually made me sign up, too bad for you all ;)

Likes:

1) The feeling I get when I finish painting a unit of models
2) The theme and background of some of the armies
3) Basic game rules

Dislikes:

1) Games Workshop and their superiority complex as manifested through enduring stubbornness in failing to admit to errors (such as poor models or rules) and then bagging the old edition when it comes time for a replacement.
2) Lack of playtesting and patches - can't patch a TT game? Find a way.
3) How Slaanesh & Khorne Demons are compatable but Champs & Demons of the same god aren't

EDIT: Can I have 4? No Necromancer/ Wight Armies and VC pigeonhole players into a certain theme of UD.

sandpeople
21-10-2008, 08:54
I love:
1. How the armies play in different ways.
2. The diversity of choices
3. To paint and convert models

I hate:
1. Totally unbeatable stuff (like 3 characers in a regeneration bunker from hell: Vampire lord with flaming lance and the Carstein ring, tooled up vampire and a tooled up wight king bsb in a unit of 20 grave guards with regeneration.)
2. How seldom I get to play
3. How many models that stay unpainted

FigureFour
21-10-2008, 15:52
EDIT: Can I have 4? No Necromancer/ Wight Armies and VC pigeonhole players into a certain theme of UD.

Sorry to drag this off topic, but every time I see this comment I think it's hilariously bizare.

Do you complain that the Orcs and Goblins book won't let you make an all troll army? That Dark Elves can't make an all Harpy army?

It's the VAMPIRE counts book, not the Undead book. I'm not surprised they make you take a VAMPIRE to play the VAMPIRE army.

hardygun
21-10-2008, 17:09
Things I like:
1. The wide variety of great looking miniatures for the game. It gives all of the armies so much personality.
2. The freedom inherent in army construction. I really like being able to tinker with my army set up to see what works, what doesn't, and what is just plain fun to plunk on the table.
3. The painting. I really enjoy taking the time to make my minis look good on the tabletop. If only I had more free time to paint :cries:

Things I hate:
1. Lots of units/armies like (insert hated unit/army here) that get to break the basic rules of the game for little to no cost.
2. The proliferation of special characters that reek of :cheese:
3. The slow updating of armies that leads to bad point misbalances between editions.

Ixquic
21-10-2008, 17:44
Like:

1. Core game rules are fun to play and generally well designed
2. Getting better at modeling and painting
3. Lots of different themes represented and although expensive they support the hobby pretty well (although retracting bitz order was a blow)

Dislike:

1. Recent huge imbalances and poor army book design decisions
2. GW's pig headed attitude that they don't make mistakes and their unwillingness to work with fans/customers regarding problems they create while claiming that people should just have "fun" as a cop out
3. The way they slowly release armies over the course of four years instead of all at once which creates issues where the overall "idea" for the edition changes (look at Orcs and Goblins versus any recent army book) and power creep sets in. I'd rather them take a year writing all the books and stagger the miniature releases over the edition's lifespan.

idiotproof dalek
21-10-2008, 18:13
"1) Armour of Caledor. A flaming cannonball cannot hurt less than a normal cannonbal. Just, that's it, really. Flaming Attacks should get different rules which are negated by the Armour, but nothing else makes sense."

Of course it doesn't make sense - its magic and fantastical and made up innit? Its not asbestos armour they're wearing or flame retardant robes, don't expect it to be logical. By that token, ward saves should also annoy you, 'cos how do they deflect a cannonball? A savage orc's faith in Mork causing arrows to do no harm - how ridiculous!

So a flaming cannonball CAN hurt less than a normal cannonball, if you have magical enchantedy armour which has a spell which detects the flaming nature of the missile and thus deflects it using magical pixie dust, or whatever.

Its.......Fantasy, not real life

OldMaster
21-10-2008, 20:51
"1) Armour of Caledor. A flaming cannonball cannot hurt less than a normal cannonbal. Just, that's it, really. Flaming Attacks should get different rules which are negated by the Armour, but nothing else makes sense."

Of course it doesn't make sense - its magic and fantastical and made up innit? Its not asbestos armour they're wearing or flame retardant robes, don't expect it to be logical. By that token, ward saves should also annoy you, 'cos how do they deflect a cannonball? A savage orc's faith in Mork causing arrows to do no harm - how ridiculous!

So a flaming cannonball CAN hurt less than a normal cannonball, if you have magical enchantedy armour which has a spell which detects the flaming nature of the missile and thus deflects it using magical pixie dust, or whatever.

Its.......Fantasy, not real life

.....

Still.

A flaming cannonball cannot hurt less than a normal cannonball. No matter the magic.

Look, to follow up your Ward Saves example. A Ward Save works on flaming cannonballs, normal cannonballs, arrows, or whatever. I am COMPLETELY fine with that, magical protection is great, really! Because a Ward Save affects each one noted above equally. It does not discriminate betwee flaming or not. But a piece of armour that can suck up an echanted blade, a flaming cannonball, heck, what about a comet? The sun? It will be absorbed by the immense power of some armour as well? Suuuure...

There is a slight difference in realism and something making no sense at all. To me, something that holds off the flamy "nature" of an object and therefore, deflects the object itself, no matter what it is, sounds utterly ridiculous. Especially if it somehow affects your monstrous mount, too, and ESPECIALLY if more than one model in your army can take it.

Oh, and I forgot. It helps against breath attacks, too. All right, good one. Pretty fluffy against dragons and such. But what if I'm a Great Unclean One and I vomit thousands of pounds of leeches, bile and maggots on you? Hell, what if I'm Skarbrand and I decide to roar at you? Your armour is sound-proof and leech-proof, too?

Something like this isn't something you often see in Warhammer. Something like this does not belong in Warhammer. Because of this single piece of equipment, flaming attacks should decrease the cost of a model, because you have a very high chance that when playing against High Elves, the model can't do anything in combat.

studderigdave
21-10-2008, 21:47
i just dont like getting march blocked from things i cannot see. i think a unit of irongutz should be able to brave the eagle in the backfield enough to march. at least they should make it a LD check, if they pass they can do whatever they want.

donuter
21-10-2008, 22:06
LIKES

1)Dark elves
2)Power dice
3)40K-it did sprout from WFB so in theory

DISLIKES

1)High elves
2)power gamers
3)Lack of decent players ( personality not skill)

mistformsquirrel
22-10-2008, 03:13
Play Wood Elves. I was rather pleased to find out that most Wood Elf plastic sprues come with a few female torsos, making many of their units turn out mixed gender. Even some of the metal models (Waywatchers come to mind) have male and female versions.

I guess some armies (Bretonnians for example) have a Men Only policy when it comes to recruitment (makes sense culturally) but not all of them do.

Hehe, there's a reason WE are the basis of my second army <^.~>

And I do understand the cultural things, like the Empire and Bretonnia, after all the Warhammer world is intentionally bleak and includes some RL problems like sexism.

However its Warriors of Chaos (my main army), who *explicitly* include women in their ranks as part of the background... but have literally no models for it. None. Whatsoever. And very little one can use to convert >.< The best I've managed is to use the Lord of Slaanesh model as a basis for my General's conversion. I also got away with some headswaps on my Warriors, but its far from ideal. I mean I'll live - its not such a huge deal to me that I'm going to storm Warhammer World or anything <,< but it is irritating to me ya know?

I do however love the idea of Valkia in the new book. Not a Khorne player myself, but still... very nice. I love that her fluff could be used for a male character without much alteration - ie: she's a badass, something female characters rarely get to be.

FigureFour
22-10-2008, 03:27
However its Warriors of Chaos (my main army), who *explicitly* include women in their ranks as part of the background... but have literally no models for it. None. Whatsoever.

To be fair, it can be pretty hard to determine anything about the physical attributes of a Warrior of Chaos, what with the armour and the mutation and all.

But yeah. All it would take is a plastic breastplate or two with breasts and you'd have your problem solved.

loveless
22-10-2008, 16:19
its not such a huge deal to me that I'm going to storm Warhammer World or anything

Oh, but I wish you would...primarily because the image I got of this was brilliant...mainly because I took your screen name quite literally and pictured a squirrel besieging Warhammer World. :p

40kdhs
23-10-2008, 01:41
Favorite:

Fantasy characters only have 3 or 4 As.

Least Favorites:

1-Stupid magic items which don't make any sense such as drarf one which requires you to charge at 24" or run away. Where do i get extra 4" if my fastest movement is 20"?

2- You should be able to rally your unit when your opponent unit charges it. If a US of charging unit is smaller than a US of running away unit, you should have an opportunity to make a LD test like the one in 40K. Why is a running away Lord on Dragon scared when a 5 goblins charge him?

3-You should have LOS to do the magic. If a mage doesn't need to see a target unit, why does she need to go to war when she can do her magic from her office at home? Is it safer?

What i'm saying is we need to make some senses in the rules instead of putting them out and telling the players "Good luck"

Yes, Luck is everything in Fantasy.

mistformsquirrel
23-10-2008, 02:34
Oh, but I wish you would...primarily because the image I got of this was brilliant...mainly because I took your screen name quite literally and pictured a squirrel besieging Warhammer World. :p

Rofl >_< thats awesome, I wouldn't have even thought of that <,< to funny!

najo
23-10-2008, 08:05
Favorite:

Fantasy characters only have 3 or 4 As.

Least Favorites:

1-Stupid magic items which don't make any sense such as drarf one which requires you to charge at 24" or run away. Where do i get extra 4" if my fastest movement is 20"?

2- You should be able to rally your unit when your opponent unit charges it. If a US of charging unit is smaller than a US of running away unit, you should have an opportunity to make a LD test like the one in 40K. Why is a running away Lord on Dragon scared when a 5 goblins charge him?

3-You should have LOS to do the magic. If a mage doesn't need to see a target unit, why does she need to go to war when she can do her magic from her office at home? Is it safer?

What i'm saying is we need to make some senses in the rules instead of putting them out and telling the players "Good luck"

Yes, Luck is everything in Fantasy.

Just want to help correct a couple of innacurracies here.

1) The dwarf rune of challenging works on a enemy unit within 20". That unit must be within charge range and able to charge the bearer of the rune and his unit. If they choose not to charge then they panic and run. If you can't make the charge it does not effect you.

3) Magic missiles do require line of sight as do some spells. The spells that don't either juts have a mass effect or they sense the targets through the winds of magic that wizards manipulate. All of the Warhammer fluff speaks about Wizards seeing and sensing the magic around them and manipulating it together, which is also why dispel attempts do not require line of sight.

As for 2), I understand why Warhammer doesn't allow for rally attempts when charged, as it allows for complicated manuveres with multiple units performing together to break and destroy an enemy. Where it is silly is the 5 goblins running down a dragon with a lord on its back. Now, in all fairness you do rout away from an enemy charge while broken, and then if you get away will have a chance to rally the next turn. Likely the lord is going to rally then, plus on the dragon he ran 3d6 away form that 8" goblin charge, so is likely fine. At any rate, I see your point to a degree on this one.

Oh, and not trying to start any fights or arguements at all. But coming from a Warhammer player of 20+ years here, Warhammer Fantasy has very little to do with luck. The game is about movement, deployment, combat result and then psychology (little bit of luck but on bell curves) and finally to hit and wounds. I can play a game with perfect movement, deployment and charging and if you are out played by me, my combat results will beat you even if you hit and wound with all of your troops and I miss with all of mine. Then I win, and the result brings your Leadership score down so low you lose and break and are run down. If I do that enough I can win a game of warhammer with terrible dice rolls.

The key in warhammer is to manipulate the odds into your favor and then play your movement/ deployment/ combat results well.

Kidjal
23-10-2008, 12:01
i like... the background, the models, the ruleset.

i hate...endless rule debates, which the ruleset inevitabley causes. Magic spamming.

slasher
23-10-2008, 12:34
Likes - The wide chose of army builds,
the background / settings
playing games.

Dislikes - The fact that my dise Hate me (yes my Brets lance has bounce off a gobbo unit, causing two near by units to run FAR too often.)
The dameage it does to my pocket

ChaosTicket
23-10-2008, 15:10
Favorites are Controlling an army, colorful units, different races

Dislikes are zero advancement in Shooting over many editions, ranks, lack of customisation on units.

Gazak Blacktoof
23-10-2008, 16:24
I can play a game with perfect movement, deployment and charging and if you are out played by me, my combat results will beat you even if you hit and wound with all of your troops and I miss with all of mine. Then I win, and the result brings your Leadership score down so low you lose and break and are run down. If I do that enough I can win a game of warhammer with terrible dice rolls.


I agree that this almost works with basic infantry but cavalry and other troops with large numbers of attacks are capable of "bouncing" or tearing their way through static combat resolution. I'd say you can minimise the part luck plays in warhammer fantasy but you can't eliminate it entirely.

40kdhs
23-10-2008, 17:48
Least Favorite:

It's time to stop sharing a special rule of an army to other. If you are not willing to share your specialty with HE, please don't distribute our ASF banner to everybody.

FigureFour
23-10-2008, 18:36
Where do i get extra 4" if my fastest movement is 20"?

It has already been pointed out that you've got the rules for this item wrong, but there's another answer to this question that makes sense from a fluff perspective.

It's MAGIC. Magic doesn't make sense. That's what makes it magic.


You should have LOS to do the magic. If a mage doesn't need to see a target unit, why does she need to go to war when she can do her magic from her office at home? Is it safer?
Note that 99.9% of spells that don't require LoS DO have a range. The wizard CAN cast the spells from home, provided their home is within range of the target (i.e. It's on the table).



What i'm saying is we need to make some senses in the rules instead of putting them out and telling the players "Good luck"

Your arguement would be stronger if your complaints made sense. There's plenty of rules that are unrealistic (continuing to fight with a lance after the charge instead of switching to a hand weapon) but the magic rules aren't one of them.

Well, like I said TECHNICALLY magic is unrealistic, but it has to be. If you want historical realism don't play a fantasy game.

40kdhs
23-10-2008, 18:57
It has already been pointed out that you've got the rules for this item wrong, but there's another answer to this question that makes sense from a fluff perspective.


I was not wrong about it. It was a dwarf player who told me about it and I took his word for it. Thank you for clarifying it. However, your clarification doesn't really satisfy my concern.

If I really want to charge a unit which has that 'rune', would you think that I do that in the first place? I don't want to do that because I could possibly fail charge after wheeling.

You know how long 20" is?



It's MAGIC. Magic doesn't make sense. That's what makes it magic.


Note that 99.9% of spells that don't require LoS DO have a range. The wizard CAN cast the spells from home, provided their home is within range of the target (i.e. It's on the table).


Even though you have the range and are not required to see a target, how do you know if that 'target' is enemy? Do you guess or wait to hear a loud voice from the sky to tell you go head with your plan?

Do you also realize that nobody is going to touch you if they don't see you but you can see them?



Warhammer Fantasy has very little to do with luck. The game is about movement, deployment, combat result and then psychology (little bit of luck but on bell curves) and finally to hit and wounds. I can play a game with perfect movement, deployment and charging and if you are out played by me, my combat results will beat you even if you hit and wound with all of your troops and I miss with all of mine. Then I win, and the result brings your Leadership score down so low you lose and break and are run down. If I do that enough I can win a game of warhammer with terrible dice rolls.



I disagree. You need more luck in Fantasy than in 40k. 40k doesn't require you to take a fear test to charge a fear causing unit and it also doesn't require you to take a panic test. In fantasy, you can't charge or run away if you fail your psychology test.

Please explain to me how you are going to win combat if you miss all your As and I wound you all assumming that we have the same rank-file troopers and banner? In your situation, should you be the one who need to test because you don't wound anybody?

larabic
23-10-2008, 19:28
Favorite:
1. Tactics - I compare fantasy to chess and 40k to checkers. Things like flanks, LOS, and numbers mean something in fantasy, 40K and other games this seems less so. Maneuvering is so pivitol in this game its great!

2. It's fantasy! Different races fighting it out on the one rock they all live on!

3. Mythos... I like how parts of our mythologies have been rolled into the warhammer world. Mythical beasts being and concepts they are all here!

Least favorite:
1. With a flaming passion of a thousand suns (not the chaos marines) i hate special characters. It's amazing how Karl Franz shows up to lead these 50 men into battle, or how every unit of black guard seems have the captain of the black guard in it... don't these people have places to be? I wish it would go back to by players agreements only.

2. Fear. Outnumbered by fear = auto break? Then why did i pass that fear test to charge in? I think it is a bit to powerful now that we have several armies running around trhat everything causes fear. Or make fear like terror, once you pass that unit doesn't cause fear for that unit anymore.

3. Power gamers, win win win no matter what! Gotta love those 6 bolt thrower dwarf armies, or 10-12 PD VC/ Tzeentch armies. I came to play a game and have fun maybe interact with each other a bit, not line up and play how many men make it to your line after gettinmg shot to threads...

FigureFour
23-10-2008, 20:04
I was not wrong about it. It was a dwarf player who told me about it and I took his word for it. Thank you for clarifying it. However, your clarification doesn't really satisfy my concern.
That wasn't my clarification. Also, just because someone gave you wrong information doesn't make your information not wrong.


If I really want to charge a unit which has that 'rune', would you think that I do that in the first place? I don't want to do that because I could possibly fail charge after wheeling.
I know you don't want to. You were FORCED to with MAGIC. Also, I'm pretty sure it fails if you are outside your charge range.


You know how long 20" is?
Yup. I've got two great eagles in my army. I'm pretty familiar with the concept of 20". What's your point?


Even though you have the range and are not required to see a target, how do you know if that 'target' is enemy?
Like I said. It's MAGIC.


Do you guess or wait to hear a loud voice from the sky to tell you go head with your plan?
Yes. Or you gaze into your crystal ball and see where they are. Or they look through the woods. Or they sense the presence of their enemy's life force casting ripples through the winds of magic.

It's magic dude. It doesn't obey the laws of physics. That's the point.


Do you also realize that nobody is going to touch you if they don't see you but you can see them?
Yes. That's why I often put my Spellsinger in the middle of a woods. He's protected, since he can't be seen, and he can cast spells, since he doesn't need line of sight.


I disagree. You need more luck in Fantasy than in 40k. 40k doesn't require you to take a fear test to charge a fear causing unit and it also doesn't require you to take a panic test.
You've never taken a panic test in 40k? Maybe you should read the rule book again. If the presence of the fear rule is your only arguement, you don't understand Fantasy, 40k or luck.


In fantasy, you can't charge or run away if you fail your psychology test.
You don't know what you're talking about at all.


Please explain to me how you are going to win combat if you miss all your As and I wound you all assumming that we have the same rank-file troopers and banner?
Hit them in the flank.

TAH DAH! Tactics and maneuvering beat luck! How do you do the same thing in 40k?


In your situation, should you be the one who need to test because you don't wound anybody?
You don't know what you're talking about.


Least favorite:
1. With a flaming passion of a thousand suns (not the chaos marines) i hate special characters. It's amazing how Karl Franz shows up to lead these 50 men into battle, or how every unit of black guard seems have the captain of the black guard in it... don't these people have places to be? I wish it would go back to by players agreements only.
This is a dumb arguement. Those people have to be involved in SOME battles, why not the one you are playing? Is there some reason that we should play the boring unimportant battles where nobody cool ever shows up?


2. Fear. Outnumbered by fear = auto break? Then why did i pass that fear test to charge in?
Because losing a fight against an enemy can change your opinion of how scary they are.


3. Power gamers, win win win no matter what!
Agreed. These guys suck.

larabic
23-10-2008, 20:19
This is a dumb arguement. Those people have to be involved in SOME battles, why not the one you are playing? Is there some reason that we should play the boring unimportant battles where nobody cool ever shows up?



Ok, first please have a little respect for my opinion and not call it dumb. Second i even said how come every unit of black guard i face has the captain in it? It's not that they get used... it's that they often get shoved down your throat almost every game. They seem a bit to unbalanced to me that is all.

FigureFour
23-10-2008, 20:49
Ok, first please have a little respect for my opinion and not call it dumb.
Woah now! I didn't call your opinion dumb. I respect your right to not like any model, unit or category therof for whatever reason you want. Hell, you don't even need a reason. I said your arguement was dumb.

That is to say, I don't think your reason makes any sense and doesn't sway my opinion.


Second i even said how come every unit of black guard i face has the captain in it?
A couple reasons probably.
First because GW seems to be intending some of these characters (especially the minor "unit upgrade" characters) as generic heros to be used as "counts as" models. In otherwords, there's probably more than one Captain in the Black Guard, so it's not nessicarily the same guy.
Second, because your opponent likes him. Personally I think he's sort of crap so I've never taken him, despite taking a unit of Black Guard every time I play Dark Elves.


It's not that they get used... it's that they often get shoved down your throat almost every game.
That's probably because your opponents like using them. And why SHOULDN'T your opponent be allowed to use the parts of his army he enjoys using?

Do your opponents tell you not to take your favourite units or models?


They seem a bit to unbalanced to me that is all.
That's a much better reason. Although, I think it's unfair to apply it to ALL special characters. Some are unbalanced, but some are fair (and some suck).

Still, I'm just stating my opinion on your reasoning, not trying to tell you what to think.

Freakiq
23-10-2008, 20:54
Love:

Close games ending in a draw.

The Chaos Gods.

Skirmishing past enemy charge arcs.


Loathe:

Chipping paint.

Sore losers sucking the fun out of every victory.

The magic system.

Quetzl
23-10-2008, 21:08
Oo Nice thread! Well I:

Love
1 - The overall scene of a Warhammer game with all the different armies to bolster tha.
2 - Painting and constructing the models.
3 - Those amazing combats that decide a games outcome.

Hate
1 - The Magic Phase. Not because I'm Dwarfs, but mainly because it's so annoyingly complex and it requires a lot of following and ensuring you understand what spell's actually being cast.
2 - That stupid exclamation mark on the artillery dice.
3 - The way they lay out the Army books.

najo
24-10-2008, 00:08
I agree that this almost works with basic infantry but cavalry and other troops with large numbers of attacks are capable of "bouncing" or tearing their way through static combat resolution. I'd say you can minimise the part luck plays in warhammer fantasy but you can't eliminate it entirely.

Cavalry are manuverable and can flank a unit, completely negating the enemy characters, ranks and gaining a +1 bonus. Though dice do play a roll still here, the great number of attacks, high strength and high armor of their unit mean that most likely the combat result is going to be in their favor. Still, chance can take victory from you but is very unlikely.

The other key to playing this way is using fast cavalry and flyers to hinder your enemy's movement, allowing your infantry to get into the right positions. Shooting is an area that is random, but this is minimized by taking enough units to counter the odds and then concentrating fire on key targets.

Still, your right that some random elements do exist more with other troops, but you can control those odds with good playing.

Gazak Blacktoof
24-10-2008, 00:19
All true, but then there's shooting and magic which are more than capable of eliminating important units or forcing them to panic or otherwise incapacitiate them.

I still maintain that you can do a lot to reduce the luck-factor but there's no eliminating it.

Curufew
24-10-2008, 00:26
Favorite -
The Art
The Fluff
The gameplay (some aspects)

Least favorite -
Armybook Creep that makes the game more and more "uber unit" hammer
Recycled Fluff
The gameplay (some aspects)

najo
24-10-2008, 01:41
Please explain to me how you are going to win combat if you miss all your As and I wound you all assumming that we have the same rank-file troopers and banner? In your situation, should you be the one who need to test because you don't wound anybody?

If I manuver into your flank with the same number of ranks/ banner etc, then I gain a +1 combat result and you lose your rank bonus. If an unit is within 8" to its enemy, then neither unit can march.These two rules are key to playing warhammer well.

So, with holding down a unit's movement by dropping a flyer or fast cav into its rear or flank, and then moving a unit with a +3 rank bonus, +1 banner, +1 for flank, you get a +5 bonus to their +1 bonus. The difference is +4. They will have 3-4 models attacking, with an average of 2.5 hits and 1 wound. I still win combat by 3 points. Against leadership 8 they now break on a 5, vs 7, its now a 4. Most likely on 2d6 they are rolling 7. As long as you get leadership below 7 with combat result, very quickly an enemy unit is going to break when it loses.

Now, work in things like the warbanner, well placed characters, out numbering, and rear charge with armored troops and you very quickly are mathematically beating your opponent without even rolling dice. It is possible to get your combat result up to +9 with two units and without any wounds added in. This becomes even easier in armies with fodder troops like goblins, gnoblars, clanrats/ slaves etc and a hammer unit with staying power and mobility that can get behind the enemy.

Also, for the record. This element of warhammer makes warhammer less random and more tactical than Warhammer 40k. 40k is almost entirely random, with the exception of unit deployment, movement phase movement (even running is d6 movement) and shooting range. The rest of the game is random or controlled randominess. Which you control by placing your units in the right places, screening units you want to protect and concentrating fire on specific targets by the threat they cause your plans.

Roark
24-10-2008, 07:23
LIKE

1. Playing against reasonable people
2. Modelling and painting (tres rewarding!)
3. The fluff and background (and, insofar as fiction is concerned: Dan Abnett!)

DISLIKE

1. Whiners
2. Obsessives
3. The bizarre, infantile sexualisation of female character models.

40kdhs
24-10-2008, 18:27
Yup. I've got two great eagles in my army. I'm pretty familiar with the concept of 20". What's your point?


What is the point of having this 'rune' if you know that the majority of Fantasy units don't have 20" to charge yours and they have to run away?

This is not a win-win situation for me because of this item.



Like I said. It's MAGIC.


Your answer supposes to 'justify' what you said when you don't have another logical argument?



You've never taken a panic test in 40k? Maybe you should read the rule book again. If the presence of the fear rule is your only arguement, you don't understand Fantasy, 40k or luck.


The number of 'tests' which you have to take in Fantasy is more than 40k. Yes?

How do you know if your tactic or strategy works? We roll the dices in magic, shooting, and CC, and 'running'? Yes?

FigureFour
24-10-2008, 18:39
What is the point of having this 'rune' if you know that the majority of Fantasy units don't have 20" to charge yours and they have to run away?
I get that you don't understand how or why the rune is used. It forces people to make a bad charge or flee (which is also usually bad).


Your answer supposes to 'justify' what you said when you don't have another logical argument?
My point is, there is never going to be a logical explination for how and why magic works. Magic defies logic. If it worked in a logical way that is consistent with the natural laws of the universe it wouldn't be magic, it would be science.


The number of 'tests' which you have to take in Fantasy is more than 40k. Yes?
The tests aren't taken at random though. Causing panic tests in your opponent and minimizing the effects of panic on your own units is part of Fantasy strategy and tactics.


How do you know if your tactic or strategy works? We roll the dices in magic, shooting, and CC, and 'running'? Yes?
Do you really want me to explain to you how stragey works? Yes luck is an element of the game, but a good strategy will minimize it's importance or even negate it entirely. If I have a scatic +5 to combat rez and I charge a unit with no SCR in such a way that they can kill a maximum of 4 models, I'm guaranteed to win arn't I? Even without rolling I know I've won that battle.

emperorpenguin
24-10-2008, 19:31
Favourites
1: The fantastic models
2: The great background (especially for 40K)
3: The ease of finding opponents

Least Favourites
1: Dispel Scrolls, utterly stupid idea allowing a cheap expense of points to shut down a much more expensive magic build
2: Power creep has been getting really bad
3: Too many special characters and encouragement to use special characters for theme purposes. What was wrong with "Honours" or "Kindreds"

FigureFour
24-10-2008, 19:39
1: Dispel Scrolls, utterly stupid idea allowing a cheap expense of points to shut down a much more expensive magic build
Yeah. Dispel scrolls are a little problematic. On the surface they seem like a fine balanced idea, but in reality they allow you to shut down MORE then the one spell that was cast by preserving your dispel dice.

I'd like to see dispel scrolls instead cost a little less (maybe 20 points) and cause all dice rolled for a dispel roll to count as 6s. Then you're still getting your guaranteed dispel, but it costs you a die or two. This way a scroll will shut down a spell without dramaticly effecting the whole phase.

najo
25-10-2008, 07:49
All true, but then there's shooting and magic which are more than capable of eliminating important units or forcing them to panic or otherwise incapacitiate them.

I still maintain that you can do a lot to reduce the luck-factor but there's no eliminating it.

With shooting, you drive armored troops at the shooting unit, stay out side of its range, move through cover and/or long range or stay in its flank. In all of these cases, you make the shooting unit lose its effectiviness or negate its shooting all together.

With magic, you can stay out of range and dispell the key spells. Magic is trickier to negate than shooting if the opponent really knows what they are doing with it or takes alot of wizards, but still, their is ways to deal with them. Ultimately, if an army has alot of points in magic, your army is stronger in combat. You can rush and flank units with wizards and usually kill them easily. Warmachines and shooting counter magic fairly well too.

To minimize the randominess with using these troops, position shooting units well and concentrate their fire properily each turn. With magic, know how to play the poker-face, bait out dispell scrolls, manage the cating odds of power dice vs. miscasting of magic.

I do agree that you can't completely negate luck in warhammer, but a good general can sure do alot to minimize it.

Hrogoff the Destructor
25-10-2008, 08:31
Like:
1) Playing friends
2) Every army is interesting. Unlike 40k, I could see myself playing any army in the game. If I were a millionaire I probably own every army. But alas I'm poor.
3) It's fun to read new books and design new army lists.

Hate:
1) Playing random people (they usually complain, talk about how awesome their army is without actually playing the game, and in my experience are win at all cost players)
2) People who spam 1 unit type and look for loopholes in rules in order to win.
3) 6+ ward save is the best non-ignorable ward save my Chaos Lord can get in the new book (without being Tzeentch)? Shoot.

40kdhs
26-10-2008, 03:59
The tests aren't taken at random though. Causing panic tests in your opponent and minimizing the effects of panic on your own units is part of Fantasy strategy and tactics.

Yes luck is an element of the game, but a good strategy will minimize it's importance or even negate it entirely. If I have a scatic +5 to combat rez and I charge a unit with no SCR in such a way that they can kill a maximum of 4 models, I'm guaranteed to win arn't I? Even without rolling I know I've won that battle.

What you showed me is not that impressive because why do i accept your charge when I know that I'll loose?

Furthermore, It depends on what kind of unit you use to charge. If I have 2 As on my unit and a BSB with D6 CR and your unit is not stubbon or unbreakable, you are going to run.

You can't 'minimize' the luck with good strategy if you roll horribly or your opponent rolls well.

najo
26-10-2008, 12:44
What you showed me is not that impressive because why do i accept your charge when I know that I'll loose?

Furthermore, It depends on what kind of unit you use to charge. If I have 2 As on my unit and a BSB with D6 CR and your unit is not stubbon or unbreakable, you are going to run.

You can't 'minimize' the luck with good strategy if you roll horribly or your opponent rolls well.

I know you and figure four have this thing going on now, but you do realize that its me who was challenging you at first and me that has replied to you multiple times along with FF, but yet your only replying to him. Not that it matters, just making sure you are aware as your ignoring my replies to you and they answer most of your questions.

This is not an attack on anyone, but if you are not doing these things with Warhammer, then that is likely the reason you are having trouble winning. With that said, the "cheesy" armies fall to these players all of the time.

Anyrate, both FF and I have given good advice on playing Warhammer as a game of strategy and tactics first and minimizing the random element. If you still disagree, you should ask more questions till you understand as it is true.

With that said, my wife and I own a game store for the last 13 years. We hold regular warhammer events and game days that draw players from all over the state. Our in house players are very good players and all around Warhammer experts (in painting, playing, army building, fluff, etc) as our tournements and bring and battles encourage all of these things.

In our events, their are key players that tend to win the most. They play all kinds of armies at various levels of "cheese" or no cheese. Their armies are balanced for composition scoring.Those top players always make it into the top 20% scoring. This shows that the game has very little randomness in it. For if the game were all about luck, the top scoring players would change constantly.

Those top players all do the following:
* Build unit focused armies that are efficent with points and then are strong in one or two areas of the game and weak in the rest (combat/ shooting/ magic).
* Understand the odds and know how to plan their combats to maximize combat result and manipluate odds during play.
* Understand the strengths/ weakenesses of the units and their rock/ paper/ sissors relationship. For example, Warmachines are powerful at range, especially vs elite units like knights and high cost infantry yet fall to fast cavalry, scouts and flyers. Light, fast units like those, fall to ranked infantry and knights. Ranked infantry falls heavy cavalry, especially when it is supported with other units etc.
* know how to deal with magic or ignore it
* understand psychology/ panic inside and out and use it well
* know that movement and deployment are THE MOST IMPORTANT parts of warhammer. Period.

Those are the things all of the top players do. And they play all of the armies. I've seen every army take first place in the hands of those players and they do it with huge blocks of troops supported by characters, magic, warmachines, etc. The armies are rarely cheesy.

Dark Empire
27-10-2008, 03:33
Good:

1) The plethora of armies to choose from. You never know what your going to play against and it really challenges gameplay in tournies.

2) The vast array of awesome models for each army. So many models and so little time to paint em' all.

3) Game mchanics make it totally fun to play.


Bad:

1) Complainers at tournies
2) Complainers online
3) Complainers in general

Krom The Eternal
16-11-2008, 23:12
I love the Back Ground Of the armies. I Also Love the conversion work and painting. And I Love The Fact that i never run out of new Ideas For My Armies ...As for things i dont like some of the stuff is really expensive like 90$ for the new blood knights and their plastic whats up with that? haha In My area Everyones Big into 40K and I got out of my 40K stage When Apocolypse Came out they Killed the Game in my opinion so if anyones from massachussetts i would love to get a game in haha It also sucks all the GWs in my state went out of business =[

cicero
16-11-2008, 23:45
tough break^^ are there any GCN's? where you are? hope you find a game
I like 1. the models
2. the rules being tactically challenging
3.painting /conversion work means there is always something you can do
i dislike 1.malekith's ward save
2. the cost
3.people who are so obsessed with winning they forget to enjoy theirselves

Freakiq
17-11-2008, 01:21
Yeah. Dispel scrolls are a little problematic. On the surface they seem like a fine balanced idea, but in reality they allow you to shut down MORE then the one spell that was cast by preserving your dispel dice.

I'd like to see dispel scrolls instead cost a little less (maybe 20 points) and cause all dice rolled for a dispel roll to count as 6s. Then you're still getting your guaranteed dispel, but it costs you a die or two. This way a scroll will shut down a spell without dramaticly effecting the whole phase.

Forcing everyone else to max out on wizards just to counter your magic heavy army would be boring.

Would you really want everyone to max out on wizards just to have a chance?

Conotor
17-11-2008, 03:01
Good:
1 Tactics
2 Miniatures
3 The small size of the shields.

Bad:
1 The overdone role of dice
2 The ignoring of normal military facts (exe spears>cav, shields>arrows, ect.)
3 The ability to take over 500 points of shooting.

Foegnasher
17-11-2008, 04:02
i like
1) haveing a battle between two fully painted armies and haveing a good time, win or lose.
2)crazy awesome things that happen during said games
3) winning not because of luck, but becuase you outmaunvered and outplayed your opponent.

i dislike
1) certain armies only haveing one look to be effective (i'm looking at you tomb kings)
2) people who use DoW units to cover up hole in their armylist that are there on purpose (leadbelchers in a chaos army, heavy cav DOW in a skaven list, DOW giants of any stripe)
3) unbeatable/unkillable characters.

lybban
17-11-2008, 15:36
Good.
1. Its fun and you can drink beer while playing.
2. Itīs an excuse for a 31 year old to make model houses.
3. Itīs an excuse for a 31 year old to paint miniatures.

Bad.
1. WE magic. What were they thinking, itīs totally worthless.
2. The prices are starting to become ridiculous. How rich are brittish children?
3. Itīs not an excuse at all, I lied. I still have to wear a punter outfit with trenchcoat, hat and sunglasses when entering a GW store.

jpf1982
17-11-2008, 16:02
Likes:
1. The game in general. It's enjoyable; part of that is the people I play with are enjoyable to be around so I suppose the gaming community is included in this
2. The rulebook. For all it's holes it is still probably one of the best rule sets ever put out by GW as far as being clear and covering issues. Mind you I'm not saying its perfect! (far from), but it is better than most if not all their previous.
3. Variety; so many armies; so many extremely different looks.

Dislikes:
1. Fear/Terror; I know these are nescessary to the game but the rules don't seem quite right to me. You cause terror I'm afraid; but if I get into combat with you I no longer have to be? I'm a hulking bloodthirsty ignorant Orc who can crush a humans skull with my bare hands; yet I'm afraid of a puny skeleton?
2. Orcs & Goblins; In so many ways. I dislike the book; I dislike the low leadership; I dislike the people who constantly whine about them (including myself; god i'm an #@$); the fact that we lack flaming attacks, stubborn units, good cavalry models, the fact that our best hand to hand unit has no armor at all!
3. As many others have stated; the PRICE! Ugh... Please make more plastic!

IcedCrow
17-11-2008, 17:38
Things that make my heart giddy with joy about warhammer:

1) the community

2) the models

3) the ability to relive childhood fantasies and lead a marauding army of iron clad warriors to do battle

Things that make me spit nails about warhammer

1) the hyper competitive tournament community's bad apples who cry, accuse you of cheating, and are in general poor examples of what a human being should be

2) the seeming dominance of tournaments vs casual/campaigns

3) wood elf combat-avoidance lists

Aryakas
19-11-2008, 10:03
Likes

1. The camaraderie with the people I play with
2. Converting unique themed characters/regiments/armies
3. The epic feel of the game, importance of placement

Dislikes

1. Power Creep lists (I'm looking at you Star Dragon Lord/2nd Gen Slann in 2000 points)
2. The price tag (poor college student)
3. When the game ends on the 1st/2nd turn (2 hours of setup followed by 40 minutes of playing really makes you want to just re-set up and start over)
4.Lizardmen
5.Lizardmen (I was scarred for life early in my Fantasy career)

Chain
19-11-2008, 12:00
Yeah. Dispel scrolls are a little problematic. On the surface they seem like a fine balanced idea, but in reality they allow you to shut down MORE then the one spell that was cast by preserving your dispel dice.

I'd like to see dispel scrolls instead cost a little less (maybe 20 points) and cause all dice rolled for a dispel roll to count as 6s. Then you're still getting your guaranteed dispel, but it costs you a die or two. This way a scroll will shut down a spell without dramaticly effecting the whole phase.


Agree with both of you that Dispel Scroll is boring to no end, but if your opponent is fielding 20 PD... You need something against em.

But having several Dispel scrolls is just plain lame.
For the casters point of view: First need to spend dices to cast, then need to get through the Scrolls, DD and Magic resistance while having the risk of Miscast:eyebrows:
Sure if I had 20 PD that would be ok, but with my opponents canceling Power of Darkness as first priority... Not much is left. Usually just about 4 PD in a 1500 P battle against the typical 4 DD, Dispel Scrolls magic resistance etc.

AKBandito
19-11-2008, 22:53
like
1. outnumber mod for combat res
2. Elves seem to be finally fixed again(HE/DE) 7years with a gimped army book is harsh.
3. Characters in general cant win combat solo.
my fourth cause its a good addition to latest ed.
4. mounted characters able to join units on foot

dislike
1. Magic phase
2. the incorrent point costing of units with high ws/initiative, cause its valued higher than
str/T which actually helps u win combat.
3. OTT new armies, which break all the rules, and all the ppl who flock to them, cause they cant stand losing, and have no army loyalty.

Fallen_star
20-11-2008, 09:04
Ahh soo many things so ill just bring up the main pros/cons that I see.

Pro;

Lovely models (mostly) and nicely convertable unlike some wargames ive got into (looking at you warmachine!).

Choice, lots and lots of choice from race to unit, to item, to powers.....etc with a good gaming group most engagements can be completely differant.

Stores, to me in the uk these things are a life line and I have to say a good store makes all the differance. and yes i know there a indies,clubs out there but after going to a few, all I'd face was hardened tourny players who would obliterate a balanced force and winge about my own tourny level lists.

Cons,
deamons, A truer sign of creep cant be found, I mean I enjoyed facing the SOC deamons they were a fun game with most armies, the current ones though..........In a game were planning and movement are key theres an army that can hold any charge deflect any damage cant be broke in any normal sense and will butcher most units in combat!

Before I get told to stop moaning this is from experience;

6 dragon princes to the front and 5 to the side of a block of deamonettes (25) i kill the hearald and 2 deamonettes losing one prince(side). instability does 1 wound.

Princes kill 3 deamonettes, deamonettes kill 2 (from side unit),instability claims 2more.

i kill 2 nettes, he kills a prince(front).lose by one outbreak due to fear both units spend rest of game running from following nettes!

Deployment, I'd really like fantasy to copy/include 40ks missions/objectives such that i can have a pickup game that isnt like gladiator.

Faqs enough said, damn stuborn GW.

backslide
20-11-2008, 12:56
the players, some of them need to learn to shower, oh wait thats 40k

ok maybe both

Alathir
20-11-2008, 13:21
Okay I like...

1. The Background and Art: I love all the source material for this game. It's very deep and well thought out (provided you dig hard enough) and filled with some great stories. I can't get enough of fleshing out the background for my characters and armies. Also, the art is one of the things I look forward to most in new army book released.

2. Cinematic Moments: Live for these. Nothing better than my Bretonnian Lord holding his own against a unit of Black Guard and their Dreadlord, beating down enough a turn to hold before the Dreadlord steps up to challenge him on his last wound. The Bretonnian manages to defeat him and only breaks when the last three Black Guard are left standing or my mate's Orc Warboss who manages to challenge and defeat every character in an Empire army over the course of the battle.

3. The social aspect: I've kept touch with some friends that I might have drifted apart from if not for warhammer. We manage to meet up just about every week and its a great get-together.


And I dislike...

1. Close minded players: People who would never break the rules of the book just to allow a cinematic clash or to let a model get a chance at vengeance. My friends and I are very open to breaking rules here and there to ensure the most fun possible is had. Also, the inability to see beyond RAW really bugs me.

2. When the Dice Gods hate me and everything I stand for: Nothing more annoying than a perfect plan being ruined by galatically bad dice rolls. Panic Checks and I have never gotten on well either...

3. Stale storylines: I would love to see the warhammer world progress a little. I dont even care if my Ulthuan or Bretonnian is half overrun by Druchii or Orcs, at least give us something new! Have Karl Franz die... have Malekith actually succeed at something... have Bretonnians do something in a story that isnt 'and the chivalrous knights did some stuff while the Empire, Dwarfs and High Elves won the day.' Something, anything, would be nice to see the world advance!

snyggejygge
21-11-2008, 00:04
Like:
1 The rulesystem in general is very good.
2 The background fluff is very good.
3 The models.

Dislike:
1 That the same company that produces the models also makes the rules, this leads to the powercreep we have right now as they want to sell more models.
2 The magicsystem, right now it isnīt balanced, a single mage canīt do jack sh1t, while you get rewarded for using 3 or 4 mages in the game w.out much risk (remember spellcasters are very rare)!
I actually liked the 5:th edition rules better, back then a single level 2 could actually do something, while 4 better mages might do nothing, while this inīt fair either I would like to see something inbetween, a single lvl 2 should be able to do something, while your 3 mages should run a risk of doing nothing, because that is the fickle nature of Chaos (which is where magic comes from), but most of the time they should ofcourse also be able to do some damage, since you pay for it! I also think that it should be easier to defend against magic w.out having to use mages yourself (but at a cost ofcourse), otherwise it just ends up as an arms race...
3 Specialcharacters, theyīre the lazy players solution (or the powergamers). While they should exists in fluff they shouldnīt be so common in normal games (permission only or take 2 lordchoices or something else to prevent them from popping up everywhere).

Balthar
29-12-2008, 08:53
Like

1. Fluff Background. great stories there.
2. Great Models specially the evil ones
3. The crazy rules ( fanatics, giants, Trolls and such)

Don't like

1. Splitting Chaos
2. No more bitz service
3. Too much plastics.. i like the metal ones better for detail.

Boreas_NL
29-12-2008, 11:34
Just my drop in the bucket...

My favorite things:

1. The diversity of the hobby... I like building and converting, collecting an army. Building terrain... Painting your models and, best of all, playing games!

2. The element of 'luck' in the game... You never kwow how a round of combat, magic or shooting may end... Sure, your Chaos Knights will most likely kill my Empire Cannon Crew, but they just might pull a stunt... Yeah right! But sometimes a freak roll of the dice can swing a battle 180 degrees and render that 'huge-bucket-of-points' unit next to useless... Above all, nothing beats a 400 point Wizard Lord blowing his head of with the first spell he tries to cast!

3. The constant renewal of models, armybooks and the hobby in general... There is always something new on the horizon. A perfect example are the plastic starter sets, even though I'm sort of a veteran I have both the BFSP and AOBR, these boxes offer great value for money and nice models to boot... That said, don't fix what isn't broken!


My least favorite things:

1. The absence of the 'good-old-order-whatever-tiny-part-you-want' mail service... I really miss it! Converting models is just so much harder now you can't order seperate bitz. Add to that the crappy website...

2. Lord of the rings! This 'game' (for want of a better word;)) steals away precious development time from Fantasy and 40K... Sure, the models look good, and we all love the book and films, but enough is enough! Just quit the damn series and concentrate on the real games (just as Mordheim and other specialist games)!

3. GW staff! Every time I visit the Nearest GW (in my case GW Rotterdam, The Netherlands), there is a new kid who tries to sell me something stupid! And when I mention that I've played Warhammer for well over 10 years now and I can find my way around the store (get out of my way, I just want a book/blister/box), they switch to a strange kind of reverance and start calling me 'sir'... Hence, I don't visit the GW very often, but rely on a local shop!

FBI
29-12-2008, 11:43
Well. I have to agree with hat Boreas just said. The hobby is good, since it leaves you free in you choices. If i want an all cavalry force, i can. And it leaves you free to paint as you want. I for example am now working on a dark colourscemed HE army.
Add the fun of playing against good opponents.

what i do not like.
well the expences. But like any hobby you do well, it costs you. fishing or photography costs a lot to do well also.

And i miss the ordersite,the old un, the good un. GW, BRING IT BACK! please?

Boreas_NL
29-12-2008, 11:48
Well. I have to agree with hat Boreas just said.

Now there is an example that you can all follow... :)

FBI
29-12-2008, 11:55
Mayhap it`s shutting up time again. Other people aren`t intersested in (y)our spam.

Boreas_NL
29-12-2008, 11:57
Hmmmmmm... Spam!

infernus31
29-12-2008, 12:30
I'd probably say:
Likes:
1) Lizardmen- the only army I play in whfb because I love the imagery, the style of play and tactics used , though the new army book will be good to as a refreshing update is always a intresting time.
2) Opponents- generally good natured and good people.
3)The ruleset- despite its flaws, it does generally play well.
Dislikes
1) Daemons: gah , why GW why? Not only did this split chaos up and runi many peoples armies, but then to make it the most unbalanced for a looooong time.
2) RAW players, seems to be more in whfb then 40k fpr me, but this generally puts me off games.
3) Pit of shades, pet hate, kills slanns, 'nuff said

LuciusAR
29-12-2008, 16:34
2. Lord of the rings! This 'game' (for want of a better word;)) steals away precious development time from Fantasy and 40K... Sure, the models look good, and we all love the book and films, but enough is enough! Just quit the damn series and concentrate on the real games (just as Mordheim and other specialist games)!

Oh bloody hell not this ignorant stereotype again. For the umpteenth *********** time its not stolen any recourses. It’s a prosperous game that pays for itself and arguably (at least IMHO) has far better core mechanics than WFB. Just because you don’t personally like a game doesn’t mean it has no right to exist. This attitude is arrogant and counter productive.

Anyway back on topic.

1) The social aspect. 75% of my friends I have met via this hobby.

2) The quality of the models, there just fantastic. Even the poorest of GW models are far superior to the majority of the competition.

3) Wacky stuff, nothing like seeing a speed bump unit roll a double for a break test!

Dislikes

1)Elitists. Playing WFB does not make you superior to 40K or LotR players. Nor does playing Historicals make you more mature than fantasy players (or vice versa).

2)Gimmicks trumping tactics. When list composition becomes more important than generalship something has gone wrong. Sadly WFB has started to slip in this direction. I hope this is corrected soon.

3)Prices. If warlord games can sell 30 28mm man sized models for Ģ17 why are GW charging Ģ12 for 10?

O&G'sRule
29-12-2008, 17:45
What I like Top 3

What I donīt like top 3

1)Their website

2)The lack of Big uns models

3)The hole it lefts in my wallet

Use the new plastic orc nobs, they take a little work to get them to rank up once converted, but they work well

O&G'sRule
29-12-2008, 17:48
3)Prices. If warlord games can sell 30 28mm man sized models for Ģ17 why are GW charging Ģ12 for 10?

Other companies don't have to pay for the upkeep of shops so can keep prices lower. But without them most wouldn't have anywhere to play, so the prices are justified. Its not as if GW are posting massive multi billion pound profits because of their prices

O&G'sRule
29-12-2008, 18:10
Likes -
* The games mechanics - they could do with a tweak here and there but generally they are great
* The armies - Every one has its own character that turns the basic game mechanics into something different for every army, especially the O&G's. This is army character, not a gimmick
* The models - the plastics in particular are stunning these days and unlike 40k there are no armies that have a whole range that just needs a complete overhaul, though dropping the marauder giant from the range was a disgrace
I could suggest alot more but.....
Dislikes-
* The rulebook layout - fair enough if you referenced every rule completely in every area of the book that a relevant point crops up it would make the book huge and unworkable, but can't the index at least tell you where all the areas you need to look at are? Its a mess in some ways.
* People that have clearly never used the armies claiming some armies are useless vs others.
* Forge Worlds apparent ignorance of the game astounds me. If they do do something (a long time ago) its something like a bust or several times too big so is completely irrelevant to the game. GW has been going for quite a while now so has alot of mature gamers that have cash to spend on prettier than normal stuff. FW could easily do a few high detail "collectors range" units/characters to cash in on us oldies that want pretty armies. How about FW savage orcs or forest goblins for example, or some updates for now old special characters like morglum necksnapper or Aarbal the undefeated

GodlessM
29-12-2008, 18:21
Likes:
1) Tactics
2) Mechanics
3) Models

Dislikes:
1) Powergamers
2) Rules Lawyers
3) Whiners

lokigod
29-12-2008, 18:51
Loves:
1. The fluff( no real good guys)
2. Great models
3. list tweaking and building

Hates:
1.The watering and dumbing down of the Chaos Gods
2. The way GW power creeps on purpose to sell models / Bad play testing
3. The fact that daemons were my first army 4 1/2 years ago and now people act like im a power gamer for GW mistake.
4. Dumb gamers.... example: My 200 point block of plauge bearers with 150 point herald(350 point unit) crushes there 140 point core unit and they scream cheese....

popisdead
30-12-2008, 22:39
favourite:
1) painting,
2) wood elves,
3) themed wacky armies for fun

least favourite:
1) people who: don't play, don't paint, only complain, peanut gallery other games, power gamers, cry cheese on balanced armies cause they are poor generals
2) store employees who say "I am Games Workshop, I get to make up the rules, this tag says I'm always right."
3) the current prices

Laughingmonk
06-02-2009, 08:17
Like:

1.) Faith

2.) Gunpowder

3.) Steel

Dislike:

1.) Heretics

2.) Mutants

3.) Witches

ChaosVC
06-02-2009, 08:31
Like

1. Balance well written books.

2. Well painted theme armies.

3. Good and friendly games.

Dislike

1. Obnoxious players who owns unpainted or paid painted armies.

2. Cheesy People who think they are some kind of super smart general.

3. Badly written army books.

Condottiere
06-02-2009, 10:04
1. Warseer :angel:

2. Fluff

3. To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.


I. Painting

II. Illogical fluff

III. Badly written rules

hot pepper
06-02-2009, 10:18
I've not been playing for long but like the massive history of the warhammer world most of which I still need to read about, the ability to field Giants they are so cool, well painted warhammer armies.

Dislikes, well I have played against one or two people who supe up their leader and characters which is fair enough as they spend less points on other units. But sometime it is not so fun when you can barely hurt them then take a heap of damage in return.

shadow hunter
06-02-2009, 10:20
Like,
Stories and history
Gaming (obviously) and painting
collecting

Dislike
Price
stigma
Not getting a chance to game as often as I would like

Gaargod
06-02-2009, 12:57
Things i love
1: Fun tactics. Nothing like seeing the whole game turn because you judged that charge perfectly.
2. Those awesome moments in games, which just make you crack up. I.e. i was winning a 2k friendly game very very easily (massacre) and i let his lone marauder khorne champion with extra hand weapons. He killed 3 skinks first turn and they passed with LD8 cold blooded rerollable :). They then killed him in close combat next turn!
3. Social side. Fun games with mates are so much better than horrible tournament games.

Things i hate:
1. Price. Seriously, its plastic :(
2. Complete lack of proper playtesting. Big glaring holes (for example, in new LM book they haven't addressed the poisoned bolt thrower, the Cupped Hands of Old Ones item, whether the Skink chief can crew the boltthrower, etc)
3. ASF in every single army it seems these days. Silly rule that more or less breaks the whole point of charging.

badgeraddict
06-02-2009, 15:16
Things that I love about "ye olde Warhammer"
1. The randomness that the dice give
2. The Dark Elf model range...so good.
3. A continued fun experience

Things that I loathe about "ye olde Warhammer"
1. Fanatics
2. The infamous "broken" whine fest
3. Some of the rules are a tad suspect. E.g the Bolt Thrower "Banana Shot"

Weemo
06-02-2009, 18:04
1: Seeing fully painted armies on a gamin table

2: Amazing recent sculpts (i mean look at what they used to put up with :eek:)

3: big games :)

hate

1: powergaming, except in tourneys, why? No-one has fun i mean utterly crushiing someone is so boring in comparison with a long fught bitter war of attrition is it not?

2: Cost, i can understand why but armies take so long!

3: smurf loving 40k noobs, :rolleyes: (well not hate just find v annoyin ofc)

Malorian
06-02-2009, 18:08
Love:

1. The game it self (having battles)
2. Converting
3. Seeing well painted models

Hate:

1. Having to paint my models
2. Complainers
3. Whiners

Sifal
06-02-2009, 18:29
I like Converting and pinting as well as seeing other people's well painted and themed armies.
I like the immersive and detailed old world and fluff for some quality escapism
I like seeing two armies on a quality game board with quality scenery about to face off against each other in a battle for good ols school supremacy.

I dislike snarfing, arogant, cocky, think they know it all people who often have 'dip painted' style armies and a bad attitude towards something that is supposed to be friendly game and eat chips and iron bru with greasy fingers and don't wash.
I dislike being able to field mixed mark chaos armies, mixing marks is silly.
I dislike that HQ somehow justified the O&G book and the Daemon book as both finefor release, if they expect people to pay extortionate prices for models they hat least have to have consistent and quality rules.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
06-02-2009, 18:31
SNIP
Things I don't like:

1) First and foremost - I don't like the lack of female characters and minis. There's a laundry list of reasons that this bugs me - but to keep it short and sweet; I'd really love to see more female minis. I'm not talking 'all female' armies - that's the other extreme and equally dull in my opinion. Rather I'd prefer to be able to mix my units up a bit. Even just a couple smallish core-unit packs per race would be enough. (And obviously you can skip things for which gender is irrelevant, like Orcs, goblins, Lizardmen, undead, etc...)
SNIP

Actually, female skeletons are pretty easy to do, just alter the hips a bit [of course they will still be the same size as the male skeletons meaning they were large for women, but there you go].

Likes:
1. Actually being able to find opponents for a fantasy wargame [try finding many Clan War players :)] and being able to be socialize while still being a geek

2. Underdog 'good guys' with actual flaws.

3. The visual spectacle of painted armies on well made terrain doing battle [even if most battles end up between white metal versus black primed legions].

Dislikes:
1. The change in focus from 6th to 7th edition- from units to special characters, monsters and overused special rules

2. Armies, who by their design, force their opponents to build a certain type of list [VCs, and Daemons, I am looking at you]. In theory [in a balanced game] one should be able to take no [or very little] magic and still have a equal chance of winning [because he will have more combat, shooting, whatever], but against certain opponents, this just isn't true. An opponent's list should force me to vary my tactics [it is a tactical game], but should not control my list building [it is not a strategy game- except in campaigns when this complaint doesn't apply].

3. The move to make the Empire more technology reliant and consequently take away their cosmopolitan feel [no more Dwarves, halflings, Ogres, or Kislev troops in the list]. I have played the Empire since I started but in 7th edition, I just don't feel as connected to the army. Take away some of the tech., and make the army more in line with the Ulrican list- makes the troops more heroic [willing to meet the enemy in honourable combat rather than hiding behind blackpowder clouds and tinkerer's toys].

DarkTerror
06-02-2009, 21:44
:) Likes:

1) There is a least one unit from every army which I think is extremely interesting and might be fun to use.

2) Any army can fight any army, even themselves.

3) I always wish I had more points available. There seems to always be something I wish I had a handful more points for. And sometimes it's a wheelbarrow more points I wish I had.

:mad: Dislikes:

1) Socially-awkward players. Trust me, if you start making sounds during a game (I've heard some strange ones, like the sound of Wyvern attacking a Stegadon :wtf:, or your cannon firing). Ponytails are out of style, and for some reason a lot of them have no idea how to talk to people. Nobody who has it realizes it, but there some people (more common amongst role-playing gamers) who make their voices sound ridiculous.

Anyway. Lesson: shower before you go out, buy some clothes that fit you, and if you find yourself not talking to many women, realize socializing with gamers more will not reverse the trend.

2) Dragons and Special Characters. I didn't care for hero-hammer as they usually included eggs-all-in-one-basket things. Dragons and special characters often do this themselves and create an all or nothing game.

3) People who don't accept that I have a different view of Fantasy than they do. So what if I think Lizardmen don't belong in the warhammer world and the fluff that they're a master race. I also don't think Ogre Kingdoms are a good army fit. This also applies to army composition - see #2 above.