PDA

View Full Version : The Big "I'm new to WFB, what do I need to know" -Thread.



Rincewind
09-08-2006, 22:36
So, after playing WH40K for, oh, 10 years, I'm thinking about dabbling into WFB as the new edition shows up. I've looked around these forums and read all my old WDs for clues, but I'd love to hear from Fantasy players how do the two systems differ. In 40K, the weaponry is much more effective, meaning that the situation is much more fluid... but in FB it seems that manouvering to get that "perfect" charge is all-important.

Please, enlighten me.

DeathMasterSnikch
09-08-2006, 22:41
Ha nice name :) Love Terry (Oh yeh im on first term names with him :p)

You need to pick an army first realy. Tactics differ depending on what our force is and unless your the 'I want to win and don't care what army I use' type then you should pick an army you like the look and background of first.

Main changes realy are magic has a fundemental role (although 7th edition could change it), psychology can be very important depending on the army, rank and file is important for CR, and all our models have square bases and you stick em together to make bigger squares and rectangles ;).

Rincewind
09-08-2006, 23:00
Well I'm thinking about either Chaos, Bretonnians or Wood Elves. I want something colourful and fun to paint, and since the local game store hosts 350 & 700 point games, I could really paint my guys to as high a standard as I won't be having much free time this winter. Wood Elves have nice, earthy colours, Bretonnians are like an explosion in a paint factory and Chaos... well, the Chaos models just look wonderful.

I'm not really asking for specific tactics for specific armies, more like "what are the differences compared to 40K".

Luke
09-08-2006, 23:09
Differences are many. You dont get an extra attack on the charge, instead you get to whup-ass first (unless you are a zombie). You also have to consider which side of the regiment you are attacking as there are numerous penalties and bonuses for attacking/being attacked in the flank and rear etc.

Your characters can call challenges just like in the movie troy :D

MOvement is more of an art than in 40k, you really have to think it through, "just how far am i gonna wheel that unit of spearmen?" an inch one way or t'other can make a whole heap of difference. Also fleeing friendlies can have massive consequences (the "not good" sort) on units in their vicinity. YOu can have your whole army break and run. I dunno if they have changed this in 7th though.


Theres just a few things to mull over.

der_lex
09-08-2006, 23:10
350 and 700-point games? That sounds a bit small-ish. The average fantasy battle is somewhere between 1500 and 3000 points.
I don't play 40 k myself, but as far as I've heard, psychology tests and movement play a much larger role in fantasy. That and magic, of course.

Twisted Ferret
09-08-2006, 23:13
I've played more 40K than FB, but I must say I like the Fantasy system better. It's much more CC oriented, which means that there's less of the "I'll sit here and shoot" and more time for tactics and manuevering and whatnot. Psychology plays a much bigger role, and can either ruin an entire plan or be manipulated to suit your own ends (:D). Magic adds another layer to it all, and either out-magicking your opponent or watching his wizards get trampled beneath the boots of your warriors can be quite fun. Uh... the movement trays are, in my opinion, very useful, and it feels more like you're fighting Real Battles than the skirmishes of 40K.

Bear in mind that I haven't been playing FB for very long, so take all of my opinions with a grain of salt. :D

sigur
09-08-2006, 23:37
Welcome to WHFB. I also started playing WHFB about a year ago after around 10 years of 40k. The totally flawed and oversimplyfied (read: totally castrated) 3rd-edition-based rulesystem drove me off 40k and I found WHFB to be much more rewarding.

The main differences are: You have to think a lot more IN the game to win rather than having the selection of troops you bring to the game doing the job for you. The rules just feel so much more solid and clearer.

You seem to like colourful armies; that's great. I would suggest getting a Bretonnian or Empire force; I feel that those can be very colourful and therefore look really good. There's one little problem though; don't go for Bretonnians if you like winning too much or if you are a tournament player as this army is the most frowned upon one in terms of possible cheesyness.

I think that your Bretonnians force could look amazing when painted to a higher level; make sure you post some pictures in the P&T section.

squiggoth
09-08-2006, 23:55
For 350 - 700 pts. armies I'd opt for either Wood Elves, Marauder/Beastman-heavy Chaos or the Empire.
Bretonnia isn't very flexible in such small battles because expensive Knights are your main Core troops (Core units are the same thing as Troops choices, but in WHFB you're not bound by 2-6 Troops ;)).

Also, for a colourful army consider Goblins - altough the current 'Eavy Metal idea seems to be that all greenskins wear nothing but black, they can look quite sweet when you paint them in gaudy colours (looted clothing and uniforms). Forest Goblins are even supposed to be bright and flashy! Plus, the new WHFB beginners box comes with about 400 points worth of Goblins in one go, which is a pretty nice start. :)

DeathMasterSnikch
10-08-2006, 00:15
Chaos might be fun in a 700pt game. Unit of hard as nails chaos knights :p you won't have many but who cares.

Squiggoth made a good suggestion, try gobblins :D

They would be a fantastic learning curb considering you don't play FB yet *shivers*

Fun magic
Psychology would be demonstrated to it's max
Charges and tactics would need to be planned properly etc

Kotobuki
10-08-2006, 02:42
As far as the differences in Fantasy and 40K... about the only thing that's the same is the basic "to hit" and "to wound" tables. And the stat lines read similarly. Otherwise, you need to pretty much forget everything about 40K.

The movement system is completely different, the shooting system is completely different, the combat resolution system is completely different, the order of phases is different, Ld actually has far reaching effects in Fantasy... So yeah. Totally different game. But I've come to enjoy it quite a lot.

n00bLord
10-08-2006, 04:43
No ass cannon army of doom for one.

WHFB will take longer to cycle through a game but you will get a lot of moments in it that'll stick with you longer than in 40k. Plus you should also take into affect combat resolution makes things real fun in CC aswell as the flanks and such noted above.

Enjoy the system.

TheWarSmith
10-08-2006, 04:56
A breakdown, as simple as I can put it.

Movement: Instead of everything being standardized to move 6" with special rules for exceptions(fleet, cavalry, jump packs, etc.), all units have an M value. You can move your M value in inches, march 2xM", or charge 2xM". Charges are declared first, then moved. Note this is different then 40k because you hit the enemy in combat before any shooting/magic happens

Magic: Unlike in 40k, magic is its own phase and isn't simply a replacement for shooting. Magic is much more plentiful and unlike 40k it's not virtually automatic. You must roll dice to determine if the spell went off, and your opponent can cancel it with dispel dice(power/dispel dice generated by armies and wizards brought to the table)

Shooting: For the most part, there is less emphasis on shooting. Some armies have a lot of it with gun/artillery lines, but these armies also have solid close combat troops. BS works the same except there are modifiers for range/target/moving/multiple shots.

Armor: Instead of simply having an AP, weapons modify armor saves based on their strength(and sometimes a special rule, i.e. blackpowder is -1 AS). This means that it's not all or nothing for close combat attacks. Each point of strength a weapon has above 3 imposes a -1 to armor save

Psychology: There aren't 75% of of armies with a void on psychology. Psych is huge and monsters that cause terror and fear play big in fantasy.

Combat Resolution: Unlike 40k it's not just a simple kill count. Numbers, ranks, banners, flank/rear charges, high ground, etc. are all modifiers to combat.

Ravening Wh0re
10-08-2006, 13:12
It's a lot more easier and devestating to run in WFB.

Combats hurt, and armour isn't so prolofic.

You worry about units breaking through your lines, especially on the flanks.

Most things can be hurt by basic strength, even if you may have to roll luckily. So no walking tanks as such (don't mention the dirty steam tank)

Strength means a great deal. It helps to wound and modifies armour saves.

Ward saves (Invulnerable saves) may be taken in addition to armour saves.

Fewer ordnance weapons of doom :)

Mainly, shooting is support. It really cannot be relied upon to decimate forces.

Because of combat resolutions, it's rarer to find heroes charging into a huge unit. The big unit will most likely win due to CR and make him flee (and possibly run down)

A normal unit (not unbreakable), no matter how big, or how hard, can run and eliminated in an instant. No ATSKNF here.

Lines of sight are more restrictive

No vets in units with power weapons/magic items usually

Rincewind
10-08-2006, 14:23
You seem to like colourful armies; that's great. I would suggest getting a Bretonnian or Empire force; I feel that those can be very colourful and therefore look really good. There's one little problem though; don't go for Bretonnians if you like winning too much or if you are a tournament player as this army is the most frowned upon one in terms of possible cheesyness.

I think that your Bretonnians force could look amazing when painted to a higher level; make sure you post some pictures in the P&T section.

Empire is meh. They look like they are wearing pyjamas and SHOES! Who wears shoes to a battlefield? Boots are the way to go!

While I thank you for your vote of confidence, the best of my ability is mainly getting all the colours to mainly stick to the parts where they are supposed to go... :)


350 and 700-point games? That sounds a bit small-ish. The average fantasy battle is somewhere between 1500 and 3000 points.
I don't play 40 k myself, but as far as I've heard, psychology tests and movement play a much larger role in fantasy. That and magic, of course.

Yeah, they 'aint big, but that's good for me since I won't have a) time or b) money to buy, assemble and paint a 1,500 point army, at least not in one go. That and the fact that I don't have an active gaming group - all the people I used to play 40K with have disappeared all over the country in the last year or so. Playing small games at the hobby shop would be a good way of getting to know new people and finding some Fantasy players.

TheWarSmith
10-08-2006, 14:52
One other difference is that since there are very few things that simply can "die outright" there aren't these "first turn wins" happening a lot of the time like you see when guard players blow up all the enemies tanks on turns 1 and 2.

WFB is more a game of attrition than 40k is. It's also a lot more logical to imagine people in medieval fantasy based worlds goin' at it with swords than people choosing to use a sword instead of a lascannon every time

Gorbad Ironclaw
10-08-2006, 15:08
As far as the differences in Fantasy and 40K... about the only thing that's the same is the basic "to hit" and "to wound" tables. And the stat lines read similarly. Otherwise, you need to pretty much forget everything about 40K.



I'd like to echo that. They used to be relativly similar, but thats almost a decade ago now. These days there will be a few of the mechanisms thats similar, but it's really two very different games, and while you might learn the rules faster, you won't really be able to use very much of what you know from one game to the other.

Rhianedd
11-08-2006, 02:54
colorful and fun to paint? From your list that would be Wood Elves. Chaos is usually dark and evil looking.

Twisted Ferret
11-08-2006, 02:58
colorful and fun to paint? From your list that would be Wood Elves. Chaos is usually dark and evil looking.
Well, not always. Khorne - bright right blood and burnished brass! Tzeentch - bright swirling colors of any sort, though blue, purple, and yellow are very popular. Nurgle - well, rotting flesh, brown stains best left unidentified, and mouldering green aren't too bright... but perhaps some putrid puss-spots or something?! Slaanesh - sensory overload! Anything you'd think some sort've insane pleasure-seeker might wear... and that's anything! Again, though, pink and purple and blue seem to be most popular.


I think that Tzeentch and Slaaneshi armies are the most colorful overall, but they can all be pretty awesome-looking.

DeathMasterSnikch
11-08-2006, 03:06
I've seen bright yellowy-green nurgle :D God that was an eyesore -In a good way- The guy made the scheme work and it looked amazing.

Twisted Ferret
11-08-2006, 03:16
Your avatar is hypnotizing. o_o

(Sorry, just been meaning to say that and thought this was as good a place as any. :p )

DeathMasterSnikch
11-08-2006, 03:20
Yey ^_^ not a response like 'Zomg!11!1!1one! pr0n! nO0b!!!two!'
I may have had a dif sig but alas, 80x80 constraints stoped my other ones...
Sigurs sig is pretty hypnotizing...

Rincewind
11-08-2006, 06:16
I was actually thinking that it's either Wood Elves for their earthy colours or Bretonnians for their livery, not to mention wonderful figures. I'll probably end up taking Wood Elves since I've been playing Space Marines for 10 or so years and I want something *not* armoured!

Twisted Ferret
11-08-2006, 20:45
But Wood Elves are nature-loving hippy pansies! :p

Rincewind
12-08-2006, 00:19
True enough, but like I said, I want something completely different. I imagine I'll be feeling quite dirty while painting my Wood Elves! :D

Twisted Ferret
12-08-2006, 01:53
That's true, they are rather different from Space Marines. XD