PDA

View Full Version : Losing hope in Fantasy



TroyJPerez
10-09-2008, 07:44
I originally started to play warhammer fantasy cause I got tired of all the gunfights that there were in 40k. Started to seem like the winner was the person who brought more firepower and was able to shoot first most of the time. So I started to play fantasy a lot more.. only to realize that I was running into the same problems. I always assumed that fantasy was about stategic maneuvering, baiting, fleeing, and countercharging, things that made the game strategic. But most of the people I play with go super heavy shooting or magic. I've always strayed away from these elements using them for support but never really relying on them. But it seems like when you add a gunline or a magic heavy army to the game, most strategy goes right out the window. It becomes a race to make it across the board and get into combat as soon as possible to avoid being shot down. So it seems I am forced either go magic heavy and have a casting fight, or go gun heavy and have the game turn into a shoot out. It just seems pretty boring of a game when your first 2 to 3 turns and spent walking forward getting shot to peices hoping enough of your stuff is in tact to survive some combat.

I have proved a point against gunline armies though, and feel free to use it if you want. If you can place enough forests down to hide your army behind, and just don't move. You can pretty much guarentee a draw. Most gunlines have no way to go out and kill stuff, purely relying on the enemy moving towards them. Its funny when you show them, that for as strong as their gunline is you can prevent them from winning by doing nothing, lol.

Ward.
10-09-2008, 07:53
It seems like your problem is less with fantasy and more with your opponents.

The_Warsmith
10-09-2008, 08:18
i agree to some extent, gunlines are horrible to go up against, worse if you have no shooting of your own to cover your troops (not that im complaining i like a challenge)

i disagree with magic heavy armies however, i've been beaten plenty of times when using a magic heavy VC list and i've beaten other magic heavy armies with just a scroll caddy to defend myself (and killing the enemy magic characters before they could do any real damage)

blurred
10-09-2008, 09:25
I don't see shooting being much of a problem since shooting units are usually pretty easy to beat in combat, but the new army books are definitely more magic-orientated than the books before them. Some even say that VC rely on magic to win and daemons can easily pool 20 PD.

IMHO this is not a good way for WHFB to go. :(

Yohn
10-09-2008, 09:39
TroyJPerez... please explain to us these question before you state something like that.

What army do you play? How dose their armylist look like?
What type of opponents do you face?
Is the veracity of opponents good?
What army do they play? And how dose their armylist look like?

DeathlessDraich
10-09-2008, 10:14
Isn't the converse of magic and shooting heavy, combat heavy?

If one is to be denigrated, then why not the other?

All elements, magic, shooting and combat are important, exciting and necessary to the Fantasy game.

It is possible to have an army or game or turn devoid of magic and shooting but combat is inescapable and effectively twice as important.
There are ways of dealing with heavy shooting or magic and players who moan about them would enjoy the game far more by learning how to deal with them.

logan054
10-09-2008, 11:12
I originally started to play warhammer fantasy cause I got tired of all the gunfights that there were in 40k. Started to seem like the winner was the person who brought more firepower and was able to shoot first most of the time.

Well i noticed that back in 4th ed, I was hoping that 5th ed was a far better game :(

So I started to play fantasy a lot more.. only to realize that I was running into the same problems. I always assumed that fantasy was about stategic maneuvering, baiting, fleeing, and countercharging, things that made the game strategic. But most of the people I play with go super heavy shooting or magic. I've always strayed away from these elements using them for support but never really relying on them. But it seems like when you add a gunline or a magic heavy army to the game, most strategy goes right out the window. It becomes a race to make it across the board and get into combat as soon as possible to avoid being shot down. So it seems I am forced either go magic heavy and have a casting fight, or go gun heavy and have the game turn into a shoot out. It just seems pretty boring of a game when your first 2 to 3 turns and spent walking forward getting shot to peices hoping enough of your stuff is in tact to survive some combat. [/quote]

Yeah I have noticed this as well, mind you i use a Khorne army :) i have to say i hate playing against magic heavy armies (even before the loss of dispel dice) as my fun game seems to turn into exactly the same thing. I mean when i play a similar style army to my own its really great, its about who makes the first move, what units can you afford to throw away etc, its brilliant. The problem more and more people have this notion that unless they of these kinds of things you denying the other guy a decent game, dont know about anyone else but with my chaos, if i slap down the no brainer knights and 4 wizards i feel like i have denied myself a decent game.


I have proved a point against gunline armies though, and feel free to use it if you want. If you can place enough forests down to hide your army behind, and just don't move. You can pretty much guarentee a draw. Most gunlines have no way to go out and kill stuff, purely relying on the enemy moving towards them. Its funny when you show them, that for as strong as their gunline is you can prevent them from winning by doing nothing, lol.

Beastmen are funny against gunlines :) proves the point so well

TheLionReturns
10-09-2008, 13:12
Isn't the converse of magic and shooting heavy, combat heavy?

If one is to be denigrated, then why not the other?

All elements, magic, shooting and combat are important, exciting and necessary to the Fantasy game.



I think that the main reason shooting heavy and magic heavy are looked down on more than combat heavy is that a combat heavy force has to manoeuvre well in order to succeed, whereas the others don't really. There is a tactical side to the combat heavy force that is perhaps lacking with the other two. That said, where possible, I like balance in my own force. I value flexibility highly.

Personally I don't have a major issue with magic heavy or shooting heavy but that is perhaps because it is rare I encounter them. If I was facing a gunline every other game I imagine I would get bored of WFB pretty quickly.

I think the best answer is the introduction of scenarios and perhaps an increase in the amount of scenery used. These quickly disadvantage one trick pony armies and make for more varied games IMO.

Colonel Fitzgerald
10-09-2008, 13:19
I don't mind getting shot so much - it's taking over 30 S5 & 4 hits from Warp Lightning and Ratling Guns on 8 Kinghts when I'm already IN combat. The Life Is Cheap Rule is sickeningly effective - I am beginning to wonder if it should be restricted to shooting into combats where the Skaven troops involved are Slaves - but that's another question.

EvC
10-09-2008, 13:56
The thing with gunline players is that more often than not they have taken that style of army with one thing in mind and one thing only: victory. Once you're got that into your head, you just have to do a few things to dissuade such behaviour. The biggest thing is terrain.

For a start: agree that all hills are single tiered. Putting a line of gunners on a hill then another line behind them and then a warmachine or six is total w**k. Now that's out the way, start placing terrain as described in the rulebook. Your opponent places a hill. Place a forest in front of it. He'll bitch and whine at first, but as long as you don't break the rules, you're entirely as jutified in doing that as he is in taking the gunline. Then he places another hill, this time right at the centre of the other deployment zone, so you can't totally block it off. That's fine, place another BIG forest to block the hill's sight to the flank of one battlefield. Now your other opponent can keep this going until the entire battlefield is made from hills and forests, or he can stop. Perhaps he'll even ask to restart the terrain, or place it in a more mutually agreeable fashion. The key is: to get away from the often lame "a hill for you, a hill for me" style of battlefield. Make him work to get all his guns in line of sight against decent targets. The game will actually become quite fun then :)

maze ironheart
10-09-2008, 14:00
It seems like your problem is less with fantasy and more with your opponents.

I aggree It's your opponents not warhammer thats the problom I face people who take lists that work in one way like last week I faced a gunline dwarf army with my O&G army was hard getting across the field but once I got their he had only 2 combat units and was no match for my O&G army it just means you have to find a tactical way around their armys also when you fight a gunline force make sure he dose not set terrian in the corners of the table.

Zoolander
10-09-2008, 16:31
I agree with the OP to some extent. It is his opponent's fault, but at the same time, it's not. The game needs to take into account that some people will take a gunline or 23 PD if you let them, and deny them that option. As an old-time game-master of RPGs, if you give players the option to do something stupid, don't be surprised when they sometimes take that option. It'd be nice if every player took a good mix of shooting, combat, and magic, but not every player is going to think that way. If you encounter players like that, find yourself some better opponents.

Not to high-jack this thread, but I feel the magic system is rather wacky right now. It seems like either you go crazy overboard magic (15-20 PD+) or don’t bother, as anyone with 4 cheap dispel scrolls and 6 or more dispel dice will ruin your fun. Taking melee characters right now is far more reliable and worth their points more.

For example, if I take a Blood Thirster, he will have to roll to hit and wound (although with his many attacks + immortal fury, this is negated somewhat), but your opponent can’t buy a cheap scroll that prevents you from attacking or charging. It’s left up to your dice. However, if I take a Lord of Change, not only do I have to roll to cast my spells (which on average is harder than rolling to hit, even with a +2 gift, and fails on a 1 or 2 instead of just 1), my opponent can then roll to dispel my spells. On top of that, he can take a number of rather cheap dispel scrolls to stop that more of my magic. This doesn’t include the chance of miscasts. Then, after all that, most damaging spells require you to wound, and the opponent gets armor saves, etc. To make matters worse, casters are more expensive than their melee counterparts. Magic heavy only servers a few armies well, it seems. It's simply too risky for most armies, IMHO. Magic is very much part of the "win big - lose big" scenario.

Now, I’m not saying that magic should be made more powerful. But I can’t take a bunch of “stop shooting” scrolls to cancel an opponent’s shooting phase. I can’t take a bunch of “stop fighting” scrolls to end an opponent’s combat phase, or prevent them from marching toward me. I understand that magic is fickle, so sometimes it will be great and other times, not so. That’s part of the fun and the fluff. But I’m suggesting that maybe magic should be made slightly more reliable in some fashion. Maybe dispel scrolls should be removed entirely, or perhaps made more expensive, as it's been suggested many a time here, at least 30 pts if not 50, or simply limit their number (1 per 1,000 points or something). Maybe they should count as an arcane slot as well, so if you take a dispel scroll, no other arcane item can be taken. Perhaps a cap on dispel dice would help. In exchange, perhaps a cap on the amount of PD you may muster is in order (both depending on the army size) to help keep the balance. I dunno, just some random thoughts.

I don't know many people that enjoy facing a gunline, either, but the only solution would be to make all artillery rare choices. But certain armies (like dwarfs) would suffer greatly from such a change, and would need to be compensated for such a change.

I simply don’t enjoy going to tournaments with a magic heavy list anymore, because I feel like I need to go crazy with PD, which I dislike, just to get any spells off at all. My last tournament I played in (last year in fact), I used my TK army, and I did not overload on the bound spells and casters. I wish I had, because my opponent had 8 DP and 6 scrolls. Suffice to say, he shut my magic down for a turn or two until he could get into melee range and wipe the floor with me. It was lame, but at the same time, I understand why he did that. Nobody wants to get bombarded by a bunch of spells. That’s no fun. So what’s the answer that will make the game enjoyable for both sides? The only option right now is to find players you enjoy playing with, and stick with them.

Ward.
10-09-2008, 16:46
Zoo lander: It's not like the lord of change isn't capable of laying down the hurt in the close combat phase (I know that wasn't your point though).
Magic also teands to do things that shooting and combat doesn't do, game altering affects that need to be stopped.

TheLionReturns
10-09-2008, 17:05
I agree with the OP to some extent. It is his opponent's fault, but at the same time, it's not. The game needs to take into account that some people will take a gunline or 23 PD if you let them, and deny them that option.

I disagree on this point. I think that whilst you can build in limits into the game to prevent abuse, you run the danger of narrowing the game and losing some flavor.

I think that if they were designing WFB for competitive tournament play then you are absolutely right. However, that is not how GW designs the game. WFB is very much a narrative wargame, with the emphasis on two players working together to come up with an interesting battle. The design philosophy seems to very much revolve around the rule of cool and the potential for variety. Just because some over-competitive types choose to abuse this is no reason to change the system. Just let the community as a whole regulate things so over-competitive types play those of a like mind whilst those who play differently avoid them. Restrictions can always be devised for tournaments alone, there is no need for non-tournament players to suffer.

I do agree with your criticisms of the magic phase. The are instances where Combat can be mitigated, via armour for example. Good luck to my eternal guard if they want to put a wound on a unit of inner circle knights. Similarly shooting can be restriced with movement around terrain, or in built abilities, such as skirmishing waywatchers in woods. However, despite this, magic is too easily blocked for too little cost. I would prefer weaker magic that was more likely to get through, or perhaps similarly strong magic, but have it being more risky to use in terms of miscasts.

Bac5665
10-09-2008, 17:15
Letting wizards pick their spells would fix magic fine. Maybe make them pay points per spell or something, but let wizards pick the spells, and magic will be a lot more effective than it is now, without changing the system or the feel of the game. My Slaan wins or looses by the spells he rolls, and for a 625 point toad, a few dice rolls at set up shouldn't determine my game. I don't roll up equipment for my combat characters, why to I roll up my spells?

At the same time, this fix would let wizards be useful all the time, but still let them be defended against as they are now.

Ixquic
10-09-2008, 17:26
I think letting wizards pick spells would be a bit too powerful. For instance every time I played VC I would just pick Vans Dance and the 2D6 magic missle spell on my 4 casters which would be insane to have guaranteed. I think overall magic is acually getting too powerful so that certain lists have to take ridiculous amounts of scrolls to compete. The problem is when you have an army with 5+ scrolls take on an army with a sensible amount of offensive magic that person's phase is effectively shut down then entire game. I think that toning down the amount of powerdice armies can generate (VC, Deamons and Dark Elves all have this problem) and placing some sort of limit on dispel scrolls (or making them add 2-3 dispel dice to a roll so they can still fail or something) would balance things out a bit.


I disagree on this point. I think that whilst you can build in limits into the game to prevent abuse, you run the danger of narrowing the game and losing some flavor.

I think that if they were designing WFB for competitive tournament play then you are absolutely right. However, that is not how GW designs the game. WFB is very much a narrative wargame, with the emphasis on two players working together to come up with an interesting battle. The design philosophy seems to very much revolve around the rule of cool and the potential for variety. Just because some over-competitive types choose to abuse this is no reason to change the system. Just let the community as a whole regulate things so over-competitive types play those of a like mind whilst those who play differently avoid them. Restrictions can always be devised for tournaments alone, there is no need for non-tournament players to suffer.

I do agree with your criticisms of the magic phase. The are instances where Combat can be mitigated, via armour for example. Good luck to my eternal guard if they want to put a wound on a unit of inner circle knights. Similarly shooting can be restriced with movement around terrain, or in built abilities, such as skirmishing waywatchers in woods. However, despite this, magic is too easily blocked for too little cost. I would prefer weaker magic that was more likely to get through, or perhaps similarly strong magic, but have it being more risky to use in terms of miscasts.

I think that it's a bit of a cop out to claim that the game isn't designed for tournaments when GW has official tournies in their stores and at large events. The game is supposed to be as balanced as posible so that both people playing can have fun without having to be run over by overpowered armies. There is always going to be be some imbalance but lately it seems that with special characters becoming more encouraged, certain units/monsters/characters being vastly underpriced and armies with 15+ powerdice a magic phase it's very easy to create a power list without even trying to take advantage of the problems. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the players to police themselves, but the rule makers should test enough to find out these sort of issues and stop them from surfacing where they can. I don't believe that the only way to stop power gamers is to create bland and boring army lists, but just to have people try to break the game while testing and go from there. Looking at recent books (VC, Deamons, Drk Elves) you can tell that the sort of people making the final decisions weren't playing as aggresively or making the sort of lists that would show up a week after release.

TroyJPerez
10-09-2008, 17:38
The armies I play most of the time are Wood elves, (dryad and tree heavy almost no shooters), orcs and goblins, and warrors of chaos. I think the problem I have is that I mostly play against magic heavy armies like Tzeench demon lists, Teclic high elf lists with 3 other mages and 4 repeater bolt throwers, or lizardmen lists with Slaan and an insane number of skinks. The least gunline army I fight is empire who still will usually take 2 mages, steamtank, couple of cannons and that crazy repeater gun thing, with a few units of gunners with hockland rifles.

I'm actually considering joining the cheese and making a dwarf list with 8 bolt throwers all magic, the special character anvil of doom 2 organ guns, and a couple units of gunners.

Jack Spratt
10-09-2008, 17:53
I too agree with the OP to some extent. Over the years i have found, that the balanced list, whatever the army, is what i find the most fun to play. Every 4th game or so i go nuts and try something extreme - gunline, all cavalry, magic heavy, loads of skirmish. The people i play against do pretty much the same. Our games are almost always fun. Drawn out affairs that are decided in the 5th or 6th turn. It was not always like that.

My point is simply that both players have a responsibility to make each game fun.

Malorian
10-09-2008, 18:03
The armies I play most of the time are Wood elves, (dryad and tree heavy almost no shooters), orcs and goblins, and warrors of chaos.

Ahhh there's the problem right there: all of your armies are pretty much the same. All of them are slow infantry armies.

My first armies were Brets, gnoblar heavy ogres, and shooty wood elves. That way my opponent couldn't base a list on trying to beat mine.

He could go magic heavy, but what happens if it's my ogres and 120 wound to soak up your expensive magic?

He could so shooty, but what happens if it's my brets and I charge you turn 2?

Or he could go combat heavy, but what happens if it's my wood elves and I just run around them and shoot them?

This way my opponents have been forced to balance out their lists to be ready for whatever I throw at them.


So I wouldn't suggest you just go for the most 'cheesiest' army, but rather go for a different army (like brets with damsels in every unit for MR).

TroyJPerez
10-09-2008, 18:16
I was actually thinking when the new warriors of chaos book comes out going all cavalry. Core being maurader horsemen, specials being knights, or ogres since they can move fast. I've noticed that regular chaos warriors don't really cut it unless i'm fighting another large rank and file army. But even with lower numbers I can win if I take the stubborn banner and just wear my opponent down over a few rounds.

Lord Dan
10-09-2008, 18:18
Just remember: if you're not in a tournament, you don't have to play the person. I've turned down a number of games from people when they refuse to switch off their "Tournament Army Mode". In fact that only times I tolerate gunlines, tree-lists, RAF, anvil lists, Teclis lists, Flying circus, 20PD, and SAD armies (good lord we have a lot of broken army terms now) is if they're good friends of mine trying to get in practice games for GTs. Needless to say I usually lose those games...

More importantly, I'm trying to figure out EvC's 4-letter word that starts with w, ends with k, and is evidently inappropriate. :) Bear in mind, I live in Pennsylvania, which means there are only a few words that even meet the criteria:

-Week
-Weak
-Work
-Wack
-Walk
-Wick

Actually there are more than I thought... :rolleyes:

logan054
10-09-2008, 18:20
The thing with gunline players is that more often than not they have taken that style of army with one thing in mind and one thing only: victory. Once you're got that into your head, you just have to do a few things to dissuade such behaviour. The biggest thing is terrain.

For a start: agree that all hills are single tiered. Putting a line of gunners on a hill then another line behind them and then a warmachine or six is total w**k. Now that's out the way, start placing terrain as described in the rulebook. Your opponent places a hill. Place a forest in front of it. He'll bitch and whine at first, but as long as you don't break the rules, you're entirely as jutified in doing that as he is in taking the gunline. Then he places another hill, this time right at the centre of the other deployment zone, so you can't totally block it off. That's fine, place another BIG forest to block the hill's sight to the flank of one battlefield. Now your other opponent can keep this going until the entire battlefield is made from hills and forests, or he can stop. Perhaps he'll even ask to restart the terrain, or place it in a more mutually agreeable fashion. The key is: to get away from the often lame "a hill for you, a hill for me" style of battlefield. Make him work to get all his guns in line of sight against decent targets. The game will actually become quite fun then :)


I remember doing that once with a forest, i was moaned and told how unsporting it was... The people that are playing this style are certainly going to be the first ones to whine.

TroyJPerez
10-09-2008, 18:38
Yeah its totally cheese to not walk towards the wall of guns. Sorry but any general (baring those corrupted by chaos cause they tend to be insane) would never march an army against such heavy shooting. They would sit back in the forest and wait for reenforcements. I actually told someone who played a gunline that his army was strong but it couldn't win. He didn't understand till I stood in the forest all 6 rounds and it ended up being a tie. This is why you need a balanced list. Unless you wanna tie all the time you need some way to get to and kill your enemy. Present too strong of a shooting wall and the logical choice will be to sit back and drop comets or just wait it out.

stashman
10-09-2008, 18:46
I'm actually considering joining the cheese and making a dwarf list with 8 bolt throwers all magic, the special character anvil of doom 2 organ guns, and a couple units of gunners.

Way to go dude! Payback with the same medicine is getting your opponents to change their lists or just stop playing eachother.

Shadowsinner
10-09-2008, 19:07
well I think what helps is the restrictions... if you issue a challenge to you opponent to say no more than 4 levels of magic or x power dice, or no more than 3 war machines or 4 shooty units then it should be fine... its really all about setting the line before the match. Ive yet to actually play a list or play against a list like the ones they sport in WD. where they have 2250 points of small non buffed up units with more basic magic equipment and more mortal characters. Everyone is just too tournament bound... which is ironic because most of the lists they sport go beyond a terrible composition score (shades list)

Actually what really helped was in a league i once set up we made it so that if a unit or character was killed then all the magic items equipped with those units would be lost and couldnt be used for the rest of the league. if you won the match however you could reclaim one lost item. also at the beginning of the league every player can designate a soulbound item which means that if they lost the item then they get a free chance to use it in the next game without having to reclaim it. its sort of a one use deal. Anyways this method prevents the players from going overboard with their lists since they will have to choose carefully as not to lose the best items they have... also like I said before restricting magic levels and uses of war machines makes for a balenced list. IMO anyway

eagletsi1
10-09-2008, 19:19
Stashman: I have fought that list several times with my Ogres and High Elves.

I took my spear elves and lined them up 20 across and kept the rest of my army behind them. Then focused my attacks on taking out the organ gun. A Reaver bow and 10 archers along with RBT can take down one and magic the other.

After they are dead just move forward behind the 20 spear elves or some other unit. I have used 15 phoenix guard to good effect also.

Then his 8 bolt throwers are hitting one model instead of ranks. heck when I used to play the Dwarfs with the Bolt Throwers and Slayer warmachines, I lined all of my models in straight lines no ranks at all.

Now my dwarf player has finally realized I will do this and others at our games have started the same tactics and usually only takes 2 bolt throwers and a couple other machines.

I didn't talor my list to face his, I just deployed to take alway his bonuses.

Scelerat
10-09-2008, 19:22
But most of the people I play with go super heavy shooting or magic.
Find new friends to game with.

lord mekri
10-09-2008, 21:14
I think letting wizards pick spells would be a bit too powerful. For instance every time I played VC I would just pick Vans Dance and the 2D6 magic missle spell on my 4 casters which would be insane to have guaranteed. I think overall magic is acually getting too powerful so that certain lists have to take ridiculous amounts of scrolls to compete. The problem is when you have an army with 5+ scrolls take on an army with a sensible amount of offensive magic that person's phase is effectively shut down then entire game. I think that toning down the amount of powerdice armies can generate (VC, Deamons and Dark Elves all have this problem) and placing some sort of limit on dispel scrolls (or making them add 2-3 dispel dice to a roll so they can still fail or something) would balance things out a bit.



I think that it's a bit of a cop out to claim that the game isn't designed for tournaments when GW has official tournies in their stores and at large events. The game is supposed to be as balanced as posible so that both people playing can have fun without having to be run over by overpowered armies. There is always going to be be some imbalance but lately it seems that with special characters becoming more encouraged, certain units/monsters/characters being vastly underpriced and armies with 15+ powerdice a magic phase it's very easy to create a power list without even trying to take advantage of the problems. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the players to police themselves, but the rule makers should test enough to find out these sort of issues and stop them from surfacing where they can. I don't believe that the only way to stop power gamers is to create bland and boring army lists, but just to have people try to break the game while testing and go from there. Looking at recent books (VC, Deamons, Drk Elves) you can tell that the sort of people making the final decisions weren't playing as aggresively or making the sort of lists that would show up a week after release.

i have to disagree. i dont think its a cop out saying warhammer is not designed for tourneys - the games developers said that themselves!

i even stated on another thread that games workshop doesnt hold GT's and gamesday to allow people to prove whose best - those events arent real competitions, they are social events. they are an excuse for a bunch of gamers to get together and play lots of games with people outside of there own circles. its all about fun. and yes, unforunately you do have to deal withthe occasional nimrod who judges his worth on his abilty to play with toy soilders, but if one has the right attitude themselves, even facing the nimrod can be fun.

(and really, anything based on dice rolls is not a competition - its gambling at best! tkaes skill, yes, but lots of luck - kinda like Poker!)

warhammer is a game. its meant to be fun. and its up to the players to make it fun. ;)

lord mekri
10-09-2008, 21:18
The armies I play most of the time are Wood elves, (dryad and tree heavy almost no shooters), orcs and goblins, and warrors of chaos. I think the problem I have is that I mostly play against magic heavy armies like Tzeench demon lists, Teclic high elf lists with 3 other mages and 4 repeater bolt throwers, or lizardmen lists with Slaan and an insane number of skinks. The least gunline army I fight is empire who still will usually take 2 mages, steamtank, couple of cannons and that crazy repeater gun thing, with a few units of gunners with hockland rifles.

I'm actually considering joining the cheese and making a dwarf list with 8 bolt throwers all magic, the special character anvil of doom 2 organ guns, and a couple units of gunners.

i like your choices of armies (i play wood elves and chaos warriors among others too).
but against most of what you discribed, i can see why you are frustrated. it may be that you need to find more likemided opponents.
however, in the mean time, collecting that dwarf army might no be a bad idea. if you cant beat em, beat em with thier own game!

(i have a dwarf army too!)

ChaosTicket
11-09-2008, 00:44
It is hard to counter certain things. Strong missle units and war machines are made to wreck strong melee armies.

There isn't really a balance of anything, some armies have areas where they have little to no ability and it's somewhere else but that doens't help so much.

How could you stop strong shooting? Nothing really. You could use skirmishers to try to screen your units, fast cavalry to get close, etc. But the best thing to kill soemthing is to have it yourself, or even better.

I'm still hoping that they'll revamp the Dogs of War so that armies will be able to have "Allied" forces that that you can have cannons and guns in armies that normally wouldn't have them.

The true thing is that in a game of rock-paper-scissors some people are missing one or two of the three, or in a game of cards some armies are missing the cards to make straight or royal flushes.

orkz222
11-09-2008, 01:42
warhammer is a game. its meant to be fun. and its up to the players to make it fun. ;)


quote FTW :)

Edonil
11-09-2008, 02:06
If you're having hard time with magic heavy lists, run DE with a Ring of Hotek- after watching their 200 point Heroes and 400 point Lords blow up themselves up a few times, the trend will change.

ChaosCajun
11-09-2008, 08:26
Iím suggesting that maybe magic should be made slightly more reliable in some fashion.

This from a chaos player? Long live chaos and uncertainty!!

Seriously, if you want you can eliminate magic altogether by playing WAB. As far as gunlines, I use the rules in the book and use gentle hills or woods to narrow lanes of fire for the enemy so that my chaos troops can slog across to them in tact. Alternatively, using random terrain placement by rolling for terrain on the 6th Ed. terrain tables limits the number of hills and puts terrain at interesting places, which limit gunlines and the like. Now, to be fair, my troops will wipe most of those gun troops if not softened up quite a bit, so they are paying points for being able to kill troops before they get to CC.

TroyJPerez
11-09-2008, 08:52
Sorry for not knowing the term, but what is WAB?

Chaos and Evil
11-09-2008, 09:02
If you're tired of Fantasy, why not try GW's more tactical Warhammer Fantasy sibling, Warmaster?

stonehorse
11-09-2008, 09:56
If you're tired of Fantasy, why not try GW's more tactical Warhammer Fantasy sibling, Warmaster?

Quoted for truth.

Warmaster does show up Warhammer Fantasy Battles, just like Epic shows up 40K.

GW's core games are designed to be less about tactics and more about powerlists, where as the reverse is true of the Warmaster and Epic.

GranFarfar
11-09-2008, 10:20
All this talking of how it is wrong to play shooting/magic heavy is a bit silly(yes, that is what you are saying when you say "Find a new opponent").

Warseer, I find, is in general dominated by people who look down on shooting and magic, proclaming the moral superiority of those who chose to go mixed or CC(i've never seen anyone complain about close combat only armies). Often too much shooting and magic is considered cheesy.

In my experience going all shooting, all magic is often a weaker option than going all fighter style. The problem with magic only occurs when that lvl4 mage is also a very potent fighter, or when the army in general won't lack fighting prowess even when taking magic heavy.

Now, I might agree that playing with/against magic/shooting heavy is no fun. (Playing with a 2gen slaan in 2k is really a bore if you ask me). But if your opponent happens to like that way of playing, I really don't think you can call it wrong, or your way "more right".

Ward.
11-09-2008, 10:43
Warseer, I find, is in general dominated by people who look down on shooting and magic, proclaming the moral superiority of those who chose to go mixed or CC(i've never seen anyone complain about close combat only armies)..


Say hello to the 6th ed khorne calvary train and brettonian haters then.

TheLionReturns
11-09-2008, 11:20
Now, I might agree that playing with/against magic/shooting heavy is no fun. (Playing with a 2gen slaan in 2k is really a bore if you ask me). But if your opponent happens to like that way of playing, I really don't think you can call it wrong, or your way "more right".

But this is the problem right here. You are forcing your way of enjoying the hobby on an opponent. By not considering whether your opponent likes the focus to be on fun over competition, you are effectively ruining their experience.

Playing magic heavy or shooting heavy is not inherently wrong. Its just using it against an opponent who doesn't want that form of competitive game is a bit selfish and anti-social. Conversely you can make the same argument about fluff/fun players ruining the game for competitive ones by not providing a suitable challenge.

As I have said before, this is why knowing what your opponent wants to get out of a game beforehand is so important. If your ideas of fun don't match you are both likely to be left unsatisfied and should probably find opponents of a similar mindset. By saying "find another opponent" the inference isn't that opponents powerful lists are wrong in general. Just that they are wrong for the type of gaming experience you want.

Deathwing_Matt
11-09-2008, 11:24
I've had exactly the same problem in the last year. I decided to get back into fantasy as although I'm predominately a 40k player, a lot of my mates who I game with had a phase of fantasy around the time a load of them went to GT. So I made myself a Slaanesh mortal list. All seemed to be good, I was loosing more than I was winning, but didn't mind as my opponents were more experienced and I was having fun and learning loads.

Then High Elves came out (in more than one way ;) ).

More often than not I found myself at games nights facing a Techlis magic heavy army or other lvl 4 casters and had the race across the board before I go law of metalled. Usually, I didn't have enough left to pack a punch in combat. Hopefully, the problems I found with the mortal list, especially once the WD list arrived and mortal could no longer ally with Daemons.

I had my first game of fantasy last week since then with a Daemon army I have built with 40k and fantasy in mind. I was against Dark Elves, against one of the big tournie players in the store. I had an awesome time! Niether were cheese lists and it was one of the best games I've had of any system in months!

I can't help thinking a lot of warhammer enjoyment is a lot more to do with liking the army you have than in 40k, they each suit different people in more ways. I had to change army slightly, but suddenly my enjoyment has gone up loads!

Zoolander
11-09-2008, 22:00
warhammer is a game. its meant to be fun. and its up to the players to make it fun. ;)


QFT!

The rules don't always make that an easy task, however...

Used Car Salesman
12-09-2008, 03:39
I don't think its necessarily the rules 100%. Its just players taking advantage of rules in a way that GW didn't intend.

Bac5665
12-09-2008, 05:23
The problem is, the rules should be strong enough that people don't have to worry about abusing the rules. If I want to use a dragon, I should be able to do that without worrying about how much less fun it makes the game. As it is now, a lot of the options for many armies are only fun for one player, and its usually because GW didn't think about the extremes. Warhammer is a lot of fun, but the rules and army lists should be more carefully developed, not just whatever GW thinks sounds cool.

GranFarfar
12-09-2008, 22:00
Say hello to the 6th ed khorne calvary train and brettonian haters then.

True enough. At least the bretonnians took alot of verbal beating. But that was because they were considered overpowered. Not because of their focus on CC.


But this is the problem right here. You are forcing your way of enjoying the hobby on an opponent. By not considering whether your opponent likes the focus to be on fun over competition, you are effectively ruining their experience.

Playing magic heavy or shooting heavy is not inherently wrong. Its just using it against an opponent who doesn't want that form of competitive game is a bit selfish and anti-social. Conversely you can make the same argument about fluff/fun players ruining the game for competitive ones by not providing a suitable challenge.

As I have said before, this is why knowing what your opponent wants to get out of a game beforehand is so important. If your ideas of fun don't match you are both likely to be left unsatisfied and should probably find opponents of a similar mindset. By saying "find another opponent" the inference isn't that opponents powerful lists are wrong in general. Just that they are wrong for the type of gaming experience you want.

What you are saying is kind of my point. I am not saying that it is more right to play magic heavy or shooting heavy, or cc heavy. They are all equally right or wrong. And therefore I am not claiming that anyone up against a shooting or magic heavy army constatly should just suck it up.

What I was reacting to was the attitude that often surfaces on warseer. That which is always claiming the moral inferiority and inherent WAACiness(often overstating the power of shooting and magic in this game) of players who chose to play with alot of magic or shooting, while at the same time proclaming the strategic mastermind(often overstating the complexity of the manouvers allowed in this game) which is required to win with a balanced(often cc oriented) army. Yes I might be stretching it a bit now, but in my experience this is not far from the truth.

All right, I feel I am loosing my train of thought here, so might as well round it off. In short - no way of playing is more wrong than the other. I agree with you in the point that best is to reach an agreement. Not the solution others have mentioned(stop playing him, "stooping too their level to teach them a lesson" and such).

Znail
12-09-2008, 22:39
EvC and eagletsi1 gave some realy good advice. Nice with some constructive posts! There were others that were good too in this thread making it an interesting read, but those two stood out.

Iskiab
13-09-2008, 17:44
I think if the rules allow you to field a list, then field it. Really, the problem is what people find 'cheesy'

For example, if I fielded 2 scroll cadies with 4 dispel scrolls, most people would find that 'cheesy'. Why is that? Because it stops them from loading up on magic to clean up... Really, it's the magic heavy list that's cheesy, and they're just upset that you can counter it with 4 cheap scrolls.

If someone goes heavy misslefire, you can counter it with all cavalry. If someone's heavy magic, you can counter it with scroll cadies. If someone's heavy melee, you can counter it with misslefire and skirmishers. It's all balanced, really... the problem is what people perceive is OK and not OK.

I for one think everyone should just bring a couple of scroll cadies to stop the magic heavy lists, and no I don't think that's cheesy. If you look at most armies, you can counter a heavy list by spending less points and do well against every type of army. For some reason though, where I play magic heavy lists are seen as OK and scroll cadies to counter them is seen as cheesy... go figure.

EvC
13-09-2008, 17:49
Actually I complain about armies with 4 scrolls because most (Not all ;) ) of my armies are very moderate in the magic phase. When you've only got 7 power dice and you're struggling to get a spell off and every successful and decent spell results in a reply of "scrolled", it gets pretty lame. However when it's an army containing just 4DD total, I don't mind so much. If it's 6+DD and 4 scrolls, then it starts getting very annoying, and I pray for my opponent to come up against nothing but Dwarfs and Khorne :D

Fredrik
13-09-2008, 18:47
I agree with the playtesting crowd. Alot of times one can tell what GW intended with a rule but they lack the nasty mind and will to twist rules in ones favour and here lies the problem.

With only a little more playtesting done by persons who think like that would do the game a ton of good for balance. Me and a friend at our lokal gaming club could be described a "acute" to the loopholes of the game.

Even though both of us put a leash on us since we both also enjoy the fluff and a fun game, it does not take more then a first read through a new armylist to se the read flags of abuse possibility.

If it only takes us a few hours to find these lops then to much hard playtesting can have been done on the list in the first place?

I for one do not like this inbalance of fantasy. Even tough i know it will never be perfectly balnced as some will say, i still think we could expect GW to look aver the obvious things and think of extreme use of some things and reflect on the impact it would have on different armies.

I love the rock, sissors and paper analogy that some armies are missing all three options against some armies as a belive it is so right now.

I also belive that a big part of the problem is that GW sees it as they are selling models not a game, and that the rules are just a nessasary evil to sell models.

On a side note i also side with the crowd of CC armies demanding more of a tactical approach since it can be countered with other movement, whereas manouvering from shooting/magic puts demands of terrain and that is not always an option.

It would be fun to se GW do a sneaky thinng at the next GT and not field a single hill on a single table and more terrainheavy tables and see what happends.

TroyJPerez
13-09-2008, 19:22
I actually like fantasy still even. After thinking about my problem with a few games, I've come up with a solution. I just gotta start thinking like my general. If I was facing a line of cannons, or bolt throwers, or handguners would I really march forward and let my army crumble? Well I might if I was vampire counts and could simply resummon my people. But when I play chaos I just gotta treat it as a seige situation and hide behind terrain and wait the battle out. Realistically the board isn't big enough for real life solutions. In a role-playing senerio I would circle around their army at a great distance using the slowed rate of bolt throwers to my advantage and attack them from all sides. Unfortunatly in a game where you play on a board you just can't do this. (Well unless your beats of chaos or dwarves with miners who can appear at any board edge, lol). I think in overview most fantasy games will go like this: Close combat vs close combat will get you a strategic game of maneuvering and fleeing and countercharging. Gunline vs Close combat will get you a race to the other side of the board cause you really can't bee too strategic on moving around your enemy when each round your taking casualties and your opponent isn't. Gunline vs gunline is pretty much 40k with fantasy models, lol.

I really think that Fantasy is more strategic then 40k, but more imbalanced. While 40k is more balanced but less strategic and more about sending the right troops to deal with other troops and being the first one to shoot.

Gatsby
13-09-2008, 19:29
duude, i have a 1750 VC list with 8 power dice, i thought that was good.... i just made a tzeench list at 1750 with 17 PD and 7 dispel.... WTF?!? how can i compete when they damn near have as many dispel as i have power dice? My list is (or i thought) magic heavy for raising tons of skellies.
I was told fantasy was more balanced... what happened?
seriously, any suggestions would be appreciated. PM me if necessary

kdh88
13-09-2008, 19:29
I think part of the problem has to do with GW failing to consider how certain armies or rules are going to affect the metagame. High Elves are a perfect example of this. What are the things most people complain about? Shooting, magic, and chariots. So what does GW do? Release an army that's best dealt with by spamming shooting, maigc and chariots, which means more people are going to play those armies. Terrain is another. It's all very well to say "play with more terrain", but doing that brings most units to a crawl and make maneuvering much more difficult. If the rules for moving through terrain were more forgivable, you'd probably see more of it and a corresponding decrease in gunline armies.

Shimmergloom
13-09-2008, 20:00
Terrain rules are absolutely the worst rules in the main rule book.

Magic in the main rulebook is nice and balanced. It's the army books that have imbalanced magic, not the main rulebook.

The terrain rules however are just completely awful, in every respect. You either get to move through terrain with no penalty whatsoever, or you get to never move through terrain at all, because you are stuck moving at half speed.

Not to mention there sheer stupidity in taking away the terrain generator chart. At least in the past the player had to roll to get that hill. Now they can just place hills if they play a gunline or woods if they play skirmish hammer without needing to roll for them.

They should have at least left the generator chart in there as an alternative way to place terrain.

rhino79
13-09-2008, 21:27
Well, dont know if I can add something here, but I can talk of my personal experience here in Italy, where people play with standard army lists both in 40K and Fantasy.
Recently a couple of players I know who loved playing Imperial Space Marine in 40K passed to Chaos just so they could build up an army with 2 demon prince of Slaanesh and I dont know how many obliterators and easilt win a game.
As for the fantasy, well tomorrow I have a tournament, and probably I will find at least half the army lists will be Empire, allshooting and steam tanks. I am sure of this cause thats what you see all the times.
But then again, if you go to a tournament, well people want to win, but in a Club or with friends, well, no thank you, I play to have fun, not to get hammered from the no brainer fashion list...is it chaos sm or empire.

Duke Georgal
13-09-2008, 21:31
Not to mention there sheer stupidity in taking away the terrain generator chart. At least in the past the player had to roll to get that hill. Now they can just place hills if they play a gunline or woods if they play skirmish hammer without needing to roll for them.

I find it is always best to have a third party place the terrain, then roll for sides.

TroyJPerez
13-09-2008, 21:42
I would agree that magic is mostly balanced, accept for the comet spell. I'm still trying to figure out why its against the rules to shoot cannons and stone throwers at things you can't see, but mages are perfectly allowed to drop comets on my units that are hiding in forests or behind forests. I mean how did they know to drop it there?

Drayken
14-09-2008, 04:34
Totally agree for the comet thing (even though I use heavens often and LOOOve the comet;)). I've run into similar problems since I play a close combat heavy lizardmen army, and my most common opponent plays a magic heavy high elf army. I've noticed that its much easier to beat him by running two scroll caddies, rushing across the board and slaughtering his army and wizards before they do too much damage.

The only real trouble i have is against war machine/magic heavy skaven armies, who usually wipe me out in 4 turns.