PDA

View Full Version : Need help. *Entering warhammer world*



x-esiv-4c
18-05-2005, 18:17
Hi,
For the longest time i've been playing 40k, and after playing it for so many years you get a bit tired. I'm thinking about starting / getting into warhammer. Knowning nothing about it, I feel like i'm walking into a soviet minefield. I have tons of questions.
I guess I should start by asking what similarities can be derived between the two systems and what are the main differences. In 40k, taking 3 wraithlords would be considered cheesy. Does similar cheese lie in warhammer fantasy? In 40k battles can be won easily without having to engage your enemy in close-combat. I understand that ranged weapons are somewhat limited in fantasy but can an Empire player just hang-back and use hand-gunners / cannons / steam-tanks to claim victory?

What are the arch-types of the different armies? For example: Space-Marines are good all-rounders, Tau have excellent ranged firepower and Tyranids dominate in CC. What fantasy army would be considered as the "All-rounded" etc etc.

Are there things to watch out for? In 40k there is a thing called "Min-maxing" where small squads are used instead of larger ones to be able to pack in more heavy-weapons.

Any input or answering of questions would be greatly appriciated.

Thanks.

Selsaral
18-05-2005, 19:54
Hi,
For the longest time i've been playing 40k, and after playing it for so many years you get a bit tired. I'm thinking about starting / getting into warhammer. Knowning nothing about it, I feel like i'm walking into a soviet minefield. I have tons of questions.
I guess I should start by asking what similarities can be derived between the two systems and what are the main differences. In 40k, taking 3 wraithlords would be considered cheesy. Does similar cheese lie in warhammer fantasy?


Er...yes, unfortunately many people cry cheese at particular army setups. Personally, I have some disdain for such whining, and me and my gaming group tend to take a 'suck it up, it's part of the game, get over it and play' attitude. Obviously not everyone does this.



In 40k battles can be won easily without having to engage your enemy in close-combat. I understand that ranged weapons are somewhat limited in fantasy but can an Empire player just hang-back and use hand-gunners / cannons / steam-tanks to claim victory?


Hm...in general, I'd say yes. Skaven, High Elves (particularly the sea patrol list), lizardmen and probably many others can win entire battles with ranged attacks.



What are the arch-types of the different armies? For example: Space-Marines are good all-rounders, Tau have excellent ranged firepower and Tyranids dominate in CC. What fantasy army would be considered as the "All-rounded" etc etc.


Hmm others will chime in with comments here, but here's my impression from the limited array of armies I have been exposed to.

Chaos is melee and manuever-focused. They get essentially no ranged attacks, but very strong spell power from which attacks at range can occur. Beasts (a section of chaos) are the same, but are highly manueverable and very fast.

Lizardmen are well-balanced.

Skaven have an amusing mix of strengths and weaknesses, including devastating attacks that are balanced by the fact that half the time they blow up and kill the skaven, incredibly cheap fodder, and some really nasty troop types that open up the tactical options (censor bearers, globadiers).

High elves are the opposite of skaven in this regard, they are highly elite with essentially no fodder. They have solid melee/shooting/spells, with but their own mix of strengths/weaknesses (terrible toughness, solid armor, good weaponskill, incredibly powerful, plentiful, and cheap magic items...)



Are there things to watch out for? In 40k there is a thing called "Min-maxing" where small squads are used instead of larger ones to be able to pack in more heavy-weapons.

Any input or answering of questions would be greatly appriciated.

Thanks.

Yes there are many considerations like this. I played a lot of 2nd ed 40k, and compared to that, I'd say 6th ed fantasy battle has even more considerations like this to make. All the army lists have a decent breadth of options and configurations, and I have noticed in my own army lists quite a bit of change over time as I learn new things and spot new tactical opportunities.

Lord Lucifer
19-05-2005, 00:03
Hey X-esiv, good to see you branching out at last :)


I guess I should start by asking what similarities can be derived between the two systems and what are the main differences.
The similarities are in the way damage is resolved. Rolls to hit, rolls to wound, rolls to save, leadership. Fixed movement rates that you can follow, essentially the same stat lines. When 40K moved on from 2nd ed. to 3rd ed. it took a step towards Fantasy in some aspects (combat) and a step away in others (movement)

The differences are quite a few, but they're pretty easy to pick up if you're used to GW's rules sets already
The turn breaks down into Movement, Magic, Shooting, and Combat
Movement rules are different to work on a regimental scale rather than individual, allow marching (double-pace movement), and 'assaulting', known as Charging, happens in the movement phase rather than the Combat Phase

Magic works different to Psychic Powers, you're given Power Dice to cast with in your turn, and Dispel Dice in your opponents turn, have to roll a prerequisite number on your dice to successfully cast and the same or better to dispel.

Shooting, well, it's still target, roll, and hit.

Combat works in much the same way, only it's just the figures actually touching that attack, and the winner of a combat is determined not only by the number of wounds caused but by a number of other factors that reward cunning use of the Movement phase


Play a few games through and you'll notice the difference almost immediately




In 40k, taking 3 wraithlords would be considered cheesy. Does similar cheese lie in warhammer fantasy?
People scream 'cheese' at the Steam Tank, and special characters can be painfully powerful.
However, the only real heavy-cheese force I can think of would be the Skaven SAD, with enough reliable and deadly shooting, combined with horrifically effective magic, and swathes of Infantry to back it all up to really make for a depressing gaming experience.
It's not commonplace



In 40k battles can be won easily without having to engage your enemy in close-combat. I understand that ranged weapons are somewhat limited in fantasy but can an Empire player just hang-back and use hand-gunners / cannons / steam-tanks to claim victory?
Chances of an Empire Gunline winning a game? Unless it's against the perfect target, slim. Ballistic troops are soft as hell and worth a lot of points, you need only a couple of decent combat units to get through, even at greatly reduced strength, to reap rewards.
In Fantasy, Combat is decisive. Shooting is only decisive if you shoot at the right targets (fast cavalry and other light utility units). It's a support element to your plan.
If you rely on it, you'll find it's not so much a one-trick Pony as an Ass that just got kicked


What are the arch-types of the different armies? For example: Space-Marines are good all-rounders, Tau have excellent ranged firepower and Tyranids dominate in CC. What fantasy army would be considered as the "All-rounded" etc etc.
The Empire is probably the best all-rounder, because it gives you all the options you could hope for. I've been playing them ten years now and am yet to grow tired of them ;)
Certain armies, like Chaos, Lizardmen, Bretonnians, and Orcs are rather clearly aimed at brutal combat games. Others, like the Elves, and possibly the Tomb Kings, have a bit of a running-game and precise tactics in mind. Dwarfs are almost completely restricted to a defensive game

Having said that, most armies have at least a degree of versatility so they're not all restricted to a single method.


Are there things to watch out for? In 40k there is a thing called "Min-maxing" where small squads are used instead of larger ones to be able to pack in more heavy-weapons.
As said, the SAD can prove a really boring game, the Skink Skirmishing Army OF DOOM! is frustrating, the Elven All Cavalry Armies grow tedious, the Empire Gunline with two Inner Circle Knight Units and a Steam Tank army is a blasphemy, and the Night Goblin Fanatic Fest should earn the player a sharp slap in the face. ESPECIALLY if he takes chariots, Wolf Riders, and bolt throwers and claims it's themed.[/QUOTE]


What are you looking at? What army grabs your interest most?

Star.Scream
19-05-2005, 01:08
>>>>>>As already mentioned, picking up the rules should be easy; get a copy of the rule book; give it a quick read and I'm sure you'll be able to identify any different or new rules and apply them.

There are always some sticky situations with movement; which will be one of the harder things to get used to in fantasy. Units in 40k have a lot of freedom to fall back and move into cover. In Fantasy it is a lot harder because of a wheeling and turning. If your used to moving a unit out of harms way in 1 turn in 40k then a simlar manouver in Fantasy will probabley take 2. Deployment becomes that more important in Fantasy.

As for armies I would suggest the army that appeals the most to you look-wise. Armies in Fantasy (as already mentioned) have a moderatly broad range of potential strategies; worrying about locking yourself into a certain type of gameplay shouldnt be a concern.

Tyra_Nid
19-05-2005, 12:14
Im also thinking about going back to fantasy (only played a few games with my Undead army, years ago in the last edition) but starting an Empire army. However, i fear that this will be too similar to my Guard, in that theres lots of shooting and dog-faced troops. Am i right in this feeling?

Lord Lucifer
19-05-2005, 12:55
The Empire can do perfectly well with minimal, or in fact a complete absence of, shooting.
You can make fast combat armies, combined arms advancing forces, combined arms defensive, static gunnery position forces... basically near any playing style you can come up with you can give a good shot with the Empire.

You are NOT restricted to missile fire and attrition.
You can win through decisive combat. You should probably aim for it

x-esiv-4c
19-05-2005, 13:18
Thanks for all the help guys! I've been looking at empire but I think i'm doing that just because I'm new and don't know the finesse of other armies. I also like the idea of ranks of handgunners, however never playing a game, I don't really know how effective they are. I've read that the great-cannon and the dark-elf repeater are feared things on the battle field. I guess i'm not sure what kind of army I would want to play ( hence choosing an all-rounder ). I like the idea of long-range support but that can't win a game alone....

macbeth
19-05-2005, 14:12
There are quite scary units in the Empire army list. The Helblaster Volley Gun is very powerful. The Steam Tank is also a nasty piece of work...
You'll also probably want some knights. I slightly prefer the knights of the Grey Wolf, but all are quite cool. Making one of these units "inner circle" would be a good idea...
Flagellants qre also very popular amongst Empire players, I think...

gortexgunnerson
19-05-2005, 17:59
The best of the best rule for Empire is detachment rules which has been overlooked due to the genereal theme of empire being mainly shooting or knight based! If you have the time a big empire infantry army is very very effective! Even the best of the best combat troops are hard pressed to beat ranked up units when don't have rank bonus'. This one of the key elements to winning in close combat which you'll see after getting a few games in.

I would stay away from mega cheesey armies as it will reduce the number of people that will play against you generally. I took sea guard to GT final and didnt really enjoy the tournemnt because of people reactions (was changing army from my traditional dwarfs and didn't get enough goblins painted to take them as a comedy army I planned, so used the sea guard I had lieing around). Empire are one of the best armies going and as long as you dont take 4 cannons and 2 hellblasters most people view them as pretty all rounders. They also are a good army to start with as have good cheap troops, magic, shooting and calavry so if you get abit of everything and see how you do. then when you decide what you like you can move your army towards that sort of army.

But as a first army I would avoid a maxed out shooting or magic army as you will win games without fighting but also lose games without learning anything, its in the hands of the dice.

But empire or orcs are very good all rounders to start
Dwarfs very good start army as toughness 4! Toughness is more important in warhammer as less big guns eg Str6 is high in warhammer
Choas require good balance skills before will get any results as they are v expensive so mistakes are punished. Same for All Elves
Skaven are good (maybe the best) but are the 3 wraithlord 40K army. Last year GT final had skaven on almost every board of the top 10 and they all looked the same (jazzails and warlock engineers) However unit based skaven is still very effective
Undead are a good army very competetive and also forgiving as can raise units that you loss
Dogs of War are fun but oh so expensive, mostly metal army so not for the broke
Choas Dwarfs are great shooting army but the models are very difficult to get hold of
Brettonians are good but lack balance so not really a first army. However will beat most poor players as you reach combat on turn 2

Their are probably armies I missed by for a starter army I would go Empire or Orcs and Goblins as they have abit of everything and once you learn the game they can be finessed into very very powerful lists

Every army has its strengths and weaknesses so just pick something you like and see what happens

:0)
19-05-2005, 21:09
Hi,
For the longest time i've been playing 40k, and after playing it for so many years you get a bit tired. I'm thinking about starting / getting into warhammer.

You've already been playing "warhammer". You're getting into warhammer FANTASY.

Ursca
19-05-2005, 21:22
OT/
Well, it's funny you should say that, because have you ever seen 'Warhammer Fantasy' written on anything at GW? The game is actually called Warhammer, it's just handy to call it fantasy. :)

Sprue Rubbles
19-05-2005, 22:15
W00t! Welcome to Fantasy Excessive. My advice is to go through the army books and pick the one you think would be the "coolest" to you. You're going to start small anyways so maybe the only advice is to avoid the more specialized armies (can't think of one at the moment) and try to pick an army that has newer range of models or you may suffer from new army envy.

:0)
20-05-2005, 00:24
OT/
Well, it's funny you should say that, because have you ever seen 'Warhammer Fantasy' written on anything at GW? The game is actually called Warhammer, it's just handy to call it fantasy. :)

Well, if we're delving into proper names, it should be Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000. :p

Warhammer 40,000 > Warhammer[, the game of] Fantasy Battles

40k > Fantasy

Negafex
20-05-2005, 12:51
as far as what army to choose you would probably want one that you like the look of because you dont want to be playing a game with the 2000 points of skaven or dwarfs you bought yesterday and find out "wow this really sucks, i thought these guys would have good stuff to compensate for my dislike of the models but they dont..........damn that was $500 well spent". thats why i started ogres cause they look cool, offer lots of conversion opportunities ( conversion nut), and i can relate to them ( big fat guys that like to eat) but its really all about your tastes and preferences.

x-esiv-4c
20-05-2005, 13:47
Ok well, to start off, are there any armies that one should stay away from? In 40k most people have considered Kroot and Dark Eldar to be pretty much useless, are any armies in fantasy similarly afflicted?

Negafex
20-05-2005, 16:48
i havent been playing fantasy long enough to know but on the topic of 40k were kroot ever a seperate army? i know they were a useless part of the tau but i dont think they ever got there own list.

Quercia
20-05-2005, 17:31
In 40k battles can be won easily without having to engage your enemy in close-combat. I understand that ranged weapons are somewhat limited in fantasy but can an Empire player just hang-back and use hand-gunners / cannons / steam-tanks to claim victory?

*Sigh* Wood Elves which are going to be released.

Anywayz, I think alot of your questions here are answered already here. Some good armies to start with, to your preference and IMO:

Empire (All-rounder), Lizardmen (balanced), Orcs and Goblins (many units to choose from) and High Elves (a bit of highly skilled army, but IMO a bit easy to start with). I'd suggest to you Orcs and Goblins, or the Empire.

Bad armies to start from (difficult to play with/ needs tactical experience IMO):

Chaos (both beasts and mortals/Deamons), Wood Elves ( in particular), and Ogre Kingdoms and Skaven.

There are more armies though, such as: Brettonia, Dark Elves, Vampire Counts, Tomb Kings, Kislev, and Dogs of War (mercenaries).

I'd suggest you to look at the Warhammer section of the GW site too.

-Quercia

x-esiv-4c
20-05-2005, 18:16
Thanks for all the help guys, right now it seems to be a choice between Empire and Skaven, since I haven't seen either army box, i'm going off purely which I like the look of. That Skaven warp cannon thing looks pretty fierce, no idea how effective it is however. Any Skaven players here that can suggest things to stay away from? Tactical traits that should be implemented?
Thanks.

Arnizipal
20-05-2005, 18:31
Ok well, to start off, are there any armies that one should stay away from? In 40k most people have considered Kroot and Dark Eldar to be pretty much useless, are any armies in fantasy similarly afflicted?
Dark Elves were similarly afflicted as their 40K counterpart, but since their armybook got updated my brother's Druchii host schools my Vampire Counts and Orcs & Goblins on a far too regular basis. :(

All in all the fantasy armies are balanced against each other. With some it might take a little time to master them, but all can hold their own against the competition.

That Skaven warp cannon thing looks pretty fierce, no idea how effective it is however.
Artillery Dice strength and it can shoot through scenery. :eek:

Tyra_Nid
22-05-2005, 11:32
thats why i started ogres cause they look cool, offer lots of conversion opportunities.

At the moment im coverting some into 40k ogryns and found that the stock troops, at least, are not very easy to convert. the arms are very difficult to change without resculpting the muscles and the bodies are all in such static positions. I would appreciate any tips, if you have any :)

Lord Lucifer
22-05-2005, 13:48
X... nice change of avatar by the way ;)
... when it comes to things to avoid doing in a Skaven army, it's maxing out on wonder weapons and magic. It's horribly effective, and provides a dull game for the opponent.

You may want to ensure there's one Warpfire Thrower for every Ratling Gun in the army, or perhaps just go light on the war machines altogether

x-esiv-4c
23-05-2005, 13:23
Thought the Avatar would be a nice change....Stop haunting me! hehe, If I do a chaos army I will definatly be doing a pyramid head conversion.