# The new version of fantasy battle



## Relapse (Jan 2, 2007)

I really like the rules for new version, since the way they seem to be set up, armies no longer consist of a super character on a dragon followed by a gaggle of cheerleaders.

I've picked up an empire army and was wondering how other folks like the new rules.


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

i haven't seen the new book yet, but some of the new stuff looks crappy to me. Guys who fire fireworks at people and minigunner horse men. 

as each book comes out it does seem to be less about characters and magic items which IMO is a good thing


----------



## Relapse (Jan 2, 2007)

Some of the new minis do seem a tad funky, but if you look at some of the weapons that were put forward as ideas or practice historically in rl, then it makes the minis easier to take.

I bet the multi barreled rifles were inspired by pistols that I think were called pepperguns(probably wrong on the name, maybe some weapons historians on the board can help me here). They were multi barreled pistols that had the tendency to fire all barrels at once.
I think rockets were being used at least as early as the 1700's in western Europe.
As I said, there are most likely people here that know far more than my bits and pieces and if any of them are reading this, please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

Not to split hairs but the multi-barreled rifles are called repeater handguns and they are awesome 3 shots -2 to armor saves!!!

I Like the rules they are very different to the 40k rules which they should be seeing the 2 are set thousands of years apart and need to be noticeably different to reflect that. The new magic miscast table is actually scarey unlike the old one where the wizard could still be alive and the only negative thing that happened was the magic phase ended while in the new one the wizard could die or kill the models around him. Characters can be singled out now which makes it better and more realistic. Finally the rules are writen so the average joe can read them.


----------



## Ragnar_Burmane (Dec 15, 2006)

I much prefer the new rules. The dependency on the magic phase is now lessened which I am very happy with. The previous version had far to much power stacked around that phase for my liking. Characters being easier to target is better as well IMO. When I first played with the new rules I was dissapointed as I use Woodies and skirmishers can now be march blocked. Having played it through a few times though it hasn't hurt them that much.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

I think fantasy is a good game, but there are a lot of things in it that don't make a lot of sense. My three big beefs with it--

Regiments in formation. Twenty guys are going to skirmish unless they're armed with pikes or have tower shields. Even a hundred men would probably still be skirmishing barring those conditions. I understand why, but it makes it unrealistically tightly-packed. 40k is a much better representation of a unit of ten models or so.

Combat resolution. Three ogres can kill an entire rank of my Night Goblins, and I can still win combat by having a banner, three ranks, a higher unit strength, and a musician. The gobbos didn't deal a single wound back-- but the Ogres can break and be run down. If they go in swinging and are uncontested, they're not going to decide "gee, maybe this was a bad idea..." They're going to see how squishy the little 'uns are, and if anything, it seems like they'd get a bit of a morale boost from seeing how superior they were.

Characters suck. They're as soft as regular troops for the most part and are in most cases obnoxiously high on the points end. They're quite limited in wargear, too, since they can only have one magic item per catagory of magic items, up to a limit of usually 50 points or 100 for a lord, and no one can have the same magic item. 

Don't get me wrong. I like painting my Orcs, and they're amusing to play just because they're so outrageously unreliable. I've had 'em since before the new book came out, and I picked up about 3000 points of Night Gobbos from people selling them out of the BfSP box cheap since they wanted the dwarfs. I must've only spent about a hundred bucks on all those stupid gobbos... I've got bags of 100 night goblins. I'm NEVER gonna get 'em all painted... :roll:


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

Relapse said:


> I really like the rules for new version, since the way they seem to be set up, armies no longer consist of a super character on a dragon followed by a gaggle of cheerleaders.
> 
> I've picked up an empire army and was wondering how other folks like the new rules.


Love the analagy!

Gimme a W!
Gimme a H!
Gimme a F!
Gimme a B!

Whiiffffb!


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Not being a fantasy player (outside oif a short lived love affair with Skaven in Mordheim), I mist say that I LOVE the new miniatures.

They make excellent bitz for my 40k.

My biker techmarine is sooooo getting a mechanical horse, and the reaper empire banner is getting a powersword and is going to be impaled onto a standard iddue red pointystick. Hellooo fury of the Ancients!


----------



## HavenDan (Jan 6, 2007)

Pros: 

Overpowered magic armies were nerfed

Skirmishers can be marchblocked 

grape shot was nerfed 

insane courage

Cons:

pistol was nerfed

5 in a rank for rank bonus 

scenarios nerfed


----------



## Lemun Russ (Jan 24, 2007)

new here and not going to say a whole heck of alot. I play both games. I like the new rule book for Fantasy. Its getting away from herohammer. I also like where they are going with the new characters. Not uber-men, but basically regular heros/Lords with quirky ability or two. But definitely killable.

As a 40K player, the combat resolution threw me off at first, but I really like it a lot. It makes one think about coordinating an attack against a huge ranked up foe. Not much of an in depth analysis, but I liked how the new rule book didn't reinvent the wheel, just tweeked rules.


----------

