# Warhammer is awesome



## CommissarJim (Nov 9, 2010)

I have to admit, I was completely wrong about Warhammer. I got the Skull Pass set a long time ago and I didn't really like the system, dropped miniature wargaming altogether for a couple years, then started up with 40K.

Now don't get me wrong, Warhammer 40K is awesome buuut.... After having played for a few weeks Warhammer is genuinely the more rewarding and enjoyable of the two gaming systems. Whether this is the shiny new models element or just that I needed some time spent on something else only time will tell. But yeah. This is a Heretics admission that he was wrong about fantasy, so very very wrong


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

well thats nice to hear,

l will say that l still play both Warhammer 40K and Warhammer as playing the one system will get you bored.

as for Which is the better system... it changes from game to game


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

I used to feel the same, that Fantasy was outstanding; until 8th Edition was released that is. Everything about it so far is turning me off - new Orc rumours etc.


----------



## CommissarJim (Nov 9, 2010)

Well the thing is I am now able to play games in both systems and I never played any of the rule sets before 8th so have nothing to compare to. But I'm enjoying it none the less and it is definately a breath of fresh air


----------



## Gromrir Silverblade (Sep 21, 2010)

Although my wallet doesn't agree I am definitely all more lots and lots of infantry so Fantasy and even in some respects the 8th edition is for me. 

*pre-empts "What there are loads of ridiculously overpowered characters in 8th, i.e. Teclis"

"Yes but there a lot of bonuses for having loads of infantry"


----------



## Flindo (Oct 30, 2010)

I used to think 40K was better too..........until I started playing fantasy


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

I still like 40K a bit better simply because I seriously dislike the way 8th Ed has led to the current trend in units being of a MASSIVE size. There is a guy in my local club that plays VC with a unit of 80, yes 80, ghouls. I think his entire army at 2500pts is something like 5 units total, maybe 4. I would be much happier if there were unit size limits to prevent crap like that. Everyone has a death star unit now as well, even more than in 7th ed and that just frustrates me to no end as it has seriously cut down on the variety of armies you might play.


----------



## stevenhassell (Aug 5, 2009)

well i would have to say i love 8th for one reason I can now play huge battles and not get a headace three hours in and still on turn two!!! i love to see mass armys all going at it and 8th is all about that


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

Fantasy is good, yes, but in my opinion 40k is still better. I just could not get into it...


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

I really like both systems alot, as to the MASSIVE unit problem, I don't deal with it too much as my regular opponent doesn't play into that too much.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Movement.
Magic.
Shooting.
Combat.

Three of those fundamental phases of the game are fucked up, and one is so situational that certain armies excel at it, while others are useless at it. Those which are mediocre at it are better at it in combat - including Wood Elves, while good shooting armies have cheap enough combat units to make them efficient.

I've found an old stack of Warhammer Ancient Battles (the original, not the second) - oh good god, the 5th/6th edition reek coming off them is enough to have a jimmy over. No magic items, no magic casting... If you like either of those, then hope to god I never get into games development.


----------



## Flindo (Oct 30, 2010)

achually alot of the people who play at my hobby shop says 7th was way too broken and 8th fixed alot of problems, I never played before 8th so I cant really complain


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

Vaz said:


> Movement.
> Magic.
> Shooting.
> Combat.
> ...


Ok, l will say that 8th ed is not the best rule book, With way over powered cannon balls as one issue for example.

However it is not that bad and most people like playing 8th ed over 7th ed so in a way it was a good book not a doom's day book.


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

sybarite said:


> Ok, l will say that 8th ed is not the best rule book, With way over powered cannon balls as one issue for example.
> 
> However it is not that bad and most people like playing 8th ed over 7th ed so in a way it was a good book not a doom's day book.


If cannons cost comparably as much as the stuff they can shoot up no problem (200+ monsters and monstrous anything) it'd be okay. But right now buying anthing bigger than a Troll or a Chariot that doesn't have a 4++ at least is investing into target practice for your opponent.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Flindo said:


> achually alot of the people who play at my hobby shop says 7th was way too broken and 8th fixed alot of problems, I never played before 8th so I cant really complain


*puts on the back-in-my-day hat, and begin's long winded story*

7th created problems where there were none, hence, 8th wouldn't have been needed.


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

Vaz said:


> *puts on the back-in-my-day hat, and begin's long winded story*


but your only 22 years old. :shok:


----------



## olderplayer (Dec 11, 2009)

Most of the 8th edition rules are an improvement over 7th and really balanced the game a lot, but, as is typical for GW, there are some obvious goof ups and inconsistencies in 8th edition rules and GW keeps insisting on designing a game without considering how more competitive players will actually play or break the game. 

That being said, I just saw the new O&G book and was very disappointed. I have to question a lot of the decisions made in the new army design and points costing, makes absolutely no sense to make core models effectively more expensive for an army that was already barely able to compete even with the benefits it gained in 8th edition. They took a lot of the special magic items and flavour of Orcs and Goblins (no Waagh spell anymore! what is with that?). Even as a less experienced but fairly competitive player, I'd like to sit down with the authors of these GW books and ask, "What were you thinking?" and "If you actually took the time to ask any experienced player familiar with that army, do you really think they would say positive things about this [rule change, unit option, points cost, or magic items added or deleted]?"

For those with complaints about extremely large units (including having to kill the last model to get any VPs), a lore that is overpowered (lore of life with dwellers and throne of vines), and some of the other issues with 8th edition (like cannons shooting monsters through woods without a cover save at all) look at playing with the draft ETC rules. The game plays quite well with ETC rules and is a lot of fun. Magic is variable but interesting and risky, except for lore of life.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

They need a public Beta. Seriously.


----------



## olderplayer (Dec 11, 2009)

Well said. They also need to listen more to experienced players rather than trying to keep everything a secret and "surprise" us with the changes they make. There are a lot of older, experienced fantasy players that could have given a lot of sage advice in the development of 8th edition and the new OnG book that GW appears to have ignored.


----------



## stevenhassell (Aug 5, 2009)

> If cannons cost comparably as much as the stuff they can shoot up no problem (200+ monsters and monstrous anything) it'd be okay. But right now buying anthing bigger than a Troll or a Chariot that doesn't have a 4++ at least is investing into target practice for your opponent.


-----------------------------------------
considering mosters dont blow up i think its pretty fair. pluse it is random on the wounds and distance the ball bownces. i play both armys with cannons and Lg monstours. so i know the pain of both pros and cons.. you just need to flank and mask you big guys better.


----------



## Masked Jackal (Dec 16, 2009)

stevenhassell said:


> -----------------------------------------
> considering mosters dont blow up i think its pretty fair. pluse it is random on the wounds and distance the ball bownces. i play both armys with cannons and Lg monstours. so i know the pain of both pros and cons.. you just need to flank and mask you big guys better.


Considering the range of the cannons, and the difficulty of masking monsters under the new rules, your point falls flat.

I'll have to check these ETC rules out sometime. Are they free?


----------



## Xela (Dec 22, 2010)

I like fantasy most cuz all the armies are unique


----------



## Brother Arnold (Aug 29, 2010)

I hold both rather equally. To me, they both bring different feels with them.
For example, there's the obvious medieval fantasy and futuristic galaxy differences, though I find that Fantasy is a lot more about the two opposing armies rushing across the battlefield in massive walls of bodies before brutally crunching into each other, whilst 40k feels more fast-paced and brutal when you envision the whole thing in your head, i.e. the whole fast and furious skirmish enhanced by large explosions and machine guns.

That said, I do think 8th is better than 7th, though I'm not really one to talk having only been into fantasy for a month or two before 8th. But I am finding the whole thing a lot harder with the massive units. 40 Bloodletters comes down pretty hard when all your pocket money allows currently is 20 Swordsmen to try and beat down as many as possible in two turns.


----------



## HiveMinder (Feb 8, 2010)

olderplayer said:


> Most of the 8th edition rules are an improvement over 7th and really balanced the game a lot, but, as is typical for GW, there are some obvious goof ups and inconsistencies in 8th edition rules and GW keeps insisting on designing a game without considering how more competitive players will actually play or break the game.


That's just it though, regardless of the end result, the 'more competitive' *cough*(tournament) players _are going to break the system_. There's no way around it in a game with so many rules. There are always going to be strengths and weaknesses. The 'win at all costs' players are going to build armies that exploit every single one of them.

I'm more of a fluff player myself. I like to build armies based on cool units, regardless of how great they are. For instance, most people would say I was crazy not to have a Hellcannon in a WoC army, but I don't because I wanted an army without any of the gribblier choices (Hellcannon, Chosen, spawn, etc.). My Skaven might benefit from multiple Warp Lightning Cannons, but often I'd rather take the awesome looking Hellpit Abomination instead.

So, yes, for tournament play, the 8e rules can be downright frustrating, but as far as friendly games goes, there's nothing more enjoyable.


----------

