# Take my race balance, please!



## Flam (Feb 7, 2007)

I've played three games of Warhammer now, against three different armies (my Skaven against Dark Elves, Bretonnia, and Empire). While I'll admit to generally preferring 40K to Fantasy Battle, there was one thing about it that really appealed to me.

It doesn't seem like Warhammer shows too much allegiance to a single race. No offense, but 40K is intensely Marine-centric, and as someone that doesn't play Marines of any stripe, it often feels like I'm on the outside looking in. There are no races in Warhammer given the same prominence that Space Marines enjoy, which is a good thing from where I'm standing.

In the three games I played, I never felt like my race selection was severely handicapped by my opponent's selection. I won against Dark Elves and Empire, and lost to Bretonnia, but even in the game I lost I felt like I gave the other player a real go. The same goes for the games I won; I didn't feel like my being Skaven trumped their selection of Dark Elves and Empire, and they gave me solid opposition (the Empire game in particular was close). In 40K, it often feels like I've lost beforehand, depending on the army list on the opposite end of the table. Keep in mind, I don't play in tournaments, and the greater metagame is something of a mystery to me. I've heard that Skaven have a particularly hard time dealing with Undead armies, so what I've experienced thus far might not be indicative of the larger hobby.

I still prefer 40K to FB, mostly for its relative fluidity. I don't care what anyone says, moving around solid blocks of troops on independent bases stinks. For someone of my limited motor skills, I might as be spinning plates.

So, what do ya'll think? Are the races of Warhammer FB slightly more balanced, or am I simply drunk on the newness of playing my first games?


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

iv only played a few games of fantasy, but i can see where youre coming from. games seem to be a lot closer, and usually you can pick what you want and get away with it, wheras in 40k if you havent got a good list, you fail automatically.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Yea with Fanastay you really need to think about each movement and action you make, whereas in 40k you can kinda just wing it at times as you generally know what army will win vs which.

Deployment becomes a huge thing as does leadership zones.

I'd put it like this:

If you want a very intense and nail biting game generally Fanasty is the way to go.

If you want something fast and fun where you can make a few mistakes then choose 40k.


----------



## Flam (Feb 7, 2007)

What really makes FB shine, I think, are the basics of melee combat. It's like, when two regiments smash against each other, there's this epic Clash of the Titans kinda feeling, and you know that after a few rounds of fighting, one of them has to give. There's a verve to it that's hard to pin down; I've lost entire broods of Hormagaunts to salvos of heavy bolter fire in 40K, but having my clanrats beaten back, run down, and absolutely decimated after a couple of rounds of bitter fighting makes me feel even more crestfallen. In a good way.

Now, if some other aspects of the game were a little less clunky, I'd be REALLY enthusiastic about it.


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

In some ways i agree and in others i disagree, i suppose with these things it all comes down to the local metagame. If you have people who play a mix in 40k in your meta but your fantasy's full of gunlines then it will affect your perspective and vice versa. I think it can be the same for both games equally but in fantasy the game is generally decided on turns 3 or 4 whilst 40k could be decided on turn 1.


----------



## Frodo (Nov 13, 2007)

Yeah, I find that Dwarves have a huge advantage over elves, chaos and orcs but that the tactics play a larger part than the armylist. Skaven are another fairly powerful army but the difference is between a major or minor victory not a draw or a massacre.


----------



## anathema (Jan 24, 2007)

From what I've seen list selection is also very important in Fantasy and certain lists ARE a lot harder than others. I think it just depends on the type of gamers where you are.


----------



## Asmodai (Dec 30, 2006)

Flam said:


> I still prefer 40K to FB, mostly for its relative fluidity. I don't care what anyone says, moving around solid blocks of troops on independent bases stinks. For someone of my limited motor skills, I might as be spinning plates.


That's what movement trays are for. Seriously, it's almost a completely different game. I can do the entire movement phase for my 3000 point Orc army (340 models) in about 10 minutes.

Fantasy does have its balance problems, but they're not as common as 40K's.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Yeah, even exceptional players in 40k can lose if they face an army thats basicly tailored to beat them. In Fantasy however i find its more towards how good the player is, a player can take a weak army apply some good tactics and possibly win, there are certain imbalances however like dwarfs vs elite infantry armies such as chaos, or basicly any shooty army will win 7 times out of 10 since they don't need to move much and can just hammer away. I'm thinking of doing orcs my main worry is shooty armies since i've seen orcs crumble under mortar, cannon, bow, handgun bombardments.


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

fantasy isn't about a single super uber mega awesome HQ guy. There is a far greater emphasis on tactics in fantasy compared to 40k which is the main reason I prfer it. Oh and I get to say _"FOR THE EMPIRE" _ extremely loud


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Lord Sinkoran said:


> fantasy isn't about a single super uber mega awesome HQ guy. There is a far greater emphasis on tactics in fantasy compared to 40k which is the main reason I prfer it. Oh and I get to say _"FOR THE EMPIRE" _ extremely loud


It can be, i've seen chaos and vampire counts rely solely on a hq with a single unit with him that destroys anything, though i'm not sure how the rules have changed i'm sure its possible for this to still happen.  I'm definately starting an orc and goblin army now though.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Nah,...

Fantasy does have its extremes, just like 40K. It's just that these extremes are not as readily tolerated in Fantasy. Units in Fantasy are actually much more fragile than units in 40K, meaning that making a mistake can be costly to the point of ruin in Fantasy, while in 40K you'd just have to take your lump and move on. Really, you need to have a completely different mind set during these two games.


----------



## Asmodai (Dec 30, 2006)

Lord Sinkoran said:


> fantasy isn't about a single super uber mega awesome HQ guy. There is a far greater emphasis on tactics in fantasy compared to 40k which is the main reason I prfer it. Oh and I get to say _"FOR THE EMPIRE" _ extremely loud


Not sure I agree with that. Chaos Lords, Dwarf Lords, Saurus Old Bloods on Carnosaurs, Steam Tanks, Vampire Lords, anything on a Dragon all tend to dominate far more than their 40K counterparts. I'm sure we've all heard of the 4-model 2000 point Tzeentch army.

I agree with you on the whole about the tactics thing, but Fantasy certainly does have it's mega awesome HQ guys.

'Deathstar' lists which focus on one unbeatable unit are relatively common and moderately effective. They're not really all that interesting though.


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

Words_of_Truth said:


> It can be, i've seen chaos and vampire counts rely solely on a hq with a single unit with him that destroys anything, though i'm not sure how the rules have changed i'm sure its possible for this to still happen.  I'm definately starting an orc and goblin army now though.


yes the certain lords and heroes can be aazing but only becasue there is a unit with them if they charged a unit on their own they will get out number and most likely wounded because people never improve there defence only their offence.


----------



## Frodo (Nov 13, 2007)

Thats a good point. but when you charge your demon slayer and giantfirst rank, troll secondary ranks unit of slayers into some orks even the toughest go down. i use 6 in a rank giving me 18 attacks @ ws 5 or higher and wounding on 4s or 2s. i do only take this agains non-shooty armies but it is godly in its fury. most units in fantasy are far better at attacking than defending and it means that it is crucial for some units, (including my slayer unit above) to get the charge (and first, often more powerful attack) or be backed up by a second unit.


----------



## obsidian492 (Nov 14, 2007)

I think that there are some armies that are a lot harder to play than others in Fantasy. I stupidly chose Tzeentch Daemons as my first ever Warhammer army, and I pretty quickly learnt it wasn't the easiest army to play!


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

orcs can easyily compete with gunlines, as long as you dont try going too elite by taking lots of blackorcs, bigun's etc. Boyz are cheap as chips and pretty hard. Taking big blocks "30+ orcs 40+ goblins" you can weather the storm and once you get to the line they will crumble. then small units of wolfriders or spider riders can rush ahead to take out warmachines. Not foolproof but orcs aren't screwed vs the gunline. infact its one of the more difficult matchups for them.


----------



## Pandawithissues... (Dec 2, 2007)

Fantasy games typically require you to be at least moderately careful with your deployment, and provide (imo) a more balanced tactical game experience, with like it or not, core units of infantry being your mainstay and often winning the game for you. It used to be just as imilar to 40k in terms of powered up characters trumping all, but has definitely been balanced for the better. Rank bonus + standard = victory 

Plus, the strength modifying the armour save is still a great mechanic, and i reckon should still be used in 40k.

How did they mess up 40k? Well, they made all the units move the same distance (6"), which is one of the key reasons warhammer is tactically more satisfying. Nothing like realising your dwarves are marching only about half the distance of elves. Really helps you get into the feel of your army... "Those pesky elves are running rings around us!" - "well, when they tire out we'll be ready for 'em, wherever they hit us" oh yes!


----------



## Pandawithissues... (Dec 2, 2007)

> "most units in fantasy are far better at attacking than defending"


Iron breakers are a wonderfull exception


----------



## Creidim (Jan 6, 2011)

Lord Sinkoran said:


> fantasy isn't about a single super uber mega awesome HQ guy. There is a far greater emphasis on tactics in fantasy compared to 40k which is the main reason I prfer it. Oh and I get to say _"FOR THE EMPIRE" _extremely loud


remember herohammer? that was all about one uber lord


----------



## Franksta88 (Nov 18, 2010)

Asmodai said:


> I'm sure we've all heard of the 4-model 2000 point Tzeentch army.


i'm new to fantasy and this intrigues me, care to explain?


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Folks, you are aware this thread and the last post before todays are as old as the forum?


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Dude. I don't mind reading a post brought from the depths of the past as long as something relevant is added to the thread, but a "lol i agree" equivalent is not something that needs a post dredging up from 28 Months previously. Please, check the date before bringing them up again .

Thankee kindly.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Um... just no

Thread Closed


----------

