From 40k to Fantasy Part Three: Beer and Pretzels

In the first two parts of this series I discussed the different approaches to strategy and list building that a 40k player picking up Fantasy will have to make in order to avoid frustration.  In this article I will discuss Fantasy as a semi-competitive game, and how to actually enjoy playing it.

 

In the prologue to this series, I mentioned that modern 40k has achieved a level of rules balance, codex balance, and community support necessary to be considered a competitive game.  While there is still plenty of room for luck to play a factor (and luck playing a factor is good game design) the winner of a truly competitive NOVA style tournament will definitely not be a fluke.  You can bet the farm that whoever wins this year will be a very skilled player with a very strong list.  Bottom line, 40k can finally be played as a competitive game.

Fantasy isn’t all the way there…yet.  The game is, simply put, semi-competitive.  If you held a NOVA style 8 round tournament single elimination tournament, you can bet that the winner would be a skilled player with a strong list.  Similarly to 40k, whoever wins that event wouldn’t be a fluke, either.  We are all familiar now with the complaints for Fantasy, namely that certain spells are overpowered, and the random elements such as charge distances create frustrating situations.  These are fair criticisms.  You CAN get smoked by a ‘bad’ player who happens to snipe your wizard lord with a Dweller’s Below, and he ends up winning the game when by all accounts you and your list are superior to him.  Alright.  But as I said, at the end of an 8 round tournament, you can bet that a good player is going to win the whole thing.  There are bad luck breaks in poker, too, where lesser players simply out-luck their opponents.  Warhammer Fantasy Battles is a game of home runs, not singles.

But acknowledging that doesn’t change the frustration players can feel.  Heck, I got owned in Fantasy ‘Ard Boyz two years ago by Teclis and Purple Sun.  I was frustrated that I lost to a much less experienced player simply because of an overpowered character tossing overpowered spells.  I get it.

The solution#1 : play the game semi-competitively.

Go to tournaments if that is your thing, but when the inevitable epic bad luck breaks happen, just chalk it up to the nature of the beast.  If you can’t handle it: don’t play in tournaments.  The more I think about it, and accept the game for what it is, the more those evil “random” events don’t bother me.  In the long run luck is the same for everybody and the best players tend to win more, and that’s good enough for me.

Or don’t play in tournaments.  When 40k Apocalypse was released it was sold to us on the basis that stuff will get killed by the bucketload.  Big templates and powerful effects killing handfuls of dudes.  Say what you will about how fun Apocalypse games actually are, I know for a fact that plenty of folks enjoy them as a beer and pretzels experience. 

Solution #2: play the game like a beer and pretzels game

Treat Fantasy the same way as Apocalypse.  Play large point value games.  Stuff will die, you can be sure.   Craziness will happen.  Enjoy the fun of wiping out half a horde of 40 Chaos Knights with a Purple Sun.  Also enjoy the times when that horde of knights smashes through your lines like a tank.  When an amazingly “lucky” dice roll results in a huge game changing effect, laugh with your buddies, take a swig of a good beer, and eat a handful of pretzels.  And be sure to rub it in when you laugh about the game afterwards. 

Thoughts?  Comments?

From 40k to Fantasy Part Two: List Building

I'm not an expert list builder like Kirby or Stelek, but I know what makes a 40k list good or bad.  At the end of the day, in 5th Edition, the most important principal in list building is the ability to kill light mech.  This is the beacon that we all follow in order to make sure our lists start out on the right foot.  Sure there are other important benchmarks for 40k lists, but that is the most important, I hope you agree.

The second most important concept to master in 40k is MSU.  Barring horde armies, multiple small units is far an away the best list strategy to pursue.  The way codices are written, you will almost always have superior firepower and target saturation to play an MSU list.  But enough about what you grizzled 40k vets already know.  How about I tell you the main list building rules for Fantasy?

In no particular order except #1...

Castin' spells in your faces

1.  It's All About the Magic: a Level 4 wizard is mandatory.  The only army, and I stress this heavily, that can get away without a Level 4 are pure Goblin armies, and Dwarf armies (because they don't have magic users).  Everyone else has to have one.  Why?  They are not only the most potentially potent offense in your list, but they are your first line of defense against your opponent's most potentially potent source of offense.  They are much more vital for defense than offense: you can still win the game if you don't get any spells off, but it's almost impossible to win if you can't stop your opponent from casting.  Many 40k players are attracted to Lord level characters that aren't casters and are turned off to the idea of their armies being led by a mandatory choice wizard-lord.  My only advice is that if this concept troubles you that much, put a full stop on and ask yourself if Fantasy is for you.  

2.  MSU is NOT king in Fantasy.  Fantasy has better balance than 40k in one major respect: MSU is not undisputed king.  The game is balanced so that MSU > Magic/Warmachines > Hordes > MSU.  If you play 100% MSU, despite what you may hear, larger units can brush aside your weaker units.  But if you bring nothing but large units, expect to get eaten alive by magic and warmachines that are capable of templating and characteristic testing them to death.  If you overload on magic and warmachines, small units will overwhelm you.  The best Fantasy armies, in my estimation, are balanced and contain each small units, big units, and magic/warmachines.  Sure, some armies do one of these aspects better than they do another, and you tailor your list to your strengths, but retaining balance here is the key to avoiding the rock/scissors/paper match that could otherwise arise.

3.  Go ahead, bring a pet unit.  Unlike 40k where pet units are frowned upon, in Fantasy you can build a list with a centerpiece pet unit and still achieve some success.  Good luck with your Legion of the Damned 40k list.  But you could easily play to great success a beefy unit of Plaguebearers, or Dark Elf Executioners.  I'm not saying all units are equal; some units will require more support to work well.  Dark Elf Executioners, for example, need a Hag Battle Standard Bearer and/or a Cauldron of Blood to be effective.  But you can still do it.  Fantasy is much more forgiving in that respect than 40k.  Yes, from a competitive standpoint you are better off taking 'good' units, but in Fantasy even mediocre units can and do shine.  I consider this one of the great redeeming qualities of the system.

4.  Multiple paths to victory.  40k, unfortunately, has one path to victory that is better than all the rest: heavy shooting backed up by just enough close combat to finish people and/or keep them honest.  A 40k list that strays too far from this formula will only ever have limited success.  This is another great redeeming quality for Fantasy: there are multiple ways to win.  You can be a very successful close combat list that has minimal shooting.  Plenty of people win plenty of tournaments with Warriors (and Daemons) of Chaos armies that are very, very heavy on close combat and very, very light on shooting.  On the other side of the coin, plenty of people win consistently with lists that are almost all shooting.  Granted, not every army has every avenue open, but the fact that there are multiple ways to win makes the different armies feel very characterful in a way that 40k armies rarely do.  Be honest, does a razorwolf list feel a ton different than a vanilla marine list?  No, it doesn't.  But a High Elf list feels completely different than a Wood Elf list.

The differences could go on forever, but I think I hit the big points.  Let me know in the comments if I missed anything big, or what.

From 40k to Fantasy Part One: Strategy and Tactics

The biggest thing a 40k player taking up Fantasy has to learn is that winning requires a different approach.  The similarities between the two systems are such that people are often fooled into assuming the way you win in Fantasy is the same as how you win in 40k. 

This is a pitfall.

Multi-charge madness

Disagree if you want, but I contend that 40k is about jumping out to a quick lead in the early turns and keeping up the pressure.  It’s a grind.  Turn by turn, you pick apart your opponent’s army until by the end of the game they have no threats that can prevent you from achieving the win conditions.

Fantasy is a different story.  I call it ‘One Big turn.’  Rather than slowly chipping away at your opponent in order to grind them down, Fantasy is about sculpting a game state where your army unleashes its fury and cripples the opponent’s army beyond repair in one turn of action.  The turns preceding the climax are angling and maneuvering to establish the game state necessary for you to do this. 

When Fantasy neckbeards condescendingly say that Fantasy is a “game of maneuver” and “requires you to think many turns ahead,” this is what they are talking about.  They are right, but the condescension is wrong.  It doesn’t require you to be any smarter than you’re required to be a good 40k player, just a different strategy. 

For example, my Dark Elves Chariot list wins by having all the Chariots and Hydras multi-charge the most powerful enemy units all at once, while being debuffed by my Shadow magic.  What happens is the enemy loses all their best units in a single turn and their battle line crumbles.  This is obviously ideal, and a good opponent will do his best to prevent it and enact his own strategy, but this is the goal.  I spend my first few turns maneuvering and organizing so that by turn 3 I can unleash hell.  I visualize what the table top game state needs to look like on turn 3 for me to do what I want to do, and I make that visualization a reality as best I can.

Why are the games different in this respect?  Besides a handful of ultra-powerful magic spells, there isn’t a lot you can do to drastically hurt your opponent on turn one and often turn two.  In 40k, there is plenty of long range firepower in most 5^th Edition armies sufficient to alpha strike or cripple the opponent on the first few turns.   Since that strategy isn’t at all effective in Fantasy, you have to setup your plans for the turns when you CAN smash the enemy.

So that is the main tactical/strategic difference between the two systems, and if you’re a 40k player picking up Fantasy, it will make your life much easier if you approach the game from that perspective.

Thoughts?  Comments?

From 40k to Fantasy Prologue

A lot of you have written off Fantasy.  According to common internet wisdom, the game is horribly broken and not practical as a competitive game.  I tend to agree with that sentiment to a large extent.  As I touched on in my article from last week, the main criticism is that the game is "too random."  I rejected that criticism when I concluded that it isn't particularly random, just swingy.  The game could be going one direction all game, and then do a complete 180 thanks to one spell, one miscast, one failed leadership roll.  Seasoned 40k players are not used to games taking big swings.  In 40k, comebacks do happen, but usually games either go one direction from start to finish, or if there is a comeback it's because the underdog slowly and methodically claws his way back over the course of several turns.  Experienced Fantasy players, on the other hand, expect the game to swing back and forth dramatically.

Fantasy armies are nothing if not aesthetically pleasing

I think competitive 40k players can enjoy Fantasy.  I know it's so, because I am a competitive 40k player who enjoys Fantasy.  If I can appreciate it, so can you.  Over the next few articles, I'll explore how a 40k player can start playing Fantasy and actually enjoy doing it.  Some of them will have to do with tactics, strategy, and list building.  A great many rules and laws of proper list building people take for granted in 40k don't apply to Fantasy, and if you try to force the round peg (40k tactics) into the square hole (Fantasy rules) you may get frustrated with the game.  I will try to explain the differences.  

On another vein, I will explore the idea of Fantasy as a semi-competitive game.  40k, with the advent of 5th Edition and frequent FAQ updates, and the adoption of the NOVA system nationwide became a competitive game.  When I argue that Fantasy is 'semi-competitive' what I'm saying is you can have a Fantasy tournament with cut-throat lists, but don't emotionally invest in the results.  Additionally, I will explain why I think Fantasy actually makes a better beer and pretzels game than 40k.  40k has changed, in my opinion for the better, from a beer and pretzels game that can be played competitively to a competitive game that can be played casually.  Fantasy is ideally beer and pretzels game that can be  played competitively occasionally.  I'll go into depth on how a competitive 40k player can take up Fantasy non-competitively.

Stick around.

'Ard Boyz Prelims Tournament Report

Hey all.  I played in the prelims Saturday using a rather familiar list if you've been a reader here for a few weeks.  I went for a nice 45 mile bike ride in the morning before the tournament.  I figured either it would wear me out and I would be exhausted by round 3 and making tons of mistakes, or it would wake me up and get me sharper.  I'm not sure what happen, actually.

In any event, I played at DaVinci's Dreamworks in Vero Beach, FL.  We had a good turnout, but the only bummer was an odd number of players, which mean there would be a bye every round.

Round 1: vs...

A bye.  Ofcourse I get the bye.  So a minor victory with no bonus for me, +13 points.  I get to relax and watch some of the other games, and I went home and took a long lunch.

Total Points: 13

Round 2 vs. Colby with Dark Eldar

Colby was running a list roughly as follows...

Vect in Raider with Incubi

2 Raiders with Wyches

3 Raiders with Warriors

1 large foot Warriors unit

6 jet bikes with 2x heat lance

2 Venoms with True Born with blasters

3 Ravagers

I won the roll off, and deployed first, but I set up in a manner where I wouldn't be too hurt if/when Vect seized the initiative on me.  I kept my Typhoons and Dreadnaught completely out of line of sight.  This plan worked, as Vect seized and he got first turn.  His shooting was rather ineffectual the first turn, and mine wasn't too bad.

Turn 2 was where things went well.  By the end of turn two, all his forces were de-meched and the only intact vehicles he had was an empty Raider and a Venom.  And my Typhoons were all intact as most of his firepower went to shooting Rhinos and Predators.

In the end, it was the Typhoons who were the MVP.  The double frag missile + heavy bolter mowed down his de-meched infantry.  By the end of the game, I controlled 3 objectives including the middle, and he controlled only the one in his deployment zone.  Massacre with +2 bonus points.

Total Points: 35.  Things are looking good, if I do well in the last round I should place, which is always the goal at 'Ard Boyz.

Round 3 vs. J.D.'s Hybrid Blood Angels

I was matched up with J.D. who was leading having Massacred his first opponent and Majoring his second round match.  His list was pretty unique, and was as follows...

Terminator Reclusiarch

Corbulo

2x Priests (one in terminator armor)

5x Assault terminators in LRC

3x Riflemen dreads

1x Furioso with Blood Talons and meltagun in drop pod

2x 10x Assault Squad with triple melta in drop pods

2x 5x Assault Squad with double melta in Las/plas razorbacks

It was Dawn of War and I was going second.  I elected to walk on everything in order to bone his drop pods.  It worked as planned and he dropped in defensively and far from my deployment zone in order to avoid getting nuked as I rolled on.  The rest of his stuff walked on with the LRC in reserve.

My stuff rolled on and thanks to search lights I got a decent amount of shots off that did a little bit.  His LRC deep struck in using the Drop Pod's locator beacon to avoid scatter.  Thankfully for me, his non-aggressive drop pod placement kept the LRC out of range to do anything.  On my turn I kept the pressure going with my shooting at his army with my massive amount of 48" range firepower.

In a key tactical move I sacrificed a Rhino to block his LRC.  On his turn he popped the Rhino, but the double melta inside lived to threaten the LRC.  He tried to assault them with his 10x assault squad, but thanks to the crater of the Rhino they didn't roll enough to get to them.  On my turn, that multi-melta exploded his LRC.  With his terminator rock out in the open I unloaded a ton of firepower on them, killing about half.  The rest of my army mowed down his dreads, razorbacks, and assault squads from afar.

On his turn, his terminators failed to charge one of my melta units who were hiding in cover by rolling a 1 and a 2 for distance.  Had he rolled a 3 he would have gotten them.  This left me another turn of full power shooting at them to wipe them out.

By the end of my turn 5, all he had left was half an assault squad, a full assault squad and an immobilized razorback.  All I lost was 2 Rhinos, 3 Typhoons, 2 Rhinos, and a 5 man melta squad.  I won 2,043 victory points to 632 for a massacre.  I got 2 bonus points for him not bringing a fast attack choice, and for my EC living through the game.  My MVP was luck.  All my units preformed average and none stood out as being particularly better than the others, which you expect from MSU really.  But him failing two very short charge distance rolls  dramatically changed the game.  I probably still would have won, but it would have been much closer. 

+22 points

Total Points: 57

Good enough for first place!  I've placed in 'Ard Boyz the last 3 years, but I had never won.  It was nice to take home first place for once, in rather convincing fashion.  Super happy with how the list preformed, and I somewhat regret not bringing the 2k version to NOVA and trying to be more competitive, but it's neither based nor fully painted to a high tabletop standard so that won't be happening.

What loot did I get for first prize?  Two things, one of them practical, and one for fun.  The fun item I would have never bought, but if it's free...

All in all, a pretty fun day.  The tournament was smooth, no dickhead behavior that I was aware of and no one was a sore loser/bad winner.

Good night all!

WHFB: More Thoughts

Some pretty good comments I felt responding to warranted a post of its own.  So here goes...

Icebone wrote: What would you deem as a good solution to the disparity between close combat heroes/monsters and magic users? Making magic more expensive/close combat heroes cheaper or what? 

I'm not a game designer/developer and I don't fancy myself one, either.  Most of the 8th Edition magic is pretty balanced actually.  It's a handful of spells that are a bit too powerful and throw off the balance.  So I see the solutions as follows:

1.  Nerf the spells in questions with errata to lower their power.  I don't like this option, but it requires the fewest changes.

2.  Make monsters and monstrous mounts auto-pass all characteristic tests.  Give characters Look Out Sir! saves from all spells that currently ignore it except ones like Death Magic snipe spells that explicitly exist to kill characters.  These changes would be good for the game, but would require errata that changes too much of the rule book to be practical.

Vilicate wrote: Monsters in general don't suck, just character ridden monsters tend to be overpriced. 

Totally agree.  I was a little loose with my language but you hopefully got from the context of my article I was talking about ridden monsters.

It just sucks when it's clear the GW marketing department is begging you to bring a fighty general riding a monstrous mount, but the Design department says no way.

WHFB: The Difference Between What We Want It To Be And What It Is

GW, for whatever reason, has been pumping out a ton of Fantasy stuff recently, and I have to say how impressed I am with the sculpts.  The new Zombie Dragon thing and the DE Black Dragon are so much better than the old models from the 90’s (80’s?) that they have me salivating.

Fall in love with the Dark Elves all over again

Unfortunately, dragons suck.  Stelek suggests monsters suck because they die turn 1 to cannon fire and they are easily killed by any auto-die template magic spells.  This is all true.  Making matters even worse, they cost a ton of points for what is essentially an easy to kill fighty character.  Compare the cost of a Black Dragon to a War Hydra, and you can see why Dark Elf players aren’t exactly rushing to play dragons.

Plus you have the ages old Fantasy problem: fighty characters aren’t points efficient.  They probably will only be in combat 3 or 4 turns out of the game, and realistically, how much can they kill in 3 turns?  Then compare that to how much a wizard of comparable points can kill over 6 turns.  You can see why competitive players put their character points into magic users rather than fighty characters.  Oh great, you can put a wizard on a dragon.  But you don’t want a squishy wizard in combat.  Wizard in combat = waste of a wizard.  Dragon not in combat = waste of dragon.  So that’s out.

I have more bad news for you.  The 8^th Edition rules nerfed fear/terror and implemented Steadfast.  These changes really hurt monsters.  In 7^th Edition, monsters would charge a block of infantry, kill the first row, auto-break them due to terror and run them down and then kill something again next turn.  Now, monsters will charge infantry, kill the front row, take a wound or two back, and be stuck in for the next couple of turns.  Great, your 700 point imba-monster spent the whole game killing a 400 point infantry unit!  Woohoo.  Or worse, you imba-monster has a bad turn of combat and doesn’t do enough wounds and loses combat resolution and runs off the table.  Bad news there.

I feel in a lot of ways Games Workshop is trying to pull Fantasy in two different directions at the same time.  On one hand they built 8^th Edition rules to favor magic and large blocks of infantry, which by itself is totally fine.  But all the 8^th Edition books released as well as subsequently released kits seem to be pushing big, centerpiece monsters, which is fine too.  The problem for them from a marketing perspective is they sell the game with the monsters, because let’s face it: you’re going to attract new players with the cool large monster kits, not blocks of non-descript infantry.  Unfortunately, the rules don’t support a game based around large centerpiece models.  I imagine a great many new players are disappointed when their awesome looking monster dies turn 1, or perhaps worse, survives all game but achieves nothing.

I’m not going to say 8^th Edition is bad.  It really IS an improvement over 7^th Edition in almost every way.  The issue boils down to marketing and fun.  The game is sold with big, centerpiece kits that make even die-hard 40k players drool.  But the rules don’t encourage you to play units like that.  I think GW realizes this, I mean, they have to realize this since it’s blatantly obvious.  But 9^th Edition is far too far away.  They could issue an FAQ tomorrow to change cannon balls to 1 wound each rather than D6.  They could change it so that Terror causers prevent someone from being steadfast.  They could make it so that the rider’s ward save applies to his monstrous mount.  Any or all of these things would make monsters more playable.  But the big problem of magic characters being simply more points efficient than fighty characters won’t change even with those changes.

If this doesn't make you at least slightly interested in Fantasy, you probably aren't a wargamer

Until then, I will look at the Black Dragon kit and drool at how cool it is.  But it will be a relationship from afar, as the $50 in my wallet will be staying put and the kit will stay on the shelf.