Thinking about WHFB

[RampageRabbit]

I realize that there are several "Hi, I'm new to WHFB." posts but I've read through most of them and found my questions unanswered and so I decided to make my own post.I'm thinking about either playing WHFB or 40k and because of money and time I probably do not have the money to do both, which puts me in a position of having to choose one, which is why I'm posting on BoLS in the first place.

As of now I am completely torn between the two. I like both universes equally well and both have armies that the other doesn't really have an analog for and who I really like (Nids in 40k and Skaven in WHFB). What is going to break the tie for me, is a question concerning balance. After reading through the BoLS forums I get the feeling that unless you're playing a very specific list in very specific armies, you will probably not be winning in WHFB, at least not in any really competitive environment. I want the opinions of you BoLS posters on this and I'd also like to know which armies are the metagame ones, mainly because I have a feeling they aren't the ones I'm interested in.

Also, which game would be less cost intensive? Not that I expect to get into this hobby cheaply but it is a factor.

I'm sorry this is so long winded, but let me thank you in advance for your opinions and thoughts.

[fuzzbuket]

nids are cheaper but beware painting too many gaunts/stealers and fex's will get you burnt out and you will hate painting :(

but still theres a LOt of modeling challenges in nids

[Gnoblar with Pointy Stick]

I've always found myself spending less money on Fantasy than 40k. I don't know if that's based in anything other than the particular armies I play, but there you have it.
As far as game balance goes... Take it from an Ogres player, with sound tactics you can beat anyone. The balance is a little more off in Fantasy, but it's not game breaking by any means. The simple fact that I've beaten Warriors of Chaos with Ogres is a telling sign.

The games are very different tactically. Fantasy has a lot more number crunching and doesn't reward ballsy moves as much. 40k is simpler and more fast and loose feeling. So if you want pure tactics with some game breaking spells thrown in, take WHFB. If you want lots of bullets and explosions and slightly more RTS style play, take up 40K.

Skaven and 'Nids are both very fresh and fun to play right now, so good choices.

[Khiran]

My advice is to wait, Rumor has it that the new edition of fantasy is coming soon. I would wait and see what armies are in that before you make any final decision.

[Fizyx]

After reading through the BoLS forums I get the feeling that unless you're playing a very specific list in very specific armies, you will probably not be winning in WHFB, at least not in any really competitive environment.

I will have to admit, this is probably pretty accurate, but I would not use that as a deterrent from playing.

The reason (my opinion of course) why this is is inherent in the design of the game. In 40k.. let's take my Tau for instance. If I plop down 1850 points of random Tau on the table, I know that I still have a very good chance of doing well against my opponent. Reason being, I know my army, I know my strengths and weaknesses, I know how to deploy and utilize my forces well and I can position my strengths vs my opponents weaknesses and vice versa. Tactical decisions in deployment and force utilization are key to 40k, and unlike Fantasy I can maneuver freely and make tactical decisions mid-game to change the flow of the battle.

Fantasy is different, though. Deployment is critical, and the movement phase really is the game winner, but setting yourself up for success with proper army composition is probably just as important because of all the restrictions placed on said movement phase. I'm not talking about tailoring your list for your opponent, but each army does have an optimal way of playing, and if you aren't building your lists correctly you can not play your army to its fullest ability. This means the meta-game is much more important and one flaw in that is you will have armies that just play better in the meta-game environment.

That being said, for casual and semi-competitive play, any army has the ability to win. Of course some are going to be stronger than others, but once you get the flow of the game down and learn to use the movement phase to your advantage, anyone can win.

40k and Fantasy are similar in many of the technical rules (rolling to hit and wound, both games roll d6's, etc) but that is the extent of their similarities. 40k is all about playing the game on the table, where Fantasy is about having a much more strategic look from the beginning and executing a plan. I think that is why I like Fantasy more than 40k, but to each their own.

When it comes to cost, honestly both games have their expensive armies and their cheap armies. Both armies you listed I feel on the "more expnsive than average" side of the house, and I would definitely come to some conclusion on how you want to play your armies before you make any purchases. Overall, I do think Fantasy MIGHT be a little cheaper because you generally have fewer units on the table and there are much fewer expensive model options (read: transports, tanks, Monstrous Creatures) but there are some armies in Fantasy that go that route as well.

I mean, you can easily have a 3k point Warriors of Chaos Cavalry army for 2-300 bucks (if you are comfortable converting knights into heroes, lords and sorcerers) but a Skaven army will probably cost you a lot more than that, not to mention the time spent painting literally hundreds of models. The advice I generally give is to start small, see what you think of the army and if you don't like how it plays you haven't invested a whole lot and probably have a much better understanding of the army you DO want to play. This is a hobby you will probably invest a lot of money in, so go ahead and spend a little bit feeling out the army before you make any HUGE purchases.

And yes, Fantasy is most likely getting a major overhaul sometime this summer. Nothing has been confirmed, but the rumors about some of the rules changes are probably going to throw the meta into a hissy-fit. I generally don't like making army choices based on the meta, and especially now is not the right time to start an army based in any way on that. Remember, start small and see how things fall out. I'm rambling, which means it is probably time for bed. Good night, and good luck.

[RampageRabbit]

Thanks to all of you guys for the comments/tips/opinions. I still haven't really made up my mind, but a friend of mine and I have decided that if we do play 40k, to stick with Combat Patrol rules till we decide if we really want to get into it. The thinking there is that it'll be a reasonably cost effective method to get our feet wet.

I really like the feel of Skaven as far as fantasy goes. I originally started out playing Mordheim of all things and my first warband was Skaven and I love the little guys. I've been reading up on their strategies here on BoLS as much as I can and whenever there is an article out. The thing that scares me about playing them, is painting them. I'm really new to painting and because of that, as you'd expect, I'm not very good at it yet and those little Ratmen seem kind of hard to paint. I think I might give them a go though.

I've noticed what you guys have mentioned about movement in WHFB just from reading and rereading the Rulebook. Movement in Fantasy is governed by a ton more rules than it is in 40k and overall seems to be a bit stricter. I can definitely see how that would make the game a more tactical and more punishing experience.

Any suggestions on armies that might be good for a new player though? As much as I love Skaven, I really like the feel of many of the armies in the medieval setting and I'm open to suggestions. If there is an army that would help me learn the ropes or be more forgiving to a newb on the field then I'd gladly try that out and work up towards the Ratmen.