Topic: So was FB the most accurate replication of real warfare in all of Warhammer?

[DorkyWaddles]

The AoS Starter Set was my first entry into the entire franchise. However prior to buying it, I played around with FB books. I skimmed through the manuals and drew small pieces of units from different factions and pit them against each other to toy around.

Its only after playing with AoS since buying it this month a crap ton with the Starter Set memorizing the basic rules that as I started experimenting with 40K in vassal that I began to wonder about the differences between AoS and FB as playing around with 40K and watching Youtube tutorials and games made me see 40K as AoS/FB but with far more shooting.............

Until they released for the first time ever a Vassal Module of Fantasy Battles (which you can find the link at in /4/Vassal40k)!

So I went back and actually read the full manual and played around more. And I notice esp after you exceed 40 models per unit (esp in large ones exceeding 100 man per formation) the game becomes very slow and mentally exhausting to play.

It felt so long to finish a small skirmish between two 50 men units esp if you remove morale from gameplay. Basically it felt like through the dice two opposing factions were desperately trying to stab at holes in their shield wall formation and unlike in the movies it becomes a long grind of slowly depleting ranks if both armies are disciplined and have strong morale.

Each time a few model died per time, sending another in front to take the open gap of the line reminded me of battles in HBO's Rome and the final Season of Spartacus Blood and Sand where its was emphasized the shield blocks must be kept tight at all costs while also trying to find gaps in not just your enemy's formation but also for exposed parts of their bodies not covered by armor!

Now I understood more than ever the necessity of discipline in real life Ancient Warfare..........

While seeing the Empire's troops cut down Zombies, Skeletons, and your typical Greenskin army felt like I was sent back to time to see Barbarian hordes get stabbed to death by disciplined Roman legions!

And thats just the start, don't get me started on how using Orc Boarriders to destroy Empire Pikemen made me understand why knights dominated the Medieval Ages and what a "well timed Cavalry charge" actually means and so on.

So it it not an exaggeration at all to see Fantasy Battles as accurately reflecting pre-Napoleonic Warfare? I mean I swear defeating some Dwarves with Guns and Canons with Skaven made me wonder if Speed was why American Indians defeated some Colonial Armies?

In addition has anyone noticed that AoS felt less like infantry tactics and more like a bunch of patrolling spotted enemies and decided to pursue or got ambushed?

I mean my multiples games of Orruks against Stormcast included in the Starter Set seemed to feel like fighting outside of formation and now individual stuff like armor plays a bigger role! Honestly the Stormcast Spearman's Save points made it feel like Aztecs fighting conquistadors but unable to kill them because Spanish armor was far superior to any weapon Aztecs used as I saw Orruks get dispatched.

So much I even made a theory you need 3X more Kruleboyz against a Stormcast Eternal's numbers to hope of having a reasonable chance of winning!

So have anyone noticed this? I mean honestly a small quick game of Fantasy Battle rules felt like a prolonged Phalanx pushing!

[GamesPoet]

Not sure what is being referred to when talking about Fantasy Battles (FB).  Does this mean Warhammer Fantasy Battles (WFB)?  Perhaps this FB is what WFB is being called on a computer game.  If that's the case, I'm not aware of how such plays itself out on a computer game.

When playing Warhammer Fantasy Battles (it's been awhile ... lol), I never felt it was a slog that seems to be described, but instead a bit more dynamic with various units working with each other as an Empire player.  Some of the horde armies seemed less mixed arms, although I didn't tend to play those.

[Zygmund]

I can subscribe to a lot of the feelings expressed here, by the OP.

When Rick Priestley designed Warhammer Fantasy, he was basing his ideas of ancient/medieval combat in 70's and 80's historical wargames. Of course he took ideas from there, and attempted to create a similar feeling for fantasy armies battles. So, I'd say it's natural that anybody comparing FB, AoS and 40K will see and feel the difference.

But one thing I'd like to stress is that none of these games really wants to be a simulation. Rick & other game designers have been quite open about designing entertaining games with a lot of feeling, not simulations. Simulative regimental, skirmish and firepower games tend to have different kind of rules, and although the feeling can be the same, the decisions and tactics the gamer makes tend to be somewhat different.

-Z