View Full Version : Warhammer Fantasy VS Warhammer 40,000

30-09-2007, 12:02
Seriously I think Im a minority here. It seems to me that Warhammer Fantasy is a much better crafted game than its sci-fi counterpart. It is superior in terms of gameplay and fluffwise (I still have difficulty in accepting space elves, dwarves and hobbits). Now I never collect 40k armies but from what I see, in 40k about 60% - 70% of your opponents would be Space Marines (from my local hobbyist centers at least). Seriously I would be sick of fighting those damn Marines again and again.

Now as for Fantasy, the opponents you would face is much more myriad than 40k. Over at my local hobbyist centers usually you wont find more than 4 people playing the same faction. There would be Vampire Counts (all Blood Dragons though), Bretonnians, Imperials, Chaos, High Elves, Dwarfs, Orcs and even a Skaven player. I like this better, not just those damn Marines again and again.

30-09-2007, 12:10
I play both, however, I only started fantasy this year, as some of my friends were also starting it.

Before this, at my local club we only had lots of 40k and some vets playing either BFG/BB or confrontation...

30-09-2007, 13:03
i find 40K more relaxful, plus i prefere the background.

WFB just isn't as much...fun as 40K imo.

30-09-2007, 13:18
I play both, but prefer 40k for it's gameplay and background.

30-09-2007, 13:52
i gave up my 40k when i saw a battle between two tau armies played out. it was the single most boring game i've ever witnessed, each player playing without regard for strategy or tactics. all it involved was mindless shooting at everything that was in rage. this disgusted me to no end and since then i have stopped painting and playing with the battle for macragge.

fantasy is, in short, a much better game.

30-09-2007, 14:28
Yea i'l have to agree with huitzilopochtli on this one. warhammer 40k battles are incredibly boring to watch and play. Nobody ever runs away, most armies just stand there and shoot at each other and even when they get get into close combat, it still ends up boring. Warhammer fantasy is just so much more fun because so many different things can happen in it. You just don't get same sence of happiness and achievement in 40k like you do in fantasy when your amazing tactical plan comes together perfectly.:)

Some guy (UK)
30-09-2007, 15:53
Firstly, why post it here in Fantasy general. Surely that is going to affect the votes?

Secondly, can't we just accept them as two different systems, for different people? Preferences differ, for many reasons. What someone wants from a game system may be the total opposite of another hobbyists views.

Thirdly, what of LOTR? Or is this a Warhammer vs. Wahammer thing, and not 'Which is GW's best system'?

30-09-2007, 15:59
I like both...games of 40k are only boring if you put two forces together that WILL make a boring game (Tau vs Tau). Build a lits that is funf or you, and find people to play against who don't analyse a codex to drain all possible benefits out to kick the crap out of you (unless its a tournament then expect it regardless of which game you play, you always play to win in a tournament xP).

Anyways...both are good, I prefer 40k because it's what got me started and interested in wargaming.

30-09-2007, 16:06
I find fantasy to be more tactical, while 40k more like 'lets shoot everything and see who has better dice rolls'

30-09-2007, 16:22
Thirdly, what of LOTR? Or is this a Warhammer vs. Wahammer thing, and not 'Which is GW's best system'?

Lol, I have yet to bump into someone who plays LoTR. Warhammers are crafted to be tabletop game while LoTR is crafted to be a fantasy novel fiction. There you go.

30-09-2007, 16:27
Fantasy strikes me as being more tactical than 40k.

I only play(ed) 40K out of preference, simply because I'm more of a sci-fi nut than a fantasy nut. I usually read the fantasy sections of White Dwarf with interest, albeit at a spectator's standpoint.

Brother Gabriel
30-09-2007, 16:28
Since i play both games i voted according to that.
But actually i fail to see the sense of all this... the best that comes out of this is two groups of gamers accusing each other of playing a childish game and their prefered system is way more mature...
So have fun all till the flaming starts :D.
Oh and i like 40K actually a little more since its not all about heavy cavalry rushing you to death and beyond.

Bye Bye (first and last post in this thread)

Count Sinister
30-09-2007, 16:36
Maybe for some people comparing the games is a way of deciding whether to start playing the 'other' game or not. I'm a fantasy player, but am interested in starting 40k, in part because the models are so nice. Do I think the two games are going to be different? Of course I do! Do I know the ways in which the two games will be different? No, I don't, and that's why the thread is interesting. A lot of people say that 40k is a more fun, relaxed game, and if that's true, it would certainly attract me to it. Fantasy is fun - don't get me wrong - but if you lose your concentration, you're in trouble. How does 40k play on the table, that's what I want to know. Is it relatively quick to set up and get started? Are turns pretty quick, in general? Is there a lot to remember, and if you forget something, does that mean your army is going to lose? These are the questions that interest me.

30-09-2007, 16:37
Now, now you people, 40k isnt just a roll dice and shoot game. But of course some factions are crafted in this way that basically it rendered them into a roll and shoot like Iron Warriors, Imperial Fist, Tau and Imperial Guard.

But however if you're a World Eaters, Dark Eldar, Tyrannid or Necron player, you gotta squeez some brain juice in order to win the battle. Send forth your Eldars into shooting match bound to get them slaughtered. Send forth your Tyrannids into a mindless charge like frequently portrayed in fluff will certainly get them wipe out as well. You gotta cleverly use covers for such factions. As for Necrons, you aint got much units so if you let somebody hammered you down below 70% you're a goner.

My only gripe on 40k is having to face the same opponents (Space Marines and sometime Tau) over and over again.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
30-09-2007, 16:44
Fantasy offers a much richer reward. With manovering, limited lines of sight etc.. it's just far more rewarding to my mind!

30-09-2007, 16:46
I play WFB exclusively now. I used to play both before 4th edition.
I may return to 40K depending on what GW do with the Orks, but for now, I get so much more out of fantasy...

30-09-2007, 16:52
Hi all.
Well as 40k is just a 'dumbed down version of WH in space', for those that like this sort of thing.

I mean if GW actualy developed a new rule set for 40k not try to mutate the WH rule set to work!
The game of 40k could be great!

LOTR got a new rule set, and the 'gameplay' fits the game ,brilliantly!

So best games,ALL SGs,/LOTR,then WH and finaly 40k.

But as far as models and back ground ,all sytems are on a par IMO.


30-09-2007, 17:01
i started with fantasy first but gave in to 40k for variaty.

30-09-2007, 17:05
I play both, but do agree that fantasy is much better! Although I havent played a proper game of 40K for the last three years...

30-09-2007, 17:17
Moved to other GW where it might attract a more balanced selection of responses.

Slaaneshi Slave
30-09-2007, 17:24
People complain about the stand and shoot style of 40k... Ive yet to see it, but I have seen plenty of Dwarves vs Empire with neither side doing much of anything but standing around and shooting.

I prefer 40k for its tactical options and story.

30-09-2007, 17:32
i gave up my 40k when i saw a battle between two tau armies played out. it was the single most boring game i've ever witnessed, each player playing without regard for strategy or tactics. all it involved was mindless shooting at everything that was in rage. this disgusted me to no end and since then i have stopped painting and playing with the battle for macragge.

fantasy is, in short, a much better game.

so you've based your opinions on an entire game system on one battle?

i've seen empire gunline vs gunline battles and let me tell you, it was the most boring game i've ever seen, so your comment is sort of - strange as i could use precisely the same argument to denounce WFB.

not all 40K games are tau vs tau

30-09-2007, 18:16
I could make a snide comment about, 'If FB was actually hands down better, then why is it third of the core games in terms of sales?' but then I'd just be displaying the same nerd insecurity that a couple of the fantasy players in this thread are showing, 'My game is rich, fullfilling and the sport of kings, while that game is the province of kiddies who haven't figured ou how to keep their finger out of their nose." You can't really empirically prove one to be the better of the other, only which one that you prefer.

30-09-2007, 18:28
I have dabbled in fantasy, and agree it is a more thoughtful and tactical game. But i'm afraid for all it's downsides i just love 40k, i think it's the background and cool miniatures that keep me hooked, it's also more managable financially. :)

30-09-2007, 19:04
I play 40k because it feels more unique - a SF game with many fantasy elements, plus there really are no good guys, unlike in WH fantasy. However, I do think the Fantasy has better rules and more balanced armies. I don't miss out on fantasy completely though, since I get my fix by playing WFRP. :)

Slaaneshi Slave
30-09-2007, 19:09
Being a Chaos Mortals player, I would disagree that WFB armies are balanced...

30-09-2007, 19:40
At one point I was doing a crazy switch where I preferred the Tactical elements of Fantasy but I liked the fluff and my friends in 40K.

So now I settle it by playing 40K and WHRP

30-09-2007, 19:46
I like both a great deal from a fluff and model perspective. Gamewise... I'll call you when I find someone to game with. <x.x>

30-09-2007, 22:30
I think both are good games in different ways (I have dabbled a bit in fantasy, but am really just a 40k player).

40k is much better for casual gamers, and it lends itself to a large variety of scenarios (because the movement phase is much less rigid).
One big advantage for 40k for me is, you can easily leave it for months at a time, and still come back and do okay (this happened just recently for me). The rules are simpler than Fantasy, but simplicity doesn't make a game good or bad.
40k also has smaller sizes for basic games (750-1000), so it's also nicer for new hobbyists to dabble into, since you'll probably spend less money starting your team.

Fantasy has a much higher learning curve, but the game is very good. I think it's more suited to those who play on a weekly (or more) basis, though, because you really have to be very tactical in every aspect. Deployment, movement, etc, has to all be done carefully and this skill takes a lot of time to develop (because, Fantasy is a more complicated game, and there is a lot more randomness, with low leadership, Panic tests, tons of special rules, etc).
It has a much larger variety of teams compared to 40k, which 40k could really get more of (I want to see more Orks lol).
Fantasy generally has to have larger games (1500) for your minimum size game, which is also bad in a way, since you have to buy more to play.

Both are good in their own ways, but I couldn't imagine playing Fantasy casually. You'll lose your touch :) Picking up 40k is a lot easier after a long break.

I wouldn't mind starting Fantasy one day, but I'm lucky to get a game in every couple of weeks nowadays. I don't think either is exclusive, or one is 'dumbed down' version of the other. They are different games that allow for different ways to play, just choose whichever you enjoy more.

30-09-2007, 22:55
For my part i started playing warhammer fantasy about 15 years ago. I only played warhammer fantasy for nearly 3 years. Then i started 40K and played nothing else, because 2nd edition was so good an battles so much fun (most of the time).

I just returned to WFB with the 3rd WH 40K edition because most games i played or watched were totaly linear, nothing really exiting EVER happened and i think 40K lost its soul after 2nd edition.

In the contrary the last two WHFB editions were so incredibly good to play with so im playing WHFB all the time now.

A couple of weeks i tried a battle of 40K and it was so unexiting i wont do this for a long time, i think.

30-09-2007, 23:16
I play both and enjoy both, have spent more time playing 40k as I satrted it, but enjoy playing both games equally.

07-10-2007, 22:39
As a pure game, I think WHFB is better.

However these days I rarely play, mostly just paint and read background. Hence I much prefer 40K.

07-10-2007, 23:23
Personally I'm a fan of 40k. From what I have seen, in my admittedly small tatse of fantasty, it is very rare for the little guy to make out and win a combat. Where say a basic guardsmen can take down a hive tyrant by itself, in fantasy it doesn't seem like such a thing could happen. I also like the simpler rules system

08-10-2007, 09:01
Can I voted "neither"? It seems that in their current editions both games are "past their sell-by dates"!

08-10-2007, 09:08
I play both but prefer fantasy, even though I play more 40k.

08-10-2007, 09:16
i play both but prefer the format/style/rule set up of 40k, easier for quicker games i think, fantasy you need alot of time to play.

Chaos and Evil
08-10-2007, 10:41
Seriously I think Im a minority here. It seems to me that Warhammer Fantasy is a much better crafted game than its sci-fi counterpart.

We've done this one before.

40k is an introductory level wargame aimed at kids.
Warhammer Fantasy is an intermediate level wargame aimed at teenagers.
Epic (http://www.specialist-games.com/epic/rulebook.asp) & Warmaster (http://www.specialist-games.com/warmaster/rulebook.asp) are complex wargames aimed at adults.

You can of course still get enjoyment out of 40k if you're an adult (Heck I have several 40k armies myself), it just won't be as tactically challenging as it once was. :)

08-10-2007, 17:07
While I play both, our group has gravitated to almost completely fantasy and has become quite disenchanted with 40K at the moment.

My Death Guard were retired with the new CSM codex although I still hold out hope for the Daemons Codex. I do enjoy playing my Tyranids on occasion.

For fantasy, my in progress Wood Elf army has been thoroughly enjoyable to play and I look forward to every game. I also have a 3500+ Tomb Kings that I also like to play.

I have found the rewards of good tactics in fantasy outweigh the rewards in 40K.

Mr. Smuckles
08-10-2007, 17:14
I started wargaming with 40k way back in second edition, and after playing just about every major tabletop game to come down the pipe, I've finally settled on Fantasy.

I love the level of strategic consideration that comes from the bevy of limitations placed on your units in Fantasy.

I would, however, like to see more huge monsters and stuff come to the Fantasy side of the table, along the lines of apocalypse.

Gazak Blacktoof
08-10-2007, 17:33
I voted Fantasy.

Though our group play both games (amongst other GW and non-GW games) we no-longer play GW's version of 40K.

I've got a few gripes with Fantasy but they mostly boil down to army lists, which we'll get round to altering eventually.

Our group gave up on 40K proper. We found the game wanting in various respects which have been hashed over dozens of times on this and other forums so I wont go into them again. We've got our 2nd trial core rules set done and a couple of trial army lists we're testing for our own version of 40K now. Armies are more mobile and the game is more fluid and we like it. The system is also flexible enough to allow apocalypse style battles to be played at a fair pace as well.

08-10-2007, 18:01
I played 40K for 10+ years until my first game of fantasy then stopped, I love the 40K background and minis but I just can't see how anyone whose tried both could prefer 40K. I recently picked up 40K again (quit at the dawn of 4th edition) and was back to playing fantasy within a week

08-10-2007, 18:24
I play both. Fantasy is the best game, while 40K is the best setting.

My opinion, anyway...

08-10-2007, 18:42
I never played Fantasy (even though I have the rules of two editions and several armies...), but I would always prefer 40K, for two reasons. First of all, I'm more into background and models than the actual game, and for this I do prefer the 40K setting by far. Secondly in this setting I can play everything from Skirmish (Inquisitor, Necromunda, Gorkamorka) over medium sized battles (40K and Apocalypse) to full scale war (Epic), with the addition of space battles (BFG) and air war (AI) - with the Fantasy setting I just don't have that complexity (and the Warmaster minis suck).

Maybe I'm biased by the fact that I do like sci-fi too damn much - if it can't get a plasma core and a lascannon it isn't really worth thinking of. :D

08-10-2007, 20:38
Fantasy as it's not a simple and dumb downed as 40k, though i do still play 40k from time to time. But i'll give fantasy at the rate it's going, until the maximum of 9th edition before it's as dumbed down as 40k.

But, fluff wise, 40k destroys fantasy. Not even close to a fair fight, like Mohamad Ali (In prime) vs a parapligic, blind, downs kid...

08-10-2007, 21:43
Started off as a WHFB player 15 years or so ago. Started playing 40K a few years later.

I like the faster pace of 40K, and I feel WHFB has too much of the herohammer aspect to it. I also cannot stand the current magic system. I very rarely play WHFB any more.

09-10-2007, 21:03
I've loved both games over the year but I only play Warhammer these days.

Warhammer 40,000 has a fantastic, varied and interesting universe. Some of the models are just incredible too. However, I've grown to hate the current rule set and if I was in charge of GW's development team I would totally re-write it. Apocalypse seems like a step in the wrong direction too. I get my 40K fix from Dawn of War at the moment.

I don't like the Fantasy universe anywhere near as much but it's rule set is beautiful. It's a very balanced and rewarding game. Not only is there a balance in the rules but there's also a much better balance in the armies that people play.