PDA

View Full Version : Transition 4k to Fantasy Worth it?



Kabal of The Ordo Mallius
06-11-2007, 04:01
I have played Warhammer 4k for a year using Dark Eldar and Space Marines. I am considering Fantasy. I am not impressed though. I bought Battle of Skull Pass, and although i like the idea of maneuvering your army and such, i dislike the "my block of guys hits your block of guys approach." I do believe that fantasy (from what I've seen) requires more tactics, but on the same scale a lot more luck than 4k. Examples include Dwarven Cannons, and magic. In many games I've seen the game was decided by stupid Goblins quarrelling and doing nothing on a roll of 1, the pure luck of a siege machine, or a magic power making an entire army flee. It seemed a little too depressing for a simple roll of 2 dice to decide an entire game. Correct me if i am wrong. I am not trying to trash fantasy, it looks cool, but there are a few things i am uneasy about...

Nephilim of Sin
06-11-2007, 06:34
You got to understand that you are talking about Orcs and Goblins though. That is something about their nature. Tactics can go right out the window with them with a few bad rolls.

If you don't like the big blocks, what about beastmen? I have never had the chance to play them myself, but there is something about their skirmish tactics that appealed to me as a Dark Eldar player, although I am not at all familiar enough with their rules.

It kinda seems to me that a lot of the parts that are getting you down about fantasy is where the actual tactics do come into play. War machines thrashing your army? You have to find ways to use terrain as cover, or dispensible units, or machine hunters. Magic a problem? Figure out when to use or save dispel scrolls. Again, terrain can be a factor here because of Line of Sight on some spells. If the army is crumbling, perhaps keep weaker units closer to the general for the leadership boost.

It does get frustrating at times, and luck is definately involved. I guess the main thing is that even when luck is running away from you, you can use different tactics to get things back on track. I would say give it a little more time, that way you can adapt an army to the playstyle you desire, and figure out which tactics work the best for you. I started playing fantasy on a whim, and never went back to 40k.

gorenut
06-11-2007, 07:38
I don't think Fantasy requires more luck than 40k. The difference between 40k and Fantasy is that with Fantasy.. there are more ways to add "stable" numbers to help you win combat. It's not like 40k where it's mostly just rolling dice and comparing it to statlines. IN Fantasy, tactics and squad composition are rewarded with static numbers that get added to your normal rolls. I like both games for different reasons, but admittedly.. if I had to stick to only 1 game, I'd choose Fantasy.
OH, and I started the hobby with 40k in 2nd ed.. I used to think Fantasy was super lame until i actually really got into it.

Braad
06-11-2007, 07:54
It's true, it happens sometimes that for a silly reason you get beaten to **** or win gloriously. Seen it happen.

But most of the time, especially against cool opponents you get crazy batlles that are just loads and loads of fun. I usually try to go for a massively bloody draw. Those are the best games.

And for the rest, 40k is just a very different game then fantasy. But both are (probably, haven't played 40k actually) just fun games in their own aspect.

Etienne de Beaugard
06-11-2007, 11:13
The chance that a game will be decided by a single roll is about the same in WHFB and WH40K.

Generally, WHFB is more about close combat than 40k. While there are some shooty armies, most are about smashing my block of guys into your block of guys. Being able to get your block of guys to his your opponent's has very little to do with luck and a lot to do with good tactics.

Small games don't give you the full scope of fantasy. If you have the chance, watch a couple of veterans play a 2k+ game, or better yet, borrow an army and play one yourself. WHFB is worth it.

Kroxigore
06-11-2007, 12:04
I have played Warhammer 4k for a year using Dark Eldar and Space Marines. I am considering Fantasy. I am not impressed though. I bought Battle of Skull Pass, and although i like the idea of maneuvering your army and such, i dislike the "my block of guys hits your block of guys approach." I do believe that fantasy (from what I've seen) requires more tactics, but on the same scale a lot more luck than 4k. Examples include Dwarven Cannons, and magic. In many games I've seen the game was decided by stupid Goblins quarrelling and doing nothing on a roll of 1, the pure luck of a siege machine, or a magic power making an entire army flee. It seemed a little too depressing for a simple roll of 2 dice to decide an entire game. Correct me if i am wrong. I am not trying to trash fantasy, it looks cool, but there are a few things i am uneasy about...

I think, you encountered the most random things in warhammer fantasy. Orks and goblins are, in my opinion the least controllable army in the whole game. That's a reason, why even some veteran players stopped playing them, when the new armybook came out (at least I talked to two of them).
In the case of magic, I do agree on its randomness. The point is, that many armies don't have to rely on magic in order to win. If you don't like the randomness of magic, you should be perfectly fine with a lvl 1 mage with two dispelling scrolls.
Warmachines are kind of random, that's right. But with many armies, you can get engineers or something like that to make them less random.

The overall thing I want to point out is, that if you don't like the randomness of Orks and Gobbos, you should play something else. I, for instance, play Lizardmen and they are pretty reliable. They don't run away too quickly and they basically do, what they are told. Plus the Slann ignors miscasts, if you make him the 4th generation, so magic is not that random anymore (though I recently had a game against empire, where my magic just refused to work).
I can really recommend you to try out fantasy a bit and find an army, that you like playing.


The chance that a game will be decided by a single roll is about the same in WHFB and WH40K.

Generally, WHFB is more about close combat than 40k. While there are some shooty armies, most are about smashing my block of guys into your block of guys. Being able to get your block of guys to his your opponent's has very little to do with luck and a lot to do with good tactics.

Small games don't give you the full scope of fantasy. If you have the chance, watch a couple of veterans play a 2k+ game, or better yet, borrow an army and play one yourself. WHFB is worth it.

I disagree about the first point. The thing is that in fantasy the army has to have an overall concept. More than in 40k at least. There are some weak points in every concept, that can make your whole battle plan collapse, for instance, the death of your general is pretty fatal in some cases. Also, in fantasy, you have more really important morale tests than in 40k (in 40k there are pretty many fearless troops, so that morale doesn't have the role it has in fantasy). But if you don't like that randomness, you might want to play undead or so.

redyellowpinkgreen
06-11-2007, 12:37
Fantasy can seem random to start with but army composition and tactics can compensate. If you don't want your gobbos to squabble don't take them or see if there's a magic item to stop them (I don't know if there is I haven’t read the book) if you don’t want your army to all run away at the same time space them farther apart so they don't have to take panic checks off each other, keep a battle standard bearer close by or do all you can to make them win the fight and make your opponents flee instead. Someone mentioned beastmen, they are a great army to start off with and to make the transition from 40k: they can be almost all skirmishing which makes it easy to out manoeuvre your opponent, they have no shooting, which is means you can remain manoeuvrable with worrying too much about firing positions and line of sight and you can combine it with hordes of chaos if you decide that blocks of troops may be a good idea. If you don’t like magic there’s no reason to have any at all, most armies (apart from maybe vampire counts) can be completely magic free if you like, it is unpredictable the other day i took 3 mages in 1000pts and one of them got killed when a crucial spell failed to go off and another got 2 miscasts in the same magic phase which demoted him a level, there’s allsorts of magic items i could've taken to prevent it but i like the risk, i take stupid armies that are good in one field and either lose horribly or massacre the opponent. But give fantasy a try, it’s a different tactical challenge to 40k but it is fun and worth the effort. Sorry about the lack of punctuation, hope it’s not too unreadable :p

Havock
06-11-2007, 12:44
Short answer, yes, it's worth it.

Fantasy is the better game (by far, but 40k has tanks...)

tanglethorn
06-11-2007, 13:07
I agree Fantasy is a much better game. I've played both and strted with 40k. In all honestly I feel that 40k is a bunch of point, shoot and roll a bunch of dice.

Fantasy is about maneuvering and close combat. COmbat resolution for many armies is key, except for armies such as Ogres and Wood Elves.

Plus Character customiztion is much more...well... custom! Also characters are move powerful in Fantasy which is cool. Picture a Human hero with the right magic item charging the flanks of a ranked up unit slaughtering up to five guys at once.

mistformsquirrel
06-11-2007, 13:08
I think both are cool <. .>b

*edit*

And I do have to agree on the above point about character customization. It actually goes significantly beyond even older 40k books with huge armories, because most of the items in those armories were... less-than-useful.

On the other hand, the magic items and mundane items you can equip to a Lord or Hero in WHFB really let you build "your" character.

My favorite is the groups that have additional things, like the Armory of Khaine, or the Knightly Vows of Brettonia, so that not only do you customize your equipment, but you even get to choose some skills.

There's just something about that I find immensely appealing.

This isn't to say 40k is bad though; its just very different. 40k is, to me, all about building a cohesive concept for your army, and your commander is there to support that concept. Your commander however cannot be relied upon to *be* a part of the concept by themselves - merely to augment something that already exists due to other units you've chosen.

Fantasy on the other hand, will allow you to do absolutely insane things... like putting a Lord on a Dragon; spending half of your points on one model! How tactically sound that is I can't say <,< but there's something incredibly neat about taking on a whole army with your big stompy lord of death!

As someone else said though... 40k has tanks. And tanks are cool. >.<;

<;_;> Aww hell, I'm no help. As I said at first - I like both. >.<

Kroxigore
06-11-2007, 13:08
Short answer, yes, it's worth it.

Fantasy is the better game (by far, but 40k has tanks...)

lol, I wouldn't say better, but more tactical by far. The point is, the whole maneuvering thing can be really demanding. That is the main difference imo. In 40k there are armies, that you are nearly chanceless against, even if you play against a newbie. You normally don't see that in fantasy.

mot666
06-11-2007, 13:32
If you're just playing with the BSP set then your battles are small enough that a single unit fleeing or a single spell will have a huge influence on things. Although a lot of fantasy is luck (as with 40k and every other wargame out there), a bad roll at 2000 points will influence things a lot less.

Havock
06-11-2007, 14:57
lol, I wouldn't say better, but more tactical by far. The point is, the whole maneuvering thing can be really demanding. That is the main difference imo. In 40k there are armies, that you are nearly chanceless against, even if you play against a newbie. You normally don't see that in fantasy.

I would, 40k is waaaaaay too dependant on "who gets the first turn".
Any rules that limit the effectiveness of 1st turn KO shooty armies of death (nightfight) can completely cripple armies that rely on them (IG).

In my opinion, the entire ruleset can be rewritten from scratch, preferably with something that really balances things up, like, say, simultaneous turn sequence ala Classic Battletech.

Kroxigore
06-11-2007, 15:54
I would, 40k is waaaaaay too dependant on "who gets the first turn".
Any rules that limit the effectiveness of 1st turn KO shooty armies of death (nightfight) can completely cripple armies that rely on them (IG).

In my opinion, the entire ruleset can be rewritten from scratch, preferably with something that really balances things up, like, say, simultaneous turn sequence ala Classic Battletech.

Well said, you're totally right. I didn't think about that. That one dice roll and the one, that decides, which mission you play (alpha or whatever) can really decide, who wins the game. I think, they actually tried to minimize that effect by using rules like escalation and more area terrain, but that didn't work out too well imo.

Kabal of The Ordo Mallius
06-11-2007, 19:45
Well thanks guys. I think i may get into Fantasy. Maybe Ogres (lack of guys to paint). The other thing i didn't like in fantasy was all the ugly looking models. The whole Lizardmen and Skaven armies are just...well they are damn ugly in my eyes :P. Still Fantasy DOES look fun, so i might jsut try it...when i get more money...a lot...more money... :(

Lord Raneus
06-11-2007, 23:28
Ogres are supposed to be very difficult to play with, I believe. Might want to pick another "elite" army like maybe Bretonnians (although this may be viewed as cheesy), or Dwarves.

Also, Fantasy really does need to be played at the 2k level. It gets much better.

Khorghan
06-11-2007, 23:31
everyone has the models and armies they dont like, i agree with you on with the skaven,
and why not start now with the BfSP box models that you already own so your somewhat familiar with the game when you start your ogres? i see you live in ontario and in Toronto eaton center games workshop they made it so that you dont have to paint your models when you play in the store(since you dont like painting models and thats why you chose ogres)

Lord Raneus
06-11-2007, 23:51
On second thought, if you don't like painting, avoid Bretonnia like the plague. :P

Ogres look fun, just be warned that they are a fairly difficult. army to play with, at least in my (admittedly inexperienced) opinion.

Axis
07-11-2007, 00:21
My opinion is that fantasy is a much better game. It does take a bit of getting used to but its worth it! As someone else already pointed out fantasy isn't as dependent on who gets the first turn. So much more tactics as well.

Lord Raneus
07-11-2007, 01:30
Fantasy definitely is more tactical. You have to deploy well and move well, whereas in 40k, it's not as big because every unit has 360 degree move.

However, the odds of one bad roll messing up your entire game are somewhat lower in 40k.

DarkLord Of Naggaroth
07-11-2007, 16:26
Kabal of The Ordo Mallius: I do agree with you that it is too based around randomness, but I couldn't imagine it without it and I'd be hesitant to make any changs.

Chaplain Mortez
07-11-2007, 16:47
Personally, I find 40k to be a much better game, but Fantasy is definitely worth the investment, especially if you show up to your local gaming group and everyone is playing Fantasy (I always bring two armies--one for both systems). Fantasy does have its quirks, like any game, but generally is a pretty solid system. Magic and war machines are very vulnerable to luck, but the pay off is that they are extremely powerful.

I think what you'll find with Fantasy is that the bigger the payoff, the more prone to luck it becomes. As such, things like your rank-and-file troops are more reliable and have less of a chance of being out-right devastating. Unless you pay for the points, like with Chaos.

While a fairly debatable point, I think I'm correct. There are several examples. Bretonnians for one, will lose if they can't break through their opponent's lines on the charge. On the other hand, they will decimate an army if they can make it through. I play a High Elf army with four mages. It is very much a "win big, lose big" army.

Axis
08-11-2007, 05:48
Personally, I find 40k to be a much better game, but Fantasy is definitely worth the investment, especially if you show up to your local gaming group and everyone is playing Fantasy (I always bring two armies--one for both systems). Fantasy does have its quirks, like any game, but generally is a pretty solid system. Magic and war machines are very vulnerable to luck, but the pay off is that they are extremely powerful.

I think what you'll find with Fantasy is that the bigger the payoff, the more prone to luck it becomes. As such, things like your rank-and-file troops are more reliable and have less of a chance of being out-right devastating. Unless you pay for the points, like with Chaos.

While a fairly debatable point, I think I'm correct. There are several examples. Bretonnians for one, will lose if they can't break through their opponent's lines on the charge. On the other hand, they will decimate an army if they can make it through. I play a High Elf army with four mages. It is very much a "win big, lose big" army.

That is one of the charms of fantasy in my opinion. If you want outright devastating you have to risk it. None of this otright devastating all of the time business... and the few things that are devastating all the time are priced accordingly.

but really its the importance of movement (the variedness of it...) and the leadership characteristic that makes me prefer fantasy. Oh and modifiers (i much prefer them to AP and power weapon)... strength modifiers mean there is less of a temptation to min-max to deal with armour. So you see more variety (well at least in my gaming group we see more variety...)

Balgor
08-11-2007, 13:14
Well apart from the people that say fantasy is by far better than 40k is their view, I think its the other way round.

The one thing I would say though is that both systems need both the same amount of tatics.

Yes in WFB you have to worry about getting the charge making sure your units are in the right place at the right time etc, but its the same in 40, you have to make sure you units are in the best possible position (devestators having a nice LoS over the battlefield) also making sure you get the charge, or making sure you get charged what you want to get charged.

But with WFB it can rely a bit to much on powerful characters. Where as 40k you need your characters as they will help, but the are not the be all and end all they wont win you a game or war, and they would not in RL either, its the grunts that do all the work.

But the above is all done to personal views on the different gaming system, you could argue till the cows come home and still not agree.

But for me I quit playing GW about 6 years ago, and just getting back into both systems. I am enjoying 40k a great deal, and currently deciding what fantasy army I want to do before I commit money to it.

But back to your post I guess (sorry dont like people saying that 1 system needs more tatics than the other as I feel its so far from the truth).

If you really do want to consider taking up fantasy, give other armies a try before you make up your mind. Orcs & Goblins are a fun race to play but they can make your best laid plans go to hell very fast. If you can give chaos a go, they are very different from Orcs and Goblins.

King Thurgun
08-11-2007, 14:45
At the OP:
Deceptively, Ogre Kingdoms actually require a lot of models to paint, if you want to play them effectively. I've seen so many armies that use all Ogres get completely smashed because they didn't bring ranked units: the humble gnoblars. Having those scrappy little buggers to anchor their lines makes Ogres much more efficient as an army. Bretonnians operate the same way, without peasants to bring some manpower to the fight, you'll get overwhelmed.

If you really want the smallest number of models to paint, there are tons of other lists to choose from actually.
1. Chaos. Do a chaos knight/chosen heavy list and you'll only have about 40+ guys to paint. Thats less than most 40k armies i know!
2. High Elves. Their cheapest unit in the new book is about 9 points, but most of them roll in at about 15. Throw in some super powerful characters and dragons in there, and you'll be up to 2,000 pt.s in no time.
3. A Big'Uns Ork army. Get lots of black orcs, big un orc boyz, giants, and boar boyz, and you can get a very small ork force that packs a huge punch.

Those are my suggestions, but if those races don't appeal to you, go for the Ogres anyway. Just don't forget your gnoblars!

Kadrium
08-11-2007, 15:50
You can win fine without gnoblar fighters in an Ogre army, but gnoblar trappers are a must.

If you want to start an ogre army, you'll be looking to field as many units of 3 bulls and 3 ironguts as you reasonably can at the point total you choose. A 1:1 or 2:3 ratio of bulls:ironguts is generally a pretty solid build.

And I would also re-warn you that Ogres are a very tactical, finesse army that has a very steep learning curve. They can be very competitive, and have finished as high as 2nd place in a New Zealand GT (Auckland i think, maybe Wellington) and in the top 10-15 a number of times elsewhere. They're a rough way to start, though, and you'll want to expect to lose a large number of your first few games until you get the hang of them.

Rufas the Eccentric
08-11-2007, 19:29
Try the Empire. They offer a good mix of hand to hand, shooting, war machines and magic, without being overly powered. It's not a point and shoot army, and requires considerable thought to play well.

Luisjoey
09-11-2007, 00:49
Both are very different games... i played first Fantasy and now im moving to 40k!

Fantasy is a little more slow than 40k... You move miniatures in blocks and have lots of magic... is more a massive battle (even if you play chaos)

But Wh40k is more skirmish, you place some groups that have lots of mobility, have transports and you play with guerrilla tactics.

That are the main diferences.

If you want slow strategic game play Fantasy, with lots of miniatures XD

Axis
09-11-2007, 01:50
Well apart from the people that say fantasy is by far better than 40k is their view, I think its the other way round.

The one thing I would say though is that both systems need both the same amount of tatics.

Yes in WFB you have to worry about getting the charge making sure your units are in the right place at the right time etc, but its the same in 40, you have to make sure you units are in the best possible position (devestators having a nice LoS over the battlefield) also making sure you get the charge, or making sure you get charged what you want to get charged.

But with WFB it can rely a bit to much on powerful characters. Where as 40k you need your characters as they will help, but the are not the be all and end all they wont win you a game or war, and they would not in RL either, its the grunts that do all the work.

But the above is all done to personal views on the different gaming system, you could argue till the cows come home and still not agree.

But for me I quit playing GW about 6 years ago, and just getting back into both systems. I am enjoying 40k a great deal, and currently deciding what fantasy army I want to do before I commit money to it.

But back to your post I guess (sorry dont like people saying that 1 system needs more tatics than the other as I feel its so far from the truth).

If you really do want to consider taking up fantasy, give other armies a try before you make up your mind. Orcs & Goblins are a fun race to play but they can make your best laid plans go to hell very fast. If you can give chaos a go, they are very different from Orcs and Goblins.

You are probably right and wrong about the tactics.. its probably not a good idea to talk about more or less but different types. It just happens i prefer the fantasy type tactics and you prefer the 40k :). But both are good games.

I also like the look of a fantasy army painted and ranked up better than a 40k equivalent. My advice for picking a fantasy army: choose one you like the models and will enjoy painting. Unpainted fantasy armies blow. I find if you enjoy painting it and like the look its usually a lot of fun to play as well.

colhodg
09-11-2007, 11:29
Think the point of Fantasy is most games build up into one (or maybe two) big decisive combat where something horribly messy happens but the build up and tactical advantage you have when this happens requires a different (maybe more considered) approach than say 40k - where it's about small unit actions, a bit at a time, back and forth - there's less of a grand strategy.
Fantasy really is the dogs B*llocks of a game and there's nothing out there to touch it and never really has been since it started.