PDA

View Full Version : to those people that play 40k and fantasy.



afshinbb
23-08-2008, 15:35
is fantasy as fun or funner than 40k. i was thinking of starting fantasy army.

blackroyal
23-08-2008, 15:39
This question demands that you define "funner". The word is very subjective. What do you like about 40k?

The_Warsmith
23-08-2008, 15:39
for me it's just as fun, it has it's challenges like playing 40k but those challenges are different so it keeps it interesting swapping systems once in a while

Overt_Spy
23-08-2008, 15:50
Blackroyal is right, it all depends on how you define fun.

Play a game or two of Fantasy and think about it. Fantasy is loads of fun too, but it places a high emphasis on movement, and it may seem more 'restricted' than 40K if your more used to it.

I like it because having a strong list, doesn't equate to you winning more often. I find that in Fantasy, generalship has as more to do with success than list construction.

Tarquinn
23-08-2008, 16:02
Warhammer, despite all similiarities to 40k, is a surprisingly different and fun game.

Stinkfoot
23-08-2008, 16:02
Fantasy is a considerably more tactical game than 40k. As was stated it has a lot of emphasis on movement and generalship. Even the assault and magic phases are more tactical and interactive than their counterparts in 40k.

40k is more fast paced and easy to play. 40k also has much more interesting fluff, and better looking models in my opinion.

As kind of an aside... the thing that bothers me most in 40k is having units that cannot be hurt by other units. If a dreadnought gets in CC with a squad without a powerfist, the squad has a 0% chance of defeating the dread. You don't need to worry about that in fantasy, and I appreciate it.

Mozzamanx
23-08-2008, 16:05
Its much easier to screw up in Fantasy, such as exposing a flank or letting the wrong spells through. However, that makes it much more fun and you can really exploit your opponents mistakes.

However, its much stricter with what you can do, compared to 40k when you can move, shoot and assault all in the same turn. There's also more to remember, such as combat resolution bonuses and save modifiers.

Overall, 40k is more fluid and faster paced, whereas Fantasy is much harsher and forces tough decisions.

march10k
23-08-2008, 16:21
I haven't played Fantasy since 1998, but from what I understand, it's rules are finally... "done", finished, don't need any updates, while 40k is in constant need of fixing. I used to have a ball with my 28-strong arrowhead of archers and my 10 grail knights (the rest of my army was really just intended to suck up casualties and distract the enemy). I'm sure the game is much different now, and I'm tempted to get back in with some tomb kings...which I understand is an extremely difficult army to win with on account of having about the worst troops imaginable. I guess they're the equivalent of taking IG conscripts for 8 points appiece against 20 point GKTs....well, maybe not that bad, but I hear it's bad. Sounds like a challenge!

Seth the Dark
23-08-2008, 16:24
I would say 40k is much more enjoyable because of the fact that you don't have as much restriction on movement and that the rules are a little more relaxed.

Hulkster
23-08-2008, 16:26
I play both and I love both.

The games are different but still the same in a few respects.

Deff give fantasy a go, any idea what army you will choose?

the_reaper
23-08-2008, 16:36
I like fantasy because its tactical, and requires alot more forward thought than 40k, and when a plan is, well, going to plan, i feel 'right chuffed' and that makes fantasy fun for me.

As a game 40k is fun because you can blow things up, take cover and use 'true line of sight' which makes it more involved, and something else which isnt really gameplay related, is the fluff in 40k, its awesomly gothic and everything kinda ties in.

-reaper

NearsightedFarseer
23-08-2008, 16:51
I play and love both, while it is more restricted, it has a feel all its own.

Stinkfoot
23-08-2008, 16:59
I'm sure the game is much different now, and I'm tempted to get back in with some tomb kings...which I understand is an extremely difficult army to win with on account of having about the worst troops imaginable. I guess they're the equivalent of taking IG conscripts for 8 points appiece against 20 point GKTs....well, maybe not that bad, but I hear it's bad. Sounds like a challenge!


Poor fighters in fantasy are not as devastating as they are in 40k since, in WHFB, combat is determined mostly by things other than kills. Also, psychology plays a major roll for most units and many poor fighting units (such as skeletons) have excellent psych rules. Skeletons are actually pretty good troops overall, and you can easily win a battle using them as your only line troops. Indeed, Vampire Counts use a lot of skeletons and are considered one of the best armies at the moment. My VC armies take ONLY skeletons for my line infantry (no silly Grave Guard) and I have an excellent win ratio.

No, the reason Tomb Kings are hard to play is because they are overly reliant on magic to win games. Undead in general are more magically reliant than most, but TK are more or less completely helpless without it.

Anyway, TK are decent at certain point levels. Most of their bad rep comes from games played at under 2000 points when they can't take a lord.

The Anarchist
23-08-2008, 17:05
I think the demographic of the games are slightly differnt, WFB normlay attracts a slightly older group. this is normlay reasons of WFB being more complicated and convoluted (arguably I'm sure), where as 40K is more fast paced and slightly less rigours rules.

i guess its just a matter of play a tester of the game and see what you think of it.
hope it goes well.

sigur
23-08-2008, 17:24
The word is very subjective.

Does this word exist at all?

Anyway, that's how I define it: When playing 40k, I enjoy having a beer or three while when playing WHFB, I prefer not to drink.

WHFB requires you to think and plan ahead. 40k doesn't require you to think ahead more than until your opponent's CC phase. Also, the WHFB ruleset seems to be more consistant and elegant than 40k's which seems to be much more like a patchwork.

When playing 40k, I often can't get rid of the feeling that the game is a little dumb and when playing WHFB, I often feel a little dumb. ;)

I'm not sure what's more fun but I think that WHFB is much more rewarding.

Stinkfoot
23-08-2008, 17:45
When playing 40k, I often can't get rid of the feeling that the game is a little dumb and when playing WHFB, I often feel a little dumb. ;)

I'm not sure what's more fun but I think that WHFB is much more rewarding.

Very well stated sigur.

Tzeentch Loyalist
23-08-2008, 17:58
In fantasy, just because you gain the upper hand does not mean that you are automaticly going to win. I have seen games go back and forth in fantasy a lot more than in 40k. One bad psychology test roll and your whole army could run off the board. Thats how I won my only fantasy tournament game this year with the old rule set of the dark elves. One of my units beat his and made his whole army run away. And he was pwning me the whole match. In 40k once one army gets the upper hand the game is over.

I love fantasy though. Great game.

Triggerdog
23-08-2008, 18:11
For me fantasy is too serious. You cant crack jokes and dick around during the game or you'll miss something or offset a regiment.

I prefer 40k because there's its more "real" to me than swords and sorceries and what not. That and I like the pretend factor of 40k. What I mean by that is I prefer imagining a Baneblade grinding forward and unloading its guns into a swarming tide of vile foes than a Dragon or Unicorn capering about with some knights or elves.

Brother Gabriel
23-08-2008, 19:34
Fantasy Battle is full of rules, that dont make any sense at all. Like Soldiers who are unable to turn their head, or turn towards an attacker when not winning combat results.
And Fantasy Battle has so much more "codex creep". Really in FB each new army beats the precessor in sickness :D.
Since Vampire Counts and Deamons, this game aint fun anymore.
All in all its not very complicated except for not very clear formulated rules mingled with fluff texts. It all depends on how good you are at guessing, if you can guess exact ranges of troops movement, shooting and stuff like that AND know the rules of the game and the armies involved you are going to win.
Really FB is all about guessing ranges and knowing the rules.
Oh but once you play Fantasy Battle, you can do the happy dance, that you are a real Strategos now. Oh and yes i play FB and not that bad either.
I like 40K more since the last 2 Armybooks.

Best Regards :)

Hulkster
23-08-2008, 20:20
I think you will find Gabriel that Warhammer makes a lot of sense when you base it upon the armies and time period it is based on. The combat in WHFB is brilliant and my favourite part of the game TBH,

As for the army book creep, it is not as bad as people make out TBH. All of the armies are equally competitive (except perhaps O&G) and people are having no problems with VC and HE now as they are figuring out its weaknesses. The same is beginning to happen with Deamons.

I asgree a lot of lists need work, but I get the felling the same thing is about to happen in 40k, starting with the new SM dex.

Adra
23-08-2008, 21:09
This question is daft. In no way can you say that factualy one is more fun than the other. I think 40k is more fun and im happy to except the fact that im wrong to many people but im also right to alot of others.

EldarBishop
23-08-2008, 21:51
Both games are "fun" and I (as well as many of my friends) enjoy playing both.

Having played both for a (VERY) long time, I'd have to say that Fantasy requires more in the way of tactics and is much less forgiving to mistakes during play and in army contruction.

40k plays quicker and is much more liberal and forgiving regarding tactical errors (some armies even more so then the rest... SMs).

squiggoth
24-08-2008, 00:21
From a gameplay point of view 40K is fast, furious and cinematic fun, whilst Fantasy is more elegant and chess-like.

From a modelling point of view, 40K has much more freedom when it comes to modelling (since there's no need to worry about models fitting in ranks when you decide to model them with wonky action poses or something).

I like both equally for different reasons. As to which game is 'funner' ..... that would be Brewhouse Bash (http://www.specialist-games.com/assets/BrewhouseBash.pdf) then. :p

Alessander
24-08-2008, 00:50
As mentioned numerous times, Fantasy is a completey different game. Movement is the biggest difference, and you can often make a unit completely useless just by deploying it facing the wrong direction.

Combat is very different too, it's possible to cause more casualties but still lose a fight due to being outnumbered and things like standards.

Frgt/10
24-08-2008, 01:43
i play both.

i personally think the most 'fun' version is 40k apocalypse; simply cause killing 1000s of points worth of stuff in a single turn makes me and my mates laugh.

fantasy, while fun, requires a bit more thought than 40k; but can be extremely enjoyable once you get the hang of it

EVIL INC
24-08-2008, 01:49
Fantasy is a fun game to play. Both fantasy and 40k are full of tactics and strategy. Just as in 40k, a good list or strategy can win you the game so be prepared for that. The "play" is different so youll have to get used to whichever one your playing when you switch back and forth.
Both games have a full and rich background that you can use to give your games the "life" that dice and tape measures just cant do alone.
Good luck and have fun.

Ambu
24-08-2008, 01:53
When I played both, loved them both. In fact I am getting back into fantasy as we speak.

Both can be cosidered 'more fun' then the other depending in my mood and thoughts. If I am in for a more rigid serious game that has to deal with a lot of strategy and tactics it is fantasy that will scratch that itch. If I am wanting a looser quick thinking game I go for 40k.

Love them both for different reasons.

AngryAngel
24-08-2008, 02:39
They are both about equal honestly. Fun in diffrent ways and they function in diffrent ways.

Kalec
24-08-2008, 05:17
Both are good games.

Fantasy requires a bit more planning ahead, but has far too many dice rolls for things not involving combat. A bad roll or two can dictate whether or not you even get to charge, or whether the magic phase ends after rolling boxcars on two dice. I prefer 40K because the emphasis is on the fighting, not whether you get to fight.

But, again, both are good, and you really need to play both to decide which you like best.

MrGiggles
24-08-2008, 15:01
I haven't done Fantasy yet (or even finished reading through the rules for that matter), but my take so far is that there's definitely more to the Fantasy rules than 40K. Fantasy seems to be the more tactical and 'complete' (for lack of a better word) of the pair, which 40K is the more accessible and pick-up game.

sigur
24-08-2008, 16:29
Fantasy seems to be the more tactical and 'complete' (for lack of a better word) of the pair,...

I think that the word "complete" hits the nail on the head. The thing in which WHFB is really superior to 40k and which I really, really miss in 40k is combat resolution. I detest the way that in 40k, only kills are counted without taking anything else into account. Sure, there can't be flank and rear charges with the current system but at least outnumbering could be taken in account.

sephiroth87
24-08-2008, 17:56
Agreed with above post.

Fantasy gives you a way for small units to drag down bigger ones with static combat resolution. In 5th edition 40k, the killer units just eat smaller ones with almost no chance to swing it the other way.

vinush
24-08-2008, 18:04
I play both, but find I much prefer fantasy to 40k.

I prefer the nuances of tactical movement. I enjoy the use of actual guess range weapons as opposed to the pale parody of them in 40K.

That said, I think a lot of what spoils my enjoyment of 40K is not having found the right army for me. I recently played a game using IG, and despite losing I thoroughly enjoyed it.

\/ince

LordFulgrim
24-08-2008, 18:54
I play both but it's hard for me to say I prefer one over the other. I enjoy the tactical side of Fantasy but I also like how fast and easy 40K plays in comparison.

You should just give it a try. Which one is more 'fun' really depends on what you like in a game.

freddythebig
24-08-2008, 21:21
I also play both and as with other posters enjoy them for different reasons at different times.
I seem to go through phases when I am more into one game than another. For the past couple of months I have been in a WHFB phase. Before that I was into FoW. When I get myself a new 5th edition hardback rule book this will no doubt spark a new 40K phase.

Cheers.

EVIL INC
24-08-2008, 23:28
Just dont be fooled by those who claim that fantasy is more tactical then 40k. We have gone over that issue time and time again and shown those statements to be totally false (that is also a totally irrelevant issue as this thread has nothing to do with that so kindly leave that issue in the relevant thread). Have fun in whichever one you happen to be playing at the time and focus on the playstyle and tactics/strategy that is most usefull and relevant for the one you are playing.

afshinbb
25-08-2008, 04:56
wow thanks good replies. i just thought painting and making a fantasy army with dragons the other classic fantasy creatures wouldbe quaint.

hulkster, about your chuck norris quote. i saw a funny poster that said stuff like that all over it about norris. like if chuch norris was fighting chuck norris he would still wi. and like chuck norris dosent have the nightlight on becuase he is afraid of the dark but becuase the night is afraid of him. it was in kmart here in the usa and i am sure you can fint the rules of chuck norris poster if you look on the net it was really very funny. i dont remember the rest now but i may go get it now that you reminded me of how funny and unique it was. thanks.

hulkster, about your chuck norris quote. i saw a funny poster that said stuff like that all over it about norris. like if chuch norris was fighting chuck norris he would still win, and how the boogie man checks his closet for norris before bed, and like chuck norris dosent have the nightlight on becuase he is afraid of the dark but becuase the night is afraid of him. it was in kmart here in the usa and i am sure you can fint the rules of chuck norris poster if you look on the net it was really very funny. i dont remember the rest now but i may go get it now that you reminded me of how funny and unique it was. thanks.

Lazarus15
25-08-2008, 05:58
I definitely prefer Fantasy to 40k. It used to be different, but since the beginning of 5th ed, for some reason, Fantasy has just been much more appealing. Perhaps after they get some of the books out, it will be different. However, for the time being, Fantasy is much higher on the tier than 40k.

Things I find better with Fantasy about is customization, movement, magic, and combat resolution.

Starchild
25-08-2008, 08:55
I've played only one proper game of WFB after 20 years of 40k. It felt like being in a straight-jacket. I couldn't do half the things I felt needed to be done, since movement is so restricted, plus I really like ranged weapons, which play a far lesser role in Fantasy. I'm tempted to give it another go, next time with Dark Elves, but I think 40k will remain my mainstay.

In terms of tactics and strategy, I have to say Battlefleet Gothic and the older Epic system (prior to Epic 40,000) have 40k and WFB beat hands down. Such great games, but sadly, now nearly impossible to play unless you turn up with one fleet/army for yourself plus another for your opponent!

lanrak
25-08-2008, 09:25
Hi,
Starchild, I agree that ALL SGs are much better 'games 'than WH or 40k.(But the minis for WH and 40k are deemed to be 'cooler'.)

WH is loosly based on a 'Napoleonic' rule set, (Rick Priestly worked at WRG, before writing WH.)
And works well at representing this type of 'massed rank combat.'
As there are more tactical conciderations in WH , it needs more 'in game planning ' than 40k.

40k has more of a strategic approach, what you bring and where you deploy it has a lot more impact on the result of the game, than in WH.

WH has 'settled on' what sort of game it is supposed to be , and so improves slowly each edition.

40k is still in a state of flux, it has some major disjoints due to 'questionable ' game mechanics.

Want to kick back and blow stuff up, 40k is great fun.

If you want to direct regiments in 'massed rank' combats , then WH is great fun.

Two differnt types of game.Both fun for different reasons.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Waywatcher-
25-08-2008, 13:08
It sort of depends on you...

Waywatcher

EVIL INC
25-08-2008, 13:14
wow thanks good replies. i just thought painting and making a fantasy army with dragons the other classic fantasy creatures wouldbe quaint.

On a purely modeling aspect, fantasy models make great centepieces and display pieces. Guests to your home are far more likely to "know what they are" then they would a 40k display piece.
For the same reason, they generally make better "gifts" to non-gamers for them to use as display pieces. I have given many to the "ladies" and even given a few to co-workers I held a deep enough friendship and respect for that I felt the need to put "more into" a gift for them.
In some cases, the pieces can also be used interchangably between the games. For example, daemons (obviously), fantasy wizards (make great thralls and such), elves (I have seen them used in eldar armies as warlocks and such and they look good), skeletons (in case you REALLY want the undead look for your necrons), the list goes on and includes "counts as like beastmen and dryads being used for generic daemons.
Good luck and happy painting.