PDA

View Full Version : Is 40k better than Fantasy?



w3rm
24-10-2008, 02:25
'Ello Mates!

First of i wanna say I've always played fantasy. I dont know much about 40k and i would like to know more. So here's what I would like you to do.


- Give me three reasons why 40k is better than fantasy
- Give me three reasons why fantasy is better than 40k
- Please don't tell me stupid stuff like fantasy is stupid, or just random gibberish



TYVM,
w3rm

Firaxin
24-10-2008, 02:49
- Give me three reasons why 40k is better than fantasy


1. More tactics.
2. Better background.
3. Except for the rare exception (lasgun hordes vs armored companies in annihilation), pretty much everything in 40k is counterable by whatever list you bring to the table. There's no issue of 14 PD lists completely trashing 12PD lists.

This thread pops alot, so beware of whiners whining about you starting one (you really should use the search engine).

cailus
24-10-2008, 02:55
- Give me three reasons why fantasy is better than 40k
-


1. movement matters.
2. tactics matter - it's not just rolling buckets of dice
3. rules are less ambiguous, less counter-intuitive and altogether better.

40K does have the better background though.

Inquisitor Engel
24-10-2008, 03:08
I don't even play fantasy (Come on! Bring on the Beasts of Chaos!) and I have to say that it's a better game.

Much prefer 40k's background though.

devik
24-10-2008, 03:16
1. Fantasy settings don't hold much interest for me.
2. Fantasy doesn't have (real) tanks.
3. Richer storyline. For me, this might go back to #1, though.

Dach
24-10-2008, 03:16
- Give me three reasons why 40K is better than fantasy

1. Freedom of Movement (main reason why I quit playing Fantasy, a lone ogre can only see 45 degree in front of him? :wtf:)

2. Battleground can be anything! (no more boring old plain with hills and a forest somewhere...)

3. Vehicle

I should mention background as 4th but most people will already include it in there 3 point so...

CommissarKlink
24-10-2008, 03:30
IMHO...


- Give me three reasons why 40k is better than fantasy


Generally more White Dwarf content.
Orks are unpredictable, but in ways that aren't just irritating
Apocalypse > Legendary Battles



- Give me three reasons why fantasy is better than 40k


No Space Marines
Dwarves have not been eaten by Tyranids
Models are also useful for Dungeons and Dragons

Grindgodgrind
24-10-2008, 04:10
I like both.

I wish psychology had more of a role to play in 40k (Ala 2nd Ed)....

Corax
24-10-2008, 04:36
I really don't think it is a fair question. Both have aspects that are excellent. In fact, if GW could manage to make a game with 40k's background and factions, and with mechanics that worked more like fantasy, they would have a winner! Oh... Wait. I forgot. We had that already. It was called 2nd Ed. 40k... My bad.

Sersiously, though, both have good parts. I think it is really just a matter of which appeals to you more - fantasy or sci-fi, and background/setting or game mechanics. How you prioritise those choices will determine which game is suitable for you.

sigur
24-10-2008, 04:38
- Give me three reasons why 40k is better than fantasy
- Give me three reasons why fantasy is better than 40k



Why 40k is better than fantasy:
- 40k has more appealing background to me
- has a great history so i can always go on how much better everything used to be and I always will be right
- ifeel more at home with 40k

Why WHFB is better than 40k:
- superior ruleset in every respect
- more challanging
- i actually prefer the look of ranked up infantry to the look of a rabble of dudes

Occulto
24-10-2008, 04:47
3 Reasons why 40K is better than WHFB:

Modelling/Conversions are a lot easer especially as there's no need to worry about ranking up.
Terrain's a lot more varied - fantasy really suffers if the terrain is too dense.
40K players don't throw temper tantrums at the merest suggestion of playing something other than pitched battle. :p

3 Reasons why WHFB is better than 40K:

Rules like psychology have greater effect
Magic
Greater focus on rank and file troops.

wizuriel
24-10-2008, 04:52
Why 40K is better than fantasy:
-more balanced
-quicker/easier play
-better tables/scenary (very hard to navigate in fantasy)

Why WHFB is better than 40k:
-more tactics
-more unique (half the armies in 40k are humans and like another 30% are fantasy race x in space)

Bookwrak
24-10-2008, 05:09
Well, at least this isn't as silly as the past times this topic has come up, where the OP seems to want to concretely prove that one game is poo and the other gold.. However, I just don't see there being an objective answer to the question, since ultimately, it all comes down to what suits you. FB just leaves me cold, while I enjoy the modeling, the armies, and the play of 40k. Unfortunately, that's an answer that only works for me.

Octavius_Maximus
24-10-2008, 05:19
Why 40k is better than fantasy

- Much nicer looking armies
- games are always salvageable with a mixture of tactics and good luck.
- Losing whole units is not as damaging to a game as it is in fantasy.

chromedog
24-10-2008, 06:17
Why is 40k better than fantasy?

1) It isn't fantasy
2) See above
3) Ditto.

I play 40k because I like SF and loathe fantasy. I liked the original cobbled together background (that meshed a lot of my SF core favourites into one melange). You say you've always played fantasy, well you'll be as hard to convince to this side as I am to fantasy (although, since you are asking about it, you're probably NOT averse to switching - I'm a die hard SF guy.). Yes, it can be argued that 40k does use a lot of the same fantasy tropes, but it's the Dune/Foundation/Deathworld/Judge Dredd/Starship Troopers elements that attracted me, not the elves/orks/men elements.

I play 40k because of the background, mainly. The models are another reason, but precious little of the new SM stuff from the last 5-6 years has enthused me (I'm not a fan of the overly blinged-out).

crouchingotter
24-10-2008, 07:39
40K is not better than Fantasy.
Fantasy is not better than 40K.

They are simply different.

Imperialis_Dominatus
24-10-2008, 07:49
Generally more White Dwarf content.

Who reads White Dwarf?
*************************************

Is that a melta I hear charging?

40k is better because:

1. Background. Background, background, background. Background. Mmm, delicious. Some good parts in Fantasy but 40k is superior.

2. Despite what people seem to think, 40k does have tactics, and more people play it.

3. Based on warfare where enemies don't just line up in a field and charge/shoot (unless you play certain factions in 40k and have some dislike of terrain that I can't fathom and refuse to use missions all at the same time this shouldn't happen).

Fantasy is better if:

1. You like Fantasy over Sci Fi. Perfectly understandable.

2. Your idea of 'real warfare and tactics' is from over a hundred years ago.

3. You want to make an army that is difficult to translate into 40k.

Hellebore
24-10-2008, 07:53
Three reasons 40k is better than WFB:

More originality. Now that's not necessarily saying much but COMPARATIVELY 40k is a more original work that WFB.
Most of the other reasons stem from the first one. Originalty of races and concepts. Eldar being more interesting than just elves in space etc

Three reason WFB is better than 40k:

The new marine codex
The new marine codex
The new marine codex

Hellebore

Devon Harmon
24-10-2008, 07:53
Why 40k is better:
1. Easier to get a fully painted army to the table (40k armies generally have fewer models than fantasy armies).
2. Easier to find opponents to play against (in my experience).
3. The background is better

Why Fantasy is better:
1. The rules are are in their 7th iteration, so most of the kinks have been worked out.
2. Magic is much cooler than the [limited] psychic powers in 40k.
3. The game requires more tactics.

neXus6
24-10-2008, 08:00
Fantasy is better because:

1. As a wargame the rules are far better, movement and tactics matter, scenery has propper rules as does line of sight and shooting in general.

2.The background is very in-depth and full (the only reason 40k has more is cause it's got a whole galaxy to pull stuff from rather than 1 planet)

3. I just like Fantasy settings better.

40k is better IF:

1. You preffer the setting.

2. You preffer simpler rules where models can shoot round corners and forests don't exist.

3. You think Fantasy can only be played on an open field with the objective being nothing more than kill each other. There are missions in Fantasy too you know.

:)

All in all I must say I like the 40k setting almost as much as Fantasy but as the Fantasy rules are a far better representation of its setting than the 40k rules are of its I like Fantasy far more.

Bunnahabhain
24-10-2008, 08:18
It's not.

1) 40K, which in it's golden age, had a much more original background, has had it so trashed and ret-conned, it is no longer a selling point. Current marine codex is just the best example of this, I'm sure whatever is next will be worse.

2) Rules set. WHFB rules mainly work for what they are intended to do, and won't change too much, with the different parts being much better integrated, ie no equivilent of the the Armour/MC problem. There are a few bits that don't seem right, but overall, they work.
40k rules on the other hand, don't work awfully well, and seem to have no direction. the WTF moments with it are now so common you scarcely notice them any more, especially any time you want to move and fire vehicle, use LOS or terrain, set up a battle line without being outflanked every time....

3) Models. Individually, both systems have good models. However, if you've got a 6x4 table, or thereabouts, if you want to play a 28mm skirmish game, you shouldn't have more than about 50 models a side, or it gets far too crowded to work. If you have ranked up troops, then the model counts in use are far more sensible.

t-tauri
24-10-2008, 09:09
I've had to remove several offensive posts. Please post in accordance with the posting guidelines and debate without resorting to the use of language or analogies which are going to bring moderator action.

t-tauri

The Warseer Inquisition

imunar
24-10-2008, 09:24
First I don't play Fantasy
Fantasy is better because:

1. They have elves ;)! I LIKE ELVES!!!
2. Realy nice Mini in olt Fantasy style (i like fantasy style.. ok I'm a Fantasy Rollpayer)
3. hmmmm there are no BlueMarines



40K is better :

1. They have Eldar!!!!!!! (Space Elves)
2. Nice backgorund and realy cool Minis (Sometimes i wish i could paint much better *whine*
3. Easy to play and fast system

The Clairvoyant
24-10-2008, 10:34
I'm going to avoid the usual fluff/marines/tanks comparisons, so


WFB is better because:

1) The game scales up far better with the army choices at different points values compared with just bolting on another force organisation chart.
2) Movement and psychology rules still in the game whilst dropped from 40k
3) to hit and save modifiers rather than cover save and AP

40k is better because:

1) The game is more forgiving of your mistakes
2) It's easier to move models through cover/hills
3) It was the first GW game i played so i have that 'first love' attitude towards it.

Ganymene
24-10-2008, 10:38
Three reasons 40K is better than Fantasy:

1. Lasers are 10 times cooler than arrows.

2. Tanks.

3. One character can not rip through an entire army (anymore).


Three reasons Fantasy is better than 40K:

1. More complete ruleset.

2. Magic.

3. There are, and I cannot stress this enough, no Marines.

Master Jeridian
24-10-2008, 10:39
Nice neutral thread, giving plus of both games- kudos.

40k Better than Fantasy

-Much more interesting and original (read stolen from sci-fi rather then stolen from Tolkien and Co) background story. Well, it used to be.

-Much more interesting and original models/armies/styles. A cavalry horse or cannon doesn't really match a Thunderhawk Gunship...

-Err...I'm struggling here.


Fantasy Better than 40k

-Ruleset similar to 2nd Ed 40k. So cover makes you harder to hit, movement and terrain matter. Psychology exists. Armour can be degraded by stronger weapons, etc. In short, a much better rule set.

-Better gameplay as a result. Decisions, positioning and tactics actually matter a whole lot more. In 40k, if you write a decent list, line em up, throw dice and knock em down.

-It actually makes sense for a Fantasy battle to take place on a 6'x4' battlefield, whereas a 40k battle is better represented in Epic.

Ammanas
24-10-2008, 11:53
40 better than fantasy:
1 - Decent background
2 - Simpler (yep, it's a good thing)
3 - It treats psychology reasonably i.e. why the hell would the champion of an entire fleet run away from some little green snotty things.
In the case of fantasy nothing on any of my battle fields can harm my Thane yet he still decides it's a good idea to run away and get pursued because he just routed the entire front rank?!?!?!

Fantasy bettr than 40k
1 - More tactical,
2 - ASM
3 - Psychology has an effect

totgeboren
24-10-2008, 12:09
40 better than fantasy:
1 - Much better background and models.
2 - The terrain! Oh there are so many different battlefields you can make for 40k that works with the rules.
3 - Games tend to be decided in the last turn. Often who has the upper hand switches sides many times during a battle.


Fantasy better than 40k
1 - More tactical, the better players wins 9/10 times. This tends to make the games quite predictable imo.
2 - Better balance between the different armies.
3 - All in all the ruleset is alot more solid.

StarFyre
24-10-2008, 12:45
Technically, I would define 40K as fantasy in a pure literary sense (the definition of fantasy is based around something that CAN'T happen, while sci-fi COULD happen).

Stuff like Abaddon's sword which has a demon's soul inside it, is fantasy....it just reaks of fantasy. Stuff like that, by definition, IMHO, would move the overall concept of 40K to fantasy even though the settings appear more sci fi.

Like star wars...the force was considered magic by many in how it worked (it just did), etc. However, in Phantom Menace, to purely make it scifi, G. Lucas gave a biological/quasi scientific answer for it (stuff in body that generates it if i remember correctly...more you got, more of this power your body generates)....which kinda made it seem more like sci-fi.

Anyways...

as a pure fantasy player, but who watches friends play 40K:

40K > Fantasy:

1. depth of background is excellent
2. apocalypse!!!
3. only things that SHOULD be truly epic, are... (ie. c'tan may get moved to apocalypse, titans, etc -- in fantasy, characters like Kroak, Nagash, etc should be legendary battles only and have rules that do them justice..., etc)

Fantasy > 40K:

1. more tactical due to a more diverse ruleset IMHO
2. very varied races (each race is very different from the rest...really, a black templar army isn't different enuff from regular space marines to mean much)
3. models (be'lakor rules!!!) & background (I like the fantasy background actually...even though 40K's I think overall is better and is more fun for more people)

Sanjay

Gazak Blacktoof
24-10-2008, 13:07
All in all I must say I like the 40k setting almost as much as Fantasy but as the Fantasy rules are a far better representation of its setting than the 40k rules are of its I like Fantasy far more.

I have to say this sums it up for me more than anything else in the thread.

I really like the background for 40K but its no better or worse than the background for fantasy.

I think 40K models are really very good with a slightly better quality overall than those of fantasy.

Tokamak
24-10-2008, 13:11
I like fantasy more. 40k is a bit too much about using gadgets (not saying that's a bad thing though, it's just different).

Firaxin
24-10-2008, 13:48
I'm surprised this hasn't devolved into a tactics/no tactics thread, seeing as several people have mentioned 40k tactics...

Seeing as I 'forgot' this the first time around:

Why fantasy is better than 40k
--Characters have a much larger inventory of items to choose from, and thus greater customability.
--Modifiers.
--Duels/challenges.

Norsehawk
24-10-2008, 14:01
Why I like 40k better than Fantasy:
1. more modeling options and for a long time, better figures, and you don't have to worry about them not 'ranking up'
2. Really deep and rich background, fantasy has some but not as deep.
3. Freer movement since you don't have to travel in blocks

Why Fantasy is better:
1. Better Ruleset.
2. More Tactical
3. The Dwarves haven't been eaten by the Tyranids yet.

Silly list for 40k.
1. Chainswords
2. MeltaGuns
3. Chainaxes.

Odin
24-10-2008, 14:09
1. More tactics.


Hilarious.

There are many things that are better in 40K than Fantasy, but that is not one of them.

Miggidy Mack
24-10-2008, 14:11
Hilarious.

There are many things that are better in 40K than Fantasy, but that is not one of them.

There are actually more tactics in 40k than most people think. There is a separation of tactics and strategy, but at the end of the day they both have equal measure.

A game cannot have "more tactics". It simply CANNOT. A GENERAL has those tactics. There are literally an infinite number of tactics in both games. This "which is more tactical" is actually pretty silly.

Pokpoko
24-10-2008, 14:42
40 lets you simulate Celt vs Germanic tribesmen skirmish, but in SPAACE(no, a game where knifing an enemy lets you kill them more efficiently then firing on full auto does not simulate modern tactics well), while WHB lets you replay small skirmishes of antiquity and medieval but with elves and orcs. both are fantasy settings mind you.

also, strategy in 40k is far more important than WHB(choosing the army list is THE most important phase of the game), while WHB favours in-game tactics more. both are extremly abstract in their rules, and both can be very fun.

antin3
24-10-2008, 14:44
First off I play 40k and am just getting into fantasy.
40k > Fantasy
1. The rules are simplified, and that's a good thing.
2. It's been stated already, but the game really can swing either way most of the time.
3. No matter what anyone says 40k has tactics, I am not experienced enough in WFB to state whether there are more or less, but it does have tactics.

Fantasy> 40k
1. Much more diversity in the armies that gamers play.
2. I think that each army has a lot more options, with magical weapons, talismans and armor.
3. There is no army in WFB that is so prevelant as marines are in 40k, heck I run marines, albeit of the traitorous variety.

One other thing and I thought I should mention it, in my experience at least, it seems that 40k players are a bit more in the power gaming mode. I am not saying that as a bad thing or to have this thread devolve, again this is what I notice at my LGS.

unclejimbo827
24-10-2008, 14:46
40k has:
Guns
The Imperial Guard
Better models

Fantasy has better rules, which IMO counts x3. I like them both.

Anton
24-10-2008, 14:47
True, however, a game can allow for more tactical diversity than another. Also, a game can reward a tactical player, while another game may not.

Fantasy:
- More diverse and colourful world. I actually like the 40k background, but I don't think it's better. I prefer WFB.
- The core mechanics. The movement rules that some see as 'strict' or 'limiting' are actually the charm. They make the game what it is.
- More diversity among armies.

40k:
- Faster, freer movement and.
- Interaction with terrain.

Why do people consider the background of 40k superior? Lots of people say it's "deeper" and "richer", but I am yet to see anyone motivate this. Care to enlighten me, anyone?

Odin
24-10-2008, 14:49
There are actually more tactics in 40k than most people think. There is a separation of tactics and strategy, but at the end of the day they both have equal measure.

A game cannot have "more tactics". It simply CANNOT. A GENERAL has those tactics. There are literally an infinite number of tactics in both games. This "which is more tactical" is actually pretty silly.

Nonsense.

Can we therefore say that Snakes and Ladders has just as much tactics as WHFB then? After all, it's the player who has the tactics, not the game.

No, of course we can't. There is a sliding scale of tactical opportunities, from the most basic game where everything is chance, through to games where the best player will pretty much always win.

I'm not saying there aren't tactics in 40K - of course there are. But compared to the tactical maneuvring, baiting, redirecting, flanking etc. of WHFB, 40K falls somewhat short.



Why do people consider the background of 40k superior? Lots of people say it's "deeper" and "richer", but I am yet to see anyone motivate this. Care to enlighten me, anyone?

Well for me it's the fact that it's far more unique. WHFB is basically a pretty generic fantasy setting that has gradually evolved to the stage where it has its own character.

But the 40K background, particularly that of the Imperium, is so detailed and compelling, with it's mix of high-tech and arcane, and not directly comparable to any other sci-fi I know.

Yes, 40K steals from other sources. But it steals from so many sources (Nazi Germany, Alien, Knights Templar, Terminator etc.) that it is something truly unique.

oneman
24-10-2008, 14:57
Why 40K is better than WFB:

1-More guns
2-Big guns
3-More big guns!

But seriously folks,I simply prefer a (pseudo)sci-fi setting to a pure fantasy one.

CommissarKlink
24-10-2008, 15:20
Who reads White Dwarf?


Touche.

I only read WD because my friend has a subscription, but he's in the police academy so he'll have no time to read them until December. There's no way I'd actually pay for it at this point.

Anton
24-10-2008, 17:19
Well for me it's the fact that it's far more unique. WHFB is basically a pretty generic fantasy setting that has gradually evolved to the stage where it has its own character.

But the 40K background, particularly that of the Imperium, is so detailed and compelling, with it's mix of high-tech and arcane, and not directly comparable to any other sci-fi I know.

Yes, 40K steals from other sources. But it steals from so many sources (Nazi Germany, Alien, Knights Templar, Terminator etc.) that it is something truly unique.

Hmm, but the Empire of WFB is quite unique as well. It is also a mix of technology and the arcane, and has drawn inspiration from different sources. I love the architecture of the Empire, with its ramshackle buildings, ornamentation and so on. If you've seen the boat rebuilt as a house, you know what I mean. I think it's a temple of Manann. The way the Empire makes use of wizardry, while its source is the Chaos that they fight. I think the Empire and the Imperium has lots of similarities, and I can't really see why the Imperium would be "deeper".

And except for the Imperium, I think that 40k background is nothing special. Space Elves, Space Orcs, Aliens, Mecha (Tau) and bad guys from Stargate (Necrons).

Nero
24-10-2008, 17:30
40k > Fantasy
1. The models are better.
2. The background is actually vaguely interesting.
3. Theme armies. Armored companies, terminator companies, all-bikes, all-assault squads, Nidzilla, etc. And of course most armies are themed by default (you don't get any fantasy armies with nothing but 3+ saves). It makes for horrible balance, but a bit of variety to compensate for it.

Fantasy > 40k
1. The rules generally require more tactical thought in all regards. The magic phase alone has more depth than 40k's 'move all assault troops in a straight line toward the enemy and all shooty squads stand still the entire game, with copious and needless dice rolling to randomify anything that might have been tactical' rules.
2. It's better balanced, and doesn't cater to powergamers as much because the rules force you to have balanced lists (foot soldiers, archers and cavalry). There are exceptions, such as empire or dwarf gunlines however... it's still not as bad as 40k.
3. The rules are realistic, what with armor modifiers, proper psychology, and so on.

Tokamak
24-10-2008, 17:47
Can't we just agree that warhammer = strategy (macro) and Warhammer 40k is tactics? (micro).

The SkaerKrow
24-10-2008, 17:47
I would honestly have to say that 40K is in a much better place in terms of design than Fantasy is right now. Look to the Army Books/Codexes, not the rule books, and you'll see what I mean.

Reasons why 40K is better than Fantasy...

1) Placement, screening and maneuvering matters
2) 40K allows for a wider variety of sound tactics and playstyles
3) There are no (or at least less) I-Win buttons in 40K.

Reasons why Fantasy is better than 40K

1) The lack of oversaturation by any one army (No Space Marines)
2) Skaven
3) ...I can't honestly come up with anything else.

While in theory Fantasy features a greater amount of psychology and tactical maneuvering, the game includes what could now be called a poor representation of both of these aspects. Flying Monsters and Combat Skirmishers have gone a long way in supplanting rank and file troops, Magic is getting out of control and it's rare to encounter armies in the game that aren't either Immune to Psychology or possessed of a very high Leadership. The potential is there for Fantasy to be a better game, but the current direction that the game is taking has done a lot to compromise its strengths.

Ubermensch Commander
24-10-2008, 18:24
Neither is better per se as it is comparing Apples to Oranges in many regards. Although there are similariets(same root stats, D6 system, etc) there are enough differences between the two to make comparing them...difficult.

40K is better than fantasy because
1&2)-I am not sure if this is one point or two...its kinda of overlapping) Ease of movment and more fluid battle lines. I never feel like I am caught in a dance with no way out. In fantasy there have been times when I can SEE what is gonna happen, and can't do ***** because the big unwieldly block movments and movement rules.
3)You can play an army that is primarily shooty without people crying "gunlines are cheesy and boring and take no thought!" As if an army that can ONLY march and charge backed up by flying powerful mages is somehow the HEIGHT of tactical genius. Note-In 40k you can ALSO do a pure assault force.
3 1/2) to make up for point 1&2 mix-Hero hammering is actually LESS prolific/devastating. 40K Characters might hurt, but they got NOTHING on some of the fantasy builds.

Why Fantasy is better than 40K
1) Regimented blocks of soldiers engaging in a rigidly defined series of movements to try and gain an advantage over your enemy.
2) Dwarves!!!!!!!!! Ok seriously now ...well I am not sure I agree with this but I guess you can run armies without worrying about Pie Plates of Doom Scenario?
3) Not sure really, I guess the fun of having your one or two Lord choices roll up an entire flank while riding on a Dragon?

Again the issue here is what I find dull in one game defines the fun of it for another. Persoanl preference changes things alot.

Oh and 40K DOES have as many tactics as Fantasy. It is simply different. I have seen the Movement phase as much bemoaned by Fantasy enthusiaists. Just because it doesn't have RULES for wheeling your block o guys or flank charges and rear charges in 40K doesnt mean the tactics arent there-Do you move up and rapid fire though it might risk receiving a charge or do you move that your center back to draw the tyranid mosntrous creatures closer to swamp them? Do you risk going through cover to try and get to the enemy even though you might fall short or do you ignore them and risk the enemy squad getting cover though your squad will have a better chance of survival?
etc etc.
Shooting-Firing lanes with tanks, artillery, and heavy weapons squads matters as much as it does when staring down Bolt Throwers and Cannons. Who else has tried to charge Black Knights/Brettonians straight at Cannons and suffered for it? and you learned NOT to do that right? Put your guys behind some trees or off to the side, right? Same concept of ACK! That is a threat! Do not want to get shot by it!

So it all boils down to which does a person like better.

Gazak Blacktoof
24-10-2008, 18:34
In fantasy there have been times when I can SEE what is gonna happen, and can't do ***** because the big unwieldly block movments and movement rules.


Ah that's what is so good about it. You need to spot that you're screwed before you can't do anything about it.

If you can ensure that you're flee path is clear of enemies you can always attempt to run but then there's a counter to that too.

The restrictive movement of fantasy is a plus for me.

Nero
24-10-2008, 18:45
I honestly have no idea how people can say that movement matters more in 40k than fantasy! In 40k assault troops literally just move in a straight line toward whatever they're assaulting, and troops tend not to obscure LoS so you can plonk a shooting squad down almost anywhere and it'll be able to draw a bead on it's target.

Fantasy has better strategy and tactics. If fantasy is chess, 40k is chess but you can move all the pieces through one another and you have to roll a dice every time you move a piece to see how far goes.

Ubermensch Commander
24-10-2008, 18:59
I honestly have no idea how people can say that movement matters more in 40k than fantasy! In 40k assault troops literally just move in a straight line toward whatever they're assaulting, and troops tend not to obscure LoS so you can plonk a shooting squad down almost anywhere and it'll be able to draw a bead on it's target.

Fantasy has better strategy and tactics. If fantasy is chess, 40k is chess but you can move all the pieces through one another and you have to roll a dice every time you move a piece to see how far goes.

Ok....and when the entire army in fantasy is say, Chaos Warriors, its different than 40K Orks? Why? Both try to get multiple units into combat, both get across the battlefield as fast as they can. Ok...one does it as a regiment, the other as an unruly mob. That seems to be one of the few differences. BOTH will be punished for ignoring terrain and simply running HEADLONG into enemy fire. BOTH are rewarded for getting muliple units into combat.
I recall, many years back, when A VC black knights regiment came right at my Dwarves. Cannonball, right through the ranks. BAM! Wrecked the unit, killed the Vamp(unlucky saves on his part plus thunderers got him killed.) Same holds true in 40K. One CAN go wailing at the enemy lines without using cover, in either game, but you run the risk of soaking fire.



LOS really is not that differerent from one game to other.
How about some of the Magic spells in Fantasy? Even the Anvil has spells that let you hit any poor bastard on the board. Oh...somehow it is DIFFERENT when it is FANTASY that does it. In 40K all that long range stuff is tactical incompetence, but in FANTASY it is requires immense tactical acumen. CC armies running at the enemy in 40K is stupid(never mind you usually have to be even MORE careful about cover due to incoming fire) but when someone runs a point and click Bretonnian army or an Ogre army of smahs it again is magnificence on part of the general. Sheesh.




@ Blacktoof
No I saw it coming a mile away, but with the insanely restrictive movement of the game, combined with Dwarves, combined with "man, gun lines are cheap" = sitting there going "ok in a turn you are gonna do X Y and Z with your units and flank chage...yep there it goes." YAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNN. How...thrilling.

The SkaerKrow
24-10-2008, 19:11
Fantasy has better strategy and tactics. If fantasy is chess, 40k is chess but you can move all the pieces through one another and you have to roll a dice every time you move a piece to see how far goes.Warhammer Fantasy has never resembled Chess. Indeed, the game is currently much closer to Magic the Gathering than anything else, and I don't mean that in a flattering way.

Shangrila
24-10-2008, 19:13
Ide say :
1./40k is alot less complicated.

2./Models are alot more interchangeable (orks and chaos can have any model the imperials have.)

3./40k players are usually more easygoing.(in my short time playing fantasy theres like a 3 to 1 superiority in dudes who drain the fun out of the game bad enough to where even if im winning i want to leave. i don't care about losing and i have met them in 40k but alot fewer and far between)

as for Fantasy:
1./ WAY bigger army selection

2./Tactics are essential

3./Everyone can have a dragon(almost)

Imperialis_Dominatus
24-10-2008, 19:17
assault troops literally just move in a straight line toward whatever they're assaulting

...seriously? How do they make it into combat?

Speaking as a guy who runs an assaulty list, I absolutely cannot fathom 'running straight at the enemy' succeeding. Ever.

I think I tried that once. For fun. I got slaughtered.

In light of this post... I seem to have a vastly different experience of 40k vs. Fantasy than half the people in this thread. Ergo, I'm simply going to agree to disagree.

emperorpenguin
24-10-2008, 20:02
40K is better than fantasy because.....

1: The background is just much more gripping and exciting. The Horus Heresy is a fantastic story
2: I'm in agreement with SkaerKrow on this one, 40K is much more balanced than fantasy right now. A few years ago I'd have said the opposite but the power creep in fantasy got silly.... fast.
3: Fewer army of the month players simply because everyone already plays damned Space Marines!

Fantasy is better than 40K because.....

1: No stupid true LOS rules and resulting arguments and lasers!
2: Leadership matters. Far too much in 40K ignores or circumvents the Ld value
3: No bloody Space Marines!

Ronin_eX
24-10-2008, 20:07
40k > Fantasy
1) It was 2nd Edition once :D
2) Better background for those into Iron Maiden *throws up the horns* :p
3) Umm... Zombie God?

Fantasy > 40k
1) Lacks an army that seems to dominate the metagame
2) Better background for those into Man-O-War *throws up the horns* ;)
3) It kept the things that made 2nd Edition good

Overall neither Fantasy or 40k have a much better background component. From the outside Fantasy looks generic but getting deep down into it it is actually quite interesting and it is the progenitor of many fantasy cliches that show up today (green Orcs for example). Any setting that includes a race of tech-savvy ratmen bent on world domination can't really ever be considered too generic. It is also loaded with dark humour which was lacking from 40k for a long time after 3rd was released.

40k is a mish-mash of genre tropes and cliches in itself and almost every piece of fluff is "inspired" by something else in some way. Not that this is bad but the setting has never been terribly deep (no deeper than Heavy Metal or 2000AD in any case).

For a real deep setting look at things like Heavy Gear where the creators have taken the time to flesh things out including a good meta-plot, info on things other than how many rounds different assault rifles carry and so on and so forth.

Deep, though provoking backgrounds aren't really GW's thing (otherwise they would have made an RPG themselves). What they are good at is making backgrounds fairly accessible at a low level by using a lot of cliches, memes and tropes to draw people in. We see some of their best work (lamentably) with the Space Marines who are so jam packed with cliches that most people recognize them immediately or can at the very least relate to them (it helps that almost every chapter has a 2-3 word descriptor that can easily sum them up; e.g. Ultramarines: Bug Fighting Spartans, Dark Angels: Repentant Arthurian Monks, Rainbow Warriors: Shiny Happy People).

Overall the 40k background is shallow and after 12 years the only interesting things happening with it are finding how GW changed it this edition (since god forbid it moves on). I'd prefer backgrounds that are more subtle about their inspiration and try to add their own ideas to the mix.

EmperorEternalXIX
24-10-2008, 20:36
...and out come the pretentious fantasy guys to swear up and down that walking ugly models in perfect square formations back and forth around each other in circles until one of them gets into a favorable position is vastly more tactical then 40k.

If you want to play a weird marching band game where guys all move in perfect squares and one model can scour you from the map, play fantasy. If you like WAR in your wargaming, and you like simple rules that paint a strong visual, play 40k.

luchog
24-10-2008, 20:39
I would tend to agree or disagree moderately with most of what's been posted so far. However, my basic feeling on both could be easily summed up into one line each:

Fantasy has had more balanced, and more equitable support from GW across the board. No one race dominates the game to the detriment of all others the way that Imperium/Space Marines does in 40k. Everything receives fairly equal attention and timely updates. There is stuff in 40L that hasnt been updated since 2nd Edition, while GW puts out a Different Coloured Space Marine codex pretty much every year.

40K has a much greater range of environments, settings, and scenarios to play in. It also ties in better to a wider range of secondary games -- ie. Epic, Battlefleet Gothic, Necromunda, etc. -- further extending the range, with the potential for cross-game campaigns.

ReveredChaplainDrake
24-10-2008, 20:46
40k Pros:

(Note: I've posted stuff like this before, but this is the first time I've answered this thread in 5th ed.)

1) 40k has no magic. I don't see what people on the fantasy side like about magic, much less on how it can be considered tactical, short of using dice loaded to roll precise numbers. That's why I don't play my Lizardmen anymore. How much "tactics" does it take to zorch the enemy with a 2nd Gen Missiletoad?

2) 40k movement is more dynamic, while Fantasy is restrictive. My current top armies for each gameset are 40k's Tau and Fantasy's Dark Elves, with the exact same reason behind both being that I prefer the tactical application of skilled, mobile troops applying force in a small area. But my Tau Battlesuits, no matter how hard I try, always seem to get backed into a corner at some point later in the game, and True LoS doesn't help. (IMO, with Running in 40k, the advantage of the March mechanic just evaporated.) On the other hand, when playing Fantasy, my 15 Dark Riders absolutely run circles around people. This combined with the ubiquitous Dragon and my Shade penchant, my opponent gets very little time to do anything but react to me. And by "react", I mean "turn to face so they don't get flank charged".

3) 40k involves every model in a unit. Even basic grunts can do stuff, so long as they're each individually in range. In fact, the extra dakka is an enviable thing. However, in Fantasy, 75% of ranked regiments do absolutely nothing in terms of combat efficiency other than stacking free combat resolution. In fact, ranked units with guns limit their shooting to the front rank only, with this strange concept that units can block their own LoS. And even then, at its fullest ranks, most units worth their salt can charge a ranked unit right in the front and grind it to a pulp anyway, at which point the entire unit runs off. As a painter / college student, I don't have the time to paint models that don't matter, nor do I have the money to buy them. In fact, looking at a recent Fantasy tournament I saw, where only a third of the armies were fully painted, it would seem a number of people agree with me.

Fantasy Pros:

1) Characters. In the 40k universe with its "in space, no one cares if you die" ideology, the common thought behind building characters is to take the cheapest little grunt commander you can get away with, because it's not like they can actually lead your army in any way, other than lending some extra punch to a combat. Even in armies where HQ choices are actually good (*cough*Tyranids*cough*), the conventional wisdom is to not upgrade them in any way and make them as bare-bones as legally possible, and then balance this cheapness out by taking two of the same exact wuss Tyrant that you couldn't bother shelling out a 2+ save for. (Yeah, because those five Spinegaunts are a really sturdy investment... :rolleyes:) However, in Fantasy, you can shell absolutely stupid amounts of points into a character that you actually have an interest in him not only living, but taking the other guy's character down as well! And in the meantime, he can actually lead your army by bestowing his Leadership to all friendly units within 12". (Unless he's Undead, in which case he does all sorts of weirdness...) The only 40k armies that even remotely resemble this concept of Leadership through proximity are Tyranids and IG, and neither of these races have much interest in a live general at the end of the day. Tyrants are just ripper food in advance, and Commissars give out executions like cheeseburgers.

2) Psychology. Most armies do not have blanket-Unbreakable all over the board. Though Undead armies do, and there are a number of armies that can get blanket Immume to Psych easily, there are inherent problems of crumbling and a lack of charge reactions for these armies. The only disadvantage to Fearless in 40k is taking free AP- wounds, and unless you're Orks or Daemons, you probably don't care. The fact that this isn't the case in Fantasy means that even massively-powerful enemy generals can be defeated by having psychology turned against them. Just about Fantasy's only unit that doesn't care in the slightest about Psychology in any way is the Steam Tank, and though it's a massively cheesed off unit (probably most comparable to 40k's Monolith in stupid durability), there aren't many other units like it.

3) Distinct races and statlines. In 40k, everybody is either a Marine, a Gaunt, or on occasion, something in between. Everybody moves a flat 6". Everyone can run. (Though some races can Fleet.) Everybody has weapons comparable to either Bolters, Lasguns, or pistol variants of either of the above, and when most weapons can be described as "Y is basically X except for this superficial difference", the game gets very stale. Most everybody is the same. However, in Fantasy, it's rare that two races have exactly the same statline, or even close to the same statline. Everybody has unique movements on their statline. There are lots of different levels of armor in each army book. Most everybody has race-unique weaponry. Even the bows vary. Even though all races have a common magic items list to pull from, aside from Dispel Scrolls, the occasional Power Stone, and sometimes a Sword of Might if your race-specific magic weapons all suck, there is plenty of variety in the game.

Unfortunately, with variety invariably comes RockPaperScissorshammer.

Lord_Squinty
24-10-2008, 20:53
40k plus points -
1. Background
2. 40k herohammer isnt as bad as WHFB Herohammer (not as bad as it was - but still there)
3. Quick(er) paced gameplay

WHFB plus points -
1. More solid (and better) rules.
2. Still makes full use of psychology instead of 'dumbed down' 40k - oh, and movement characteristic!
3. No massively overplayed army (space marines I'm looking at you...)

I could go on and on...

Basicly - its "what is better strawberry or vanilla?" there is no 'better', just different.
Some days you want vanilla, others strawberry.
Both have theyre own distinct flavour, and play differently.
Both are good.

Spleendokta
24-10-2008, 21:02
Fantasy is the choice of champions while 40k is for the peasants.

Fantasy requires TONS of skills to master such armies as DoC and VC.

That is all.

Nero
24-10-2008, 21:04
Ok....and when the entire army in fantasy is say, Chaos Warriors, its different than 40K Orks? Why? Both try to get multiple units into combat, both get across the battlefield as fast as they can. Ok...one does it as a regiment, the other as an unruly mob. That seems to be one of the few differences.

You only listed two very, very, very general points they share. It's like saying Eldar and Orks are the same because they both want to get as many CC units into combat as possible. We all know they're both trying to get into combat, that doesn't meant the tactics and thought required to do so are anything alike.

To pick one example, any CC fantasy army needs to keep not only the enemy's but their own troop's positions in mind when maneuvering, because your own troops can get in the way. Too often I've seen new fantasy players just try to run down the middle of the board only to have their army turn into a confused muddle as they try bring troops to bear against specific targets, needlessly wasting movement speed in the process and leaving troops facing the wrong way as they try to backpeddle, making them easy targets for flanks.

In 40k, there is no facing and troops can move through one another, so all the movement becomes reactionary - you can come up with a plan on the fly, and after deployment there's rarely any need to think ahead because you can move anything in any direction and you won't waste any movement.


LOS really is not that differerent from one game to other.
How about some of the Magic spells in Fantasy? Even the Anvil has spells that let you hit any poor bastard on the board. Oh...somehow it is DIFFERENT when it is FANTASY that does it.

Oh wow, really? Most fantasy armies only have 1 or 2 magic users, 4 if they're specialised in it. How does the spells of less than half a dozen models compare to the shooting of an ENTIRE ARMY? Seriously?


In 40K all that long range stuff is tactical incompetence, but in FANTASY it is requires immense tactical acumen.

Because you're comparing ranged combat with magic. The 'long range stuff' in 40k is comparable to the 'long range stuff' in fantasy, which would be archers, cannons, etc. In fantasy, the 'long range stuff' has facing, so you need to know where you want it to hit the turn before it fires. It can also be blocked by either your own or your opponent's troops, so you not only need to predict where your opponent's troops can and will move, but also your own.

Likewise, fantasy magic is comparable to 40k psychic powers. I hope I don't have to go into why fantasy's magic system has more depth than 40k's psychic 'system' (which consists of two entire rules - leadership test to use psychic powers, perils of the warp)...


...seriously? How do they make it into combat?

Speaking as a guy who runs an assaulty list, I absolutely cannot fathom 'running straight at the enemy' succeeding. Ever.

I think I tried that once. For fun. I got slaughtered.

I could only understand that if you play Eldar (which require a little more thought than most 40k armies). My CSM and Tyranids do exactly that, and while they're not powergaming lists, they do pretty well.

Turn 1; CSM in rhinos, just rush forward and pop smoke. Turn 2; daemons and terminators deep strike (so I don't even have to go through all that tedious movement business and go straight for rolling the dice :rolleyes:) and the rhinos rush directly forward the remaining distance and disgorge the CSM, who get cover saves from the daemons. Turn 3; CSM, daemons and terminators assault stuff.

Tyranid... well, I have 80 gaunts in my 1500 pt list. They give just about everything behind them a 4+ cover save, so I don't need to worry about cover at all. The gaunts never get killed before I get the rest of the army in assaulting distance.

Many other armies have similar options. Fast moving transports with options to give them auto-cover saves (smoke launchers), or lots of cheap gribblies to give everything auto-cover saves. At least in 4th Ed you could use terrain to completely block LoS, in 5th Ed my rhinos rarely get completely blocked (there's always a corner or pintle-mount sticking out from behind cover), so there's no point bothering. Just charge directly forward, get shot, then take my inevitable 4+ cover save and hope my superior tactical and generalmanship skills lets me roll higher than a 3. :/

Ronin_eX
24-10-2008, 21:10
Fantasy is the choice of champions while 40k is for the peasants.

Fantasy requires TONS of skills to master such armies as DoC and VC.

That is all.

Well crap, so much for reasoned discussion, everybody get down it's gonna blow!

:p

Anton
24-10-2008, 21:15
...and out come the pretentious fantasy guys to swear up and down that walking ugly models in perfect square formations back and forth around each other in circles until one of them gets into a favorable position is vastly more tactical then 40k.

If you want to play a weird marching band game where guys all move in perfect squares and one model can scour you from the map, play fantasy. If you like WAR in your wargaming, and you like simple rules that paint a strong visual, play 40k.
And this was constructive, how?

Stating your opinions is fine. However, instead ofthrowing insults at those who prefer WFB, making yourself look like a fool, try arguing for your opinions.

Vilicate
24-10-2008, 21:31
I think people need to know the difference between tactics and strategy.

40k has more tactics than fantasy (which does have some), and fantasy is almost pure strategy. Tactics are the little things that you do with your units that make them work better, while strategy is your overall battle-plan.

As someone who loves to play both:

Fantasy > 40k
1. Movement is a deeper phase in fantasy - it's more restrictive and therefore more strategy is required to make sure that you're not going to get flanked/rearcharged and/or still have LOS to whatever you're going to shoot/magic/charge.
2. Magic system > psychic powers. I really wish 40k had a psychic powers phase - I'd like the game a whole lot more then. But I'm a player who loves the magic phase a whole bunch. I pretty much can't make an army without it.
3. Armies look like armies - when you've got your deployment set up, it looks amazing, and there's a lot of thrill wheeling and aligning your blocks (for me) to get optimal charges/counter-charges

40k > Fantasy
1. Tactics are much more important - things like casualty removal are really important, as well as judging that 12" gap.
2. Missions are awesome. I wish fantasy had some more mission like scenarios - it's really only balanced for the standard pitched battle. That's fine, but it does get old in tournament after tournament; whereas with 40k I'm constantly thinking how I'm going to achieve my mission goals from the moment I set up, to every time I remove a model, to the last movement phase of the game.
3. More dynamic. I love how fast some of the stuff moves around in 40k. It's really cool to have a flying tank drop off a bunch of troops like 36" away from where it was, or to have it shot down and the survivors have to fight their way out of the wreckage to get to an objective. Pretty cool imagery.

Anyway, those are my views as a veteran of both systems.

Ubermensch Commander
24-10-2008, 21:36
You only listed two very, very, very general points they share. It's like saying Eldar and Orks are the same because they both want to get as many CC units into combat as possible. We all know they're both trying to get into combat, that doesn't meant the tactics and thought required to do so are anything alike.

Your arument was that in 40K the troops can just charge in a straight line at the enemy. This is COMPLETE ********. That is all I was pointing out, and why I mentioned that in BOTH fantasy (giving an example in a fantasy game I played) and 40K you get punished if you literally just charge ahead.



To pick one example, any CC fantasy army needs to keep not only the enemy's but their own troop's positions in mind when maneuvering, because your own troops can get in the way. Too often I've seen new fantasy players just try to run down the middle of the board only to have their army turn into a confused muddle as they try bring troops to bear against specific targets, needlessly wasting movement speed in the process and leaving troops facing the wrong way as they try to backpeddle, making them easy targets for flanks.

In 40K you have to think about the positioning of the enemies troops as well. Again, simply because there is no rule saying "+1 buttkickery for flank charges" in 40K does not mean the tactic of outflanking does not exist or that it is somehow requires more tactical though in Fantasy. Different tactics, yes, since movement is different.


In 40k, there is no facing and troops can move through one another, so all the movement becomes reactionary - you can come up with a plan on the fly, and after deployment there's rarely any need to think ahead because you can move anything in any direction and you won't waste any movement.

Ok...all movment is reactionary in 40K but NOT in Fantasy? No 40K player thinks anything out in advance? Lies and Balderdash, sir. On missions with Objectives movment becomes quit important and one can waste movement.As for units passing through each other in 40K, you still have to have room for the models and they must maintain a 2 inch unit coherency.
So you really can't,nor would it be particulalry desirable.

You ever heard the expression, no plan of battle survives beyond the first move? Fantasy players REACT same as 40K. Big Knight Unit rolling up your flank? Well you better deal with that or die! The reactions are just alot more rigid and set.


Oh wow, really? Most fantasy armies only have 1 or 2 magic users, 4 if they're specialised in it. How does the spells of less than half a dozen models compare to the shooting of an ENTIRE ARMY? Seriously?

You arguing that in 40K units don't usually block line of sight. Incorrect. You cannot just "plonk down units." Well, not and expect to have any success but this is true in both games. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about the shooting in 40K when you have the absurdity of Magic in a good many Fantasy armies. So yes SERIOUSLY.




Because you're comparing ranged combat with magic. The 'long range stuff' in 40k is comparable to the 'long range stuff' in fantasy, which would be archers, cannons, etc. In fantasy, the 'long range stuff' has facing, so you need to know where you want it to hit the turn before it fires. It can also be blocked by either your own or your opponent's troops, so you not only need to predict where your opponent's troops can and will move, but also your own.

Yes, terrain and your own units blocks alot of shooting in 40K as well, or at the least helps negate it thanks to the cover provided by shooting through your own troops. Warmachines in fantasy get a free pivot if I recall correct, units of ranked weapons may turn and fire as well but only with a -1 penalty, and placement of your weapons and your units is important in 40K as well. Then you have the 360 shooting of characters, skirmishers, magic users, and the nigh on 360 degree shooting of fast cav(who can usually manuever to shoot anyone they bloody well please.) So it takes neither prophetic skills nor any more tactical acumen to handle shooting in fantasy than it does in 40K. Besides, with a 45 firing arc on units and the enemy coming at you from across the board in LARGE TIGHT BLOCKS....if a player can't get shooting right with that, I cannot help them.



Likewise, fantasy magic is comparable to 40k psychic powers. I hope I don't have to go into why fantasy's magic system has more depth than 40k's psychic 'system' (which consists of two entire rules - leadership test to use psychic powers, perils of the warp)...

Magic is far more devastating in Fantasy and has an extra phase in the game to deal with it. Pyschic powers are just cool little boneses many armies get. I do not know if I would call that more depth as the principal is the same. It is target priority with dice rolling.
Find wizard. choose spell. choose target. roll power dice. enemy can try and disple if not cast with irresistable force. or it might go off and they suffer fates similar to PERILS OF THE WARP. Magic is just given more importance in the Fantasy game as in 40K it has been toned down from the days of 2nd edition.

My post was about your assertion that LOS and Shooting somehow make the 40K "stupid" or "easy", when, since there is similar aspects in Fantasy, it is unfair to level these accusations at 40K. You cannot just "plonk down a unit" or "charge in a straight line" and hope for repeated success, any more than you can in Fantasy...unless of course you are playing against an army that HAS no shooting or magic then you can walk right ahead and be unmolested till combat.

Ronin_eX
24-10-2008, 21:41
And this was constructive, how?

Stating your opinions is fine. However, instead ofthrowing insults at those who prefer WFB, making yourself look like a fool, try arguing for your opinions.

Nah, he's proven for himself on many occasions that it is better to just ignore those who disagree with him than think of a constructive reply. Who needs well reasoned arguments when you can just insult someone and ignore their arguments? :D

Nero
24-10-2008, 21:42
I really don't know how to counter that, Ubermensch, because most of what you've just said is flat out untrue in my experience. I could cite examples, but I don't think it's going to make a difference, so we'll just have to disagree and leave it at that.

Ubermensch Commander
24-10-2008, 21:44
I really don't know how to counter that, Ubermensch, because most of what you've just said is flat out untrue in my experience. I could cite examples, but I don't think it's going to make a difference, so we'll just have to disagree and leave it at that.


Fair enough. I was going to say the same to your experiences as well, they differ greatly from my own.

Aurellis
24-10-2008, 21:46
Fantasy:
1. Movement
2. Fluff
3. Psychology
[4. I have to include magic so i will]

40k:
1. Fluff
2. Nothing
3. Nothing

I don't mean to be argumentative but it's just my opinion, sorry.

Bassik
24-10-2008, 21:58
40K:
I just love the entire feel of it, from the superhuman space marines and the crumbling Imperium, to the many alien menaces (except Eldar).
And affcorse, while Chaos is cool in Fantasy, it's much more awesome in 40K.

Fantasy:
The ranked models look good, and the Skaven are made of pure awesome.

Apples:
Got a nice bite, and taste sweet.

Oranges:
Juicy, taste sour.

Both fruits suffer from the "crud between teeth syndrome".

See? You CAN compare apples and oranges! :D

Fellblade
24-10-2008, 22:01
I sort of agree with Vilicate. I'm not sure I agree on his definitions of strategy vs tactics but his overall point is correct.

Fantasy's "tactics" are dealt with on a large scale, dealing with the entire fight as a whole. If you lose sight of what's happening on one part of the field it can have devastating effects on the whole battle.

40k's "tactics" are on the very small scale, the things that can be easily overlooked. Distributing wounds to your units is HUGE and if you've failed to plan for it during army construction you'll have a really tough go at it.

I also disagree on the importance of judging distance is a 40k only thing. Its very important for both games. 12" is key distance for 40k, but you need good judge of distances in fantasy as well based on not only your army's movement speeds, but your opponent's army as well a misjudged charge can spell disaster for a fantasy player.


If you asked me last year, I'd say I liked fantasy better but I've been fairly disillusioned with the direction GW is taking it. Fantasy is becoming herohammer all over again whereas 40k is headed in the opposite direction. 40k is getting back to where your whole army matters rather than how many units your characters can blow through in close combat.

For what its worth, 40k is probably worth looking into. Anyone can plunk down an army in 40k and do okay, but you really need to keep specific goals for your squads in mind if you want to do well.

Jared Blyte
24-10-2008, 22:01
I believe it is not about which is better, its the different aspects of each game that attracts different kinds of hobbyists

so not better, just different


40k's good points:
- The background is endless, massive, more in depth, and allows for hobbyists to completely scratch build background for any reason

- The Rules are almost always balanced are as the different armies, some things may be poweful but they are either easily avoidable or you pay through the nose for them in points in most cases - so there is nothign game breaking

- The game is effected greatly by pregame factors, like ingenuity and originality in building an army list that works well within itself, aswell as being effected in game by simple strategies - refused flank and rush and through fire lane restrictions etc, for example


Fantasy's good points:
- The background is smaller scope, which allows for very in depth character creation (as can be seen by the masses of special characters popping up in each book)

- The game isnt effected by out of game factors as much, which allows a player develop his tactical skills by having to formulate a plan at the start of deployment or even half way through game


a comparison of the two?:
40k's background is more extensive than fantasy, but fantasy allows for more in depth characters effecting the world as a whole

40k's in game aspects are drawn from calculating statistics and applying them, including varying factors, to the game situation, this is how most in game moves are thought up, so you are constantly trying to outsmart your opponent. Fantasy is more based on being 'obviously sneaky' with the likes of movement, baiting, and springing things on your opponent they normally would have been aware of in 40k, which allows for more in depth tactics as a whole

40k has much more balance across codii compared to fantasy's army books, although fantasy has much less 'rules lawering' because since its in its umpteenth edition, most of the rules kinks have been worked out whereas in 40k there are a lot of gaps and loop holes

i enjoy both games very much, however, in my personal opinion, i find that fantasy's balance gap between army books (dark elves or vampire counts versus ogre kingdoms anyone?) has become to much of a canyon to go unnoticed, which ruins it for me, and sways me over to 40k more often.

all in my humble old opinion, i hope at least one person reads this because i actually had to think about what i was writing for once hah :P

Jared

zealousheretic
24-10-2008, 22:18
Just to get my bias out of the way, I've played 40k for years and am on my way out, but have just gotten into Fantasy. My take on Fantasy is that of a newcomer to the game, I might be a bit off base.

Good things about Fantasy:

1. Tactics. More of the game is decided on the tabletop. Maneuvering and execution of a battle plan are key factors. Units like skirmishers or fast cavalry can have a great effect on the game through disruption or flanking rather than just combat. A good turn in fantasy usually ends with you in an advantageous position, having broken a key unit or something similar.

2. Deep, well developed background. Most of the factions in WHF are common tropes, but the Warhammer World's take on them is distinct and memorable. I particularly like the Warhammer vision of Dark Elves.

3. Fantasy feels like a more... intuitive, I guess, rule set. There are fewer rules in fantasy that make me stop and go "wait, how does that even work/make sense?" That's not to say there aren't silly or strange rules or situations in fantasy but the rule set feels more cohesive to me.


Good things about 40k:

1. The background is evocative and wide open. There is ample room for you to create your own IG regiment, Marine chapter, Traitor warband, Ork tribe, whatever. 40k is the opposite of settings like Forgotten Realms where just about everything is nailed down. Also, some of the races in 40k are undeniably cool.

2. 40k is more point-and-click. Most of the strategy and tactics comes from how you construct your army list, how well you build your units, and whether you've included enough countermeasures for each type of enemy you might face. Tactics in 40k are fairly simple, with a lot of the minutia coming down to technicalities like wound allocation and casualty removal. A good turn in 40k usually involves numerous enemy units being wiped out or falling back with no chance to rally due to huge losses.

3. 40k is a more abstract and predictable game. The theory and statistical aspects of it are much more prominent than fantasy, and despite repeated attempts by GW, games of 40k still usually boils down to the body count.

Helveticus
24-10-2008, 22:27
I play both. And I don't think they're all that different. Each has a slightly slightly different emphasis though.

Due to cover saves, any given model in 40K can be minutely more survivable than in Fantasy... i.e. gretchin vs goblin.

Due to the often all-or-nothing aspect of fantasy combat, Fantasy momentum shifts can swing emotion radically making for a lasting fun game (unless you can't have fun and lose/admire an exceptional last second play at the same time).

List building in Fantasy is more exacting. So many armies have so many ways to focus, that you all but have to make a take-all-comers list. Flip side is, in 40K you will often naturally select things with (multiple use- if less effective secondary purpose) options that can help if your take all comers list wasn't actually prepared for this kind of comer after all.

Grubnar
24-10-2008, 23:01
Hmm...

Tricky! I do not think you can say one is better that the other. I do not play Fantasy but I would be prepared to give it a try if anyone around here played it. But I do think that the two are to different for a direct comparison. 40k is the grim dark future while Fantasy is ... well, ... fantasy!

Amnar
24-10-2008, 23:21
40k plus points -
1. Background
2. 40k herohammer isnt as bad as WHFB Herohammer (not as bad as it was - but still there)
3. Quick(er) paced gameplay

WHFB plus points -
1. More solid (and better) rules.
2. Still makes full use of psychology instead of 'dumbed down' 40k - oh, and movement characteristic!
3. No massively overplayed army (space marines I'm looking at you...)

I could go on and on...

Basicly - its "what is better strawberry or vanilla?" there is no 'better', just different.
Some days you want vanilla, others strawberry.
Both have theyre own distinct flavour, and play differently.
Both are good.

I call BS, everyone knows strawberry is better than vanilla

Amnar
24-10-2008, 23:27
Ok, I play both, here's my two cents:

40k-
Simpler and quicker to play (a good thing)
Better models on average
A good representation of sci fi gaming

Fantasy-
More complex ruleset that takes longer to play (also a good thing)
Wider variety of armies (seems that way, even if the overall number of armies is similar)
A good representation of fantasy gaming

At the end of the day, one is a good ruleset for skirmish level sci fi gaming, and one is a good ruleset for fantasy level small army gaming. If you apply one ruleset to the other genre, you'll end up with crap.

Gazak Blacktoof
25-10-2008, 00:02
40k is the grim dark future while Fantasy is ... well, [grim dark] ... fantasy!

I've corrected your post. The grim, end-of-the-world perils are present in both setttings.

Dark Empire
25-10-2008, 00:06
This is rock solid proof:

1) When you get tired of playing Daemons of Chaos you can play Chaos Daemons.

2) When Leman Russ is giving you a case of the gout you can try a Steam Tank and some ointment.

3) When Dark elves just don't seem "Dark enough" you can flip right over to Dark Eldar instead for some mad flava.


Hands down, they are definitely better than each other.

AlmightyNocturnus
25-10-2008, 00:22
Three reasons why 40K is better than Fantasy Battle
1. Game and tactics are more interactive with terrain (not just smash up derby in th emiddle of the field - i.e. pitched battle)
2. Models are more fun to paint (there are only so many leather satchels and scabbards a guy can paint before going totally insane)
3. Armies have a general sense of balance (I never hear about "tiers" in 40K)- no one model will dominate the game (the toughest tanks or characters still get killed by the all too common lascannon)

Three reasons why Fantasy Battle if better than 40K
1. Movement and even the deployment phase have a strategy all their own
2. New army books and models come out faster than 40K
3. Fewer kids playing the game

Amnar
25-10-2008, 00:26
I believe it is not about which is better, its the different aspects of each game that attracts different kinds of hobbyists

so not better, just different


40k's good points:
- The background is endless, massive, more in depth, and allows for hobbyists to completely scratch build background for any reason

- The Rules are almost always balanced are as the different armies, some things may be poweful but they are either easily avoidable or you pay through the nose for them in points in most cases - so there is nothign game breaking

- The game is effected greatly by pregame factors, like ingenuity and originality in building an army list that works well within itself, aswell as being effected in game by simple strategies - refused flank and rush and through fire lane restrictions etc, for example


Fantasy's good points:
- The background is smaller scope, which allows for very in depth character creation (as can be seen by the masses of special characters popping up in each book)

- The game isnt effected by out of game factors as much, which allows a player develop his tactical skills by having to formulate a plan at the start of deployment or even half way through game


a comparison of the two?:
40k's background is more extensive than fantasy, but fantasy allows for more in depth characters effecting the world as a whole

40k's in game aspects are drawn from calculating statistics and applying them, including varying factors, to the game situation, this is how most in game moves are thought up, so you are constantly trying to outsmart your opponent. Fantasy is more based on being 'obviously sneaky' with the likes of movement, baiting, and springing things on your opponent they normally would have been aware of in 40k, which allows for more in depth tactics as a whole

40k has much more balance across codii compared to fantasy's army books, although fantasy has much less 'rules lawering' because since its in its umpteenth edition, most of the rules kinks have been worked out whereas in 40k there are a lot of gaps and loop holes

i enjoy both games very much, however, in my personal opinion, i find that fantasy's balance gap between army books (dark elves or vampire counts versus ogre kingdoms anyone?) has become to much of a canyon to go unnoticed, which ruins it for me, and sways me over to 40k more often.

all in my humble old opinion, i hope at least one person reads this because i actually had to think about what i was writing for once hah :P

Jared

I read it :) Good post. I especially like how you articulated the different tactics that are predominant in each game.

Firaxin
25-10-2008, 03:31
Look, if I can consistently win with a Close-Combat oriented Imperial Guard army, then obviously pre-game list building isn't everything in 40k.

Imperialis_Dominatus
25-10-2008, 04:05
Look, if I can consistently win with a Close-Combat oriented Imperial Guard army, then obviously pre-game list building isn't everything in 40k.

Oh snap! ;)

theunwantedbeing
25-10-2008, 04:16
In fantasy there are no space marines, therefore it is the better game.(yes, thats all 3 reasons)

40k has its plus sides though.
Much more freedom within the fluff(first), due to it being set in a galaxy so you can do whatever the heck you want. Titans and other large mecha(second) armed with lots of awesome guns(third).

The game also plays much more fluidly due to being more fast paced and less complicated. Although the lack of complexity does make it seem a little too easy to play (unlike fantasy).

==Me==
25-10-2008, 04:50
Fantasy is the choice of champions while 40k is for the peasants.

Fantasy requires TONS of skills to master such armies as DoC and VC.

That is all.

I see what you did there :D

40k > Fantasy
1) Background: This has been said before, but it bears repeating. SM Codex aside (or rather, just the ultrasmurf circle jerk parts) the 40k fluff is awesome. It's deep, rich, infinitely mutable, and has that unique but still oh so familiar feel to it.

2) Balance: I'd say at this point 40k has a better balance between Codices than Fantasy does with Army Books. SM dominate the market, but they really aren't overly powerful and any army can perform well. 40k doesn't have 1 race placing in 8 out of the top 10 spots in tourneys.

3) Gameplay: 40k is more fluid, faster-paced, and fun. It isn't chess and it isn't trying to be. It's a fun game to set up your toys, roll some dice, and imagine them dying in nasty ways. Higher level tactics are also possible thanks to the freedom of the system. Objectives make the game so much better than simple "kill everything".

Fantasy > 40k
1) Skaven: I love those little blighters, they sold ==Me== on Fantasy.

2) Gameplay: Fantasy plays very differently to 40k and I love it. The game is a bit more methodically paced and strategic, where your movements need to be calculated and planned ahead to set/avoid traps and put the combat in your favor. I enjoy the movement system, the combat res mechanic, modifiers, and especially challenges.

3) Magic: I felt it deserves its own section. The magic phase is a big difference from 40k and I enjoy it. It can be abused and min/maxed like any other phase, but I love the mechanics of it and its impact on the game.

I play both systems and I can safely say I enjoy them both immensely. Apples and oranges can't be compared, but they both taste good.

joepublic
25-10-2008, 13:58
i will keep this as short as i can
40k is better because
1. tanks
2. giant battling robots
3, more tanks
i played fantasy first but you cant beat battling robots and tanks :)

AngryAngel
25-10-2008, 16:56
40k is better, and my three reasons for this are..

1, If you like sci fi more then fantasy, ( which generally I do. )
2, Has relative real world combat, city fights, good use of terrain as well as vehicles which are awesome, imo of course.
3, The background, it just grabs you and pulls you in, then gives you a foot massage. (Happy ending optional )

Fantasy is better then 40k because..

1, Somethings in fantasy are just sweet, like creating a vast undead horde, or riding on a huge dragon. Fantasy has its place with things like this.
2, Heavily varied armies, the slection in diffrence is very nice in fantasy. Evening going so far as to having 2 undead factions. ( Which I love both. )
3, A more predictable combat system, not saying you won't know what will happen in 40k combat, but its harder to truely pinpoint. Where as the static combat res in fantasy can give you some measure of knowledge of how well units will do vs other units.

All in all they are diffrent games, and it'll go down to what you like more. I do think having collected armies in both, played both, I myself enjoy 40k more. Simply because I love guns and tanks and the feel of the more modern war as opposed to the ranked infantry block combat.

Thats just opinion on all these however, I'd say if you want to try it, borrow and army and give it a shot. See what you think.

Occulto
25-10-2008, 22:43
3) 40k involves every model in a unit. Even basic grunts can do stuff, so long as they're each individually in range. In fact, the extra dakka is an enviable thing. However, in Fantasy, 75% of ranked regiments do absolutely nothing in terms of combat efficiency other than stacking free combat resolution. In fact, ranked units with guns limit their shooting to the front rank only, with this strange concept that units can block their own LoS. And even then, at its fullest ranks, most units worth their salt can charge a ranked unit right in the front and grind it to a pulp anyway, at which point the entire unit runs off. As a painter / college student, I don't have the time to paint models that don't matter, nor do I have the money to buy them. In fact, looking at a recent Fantasy tournament I saw, where only a third of the armies were fully painted, it would seem a number of people agree with me.

Totally agree. It's kind of disheartening to fork out $$$ for models (especially expensive metals) that might add +1 to combat res.

ColdWind
26-10-2008, 03:17
I like 40K because it has:

1 - Tanks
2 - Titans
3 - more Tanks

I like fantasy because:

1 - Dark elf sorceresses
2 - Taking swords onto a battlefield with tanks and titans seems a bit silly, but units with swords look awesome.
3 - Because it's older, and thus more refined and perfected from a rules standpoint (it seems to take about 20-25 years to get to a workable game system - 40k 5th edition is getting there.

As to which is better - do you prefer peanut M&Ms or plain? because it's the same sort of choice.

ColdWind
26-10-2008, 03:22
Whoops, sorry joepublic, I didn't actually read your post before writing mine - but good to know I'm not alone in my observations about what is best in 40k.

silashand
26-10-2008, 03:46
1. movement matters.
2. tactics matter - it's not just rolling buckets of dice
3. rules are less ambiguous, less counter-intuitive and altogether better.

40K does have the better background though.

Agreed on all of the above. I like 40K, but I think WFB is generally better and a more mature system (i.e. less overt flaws). I do think 40K has the most interesting background though, and it's definitely the most unique version GW has put out.

Things I like about 40K:

1. Forge World :)
2. Background
3. Models

Things I like about WFB:

1. Tactics
2. Models
3. Unique twist on the fantasy archetypes

Cheers, Gary

Khorne warrior
26-10-2008, 08:04
I find that Fantasy is better for certain players and that 40K is better for others. I have one friend who loves future war/ sci fi. stuff and hates being bogged down by rules (ie. not a fantasy type), while my other friend is able to juggle many rules at once and loves the ancient lore/ middle age history (he plays Bretonnians in Fantasy).

Thus, it really just depends

noyjatat
26-10-2008, 08:42
40k

1. There is more scope to convert and set your models in poses that you wish as you don't have to rank up.

2. If you are a special characters fan the models now are coming out thick and fast.

3. There is a more varied range of model types, rather than most of your army still being infantry just with different armour and a bigger weapon like in fantasy.

Fantasy

1. The rulebook is easier to use than the new 40k one as are most of the army books.

2. Its more a game of tactics than strategy like 40k. You can set up badly at the beginning and still pull it out of the fire, whereas now with outflank rules in 40k if you have set up badly it could all be over in 3.

3. I have found that the other players I have played at the GT's in the past few years have been less picky with the rules when it comes to one of GW's grey areas making for a better more smooth game.

Eryx_UK
26-10-2008, 12:04
- Give me three reasons why 40k is better than fantasy

1. The rules are easier to read and more realistic. WFB rules are horribly over complicated.
2. The background/setting.
3. It is a more tactical game.


- Give me three reasons why fantasy is better than 40k


Not to sound flippant, but I can't think of any.

Axis
26-10-2008, 13:48
1. The rules are easier to read and more realistic. WFB rules are horribly over complicated.
2. The background/setting.
3. It is a more tactical game.


I disagree with 1 and 3.

Fantasy rules are not actually complicated. They offer more grey than the black/white rules of 40k (not saying one is better or worse just observing). Modifiers, variable move rates and that sort of thing do this. If i wanted to be pretentious i would say that fantasy offered more subtlety and nuance but i won't. I'm really not sure why people have this idea that fantasy's ruleset is complicated.

As to 40k or fantasy being more tactical. Well, that just depends entirely on what definition of tactical you wish to use. You can provide plausible arguments on both sides but when it comes down to it the tactics used in each aren't the same type. It is apples and oranges.

Rastamann
26-10-2008, 15:09
1. The rules are easier to read and more realistic. WFB rules are horribly over complicated.

I am sorry, but that is a ridiculous observation. Realistic? Compared to what? Know of many armies in the world today that stand in a firing position, wait for the enemy to move towards them for at least half their firing range, do nothing, get shot, and then get assaulted, do you?

I like 40k's models and background a lot (it's right up there with Battletech, B5and Star Trek, for me)! The possibilities for me, as a veteran gamer, to expand on the background through other games is enormous and the sheer scale that it can attain is also one of its greatest points (like most Sci-fi settings). I don't play the game anymore because I pretty much loathe the possibility of what I mentioned in the paragraph above to happen. I also don't particularly enjoy the skirmish feel the game gives me.

Fantasy is, for me, a lesser background (it will always come behind LOTR or Midkemia, for instance), but one that manages to encompass a lot of races in a single world. The ruleset, however, is tighter and doesn't make me feel like a kid.

Both games are, to my mind, broken in that they aren't, and probably never will be, balanced games. That's fine with me, as I regard it as a corporate strategy from GW and I already have no delusions about it - I know what I'm getting into every time I go play a game of Fantasy, and I don't pretty much care about winning or losing (even though I rather like winning, makes me tickle and giggle like a little girl :D). Besides, few times in history has a conflict really been balanced. I look to other games, some even GW, when I want some real balanced games.

So, to reply to OP's question

40K:
1) great background (even if a great part of it isn't really original)
2) great models
3) nice spin-off games

WFB
1) better ruleset (from my point of view)
2) great models
3) Orcs with a "c"