PDA

View Full Version : Fantasy vs 40k? Help requested from a newb



GrinningManiac
06-02-2009, 08:35
I have been doing Warhammer 40,000 on and off for a few years now. I loved the painting and modding side, though I sucked at both, and I never tried the game. recently I took a course to learn it, which took me to Warhammer HQ. I found it insufferably boring and slow and abandoned all intrests in Warhammer.

Recently with the upcoming release of Dawn of War 2 (a favourite of mine), I have become intrested again. I decided I would stay out the game, and paint purley for pleasure. I noticed the Ogre Kingdoms army, as I liked the idea of spending more time on a smaller number of larger models. Then a though occured: "Fantasy is diffrent from 40k, mabye I'll like it!"

So this is a callout to all you Warseer generals and gamesmen. What are your thoughs on Fantasy? how does it compare/relate game-wise to 40k?

Also, what does everyone think of the Ogre Kingdoms?

Thanks

Laughingmonk
06-02-2009, 08:48
What exactly do you not like about 40k? 40k can be fast or slow depending on the players. I've played 2,500 point cityfight battles lasting no more the 2 hours, simply by both my friend and I both being knowledgeable about the rules.

Fantasy is the same way, and although there are less separate things to move (due to the nature of regimented troops), movement is far more important, and players will generally take more time to calculate their moves.

Ogre kingdoms and Chaos can both be very low model count armies. Ogres are somewhat outdated, and thus very hard for a beginner to be successful with. Chaos, on the other hand, are very recently updated.

In the end though, go with the army that you connect with the most. You won't be paying hundreds of dollars and spending hours upon hours painting to play the game, you'll be doing it to collect an army. Rules change faster than models.

ChaosVC
06-02-2009, 08:53
If you find fantasy boring and slow then, you will find it boring and slow now because fantasy need alot of thought into each and every single positioning move. Its slow but more tactical game, which make the victory sweeter in my opinnion. Oh and it looks impressive even without lots of terrian.

I play 40k games because its fun and you don't really have to think too much because everything is so kick ass and roll so many dices in a single phase that you can only start planning after your oponent finishes his dice rolling every turn. Liberating to the mind, less stress full and an absolutely fun game.
But without good looking terain...the asthetic of the game is just not there.

About ogre, well if you can paint them well, they will be look stunning despite the low model count, not as impressive as other armies overall and definately need a new book.

senorcardgage
06-02-2009, 14:59
40k is WAAAAAAAAY better.

Just kidding. You are going to get really biased answers here, though, since this is a Fantasy forum.

For me, I find the background stories and models better for 40k, while Fantasy has a superior rules set.

Bac5665
06-02-2009, 15:00
I want to preface this by saying I play both, though I play 40k much less.

I think that fantasy is a much better game. It has a much higher level of tactics and strategy that go into it, if for no other reason than the movement phase is constructed so differently. In 40k, all that maters is moving in and out of range, and hoping that terrain rolls go well. In fantasy, each degree of angle of the facing of your unit can make a difference, and the angle you charge at matters. Flank charges are the heart of the game, and they are allow for a fantastic level of complex strategy.

40k is about rolling dice and laughing as Space Marines get lucky shoot down a chaos terminator, or laughing as your Trukk Boys blow up. Its about rolling dice and removing models, without a whole lot of thought.

Fantasy allows a high level of thought, and I enjoy more intellectually stimulating, challenging games.

GodlessM
06-02-2009, 15:03
I play both Fantasy and 40k and can say there is a big difference. 40k is a game of dice and big guns, much like Las Vegas. It's down to luck and cheese.

Fantasy is a more tactical game that takes thought and understanding to win, much like chess.

senorcardgage
06-02-2009, 15:15
Oh yeah, and you'll see Fantasy players getting on their high horses because they enjoy 'more intellectually stimulating, challenging games'

Let's face it though, guys, neither game is exactly rocket surgery here. It's kinda like saying 'I prefer multiplication to addition because it's more stimulating.' Sure, Fantasy is more stimulating, but it's not exactly anything to write home about.

sroblin
06-02-2009, 16:23
Well, I'll agree that fantasy is a more complex game because it's more about movement, timing, and positioning than 40k, and it also has a large magic sub-system that 40k mostly doesn't have. The downside to fantasy IMO is that the units tend not to interact well with terrain (models in ranked blocks are physically had to move through trees, and the rules slow such units down so much you basically would never want to do so anyway), and many of the armies will require you to paint large numbers of the same kind of model (say 18-25) to make effective units.

If you found 40k boring, I'm not sure that you would find fantasy better. The basic mechanics of the game are relatively similar, even if the rules emphasize different aspects of the game; fantasy tends to force you to think more about how you position a unit then 40k does, where a lot of 40k is thinking how to use prioritize your targets most effectively with what you have at hand. 40k is probably the faster game of the two, in my opinion. Perhaps you didn't give the 40k course a fair chance, or maybe you prefer the theme and imagery of fantasy more, just don't think that gameplay in fantasy is dramatically faster or simpler.

As for Ogre Kingdoms, I'm no expert but here are some general thoughts: its an unconventional army that doesn't play quite the same as most fantasy armies. It's considered to be a weaker army compared to most, but it's definitely playable and can be effective- they are fast, hit the enemy hard and cause fear, but aren't very brave themselves and are vulnerable to shooting and will usually be outnumbered. If you like the idea of painting and fielding a small horde of 15-30 ogres on a rampage (possibly with some supporting goblin-creatures or artillery), than go with it. Choosing an army you like visually and background wise is IMO the most important thing.

Roxors45
06-02-2009, 16:38
By far a better tactical game, fantasy is. In 40k you can charge in any direction, shoot anywhere, and when pursuing usually get obliterated by sweeping advance. If you wanna roll a crapton of dice go 40k. If you actually want to think about the game your playing (and paint some superb models) go fantasy.

Johnnyfrej
06-02-2009, 17:26
Oh boy, another "40k iz fur newbz" thread. I'll get some popcorn.

Briohmar
06-02-2009, 18:05
I think the popcorn is not necessary this time. The old standard arguments hold less true now with the release of certain books, which shall remain nameless. Basically, new releases have reduced much of the tactical aspects of the former Fantasy game to he who rolls the most dice wins mentality that we used to claim only belonged to 40K. Yes, the games are different, but nearly as much as they used to be.

Drongol
06-02-2009, 18:34
I play both very infrequently, although I can say that I've played 40k much more often than Fantasy.

I like them both for entirely different reasons.

40k to me is all about rule of cool. I have way too many points of Orks and love the idea of a Kult of Speed roaring around Mad Max-style with guns blazing into the air and then bashing a few heads in. It's nifty, the models look good, and Orks take well to dipping, making it an easy army for me to paint.

I won't say the game makes me think too much--typically, it's all about me getting the Turn 2 assault and then mopping up any survivors in later turns. Or about me getting my rear shot off and trying to deal with it.

I like Fantasy because it's a more difficult game to work out, especially with my Ogres. I like having to be very cautious in how I position my Bulls and Ironguts, because they sure aren't going to beat most units in a frontal charge. I like being able to spend lots of time (well, for me) making my Ogres look good as opposed to having to paint up 150+ Orks for an army.

I wouldn't call either of them particularly tactical games, but I will say I'd rather play Fantasy than 40k, but there are more 40k players in general.

I'll come right out and say what other people are hinting about: Ogres are bad. When the book was first released, they were a weak army, and as other armies have gotten books, they've become worse in comparison. Right now, Ogres are contending with Beasts of Chaos for worst book (at least, in my mind).

That said, they're still a lot of fun to play, but don't expect to be super-competitive with them. Their strongest build is extremely boring (to wit: Tyrant, 3 Butchers, 2 units of 3 Bulls, 4 units of 3 Ironguts, some Gnoblars and Trappers, 2 units of 3 Yhetees, 2 Gorgers), and most of the book is extremely not worth its point cost, especially Maneaters.

I'm not saying you can't win with Ogres--I've taken home a few Best General awards at local RTTs with my Ogres. I'm just saying that it takes a lot of work and a lot of luck to do so.

Drongol

MURPH
06-02-2009, 20:30
I prefer fantasy because every other phase can be neitralized by movement which involves (almost) no dice rolling while in 40k difficult terrain tests can leave you stranded and out of range for a charge.

More dice rolling=more luck

I prefer to leave as little as I can to chance.

However, scenario wise I find 40k more engaging as the the freedom of movement plus running makes them viable.

MURPH

Ward.
07-02-2009, 07:35
I have been doing Warhammer 40,000 on and off for a few years now. I loved the painting and modding side, though I sucked at both, and I never tried the game. recently I took a course to learn it, which took me to Warhammer HQ. I found it insufferably boring and slow and abandoned all intrests in Warhammer.

Recently with the upcoming release of Dawn of War 2 (a favourite of mine), I have become intrested again. I decided I would stay out the game, and paint purley for pleasure. I noticed the Ogre Kingdoms army, as I liked the idea of spending more time on a smaller number of larger models. Then a though occured: "Fantasy is diffrent from 40k, mabye I'll like it!"

So this is a callout to all you Warseer generals and gamesmen. What are your thoughs on Fantasy? how does it compare/relate game-wise to 40k?

Also, what does everyone think of the Ogre Kingdoms?

Thanks

Fantasy can be played as a flat dice rolling game or a thinking three turns a head game, so if you enjoy that sort of thing.
Start fantasay.

Comparably, movement and target selection is more important in fantasy, combat is just as important.
Speed wise, 40k games take less time to play.
Model wise, for the most part 4ok models look cooler, with some exceptions.

Godfiend
07-02-2009, 08:35
If 40k was too slow-paced, then Fantasy won't get your adrenaline pumping. If you're looking for thrills from dice rolls, I'd recommend a casino :P.

Fantasy puts a lot of importance on unit positioning and movement. I've not played 40k, but there is a lot of similarity in the basic rules. I'd highly recommend you try a game, but if 40k didn't do it for you, then don't get your hopes TOO high for fantasy.

As for Ogres, paint what you want. However, as was stated, they're... uncompetitive. It's an uphill battle, as you have to use everything you can just to equal your opponent, and, as a new player, it will be a hard start. However, everything can win in the right hands, so if you like the game then you can learn to play to the army's strengths. But the most important thing is that you like the models and the fluff.

Condottiere
08-02-2009, 01:40
Oh yeah, and you'll see Fantasy players getting on their high horses because they enjoy 'more intellectually stimulating, challenging games'

Let's face it though, guys, neither game is exactly rocket surgery here. It's kinda like saying 'I prefer multiplication to addition because it's more stimulating.' Sure, Fantasy is more stimulating, but it's not exactly anything to write home about.Are we pseudo-intellectuals, or do we pretend to be pretend intellectuals?:D

Fantasy does lack the glamour of laser blasted futuristic battlefields, but it's a lot easier to move around groups of troops.

The fluff's a lot easier to come to grips with, as well.

fluffstalker
08-02-2009, 04:46
Haha johnnyfrej. Yeah Im so tired of this bullcrap about 40k being "low-class" and "non-tactical." Somehow ending the game on turn two because you roll an insane amount of power dice for your infernal gateway, pit of shades or raise a massive horde of zombies or whatever doesnt sound tactical to me. Oh look I cast Danse, one, two, three, seven times! Or getting dragons and hydras and steam tanks etc. In 40k you COULD go a termie unit with a strong character and in a Land Raider and you COULD win, but its risky. Fire Dragon unit with meltabombs or even a lucky lascannon shot could leave your Land Raider in the middle of the board and very much screwed.

In Fantasy you WOULD get a DE lord with reverse ward save on a Dragon, back him up with hydras, and theres no could about it. Short of your opponent having a list thats practically the same or a magic spam list (yawn), your going to win. Sure you can take out a dragon with a lucky cannon shot, but Fantasy games have so many fast flyers and no obstacles and short distances, its ridiculously easy to engage and wipe out war machines by turn two. So, if you want to shoot down the dragon, you practically have to talior your whole force for it, because relying on a "balanced" army with one or two war machines to take it before it eats your RnF isnt going to cut it.