PDA

View Full Version : WH40K over WHFB: Pros + Cons



hendybadger
13-05-2009, 07:40
I am a 40K player and have never been able to totaly get into WHFB.
So i was wondering.
What do people see as the pros and cons of WH40K over WHFB?

Poseidal
13-05-2009, 11:06
Setting and aesthetics.

While the WHFB background is good, it's not as unique or engrossing as the 40k one IMO. Also, the models and designs don't have the feel of the 40k ones. Nothing like proper Corvus Pattern Astartes armour, or the Eldar Aspect Warrior suits; most importantly, vehicles, vehicles, vehicles.

Hellgore
13-05-2009, 11:19
I am a 40K player and have never been able to totaly get into WHFB.
So i was wondering.
What do people see as the pros and cons of WH40K over WHFB?

Balanceproblems in WHFB, grossly overpowered ICs which can smash any army on their own. And sorry, I freak out when I see orcs marching around neatly in lines...

shin'keiro
13-05-2009, 11:21
WHFB is for goblins!!

Nicha11
13-05-2009, 11:22
40k has vehicles but lacks magic.

Fantasy has magic and vehicles.

40k might have a better background, i have made up my mind.

Fantasy has far superior rules.

Griefbringer
13-05-2009, 11:26
If you post this question on 40K forum, people will tell you in general that 40K is better game and setting than WHFB.

If you post this question on WHFB forum, people will tell you in general that WHFB is better game and setting than 40K.

If you post this question on LotR forum, people will tell you in general that LotR is better game and setting than 40K or WHFB.

If you post this question on a chess forum, people will tell you in general that chess is the better game than either 40K, WHFB or LotR, and also has superior models and fluff.

mweaver
13-05-2009, 11:27
The fantasy figures can be, and are, frequently used in our D&D games. And my wife loves fantasy but has never been particularly excited about SciFi. So I buy mainly fantasy, with some IG thrown in because I like painting them as a break from fantasy figures.

I have played a handful of games of 40K and WHFB, but not enough to have a real opinion on one rule set being better than the other. I enjoyed both.

I love Mordheim, buy the way.

Xelloss
13-05-2009, 11:31
40k might have a better background
Fantasy has far superior rules.

That resumes pretty much my opinion. WH40k rules have been too much oversimplified (not that WHFB rules are perfect either)

The_Outsider
13-05-2009, 11:38
I'm a sci fi fan, so no matter what happens I will always like 40k over fantasy.

samiens
13-05-2009, 11:45
Warhammer rewards micro-management (minute angels and distances) and the aim is to gain mechanical bonuses, 40k rewards 'soft' tactics- meaning that there is often little in the way of a mechanical bonus between this and this but there are greater concerns and positioning is key (whatever anyone might tery and say- games between good players are won through position). So which is better depends on your disposition:

For those who find the devil in the detail, aren't too fussed that the game looks similar every time (2 lines hitting each other), enjoy the gambits of the magic phase and the interaction on both turns and have an aeon to paint an army Warhammer is the better game

For those who want to try innovative but less rewarded tactics, enjoy a more free form game and don't mind the fact that your opponent's turn is their turn and you will do all of nothing- 40k is a better game

The games require quite different skills, and its no secret that 40k is moe balanced at the moment, so its about which one you enjoy more. Personally, the sight of a warhammer game bores me and I find micro-management very easy, so all the 'hard' elements of warhammer don't challenge me that much so I quickly get bored [especially as lacks objectives]. 40k on the other hand, despite simpler rules inspires me more and as the difference between the best players is less tangible I find the actual battle with your opponent more satisfying, plus the freedom of moevemnt makes the game more reactive (In warhammer its easy to see what a unit will do from it position and facing- less often the case in 40k)

They are both quite entertaining games and either is a good buy, particularly if you find some other wargames plain dull and prefer 80s style mechanics. Despite the apparent similarities they play quite differently. I will say this though, the general stock of warhammer players is quite decent (as the game is all in the mechanics) while 40k varies a lot more as many players don't see the subtleties- so often its easy to find a very boring pick up game of 40k where the good player riolls over the other with little thought. That said, I truely believe that a battle of 2 excellent players in 40k is more engaging than Warhammer.

Hope that helps a bit

Poseidal
13-05-2009, 11:46
If you post this question on 40K forum, people will tell you in general that 40K is better game and setting than WHFB.

If you post this question on WHFB forum, people will tell you in general that WHFB is better game and setting than 40K.

If you post this question on LotR forum, people will tell you in general that LotR is better game and setting than 40K or WHFB.

If you post this question on a chess forum, people will tell you in general that chess is the better game than either 40K, WHFB or LotR, and also has superior models and fluff.

I can't comment on LotR (or WotR) as I haven't played that system, but I would say that WHFB is a better (and cleaner) ruleset than 40k, though has some problems with some army books. 40k has a superior setting and aesthetic.

Chess is quite balanced, but White is overpowered and the background is a bit silly.

Why is the Queen the best fighter in the kingdom? How come the Rook looks like a castle, but can move faster than almost all the other pieces and is named after a chariot, I mean, who thought that was a good idea?

Sir_Turalyon
13-05-2009, 12:07
WFB is supposed to be more complex, concentrated on manouvers and facings of units rathen then simply who is in whose weapon / assault range. It used to be better balanced as well - at least in my eyes. After 5th edition 40k I wasn't paying it much attention (which says something already); judging by forums it might recently become more unbalanced and borig.

Flamer
13-05-2009, 12:19
I would say just opposite. WH40K is now much much more balanced then Wfb - If you look at the tournament results DoC , DE and VC dominate pretty much all time. In WH40K it is much much more easy to swing the metagame. Even such minor addition as Vendetta makes people wander if those 10AV transports are still that good.

I transited from Wfb tottaly. I just paint Wfb now and play beer and precel games. Until GW does rever back into the days of 6 ed when things were pretty balanced I will not buy or play a game of WFB !

Mojaco
13-05-2009, 12:23
The biggest reason I don't like is it's messing about in the movement phase. This phase is so important that a fraction of an inch can win a battle. Sure, 40K has moments like that too, but at least without the added annoyance of getting angles right and such.
All in all, I think WFB allows to much room for whiners to get their way.

Plus magic seems to be getting bigger and bigger in that game. Seriously, what is up with WFB's power curve? Every new army seems to get new tricks to dominate the magic phase as long as you spam a certain unit.

In the end, 40K is just more fun.

freddieyu
13-05-2009, 12:29
The biggest reason I don't like is it's messing about in the movement phase. This phase is so important that a fraction of an inch can win a battle. Sure, 40K has moments like that too, but at least without the added annoyance of getting angles right and such.
All in all, I think WFB allows to much room for whiners to get their way.

Plus magic seems to be getting bigger and bigger in that game. Seriously, what is up with WFB's power curve? Every new army seems to get new tricks to dominate the magic phase as long as you spam a certain unit.

In the end, 40K is just more fun.

I agree, and I have won before tourneys with the empire in 6th ed..but now I think it would extremely difficult to do so unless you make a funky list, and having 3 character slots just as dispel scroll caddies as a necessity versus vampire counts really sucks...

Yes, the skew has gone back to magic hammer, and tactical brilliance is out the window once you are locked in combat with zombies which replenish 20 models a turn...

aberrant_unc
13-05-2009, 12:45
Sort of sad what has happened to WFB, since it used to be clearly the better and more balanced system. 40K's 5th edition improved a lot of things (though it still isn't perfect) and each codex they have brought out has been pretty good. Honestly if they get all the codexes updated before 6th and things continue to be fairly balanced I think this might be the golden age for 40K...

Nero
13-05-2009, 13:16
40k is a beer and pretzel game, good for a quick laugh but there's never much depth there. The game is too dependant on list building and deployment, too little on what you actually do once the game begins.

Fantasy, despite some unbalance in recent years, is still far better balanced than 40k is or ever will be.

The difference is chance; 40k takes a lot of the power out of the players hand and gives it to the dice. There's a random chance for everything - how far you move through cover, how far you run/fleet, when units come out of reserve, where they'll be when they come out of reserve (deepstriking/outflanking), when the game ends, etc.

It makes a mockery of tactics. Planning is dependant on something being constant. In 40k you can't even tell in advance where your units will be, nevermind how well they'll do once they get there.

40k is just a glorified rock-paper-scissors/craps hybrid; check your anti-infantry/tank to their infantry/tank ratios, then role dice. If that ratio wasn't favourable for you, hope you roll better dice.

And the cons of Fantasy? It's not sci-fi. :<

The_Outsider
13-05-2009, 13:20
If fantasy is a better system is shouldn't be so vulnerable to being broken, but that clearly is not the case.

It is inherently pretty hard to break 40k, those things that do are down to A) wound allocation trickry and B) abilities that alter the way the game normally works (like lash, it gives your opponent the ability to move your models, something that is virtually unheard of).

Fantasy only works when everyone plays by the same principles and has far, far more rock/paper/scissors combos than 40k does.

Unkillable IC's in FB are pretty loltastic for game balance, try it in 40k and it doesn't work as well by a long shot.

Donblas
13-05-2009, 13:23
I agree with outsider Fantasy has way to many no brainer choices for HQ's like a bloodthirster killing most of your army within a couple of turns where as 40k usually requires an entire army to be cheesed out before you know your boned. Although i like painting my darkelves more then any of my 40k models more fleshy bits :)

SPYDER68
13-05-2009, 13:33
Ive played 40k for around 9 years now (Yea im a youngling compared to some here still :P)

Ive played fantasy for two years.. And i really didnt see much tactics in fantasy.. Yea you move blocks.. and haft to get the correct angle's for Flank charges.. but its not hard with most armies..

Not to even mention how unbalanced their characters are... Fantasy is Truely Herohammer..

Fantasy has more magic.. but it completly runs the game at times.. and forces people to take characters to hold scrolls to dispel.. to me.. thats like playing 40k and having to take 2-3 Librians to deal with powers... It eats up points.. and doesnt make it fun.

900 point Character on a dragon or w/e that can kill half an army alone... Where is the tactics in that ? You move... in any direction.. etc.. 20inch charge... thats just easymode to me.

I really dislike fantasy save system in a way.. its all Based off T3... to me.. a t4 Model should only get -1 save if its hit bye Str 5..
40k Ap system is alot smoother.. "Whats your guns AP ?, Its 3.. K, no armor save"
Fantasy -"my weapon is str 6.. you get -3.. k.. i have light armor.. i have shield.. im on a horse... darn... no save

Both games can be fun yes, i dont agree 40k is simpler to fantasy due to.. Fantasy rules are extremly simple.. Most of their armies are point and click.

Right now i only play 40k.. but i plan on finishing my fantasy army in the future.

Troah
13-05-2009, 13:38
I enjoy both about the same amount. I play 40k when I'm in my 'tech future mass murder' (Cause I play Dark Eldar) moods. and when I'm in my 'let's run around slaying dragons and orcs or squish elves!' mood I play fantasy. It really just depends on what you feel like playing. both are fairly balanced, but they do have their issues.

Poseidal
13-05-2009, 13:49
The only two 'problem' armies are Daemons and Vampires at the moment. I've never seen a character eat through units so easily too, not like the top end 40k ones (things like Daemon Princes and their ilk).

In Fantasy A monster just charging forward has to kill 6 guys on their own to beat a 4 rank block of infantry, not getting wounded back. (bonus for ranks, outnumber, banner, muso).

I can see units killing entire armies, but characters on their own? Maybe against a gunline...

The main problem with 40k is the clunky rules really. It would be better than Fantasy if they added a movement stat and chucked the AP system (though that needs adjustments to the codices).

Oguleth
13-05-2009, 13:53
It mostly boils down to aestethics I'd say in the long run; what kind of flavour (fantasy vs sci fi, the art, the models and so on), when I started with wargaming I have pretty much the opposite opinion on the games than when I started.

40k to me seems to have more depth in how it plays with the scenarios (except kill points), and for the moment there are no armies that gets played way much more than others, and is grossly overpowered/annoying to face, but that just might be where I play (compared to everyone and their dog playing annoying Daemons/VC/WE/DE). So most games tends to be fun, regardless of the outcome. Also I find how the psyker/magic idea is handled in 40k compared to fantasy. And except for being tricksy with some fantasy units, I find the whole "fantasy movement is so much better and more tactical!1!" to be a good line for me to roll my eyes on. As it tends to be someone can swarm the other down, pure knight armies, all that junk.

Fantasy CAN look pretty good on the table if people play more fair lists and armies, so it looks like a proper battle. It also allows way more customization with characters and units - with all the magical items and unit options. You also get to do more during your opponent's turn (dispell in the magic phase, charge reactions, and so on) compared to mostly just removing models and rolling saves. And the core system is actually pretty solid, it's just the army books ruining it.

hendybadger
13-05-2009, 14:19
some people are saying that you dont do anything in your opponents phase in 40k

What about attacking back in h2h?

The_Outsider
13-05-2009, 14:25
some people are saying that you dont do anything in your opponents phase in 40k

What about attacking back in h2h?

Thats not how elitist fantasy players work.

The rules are as folows:

1) Bash 40k for being simple
2) Overlook the horrendous issues that still plague fantasy
3) Bash 40k's issues
4) Be elitist
5) Go to 1)

aberrant_unc
13-05-2009, 14:25
One problem I have with fantasy is that it is a lot more complicated than 40K but isn't really much more fun. I think that tradeoff works in 40K's favor in many ways.

Laughingmonk
13-05-2009, 14:28
Ive played 40k for around 9 years now (Yea im a youngling compared to some here still :P)

Ive played fantasy for two years.. And i really didnt see much tactics in fantasy.. Yea you move blocks.. and haft to get the correct angle's for Flank charges.. but its not hard with most armies..

Not to even mention how unbalanced their characters are... Fantasy is Truely Herohammer..

Fantasy has more magic.. but it completly runs the game at times.. and forces people to take characters to hold scrolls to dispel.. to me.. thats like playing 40k and having to take 2-3 Librians to deal with powers... It eats up points.. and doesnt make it fun.

900 point Character on a dragon or w/e that can kill half an army alone... Where is the tactics in that ? You move... in any direction.. etc.. 20inch charge... thats just easymode to me.

I really dislike fantasy save system in a way.. its all Based off T3... to me.. a t4 Model should only get -1 save if its hit bye Str 5..
40k Ap system is alot smoother.. "Whats your guns AP ?, Its 3.. K, no armor save"
Fantasy -"my weapon is str 6.. you get -3.. k.. i have light armor.. i have shield.. im on a horse... darn... no save

Both games can be fun yes, i dont agree 40k is simpler to fantasy due to.. Fantasy rules are extremly simple.. Most of their armies are point and click.

Right now i only play 40k.. but i plan on finishing my fantasy army in the future.

Which armies are point and click?

Cause it ain't Empire, Wood elves, Beastmen, Dark elves, High elves, tomb kings, orcs, or even chaos warriors.

If you're a even a half-way decent fantasy player, then you know that no army is "Point and click."

I like fantasy over 40k because:

1.) Psychology: leadership actually matters in fantasy.

2.) Yes, there are armor save modifiers in fantasy. Unlike in 40k, where a terminator gets the same save from an anti-tank krak missile as he does from a lasgun.

3.) Neither systems are balanced. 40k has the edge, but not by much. Ork hordes and nob biker lists are still a tad imba, even with the space marines getting the ability to pretty much ignore the game's rules in one way or another.

4.) Better models. This one is self evident though ;) (for me, of course).

Oguleth
13-05-2009, 14:38
some people are saying that you dont do anything in your opponents phase in 40k

What about attacking back in h2h?

You get to roll dice in 40k, but there is very little choosing involved in it. Magical defense involves a lot of choosing in fantasy, as does charge reactions and suchlike too. It's not a lot, but it's some.



Personally I find it funny with all the fantasy players using pyschology as a big plus, haven't played against an army that cares about that for over a year in fantasy :D

Johnnyfrej
13-05-2009, 14:42
I agree with most of the pro-40k players here. Unfortunatly for me, I started my Empire about a year before all the power-creeping codexs started popping out in Fantasy. Now against mosts lists I'm lucky to pull out a draw unless I take a certain army build (say Magic Gunline). To me that is a big turn-off. Why should my army to be a pre-set power-build just to try to be competitive?

Now in 40k it's the other way around. You can easily make lists from pretty much any codex that are great fun and still be competitive until you go up against the ultimate cheese lists (nob bikers, lash/oblits). And to anyone who says movement in 40k is has no tactics/strategy that is rubbish. Position is everything in 5th ed. It means the difference from a Space Marine squad getting obliterated by a Battle Cannon shot in the open to having much less casualties in cover. My Guardsmen's bacon has been saved so many times because of a good cover save.

Also, 40k has Titans and Starships.

Cane
13-05-2009, 14:54
You guys are kidding yourselves if you think Fantasy or 40k are tactically/strategically complex. Unless we throw in the poorly-written rules factor into the mix of course.

All of GW's games are more about the models than gameplay and both core games are similar enough to make learning them a cinch if you're familiar with one already. That said, I think 40k is the overall superior game since GW consider it to be their flagship product. The models and the fact that the 40k game and universe isn't as limited like WHFB's are the main selling points for me. I prefer a sci-fi universe over fantasy battle.

In fact, if I was into the Fantasy setting I'd probably play the LOTR system over the WHFB.

loveless
13-05-2009, 14:56
Alright...40K over Fantasy...yeah, I can do this...

1) Every model does something. In Fantasy, you pay a rather high premium (in both points and currency) for a large assortment of models that does little more than establish the shape of your unit. The Rank system is fine, but they need a cheaper ($) way of doing it.

2) Too much base variation. In Fantasy, base size is king - even moreso than movement. The problem is, the bases don't jive together very well. Case in point - try putting a Cavalry model in a unit of 20mm bases. Or a 40mm base in a unit of 25mm bases. Yeah. It gets old fast.

3) The magic phase. Frankly, every army should just come with 2 Wizards/Runesmiths and a dispel scroll/rune. They show up in 90% of lists, which makes them an auto-include as far as I'm concerned. Just throw them in for free, or make them less important. Moreover, it's absolutely obnoxious to put points into spellcasters.
a) They're expensive points-wise.
b) They'll be stopped by a scroll, dispel, or miscast - potentially knocking out a massive chunk of your army in a single blow.
c) They'll murder your opponent, being far more worthwhile than their point costs implies.
Honestly, the whole system is flawed as it turns the game into an arms race. I'd estimate that 7 out of 10 complaints I've had during a game of Fantasy (or heard from my opponent) related to the magic phase. Frankly, I'd prefer spell casting to be more akin to Warmachine/Hordes casting. If I'm paying the points, I want to KNOW it's going to be worthwhile.

4) This one is personal - it seems that any type of army I want to play gets whines from the peanut gallery. Be it an all cavalry Chaos force, a necromancy heavy Vampire army, clan Skryre, or anytime I play Dark Elves (I have no idea why everyone hates them around here), I get whined at. Now, in 40K, I do anything from short-range Marines to Spider-heavy Eldar and no one complains. I guess, for me, it's that the armies I want to play in 40K are "acceptable" but the armies I want to play in Fantasy are "overpowered." I don't choose them due to this, mind you - I see a look I want to pull off with a force and go for it, I just always end up picking a build that gets over-the-top in Fantasy. Ah well.

5) Movement is...obnoxious. Pivot here, wheel there - people abuse it, get into arguments over how something moves, and then spend the next 10 minutes pulling out diagrams and geometric tools to see who's right. Bah, I say.

6) This weird trend of "tiers" in Fantasy. Daemon get 2000 points, Tomb Kings get 2125 points, and Dogs of War get 2250 points all in the same tournament? Oh, come on. If that's not a massive sign of imbalance, I don't know what is. Frankly, I wouldn't want to play in an uneven tournament, regardless of which side I was on in the distribution.

So...yeah...40K for me. I'll get my fantasy-fix from elsewhere.

The Clairvoyant
13-05-2009, 15:21
i like both games and both backgrounds.

The only thing 'broken' in WFB is that people use tournaments as a measuring instrument.

SPYDER68
13-05-2009, 15:22
Which armies are point and click?

Cause it ain't Empire, Wood elves, Beastmen, Dark elves, High elves, tomb kings, orcs, or even chaos warriors.

If you're a even a half-way decent fantasy player, then you know that no army is "Point and click."

I like fantasy over 40k because:

1.) Psychology: leadership actually matters in fantasy.

2.) Yes, there are armor save modifiers in fantasy. Unlike in 40k, where a terminator gets the same save from an anti-tank krak missile as he does from a lasgun.

3.) Neither systems are balanced. 40k has the edge, but not by much. Ork hordes and nob biker lists are still a tad imba, even with the space marines getting the ability to pretty much ignore the game's rules in one way or another.

4.) Better models. This one is self evident though ;) (for me, of course).

I know enough about Fantasy to have learned how broken it is between armybooks, and how some armies are indeed point and click, i never said all armies. Psychology tests in fantasy is dumb along with i win combat because i have a guy with a flute and one with a flag!

Thou you did a good job of showing the elitist Fantasy player side that my game is better then yours !!!!!



"Player 1: I did 4 wounds.. and you did 4 wounds, but i have a Flag and you have a flag so we tie.. Player 2:.. No! i have a Flute! and that lets me win! now i just won combat and whiped your entire squad from my guy playing a flute!

Player 1: oh well i have a 800+ point lord and 2-3 300+ point hero's that will now walk throu your entire army, have a nice day"

rossatdi
13-05-2009, 15:30
As a Guard player I would simply like to say that I do have to factor in psychology into my battle plans. Mostly because my units will run away if someone farts at them.

===

As a personal preference the variety of 40k trumps the technical complexities of WFB. I enjoy being able to play a game (including set up etc) inside 2 hours (1,000 points) and still have some variety in the armies.

Also I have a vague fluff grudge at WFB for making Bretonnians very un-knight like. (Why did they have to be corrupt? This isn't grim-dark, some people want shinning noble heroes!)

LordofWar1986
13-05-2009, 15:37
The one thing that seems to bug me the most about fantasy is how it is stressed so much about movement then any other phase of the game system. Here is how I see each phase...

1) Movement- Set up charge lanes and set up flee units in prime spots to bait.
2) Shooting- Look! my cannonball will only hit you after it bounces!
- My hand gunners are over half range away, shooting into soft cover, at
skirmishers....I am at -3 to hit.....we all know where this is going (even
taking the cover out of here does not make it much better.)
3) Magic- I am casting a plethora of magic missiles from my 2 casters, you dispel them
with your scroll caddy. Wow my caster did nothing during the magic phase....
4) Combat- Well lets see who has the bigger combat res stick......I loose by a lot. You
catch my unit whom didn't even get the chance to strike back.....

These things make fantasy very one sided to the person with much experience or the easy button power armies.

Granted I love the models, so I will still collect DE's until either all the other army books catch up in power or the next rules edition waters it down to make these power armies less intimidating.

The SkaerKrow
13-05-2009, 15:38
Asking me to compare the current version of 40K to the current version of Warhammer Fantasy would be like asking a man to compare Ambrosia to Cat Poop. One is the food of the gods, the other came out of a cat's rear end.

Skyth
13-05-2009, 15:41
4) This one is personal - it seems that any type of army I want to play gets whines from the peanut gallery. Be it an all cavalry Chaos force, a necromancy heavy Vampire army, clan Skryre, or anytime I play Dark Elves (I have no idea why everyone hates them around here), I get whined at. Now, in 40K, I do anything from short-range Marines to Spider-heavy Eldar and no one complains.

Exact opposite experience from my end. 40k players in my area are more interested in controlling what the other person plays and about villifying people for wanting to play by rules that they don't like. Fantasy players are more about having fun with your list and playing by the rules.



6) This weird trend of "tiers" in Fantasy. Daemon get 2000 points, Tomb Kings get 2125 points, and Dogs of War get 2250 points all in the same tournament? Oh, come on. If that's not a massive sign of imbalance, I don't know what is. Frankly, I wouldn't want to play in an uneven tournament, regardless of which side I was on in the distribution.

That's only in one tournament. But the same could be done with 40k...Orks, CSM, and Chaos Daemons are top dogs right now.

The SkaerKrow
13-05-2009, 15:53
That's only in one tournament. But the same could be done with 40k...Orks, CSM, and Chaos Daemons are top dogs right now.Nearly every game has superior and inferior force options. The big difference is the margins between them, and while it may be argued that the power armies in Warhammer 40K have a slight advantage over the middle-of-the-pack armies, in Warhammer Fantasy the distance between the leading edge and everyone else is more like a chasm.

Thanatos_elNyx
13-05-2009, 15:55
IMO WFB has lost its way with the most recent set of Army Books.
Starting with the Chaos Daemons and the High Elf book which gave the entire army First Strike.

loveless
13-05-2009, 15:59
That's only in one tournament. But the same could be done with 40k...Orks, CSM, and Chaos Daemons are top dogs right now.

Daemons are top dog where you're at? That's impressive...most people still vilify them for uselessness around here.

Your post proves a good point, however - the local gaming community dictates the game of choice as much as personal preference and rules do.

The Emperor
13-05-2009, 15:59
Well, here're the one big advantage that Fantasy has over 40k, as I see it.

Each country has one army book attached to it. That, IMO, is immensely important. The Empire, Bretonnia, High Elves, Wood Elves, Dwarfs, Lizardmen, Ogre Kingdoms, Beasts of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos, Warriors of Chaos, Orcs & Goblins, Dark Elves, Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, and Skaven army books each represent a different faction with the Warhammer Fantasy world. Each of them have their own objectives which are at cross purposes with every other army. Well, with the exception of the three Chaos armies, as they all serve Chaos. But all three are very different from each other, and Chaos fights itself as much as it fights everyone else, so that's not a problem.

That's at odds with 40k, in which one nation has no less than EIGHT Codex's. Space Marines, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Daemonhunters, and Witch Hunters. And people want even more (Adeptus Mechanicus, anyone?). And four of them are just variations of a fifth. And to top it off, they have VERY little reason to fight each other, unlike the three Chaos armies in Fantasy.

Of course, one could come up with a story reason why their Space Wolves are fighting Ultramarines, or why their Blood Angels are fighting the Sisters of Battle, but that sort of thing gets monotonous after a while. Especially if you're somebody, like me, who cares about story reasons (I've never played against another Imperial foe, and never allied with traditional Imperial enemies, like Orks, Dark Eldar, and Chaos, or with creatures that you can't possibly ally with, like Tyranids).

Add to which the fact that a great deal of players are Space Marine players, and it's a bit of a pain to find an opponent who doesn't play Space Marines. You won't run into that problem in Warhammer Fantasy, however. Every army you fight is one which you can legitimately come up with a reason for fighting. It makes perfect sense for Bretonnia to be fighting the Empire, Wood Elves, High Elves, etc. It makes perfect sense for the Dwarfs to duke it out with the Empire, the Lizardmen, and more. And despite worshipping Chaos, it's perfectly fine for Beasts of Chaos to duke it out with Warriors of Chaos or Daemons of Chaos.

The only real issue is when you find a player who plays the same army as you. But given the sheer number of armies in Fantasy (15, though there'd be even more if Dogs of War and Chaos Dwarfs would see some support), you could probably go years without ever having to play anybody who played the same army as you. And even if you did, in many cases, the end result is nowhere near as annoying as Imperial Vs. Imperial fighting, as many armies have a reason to fight themselves. The Empire has certainly undergone enough civil wars to justify that. And it isn't unheard of for Bretonnian lords to lay siege to each others castles. And Chaos, Orcs, and Skaven are perfectly justified in attacking their brethren. High Elf on High Elf violence is a bit harder to explain, though, as is Dwarf on Dwarf and Wood Elf on Wood Elf.

But anyway, to summarize, the big benefit is the sheer number of armies available in Fantasy, 15 total, and the fact that each army represents a separate faction in the Warhammer Fantasy universe. Whereas by comparison, the 40k universe has 16 armies (one more than Fantasy), but 8 of those, fully half, only represent one faction within the 40k universe.

As someone who was formerly a Space Wolf and Blood Angels player, a part of me would hate for them to lose their Codex's. But I have to say, another part of me would find it EXTREMELY appealing on some level if GW would release only three Imperial Codex's. Codex: Space Marines (Containing lists for generic Space Marines as well as for various other Chapters), Codex: Imperial Guard, and Codex: Inquisition (Containing the Grey Knights and Sisters of Battle), and leave it at that.

As for other advantages, I'm sure I could come up with a pretty long list, but there's one which, while minor, I'd like to mention. Flying monsters. :D Nothing quite like having your general on a flying monster to serve as the centerpiece of your army. Sure, 40k has tanks and dreadnoughts and such, but they really don't compare to your army commander being mounted on a big, honking monster. That's always been one of the big draws for me, as far as fantasy was concerned. The downright glorious sight of a character mounted atop a gigantic flying monster. I always looked at pictures of those in White Dwarf in awe. Absolutely stunning, and something which 40k really hasn't captured.

Fixer
13-05-2009, 16:09
From a modelling point of view:

40K is more customisable when it comes to heroes. Most army leaders in Fantasy have only a few model options. In 40k you can build/pose thousands of different variations of HQ choice.
More variety. Especially when it comes to Marines, Chaos and Guard forces. You can easly chop and change parts. Fantasy most models look much the same.

Most importantly: You actually get to see all of your models when painted. In fantasy in their ranked system 90% of the models you field will never be able to show off their paint job until they've been removed from the board.

nargileh
13-05-2009, 16:23
[Rant mode=ON]
WHFB is like put shooty stuff on hill, the big blocks in the middle, the fast stuff on ze flanks, and the infiltrators / flyers trying to marchblock your opponent and perhaps kill some warmachine crew along the way. And your opponent is doing the exact same thing. Why? Because there are explicit rules that reward specific manouvres. The only skill involved in whfb is guessing distances, you might aswell toss a coin on the table and decide the winner by who can most accurately guess the distance between coin and nearest table edge. You don't have to THINK to play whfb, the choices have been made for you in the form of bonuses of all sorts granted by rules which have been deceptively named after proper military tactics.

"Forward MARCH!"
"Sir we can't march, sir!"
'Why not?'
"There is some sort of flying creature on our flank and it's too close for comfort sir!"
"Well then assault it and move on!"
"We can't sir, we can't actually see it."
"Oh that's all quite nice and well then just do a regular move"

:wtf:

[Rant mode=OFF]

wizuriel
13-05-2009, 16:27
fantasy is the much more strategic game; but, right now 40k is the much more fun game.

Fantasy is suffering pretty badly from powercreep. I also think there is more potential for 40k where fantasy is pretty limited to killing the other army

Mojaco
13-05-2009, 16:30
I forgot an advantage WFB has (or drawback 40k has)

In 40K it actually matters how you build your models. That sucks. I want to build a big ass deathstrike missile, but thanks to TLOS that means the whole table can shoot it. And RAW-perverts can make crouched Wraithlords or lower the Valkyrie stand and such. Not cool.

DarkTerror
13-05-2009, 16:34
I think most people here are right and wrong on the same issue.

WFB has complex movement. Some love it, others hate it.

It involves minute details and very specific tactics. It makes and breaks units. It sets up future events far more than you can do in 40K. And it also is very cumbersome.

Sometimes it's just downright awkward looking in WFB. But the rules work fairly well, so the Fantasy crowd loves it.

I think everyone's right. If you don't like the movement of Warhammer Fantasy, you'd better stay far away. If you really love it, you'll find that over time your tactic book can grow to enormous sizes, and you'll just love it more.

P.S. To a few earlier posters. Playing against people who are new to WFB does remove a lot of the tactics of the game (especially with large monsters), as they don't know what to do defensively. Here again, movement is king. You'll want to play someone who's more experienced and see how they make your Bloodthirster ineffective.

Condottiere
13-05-2009, 16:41
I think it's hard to say one game is better than the other, it really comes down to the style of gameplay that you happen to prefer.

I've always felt that a typical 40K game feels like a platoon/company firefight, while a Fantasy battle seems to involve larger number of troops (not necessarily models), done on a grander scale.

However, rules could be improved.

AmBlam
13-05-2009, 17:01
I like the colours of 40k.

The_Outsider
13-05-2009, 17:16
I like the colours of 40k.

Black, red, black, red, ultramarine blue and gold?

samiens
14-05-2009, 00:01
At the end of the day I find it a nonsense when people say there are more tactics/strategy in wfb- actually there are just more rewards for specific ones- leading to highly monotonous gameplay. I find there is a much greater variation in what happens in each game of 40k than in wfb

Draconian77
14-05-2009, 00:13
I feel that both games are horribly flawed but highly entertaining.

They also tend to share the same flaws because they are made by the same company...the Lord on a Dragon flying around and killing everything that it touches is no different than the winged Hive Tyrant flying around and killing everything that it touches.

My opinions also include;
The biggest problem in Fantasy is the magic phase.
The biggest problem in 40k is still the roll for first turn making too much of an impact.

Neither games have enough Pink...

Sorros
14-05-2009, 00:18
I have seen some pretty unbalanced things before in WHFB...I suppose the point values balanced out, but still...I don;t recall the demon's name, but it was a large demon that pretty much crushed about 6 brigades of Empire. This guy had 5 divisions of demons vs something like 15 empire, and still won. The point value must be insanely expensive, but still..

Darkspear
14-05-2009, 08:08
Well, here're the one big advantage that Fantasy has over 40k, as I see it.

Each country has one army book attached to it. That, IMO, is immensely important. The Empire, Bretonnia, High Elves, Wood Elves, Dwarfs, Lizardmen, Ogre Kingdoms, Beasts of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos, Warriors of Chaos, Orcs & Goblins, Dark Elves, Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, and Skaven army books each represent a different faction with the Warhammer Fantasy world. Each of them have their own objectives which are at cross purposes with every other army. Well, with the exception of the three Chaos armies, as they all serve Chaos. But all three are very different from each other, and Chaos fights itself as much as it fights everyone else, so that's not a problem.

That's at odds with 40k, in which one nation has no less than EIGHT Codex's. Space Marines, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Daemonhunters, and Witch Hunters. And people want even more (Adeptus Mechanicus, anyone?). And four of them are just variations of a fifth. And to top it off, they have VERY little reason to fight each other, unlike the three Chaos armies in Fantasy.

Of course, one could come up with a story reason why their Space Wolves are fighting Ultramarines, or why their Blood Angels are fighting the Sisters of Battle, but that sort of thing gets monotonous after a while. Especially if you're somebody, like me, who cares about story reasons (I've never played against another Imperial foe, and never allied with traditional Imperial enemies, like Orks, Dark Eldar, and Chaos, or with creatures that you can't possibly ally with, like Tyranids).

Add to which the fact that a great deal of players are Space Marine players, and it's a bit of a pain to find an opponent who doesn't play Space Marines. You won't run into that problem in Warhammer Fantasy, however. Every army you fight is one which you can legitimately come up with a reason for fighting. It makes perfect sense for Bretonnia to be fighting the Empire, Wood Elves, High Elves, etc. It makes perfect sense for the Dwarfs to duke it out with the Empire, the Lizardmen, and more. And despite worshipping Chaos, it's perfectly fine for Beasts of Chaos to duke it out with Warriors of Chaos or Daemons of Chaos.

The only real issue is when you find a player who plays the same army as you. But given the sheer number of armies in Fantasy (15, though there'd be even more if Dogs of War and Chaos Dwarfs would see some support), you could probably go years without ever having to play anybody who played the same army as you. And even if you did, in many cases, the end result is nowhere near as annoying as Imperial Vs. Imperial fighting, as many armies have a reason to fight themselves. The Empire has certainly undergone enough civil wars to justify that. And it isn't unheard of for Bretonnian lords to lay siege to each others castles. And Chaos, Orcs, and Skaven are perfectly justified in attacking their brethren. High Elf on High Elf violence is a bit harder to explain, though, as is Dwarf on Dwarf and Wood Elf on Wood Elf.

But anyway, to summarize, the big benefit is the sheer number of armies available in Fantasy, 15 total, and the fact that each army represents a separate faction in the Warhammer Fantasy universe. Whereas by comparison, the 40k universe has 16 armies (one more than Fantasy), but 8 of those, fully half, only represent one faction within the 40k universe.

As someone who was formerly a Space Wolf and Blood Angels player, a part of me would hate for them to lose their Codex's. But I have to say, another part of me would find it EXTREMELY appealing on some level if GW would release only three Imperial Codex's. Codex: Space Marines (Containing lists for generic Space Marines as well as for various other Chapters), Codex: Imperial Guard, and Codex: Inquisition (Containing the Grey Knights and Sisters of Battle), and leave it at that.

As for other advantages, I'm sure I could come up with a pretty long list, but there's one which, while minor, I'd like to mention. Flying monsters. :D Nothing quite like having your general on a flying monster to serve as the centerpiece of your army. Sure, 40k has tanks and dreadnoughts and such, but they really don't compare to your army commander being mounted on a big, honking monster. That's always been one of the big draws for me, as far as fantasy was concerned. The downright glorious sight of a character mounted atop a gigantic flying monster. I always looked at pictures of those in White Dwarf in awe. Absolutely stunning, and something which 40k really hasn't captured.

Now I know why the Emperor has not risen from Golden Throne...he was busy with WHFB

Johnnyfrej
14-05-2009, 19:58
They also tend to share the same flaws because they are made by the same company...the Lord on a Dragon flying around and killing everything that it touches is no different than the winged Hive Tyrant flying around and killing everything that it touches.

Except you can get a lot more heavy weapons in 40k than Fantasy. In Fantasy my Empire usually takes 2 Great Cannons in a 2k game. In that same 2k game I can take so many more Missile Launchers, Lascannons and Autocannons that I really wouldn't fear his Tyrant. Also in 40k my Artillery doesn't do my opponents work for him (misfire) ;)

Ivellis
15-05-2009, 02:11
The biggest problem in Fantasy is the magic phase.


Yes, as an avid player of Warmachine and Hordes I absolutely abhor the magic system of WFB.

Psychic Powers in 40k are pretty bad to, but not very prominent.

Vandelan
15-05-2009, 04:20
As a player of both games, I currently enjoy Fantasy more than 40k.

Fantasy feels as though it has more depth than 40k, 40k feels like a scramble or a skirmish, while the games of Fantasy I've played have felt more like actual battles. In 40k the combats tend to go very quickly, but the combat resolution scores in Fantasy, at least the cases I've seen, prevent combat from being entirely one sided.

I actually enjoy the magic phase in Fantasy because it requires you to think incredibly carefully and successfully cast spells actually matter as opposed to psychic powers which do almost nothing unless you play Eldar. I often times refer to the magic phase as the psychology phase because it truly is about getting inside your opponent's head.

Another part of Fantasy that I really enjoy is being able to get past the first turn without having all of my big units popped.

kendaop
15-05-2009, 04:24
"player 1: I did 4 wounds.. And you did 4 wounds, but i have a flag and you have a flag so we tie.. Player 2:.. No! I have a flute! And that lets me win! Now i just won combat and whiped your entire squad from my guy playing a flute!

Player 1: Oh well i have a 800+ point lord and 2-3 300+ point hero's that will now walk throu your entire army, have a nice day"


rofl!!! Qft! +1

TheOverlord
15-05-2009, 04:27
Fantasy is a lovely game, but it game get very long at points.

Movement is extremely important in Fantasy, and that is the main phase that takes the longest. Some can even take as long as an entire 40k turn, because you can lose your entire game with a bad movement call. Trust me this has happened many times before. It makes it far more challenging, but it can be very daunting (or boring) to some people. Let us not even get to magic phase >.<

I like both, but I like 40k better in terms of what I can do with it in terms of modelling challenges and concept ideas. Harder to do with Fantasy as each army book is ver stereotyped in the way it is portrayed or played.