PDA

View Full Version : soon to start fantasy...



Fay_Redd
13-06-2009, 15:26
Hello Fanasy players. I am a long time 40k(er) and have often considered starting fantasy, but everytime iv'e looked over the fantasy range ive seen boxes full of bitz for 40k conversions, now for the 1st time ive seen them as fantasy and really want to give it a go.

I want to begin with lizardmen as they were the 1st fantasy army i ever saw way back in year3 at school, along with 40k's tyranids. Both have strong attachments to my memories, so how does fantasy differ from 40k, ive heard so many times it's more tactical but is this true or just peoples speculation.

I wanna hear everything and anything you have, so let loose.

famehunter
13-06-2009, 17:15
Well to be honnest, both game sets have pretty complex rules to start with. 40k is maybe a bit easier in the way that alot of shooting is hapening, (almost every unit has guns) but also because its much easier to place units in hard cover and other, more elaborated pieces of terrain as they do not have to all sit tight on a formation tray.

I also think that 40k is more balanced, as every race has more diversity in what they can put into their armies. Fantasy has a bad disparity between races unfortunately. Some armies are just stronger than others and cant be countered besides getting lucky rolls.

With that in mind, fantasy is still a pretty fun game. If you are the kind of competitive guy that absolutely has to win as many games as possible, then you'll prolly be forced to pick between the 2-3 dominant armies (lizardmen being 1 of them).

W0lf
13-06-2009, 22:10
Go try hordes from PP.

Seriously start up cost for warhammer = 45 for just the rules.
Start up cost for hordes - ~30 for a warpack from wayland games that comes with models and rules to start playing.

Etienne de Beaugard
13-06-2009, 23:11
WHFB and 40k come from the same core mechanic. In my experience (5th and 6th ed. WHFB) the game is less forgiving of mistakes in placement and movement, thus its reputation for being a more 'tactical' game.

I can't speak to balance in the current games, as my last experience with WHFB was 6th ed. and 40k was late 3rd ed.

TheRabidMongoose
13-06-2009, 23:17
wooot, what took you so long
fantasy is more deployment and movement crucial, one move can potentially lost you the game, so ye its more tactical and you have to think ahead and plan what your enemy will do as well your next moves.

Jushak
13-06-2009, 23:18
Maybe the biggest difference is the emphasis on movement and the need of planning ahead in fantasy. Not to say that WH40K is not tactical - far from it - but from my personal experience WH40K is much more forgiving.

It's also worth noting that "traps" in fantasy can be a lot more subtle and devastating than in WH40K.

Generally speaking WH40K emphasises shooting and melee phases, while fantasy emphasises movement and melee, with possible added emphasis on magic and/or shooting depending on lists.

Table-wise from what I've experienced WH40K emphasises terrain a lot more in the way that differences between terrain types actually matter. It might just be the people I game with (and the distinct lack of Wood elves) but terrain in fantasy battles I've seen is either a) hills or b) unpassable.

That's my 2 cents based on my (limited) experience with both systems :angel:

TheRabidMongoose
13-06-2009, 23:25
Table-wise from what I've experienced WH40K emphasises terrain a lot more in the way that differences between terrain types actually matter. It might just be the people I game with (and the distinct lack of Wood elves) but terrain in fantasy battles I've seen is either a) hills or b) unpassable.


Buildings + Leadbelchers = Funtimes

Fay_Redd
14-06-2009, 19:56
thanks guys, I think i might enjoy this afterall.

@TrM, as to your 1st post, I LIEK MAH GUNZ!!

and @W0lf, thanks for the suggestion but i know one person in the whooooooole of oxford who plays PP games. so that's a no-go