View Full Version : Why 40K?

08-10-2009, 14:59
I was just wondering why some people play 40K only.
Are there big differences from WHFB?
Why dont they play that aswell? Fantasy theme? The game rules ect?

Max Jet
08-10-2009, 15:05
My reasons are:

1 No appealing race (I play Tyranids.. what do I have in Fantasy? Ridiculous Deamons that don't really look like a unified army, rather like a bunch of mercenaries from the garbage can? A bunch of steam punk rats?.. nothing for me then..)

2 No science fiction theme.. no tanks (except the ridiculous steam tank) most of the guns are boring crossbows or magic weapons.. perhaps some black powder guns.. meeh for me

08-10-2009, 15:07
for me i play 40k because it has a better background, and i play WHFB because it's not as boring or simplified as it's sci-fi brother.

08-10-2009, 15:13
Fantasy just doesn't appeal to me, it's not my 'thing' atall.

I like big bad ass guns that fire big bad ass explosive shells that rip through big bad ass tank armour and send the formerly bad ass crew scuttling around the wreckage burning to a crisp.

I like the ruined gothic grimdark nature of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. I love that humanity is on the brink against numerous vile enemy from far across the galaxy, some of which want to shoot them (and each other) and some of them want to eat them (and each other).

I've tried Fantasy, but I just don't feel as immersed on a cinematic level as I do with 40k, and I don't think I ever will, although I'll never close the door.

08-10-2009, 15:13
I love 40k, have way too many armies and keep buying more stuff that I don't need.

Fantasy, though, just doesn't really do it for me. I have an unpainted Dark Elves army laying about, but I'm not really tempted to do anything with it.

Gutlord Grom
08-10-2009, 15:14
Part of its cost. To get large regiments, which for armies like Orcs and Goblins are a must, you need more boxes to fill out regiments. That's not top say they're any cheaper than 40k, but it's the quantity needed overall.

Second, I'm waitiong (as long as it takes ) till the Orcs and Goblins get a new army book. It just doesn't strike me at the moment as an army that I wan to play because you're stuck in one or two lists that rely on one or two units.

Truth be told, I still love the game and OaG to bits. They got me into war-gaming.

08-10-2009, 15:18
Money and time.

Between my Space Marines, Chaos Marines, Imperial Guard, and Orks, my occasional interest in Flames of War and Warmachine, my longstanding obsession with model ships and airplanes, as well as my non-little-plastic-soldier hobbies such as video games, airsoft, golf, baseball and tinkering with my motorcycle...not to mention my job and social life (such as it is)...well, there's not a lot of mental and physical resources to spare.

If WHFB was unusually facinating to me then I would, of course, make sacrifices. But's it not. It's interesting, but not so interesting that I'm willing to give up something else.

If only I were independantly wealthy...

08-10-2009, 15:21
Fantasy is like playing 40k with your hands tied to your legs and sizeable weight on your neck. Its not more tactical its a pain in the ass.

I started with fantasy in the early 90s but no one played it in my area so I figured I'd go with 40k since I had thought of doing that first anyway, recently I tried to get back into fantasy and just didnt have any fun with it.

Hell I like War of the Ring better then Fantasy.

Few good reasons why I dont like fantasy:
-If I buy 20 models and paint 20 models (60hours of work for me) I expect to get use out of all 20 models, not just the first 5. I then roll 5 dice for my 20 models, then lose combat and lose all 20 models. LAME.
-Not being able to see whats beside you.
-The entire movement phase can be done exactly the same but be twice as easy.
-Magic Phase, 2+1 - 3 then roll the power of pie x 4 - C then find the square root of an triangle. Really? Does it really need to be that much of a pain in the ass system? Warhammer Quest's Magic is easier then that!

On a good note though I like the models.

08-10-2009, 15:25
40k has a lot better fluff, and a better ruleset IMHO. Models are way cooler and more original, too. I also like the huge importance of terrain.

Fantasy has too much emphasis on magic, and its ruleset is ripe for nitpicking, creating a lot of ground for misunderstandings and other stuff that slows down the games.

Also, I *wub* my tanks.

EDIT: Expanding on the models part... I like the fact that in 40k pretty much every model looks badass awesome on its own. Even standard issue troops look totally great and original + the armies in general look very different from each other. Every army has a wide array of unique models, which enables even the inherently unoriginal models (like guardsmen, who are just a semi-futuristic version of world war 2 soldiers) to look awesome and original simply because everyone else looks so much different.

Compare this to fantasy, where most cavalry are heavily armored horsemen of some type, where every ranged weapon is either a bow, a crossbow, or some antique gun, and where most standard-issue troops look very similar to each other (compare marauders to imperial troops to bretonnian men at arms, then compare SoB to guardsmen to a BA assault marine), and where every army plays some type of herohammer.

08-10-2009, 15:27
The more I red, the more I want to expand my 40K and ignore WHFB alltogether

08-10-2009, 15:30
I forgot one point and Giganthrax just reminded me.

Every game of fantasy is the same! Pitched Battle with nothing in the center of the table, with the occassional minor tweak.

And Finally; Daemons, ****'ing daemons, I like to play competitively at tournaments and Ive been watching the results of all the local fantasy ones and Daemons are in the tops every time. At one tournament if you look at Generalship alone Daemons had the top 16 spots. Sweet jesus GW did you not test play that or what?

08-10-2009, 15:31
IMO the question isn't so much as "why 40k" but "why limit yourself?"

After all, there is no law suggesting that people should only play GW games, simply because they are prevailant in the hobby. After all, every other thread on 40k General is complaining about balance issues and how GW design staff are muppets. (I can't say either way, never spoken to any of them).

My main point is play the games you like and if you don't like it, try others as there are plenty out there.

With regards,

08-10-2009, 15:31
Money time AND storage space.

08-10-2009, 15:33
i'm just not into "fantasy" but i'm a big sci-fi buff so i naturally gravitated towards 40k. one thing that annoys me though is the price difference between the 2 systems. WFB models are cheaper and it's not fair :(

08-10-2009, 16:04
I used to play fantasy, and hope to again, but I dropped out due to the gulf between the army books.

08-10-2009, 16:11
I play fantasy as well but I play 40K a lot more.

Partially I find it due to the regimenting in Fantasy. Whilst it manages to give a realistic depiction of how regiments move and fight, it is very restrictive. I know some Fantasy players feel that it makes the game more challenging so I guess it is a matter of oppinion.

Both my Fantasy armies are fairly CC-orientated (O&G and VCs). As a result I may be missing out on some of the subtler aspects of the game. However it always feels a bit like setting and knocking over dominos. You make a long line of regiments and march steadily towards the enemy. Once an army starts to fall apart it tends to keep on doing so barring truly heroic intervention by Lords or Specials.

It usually becomes clear who is going to win by about turn 3 and the rest of the game is like watching dominos fall in slow motion.

40K is far from perfect but it is more dynamic. Also the missions and objectives make the game more interesting. You can have an army take a pasting yet still win (or at least draw) by cleverly siezing objectives etc in the closing stages of a game. It makes you think omre tactically because you have to remembre your mission objectives rather than just focus on pasting the enemy.

In a recent game I won because my opponent over-fixated on my Banshees and Wraithlord which had just carved through 2 of his squads. Sure they were dangerous but they were also on a flank. The chances of them getting another charge during the game was slim while my Avengers and Guardians were sitting comfortably on a couple of objectives.

The Clairvoyant
08-10-2009, 16:20
Magic Phase, 2+1 - 3 then roll the power of pie x 4 - C then find the square root of an triangle. Really? Does it really need to be that much of a pain in the ass system? Warhammer Quest's Magic is easier then that!

If you were taking the michael in relation to 2nd ed 40ks armour penetration rules or the wafty ramming strength rules then i'd smile at your comment, but when its used to describe fantasy's very simple magic system, i'm compelled to utter the words double you tea eff.

I can perfectly understand that some people will only want to play 40k.
When i started in the "GW Hobby", i started with 40k and was never interested in WFB. When the 4th ed Undead book was released, that was when i decided to get into fantasy as it was the only race that interested me.
15 years later, i still only have undead armies as still, none of the others take my fancy.
Whilst in 40k, i have 3 armies and want more :D

08-10-2009, 17:09
I started playing 40k, then moved on to fantasy for a few years. Then I played fantasy and 40k parallel for a while.
The end of fantasy for me was the previous Skaven codex. I had a clan skrye-themed army, and quickly realized it was almost impossible to lose.

As other have pointed out, game-balance in fantasy is so out of whack (and has been for many years) its just not fun. And having 20 infantrymen in a square formation looks stupid.

40k have got its issues, but generally any game I play can go either way, even after both sides have deployed.

Also, the models look alot nicer, and its easier to make kewl conversions.
I love vehicles and big guns (clan skrye was a given. ^^), and fantasy is just outclassed in that department.

08-10-2009, 17:23
I personally play a number of games including Warhammer, but since discovering Warhammer 40,000 my wife has no desire to play anything else anymore, at least right now. In her own words more or less it's because 40k is simply not at all mentally taxing compared to other games, and so more time is spent envisioning the cinematic nature of the fight and not performing calculations or weighing a larger array of turn by turn options.

08-10-2009, 17:24
Personally, I'm so burnt out of fantasy, whether it's books, computer games or films, that I just steer completely clear of it now. Give me a futuristic environment any day!

08-10-2009, 17:52
i love dark elves and working on them. however the hardest thing is models. just how many you need to actually get any where.

08-10-2009, 18:07
I would love to get into fantasy, I've been out for several years now besides the odd pick up game. My problem is at my LGS no one is even playing fantasy, even the old die-hards. The game balance is terrible, GW doesn't support it even half of what they do 40k and they really need to FAQ several areas in several army books.
Another thing, and this is just my personal opinion, WFB has some really overly complex rules. The rules for 40k are simple but with the addition of objectives in 40k it had added so much more to the game. Just that one little inclusion, I think the basic rules for any game should be simple, who wants to spend all day debating rules. The game play should be where the diversity comes in.

08-10-2009, 18:08
I was just wondering why some people play 40K only.
Are there big differences from WHFB?
Why dont they play that aswell? Fantasy theme? The game rules ect?

The whole knight's in armor thing reminds me of those type of people that live action roleplay or play dungeons and dragons. So I guess i'm not into the subject matter.

08-10-2009, 18:29
I play both 40k and WFB, though I focus more on 40k for the simple fact that unless I travel 30+ miles I can't get a game of WFB since no one plays it in my local area. I'm a massive fan of some elements of WFB like I am with 40k, just that 40k is more accessible to me.

08-10-2009, 18:33
Fantasy just doesn't appeal to me, it's not my 'thing' atall.

I like big bad ass guns that fire big bad ass explosive shells that rip through big bad ass tank armour and send the formerly bad ass crew scuttling around the wreckage burning to a crisp.

I like the ruined gothic grimdark nature of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. I love that humanity is on the brink against numerous vile enemy from far across the galaxy, some of which want to shoot them (and each other) and some of them want to eat them (and each other).

I've tried Fantasy, but I just don't feel as immersed on a cinematic level as I do with 40k, and I don't think I ever will, although I'll never close the door.

I play both, but this is pretty much the most accurate description I can say of 40K ^

The Orange
08-10-2009, 18:44
Like the models and fluff but never picked up WFB because I don't know anyone who plays. My friends and I have enough trouble trying to build up our main 40k armies. I admit I probably have enough models for 3-4 40k armies, but I pretty much only have one army actually built and painted (still have a lot more of it unassembled too). It just takes so much time and energy for me to get my 40k army up and going that I just can't bring myself to seriously try to jump into WFB which looks like it requires even more models. My friends and I did jump into PP's Warmachine, but that's because it's so much easier to get into since you only really need a handful of models for an army (and the rules are fun).

08-10-2009, 18:48
I just prefer the science fiction nature of it all. Not a fan of fantasy based stuff, I mean we get ******** titans!

08-10-2009, 19:06
Because there are no people who play Fantasy in my area (that I know of, at least), and I'm barely managing to fund my Eldar as it is, without adding another army to the mix :p

08-10-2009, 19:38
I find I just prefer the models for 40k. There are so very few armies I would want to collect in fantasy simply because I hate the models. Because the models are part of a regiment is no reason to have shoddy work.

Now I use to play. When I was like 12. I had undead, lizardmen and started a dark elf army. None of which ever got more than like 500 points though because I had the attention of...well a 12 year old. So here it is 12 years later and I thought about playing again. Was going to make a dark elf army with my characters being conversions of my characters in warhammer online. But one look at the basic dark elf warrior model and I was thrown off the idea.

While they had some other models I wouldnt mind owning having to fill your army with what are almost always poor quality models as troop choices doesnt appeal to me.

I love the way models look in 40k. Since every model isnt part of a regiment they tend to stand out more and look better by themselves.

08-10-2009, 19:41
I've played Fantasy and 40k, I've mainly played 40k.

The problem with Fantasy in my own not-so-humble opinion is the regiments. I hate building them, I hate building 20 models that have to essentially perfectly fit together. Its frustrating, not fun, and I feel stifles my own creativity. So. 40k it is.

08-10-2009, 20:17
Why 40K?

Why not?


08-10-2009, 20:27
I don't play Whf, simply due to cost. If i could afford it, I'd buy a massive Clan Skyre Skaven army, or a Strigoi undead horde, or a beastman army. Alas, my funds do not stretch that far! I already have a lot of 40K armies, so its easier to expand them incrementally, rather than starting a new system from sratch.

08-10-2009, 20:34
I used to play fantasy as I loved Dogs Of War and Regiment Of Renown, as nearly every unit was unique, but then GW just gave up on them, after I had bought and painted over £250 worth of them. So, I play IG now and can have different regiments by having tallarn, mordian and different models which makes it much more fun than just having one army and one look.

08-10-2009, 20:42
I used to play fantasy, and hope to again, but I dropped out due to the gulf between the army books.

Me too, and I play Dark Elves and Warriors of Chaos.

Also I spend quite a bit of time playing historical miniatures, and I've been especially involved in 40K for the last year or so because several of my friends who are historical players asked me to teach them the game.

If in fact next year actually has a world-wide fantasy campaign, I might at least play in that.

08-10-2009, 20:50
I play 40K because I get to play with 1/32ish scale tanks on the tabletop. No other big name game lets you do that. Thus all my armies are tank heavy, its just what I like to use.

If all I wanted was a foot slogging force, I'd play fantasy. Much better rule set, IMO.

08-10-2009, 20:55
I can't really get behind the fluff for fantasy like I can with 40K, and as was mentioned earlier, I think the models just look sooo much better in 40K.

08-10-2009, 21:04
Like a lot of people have said before, the setting appeals more to me.
And the models in 40k look so much better. If I'm walking past a table at my local GW-store I can instantly spot what forces are going at each other in 40k. If it's WHFB I usually have to ask what it is I'm looking at because to me they all pretty much look the same (there are exceptions but overall the WHFB models just look bland to me).

Count de Monet
08-10-2009, 21:14
I'll paste in my answer from a few months ago I originally posted elsewhere:

Over time I've been going through my armies and projects, and have been paring down my Fantasy plans pretty heavily while keeping most of the 40K ones. I sat down to think through why I lean so heavily towards 40K, and here's what I've come up with, in no particular order.

*Background. While some of the fantasy stuff is cool, the 40K universe seems a lot more alive to me, and things like the Horus Heresy, Dark Age of Technology etc. appeal to me more than things like the War of the Beard or such.

*Every model does something. It may not be much, but each individual figure can have a direct impact on the game, instead of just being one of the extra 15 guys giving you a rank bonus. The chance for heroic/cinematic actions by single, even non-character models is much greater in 40K.

*Ranking up units. While it makes sense in context, and while I don't always take full advantage of the freedom, I prefer the wider modelling freedom of individual models vs. components of a rank.

*Scale. I can see a 40K game as being a zoomed-in part of a larger battle, so having special/high ranking characters around in a company-level game seems fine to me. In contrast, Fantasy armies seem very small - a couple hundred people being involved in a combined arms open-field engagement seems pretty puny. I can accept "scaling things up" like in some historical games where each figure represents 10 men, etc. but that breaks down given how powerful the individual heroes and such are, which leads us to:

*Magic & supercombos, fantasy feels much more "herohammer" than 40K these days. While I like heroic/cinematic things, I don't want a game with 100 models on a side to be completely dominated by 1 or 2 figs. A lot of fantasy games can feel like a 40K game with superheavies involved - whoever doesn't have one or isn't prepared for a particular one is at a pretty heavy disadvantage. While I like magic, the ability of some armies to get a huge # of powerdice has gotten out of hand.

*Terrain. Easy enough to houserule, but annoying in its basic form. Unless you ignore terrain, may as well treat it as impassible for most normal games, as trying to get a unit through any kind of sizeable obstruction is insane. At least in 40K you can get through a terrain piece before the game ends barring really bad rolling, while in fantasy you know you're stuck at effectively 1/4 speed, moving 2" a turn with a unit 6" long through a 6" terrain piece...ugh.

*Overpowerful morale/psychology. While 40K's may seem a bit weak to some, in Fantasy it can be easily army-breaking. Chain Panic, Fear/Terror and autobreaking are IMO too powerful in their present form.

Now, there are some things I certainly like about WHFB. One, lots of great bits to steal! :lol: Armor save mods, ability to stack armor and ward saves (even though this adds to the herohammer issues) and some other bits are good, but on balance, make mine 40K!

08-10-2009, 21:20
money and time

08-10-2009, 21:32
I play 40k because 1) More people play it. 2) I like the fluff.

That being said, my main interest is still Fantasy, as I think it's a better game overall. (For my tastes)

08-10-2009, 21:39
Why 40k? For me, tanks and vehicles mainly. I enjoy modelling and painting em. Plus guns, big guns, bigger guns and explosions etc..

08-10-2009, 21:43
i used to play more fantasy, but im soooo bored of the entire game being decided in the magic phase, and having to take all wizards as characters just to compete. im going to treat myself to the new skaven, but they may end up converted to a 40k army....

08-10-2009, 21:46
For me the imagery of 40K is so much richer than WHFB, indeed richer than many successful novels and movies.

08-10-2009, 22:30
7th edition Fantasy is a wonderful ruleset with a lot of terrible army books. The metagame is in shambles.

-Beasts of Chaos suffer from a crippling animosity mechanic (and being about 1/3 of an army).
-Bretonnians are one-dimensional (point and click cavalry charges).
-Daemons of Chaos are not actually Game Breaking (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameBreaker), but they are definitely not on a level playing field.
-Dark Elves demonstrate quite handily how badly balanced magic items can be. They also have a bad case of Herohammer + Monsters.
-Dwarfs are one dimensional (they castle, and that's pretty much it).
The Empire is fine, disregarding double Stank + Walter or Karl.
-High Elves bring a frustrating army-wide mechanic (not spectacular, but frustrating), and acute super-Dragon syndrome.
-Lizardmen are fine, though they lean Herohammer.
-Ogres are one-dimensional (they do MSU, and that's about it).
-Greenskins suffer from an incredibly crippling Animosity mechanic. The most effective Greenskin armies do their level best to sidestep their army-wide special rule. That's bass-ackwards.
-Skaven are fine, but they lean shooty, which is a little odd.
-Tomb Kings are out of their element. They were built for a metagame that allowed you to destroy a unit simply by flanking it. That metagame is greatly diminished.
-Vampires were spectacularly badly written, leaning toward Herohammer with incredible differences in quality between units. Since people tend to pick the good units (Vampires) and ignore the bad ones (Zombies), "badly written" usually means "strong".
-Warriors of Chaos are one-dimensional (they have infantry and cavalry with high stats and remarkably few support units).
-Wood Elves are a tricky bait-and-switch army where most of the units can't actually flee from a charge.

Stubborn and Unbreakable units are coming up out of the woodwork, which waters down the Combat Resolution system that makes Fantasy a good game system.

The army books are heavily stratified in terms of strength. Greenskins against Daemons can make for a laughable game unless the players are very careful.


I don't have to deal with that kind of metagame. I play 40k. My Fantasy armies will likely sit on my shelf until well into 8th edition. Then we'll see.

08-10-2009, 22:56
Every time I look into fantasy, I look at the armies I'd play. The ones that appeal to me are Empire, Dwarfs, and Skaven. The reason I like all these is because they have the highest technology of all the races. Then, I stop and realize that I really just like the Pistolers and Steam Tanks and Gyrocopters and Thunderers and Ratling Guns. I may as well be playing 40k with its guns.

Secondly, I prefer a wargame to be about the contribution of the common man (or elf or orc or whatever) towards the whole. As stated, if I have 30 Guardsmen, they're all going to shoot and they're all going to fight in CC if the need arises. In fantasy, only the front 'rank' is going to fight. I understand why this is so, but it seems unattractive for entire models to simply act as ablative wounds.

Thirdly, I hate heroes. Most of 40k's heroes and characters act to complement your army. Vulkan makes your flamers better. Eldrad lets you redeploy your units and makes specific squads better. Creed allows another squad to outflank. Of course they're pretty good combatants as well, but they're rarely one-man armies. In fantasy, heroes ride dragons or even simply ride a horse and through sheer hero-power alone, they can devastate several models of the opponent.In 40k, this role is reserved for classic super-heroes such as Abaddon or Calgar. In fantasy, your generic build-a-commander can devastate armies.

Not only that, but the magic-phase makes these heroes even stronger. 40k Magic is simply a really fancy gun with different flavor (Eldritch storm, destructor) or just a nice effect (Psychic scream, etc). Fantasy magic is just devastating from summoning entire units of skeletons to changing the game itself. Exceptions exist in Lash of Submission and Jaws of the World Wolf in that they change games.

08-10-2009, 23:08
Because Warhammer Fantasy Battle is Warhammer Fantasy Battle
and Warhammer 40,000 is Warhammer Fantasy Battle.... IN SPAAAAAAAAAACE

08-10-2009, 23:20
I play both systems, but I can say that I definitely enjoy 40k more. A lot more. Both games in my opinion have great rules, but 40k takes one more step, it gives you cinematic moments.

In fantasy, I have only ever played one mega battle, and it was 16k points vs 17k points. It was amazing. So much stuff was going on, and it was like how Warhammer is actually depicted in the fluff. The fluff in normal Warhammer almost never has small armies fighting each other, because even small scouting parties consist of 100 people in one way or another. So remind me why I would have like 40 skeletons, and 10 Blood Knights fighting another small army. Why are the blood knights there? They are vampire gods, in theory, so what are they doing in a little skirmish that doesn't make fluff sense?

In 40k, 10 space marines are what all you need to deploy against a major threat in the fluff. They don't need a ton of stuff. And each Space Marine will take hoards upon hoards of stuff in the fluff. Of course this isn't represented in the Space Marine stat line, but it is much easier to invision in a normal game. A few friends and I created a 4 foot long, 7 inch high cliff face that is just epic to play on. We had a 1000 point space marine force take on as many Orks as we could throw at it charging up the ramps of the cliff. Easily 25 marines and a couple predators took out swathes of Orks, probably around 4000 points before the Marines finally came tumbling down. Granted there were no tanks or anything other than boyz, nobz, and bosses, but that's what made it so epic. It was a fluff Ork swarm army, getting shredded by Marines. Everyone had fun, and it was one of the most memorable 40k moments I've ever had.

So basically what I'm saying, is though Warhammer has it's moments, 40k has multiple cinematic moments each game. Which for me makes it much more exciting.

08-10-2009, 23:27
I did play fantasy at one point as Skaven and Ogre Kingdoms. However locally its disappeared completely. Only place you can get it now is a boat to the mainland, the other island or online. Might loot a doomwheel for my orks though... :p

edit: and yea, 40k because I find there is more freedom when painting and modelling. Feral orks and feudal guard fit in with 40k, but Orks with infernal walking machines and humans with archimedes death-ray guns don't, not without breaking the barrier between the two backgrounds completely!

08-10-2009, 23:30
I always felt that 40k was a much faster game than fantasy. I've played both.

08-10-2009, 23:46
Fantasy just doesn't appeal to me, it's not my 'thing' atall.

I like big bad ass guns that fire big bad ass explosive shells that rip through big bad ass tank armour and send the formerly bad ass crew scuttling around the wreckage burning to a crisp.

Pretty much sums it up for me.
The closest I'll get to fantasy is "steampunk" - but I also don't like rats in general, and have never liked o&g (even in 40k). If I want to play a steampunk game, I'll go play WM (or even 'Grind').

Give me guns, lots of guns, under smoky skies above ...

09-10-2009, 00:28
I play both games and will defend WFB, in fact, it`s more popular than 40K where I play. But I generally prefer 40K. Why? Well, as others have said:

1. You can use all of your models in 40K. In WFB, a unit of 30 Plaguebearers attacks 5 times...that`s just sad.

2. You sometimes here about "tabling" people in 40K, but I rarely find that to be true. You`re always "in the game" in 40K and a late game maneuver can turn an ass-whomping into a win just like that. (As someone else posted above) WFB can easily be decided by turn two or three...and there ain`t no "coming back" Once that key character or unit goes down, the game is essentially over.

3. I am a rather meticulous painter and I almost always paint my armies BEFORE I play them...and I hate painting 3-4 leather pouches, bags, bundles of rope, miscellaneous tools, etc. on EVERY rank and file dude in a WFB army. The 40K minis often have a sleeker look that is easier to paint than a collection of nicknacks hanging off of a guy/Orc/Dwarf. I have trouble motivating myself to paint 20 Spearmen (compared to 20 tactical marines).

That being said, WFB has some good points too. But I guess I should write about those points in a different thread.

Almighty Nocturnus

09-10-2009, 04:30
Count de Monet sums up my feelings best.

I think I would be infinitely more attracted to Fantasy if it was divided into two new systems.

a) an Epic Fantasy version

b) Herohammer, basically Killteam, but with the breadth and depth of Fantasy's character rules/equipment/etc.

09-10-2009, 06:24
I generally agree with most people's posts. I currently have a decent sized Empire army and am thinking of starting Skaven when their new book comes out.

09-10-2009, 08:51
Why 40k and no FB, well two reasons:

1) I played DE and people start whinnig, how they are overpowerded.:(
2) Freedom in background, I can create my own army fluff from scratch.:cheese:

09-10-2009, 09:06
40k has big guns. And tanks. And wraithlords.

Fantays has zombie dragons (also pretty cool, but it's not a tank!).

I only play 40k at the moment, but I have played fantasy in the past, and I intend to start it again soon. Mainly for a bit of variety in between my 40k battles.

09-10-2009, 09:23
Hi all.
Most people play 40k because of its background setting.
(No one chooses 40k beause of the rule set, thats for sure!)

WHFB has a rule set written for its game play, but its fantacy background setting is not as popular as it was 15-20years ago.

Even though I like the GW backgrounds & minatures, I prefer to use other companies rule sets.


09-10-2009, 09:41
I started with WHFB an edition or two ago and then I got hold of 40K. Tanks, lasers, Tanks with lasers, Lasers that are the size of tanks.

Really, all of my friends ended up being into 40K and so I went that way. Now, I just can't motivate myself to get into fantasy. I am a sci fi nerd and I love it. And I keep going back to Space Marines no matter what other armies I try because Space Marines are the only army I don't get insanely bored painting.

09-10-2009, 10:36
simple i am a science fiction geek, sure i like lord of the rings and kindom of heaven, 13th warrior etc, but fantasy and the lotr game does very little for me, much prefer futuristic warfare.
guess it stems from a childhood facination with space and war? hmmm....?

09-10-2009, 10:40
because non-humanoid weird aliens dont fit fantasy, and thats all I care for personally. At least with 40k I can convert and "counts as", and its a big galaxy with lots of backround with numerous races for me to choose and expand on. My taste is in hard sci-fi (Olaf Stapledon, Hal Clement ect) and Cosmic horror (HP Lovecraft). High Fantasy just doesnt appeal to me, but I have nothing against it either - just a simple matter of personal taste.

09-10-2009, 11:47
i play both systems.

but 40k rules are a lot more stable and intuitive.

one main issue i have against fantasy is that the playing field is very warped.

the primary difference between 40k and fantasy is that all 40k armies have access to the same armament (anti-tank, anti-infantry, shooting, assault, tanks, transports (ok necrons don't really have a transport, thats why they suck anyway) etc.

in fantasy, some armies get shooting, some get super duper headbashers, some get super duper magic (Teclis?), but no one army has access to everything (except empire, but they are blessed with a the suck stat-line).

how do you make up for this? give the armies their army special rules. and this usually break the game as certain units when put together with the special rules, give birth to a very hard combo to stop and this is especially true in fantasy as when your opponent doesn't have the right type of unit to stop that combo unit, the game is pretty much over after turn 3.

its too much of a rock, scissors, paper game in fantasy.

09-10-2009, 12:08
I don't play fantasy due to some reasons:
1 - I started out with 40k which I think is one reason.
2 - After finishin my first 40k army I have found another 40k army I would like to do.
3 - I like the game flow of 40k (even though I wouldn't mind see some more advanced rules).
4 - I have tried fantasy, and the basic system kinda irks me somewhat. I'm not really fond of how inflexible ones army is once deployed, to me it makes it look like you can almost see who is the winner just after deployment since redeployeing troops take so long. But I do want to make a DE army in the future since I love the hydra model and the cold one knight models. Also, I can see the point of the rank system, but it still feels wrong when a hydra charges a mob of spearmen, slays three of them without receiving a wound, but loose combat because they are 3 ranks strong with a musician.

09-10-2009, 12:35
It seems that primerily 40K players have posted in this thread.

I think its time for a more fantasy oriantated opinion.

I play 40K for several reasons.

1: My one 40K army is described as "A fantasy army that found its way into 40K" making it easier for me visually to play both systems.

2: I am starting to lose fantasy opponents, fewer people are playing it so I often end up sitting around at my local GW doing nothing at all.

3: I like the Norse alot (you can probably guess my one army now).

Alot of people on this thread have stated thier dislike for fantasy because of the ranked infanty, thats one of the reasons I stick with it. Although yes I do admit it has its flaws (*grumble grumble* stupid deamons and vampires), and that its very restricted, but thats because its trying to simulate pitched battles from the archaic/middle ages.

I am also rather nature minded, so the imagry of blasted landscape, runied by tyranids/explosions/trenchs does not appeal to me. Its why it took me so long to get into 40K.

09-10-2009, 17:05
I started in 40k because good friends of mine from college played it, one of them played it before we went to college many years back and I don't know where he picked it up. Anyway, we started playing, found more people who play at a local store, and well, that's it. It can be an expensive hobby, so I'd rather be spending my money on the game I know we play, rather than starting an army in the hopes that someone else does too for fantasy. And at any rate, I really like a lot of the 40k models, just looking at them on the GW website, I don't like as many of the Fantasy ones. I love my Tyranids, and for my next armies I want tanks, Landraider/Predator/Rhino/LemanRuss/Valkyries... Fantasy won't fill that bill for me.

Anyway, I don't know the fantasy world as well as I know the 40k universe now, but the fantasy models make it look very generic to me, 40k has a fairly unique feel to it. Just my opinion though.